ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS II

St.
Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 339

LOCATION INFORMATION
Map ID: 339 Map Section: B3
Address: County Rd. 7 n of 34814
Town/City: Cape Vincent
Village: Millens Bay
County: Jefferson County
Date of Inventory: 12/07/2006
Geographic Coordinates: 4891755.58 / 400581.62 57
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Residence
Current Use: Residence
Construction Date: 1865-1890
Type/Style: 19th century vernacular
Exterior Materials: Aluminum Siding
Other Exterior Materials: Not applicable
Roof Materials: Metal
Roof Form: Side Gable
Foundation Materials: Stone
Stories: 2
Structural System: Frame
Windows: 2/2 DH
Chimney Placement: Center
Doorway: Gabled/Porch
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: None
Alterations: Rear Addition
Other Alterations: Replacement Siding P:\Cape
148 Vincent Wi
Photo ID: SLW 12-07-06
Landscape Elements: Suburban Yard
County Rd. 7 n of 34814 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Body Of Water
Outbuildings: Garage
Condition: Good
Type of Setting: Neighborhood
Notes: Folk Victorian
SIGNIFICANCE
Within Dense Grouping: No
National/State Register Listed: No
Local Landmark: Not applicable
Primary Period of Significance: 1865-1890
Primary NR Criterion: Not Applicable
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: No Second Image.
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 7 n of 34814 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Not eligible
A-339
000800
St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 340
Address: County Rd. 8 6380
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Commercial
Type/Style: Greek Revival
Exterior Materials: Wood Clapboard
Other Exterior Materials: vertical board siding
Stories: 2
Windows: Replacement
Chimney Placement: End Gable
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Other
Other Alterations: Not applicable P:\Cape
149 Vincent Wi
County Rd. 8 6380 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Millens Bay Inn
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-07-06 150 P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No County Rd. 8 6380 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-340
000801
Address: County Rd. 8 no number
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Abandoned
Roof Materials: Shingle Asphalt
Roof Form: Cross Gable
Foundation Materials: Not visible
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: None visible
151a Vincent Wi
County Rd. 8 no number Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Trees
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Deteriorated
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 8 no number Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-341
000802
Address: County Rd. 8/st rd 12e ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Institutional
Current Use: Institutional
Type/Style: 19th century vernacular c
Roof Form: Gable Front
Foundation Materials: Other
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Fanlights/Transom
Porch: None
152a Vincent Wi
County Rd. 8/st rd 12e ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Excellent
Notes: Union Meeting House
Foundation thoroughly
parged --material not
visible
SIGNIFICANCE
National/State Register Listed: Yes
Primary NR Criterion: C
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: No Second Image.
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 8/st rd 12e ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Listed
A-342
000803
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Chimney Placement: Offset
Porch: Open
009 Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Agricultural Field
Natural Features: Open Space
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 7 34902 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-343
000804
Address: County Rd. 7
Village: Not applicable
DESCRIPTION
Construction Date: Not applicable
Type/Style: Not visible
Exterior Materials: Not applicable
Roof Materials: Not applicable
Roof Form: Not applicable
Stories: Not applicable
Structural System: Not applicable
Windows: Not applicable
Chimney Placement: None
Doorway: Not applicable
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Not visible
Alterations: Not visible
Other Alterations: Not applicable
Photo ID: No First Image.
Landscape Elements: Not applicable
County Rd. 7 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Natural Features: Not applicable
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Not applicable
Notes: Buildings on river not
visible from public road
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary Period of Significance: Not applicable
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes County Rd. 7 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-344
000805
Address: County Rd. 7 -- ash lane
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Not visible
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Not visible
Alterations: Not visible
County Rd. 7 -- ash lane Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Private rd -- usgs shows
buildings
Buildings on river not

visible from public road
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 7 -- ash lane Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-345
000806
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Stone
Other Exterior Materials: Asbestos-concrete
Stories: 1
Structural System: Masonry
Windows: 2/2 DH
Chimney Placement: Multiple
Porch: Open
Alterations: Side Addition
011 Vincent Wi
Notes: Plaqued 1831
Next to trailer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATION: Potentially eligible
A-346
000807
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Agricultural
Type/Style: Converted barn
Exterior Materials: Wood Shingle
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
016 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Barn converted into
housing -- middle of
Lazy Acres Park
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-347
000808
Geographic Coordinates: 4892350 / 401097.09 6
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum siding
Foundation Materials: Poured Concrete
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
014 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Garage addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-348
000809
Map ID: 349 Map Section: A3
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Cement-Asbestos
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
017 Vincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Body Of Water
Notes: Foundation not visible;
6/6 windows
Building nw [behind]
looks modern but does
appear on usgs -- no
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-349
000810
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Ranch
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Side/Rear
019 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-350
000811
Address: County Rd. 7 no address
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
028 Vincent Wi
County Rd. 7 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Boathouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 7 no address Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-351
000812
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Exterior Materials: Vertical Boards
Foundation Materials: Concrete Block
Stories: 1
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
026 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Siding is half logs
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-352
000813
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Other Exterior Materials: Vertical boards
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Open
024 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation visible only
under what appears to be
addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-353
000814
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Roof Form: Pyramidal
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
Alterations: Front Addition
021 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation appears to
be concrete piers
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-354
000815
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
Alterations: New porch
020 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation not visible;
windows a mix of types
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-355
000816
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
029 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Multiple Ag building
Notes: 2/2 seem to be oldest
windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-356
000817
Address: Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr.
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottages
Foundation Materials: Not applicable
Chimney Placement: Not applicable
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Not applicable
Alterations: Not applicable
032 Vincent Wi
Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Private road, no access,
multiple buildings,
potentially more than 50
years old
SIGNIFICANCE
Within Dense Grouping: Yes
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-357
000818
St. Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 357.1
Map ID: 357.1 Map Section: A3
Address: Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr.
DESCRIPTION
Porch: None
034 Vincent Wi
Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Private road, no access,
multiple buildings,
potentially more than 50
years old
Continuation of ID 357
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Beadles Pt. Rd. & Frenz Dr. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-357.1
000819
Address: State Rd. 12e
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Chimney Placement: Other
Porch: Enclosed
030 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Type of Setting: Rural/Ag
Notes: Mix of windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 12-08-06 031 P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes State Rd. 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-358
000820
Address: State Rd. 12e/ Palmers Ct.
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Commercial
Type/Style: Tourist cabins
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: None
041 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e/ Palmers Ct. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Type of Setting: Altered
Notes: Well preserved
Wooden casements
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes State Rd. 12e/ Palmers Ct. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-359
000821
Address: State Rd. 12e 35632
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Replacement Siding
043 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e 35632 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Cape quarter horses
4/1 storms on porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e 35632 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-360
000822
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Other Alterations: Rear Addition P:\Cape
044 Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Mason River Haven
Dairy Farm
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-361
000823
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
046 Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes State Rd. 12e 35789 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-362
000824
Address: State Rd. 12e 3599?
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Barn
Roof Form: Gambrel
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
049 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e 3599? Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Barn conversion
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e 3599? Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-363
000825
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Vinyl Siding
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Alterations: Non-Historic Addition
Other Alterations: Side Addition P:\Cape
048 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-364
000826
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottages and trailers
Porch: None
050 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Cottages and trailers on
pvt roads
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-365
000827
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Alterations: Replacement siding
053 Vincent Wi
Notes: Barn across st [wood
farms], buildings behind
along river -- not
accessible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-366
000828
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Tudor Revival
Exterior Materials: Brick
Other Exterior Materials: Asbestos/concrete
Foundation Materials: Brick
Stories: 2
Structural System: Unknown
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
054 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Collection of 3 small
brick/half timber houses.
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-367
000829
Address: State Rd. 12e east of 36091
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Stucco and wood
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
057 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e east of 36091 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Windows 6/6 double

hung
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes State Rd. 12e east of 36091 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-368
000830
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Stucco
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
058 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Windows a mix
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes State Rd. 12e 36147 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-369
000831
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
062 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Small house large
addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-370
000832
Address: Catfish Point Rd.
Village: Sand Bay
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Porch: None
065 Vincent Wi
Catfish Point Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Catfish Point Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-371
000833
Address: State Rd. 12e east of Catfish Rd. and south of 12e
Village: Sand Bay
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
Other Alterations: Front Addition P:\Cape
071 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e east of Catfish Rd. and south Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: Cape Saint Kennel, also
chicken coop
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e east of Catfish Rd. and south Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-372
000834
Village: Sand Bay
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Agricultural
Type/Style: Barn
Roof Form: Gambrel
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
072 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Maloney Farmstead
1869 -- old barn w/trailer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-373
000835
Address: Strauss Blvd./Maloney Rd./Brezzy Pt. Rd.
Village: Sand Bay
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailers and cottages
Structural System:
Porch: None
075 Vincent Wi
Strauss Blvd./Maloney Rd./Brezzy Pt. Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Private roads, no access
Mix of ages needs

further research
SIGNIFICANCE
Within Dense Grouping:
National/State Register Listed:
Local Landmark:
Primary NR Criterion:
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Strauss Blvd./Maloney Rd./Brezzy Pt. Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-374
000836
Address: State Rd. 12e east of 35329
Village: Sand Bay
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
073 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e east of 35329 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Historic building
thoroughly renovated
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e east of 35329 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-375
000837
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
076 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-376
000838
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
084 Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-377
000839
Address: Cedar Point St. State Park 36674
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: Open
081 Vincent Wi
Cedar Point St. State Park 36674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Type of Setting: State Park
Notes: At cedar Point State
marina but seems to be
private
6/1 windows, boathouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Cedar Point St. State Park 36674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-378
000840
Address: Cedar Point St. State Park 36674
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cottage
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
080 Vincent Wi
Cedar Point St. State Park 36674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: At cedar Point State
marina but seems to be
private
Barely visible --
foundation seems to be
piers, mix of windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Cedar Point St. State Park 36674 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-379
000841
Address: Cedar Point St. State Park
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Other: See Notes
Construction Date: Other: See Notes
Type/Style: Park building
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
078 Vincent Wi
Cedar Point St. State Park Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Park established 1897
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Cedar Point St. State Park Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-380
000842
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Replacement
085 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e 36854 Clayton Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Dramatically altered
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e 36854 Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-381
000843
Address: State Rd. 12e
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: tyvek and sheathing visib
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
087 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e Clayton Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Foundation may be a
repair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-382
000844
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Ranch
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
091 Vincent Wi
State Rd. 12e 36978 Clayton Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Historic barn w/new
house and trailer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No State Rd. 12e 36978 Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-383
000845
Address: Pelo Rd. 36418
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
044 Vincent Wi
Pelo Rd. 36418 Clayton Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Pelo Rd. 36418 Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-384
000846
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
046 Vincent Wi
Pelo Rd. 36165 Clayton Jefferson County
except 1 corner where it
looks like stone
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Pelo Rd. 36165 Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-385
000847
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: Replacement
047 Vincent Wi
Pelo Rd. 35710 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Pelo Rd. 35710 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-386
000848
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
Other Alterations: Non-Historic Addition P:\Cape
037 Vincent Wi
Notes: Garage addition, owner
says 1840s
Wood Dairy -- very

large complex across
street
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-387
000849
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
050 Vincent Wi
Notes: Barn collapsed
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-388
000850
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: stone
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Doorway: Replacement
Porch: Enclosed
048 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Dramatically altered by
changed fenestration and
rear stone addition n
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-389
000851
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Stick
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
Decorative Elements: Bargeboards
043 Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-390
000852
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Other Alterations: Non-Historic Addition P:\Cape
036 Vincent Wi
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 9 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-391
000853
Map ID: 392 Map Section: Inset 3
Village: St. Lawrence
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
034 Vincent Wi
Notes: Edge of river
Foundation only visible

under front porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-392
000854
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
033 Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Edge of river
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-393
000855
Address: County Rd. 9/Rosiere Rd. ne corner
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Other: See Notes
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Porch: None
032 Vincent Wi
County Rd. 9/Rosiere Rd. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Original use unclear
Cornice w/ dentil
course, exterior is tar
paper
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 9/Rosiere Rd. ne corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-394
000856
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Italianate
Roof Materials: Other
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
Decorative Elements: Brackets
018a Vincent Wi
Natural Features: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Faces Rosiere Rd.
Commercial store front

closed up; roof not
visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-395
000857
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
025 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Boarded up
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 9 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-396
000858
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
030 Vincent Wi
Notes: Roof was ell type and
expanded
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-397
000859
Address: County Rd. 9 opposite 10352
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: vertical sheathing w/batte
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
028 Vincent Wi
County Rd. 9 opposite 10352 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: Concrete looks like
repair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No County Rd. 9 opposite 10352 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-398
000860
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Bargeboards
026 Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-399
000861
Address: Rosiere Rd. 35983
Town/City: Clayton
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
023 Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. 35983 Clayton Jefferson County
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. 35983 Clayton Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-400
000862
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
022 Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. 35399 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. 35399 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-401
000863
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Shingle
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
019 Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-402
000864
Address: Rosiere Rd. east of St. Lawrence Rd. n side
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: 19th Century Vernacular
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
020a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. east of St. Lawrence Rd. n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Opposite farm
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. east of St. Lawrence Rd. n side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-403
000865
Address: Rosiere Rd./St Lawrence Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
017a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd./St Lawrence Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Once store and p.o.
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd./St Lawrence Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-404
000866
Address: Rosiere Rd. east of 35187
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
015a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. east of 35187 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Reputed to be the oldest
house in town
Foundation parged
material not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. east of 35187 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-405
000867
Address: Rosiere Rd. opposite 35187
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
016a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. opposite 35187 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-07-06 014a P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. opposite 35187 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-406
000868
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Replacement
Alterations: New Porch
013a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-407
000869
Address: Rosiere Rd. e of 33143 opposite side [south]
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Colonial Revival
Roof Form: Gambrel
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
011 Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. e of 33143 opposite side [south Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Former methodist
parsonage built 1902
according to the owner
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 12-07-06 012a P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. e of 33143 opposite side [south Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-408
000870
Address: Rosiere Rd. e of 33143
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
009a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. e of 33143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Foundation poured
concrete where visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. e of 33143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-409
000871
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Queen Anne
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
008a Vincent Wi
Notes: Hipped roof w/cross
gables -- turned porch
posts
Barn across st
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. 33143 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-410
000872
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Other Exterior Materials: rigid insulation
Stories: 1
Porch: Replacement
006a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Fair
Notes: Also a shed
Might be older because

of foundation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-411
000873
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
004a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: In recent woods, may
have been agricultural
Collapsed barn across

street
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-412
000874
Address: Mc Keever Rd. 34995
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wood shingles
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
039 Vincent Wi
Mc Keever Rd. 34995 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Foundation parged looks
like stone underneath
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mc Keever Rd. 34995 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-413
000875
Address: Mc Keever Rd. east of 34690
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
042 Vincent Wi
Mc Keever Rd. east of 34690 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mc Keever Rd. east of 34690 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-414
000876
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
040 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mc Keever Rd. 34689 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-415
000877
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Chimney Placement:
Porch: Enclosed
041 Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Mc Keever Rd. 34690 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-416
000878
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 1
Structural System: Other
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
003a Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: In recent woods
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-417
000879
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Saltbox
Stories: 2
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
001a Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: In recent woods
Foundation not visible

behind parging;door
hidden by screen
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-418
000880
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Trailer
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 1
Structural System: Other
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[77]aVincent Wi
Landscape Elements: Unknown
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Trailer house
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-419
000881
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Agricultuar
Type/Style: Barn
Roof Materials: Not visible
Stories: 1
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[75]aVincent Wi
Outbuildings: Not applicable
Condition: Fair
Notes: Historic barn and trailer
house
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-06-06 [76]a P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-420
000882
Address: Rosiere Rd. opposite Cemetery Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Original Use: Cemetery
Current Use: Cemetery
Type/Style: Not applicable
Structural System: Not applicable
Porch: None
092 Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. opposite Cemetery Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: St. Lawrence Union
Cemetery
SIGNIFICANCE
Primary NR Criterion: Not applicable
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. opposite Cemetery Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-421
000883
Address: Cemetery Rd. n of 9333
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Roll
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[74]aVincent Wi
Cemetery Rd. n of 9333 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Formerly agricultural
now wooded
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Cemetery Rd. n of 9333 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-422
000884
Address: Cemetery Rd. 9333
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: plastic sheeting
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[72] Vincent Wi
Cemetery Rd. 9333 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Barn
now becoming wooded
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-06-06 [73] P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No Cemetery Rd. 9333 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-423
000885
Address: Rosiere Rd. n side west of Cemetery Rd.
Village: Warren
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[70] Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. n side west of Cemetery Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
now wooded
Decorative window
hoods, addition includes
garage
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 12-06-06 [71] P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. n side west of Cemetery Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-424
000886
Village: Warren
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Barn
Stories: 1
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
Alterations: None
[68]aVincent Wi
Notes: Historic barn w/ trailer
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: No
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-425
000887
Village: Warren
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: plywood, concrete
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[66] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Poured concrete porch is
remnant of craftsman
style renovation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-426
000888
Address: Millens Bay Rd. 7201
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[40] Vincent Wi
Millens Bay Rd. 7201 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: Folk Victorian
Garage added
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Millens Bay Rd. 7201 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-427
000889
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[39] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-428
000890
Address: Millens Bay Rd. south of 7242
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[41] Vincent Wi
Millens Bay Rd. south of 7242 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Fair
Notes: Garage added
Abandoned silo near

house, also outhouse
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Millens Bay Rd. south of 7242 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-429
000891
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[42] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-430
000892
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: None
[43] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Notes: Covered in rigid
insulation
Outbuilldings collapsed
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-431
000893
Map ID: 432 Map Section: C4
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[44] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Small stone
outbuilding --
wellhouse?
Several outbuilldings
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-432
000894
Address: Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4]
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[45] Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Foundation suggests
historic
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4] Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-433
000895
Address: Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4] opposite 33031
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wooden clapboards
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[46] Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4] opposite 33031 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Decrepit -- little left of
original
3 trailers nearby
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. [County Rd. 4] opposite 33031 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-434
000896
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: wooden clapboards
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[47] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Asphalt wall shingles
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-435
000897
Address: Rosiere Rd. opposite 2401 and sw
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[48] Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. opposite 2401 and sw Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: 6/6 windows
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. opposite 2401 and sw Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-436
000898
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Photo not currently
available
Will be photographed in
phase 2
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-437
000899
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Board and batten
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[51] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Bay sits on matching
foundation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-438
000900
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Wood Shingle
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[53] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Door partially covered
w/ siding
Rear addition has Queen

Anne elements
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-439
000901
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Barn
Stories: 2
Porch: None
Alterations: None
Other Alterations: P:\Cape
Photo ID: SLW 12-06-06 [55] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Timberframed barn
clearly predates house
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-440
000902
Address: Rosiere Rd./Favret Rd. nw corner
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
[65] Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd./Favret Rd. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Faces Favret Rd.
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd./Favret Rd. nw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-441
000903
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[64] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Seems post war except
for foundation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-442
000904
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[63] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes: Hipped roof w/ross
gables
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. east of 31469 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-443
000905
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Replacement
[61] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Joseph Docteur House
Stone barn and stone

base for riding ring --
Masonry different
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-444
000906
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Gothic Revival
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Replacement
[28] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: St. Vincent de Paul
Church
Cemetery behind
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. opposite 31384 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-445
000907
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[24] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Condition: Good
Notes: Scrollwork on porches
and decorative window
caps
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-446
000908
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[26] Vincent Wi
Notes: Rectory for St Vincent
de Paul church
2 story Bay St.
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-447
000909
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[23] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes:
Scroll work in gable

over door
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-448
000910
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[22] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: Asphalt shingles on walls
Scroll work on porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-449
000911
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Four square
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[21] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Stucco on walls and
foundation
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-450
000912
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Aluminum siding, plastic
Stories: 2
Porch: Replacement
[19] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Garage attached
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-451
000913
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Not visible
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[18] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-452
000914
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Shed
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[17] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: May be abandoned
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Rosiere Rd. east of 31273 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-453
000915
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: None
[14] Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
Notes: Thoroughly renovated
but foundation suggests
historic
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-454
000916
Village: Rosiere
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[13] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Other
Condition: Good
Notes: Collapsed barn to the
west
Thoroughly renovated
but foundation suggests
historic
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-455
000917
Map ID: 456 Map Section: D3
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[12] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-456
000918
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[9] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Concrete blocks under
porch probably addition
other foundation not
visible
Barns both side of
road -- northern one
abandoned
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-457
000919
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[8] Vincent Wi
Notes: Barn abandoned
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-458
000920
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[7] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Scroll work on porch
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-459
000921
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Replacement
[5] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: 9/6 double hung
windows -- odd choice
for a replacement but
seem to be in an addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-460
000922
Address: Dezengremel Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Hipped
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[58] Vincent Wi
Dezengremel Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Former French church
site on property
2/2 on 1st fl 1/1 above
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Dezengremel Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-461
000923
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[4] Vincent Wi
Notes: Garage part of addition
Foundation looks like

repair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-462
000924
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
[3] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Remy Dezengremel
House
Garage part of addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-463
000925
Address: Rosiere Rd. w of kents creek
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[2]a Vincent Wi
Rosiere Rd. w of kents creek Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Windows obscured
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Rosiere Rd. w of kents creek Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-464
000926
Address: Gosiere Rd. 6338
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[36] Vincent Wi
Gosiere Rd. 6338 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Xavier Chevalier House
Small stone outbuilding

to s -- smokehouse?
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Gosiere Rd. 6338 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-465
000927
Address: Gosiere Rd. sw side
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[33] Vincent Wi
Gosiere Rd. sw side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: Mason's dairy farm
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Gosiere Rd. sw side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-466
000928
Address: Gosiere Rd. ne side
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[32] Vincent Wi
Gosiere Rd. ne side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: opposite sign for
Mason's dairy farm
May be abandoned
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Gosiere Rd. ne side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-467
000929
Address: Mason Rd. 33110
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Rear has wood replicatin
Roof Form: Pyramidal
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[30] Vincent Wi
Mason Rd. 33110 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Claude Vautrin House
Small stone outbuilding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Mason Rd. 33110 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-468
000930
Address: Mason Rd. 33014
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Open
[29] Vincent Wi
Mason Rd. 33014 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Mason Rd. 33014 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-469
000931
Address: Hell St. west side
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[9] Vincent Wi
Hell St. west side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Hell St. west side
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. west side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-470
000932
Address: Constance Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
[47] Vincent Wi
Constance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Windows boarded but
building looks well
maintained -- barn still
in use
Decorative window caps
and water table
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Constance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-471
000933
Address: Hell St. east side
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Barn
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: None
[8] Vincent Wi
Hell St. east side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Hell St. east side
Barn no nearby house
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. east side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-472
000934
Address: Constance Rd.
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Open
[49] Vincent Wi
Constance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Windows boarded but
barn still used
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Constance Rd. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-473
000935
Address: Hell St.
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[7] Vincent Wi
Hell St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
Notes: Opposite Constance Rd.
Foundation parged
material not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-474
000936
Address: Hell St./Constance Rd. sw corner
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[6] Vincent Wi
Hell St./Constance Rd. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Fair
Notes: Lawrence Family Farm
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St./Constance Rd. sw corner Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-475
000937
Address: Hell St. east side of road
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
[5] Vincent Wi
Hell St. east side of road Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Ell collapsed
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. east side of road Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-476
000938
Address: Hell St.
DESCRIPTION
Roof Materials: Other
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[3] Vincent Wi
Hell St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: Looks as though ell
collapsed
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-477
000939
Address: Hell St. 32554
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[1] Vincent Wi
Hell St. 32554 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: 2/2 storm windows to
right
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. 32554 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-478
000940
Address: Hell St./Favret Rd. sw corner opp 32152
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Enclosed
[69] Vincent Wi
Hell St./Favret Rd. sw corner opp 32152 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 12-04-06 (70) P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes Hell St./Favret Rd. sw corner opp 32152 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-479
000941
Address: Hell St. 32152
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[71] Vincent Wi
Hell St. 32152 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Hell St. 32152 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-480
000942
Address: Favret Rd. 4957
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[68] Vincent Wi
Favret Rd. 4957 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Favret Rd. 4957 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-481
000943
Address: Favret Rd. opposite 4670
DESCRIPTION
Current Use: Other: See Notes
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: None
[66] Vincent Wi
Favret Rd. opposite 4670 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Notes: May be outbuilding for
4670 across st
Foundation not visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Favret Rd. opposite 4670 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-482
000944
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: Other
Porch: Replacement
[65] Vincent Wi
Notes:
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Favret Rd. 4670 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-483
000945
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Other
Porch: Side/Rear
[63] Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Barn
Notes: Opposite Wilson-
Warren house [NRHP
listed] and quite similar
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: Yes
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Favret Rd. 4609 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-484
000946
Address: Branche Rd. 4224
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[56] Vincent Wi
Branche Rd. 4224 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Notes: Bourcy Farm
Visible foundation
concrete block -- looks
like addition
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-04-06 (57) P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No Branche Rd. 4224 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-485
000947
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
[58] Vincent Wi
Condition: Fair
Notes: Agricultural buildings
subsiding
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Favret Rd. 3739 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-486
000948
Address: Votra Rd. 31515
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[60] Vincent Wi
Votra Rd. 31515 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: End of votra rd -- only
building on it
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: Yes Photo ID: SLW 12-04-06 (62) P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: Yes Votra Rd. 31515 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: Yes
Location: Yes
A-487
000949
Address: Bay St. east side near 12e
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 1/1 DH
Porch: Enclosed
[94] Vincent Wi
Bay St. east side near 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
Notes: 2/2 windows visible
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Bay St. east side near 12e Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-488
000950
Map ID: 489 Map Section: Inset 1-NOT MAP
Address: Broadway 724
Village: Cape Vincent
Geographic Coordinates: /
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Gothic Revival
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Round window
(1)a Vincent Wi
Broadway 724 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
Notes: No gps data because of
equipment malfunction
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Design: No Photo ID: SLW 12-04-06 (2)a P:\Cape Vincent Wi
Feeling: No Broadway 724 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-489
000951
Address: Broadway s. side
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(3)a Vincent Wi
Broadway s. side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway s. side Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-490
000952
Address: Broadway
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Commercial
Other Exterior Materials: Clapboard
Roof Form: Multiple
Stories: 1
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(4) Vincent Wi
Broadway Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-491
000953
Address: Broadway east of Capeway Cottages
DESCRIPTION
Foundation Materials: Parged
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
Other Alterations: Oriel window P:\Cape
(5)a Vincent Wi
Broadway east of Capeway Cottages Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway east of Capeway Cottages Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-492
000954
Address: Broadway Capeway Cottages
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Tourist cabins
Stories: 1
Windows: 1/1 DH
Doorway: Variety
Porch: Variety
(7) Vincent Wi
Broadway Capeway Cottages Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Feeling: Yes Broadway Capeway Cottages Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-493
000955
Address: Broadway
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
(8) Vincent Wi
Broadway Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Broadway Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-494
000956
Address: Center 149
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Porch: Open
(9) Vincent Wi
Center 149 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Center 149 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-495
000957
Address: Center 169
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Chimney Placement: Not visible
Porch: Enclosed
(11) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-496
000958
Address: Center 183
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(13) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-497
000959
Address: Center
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Replacement
(14) Vincent Wi
Center Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None visible
Thoroughly modified
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Center Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-498
000960
Address: Center
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Asphalt shingle
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(15) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: Shed
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-499
000961
Address: Center
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Porch: Open
Decorative Elements: Window caps
(16) Vincent Wi
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-500
000962
Address: Center 307
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Board and batten
Stories: 2
Chimney Placement: Eaves
Porch: Enclosed
(18) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-501
000963
Address: Pine n side opposite 1071
DESCRIPTION
Exterior Materials: Asphalt siding
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(20) Vincent Wi
Pine n side opposite 1071 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Pine n side opposite 1071 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-502
000964
Address: Center 314
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
Decorative Elements: Bay window
(21) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-503
000965
Address: Lake 1049
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: None
(22) Vincent Wi
Lake 1049 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Lake 1049 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-504
000966
Address: Center 250
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: New
Decorative Elements: See notes
(23) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Window caps and

decorative shingles in
gable
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: Yes
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-505
000967
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Chimney Placement: Stone
Porch: Enclosed
(24) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Broadway 1040 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-506
000968
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(25) Vincent Wi
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-507
000969
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
(26) Vincent Wi
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-508
000970
Address: Elm 180
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 2
Porch: Open
Alterations: Non historic addition
(29) Vincent Wi
Elm 180 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Outbuildings: None
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Elm 180 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-509
000971
Address: Elm n of 248
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Windows: 6/6 DH
Chimney Placement: Eaves
Doorway: Hood
Porch: New
Decorative Elements: Door hood
Alterations: New Outbuilding
(30) Vincent Wi
Elm n of 248 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Elm n of 248 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-510
000972
Address: Elm 253
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Hood
Porch: New
(31) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-511
000973
Address: Elm s. of 311
DESCRIPTION
Type/Style: Cape
Stories: 1
Windows: Picture Window
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(32) Vincent Wi
Elm s. of 311 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: No Elm s. of 311 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-512
000974
Address: Elm 391
DESCRIPTION
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 1
Windows: 2/2 DH
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(35) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Feeling: Yes Elm 391 Cape Vincent Jefferson County
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-513
000975
Address: Elm 380
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Wood shingles, false bric
Stories: 2
Porch: Enclosed
(36) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Good
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-514
000976
Address: Elm 343
DESCRIPTION
Other Exterior Materials: Wood clapboards, false b
Roof Form: Ell
Stories: 1
Porch: Enclosed
(33) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-515
000977
Address: Elm 369
DESCRIPTION
Stories: 2
Doorway: Plain
Porch: None
(34) Vincent Wi
Outbuildings: None
Condition: Fair
SIGNIFICANCE
Integrity Criteria:
Setting: Yes
Association: No
Materials: No
Workmanship: No
Location: Yes
A-516
000978
Caleb W. Christopher
Architectural Historian
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Over six years of experience as an architectural historian; additional experience in environmental law, as
well as regulatory and land use planning. Responsibilities have included cultural resource management,
public involvement, environmental impact statement analysis, policy formulation, legal analysis, contract
negotiation, and historic building condition analysis. Mr. Christopher has undertaken and managed large-
scale cultural resource surveys and impact assessment for a wide variety of urban, rural and suburban
resources. Clients have included federal, state and municipal agencies as well as energy,
telecommunications, and private real estate development interests.
EDUCATION
JD, Environmental Law Certificate, anticipated 2007, Pace University School of Law
MS, Historic Preservation, 2003, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
BA, History, 1998, Macalester College
REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
NPS Standards for Professional Practice - Architectural Historian /Historian (36 CFR 61)
AICP Certification forthcoming (anticipated 2006), American Institute of Certified Planners
TRAINING
CORPORATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Brindle Lake Dam Study - Architectural Historian, May 2006-June 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Dix, NJ
Research, site documentation, analysis and interagency consultation regarding historic resources, in
support of a proposed dam removal and waterway enhancement project.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
City of New York - Office of Environmental Coordination (November 2005 – present)
Metrofund Brownfield Remediation Program
Legal research and assistance in developing a revolving loan program for brownfield remediation; EPA
grants are used as credit enhancement to finance private CERCLA remediation and urban neighborhood
development projects.
CEQR Technical Manual Revisions

Research and development of forthcoming revised technical guidance for compliance with the City’s
environmental review law. Revised guidance provides agencies, applicants and consultants with
information on streamlined procedures for effective environmental impact documents.
CEQR Project Review

Review, analysis and legal research for a variety of project-specific environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments.
Long-Range Planning/GEIS Analysis, Energy Facility Siting

Research and developed a proposed long-term environmental siting strategy and marketing plan for an
anticipated 6,000 MW grid increase. Analysis included responding to a deregulated marketplace through
utilization of innovative EIS strategies.
Page 1 of 5
000979
City of New York - Department of Parks & Recreation (Revson Fellow) (May 2005-October 2005)
Washington Square Park Reconstruction - Environmental Assessment Statement
Author of an extensive CEQR document and accompanying report, developed in response to pending
litigation, in support of a multi-year $16 million renovation of a 10-acre urban park in Greenwich Village.
High Line (Linear Urban Park) – Historic Resource Consultation

Provided internal agency consultation and assisted in development of a historic resource survey
methodology and interagency consultation plan, in support of a federally-funded, large scale urban park.
Consultant Procurement & Contract Negotiation/Oversight/Procurement

Responsibilities for the city’s largest property owner include assistance in contract negotiation, regulatory
compliance, interagency negotiation and environmental planning for a wide variety of public
infrastructure projects. Duties included legal support in contract management, procurement, default
hearings and development of agency environmental compliance policy.
URS Corporation (August 2001 – August 2004)

Hazard-prone Historic Resource Survey & Plan, Fire Island to Montauk Point (Long Island, New York)
Project manager for a historic resource survey and detailed documentation of 1,600 hazard-prone historic
sites across an 83-mile project corridor along the South Bay in support of a phased EIS. Project included
interagency consultation, integrated GIS development, public involvement and tribal consultation, and
development of a decision-making process for the Corps to evaluate impacts.
Client: New York District, US Army Corps of Engineers / Department of Defense
Times Square Station Historic Resource Study (New York City)

Historic resource consultation for a phased $225 million rehabilitation project of a large National-
Register-eligible subway complex featuring five separate track lines. Work included the detailed
documentation of historic features, conditions, and development of specific recommendations for design
options to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as well as other
mitigation alternatives. Interagency consultation and development of a draft Programmatic Agreement
for the project was also undertaken.
Client: Metropolitan Transit Authority / New York City Transit

14th Ave / 15th Ave School Replacement, Historic Resource Survey (Newark, NJ)
Fast-track Historic Resource Report for the proposed closure, demolition and replacement of two historic
school buildings within a larger residential neighborhood. Activities included detailed site research,
archaeological analysis, and analysis of design alternatives.
Client: New Jersey School Construction Corporation (Public Authority)

Cunard Building (28 Broadway) Historic Resource Study & Condition Assessment (New York City)
Working as part of an Environmental Site Assessment team, direction of Historic Resource Survey and
detailed condition assessment, including restoration cost estimates, for a historic cruse-ship ticketing
office in lower Manhattan. This local landmark interior includes multiple Beaux Arts ceiling fresco and
decorative tilework.
Client: United States Postal Service

Belt Parkway Reconstruction – “Context Sensitive” Design Guidelines (Brooklyn, New York)
Working with landscape preservation specialists from Pressley Associates, this project included
coordination with a working group throughout evaluation and design. Work included preliminary
interagency coordination, scoping and initial research.
Page 2 of 5
000980
Client: New York City Department of Transportation / New York City Department of Parks & Recreation
FEMA “How To” Planning Guide – Integrating Hazard Mitigation & Historic Resources
Principal author of nationwide How-To planning guide which allows for communities properly balance
preservation of historic buildings with disaster mitigation projects. The planning guide is sixth in a series
of nine reader-friendly publications for local and regional planning departments.
Client: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
Dulles Airport Expansion EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) – Loudoun County, VA

Historic Resource Survey, evaluation, planning and public consultation process currently underway for
proposed runway expansion of Dulles International Airport. Part of a multi-disciplinary planning team
that is evaluating a variety of design options for impacts to historic and environmental resources, as well
as socio-economic impacts of multiple project growth patterns. Dulles International Airport is the world’s
first jet airport and a master design by Eero Saarinen, an important Modern architect.
Client: Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Seismic Decision-Making Guidelines for Historic Buildings

Co-author, with Wiss Janney Elstner Engineers, of decision-making guidelines for communities
undertaking seismic retrofit projects for historic buildings. The project focuses on private owners and
architects who seek to understand the financial benefits of successful rehabilitation.
Milton, Pennsylvania - Hazard Mitigation Plan

Model federal demonstration project included survey of a 700-building historic district and development
of a unique community-based planning process for flood-prone historic resources. Planning process
included quantitative evaluation of multiple design alternatives, identification of integrated funding
strategies, Benefit Cost Analysis and schematic development of new pre-disaster design projects for
historic buildings which comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The
project is highlighted as a “Success Story” on FEMA’s webpage.
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement – Virginia, Maryland & Washington DC

Part of a team which performed multiple cultural resource tasks associated with the $3.2 billion
replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge spanning the Potomac River.
Client: Federal Highways Administration

Multiple Cultural Resource Investigations for Transportation Projects – Delaware
Co-author of multiple cultural resource reports, including Governor’s Avenue Reconstruction, Dover and
SR 1 Improvements, Smyrna. Reports included evaluation of significant historic properties and the
development of multiple community-based mitigation options.
Client: Delaware Department of Transportation
Statewide Historic Bridges Context – Post-1945 (Maryland)

Co-author of guidelines for identifying and evaluating significant post WWII-era bridges. The document
includes a field-test of methodology, detailed research on the development of postwar era bridge
technology and standards, and evaluation criteria for specific typologies.
Client: Maryland State Highways Administration

Regional Survey – southern West Virginia
Multi-county fast-track cultural resource and documentation survey of over 300 historic flood-damaged
structures, largely in rural historic mining communities.
Page 3 of 5
000981
Historic Resource Survey, Proposed White Oak Power Center (Pittsylvania County, VA)
Intensive rural survey for a proposed natural gas peaking energy center with multiple tall stacks.
Activities included intensive historic resource survey, interagency consultation and mitigation design.
Client: FPL Energy LLP

