r . .

i' ,
1, \ , l; r 7 \lr;...,r
l, ,, | f;-
' ]' '. .'i 1t . . . .:-. L - )
- - '. 'L * . r

PlanningBoar d
JeffersonCounty
P.O.Box 66
CHAUMONT,NEW YORK 13622
PH: (315)649-2788 FAX: (315)649-2049TTD: (800)662-1220

Octob er12,2010

Town of CapeVincentPlanningBoard
TownOfficeBuilding
'1964NYS Rte 12E
C ap eVincent,NY 13618
St. LawrenceWindpowerFEIS
To: ChairmanRichardEdsalland members,KarenBourcy,ThomasIngersoll, Andrew
Binsley,and GeorgeMingle:
The LymePlanningBoardtransmitted a letterto you on August17,2010as an
involvedagencyparticipating in the SEQRAprocessfor the abovecaptionedproject.
We transmitted our findingsto you priorto your acceptance, as LeadAgencyfor the
SEQRprocess,of the FEISas a "complete" documenton August18, 2010.
Notwithstanding our extensivelistingof the seriousshortcomings in the document,you
actedto adoptand acceptthe documentas completeon September15, 2010. During
thistime you had no furtherinteractionwith the LymePlanningBoardnor did you
apparentlyconsiderany of the findingsin our above referencedletter. We therefore
deemyour actionsand your issueof "findings" to be bothprematureand improper.
The functionsof a lead agencyin the SEQRAreviewprocessincludethe following'. (Our
commentsin italics)
. Askingall otherinvolvedagenciesabouttheirconcernsfor the proposedaction,
and considertheseconcernsin makingits determination (The
of significance;
Cape VincentPlanningBoard in itspositionas lead agencyfailed to ask the
Lyme PlanningBoard about its concerns,but even when The Lyme Planning
Board transmitteda letter citing some of itsprincipalconcerns,it was ignored by
the Lead Agency)
. Determiningwhetherany aspectof the overallactionmay have or will not have a
significant adverseimpactuponthe environment. (ln its considerationof a
proposal'simpacts,the leadagencyshouldnot limitits reviewonlyto those
impactsaffectingits own jurisdiction.); (Clearlythe Cape VincentPlanningBoard
failed to consider the impact of the project in the Town of Lyme)
5617.7 Determining significance
of any Type I or Unlistedaction
(a) The leadagencymustdeterminethe significance
in writingin accordance
withthis section.
c) Criteriafor determining
significance.
(1) To determinewhethera proposedType I or unlistedactionmay havea significant
adverseimpacton the environment,the impactsthat may be reasonablyexpectedto
resultfromthe proposedactionmustbe comparedagainstthe criteriain this
subdivision.The followinglistis illustrative, Thesecriteriaare
not exhaustive.
consideredindicators of significant adverseimpactson the environment:
Townof CapeVincent,
Planning
Board page2

(i) a substantial
adversechangein existingair quality,groundor surfacewater
qualityor quantity,trafficor noiselevels;a substantial increasein solidwaste
production; a substantial increasein potentialfor erosion,flooding,leachingor
drainage problems;(Many commentsregardingthe effect of noise,both during
construction and during the operation of the proposed wind facility were heard during
the public hearings. Suchcommentsappear to have been ignoredby the lead
agency and the developer. The plans for the project are being pushed forward as if
the public hearings were never held. Most egregiously,the Cape VincentPlanning
Board has ignoredthe findingsand opinionsof rts own engineeringconsultantswith
respect to the permitted noise levels for the project, instead adopting those
promulgatedby the developerfor its own benefit.)
(ii)the removalor destructionof largequantitiesof vegetationor fauna;substantial
interferencewith the movementof any residentor migratoryfish or wildlifespecies;
impactson a significant habitatarea;substantial adverseimpactson a threatenedor
endangeredspeciesof animalor plant,or the habitatof sucha species;or other
significantadverseimpactsto naturalresources;(Whilethe documenf/isfsextensive
likely damage to wildlifeand vegetation,this finding appearsto be ignoredby the
lead agency. Theresee/7lsto be no attempt to define the advantagesthat could
possiblyaccrue to the resrdenfsof Cape Vincentor Lyme and to make a decision
based on the project'soverallmeritsbalancedagainstthe significantadverse impact,
many of which are detailedin the FEIS.)
(iii)the impairment
of the environmental of a CriticalEnvironmental
characteristics
Area as designatedpursuantto subdivision
617iaG) of this Part;
currentplansor goalsas
(iv)the creationof a materialconflictwith a community's
officiallyapprovedor adopted; (The proposed developmentis clearlyin conflict with
each of the comprehensiveplansfor the Townsof Cape Vincentand Lyme)
(v) the impairmentof the characteror qualityof importanthistorical, archeological,
architectural,or aestheticresourcesor of existingcommunityor neighborhood
character; (The proposedproject will have a devastatingeffect on the characteror
quality of importanthistorical,archeological,architectural,or aestheticresourcesor
of existingcommunityor neighborhoodcharacter)
(vi)a majorchangein the use of eitherthe quantityor typeof energy;
(vii)the creationof a hazardto humanhealth;(Thereis ampledocumentationof the
deleteriouseffectsof wind turbineson residenfswhose homes are at an insufficient
distancefrom the turbines.The developerand the lead agencyappear to ignore this
potentialdanger fo residenfs)
(viii)a substantialchangein the use,or intensityof use,of landincludingagricultural,
open space or recreationalresources,or in its capacityto supportexistinguses;
(The present desirabilityof Cape Vincentand Lyme's river and lakeshore areasfor
homes and recreationalbusrnesses will be severelycompromisedby the nearby
installationof large and noisy wind turbines. Properiy valuesand consequentlytax
assessmentswill be sharplyreduced.)
(ix)the encouraging or attractingof a largenumberof peopleto a placeor placesfor
morethan a few days,comparedto the numberof peoplewho wouldcometo such
place absent the action; (Clearlythe extensivewind turbinedevelopmentplanned
for these areas in Cape Vincentand Lyme as well as neighboringWolfe lsland,
where Lake Ontario emptiesinto the St LawrenceRiver will foreveralter the
Townof CapeVincent,PlanningBoard page3

