8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
1/49
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF JEFFERSON
_____________________________________________
WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP
Petitioner-Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OFCLIFFORD P. SCHNEIDER
against -
PLANNING BOARD OF THE Index No. 10-2882TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, andRICHARD EDSALL, TOM RIENBECK,GEORGE MINGLE, ANDREW BINSLEY, andKAREN BOURCY, in their capacities asplanning board members,
Respondents-Defendants, and
ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER, LLC,
Respondents-Defendant
________________________________________________
CLIFFORD P. SCHNEIDER being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I live at 1560 Vincent Street, Cape Vincent, New York and I have lived there
since October 2000. Previously I lived at 163 So. James Street, Cape Vincent, NY from
1970.
2. From January 1 through December 31, 2006 I served as a councilman on the
Cape Vincent Town Board. During that period I was able to observe first-hand wind
development issues affected our community, and how town officials dealt with the issue
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
2/49
interest has been zoning, noise and property value issues related to the wind issue.
4. I have been a member of the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) since
November 2009.
5. On February 5 and 6, 2010 Cape Vincent Planning Board members attended
with the Town's wind law committee a two-day instructional seminar on sound by
William Elliot, an acoustic engineer with Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA), the
Planning Board's acoustic consultants for the board's review of the SLW project
proposal. Mr. Elliot also assisted the committee in their deliberations on the noise
component to a proposed local law regulating wind projects (although the local law was
never finalized and acted on). I attended these sessions as an observer along with many
other Cape Vincent residents.
6. At these sessions CTA outlined their concerns regarding SLW's methodology
for estimating background sound being developed by SLW's acoustic consultant David
M. Hessler. CTA used Hessler's data to estimate 25 dBA is generally the level of
background sound in Cape Vincent compared to Hessler's estimation of 37 dBA. (dBA
denotes an A filter applied to measured sound pressure to mimic the frequencies at the
center of human hearing.)
7. On February 9, 2010, shortly after the CTA seminar, I wrote the Planning
Board advising them if CTA's recommendations regarding noise assessment were
ignored, turbines proposed for the SLW project would be placed substantially closer to
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
3/49
provide the Planning Board with additional materials related to the noise issue. Based on
this work, Attorney Abraham prepared a letter August 13, 2010 outlining WPEG's
concerns about deficiencies in the SLW noise assessment, then available as part of a Draft
Environmental Impact Assessment. The Abraham letter attaches a letter from Dr. Paul
Schomer, dated April 23, 2010, and a copy of a presentation on the noise issue CTA made
to the Cape Vincent Wind Law Committee on May 1, 2010. I have attached hereto a true
and accurate copy of the letter and attachments as Exhibit B.
9. Earlier in the year the Planning Board and the Town's wind law committee
had jointly developed a complaint resolution plan to address problems that may arise with
the operation of a wind farm in Cape Vincent.
10. However, in early August 2010 I became aware that the Planning Board was
considering an alternative complaint resolution plan proposed by SLW, which now
appears in the SLW FEIS. See CR 4922-4924. I became concerned that the SLW proposal
was far less stringent than the joint wind law committee Planning Board proposal.
11. On August 16, 2010 I visited the Cape Vincent Town office to deliver
information on the town Complaint Resolution Plan, which I asked be made part of the
record of the Planning Board's review of the SLW project. I have attached a true and
accurate copy of my submittal hereto as Exhibit C.
12. When visiting the town office on August 16, I also saw that Mr. Abraham's
August 13 letter and attachments had arrived via FedEx overnight in the Town
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
4/49
number of items that were related to the SLW wind project application. I have also
reviewed a video of the meeting, attached hereto as Exhibit D, in .wmv format on DVD
(this can be viewed by most Windows or Apple computers), and based on the video
record I later transcribed what was said by Edsall as he reviewed and sorted the Board's
mail.
14. As Chairman Edsall began sorting he commented to the Board secretary,
Start a file for correspondence we don't know what to do with. Edsall identified letters
from Tim Conboy (SLW), Tom Jolliff, contact people for SLW, Don Metzger and others.
See Exhibit D at 40:00 minutes.
15. Near the end of Edsall's mail sorting he opened a FedEx envelope and said,
We have here from the law office of Gary Abraham August 15 for St. Lawrence Wind;
throw it in the file we are not paying attention to because it is outside the comment
period. See Exhibit D, at approx. 50:00.
16. During the meeting's comment period, I asked Chairman Edsall why he and
the Planning Board had allowed SLW to include material outside the comment period in
the FEIS, but not include other materials from the public. Chairman Edsall then stood up,
stopped the discussion, adjourned the meeting and waved me and others out of the
meeting room. See Exhibit D, at 1:12:30.