HABS Documentation, St. Elizabeths Hospital (Washington DC)
Level II HABS Documentation of multiple agricultural resources and 19th century residences within a
National Historic Landmark (to be demolished in support of a homeland security communications center).
Activities included site documentation and detailed archival research. Submitted to Library of
Congress/National Park Service.
Client: District of Columbia - Office of Chief Technology Officer / Jacobs-Sverdrup Engineers

HABS Documentation – Allan Park Veterans Hospital (Detroit, MI)
Level I HABS Documentation of a historic 1938 12-story hospital complex. Activities included extensive
site documentation, measured drawings, archival photography and detailed archival research. Submitted
to Library of Congress/National Park Service
Client: Department of Veterans Affairs
County-wide Historic Resource Survey (Loudoun County, VA)

Intensive 700-site historic resource survey for the nation’s second-fastest growing county. Resources
ranged from 18th century farmsteads to 1950s suburban development. Activities included scoping, site
research and documentation, field survey and data management.
Client: Loudoun County Department of Planning
CG Consultants (June 1999 – July 2001)

Multiple Cultural Resource Investigations for Telecommunication Projects (New Hampshire & Maine)
Undertook 21 site-specific cultural resource surveys in rural and urban communities for proposed
telecommunications installations. Surveys included fieldwork, consultation with State Historic
Preservation Office staff, research and effects evaluation.
Client: SBA Towers Inc & ATC Realty LLC / EnviroBusiness Inc (EBI)
Old Main Post Office - Preservation Tax Credit Certification (Chicago, IL)
Research and design coordination for proposed re-use of 2.5 million square foot historic building,
formally the world’s largest postal facility. Reuse included hotel, telecommunications and commercial
space.
Client: Gensler / Baldwin Historic Properties

5510 N. Sheridan – Investment Tax Credit Certification and National Register Nomination
Successful nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and investment tax credit
coordination in support of a large-scale redevelopment of a historic residential high-rise.
Client: Wiss Janney Elsner Engineers / Baldwin Historic Properties

Citywide Parks Fieldhouse Condition Analysis
City-wide, multi-site condition analysis and capital improvement estimate of over 40 historic fieldhouses
and parks properties.
Client: Consour Townsend Envirodyne (CTE) Engineers/ Chicago Park District

National Register Nomination - Holy Name Cathedral (Chicago, IL)
Page 4 of 5
000982
Successful nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for Chicago’s only cathedral.
Dating to 1874, the Gothic Revival structure was altered in the 1960s by Modernist architect CF Murphy.
Client: Archdiocese of Chicago

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
Publications (Legal Journals)
Torquing the Lugnuts of Time: A 40 Year Tune-Up of the National Historic Preservation Act (anticipated
2006)
Watts My Line? Environmental Siting Strategies for Urban Power Plants (anticipated 2007)
Mr. Smith Goes to Nairobi: The Unwritten Role of Local Actors within International Environmental Law
(forthcoming 2007)
Presentations/Prizes
Presentation (Refereed), Association for Preservation Technology International, Galveston, TX (2004)
Guest Lecture, Preservation Law Class, The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (2003, 2004)
Presentation (Refereed), Latrobe Chapter, Society of Architectural Historians, College Park MD (2003)
Presentation (Refereed), Association for Preservation Technology International, Toronto (2002)
Presentation, Organization of American Historians, Ames, IA (2000)
Case Prize for Western History - Honors Thesis, Macalester College (1998)
Page 5 of 5
000983
James C. Sexton
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Over 15 years experience in the investigation and documentation of historic structures. Responsibilities
have included researching and writing Historic Structure Reports for culturally and historically significant
properties, designing and implementing field investigations and surveys, preparing National Register of
Historic Places nominations for significant historic properties and districts, and providing research for
proposed Local Historic Districts. Clients have included state and municipal agencies as well as cultural
institutions and private interests. Funding sources have included federal, state and local programs.
EDUCATION
Ph. D., Department of the History of Art, 1999, Yale University Dissertation: "Buildings, Builders, and
Patrons: A Study of Domestic Architecture in Guilford, Connecticut, 1690-1790"
M. A., Department of the History of Art, 1991, Yale University (Work completed in 1991; degree
awarded 1999)
B. A., Yale University, 1988
NPS Standards for Professional Practice - Architectural Historian /Historian (36 CFR 61)
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Architectural Historian, 2006-present
St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project, St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC, Historic Architectural
Resource Investigation
Research and fieldwork for a Historic Architectural Resource Investigation that includes a 1-mile Ring
Area of Potential Effect Study and a 5-mile Ring Area of Potential Effect Study in compliance with New
York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources
Survey Work. Surveyed and documented more than 500 resources.
Architectural Historian, 2006-present

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, Horizon Energy, Historic Architectural Resource Investigation
Research and fieldwork for a Historic Architectural Resource Investigation 1-mile Ring Area of Potential
Effect Study and a 5-mile Ring Area of Potential Effect Study in compliance with New York State
Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work.
Surveyed and documented more than 450 resources.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Trinity-on-Main, 2006, New Britain, CT. Prepared State Register nomination for historic church.
Received approval.
Fodor Farm Local Historic District Study Committee, 2006. Prepared background material for Study
Committee Report.
Madison Historical Society, 2006. Provide site visits and architectural interpretation for house plaque
program.
Darien Historical Society, 2005-present. Consultant on reinterpretation of the Bates-Scofield House

and Barn.
Page 1 of 4
000984
James C. Sexton
The City of Norwalk, CT, 2005. Preparing National Register nomination for the Wall Street Historic
District. (Ongoing)
The Noah Webster House and Museum of West Hartford History, 2005, West Hartford, CT.
Consultant on stabilization and renovation of the historic house in conjunction with Paul B. Bailey
Architect, LLC.
Coalition for Preservation of the Abel Bradley House, 2005, Westport, CT. Retained as expert
witness in litigation to prevent the demolition of a historic house in Westport.
The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation Barns Survey, 2005, Hamden, CT. Lead Historian
on a documentation survey of historic barns throughout Connecticut.
Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum, 2005, Wethersfield, CT. Lead historian on Historic Structures Report
for Webb House prepared with Building Conservation Associates. (Ongoing)
Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods, 2005, Richmond, VA. Performed documentary
research on the Hotel Richmond as part of an effort to preserve the building.
Rowayton Historical Society, 2005, Rowayton, CT. Prepared National Register nomination for the
Five Mile River Landing Historic District. (Ongoing – has received approval for study)
Clara Barton Birthplace Museum, 2005, North Oxford, MA. Prepared Historic Structures Report.
City of Bristol, CT. Worked with City Planner and local organizations to revise and update State
Historic Resource Inventory for Bristol. (Ongoing)
Historical Society of the Town of Greenwich, 2004, Greenwich, CT. Prepared feasibility study for re-
use of the Thomas Lyon House in conjunction with Paul B. Bailey Architect, LLC.
New London County Historical Society, New London, CT. Wrote Historic Structures Report for the
18th century Shaw Mansion.
Westport Historical Society, 2004-present, Westport, CT. Speaker in Old House School program.
Madison Historical Society, 2004, Madison, CT. Re-surveyed town to examine changes since Historic
Resources Inventory compiled in 1980.
Private Client, New York, NY. Worked with client and their architect to create period appropriate trim
package for Colonial Revival townhouse.
Madison Green Local Historic District Study Committee, 2004, Madison, CT. Provided research for
LHD Study Committee report.
Expert Reader, Historic Houses of the Hudson River Valley (NY: Rizzoli Books).
The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003-present, Hamden, CT. Contributing
photographer to Connecticut Preservation News.
New Haven Colony Historical Society, 2003, New Haven, CT. Researched exhibition on Margaret
Brewster and Edgerton, the estate she and her husband, Frederick Foster Brewster, created in New Haven.
Page 2 of 4
000985
James C. Sexton
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, Hamden, CT. Researched and wrote reports on
threatened structures.
New Canaan Historical Society, 2003-present, New Canaan, CT. Provided architectural research for
house dating program.
Private Client, 2003, Cheshire, CT. Analyzed structures for developer so that historic material could be
preserved.
Israel Putnam House Association, 2003, Greenwich, CT. Researched and wrote Interpretive Plan for
Putnam Cottage.
Israel Putnam House Association, 2002-2003, Greenwich, CT. Created Historic Structures Report for
Putnam Cottage.
New Haven Colony Historical Society, 2002, New Haven, CT. Researched and wrote Historic
Structures Report for the Pardee-Morris House.
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002, Hamden, CT. Speaker at the Annual Preservation
Conference.
Town of Enfield, CT, 2002. Established a date of construction for the Terry House, 3-5 Elm Street, for
the Town Planning Department.
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2001-present, Hamden, CT. Provided documentation
for historic easements.
Norwalk Historical Society, 2001-present, Norwalk, CT. Research Consultant for the Society’s House
Dating Program.
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2001-present, Hamden, CT. Panelist for House Talk
programs.
Historical Society of the Town of Greenwich, 2001-2002, Greenwich, CT. Provided Restoration
assessment for the Back Kitchen Chamber at Bush-Holley House.
The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2001, Hamden, CT. Prepared brief history of
Trinity United Methodist Church, New Britain.
The Bridgeport Conservancy, 2001, Bridgeport, CT. Helped to establish a date of construction for the
Tom Thumb House.
Holy Apostles College and Seminary, 2001, Cromwell, CT. Researched and wrote Restoration
Assessment Report for the Ranney house.
Friends of Boothe Park, 2001, Stratford, CT. Prepared preservation suggestions for early 20th century
house.
"Case Histories," Connecticut Preservation News, Volume XXIII, No. 4 (July/August 2000).
Page 3 of 4
000986
James C. Sexton
Historical Society of the Town of Greenwich, Greenwich, CT. Prepared "Bush-Holley House: A
Historic Structure Report."
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation, 2000, Hamden, CT. Wrote six case studies and guide to
researching town greens.
CPTV. Research Consultant for "The Green" episode of the Connecticut Experience.
CPTV. On-camera expert for "The Green" episode of the Connecticut Experience.
The Fairfield County Times and The Westchester County Times. 1999-2003. Photographer.
Contributor/Photographer, AIA Guide to New York City (4th edition), 1999.
Research Consultant, 1992-1999. The Society of Architectural Historians' Buildings of the United
States, Connecticut Volume.
Page 4 of 4
000987
Dr. Sydne B. Marshall, PhD
Supervising Social Scientist
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
More than 20 years experience in the investigation and management of cultural resources including
archeological and architectural properties. Responsible for performing NHPA Section 106 review studies,
developing National Register of Historic Places nominations for significant historic properties, designing
and implementing field investigations, performing quality assurance checks of in-house and subcontracted
field investigations, providing environmental input to engineers, and creating project impact assessments.
Management activities include day-to-day responsibility for technical work completed by the company
staff and subcontractors, and coordinating cultural resources studies with multidisciplinary environmental
analysis.
More than ten years experience as a Community Relations Specialist. Responsibilities include a full range
of community relations activities associated with numerous USEPA Superfund sites, TERC Installation
Restoration Programs (IRPs), USFWS and other projects.
EDUCATION
BA, Anthropology, The American University, 1972
MA, Anthropology, Columbia University, 1974
MPhil (Master of Philosophy), Anthropology, Columbia University, 1975
PhD, Anthropology, Columbia University, 1981
Registered Professional Archaeologist, Earned 8/6/85, Expires 12/30/03
TRAINING
8-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Health and Safety Refresher Course, 2002
24-Hour Federal Bureau of Investigation Location of Human Remains Training Course, 1991
8-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Health and Safety Supervisor Training, 1991
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Health and Safety Training, 1986
CORPORATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resources Lead, 2006

West Hill Windpower, LLC, Archeological and Architectural Historical Studies for West Hill Wind
Farm, NY
Task Lead responsible for the development and implementation of cultural resources studies, including
archeology and architectural history, in support of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and NY SEQR permitting of the proposed West Hill Wind Farm in Madison County,
New York. The project includes 25 wind turbines, 4.2 miles of access roads, 2.5 miles of underground
interconnect electrical lines, and a 2.5 miles long aboveground transmission line. Work was performed
implementing NY SHPO Guidelines for Cultural Resources Studies for Wind Projects.

Horizon Energy, Archeological and Architectural Historical Investigations for Batavia Wind Farm
Project, NY
Task Lead responsible for the development and implementation of cultural resources studies, including
archeology and architectural history, in support of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and NY SEQR permitting of the proposed Batavia Wind Farm located in Genessee
County, New York. The project includes approximately 63 wind turbines along with associated access
roads, underground interconnect electrical lines, and aboveground transmission line. Cultural resources
Page 1 of 21
000988
studies are designed to implement NY SHPO Guidelines for Cultural Resources Studies for Wind
Projects.

Invenergy Wind, LLC, Phase IA Cultural Resources Study, High Sheldon Wind Farm Project, NY
Task Lead for the development and implementation of background literature review and walkover survey
of proposed High Sheldon Wind Farm Project. Proposed project includes 107 wind turbines
interconnected by underground transmission lines and an aboveground transmission line of approximately
three miles.Project has potential to affect both prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

Invenergy Wind LLC, Phase IA Cultural Resources Study, Stamford Wind Project, NY
Task Lead for the development and implementation of background literature review and walkover survey
of proposed High Sheldon Wind Farm Project. Proposed project includes 44 wind turbines,
interconnected by about 9 miles of service roads and underground transmission lines. Project has potential
to affect both prehistoric and historic cultural resources.
Cultural Resources Lead

Fort Dix, Phase I and Phase II Archeological and Architectural Historical Investigations, Brindle
Lake Dam Replacement Project, Fort Dix, NJ
Task Lead for archeological investigations and an architectural historical assessment of the Brindle Lake
Dam and associated construction laydown areas located in Ocean County, NJ for the Fort Dix Military
Reservation. Work was performed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Evidence of both prehistoric and historic period archeological resources were recovered though no
sites were recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. An evaluation of the dam
indicated that the original nineteenth century-era vernacular dam had withstood several episodes of repair
into the twentieth century. The dam’s compromised integrity and setting contributed to the
recommendation that the dam is not potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

Fort Dix, NEPA Environmental Assessments, NJ
Performed archeological field inspections and prepared cultural resources input to several NEPA
environmental assessments (EAs) for proposed projects at Fort Dix, including a centralized tactical
vehicle wash facility, a rock crushing facility with the capability to produce asphalt, expansion of a
parking lot, and construction of additional bays and new warehouse at the Equipment Concentration Site.
These EAs were reviewed and approved by the NJ Pinelands Commission.

Fort Dix, Architectural Investigation, NJ
Worked with a team of architectural historians to perform an architectural investigation of 600 World
War II-era structures at Fort Dix. Work was performed in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, Army Regulations 420-40, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
implementing regulations at 36CFR800, NEPA, and the NJ Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.
A recommendation regarding National Register eligiblity pursuant to 36CFR60.4 was made for each
structure. The report was reviewed by NJ Historic Preservation Office (HPO), Fort Dix HPO, and NJ
Pinelands Commission.

New Jersey City University, New Jersey City University West Campus Expansion, NJ
At a contaminated Brownfields site in a former industrial area of Jersey City that will undergo
remediation and redevelopment, performed a Stage 1A cultural resources study. The study included
Page 2 of 21
000989
evaluation of the archeological potential of the project site and evaluation of nine structures slated to be
razed. Study indicated that the standing structures do not meet the eligibility criteria for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. Evaluation of geological cores from the site suggested that original
land surfaces are extant underlying 9 – 13 feet of fill deposits and that these have potential to contain
cultural remains related to populations that exploited resources in the former wetlands along the Newark
Bay.

Confidential Client, Due Diligence Evaluation of Proposed Energy Project in NY and NJ
Performed a due diligence evaluation for a client considering investing in a proposed energy project that
involves placement of a submerged energy pipeline in waters that extend from New Jersey to New York.
Reviewed reports of underwater and upland cultural resources investigations and associated comments
from respective state reviewers to evaluate the complexity of reported results, the requests for further
studies by regulators, and their monetary implications for project investors.
Cultural Resources Principal Investigator, 2003-2004
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Archeological, Historical and Geomorphological Study of
Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, Sussex County, DE
Project Manager responsible for performance of a variety of studies focused on the Prime Hook National
Wildlife Refuge located near Milton, DE. Studies included performance of vibracores and test trenches on
the refuge property to collect samples for pollen analysis and to perform geomorphological inspections to
identify potential buried land surfaces that may contain intact prehistoric period archeological sites. Also
performed a limited oral history program to interview local minority group representatives including
Native Americans, Black populations, and other former occupants of refuge property to record
information about pre-refuge life-ways.

Calpine, Bethpage Pipeline Project, NY
Prepared a cultural resources documentation package for review by the New York Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (the New York State Historic Preservation Office) in support of
FERC compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. The package
described the current conditions of the project area of potential effect and estimated its potential cultural
resources sensitivity.
Cultural Resources Lead, 1999 to 2004

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, MA
Responsible for cultural resources activities in support of EPA’s cleanup activities at the New Bedford
Harbor Superfund site. Provided assistance in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act including SHPO consultation, Native American consultation, development of scopes of
work and their implementation involving studies focused on upland and intertidal archeology, marine
archeology, architectural history and identification of potential historic districts. Duties involved
coordination with project engineers, property owners, internal resources field teams and agency officials,
and oversight of all cultural resource studies reports.

Western Frontier Pipeline Company, L.L.C., Western Frontier Pipeline Project Third-Party
Environmental Impact Statement, CO, KS, OK
Prepared cultural resources sections of a third-party Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluated
construction and operation impacts of a 409-mile long natural gas pipeline, 2 new compressor stations, 9
meter stations, and appurtenant facilities in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. These facilities are under
the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The EIS evaluated potential
impacts on the environment (e.g., including cultural resources), and consided various system, major route,
Page 3 of 21
000990
and above ground facility alternatives and route variations. The EIS provided recommendations to avoid
and/or minimize environmental impacts and addressed comments raised by the public.
Cultural Resources Task Lead, 2002 - Present

U.S. Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Jamaica Island Landfill Remediation Project, Kittery, ME
Assist US Navy in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. Work with project engineers to develop appropriate field approaches for identifying cultural
resources in areas where the proposed project may affect prehistoric and historic cultural resources that
may have the potential to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Project involved removal
of hazardous materials from a landfill, introduction of clean capping material, and creation of new
recreational area parking facilities.
Cultural Resources Task Lead, 2002

U.S. Navy, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, NY
Assisting US Navy in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. Working with project engineers to develop appropriate field approaches for identifying cultural
resources in areas where the proposed project may affect prehistoric and historic cultural resources that
may have the potential to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Proposed project
involving removal of hazardous materials from a landfill and restoration of former ponds and wetlands.
Cultural Resources Lead, 2002 - 2003

Confidential Client, Confidential LNG Project
Directed cultural resources study of three proposed pipeline marine and upland route alternatives. Data
were used to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed project. Participated in selection of a preferred
marine and upland pipeline route and location for a proposed off-shore LNG facility in US waters. Future
studies will include upland and marine cultural resources surveys.

CMS Energy, Trunkline LNG Terminal Expansion Project, Calcasieu Parish, LA
Activities are designed to assist client in obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FREC) for the proposed project. Project includes
cultural resources consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, development of an
Unanticipated Discovery Plan, Native American consultation, and development of FERC Resource
Report No. 4.

Dynegy, Hackberry LNG Project, Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, LA
Managed cultural resources work designed to support client in obtaining a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Activities include
consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, Native American consultation,
oversight of archeological and architectural surveys of the proposed pipeline right-of-way, development
of an Unanticipated Discovery Plan, and development of FERC Resource Report No. 4.
Cultural Resources Lead, 2001 - Present

South Florida Water Management District, Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank, Palm Beach County, FL
Support project on all cultural resources issues. Conducted Phase I examination of South Parcel Mound
and identified an isolated prehistoric-period artifact within a portion of Florida where few prehistoric
archeological sites are known. Work was conducted in compliance with Tetra Tech FW, Inc.'s ERP and
ACOE Section 404 permits for the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank.
Page 4 of 21
000991
Rochester Gas and Electric Company, Russell Station Repowering Feasibility Study, Monroe
County, NY
Evaluated the cultural resources concerns that would need to be addressed by RG&E should they decide
to seek permits to repower the Russell Station, located in Greece, NY. The Feasibility Study involved
consideration of the application of various Clean Coal Technologies
Cultural Resources Quality Reviewer, 2002

Southern California Gas Company, L1030 Pipeline Replacement Project, Riverside County, CA
Performed a quality assurance review of a cultural resources evaluation report for a 6.2-mile natural gas
transmission pipeline replacement project. Recommendations were made for organization of the report
and clear presentation of information.

National Park Service, Jaite Paper Mill RP/EA and Restoration Project, Cuyahoga Valley National
Park, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, OH
Working with a multidisciplinary team to support National Park Service efforts to evaluate the Jaite Paper
Mill for potential contamination and for potential historic values that may be appropriate for future public
interpretation. Tasks involve developing a remediation plan and supporting NPS in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Tetra Tech FW, Inc. will assist in developing a
historic preservation plan that will allow cleanup activities to take place while preserving historic values
of the resource.
Cultural Resources Lead, 2001-2002

Florida Power and Light, Linfield Energy Center Permitting, Montgomery County, PA
Provided cultural resources input to permitting strategy for this project. Cultural resources studies
conducted in support of the project included an architectural inventory and evaluation of potential historic
properties within the project viewshed, and an assessment of potential archeological sensitivity of the
proposed project area. Assisted FP&L and the Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (functions as the State Historic Preservation Office).
Assisted in developing photosimulations of the project from specifically selected locations with critical
views of the project. Participated in public meetings about the project.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, GTAC-3, Valley Forge National Historic
Park, Asbestos Release Site, Valley Forge, PA
Assessed the cultural resources sensitivity of the area included within the Asbestos Release Site located
within the NPS’ Valley Forge National Historical Park. Developed a protocol to be followed during the
course of Remedial Investigation sediment sampling that would allow work to proceed with appropriate
attention paid to high cultural resource sensitivity areas. Assisted PADEP in developing workplans
acceptable to the NPS and assisted in consultation with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission (functions as the State Historic Preservation Office).

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Johnstown (N. Market Street) Site, Johnstown, NY
Provided cultural resources assessment for the PSA/IRM study at the former Manufactured Gas Plant.
Also provided input that resulted in development of a plan for minimizing potential project impacts to an
adjacent historic property, the Johnstown Colonial Cemetery, listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Page 5 of 21
000992
Cultural Resources Lead, 2001-2002
Calpine Corporation, Chippokes Energy Center, Surry County, VA
Lead cultural resources specialist working as part of a multidisciplinary team to obtain permits for
construction and operation of a combined-cycle gas-fired electric generating plant. Provided oversight of
Phase I cultural resources investigation of the proposed project area.
Cultural Resources Specialist, 2000

Florida Gas Transmission Company, FGT Phase V Expansion Project, Florida, Alabama, MS
Responsible for preparing cultural resources sections of a third-party Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for construction of 231.1 miles of 16 pipeline segments (loops, laterals, and a rehab segment),
additional compression at 11 stations (including construction of 2 new compressor stations), and various
metering and regulator facilities in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Cultural Resources Task Manager, 1999 - Present

Lead Cultural Resources Specialist, 1999 - Present
Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC, Phase IA and IB Surveys for the Stagecoach
Storage Project, Towns of Owego and Nichols, Tioga County, NY
Serves as Lead Cultural Resources Specialist on this project. Work is being conducted in support of a
FERC certificate and supports CNYOGC and FERC in complying with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Responsibilities include compiling Phase IA and Phase IB studies for the
project working with a subcontractor, and developing the project Plan for Addressing Unanticipated
Cultural Resources Including Human Remains that will be used during project construction. She has also
supported project consultation with SHPO and interested Native American representatives.
Lead Cultural Resources Specialist, 1999 - Present

PANDA Energy, Trans - Union Pipeline Project, LA and AR
Assist Trans-Union Pipeline L.P. in conducting all cultural resources studies in support of attaining a
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Certificate for construction and operation of an interstate gas
pipeline in Louisiana and Arkansas. Responsibilities include developing plans to address unanticipated
cultural resources, managing Native American consultation, providing overall guidance for cultural
resources surveys within the project area of potential effect, and coordinating agency consultations in
compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville Ordnance and Explosive Center of
Expertise, Former Fort Hancock EE/CA
Developed and presented a Worker Education Program geared toward familiarizing UXO experts with the
potential range of cultural materials that could be expected to occur on the historic facility. Also
developed a plan and procedures to be followed in the event that UXO investigators identified potential
cultural resources in addition to UXO during their investigations. Former Fort Hancock is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places and contains a lighthouse that is also listed on the register. Developed
a program to assist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Roanoke Rapids and Lake Gaston Hydroelectric
Relicensing Projects, Mecklenburg and Brunswick Counties, VA, and Warren, Northampton and
Halifax Counties, NC
Responsible for cultural resources tasks associated with FERC relicensing of two hydroelectric projects
on the Roanoke River. Tasks included consulting with SHPOs and FERC; developing appropriate scopes
of work sufficient to support NHPA Section 106 documentation of project effects on cultural resources;
Page 6 of 21
000993
implementing all associated cultural resources studies; providing assessment of project impacts; preparing
a report of all findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and developing a cultural resources
management plan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Roebling Steel Company Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS), Florence Township, NJ
Responsible for Stage 1 and Stage 2 cultural resources investigations. Project tasks include developing
archival inventory of hundreds of documents, blueprints and miscellaneous company papers left by site
corporate occupants; architectural inventory of over 90 Roebling plant structures; completion of form for
Roebling Steel Company site nomination to National Register of Historic Places; and archeological
testing at selected locations within the industrial site. Provides cultural resources input to project remedial
engineers determining appropriate remediation for specific buildings on the property. Also works with
engineers to keep open vast possibilities for adaptive property reuse.
Project Manager/Principal Investigator, 2000

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Harding
Borrow Area, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, NJ
Directed the Phase IA background literature work and development of project area archeological
sensitivity analysis. She also participated in and directed the Phase IB archeological field investigation in
an area proposed as a source of clean borrow material to be used in the nearby remediation of a
contaminated landfill site. Conducted work in support of USFWS compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Prepared a report according to the guidelines of the New Jersey
Historic Preservation Office. Identified, but did not recommend, one historic period archeological site as a
possible addition to the National Register of Historic Places.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Olean Wellfield Superfund site, Olean, NY
Conducted Stage II cultural resources investigation in coordination with Remedial Action work
assignment under the EPA RAC II Contract to complete the remediation of the site in accordance with the
Remedial Design prepared under the EPA ARCS II Contract. Conducted the cultural resources
investigation in Level C to determine if remnants of the Genesee Valley Canal, potentially eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places, were extant in the area that would undergo remediation.
Work involved backhoe excavation to a depth of 14 feet in order to allow examination and recordation of
a cross-section of the area slated for remediation. Planned work to reveal, if present, remnants of the
former canal prior to proposed removal of soils from the Superfund site.

North Baja Pipeline, LLC, Pacific Gas and Electric Pipeline Project Riverside and Imperial
Counties, Southern California, Riverside and Imperial Counties, Southern CA
Provided review of cultural resources report developed as part of a FERC project application.
Lead Cultural Resources Specialist, 1999 - 2001

South Carolina Pipeline Corporation; Carolinas Pipeline Project, SC and NC
Assisted South Carolina Pipeline Corporation in conducting all cultural resources studies in support of
attaining a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Certificate for construction and operation of a 280-
mile interstate gas pipeline in South Carolina and North Carolina. Responsibilities included developing
plans to address unanticipated cultural resources, Native American consultation, overall guidance for
cultural resources surveys within project areas of potential effect, and coordinating agency consultation in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Page 7 of 21
000994
Cultural Resources Specialist, 1999 - 2000
Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C., Guardian Pipeline Project Third-party Environmental Impact
Statement, IL and WI
Prepared cultural resources sections of a third-party Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluated
construction and operation impacts of a 149-mile-long natural gas pipeline, 1 new compressor station, 7-
meter stations, and appurtenant facilities in Illinois and Wisconsin (Guardian Pipeline Project) and about
38 miles of lateral pipeline in Wisconsin (WGC Lateral Line Project). The facilities associated with the
Guardian Pipeline and WGC Lateral Line Projects were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW), respectively.
Both facilities were analyzed in a single EIS. Responsibilities included preparing a cultural resources
technical write-up evaluation of possible project impacts to cultural properties potentially eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.

US Army Corps of Engineers New England Division, Upper Cape Water Supply Project, MA
Provided cultural resources oversight for preparation of the federal and state environmental
documentation for development of regional municipal water supply within the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Assisted in Native American Consultation. Responsible for
supporting activities involving compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, Stagecoach Expansion Project, PA, NJ, NY
Responsible for reviewing the cultural resources survey reports prepared for the expansion project
consisting of 24 miles of new lateral, 4 miles of looping, selected replacements along 74 miles of pipeline,
and a compressor station in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.

The Mason and Hangar Group, Inc./USACE Louisville District, Fort Dix, NJ
Assessed potential project impacts to cultural resources and prepared sections for an EIS for the
construction of a centralized tactical vehicle wash facility at Fort Dix.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Glens Falls Site, Glens Falls, NY
Collected data for and prepared Phase I Cultural Resources Report to satisfy conditions of a Consent
Decree Order for the former MGP site.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Schenectady (Seneca St.) Site, Schenectady, NY

Mobile District Corps of Engineers, Jackson Port EIS, Jackson, AL
Cultural resources lead for a politically sensitive fast-tract NEPA EIS. Prepared cultural resources
sections of EIS.
Page 8 of 21
000995
TriState Pipeline, L.L.C., TriState Pipeline Project Third-party Environmental Impact Statement,
IN, IL, and MI
Prepared cultural resources sections for a third-party EIS for Tri-State’s proposed 228-mile-long pipeline
and appurtenant facilities in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. Responsibilities included evaluating project
impacts to cultural resources that were potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Independence Pipeline and Market Link Expansion Projects Third-party EIS, IL, IN, MI, OH, PA,
and NJ
Prepared the cultural resources sections of a third-party EIS for multiple pipeline projects consisting of a
proposed 624-mile-long pipeline in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Responsibilities included evaluating project impacts to cultural resources that were potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.

Millennium Pipeline Project Third-party EIS, NY
Prepared the cultural resources sections of a third-party EIS for Millennium’s proposed 424-mile-long
pipeline project proposed to extend from an interconnection with Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd. to the
outskirts of New York City, NY. Evaluated project impacts to cultural resources that were potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

FERC, Amended North Alabama Pipeline Project, AL
Prepared the cultural resources sections of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Southern Natural Gas Company’s Amended North Alabama Pipeline Project. Project facilities included
26.9 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline, 0.2 mile of 12-inch-diameter pipeline, and two-meter stations in
Morgan, Madison, and Limestone Counties, Alabama. Responsibilities included evaluating project
impacts to cultural resources that were potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and
addressing comments raised by the public.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Johnstown (N. Market St.) Site, Johnstown, NY

FERC, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System EIS, VT, NH, ME
Prepared cultural resources sections for EIS for 242 miles of pipeline in Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Maine.

FERC, Destin Pipeline Project, Gulf of Mexico and Pascagoula, MS
Responsible for preparing the cultural resources section of EIS that included 75.6 miles of offshore
pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico (in Federal, Alabama and Mississippi state waters), 117.7 miles of onshore
pipeline in Mississippi, 2 new compressor stations, 7 new meter stations, associated facilities (liquids slug
catcher, offshore gathering platform), and the non-jurisdictional gas processing plant in Pascagoula,
Mississippi.
Page 9 of 21
000996
FERC; SeaBoard Expansion and Niagara Expansion Projects, NY, PA, NJ
Prepared the cultural resources sections of an EA for a project involving multiple applicants, facilities,
and states. Proposed facilities included Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s looping of 22.8
miles and replacement of 6.3 miles of pipeline, and upgrade/modification of existing aboveground
facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey; National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation’s modification of two
existing compressor stations and 7 existing metering and regulating stations in New York and
Pennsylvania; and Tennessee Gas Pipe Line Company’s modification of an existing compressor station in
New York. Responsible for evaluating project impacts to cultural resources that were potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and for addressing comments raised by the public.

FERC, Granite State LNG Project, Wells, ME
Prepared the cultural resources sections of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Granite State's
proposed LNG Storage Facility in Wells, Maine.
Lead Cultural Resources Specialist, 1995 - 1996

Pennsylvania Electric Company, Seward Generating Station Project
Conducted Phase I cultural resources investigation of historic generating station to assess impacts of
proposed expansion project. Focus of study involved both archeological and architectural resources.
Produced a report for review by Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office.

FERC, Steuben Gas Storage Company, Thomas Corners Gas Storage Field Project, NY
Prepared the cultural resources sections of an EA for the proposed development of a gas storage field and
construction of a new 3,284 hp compressor station and 6.45 miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline in Steuben
County, New York.

Northwest Pipeline Company, Animas-LaPlata Pipeline Relocation, CO
Responsible for assisting Northwest Pipeline in complying with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(FERCs) cultural resources requirements for pipeline certification. Activities included summarizing all
extant cultural resources information into Resources Report No. 4 document for FERC. Project involved
the relocation of an extant pipeline to a new location in anticipation of the proposed Bureau of
Reclamation's proposed Ridges Basin Dam and Reservoir Project that, if built, will cover approximately
six miles of the extant pipeline.

Northwest Pipeline Company, Expansion II Project, WA, WY, OR, ID
Developed work scope and secured qualified subcontractors to serve as Project Forensic Anthropologists.
Offered to provide services in the event that unanticipated human remains and/or cultural materials were
discovered during the course of proposed Northwest Pipeline construction. Assisted Task Lead in
developing multiple Cultural Resources Mitigation Plans and Procedures, which were tailored for
proposed facilities in Washington, Wyoming, Oregon, and Idaho.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Cultural Resources Industry Outreach Training
Assisted FERC in providing outreach training to pipeline industry professionals. Tasks included preparing
a workbook and an eight-hour presentation focused on educating pipeline industry professionals about
cultural resources and FERC's guidelines for cultural resources investigations. Also provided assistance to
FERC by responding to written and oral questions from pipeline industry professionals.
Page 10 of 21
000997

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Environmental Analysis and Documentation of
U.S. Army Research Laboratory Materials Directorate Interim Facilities, Newark, DE, and
Dundalk and Hunt Valley, MD
Assessed potential impacts to three potential sites slated to accommodate the United States Army
Research Laboratory interim move from Watertown, Massachusetts. The facilities would ultimately be
moved into nearby constructed or renovated facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Prepared
Section 106 cultural resources documentation.

FERC, Liberty Pipeline Project, KY, IN, PA, NJ, and NY
Responsible for the cultural resources sections of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
269 mile-long Liberty Pipeline Project in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New
York.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center Environmental
Compliance Evaluation, AL
Conducted an environmental compliance assessment of Marshall Space Flight Center's activities with
regard to requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Reviewed and compared all
applicable regulations with information collected during a site visit and through telephone interviews.
Stated observations about deficiencies in NHPA compliance and provided recommendations that would
correct all deficiencies.

AlliedSignal, Inc., Sumitomo Machinery Corporation, Teterboro Facility Cleanup, Teterboro, NJ
Evaluated potential impacts of proposed removal of radiologically contaminated soils on cultural
resources that were eligible for National Register inclusion. Examined the project area, located within the
New Jersey Meadowlands, during a walkover survey. Consulted historical documentation of area
development along with historical cartographic sources. Of particular interest was a historic drainage
ditch that may have related to early attempts to drain the Meadowlands in preparation for agricultural use.
Environmental Lead, 1993

Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Throgs Neck Bridge Toll Plaza CEQR
Responsible for coordinating multidisciplinary environmental assessment of a proposed structural
expansion of TBTA facilities.

Tennessee Valley Authority, EIS on the Resource Management Plan for TVA's Land Between the
Lakes, Western KYand TN
Provided comments and recommendations to TVA regarding their draft of the EIS for the Land Between
the Lakes (LBL) Resource Management Plan. Worked with TVA staff to strengthen sections that
addressed cultural resources management within the LBL facility.

Chevron, South Plainfield Remediation Project, South Plainfield, NJ
Designed the strategy and provided oversight for a study which produced a Site Fill History based on
archival, cartographic, and historic photographic resources.
Page 11 of 21
000998
Edison Township, Edison-Tylor Estates Compliance Review, Edison Township, NJ
Provided cultural resources compliance review services to township in New Jersey for an ongoing
archeological data recovery excavation. Responsibilities included field inspections, field investigation
reports, identification of potential problems, and recommendations.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Army Research Laboratory Relocation,
Adelphi, MD
Responsible for Environmental Assessment (EA) of the sites at Adelphi Laboratory Center where
construction was proposed to accommodate incoming Army Research Laboratory facilities. Conducted
archeological field investigations of early 20th century residential site to determine its potential National
Register eligibility.

Crown Energy, L.P. and Vista Energy, L.P., Crown/Vista Energy Project, West Deptford
(Gloucester County), NJ
Responsible for Phase I and II archeological investigations at site proposed for development of a coal-
fired electricity generating station. Project resulted in the identification of extensive prehistoric cultural
resources within the study area. Conducted project in compliance with the New Jersey Waterfront
Development Act, Coastal Permit Program Regulations, and Rules on Coastal Zone Management.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Army Research Laboratory Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), Aberdeen, MD
Responsible for Environmental Impact Assessment of facilities slated to be moved to Aberdeen Proving
Ground from Watertown, Massachusetts as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
legislation. Assessed both the archeological potential of project areas and the possible impacts of the
proposed project to potentially National Register-eligible World War II-era structures.

