State says BP failed to meet several requirements for Cape wind project

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013

BP Wind Energy has failed to meet several state requirements in its preliminary scoping statement for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm and used a half-century-old map for its turbine site plan, according to state Department of Public Service staff.

“The mapping included in the PSS is seriously out-of-date United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles published circa 1958,” the department’s staff said, recommending that BP use the most recent 2012 edition. [Watertown Times]

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

 OVERVIEW

 In DEC’s opinion, and as evidenced below, the PSS filed by CVWP is not in the form that it will appear in the application – making review difficult; and although replete with redundancies, is also lacking in reasonably available and necessary information, while containing a host of items needing further clarification. The PSS does not contain any Exhibits using the numbering system in the regulations, but rather uses its own alphabetic nomenclature with subparts, repeating some of the same information and statements from section to section. It also appears to DEC that the PSS is, for the most part, very general in nature, lacking in specificity of important local elements to this particular project, and devoid of “as much information as is reasonably available concerning the proposed facility”. Many of the Applicant’s responses to comments and questions raised during consultations remain unanswered, or simply state that they will be addressed in the application. Clearly, the PSS is not in compliance with either the intent or spirit of the requirements of 16 NYCRR § 1000.5 especially Subsection (l)(1 through 8), which are intended to allow for a meaningful discussion between the Applicant, the public, affected agencies, and other stakeholders toward development of the Application.

Save The River comments on the latest Cape Vincent Wind Project filing

Save The River comments on the latest Cape Vincent Wind Project filing

 Save The River statement concerning BP's Cape Vincent Wind Project

April 19th, 2013 | Posted by Lee

Given our mission, we are keenly aware of the need to find and implement effective solutions to a changing climate and support efforts to shift energy production to renewable, appropriately scaled and sited sources. Because of this, we have viewed the proliferation of commercial, industrial wind projects and the increasing number of turbines within each project proposed to be located in the upper St. Lawrence River region with concern.

Consistent with our mission of protecting the environmental integrity of the St. Lawrence River and the species, human and animal, that depend on it, we are adamantly opposed to the CVWP Project moving to the application phase under Article 10 until a comprehensive, cumulative assessment of bird and bat mortality is conducted which includes all projects which have been proposed in the River region. This assessment should be bi-national and coordinated among the several federal, state and provincial governments that have the authority, jurisdiction and agencies with requisite expertise to conduct such an assessment. Allowing pre-construction studies (supplemented by totally useless post-construction studies) undertaken piecemeal and by project proponents is a woefully inadequate way to address the issues alluded to in CVWP’s own documents.

Save The River believes that the people of Cape Vincent, the River region and New York State deserve and should demand new, comprehensive, cumulative studies of potental bird and bat mortality in order to better determine the true nature of the potential threat to this critical flyway.

