RE: GALLOO ISLAND WIND, LLC. Case No.

15-F-0327
Date: April 13, 2017
Document title: Comments on Galloos Final Stipulation
Submitted by:
Clifford P. Schneider, pro se
47243 Wood Cliff Drive
Wellesley Island, NY 13640
(315) 215-4019
clif.schneider@gmail.com
June 8, 2017

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess

Secretary to the Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

Ms. Ashley Morone

Presiding Examiner
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

Mr. Michael Caruso

Associate Examiner
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

and

Ms. Cat Mosley

Public Affairs Manager
Apex Clean Energy
310 4th St. NE Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902

RE: GALLOO ISLAND WIND, LLC. 15-F-0327

Dear Secretary Burgess, Presiding Examiner Morone, Associate Examiner

Caruso and Ms. Mosley:

This letter is in response to request by Galloo Island Wind, LLC and

Apex Clean Energy for comments related to their May 19, 2017 filing of
Final Stipulations. I have two issues relative to Galloo Island Wind,
LLCs stipulations that I would like considered.

1001.9 Exhibit 9: Alternatives

My first concern relates to Galloos (Galloo Island Wind, LLC)

interpretation of the rules regarding the requirement to conduct a
comparative assessment of alternate(s) sites for their project
(1001.9, Exhibit 9). Galloo states in their Final Stipulation (p.9):

As indicated in subdivision (a), alternative locations that

include areas beyond what is owned by or under option to the
Applicant on Galloo Island are unavailable.
Galloo is making the claim that alternate sites to the Applicant are
unavailable, and therefore, there is no need to conduct a comparative
analysis of environmental impacts.
I have gone to considerable effort in the past year to document the
importance of Galloo and Little Galloo Islands and the fact they are
unique, sensitive resources. I have also pointed out recently that
NYSDEC, USFWS, NYSERDA and the Clean Energy Standards environmental
impact statement all provide recommendations that sites such as Galloo
Island are so special that they should be avoided. The fact that Apex
has chosen Galloo Island, in spite of these guidelines and
recommendations, is sufficient justification for conducting a
comparative assessment of site locations. The Siting Board needs to
consider whether a wind project on Galloo Island is worth the risk and
potential environmental damage, compared to siting a project
elsewhere.

Contrary to Galloos limited interpretation of the Art.10 rules, the

Pre-Application Procedures Section 1000.5 (k,2,viii) provides
additional, important detail regarding affiliates:

.a description and evaluation of reasonable and available

alternative locations for the proposed facility, including a
description of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
the proposed and alternative locations, except that a private
facility applicant may limit its description and evaluation of
alternative locations to parcels owned by, or under option to,
such private facility applicant or its affiliates. (emphasis
added)

Galloo may have no alternative locations that it owns or has an option

to buy or lease, since it is a limited liability corporation whose
only assets are the project itself. However, Galloos parent company
and affiliate1, Apex Clean Energy, has other wind projects at other
locations currently in the early stages of development, e.g.,
Stockbridge Wind (NY), Rocky Forge Wind (VA) and Republic Wind (OH)
etc. No doubt one of these projects is located in a less
environmentally sensitive location than Galloo, and could be a
candidate for the alternate comparative assessment outlined in Exhibit
9.

The language in the rules seems clear and unequivocal; if Galloo or

Apex Clean Energy has other wind project sites, then they must be used
as an alternate for a comparative environmental assessment of site
locations. I maintain it was improper for Apex to claim there are no

1
Affiliate defined as when one company has control over the other or if both
are controlled by a third company. Apex Clean Energys website lists Galloo
site as a project and Galloo Island Wind LLCs PSS submission describes the
affiliation with Apex Clean Energy.
other sites for wind, since Apex has a number of projects at different
locations that would meet the requirements of the Article 10 rules.

I have suggested, too, that out-of-state sites belonging to, or under

contract, to Apex may also qualify. In a white paper on New Yorks
Clean Energy Standard2 PSC staff recommended out-of-state renewable
energy sources for use in satisfying renewable energy development in
New York. In a recent example of soliciting outside sources of
renewable energy, Long Islands Newsday reported3:

LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) is expected next month to

choose among bidders offering renewable generation to replace
small aging gas plants known as peakers. One of the bidders,
Invenergy, offers an ambitious proposal to build wind and solar
farms in rural Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and North
Carolina, and to send us that power via the existing grid and a
new underwater cable.

If out-of-state sources of renewable energy can be imported to Long

Island to satisfy projected, future demand, and if upstate is already
meeting 2030 renewable goals4, then why are we considering
industrializing Galloo Island, one of the most sensitive, important
ecological sites in Northern New York? Again, this example supports
what the Article 10 siting law requires, i.e., for Galloo and Apex to
fully consider alternate locations.