Oxbow Power Corporation, Oxbow Wheatfield Greenhouse Site Project, North Tonawanda, NY
Responsible for Phase 1A and 1B cultural resources investigations of proposed greenhouse facilities in
Wheatfield, New York that would use steam power generated from a nearby cogeneration facility.
Discovered a solitary prehistoric projectile point within the proposed project area.

Cogen Technologies, Linden Cogeneration Project, Linden, NJ and Staten Island, NY
Evaluated the archeological potential of the Staten Island portion of a proposed cogeneration project in
Linden, New Jersey with an associated underwater transmission line to Staten Island, New York.
Successfully presented case to New York State Historic Preservation Office that extant documentation of
disturbance in project impact area precluded the need for field investigations of New York portion of
project area.

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG), Site Selection Study, GA
Worked with a multidisciplinary team to identify sites within the State of Georgia suitable for
accommodating a 200-400-megawatt (MW) peaking combustion turbine unit. Defined exclusion criteria
for each discipline including cultural resources. Finally identified three suitable sites that satisfied all
criteria.
Page 12 of 21
000999
Energy Initiatives, Inc., Bermuda Hundred Cogeneration Project, Chesterfield County, VA
Conducted a visual assessment of the impacts of a proposed cogeneration facility on ante-bellum
plantation sites within the James River Valley in Virginia that were eligible for inclusion in the National
Register.
Environmental Lead, 1989 - 1994

New Jersey Water Supply Authority, Lumberville Wing Dam Rehabitation Environmental
Assessment, Lumberville, PA and Bulls Island, NJ
Responsible for a multidisciplinary team that conducted an environmental assessment of the proposed
rehabilitation of the Lumberville Wing Dam. The dam was associated with the Delaware and Raritan
Canal, which were listed on the National Register. Project included both conducting an upland
archeological field investigation and recording a National Register eligibility assessment of the 19th
century Lumberville Wing Dam following its exposure through dewatering of the Delaware River.
Coordinated the dam cultural resources study with engineering rehabilitation tasks. Conducted work to
assist client in compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act.

Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Red Bank-Aberdeen 230 kV Transmission Line,
Monmouth County, NJ
Responsible for evaluating effects of project construction on historic architectural and archeological sites,
evaluating visual impacts to a National Register Historic District, preparing NHPA Section 106
compliance documentation, and preparing New Jersey Historic Sites Encroachment Application.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Cultural Resource Task Assignments, ID and ME
Provided cultural resources input to EISs for the relicensing of both the Twin Falls/Auger Falls/Star Falls
Hydroelectric Projects (Idaho) and the Kennebec Hydroelectric Plant relicensing (Maine).
Principal Investigator, 1989

TAMS, Arnold Street Site Archeological Survey Project, Staten Island, NY
Responsible for conducting an archeological survey and testing at the site of proposed United States Navy
Homeport housing site. One goal of the testing was to confirm the presence/absence of potential cultural
resources identified on the basis of prior documentary research. Cartographic sources had indicated the
project location as the former site of a house complex designed by famed architect Alexander Jackson
Davis and it was anticipated that the house might also have had associated gardens possibly designed by
landscape architect Andrew Jackson Downing.
Project Manager, 1989

Harborview Associates, Phase 1A Cultural Resources Study, Staten Island, NY
Developed and implemented scope of work including archeological background research, field visit and
project impact assessment at target development site. Prepared a report for presentation to Landmarks
Preservation Commission.
Cultural Resources Task Leader, 1989

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Corporation, Work Scope for Hackensack Meadowlands
Special Area Management Plan EIS, NJ
Developed cultural resources work scope for HMDC EIS for the New Jersey Meadowlands.
Page 13 of 21
001000
Project Archeologist, 1989
North Carolina Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting Authority, Site Selection Environmental
Criteria, NC
Responsible for collecting and evaluating cultural resources information for use in the selection of
alternative potential project sites. Developed cultural resources criteria that were applied to
multidisciplinary comparisons of multiple sites. Based on comparisons to each other and against the
defined criteria (from various disciplines), sites were ordered according to a preferential scale from most
desirable to least desirable.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Multiple Task Assignments, Nationwide
Supported FERC by preparing cultural resources applicant data requests and by writing sections for
numerous EISs and EAs. Also assisted FERC in compliance reviews of numerous projects including
ANR Pipeline Project (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio), Ohio-Indiana Pipeline Project, COCO
Storage Replacement Project, Riverside Storage, ARKLA EA, FLEX-X EA, EF Expansion EA, 95/96 SE
Expansion EA, Roanoke Expansion Project, East Leg Expansion Project, Easton South Project, CNG-TL-
470X5 Project, the Liberty Pipeline (New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky)
Line L Replacement EA, Thomas Corner Gas Storage EA, and Majorsville Herd Crawford Storage EA.
Conducted field compliance checks, prepared project-related documentation for the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and developed PMOA and MOA documents.

Taiwan Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impact Assessment Short Course for
Taiwan EPA
Developed and presented lectures to representatives of Taiwan EPA about cultural resources management
in the United States. Emphasized issues relating to both the legislative base and the techniques applied.
Presenters representing other disciplines also participated as part of a team of lecturers.
Environmental Lead, 1987 - 1988

New Jersey Water Supply Authority, Stormwater and Sediment Control Study of Delaware and
Raritan Feeder Canal, Hunterdon and Somerset Counties, NJ
Responsible for coordinating environmental input for a multidisciplinary feasibility study to control,
reduce or eliminate stormwater and sediment from within the Delaware and Raritan Canal Feeder
between Kingwood Township and Upper Ferry Road. Assessed impacts of various engineering
alternatives on cultural resources including the Canal, Canal-associated resources and prehistoric cultural
resources. Participated in presentations to the client, state agencies, the D&R Canal Commission, and the
public.

New Jersey Department of the Treasury, Division of Building and Construction, Imlaystown Dam
Rehabilitation, Imlaystown, NJ
Responsible for coordination of environmental input to a multidisciplinary project to provide a design for
dam and spillway rehabilitation, and development of a recreation plan in the Imlaystown Historic District,
Monmouth County, New Jersey. Directly responsible for assessing impacts of the proposed project on the
historic district. Services included supervision of historical research and archeological field
investigations, laboratory analyses, interaction with project engineers, and preparation of documentation
for use by the State Historic Preservation Office in support of a Historic Sites Encroachment Application.
Page 14 of 21
001001
Jersey Central Power and Light, Environmental Assessment of 230 kV Substation and
Transmission Line Near Taylor Lane, Middletown Township, NJ
Performed assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on archeological and standing
historic architectural resources.

Lawler, Matusky and Skelly, Engineers, Stage 1B Archeological Investigation of Northport Marine
Center, Northport, NY
Conducted Stage 1B archeological field investigation within an area of proposed construction. Test
trenches excavated using a backhoe revealed historic and prehistoric artifacts in a disturbed fill context.
No in situ artifactual materials were recovered.

New Jersey Natural Gas, Proposed Office Building EIS, Rockaway Township, NJ
Conducted a Phase I archeological investigation of an area proposed for development. Work was
conducted in compliance with Rockaway Township, New Jersey cultural resources regulations. Shovel
tests revealed that the site is covered by at least two feet of fill. Concluded that the project area was not
archeologically sensitive for prehistoric or historic archeological resources. Visual inspection of the
surrounding area demonstrated a lack of National Register-eligible properties that would be affected by
the proposed construction.
Assistant Cultural Resources Lead, 1986 - 1987

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic District, Archeological Overview and Management
Plan for Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point (MOTSU), NC
Responsible for day-to-day operation of project activities associated with development of a historic
preservation plan.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; New York District, New Sanitary Landfill Siting Study and EIS,
Fort Drum (Jefferson County), NY
Participated in multidisciplinary site selection study and developed cultural resources criteria that were
used to distinguish among several alternative potential sites. Also responsible for planning and executing
an archeological survey of the selected proposed sanitary landfill site.
Assistant Project Coordinator, 1986 - 1987

National Park Service, World War II in Alaska: A History and Resources Management Plan, AK
Responsible for coordinating subconsultant input for a cultural resources management plan for all World
War II Department of Defense (DoD) debris in Alaska. Conducted project as part of the Corps of
Engineers' Defense Environmental Restoration Project.

Marcal Paper Mills, Marcal Paper Cogeneration Project, Elmwood Park (Bergen County), NJ
Evaluated archeological sensitivity of proposed project site. Evaluation included literature review,
cartographic study, and examination of site borings for evidence of buried land surfaces and presence of
cultural resources.
Page 15 of 21
001002
Material Longevity Specialist, 1985
Anonymous Client
Provided results of documentary investigations into the uses of concrete and its potential survival over
time. Information was used to support selection of preferred alternative site capping design at a
contaminated site and was used to support court testimony.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Cannonsville Reservoir Enlargement
Study, New York, NY
Assessed environmental impacts of the proposed project on cultural and paleontological resources.
Prepared sections of a SEQR EIS document.

Van Note Harvey and Associates, Canal Road Sewer Easement, West Windsor, NJ
Directed literature search, field investigation and report preparation for a Phase I study evaluating the
potential impact of a proposed sewerline on archeological cultural resources and the adjacent Delaware
and Raritan Canal.
Assistant Cultural Resources Lead, 1984 - 1988

New York Power Authority, Sound Cable Project, Westchester and Nassau Counties, NY
Worked with a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project.
Participated in route selection for the proposed underground transmission line, upland archeological
investigation, inventory and evaluation of National Register-eligible structures in the project area, and
conducted underwater survey for prehistoric sites utilizing vibracore testing technology and application of
soil chemistry tests to identify prehistoric sites.
Assistant Project Manager, 1984 - 1985

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Site Selection Study for Coal-Fired Electric Generating
Facility, Mecklenburg, Buckingham and Greensville Counties, VA, and Bertie County, NC
Responsibilities included assuring project quality; coordinating with client, subconsultants and state
agencies; and preparing reports. Cultural resources identification and evaluation program included
extensive archeological surveys and preparation of environmental assessments of the four potential major
power plant sites.
Assistant Project Manager, 1984 - 1985

National Park Service, Historic Preservation Plan, Fort Drum (Jefferson County), NY
Responsible for supervising analysis of the results of an archeological survey of 107,000-acre Fort Drum.
Also assisted in developing a cultural resources preservation plan for the fort.

Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute, Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts on Canyonlands National Park Due to Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository, UT
Evaluated the effect of construction and operation of a proposed nuclear waste repository in Lavendar and
Davis Canyons in Utah on cultural resources in Canyonlands National Park. Previously identified
resources included numerous Native American rock art sites and habitation sites. Special consideration
was given to the potential effects of salt and acid rain on masonry and rock, effects to sites due to
increased accessibility, and effects on cultural resources of vibrations from blasting sites located two to
three miles away.
Page 16 of 21
001003
Holyoke Energy Recovery Company (HERCO), Waste-to-Energy Project, Holyoke, MA
Evaluated potential impacts of adverse air quality to historic structures in the vicinity of a proposed
energy recovery facility. Project area included numerous historic structures that were listed in or eligible
for the National Register. Prepared cultural resources sections of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
review by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering,
Western Region.

United Illuminating, Environmental Compatibility Study for 115 kV Transmission Line,
Birdgeport, CT
Evaluated the impacts of a proposed transmission line to historic and pre-historic cultural resources.
Provided responses to interrogatories relative to cultural resources.

Alaska Power Authority, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Susitna River Valley, AL
Responsible for reviews of cultural resources scopes of work, field investigation results, project impact
assessments and site mitigations. Assisted Cultural Resources Lead in day-to-day management issues.

U.S. Department of the Army, Environmental Assessment of Construction Projects, Fort Riley, KS
Worked as part of a multidisciplinary team to study potential environmental effects of proposed
construction projects at Fort Riley. Cultural resources concerns included numerous properties located
within Fort Riley that were listed in or eligible for the National Register.
Assistant Technical Manager, 1982 - 1988

National Park Service, DARCOM Archeological Overviews and Management Plans Project, VT,
CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, MD, and VA
Responsible for the preparation of historical and archeological overviews and management plans for 19
United States Army DARCOM installations located throughout the northeastern United States including
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Scranton Army Ammunition Plant and Letterkenny Army Depot in
Pennsylvania; Watervliet Arsenal, Seneca Army Depot, and Rotterdam Housing Areas Nos. 1 and 2 in
New York; Natick Research and Development Laboratories, and Army Materiel and Mechanics Research
Center in Massachusetts; Picatinny Arsenal, Fort Monmouth (Main Post), Camp Charles Wood and the
Evans Area in New Jersey; Stratford Army Engineer Plant in Connecticut; Ethan Allen Firing Range in
Vermont; Harry Diamond Laboratories - Adelphi and Blossom Point Test Site, and Aberdeen Proving
Ground in Maryland; and Woodbridge Research Facility in Virginia. Project duties included coordinating
the work of five subcontractors, writing management sections of the overview documents, and editing
other sections contributed by co-authors.

Consolidated Edison, Coal Combustion Residue Disposal Facility Site Selection Study, NY and NJ
Responsible for evaluating the archeological sensitivity of a number of large land tracts in New York
State and New Jersey considered for selection as a waste disposal facility. Worked with multidisciplinary
team to establish preferential ordering of the subject sites according to criteria defined by the team.
Page 17 of 21
001004
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community Relations Lead, 2004

New Jersey City University, New Jersey City University West Campus Expansion, NJ.
Assisted New Jersey City University in composing a fact sheet that would inform stakeholders about the
University’s plans to expand its campus to include portions of a Brownfields site in Jersey City.
Proposed activities discussed in the newsletter included razing nine former industrial buildings,
remediating contamination at the site, and redeveloping the site for University use supported by some
commercial use.
Community Relations Specialist, 2000 - Present

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, GTAC-3, Valley Forge National Historic
Park Asbestos Release Site, Valley Forge, PA
Responsible for preparing a community relations plan, fact sheets and providing other support to client
during performance of a remedial investigation field effort, preparation of a remedial investigation report,
and feasibility study report for a 482-acre site within the Valley Forge National Historic Park where
asbestos contamination at concentrations up to 70% were found.

U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, Former Fort Hancock Ordnance and
Explosive EE/CA, Sandy Hook, NJ
Responsible for developing the community outreach plan for this UXO investigation program. Also
provided various community relations support including assisting at community meetings with local
officials and developing display materials for public meetings.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ARCS II Programs
Responsible for developing and implementing community relations plans and activities related to
proposed remediation of numerous Superfund hazardous waste sites including Rockaway Boro RI/FS and
Cornell-Dubilier RI/FS..
Community Relations Specialist, 1999 - 2000

Port Authority of NY and NJ
Responsible for conducting interviews with PA NY NJ to identify the breadth of issues and anticipated
stakeholders associated with a potential project in the New York Harbor area.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, NJ
Responsible for conducting research regarding facility history, conducting community interviews,
assisting in preparing community information meetings, preparing public notes and display materials, and
making presentations to community members about ongoing investigations at the Harding Landfill
Remediation Project located within the USFWS Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge..
Program Facilitator, 1998

Tetra Tech FW, Inc., Environmental Legislation and Standards Management Training Program,
NY
Responsible for overseeing the implementation of a course presented to oil industry professionals who
came to the US from Nigeria for the program.
Page 18 of 21
001005
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phase II Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit 3 of the Asbestos
Dump Superfund Site, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, NJ
Responsible for implementing the project community relations program for this Superfund site located
within the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Established and maintained two information
repositories, wrote and produced fact sheets for distribution to the public, organized public meetings and
open house sessions for local stakeholders, monitored project telephone "hotline", prepared news releases
and newspaper notices, updated project mailing list, and provided other community relations support as
needed.
Community Relations Specialist, 1995

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District, TERC, Holloman Air Force Base, NM
Developed Community Relations Plan for the IRP for the Holloman Air Force Base.
Community Relations Specialist, 1994

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Albuquerque District, Total Environmental Restoration Contract
(TERC), Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM
Developed Community Relations Plan for the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) for the Kirtland Air
Force Base.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, REM III Programs
Responsible for developing and implementing community relations plans and activities related to the
proposed remediations of numerous Superfund hazardous waste sites.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - New York District, Westside Highway Project, New York
Reconstructed former shorelines of the Hudson River based on study of core samples collected from
shoreline and submerged areas along the present-day shore. Based on reconstructions of submerged
topography, developed predictions of areas that had characteristics typical of known prehistoric
settlement in the northeast. Evaluated areas for their likelihood of inclusion in the list of National Register
prehistoric sites.
Independent Consultant/Principal Investigator, 1981

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - New York District, New York Harbor Collection and Removal of
Drift Project, DACW 51-81-M-1150, Hoboken to North Bergen Reach, NJ
Conducted background literature review and field examination of cultural resources within the Hoboken
to North Bergen Reach of the Hudson shoreline. Identified resources that were eligible for inclusion in the
National Register including features associated with existing properties listed in the National Register,
such as the Hoboken Train and Ferry Terminal
Principal Investigator, 1980 - 1982

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - New York District, Ramapo River Flood Control Project, DACW
51-81-M-1336, Newton, NJ
Conducted background literature review and field investigation of proposed flood control project along
the Ramapo River near Oakland, New Jersey.
Page 19 of 21
001006
Field Director, 1979
Rockland County Sewer Authority, Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of Proposed Sewer
Line Right of Ways, Rockland County, NY
Directed cultural resources reconnaissance surveys of proposed sewage collection systems in Rockland
and Ramapo, New York.
Investigator and Archeological Technician, 1978

Bureau of Land Management (Las Cruces District), Las Cruces, NM
Planned and performed all in-house project-related field surveys. Participated in an intensive National
Register-area nomination survey. Performed related laboratory and photographic work. Prepared cultural
resources sections of Environmental Analysis Record for Oliver Lee Memorial State Park.
University Professor, 1975-1984

American University, William Paterson College, Rutgers University, New York University, and
City University of New York’s Baruch College, Various Locations
Served on the faculties of American University, William Paterson College, Rutgers University, New York
University and the City University of New York's Baruch College. Taught Archeology, Anthropology,
and other related courses.
Archeological Crew Member, Summer Months 1973

New York Department of Transportation, I-88 Archeological Reconnaissance Survey, Buffalo, NY
Participated in reconnaissance survey of portions of proposed I-88 right-of-way.
Field Researcher, 1971-1977

The Catholic University, Franklin and Marshall College, The American University, Various
Locations
Field experience in prehistoric and historic archeology in Virginia (Thunderbird Archeological Project,
Front Royal, Virginia, through The Catholic University of America), and Pennsylvania (Faucett Site
Archeological Project, Bushkill, Pennsylvania, through Franklin and Marshall College) and Shawnee
Minisink Site, Shawnee-on-Delaware, Pennsylvania (through The American University).
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
Publications:
McNett, C.W. Jr., B.A. McMillan, and S.B. Marshall. 1977. The Shawnee-Minisink Site. In: W.S.
Newman and B. Salwen (eds.), pp. 282-296. Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern
North America. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 288.
Marshall, S.B. 1980. Descriptive Artifact Categories and Implied Function: A Problem in Archaeological
Semantics. Paper presented at Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Marshall, S.B. 1982. Aboriginal Settlement in New Jersey During the Paleo-Indian Cultural Period c.a.
10,000-6000 B.C. In: O. Chesler (ed.). New Jersey's Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian
Period to the Present: A Review of Research Problems and Survey Priorities. Office of Cultural and
Environmental Services, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Marshall, S.B. 1984. Survivals of Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeological Resources in Urban
Contexts. In: O. Chesler (ed.). Selected Papers in the Identification, Evaluation, and Protection of
Cultural Resources. Office of Cultural and Environmental Services, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
Page 20 of 21
001007
Marshall, S.B. 1985. Paleo-Indian Artifact Form and Function at Shawnee Minisink. In: C.W. McNett Jr.
(ed.). Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleo-Indian Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of
Pennsylvania. Academic Press, California.
Marshall, S.B. 1993. Review of "Early Paleo-Indian Economies of Eastern North America, Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, Kenneth Tankersly and Barry L. Isaac, editors." American
Antiquity.58(1):172-173.
Presentations:
Klein, J.I. and S.B. Marshall, 2002. Ethical Responsibility of Industrial Archaeologists to Communities
with Toxic Wastes. Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial Archaeology,
Brooklyn, New York
Marshall, S.B. 1999. From the Spirit of Exploration to the Business of Archeology: Two surveys of the
Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Hydropower Project. Paper presented Middle Atlantic Archeological
Conference, Annual Meeting in Harrisburg, PA.
Marshall, S.B. 1995. Transportation Projects, Cultural Resources, and Hazardous Waste. Paper presented
to Transportation Research Board 74th Annual Meeting held in Washington, D.C.
Klein, J.I. and S.B. Marshall. 1989. Hazardous Site Archaeology: Problems, Issues and Concerns. Paper
presented to the First Joint Archaeological Congress, Baltimore, Maryland.
PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Awarded Certificate of Appreciation for Assistance in implementing community outreach efforts in
October 1999 from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society for American Archaeology
Professional Archaeologists of New York City
Page 21 of 21
001008
AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE
PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
INTERIM REPORT
April 2006 – November 2006
Prepared For:
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

1915 Kalorama Road #511
Washington, DC 20009
Prepared By:
Jessica J. Kerns, David P. Young, Jr., Christopher S. Nations,

and Victoria K. Poulton
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
2003 Central Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
May 2007
001009
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3
3.0 Study Components .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ........................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Methods.......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Results............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Raptor Migration Surveys................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Breeding Bird Survey ......................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 20
3.3.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ................................................................................................. 25
3.4.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 25
3.4.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 27
4.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ......................................................................................... 30
4.2 Raptor Migration Surveys................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Breeding Bird Survey ......................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ................................................................................................. 34
5.0 Ongoing Studies...................................................................................................................... 36
6.0 References............................................................................................................................... 36
List of Tables
Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed while conducting diurnal migrant surveys
at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. ...............................................................17
Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during spring and
fall 2006 diurnal migrant surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower site. ......................18
Table 3. Avian species observed while conducting diurnal breeding birds surveys within the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area. ..............................................................................23
Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded by
each AnaBat unit for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods.................................28
Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling periods
of each season ..............................................................................................................29
Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling..............29
Table 7. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S...........31
Table 8. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at six established
New York spring/fall hawk watch sites in 2006. ..........................................................33
i
WEST, Inc.
001010
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project location. ...................................................2

Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the St. Lawrence Windpower project area...............................4
Figure 3. Fixed radar location and 3 migrant raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence
Windpower project area.................................................................................................6
Figure 4. Observed fall flight directions in the project area. ........................................................9
Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode. .............................................10
Figure 6. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode....................................10
Figure 7. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode....................................11
Figure 8. Mean r 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.....................................11
Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km range. .............12
Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5 km range. ................................13
Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. .................................13
Figure 12. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed. .......................................................................14
Figure 13. Diurnal avian estimates for each survey point by season..........................................20
Figure 14. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the project area. ..............................22
Figure 15. AnaBat survey locations for the project area... .........................................................26
ii
WEST, Inc.
001011
1.0 Introduction and Background
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy development
in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, St. Lawrence Wind Power Project, is
located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape
Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The small town of Clayton is located approximately 6 miles
from the northernmost border of the project. The exact location and size of the development will
be based on a number of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets,
transmission constraints, permitting, and results of site surveys.
Through the early project evaluation process, SLW contacted the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to introduce the project and determine biological
resources of concern for the project. Issues that were raised included potential impacts from the
project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors,
migrant bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. In response to comments from the
NYSDEC, SLW requested that Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) develop an avian
and bat survey protocol for a one-year study that would address the agency concerns and provide
site-specific data for the resources of concern.
The principal goals of the study, initiated in April 2006, were to:
1) Provide baseline information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that is
useful in evaluating potential impacts from wind power development;
2) Provide baseline information on avian and bat migration over the proposed development
area that is useful in evaluating the relative risk of the proposed wind project location;
3) Provide information on avian, bat, and sensitive species use of the study area that will
help in designing a wind plant that is less likely to expose species to potential collisions
with turbines, and;
4) Provide recommendations for further monitoring studies and potential mitigation
measures, if appropriate.
Specific objectives of the study are to: (1) describe and quantify nocturnal migration over the
proposed project area; (2) describe and quantify spring and fall (diurnal) raptor migration
through the proposed project; (3) describe and quantify breeding bird use in the proposed
development area (turbine locations); (4) describe and quantify migrant bat use over the
proposed project; (5) identify resident bat species in the project area; (6) describe and quantify
waterfowl migration through the project area; (7) and identify the presence of any federal and
state-listed species that may occur within in the project area, as well as potential habitat for these
species. The protocol was developed based on input from NYSDEC and the USFWS, as well as
the expertise and experience of WEST implementing and conducting similar studies for wind
energy development throughout the U.S. This interim report presents results from fall nocturnal
migrant surveys, migrant and breeding bat surveys, breeding bird surveys, and diurnal point
count surveys for migrant raptors. A final report will be prepared following the spring season
which will provide results of all the surveys including results from sensitive species surveys,
wintering raptor and waterfowl surveys, AnaBat sampling, breeding bird surveys, and spring
migration surveys.
1
WEST, Inc.
001012
Figure 1. Proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project location.
2
WEST, Inc.
001013
2.0 Study Area
The proposed project area is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York
(Andrle and Carroll 1988). Elevation of the ecozone varies from about 100-500 feet. The
dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple,
white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20%
wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Some of the overall project area is characterized by Alvar
ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop
on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).
The land within the project area is privately owned and the primary land use is agriculture and
dairy farming (Figure 2). There are scattered farms and houses throughout the project and
adjacent to the roads. Vegetation of the project is a mosaic of open grass/hay fields, cultivated
agriculture, and scattered deciduous tree wood lots. The deciduous forest type tends to be
variable in size with some small woodlots intermixed with agriculture fields and some larger
blocks of forest, particularly in low-lying areas unsuitable for farming. Several inlets, creeks,
and wetland forests occur within the project area. Most of the project development will occur in
agricultural fields.
3
WEST, Inc.
001014
Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
4
WEST, Inc.
001015
3.0 Study Components
The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consists of nocturnal marine radar sampling
during the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed point
locations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts;
AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident
bats, including presence of the Indiana bat, during the summer; winter and early spring
waterfowl and raptor surveys; and habitat-focused surveys for federal and state-listed species.
This interim report will present the results of the fall season radar sampling, spring/fall raptor
migration surveys, breeding bird survey, and migrating and breeding bat surveys.
3.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey
The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey is to characterize avian migration over
the project area and provide data that can be used to determine the relative magnitude of
nocturnal migration over the proposed development area when compared to other sites. The
primary objective of the radar study is to collect baseline information on flight direction, passage
rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for the
proposed development area.
A single radar unit was used for the fall migration season defined as 15 August – 15 October.
The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar, transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output
of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar labs have been successfully used to monitor
nocturnal avian migration and are described in Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999).
The sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of
ground interference), property ownership, access, and comments from the NYSDEC and
USFWS (Figure 3). Based on comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS, the ideal radar
sampling point to allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline, as well as
over inland areas, was restricted to those areas approximately 1.5-km from the shoreline. To
decrease ground clutter, the unit was positioned in a small hollow so that surrounding
topography reflected the lower portion of the main beam, producing a clear picture of sky
beyond.
5
WEST, Inc.
001016
Figure 3. Fixed radar location and three migrant raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Buffers
around points show extent of survey coverage.
6
WEST, Inc.
001017
3.1.1 Methods
The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall migration season and will be
approximately 45 days during the spring. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling
during some nights was compromised or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled
nights was less than the total study period. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from
approximately sunset each night until sunrise the following morning. Each night was broken
down into 60-min sampling periods that consisted of:
1) one 5-min session to collect weather data and adjust the radar to surveillance (i.e.,
horizontal) mode,
2) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance mode
collecting information on migration traffic (passage) rates;
collecting information on flight direction and speed of targets, as well as general
location of migrants;
4) one 5-min break to adjust radar to vertical mode;
5) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect
information on migration traffic (passage) rate;
information on flight altitudes below 1500 m;
information on the spatial distribution and altitudes of birds along an east-west
transect axis; and,
8) one 5-min long-range session (3.0 km range) in the vertical mode to collect
information on flight altitudes below 3000 m.
The following weather data was collected at the beginning of each hour session: wind speed,
wind direction; cloud cover (%); approximate ceiling height (m); approximate visibility (m);
precipitation; barometric pressure; air temperature (oC). Noticeable changes in weather
conditions, if any, were recorded when the radar unit was adjusted to vertical mode.
The Furuno FAR2117BB radar used in this study has several controls which affect detection and
tracking of targets. In order to detect and track small targets, the radar operated under the
shortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. Initially,
the anti-clutter controls on the radar were turned down to the lowest setting. The anti-sea clutter
control was then slowly turned up to about the point where background noise cleared from the
screen enough to see small targets. The anti-rain clutter control was kept at the lowest setting.
While in the vertical mode, to eliminate ground clutter around the radar generated from second
echoes of radar energy bouncing off the van and ground, a blind sector was set so that the radar
did not transmit energy when the antennae was pointing towards the ground (from 90o to 270o).
The radar trails function was generally set at 30 seconds so that targets could be tracked for long
enough to determine direction and speed. Target flight direction was determined by placing the
cursor on a target echo within a trail and aligning the offset electronic bearing line (EBL) along
the line of target echoes pointing in the direction of travel. Speed was recorded as the distance a
7
WEST, Inc.
001018
target traveled in 5 seconds (two sweeps of the radar antennae). With the target trails turned on,
each sweep of the radar plots a new echo for any given target with each echo persisting on the
screen for a set amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds). Speed was determined with the offset variable
range marker (VRM) by placing the cursor on a target echo and measuring the distance between
that echo and the third echo in line (i.e., the distance traveled in 2 sweeps of the antennae or 5
seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the variable range
marker) on the monitor relative to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the
radar.
All data were exported from Microsoft Access and imported into SAS V.8 for further data
processing, quality assurance, and analysis. Additional analyses were performed using Matlab
V6.5. To determine passage rates in horizontal mode, the 2-dimensional area represented by the
radar image was treated as a 1-dimensional “front” perpendicular to the direction of migration,
with length equal to 3 km (the diameter of the surveyed area); all targets counted in the radar
image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Based on that
assumption, passage rate was calculated as number of targets per kilometer per hour.
tan 1 y x ¦ cos Ti n ,
n
Mean flight direction was estimated as P where y i 1
¦ sin Ti n , and Ti was the flight direction for the ith observation (Batschelet, 1981).
n
x i 1
x
12
Dispersion in the data was calculated as r 2
y2 such that 0 d r d1. If all observations
had exactly the same direction, r = 1; conversely, r = 0 would indicate uniform distribution of
directions around the circle.
Mean flight altitude was not adjusted for unequal sampling intensity at different heights or
unequal detection probability as a function of distance from the radar unit.
Air speed of targets, Va, was calculated as Va ª¬Vg2 Vw2 2VgVw cos 'T º¼ , where Vg = target
ground speed, Vw = wind speed, and 'T was the difference between the target flight direction
and wind direction. Hourly weather observations made at ground level were used for estimates
of wind speed and direction. Wind direction categorized by field observers as ‘N’, ‘NE’, ‘E’,
‘SE’, etc.; were transformed to bearings (0q, 45q, 90q, 135q, etc.) for the calculation of 'T .
Targets with air speeds less than 6 m/s or greater than 35 m/s were judged not to be migrating
birds and were excluded from further analysis.
3.1.2 Results
Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August
15 and October 15, 2006. Radar sampling was conducted for approximately 508 hours during
the entire study period.
Flight Direction
Observed flight directions were typically towards the southwest (Figure 4). Mean and dispersion
of flight direction were P = 209.2q and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the
southerly direction of the migration, 71.8% of observations were between 90q and 270q, while
8
WEST, Inc.
001019
34.5% of observations were between 135q and 225q.
Figure 4. Observed fall flight directions in the project area.
0
800
330 30
600
300 400 60
200
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
Passage Rates
The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 345.8 r 13.3 targets/km/hr (mean r
SE) (n = 506 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 346.2 r 17.2 targets/km/hr (mean r
SE) (n = 503 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal
mode (Figures 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in
late September and early October. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the
evening, with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by
progressively declining rates throughout the night (Figures 7 and 8).
9
WEST, Inc.
001020
Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode.
1500
NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Figure 6. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
10
WEST, Inc.
001021
Figure 7. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode.
600
HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Figure 8. Mean r 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
11
WEST, Inc.
001022
Flight Altitudes
For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 r 1.7 m
(mean r SE) (n = 30749 targets) above radar level (arl)1. Approximately 7.7% of targets had
flight altitudes less than 125 m (the zone of risk posed by turbines) at the Cape Vincent site.
Most targets were observed at altitudes below 500 m (Figure 6). The highest percentage of
targets occurred between 201 and 300 m arl. Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable
throughout the study period and ranged from approximately 275 m to 685 m arl (Figure 7). In
contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 450500 m range)
(Figure 8) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods
at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 3.1% of targets (558 of 18059) had flight altitudes greater
than 1500 m.
Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km range. Height
class 1 represents altitudes 0-100 m, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200 m, etc.
15
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
1
Target altitude was measured in relation to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the radar and
thus termed above radar level. Height above ground level (agl) is highly variable depending on the topography
directly below any given target and not measurable with the radar.
12
WEST, Inc.
001023
Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5 km range.
700
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range.
600
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
13
WEST, Inc.
001024
Target Speed
Air speed of targets was calculated by adjusting for wind speed and direction (see Methods
above). Of 12190 targets, approximately 1% (120 targets) were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and
one target was moving at high speed (> 35m/s). After excluding very slow and very fast targets,
overall mean target air speed was 12.95 r 0.03 m/s (mean r SE) (n = 12069 targets). Nightly
mean target air speed varied from approximately 10 to 17 m/s (Figure 12). Because the
percentage of targets moving slow was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was
warranted.
Figure 12. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed.
18
16
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
3.2 Raptor Migration Surveys
The objective of the raptor migration surveys is to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the
sites by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g., waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds.
Point counts using variable circular plots (Reynolds et al. 1980, Bibby et al. 1992) were
conducted within the project area according to methods used by the Hawk Migration Association
of North America (HMANA) with observers continuously scanning the sky and surrounding
areas for raptors in the survey area. Three permanent stations were designated for diurnal
surveys (Figure 3). All large birds and flocks detected during the point counts were recorded,
but the emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting raptors within approximately 800-m
(0.5 mi) of each point. The timing of surveys was determined in consultation with the NYSDEC
14
WEST, Inc.
001025
The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consists of nocturnal marine radar sampling
AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident
bats, including presence of the Indiana bat, during the summer; winter and early spring
waterfowl and raptor surveys; and habitat-focused surveys for federal and state-listed species.
This interim report will present the results of the fall season radar sampling, spring/fall raptor
migration surveys, breeding bird survey, and migrating and breeding bat surveys.
The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey is to characterize avian migration over
the project area and provide data that can be used to determine the relative magnitude of
primary objective of the radar study is to collect baseline information on flight direction, passage
rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for the
proposed development area.
A single radar unit was used for the fall migration season defined as 15 August – 15 October.
The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar, transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output
of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar labs have been successfully used to monitor
nocturnal avian migration and are described in Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999).
The sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of
beyond.
5
WEST, Inc.
001026
6
WEST, Inc.
001027
3.1.1 Methods
The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall migration season and will be
approximately 45 days during the spring. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling
during some nights was compromised or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled
nights was less than the total study period. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from
approximately sunset each night until sunrise the following morning. Each night was broken
down into 60-min sampling periods that consisted of:
horizontal) mode,
transect axis; and,
7
WEST, Inc.
001028
seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the variable range
marker) on the monitor relative to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the
radar.
n
n
x i 1
x
12
birds and were excluded from further analysis.
3.1.2 Results
15 and October 15, 2006. Radar sampling was conducted for approximately 508 hours during
the entire study period.
Flight Direction
Observed flight directions were typically towards the southwest (Figure 4). Mean and dispersion
of flight direction were P = 209.2q and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the
southerly direction of the migration, 71.8% of observations were between 90q and 270q, while
8
WEST, Inc.
001029
0
800
330 30
600
300 400 60
200
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
Passage Rates
9
WEST, Inc.
001030
1500
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
10
WEST, Inc.
001031
600