17. As I left I told Edsall, That's one-sided, you cut off this stuff and you allow
the other stuff from the consultant. Your showing your bias and you're showing your
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
5/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
6/49
20. The brief time Planning Board members actually discussed the merits of the
SLW project is consistent with the heavy-handed manner in which Chairman Edsall has
conducted all board meetings where there was business or public comments regarding the
project. For example, Edsall has consistently refused to consider written and oral
comments on the SLW project submitted to the Planning Board throughout the last half of
2009 and 2010, asserting that such submissions are beyond the formal public comment
period on the Supplemental Draft EIS, which ended May 30, 2009. See CR 3617-3618.
However, extensive changes in the project proposal have occurred since then the public
has not had an opportunity to comment on, and the board itself has developed a growing
understanding of the noise issue based on presentations and substantial additional
information provided by its environmental consultants.
21. Chairman Edsall has also kept important things out of the record of the board's
review of the SLW project, such as the record CTA's May 2010 slide presentation to the
board outlining its objections to the SLW noise assessment
22. I believe his stubborn refusal to consider comments and concerns from the
public, and to include important documentation about the potential impacts of the SLW
project that was put before the Planning Board, reflects Chairman Edsall's deep bias in
favor of the project so he can benefit from a seemingly unrelated wind power project
proposed in Cape Vincent by BP Alternatives, a/k/a BP Wind Energy North America Inc.,
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
7/49
General, and more fully discussed in WPEG's reply brief submitted in the above-
captioned matter. The BP disclosure, updated in October and attached hereto as Exhibit F,
shows that Edsall and his wife entered into lucrative lease agreements with BP for use of
their land in Cape Vincent in 2005. The disclosure is publicly available today on internet
at .
23. Early in the SLW review process Edsall led the Planning Board in insisting
that SLW and BP share a common transmission line, ostensibly to minimize impacts of
the two projects. See CR 3699-3700, 3851, 4332.
24. Edsall's bias in favor of wind project development in Cape Vincent has been
obvious to the public and frequently reported on in the local press. For example, on
August, 4, 2005, at the first public hearing on wind development in Cape Vincent, it was
reported that Edsall stated, "It (wind development) would allow these farmers to stay in
business, if they get two or three windmills on their land, they can pay the taxes on the
land. I didn't say it's the best idea, but it makes sense." Watertown Daily Times, WIND
TURBINE BENEFITS SWAY MANY IN TOWN, August 5, 2005.
25. A month later, on September 7, 2005, Richard and Virginia Edsall signed
their first wind lease with Greenlight Energy, which was later acquired by BP Alternative
Energy. Total annual payments for the Edsall family under the leases are $45,211.00. See
Exhibit F.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
8/49
6, 2006.
27. It was also reported that at the April 12, 2006 Planning Board meeting, Mr.
Edsall wants to permit turbine development in the town's agricultural/residential zone,
with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront
district. . . . Mr. Edsall made his suggestion again Wednesday, but not, he said, as the
planning board chairman. He petitioned to be included on the board's agenda as a private
citizen and representative of a community group that has met monthly to discuss wind
turbine issues. Watertown Daily Times, AIRING CONCERNS, April 13, 2006.
28. On July 11, 2007, Mr. Edsall and the Planning Board wrote to SLW with a
list of comments and requirements for the SLW project. CR 57. Among the requirements
is the following: There is to be only one transmission line leaving the wind turbine
projects from the Town of Cape Vincent. Therefore, St. Lawrence Wind is to
communicate with British Petroleum to this effect that both companies must work
together on the transmission line. CR 59 (item 6).
29. The New York State Office of Attorney General's Code of Conduct
Agreement applies only to wind development companies, not public officials. The
Agreement is available today on the AG's website at . However, the agreement seeks to prohibit the
kind of conduct Edsall appears to be involved in, indirectly promoting one wind
company's development from which he and wife would directly benefit by insisting that
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
9/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
10/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
11/49
EXHIBIT A
Clifford Schneider, letter to Richard Edsall, dated February 9, 2010
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
12/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
13/49
EXHIBIT B
Gary A. Abraham, Esq., letter to Richard Edsall, dated August 13, 2010
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
14/49
LAW OFFICE OF GARY A. ABRAHAM
170 No. Second Street [email protected]
Allegany, New York 14706 www.garyabraham.com
716-372-1913; fax is same (please call first)
August 13, 2010
Mr. Richard Edsall - ChairmanTown of Cape Vincent Planning Board
1964 NYS Rte. 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Re: St. Lawrence Wind Farm Proposed Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Dear Mr. Edsall:
I am writing on behalf Wind Ethics Power Group regarding the Planning Board's reviewprocedures governing the above-referenced project proposal.
