Professional Documents
Culture Documents
16-2: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 4 m/s wind
These thresholds reflect levels of sound which may begin to cause some of the
more acute health effects noted above, including speech interference, noise-
induced hearing loss, task interference, damage to organs, and detectable body
vibration.
While not constituting an acute health effect risk, sound pressure levels in the
40 – 50 dB(A) range can be considered a potential nuisance, particularly during
those times (low wind conditions during the winter) where low background
noises will cause the wind turbine noise to be more noticeable. The NYSDEC
provides a goal for non-industrial settings like Cape Vincent of the SPL not
exceeding ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor in order to avoid
nuisance complaints. The agency does note, however, that “There may be
occasions where an increase in SPLs of greater than 6 dB(A) might be
acceptable.”
Nuisance effects can include effects noted above such as annoyance, sleep
disturbance, and stress. One major difference between acute health effects and
nuisance effects is that the evidence shows that the perception of the significance
of nuisance effects by an individual are often related to that individual’s overall
perception of the project. For example, Guski notes that noise annoyance is
partly due to acoustic factors, and partly due to personal and social moderating
factors.120 Personal factors that affect whether a noise is perceived as a nuisance
may include: sensitivity to noise; anxiety about the source; personal evaluation of
the source; and individual coping capacity. Social factors may include:
evaluation of the source; suspicion of those who control the source; history of
noise exposure; and expectations.
For this reason, it is likely that a goal of completely eliminating any nuisance
complaints post-construction would not be practical. Under certain atmospheric
conditions, it is a certainty that turbine noise will be audible above background
noises along public byways and outside non-participant residences, and for some
local residents this nuisance level (triggered by auditory awareness) will be
unacceptable.
Table 2.16-3 provides a count of the number of residences that may be subject to
specific threshold sound pressure levels at worst case (7 m/s or higher wind
speed) conditions:
TABLE 2.16-3: Turbine-Induced Sound Pressure Levels Predicted for Participating and Non-
Participating Residences During a 7 m/s or Greater Wind
Sound Pressure Level Number of Impacted Number of Impacted
at 7 m/s wind Residences on Participating Residences on Non-
Properties Participating Properties
(cumulative) (cumulative)
<48 dB(A) 3 0
<47 dB(A) 14 3
<46 dB(A) 25 14
<45 dB(A) 32 25
<44 dB(A) 40 47
<43 dB(A) 46 79
<42 dB(A) 55 118
These data are directly correlated to the sound power level/wind speed data
reported in Table 2.16-2. Accordingly, it is possible to use both of these tables to
estimate the maximum sound pressure level at these residences at different wind
speeds. For example, the wind turbine sound power level during a 6 m/s wind
is 100 dB(A), a decrease in 3 dB(A) from the 103 dB(A) output at 7 m/s. As a
result, each of the sound pressure levels experienced at the residences tallied in
Table 2.16-3 will drop by 3 dB(A) when wind speeds decrease from 7 m/s to 6
m/s.
Indoor noise levels associated with the Project may be evaluated based on typical
noise attenuation from building walls with open and closed windows. Different
entities have different recommendations for appropriate noise limits and
attenuation factors.
The WHO recommends that the “equivalent sound pressure level should not
exceed 30 dB indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.”121 The EPA
document Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety122 recommends that indoor
day-night-level (DNL) not exceed 45 dB(A). DNL is a 24-hour average that gives
10 dB extra weight to sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., on the
assumption that during these sleep hours, levels above 35 dB(A) indoors may be
disruptive.
The average Leq measured during operational conditions during the winter
monitoring period was 41 dB(A), so adding 6 dB(A) to this produces an average
of 46 dB(A) (because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, when adding 6 decibels
to background the product is a five decibel increase in the noise meter reading).
This result, 46 dB(A), is slightly lower than the <47 dB(A) modeled as the worst
case sound pressure level at any non-participating residence. During summer
months, the average operational background level (Leq) was substantially higher
121WHO Guidelines for community noise. World Health Organization, Geneva. 1999
122USEPA; Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
Considering the NYSDEC guidance, during the summer months, the lower
attenuation factor resulting from open windows would indicate that 35 dB(A)
could result in negative impacts to sleep. However, 99.9% of the background
readings collected during summer monitoring were in excess of 35 dB(a), and the
average background reading measured during times when wind speeds were in
excess of an anticipated 3.5 m/s cut-in speed was 49.7 dB(A). It is therefore
predicted that on the average there will be no disruption of sleep during the
summer months for the participating or non-participating landowners due to
turbine sound pressure levels.
During the winter months, the higher attenuation factor resulting from closed
windows would indicate that sound pressure levels greater than 45 dB(A) could
result in negative impacts to sleep. Using EPA factors, this threshold would be
57 dB(A).
Uncertainty
Discussion of sound pressure levels and their potential nuisance and sleep
disruption effects would not be complete without noting some of the
uncertainties inherent not only in modeling, but in atmospheric conditions. Any
actual post-construction monitoring data would produce a scatter around the
model prediction at different wind speeds. While testing has suggested that the
modeling methodologies used in this exercise are conservative (approximately
90% of post-construction readings are expected to be below or equal to the
modeling prediction), it is likely that there will be times during the operation of
the Project when noise impacts greater than those described above will be
observed.
Greater buffer distances would reduce but not eliminate this possibility of
infrequent nuisance conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a
goal of complete elimination of any potential nuisance complaints that could
arise from operation of a wind farm would functionally eliminate the ability to
develop commercial scale wind power projects in the Town of Cape Vincent.
Concerns about pure tones are commonly expressed for proposed wind turbine
farms. Modern wind turbines do not generate tonal noise to any significant
extent. Therefore, the tonal noise from the turbines (if any) is not expected to be
an issue for the Town of Cape Vincent. In fact, at the reference measuring point
one times the height of the turbine away from the base of the turbine, the GE 1.6-
100 has a value for tonality less than or equal to 4 dB, irrespective of wind speed,
hub height and grid frequency.
Construction Noise
The impacts of construction noise levels will be of limited duration, but may
create a nuisance over the time period construction takes place. Mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts of construction noise include:
• scheduling of construction, blasting, and equipment hauling activities to
daytime hours so as to avoid sleep disturbance.
• Implementing best management practices for noise abatement during
construction, including use of appropriate mufflers and limiting the hours of
construction; and
• Notifying landowners of certain construction noise impacts in advance (e.g.,
if blasting becomes necessary).
If there is evidence that machine noise from operating turbines is causing a local
nuisance, BP will work with the vendor to develop appropriate remedies,
including addition of sound dampening materials to nacelles to mask generator
noise.
2.17.1 Climate
123 National Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County New York
Air quality data for New York State are published annually by the NYSDEC
Division of Air Resources. The most recent summary of air quality data available
for the state is the 2009 Annual New York State Air Quality Report – Ambient
Air Monitoring System 124. The report also includes the most recent ambient air
quality data through 2005, as well as long-term air quality trends derived from
data that have been collected and compiled from numerous state and private
(e.g., industrial, utility) monitoring stations across the state. These trends are
assessed by NYSDEC regions. The Project site is located in NYSDEC Region 6.
Air quality sampling points for Region 6 occur in Nick’s Lake, south of Old Forge
(Herkimer County), unspecified locations in Utica (Oneida County), Potsdam (St.
Lawrence County), Camden (Oneida County), and along the Perch River north
of Watertown (Jefferson County). During the most recent year for which data
were available (2005), all of the Region 6 monitoring stations were within the
acceptable levels (i.e. in attainment) established by the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all tested parameters: sulfur dioxide (SO2),
inhalable particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone. The 3-year average (2003,
2004, and 2005) for ozone (8-hour standard) was 0.08 ppm, which is the limit not
to be exceeded. Where some inhalable particulate (PM10) data were not yet
available for 2005, the 2004 report was checked and compliance was also
indicated.
The EPA Green Book125 lists Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants by county for the entire United States. As of its last update on
124 New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2009,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html
125 USEPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria
It should be noted that the Adirondack region of New York State, which includes
Jefferson County, is recognized as one of the regions in the United States most
severely affected by acid deposition from precipitation. Most of the deposition
that occurs in this region originates outside of New York State126 127 and has
resulted in the sterilization of approximately 350 Adirondack Lakes128.
According to the DEC document “Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements” emissions of CO2 account for
89% of the total annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in New York State.
CO2 emissions result overwhelmingly from the combustion of fuel, and it is
estimated that 250 million tons of CO2 per year are emitted from fossil fuel
combustion in the state.
2.18.1 Construction
During the site preparation and construction phases of the Project, minor
temporary adverse impacts to air quality could result from the operation of
construction equipment and vehicles. Such impacts could occur as a result of
emissions from engine exhaust and from the generation of fugitive dust during
earth moving activities and travel on unpaved roads. Dust could cause
annoyance and impact property at certain yards and residences that are adjacent
to unpaved town roads or Project access roads. These impacts are anticipated to
be short-term and localized and will be avoided or corrected quickly, as
addressed below.
2.18.2 Operations
126 Driscoll, C.T., Newton, R.M., Gubala, C.P. et al.; Adirondack Mountains; D.F. Charles, Ed. 1991.
Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems, Regional Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York;
pp. 132-202.
127 Simonin, H. 1998. The Continuing Saga of Acid Rain. The Conservationist. Wild in New York.
128 Feyerick, D., 2000. Acid rain still endangers Adirondacks. CNN.com, April19, 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/19/acidrain.adirondacks/index.html
129Proposed annual electric power generated 134 MW project operating at approximately 35% load
factor over the course of a year.
Regional Impacts
The NYSDPS has estimated that achievement of the State’s renewable portfolio
standards (RPS) goal will reduce in-State emissions of NOx by approximately
4,000 tons per year, and emissions of SO2 by approximately 10,000 tons per
year.130
TABLE 2.18-1: Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions That Would Result from the Proposed
Project
Total Annual
Emission Factor [pounds Reductions
Pollutant (lbs)/MWh]1 (tons/year)2
Nitrogen oxides 1.363 280
Sulfur oxides 1.765 360
Carbon dioxide 1,274 260,000
Particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter 0.041 8.4
Volatile organic compounds 0.035 7.2
Mercury 2E-06 1 lb/year
1. Emission factors based on the regional average fuel mix.
2. Proposed annual electric power generated of 410 GWH/year.
Climate Change
In August of 2009, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24,
setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York State by 80
percent below the levels emitted in 1990 by the year 2050.