500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
11
WEST, Inc.
001032
Flight Altitudes
than 1500 m.
15
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
1
12
WEST, Inc.
001033
700
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
600
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
13
WEST, Inc.
001034
Target Speed
warranted.
18
16
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
14
WEST, Inc.
001035
Target Speed
warranted.
18
16
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
14
WEST, Inc.
001036
and based on available information from migrant raptor watch stations in northern and western
New York (e.g., Derby Hill, see below).
3.2.1 Methods
Three survey points were established within the proposed project area to provide good visibility
while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area, while also attempting to
minimize the double-counting of individual birds (Figure 3). Survey stations were established to
maximize visibility over long distances in an effort to locate and identify migrating raptors and
other large birds. To the extent possible while maintaining the integrity of the east-west point
layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the vegetation and topographic
features of the area, good visibility in 360o around the point, and so that each point was
surveying unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation
point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within an
approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birds
beyond the 800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot.
Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900 – 1700) to
cover the peak period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60
minutes long. All raptors and other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned
a unique observation number and plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each
survey included date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such
as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or
best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance from
plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above ground, activity (behavior), and
habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight direction or movement
paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each raptor/large bird
observed and the habitat in which or over which the bird occurred was recorded. Behavior
categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted in
comments). Habitats included agriculture, old field, deciduous woods/forest, developed (e.g.,
farms), and other (noted in comments). The initial behavior and habitat (when first observed)
were uniquely identified on the data sheet and subsequent behaviors and habitats (if any) also
recorded. Approximate flight height at first observation and the approximate lowest and highest
flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meter interval. Any comments or unusual
observations were noted in the comments section.
Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration through the project area. In New
York, spring hawk watch locations are concentrated along the Great Lakes shorelines and are
more inland in eastern portions of the state during fall migration. According to spring count data
from the Derby Hill Bird Observatory, located in Mexico, New York, approximately 50 miles
south of Cape Vincent along Lake Ontario, peak numbers of sharp-shinned hawks migrate
through the area during April, with large pulses of broad-winged hawks during the last two
weeks of the month. Fall migration counts from Franklin Mountain in Oneonta, New York (150
miles southeast of Cape Vincent) report peak periods for migrant broad-winged and sharp-
shinned hawks during September and October, respectively. Concern for migrant golden eagles
potentially using the St. Lawrence Windpower project area was expressed during talks with the
NYSDEC. Golden eagles are later migrants with peaks reported from the end of March through
April during spring migration and the end of October through November during fall migration.
15
WEST, Inc.
001037
Spring raptor surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area began later in the 2006 season
(April 14, 2006) and likely did not capture early raptor migrants, such as golden eagles. In fall,
surveys were conducted from September 23 – November 11.
3.2.2 Results
During the spring season, each point was surveyed 4 times, for a total of 12 surveys. A total of
1147 individual birds were recorded; 54 raptors of 10 species were observed (Table 1). During
the fall season, each fixed point was surveyed 10 times during the survey window, for a total of
30 surveys. A total of 7108 individual large birds were recorded during the surveys; 288
individual raptors of 10 species were observed (Table 1). Canada goose and unidentified gull
species were the most commonly seen bird during both spring and fall surveys. During spring
migration, turkey vulture was the mostly commonly recorded raptor species (n = 51, freq =
83.3%), followed by red-tailed hawk (n = 8, freq = 50.0). In the fall, northern harrier was the
most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 87, freq = 90.0%); red-tailed hawk and turkey
vulture were also commonly seen species during surveys. Other raptor species seen included:
broad-winged hawk, rough-legged hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, American
kestrel, peregrine falcon, merlin, bald eagle, and turkey vulture.
Exposure indices were calculated as the mean use estimates (number of birds/60-minute survey)
multiplied by the proportion of birds observed flying and the proportion of birds flying within
the zone of risk (defined as the approximate rotor-swept area). During both migratory seasons,
gull species had the highest exposure index due to high numbers of individuals occurring in the
project area (Table 2).
Avian and raptor use varied among survey stations (Figure 13). Avian use was higher at Station
3 during both seasons. High numbers of waterfowl and gulls foraging in nearby fields or flying
close to the shoreline accounted for higher avian use at this station. Mean avian use was lower at
Station 1 and 2. Raptor use was similar between seasons and did not differ across survey points.
16
WEST, Inc.
001038
at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
Spring 2006 Fall 2006
Species/Group mean % freq3 mean % freq
# ind # groups # ind # groups
use2 use
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 4 4 0.33 25.0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Herring gull 19 3 1.58 16.7 0 0 0 0
Ring-billed gull 317 9 26.42 50.0 634 33 21.1 33.3
Unidentified gull 879 15 73.25 66.7 6421 38 214.03 50.0
Waterfowl
Canada goose 197 6 16.4 50.0 927 51 30.9 60.0
Double-crested cormorant 2 1 0.17 8.3 0 0 0 0
Unidentified duck 40 2 3.33 16.7 0 0 0 0
Mallard 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Raptors
Accipiters
Sharp-shinned hawkSC 5 3 0.42 25.0 3 3 0.1 10.0
Cooper’s hawkSC 0 0 0 0 4 4 0.13 13.3
Unidentified accipiter 5 5 0.42 33.3 0 0 0 0
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 7 7 0.58 33.3 6 3 0.2 6.7
Red-tailed hawk 8 7 0.67 50.0 43 37 1.43 63.3
Rough-legged hawk 2 2 0.17 16.7 12 8 0.4 23.3
Unidentified buteo 4 3 0.33 25.0 0 0 0 0
Falcons
American kestrel 1 1 0.08 8.3 11 9 0.37 26.7
Merlin 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.07 6.7
Eagles
Bald eagleFT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Other Raptors
Northern harrierST 6 6 0.5 41.7 87 65 2.9 90.0
OspreySC 2 2 0.17 16.7 0 0 0 0
Turkey vulture 51 31 4.25 83.3 119 53 3.97 40.0
Other Birds
American crow 31 11 2.58 50.0 193 86 6.43 80.0
Common raven 0 0 0 0 3 3 0.1 10.0
Common snipe 0 0 0 0 9 4 0.3 13.3
Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Wild turkey 0 0 0 0 42 2 1.4 6.7
Total 1147 118 7108 406
FT = Federal threatened ST = State threatened SC = State listed species of special concern
2
Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 60-min survey
3
Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed
17
WEST, Inc.
001039
Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during spring and fall 2006 diurnal migrant surveys at the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area.
# individuals % birds Relation to rotor-swept area4 Exposure
Species flying flying % below % within % above Index5
S F S F S F S F S F S F
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 4 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Herring gull 19 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ring-billed gull 167 466 52.7 73.5 70.1 27.9 29.9 72.1 0 0 4.17 11.2
Unidentified gull 244 4971 27.8 77.4 76.6 45.2 23.4 54.7 0 0.01 4.75 90.7
Waterfowl
Canada goose 197 902 100.0 97.3 100.0 0 0 75.8 0 24.2 0 22.8
Double-crested cormorant 2 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unidentified duck 40 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mallard 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
Raptors
Accipiters
Sharp-shinned hawkSC 5 2 100.0 66.7 0 50.0 80.0 50.0 20.0 0 0.33 0.03
Cooper’s hawkSC 0 4 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.13
Unidentified accipiter 5 0 100.0 0 0 0 60.0 0 40.0 0 0.25 0
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 7 6 100.0 100.0 14.3 0 28.6 50.0 57.1 50.0 0.17 0.1
Red-tailed hawk 7 41 87.5 95.3 14.3 24.3 42.9 73.2 42.9 2.4 0.25 0.97
Rough-legged hawk 2 12 100.0 100.0 50.0 58.3 50.0 33.3 0 8.3 0.08 0.13
Unidentified buteo 4 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.33 0
Northern Harriers
Northern harrierT 6 84 100.0 96.6 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Osprey
OspreySC 2 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.17 0
4
Defined as the area between approximately 25 and 125 m above ground level
5
Exposure index = (mean use) * (% individuals flying) * (% flying within rotor-swept area)
18
WEST, Inc.
001040
Falcons
American kestrel 1 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.9 0 9.1 0 0 0 0.03
Merlin 0 2 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eagles
Bald EagleT 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
Vultures
Turkey vulture 49 119 96.1 100.0 4.1 5.0 61.2 92.5 34.7 2.5 2.5 3.67
Other Birds
American crow 31 183 100.0 94.8 58.1 44.8 41.9 54.6 0 5.5 1.08 3.33
Common raven 0 3 0 100.0 0 66.7 0 33.3 0 0 0 0.03
Common snipe 0 9 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wild turkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19
WEST, Inc.
001041
Figure 13. Diurnal avian estimates for each survey point by season.
Avian Migrant Use Spring 2006
All birds
120 Raptors only
100
80
Mean Use
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
Station #
Avian Migrant Use Fall 2006

All birds
Raptors only
250
200
Mean Use
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Station #
3.3 Breeding Bird Survey
The objective of the breeding bird surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the
proposed development area by breeding resident birds. The emphasis of the surveys was
locating and counting breeding resident birds within the area proposed for development. The
surveys were conducted based on the regional timing recommended for USGS BBS in central
New York (USGS 2001).
3.3.1 Methods
Twenty survey points were established within the project area. The survey points were selected
to cover as much of the proposed development area and habitat types as possible. Each survey
station was marked on a map and GPS coordinates were recorded for each point (Figure 14).
The habitat at each survey point was described to examine the applicability of the site to
represent other areas within the proposed development area.
20
WEST, Inc.
001042
All birds
120 Raptors only
100
80
Mean Use
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
Station #

All birds
Raptors only
250
200
Mean Use
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Station #
3.3.1 Methods
20
WEST, Inc.
001043
U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2001) methods were used for the surveys.
Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds
observed were recorded; however, the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 400
m (0.25 mi) radius circle centered on the observation point. All points were surveyed twice
during the recommended survey period (June - July) and seven days were skipped between the
surveys to spread the effort over the breeding season.
Survey periods at each point were 3 minutes long, similar to the BBS method. The date; start
and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, wind
speed, wind direction, and cloud cover were recorded for each survey. Species or best possible
identification, number of individuals of each species, how observed (visual or auditory), and
behavior (flying, perching, singing, etc.) were recorded for each observation during the 3-minute
count at each survey point.
21
WEST, Inc.
001044
Figure 14. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the project area.
22
WEST, Inc.
001045
3.3.2 Results
Point count surveys were conducted on June 30 and July 7, 2006. Each point was surveyed
twice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 1080 individual birds were observed in 425
groups (Table 3). Fifty-nine species were observed during the surveys. European starling, red-
winged blackbird, and bobolink were the most common passerines observed based on mean use
estimates (number observed within 400 m per 3-minute survey). The majority of the species
recorded during breeding bird surveys are species commonly associated with agriculture,
grasslands, and/or edge habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during the breeding
bird surveys including northern harrier, a New York state threatened species; horned lark and
grasshopper sparrow, two New York state species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush,
two species on the USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for the Lower Great
Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region.
Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the St. Lawrence
Windpower project area.
Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Mean Use
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 4 4 0.1
Green heron 1 1 0.025
Ring-billed gull 47 6 1.175
Unidentified gull 38 2 0.95
Waterfowl
Canada goose 27 4 0.675
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
American kestrel 2 2 0.05
Northern harrierT 4 3 0.1
Red-tailed hawk 4 3 0.1
Turkey vulture 9 7 0.225
Passerines
American crow 53 11 1.325
American goldfinch 23 15 0.575
American robin 30 25 0.75
Baltimore oriole 6 3 0.15
Barn swallow 23 6 0.575
Black-capped chickadee 5 3 0.125
Blue jay 2 2 0.05
BobolinkBCC 76 32 1.9
Brown-headed cowbird 11 4 0.275
23
WEST, Inc.
001046
Cedar waxwing 4 1 0.1
Chestnut-sided warbler 1 1 0.025
Common grackle 29 3 0.725
Common yellowthroat 29 20 0.725
Eastern bluebird 2 2 0.05
Eastern kingbird 4 3 0.1
Eastern meadowlark 32 28 0.8
Eastern towhee 1 1 0.025
Eastern tufted titmouse 1 1 0.025
Eastern wood pewee 5 5 0.125
Empidonax spp. 1 1 0.025
European starling 235 19 5.875
Grasshopper sparrowSC 1 1 0.025
Gray catbird 6 5 0.15
Horned larkSC 6 2 0.15
House wren 3 3 0.075
Indigo bunting 1 1 0.025
Northern cardinal 2 1 0.05
Ovenbird 11 11 0.275
Red-eyed vireo 7 7 0.175
Red-winged blackbird 136 49 3.4
Rose-breasted grosbeak 1 1 0.025
Savannah sparrow 37 26 0.925
Scarlet tanager 2 2 0.05
Song sparrow 48 35 1.2
Tree swallow 13 3 0.325
Unidentified passerine 1 1 0.025
Unidentified sparrow 1 1 0.025
Veery 1 1 0.025
Willow flycatcher 4 4 0.1
Wood thrushBCC 6 5 0.15
Yellow warbler 31 18 0.775
Upland Gamebirds
Ruffed grouse 1 1 0.025
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Mourning dove 10 6 0.25
Rock pigeon 14 5 0.35
Other Birds
Hairy woodpecker 1 1 0.025
Northern flicker 2 2 0.05
Unidentified woodpecker 3 3 0.075
All Birds 1080 425

T = State listed threatened
SC = State listed species of special concern
24
WEST, Inc.
001047
3.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys
The objective of the nocturnal AnaBat surveys was to record the relative abundance of echo-
locating bats flying through the sampling area during summer breeding season and the spring and
fall migration seasons.
3.4.1 Methods
Bat activity at the project area was recorded using an AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detector attached
to a zero-crossing analysis interface module (ZCAIM) which houses a compact flash memory
card for temporary download of ultrasonic activity files. To sample continuously on remote
mode (automatic data collection), the detector and ZCAIM were powered by an external 12V
battery. Each AnaBat unit (detector, ZCAIM, and 12V battery) was enclosed inside a plastic box
or dry bag with the detector microphone positioned against a PVC tube protruding from the
box/bag. This design prevented water from damaging the AnaBat units without compromising
the ability of the unit to detect ultrasonic noise in the environment. To limit variation among
AnaBats, sensitivity settings were calibrated for each unit prior to data collection. Most AnaBat
units were set at or near setting 7 on the sensitivity dial. Each passive AnaBat unit was
positioned so that the microphone faced the same cardinal direction for each sampling period.
Calls were recorded for passive sampling from approximately sunset to sunrise (1900 – 0700).
AnaBat units were removed from the field approximately once per week to download files,
recharge batteries, and troubleshoot technical problems. Data gathered from the passive AnaBat
units at the met tower were used to calculate bat activity (designated as number of calls/night)
present at the site during the sampling periods. Nights that experienced any number of technical
difficulties were not included in the final analyses.
During the spring sampling season (April 13 – May 29), two AnaBat sampling locations were
established. One unit was placed at ground level in the open grassy field at the base of the
project met tower and another unit was deployed near a wooded edge (Non-met 1) to increase
likelihood of detecting additional species (Figure 15). Access issues and technical difficulties
with the AnaBat unit at the Non-met 1 location caused the unit to be relocated to a small farm
pond near a wooded edge (Non-met 2) within the project boundary after a week of sampling.
Acoustic sampling at these two locations (Met tower and Non-met 2) continued through spring
and these locations were maintained through the summer sampling season (June 28 – August 8).
During the fall season (August 13 – October 9), AnaBat sampling continued at ground level at
the met tower. A second AnaBat unit was deployed from August 15 – October 16 in a tree
approximately 10 m above ground near the radar survey station (Radar; Figure 15).
In addition to the stationary passive units, a “roaming” or mobile AnaBat unit was deployed
during the summer to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the project area.
Roaming sampling was conducted using a handheld AnaBat unit for 9 nights (3 sampling periods
of 3 consecutive nights each) at habitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. To select
locations for active sampling, reconnaissance visits were made to the project area during the day
time to select sampling locations based on the presence of travel corridors (trails and roads),
linear landscape features (forest edges), and access to water; habitat features known to be
important for bats. Active sampling was conducted from sunset until approximately 4-5 hours
after sunset (2100 – 0100).
25
WEST, Inc.
001048
Figure 15. AnaBat survey locations for the project area.
26
WEST, Inc.
001049
Analysis of bat calls was conducted using Analook software (DOS version). Analook displays
ultrasonic activity in a format similar to a sonogram used for analysis of bird vocalizations (e.g.,
frequency versus time). Species identification was aided by the Preliminary Key to the
Qualitative Identification of Calls within the AnaBat System (Amelon 2005, unpublished data)
where characteristics such as slope, frequency, minimum frequency, consistency of minimum
frequency, and shape of pulse assist in the identification of bat vocalizations. Due to similarity
of call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into one
species category. All Myotis-like calls were identified to genus only and submitted to NYSDEC-
recommended biologist, Eric Britzke, for identification to species. To obtain species
identifications, an ID filter (Britzke and Murray 2001) was loaded into Analook to determine
calls sequences of sufficient quality and length for species identification to be attempted. Once
separated, echolocation calls of sufficient quality and length were also identified using
quantitative techniques (Britzke 2003). Quantitative analyses are conducted by a cross-validated
classification model based on 10 extracted call parameters [duration (Dur), maximum frequency
(Fmax), minimum frequency (Fmin), mean frequency (Fmean), duration to the knee (Tk),
frequency of the knee (Fk), duration of the body (Tc), frequency of the body (Fc), initial slope
(S1), and slope of the body (Sc)] collected from 1,846 sequences (35,979 calls) of 12 eastern
U.S. bat species (Britzke 2003). Average accuracy rates for species identification using this
statistical method ranges from 56.9% (L. borealis) to 98.5 % (M. grisescens), with accuracy rates
for Myotis sodalis ranging from 81.4% to 88.6%.
3.4.2 Results
Passage Rates
The total number of calls and number of calls per night, recorded by each AnaBat unit varied by
location and season (Table 4). The met tower AnaBat unit detected 769 bat calls total (19.72
calls/night) during the 39 days of spring sampling. Sampling at the two non-met locations during
spring resulted in higher bat activity (29-33 calls/night) than at the met tower, despite changing
in sampling location for the non-met unit. Summer sampling occurred at the met tower on 9
nights and recorded a total of 198 calls (22.0 calls/night). Approximately 2.5 times as many calls
(55.56 calls/night) were recorded at the non-met 2 location during summer, likely indicating a
nearby roosting colony of species and/or better habitat for foraging bats. During fall, the AnaBat
unit positioned at ground level at the met tower recorded the lowest number of bat vocalizations
per night (9.26 calls/night). Despite a similar number of sampling days, the AnaBat unit located
at the radar sampling station recorded more bat calls/night (32.58). Approximately 93% of calls
(n=1519) at the radar location were recorded between August 15 and August 21. Only 25% of
the calls recorded at the met tower (n=117) were recorded during the same sampling period.
27
WEST, Inc.
001050
each AnaBat unit for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods.
# of sampling
days used in Total # of
Season Location analysis calls # calls/night
Spring Met tower low 39 769 19.72
Non-met 1 11 320 29.09
Non-met 2 24 782 32.58
Summer Met tower low 9 198 22.0

Non-met 2 9 500 55.56
Fall Met tower low 50 463 9.26

Radar 50 1629 32.58
Species Identification
Using qualitative analysis of search calls, 5 species groups of bats were positively identified at
the met tower location (Table 5). As is typical with AnaBat sampling, the majority of
vocalizations were unable to be identified due to the few number of pulses per call (<5
pulses/call sequence). Relative call frequency was calculated by dividing the number of calls
recorded for each species by the total number of calls recorded at the met tower for each season.
Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, Lasiurus borealis calls accounted for the
majority of the vocalizations during all seasons at the met tower.
Summer sampling with the mobile AnaBat unit occurred on nine nights and recorded 464 bat
calls (Table 6). The objective of the mobile sampling was to identify to the extent possible the
species of bats using the St. Lawrence Windpower project area during the summer breeding
season. As with the fixed station sampling, many calls could not be identified to species. One
individual of an additional species, eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), was recorded
during the roaming surveys and not recorded during sampling at the passive monitoring stations.
The highest number of recorded calls was of hoary bat (Table 6); however, 95% of those calls
occurred on one night at one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals
echolocating repeatedly near the AnaBat microphone.
Following the qualitative screening, 208 call files with characteristics resembling Myotis species
were submitted to Eric Britzke for further analysis. Of those files, 76 calls (36.5%) did not
contain sufficient enough information to be processed quantitatively. The remaining calls were
analyzed quantitatively on a nightly basis by site (Britzke 2003). Calls meeting the quantitative
criteria for the following species were identified: eastern red bat (22 calls), little brown bat (50
calls), northern myotis (44 calls), and Indiana bat (16 calls).
28
WEST, Inc.
001051
4.0 Discussion
The nocturnal radar study was designed to collect data that could be used to characterize
nocturnal migration over the project area and also be used in a larger statewide comparison of
results from numerous sites (M. Woythal, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). In the analysis, the radar
data were not corrected for differences in detectability with distance from the radar unit or due to
ground clutter on the radar screen. Also, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image
was treated as a 1-dimensional 3-km “front” perpendicular to the direction of migration, and all
targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed
the front. Thus, passage rate estimates should be considered a sample or index of the actual
number of targets passing through the area.
Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of factors
including observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection. To minimize these
biases, efforts were made to standardize data collection and radar settings as much as possible.
For example, the radar was operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control
turned up to near the highest setting. While short wave-length and high gain insure detection of
small targets, these settings also have the effect of producing atmospheric or background noise
on the screen which consequently can obscure small targets. To “clean up” the screen the anti-
sea clutter [which minimizes clutter and noise close to the radar] was slowly turned up to the
point where background noise was dispersed and limited primarily to the outer edge of the
screen. The anti-rain clutter [which reduces interference from small targets throughout the
survey area (e.g., rain drops)] was kept at the lowest setting so that no small targets would be
eliminated. These settings insure that small targets such as individual passerines can be detected
by the radar. Also during sampling, specific functions or capabilities of the radar were used to
determine data values to minimize observer bias. For example, the electronic bearing line and
variable range marker used in offset mode allowed the compass bearing of a target trail and the
speed at which the target was moving to be measured by the radar as opposed to estimated by the
observer or measured with a hand held scale.
Results from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area
differ in some aspects from other sites studied in New York and the eastern U.S. (Table 7).
Mean passage rates for fall 2006 were higher (346 t/km/hr) than the average for NY and the
eastern U.S. (262 t/km/hr); however, these results are not the highest passage rates reported at
other New York sites. Similar passage rates were observed at a proposed site in Jordanville,
New York, located in central New York. Mean flight direction for the St. Lawrence Windpower
study was 209º, slightly more southwesterly than other studies conducted during fall migration.
This prevailing direction may be related more to the shape of the shoreline located within 1.5 km
of the radar station than with flight direction over the entire project area (see Figure 3). Mean
flight height of targets was approximately 490.4 m, which is similar to other studies in NY and
the eastern U.S. The highest percentage of targets occurred above the zone of risk from turbine
blades. The percent of targets (7.7%) which flew through the zone of risk, defined as below 125
m, was similar to other studies where flight height was recorded with vertical mode radar.
30
WEST, Inc.
001052
Given the nature of avian migration in New York and along the Great Lakes shorelines, passage
rates are expected to be slightly higher at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area in spring
than in the fall. A radar study conducted near the Lake Erie shoreline in New York
(Chautauqua) reported passage rates approximately 1.5 times higher in spring than in fall (Table
7). Additionally, passage rates at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area may be influenced
locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline (<1.5 km). Though this distance
was recommended by NYSDEC and USFWS, passage rates may be lower further inland where
actual turbine construction is proposed. Despite higher than average passage rates near the
shoreline, collision risk to migrants within the project area is expected to be low given the
average flight height and proportion of targets passing within the zone of risk.
Table 7. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S.
Passage
Site Rates Mean Flight % Targets Mean Flight
(t/km/hr) Height (m) below 125 m Direction
Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr
St. Lawrence Windpower, NY 346 490 7.7 209.2
(this report)
Dairy Hills, Wyoming Co., NY 170 234 466 397 10 15 180 14
(Young et al. 2006)
Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184
(Mabee et al. 2005)
Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29
(Cooper et al. 2004a,b)
Prattsburgh (1), NY 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18
(Mabee et al. 2004, 2005)
Clinton County, NY 197 110 333 338 12 20 162 30
(Mabee et al. 2006)
Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40
(Woodlot Alternatives 2006a,b)
Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40
(Woodlot Alternatives 2005a, b)
Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22
(B. Roy, pers. comm. 2006)
West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31
(Woodlot Alternatives 2005)
High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29
Fairfield Top Notch, NY 691 509 516 419 4 20 198 44
(B. Gary, NYDEC, pers. comm.)
Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69
(Roy and Pelletier 2005a, 2005b)
Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40
(Roy et al. 2005)
Martindale, PA 187 436 8 188
(Plissner et al. 2005)
Casselman, PA 174 448 7 219
Mount Storm, WV 199 410 16 184
(Young et al. 2004)
Mean 262 269 470 410 6.5 14 195 34

Note: Some values are approximations based on the limited information provided in the report or averaged
over more than one sampling location (e.g., Flat Rock, Mount Storm).
31
WEST, Inc.
001053
Typical raptor species for central New York were observed during the surveys (Table 8). Bald
eagle, a federally-listed species, was observed once during the fall surveys. This individual was
recorded flying above 125 m and outside of the zone of risk from turbine blades. Several
northern harrier, a state threatened species, were recorded within the project area during spring
and fall migration. Northern harrier are, in general, low-level fliers and all individuals recorded
during the surveys were flying below the zone of risk. Two New York species of special
concern, Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, were also observed during surveys.
Based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour, the St. Lawrence Windpower
project area has less traffic during spring migration than the known hawk watch sites in New
York. The nearest spring hawk watch site to the project area, Derby Hill Bird Observatory, was
somewhat variable over the same survey days; however, the overall mean number of raptors
observed per surveyor hour was greater (Table 8). Large numbers of broad-winged hawks were
observed at Derby Hill on 4/21/06; however, surveys within the St. Lawrence Windpower
project area failed to record high numbers of this species passing over the site. Passage rates at
the St. Lawrence Windpower project area for spring migration are based on four surveys in April
and May. Derby Hill Bird Observatory recorded pulses of turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, and
red-shouldered hawk during the last two weeks of March 2006. Higher numbers of sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, bald eagle, and golden eagle were also observed in the six weeks
prior to April 14. It was also recommended by NYSDEC to conduct Spring surveys in March to
look for bald and golden eagles. The spring raptor migration surveys will be continued in 2007
to include the earlier part of the spring season (March).
There are no fall hawk watch sites along the lake shoreline in central New York. The nearest fall
site, Kestrel Haven located in south central New York, was generally lower than the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area in terms of raptors counted per surveyor hour; however, count
data for this site is only available for 2005 so a direct comparison of actual survey days could not
be made. Fall hawk watch sites further south and east, such as Franklin Mountain, record similar
numbers of migrant raptors, which are likely taking advantage of ridgelines of the western
Appalachian Mountains; however timing is different among the sites. Higher numbers of raptors
per surveyor hour were seen earlier in the fall season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project
area than at more southern sites. This may be a reflection of the more northern latitude of the
site or summer residents, such as red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and northern harrier, still in the
area.
32
WEST, Inc.
001054
New York spring/fall hawk watch sites in 2006.
Spring 2006 St. Lawrence Ripley Hawk Hamburg Derby Hill
Windpower
4/14/06 11 29 1 20
4/21/06 13 47 49 344
5/02/06 2 16 2 6
5/12/06 4 25 1 45
Average 7.5 29.25 13.25 103.75
Fall 2006 St. Lawrence Franklin Mt. Mohonk Preserve Mount Peter
Windpower
9/23/06 15 1 no survey 1
9/30/06 20 3 2 5
10/07/06 17 10 no survey 3
10/13/06 10 3 11 7
10/20/06 3 no survey no survey no survey
10/27/06 7 20 11 5
10/30/06 6 15 16 10
11/05/06 6 1 no survey 1
11/07/06 8 0 no survey 2
11/11/06 4 2 no survey no survey
Average 9.6 9 10 3.4
Daily count data acquired from HMANA 2006.
Exposure indices are a common method for estimating risk to individual species from wind
turbines. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor species had the highest exposure index due
to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds, such as Canada goose and gull species
(Table 2). At the St. Lawrence Windpower project area, raptors in general did not have high
exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or flight heights outside of the zone of risk.
Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they were commonly observed and were most
often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these species have been recorded as fatalities at
other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities are relatively small (see Erickson et al.
2001, 2002). Red-tailed hawk was seen less frequently but was often seen flying in the zone of
risk. In contrast, northern harrier were often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but
rarely observed flying into the zone of risk and has rarely been recorded as fatalities at other
monitored wind facilities (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002).
The results of the breeding bird surveys were typical of agricultural settings in central New York.
Frequently recorded species included European starling, bobolink, and red-winged blackbird. A
few woodland species, such as wood thrush and ovenbird, were observed in small wooded areas
and wetlands scattered throughout the project area. Several species of gulls and waterfowl are
also present in the area due to proximity to the shoreline. The closest breeding bird survey
(Watertown; Sauer 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Four species
listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area: northern
harrier, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier is listed as NY
33
WEST, Inc.
001055
state threatened. The remaining three species are listed as Special Concern species for New
York (NYSDEC 2003). Bobolink, a commonly occurring species within the project area (Table
3) and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for Lower Great
Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region (USFWS 2002) in which the Cape Vincent project area occurs.
Henslow’s sparrow, a NY state threatened species, was recorded during breeding bird surveys
conducted on an adjacent project area; however, this species was not seen during counts within
the St. Lawrence Windpower project area though habitat for this species exists.
Based on the breeding bird survey data collected in 2006, the St. Lawrence Windpower project
area does not appear to have any large or unusual populations of breeding resident birds.
Mortality results from two other eastern wind plants studied indicate that turbines on eastern
mountain ridgelines result in between 4 and 8 bird fatalities per turbine per year (see Kerns and
Kerlinger 2004 and Nicholson 2002, 2003). In both these studies it was estimated that
approximately two-thirds of the avian fatalities were migrants. Provided impacts at the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area are similar, it is not expected that breeding resident birds are
at great risk from the wind project. Due to the diversity of birds recorded in the mixed farmland
habitat, impacts are expected to be spread over several commonly observed species. Potential
impacts to breeding habitat of sensitive species will be estimated based on a proposed turbine
layout mapped on habitat (vegetation types) for the project area. Results from sensitive species
surveys, mapping of potential habitat for sensitive species, and anticipated turbine layout will be
included in the final report prepared after spring surveys in 2007.
Passage Rates
To date monitoring studies of wind projects have shown a few common trends in bat mortality.
Risk to bats from turbines appears to be unequal across species and seasons where increased
mortality occurs during the post breeding or fall migration season (roughly mid-July through
September) among migrant bats species (see Johnson 2005). Some studies have shown apparent
low risk from turbines to resident bat populations (Johnson et al. 2003) while others have shown
that mortality is not correlated with AnaBat call rates (Nicholson 2002, 2003). The post-
construction mortality data collected at existing regional projects appears to be the best available
predictor of mortality levels and species composition for proposed wind projects.
The number of bats detected per night at the project met tower was highest in the spring (19.7
calls/night) and summer (22.0 calls/night). These results contrast with results of mortality
studies of bats at wind projects in the U.S., which have shown a peak in mortality in August and
September (see Johnson 2005). While the survey efforts varied among the different studies, the
studies that included AnaBat surveys and fatality surveys showed a general association between
the timing of bat calls and timing of mortality, with both peak call rates and peak mortality
occurring during the fall. Lower bat activity was recorded at the project met tower during fall
migration (9.26 calls/night) than other times during the year. Bat activity collected at the project
met tower may suggest lower mortality rates for bats at the St. Lawrence Windpower project.
Bat activity captured at non-met locations during migration seasons and summer was
significantly higher than that recorded at the met tower. Activity at the non-met sampling
locations range from 29–33 calls/night during migration seasons to 56 calls/night during summer
breeding season. Consistent differences in bat activity between met and non-met locations is
34
WEST, Inc.
001056
likely due largely to habitat at the sampling locations. Acoustic sampling at the met tower,
located in an open pasture and a location recommended by federal and state agencies, should be
more reflective of bat activity in areas where turbines will be constructed. The differences
between the met tower station and non-met stations are likely due to the relative abundance of
bats occurring in pastures versus more diverse habitat such as edge or woodlots. Ultimately,
predicted risk to migratory and breeding bats using acoustic monitoring appears to be limited
based on previous studies at other wind sites where there have been conflicting results.
While interspecific variation in echolocation call structure exists among the Myotis species,
significant variation can exist intraspecifically among individuals and populations (Broders et al.
2004). Plasticity among calls of an individual based on a number of factors (e.g., habitat,
presence of conspecifics, etc.) can further confound species identification (Barclay and Brigham
2004). Given the similarity of Myotis species, both morphologically and acoustically, these
species are generally acknowledged as being among the more difficult to identify. To determine
presence of a federally endangered Myotis species, Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), within the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area, all call files with signatures resembling Myotis species were
submitted for quantitative analysis to NYSDEC-recommended bat biologist, Eric Britzke. A
total of 208 call files were analyzed using a classification model based on discriminant function
analysis (DFA) that utilizes 10 quantitative measures of individual call sequences. As is typical
of AnaBat call analysis, the majority of the calls (n=76) were still unable to be categorized to
species using the procedure. Of those calls with adequate signatures, 22 had call parameters
similar to eastern red bat, 50 to little brown bat, 44 to northern myotis, and 16 to Indiana bat.
Calls with characteristics of Indiana bat were recorded at several locations within the project area
from May 9 – September 21, with about half of the calls occurring at one sampling location
between May 23 – 29, 2006. No sampled nights at any site had >2 call files with characteristics
of Indiana bat. Due to the probabilistic nature and opportunity for misidentification and
inaccuracy in species identification, multiple calls of a species must be detected in a single night
to determine species presence (Britzke et al. 2002). This is a conservative approach, but serves
to ensure that variation caused by inaccurate identification is not included in the species
identification results. Based on this approach, there are not enough files to statistically support
the presence of Indiana bats at any of the sites or nights examined (E. Britzke, pers.
communication).
Though statistical analysis of Myotis species calls recorded by the AnaBats failed to conclusively
document Indiana bat, the St. Lawrence Windpower project area is within the recognized range
of the species. Indiana bat are known to winter in a hibernaculum near Watertown. Movement
of females dispersing from hibernacula to breeding areas has been tracked by NYSDEC from
2002 – 2006 (NYSDEC 2006). Individuals have been recorded traveling up to 40 miles from
wintering caves and several dispersing females were reported in Clayton, New York, located
within 10 miles northeast of the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Suitable
roosting habitat, characterized by trees or snags >5 inches in diameter with exfoliating bark and
cracks/crevices (USFWS 1999), is likely present within the project area. Additionally, several
riparian areas and wetlands, such as farm ponds and floodplain forests, within the project area
provide foraging habitat for the Indiana bat and other bat species.
The results of the AnaBat surveys along with available information suggest that Indiana bats may
occupy the site in low density. Because of the status of this species, further investigations
35
WEST, Inc.
001057
including habitat mapping and potentially mist-netting surveys are warranted. Additional study
scope, methods, and objectives will be discussed with the NYSDEC and USFWS and
implemented in 2007. Detailed habitat mapping for the species, with a focus on suitable
trees/woodlots for maternal colonies, is recommended. The utility of mist-netting to confirm
presence/absence of the species and likelihood of impacts based on relative density within the
project area will be further evaluated in consultation with the agencies.
5.0 Ongoing Studies