Acciona has provided the board with a proposed FEIS noting, in Section 1, that several newstudies have been included for which the board has afforded no public review, or review by involved
agencies. These new supplemental materials include a Supplemental Wetland Delineation Information
and Wetland Mitigation Plan; a 2009 Pre-Construction Grassland and Sensitive Bird Species Study;a Biological Assessment; a Final Shadow Flicker Analysis; Final Noise Modeling Assessment; a
Final Off-Air TV Station Assessment; a Transportation Route Evaluation Study; a Transmission
Line Engineering Concept Report; a Wildlife Protection Plan; a Residential Well Study and
Mitigation Plan; a Draft Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; a Draft Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasure Plan; an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan; a FAA Final Lighting Plan; a
Revised Complaint Resolution Plan; and a Draft Outline of Construction Environmental Monitoring
Plan. (Proposed FEIS, Section 1, p. 2).
Each topic addressed by these supplemental materials has elicited a high degree of interest by
the public or involved agencies, or both. Each topic also includes previously identified substantive orsignificant adverse environmental impacts. It is therefore very appropriate, and it is specifically
authorized by the SEQRA regulations for the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing, limited to
whether for these particular topics, the alternatives or mitigation measures proposed by Acciona are
adequate.1
For example, potential noise impacts have clearly elicited broad public interest in the
i B h h Pl i B d' i l CTA d WPEG' i l
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
15/49
background sound levels, or the baseline against which wind turbine noise is assessed.
I have enclosed the most recent presentation made by CTA to Cape Vincent's Wind Committee
on May 10, in response to David Hessler's presentation on behalf of Acciona to you. CTA concludesthat when as few as three wind turbines are in a line with respect to a sensitive receptor, in order to
avoid nuisance levels of turbine noise 2,600 feet will be required to separate the receptor from the
nearest turbine. Hessler's method is criticized by CTA for adopting an average to estimate background
sound levels rather than the L90 measure, recommended by NYSDEC.
Even more serious criticisms of Hessler's approach have been submitted to you on behalf ofWPEG, by Dr. Paul Schomer. Dr. Schomer finds Hessler's method of regression based on windspeeds at turbine height simply wrong, and therefore unprofessional. I have enclosed Dr. Schomer's
April 23 letter to Supervisor Hirschey which includes this conclusion.
Dr. Schomer identifies Hessler's disregard of wind shear as the most important factor rendering
his noise assessment unreliable. Wind shear occurs when wind speeds at turbine hub height are
sufficient to operated turbines, but the ground level air mass is still. Under such conditions there is no
masking of wind turbine noise by wind-induced noise at ground level. The worst case scenario thusincludes a wind shear condition, when there can be no masking sound from wind where people live, at
ground level.
The purpose of Acciona's study of background sound levels was to determine what minimum
environmental [background] sound levels are consistently present and available at the nearest
potentially sensitive receptors to mask or obscure potential noise from the Project. (Proposed FEIS,Appendix C-4, Section 2.1). The purpose is unchanged from the previous background sound study
submitted with the DEIS, to determine how much natural masking sound there might be - as a
function of wind speed - at the nearest residences to the Project. (Hessler,Noise Impact Assessment,October 22, 2008, p. 1). As both CTA and Dr. Schomer have recognized, this artificial restriction in the
purpose of the study cannot be justified by any known standards for assessing community noise. For
example, Hessler states that the primary basis for this approach is NYSDEC guidance,Assessing and
Mitigating Noise Impacts (2001), (id.), but nowhere in the NYSDEC guidance is there any mention thatwind sound masks project noise.
More importantly, the assumption on which the restricted scope of the Acciona study is basedthat wind noise will provide natural masking of wind turbine noisehas been conclusively refuted
by the leading study of wind turbine noise by van den Berg, and several subsequent studies and
literature reviews in the field of acoustics confirm van den Berg's findings.2 Thus, the methodologyutilized in Acciona's study is unprofessional, and clearly against the weight of relevant empirical
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
16/49
research.
Van den Berg found that wind shear occurred 47% of the time at a wind farm, based on
measurements every half-hour for one year, and this occurred more often at night.3 The worst casescenario thus includes a wind shear condition at night, when there is no masking sound from wind
where people live, at ground level. Acciona's new supplemental sound assessment fails to address the
worst case scenario and is completely unresponsive to CTA's and Dr. Schomer's criticism of Acciona's
masking sound approach to estimating background sound level.