Project operation has the potential to reduce current emissions from existing
power plants or delay increased use of fossil fuels. A detailed analysis by the
Department of Energy’s (USDOE) Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 1991
estimated the energy potential of the United States wind resource at 10.8 trillion
kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, or more than three times total U.S. electricity
consumption in 1996. 134 135 Every 10,000 MW of wind power generation
installed can reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 33 million metric tons
(MMT) annually if it replaces coal-fired generating capacity, or 21 MMT if it
replaces generation from the United States average fuel mix.136
133 DeGaetano, A., Bates, T., Davenport, T., Hecklau, J., and H. Walter-Peterson. 2004. Chautauqua
Windpower Project: Report on Potential Microclimatic Impacts to Vineyards. Report prepared for
the Towns of Ripley and Westfield, New York. December 8, 2004.
134 Elliot, D.L., L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower. 1991. An Assessment of Windy Land Area Wind
Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
135 USDOE. 1997. Total U.S. Consumption for 1996 is estimated at 3.2 trillion kWh. Annual Energy
Review 1996. United States Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration, July 1997.
136 San Martin, R. 1989. Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems: The Total Fuel
DEC Guidance on Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in EISs states
that total annual emissions should be presented as short tons of CO2.
Substitution of wind energy generation for fossil fuel combustion is expected to
result in a reduction of approximately 260,000 tons per year of CO2 emissions.
This represents a reduction of 0.1% of the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion statewide.
Except for minor, short-term impacts from construction vehicles and operation of
the temporary concrete batching plants, the proposed Project would have no
adverse impact on air quality. The following mitigation measures for
construction-related air emissions and dust are proposed and will be standard
operating policy for the Project construction contractors:
• All vehicles used during construction will comply with applicable federal
and state air quality regulations;
• Idling time for construction vehicles/equipment engines will be limited, and
this equipment will be shut down when not in use;
• Necessary air quality permits or clearances will be obtained for temporary
concrete batching plants;
• The site environmental monitor will identify any dust problems during
construction and report them to the construction manager and the contractor;
• Active dust suppression will be implemented on unpaved construction
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas, using water-based dust
suppression materials in compliance with state and local regulations. In
more severe cases, temporary paving (e.g. oil and stone) may be used to
stabilize dusty road surfaces in certain locations;
• Traffic speeds on unpaved access roads will be kept to 25 mph or lower to
minimize generation of dust;
• Carpooling among construction workers will be encouraged to minimize
construction-related traffic and associated emissions;
• The extent of exposed or disturbed areas on the Project site at any one time
will be minimized;
• Disturbed areas will be re-planted or graveled to reduce windblown dust;
• Erosion control measures will be implemented to limit silt deposit to
roadways; and
• The Project will implement a Complaint Resolution Procedure to establish an
efficient process by which to report and resolve any construction (or
operational) related impacts.
CANADA
St Lawrence River
Cape Vincent
Georg
Lake
r
ve
Ri
nt
mo
au
Lake Ontario
Legend
Ch
Proposed Turbine Array
Radio Transmission Tower
Microwave Path
2 1 0 2 Figure 2.19-1
Miles Microwave Pathways and Radio Transmission Towers in Vicinity of
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.
Tower
FCC Latitude/
Ref Status Owner Name Height
Reg. No. Longitude
(ft AGL)
1 1006176 Constructe ST LAWRENCE 44-07-03.1N 56.1
d SEAWAY RSA 076-20-01.0W
CELLULAR
PARTNERSHIP DBA
VERIZON WIRELESS
2 1006951 Constructe CAPE AL 44-06-58.0N 89.0
d BROADCASTING INC 076-20-20.0W
DBA = WKGG FM
3 1016348 Constructe MARS HILL 44-04-42.0N 85.9
d BROADCASTING CO 076-15-25.0W
INC DBA = MARS HILL
NETWORK
1 1004173 Constructe SBC TOWER 44-15-03.2N 98.1
d HOLDINGS LLC 076-01-49.4W
2 1006117 Constructe ST LAWRENCE 44-15-22.2N 78.6
d SEAWAY RSA 076-00-11.6W
CELLULAR
PARTNERSHIP DBA
VERIZON WIRELESS
Aviation Systems Inc. was contracted to perform an initial FAA feasibility study
for the Project Area, and the study results are included in Appendix J.
There are four distinct mechanisms that can potentially cause interference to
local communications:
• Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) – due to generation and radiation of radio
frequency energy in a frequency band used by a radio service.
• Near-Field Effects – due to an obstacle located so close to an existing antenna
that it modifies the radiation characteristics of the antenna.
• Diffraction - partial blocking of radio waves, causing some signal power loss.
• Reflection (or Scattering) – a result of radio waves being reflected from a
moving surface.
The services most likely to be affected by near field effects are those with mobile
receivers that might be operated a few meters from a tower. The distance of an
antenna from a tower that would cause near-field problems is dependent on the
operating frequency and directivity. However, in general, VHF (e.g. land
repeaters) and UHF (e.g. cellular) services more than 10 - 20 meters from the
tower structure are unlikely to suffer from near field effects.
Microwave Impacts
To evaluate the potential for the Project to impact existing microwave
telecommunication signals, Comsearch was retained to conduct a Microwave
Path Analysis to evaluate the potential effect of the Project on existing non-
federal government telecommunication systems. These systems require a clear
line-of-sight between transmitting and receiving antennas in order to complete a
wireless point-to-point link. The report may be found in Appendix I. The
Comsearch study identified three microwave pathways currently intersecting the
Project area, operated by Border International Broadcasting Co, Mars Hill
Broadcasting Co, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. The original proposed
turbine locations had one turbine that was identified as potentially interfering
with a microwave pathway. The turbine was relocated and all proposed turbines
are now sited such that it is unlikely to interfere with the microwave pathways.
138 Stoilkov, Vlatko, 2008. The Emc/Emf Intrusion Assessment Of Wind Generators, The Second
Symposium on Applied Electromagnetics & PTZE, Zamosc, Poland, June 1–4, 2008.
139 Stoilkov.
It will be impossible to adequately gauge any impacts to local residents until the
Project is constructed and operational. However, as discussed below, impacts to
digital TV reception can be mitigated on a site-by-site basis.
AM Impacts
The closest AM broadcasting tower is CKLC AM 1380, located approximately 12
miles to the northwest from the Project boundary in Kingston, Ontario. Because
there are no proposed turbines located within one mile of a non-directional AM
broadcast station or three miles from a directional AM broadcast station, it is
unlikely that the Project will disturb existing AM radio transmissions.
FM Impacts
In order for an FM signal at a given receiver to be affected, it needs to both have
a turbine directly between it and the transmission tower and be towards the limit
of the signal range. In the worst case, FM signal attenuation can be up to 40%
due to the presence of a structure such as a turbine (assuming a normal
transmitting range of 30 miles, a turbine directly in the pathway of a
transmission would cut this to 18 miles.)
There is little effect from turbines close-in to the transmitter, except for very low-
power FM signals. Meanwhile at distances, reception behind a turbine may be
impacted within about a 5 degree wide “shadow”. These effects may also vary
in degree due to terrain.
There are ten FM transmitter towers located within 10 miles of the Project Area,
the closest of which is operated by Mars Hill Broadcasting Company, which is
140Polisky, Lester E. Post Digital Television Transition -The Evaluation and Mitigation Methods
for Off-Air Digital Television Reception in-and-around Wind Energy Facilities, , COMSEARCH
PCS and cellular signals are unlikely to be affected unless within less than one
mile from a turbine to the transmission tower. For this reason, it is not expected
that any negative impacts will result to local cell or PCS service.
Aviation Impacts
Based on Aviation Systems calculations, a 420 foot tall tower could be built
anywhere within the Project Area without causing an impact to either en-route
low altitude airways, or to minimum vectoring altitudes. There will be no
impact to Department of Defense operations, and the Project is unlikely to
impact Air Defense and Homeland Security radars, although a standard radar
impact study will be conducted.
Mitigation
To the extent possible, turbines will be located away from existing microwave
pathway Worst Case Freznel Zones (WCFZs). The array plan has been designed
to include a setback from identified WCFZs of 1.2 x rotor radius to ensure the
turbines do not interfere with microwave transmissions.
For FM transmissions from the Mars Hill broadcasting site, BP Wind Energy will
work with the station operator after construction to determine if there has been
any impact to their broadcasting range due to the Project. If an impact is noted,
potential available mitigation measures (all would require some form of FCC
approval process) may include:
• constructing a taller tower. A transmitter tower which is taller than the tallest
turbine will be able to reach receptors at the current edge of the signal
strength which might see reductions in broadcast signal due to broadcasting
around a wind turbine;
• increasing the signal strength in order to facilitate providing a stronger signal
to receptors at the current edge of broadcasting range; and
• using repeaters outside the turbine array. For Cape Vincent, this could mean
placing supplemental antennae both to the northeast and the southeast of the
site, so that signals can travel unimpeded by the Project wind turbines.
BP Wind Energy will also work with local residents following site start-up to
assess impacts to local TV reception. These impacts are expected to be very
localized, potentially different for each local resident. Alternatives will be
evaluated to ensure that TV viewing is not restricted due to the Project.
The Cape Vincent Wind Power Project will require extensive usage of the road
systems throughout the Town of Cape Vincent, where turbines and supporting
infrastructure will be placed. In addition, transportation patterns are highly
seasonal, affected both by weather and by tourism.
The primary local transportation route through the study area is NYS Route 12E,
which travels north from Watertown to Cape Vincent, then northeast along the
St. Lawrence River to Clayton County.
Major local roads include Route 4 (Rosiere Road) which runs east/west
bordering the turbine area to the south, and CR 6 (Pleasant Valley Road), CR 8
(Millens Bay Road), and CR 9 (St. Lawrence Road) which provide north-south
access through the Project area. Numerous local roads traverse Cape Vincent.
Roads are typically two-lane with asphalt pavement, however some gravel
surfaced seasonal roads exist. Due to the rural location, many roadways within
the Project area are relatively lightly traveled.
The Village of Cape Vincent has developed and maintained a modest grid street
pattern including residential houses, churches, a small hospital, and an
assortment of commercial establishments (service facilities and offices). Retail
and commercial services are generally located along Broadway (NYS Route 12E),
two blocks south of the waterfront. A ferry carries passengers and vehicles
northward from the waterfront across the St. Lawrence River to Wolfe Island.