Several of these studies at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area are ongoing. In spring
2007, the radar survey will resume for a 45-day period. Additional spring raptor surveys will be
conducted to capture earlier migrants that may have been missed due to a late start in spring
2006. Other ongoing study components include winter raptor and waterfowl surveys and
sensitive species surveys and habitat mapping. Results from this report and the ongoing studies
will be compiled in a final report following completion of the field surveys in spring 2007.
Results in this interim report should be considered preliminary at this time until the final analysis
is complete.
6.0 References
Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York.
Barclay, R.M. and R.M. Brigham. 2004. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of bats: a complication for
identifying species by their calls in Bat Echolocation Research: Tools, techniques, and analysis. Bat
Conservation International. Austin, Texas.
Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. Academic Press, London.
Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, and D.A. Hill. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, New York. 257 pp.
Britzke, E.R. 2003. Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in the eastern
United States. Ph.D. dissertation, unpublished.
Britzke, E.R. and K.L. Murray. 2001. A quantitative method for the selection of identifiable search-phase calls
using the AnaBat system. Bat Research News 41:33-36.
.
Britzke, E.R., K.L. Murray, J.S. Heywood, and L.W. Robbins. 2002. Acoustic identification. Pp. 220-224 in The
Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat
Conservation International, Austin, TX.
Broders, H.G., C.S. Findlay, and L. Zheng. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis
septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammology 85:273-281.
Cooper, B.A., A.A. Stickney and T.J. Mabee. 2004a. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed
Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York, Fall 2003. Technical report prepared for Chautaqua
Windpower LLC.
Cooper, B.A., T.J. Mabee, A.A. Stickney and J.E. Shook. 2004b. A visual and radar study of 2003 spring bird
36
WEST, Inc.
001058
5.0 Ongoing Studies

is complete.
6.0 References
Ithaca, New York.
.
Windpower LLC.
36
WEST, Inc.
001059
5.0 Ongoing Studies

is complete.
6.0 References
Ithaca, New York.
.
Windpower LLC.
36
WEST, Inc.
001060
migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York. Technical report prepared for
Chautaqua Windpower LLC.
Cooper, B. A. and T. J. Mabee. 2000. Bird Migration Near Proposed Wind Turbine Sites at Wethersfield and
Harrisburg, New York. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Cooper, B. A., C. B. Johnson, and R. J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird Migration Near Existing and Proposed Wind Turbine
Sites in the Eastern Lake Ontario Region. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Cooper, B.A., R.H. Day, R.J. Ritchie, and C.L. Cranor. 1991. An improved marine radar system for studies of bird
migration. J. Field Ornithol. 62:367-377.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological
Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's
Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions
with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision
Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document.
August 2001.
Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis
and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed
and Existing Wind Developments. Technical Report prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, December
2002.
Harmata, A.R., K.M. Podruzny, J.R. Zelenak and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Using marine surveillance radar to study
bird movements and impact assessment. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(1):44-52.
Hawk Migration Association of North America. 2006. HawkCount Monthly Summaries. Hawk Migration
Association of North America, Raptors Online. http://www.hawkcount.org/
Hawrot, R.Y. and J. M. Hanowski. 1997. Avian assessment document: avian population analysis for wind power
generation regions-012. NRRI/TR-97-23.
Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy
Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Technical Report prepared for FPL
Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC.
39 pp.
Mabee, T. J., and B. A. Cooper. 2000. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Fall
2000. Final Report. Prepared for Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. and Energy Northwest.
Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2001. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Spring
Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Stateline and Vansycle Wind Energy Projects,
2000-2001. Final Report. Prepared for CH2M Hill and FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC.
Mabee, T.J., J.H. Plissner, and B.A. Cooper. 2005. A Radar and Visual Study of Nocturnal Bird and Bat Migration
at the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project, New York, Fall 2004. Final Report. Prepared for Atlantic
Renewable Energy Corporation.
NYSDEC. 2003. Endangered Species Program, Species Fact Sheets. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York.
37
WEST, Inc.
001061
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/
NYSDEC. 2006. Indiana Bat Fact Sheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. 3pp.
Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating bird
numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313.
Roy, R. D. and S. K. Pelletier. 2005. Fall 2004 Migration Surveys at the Proposed Searsburg and Readsboro,
Vermont. Prepared for Vermont Environmental Research Associates and enXco, Inc.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966
- 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort
Snelling, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3.
Young, Jr., D. P., D. Strickland, W. P Erickson, K. J. Bay, R. Canterbury and R. Mabee, B. Cooper and J. Plissner.
2003. Baseline Avian Studies Mount Storm Wind Power Project, Grant County, West Virginia, May 2003-
March 2004. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
38
WEST, Inc.
001062
at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
Spring 2006 Fall 2006
Species/Group mean % freq3 mean % freq
# ind # groups # ind # groups
use2 use
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 4 4 0.33 25.0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Herring gull 19 3 1.58 16.7 0 0 0 0
Ring-billed gull 317 9 26.42 50.0 634 33 21.1 33.3
Unidentified gull 879 15 73.25 66.7 6421 38 214.03 50.0
Waterfowl
Canada goose 197 6 16.4 50.0 927 51 30.9 60.0
Double-crested cormorant 2 1 0.17 8.3 0 0 0 0
Unidentified duck 40 2 3.33 16.7 0 0 0 0
Mallard 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Raptors
Accipiters
Sharp-shinned hawkSC 5 3 0.42 25.0 3 3 0.1 10.0
Cooper’s hawkSC 0 0 0 0 4 4 0.13 13.3
Unidentified accipiter 5 5 0.42 33.3 0 0 0 0
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 7 7 0.58 33.3 6 3 0.2 6.7
Red-tailed hawk 8 7 0.67 50.0 43 37 1.43 63.3
Rough-legged hawk 2 2 0.17 16.7 12 8 0.4 23.3
Unidentified buteo 4 3 0.33 25.0 0 0 0 0
Falcons
American kestrel 1 1 0.08 8.3 11 9 0.37 26.7
Merlin 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.07 6.7
Eagles
Bald eagleFT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Other Raptors
Northern harrierST 6 6 0.5 41.7 87 65 2.9 90.0
OspreySC 2 2 0.17 16.7 0 0 0 0
Turkey vulture 51 31 4.25 83.3 119 53 3.97 40.0
Other Birds
American crow 31 11 2.58 50.0 193 86 6.43 80.0
Common raven 0 0 0 0 3 3 0.1 10.0
Common snipe 0 0 0 0 9 4 0.3 13.3
Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.03 3.3
Wild turkey 0 0 0 0 42 2 1.4 6.7
Total 1147 118 7108 406
FT = Federal threatened ST = State threatened SC = State listed species of special concern
2
3
17
WEST, Inc.
001063
Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during spring and fall 2006 diurnal migrant surveys at the St.
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 4 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Herring gull 19 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ring-billed gull 167 466 52.7 73.5 70.1 27.9 29.9 72.1 0 0 4.17 11.2
Unidentified gull 244 4971 27.8 77.4 76.6 45.2 23.4 54.7 0 0.01 4.75 90.7
Waterfowl
Canada goose 197 902 100.0 97.3 100.0 0 0 75.8 0 24.2 0 22.8
Double-crested cormorant 2 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unidentified duck 40 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mallard 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
Raptors
Accipiters
Sharp-shinned hawkSC 5 2 100.0 66.7 0 50.0 80.0 50.0 20.0 0 0.33 0.03
Cooper’s hawkSC 0 4 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.13
Unidentified accipiter 5 0 100.0 0 0 0 60.0 0 40.0 0 0.25 0
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 7 6 100.0 100.0 14.3 0 28.6 50.0 57.1 50.0 0.17 0.1
Red-tailed hawk 7 41 87.5 95.3 14.3 24.3 42.9 73.2 42.9 2.4 0.25 0.97
Rough-legged hawk 2 12 100.0 100.0 50.0 58.3 50.0 33.3 0 8.3 0.08 0.13
Unidentified buteo 4 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.33 0
Northern Harriers
Northern harrierT 6 84 100.0 96.6 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Osprey
OspreySC 2 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0.17 0
4
5
18
WEST, Inc.
001064
Falcons
American kestrel 1 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.9 0 9.1 0 0 0 0.03
Merlin 0 2 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eagles
Bald EagleT 0 1 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
Vultures
Turkey vulture 49 119 96.1 100.0 4.1 5.0 61.2 92.5 34.7 2.5 2.5 3.67
Other Birds
American crow 31 183 100.0 94.8 58.1 44.8 41.9 54.6 0 5.5 1.08 3.33
Common raven 0 3 0 100.0 0 66.7 0 33.3 0 0 0 0.03
Common snipe 0 9 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wild turkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19
WEST, Inc.
001065
3.3.2 Results
twice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 1080 individual birds were observed in 425
groups (Table 3). Fifty-nine species were observed during the surveys. European starling, red-
winged blackbird, and bobolink were the most common passerines observed based on mean use
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
Passerines
Blue jay 2 2 0.05
23
WEST, Inc.
001066
Veery 1 1 0.025
Upland Gamebirds
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Other Birds
All Birds 1080 425

24
WEST, Inc.
001067
# of sampling
Non-met 1 11 320 29.09
Non-met 2 24 782 32.58

Non-met 2 9 500 55.56

Radar 50 1629 32.58
Using qualitative analysis of search calls, 5 species groups of bats were positively identified at
Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, Lasiurus borealis calls accounted for the
individual of an additional species, eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), was recorded
during the roaming surveys and not recorded during sampling at the passive monitoring stations.
The highest number of recorded calls was of hoary bat (Table 6); however, 95% of those calls
occurred on one night at one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals
echolocating repeatedly near the AnaBat microphone.
28
WEST, Inc.
001068
Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling
periods of each season.
Species Relative Call Frequency
Common Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall
Big brown bat/ Eptescus fuscus/ 0.0897 0.1414 0.0605

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans (69) (28) (28)
Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 0.3914 0.4141 0.2203

(301) (82) (102)
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 0.0260 0.0404 0.0043
(20) (8) (2)
Myotis spp. 0.0117 0 0.0130
(9) (6)
No identification 0.4811 0.4040 0.7019
(370) (80) (325)
Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling.

Species Date Sampled
Common Scientific Name 6/28 6/29 6/30 7/24 7/25 7/26 8/06 8/07 8/08
Name
Big brown bat Eptescus fuscus 19 12 0 13 0 0 4 1 0
Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 14 20 0 5 13 4 0 7 0
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 0 4 0 1 117 0 0 0 0
Myotis spp. 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eastern Pipistrellus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
pipistrelle subflavus
No Species ID 25 31 16 25 62 6 16 29 4
Total Detections/night 58 74 23 44 192 10 20 37 4
29
WEST, Inc.
001069
periods of each season.


(301) (82) (102)
(20) (8) (2)
Myotis spp. 0.0117 0 0.0130
(9) (6)
(370) (80) (325)

Name
Myotis spp. 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Species ID 25 31 16 25 62 6 16 29 4
29
WEST, Inc.
001070
Given the nature of avian migration in New York and along the Great Lakes shorelines, passage
rates are expected to be slightly higher at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area in spring
than in the fall. A radar study conducted near the Lake Erie shoreline in New York
(Chautauqua) reported passage rates approximately 1.5 times higher in spring than in fall (Table
7). Additionally, passage rates at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area may be influenced
locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline (<1.5 km). Though this distance
was recommended by NYSDEC and USFWS, passage rates may be lower further inland where
actual turbine construction is proposed. Despite higher than average passage rates near the
shoreline, collision risk to migrants within the project area is expected to be low given the
average flight height and proportion of targets passing within the zone of risk.
Table 7. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S.
Passage
St. Lawrence Windpower, NY 346 490 7.7 209.2
(this report)
(Young et al. 2006)
Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184
(Mabee et al. 2005)
Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29
Prattsburgh (1), NY 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18
(Mabee et al. 2004, 2005)
(Mabee et al. 2006)
Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40
Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40
Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22
West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31
High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29
Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69
Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40
(Roy et al. 2005)
(Young et al. 2004)
Mean 262 269 470 410 6.5 14 195 34

31
WEST, Inc.
001071
New York spring/fall hawk watch sites in 2006.
Spring 2006 St. Lawrence Ripley Hawk Hamburg Derby Hill
Windpower
4/14/06 11 29 1 20
4/21/06 13 47 49 344
5/02/06 2 16 2 6
5/12/06 4 25 1 45
Average 7.5 29.25 13.25 103.75
Windpower
9/23/06 15 1 no survey 1
9/30/06 20 3 2 5
10/07/06 17 10 no survey 3
10/13/06 10 3 11 7
10/27/06 7 20 11 5
10/30/06 6 15 16 10
11/05/06 6 1 no survey 1
11/07/06 8 0 no survey 2
Average 9.6 9 10 3.4
Daily count data acquired from HMANA 2006.
Exposure indices are a common method for estimating risk to individual species from wind
turbines. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor species had the highest exposure index due
to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds, such as Canada goose and gull species
(Table 2). At the St. Lawrence Windpower project area, raptors in general did not have high
exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or flight heights outside of the zone of risk.
Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they were commonly observed and were most
often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these species have been recorded as fatalities at
other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities are relatively small (see Erickson et al.
2001, 2002). Red-tailed hawk was seen less frequently but was often seen flying in the zone of
risk. In contrast, northern harrier were often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but
rarely observed flying into the zone of risk and has rarely been recorded as fatalities at other
monitored wind facilities (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002).
(Watertown; Sauer 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Four species
listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area: northern
harrier, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier is listed as NY
33
WEST, Inc.
001072
2
WEST, Inc.
001073
4
WEST, Inc.
001074
6
WEST, Inc.
001075
0
800
330 30
600
300 400 60
200
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
Passage Rates
9
WEST, Inc.
001076
1500
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
10
WEST, Inc.
001077
1500
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
10
WEST, Inc.
001078
600

500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
11
WEST, Inc.
001079
600

500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
11
WEST, Inc.
001080
Flight Altitudes
than 1500 m.
15
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
1
12
WEST, Inc.
001081
700
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
600
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
13
WEST, Inc.
001082
700
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
600
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
13
WEST, Inc.
001083
Target Speed
warranted.
18
16
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
14
WEST, Inc.
001084
All birds
120 Raptors only
100
80
Mean Use
60
40
20
0
1 2 3
Station #

All birds
Raptors only
250
200
Mean Use
150
100
50
0
1 2 3
Station #
3.3.1 Methods
20
WEST, Inc.
001085
22
WEST, Inc.
001086
26
WEST, Inc.
001087
St. Lawrence Windpower Project
Avian and Bat Studies Report August 2007
1.0 Introduction and Background

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy development
in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, St. Lawrence Windpower, is located
south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent,
New York (Figure 1). The exact location and size of the development will be based on a number
of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmission constraints,
permitting, and results of site surveys.
Through the early project evaluation process, SLW contacted the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to introduce the project and determine biological
resources of concern for the project. Issues that were raised included potential impacts from the
project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors,
migrant and resident bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. In response to
comments from the NYSDEC, SLW requested that Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
(WEST) develop an avian and bat survey protocol for a one-year study that would address the
agency concerns and provide site-specific data for the resources of concern.
The principal goals of the study, initiated in April 2006, were to:
1) Provide baseline information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that is
useful in evaluating potential impacts from wind power development;
2) Provide baseline information on avian and bat migration over the proposed development
area that is useful in evaluating the relative risk of the proposed wind project location;
3) Provide information on avian, bat, and sensitive species use of the study area that will
help in designing a wind plant that is less likely to expose species to potential collisions
with turbines, and;
4) Provide recommendations for further monitoring studies and potential mitigation
measures, if appropriate.
Specific objectives of the study were to: (1) describe and quantify nocturnal migration over the
proposed project area; (2) describe and quantify spring and fall (diurnal) raptor migration
through the proposed project; (3) describe and quantify breeding bird use in the proposed
development area (turbine locations); (4) describe and quantify migrant bat use over the
proposed project; (5) identify resident bat species in the project area; (6) describe and quantify
waterfowl migration through the project area; (7) and identify the presence of any federal and
state-listed species that may occur within in the project area, as well as potential habitat for these
species. The protocol was developed based on input from NYSDEC and the USFWS, as well as
the expertise and experience of WEST implementing and conducting similar studies for wind
energy development throughout the U.S.
1
WEST, Inc.
001088
2.0 Study Area

The proposed project area is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York
(Andrle and Carroll 1988). Elevation of the ecozone varies from about 100-500 feet. The
dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple,
white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20%
wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Some of the ecozone on the Cape Vincent peninsula is
characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely vegetated
rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).
The land within the project area is privately owned and the primary land use is agriculture and
dairy farming (Figure 2). There are scattered farms and houses throughout the project and
adjacent to the roads. Vegetation of the project is a mosaic of open grass/hay fields, cultivated
agriculture, and scattered deciduous tree wood lots. The deciduous forest type tends to be
variable in size with some small woodlots intermixed with agriculture fields and some larger
blocks of forest, particularly in low-lying areas unsuitable for farming. Several inlets, creeks,
and wetland forests occur within the project area. Most of the project development will occur in
agricultural fields.
3
WEST, Inc.
001089
4
WEST, Inc.
001090

The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar sampling
AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats
during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various study
components took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrence
in the project area.
The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey was to characterize avian migration
over the project area and provide data that could be used to determine the relative magnitude of
primary objective of the radar study was to collect baseline information on flight direction,
passage rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for
the proposed development area.
A single radar unit was used for the migration seasons defined as 15 August – 15 October for the
fall and 15 April 15 – 1 June for the spring. The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar,
transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar
labs have been successfully used to monitor nocturnal avian migration and are described in
Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999).
The fall sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of
beyond. Due to land management changes at the fall radar sampling location, the site was
inaccessible in the spring. A second sampling location was chosen with similar characteristics as
the fall site and also situated as close to the original site as possible (Figure 3).
5
WEST, Inc.
001091

The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar sampling
AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats
during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various study
components took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrence
in the project area.
The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey was to characterize avian migration
over the project area and provide data that could be used to determine the relative magnitude of
primary objective of the radar study was to collect baseline information on flight direction,
passage rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for
the proposed development area.
A single radar unit was used for the migration seasons defined as 15 August – 15 October for the
fall and 15 April 15 – 1 June for the spring. The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar,
transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar
labs have been successfully used to monitor nocturnal avian migration and are described in
Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999).
The fall sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of
beyond. Due to land management changes at the fall radar sampling location, the site was
inaccessible in the spring. A second sampling location was chosen with similar characteristics as
the fall site and also situated as close to the original site as possible (Figure 3).
5
WEST, Inc.
001092
Figure 3. Radar sampling and raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
6
WEST, Inc.
001093
3.1.1 Methods
The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall migration season and 50 days
during the spring migration. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling during some nights
was compromised or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled nights was less than
the total study period. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from approximately sunset each night
until sunrise the following morning. Each night was broken down into 60-min sampling periods
that consisted of:
horizontal) mode,
transect axis; and,
7
WEST, Inc.
001094
seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the VRM) on the monitor
relative to a horizontal line running through the radar point of origin.
n
n
x i 1
x
12
birds or bats and were excluded from further analysis.
3.1.2 Results
15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. During fall,
radar sampling was conducted most nights for a total of approximately 508 hours of radar
sampling during the study period. Very wet weather in mid-April and again in late-May
compromised many survey nights during the spring study period. Radar sampling was
conducted for a total of approximately 300 hours during the spring study period.
8
WEST, Inc.
001095
Flight Direction
Observed flight directions were typically towards the southwest in the fall and towards the
northeast in the spring (Figure 4). Fall mean and dispersion of flight direction were P = 209.2q
and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the southerly direction of the migration,
71.8% of observations were between 90q and 270q, while 34.5% of observations were between
135q and 225q. Spring mean and dispersion of flight direction were P = 34.0q and r = 0.52
(n = 5003 targets).1). As an indication of the northerly direction of the migration, 77.6% of
observations were between 270q and 90q, and 48.4% of observations were between 315q and
45q.
Figure 4. Observed fall and spring flight directions in the project area.
Fall Spring
0
800
330 30
600
300 400 60
200
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
Passage Rates
Fall
mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in late
September and early October. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening,
9
WEST, Inc.
001096
with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively
declining rates throughout the night (Figures 7 and 8).
Spring
The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 r 8.8 targets/km/hr (mean r SE)
(n = 310 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 191 r 9.4 targets/km/hr (mean r SE)
(n = 308 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal
mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in
early and mid May. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening, with rapid
increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively declining rates
throughout the night with a second small increase early in the morning (Figures 7 and 8).
10
WEST, Inc.
001097
1500
Fall
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
11
WEST, Inc.
001098

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr) 2000
1800 Fall
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
12
WEST, Inc.
001099

600
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
13
WEST, Inc.
001100

600
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
14
WEST, Inc.
001101
Flight Altitudes
Fall
flight altitudes less than 125 m (the approximate zone of risk posed by modern turbines) at the
site. Most targets were observed at altitudes below 500 m (Figure 9). The highest percentage of
(Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling
periods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 3.1% of targets (558 of 18059) had flight altitudes
greater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median
value and the middle 50% of all observations were greater than 125 m arl (Figure 12).
Spring
(mean r SE) (n = 16151 targets) arl. Approximately14.0% of targets had flight altitudes less
than 125 m. The highest percentage of targets (19.2%) occurred between 101 and 200 m arl
(Figure 9). Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and ranged
from approximately 170 m to 650 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes
were relatively constant (typically in the 440–470 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overall
mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in vertical
mode, 2.6% of targets (253 of 9061 targets) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On all
sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and above 125 m arl;
however, on two nights the median value was below 125 m arl and on seven nights the middle
50% of all observations overlapped the zone of risk (Figure 12).
1
15
WEST, Inc.
001102
15
Fall
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
20
18
Spring
16
14
PERCENT OF TARGETS
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
16
WEST, Inc.
001103

700
Fall
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
700
Spring
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
04/26 05/01 05/06 05/11 05/16 05/21 05/26 05/31 06/05 06/10
DATE
17
WEST, Inc.
001104

600
Fall
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
500
Spring
450
400
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0000 0200 0400 2000 2200
TIME
18
WEST, Inc.
001105
Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions2.
Fall
Spring
2
The boxes within the chart represent the 1st and 3rd quartile (50%) of the nightly observations, the horizontal lines
within boxes represent nightly median value of flight heights, and solid circles represent the nightly mean flight
height.
19
WEST, Inc.
001106
Target Speed
Fall
above). Of 12,190 targets, approximately 1% (120 targets) were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and
warranted.
Spring
Of 5003 targets, approximately 1% (56 targets) were excluded because they were moving very
slow (< 6 m/s) or due to high speed (> 35m/s) and 47 targets were excluded due to missing wind
speed and/or direction to allow for air speed adjustments. After excluding very slow and very
fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 13.65 r 0.06 m/s (mean r SE) (n = 4900 targets).
Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 11 to 18 m/s (Figure 13). Because the
percentage of targets moving slowly was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was
warranted.
20
WEST, Inc.
001107

18
16 Fall
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
21
WEST, Inc.
001108
The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the
site by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g., waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds.
areas for raptors in the survey area. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting
raptors migrating through the area. The timing of surveys was determined in consultation with
the NYSDEC and based on available information from migrant raptor watch stations in northern
and western New York (e.g., Derby Hill, see below).
3.2.1 Methods
Three fixed survey stations were established within the proposed project area to provide good
visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area, and also attempting
to minimize the potential for double-counting of individual birds (Figure 3). Survey stations
were established to maximize visibility over long distances in an effort to locate and identify
migrating raptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while maintaining the integrity of
the east-west point layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the vegetation
and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360o around the point, and so that each
point was surveying unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the
observation point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was
concentrated within an approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point.
Observations of birds beyond the 800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of
data within the plot.
Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900 – 1700) to
cover the peak period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60
minutes long. All raptors and other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned
a unique observation number and plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each
survey included date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such
as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or
best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance from
plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above ground, activity (behavior), and
habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight direction or movement
paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each raptor/large bird
and the habitat in which or over which the bird was first observed were recorded. Behavior
categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted in
comments). Habitats included agriculture, old (fallow) field, deciduous woods/forest, developed
(e.g., farms), and other (noted in comments). Approximate flight height at first observation and
the approximate lowest and highest flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meter
interval. Any comments or unusual observations were also noted.
22
WEST, Inc.
001109
Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration through the project area. In New
York, spring hawk watch locations are concentrated along the Great Lakes shorelines and are
more inland in eastern portions of the state during fall migration. According to spring count data
from the Derby Hill Bird Observatory, located in Mexico, New York, approximately 50 miles
south of Cape Vincent along Lake Ontario, peak numbers of sharp-shinned hawks migrate
through the area during April, with large pulses of broad-winged hawks during the last two
weeks of the month. Fall migration counts from Franklin Mountain in Oneonta, New York (150
miles southeast of Cape Vincent) report peak periods for migrant broad-winged and sharp-
shinned hawks during September and October, respectively. Concern for migrant golden eagles
potentially using the St. Lawrence Windpower project area was expressed during talks with the
NYSDEC. Golden eagles are earlier and later migrants with peaks reported from the end of
March during spring migration and the end of October through November during fall migration.
Spring raptor surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area began later in the 2006 season
(April 14, 2006) and likely did not capture early raptor migrants, such as golden eagles; however,
spring surveys were conducted again in 2007 and began at an earlier date, March 21, and ran
until May 1. In fall, surveys were conducted from September 23 – November 11.
3.2.2 Results
During the spring 2006 season, each point was surveyed 4 times, for a total of 12 surveys. A
total of 1581 individual birds were recorded; 91 raptors of 9 species were observed (Table 1).
During the fall 2006 season, each fixed point was surveyed 10 times during the survey window,
for a total of 30 surveys. A total of 8521 individual birds were recorded; 288 raptors of 9 species
were observed. During the spring 2007 season, each point was surveyed 7 times for a total of 21
surveys. A total of 2666 individual birds were recorded; 232 raptors of 8 species were observed.
A total of 12,768 individual large birds were recorded during the surveys; 611 individual raptors
of 13 species were observed (Table 1).
Canada goose and unidentified gull species were the most commonly seen bird during all
surveys. During spring 2006 migration, turkey vulture was the most commonly recorded raptor
species (n = 51, freq = 83.3%), followed by red-tailed hawk (n = 8, freq = 50.0). In the fall,
northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 87, freq = 90.0%); red-
tailed hawk and turkey vulture were also commonly seen species during surveys. Turkey vulture
was the most common recorded raptor species (n = 105, freq = 94.4%) again during spring 2007
migration surveys, followed by both the red-tailed hawk (n = 36, freq = 72.2%) and rough-
legged hawk (n = 38, freq = 72.2%). Other raptor species seen included: broad-winged hawk,
sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, northern harrier, American kestrel, merlin, bald
eagle, and turkey vulture (Table 1).
Exposure indices were calculated as the mean use estimates (number of birds/60-minute survey)
multiplied by the proportion of birds observed flying and the proportion of birds flying within
the zone of risk (defined as the approximate rotor-swept area). During the migratory seasons,
gull species had the highest exposure index due to high numbers of individuals occurring in the
project area (Table 2). For raptors, turkey vulture had the highest exposure index also due
primarily to the higher use estimates.
23
WEST, Inc.
001110
Avian and raptor use varied among survey stations (Figure 14). Avian use was higher at Station
3 during the spring and fall seasons of 2006, however Station 2 was the highest during the spring
2007 season. High numbers of waterfowl and gulls foraging in nearby fields or flying close to
the shoreline may account for higher avian use of Station 3. Mean avian use was lower at
Station 1 and 2. Raptor use was generally similar between seasons and survey points. Station 1
had higher raptor use in fall 2006 and spring 2007 but the differences were not significant.
24
WEST, Inc.
001111
The objective of the breeding bird survey was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the
proposed development area by breeding resident birds. The emphasis of the survey was locating
and counting breeding resident birds within the area proposed for development. The surveys
were conducted based on the regional timing recommended for USGS BBS in central New York
(USGS 2001).
3.3.1 Methods
to be representative of as much of the proposed development area and habitat types as possible.
GPS coordinates were recorded for each station for subsequent mapping (Figure 15). The habitat
at each survey point was described to examine the applicability of the site to represent other
areas within the proposed development area.
U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2001) methods were used for the surveys.
Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds
observed were recorded; however, the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 400
m (0.25 mi) radius circle centered on the observation point. All points were surveyed twice
during the recommended survey period (June - July) and seven days were skipped between the
surveys to spread the effort over the breeding season.
Survey periods at each point were 3 minutes long, the same as the BBS method. The date; start
and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, wind
speed, wind direction, and cloud cover were recorded for each survey. Species or best possible
identification, number of individuals of each species, how observed (visual or auditory), and
behavior (flying, perching, singing, etc.) were recorded for each observation during the 3-minute
count at each survey point.
31
WEST, Inc.
001112
32
WEST, Inc.
001113
Avian and Bat Studies Report
3.3.2 Results
twice, for a total of 40 surveys. A total of 1080 individual birds were observed in 425 groups
(Table 3). Fifty-nine species were observed during the surveys. European starling, red-winged
blackbird, and bobolink were the most common passerines observed based on mean use
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
Passerines
Blue jay 2 2 0.05
33
WEST, Inc.
001114

Veery 1 1 0.025
Upland Gamebirds
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Other Birds
All Birds 1080 425

34
WEST, Inc.
001115
The objective of the nocturnal AnaBat surveys was to record the relative abundance of echo-
locating bats flying through the sampling area during summer breeding season and the spring and
fall migration seasons.
3.4.1 Methods
Bat activity at the project area was recorded using an AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detector attached
to a zero-crossing analysis interface module (ZCAIM) which houses a compact flash memory
card for temporary download of ultrasonic activity files. To sample continuously on remote
mode (automatic data collection), the detector and ZCAIM were powered by an external 12V
battery. Each AnaBat unit (detector, ZCAIM, and 12V battery) was enclosed inside a plastic box
or dry bag with the detector microphone positioned against a PVC tube protruding from the
box/bag. This design prevented water from damaging the AnaBat units without compromising
the ability of the unit to detect ultrasonic noise in the environment. To limit variation among
AnaBats, sensitivity settings were calibrated for each unit prior to data collection. Most AnaBat
units were set at or near setting 7 on the sensitivity dial. Each passive AnaBat unit was
positioned so that the microphone faced the same cardinal direction, east, for each sampling
period. Calls were recorded for passive sampling from approximately sunset to sunrise (1900 –
0700). AnaBat units were removed from the field approximately once per week to download
files, recharge batteries, and troubleshoot technical problems. Data gathered from the passive
AnaBat units at the met tower were used to calculate bat activity (designated as number of
calls/night) present at the site during the sampling periods. Nights that experienced any number
of technical difficulties were not included in the final analyses.
During the spring sampling season (April 13 – May 29), two AnaBat sampling locations were
established. One unit was placed at ground level in the open grassy field at the base of the
project met tower and another unit was deployed near a wooded edge (non-met 1) to increase
likelihood of detecting additional species (Figure 16). Access issues and technical difficulties
with the AnaBat unit at the non-met 1 location caused the unit to be relocated to a small farm
pond near a wooded edge (non-met 2) within the project boundary after a week of sampling.
Acoustic sampling at these two locations (met tower and non-met 2) continued through spring
and these locations were maintained through the summer sampling season (June 28 – August 8).
During the fall season (August 13 – October 9), AnaBat sampling continued at ground level at
the met tower. A second AnaBat unit was deployed from August 15 – October 16 in a tree
approximately 10 m above ground near the radar survey station (radar; Figure 16).
35
WEST, Inc.
001116
36
WEST, Inc.
001117
In addition to the stationary passive units, a “roaming” or mobile AnaBat unit was deployed
during the summer to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the project area.
Roaming sampling was conducted using a handheld AnaBat unit for 9 nights (3 sampling periods
of 3 consecutive nights each) at habitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. To select
locations for active sampling, reconnaissance visits were made to the project area during the day
time to select sampling locations based on the presence of travel corridors (trails and roads),
linear landscape features (forest edges), and access to water; habitat features known to be
important for bats. Active sampling was conducted from sunset until approximately 4-5 hours
after sunset (2100 – 0100).
Analysis of bat calls was conducted using Analook software (DOS version). Analook displays
ultrasonic activity in a format similar to a sonogram used for analysis of bird vocalizations (e.g.,
frequency versus time). Species identification was aided by the Preliminary Key to the
Qualitative Identification of Calls within the AnaBat System (Amelon 2005, unpublished data)
where characteristics such as slope, frequency, minimum frequency, consistency of minimum
frequency, and shape of pulse assist in the identification of bat vocalizations. Due to similarity
of call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into one
species category. All Myotis-like calls were identified to genus only and submitted to NYSDEC-
recommended biologist, Eric Britzke, for identification to species. To obtain species
identifications, an ID filter (Britzke and Murray 2001) was loaded into Analook to determine
calls sequences of sufficient quality and length for species identification to be attempted. Once
separated, echolocation calls of sufficient quality and length were categorized using quantitative
techniques (Britzke 2003). Quantitative analyses are conducted by a cross-validated
classification model based on 10 extracted call parameters [duration (Dur), maximum frequency
(Fmax), minimum frequency (Fmin), mean frequency (Fmean), duration to the knee (Tk),
frequency of the knee (Fk), duration of the body (Tc), frequency of the body (Fc), initial slope
(S1), and slope of the body (Sc)] collected from 1,846 sequences (35,979 calls) of 12 eastern
U.S. bat species (Britzke 2003). Average accuracy rates for species identification using this
statistical method ranges from 56.9% (eastern red bat) to 98.5 % (gray bat), with accuracy rates
for Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) ranging from 81.4% to 88.6%.
3.4.2 Results
Passage Rates
The total number of calls and number of calls per night, recorded by each AnaBat unit varied by
location and season (Table 4). The met tower AnaBat unit detected 769 bat calls total (19.72
calls/night) during the 39 days of spring sampling. Sampling at the two non-met locations during
spring resulted in higher bat activity (29-33 calls/night) than at the met tower, despite changing
in sampling location for the non-met unit. Summer sampling occurred at the met tower on 9
nights and recorded a total of 198 calls (22.0 calls/night). Approximately 2.5 times as many calls
(55.56 calls/night) were recorded at the non-met 2 location during summer, possibly indicating a
nearby roosting colony and/or better habitat for foraging bats. During fall, the AnaBat unit
positioned at ground level at the met tower recorded the lowest number of bat vocalizations per
night (9.26 calls/night). Despite a similar number of sampling days, the AnaBat unit located at
the radar sampling station recorded more bat calls/night (32.58). Approximately 93% of calls
37
WEST, Inc.
001118
# of sampling
Non-met 1 11 320 29.09
Non-met 2 24 782 32.58

Non-met 2 9 500 55.56

Radar 50 1629 32.58
Based on the qualitative analysis of calls, 5 species groups of bats were positively identified at
Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, eastern red bat calls accounted for the
individual of an additional species, eastern pipistrelle, was recorded during the roaming surveys
and not recorded during sampling at the passive monitoring stations. The highest number of
recorded calls was of hoary bat (Table 6); however, 95% of those calls occurred on one night at
one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals echolocating repeatedly near
the AnaBat microphone.
38
WEST, Inc.
001119
periods of each season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.