Full text of the letter here.

~~~~~~~~~~

Save the River Website

Dear Mr. Chandler,
Please find attached hereto the comments of Staff of the Department of Public Service relating to the Preliminary Scoping Statement filed by Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC on March 29, 2013


Link below to read PSC comments

Department of Public Service Comments to BP's PSS

Department of Public Service Comments to BP's PSS by pandorasboxofrocks

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
_______________________________________


APPLICATION OF CAPE VINCENT WIND POWER, LLC FOR
A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY
AND PUBLIC NEED TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY CASE 12-F-0410
200-285 MEGAWATT WIND ELECTRIC GENERATING
FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________


COMMENTS OF
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ON THE
PRELIMINARY SCOPING STATEMENT
FILED BY
CAPE VINCENT WIND POWER, LLC
Dated: April 18, 2013

Larry S. Eckhaus, Esq.

Senior Attorney

Office of General Counsel

NYS Department of

Environmental Conservation

625 Broadway -14th Floor

Albany, NY 12233-1500

(518) 402-9533

lseckhau@gw.dec.state.ny.us

NYSDEC Comments to CVWP PSS (Case No: 12-F-0410) {continued}

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to 16 NYCRR § 1000.5(g), the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (“DEC”) submits the following comments on the Preliminary Scoping Statement (“PSS”) 

filed on March 29, 2013 by Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (“CVWP” or “Applicant”) with respect to 

the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm (“CVWF”) - a major electric wind generating facility. Pursuant 

to PSL Article 10 § 166(1)(b), DEC is a party to this proceeding and filed a Request for Party Status 

with the Secretary on April 18, 2013.

OVERVIEW

In DEC’s opinion, and as evidenced below, the PSS filed by CVWP is not in the form that it will 

appear in the application – making review difficult; and although replete with redundancies, is also 

lacking in reasonably available and necessary information, while containing a host of items needing  

further clarification. 

The PSS does not contain any Exhibits using the numbering system in the 

regulations, but rather uses its own alphabetic nomenclature with subparts, repeating some of the same 

information and statements from section to section.

It also appears to DEC that the PSS is, for the most 

part, very general in nature, lacking in specificity of important local elements to this particular project, 

and devoid of “as much information as is reasonably available concerning the proposed facility”. 

Many  

of the Applicant’s responses to comments and questions raised during consultations remain unanswered, 

or simply state that they will be addressed in the application. 

Clearly, the PSS is not in compliance with  

either the intent or spirit of the requirements of 16 NYCRR § 1000.5 especially Subsection (l)(1 through  

8), which are intended to allow for a meaningful discussion between the Applicant, the public, affected  

agencies, and other stakeholders toward development of the Application.

To read complete document link below

Department of Environmental Conservation Comments to BP's PSS

  

DEPT. of Agriculture & Markets comments to PSC ~ Re: BP PSS

To read this document in the Scribd format link below

  Agriculture and Markets Comments to the PSC _Re BP _PSS

Town of Cape Vincent Response to Bp Preliminary Scoping Statement

April 19, 2013

Mr. Richard Chandler

Director, Development

BP Wind Energy North America, Inc.

700 Louisiana Street, Floor 33

Houston, TX 77002

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Mr. Chandler:

Attached you will find comments from the Town of Cape Vincent pertaining to BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement [PSS]. You should note that we find many deficiencies in what BP proposes to submit in its application. We understand BP's position of keeping this project alive while it looks for a buyer for the Project, but there are a number of substantive issues that need attention, funding and special efforts.

Potentially adverse environmental impacts cannot and should not be addressed with stale, incomplete and out-of-date assessments. We viewed your PSS as re-packaging the work that was completed years ago under SEQRA. Regrettably, reviews and concerns by involved agencies at the time were never properly addressed and those same flaws are still visible in your PSS today.

Although we tried to complete a comprehensive review of your two-hundred page PSS, we feel our review needs some additional work and attention. We expect to be putting forth a request for expert opinions to bolster some of our preliminary recommendations, and for additional support in making the case that our zoning law is responsible. We have focused our comprehensive plan and zoning law on ensuring the health, safety and general welfare of our citizens and we intend to forcefully make the case that our law should not be abrogated by either BP or the State.

Summary Review

Is Cape Vincent the right town for wind development?

Throughout its Preliminary Scoping Statement (PSS) BP has subtly mischaracterized the Town of

Cape Vincent (Town), seeking to weave a picture of a rural farm community without any

economic prospects other than its wind development that would allow "struggling farmers" to remain stewards of its land. This one-sided view of our town fits the purposes of BP and its development plans, but it is nothing close to the truth in describing Cape Vincent. For an honest, official view please read the Town and Village of Cape Vincent's Joint Comprehensive Plan.

What will be evident to whomever reads the Plan and the Town's PSS review in the following pages is that BP's Project, comprised of 124 five-hundred foot high wind turbines, is not a good fit for the Town of Cape Vincent. Early on, poor decisions made by wind developers following their first visit to Cape Vincent more than seven years ago, can only reflect a willful dismissal or misinformed understanding of the essential nature of the Town.

The Town’s historical identity was long reflected in a guiding vision developed to take

advantage of our cherished small town qualities and the special benefit we enjoy from having a long shoreline on one of the world’s most scenic waterways. Unlike the type of host communities we assume were contemplated for wind development under Article 10, Cape Vincent is a destination town on both Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River. People are drawn here frequently for the enjoyment of being here. Many have substantial investments in its homes, both year-round and seasonal, that allow them to enjoy the area and participate more fully in the special life that Cape Vincent offers. The degree to which that destinationquality underpins the local economy is hard to overstate.

Environmental Compatibility and Public Need

BP with its Cape Vincent Wind Power Project is applying under Article 10 law for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation defines environment as:

'Environment' means the physical conditions that will be affected by a proposed facility, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, resources of agricultural,archeological, historic or aesthetic significance, existing patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth, existing community or neighborhood character, and public health.

Compatibility infers that the Project will seek a balance between a public need and the broad suite of attributes defined above that constitute our environment. What follows in the Town's review are concerns and issues related to a number of adverse impacts that the Town will incur from the Project.

The critical issues we have defined are based on our principal concern for health and safety. We have identified noise, shadow flicker, blinking red FAA lighting, rotor failure and ice throw, property devaluation, scenic degradation and avian wildlife collision mortality as issues with the greatest potential for adverse environmental effects. For all of these concerns more work needs to be done by BP to properly assess the risks to people, our environment and our economy.  We should emphasize one important point that others should never lose sight of. Cape Vincent is our home and we want our families, our dwellings, our public spaces, and our quality of life to be relatively unaffected by industrial development. We do not believe that is too much to ask when the factors that define our community are given proper weight.

the proposed project would do to Cape Vincent economically, culturally and socially. Article 10 was written with the belief that there are at least some rural areas in New York State where the presence of a large wind farm would be tolerable, or even desirable, to a large cross-section of the community -- unfortunately for BP, Cape Vincent is not one of those towns. Furthermore, Article 10 was not enacted so as to be able to literally kill a town in order to make way for a renewable energy project.

To read complete response 

Town of Cape Vincent Response to Bp Preliminary Scoping Statement

Link here ~ No downloading required

Town Of Lyme Comments to the PSC Re: BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement

The link below will take you to the document ~ No Downloading required.

  Town Of Lyme Comments to the PSC Re: BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement

BP's ~ public workshop to explain the preliminary scoping statement process for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm

~~~ ~~~ ~~~


Exhibit Rules - Art.10
   Link here to read PSC document ~ Content of an application


Guide to Intervenor funding

The voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's determination to continue through the certification process for their CVWF

TOWN OF CAPE  Vincent

April 4, 2013

Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power

Generation Siting and Environment

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Secretary Cohen:

Governor Andrew Cuomo, at the signing of Power NY legislation in August of 2011, remarked

of the bill: "The act gives community members a voice in the siting process and will maintain

New York's position as a leader in environmental protection .... (It) affords communities more

opportunity to meaningfully participate in the siting process."

It's true that the legislation that created the new Article 10 law has given those who live in and

around Cape Vincent an opportunity to voice their opinions about British Petroleum's (BP)

proposed wind power project there.

We've taken the opportunity to read all 290 comments submitted to the Siting Board so far. By

our count, 224 individuals have expressed concerns about or outright opposition to the proposed

development. (Some individuals have submitted multiple comments.) Twenty-tour individuals

have expressed support.

Surely Governor Cuomo did not envision Article 10 as a device to force a wind project on a

community where it is thoroughly unwelcome. We trust that overwhelming opposition to BP's

efforts in our town for almost a decade will have a "meaningful" impact on the siting process.

Yet it appears the voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's

determination to continue progressing through the certification process - showing no interest in

the dominant community sentiment.

Yet it appears the voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's

determination to continue through the certification process. It has submitted a preliminary

scoping statement that willfully disregards every concern that our town government has

expressed since the project was proposed several years ago.

The Public Service Commission concluded that BP's public involvement program was

"inadequate" and subsequently recommended ways to "address the relevant requirements in the

new regulations." (Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 2). BP was essentially non responsive.

BP has ignored or failed to heed the following recommendations:

· "Representatives and residences of adjacent municipalities" - specifically Wolfe Island -

should be considered potential stakeholders (Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 2 - #4).

BP also ignored a request from Wolfe Island officials to discuss the project. (Letter from Dennis

Doyle to BP CEO Katrina Landis, Feb. 19).