Table 2.21-1: AADT Volumes for Study Area Highways (2004 Data)
Potential impacts to traffic and transportation will primarily occur during the
construction phase for the Wind Power Project. Impacts during operation would
be minimal.
The heavy equipment and materials needed for site access, site preparation, and
foundation construction are typical of road construction and high rise building
projects and do not pose unique transportation considerations. The types of
heavy equipment and vehicles required would include cranes, pile drivers,
bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-end loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
electric line trucks, water trucks, and heavy equipment maintenance vehicles.
Typically, the equipment would be moved to the site by flatbed combination
truck and would remain on site through the duration of construction activities.
Typical construction materials hauled to the site would include gravel, sand,
water, steel, electrical cable and components, fencing, and lumber, which are
generally available locally. Ready-mix concrete might also be transported to the
site. The movement of equipment and materials to the site during construction
would cause a relatively short-term increase in the traffic levels on local
roadways during the 9 month long construction period.
The weight of the nacelle and certain tower components will require a
vehicle/load combined weight of up to 232,000 pounds, also requiring special
permitting.
As such, the size and weight of these components will dictate the specifications
for site access roadways, ROW’s and bridges. It is estimated that with
components, and foundation and road materials, each wind turbine generator
would require approximately 100 truck shipments, some of which could be
oversized or overweight. Eleven of these deliveries will include turbine
components, while approximately 20 truckloads will be required for assembly of
the crane at the location.
During construction, a peak of 150-200 workers will be working at the site at any
given time.
Issues such as the regular flow of oversized equipment and vehicles on the local
roadway network, workforce transportation within the project area, temporary
closure or traffic restrictions on roadways being improved to handle overweight
and oversized vehicles, and the temporary closures or traffic restrictions in order
to cross area roadways with utility lines will need planning to minimize
disruptions to motorists and local residents. The movement of equipment and
materials to the project area during construction will cause a relatively short-
term increase in the traffic levels on local roadways during the 9 month long
construction period.
The construction season will coincide with increased seasonal traffic in the area.
Therefore, a construction routing plan, road improvement plan, traffic safety
plan and complaint resolution plan will be coordinated and agreed upon prior to
construction.
BP’s transportation contractor, Greenman-Pederson, Inc (GPI), has met with the
Highway Superintendents from Jefferson County and the Town of Cape Vincent
to discuss transportation activities related to the project. The Town and County
identified requirements for roadway and intersection improvements, hauling
and right-of-way acquisition and the maintenance requirements associated with
such activities. Town and County representatives expressed concern about
GPI has also met with the NYSDOT to discuss the nature of the project and
determine possible regional haul routes to the proposed project area.
The exact origin of the turbine components is not currently known, but four
likely origins were identified for analysis of regional haul routes. The four
assumed origins are:
• north from Canada;
• south from the Port of Oswego;
• east from the Port of Ogdensburg; and
• from the south traveling along Interstate 81.
A primary regional haul route was established from each origin to the proposed
staging area. The project area is remote in nature so there is not an extensive
transportation network capable of accommodating the oversized loads expected.
Several alternate routes, including regional routes which utilized NYS Route 12E
from the south and NYS Route 12 from the northeast to access the project area
were omitted from this assessment due to posted bridge weight restrictions or
vertical clearance restrictions which would require extensive modifications and
upgrades to bridges. The regional haul routes established are for use by the
oversized/overweight loads expected during construction. Typical construction
vehicles transporting equipment and material loads which are not considered
oversized/overweight will likely use the shortest route to the proposed staging
area.
The regional haul routes selected avoided weight and clearance restrictions and
attempted to minimize impacts to the roadway network, intersections, motorists
and local residents while minimizing the scale of the improvements required for
transporting oversized/overweight loads to the project site. Table 2.22-2
provides a description of the roadways expected to be used for deliveries of
oversized/overweight components.
Figures 2.22-1 through 2.22-4 show the 4 proposed regional haul routes.
Improvements to bridges along the proposed regional haul routes are not
expected to be required. NYSDOT provided input on established
oversized/overweight haul routes which avoid bridges along state highways
that have size or weight restrictions, and the selection of proposed haul routes
and local delivery routes considered bridges that were posted with restricted
capacities and alternative routes were subsequently chosen.
Design
The proposed staging area for the Cape Vincent Project was selected based on a
centralized location within the project area and trying to minimize the number of
vehicles entering the major highways within the area. The staging area selected is
located north of County Route 4 east of the intersection with Favret Road. This
location is suitable for the proposed staging area based on the existing
topography, centralized location and other transportation related considerations.
There are two temporary concrete batch plants proposed to serve construction
activities.
Several local town and county roads will be used to transport equipment and
materials, including oversized/overweight loads, from the staging areas to
various internal access road locations throughout the project area. Workers will
also utilize local town and county roadways.
Some of the local roads may not be wide enough for two-way traffic when
oversized/overweight turbine components are being delivered to individual
turbine locations. The vehicles used to transport the lower tower sections are
estimated to be approximately 15 feet wide, which would utilize the majority of
the available pavement width on many of the county and local roadways.
Roadways which are 18 feet wide or less would require additional roadway
width to accommodate two-way traffic or require that flagmen be stationed at
each end of the road to prevent traffic from traveling on the road during the
short period of time it takes for the oversized/overweight (OS/OW) transport
vehicle to exit the roadway to the turbine location.
Local traffic patterns are subject to seasonal influences. During the winter,
severe weather conditions can limit road access, as well as functional roadway
width. During the summer, the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent see a
significant increase in tourism-related traffic.
In addition, the main artery through Cape Vincent, NY Route 12E, is also used
extensively for commuting for local residents going into Watertown for work.
BP Wind Energy will also work with state, county, and village transportation
departments to establish schedules for equipment delivery and worker shifts that
minimize the impacts on commuting traffic.
The study will address all necessary studies and permits needed for roadway
improvements and use, including wetland permits, stormwater notification,
applications to improve bridges and culverts, and other related issues.
It is not expected that any improvements to bridges along the proposed local
delivery routes will be required. Jefferson County and the Town of Cape Vincent
provided input on posted or restricted bridges along their roadways within the
project area. The selection of local delivery routes considered bridges that were
posted with restricted capacities and alternative routes were subsequently
chosen, and the proposed local delivery routes do not traverse any bridges that
are posted with weight restrictions.
Scheduling
Scheduling considerations must consider seasonal influences on local travel
patterns. During the winter months, severe weather conditions can limit road
access, as well as functional road width. During the summer months, the region
experiences a significant increase in tourism-related traffic. In addition,
commuting traffic and school bus schedules will be considered to avoid potential
impacts to these time-sensitive motorists.
Construction activities related to the project will coincide with the peak seasonal
travel with some overlap with the school year.
It is expected that equipment and materials will be delivered to the site during
normal construction hours. The heavy equipment and materials needed for site
access, site preparation and foundation construction are typical of road
construction and do not pose unique transportation considerations. The delivery
of oversize/overweight turbine components will create the greatest impact to
motorists as these large transport vehicles will be slow moving and will require
additional time to navigate turns.
To the maximum extent feasible, BP Wind Energy will construct roadway and
intersection improvements along major arterials during the non-recreational
season and establish an equipment staging area that contains enough capacity to
minimize the amount of equipment deliveries into the area which would take
place during the recreational season.
The Project site is located on the western side of Jefferson County in New York’s
“North Country”. With the exception of the City of Watertown, Fort Drum and
some of the larger villages, Jefferson County is primarily rural and characterized
by open spaces, agriculture, and forests. Jefferson County comprises a total area
of 801,878 acres, of which approximately 13 percent is occupied by Fort Drum
and 7 percent is managed by the NYSDEC.
Figure 2.23-1 shows land in Agricultural Districts within Jefferson County. Table
2.23-1 lists acreages of farmed land by type of use.
Total
Land in Total Permanen Woodlan
Number Farms Cropland t Pasture d Other
Year of Farms (Acres) (Acres (Acres) (Acres) Land
2007 885 262,331 166,233 27,381 41,177 27,090
2002 1,020 330,600 218,727 25,381 51,682 34,410
1992 1,050 330,500 204,700 41,800 52,500 31,500
1982 1,245 368,352 230,089 43,175 54,653 40,435
Source: NYASS, 2007.
141 NYASS. 2007. Jefferson County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics Service.
www.nass.usda.gov/ny.
142 NYASS, 2007.
Within the Project Area, the primary land use is agriculture. Pasture lands
predominate with some row crops and forested areas intermixed.
Figure 2.23-2 shows land use within and adjacent to the Project Area. Table 2.23-
2 identifies land use acreages within the Project Area.
Percent of Project
Land Use Classification Area
Agricultural 64
Year Round Residential 16
Seasonal Residential 0
Vacant 18
Commercial 0
Community Services 0
Industrial 0
Public Services 0
Wild, Forest, Conservation 1
Located with Lake Ontario and Chaumont Bay to the west and the Saint
Lawrence River to the north, the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme each have
substantial coastline and lands within the designated Coastal Zone.
Figure 2.13-1 shows the designated Coastal Zone boundary.
2.23.2 Recreation
Cape Vincent is part of the “Thousand Islands Region” in the St. Lawrence River
Valley, which contains over 1,800 islands. The region offers numerous
opportunities for recreational activities including sport fishing, boating and
winter recreation.
The Seaway Trail, a 518-mile long National Scenic Byway, runs along the banks
of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and St. Lawrence River with termini at the
Ohio/Pennsylvania border and in Massena, NY. In the general vicinity of the
Project Area, the trail follows State Route 12-E through the Village of Chaumont,
the Village of Cape Vincent and to the Village of Clayton. Figure 2.13-1 shows
the route of the Seaway Trail relative to the Project Area. The National Scenic
Byways Program, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, was established to help recognize, preserve and
enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Roads are recognized as
“All-American Roads or National Scenic Byways” based on one or more
archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities.
CANADA
Legend
Proposed Project Boundary
Agricultural Districts
6 3 0 6 Figure 2.23-1
Miles Agricultural Districts in Jefferson County
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.
CANADA
Cape Vincent
Legend
Wind Turbine
Proposed Project Boundary
Landcover/Landuse
Water
Agriculture
Developed Areas/Transportation
Forest
Grassland/Pasture
Wetlands
Shrubland
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland data layer
1 0.5 0 1 Figure 2.23-2
Miles USDA NASS Landcover/Landuse
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.