character of the area, leading to a decline in tourism and reduced income for the
many busrnessesthat thriveon tourismand summer residents)
(x) the creationof a materialdemandfor otheractionsthatwouldresultin one of the
above consequences; (Ihe St Lawrencewind project, if it shouldgo fonuard,will be,
to a large extent, a model for the adjacentand similarBP project in the Townsof
Cape Vincentand Lyme. Membersof the Cape VincentPlanningBoard are known
to have contractswith BP. By refusingto recuse themselvesfrom the St Lawrence
Wind prolect, such persons are clearly "featheringtheir nests"for the similar and
subseguentBP Project. Thisis a clear conflictof interestand a blatantexample of
corruption fostered by the wind developers.) (A related question is how did Cape
Vincentge/ so neatly dividedbetweenfhese two developers? Doesn't this appear to
be collusionor restraintof trade?\
no one of whichhas a
(xi)changesin two or moreelementsof the environment,
but when considered
impacton the environment,
significant togetherresultin a
substantialadverseimpacton the environment;or
(xii)two or more relatedactionsundertaken,fundedor approvedby an agency,none
of whichhas or wouldhavea significant impacton the environment, butwhen
consideredcumulatively wouldmeetone or moreof the criteria in this subdivision.
(The two wind developmentsplanned for Cape Vincentand Lyme surely must be
consideredtogetherto determinetheir overallimpact on the area. ln additionthe
presently existing wind facility on nearby Wolfe lsland and its planned extension
must be taken into accountas well. To considerthe impactsof the St Lawrence
Windpowerproject in isolationis both invalidand disingenuous.)
The projectproposedby St LawrenceWlndpowerincludesdevelopmentof
facilitiesin the Townof Lymeand has a directimpacton the Townof Lymeas well as an
apparentadditionalset of impactsas a precedentfor the conductof BP in pursuingits
adjacentand contiguousdevelopment in the Townsof Lymeand CapeVincent.We,
thereforefind it disconcerting, to say the least,that neitherthe CapeVincentPlanning
Board,in its functionas leadagency,or the developersuppliedthe LymePlanning
Board,an involvedagencyin the SEQRAprocesswith copiesof documents,meeting
noticesand correspondence relevantto the project. We shouldnot have had to rely on
newspaperaccountsor documentsfoundon the lnternetin our attemptto keepcurrent
on the projectapplication.
Furthermore, we findthatyou haveapparentlyignoredour findingsas outlinedin
our abovereferenced letterof August17,2010. We, therefore,considerthe SEQRA
processto be incompleteuntilsuchtime as the findingsof the Townof Lyme Planning
Boardas expressedin our earlierreferencedletterare recognizedand incorporatedin
the findingsand resultingdecision.ln additionthereare a numberof pointsin this letter
illustratingthat the CapeVincentPlanningBoardin its functionas leadagencyhas failed
to followthe procedures and recommendations outlinedby NYDEC.

FortheTo4vn Board,
of LyryqPlanning

/oJ
^tl|h.
PaulNorton,Chairman
L ym ePlanningB oard
Townof CapeVincent,PlannlngBoald page4

cc: LymeTown Board