Finding a wind development site that has less environmental risk leads
to the question of whether there is sufficient public need that would
warrant developing Galloo Island vs other sites available to the
Applicant, both in-state and out-of-state. Aside from casual
references to a greater public need for renewable energy to combat
climate change, one case may provide some insight in how the Siting
Board considers Apexs argument for public need.

In a 1959 case, Niagara Mohawk vs the City of Fulton, Niagara Mohawk

wanted to build a substation at a specific site within the City of
Fulton, NY. The City objected and the court agreed5:

While the proof before the board was sufficient to establish

that it was necessary for the petitioner to build a substation in
the residential area, the proof was not sufficient to demonstrate

2
New York Public Service Commission. Staff White Paper on Clean Energy
Standard. Case 15-E-0302. Jan. 25, 2016. 70pp.
3
Newsday Editorial, May 6, 2017.
4
Schneider, C.P., Case No. 15-F-0327 Letter to the Parties. Unfair Clean
Energy. October 3, 2016. 3pp.
5
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department 8 A.D.2d
523; 188 N.Y.S.2d 717; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7616.
 that it was necessary for the petitioner to build its substation
upon the particular site which it had selected. No proof was
offered by the petitioner of the unavailability of other sites
which might cause less disruption of the community zoning plan or
might cause less detriment to neighboring property, but which at
the same time could serve the public need with reasonable
adequacy. Tested by that standard, the proof in this case was not
sufficient. There was proof that the site selected was the
"ideal" one from the standpoint of operating efficiency but there
was no proof that any consideration had been given to the other
factors. (emphasis added)

In other words, these broad notions of need were not good enough for
Niagrara Mohawk and it could be argued they are not good enough for
Galloo Island Wind LLC or Apex Clean Energy, as well. Galloo needs to
make the case that developing a wind project on Galloo Island is
essential and that other less sensitive sites, or other sources of
renewable energy, are unavailable or have more severe environmental
impacts than Galloo Island. Moreover, resolving this issue is
important for every project currently under Article 10 review, because
all applicants have taken the same position as Galloo, that they, as a
private facility applicant, are exempt from this analysis even though
all have affiliates and/or parent companies.

1001.22 Exhibit 22: Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands

In subsection 1001.22(d5) of their Final Stipulation Galloo outlines

those studies they intend to use to assess avian and bat risks from
their project proposal. The majority of the work they reference was
conducted nearly a decade ago for the earlier Hounsfield Wind Farm
SEQRA review. A few studies were conducted in 2015, prior to Apex
Clean Energys purchase of the project, but Apex, in spite of
assurances to examiners for further study, has done nothing to update
the old, dated work since its purchase of the Galloo project in fall
2015.

The issue of dated, stale studies from the Hounsfield project was a
concern of Presiding Examiner Casutto and Associate Examiner Caruso
and one that was discussed at length at the July 28, 2016 Galloo Pre-
Application Conference. The transcript documented the discussion and
what follows are excerpts in that discussion that relate to the
previous Hounsfield studies:

ALJ CARUSO: the PSS references and relies upon the SEQRA record
from the previous Hounsfield wind project the examiners would
 like to know what -- whats the intention of the applicant here
in bringing in all -- all these previous documents?

Mr. MUSCATO: the applicant sees this as a process that where

those documents are operative well refer to them, well provide
them. But if its not operative then we --we would prefer not to
confuse folks with providing that.
ALJ CASUTTO: And, for example, even if an avian report I -- I
would think would need to be updated from eight years ago or ten
years ago.

MR. MUSCATO: Right. And those scopes have been discussed with the
agencies and their -- there, you know, ongoing process with
respect to refining those and ensuring that theyre adequate for
the Article 10 application.

The record indicates the examiners read Galloos PSS, noted the
reference to the old Hounsfield studies and asked if Galloo was going
to update studies from 8-10 years ago (examiners noticed the dates
associated with the studies). Mr. Muscato responded Right,
suggesting to the examiners that other studies would be included in
Galloos application.

Galloos Final Stipulations, however, paint a very different picture.

There are no new studies, no updates, no refreshing old, stale work
from what examiners saw referenced in Galloos PSS. Galloos response
to examiners call for additional studies was misleading.

Recommended Studies

In my previous letters and filings to this case I have supported the

concerns of the presiding and associate examiners, and I too, have
called for new studies to update the decade-old avian assessments. The
following recommended studies are re-stated from correspondence
previously filed in the Galloo case:

I: Two Years of Additional Radar Studies

Radar studies are a crucial component to understanding the potential
for collision mortality of migrating landbirds over Galloo Island. In
its Final Stipulation, Apex Clean Energy is relying on a single year,
2008, for estimates of relative numbers of spring and fall migrating
landbirds over Galloo Island. A single year data point, particularly
one so dated, provides no confidence in what the study purports to
assess. Even though the 2008 spring target estimate was highest among
31 referenced studies, there is no way to understand if the estimate
was typical of average conditions, or if it was low, or if it was
high. Apex can only guess what the 2008 data actually represents.