The only federal land in Jefferson County is the property occupied by Fort Drum.
Fort Drum is a U.S. Army military base, which is home to the 10th Mountain
Division and encompasses 107,265 acres of land.
2.23.3 Zoning
The Project Area includes properties in the town of Cape Vincent. Figure 2.23-4
shows zoning designations within and adjacent to the Project boundaries.
All land within the Project boundaries in the town of Cape Vincent is zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR). The stated intent of this zone is “to promote all
types of development in the interior portions of the Town in a manner that
preserves the rural character and promotes active farming operations”.144 There
144 Town of Cape Vincent. 1998. Zoning Law, 1989. As amended 1998.
The lands abutting Lake Ontario, Chaumont Bay and the Saint Lawrence River in
the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are within New York State’s Coastal Zone
and protected under the State’s Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and
Inland Waterways Act. While these are in the vicinity of the Project Area, they
are outside the Project boundaries. As evident in Figure 2.13-1, all turbines,
support facilities, access roads, and 34.5 kV electrical interconnects for the Project
will be outside the New York Coastal Zone boundary.
A small portion of the 115 kV transmission line which BP Wind Energy will co-
locate with the St. Lawrence Wind Project transmission line will be suspended
across the Chaumont River, which at that location is included in the New York
Coastal Zone.
Development of the Project will directly affect existing land use within the
Project Area and indirectly affect uses of adjacent and proximate properties. As
noted in Section 2.23.1, agriculture is the predominant land use within the Project
boundaries and comprises 64 percent of the Project Area. Approximately 36
percent of the Project site is within a Jefferson County designated agricultural
district.
CANADA
@
?
r
ve
Tibbets Point
Ri
Lighthouse
t
on
Ashland Flats State Wildlife Management Area
aum
Ch
Lake Ontario
Chaumont Bay
St Lawrence River
CANADA
r
ve
@ Tibbets
? Point
Ri
Lighthouse
t
on
um
a
Ch
Lake Ontario
Legend
Proposed Project Boundary
Chaumont Bay
Zoning
Agricultural
Lake Front
River Front
Recognizing that construction activities can damage and compact soils, as noted
in Section 2.4 of this SDEIS, BP Wind Energy has generally followed the
“Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects”, issued by the
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Modifications to these
measures may be made in consultation with the individual landowner(s).
The soil conservation practices described in Section 2.4 are designed to reduce
impacts to normal farming operations during construction and operation of the
Project.
2.24.2 Recreation
No state parks are located within the Project boundaries. As a result, the Project
will have no direct effect on the use of state parks in the Project region. See
Section 2.14 for a discussion of visual impacts associated with Project
development.
The Seaway Trail, a National Scenic Byway, follows Route 12E through the
Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent and will be within or adjacent to the Project
Area for much of its length in these towns. While as described in Section 2.14.12
there will be a visual impact to those passing through the area on the Seaway
Trail, the primary focus of the trail is the views of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River and not the lands more inland of the coast. Therefore, the
Project should not result in a significant impact to the primary recreational value
of the Seaway Trail. Figure 2.13-1 shows the location of the Seaway Trail.
Figure 2.23-3 shows the other State managed recreation resources in the vicinity
of the Project. As noted in Section 2.23.2, in addition to the Ashland WMA, three
state parks and the French Creek State WMA are located in close proximity to the
Project Area. None of these resources will be directly impacted by the Project,
although views facing toward the Project from these areas will change. See
Section 2.14 for a discussion of visual impacts.
2.24.3 Zoning
The Project will require Site Plan Reviews by the town of Cape Vincent prior to
receiving a zoning permit for turbine construction. BP Wind Energy will
develop and submit a detailed Site Plan application if and when the Final EIS is
approved by the Lead Agency.
The Project Area lies outside of the NY Coastal Zone. However, the transmission
line crossing of the Chaumont River (co-located on the transmission towers
constructed for the St. Lawrence Wind Project) will enter into the Coastal Zone
Boundary. In addition, The NY Department of State will complete a Coastal
Zone Consistency Review as part of its participation in the USACE Section
404/Section 10 process.
The Power project site is located within the town of Cape Vincent, in Jefferson
County, New York. Figure 1.1-1 shows the general location of the project site.
Table 2.25-1 lists populations of the County, Cape Vincent, and the adjoining
town of Lyme from 1980 through 2005.
Estimated
July 2005 2000 1990 1980
Place Population Population Population Population
New York State 19,254,630 18,976,457 17,990,455 17,558,165
Jefferson County 116,384 111,738 110,943 88,151
Cape Vincent Town 3,014 3,345 2,768 1,823
Lyme Town 2,096 2,015 1,701 N/A
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000a; Jefferson County Job Development Corporation,
2007.
Jefferson County was the fastest growing County in New York State from 1980-
1990. The County population grew from 88,151 to 110,943, a 26% increase,
largely due to the assignment of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division (Light)
at Fort Drum. Between 1990 and 2000, the County’s population has grown by
about 4%, representing the 8th largest percentage gain among all 62 counties in
New York State. The addition of the 3rd Brigade at Fort Drum, starting in 2004,
added 6,000 additional military personnel and 6,000 military dependents to the
County’s population in this decade.
The recent military population growth in the County has triggered private
housing market changes. No new on-base units are being built to accommodate
the growth. As a result, market supply and demand have depleted the existing
community housing stock and driven up sale and rental costs, with public and
Seasonal and recreational visitors to the area add to the overall population size.
Cape Vincent and the town of Lyme contained a combined total of 4,966 housing
units in 2000, of which only 33.8 percent were occupied year-round. As noted in
table 2.25-2, over 50 percent of the housing in the towns of Cape Vincent and
Lyme is used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.147 The area also
contains numerous motels, cottages, camping and RV sites for short-term
visitors.
Total Number of
Housing Seasonal Percent
Place Units Units Seasonal
Jefferson County 54,070 9,939 18.3
Cape Vincent Town 2,783 1,830 65.8
Lyme Town 2,183 1280 58.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b.
149 Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2006b. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics:
2000, Jefferson County, NY. http:///www.jcjdc.net/quickfacts.asp?mm-7
150 U.S Census Bureau. 2000b.
In the vicinity of the Project, agriculture and tourism are the primary focus of the
economy. As noted in Table 2.25-3, the Town of Cape Vincent employs a larger
number of workers in the arts, entertainment, recreation accommodation and
food services industry relative to its overall labor force than either the town of
Lyme or Jefferson County as a whole, reflecting the recreational and tourism
aspect of its economy. Of the three areas, Cape Vincent also has the largest
portion of its work force involved in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining sectors of the economy.
The average unemployment rate for the year 2009 in Jefferson County was 9.6%.
The 2009 median household income for the County was $43,080; per capita
income was $21,433. 16.2% percent of the population had an income below the
Median Percent
Unemployment Household Per capita below
Place rate income income poverty level
Jefferson County 9.6% $43,080 $21,433 16.2%
Town of Cape 2.2% $37,330 $16,375 12.3%
Vincent
Town of Lyme 4.2% $37,569 $19,522 10.2%
Source: Jefferson County data from American Community Survey 2009; Towns of Cape Vincent
and Lyme data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c (no recent data found). Wikipedia, 2006.
In New York State, the real property tax is based on the value of real property.
Counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, and special districts each raise
money through the real property tax to pay for schools, police and fire
protection, to maintain roads and to fund other municipal services. The amount
of an annual property tax bill is determined based on the total assessed property
value, including the value of the land and the improvements, and the tax rates of
the jurisdiction in which the property is located. Municipal tax rates and levy
data are provided in Table 2.25-6.
The school districts receive the largest portion of the property tax revenues that
are collected, with the two school districts in Cape Vincent collectively receiving
more funds than the Town or the County. The average tax bill for residential
properties within the Cape Vincent School District in 2004 was $2,016. In the
town of Lyme, the average tax rate was $1,575.
154New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Tax Mapping in New York State,
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/gis/taxmap/index.htm
Construction of the Project will require a maximum of 200 workers over a period
of 7-9 months. To the extent that qualified workers are available, BP Wind
Energy will hire construction workers from within the local community. To the
extent that workers are hired locally, it will reduce the temporary in-migrating
workforce and their potential impacts on temporary accommodations and
housing.
Since the construction period will be of relatively short duration, workers hired
from outside of the region are not expected to permanently relocate into the area.
Jefferson County and the surrounding region within a reasonable commute
distance contains numerous opportunities for housing in motels, guest houses
and campgrounds that could accommodate any workers that are brought in for
the Project from outside of the region. The Cape Vincent Chamber of Commerce
lists six motels, nine facilities for camping, travel trailers and RVs, and cabins
and Bed and Breakfasts within the Town of Cape Vincent alone.
Given the short duration of the construction period and the fact that only ten full
time employees will be required on-site during operation, construction and
operation of the Project should have no significant long-term effect on area
population or housing.
The County and Towns that comprise the region recognize the overall
importance of agriculture to the economy and lifestyle of Jefferson County and
are concerned about the turnover of agricultural lands to other uses. The
Although the most recent unemployment data for Cape Vincent and Lyme are
unavailable, unemployment in Jefferson County was at 9.6% in 2009. The
construction workforce will be comprised of electricians, crane operators,
equipment operators, carpenters, and others. It is estimated that the payroll and
benefits for the Project construction workforce will total $4.0 million. At least a
portion of this income will be spent on housing, food, and other living expenses
in Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, and the surrounding area.
BP Wind Energy anticipates that approximately $15 million will be spent locally
in the form of construction contracts and supplies required for project contracts
for trucking, gravel, concrete, other services and supplies required for Project
construction. This will lead to additional revenues for area businesses, and
possibly hiring of additional temporary employees. The expenditures will also
represent a temporary boost in the area as those funds circulate through the
economy.
BP Wind Energy will provide revenues to the town of Cape Vincent, the
Thousand Island School District, the Lyme School District, and Jefferson County
in the form of PILOTs. The PILOT agreement has not been negotiated with the
taxing jurisdictions yet but will likely exceed $1 million per year on average
during the first 20 years of the Project. This would represent a significant
increase in revenues to these jurisdictions. For the remaining life of the project,
BP Wind Energy will continue to contribute significantly to these jurisdictional
tax revenues based upon a full taxation formula using the assessed property
value and tax rates in effect during that period. These payments should prove to
be beneficial to town residents by potentially reducing local property tax rates
and increasing services.