(301) (82) (102)
(20) (8) (2)
Myotis spp. 0.0117 0 0.0130
(9) (6)
(370) (80) (325)

Name
Myotis spp. 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Species ID 25 31 16 25 62 6 16 29 4
39
WEST, Inc.
001120
3.5 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys
The objective of the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys was to estimate spatial and temporal
use of the site by migrant and wintering waterfowl and raptor species. During initial project
scoping, the USFWS and NYSDEC raised concerns over the potential for the proposed wind
project to impact wintering waterfowl and raptors.
3.5.1 Methods
Driving transect surveys were conducted along most roads through the proposed area that
allowed nearly complete coverage of the project area (Figure 17). Surveys consisted of driving
transects to locate and count winter waterfowl in the project area. In addition, nine 30-minute
point count surveys were conducted at each of the fixed point count stations that were used
during the migrant raptor surveys (see above). All waterfowl and raptor observations were
plotted on maps of the survey points or coordinates (UTMs) were recorded along the road for
each group observed during driving surveys. Surveys were generally conducted in the early
morning or late evening hours when waterfowl were most active. In addition to waterfowl, all
raptors and other waterbirds were also recorded during the surveys.
40
WEST, Inc.
001121
Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species locations recorded for the project area.
41
WEST, Inc.
001122
3.5.2 Results
Driving surveys in the St. Lawrence project area were conducted on nine days between
November 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent
during the driving transects over the winter seasons and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were
conducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 795 individuals in 159 groups of
waterbirds, waterfowl and raptors were recorded during the winter driving surveys (Table 7) and
790 individuals in 146 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts (Table 8).
Four (4) species of waterfowl were observed either during the fixed point count surveys or the
driving surveys across the study area. Two waterbirds species, seven raptor species, and one
upland gamebird species were also recorded during the surveys. Based on use estimates derived
from the fixed point surveys, unidentified scaup and Canada goose were the most common
waterfowl species observed during the winter surveys (Table 7 and 8). Red-tailed hawk and
rough-legged hawk were the most common raptor species (Table 7 and 8).
Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at the
St. Lawrence project area.
Winter 2007
Species/Group # of individuals # of groups
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 2 2
Ring-billed gull 2 2
Waterfowl
Canada goose 473 12
Mallard 8 2
Raptors/Vultures
American kestrel 7 7
Bald eagle 2 2
Merlin 1 1
Northern harrierT 17 12
Red-tailed hawk 27 24
Rough-legged hawk 57 54
Turkey vulture 6 2
Other Birds
American crow 135 34
Wild Turkey 58 5
Total 795 159
42
WEST, Inc.
001123
Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point
surveys at the St. Lawrence project area.
Winter 2007
Species/Group # ind # groups mean use7 % freq8
Waterbirds
Ring-billed gull 4 2 0.19 9.52
Unidentified gull 250 1 11.90 4.76
Waterfowl
Canada goose 115 4 5.48 19.05
Mallard 24 1 1.14 4.76
Tundra swan 3 1 0.14 4.76
Unidentified scaup 131 2 6.24 9.52
Raptors
Red-tailed hawk 15 11 0.71 80.95
Rough-legged hawk 63 56 3.00 47.62
Unidentified buteo 6 4 0.29 9.52
Northern harrier 19 16 0.90 42.86
American kestrel 1 1 0.05 4.76
Turkey vulture 8 3 0.38 4.76
Other Birds
American crow 129 40 6.14 85.71
Common raven 1 1 0.05 4.76
Wild turkey 21 3 1.00 14.29
Total 790 146 37.62
7
8
43
WEST, Inc.
001124
4.0 Discussion
The nocturnal radar study was designed to collect data that could be used to characterize
nocturnal migration over the project area and also be used in a larger statewide comparison of
results from numerous sites (M. Woythal, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). In the analysis, the radar
data were not corrected for differences in detectability with distance from the radar unit or due to
ground clutter on the radar screen. Also, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image
was treated as a 1-dimensional 3-km “front” perpendicular to the direction of migration, and all
targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed
the front. Thus, passage rate estimates should be considered a sample or index of the actual
number of targets passing through the area.
Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of factors
including observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection. To minimize these
biases, efforts were made to standardize data collection and radar settings as much as possible.
For example, the radar was operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control
turned up to near the highest setting. While short wave-length and high gain insure detection of
small targets, these settings also have the effect of producing atmospheric or background noise
on the screen which consequently can obscure small targets. To “clean up” the screen, the anti-
sea clutter [which minimizes clutter and noise close to the radar] was slowly turned up to the
point where background noise was dispersed and limited primarily to the outer edge of the
screen. The anti-rain clutter [which reduces interference from small targets throughout the
survey area (e.g., rain drops)] was kept at the lowest setting so that no small targets would be
eliminated. These settings insure that small targets such as individual passerines can be detected
by the radar. Also during sampling, specific functions or capabilities of the radar were used to
determine data values to minimize observer bias. For example, the electronic bearing line and
variable range marker used in offset mode allowed the compass bearing of a target trail and the
speed at which the target was moving to be measured by the radar as opposed to estimated by the
observer or measured with a hand held scale.
Results from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area
were similar to other sites studied in New York and the eastern U.S. (Table 9). Mean passage
rate for fall 2006 was higher (346 t/km/hr) than the average for NY and the eastern U.S. (259
t/km/hr); however, it fell within the overall range of passage rates reported at other New York
sites. Conversely, spring passage rate was on the lower end of the range of other studies. Mean
fall flight direction for the St. Lawrence Windpower study was 209º and for the spring was 34º,
slightly more southwesterly and northeasterly than most other New York studies but again within
the range of directions reported at other New York sites. Mean flight height of targets was
approximately 490 m in the fall and 441 m in the spring, which is similar to other studies in NY
and near the means for all reported studies in the eastern U.S. (Table 9). The percent of targets
(~8% fall and ~14% spring) which flew through the zone of risk, defined as the air space below
44
WEST, Inc.
001125
125 m, were also very near the mean for all other studies where flight height was recorded with
vertical mode radar.
Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the eastern U.S.
Passage
St. Lawrence Windpower, NY 346 166 490 441 8 14 209 34
(this report)
(Young et al. 2006)
Alabama Ledge, Genessee Co., NY 165 200 487 413 11 14 219 35
(Young et al. 2007)
Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184
(Mabee et al. 2005)
Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29
Prattsburgh (1), NY 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18
(Mabee et al. 2004, 2005)
(Mabee et al. 2006)
Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40
Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40
Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22
West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31
High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29
Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69
Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40
(Roy et al. 2005)
(Young et al. 2004)
Mean 259 259 472 412 7 14 197 34
45
WEST, Inc.
001126
While the overall patterns of nocturnal migration in New York and along the Great Lakes
shorelines are generally unknown, passage rates could be expected to be higher for coastal sites
if birds and bats tend to move around the great lakes as opposed to flying directly over them.
Diurnal migrants such as raptors are known to concentrate along and move parallel to the
shorelines of large water bodies. If nocturnal migrants behave in a similar manner, then it would
be expected that greater passage rates would be recorded for coastal sites than interior sites. For
the studies conducted in New York, while results have been variable, the highest fall passage
rates have been recorded at interior sites. For spring migration results again were variable with
the highest passages rates coming from a coastal site as well as two interior sites (see Table 9).
The results from the St. Lawrence study do not appear to support the hypothesis that nocturnal
migrants may concentrate along the shoreline.
The passage rates in the study area may have been influenced locally by the close proximity of
the radar unit to the shoreline (<1.5 km), though this distance was recommended by the
NYSDEC and USFWS to investigate this question, or by weather patterns influenced by the
coastal environment. During the fall the distribution of targets flying over the site was generally
higher and relatively few targets were recorded within the zone of risk (see Figure 12). During
the spring season the results were much more variable. While the mean flight height was greater
than 125 m on all nights, the median flight height value fell within the zone of risk on two nights
indicating that half the targets recorded on those nights were within the zone of risk. Weather
variables recorded during the nights in the spring when target altitude was relatively lower
suggest that weather events may have influenced migrant flight altitudes. Both nights when the
median value fell below 125 m had intermittent precipitation with substantial cloud cover and
lower passage rates (see Figure 5 and 6). While the results indicate some elevated risk on some
nights, based on the overall radar survey results, collision risk to migrants within the project area
is not expected to be greater than other sites studied in New York.
Typical raptor species for central New York were observed during the surveys (Table 1). One
bald eagle, a former federally threatened species, was observed during the fall surveys. This
individual was recorded flying above 125 m and outside of the zone of risk from turbine blades.
Several northern harrier, a state threatened species, were recorded within the project area during
spring and fall migration. Northern harriers are, in general, low-level fliers and most (76.23%)
individuals recorded during the surveys were flying below the zone of risk; however 20.49%
were flying within the rotor swept area. Two New York species of special concern, Cooper’s
hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, were also observed during surveys. Cooper's hawks were only
observed during the fall surveys (4 individuals); however all of the individuals were flying
within the zone of risk. Sharp-shinned hawks were observed during all survey seasons and
58.33% were recorded in the zone of risk.
Based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour, the St. Lawrence Windpower
project area has less traffic during spring migration than the known hawk watch sites in New
York. The nearest spring hawk watch site to the project area, Derby Hill Bird Observatory, was
somewhat variable over the same survey days; however, the overall mean number of raptors
46
WEST, Inc.
001127
study area or summer residents, such as red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and northern harrier, still
in the area.
Exposure indices are a method for estimating relative risk to individual species from wind
turbines based on the observed flight characteristics. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor
species had the highest exposure index due to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds,
such as Canada goose and gull species (Table 2). At the St. Lawrence Windpower project area,
raptors in general did not have high exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or
flight heights outside of the zone of risk. Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they
were commonly observed and were most often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these
species have been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities
are relatively small (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). Cooper's hawk and osprey were seen less
frequently, but were seen primarily flying in the zone of risk. In contrast, northern harrier were
often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but rarely (20.49%) observed flying into the
zone of risk and has rarely been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind facilities (see
Erickson et al. 2001, 2002).
(Watertown; Sauer et al. 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Four
species listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area:
northern harrier, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier is
listed as NY State threatened. The remaining three species are listed as Special Concern species
for New York (NYSDEC 2003). Bobolink, a commonly occurring species within the project
area (Table 3) and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for
Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region (USFWS 2002) in which the project area occurs.
Henslow’s sparrow, a NY state threatened species, has been recorded during breeding bird
surveys in the region (Sauer et al. 2005); however, this species was not seen during counts within
48
WEST, Inc.
001128
Kerlinger 2004 and Nicholson 2002, 2003). In both of these studies it was estimated that
at significant risk from the wind project. Due to the diversity of birds recorded in the mixed
farmland habitat, impacts are expected to be spread over several commonly observed species.
Passage Rates
met tower suggests that bat activity declined in the fall and thus fewer bats would be exposed to
risk of collision at the St. Lawrence Windpower project.
Bat activity captured at non-met locations during migration seasons and summer was higher than
that recorded at the met tower. Activity at the non-met sampling locations range from 29–33
calls/night during migration seasons to 56 calls/night during summer breeding season.
Consistent differences in bat activity between met and non-met locations is likely due largely to
habitat at the sampling locations. Acoustic sampling at the met tower, located in an open pasture
and a location recommended by agency personnel, should be more reflective of bat activity in
areas where turbines will be constructed. The differences between the met tower station and non-
met stations are likely due to the relative abundance of bats occurring in pastures versus more
diverse habitat such as edge or woodlots. Ultimately, however, predicted risk to migratory and
breeding bats using acoustic monitoring appears to be limited based on previous studies at other
wind sites where there have been conflicting results.
49
WEST, Inc.
001129
study area or summer residents, such as red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and northern harrier, still
in the area.
Exposure indices are a method for estimating relative risk to individual species from wind
turbines based on the observed flight characteristics. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor
species had the highest exposure index due to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds,
such as Canada goose and gull species (Table 2). At the St. Lawrence Windpower project area,
raptors in general did not have high exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or
flight heights outside of the zone of risk. Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they
were commonly observed and were most often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these
species have been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities
are relatively small (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). Cooper's hawk and osprey were seen less
frequently, but were seen primarily flying in the zone of risk. In contrast, northern harrier were
often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but rarely (20.49%) observed flying into the
zone of risk and has rarely been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind facilities (see
Erickson et al. 2001, 2002).
(Watertown; Sauer et al. 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Four
species listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area:
northern harrier, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier is
listed as NY State threatened. The remaining three species are listed as Special Concern species
for New York (NYSDEC 2003). Bobolink, a commonly occurring species within the project
area (Table 3) and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for
Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region (USFWS 2002) in which the project area occurs.
Henslow’s sparrow, a NY state threatened species, has been recorded during breeding bird
surveys in the region (Sauer et al. 2005); however, this species was not seen during counts within
48
WEST, Inc.
001130
Passage Rates
49
WEST, Inc.
001131
Passage Rates
49
WEST, Inc.
001132
While interspecific variation in echolocation call structure exists among the Myotis species,
significant variation can exist intraspecifically among individuals and populations (Broders et al.
2004). Plasticity among calls of an individual based on a number of factors (e.g., habitat,
presence of conspecifics, etc.) can further confound species identification (Barclay and Brigham
2004). Given the similarity of Myotis species, both morphologically and acoustically, these
species are generally acknowledged as being among the more difficult to identify. To determine
presence of a federally endangered Myotis species, Indiana bat, within the St. Lawrence
Windpower project area, all call files with signatures resembling Myotis species were submitted
for quantitative analysis to NYSDEC-recommended bat biologist, Eric Britzke. A total of 208
call files were analyzed using a classification model based on discriminate function analysis
(DFA) that utilizes 10 quantitative measures of individual call sequences (Britzke 2003, Britzke
and Murray 2001). As is typical of AnaBat call analysis, the majority of the calls (n=76) were
still unable to be categorized to species using the procedure. Of those calls with adequate
signatures, 22 had call parameters similar to eastern red bat, 50 to little brown bat, 44 to northern
myotis, and 16 to Indiana bat. Calls with characteristics of Indiana bat were recorded at several
locations within the project area from May 9 – September 21, with about half of the calls
occurring at one sampling location between May 23 – 29, 2006. No sampled nights at any site
had >2 call files with characteristics of Indiana bat. Due to the probabilistic nature and
opportunity for misidentification and inaccuracy in species identification, multiple calls of a
species must be detected in a single night to definitively determine species presence (Britzke et
al. 2002). This is a conservative approach, but serves to ensure that variation caused by
inaccurate identification is not included in the species identification results. Based on this
approach, there are insufficient files to statistically support the presence of Indiana bats at any of
the sites or nights examined (E. Britzke, pers. communication), however, there is some
possibility that Indiana bat occurs on the site.
Though statistical analysis of Myotis species calls recorded by the AnaBats failed to conclusively
document Indiana bat, the St. Lawrence Windpower project area is within the recognized range
of the species. Indiana bats are known to winter in a hibernaculum near Watertown. Movement
of females dispersing from hibernacula to breeding areas has been tracked by NYSDEC from
2002 – 2006 (NYSDEC 2006). Individuals have been recorded traveling up to 40 miles from
wintering caves and several dispersing females were reported in Clayton, New York, located
within approximately 6 miles northeast of the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
Suitable roosting habitat, characterized by trees or snags >5 inches in diameter with exfoliating
bark and cracks/crevices (USFWS 1999), is present within the project area. Additionally, several
riparian areas and wetlands, such as forested wetland and floodplain forests, occur within the
project area and provide foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bat and other bat species.
The results of the AnaBat surveys along with available information suggest that Indiana bats may
occupy the site in low density. Because of the status of this species, further investigations
50
WEST, Inc.
001133
Due to the coastal nature of the project area, potential impacts to waterfowl and raptors that
frequent the area during migration and winter season was raised as a concern. Four species of
waterfowl, three species of waterbirds and eight species of raptors were recorded on the St.
Lawrence Windpower project area during the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys. The vast
majority of the waterfowl use of the site was of Canada goose. Generally, geese were observed
in large flocks foraging in agricultural fields and flying over the St. Lawrence Windpower
project area. Canada goose has had recorded fatalities at other monitored wind projects primarily
in the western U.S.; however, they are not a common fatality. In general, waterfowl fatalities at
wind projects are rare (see Erickson et al 2001, 2002, Koford et al. 2005). While the proposed
St. Lawrence Windpower project would increase risk of collision-related mortality to Canada
goose, impacts are not expected to be significant due to the large numbers of this species in the
region and the low occurrence of collision fatalities at wind projects.
The most common raptor species recorded during the winter driving and fixed point surveys
were red-tailed and rough-legged hawk. Although the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower
project would increase collision risk for wintering red-tailed and rough-legged hawks over
existing condition, impacts are not expected to be significant. These raptor species have a
relatively low exposure index based on the survey results (Table 2), and raptor mortality has
been relatively low at other eastern wind projects that have been monitored (see Kerns and
Kerlinger 2004, Nicholson 2002, 2003, Koford et al. 2005, Arnett et al. 2005). There is no
information to suggest that winter raptor mortality would be greater at the St. Lawrence
Windpower project that other wind projects studied.
5.0 References
Ithaca, New York.
51
WEST, Inc.
001134
5.0 References
Ithaca, New York.
51
WEST, Inc.
001135
5.0 References
Ithaca, New York.
51
WEST, Inc.
001136
Windpower LLC.
migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York. Technical report prepared for
Chautaqua Windpower LLC.
Cooper, B. A. and T. J. Mabee. 2000. Bird Migration Near Proposed Wind Turbine Sites at Wethersfield and
Harrisburg, New York. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Cooper, B. A., C. B. Johnson, and R. J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird Migration Near Existing and Proposed Wind Turbine
Sites in the Eastern Lake Ontario Region. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Cooper, B.A., R.H. Day, R.J. Ritchie, and C.L. Cranor. 1991. An improved marine radar system for studies of bird
migration. J. Field Ornithol. 62:367-377.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological
Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's
Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions
with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision
Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document.
August 2001.
Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis
and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed
and Existing Wind Developments. Technical Report prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, December
2002.
Harmata, A.R., K.M. Podruzny, J.R. Zelenak and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Using marine surveillance radar to study
bird movements and impact assessment. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(1):44-52.
Hawk Migration Association of North America. 2006. HawkCount Monthly Summaries. Hawk Migration
Association of North America, Raptors Online. http://www.hawkcount.org/
Hawrot, R.Y. and J. M. Hanowski. 1997. Avian assessment document: avian population analysis for wind power
generation regions-012. NRRI/TR-97-23.
Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy
Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Technical Report prepared for FPL
52
WEST, Inc.
001137
Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC.
39 pp.
Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner. 2005. Avian Mortality Associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm, Calender Year
2004. Iowa State University and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. February 2005.
Mabee, T. J., and B. A. Cooper. 2000. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Fall
Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2001. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Spring
Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Stateline and Vansycle Wind Energy Projects,
2000-2001. Final Report. Prepared for CH2M Hill and FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC.
Mabee, T.J., J.H. Plissner, and B.A. Cooper. 2005. A Radar and Visual Study of Nocturnal Bird and Bat Migration
at the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project, New York, Fall 2004. Final Report. Prepared for Atlantic
Renewable Energy Corporation.
NYSDEC. 2003. Endangered Species Program, Species Fact Sheets. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York.
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/
NYSDEC. 2006. Indiana Bat Fact Sheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. 3pp.
Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating bird
numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313.
Roy, R. D. and S. K. Pelletier. 2005. Fall 2004 Migration Surveys at the Proposed Searsburg and Readsboro,
Vermont. Prepared for Vermont Environmental Research Associates and enXco, Inc.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966
- 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort
Snelling, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3.
Young, Jr., D. P., D. Strickland, W. P Erickson, K. J. Bay, R. Canterbury and R. Mabee, B. Cooper and J. Plissner.
2003. Baseline Avian Studies Mount Storm Wind Power Project, Grant County, West Virginia, May 2003-
March 2004. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
53
WEST, Inc.
001138
Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at the St. Lawrence
Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007
3 4
Species/Group # ind # groups mean use % freq # ind # groups mean use # ind # groups mean use % freq
Waterbirds
Double-crested cormorant 2 1 0.17 8.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00
Great black-backed gull 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.06
Great blue herron 4 4 0.33 25.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 55 44 3.06
Herring gull 19 3 1.58 16.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00
Ring-billed gull 317 9 26.42 50.00 660 34 22.00 36.67 47 17 2.50
Unidentified gull 879 15 73.25 66.67 6421 38 214.03 50.00 130 7 1.11
Waterfowl
Canada goose 198 6 16.50 50.00 927 51 30.90 60.00 2014 40 111.89
Mallard 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 6 3 0.33
Tundra swan 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00
Unidentified duck 40 2 3.33 16.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.11
Unidentified goose 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48 1 2.67
Unidentified scaup 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00
Raptors
Accipiters
Cooper’s hawkSC 0 0 0.00 0.00 4 4 0.13 13.33 0 0 0.00
Sharp-shinned hawkSC 5 3 0.42 25.00 3 3 0.10 10.00 5 5 0.28
Unidentified accipiter 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 7 7 0.58 33.33 6 3 0.20 6.67 0 0 0.00
Red-tailed hawk 8 7 0.67 50.00 43 37 1.43 63.33 36 31 1.72
Rough-legged hawk 2 2 0.17 16.67 12 8 0.40 23.33 38 34 2.11
Unidentified buteo 4 3 0.33 25.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 15 7 0.83
3
4
25
WEST, Inc.
001139
Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007

Species/Group # ind # groups mean use3 % freq4 # ind # groups mean use # ind # groups mean use % freq
Eagles
Bald eagleFT 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 0 0 0.00
Falcons
American kestrel 1 1 0.08 8.33 11 9 0.37 26.67 14 12 0.78
Merlin 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 2 0.07 6.67 1 1 0.06
Other Raptors 41.67 90.00
Northern harrierST 6 6 0.50 16.67 87 65 2.90 0.00 17 16 0.94
OspreySC 2 2 0.17 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00
Turkey vulture 51 31 4.25 83.33 119 53 3.97 40.00 105 53 5.50
Unidentified raptor 5 5 0.42 33.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00
Other Birds 50.00 80.00
American crow 31 11 2.58 0.00 204 89 6.80 10.00 64 33 3.56
Common raven 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 3 0.10 0.00 3 2 0.17
European starling 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 30 1 1.67
Pileated woodpecker 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 1 1 0.06
Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 0 0 0.00
Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 1 0.17
Unidentified yellowlegs 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 4 2 0.22
Wild turkey 0 0 0.00 0.00 42 2 1.40 6.67 26 6 1.44
Wilson's snipe 0 0 0.00 0.00 9 4 0.30 13.33 0 0 0.00
Total 1581 118 8558 410 2666 320
FT = Federal threatened (former) ST = State threatened SC = State listed species of special concern
26
WEST, Inc.
001140
Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys at the St.
Relation to rotor-swept area5

Mean Use % birds Exposure
Species % below % within % above
flying Index6
Waterbirds
Double-crested cormorant 0.02 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Great black-backed gull 0.01 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.01
Great blue heron 0.74 100.00 18.33 71.67 10.00 0.53
Herring gull 0.23 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ring-billed gull 12.67 69.26 56.32 42.28 1.40 3.71
Unidentified gull 93.46 56.32 54.94 44.09 0.97 23.21
Waterfowl
Canada goose 40.17 94.96 8.03 43.88 48.09 16.74
Mallard 0.38 96.77 6.67 90.00 3.33 0.33
Tundra swan 0.04 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.04
Unidentified duck 0.52 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unidentified goose 0.59 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Unidentified scaup 1.62 100.00 0.00 23.66 76.34 0.38
Raptors
Accipiters
Cooper's hawk 0.05 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.05
Sharp-shinned hawk 0.16 92.31 16.67 58.33 25.00 0.09
Unidentified accipiter NA 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 NA
Buteos
Broad-winged hawk 0.16 100.00 7.69 38.46 53.85 0.06
Red-tailed hawk 1.20 87.25 13.48 52.81 33.71 0.55
Rough-legged hawk 1.42 82.61 38.95 47.37 13.68 0.56
Unidentified buteo 0.31 100.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 0.12
5
6
27
WEST, Inc.
001141
Eagles
Bald Eagle 0.01 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00
Falcons
American kestrel 0.33 77.78 95.24 4.76 0.00 0.01
Merlin 0.04 100.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.01
Other Raptors
Northern harrier 1.59 94.57 76.23 20.49 3.28 0.31
Osprey 0.02 100.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.01
Turkey vulture 3.42 99.29 9.61 72.60 17.79 2.47
Unidentified raptor 0.06 100.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 0.04
Other Birds
American crow 5.28 90.89 61.44 38.30 0.26 1.84
Common raven 0.09 57.14 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.02
European starling 0.37 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pileated woodpecker 0.02 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ring-necked pheasant 0.01 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Rose-breasted grosbeak 0.04 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.04
Unidentified yellowlegs 0.05 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wild turkey 1.10 0.00 NA NA NA NA
Wilson's snipe 0.11 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28
WEST, Inc.
001142
3.3.2 Results
twice, for a total of 40 surveys. A total of 1080 individual birds were observed in 425 groups
(Table 3). Fifty-nine species were observed during the surveys. European starling, red-winged
blackbird, and bobolink were the most common passerines observed based on mean use
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
Passerines
Blue jay 2 2 0.05
33
WEST, Inc.
001143

Veery 1 1 0.025
Upland Gamebirds
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Other Birds
All Birds 1080 425

34
WEST, Inc.
001144
# of sampling
Non-met 1 11 320 29.09
Non-met 2 24 782 32.58

Non-met 2 9 500 55.56

Radar 50 1629 32.58
Based on the qualitative analysis of calls, 5 species groups of bats were positively identified at
Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, eastern red bat calls accounted for the
individual of an additional species, eastern pipistrelle, was recorded during the roaming surveys
and not recorded during sampling at the passive monitoring stations. The highest number of
recorded calls was of hoary bat (Table 6); however, 95% of those calls occurred on one night at
one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals echolocating repeatedly near
the AnaBat microphone.
38
WEST, Inc.
001145


(301) (82) (102)
(20) (8) (2)
Myotis spp. 0.0117 0 0.0130
(9) (6)
(370) (80) (325)

Name
Myotis spp. 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Species ID 25 31 16 25 62 6 16 29 4
39
WEST, Inc.
001146


(301) (82) (102)
(20) (8) (2)
Myotis spp. 0.0117 0 0.0130
(9) (6)
(370) (80) (325)

Name
Myotis spp. 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Species ID 25 31 16 25 62 6 16 29 4
39
WEST, Inc.
001147
3.5.2 Results
Driving surveys in the St. Lawrence project area were conducted on nine days between
November 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent
during the driving transects over the winter seasons and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were
conducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 795 individuals in 159 groups of
waterbirds, waterfowl and raptors were recorded during the winter driving surveys (Table 7) and
790 individuals in 146 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts (Table 8).
Four (4) species of waterfowl were observed either during the fixed point count surveys or the
driving surveys across the study area. Two waterbirds species, seven raptor species, and one
upland gamebird species were also recorded during the surveys. Based on use estimates derived
from the fixed point surveys, unidentified scaup and Canada goose were the most common
waterfowl species observed during the winter surveys (Table 7 and 8). Red-tailed hawk and
rough-legged hawk were the most common raptor species (Table 7 and 8).
Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at the
St. Lawrence project area.
Winter 2007
Species/Group # of individuals # of groups
Waterbirds
Great blue heron 2 2
Ring-billed gull 2 2
Waterfowl
Canada goose 473 12
Mallard 8 2
Raptors/Vultures
American kestrel 7 7
Bald eagle 2 2
Merlin 1 1
Northern harrierT 17 12
Red-tailed hawk 27 24
Rough-legged hawk 57 54
Turkey vulture 6 2
Other Birds
American crow 135 34
Wild Turkey 58 5
Total 795 159
42
WEST, Inc.
001148
Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point
surveys at the St. Lawrence project area.
Winter 2007
Species/Group # ind # groups mean use7 % freq8
Waterbirds
Ring-billed gull 4 2 0.19 9.52
Unidentified gull 250 1 11.90 4.76
Waterfowl
Canada goose 115 4 5.48 19.05
Mallard 24 1 1.14 4.76
Tundra swan 3 1 0.14 4.76
Unidentified scaup 131 2 6.24 9.52
Raptors
Red-tailed hawk 15 11 0.71 80.95
Rough-legged hawk 63 56 3.00 47.62
Unidentified buteo 6 4 0.29 9.52
Northern harrier 19 16 0.90 42.86
American kestrel 1 1 0.05 4.76
Turkey vulture 8 3 0.38 4.76
Other Birds
American crow 129 40 6.14 85.71
Common raven 1 1 0.05 4.76
Wild turkey 21 3 1.00 14.29
Total 790 146 37.62
7
8
43
WEST, Inc.
001149
125 m, were also very near the mean for all other studies where flight height was recorded with
vertical mode radar.
Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the eastern U.S.
Passage
St. Lawrence Windpower, NY 346 166 490 441 8 14 209 34
(this report)
(Young et al. 2006)
Alabama Ledge, Genessee Co., NY 165 200 487 413 11 14 219 35
(Young et al. 2007)
Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184
(Mabee et al. 2005)
Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29
Prattsburgh (1), NY 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18
(Mabee et al. 2004, 2005)
(Mabee et al. 2006)
Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40
Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40
Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22
West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31
High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29
Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69
Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40
(Roy et al. 2005)
(Young et al. 2004)
Mean 259 259 472 412 7 14 197 34
45
WEST, Inc.
001150
observed per surveyor hour was greater (Table 10). Large numbers of broad-winged hawks were
observed at Derby Hill on 4/21/06; however, surveys within the St. Lawrence Windpower
project area on the same day failed to record high numbers of this species passing over the site.
Spring raptor migration surveys were repeated in 2007 and started earlier in the season to look
for potential eagle migrants. Overall migrant passage rate in 2007 was higher than 2006
however, it was still substantially lower than the established hawk watch sites (Table 10).
Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at seven
established spring/fall hawk watch sites.
Spring 2006 St. Lawrence Ripley Hawk Hamburg Braddock Derby

Windpower Bay Hill
4/14/06 10.7 31.4 83.8 no survey 21.5
4/21/06 13.3 35.9 17.9 no survey 353.1
5/02/06 2.3 17.3 0.8 no survey 6.0
5/12/06 3.7 5.6 5.2 no survey 44.8
Average 7.5 22.55 26.9 -- 106.3
Spring 2007 St. Lawrence Ripley Hawk Hamburg Braddock Derby

Windpower Bay Hill
3/21/07 15.7 23.8 7.1 25.2 77.9
3/31/07 14.0 27.9 123.5 53.5 74.1
4/11/07 16.7 31.0 19.2 38.4 71.7
4/14/07 11.7 31.4 83.8 95.1 81.1
4/20/07 7.7 44.2 26.2 101.6 43.0
4/22/07 18.7 96.0 82.1 156.1 111.5
5/01/07 23.3 39.3 0.0 no survey 66.4
Average 15.4 41.9 48.85 78.3 75.1
Windpower
9/23/06 15 1 no survey 1
9/30/06 20 3 2 5
10/07/06 17 10 no survey 3
10/13/06 10 3 11 7
10/27/06 7 20 11 5
10/30/06 6 15 16 10
11/05/06 6 1 no survey 1
11/07/06 8 0 no survey 2
Average 9.6 9 10 3.4
47
WEST, Inc.
001151
2
WEST, Inc.
001152
4
WEST, Inc.
001153
Figure 3. Radar sampling and raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
6
WEST, Inc.
001154
Flight Direction
Observed flight directions were typically towards the southwest in the fall and towards the
northeast in the spring (Figure 4). Fall mean and dispersion of flight direction were P = 209.2q
and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the southerly direction of the migration,
71.8% of observations were between 90q and 270q, while 34.5% of observations were between
135q and 225q. Spring mean and dispersion of flight direction were P = 34.0q and r = 0.52
(n = 5003 targets).1). As an indication of the northerly direction of the migration, 77.6% of
observations were between 270q and 90q, and 48.4% of observations were between 315q and
45q.
Figure 4. Observed fall and spring flight directions in the project area.
Fall Spring
0
800
330 30
600
300 400 60
200
270 90
240 120
210 150
180
Passage Rates
Fall
mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in late
September and early October. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening,
9
WEST, Inc.
001155
1500
Fall
1000
500
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
11
WEST, Inc.
001156

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr) 2000
1800 Fall
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
12
WEST, Inc.
001157

600
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
13
WEST, Inc.
001158

600
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
14
WEST, Inc.
001159
15
Fall
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
20
18
Spring
16
14
PERCENT OF TARGETS
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HEIGHT CLASS
16
WEST, Inc.
001160

700
Fall
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
700
Spring
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
04/26 05/01 05/06 05/11 05/16 05/21 05/26 05/31 06/05 06/10
DATE
17
WEST, Inc.
001161

600
Fall
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0
1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
500
Spring
450
400
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0000 0200 0400 2000 2200
TIME
18
WEST, Inc.
001162
Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions2.
Fall
Spring
2
The boxes within the chart represent the 1st and 3rd quartile (50%) of the nightly observations, the horizontal lines
within boxes represent nightly median value of flight heights, and solid circles represent the nightly mean flight
height.
19
WEST, Inc.
001163

18
16 Fall
14
12
AIR SPEED (m/s)
10
0
08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/13
DATE
Spring
21
WEST, Inc.
001164
36
WEST, Inc.
001165
Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for survey point by season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
All Birds for Spring 2006 Raptors for Spring 2006
800 20
700
600 15
500
400 10
300
Mean use
Mean use
200 5
100
0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3
Station Station
All Birds for Fall 2006 Raptors for Fall 2006
800 20
700
16
600
500 12
400
8
300
Mean use
Mean use
200 4
100
0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3
Station Station
29
WEST, Inc.
001166
Figure 14. continued.
All Birds for Spring 2007 Raptors for Spring 2007
800 20
700
600 15
500
400 10
300
Mean use
Mean use
200 5
100
0 0
1 2 3 1 2 3
Station Station
30
WEST, Inc.
001167
32
WEST, Inc.
001168
36
WEST, Inc.
001169
Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species locations recorded for the project area.
41
WEST, Inc.
001170
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
ST. LAWRENCE WIND ENERGY PROJECT
Held on March 24, 2007, at 9:00 AM, at the Cape Vincent
Recreation Center, South James Street, Cape Vincent,

New York, before Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Members
Richard Edsall, Chairman, Tom Ingersoll, Vice Chairman,
Andrew Binsley, Karen Bourcy, and George Mingle. Also
Present were Mark Gebo, Esq., and Kris Dimmick, PE.

Court Reporter was Sally B. Maiorano, Registered Merit
Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified CART
Provider, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public in
and for the State of New York.
PROFESSIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC.

315-436-7775
001171
2
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Please take your seats.

2 Please take your seats, we're going to start.
3 Before we start, I need to just read a
4 few guidelines of what we're going to do. And

5 just before we do that we will open the
6 meeting. I will introduce everybody up here.
7 We have Sally, who is keeping a record of
8 this; the town's attorney, Mark Gebo; Kris

9 Dimmick from Bernier Carr. For those of you
10 who do not know me, my name is Rich Edsall,
11 and I'm Planning Board Chairman. We have
12 Karen Bourcy from the Planning Board; Andy

13 Binsley from the Planning Board; George Mingle
14 from the Planning Board; and Tom Ingersoll
15 from the Planning Board, and he is Vice
16 Chairman.
17 Today is a public hearing where the
18 public is going to get to present to the Board
19 their opinions, their recommendations, their
20 disagreements with the draft environmental

21 impact statement, studies that are included in
22 it, studies that are missing from it, studies
23 that should be included in it.
24 This is the opportunity for you to make

25 your presentation. What you will need to do

315-436-7775
001172
3
1 is you will need to come up close so the

2 stenographer gets the record. This is a
3 public record, the same as if you were in
4 court. So what we're going to ask you to do

5 is identify yourself, my name is Jim Smith,
6 and then spell your name if it's a name that
7 you feel needs to be spelled or your name is
8 spelled differently. All right?

9 You will be given three minutes to speak.
10 If at the end when everybody has spoken we
11 still have additional time left, we will allow
12 you to respeak if you have something else you

13 would like to say or -- you also have the
14 right to turn in a written response, and you
15 have until June 15th of this year to turn
16 your written response in. And you can mail it

17 to the town of Cape Vincent Planning Board,
18 PO Box 680. If you don't know the PO box you
19 can just write Town of Cape Vincent Planning
20 Board, Town of Cape Vincent offices, Cape

21 Vincent, New York, 13618.
22 And those records will be all put
23 together, and then the Planning Board will go
24 through them. This is first of several public

25 hearings. As there is additional studies

315-436-7775
001173
4
1 done, additional information gathered, as the

2 Planning Board has an opportunity to go
3 through the information that is being
4 supplied, there will be an additional public

5 hearing. I cannot tell you when because we
6 don't know when everything is going to be
7 done. It could be done in August, September,
8 October, November, March of next year. There

9 is no date set.
10 When that is done there will be an
11 additional one afterwards, at least one more,
12 for the final environmental impact statement.

13 There could be more than those two, but there
14 will be at least those two going forward.
15 When those public hearings are done, the
16 next step is a site plan review process. And

17 there will also be a public hearing or
18 hearings, depending on what's going on, on
19 those as well.
20 What I'm going to ask you to do today is

21 because we are here to listen to your
22 comments, that you do not speak unless you are
23 the speaker. There is no cross comment.
24 There's no cheering, jeering, clapping, or

25 whatever. We expect you to all be ladies and

315-436-7775
001174
5
1 gentlemen.
2 I have someone who is timing the three
3 minutes. When we get to the three minutes I
4 will stand up and ask you to -- I won't ask

5 you, but I'll stand up. The fact that I've
6 stood up should indicate that you're running
7 out of time. All right? But again, you can
8 submit written comment up until June 15th.

9 What will happen when we are done today
10 is we're going to adjourn the meeting so that
11 we can continue, we're not -- the meeting is
12 not canceled, stopped, whatever, we're just

13 adjourning it; the comment period will
14 continue. All comments are going to be
15 addressed to the Board.
16 All right. And the first person I have

17 on the list is Carol Simpson. We would ask
18 you to come up and speak in front of the
19 stenographer and address your remarks, please.
20 MS. SIMPSON: Do I really have to be

21 first?
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Well, you can pass if
23 you want.
24 MS. SIMPSON: Because I was the first one

25 here. My name is Carol Simpson. I'm a

315-436-7775
001175
6
1 resident here, year-round resident now.

2 I visited the St. Lawrence Wind Farm site
3 and looked at the avian and bat study plan and
4 the DEIS to be done by Western Ecosystems

5 Technology, Incorporated.
6 I hope the DEC and the U.S. Fish and
7 Wildlife Service does due diligence and makes
8 sure to find out the impacts on the migratory

9 birds, the bats, and the endangered species
10 here.
11 I'm also relying on these agencies to, if
12 necessary, ensure the relocation of wind

13 towers to accommodate the wildlife in this
14 area. Our area is so unique, where the lake
15 and river meet. It's different from any other
16 place in New York State. We're fortunate to

17 have this rich heritage of wildlife, and we've
18 already seen a decline in some rare and
19 endangered species here.
20 I am for green energy, but in the proper

21 locations. If it's harmful to the migratory
22 birds, the bats, and the endangered species,
23 to me it defeats the purpose.
24 I'm looking forward to seeing the results

25 of these studies from the DEIS, and I hope any

315-436-7775
001176
7
1 negative results endangering our fine

2 feathered friends will be given serious
3 consideration by all the responsible parties.
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Dave
6 Docteur.
7 MR. DOCTEUR: My name is David Docteur,
8 and I visited the Maple Ridge Wind Farm up

9 there, and I think everybody should do that,
10 especially the Gardner Road and the Rector
11 Road and the Flat Rock Road.
12 But some of things -- I only got three

13 minutes, so I just want to make sure I get
14 this. And the fish study, I don't think
15 there's been any study on the fish and the
16 shadow effect that it will have out on the

17 water.
18 Fish are -- they spook to shadows, and
19 there will be shadows out there. They say --
20 these fellows up here say they'll go a mile or

21 two.
22 The shadow flicker. People up there get
23 shadow flicker in their house and on their
24 lawn, and it -- as they admit in this book

25 here that it goes for 3,000 feet, ten times

315-436-7775
001177
8
1 the diameter of the blades. This is the --

2 what shadow flicker is going to do here, it's
3 what they show anyway. This is one map. And
4 here is one with a vegetation. It's in this

5 book. A little less for the vegetation.
6 But in red, that's 50 hours or more of
7 shadow flicker. You can see there's a lot of
8 red on that map.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Please address your
10 comments to the Board. The Board is the one
11 that needs to see this.
12 MR. DOCTEUR: That's right. All right.

13 The red right on that map. Okay. Shadow
14 flicker goes through your house. It's like
15 dimming lights every second. It's like
16 somebody dimming your lights.