The 2008 radar studies are not only outdated, but have deficiencies
that limit the surveys use and interpretation: The timing of the
spring and fall surveys was too narrow and did not include the
complete migration; the metric used (e.g., t/km/hr) obscured
understanding the extent of numbers of birds and bats that flew over
Galloo, the height of Galloos turbines is 50% greater than those
turbines considered in 2008; and the discussion section in comparing
Galloo results with other studies understated its significance, and in
my mind, thereby exposed the reports intent to diminish potential
adverse impacts.

Using a single, decade old point estimate to assess the extent of

landbird migration over Galloo Island is practically worthless. The
uncertainty with using a single, point estimate for any biological
survey is the same reason why NYSDEC recommends at least two surveys
at sites with special environmental concerns6. The Guidelines describe
expanded pre-construction surveys: If a developer proposes to
construct a wind energy project in or near one of the features or
resources of concern identified in section 2(b), then at least two
years of pre-construction study may be needed incorporating one or
more expanded pre-construction studies to provide in-depth information
on the bird and bat resources of the site.
Not surprising, Galloo Island meets ALL of the section 2(b) criteria
identified by NYSDEC for expanded pre-construction surveys, because of
the likelihood of substantial adverse impacts to bird and bat
resources:

a. Habitat of a listed bird or bat species per 6 NYCRR Part

182 (e.g., species of special concern, threatened or
endangered).
b. Proximity of the project (approximately 5 miles) to the
Atlantic coastline, the shoreline of one of the Great
Lakes, or the corridor of large rivers (e.g. the Hudson,
St. Lawrence);
c. The presence of, or proximity to areas that concentrate
raptors, waterfowl or other specifically identified species
of concern for the site (approximately 2 miles), or a major
bat hibernaculum (approximately 40 miles);
d. The presence of a specifically identified habitat or
landscape feature (e.g., Little Galloo Island) that may
function to funnel or concentrate birds during migration or
for feeding, breeding, wintering, or roosting activities

6
NYSDEC. Guidelines for conducting bird and bat studies at commercial wind
energy projects. June 2016. NYSDEC Div. Fish & Wildlife. 35pp.
From my personal experience as NYSDEC biologist I find it hard to
understand why the agency is willingly accept a single, decade-old
survey to assess the magnitude of landbird migration over Galloo
Island, particularly when the 2008 spring survey showed Galloo had the
highest number of targets compared to 31 similar radar studies .

The migration corridor over Galloo Island is exceptional and justifies

NYSDEC guidelines to avoid wind sites within 5 miles of Great Lakes
shorelines. Moreover, the risks of mortality are too great and there
is just too much uncertainty dealing with a single point estimate.

In NYSDECs Great Lakes Section I can testify that biologists were

extremely wary making any decisions based on a single survey result,
we preferred and expected at least 3 years of results. Three years of
survey data helped us begin to understand the wide natural variation
inherent in biological systems. Furthermore, the foundation for New
Yorks Great Lakes monitoring and assessments of its fishery resources
is based on long-term datasets, because we understood this approach
was the best, and in most cases, the only way to understand and manage
the Great Lakes fishery resources.

Again, I applaud the presiding examiners for understanding the value

of updated, current assessments. If the intent of these environmental
studies is to better inform the Siting Board, so that they can make an
informed decision, then Galloo and Apex need to provide fresh, updated
information, at least 2 new, annual spring and fall radar surveys for
migrating landbirds over Galloo Island.

II. Winter Bird Surveys

The Bald Eagle is an iconic North American bird species, whose

importance is enhanced by its cultural and political status as well as
special protective state and federal measures. In New York, Governor
Andrew Cuomo recently celebrated the Bald Eagles special status by
proclaiming June 20, 2016 as American Bald Eagle Day. Cuomos
executive order further declared with a commitment to secure
suitable eagle habitat and limiting human disturbance within these
habitats, allowing the species to continue to live and expand in New
York State. Galloo Island ranks as one of those special habitats
referenced in Cuomos proclamation.

The 2009 Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy Project7
concluded: Based on the 2008 data, Galloo may have the highest usage
of wintering Bald Eagles of any currently proposed or existing wind

7
Old Bird Inc. 2009. Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy
Project on Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY. Report prepared for Upstate
New York Power Corp.
project site in New York State. Yet, the following winter survey
(2008-2009) noted Bald Eagle winter abundance was reduced nearly 80%,
and other raptor abundances reduced by about half. These two surveys
showed a wide range in abundances, something biologists recognize as
requiring further study to understand what represents normal, average
conditions. Added to the problem of wide variation in abundance is the
fact the surveys are nearly a decade old. Obviously, more effort and
study is needed to document winter usage of Galloo by eagles and other
raptors. How else can anyone understand and estimate adverse impacts
to a species if abundance, habitat preference and behaviors are not
current and not well understood. Who would undergo a serious medical
procedure based on a decade old x-ray or MRI?