BP Wind Energy will verify the condition of all roads prior to construction and
financially commit to maintenance during construction and improvements post
construction. It is expected that overall road conditions after BP Wind Energy
completes construction will be improved over their current status. This will have
no impact on municipal budgets.
These conclusions differ in substance from the conclusions of a 2009 study for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Hydropower
Technologies Program) of the U.S. Department of Energy.157 Hoen, et al
completed a study which collected sales data from 10 study areas surrounding 24
wind facilities in 9 states, including two wind farms in New York (Madison and
Fenner). Hoen applied a Hedonic Pricing Model which measured marginal price
differences between homes that vary by variables of interest, controlling for
factors such as square footage, acreage, age, condition, location, and pre-sale
scenic vista. Variables of interest included view of turbines, distance from
turbines, and development period (before or after project construction). The
report considered three distinct impacts, or stigmas, that, prior to construction of
facilities, local stakeholders view as having the potential to negatively influence
their property values:
• Area Stigma: Wind farms will create the perception that the general area is
more developed, and will reduce property values. This is considered
regardless if a property has a view of a turbine.
• Scenic Vista Stigma: The view of a wind turbine interfering with an
otherwise scenic view has the potential to decrease property values.
• Nuisance Stigma: Factors that could exist within close proximity to a wind
turbine, such as sound and shadow flicker, have the potential to adversely
affect property values.
A base model was used to analyze data from sales transactions of 7,500 single
family homes in the area of a wind energy facility. The report concluded that “no
evidence is found that home prices surrounding wind facilities are consistently,
measurably and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance
of the home to those facilities.”
Seven other models developed for the study confirmed that property values
were not affected by one or more of the stigmas. Additionally, the models
together support that properties within a mile of wind turbines are not affected
compared to residential properties that are either five miles from the nearest
turbine or that were sold well before the wind farm developments.
Many of the wind farms used in the study are comparable to the Project in terms
of number of turbines, height of turbine and total megawatts. Mean value of
owner occupied houses are also comparable. Therefore, it can reasonably be
expected that the results from the study are transferable to the Town of Cape
Vincent and that, after construction of the wind turbines, local property values
will not be adversely affected by the Project.
The decommissioning itself (or major repairs) is a construction process with the
same impacts as described in the DEIS. Decommissioning is the construction of a
tower in reverse; it includes disassembly of the turbine blades, nacelle, and tower
sections, removal of the turbine foundation to a depth of 3-4 feet below grade,
removal of access roads where requested by the landowner, removal of materials
to an off-site location, regrading, and reseeding.
The overall Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE) requirements for
the Project are set by BP Wind Energy’s HSSE Policy and by Getting HSSE Right
(GHSSER). The Project HSSE Philosophy has been prepared in line with the BP
Wind Energy Group expectations. It sets out the basic HSSE framework and
objectives required for the Project.
Everybody who works for the Project, anywhere, is responsible for getting HSSE
right. Good HSSE performance and the health, safety and security of everyone
who works for the Project are critical to the success of our business. Contractors,
suppliers and others are key to the business performance and the company will
assess their capabilities and competencies to perform work on its behalf.
The Project goals are simply stated - no accidents, no harm to people, and no
damage to the environment.
BP Wind Energy will work with the following local emergency responders and
fire departments to develop a plan specific to the nature of the risks posed by
wind turbine project construction and operation:
• River Hospital
• Samaritan Medical Center
• Troop D (NY State Police)
The Project will maintain an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) (See Appendix K)
to be posted in all of the offices at the site and carried in all service vehicles. The
plan outlines all possible types of emergencies—medical, hazardous materials
release, catastrophic events and security threats—and the procedures necessary
to ensure a timely response and appropriate handling of the situation.
In particular, the ERP identifies the following types of emergencies that can
occur during operation:
A. Medical - Examples: Worker injury, heart attack
B. Hazardous Material Release - Examples: Chemical storage spill,
ruptured hydraulic hose
C. Catastrophic - Examples: Earthquake, tornado, hurricane or other high
wind event
D. Security - Threats to personnel or the facility
Included in the ERP are also specific documents to be completed following any
emergency situation, which are required to be retained for a minimum of 36
months following the incident.
Also, the ERP includes information for all emergency contacts – including:
• local fire and police services;
• medical response units including medical helicopters;
• local hospitals;
• a chemical leak/spill response contractor (Safety-Kleen);
• the BPWE Remote Operations Center;
• the BP Group Security 24 Hour Communication’s Center; and
• the US FBI.
The Project will maintain a Site Specific Health Safety Security & Environmental
(HSSE) Plan (See Appendix L) to address work practices and responsibilities
during construction and operation. The attached plan will be an evolving
document throughout the Project life, being updated regularly to address current
management structure, work practices, technology, and local conditions.
Elements of an HSSE Plan will include:
• Substance Abuse Policy (Non-DOT);
• Hazard Communication / Right-to-Know;
• Hazardous Materials;
• Hazard Communication Training Log;
• Fire Protection and Hot Work Permits;
• Lock Out / Tag Out / Check Out;
• Fall Protection;
• Respiratory Protection Program;
• Voluntary Respirator Use Form;
• Confined Space Program;
• Scaffold Standards;
• Blood Borne Pathogens;
• Electrical;
• Environmental;
• Snake / Insect Bites and Dangerous Animals;
BP Wind Energy will develop a Fire and Explosion Risk Mitigation Plan listing
sources of potential fire and explosion during Project construction along with
measures to mitigate these risks. Implementation of these programs would
significantly reduce the risk of a fire or explosion risk due to Project construction
impacting human health and safety or the environment.
Specific design and operational procedures would reduce the risk that a
mechanical fire in Project facilities would pose a risk to health and safety or the
environment. There should be no risk of explosion. The majority of the
proposed electrical collection system would be buried underground, although a
small portion (approximately 10%) may be constructed as overhead cables.
However, a brush fire could occur in the rare event that a conductor on a portion
of the overhead cable parted and one end of the energized wire fell to the
ground. Under this circumstance, fire-fighting capabilities of local fire districts
would be called upon according to pre-arranged agreements to respond to the
situation. The wind turbine generators and other mechanical equipment at the
substation and meteorological towers would be equipped with specially
Similarly, unit design, selection of materials, and construction work practices will
eliminate the risk of blade throw (defined as blade fragments thrown from a
rotating machine). Historically within the wind power industry, the risk of blade
throw has been continually reduced as turbine technology has improved.
Again, minimum setbacks incorporated into the proposed Project layout, along
with compliance with engineering design and manufacturing safety standards,
would reduce safety risks associated with blade throw and other safety and
nuisance concerns. The current array plan uses a minimum setback of 1000 ft
from non-participating properties and 1,320 feet from non-participating
residences, as well as a minimum of 1,000 ft from participating residences to
reduce safety risks.
Worldwide, there has been no reported injury from ice thrown from wind
turbines. Under icing conditions, all exposed parts of the wind turbine are liable
to build up ice. However, it has been observed that a moving turbine rotor is
liable to accrete significantly heavier quantities of ice than stationary
components. Rime icing occurs when the structure is at a sub-zero temperature,
and ice throws are most likely to occur as stationary turbine blades begin to
rotate.
Any ice shed prior to blade rotation would fall directly below the blade. Blades
with ice build up turn slowly (only a few revolutions per minute) because the
blade airfoil has been compromised by the ice, and the blades are unable to pick
up any speed until the ice is shed. Reported data on ice throws at other projects
indicate that ice fragments were found on the ground from 50 to 328 feet from
turbines (<33 to 197 feet blade diameter) and were in the range of 0.2 to 2.2
pounds in mass.158 Based on the results of the Morgan et al 1998 study, potential
public health and safety risks caused by ice falling off rotating blades could occur
within 50 to 328 feet of an operating turbine tower.
Minimum setbacks with residences and public roadways incorporated into the
proposed project layout reduce the safety risks associated with ice throw and
other safety and nuisance concerns.
Wind towers are sturdy and resilient to vandalism. The project design includes
extensive site security measures to ensure that vandalism does not pose a health
or safety threat to workers at the Project site or residents or visitors in the Project
vicinity, nor adversely affect Project operations. This will include fencing of the
Project substation, and gating access roads to reduce the risk of unauthorized
access to turbine sites.
Periodic changing of lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids used in the individual
wind turbine generators would result in the generation of small quantities of
hazardous waste. These waste fluids would be generated in small quantities
because they need to be changed only infrequently and the changing of these
fluids is not done all at once, but rather on an individual turbine by turbine basis.
Oils and fluids generated during Project operations may include glycol water
mix, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil. Pad-mounted transformers at the turbines
would contain mineral oil that acts as a coolant.
The Project would include a substation that would be equipped with either one
or two transformers. Each substation transformer would contain up to 12,000
gallons of mineral oil for cooling. Mineral oil used to fill substation transformers
is a potential source of hazardous materials that could accidentally be spilled
during Project operations. The substation transformers would have a specifically
designed containment system to ensure that any accidental fluid leak does not
result in discharge to the environment. Waste fluids would be stored for short
2.29.1 Setting
The Project Area is part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland province of
northern New York State. In the Cape Vincent area, the land is flat to gently
sloping, with numerous southwest oriented low ridges. Streams and creeks
running through the area run southwest toward Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River. The county is largely agricultural.
The prehistory of New York began late in the Wisconsin glaciation. These initial
residents of New York can be characterized as pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers,
who followed a nomadic lifestyle during the Paleo-Indian (10,000 BC) through
the Middle Archaic (4000 BC) periods. While there is some evidence of use of
northern New York during these early periods, the utilization appeared to have
been sparse, possibly due to the environment being in flux at that time. As the
environment settled into deciduous woodland, human exploitation of the
environment increased. During the Late Archaic (4000-1500 BC), the transition to
less mobile populations began, culminating in early agriculture during the Late
Woodland (AD 900-1650). As populations became less mobile, settlement sizes
and social complexity increased. Material culture also evolved, with Woodland
cultures producing ceramics, not previously seen in this part of the world.
Jefferson County was organized in 1805, but had been inhabited by European
settlers as early as 1797. Initial settlement centered around what is now the
Town of Port Putnam, with Abijah Putnam as the first settler. Although land
speculators John Macomb and Peter Sternberg planned a village, the site was
abandoned in 1811. James LeRay founded a new town upriver, which was
settled as the Village of Cape Vincent. Many of the early settlers were French or
German. After the end of the War of 1812, lumber and available farm land
attracted settlers, and a spurt in growth occurred.
