BP's Project Developer ~ Richard Chandler formally recognizes the Village of Chaumont as a stakeholder

Mrs. Valerie Rust

Mayor Village of Chaumont

P.O. Box 297

Chaumont, NY

Re: Cape Vincent Wind Farm

Mayor Rust,

March 14, 2013

As you may know, Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, a subsidiary ofBP Wind Energy North America Inc., is proposing to build a 200-285 megawatt wind farm (the "Project") in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. It has come to our attention that one of the proposed routes for the generator interconnection line for the Project runs approximately 450 yards along County Road 179 in the Village ofChaumont. For ease of reference we have included a map that depicts this possible generator tie line route.

We are in the process of applying for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need under Arltcle 10 of the Public Service Law. In accordance with the Article 10 process there are several items to which we wanted to draw to your attention. To date, the only significant document that we have filed in connection with this Project is our Public Involvement Program (PIP) plan and a copy of this

document is enclosed for your further reference. Please note that this and other documents related to the Article 10 application for this Project are also accessible at a dedicated project website: www.capevincentwindfarrn.com and on a website maintained by the Department of Public Service:

http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagementiCaseMaster.aspx?MatterSeq=40867

We have added the Village to our list of stakeholders to receive future mailings, correspondence, and Project updates. Additionally, as a municipality in which a portion of the Project may be located, you will be added to the list of parties that will receive the preliminary scoping statement and applications when they are filed.

 The Article 10 permitting process provides "intervenor funds" for qualified recipients to hire experts to review the application. In this respect, the Village will be eligible for intervenor funding and I have included some additional information on this (which is also available on the above referenced websites) that may be of assistance to you.

As you will see in the PIP, we are reaching out to many different entities, however if you believe we should be including other local community groups or entities in our outreach please let us know.

We have included some Project fact sheets as well as some information on the Article 10 process for your consideration (these are also available on the capevincentwindfarm.com website). Finally, should you have any comments or concerns on the Project we would welcome your input and I will be reaching out directly to you to discuss the same .

 We look forward to working with you on this Project.

Sincerly,

 Richard Chandler

Cc: Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

Letter to BP lawyer Richard Harris From The Public Service Commission

A letter to the Mayor of Chaumont NY From the Public Service Commission

TOCV responds to BP's recent submission to the DPS of their Cape Vincent Wind Farm Public Involvement Program Spreadsheet

March 10, 2013

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

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:

This letter is in response to BP's recent submission to the DPS of their Cape Vincent Wind Farm Public Involvement Program tracking chart through February 28, 2013. Since we are beyond the minimum required 150 days for their Public Involvement Program, the contact activities outlined in BP's tracking program to date may represent their final list of contacts. We want to point out to the Siting Board several deficiencies between what BP has completed to date and what they stated they would complete in their revised PIP.

The following is a list of organizations/stakeholders that BP planned on contacting in their PIP, but were not listed in their tracking chart:

1. Jefferson County

2. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

3. New York State Department of Transportation

4. New York State Office of General Services

5. New York State's Empire State Development

6. Department of Defense Clearinghouse for Energy Development

7. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

8. NYISO & National Grid

9. T.I. Central School District



It is possible that some of the above were contacted, but failed to be identified in BP's tracking chart. For others, however, BP should be made aware of additional stakeholder contacts they need to complete in order to comply with their PIP program.

There were a number of other stakeholder contacts suggested by DPS that were never included in BP's PIP, albeit they should have been included, such as adjacent municipalities:

“The PIP should identify a proposed Study Area, and identify any additional stakeholders or stakeholder groups that are within that broader area. Representatives and residents of adjacent municipalities (i.e., Town of Clayton; Wolfe Island, Ontario) should be considered as potential stakeholders based on regional scale impacts of the proposed large-scale wind energy project, and potential cumulative impacts with existing or proposed wind energy facilities in those jurisdictions.”