It is hard to imagine that Apex and the regulatory agencies did not
consider another series or two of winter bird surveys, since the
habitat is exceptional for wintering raptors, and Bald Eagles could be
more abundant at Galloo than any other site considered for a wind
project in New York State. At worse, Galloos raptors will be
susceptible to potential collision mortality and at best will be
displaced (i.e., driven away by development). More up-to-date
information is required in order to better understand potential
impacts from development and to create a wind farm operational plan
that can adjust operations to avoid collision risk and mortality and
minimize displacement from Galloo Island and surrounding habitats.

III. Infrasound Impact on Hatching Success of Little Galloo Island

Colonial Waterbirds

Infrasound is defined as low frequency noise below 20 Hz. For wind

turbines, infrasound is mostly non-audible pressure waves, around 1
Hz, that are generated when the turbine blade passes the steel,
support tower. Wind turbine infrasound is positively correlated with
turbine size; consequently, the 590 ft, 3.45 MW turbines that Galloo
and Apex propose for Galloo Island will likely produce the highest
levels of infrasound among current and proposed wind projects in New
York State.

In my September 21, 2016 letter filed in this case8 I reviewed the

infrasound issue as it relates to the potential impacts of the Galloo
Island Wind Facility on the waterbird population of Little Galloo
Island, situated only a mile away from Galloo Island. I pointed out
that Little Galloo was unique, the National Audubon Society designated
Little Galloo an Important Bird Area and NYSDEC conferred on Little
Galloo a special Bird Conservation Area designation. I also referenced

8
Schneider, C.P. Case No. 15-F-0327. Infrasound and Little Galloo Island. Sept
21, 2016. 10pp.
a number of wildlife studies that supported my concern that infrasound
produced by Apexs proposed facility could possibly destabilize and
de-populate Little Galloos nesting populations of colonial
waterbirds.

The potentially harmful impacts of infrasound on Little Galloo

waterbirds is an issue that slipped through the cracks of the previous
Hounsfield studies, Galloos Preliminary Scoping Statement and
regulatory agency reviews. To date, none of the above have
acknowledged the issue, let alone considered studies to examine the
potentially harmful impacts.

First, Apex and NYSDEC should initiate a baseline study to measure

stress parameters in the Little Galloo waterbird population. Since
bird feathers have been shown to be a reliable measure of
corticosterone levels9, NYSDEC should collect feathers in 2017 - 2018
for a sponsor supported corticosterone assessment. These baseline
levels could then be used to assess role of stress, if future wind
turbine operations lead to increased corticosterone levels in adults,
diminished reproductive success, population declines and/or breeding
colony abandonment of Little Galloo.

In addition, a study should be undertaken during the spring of 2018 to

examine infrasound effects on Little Galloo Island colonial waterbird
hatching success. NYSDEC could provide eggs collected from Ring-billed
Gull, Caspian Tern or surrogates nests for a laboratory study
subjecting eggs to infrasound sound pressure levels projected for
Little Galloo. Reproductive metrics could then be compared with a
control group to describe any reproductive effects and losses
associated with infrasound exposure.

Conclusion:
In examining Apexs Final Stipulation, it is apparent Apex has largely
ignored any requests or suggestions from examiners and others to build
on the previous work done for the Hounsfield Wind project. If Apex is
allowed to move ahead in this process using out-dated, stale
assessments of potential avian impacts, while ignoring important work
that must be done to complete the record, then I would urge the
examiners and the Siting Board to declare Apexs application
incomplete. As I noted in my previous letter in this case10 Galloo

9
Lattin, C.R., Reed, J.M., DesRochers, D.W., and L. M. Romero. 2011. Elevated
corticosterone in feathers correlates with corticosterone-induced decreased
feather quality: a validation study. J. Avian Biol. 42: 247-252, 2011
10
Schneider, C.P. Case No. 15-F-0327. Letter Regarding Clean Energy Standard.
April 4, 2017. 5pp.
Island is a sensitive environmental site that regulators recommended
be avoided by wind developers. For that reason, if Apex persists in
its application, then it has a responsibility for doing more to assess
environmental impacts, not less.

What Apex proposes is woefully inadequate. Additional study is

absolutely essential in order to guide the development of constraints
on Galloos operation that will be commensurate with any approved
permitting. Furthermore, without better, more up-to-date information,
operational constraints will require far greater control and caution
due to the uncertainty related to dated information sources.

Sincerely yours,

Clifford Schneider
Pro Se
Wellesley Island, NY