A site file search performed by SUNY at the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) listed 28 prehistoric-era sites and
six historic-era sites within the regional vicinity of the Project Site. Information
pertaining to the recorded archaeological sites and inventoried structures is
presented in Tables 1-3, Appendix M (SUNY report). At least four of these
previously recorded sites appear to be immediately adjacent to or within the
Project APE.
Most of these sites were identified in the 1920s – 1930s by Arthur C. Parker,
Director of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, and have not been
subjected to further study since that time. The exact location of these sites on
today’s landscape is not known and the New York State Museum cannot provide
detailed information on the recoveries. Sites that can be attributed to a specific
SUNY found six historic archaeological sites in the OPRHP site files within or
adjacent to the Cape Vincent Project Area. Of these, five sites are residential in
nature, and one is the remains of a church. The Menzo Wheeler site and the Old
Stone Store site are listed in the NRHP, along with associated structural remains.
As of 2007, there was no SHPO determination of eligibility on file for the
remaining historic-era archaeological sites.
There are forty-one structures and two historic districts within the five-mile
radius study area, which encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape
Vincent as well as portions of the adjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton. A
portion of the Village of Chaumont is also located within the five-mile radius
study area. There are nineteen NRHP-listed structures/properties within the
viewshed of the Project Area.
The greater the number of these characteristics intrinsic to a location, the greater
the likelihood of encountering a prehistoric archaeological site.
Conversely, for historic-era archaeological sites, SUNY considers the area to have
low potential overall, with higher sensitivity along transportation routes and
lake bays.
The full results of the 1B field survey, including recommendations for future
action, will be forwarded to SHPO for review and included in the FEIS.
In November 2007, TRC met with SHPO staff in Albany to consult on the historic
buildings survey for the project. The survey involved an assessment of buildings
eligible for listing on the NRHP located within a 5-mile APE of the wind turbine
locations. Upon completion of the survey, a report was submitted to the SHPO
for review and comment.
Finally, this information was collected and presented to the SHPO staff, to
review and comment on the evaluations. SHPO review included an assessment
of effects on the historic setting for the site, and a determination was made as to
whether the structure or property is potentially NRHP eligible. SHPO then sent
out a sublist of properties which should undergo additional study to determine if
Direct impacts to archeological resources would result from activities that would
physically disturb a cultural resource. Indirect impacts would be caused by
development located near a cultural resource that does not directly disturb the
site, but changes the setting of the area or offers increased opportunities for
human disturbance. These types of direct and indirect impacts could be
associated with construction, operations and maintenance, or decommissioning
of any of the Project elements, including the wind turbines and meteorological
towers, new gravel access roads, additional power lines, temporary laydown
yards or concrete batch plant, operation and maintenance facility, substations,
and local roadway improvements. Indirect impacts on offsite cultural resources
are not anticipated because the Project is not expected to substantially induce
regional growth to the extent that it would result in significant changes to offsite
cultural resources.
Construction Impacts
As discussed in Section 2.29.4 the Project Area includes locations with high
potential to host intact prehistoric cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activity
during construction could potentially affect any prehistoric or historical
archaeological sites located within the archeological APE. Potential direct
impacts would be most likely to occur during excavation activities such as
turbine foundation preparation, and laying of 34.5 kV interconnect cables,
although surface activities such as road grading and right-of-way clearing could
also cause damage to archaeological sites.
Decommissioning Impacts
Impacts from decommissioning of the Project would be similar to those
described above for construction activities, with the exception that existing
infrastructure that was built to support the Project will already be in place,
reducing the overall impacts.
There are both visual impacts and cultural resource integrity impacts in the
visual APE, which includes the Project Area and a five-mile buffer around the
site. As identified in Section 2.14, the Project has the potential to impact a
number of historical resources. The proposed wind turbines will change daytime
views from the historic districts and scenic byway to the larger landscape. Many
of these broader views have mostly remained unchanged since the 18th century
and may be considered significant character-defining features of these
properties. Depending on the number and proximity of turbines to any specific
resource, the Project could alter landscapes that heretofore had extremely limited
utility lines, cell towers and other vertical modern objects seen against the
skyline.
In this area, impacts to historic resources must be considered not only in the
context of the Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law (PRHPL)
§14.09, which requires agencies to explore fully all feasible and prudent
alternatives and to give due consideration to feasible and prudent plans which
will avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to historically significant resources, but
also to State Coastal Policy 23 which has the goal of protecting, enhancing, and
restoring structures, districts, areas, and sites that are of significance.
A Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has been developed for the Village of
Cape Vincent aimed at improving the aesthetics of the waterfront, including
maintaining unobstructed views of the St. Lawrence River waterfront. This
criterion would be expected to apply to historical as well as community
resources. To this extent, the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project will have
minimal visual impacts as it is will not diminish the waterfront view within the
Village.
The historic properties from which the turbines would be visible placed into four
categories based on an assessment of the visual impact that the Project might
have on the quality and integrity of the resource. Visual Resource Impact
Categories include:
1) properties from which the turbines will not be visible when facing the
properties, but only when facing away from the properties;
3) properties the turbines will be visible from when facing the property; and
4) properties the turbine will be visible from when facing the property and
away from the structure.
Table 2.30-1 provides a summary of the findings based on a field visit conducted
September 30 – October 1, 2010. The methodology from the Initial Report was
replicated for this effort. Additional photographs of the subject properties were
taken from the public right of way. No private property was accessed for this
assessment.
In addition to the historic properties, the field survey visited Long Point State
Park, Burnham State Park, and Cedar Point State Park. Wind turbines will be
visible from all three parks. OPRHP will be provided with the results of this
analysis, and asked to comment on whether the impacts to these parks are
significant and require mitigation.
As shown in Table 2.30-1, no wind turbines would be seen from NRL-6. Field
survey found that the Anthony Levi Building (NRL-22) is no longer extant;
therefore, potential impacts need not be considered for these properties. The
table lists the identifiers for each site (Map Code, SHPO Inventory, Address), the
status with respect to listing on the NRHP, the findings from the surveyors visit
to the site, and the Visual Resource Impact Categories determined to be
applicable to the site.
Due to the number and the proximity of turbines to the specific resource(s), the
Project will alter the landscape (context) which is a significant character defining
feature to all these properties.
The impact to those properties falling into categories 1 and 2 are considered less
intense than categories 3 and 4, since the views of the proposed turbines are
limited to looking away from the properties or looking from a secondary
elevation, not the main façade.
Some of the properties falling into category 1 that are closest to the shoreline (26,
NRL-10, NRL-36, NRL-21, NRL-19, NRL-26, NRL-28, NRL-35, three state parks),
as well as 484, are already visually impacted by the existing wind turbines on
Wolfe Island; however, these turbines are not easily visible when looking at the
structure’s main façade but from the sides or rear of the properties; or in the
cases of the state parks from the areas closest to the shorelines.
The existing wind turbines on Wolfe Island are also visible from three properties
falling into category 3: NRL-5, NRL-9, and NRL-27. Thus the adverse impact to
these properties is considered less intense than those from which the existing
wind turbines on Wolfe Island are not visible.
The most significant impacts are to the properties falling into category 4 where
the entire surrounding landscape (context) has very few, if any, utility lines, cell
towers and other vertical modern objects. For those sites following development
of the wind resource the skyline will be substantially altered. Any mitigation
efforts should focus primarily on the properties falling in category 4.
Because of the proximity of the two wind farms to one another, all of the
historical properties which will be visually impacted by the Cape Vincent Project
will also undergo visual impact from the adjoining St. Lawrence Wind project.
For the majority of those properties, the St. Lawrence Wind Project will lie
between the historical property and the Cape Vincent Wind project. As a result,
if the St. Lawrence Wind Project is constructed this will reduce the magnitude of
the visual impact at these locations.
These findings are being submitted to OPRHP for concurrence, and following
consultation appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed for those which
are considered to be incurring a significant impact as a result of the Project.
Options for mitigation are discussed in Section 2.30.5 below.
Any archaeological resources are located within the portions of the site which
will be disturbed during construction will be handled using appropriate
mitigation measures (such as archaeological testing or excavation and data
recovery). These will be developed through ongoing consultation with the
SHPO so that no significant adverse impact will result from the disturbances.
* These properties will have the St. Lawrence Wind Farm turbines between the site and
the Cape Vincent Project turbines.
As noted in Section 2.30.3, OPRHP will be provided with the findings of the
requested architectural investigation and asked for concurrence with ERM’s
assessment of which properties or groups of properties will be adversely
impacted. In cooperation with OPRHP, appropriate mitigations for each
property or group of properties will be developed, if avoidance of the impacts is
not feasible.
For those adversely affected historic structures determined for which the effect
cannot be sufficiently minimized, particularly for those structures falling in
impact categories 3 and 4, the following could be considered as potential
mitigations:
• Documentation. Recordation of the buildings and landscapes prior to any
major alterations to the landscape, including the construction of the turbines,
could constitute mitigation. This documentation would include photography
(meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards as well as OPRHP’s
standards) of all buildings, sites, structures, and landscape features. A
historical narrative should accompany these materials. The required level of
documentation is subject to the review of OPRHP.
• Interpretive Exhibit. The creation of a public interpretive exhibit about the
history and the social and architectural significance of the town of Cape
Vincent and the rural properties could be a mitigative measure. The exhibit
should make use of the information gathered as part of the documentation
efforts for the current project, as well as all previously compiled research.
• Walking, Driving, or Bike Tour(s). One, or multiple, self tours could be
developed for the area as a mitigation measure. This could include a walking
tour of the Town of Cape Vincent’s historic properties and a contextual
The proposed Cape Vincent Project would have both short- and long-term
unavoidable adverse impacts on environmental resources. In particular, the
following unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated:
Most of the 164 acres of permanent disturbance from the Cape Vincent Wind
Project will be on lands previously in use for agricultural or livestock purposes.
Of those 164 acres, only a small fraction is designated USDA Prime Farmland
(0.03 acres) or Farmlands of Statewide Importance (0.45 acres).
The income farmers will receive from the wind project will provide a long-term
financial benefit, ensuring a baseline income that will be removed from the
economic uncertainties and variabilities inherent in farming. This guaranteed
income would enable farmers to continue farming rather than sell their property
for other development, thereby enhancing the long-term productivity of these
agricultural lands.