A more realistic prediction of background sound level in a worst case scenario would look atlight wind conditions during the night in wintertime, when there is no background insect noise. Hesslerhas previously acknowledged that the mean sound level in a light 3 m/s wind was found to be about
29 dBA, which is extremely quiet, during the winter. (Hessler, Noise Impact Assessment, October 22,
2008, p. 4). Because wind shear will occur more than half the time at night, higher wind speeds willoccur, operating large wind turbines, while light winds prevail below. The result will be that some
people will experience sleep disturbance, an intolerable impact. See NYSDEC,Assessing andMitigating Noise Impacts at 15 (sound levels over 20 dBA higher than background are very
objectionable to intolerable).
Because Acciona's study is unprofessional, and the assumptions on which its scope is based are
clearly against the weight of relevant empirical research, any reliance on the study is unreasonable andcannot be supported by evidence.
3 Frits van den Berg, The sounds of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound andmicrophone noise (Diss., Univ.Groningen 2006) at 96, available at . See also id. at 81, 85, 142. See also C. J. Bajdek,
Communicating the Noise Effects of Wind Farms to Stakeholders at 2, Proceedings of NOISE-CON (Reno,Nevada 2007), available at (While somecurrent methods attempt to determine the level of masking provided by vegetation noise, those methodsassume that the spectral shape of the turbine noise is similar to that of the ambient noise and that the
temporal fluctuation of background noise is limitedconditions that are often difficult to meet.); G.Kamperman and R. R. James, Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks, 117Proceedings of NOISE-CON 2008 (Dearborn, Michigan 2008) at 7, available at (The most glaring fault with this argument [that the wind noise masks the turbines sound immissions] is
shown during the frequent nighttime conditions with a stable atmosphere when the wind turbines generate the
maximum electricity and noise while the wind at ground level is calm and the background noise level is low.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
17/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
18/49
!"#
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
19/49
$
% #&
'()!!
*()+'#
$ &,% ##'
*&
!
"# $
%&'()*+,-./
(+('0('!1&"233(
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
20/49
%&45.+.#62#,72,"##).8)95.+:)
8"273)%;(
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
21/49
$ *-./-.&
###012)
!#-#.
$ 2)##
!'2)
$ !3&'4#
&
:+!!$+
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
22/49
:+!!$+
$
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
23/49
$ 2)#!
#0#
##
$ #
:+!!$+
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
24/49
!
$ :&5% '#
%9'
'''-'!&!.
$ ##% 5;&!'&'&
&&6!*
7869
% '*!()#'
&
% 5!()#'&
#&
:+!!=+)(
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
25/49
!
>1
$ *#
&'!&'
!'''&
$ '''1#'2)2
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
26/49
!
>1
$ 6#!&*&
##
$ &4
#&'#&
% &()#'&
% &5&
*
!
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
27/49
!:+!?
2#.:
+,@
))
=)
2))
2=)
>))
>=)
?))
?=)
? ?<
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
28/49
!
:+!?
!
!"
"#
#$
$%
%&
&
!"#$%
&
' '
())(*#(*#
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
29/49
!
:+!?A0B
$ !
2)>#-.
$ '>@>'-B).
$ #'@/
$ @&&
#&
% 5&-
.E?A
% &-
.E?> $&
2#(0
C+
=+&"7#(0
3+
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
30/49
!
:+!?A0B
$ F
#!2)>#
-.
$ '>@>'-B).
$ #'@/
$ @&&
#&
% 5&-
.E?A
% &-
.E?>
$&
"C##(0
C+
=+&;##(0
3+
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
31/49
!
:+!?A0B
$ &'#'*#
#!'##
% #&
&
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
32/49
April 23, 2010
Mr. Urban Hirschey Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Dear Supervisor Hirschey:
This letter is my response to Mr. David Hessler's April 14, 2010 presentation to the Cape Vincent
Planning Board regarding my report, Background sound measurements and analysis in the vicinity of
Cape Vincent, New York.