BP has not only failed to reach out to adjacent communities as suggested by Department of Public Service, but also has ignored a direct request for some form of communication by municipal officials from Wolfe Island (Comments of Denis Doyle, The Township of Frontenac Islands, 2/19/2013). Because Wolfe Island has had an 86 turbine wind farm operating across the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent since 2009, all of us could benefit from this contact. Regrettably, BP chose to ignore a stakeholder whose advice, counsel and experience would be uniquely pertinent and would add immeasurably to the record.

We agree fully with DPS that adjacent communities within the Thousand Islands region and Jefferson County, NY have a great deal at stake in the outcome of the Cape Vincent Wind Farm proposal by BP. These communities have a similar demographic character, with valuable waterfronts, tourism based economies with abundant wind resources. They should all be included in BP's list of stakeholders for the sake of their future development.

BP pointed out that the northern part of Cape Vincent was part of an Environmental Justice area and therefore has certain, special requirements in an outreach plan. This was stated by BP in their planned outreach activities:

“Cape Vincent Wind Power will confer with DEC and community leaders initially to identify the specific methods of communication that would be most successful for the stakeholders within the environmental justice area. For instance, Cape Vincent Wind Project  will work with community leaders to determine if additional public meetings, located within the environmental justice area are needed to solicit input from stakeholders in the community and to provide an opportunity to engage in a dialogue with members of the Project team.”

At the January 22 meeting with Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme municipal officials BP staff discussed the issue of environmental justice and were given advice regarding special, personal contacts. Again, there was nothing listed on BP's tracking chart that provided any indication that any special contact was made for those people within the environmental justice area that would be impacted from BP's project proposal.

The above mentioned stakeholder contacts should be completed, not only so that BP's Public Involvement Program can be considered complete, but more fundamentally, so that BP, the Siting Board, and the people of the area can have the fullest possible understanding of BP’s proposal and all its implications. We are also concerned that lapses in BP's effort at this stage may be a harbinger of their future behavior and future attention to the Article 10 process. We would like some assurance that BP will move forward with their application by being attentive to the process, the rules and recommendations by DPS.

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 Chairman

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board of Appeals

Keith Walker – Zoning Board of Appeals

Hester Chase – Zoning Board of Appeals

James Millington – Zoning Enforcement Officer

The Town of Lyme sends a letter to the Public Service Commission supporting the Four AD HOC Nominees

Below is a letter sent to the New York State Public Service Commission supporting the four candidates chosen by the Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor Urban Hirschey for the state Article 10 ~ Ad Hoc Committee.

Cape Vincent Supervisor nominates Four candidates for BP Wind Farm Article 10 ad hoc committee

 Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor Urban Hirschey has chosen Four candidates for the state Article 10 ~ ad hoc committee. Two of these candidates will be appointed by the state Senate’s Republican leader, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan. Additionally, these two candidates  will have full voting rights. 

Those nominated

Thomas E. Brown, a Cape Vincent resident and retired regional director of the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

John Richardson, Cape Vincent, a Serial Entrepreneur with more than 27 years of experience in sales, marketing, business development and corporate management.

Donna L. Essegian, of Cape Vincent , has 35 years experience in the public education system as an educator and administrator.

Deanne L. Scanlon, Chaumont, a community activist who has served on various nonprofit boards as well as  the 2011 Town of Lyme Wind Committee on the  issues of environmental, health and safety matters.

 More  from the Watertown Times

Town of Cape Vincent Critique of BP's PIP

March 4, 2013

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

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:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013, a second forum was held in Cape Vincent, New York involving the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme and BP Wind Energy. This was a follow-up to a meeting held on October 23, 2012 between the developer and the Towns’ elected Boards, the appointed Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeals. A critique of the first meeting was sent to you on October 30, 2012 and, in summary highlights the Towns’ frustration with BP’s lack of openness and clarity regarding their Cape Vincent Wind Farm project.