Development of wind energy would also aid in reducing the need for fossil fuels
and other non-renewable resources, thereby reducing the amount of pollutants
added to the air on an annual basis while ensuring a long-term dependable
energy supply.
The Project will also require a commitment of land for the life of the Project.
Specifically, a total of approximately 500 acres of disturbance will need to take
place during construction. Following construction this footprint will be reduced
to a long-term impact of approximately 164 acres after expanded construction
corridors are narrowed to accommodate 16’ permanent access roads, cleared
turbine construction sites are returned to previous land uses up to the turbine
base, and cleared interconnect ROWs, concrete batch plant locations, and the
laydown and parking facility are all returned to previous land use. The 164 acres
of long term impact will include along with access roads and turbine locations
the permanent electrical substation, an operations and maintenance facility, and
overhead transmission corridor.
Even these “permanent” impacts are semi-permanent. Because the turbines can
be removed, the land used for the Project can be fully reclaimed upon Project
termination. Therefore, the commitment of this land to the Project is not fully
irreversible/irretrievable. Meanwhile, while Project development will displace
current agricultural activities from the turbine sites, it will enable farmers to
maintain agricultural production on the balance of their properties by providing
a long-term guaranteed base of income.
Various types of construction materials and building supplies will required for
the Project. Gravel, concrete, steel, etc., will represent a long-term commitment
of these resources, which will not be available for other projects. At the end of
the Project life, wind turbine components may be repurposed for some other
operating facility.
These energy resources expended to construct and operate the Project, however,
represent a fraction of the renewable energy which will be generated by the
Project over its anticipated operating history.
Cumulative impacts occur when the individual impacts of one project interact
with the impacts of another project in a manner which compounds or increases
the extent of an impact that either project would have on its own. Cumulative
impacts are most often the result of concurrent actions within the same location
or in an overlapping larger impact area. These actions may vary from temporary
uses associated with construction (e.g., construction traffic, lack of lodging
availability resulting from multiple projects being built simultaneously) to more
permanent impacts simultaneously affecting the same resource (e.g., cumulative
visual impacts caused by turbines from multiple projects being visible from
points in a viewshed).
Currently there is one local wind power project already operational in the area
(Wolfe Island, across the St. Lawrence River from the Village of Cape Vincent).
Further, in addition to the proposed Project, there are three other proposed wind
energy facilities in the area:
• St. Lawrence Wind – an FEIS was accepted by the lead agency, the Town of
Cape Vincent Planning Board, from St. Lawrence Wind Power LLC, on
August 18th, 2010;
• Hounsfield – an FEIS was accepted by the Lead Agency (DEC) from Upstate
NY Power Corp on December 23, 2009; and
• Horse Creek – a Draft Generic EIS was accepted by the Lead Agency, the
Town of Clayton Planning Board, from Iberdrola Renewables on February 22,
2007.
Information on these wind farms is provided in Table 6.1-1 and their locations
are shown on Figure 6.1-1.
CANADA
Wolfe Island
St. Lawrence Wind
Horse Creek
Galloo Island
Legend
Proposed Project Boundary
4 2 0 4 Figure 6.1-1
Miles Active and Proposed Windfarms in Cape Vincent Area
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.
6.2 GEOLOGY
Any impacts to geological resources (e.g., from blasting, excavation, or grading
during construction) will be localized in nature and minor with respect to the
effects on regional geological resources. No cumulative impacts should result
from multiple projects.
6.3 SOILS
Water quality impacts from the Wolfe Island and Hounsfield Wind Farms are not
considered for this cumulative impact analysis, since those are unique in their
offshore location and would affect resources isolated from the Project. The Horse
Creek, Cape Vincent, and St. Lawrence projects are located in watersheds
proximal to one another, draining to the eastern edge of Lake Ontario. However,
none of the projects are expected to have an impact to water quality or
availability to a degree which would impact the common receiving water body.
Wetland impacts from the Project will be minor (1.07 acres of permanent impact),
and compensatory mitigation – likely in the establishment of replacement
wetlands – will be conducted. It is expected that the proximal Horse Creek and
St. Lawrence projects will face comparable incentives for minimization of
wetland impacts and requirements for compensatory mitigation. Therefore,
there are not expected to be any significant cumulative impacts to wetlands
arising if all three projects are built.
Data collected at the Project and nearby wind-energy facilities from comparable
scientifically designed studies to estimate bird and bat use and activity,
respectively, indirect effects and post-construction fatality rates, may be
compared to analyze the cumulative effects of wind-energy on wildlife. Data
from studies conducted may be assessed to estimate the relative impact of the
Project on birds and bats compared with other state, regional and national
facilities.
Unlike birds, there is little information available about population sizes of most
bat species, especially the non-hibernating, solitary tree-roosting species that
comprise most of the wind-energy facility related mortality in North America.
The significance of wind energy impacts on these species of bat populations is
difficult to predict, as there is very little information available regarding the
overall population sizes of these bats. However, hoary bat and silver-haired bat,
two of the most commonly impacted species, are widely distributed throughout
North America. Since these species are migratory, it is likely that populations
from surrounding forested ecoregions or from more northern areas (e.g.,
Canada) are affected at the wind-energy facilities in New York during the fall
migration. The population dynamics and geographic extent of these larger
populations would need to be known to assess cumulative impacts. For large
and stable populations, the level of impact is not expected to be significant,
although impacts are likely greater for less stable populations. As with birds, for
listed bat species BP Wind Energy is working closely with the USFWS and
NYSDEC to develop a minimization and mitigation plan designed to reduce the
likelihood of adverse impacts and minimize the Project’s potential contribution
to significant cumulative impacts.
While viewshed maps were not prepared for the surrounding projects, it is clear
that there will be an overlap of viewsheds. The most immediate will be the
cumulative impact between the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects, as the
two projects will have turbines located as close as ¼ mile apart, as most of the
two projects viewsheds are overlapping in area. At their closest points, the Cape
Vincent Project is approximately 5 miles from both the Wolfe Island and
proposed Horse Creek Wind Farms, so there will be substantial overlap between
the viewsheds of both projects with the Cape Vincent Project. The Cape Vincent
Project is approximately 12 miles from Galloo Island and the Hounsfield Project,
so technically both projects’ areas of visual impact do not overlap, but the open
water between Cape Vincent and Galloo Island will allow visibility of both
projects from some locations on Lake Ontario, particularly at night.
While owned and operated by individual entities, the distinction between the
two projects will not be readily apparent to most observers. As a result, the
cumulative effect of complete build-outs of the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence
Projects will be to create a visual impact that would be the same as if the Cape
Vincent Project were approximately 40% larger. Combined, the St. Lawrence
and Cape Vincent Projects would encompass a majority of the land area of the
Town of Cape Vincent. Views of the turbines would be dominant and
widespread.
Due to the presence of existing woodland and hedgerow vegetation, there are
few inland locations within the Town of Cape Vincent where Wolfe Island or the
St. Lawrence River is presently visible. Views of the Wolfe Island Project from
inland agricultural areas in and around the Project site will likely be limited to
glimpses of blade tips above the intervening tree lines at distances of more than
three miles.
Locations in the Village and Town of Cape Vincent along the St. Lawrence River
will directly view the Wolfe Island Project from across the water. In general,
while there will be coastal vantage points from where it will be possible to view
both the Wolfe Island Project and both the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent
Projects, in all cases the projects are located in opposite directions. It should be
noted that the primary scenic value of the river and lake front properties in Cape
Vincent are due to views focused toward the River, and therefore the Wolfe
Island Project creates a more direct impact on scenic views in the New York
coastal zone than will the Cape Vincent Project.
For a boat traveling through the area, through Lake Ontario and into the St.
Lawrence River, there will be a cumulative visual impact both during the
daytime and particularly at night. The first project in evidence will be the
Hounsfield Project, which will be visible well down into Mexico Bay to the south
or Prince Edward Bay to the west. A vessel approaching from the south, upward
along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario, will not begin to have a line of sight of
the Cape Vincent Project as it passes Galloo Island, while a vessel approaching
from the west across Lake Ontario will begin to see the Wolfe Island, St.
Lawrence, Hounsfield, and Cape Vincent Wind Power Projects largely at the
same time, with the Wolfe Island, St. Lawrence, and Cape Vincent Projects in
particular, creating the impression of one large expanse of wind turbines broken
only by the 1-mile wide entry to the St. Lawrence River, with the Hounsfield
Project appearing more isolated as a result of a large expanse of land where no
turbine placement will take place (Point Peninsula) and the seven miles of open
water between Galloo Island and Point Peninsula.
Entering the St. Lawrence River, turbines from the Wolfe Island and St.
Lawrence Projects will be visible in the immediate foreground to either side of
the River, with the Cape Vincent Project in the background behind the St.
Lawrence Project. Again, the combined wind power projects will dominate the
visual surroundings on both sides of the channel approximately up to the Village
of Clayton.
Views from the water will be particularly notable at night, as FAA lighting on all
four projects discussed in detail above, and potentially from some Lake Ontario
Construction of the Wolfe Island Wind Farm has already had a significant
change on the viewshed of vessels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Addition of the Cape Vincent Project will not have much effect on the number of
locations in that portion of Lake Ontario where industrial scale wind turbines are
visible, and in some ways may be considered complimentary to the Wolfe Island
Project in terms of cumulative impact, rather than the additional turbines
representing an adverse impact.
As discussed in Section 2.16, sound impacts resulting from operation of the Cape
Vincent Project will not be harmful to residents or visitors. There will, however,
be some places where sound impacts may represent a nuisance, increasing in
proximity to individual turbines.
Much of this area with a potential for impacts accumulating from both the Cape
Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects has no residential structures, as a result of the
large marshy wooded area between Rosiere Road and Favret Road, northeast of
12E. However, between 12E and Pleasant Valley Road, southeast of Deer Lick
Road, there are a small number of residences where there may be a discernable
cumulative impact from the turbines of both projects. In no case is this expected
to result in a sound pressure level greater than 45 dB(A) at any residential
structure on a property that is not part of either project; therefore, the cumulative
impact to any individual receptor should not be significantly greater than the
impact from either project operating independently.
On a long term basis, the potential for a combined addition of almost 800 MW of
capacity to generate electrical power without the combustion of fossil fuels
between the five separate projects would represent a substantial net positive air
quality impact, and the four New York projects (almost 600 MW of combined
capacity) would make a major contribution toward the State of New York
meeting its renewable power generation goals.