Mr. Hessler continues to ignore important facts. Specifically, he:
1. Mixes winter and summer wind speed versus ambient sound level together as if the sameprocesses governed both seasons,
2. Continues to reject Site 4 data because they are too quiet.Consider winter. Mr. Hessler examines the ambient when the wind at 10 m is thought to be about 7 m/s
and shows (Hesslers BP winter study Figure 2.5.5) that about 80 % of the ambient data are louder than
37 dB with few data that are greatly quieter.1
This indicates that in winter when the winds (at 10 m) areabout 7 m/s that the wind turbine can produce up to 43 dB at an affected property and be in compliance
with the New York State guideline. But that is all it shows. It cannot necessarily be extrapolated to
other wind speeds, and it definitely cannot be extrapolated to summer. Consider Figure 2.5.5 at 4 m/s.Here, about 80 % of the ambient data exceed 20 dB. So in winter, when the wind is 4 m/s, the turbine
noise at an affected property must be less than 26 dB in order to comply with NYSDEC policy of 6 dBabove background sound levels. Nowhere is this shown to be the case.
In summer, Hessler uses the winter ambient noise versus wind speed relation to predict the summerambient even though, as Cavanaugh-Tocci has correctly noted, the summer data exhibit virtually no
correlation between ambient sound level and wind speed. And, indeed, there is none. The summerdata are dominated by insect noise, a high frequency noise that cannot and does not mask the low-
frequency wind-turbine noise. Even more importantly, regularly and frequently, especially at night, the
l i b i d d d l i d i d b H l b k d l l I i i l
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
33/49
noise while at the same time there is no masking wind noise at ground level.
How often does this condition occur? At the InterNoise2009 conference last August, the one Hesslermentions in his presentation, I chaired a session in which a paper was presented that contained factual
data showing that this condition, strong winds at hub height and zero winds at 10 m, occurs almostevery other night during the warmer weather months at Cape Vincentalmost every other night.
How loud is it? As Hessler stated during the recent hearing:
Now turbine sound level varies with wind and weather conditions and time of day, no question
about that. In particular, at night, wind tends to blow up above while calmer near the ground;
the curvature of the shear profile is pretty slanted, so the top of the blades are in high wind and
the bottom of the blades are in lower wind. That causes them to make a kind of churning noise,most often it happens at night. So, levels are going to vary, some time it's going to be com-
pletely inaudible and other times temporarily rather loud, it's just the way wind turbines are.
Rather loud means louder than predicted; louder than the permitted 43 dB(A). How much louder?
The wind turbine manufacturers do not measure itperhaps 5 to 10 dB.
What is the bottom line? During warm-weather months, almost every other night, the ambient, as weand Hessler both measured, will be about 25 dB(A). At the same time the wind turbine can be
producing on the order of 50 dB. Rather than the permitted 6 dB increase, the true increase will be
about 25 dB, and this huge increase may occur almost every other night.
People will be very unhappyand rightfully so.
Paul Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.Member, Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
34/49
EXHIBIT C
Clifford Schneider, letter to Richard Edsall, dated August 16, 2010
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
35/49
August 16, 2010
Mr. Richard Edsall Chairman
Cape Vincent Planning Board
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte. 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Dear Mr. Edsall:
I have attached for your review and to be part of the record the complaint resolution
section of the 2010 draft wind law that you and other members of the Planning Board
helped formulate earlier this year. I thought you should compare what you and the
board drafted with Acciona's Complaint Resolution Plan (FEIS, Appendix C-11). They are
not even comparable.
I suggest that you recommend Acciona adopt the Complaint Resolution Plan that our
community drafted and not the wind industry friendly variety Acciona hopes you will
accept.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford Schneider
PO Box 165
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
36/49
J. Complaint Resolution Process
(Excerpt from Cape Vincent Wind Committees 2010 Draft Wind Law)
Complaints from the Public will be addressed in the following manner:
All complaints shall be directed to the Applicant/Operator and responded to by the
Applicant/Operator or his duly authorized representative within five (5) calendar days
after receipt of such complaint. The Applicant/Operator shall keep a log of any such
complaints received, which log shall be reviewable by the Town Code Enforcement
Officer upon request.
If the complaint includes the character or quality of the wind turbine sound, then any
subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal,
and/or temporal nature of the wind turbine sound prompting the complaint.
Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be
subsequently directed to the Town Engineer for investigation, and any such
investigation shall be undertaken with the full cooperation of the Applicant/Operator.
In addition, the Applicant/Operator will shut down and Wind Turbines as may be
needed to properly assess noise impacts. The operating data including wind speed and
direction, turbine output, and rotation speed for adjacent turbines shall be available
upon request.
Testing shall commence within ten (10) working days of the report of the initial
investigation. If testing cannot be initiated within ten (10) days (exceptions granted for
lack of stable atmospheric conditions), the wind turbine(s) causing the complaint shall
be shut down until the testing can be started. Testing shall compare actual sound
measurements at property line of complainant with and without turbine operation to
confirm operation complies with sound limits established in Article 3, E3. Sound
Regulations.