17 And this fellow up there said it goes
18 through his house an hour, an hour and a half
19 sunrise and sunset. Some of the time; not
20 every day.
21 Noise up there, they'll tell you that
22 2,000 feet away they can hear them, but when
23 the conditions are right, the air is moist and
24 the wind's coming from that direction, they

25 can't sleep at night, 2000 feet away. He said

315-436-7775
001178
9
1 that they will tell you that they ought to be

2 at least 3,000 feet. Minimum.
3 Those are the main things. These other
4 things on the -- I would like to say this too:

5 Anyone who would like to go up and experience
6 this, I would be glad to meet them in this
7 parking lot Sunday afternoon at 2:00 and lead
8 a convoy and show you these places, talk to

9 these people that they have to live with these
10 things. One guy is surrounded by them; his
11 environment has been basically ruined.
12 That's all I have for now.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Don
14 Metzger.
15 MR. METZGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
16 If I could just stay right here, Sally is

17 right in front of me.
18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
19 opportunity to speak. My name is Don Metzger.
20 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Just spell your name

21 for her, please.
22 MR. METZGER: Yes, I'm sorry.
23 M-E-T-Z-G-E-R. I'm a business owner here in
24 Cape Vincent. I'm not here to speak in favor

25 of the wind turbine farms or against the wind

315-436-7775
001179
10
1 turbine farms. I am asking a special request

2 of the Planning Board that they would consider
3 that if the towers come here, if we have a
4 wind farm in our neighborhood, that the town

5 fathers and the people who are dealing with
6 the regulation of this operation, that they
7 take very specific efforts to have in writing
8 that a bond be posted in U.S. dollars,

9 hopefully in the Cape Vincent Bank, a bond
10 that would cover the costs of the
11 decommissioning and removal of all towers and
12 associated equipment, including the

13 long-distance transmission lines that --
14 150 kV lines that would take the power from
15 here to Chaumont.
16 Why do I want that? Why do I think the

17 Planning Board should do that? I've been
18 around a long enough time to see big
19 companies -- and Acciona and BP are big
20 companies -- I've been around long enough to

21 see big companies, both foreign and domestic,
22 fall. And sometimes the bigger they are, the
23 harder they fall.
24 In 10, 15, 20 years from now if Acciona

25 or BP or one of them gets bought out by an

315-436-7775
001180
11
1 investor in China and then he decides he

2 doesn't want to be involved in wind power
3 anymore, or they go bankrupt or out of
4 business, now we've got all these huge towers

5 in our community that are in a state of
6 nonmaintenance, disrepair, getting rusty,
7 falling apart. And the removal of them would
8 be incumbent upon the town and the property

9 owners. I don't want to see that. I want to
10 see these removed if they need to be at any
11 time from the money of a bond.
12 Twenty years from now, it's a long time,

13 we have to take into account cost of living.
14 So that bond has got to be big enough to take
15 care of cost of living and all associated
16 costs for the removal of associated structures

17 and the remediation of the land from the
18 decommissioning.
19 If that point is clear, I have one more
20 point if I have enough time. Thank you,

21 Mr. Chairman.
22 The other point is I'm old enough to have
23 seen and heard commercial advertising permeate
24 all aspects of our society; you cannot get

25 away from commercial advertising. I don't

315-436-7775
001181
12
1 want to wake up some morning and look out and

2 see a 300-foot high Pepsi bottle over here and
3 a 300-foot high Coke bottle over there, a
4 300-foot high hamburger. No advertising in

5 any form, electronic, verbal, no decals.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Last name is Reinhart,
8 Marianna?
9 MS. REINHART: My name is Marianna
10 Reinhart, R-E-I-N-H-A-R-T.
11 Regarding the transmission lines
12 transporting electricity from Cape Vincent to

13 the National Grid, where are the transmission
14 lines located in Cape Vincent? Will they
15 cross the Chaumont River or cross the Ashland
16 Wildlife area? How high will the transmission

17 poles be? And how many will be erected in
18 Cape Vincent? And what will be the distance
19 between them?
20 Also, has the town designated the

21 responsibility of the repair and/or the
22 replacement of roads in the town and the
23 village of Cape Vincent due to damage that
24 will be caused by the heavy-duty equipment and

25 machinery and the massive trucks that will

315-436-7775
001182
13
1 carry the necessary components to make the

2 turbines a complete structure.
3 Will the companies wanting to place the
4 turbines in Cape Vincent post a bond in an

5 adequate amount to cover costs of replacement
6 and repair of the roads so the taxpayers do
7 not have to have that carry -- have to carry
8 that burden?
9 Finally, when this windmill project was
10 proposed, I thought it was the understanding
11 that any windmills would be located east of
12 Route 12. Looking at the proposed map, it

13 shows seven windmills to be located between
14 Route 12 and Valley Road. Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you very much.
16 Joyce Gormel?
17 MS. GORMEL: My name is Joyce Gormel,
18 G-O-R-M-E-L.
19 Mr. Chairman: The draft environmental
20 impact study, DEIS, references in Section

21 311(2)(3) titled Municipal Revenues and Taxes
22 that annual PILOT payments would be negotiated
23 along with road use agreements.
24 As a tax-paying resident in the town of

25 Cape Vincent, I'm very interesting in how this

315-436-7775
001183
14
1 project will benefit all the residents of Cape

2 Vincent. I am concerned about who will be
3 negotiating the PILOT payments for our town.
4 It occurs to me that the Town Board does not

5 have a voting quorum.
6 It is my understanding that two members
7 have recused themselves after consulting with
8 the Jefferson County Ethics Board, and one

9 newly elected member will have to recuse
10 himself because of his potential conflict of
11 interest. That leaves two voting members on
12 the Town Board. Will they be the only

13 individuals who will negotiate with SLW for
14 PILOT payments?
15 Acciona, the company being dealt with,
16 had sales of approximately $6.2 billion,

17 billion, last year. Are there any plans to
18 hire professional help to assist in
19 negotiating the tax relief and other benefits
20 to our community with this, as Billy Fuccillo

21 would say, huge conglomerate.
22 Timing for these negotiations is
23 critical. Where does Cape Vincent stand in
24 the negotiation process? Is the process

25 complete, in progress, or not started?

315-436-7775
001184
15
1 In most existing wind farm projects the

2 PILOT payment is 5% of what the industry
3 should be taxed at in New York State. In an
4 interview with Attorney Richard Graham, who

5 represented Maple Ridge -- the Maple Ridge
6 project, local officials felt that the
7 compensation offered by the developer was low,
8 and that was $5,000 per tower. Compared to

9 what otherwise would have been payable at the
10 full assessed value for each tower.
11 Additionally, the relative distribution
12 between the school district, town, and county

13 became a point of heated debate because of the
14 small dollars involved. Now, you ask what
15 changed the municipality's perspective? The
16 county planning director was successful in

17 certifying Flat Rock Wind Power, LLC as a
18 qualified Empire Zone enterprise. This would
19 allow the developer to pay full property taxes
20 to the taxing jurisdictions and in turn be

21 reimbursed 100% by the state of New York.
22 This was the first time that a wind farm had
23 been placed in an Empire Zone in New York. As
24 a result of these efforts, they are now able

25 to negotiate a PILOT agreement whereby Flat

315-436-7775
001185
16
1 Rock will make annual payments of up to

2 $46,000 per tower to be divided among the
3 taxing jurisdictions.
4 Big surprise, right? Let's do the math.

5 The developer first offered 5,000 per tower.
6 Now the state of New York will reimburse the
7 developer 100% with our tax dollars. It is
8 not the responsibility of the current citizens

9 of Cape Vincent to absorb, nor the town, to
10 place additional tax burden on private
11 property taxpayers after a one to $200 million
12 wind project is sitting in our township.

13 I look forward to the opportunity to
14 review the results of the negotiations our
15 town drafts with the St. Lawrence Wind Power,
16 LLC. Thank you for listening.

17 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom Gormel?
18 MR. GORMEL: Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom
19 Gormel, G-O-R-M-E-L, and I'm a tax-paying
20 resident of the town of Cape Vincent.

21 One section of the draft environmental
22 impact statement, the DEIS, that I am most
23 concerned about is the cumulative impact these
24 96 425-foot towers will have on the residents

25 of Cape Vincent.

315-436-7775
001186
17
1 This subject is inadequately addressed in

2 the DEIS on Page 4-1. We all know about the
3 proposed wind farms in the town of Clayton,
4 the BP wind project in the town of Cape

5 Vincent and Lyme, and most recently we are
6 being told about the wind farm that's going to
7 be on the Wolf Island.
8 All of these projects will have a

9 cumulative impact on the residents of and
10 wildlife and resources in this community.
11 Unlike the Maple Ridge project, which has
12 an approximate population density of 10 to 15

13 people per square mile, Cape Vincent has
14 approximately 600 people per square mile.
15 Clearly the Maple Ridge project should not be
16 used as a model to mitigate cumulative impact

17 on SLW's project.
18 I would like to know what the cumulative
19 impact of all of these projects will have on
20 the residents of our community. Cape Vincent

21 is truly unique in its geographic location.
22 As you know, migratory birds will not cross
23 Lake Ontario, but rather find their way to the
24 juncture of Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence

25 River. In other words, they fly over Cape

315-436-7775
001187
18
1 Vincent; however, what will they do when they

2 experience this project that will stretch from
3 Lake Ontario to Thousand Island School? In
4 addition to that, the birds will be faced with

5 another project in Burnt Rock Road that will
6 go into the town of Lyme, as well as the
7 project in the town of Clayton. How will all
8 these together impact the migratory birds in

9 this area?
10 And finally, I would like to know the
11 cumulative impact of these projects on the --
12 how will the wind-generated electricity be

13 transferred to the National Grid? We have
14 been told that the current transmission lines
15 cannot accommodate the proposed wind power.
16 Electrical power.
17 I am very interested in learning how SLW
18 proposes to mitigate the cumulative impact of
19 all of these projects on the transmission of
20 electricity to the National Grid.

21 In contrast to SLW's DEIS, the Canadian
22 Renewable Energy Corporation noticed --
23 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: If you don't have much
24 you can finish.

25 MR. GORMEL: Okay. The notice of

315-436-7775
001188
19
1 commencement of environmental review for Wolf

2 Island states exactly where and how the
3 electricity will be connected to the
4 provincial grid. How refreshing and

5 forthright to read something like that rather
6 than SLW's statement to be determined.
7 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you.
8 MR. GORMEL: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Ann Levy?
10 MS. LEVY: Good morning. My name is Ann
11 Levy. I am a -- have a year-round residence
12 on County Route 7. I have this for you so

13 that you can look at if you need to. L-E-V-Y.
14 To the Planning Board, the lead agency
15 and -- of the St. Lawrence Wind Project. Due
16 to the fact that we are unable to post

17 comments on the Acciona website, we wanted
18 everyone to know that we have created a web
19 page whereby all comments, positive, negative,
20 neutral, regarding the DEIS and the wind

21 project can be aired objectively. The new
22 website name is www.stlawrencewind.org.
23 This site has been initiated to tell the
24 story to everyone without confusion and is the

25 home for experienced voices other than the

315-436-7775
001189
20
1 panel and Acciona. The site was created to

2 facilitate communications for submitting
3 emails in order that everyone can share with
4 each other and for the purpose of being a

5 depository for all public information. Thank
6 you.
7 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Cliff Schneider.
8 MR. SCHNEIDER: I have some material

9 here. Hi, my name is Cliff Schneider,
10 S-C-H-N-E-I-D-E-R.
11 Three issues I would like to talk about
12 from the DEIS. One has to do with the bird

13 and bat studies, the other is the visual
14 analysis, and the third is the noise studies.
15 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't
16 hear you, Cliff.

17 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: His -- he'll do the
18 best he can, but his obligation really is to
19 make sure the Board gets the information.
20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Maybe if

21 he could just stand over here.
22 MR. SCHNEIDER: I'll try to speak loudly,
23 okay?
24 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: How about

25 a microphone?

315-436-7775
001190
21
1 MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't want to use a

2 microphone.
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: He doesn't want to use
4 it.
5 MR. SCHNEIDER: My comments, first, with
6 respect to the bird and bat studies. You've
7 got a letter from a number of biologists, four
8 of us, that are retired here in Cape Vincent,

9 which we've probably got 150 years of
10 experience. Those are the kinds of things
11 that we've done and stuff. And we have real
12 concerns about there's only one year of study

13 here.
14 Now, if you go back to take a look what
15 what AES Acciona has done when they came here,
16 they've been doing wind studies for five or

17 six years, right? They've had a met. tower up
18 here, they've been collecting that data.
19 It makes good sense when you're making
20 big decisions to have more than one year's

21 worth of data. I would have said they would
22 have been irresponsible with one year of wind
23 date because you really can't see the
24 variation.
25 So what we're saying is let's have some

315-436-7775
001191
22
1 at least a minimal amount of parody with the

2 environmental studies. You can't do in a
3 year; you're going to need at least three.
4 The other thing, the issue of the visual

5 analysis report you've got right there. I
6 have concerns over the author. Who is the
7 author? Where are they from? It mentions
8 there is an author. Where are they from; what

9 are their credentials?
10 Because in essence, when you take a look
11 at that report, with over 50 pages of
12 description and about two paragraphs of

13 analysis, I don't know who this person is, but
14 they're making determinations about our
15 community and the impacts of that visual
16 stuff.
17 Now, if you go to other areas I'll tell
18 you within the DE -- they've got a DEC policy
19 that they quote in there, and they quote
20 things for -- you know, that help them to

21 support some of the things they're going to
22 do.
23 One of the things they say in there in
24 that policy is the fact that you have to have

25 confirmation of those impacts by other

315-436-7775
001192
23
1 individuals, by other certified personnel and

2 that type of thing, or with surveys, and they
3 have not done that. There's only one
4 individual who's making that determination.

5 The other thing: A big part of that is
6 the conclusions. Well, if you go into the
7 conclusions for the St. Lawrence -- what they
8 did here, the Saratoga Associates, it's

9 exactly the same conclusion, if you go on the
10 website and take a look at the report, for
11 Chateaugay and Wethersfield wind parks. Same
12 words, exactly, down to the -- down to the

13 letter.
14 And I'm assuming that, you know, both
15 George and Rich, who have had some experience
16 in the classroom, if someone comes in and

17 copies their homework, you know what kind of
18 mark you're going to give them; you're going
19 to give them an F.
20 So you know, they really have to go back,

21 they got to do a visual perception survey, and
22 they've really got to do a better job on the
23 conclusions.
24 And finally, with respect to the noise,

25 noise is probably the most complicated thing

315-436-7775
001193
24
1 you've got in there in terms of the report.

2 Most of the average people aren't going to
3 make any sense of that. It's probably very
4 difficult for all of us.

5 And I would hope that all of you saw that
6 letter from Jane Davis. She wrote that letter
7 to her councilman in the UK because of her
8 concerns, if you read that. I've got copies

9 of that letter if you haven't.
10 I was the one who requested and asked her
11 to send the same letter here. And the reason
12 that that was important was because of the

13 fact that, one, she was a farmer; two, is the
14 fact that she supported wind farms and
15 windmills; and then third is the fact that in
16 the end when she had all of this disturbance

17 of all of these problems, all she was saying
18 is make sure they do that sound level report
19 properly. And the problem is with this outfit
20 they have not done that properly.

21 And by the way, I've got some CDs of some
22 noise so you can actually listen to it, you
23 don't have to read about. And I have CDs that
24 are available for other people as well if you

25 want to listen. Thank you.

315-436-7775
001194
25
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: I will say right now

2 that the Planning Board did not anticipate
3 getting copies of CDs. We have no idea how
4 we're going to make them available to the

5 public.
6 So they will not -- even though they're
7 part of the record, we'll have to discuss that
8 at a future meeting. I don't know how to do

9 it without -- unless we're authorized to make
10 copies.
11 MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, we are. I have been
12 authorized. I got it from a scientist in the

13 Netherlands.
14 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: If you want to send the
15 Planning Board a letter stating that we are
16 authorized to make copies of these, then after

17 severing the letter we probably would make
18 copies. That might be the easiest way to do
19 that then.
20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Richard,

21 could I speak off the record for one minute
22 and say you can put one in the library with
23 the DVDs.
24 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Are they all the same

25 or are they different?

315-436-7775
001195
26
1 MR. SCHNEIDER: They're all the same.

2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: I happen to know
3 somebody who knows where the library is.
4 Next is Sally Hirschey.

5 MS. HIRSCHEY: Boy, that's a tough act to
6 follow. My name is Sally Hirschey,
7 H-I-R-S-C-H-E-Y.
8 And I just want to say to the Planning

9 Board, but also to the people in Cape Vincent,
10 before we change the character of this
11 village --
12 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Ma'am, please address

13 your comments to the Board.
14 MS. HIRSCHEY: Before we change the
15 character of this village and town from a
16 quiet village to an industrial zone, I think

17 we need more facts. For instance, instead of
18 the to be determined, to be determined where
19 the line is going to go, to be determined
20 where the 44 miles of new roads are going to

21 go, to be determined the sites of the wind
22 turbines and -- will change it forever for
23 ourselves, our children, our grandchildren.
24 And I think it's a very serious step, and I

25 think it deserves very serious study. Okay.

315-436-7775
001196
27
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Urban
3 Hirschey.
4 MR. HIRSCHEY: Why is it that I'm always

5 following her?
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Suggestion: Try to be
7 ahead of her next time.
8 MR. HIRSCHEY: The last name is Hirschey,

9 you have the spelling, first name is Urban,
10 U-R-B-A-N.
11 Section 7 of the draft environmental
12 impact study addresses the feasibility of the

13 scaled down version of this project or no
14 project. Essentially that's a summary of -- I
15 think it's the last section -- it's a summary
16 of the project and addresses the feasibility

17 of that project. I believe that the
18 developer's response to this question is
19 consistent with the prior way in which other
20 issues have been addressed. It is

21 condescending and to my -- and ignores the
22 beauty of this community.
23 When Governor Spitzer compared the North
24 Country to Appalachia, he might have been

25 referring to some unpopulated areas such as

315-436-7775
001197
28
1 the Tug Hill Plateau. He certainly wasn't

2 describing Cape Vincent or the Golden
3 Crescent.
4 Through the use of misleading and

5 outdated facts, the study portrays Cape
6 Vincent as a depressed and stagnant area.
7 Cape Vincent is anything but depressed. It's
8 a beautiful and dynamic community which is

9 attracting a lot of new people, vacationers,
10 and construction.
11 A comparison of the towns of Martinsburg
12 and Harrisburg, which hosts all but 12 of the

13 Maple Ridge wind turbines, to Cape Vincent is
14 meaningful. The combined land area of these
15 two townships is twice that of Cape Vincent.
16 The population, on the other hand, is half of

17 Cape Vincent. And as a matter of fact, that's
18 during the wintertime. During the summertime
19 the population of Cape Vincent is probably
20 four times that of the combined towns of

21 Martinsburg and Harrisburg.
22 During the -- the Tug Hill has few
23 visitors and few roads. Cape Vincent, on the
24 other hand, has many visitors and summer

25 residents that enjoy the beauty and

315-436-7775
001198
29
1 recreational opportunities of this area.

2 The wind turbines on the Tug Hill Plateau
3 do not encroach upon any village. There are
4 no villages, formal villages in these

5 townships. The proposed sitings of the
6 St. Lawrence wind turbine encroaches on the
7 village, on the river, and on the natural
8 beauty of the area.

9 The study points out that the average
10 house in Cape Vincent is $77,000. That's in
11 the year 2000, which is very much outdated. I
12 would also add that -- and that this is much,

13 much less than the average home in New York
14 State. Of course, New York State has a lot of
15 urban areas where real estate is at a premium,
16 so -- but so is the cost of living.

17 The study also fails out to point that
18 the average assessment of homes in Cape
19 Vincent has increased dramatically since 2000.
20 65% of the town assessed value from the river

21 and lakefront properties, which is --
22 continue?
23 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: If you don't have much,
24 continue. Otherwise you'll have to kind of --

25 MR. HIRSCHEY: Okay. I'll end it by

315-436-7775
001199
30
1 this: So the question is should the -- would

2 scaling back the project be a benefit? Yes.
3 A 5-mile buffer zone from the river and lake
4 would absolutely preserve the values of the

5 property values and the quality of the --
6 quality of life of the residences.
7 What if there was no project? Better
8 yet. Ten or twenty years from now if the

9 project is accepted the developers would have
10 made their killing, the towers would still be
11 there, but they would be obsolete by new
12 technology and perhaps waving in the wind.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Paul Mason.
14 MR. MASON: My name is Paul Mason. I've
15 just got a few comments.
16 I have visited a website, Lake Benton,

17 Wisconsin. Southwest Wisconsin. It's very
18 unique to Cape Vincent. It's a tourist
19 section, strictly tourist. And agriculture.
20 They did bird studies. The lady that's in

21 charge out there, they have a center out
22 there, she says the birds are very
23 intelligent, they don't fly into things that
24 they don't -- if they see something they fly

25 around them. They say they're very

315-436-7775
001200
31
1 intelligent, they've only averaged -- they've

2 had these since 1998, and they have 400 of
3 them. Over the years they've been adding.
4 And they average probably one bird per tower

5 since they've had them, a bird kill.
6 Well, I can tell you from experience of
7 walking in the roads that the cars kill a lot
8 more birds than that.

9 And it's had a negative impact on the
10 fishing because they're into fishing, they're
11 on a lake, and very -- the fishing has never
12 been affected. It's increased the -- like the

13 negative -- it's a negative impact on the
14 environment as far as the studies that they
15 have done, they have never found any animals,
16 the cows roam around them, lay around them,

17 because they're agriculture.
18 Noise has never been an issue. They said
19 that they've never had a complaint. They did
20 noise studies. And that's another thing.

21 With noise studies I've asked some of my
22 neighbors that are opposed if my tractors
23 annoy them, because they're very noisy. I
24 have to wear ear protection when I'm out there

25 in the fields. They didn't realize I was out

315-436-7775
001201
32
1 there with my tractors making noises. And I

2 can hear them from the house when my sons are
3 out there. Tractors make a lot of noise. So
4 I would hope that it's taken into

5 consideration because I haven't been able to
6 hear these windmills up in the hills.
7 Somebody said it will change the looks of
8 Cape Vincent. And it certainly will. It --

9 many, many people find these -- they're very
10 good looking, they're not just -- some people
11 find them abusive. That's their choice. Some
12 people find them beautiful. I think everybody

13 has their own opinion on what looks good and
14 what doesn't look good.
15 And tourism, I asked this lady if it
16 affected tourism, and she said yes, it did.

17 It increased their tourism on this lake.
18 People come.
19 And I guess when I said something about
20 change, it did change because she says

21 everybody has had money in the community to
22 fix and repair, and I talked with a person
23 that did visit that area, they said they could
24 not find -- like we have in Cape Vincent

25 buildings that are falling down, barns that

315-436-7775
001202
33
1 are falling down, houses that have been burnt

2 down and still haven't been tore down. They
3 said it has improved the looks of the
4 community.
5 And I will -- land values increased. All
6 these were positive. So thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom Brown will be next,
8 but I need to do one errand first.

9 (A brief recess was taken from 9:39 AM to
10 9:40 AM.)
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give us the name of the
12 lake.
13 MR. MASON: Benton Lake. B-E-N-T-O-N.
14 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: T-O-N?
15 MR. MASON: Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: And where is it

17 located?
18 MR. MASON: It's in southwest Minnesota.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: So it's Lake Benton,
20 Minnesota.
21 MR. MASON: It's Minnesota.
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay, so we have that.
23 We're going to continue on now. Tom?
24 MR. BROWN: Good morning. Thanks for the

25 opportunity to present some of my thoughts

315-436-7775
001203
34
1 this morning. My name is Tom Brown. We've

2 been residents in this community now for 38
3 years. We raised our children here. And we
4 love Cape Vincent.

5 Our children have enjoyed the lifestyle
6 we've known here, and I'd just like to make
7 sure that we're heading not in the wrong
8 direction with this proposal. I have already

9 submitted some written comments pertaining to
10 what I considered some of the content and
11 processed deficiencies in the draft
12 environmental impact statement, but what I

13 would like to add this morning is some very
14 personal thoughts relative to how much we feel
15 about Cape Vincent.
16 What I would like to say is that I do

17 support wind power. I think wind power is a
18 good thing. Provided it doesn't destroy the
19 values that are at the heart and soul of a
20 community.
21 For Cape Vincent in my view those values
22 are the scenic shorelines that we all so
23 enjoy. I believe the turbine numbers and
24 placements as presently proposed would

25 transpose our scenic shoreline and adjacent

315-436-7775
001204
35
1 open agricultural landscape corridor into a

2 vast industrial complex. This would not be
3 the Cape Vincent that I have grown to know and
4 to love.
5 Waterfronts are limited and treasured
6 resources. Cape Vincent's waterfront has made
7 Cape Vincent the attractive destination that
8 it is. I think we need to remind ourselves of

9 this and be very careful with what we do with
10 it.
11 I believe by reducing the numbers of
12 turbines and placing them further inland where

13 they wouldn't visually impinge on our
14 shoreline, we could have both.
15 If the town of Clayton can do it this
16 way, then I ask this Board why can't we do the

17 same thing.
18 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. We'll leave
19 the stack right here. Next is Brooks Bragdon.
20 MR. BRAGDON: Good morning. Brooks

21 Bragdon. It's B-R-O-O-K-S B-R-A-G-D-O-N.
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Speak a little louder
23 if you can, Brooks, please.
24 MR. BRAGDON: Yes, sir. Brooks Bragdon.

25 I'm in favor of the windmills. I have some

315-436-7775
001205
36
1 concerns that the way this communication has

2 developed in the community there is no zoning
3 law, and as a result the regulations that
4 would apply to it don't really exist.

5 The particular focus of what I have to
6 say here has to do with historic preservation.
7 Cape Vincent has got a root here with French
8 history. After the American Revolutionary War

9 French individuals that helped to finance the
10 American Revolutionary War bought 700,000
11 acres spreading from Cape Vincent to
12 Alexandria Bay to Fort Drum and back.

13 Cape Vincent was particularly the most
14 beautiful aesthetic point on all of that land
15 and was seen as such. In here we have a very
16 rich resource of properties listed on the

17 national register, and I think it's
18 appropriate to take into account the impact of
19 this development here.
20 I think that the windmills will be very

21 large; they'll be 420 feet. My understanding
22 is that this is larger than what exists down
23 in Lowville. And that overall these will form
24 a complex. Right now these are very, very

25 close to the historic district on the studies

315-436-7775
001206
37
1 that are submitted by the wind farm; many of

2 the historic properties and the historic
3 district itself is within something that's
4 called an APE, area of potential effect.

5 And so I'm concerned here about creating
6 a compromise. I want to be really clear, I do
7 not want to kill windmills, I would like to
8 have windmills, but my experience is by having

9 the stamina to talk and discuss carefully
10 about the different interests involved, it's
11 possible to accommodate everything.
12 I'm very, very strongly in favor of

13 windmills, but I'm also very much in favor of
14 the scenic resources and the historic
15 resources in the community. Because of the
16 fact that we have no zoning law, we have

17 basically a vacuum.
18 I'd like to draw, however, attention to
19 the general vectors within the zoning law.
20 They call for protecting scenic views,

21 protecting historically significant lands and
22 buildings, and so you have an effect here
23 where you have no zoning buffer to protect
24 against the existing assets of the community,

25 but you do have a tremendous impingement, a

315-436-7775
001207
38
1 very, very large complex that would be

2 industrial and commercial in nature and that
3 would be right up on top within the terms of
4 the studies submitted to the state to the

5 historic assets.
6 So I'm in favor of setting them back
7 further and having smaller turbines so that
8 you have a co-existence of the different

9 assets here in the community.
10 I believe from the bottom of my heart
11 that we have a treasure here, we have a unique
12 area, we have a tradition of nature and

13 historic buildings here, which does not need
14 to be trashed, does not need to be ruined for
15 the purposes of having this new development.
16 I stand strongly in the area of

17 individual landowners' rights and will fight
18 for that, but also I think it's necessary to
19 preserve what we have here as a unique,
20 beautiful treasure. Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Johanna
22 Hambrose.
23 MS. HAMBROSE: Good morning. My name is
24 Johanna Hambrose, H-A-M-B-R-O-S-E, and I'm a

25 tax-paying resident of Cape Vincent.

315-436-7775
001208
39
1 Decommissioning or removal of the

2 windmills is addressed in only four sentences
3 of the draft DIS, and it requires much more
4 attention and clarity. Section 2.8

5 anticipates a life expectancy of 20 years.
6 We have all seen how technology has
7 advanced in the past 20 years, and the odds
8 are these structures will be obsolete in well

9 under 10. The draft simply states that the
10 lease agreements between energy companies and
11 the landowners, which agreements are
12 confidential and to which the public are not

13 privy, provide that the windmills will be
14 removed at the end of their useful life.
15 Many questions here. Is the removal only
16 to be paid for at the end of their useful

17 life? Is useful life clearly defined
18 anywhere? Who is the arbiter of useful life?
19 Is this a Boy Scout's promise or are there
20 clearly defined mandates setting forth the

21 party responsible for removal, the source of
22 funding for removal, and what constitutes
23 removal.
24 Section 2.8 clearly disavows any

25 obligation for removal of the underground

315-436-7775
001209
40
1 collection system. Over time money disappears

2 or is reallocated. Who is the guarantor?
3 There are other concerns: Closure is
4 forced by a regulatory agency finding

5 thousands of native and migratory birds, bats,
6 and other animals are maimed or killed each
7 year. Windmills become obsolete well in
8 advance of their useful life due to improved

9 technology or alternative energy sources
10 become more favorably sanctioned by the
11 government, and the tax credits are given to
12 residents for employing solar power.

13 There are too many contingencies not to
14 have a clearly documented and enforceable plan
15 for the decommissioning of these monstrous
16 structures at their obsolescence, abandonment,

17 or the end of their useful life. The units
18 must be bonded or money securely placed in
19 escrow. Four sentences is insulting and
20 telling. Companies disappear, declare

21 bankruptcy.
22 We have all witnessed the abandoned Frink
23 property in the years that passed before the
24 government stepped in to assist with

25 remediation. Let's care enough about

315-436-7775
001210
41
1 ourselves to say no, put the windmills

2 somewhere else. There are more appropriate
3 places for a cluster of 140-story behemoths.
4 I am a taxpayer for green energy, but not

5 when the impact to the environment, the health
6 and welfare of the residents, and the best
7 interests of the community as a whole and not
8 a select few outweigh the benefits of the

9 windmills.
10 They're being placed in an area of
11 considerable population, near schools and in a
12 manner disruptive of the natural beauty and

13 integrity of our waterfront and the gateway to
14 the Thousand Islands.
15 Please do not let the greed of a few to
16 close a deal cause us to make a lasting and

17 irreversible decision which is less than fully
18 informed. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Harold Hambrose.
20 MR. HAMBROSE: I would like my

21 comments -- I'm making comments on the -- I'm
22 sorry, my name is Harold Hambrose -- on the
23 visual resource assessment. And for those of
24 you who haven't read this document, I just

25 want to quote a few things from it.

315-436-7775
001211
42
1 Under the comments about our views, the

2 author of this document characterizes our
3 views as simply those directed at the
4 St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. That

5 suggests that all of us shuffle up and down
6 Route 12 facing the river and never look in
7 that direction. I would say they're wrong.
8 Our experience with this village is in

9 360 degrees.
10 They go on to explain that the local
11 residents, over a period of time their
12 sensitivity to these 400-odd foot structures

13 will be diminished as we grow used to them.
14 What does that mean? I'm sorry, I'm supposed
15 to be speaking to you guys. That visitors to
16 our place are typically moving through this

17 area on a road and looking straight ahead.
18 That's ridiculous. And I say that -- later
19 recreational users of this area, they suggest
20 that those with utilitarian beliefs will

21 actually like the wind towers. What the heck
22 does that mean? Is this a religious event?
23 This author has insulted everyone in this
24 room, no matter what side of this debate you

25 are on.

315-436-7775
001212
43
1 My company is hired by governments and

2 the largest organizations in the world to
3 measure human behavior, cognition, and
4 performance. Down to the nanosecond. And I

5 can tell you the statements in this report are
6 crap. This author has underestimated his
7 readership terribly. How can you, our elected
8 officials, our neighbors who created this

9 comprehensive plan, its thoughtfulness, its
10 sensitivity to the value, potential of our
11 beautiful village accept any of this so-called
12 analysis?
13 An architecture critic on seeing plans
14 for a new building in Trafalgar Square in
15 London, which before its construction had the
16 courage to stand up and say that this design,

17 the proposed building, would be like seeing a
18 carbuncle on the face of a good friend.
19 This report couldn't convey that
20 sentiment anymore clearer without saying those

21 exact words. The visual resource assessment
22 is insulting, it's flawed analysis, and it's
23 conjecture. Reading between the lines it
24 sounds like we're about to permanently scar

25 our town, but the author believes that we're

315-436-7775
001213
44
1 too stupid or too ugly to have that fact make

2 a difference to this debate.
3 In England there's a series of plays at
4 Christmastime called pantomimes, and the

5 audience participates. And when the
6 characters don't see the obvious, the audience
7 screams look behind you.
8 This morning I'm sitting in that chair

9 looking out those windows, and I say to the
10 panel after we're gone, turn your chairs
11 around and look behind you. This is
12 beautiful. This is a gift from God. Take

13 care of it. That's your charge. And this
14 report doesn't recognize any of those
15 responsibilities. Thanks.
16 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Sally Boss.

17 MS. BOSS: My name is Sally Boss. May I
18 stand right here, please? B-O-S-S.
19 I would like to add some more information
20 about the flicker effect. It is -- when the

21 sun comes up and the sun sets and it's shining
22 on the towers it can have a flicker. I think
23 we've all done some studies and paid attention
24 that we know how that works.

25 In my area within less than a half a mile

315-436-7775
001214
45
1 of my home we have three people, my neighbors,

2 who have migraine headaches. If anyone knows
3 anything about migraines or knows someone who
4 has them, light is a big item to set them off.

5 One of our neighbors has headaches sometimes
6 as many as 12 to 14 days out of a month. This
7 is something that she's had every medical
8 problem taken -- every medical situation that

9 possibly could be done for her, and she still
10 has them.
11 I beg that you consider setbacks away
12 from homes much more than what you have done

13 at this present time.
14 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you, Sally.
15 Charles Moehs.
16 MR. MOEHS: My name is Charles Moehs, and

17 I'm a resident here in Cape Vincent.
18 My comments relate to the DIS, and I note
19 that it is devoid of medical issues and
20 solutions. Nonetheless, there are certain

21 susceptible populations which have difficulty
22 with wind turbines. People from the ages of
23 57 to 91 particularly have problems with
24 dizziness and ringing in their ears.

25 Young children, and particularly those

315-436-7775
001215
46
1 with learning problems and other psychological

2 issues, experience increased irritability and
3 interference with concentration and learning
4 to do -- due to what is called the wind

5 turbine syndrome. This was presented several
6 years ago to the state legislature. And there
7 are physicians in various areas who are
8 working on that issue.

9 A variety of problems in this
10 constellation of symptoms include sleep
11 problems whereby noise or a sensation of
12 pulsations or pressures make it hard to go to

13 sleep and cause frequent awakening; headaches,
14 particularly those prone to migraines;
15 dizziness; unsteadiness of gait; and nausea;
16 exhaustion; anxiety; anger; irritability; and

17 depression; problems with concentration and
18 learning.
19 I note with a degree of anger that a
20 group of wind towers are with 1800 feet to

21 within a half a mile of the Thousand Island
22 Junior and Senior High School. I feel this is
23 irresponsible, and the wind -- of the wind
24 power company and those people that would

25 allow this.

315-436-7775
001216
47
1 Setbacks generally of a mile and a half

2 is recommended for schools, hospitals, and
3 homes of residents with issues mentioned
4 above, particularly the young children and the

5 elderly. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Rollin
7 Hanson?
8 MR. HANSON: Rollin Hanson, R-O-L-L-I-N

9 H-A-N-S-O-N.
10 After close examination of the DEIS
11 report at the Cape Vincent Library, I decided
12 its most basic evidence must be wrong. The

13 view shed is planned for five and a half miles
14 in the report. It's incorrect. On one recent
15 drive to Maple Ridge the turbines are visible
16 from 17 miles.
17 I think the cropping of the most of the
18 photographs -- after cropping most of the
19 photos that a clear idea of the effect has not
20 been presented. With the magnitude of the

21 project every structure and every person near
22 them will be affected in some way.
23 To the Town and Village Board: The town
24 of Cape Vincent has no royal palaces, no

25 national cathedrals, Escurials, or Alhambras.

315-436-7775
001217
48
1 Rather, we have approximately 60 historic

2 indigenous structures and sites threatened by
3 the wind turbines. Most of these historic
4 treasures from our past are probably no more

5 than 200 years old. A Spanish business may
6 feel that from their long, royal, glorious,
7 but exploitive past, that they are
8 insignificant.
9 The Gold of Cape Vincent is represented
10 by these structures. They need to be
11 preserved in their localities and with their
12 ambiances intact. Proper attention will

13 enhance our local quality of life.
14 The current plans for a series of
15 windmills as it is will forever impact them
16 negatively. As well it will the quality of

17 our lives forever. If proper setbacks are not
18 created with them in the plan, the treasures
19 will be lost.
20 Ambiance and environment are crucial

21 factors in modern man's choices of places to
22 live; parentheses, location, location,
23 location. Please let this be so in our town.
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Vincent

315-436-7775
001218
49
1 Paragon.
2 MR. PARAGON: P-A-R-A-G-O-N.
3 What if someone were to give you a really
4 wonderful and unexpected gift? This is

5 someone you didn't know; this is a gift you
6 didn't ask for or deserve; this is a gift of a
7 lifetime. A whole world of wonderful things.
8 In fact, that very thing did happen. God

9 created this whole world and gave it to us to
10 do with as we choose. God was serious about
11 these -- about these being gifts for us to use
12 as we want. This freedom to use our gifts is

13 a God-like quality.
14 For just as God was incredibly creative
15 in making these things that the scripture
16 tells us he saw was good, we are also to be

17 creative in what we do with these gifts. Our
18 world continues to change depending on how we
19 use its resources. We can carry on the
20 process of creating or changing our world, and

21 as a community we have a huge impact on our
22 ecosystem; the air and water and its natural
23 resources.
24 We as individuals can choose how we

25 change our community. Excuse me. We as

315-436-7775
001219
50
1 individuals can also choose how we change the

2 world in which we live, our neighborhood or
3 our town. In a real sense we are the creators
4 of the next generation. We decide what God's

5 gifts will look like to them.
6 In our lifetime we are given an
7 opportunity to follow God's creative example.
8 What will we do with these wonderful gifts?