· BP has not provided a map that clearly shows project boundaries, setbacks from property lines,

location of turbines, a legend of host landowners and adjacent landowners as well as more

specific locations of electric lines, substations, switch yards and interconnection points.( Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 3). In doing so, BP has failed to meet the requirements of a

PIP as defined in the legislation as "ensur(ing) communication between stakeholders and an

applicant, and result(ing) in education of the public as to the specific proposal and the Article 10

process." (16 CRR-NY 1000.2ah)

· BP has not identified a location of reasonable alternative sites for this project. (Letter from DPS

to John Harris, Oct. 17, Attachment I, pg. 2, #1 c)

In addition, BP included several action items in its PIP - and the subsequent revision -that the

company never completed:

· BP identified nine (9) organizations in its PIP that it planned to contact, but did not

subsequently list in its chart of tracked contacts: Jefferson County, U.S. Department of

Homeland Security, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Office of

General Services, New York State Empire State Development, Department of Defense

Clearinghouse for Energy Development, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, National Grid

and the Thousand Islands Central School.

· BP did not follow through on its own plan to solicit input from stakeholders within the

environmental justice area.

· In its revised PIP, BP said it had created "fact sheets" on health & safety and

environment/wildlife topics (Revised PIP, pg. 22 - F). If those exist, they are not available on the

project's official website.

· In its revised PIP, BP suggested public comments from all of its public events and from its

office "may" be provided on their website (Revised PIP, pg. 22 - F). As of today, those had not

appeared on the site.

· In its revised PIP, BP said "responses to commonly asked questions from the 'open house' and

'Article 10 Intervenor' events will be posted on the website under' Frequently Asked Questions'"

(Revised PIP, pg. 24). That section does not exist on the website.

In summary, BP both ignored recommendations from your commission to "address the relevant

requirements in the new regulations" and promised - but did not follow through on – several

action items that would have better educated the public about its project.

In a visit to the north country last August, Mr. Cuomo called the Article 10 legislation "an

intelligence balance between local input" and an expeditious process. He praised home rule "as

very important - where a locality decides their destiny, "but added, "There also has to be a

reasonableness. Because we have to remember: At the end of the day, we need power."

We believe it quite reasonable to require BP to submit a public involvement program that is

considered adequate by any reasonable standard. I also believe it is reasonable to conclude that

if BP tells the Siting Board it will make a certain outreach, that they do it.

The community of Cape Vincent has spoken in near harmony. We have listened to BP

representatives for several years, but a steady series of non-answers leaves us with many

unaddressed concerns about the project's impact on their health, safety and welfare. When does

this opposition actually have a "meaningful" impact in the certification process?

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey - Town Supervisor

Brooks Bragdon - Deputy Supervisor

John Byrne - Town Council

Clifford Schneider - Town Council

Michelle Oswald - Town Council

We the undersigned appointed officials from the Town of Cape Vincent endorse and

fully support this Town Board letter to the Public Service Commission regarding the

Article 10 application for the Cape Vincent Wind Power project  proposal

Richard Macsherry - Planning Board Chairman

Robert Brown - Planning Board

Cyril Cullen - Planning Board

Paul Docteur - Planning Board

R. Dennis Faulknham - Zoning Board of Appeals Charman

Ed Hludzenski - Zoning Board of Appeals

Keith Walker - Zoning Board of Appeals

Hester Chase - Zoning Board of Appeals

James Millington - Zoning Enforcement Officer

Is BP is using a map from the 1970's to Characterize Cape Vincent as a backwoods rural area?

Town of Cape Vincent

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

March 14,2013

Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power

Generation Siting and Environment

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Secretary Cohen:

The Town Boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme and the Planning Board of Cape Vincent met with

BP on January 22, 2013. Several letters have been sent to you, by the Town of Cape Vincent, on

the items addressed and more pointedly, not addressed, during that meeting. Many of the critical

items have gone unanswered by BP until last week. One should keep in mind that our requests

were for the most recent information so that we could start to look into those items which will

undoubtedly be necessary to address during the PSS and Application phases of BP's Article 10

efforts.

John Harris, BP's attorney, finally sent a letter (March 7. 2013) to the Towns of Cape Vincent

and Lyme, in which he addressed some of the items discussed at the January 22nd meeting. Two

of Mr. Harris's responses demand immediate comment.

Para 1: A copy of a large scale map of the Cape Vincent - The map that BP is using for

their "official" project map of the Cape Vincent Wind Farm Project is significantly out of

date. Many of the road names are incorrect. Several major complexes within the Town,

such as the Correctional Facility and the Thousand Island High/Middle School Complex,

are not even shown on the map. While it is difficult to determine the exact year this

"Official Map" was created, based on the 1972 opening of the Thousand Island

High/Middle School Complex, the map is at least 40 years out of date.