A copy of the test results shall be sent to the complainant and the Town within thirty
(30) days of test completion.
After the investigation, if the Town reasonably concludes that operational violation of
any applicable permit conditions or modeled sound levels are shown to be caused by
the Wind Energy Facility, the licensee/operator/owner shall use reasonable efforts to
mitigate such problems. These reasonable efforts include such measures as temporary
cessation of operation.
C i d l i f h l d ill i ddi i l i i i l
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
37/49
Excerpt from 2010 Draft Wind Law
4. Compliance Survey Protocol for dealing with noise complaints.
Within three (3) months after a wind energy facility becomes operational, acompliance survey shall be conducted by the Town and funded by the applicantand/or operator. The following list of steps outlines the procedure:
a. Sound sensitive sites shall be selected based upon the model used for site plan approval.
b. Sound levels shall be measured at a non-participant property line that is closest to thenearest wind turbine, but at least 25 ft away from buildings and 50 ft. away from roads,driveways, power lines, or any other potential sources of man-made noise.
The A-weighted and C-weighted Leq sound levels shall be use to assess compliance. Inaddition, L90, and L10 levels shall also be collected.
c. Data collection shall occur on any weekday dates (barring holidays). Measurements shall
be made in accordance with the parameters established by the Planning Board and itsconsultants. Additional compliance surveying and monitoring may be required at thediscretion of the acoustical sub-consultant if conditions vary. The actual hub wind speedand power output shall be provided. Compliance surveys are valid only when the fournearest wind turbines arealloperating within the test parameters.
d. Data recording sound level meters shall be used that comply with ANSI or IEC standardsfor Type I meters, and the meters should be placed on the ground in accordance with IEC61400-11. Microphone wind screens shall be used for all measurements in accordancewith best recommendations of the sound level meter's manufacturer.
e. Recording anemometers shall be placed adjacent to each sound level meter 4-5 ft. aboveground and approximately 25 ft. from the meters.
f. Data collection should include a series of continuous 10-minute samples for at least 1hour with the highest, valid 10-minute LeqA and LeqC levels from the same 10 minuteinterval used to define the wind energy facilitys operating sound. Observations mustconfirm that the highest LeqA and LeqC sound levels measured are not influenced by non-wind turbine noise sources. These levels will then be compared to the sound levelspredicted by the computer model at that location.
g. Other technical procedures should generally comply with ISO 1996 standards.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
38/49
EXHIBIT D
Video recording of the September 8, 2010 meeting of the Planning Board
(.wmv format on DVD)
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
39/49
EXHIBIT E
Table prepared by Clifford Schneider, Summary of Cape VincentPlanning Board Minutes
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
40/49
Summary of Cape Vincent Planning Board Minutes (CR 39- CR99)
Grey shaded entries represent Planning Board minutes that are missing from thecertified record.
MEETING
DATE CR# DISCUSSION SUMMARY
11/08/06 CR 39 SLW manager overview of project. Planning Board Chairman
(PBC) outlines the process.
12/13/06 CR 41 PB votes to be lead agency for SLW and makes positivedeclaration on SEQRA.
01/10/07 CR 44 PBC outlines process going forward with SLW.
01/17/07 CR 46 No SLW discussion.
01/24/07 CR 48 PB sets time for public hearing on SLW DEIS.
02/14/07 No SLW discussion.
03/15/07 CR 51 No SLW discussion.
04/11/07 No SLW discussion.
05/09/07 No SLW discussion.
06/27/07 CR 53 PBC Edsall instructs SLW manager Hopper to read all the public
comments from the hearing. More procedural instructions
from PBC.
07/11/07 CR 55 PB approves recommendations (CR 57 and CR 5630) to SLW
resulting from public hearing on 3/24/07.
08/15/07 CR 63 No SLW discussion.
09/12/07 CR 65 SLW applies for another test tower permit.
09/26/07 CR 66 No SLW discussion.
10/17/07 CR 67 SLW test tower permit discussion.
11/14/07 CR 68 SLW test tower permit discussion.
12/12/07 CR 70 No SLW discussion.
12/19/07 CR 71 No SLW discussion.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
41/49
MEETING
DATE CR# DISCUSSION SUMMARY
04/09/08 CR 84 SLW responds to 3/12/08 letter from PB.
05/14/08 No SLW discussion.
06/11/08 No SLW discussion.
07/09/08 No SLW discussion.
08/13/08 No SLW discussion.
09/10/08 No SLW discussion.
10/08/08 Summary letter from Bernier Carr on sound level study given to
PB members.