The second “workshop” was scheduled by the Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor in an effort to facilitate a more candid dialogue between BP and the effected Towns. BP was represented by Richard Chandler, Director, Business Development, BP Wind Energy and counsel for the local project, John Harris. The meeting was open to the public and recorded.

The meeting began with a Cape Vincent Town Board member distributing citations of comments submitted by involved agencies in their prior SEQR reviews of Cape Vincent Wind Power and the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. This was and remains relevant, as BP has since purchased the Acciona project and employed many of the same consultants to draft its own DEIS for its Cape Vincent Wind Power project. The records of correspondence submitted by both Federal and State agencies and the successive EIS submissions, culminating in Acciona’s FEIS, appear to reflect the applicant’s strategy to mostly ignore many stated concerns of regulatory bodies.

Mr. Chandler was asked to ensure that BP would fully address these issues under Article 10 proceedings. An informal discussion ensued with members of the Boards present directing specific questions to Mr. Chandler and Mr. Harris. Principal of these was the assertion Mr. Chandler has consistently made that the residents of Cape Vincent and Lyme supported BP’s efforts to site a large wind farm in their communities. Confronted with the fact that over the last two election cycles all conflicted elected and appointed Board members had been replaced, Mr. Chandler finally confided that lease-holding property owners constituted what he considered sufficient evidence of support. He was reminded that in Cape Vincent. this group comprises only 3.9% of the town’s population.

Noting that the application phase under Article 10 was approaching, a Board member inquired as to specifics of BP’s intended project arrangement. The draft project map has not been updated since being unveiled in September 2012. The Town still does not know specifically what lease- holder will host what project component. BP has also been very resistant to sharing what property owners have ’good neighbor agreements’ and who do not.

Once again, Mr. Chandler would only state that the company was looking at a 200-285MW wind farm and that the array and size of units was dependent upon existing technology. BP’s Public Involvement Plan has been active for roughly four months and the targeted communities still do not know the magnitude of the company’s project. Mr. Chandler offered no empathy toward the community’s frustration at the lack of specificity regarding this simplest of detail, and did not indicate when answers might be forthcoming.

Mr. Chandler was next reminded of his June 27, 2012 correspondence to the Town, in which he stated that BP considered the updated Zoning Law to be “unreasonably burdensome”. Yet, six months later and with the PIP process nearing its end, the Town still had not been advised as to what in the Law BP specifically objects. Mr. Harris responded by referring to notes made on his cell phone. Mr. Harris cited only the numerical sections and subsections of the Town Zoning Law. Neither he nor Mr. Chandler offered to discuss/explain what specific language in the Law was unacceptable to BP.

BP has a number of wind farms operating in the United States. The company and its consultants have had ample opportunity to evaluate impacts adverse to human health, safety and welfare including audible noise, low frequency sound, shadow flicker, vibration and electronic interference. Mr. Chandler refuses commenting on their experience. Yet, one has only to read a copy the BP Good Neighbor Agreement to see that they clearly recognize the existence of negative health effects and employ such contracts to quell potential opposition and legal exposure and to effectively create “standards” of operation and impact for targeted communities. The conclusion we reach is that in this case, BP’s PIP is of little practical use and does not ensure that effected communities are given meaningful, accurate and timely information about what the developer plans for them.

This is further exemplified when a citizen expressed concern about the cumulative effects of the nearby Wolfe Island Wind Farm. The person addressed Mr. Chandler and explained that residents of Cape Vincent have been complaining about the noise and vibration coming from the 86 turbines just across the river. He asked if BP could set up monitoring equipment to measure the noise/vibration produced by the wind farm. Mr. Chandler responded, “I appreciate the feedback sir; I just don’t think we see that as a genuine adverse environmental health impact for the project.”