How can BP know the correct parcel boundaries, determine the interaction with

          neighboring parcels on a map that is at least 40 years out of date? To this point, BP

should provide a tax parcel overlay to its turbine array map. This overlay should indicate

all leaseholders and those residents who have 'good neighbor agreements.' BP is not

conducting an outreach campaign; this is a campaign of maintaining corporate privilege

and exclusivity. Once again, we have another glaring example of BP not being

forthcoming in its dealings with our Town's citizens and governing boards.

Para 2: During the January meeting Mr. Harris scrolled though his phone flipping

through sections of our law BP found objectionable and which they intend to ask the

Siting Board to "supplant". At the time it was impossible for us to make notes of the

sections he was describing and we requested that Harris provide us with a printed listing,

which should have been an easy request to satisfy. However, to date we have received

nothing and the comment in his March 7th letter was "we are still working on to finalize

this list. We expect to be able to provide the list very shortly and in any event will

certainly include the list in our Preliminary Scoping Statement." Failure to provide what

BP stated it would provide on a critical issue only compounds a problem that,

unfortunately for us, began on September 17, 2012, the first day BP submitted their

Public Involvement Plan.

Para 3: Mr. Harris notes they were requested to update their distribution list to " ... reflect

new members oj the Town Board as well as individuals no longer serving and confirm

that we have done so." New Town Council representative Michelle Oswald, however, is

still absent from the list - she did not receive a personal addressed letter, which was

provided to other members of Cape Vincent Boards.

Para 4: BP was made aware on January 22 that a few families were situated within the

Environmental Justice "Impact Study Area" and that it would be best if these families

received some specially addressed notification. Rather than contact this small group,

BP's response was, "After further research into this issue, we do not believe we will be

impacting any environmental justice communities and will provide more detail on this

topic in the Preliminary Scoping Statement." Rather than finding a rationale to ignore

this group of people, we feel that BP should have addressed these families directly

perhaps through simple, inexpensive mailing of educational materials to the few families

residing within the impact area.

Now that we are nearing the end of the Public Participation phase of Article 10 it is obvious to us

that BP not only has little respect for our Town, its plan and its law, but BP also has shown no

cooperation or courtesy in the Article 10 process. This is incompatible with BP's stated

Corporate Code of Conduct in dealing with governments: "Co-operate courteously with officials

conducting a government or regulatory agency inquiry or investigation. " Therefore, once again

we are asking the Siting Board to enforce the intent and letter of the Article 10 process. At every

step to date BP has appeared willing to flaunt the transparency that the authors of Article 10

claimed it would bring to the process.

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey-Town Supervisor  

Brooks Bragdon - Deputy Supervisor  

John Byrne - Town Council  

Clifford Schneider - Town Council  

Michelle Oswald - Town Council

We the undersigned appointed officials from the Town of Cape Vincent endorse and

fully support this Town Board letter to the Public Service Commission regarding the