11/12/08 No SLW discussion.
12/10/08 No SLW discussion.
01/14/09 SLW had business to discuss .with the board. PB tells SLW
they need to submit letter requesting 12-month extension ontest tower permits.
02/11/09 CR 85 SLW requests permit extensions for test towers. PBC and
Mathes advise SLW that further documentation needed for
SDEIS.
03/11/09 CR 86 No SLW discussion.
03/25/09 CR 87 Mathes is present and reviews SLW process. PB accepts theSDEIS as adequate for review and sets a public hearing.
04/08/09 No SLW discussion.
05/13/09 No SLW discussion.
06/10/09 No SLW discussion.
07/08/09 CR 88 Public comments from SDEIS hearing now available on disc for
review. PBC Edsall informs SLW for their consultants to contactlandowners when working on their property.
08/12/09 No SLW discussion.
09/09/09 No SLW discussion.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
42/49
MEETING
DATE CR# DISCUSSION SUMMARY
12/09/09 No SLW discussion.
01/13/10 No SLW discussion.
02/10/10 No SLW discussion.
03/10/10 CR 90 Letter (no copy in CR) from SLW requesting time to make
presentation on turbine noise. Board agrees to 4/14/10 date.
04/14/10 David Hessler, consultant to SLW gives lengthy presentation to
the board on wind turbine sound assessment.. Edsall
introduces presentation with, Town hired consultant and
consultant gave a presentation. There is a project before the
PB, St. Lawrence Wind, they would like to address their
interpretation of the sound and sound measurements..
Purpose of that meeting tonight is to give them an
opportunity... consider them the plaintiffs, they want to
present their case. For their purposes we are going to listen totheir explanation, politely, and the questions are going to be
restricted in the interest of time to get through the whole thing
to members of the committee and the town board. Questions
from the public were not allowed by PBC Edsall.
05/12/10 Tim Conboy introduces himself to the PB as SLW's new project
manager.
06/09/10 No SLW discussion.
07/14/10 PBC Edsall outlines steps in the upcoming meetings to accept
SLW FEIS and requests public notices be placed in papers.
08/11/10 CR 92 SLW requests permit for test tower.
08/18/10 Special meeting of PB that accepted and designated SLW FEIS
as complete and ready for review and acceptance. Following is
a summary of a video recording of the meeting: Mathes asks
for questions. PB Binsley asks to change wells for drinking as
domestic wells since you can't drink the water in these wells.
PBC Edsall says he agrees and asks about 53 and 51 turbines.
SLW replies one removed to reduce noise the second to protect
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
43/49
MEETING
DATE CR# DISCUSSION SUMMARY
votes, motion carried.
09/08/10 Motion passed to accept minutes of 8/18/10special meeting
of the PB, but there is no record of these minutes. PBC opens
and distributes mail to other members of board and places
material directed toward SLW FEIS in Do Nothing file.
09/15/10 CR 94 Special meeting of PB to accept FEIS and issue FINDINGS. PBC
asks Lyme Councilman Bourquin if Town of Lyme had anycomments (Ans. No). PBC asks SLW if they received any
comments from involved agencies (Ans. No). PBC asks Atty
Mathis whether SLW had receipts from distribution of FEIS
(Ans. Yes). Mathes explains 10-day cooling-off period and
issuance of FINDINGS., certifying that SEQRA provisions had
been met.. PBC asks if board members are prepared to adopt
FINDINGS. Rienbeck has questions: 1) strike a duplicate
sentence on page 6, 2) on page 77 CR 6 is not Rosiere Road,
and 3) on page 95 last sentence should say ...followed by SLW.
The PB then had a limited discussion concerning the delivery
routed for wind towers to Cape Vincent. Mathes then read the
resolution to adopt and accept SEQRA FINDINGS. Edsall,
Mingle and Rienbeck approve, Binsley and Bourcy abstain.
10/13/10 CR 99 SLW asks for pre-submission conference to determine what is
needed for site plan review applications. PBC advises meeting
scheduled for 10/27/10.
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
44/49
EXHIBIT F
BP Wind Energy North America Inc., Financial Interests of MunicipalOfficers/Relatives In Properties Identified by Company for Wind Farm Development
within the last 6 years, dated October 20, 2010
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
45/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
46/49
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
47/49
3
Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated projectconfiguration, estimates of energy prices and other factors. The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landownerresponses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new information becomes available.