The FAA analysis of the Cape Vincent Project (See Appendix J) represents a
cumulative impact of the Cape Vincent Project in combination with the St.
Lawrence and Wolfe Island projects. In considering impacts to flight paths and
aviation radar, the FAA maintains a database which includes all local projects,
including those constructed and those already filed for, and will not report a
finding of no impact for a new project which in combination with existing and
planned projects will create an aviation hazard condition.
Telecommunications impacts are specific to the turbines for each project and not
cumulative across the multiple projects.
If construction schedules for the Hounsfield Wind Farm or Horse Creek Wind
Power Project were to coincide with that of the Cape Vincent Project, it is
In the event that both the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence wind energy projects
are constructed in the same time frame, it is necessary to evaluate which travel
routes may be common to evaluate the cumulative impacts the two projects may
impose on the existing highway infrastructure. Coordination of transportation
routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers to assure that
duration and extent of the project impact is minimized and that road repair
and/or restoration work is accomplished in an appropriate amount of time.
If construction schedules for these two projects overlap and similar local
transportation routes are used, coordination regarding use of proposed
transportation routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers,
NYSDOT, and local highway authorities to assure that the duration and extent of
impact is minimized and that road repair/ restoration work is accomplished at
the appropriate time. Many of the needed local road improvements would be
identical to support both projects, reducing the cumulative impacts below a
simple sum of the impacts from each project.
Road traffic in the Project Area is currently below capacity and traffic conditions
are light. During operation, a limited number of trucks will access all projects in
the area for service and maintenance. As wind projects typically generate very
few trips during their operational periods, no adverse cumulative impact on
traffic or local roads is anticipated to result from simultaneous operation of the
St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Wind Power Projects.
Construction and operation of the proposed projects in the Project Area will have
minimal cumulative impacts to land use, as the wind farms are generally
consistent with the land use patterns within the region. Since the projects will be
primarily located on agricultural and fallow land, they are unlikely to impact
nearby residences/hamlets, villages, and recreation areas within each of the
towns.
However, Hoen found a lack of statistical evidence that the dominance of the
views of turbines in a region affects the sale prices. Charting housing sales prices
versus reference values over a time period measured from 2 years before
announcement of a wind project up to 4 years following construction, only
homes less than one mile from the closest turbine showed much variability.
These homes, less than one mile from the closest turbine, are the least likely to be
significantly affected by cumulative impacts from multiple projects because their
visual impact will be dominated by the closest project. For homes more likely to
be affected by cumulative impacts of multiple projects (between 3-5 miles, and
outside 5 miles) real estate values varied very little over time compared to their
reference category. This suggests that there is little potential for area stigma of
multiple projects contributing to a decline in housing values.
Total construction cost for the four U.S. projects is estimated to be greater than $1
billion. Approximately 15 to 18 percent of this total is the expected to be spent
locally. The local share of annual operating and maintenance costs is estimated to
range between $1.8 million and $2.5 million, providing an ongoing economic
benefit to the region. While these figures are not known for the Wolfe Island
Wind Project, direct and indirect project expenditures will result in cumulative
significant economic benefits to the region during construction and operation of
the projects.
The projects will also have a cumulative beneficial impact on municipal budgets
and taxes, as the taxing jurisdictions will receive additional revenues from the
projects in the form of PILOT revenues. This revenue could total over $5 million
per year if all four projects are built, based on the PILOT agreement entered into
by the Galloo Island project recently.
On a long term basis, the potential for a combined addition of almost 600 MW of
capacity to generate electrical power without the combustion of fossil fuels
between the four New York projects will make a major contribution to the State
of New York meeting their renewable power generation goals.
Construction and operation of the Cape Vincent Project is not expected to have
any negative impacts on archeological resources. However, in combination with
the studies being performed to support the Cape Vincent, St. Lawrence, and
Horse Creek Wind Farms, a substantial amount of new surveys are being
performed and data is being collected which will provide a positive benefit for
future researchers studying the archeological history of Jefferson County.
None of the projects being evaluated will have any direct impacts on
architectural resources through demolition of any NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible
The proposed project will not consume energy, but will instead provide a new
source of clean, renewable electricity to the New York power grid. This increase
in renewable power will aid in reducing the dependency on other electric
generation fuels and enhancing the reliability of the regional energy supply.
Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender.
1982. Probabilistic estimates of maximum acceleration and velocity in
rock in the contiguous United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File
Report 82-1033.
Audubon 2004. The Important Bird Areas Historical Results. National Audubon
Society. Available at
http://iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex.do?state=US-NY
AWEA. 2005. American Wind Energy Association. Facts about Wind Energy and
Noise. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WE Noise.pdf.
Accessed January 2007.
Barnes, James D., Miller, Laymon N., Wood, Eric W. 1977. Power Plant
Construction Noise Guide, Empire State Electric Energy Research Corp.,
New York, Albany.
Congdon, J.D., D.W. Tinkle, G.L. Breitenbach, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1983.
Nesting ecology and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingi.
Herpetolgica 39:417-429.
Congdon, J.D. and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Relationships of reproductive traits
and body size with attainment of sexual maturity in Blanding’s turtles
(Emydoidea blandingii). J. Evol. Biol.
Driscoll, C.T., Newton, R.M., Gubala, C.P. et al.; Adirondack Mountains; D.F.
Charles, Ed. 1991. Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems, Regional
Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York; pp. 132-202.
Dunn, E.H. and D.J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern (Chlidonias Niger). In A. Poole and
F. Gill (eds.) The Birds of North America, 147. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. and
Amer. Ornith. Union, Washington D.C
Elliot, D.L., L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower. 1991. An Assessment of Windy Land
Area Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
EPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants website.
http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html.
Accessed January 2007.
Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States
and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press Washington, D.C.
Gibbs, James P, et al; 2007, The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York, Oxford
University Press.
Grigsby, Leonard L. 2001. The Electric Power Engineering Handbook. CRC Press.
Installation Mission Growth Community Profile, Ft. Drum NY, November 2009,
found at
http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/55A4C3C3FA792BB3852576C1005D
A8FA/$File/drum_growth.pdf
Kerns, J., W.P. Erickson and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Bat and Bird Fatality at Wind
Energy Facilities 1007 in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24-95 in
E.B. Arnett, ed. Relationships Between 1008 Bats and Wind Turbines in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an Assessment of Bat Fatality 1009
Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with
Wind Turbines. A Final 1010 Report Submitted to the Bats and Wind
Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, 1011 Austin, TX.
Available: http://www.batsandwind.org/main.asp?page=products
Kofron, C.P. and A.A. Schreiber. 1985. Ecology of two endangered aquatic turtles
in Missouri: Kinosternon flavescens and Emydoidea blandingii. J.
Herpetol. 19(1):27-40.
Kiviat, E., G. Stevens, R. Brauman, S. Hoeger, P.J. Petokas & G.G. Hollands. 2000.
Restoration of wetland and upland habitat for Blanding’s turtle.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):650-657.
Kiviat, E. 1993. A tale of two turtles; Conservation of the Blanding’s turtle and
bog turtle. News from Hudsonia 9(3):1-6.
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin.
M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological
impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs
and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): 315-324.
Mabey, S., and E. Paul. 2007. Critical literature review: impact of wind energy
and related 1068 human activities on grassland and shrub-steppe birds.
The National Wind Coordinating 1069 Collaborative, RESOLVE Inc.,
Washington, DC.
Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., Seifert, H., Assessment Of Safety Risks Arising From
Wind Turbine Icing, 1998 Part of “Wind Energy in Cold Climates”
developed under contract with UK Department of Trade and Industry.
National Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County New
York.
New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Tax Mapping in New York
State, http://www.orps.state.ny.us/gis/taxmap/index.htm
NYASS. 2007. Jefferson County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics
Service. www.nass.usda.gov/ny.
NYSDEC 30 Year Trends In Water Quality Of Rivers And Streams In New York
State, Based On Macroinvertebrate Data 1972-2002, Stream Biomonitoring.
NYSDEC. 2001. Program Policy: Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. DEP-
00-1- Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, New York. Issued
October 6, 2000; revised February 2, 2001.
NYSDEC, July 31, 2000, Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts, (DEP 00-2) NYSDEC, Albany, NY.
NYSDOS. 2007c. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form: Grenadier
Island. New York State Department of State.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp.
Accessed January 29, 2007.
NYSDOS. 2007d. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form: Point
Peninsula. New York State Department of State.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp.
Accessed January 29, 2007.
NYSERDA Main Tier RPS Economic Benefits Report, Prepared by: KEMA Inc.
and Economic Development Research Group, Inc., November 14, 2008
Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm Bird and Bat Mortality
Monitoring Report: October 2001 - September 2002. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. February 2003.
Reischke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York
Natural Heritage Program. March 1990.
Ross, D. A., and R. K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting of
Emydoidea blandingi in central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology 24:6-
12.
Roy S.B., Pacala S.W., and R.L. Walko. 2004. Can Large Wind Turbines Affect
Local Meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D190101,
American Geophysical Union.
RSG. 2003. Resource Systems Group, Inc.: Air Emissions Reductions Analysis
for the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project. Prepared for Atlantic
Renewable Energy Corporation. October 31, 2003.
Tidhar, D., C. Nations, and D.P. Young. 2010. What Have We Learned from Pre-
Construction Radar Studies? Presented at the National Wind
Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) Wind Wildlife Research Meeting
VIII, October 19-21, 2010. Lakewood, Colorado.
U.S Census Bureau. 2000b. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF1).
USDA National Forest Service. 1974. Forest Service Landscape Management: The
Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2.
USDOE. 1997. Total U.S. Consumption for 1996 is estimated at 3.2 trillion kWh.
Annual Energy Review 1996. United States Department of Energy:
Energy Information Administration, July 1997.
USEPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants website.
http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html.
Accessed January 2007.
USFWS. 2002. National Wetlands Inventory: A Strategy for the 21st Century.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2002.
USGS Water Use in the United States, County-Level Data for 2005
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/
WEST. 2007. Draft Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind
Project, Jefferson County, New York – Interim Spring Report. Wyoming.
January 23, 2007.
Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects, An Expert Panel Review - Prepared for:
American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy
Association, December 2009.
Wood, M., 2004, personal communication from Wood (Dawes Rigging and Crane
Rental, Milwaukee, Wisc.) to F. Monette (Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Ill.), May 4, cited in Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy
Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States,
US Department of Interior, June 2005.