Article 10 application for the Cape Vincent Wind Power project  proposal

Richard Macsherry - Planning Board Chairman

Robert Brown - Planning Board

Cyril Cullen - Planning Board

Paul Docteur - Planning Board

R. Dennis Faulknham - Zoning Board of Appeals Charman

Ed Hludzenski - Zoning Board of Appeals

Keith Walker - Zoning Board of Appeals

Hester Chase - Zoning Board of Appeals

James Millington - Zoning Enforcement Officer

BUYER BEWARE ~ BP's Shameful record in Cape Vincent

 BP’s sordid history in Cape Vincent began with their signing many of our town officials and their families to wind leases and good neighbor agreements, knowing this would create blatant conflicts of interest. This is a violation of the town’s ethics code and NY State law. BP’ has stated lofty intentions with their Cape Vincent wind project however their actions tell a different story…
~~~~~

BP’s Cape Vincent Wind’s development manager wrote a letter to the Town of Cape Vincent and the Article 10 siting board. Each letter had the same theme.

Chandler: BP Wind Energy has already been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project and such work should not be ignored.
Additionally Chandler added: the proposed Zoning Law would effectively prohibit wind generation from being sited within the Town. The Town has already evaluated potential impacts from the Cape Vincent St. Lawrence wind farm projects and made favorable findings.

The favorable findings that BP’s Chandler speaks of resulted from BP and Acciona tampering with the Local Legislative Process.

In 2006 both BP Energy and Acciona Energia began the permitting process for two proposed industrial wind projects in Cape Vincent. At the time we had no provision in our zoning law to regulate or guide wind development. After two aborted attempts at drafting a wind law by previous town lawmakers, a committee convened in 2010 for a third try. The committee consisted of a representative and leader of a local wind leaseholder group as well as wind lease holding town officials.
At the February 5 and 6, 2010 meetings, with the assistance of the Town's consulting acoustical engineers, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, MA, the noise section of the draft wind law was completed . It followed the NYSDEC guideline that no new noise source can exceed background sound by more than 6 dBA, but it also included details for measuring background sound and compliance testing that is missing in the NYSDEC policy.

Contrary to BP's assertion, they did NOT support development of our wind ordinance.
 The wind law committee had reached a consensus at the February 2010 meeting but through the efforts of BP and their leaseholders that agreement was sabotaged.

Shortly after the May 2 wind law meeting began Beth White, committee member and spokesperson for the leaseholder group, suggested picking 50 dBA for a noise limit rather than what the committee had agreed to at the previous meeting. At this point she began discussing economic impacts. White explained that a 50 dBA noise limit would have financial benefits to the community. White presented a spread sheet containing facts and figures to support her claim.
Bottom line a less protective wind law would mean bigger money for the community and lease holders. The lease holding committee members agreed with White blindsiding the other committee members.

May 5, 2010 Three days after this travesty of a meeting, BP’s Business developer, Jim Madden sent a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Board containing data prepared by BP; coincidentally it was the same spread sheet with the same data that White had claimed as her own.

Madden: “The Town of Cape Vincent has been working on developing a wind ordinance for almost two years now. Through this time, BP Wind has supported the development of a wind ordinance so that expectations for siting, construction and operations of wind farms can be clearly established and uniformly enforced. However, despite recent efforts, it appears that a wind ordinance will not be implemented this year, largely due to a lack of agreement on noise limits.”

Additionally Madden wrote “As the limits are tightened, there will be a reduction in the number of turbines and reduction in economic benefits.”

Comparing Madden’s data to that presented by White at the committee meeting, it is clear that she was acting as an agent for BP to thwart the efforts of the committee.

This is only one example of how “BP Wind Energy has been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project.”

BP’s Noise Consultant Misrepresented Background Sound: Hessler Associates, Haymarket, VA was retained by BP Wind Energy to complete summertime, background sound study within the project boundaries of BP's Cape Vincent wind power project.
Because there were concerns early on among local citizens that the developer’s noise report was misleading, the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) contracted Dr. Paul Schomer, of Schomer and Associates, Inc., Champagne, IL, to conduct an independent study and review of BP/ Hessler's report.

Schomer's report uncovered a number of questionable practices. One sound level meter was less than 100 ft. from a marshaling yard for heavy construction equipment being  used for a water line project.

Hessler suggested  this site is typical for residences along Rte. 12E .
Additionally, Hessler claimed that insect noise,  elevated background sound levels and would provide a natural making noise that, would minimize wind turbine noise impacts.

Schomer, however, disagreed: The presence of insect noise does nothing to mitigate the wind turbine noise; the measurement of insect noise only masks and obfuscates the truth.”

Schomer concluded by stating, ““Hessler’s BP study for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Facility appears to have selected the noisiest sites, the noisiest time of year, and the noisiest positions at each measurement site. Collectively, these choices resulted in a substantial overestimate of the A-weighted ambient sound level, 45-50 dB according to Hessler.”
 In contrast Schomer found background sound levels were 30 dBA averaged for night-time, daytime and evening. Night-time levels in Cape Vincent averaged 25dBA

BP’s sordid history in Cape Vincent began with their signing many of our town officials and their families to wind leases and good neighbor agreements, knowing this would create blatant conflicts of interest.
 This is a violation of the town’s ethics code and NY State law.
BP’ has stated lofty intentions with their Cape Vincent Wind development however the facts speak for themselves.

BP has left a profound mark on our community, tearing apart families, friendships, and ripping the fabric of our community to shreds.