Mr. Cohen, the elected and appointed officials who represent the Town of Cape Vincent firmly believe BP and its representatives continue to pursue the PIP in an intentionally provocative manner. It seems clear that they perceive the Article 10 process as merely a pro forma exercise. We believe that much of the specificity that we desire may be delivered when the Preliminary Scoping Document is filed by BP. Unfortunately for the Town, the comment period for the PSS is only 21 days rather than the 150 days the PIP allowed for our review and comment. If this does in fact occur, it will be an example of how BP has manipulated the Article 10 process to suit their needs while at the same time minimizing our rights to a fair process. We would welcome your advice or action to mitigate this situation.

Respectfully yours,


Urban Hirschey – Town Supervisor

Brooks Bradgon – 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 Chairman

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board of Appeals

Hester Chase – Zoning Board of Appeals

James Millington – Zoning Enforcement Officer

Keith Walker – Zoning Board of Appeals



The Town of Cape Vincent sends a Letter to the Public Service Commission ~ Concerning BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement

February 22, 2013

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

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 of Cape Vincent has been struggling with how to best ensure that all of the potentially
negative environmental, health, safety and welfare issues are properly and thoroughly addressed
by BP in their Preliminary Scoping Statement.

To date our attempts to identify and discuss issues with BP were unsuccessful. Whenever we
sought answers, responses from BP generally do not come at all. On those few occasions when
BP representatives came to our town, their responses to even our most basic inquiries were
dismissive, evasive and impatient in their tone. Our concern is that BP’s inattention in the past
will carry over into their Preliminary Scoping Statement that may overlook many of the potential
adverse impacts the Town has identified.

BP clearly understands the nature of our concerns as evidenced by the language included in their
so called Good Neighbor Agreement. In these agreements BP identified many of the potentially
adverse environmental impacts to landowners within and near the footprint of their project
proposal. However, for BP to act in their dealings with the Town as if these adverse impacts are
not pertinent, not relevant or untimely, shows no trace of good faith in their pretended public
involvement and public outreach effort here in Cape Vincent.

Please note the opening paragraph and first part of BP’s “Wind Farm Neighbor Easement
Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants” as shown below:

1. Wind Farm Operations Easement. Owner grants Grantee an exclusive easement in ,

on, over, across and through Owner’s Property, for the purpose of allowing any audio,

visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow, flicker, air turbulence, wake, ice,

electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw or other weather created

hazards or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from

any construction, development, repair, maintenance, replacement, or operation of

Grantee’s Windpower Facilities or other of Grantee’s activities on the Wind Farm,

that could interfere with the Owner’s peaceful enjoyment and use of the Owner’s

Property.”

By including the issues of “… any audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow, flicker, air
turbulence, wake, ice, electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw …” in their
agreement, BP identified these as significant adverse impacts that may negatively impact the
environment, health, safety and welfare of the “Owner” and therefore by inference the entire
community.

BP's Good Neighbor Agreement provides a far more comprehensive listing of potentially adverse
environmental impacts for Town of Cape Vincent residents than what BP describes in their revised and approved PIP. For example, their PIP identifies noise, shadow flicker, decreased property values and loss of wildlife and habitat as the only adverse impacts that should be discussed
with the Town. The town contends that BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement of potentially adverse impacts should be as complete and consistent as that which BP requires in the Good Neighbor agreements.

Our belief is that BP has no intention of being transparent and fully informative as they press
forward with this project. Their past history with us suggests this will be the case. Our request
of the Siting Board and case staff is for you to make every effort to insist that BP properly and
fully address each of the impact factors in their scoping statement that they expect their
cooperating landowners to wave.

Thank you for continued attention to our concerns.

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 Chairman

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board of Appeals

Keith Walker – Zoning Board of Appeals

Hester Chase – Zoning Board of Appeals

James Millington – Zoning Enforcement Officer

The Public Service Commission Responds to the Town of Cape Vincent ~ Concerning Comments to the PSC from BP Lease holders

BP submits spreadsheet of PIP activities ~ to the PSC

BP Spread sheet of Public involvement Program by