Name andlocation of Wind
Farm Project
Name ofMunicipal
Officer and/orhis or herRelative
Name ofMunicipality andPosition held (if
a MunicipalOfficer)
Descriptionof Agreement
withCompany
Descriptionof Property
(ParcelNumber)
Nature and Scope ofFinancial Interest in
Property
Annual EstimatedPost Construction
Payments
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,
Jefferson County,NY
Virginia Edsall,Officer, FrankWorner, III,Lessor
Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- T.I. SchoolBoard, Board
Member Pre2005-present
NY01133 Land Leaseand WindEasement
dated October31, 2005 andamended onJanuary 23,2007
50.00-1-49 Sister to FrankWorner, III, Co-Lessor
$24,000
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
Marty T.Mason, Officerand Lessor
Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- Town Board,Councilman, 1994to present
NY01121 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated May 22,2006
50.00-1-4 100% Ownership withCo-Lessor, AnnetteMason
$24,000
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
Jeri AnnMason, Officer,Marty Masonand AnnetteMason,Lessors
Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- Town Clerk,Clerk, 2008-2010
NY01121 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated May 22,2006
50.00-1-4 Sister to Marty Mason,Co-Lessor
$24,000(Duplicate to
above)
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
Marty Mason,Officer, NeilMason, Lessor
Town Board,Councilman DPWSuperintendent,2000 to present
NY01124 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated June 8,2006
50.00-1-8 Son of Lessor, NeilMason
$12,000
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
Marty Mason,Officer, BruceMason, Lessor
Town Board,Councilman DPWSuperintendent,2000 to present
NY01136 Land Leaseand WindEasementdatedNovember 10,2005
50.00-1-9.2 Brother of Lessor,Bruce Mason
$5,000
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
48/49
4
Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated projectconfiguration, estimates of energy prices and other factors. The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landownerresponses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new information becomes available.
Name andlocation of Wind
Farm Project
Name ofMunicipal
Officer and/orhis or herRelative
Name ofMunicipality andPosition held (if
a MunicipalOfficer)
Descriptionof Agreement
withCompany
Descriptionof Property
(ParcelNumber)
Nature and Scope ofFinancial Interest in
Property
Annual EstimatedPost Construction
Payments
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,
Jefferson County,NY
DonaldBourquin,Officer, DavidN. Bourquin
and Jeanine E.Bourquin,Lessors
Planning Boardmember, 1/1/06-12/1/09
NY01401 TransmissionOptionAgreement
dated July 18,2008
50.00-2-20.150.00-2-21
Brother to David N.Bourquin, Co-Lessor
$1,200
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
MarshaBarton, Officerand Lessor
Town of Lyme,Jefferson Co.-Elected Assessor,1/1/87 to present;Town of Lyme,Jefferson Co.-Municipal WaterBoard, Chairman,1/1/05 to present
NY01172 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated June 30,2008
51.00-2-8.5251.00-2-8.551
100% Ownership withCo-Lessor, WilliamBarton
$5,000
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY
AlfredLawrence,Officer andCo-Trustee ofLessor
Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- AssessmentReview Board,Member, 1999 topresent
NY01139 Land Leaseand WindEasementdatedNovember 28,2005
40.00-1-61.1 Co-Trustee of TheLawrence FamilyRevocable Trust,Trust has 100%Ownership
$5,000
Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,
Jefferson County,NY
AudreyLawrence,Officer andCo-Trustee of
Lessor
Jefferson Co.-,Election Inspector,1990 to present
NY01139 Land Leaseand WindEasement
datedNovember 28,2005
40.00-1-61.1 Co-Trustee of TheLawrence FamilyRevocable Trust,Trust has 100%
Ownership
$5,000(Duplicate of
above)
8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10
49/49
5
Orion Energy LLC (Company)December 14, 2009
Financial Interests of Municipal Officers/RelativesIn Properties Identified by Company for Wind Farm Development within the last 6 years Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated project configuration, estimates of energy prices and other factors.The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landowner responses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new informationbecomes available.
Name and location ofWind Farm Project
Name of MunicipalOfficer and/or his or
her Relative
Name of Municipality andPosition held (if aMunicipal Officer)
Description ofAgreement with
Company
Description ofProperty
(Parcel Number)
Nature and Scope ofFinancial Interest in
Property
Annual EstimatedPost Construction
Payments
Top Notch Wind Farm,Town of Manheim,Herkimer County, New York
James A. Keiper Herkimer County, Chairmanof Zoning Board of Appeals,2000 to present
NY05103- Wind EnergyLease Agreementdated November 11,2004 and amendedNovember 18, 2004
108.003-1-15 100% Ownership withCo-Lessor Deborah K.Keiper
$30,030