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Tom
10 Jolliff.
11 MR. JOLLIFF: Good morning. My name is
12 Tom Jolliff, J-O-L-L-I-F-F.

13 And among other things, I have personally
14 been involved with environmental impact
15 statements and including a senior author of
16 two of them.
17 I am not going to be able to say
18 everything that I would like to because of
19 time constraint, and I will submit written
20 comments that will be more inclusive.

21 These aren't necessarily in their most
22 important order. Negative wildlife impacts by
23 itself in my opinion is not sufficient cause
24 for rejection of the subject proposal, rather

25 acceptance or rejection should properly be

315-436-7775
001220
51
1 based on judicial balance of societal

2 benefits, wildlife comparative impacts from
3 other causes, such as, for example,
4 automobiles, and wildlife consequences of

5 alternative methods. In this case producing
6 electricity from burning coal. Given current
7 public sentiment and realities of natural wind
8 resource, each wind turbine denied in this

9 process will of necessity be replaced by
10 burning coal.
11 On the matter of property value, verbal
12 and written statements at various times have

13 gone both ways in meetings of this sort with
14 some claiming negative and others no change or
15 enhancement of property values. However, in a
16 Watertown Times coverage of the June 2006

17 hearing in Cape Vincent on this issue, the
18 reporter referenced a government-sponsored
19 U.S. study that found an increase in property
20 value. And by the way, as a side note to

21 that, that reporter is no longer assigned to
22 this issue.
23 For sound effects my son Michael on Cobb
24 Road in Cape Vincent -- Cobb Road, Copenhagen,

25 excuse me, which is pretty much right in the

315-436-7775
001221
52
1 middle of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, has the

2 nearest two Maple Ridge units at .49 and
3 .51-mile distances measured by GPS. And his
4 family does not hear them inside their house.

5 Outside there sometimes is a nonirritating
6 woosh that seems distinguishable from other
7 wind sounds.
8 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom, you're going to

9 have to speed it up a little bit there.
10 MR. JOLLIFF: Okay. Last item. A common
11 thread in various statements opposing the
12 wind -- Cape Vincent wind proposal is an

13 implied supposition that their position of
14 advocating depriving landowners of otherwise
15 honorable income from their property
16 represents a major opinion among

17 nonresident -- nonlandowner residents who
18 would not directly gain from the project.
19 However, this attitude seems to disregard
20 those who while they may also perceive some

21 negative aesthetic effect, considered their
22 own selfish ideals as secondary to broader
23 values such as the rights of owners and the
24 use of their land, revenue for public works,

25 and a national global need to reduce burning

315-436-7775
001222
53
1 fossil fuel, thereby safeguarding the

2 ecological outlook of their grandchildren.
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give us the rest your
4 comments in written form, we're happy to take

5 them, but we'll have -- to make sure everybody
6 has the opportunity to speak. If there is
7 time at the end we will continue going.
8 Jack Nasca from DEC. Jack, are you out

9 of Albany?
10 MR. NASCA: Yes, I am.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: As a courtesy to you we
12 will give you as much time as you need.

13 MR. NASCA: I think I will be fine with
14 three minutes, thank you.
15 Good morning. I'm Jack Nasca, N-A-S-C-A,
16 and I'm with the Department of Environmental

17 Conservation, the Division of Environmental
18 Permits. And I am based in Albany.
19 And I just want to say this morning thank
20 you for having the hearing, and that DEC is

21 supportive of renewable energy and the
22 development of renewable energy in New York
23 State. There are many benefits to renewable
24 energy sources; however, the siting of these

25 facilities has got to be done in an

315-436-7775
001223
54
1 environmentally sensitive fashion.

2 As noted in the Department's letters
3 dated December 20th, 2006, January 18th,
4 2007, and March 9th, 2007, the agency has

5 substantial concerns regarding the
6 construction and operation of the proposed
7 St. Lawrence wind power project. DEC has
8 particular concerns for the proposed facility

9 as it is located in proximity to a bird
10 conservation area, two wildlife management
11 areas, contains breeding habitat for the
12 federal and state listed endangered Indiana

13 bat, and it is located in a known migratory
14 passage route and wintering area for Bald
15 Eagles, Short-eared Owls, and other raptors.
16 All of that is consistent with our

17 letters that we have submitted. The possible
18 impact to avian and bat species from this
19 project in conjunction with the proposed Cape
20 Vincent wind power project and the proposed

21 Clayton wind project must be considered as
22 part of this EIS review.
23 If this project were to be approved and
24 constructed, the department would, consistent

25 with the other wind projects that have

315-436-7775
001224
55
1 received permits, include a requirement for

2 the preparation and conduct of a post
3 construction mortality study to determine the
4 actual impacts from two avian and bat species

5 from the operation of the wind farm.
6 Based on our staff's initial review of
7 the draft DIS, the Department has strongly
8 recommended that a supplemental draft EIS be

9 prepared. This recommendation is based on the
10 lack of specific information in the
11 January 24th draft EIS on the issues of
12 concern to the agency. And these specific

13 issues were identified in our January -- I'm
14 sorry, in our March 9th, 2007, letter.
15 The Department staff will continue to
16 review the present draft EIS, and we look

17 forward to the preparation of a supplemental
18 draft EIS to provide the additional
19 information that the department needs to
20 complete its review of this proposed wind

21 power project.
22 And if people have any concerns or
23 comments that they would like to make
24 available to the Department, they can send

25 them to either my attention or to Steve

315-436-7775
001225
56
1 Tomasik, who is the project manager for this

2 particular application. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Will you be able to
4 send a copy of that or --

5 MR. NASCA: It's part of an email. I
6 can't leave it with you, but I can send it to
7 you.
8 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Will you email it?

9 MR. NASCA: Sure.
10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could you spell
11 that last fella's name?
12 MR. NASCA: Tomasik is T-O-M-A-S-I-K.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Just one second.
14 Sandy, will you give him my email address?
15 MR. NASCA: Sure. Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Ed

17 Hludzenski? Ed?
18 MR. HLUDZENSKI: Over here.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Yeah.
20 MR. HLUDZENSKI: Ed Hludzenski. It's

21 spelled H-L-U-D-Z-E-N-S-K-I.
22 After reading the report there's some
23 issues, and the people here have already
24 addressed most of the other issues that I

25 wanted to bring up, there's some that I didn't

315-436-7775
001226
57
1 hear addressed. I missed the first few

2 speakers, so if I'm repeating it apologize.
3 One of the things I would like to see
4 more specifically addressed in this study is

5 property devaluation. Is there something in
6 place or will there be something in place so
7 that if I go to sell my house down the road
8 and the windmills do have a negative impact on

9 property, who's going to make up the
10 difference? Okay. I would like to see that
11 more closely addressed.
12 There seems to be some concern about

13 icing on these towers. The ice can be thrown
14 one or 200 meters under certain conditions.
15 Who is responsible or who is liable for any
16 damage by that ice? Is it the property owner

17 who's receiving the money for the windmill on
18 his property or is it the windmill people
19 themselves?
20 You get a hunter going through there, a

21 piece of ice hits him in the hit head; you get
22 a car driving down the road, piece of ice goes
23 through their windshield, who's responsible?
24 Today is a -- we are a society of lawsuits.

25 Somebody gets hurt, somebody's going to get

315-436-7775
001227
58
1 sued. Who's going to pay?

2 One thing I did not see in there was a
3 study on infrasound. Infrasound is noise
4 produced by vibrations. It does have a

5 negative impact on the human body. It
6 constantly impacts the human body; you don't
7 even know it's there. It's akin, for any of
8 you who have been in the nautical services, of

9 being on a ship. You don't notice the engines
10 until they stop. But they're constantly
11 there.
12 If you go to the website -- go to Google,

13 type in infrasound, you can get a full report
14 in there on the impact of infrasound.
15 And lastly, the fourth item I would like
16 to see addressed more closely is the impact on

17 the water table. Many of the people in the
18 rural community here have wells. I don't
19 know, I haven't seen a picture of these
20 towers, I don't know how deep you've got to

21 go, but your bedrock is very close to the
22 surface. If they've got to go down 20 or
23 30 feet to anchor these things, somebody's
24 going to have to blast. I know that there are

25 places where they've blasted before and its

315-436-7775
001228
59
1 upset the water table, people wind up not

2 having water. Who's going to correct the
3 situation? Are they going to put in a whole
4 brand new water system for the people that

5 don't have pure or clean water anymore?
6 Those are the comments that I did not
7 hear addressed during my presence here. Thank
8 you very much.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Joe
10 Lawrence.
11 MR. JOE LAWRENCE: Hello. My name is Joe
12 Lawrence, and I just wanted to say that this

13 past week I've spent some time going through
14 the DIS. And -- though it's called a draft
15 for a reason because there is stuff that still
16 needs to be addressed. There's clearly stated

17 in there what has been addressed and what they
18 still intend to address. There's no --
19 they're not trying to hide the fact that other
20 studies may still need to be done, they're

21 addressing that fact in the DIS, and I thought
22 that was important.
23 Furthermore, I work in the agricultural
24 field, and I was very impressed with their

25 references to the New York State Ag and

315-436-7775
001229
60
1 Markets guidelines for having the least impact

2 possible on agricultural production. These
3 towers are meant to co-exist with agriculture,
4 and I think with what's outlined in the plan

5 that that will be very possible for that to
6 happen.
7 On a more -- on a more personal note, I'm
8 not a taxpayer in this town, and I know

9 someone said that there's several people
10 moving into this town. They're not people my
11 age. I grew up here, I love this town, but I
12 can't make a living around here. And I think

13 that though it states that there will only be
14 a couple of jobs actually created specific to
15 the wind towers, there will be several more
16 jobs created by the boost to this community.

17 And I -- because I couldn't find work in
18 the area, I just accepted a job in Lowville,
19 and I'm very excited about moving up there,
20 living amongst the wind towers there and

21 living in a community that supports
22 alternative energy, because that's the bottom
23 line.
24 Everyone talks about the negative

25 impacts. The negative impacts of not having

315-436-7775
001230
61
1 alternative energy far outweigh any of the

2 petty stuff that's been talked about of
3 impacts of having towers. And I'll conclude
4 with that.
5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. That is the
6 last name we have on the list. Is there
7 anyone who did not have the opportunity to
8 sign the list who would like to speak? Is

9 there anybody who has not spoken who would
10 like to speak?
11 We're going to be here until -- just a
12 second. We're going to be here until noon

13 because we advertised it until noon, we will
14 be here until noon, all right?
15 What we will do then if people who -- so
16 one more time, anybody here who has not had

17 the opportunity to speak who would like to
18 speak? We will still stick with the
19 three-minute rule. If someone would like to
20 speak again, I guess what I would probably do

21 is just run through the list so we do the same
22 order, it will make it easier when we're
23 trying to compare information.
24 Mr. Wiley, did you want to speak before

25 we start going through everybody else's? No?

315-436-7775
001231
62
1 Yes, sir.
2 MR. HENCHY: May I?
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Did you speak yet?
4 MR. HENCHY: No.

5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Oh, okay. Then give us
6 your name, please.
7 MR. HENCHY: My name is Harold Henchy, I
8 live on Mason Road, and I will be very

9 brief --
10 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Would you spell your
11 last name, please?
12 MR. HENCHY: H-E-N-C-H-Y. I'll be brief

13 because I believe it's all been said.
14 My only concern is to the elected
15 officials in this town. It's incumbent upon
16 you when you were elected, and my concern is

17 quality of life, and in all your deliberations
18 do not overlook quality of life with these
19 wind towers coming -- possibly coming into
20 this area. Thank you very much.

21 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay. Any -- yes?
22 Come on up if -- anybody who hasn't spoken yet
23 come up and give us your name, please.
24 MR. JOHN LAWRENCE: I'm John Lawrence,

25 and I'd just like to make a quick comment.

315-436-7775
001232
63
1 I think the members up here in the front

2 have -- all know where the office is, but
3 there's been many comments and issues brought
4 up that I believe would be easily addressed if

5 the folks would stop by the office, downtown
6 Cape Vincent, and do their homework before
7 asking questions. If they truly want answers,
8 they're available down there. And I encourage

9 everybody to go down and stop by just to see.
10 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. And if you
11 don't know where the office is, it's in Jared
12 Wiley's old beauty salon across from the fire

13 hall.
14 Would anyone else like to speak who has
15 not had the opportunity to speak?
16 Carol Simpson, would you like to speak

17 again? Dave Docteur? Don Metzger?
18 MR. METZGER: Mr. Chairman, a question:
19 Do I understand you to say that you will
20 accept verbal comments here in this building

21 today until 12:00?
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: We advertised a hearing
23 from 9 to noon. We will not shut the door
24 until noon.
25 MR. METZGER: So someone who's not in

315-436-7775
001233
64
1 this structure at this time can come in here

2 later this morning --
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Correct.
4 MR. METZGER: -- and present a

5 three-minute presentation until noon?
7 MR. METZGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Marianna, do you have

9 anything else you would like to add?
10 MS. REINHART: Yes, I have two questions.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give me one second just
12 so I can go back to my right file here,

13 please.
14 MS. REINHART: Sure.
15 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay.
16 MS. REINHART: We had driven through the

17 Maple development also with the wind power,
18 and we noticed that there were maintenance
19 buildings. And we were wondering -- we know
20 they'll be needed here. We were wondering

21 where they would be placed in association with
22 the town and the wind turbines.
23 And also, will the main office of the
24 wind turbine company remain in Cape Vincent

25 where it is now or move to another location

315-436-7775
001234
65
1 during or after the project is completed?

2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Joyce, do you have
3 anything else you would like to say?
4 MS. GORMEL: No, thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom? I'm sorry, my --
6 I'm sorry.
7 MR. GORMEL: I just want to say that the
8 purpose of the DEIS is to document everything,

9 the mitigations and that. And that someone to
10 stand up and say stop down to the office
11 doesn't mean anything. It has to be in
12 written form.
13 And I wanted to comment further about the
14 lack of clarity of certain sections of the
15 DEIS. I'm speaking specifically in the
16 section titled Executive Summary in the

17 Table 1-1, Pages 1-9 and 1-10. There is a
18 statement that says the proposed turbines
19 would maintain appropriate buffers from
20 property lines, nearby residences, roads, and

21 other nearby visibly sensitive -- visually
22 sensitive areas. The word appropriate is
23 frequently used when describing proposed
24 mitigation. What exactly is appropriate?

25 Another proposed mitigation stated,

315-436-7775
001235
66
1 settlement agreements could be used to

2 purchase landscape screening, trees and
3 shrubs, or exclusionary treatments such as
4 curtains or blinds.
5 My wife is thinking that custom-made
6 curtains would be appropriate for our house.
7 Or is SLW thinking the Family Dollar store up
8 in Clayton?
9 And I think that's the whole thing, is
10 let's get it in black and white and not leave
11 it to us to stop down to the office and ask
12 them. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Let me rephrase what I
14 think you just told me, because I want to be
15 sure.
16 I think you just rephrased it if in

17 mitigation it turns out that, using your
18 example, that SLW is going to buy wind -- or
19 drapes or whatever you want to call them for
20 homes, what's the quality going to be.

21 MR. GORMEL: That's right.
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay. Ann?
23 MS. LEVY: No, thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Cliff?

25 MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, I didn't get a

315-436-7775
001236
67
1 chance to comment more on the sound issue.

2 And I know Karen and George, and I don't know
3 if you were there, Rich, too when we went up
4 to Maple Ridge with all those Board members.

5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: No, I was not. But I'm
6 on Maple Ridge on a regular basis.
7 MR. SCHNEIDER: I go through there as
8 well. We stopped under those windmills during

9 the day, and you sit there and say they're
10 quiet, they have a little woosh; it's not a
11 big deal.
12 So why do these people halfway around the

13 world and here in this country as well have
14 problems? Well, the difference is, and I
15 suffer from a little problem called ringing in
16 the ears, or tinnitus.

17 Now, during the day when I'm out here
18 it's not a problem at all because you've got
19 all kinds of noise around you, the ambient
20 noise is kind of high. But at night it's a

21 different story. When you're sitting in a
22 quite bedroom and all of a sudden when there
23 isn't any other noises, it's really loud and
24 it's annoying.
25 I don't know whether anybody in here

315-436-7775
001237
68
1 suffers from that type of thing, but you tend

2 to do little things at night to mask the
3 sound. But the point is the issue isn't
4 during the day, the issue is at night.

5 And the issue in particular is when you
6 have a situation called atmospheric stability
7 where it's very quiet at ground level, but at
8 the hub height those things are still going to

9 be turning and still turning out all the
10 noise.
11 Now, the sound level report doesn't
12 consider any of those things. So the purpose

13 of that tape and that CD is just to give you a
14 sense of an idea. You can't go through those
15 reports and really understand all that
16 gibberish.
17 But that you're going to hear from a wind
18 farm on the Dutch-German border. It was done
19 by a scientist right there from complaints
20 from Dutch citizens. What they do right there

21 is at night at a home about 2600 feet away you
22 hear that noise. And that's what the issue
23 is. It's not during the day when you drive by
24 and it's not a problem, the issue is at night.

25 And that's the type of thing that the

315-436-7775
001238
69
1 sound level report hasn't considered at all.

2 And it also has not considered the quality and
3 character of the noise. If it's just that
4 nice, broad what they call broadband

5 background noise, white noise or whatever, we
6 seem to tolerate that very well. But it's the
7 character of it which is this pulsing sound.
8 And the pulsing sound comes from when that

9 blade goes right by the tower.
10 Now, the thing is the sound level report
11 none of these people addressed those issues,
12 and those are the issues that very well might

13 drive some people in this town nuts and very
14 well might end up having phone calls to you
15 folks saying what's happened, what have you
16 done.
17 So that's the issue, and I would hope
18 that somewhere along the line you can get
19 those people to address that.
20 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: So, Cliff, just to make

21 sure I've got this right, what you're saying
22 is that a nighttime study is exceedingly
23 important.
24 MR. SCHNEIDER: They have to separate

25 nighttime levels from daytime levels. They

315-436-7775
001239
70
1 have to address -- you know, background

2 levels, they assume the background on there,
3 that they got the citation from a publication;
4 they didn't go out there and measure it.

5 If you go and take a look at the Clayton
6 DEIS, they did a much better job. I still
7 have problems with those.
8 So they have a number of things that they

9 have to address. I'll have that in written
10 comments for you.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: When you're referring
12 to the character of the noise, can you just

13 take another minute and go through that one
14 more time for me?
15 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. For those of you
16 if you go down by the beach or something like

17 that, you hear the surf, it's a pleasant
18 sound, it's kind of like a white noise.
19 But if you take a listen -- you listen to
20 maybe a backhoe in reverse, you find that's

21 really annoying. So -- that's really
22 annoying.
23 And so the quality and character of the
24 noise, it isn't that nice, surf-like kind of

25 thing, it's that character, that pulsing that

315-436-7775
001240
71
1 drives you nuts. And that's what drives these

2 people nuts; that's what drove Jane Davis in
3 the UK nuts.
4 And thing is, this report done by Tetra

5 Tech, they don't go into any of that stuff.
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Good point. Thank you.
7 Sally Hirschey?
8 MS. HIRSCHEY: No, I'm fine.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Urban?
10 MR. HIRSCHEY: Yeah, I have some
11 questions. One of the comments on the Maple
12 Ridge people living close to a tower, they

13 use -- the closest examples was .49 miles,
14 which is 25, 2600 feet. I think the offsets
15 in the DEIS allow for 1200 feet between a
16 residence and the towers. That's really,

17 really pushing the envelope.
18 And the other question I had was from
19 Mr. Nasca, I think there was a recent bird
20 study report from the Maple Ridge Farm. Could

21 you enlarge upon that?
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Well, we'll ask him to
23 speak then. We're not -- you need to address
24 your comments to us. He'll be given an

25 opportunity to speak.

315-436-7775
001241
72
1 MR. HIRSCHEY: Okay. But that's -- I

2 think there is a recent report that might
3 impact how we feel about that.
4 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: We're just going to

5 keep this going the same way because it's
6 worked well. Paul Mason?
7 MR. MASON: I'll pass.
8 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom?

9 MR. BROWN: Thank you. I guess I would
10 only like to add that thanks for the
11 opportunity -- for this comment opportunity
12 this morning. But I think what's really

13 important, I would implore not only this
14 Board, but all of the officers in our
15 community to carefully consider what's been
16 said here today and I assume will continue to

17 be voiced as this process moves forward,
18 because what we're talking about will likely,
19 if it comes to fruition, change the nature,
20 the culture of this community forever.

21 That's something I think that should
22 weigh heavy on you people especially, and all
23 the town officials that will be required to
24 make the right decisions in the interest of

25 the entire community and all the residents of

315-436-7775
001242
73
1 the community. Thanks again for the

2 opportunity to speak.
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Brooks, did
4 you want to add anything else?

5 MR. BRAGDON: Just one thing, please,
6 Mr. Chairman. The history of the historic
7 preservation is with the Historic Preservation
8 Act of I think 1966. And I have this pamphlet

9 here from the Federal Advisory Commission on
10 Historic Preservation. And what it points out
11 is that it was created to address a certain
12 situation where there were lots of

13 developments in the '50s and '60s, and they
14 came in and did a lot of harm to cultural
15 resources.
16 So it came in to create a certain buffer.

17 Once again, it was created to create a certain
18 sense of compromise, not of absolutes, but of
19 compromise.
20 The situation that I referred to before

21 where in the town of Cape Vincent we just were
22 not able to create a zoning law is somewhat
23 parallel to that. You have now the windmill
24 proposal coming in in a certain vacuum where

25 there really isn't zoning here.

315-436-7775
001243
74
1 Now, I know there's an answer to that,

2 and that is that there is site-by-site review.
3 But that's kind of like something where we
4 have not been able to function on a normal

5 basis, we have had a little bit of sniping,
6 people saying, oh, well, you have a conflict
7 here, you have a conflict here so you can't
8 vote, you can't comment, you can't vote, you

9 can't comment.
10 I really support the Board. I have a lot
11 of faith in the goodness, the depth, the
12 willingness to sacrifice, the sense of care on

13 people of the Board, but we've been deprived
14 of the wisdom to put into effect the types of
15 setbacks that individuals have called for, and
16 we have a certain vacuum now.

17 These turbines have been labeled
18 utilities. But if you take a look at them in
19 a narrow sense, they are very different from
20 what we consider utilities to be in the past.

21 They have an overall commercial/industrial
22 effect. They are an army of very, very large
23 structures. And they're going to have such a
24 radical presence, a dominant presence, a big

25 presence, a sound presence, a light presence,

315-436-7775
001244
75
1 a light presence at night, that they are going

2 to change the very relationship that we have
3 to the land, the sense of unique position here
4 in time and space, the very sense of the

5 historic structures. And they're going to
6 have a big, big change on that.
7 So I'm asking, begging you to have a
8 certain sense of a common good, a certain

9 sense of compromise, and a certain sense of
10 fully taking into effect the one-time impact
11 that this is going to have on the very nature
12 of the community here. And to not

13 underestimate what it is.
14 I think this is a very, very lovely
15 community, and a very, very unique point in,
16 you know, the United States and Canada. And I

17 think it shouldn't be underestimated.
18 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Johanna?
19 MS. HAMBROSE: I think I've said enough.
20 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay. Carol?

21 MS. SIMPSON: No, thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Sally?
23 MS. BOSS: No, thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Charles?

25 MR. MOEHS: Yes.

315-436-7775
001245
76
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give me one second to

2 get to the page.
3 MR. MOEHS: Well, I have an additional
4 comment related to the setbacks.

5 I notice that the setback from a property
6 line is 75 feet. The turbines themselves are
7 150 feet in radius. Which means that
8 theoretically the turbine blade will be

9 crossing over another --
10 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Let me stop you. Your
11 information of 75 feet is not correct.
12 MR. MOEHS: It's not correct.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: No. And I will come
14 back and address -- I have a few comments I'll
15 make at the end. So that is not a correct
16 statement, I'll just stop you right now.

17 MR. MOEHS: All right. I have another
18 comment, and that is about the blinds, the
19 curtains that could be purchased to mitigate
20 certain issues. And I find that that's

21 offensive.
22 I think if somebody is in their home they
23 should be able to use their home and be able
24 to look out their windows and see what's going

25 on. And for somebody to say that they're

315-436-7775
001246
77
1 going to put a blind up so that you aren't

2 going to get a flicker, that that's not
3 appropriate.
4 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: I'll go through the

5 list before I make a couple of corrections.
6 Rollin Hanson?
7 MR. HANSON: No, I think Mr. Bragdon has
8 said it all for me.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Vincent Paragon?
10 MR. PARAGON: Well, it's pretty much been
11 said for the last several months. I think one
12 thing is that I would like to see not happen,

13 and that is a divided community.
14 This community has been a very close-knit
15 community since its inception. And now I see
16 division. And for the sake of progress, if

17 you will, turbines, we end up with a divided
18 community.
19 I have to say what price glory, because
20 it would be a sad, sad thing if it comes down

21 to a divided community.
22 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Tom Jolliff?
23 MR. JOLLIFF: Yeah, a couple items. My
24 name is Tom Jolliff, J-O-L-L-I-F-F.

25 One is the suggestion that wind turbines

315-436-7775
001247
78
1 would violate Cape Vincent's natural virtue is

2 untrue because that virtue basically
3 disappeared the day that nonnative people
4 first set foot and becomes further prostituted

5 with each additional man-made thing or
6 activity.
7 In addition, it's hypocritical because
8 the suggestion essentially proposes that

9 everything the suggester has or does is okay
10 and defendable, but wind turbines are not.
11 If one were to give me the choice between
12 more noisy people and white machines just

13 sitting there doing their job, maybe you
14 wouldn't like my answer.
15 Another item issue is don't put the
16 things close to the river and lakeshore, put

17 them back further inland or beyond some point
18 that is just not feasible. If anybody were to
19 go to Acciona's office downtown and look at
20 the wind resource maps, it becomes very clear

21 that the present proposal for turbine sites is
22 totally consistent with available, viable wind
23 resources, and it is just not feasible to put
24 them someplace where you don't have that. And

25 if you look at that map, you'll see that there

315-436-7775
001248
79
1 are very limited areas in New York State that

2 have those wind resources.
3 And as I said before, each one of these
4 that are denied, it won't be moved inland, it

5 will just be replaced by coal-fired plants.
6 And as we speak there's a new surge of
7 coal-fired plants on the planning board for
8 construction across the nation right now.

9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Is Jack still here and
10 would he like to speak again?
11 MR. NASCA: No, I don't need to make a
12 statement, but I can respond to the one

13 question the gentleman raised.
14 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Sure.
15 MR. NASCA: There is a mortality study
16 which has just been completed for the first

17 year of operation at the Maple Ridge Wind
18 Farm. And that study is currently undergoing
19 internal review by experts from our agency and
20 the Fish and Wildlife Service and other

21 members of what they call a technical advisory
22 committee.
23 And I expect that probably within the
24 next four to six weeks, but don't hold me to

25 that, that information should be -- that

315-436-7775
001249
80
1 report should be completed and that

2 information should be made public.
3 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: How does the Planning
4 Board get access to that?

5 MR. NASCA: When that document is
6 available I would expect that it will be
7 placed on the website for the Maple Ridge
8 facility, but again, I can't guarantee that.

9 If -- when it becomes available we
10 will -- if anybody wants a copy, we'll either
11 make copies for you or direct you to where you
12 can get it.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Well, we would like to
14 be -- because we don't have time to surf the
15 website and find when it shows up.
16 MR. NASCA: Okay. I would suggest then

17 you talk to the -- your -- the developer here
18 and ask that they provide -- get a copy from
19 Maple Ridge when it's available. That's
20 probably the quickest way you'll get it.

21 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Ed, would you like to
22 say anything else?
23 MR. HLUDZENSKI: I've got a couple more
24 points I could throw out there; you don't have

25 enough to do.

315-436-7775
001250
81
1 The people who keep talking about the

2 benefits of green energy, nobody's ever
3 brought up the point at any of these meetings
4 that for every wind-powered turbine you have

5 up there, you've got a power plant spinning in
6 the background. Because if you shut down the
7 turbine, you can't let the lights go out.
8 You're idling a power plant someplace to

9 provide that emergency power when the turbine
10 is shut down for maintenance, not enough wind,
11 or too much wind.
12 There's a study done in Spain -- I'm

13 going to give this to the Board -- that talks
14 about the fact that you have to have your
15 coal-fired plants running.
16 Secondly, they talk about California and

17 Denmark, which have the longest experience in
18 the field of wind power. They're no longer
19 banking on wind power for the future. Maybe
20 you should read the new California energy

21 plan.
22 As far as property devaluation, there's a
23 study out of England, talks about the risk of
24 leukemia is 70% higher for children close to

25 power lines, which comes up with a second

315-436-7775
001251
82
1 study that cancer fears have dropped the

2 property values in the area of the power
3 lines.
4 And I will give these -- and remember,

5 perception is reality. If you think you're
6 going -- your kids are going to get cancer,
7 what are you going to do? You're going to
8 move. You're going to sell your house, and

9 you're going to sell it cheap. Thanks.
10 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Joe Lawrence, do you
11 have anything else to say?
12 MR. JOE LAWRENCE: Yeah. I would just

13 like to say a little bit more about the
14 positive impacts outlined in the study, like
15 the reduction of carbon dioxide and several
16 other gases.
17 If we say alternative -- or wind powers
18 are going to be our answer to our energy
19 crisis, no one here is going to try to say
20 that. They're part of an answer. There's

21 several things being worked on besides wind
22 power that -- as alternative energy.
23 But we're not talking about necessarily
24 replacing every coal-fired plant, we're

25 talking about not building more because our

315-436-7775
001252
83
1 population continues to grow and our use of

2 energy continues to grow.
3 So we're just talking about offsetting
4 this growth, this continued demand for more

5 energy as we live more and more luxurious
6 lifestyles. And it's -- it's silly not to
7 think of it that way.
8 I'm 24 years old, and I have a lot of

9 life ahead of me, and alternative energy and
10 renewable energy forms are the only thing that
11 are going to allow this country to continue.
12 And it's going to be dozens of different

13 alternative energy points, not just wind
14 powers everywhere, it's not just willow
15 biomass everywhere, it's going to be all of
16 these together that help us overcome the

17 crisis that we're in now.
18 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Harold, do you have
19 anything else you want to say?
20 John Lawrence, do you have anything else

21 you want to say?
22 All right. I would like to address the
23 public comments only --
24 MR. HOWARD: Can I make a comment first?

25 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Sure. Who are you?

315-436-7775
001253
84
1 MR. HOWARD: George Howard.

2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Just give me one second
3 to get my notes here.
4 MR. HOWARD: Sure. It would be a new

5 sheet.
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Spell your last name.
7 MR. HOWARD: H-O-W-A-R-D. I work for a
8 large aerospace company. In fact, I'm chief

9 engineer for a large aerospace company. And I
10 deal with the likes of Bowing and Airbus, on
11 the phone every day with them. And I think it
12 really is all about compromise.

13 I'm a proponent of wind energy, alternate
14 energy. Wind energy isn't on the top of that
15 list, but I am a proponent of alternate
16 energy. But it has to be done in favor of the

17 whole community and the whole landscape.
18 But I think the key to all this is really
19 compromise. And I hope the Board is looking
20 at another plan of compromise in that it's not

21 94 towers or nothing.
22 And certainly on our side -- I say our
23 side. I hope we're doing the same thing and
24 not saying it's no wind towers or all wind

25 towers, you know, you can't have anything.

315-436-7775
001254
85
1 It's got to be compromise. That's the only

2 way that this is going to get resolved to the
3 likings of everybody and to the benefit of
4 everybody. It's got to be a compromise.

5 And I hope the Board is looking at a
6 compromise solution because we can beat each
7 other up all day long and nobody is really
8 going to win from it. But I think both sides,

9 if they were to give somewhat, I think a
10 compromise solution could be -- you know, we
11 could reach that very quickly and put a lot of
12 this to bed. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Is there anybody else?
14 Because I don't want to necessarily have you
15 all stay here waiting until noon for somebody
16 else to show up.

17 Let me give you a little background.
18 Several years ago, probably three or four now,
19 we tried to work out a solution, were wind
20 powers going to come to Cape Vincent, was

21 there going to be zoning in place, was there
22 not going to be zoning that place specific for
23 them. That process failed. Didn't work out
24 for a number of reasons.

25 Then the Planning Board tried to adopt

315-436-7775
001255
86
1 what was then the consensus for the law as a

2 administrative guideline to file. We were
3 threatened with a lawsuit if we did it, so we
4 had to drop that.

5 So what the Planning Board has to work
6 with is the current planning document. Our
7 only leverage is that we can make life
8 miserable for the wind turbine companies and

9 work very slow.
10 There was a ruling that says they're a
11 utility; therefore, we have to work within
12 that concept of the Planning Board Law.

13 However, I'm going to say a year ago, but it
14 might have been nine months ago, please don't
15 quote me, there was -- one of the meetings we
16 had it was raised in the audience how close

17 are you going to let these wind turbines come
18 to my property if I'm not in the project?
19 Which we had not looked at as Planning Board.
20 We had not looked at exactly how we're siting

21 these towers at this point in time.
22 What was mentioned then, and that was
23 before they were trying to do the law, was a
24 thousand feet from a nonparticipating property

25 line. Not 75 feet. All right?

315-436-7775
001256
87
1 The Planning Board would not allow

2 somebody to put a tower 75 feet from a
3 nonparticipating property line. Isn't going
4 to happen. All right? If the wind turbine

5 company won't move it, their project will take
6 20 years.
7 We're going to try to stay -- we can't
8 follow them as administrative guidelines

9 because we'll get sued. We're going to try to
10 follow the concept as best we can of the law
11 that the town proposed. They hashed it out,
12 it looked like they thought it was a pretty

13 good deal. We'll try to follow that.
14 All we are doing in this process, this
15 hearing, and the next two hearings, is looking
16 at the environmental impacts, because you know

17 what at the end of the day, if the
18 environmental impacts say the towers can't
19 come here, they can't come here. But we need
20 to find out. It needs to be done and over

21 with. If they can't come here, let's know
22 now, let's not fight this thing for the next
23 20 years. Do the studies, find out whether or
24 not they would even be allowed in the area

25 under the environmental review process. All

315-436-7775
001257
88
1 right?
2 Now, they're either going to be allowed
3 or they're not going to be allowed or they're
4 going to be compromised, which is an excellent

5 term. If we get to that point and they are
6 either allowed or compromised, then we have to
7 go through a site plan public hearing.
8 And there are a number of great comments

9 that came out of this meeting of things that
10 we need to look for when we get to the point,
11 if we get to the point, where turbines come
12 in. Who's going to be pay to take them down,

13 who's going to pay to do the roads, and
14 there's a number of items. Those would all be
15 part of the site plan review process,
16 including who's going to do the PILOT

17 agreement or whatever.
18 We are nowhere near that phase where
19 we're going to answer those questions because
20 in my attitude until we get done with the

21 environmental review process and find out
22 whether wind turbines are going to be allowed
23 or not be allowed, that's kind of spinning
24 your wheels on something that may never

25 happen. Once you get through that process,

315-436-7775
001258
89
1 then the site plan process takes over and

2 we'll address those items.
3 Is anybody here who has not spoken wishes
4 to speak? Yes.
5 MS. DRABICKI: I just actually have a
6 question. It's been indicated that -- I'm
7 sorry, Judy Drabicki, D-R-A-B-I-C-K-I.
8 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give me one second,

9 please. Okay.
10 MS. DRABICKI: The DEIS indicates that
11 there's a bird and bat study or plan in the
12 DEIS; therefore, there obviously has to be a

13 bird and bat study, not just a plan. That
14 hasn't been submitted yet.
16 MS. DRABICKI: The wetland delineation

17 hasn't been done, historical phase 1, phase 1A
18 have not been done, among other studies that
19 the developer has acknowledged.
20 Right now the time frame for commenting

21 closes on June 15th. Has the Board
22 considered or would you offer comment on what
23 you anticipate to provide for comment period
24 after we finally are able to see those

25 studies?

315-436-7775
001259
90
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Sure. Let me address

2 that. When we -- we're stopping comment on
3 June 15th so we can now look at everything,
4 because there's some excellent points in here

5 today, a lot of these points we have heard
6 before, there are a couple new ones, you know,
7 I'll be right up front, nighttime study of
8 sound. You know? I thought a sound was the

9 same 24 hours a day. What did I know. All
10 right?
11 So there's some things we're going to go
12 back and think about, and we may tell the

13 developer you now need to do those studies. I
14 have picked up probably three going through
15 this that I think are significant enough that
16 I need to go back and say what are you doing.

17 After June 15th we will go through the
18 data and we will make a determination
19 sometime, maybe early July, what other studies
20 have to be done, all right? We're going to do

21 it at one of our regular public meetings. We
22 will call them in, we'll say we think you need
23 to do A, B, C, D, or E.
24 Then when they get these other data done,

25 the other -- as the studies get done, they are

315-436-7775
001260
91
1 going to post the information, they're going

2 to do supplemental reports that they're
3 placing in the same place as they handed out
4 the original document, the library, the town

5 clerk, et cetera. They also are -- on their
6 internet site have a table of contents. When
7 they add a new item they are going to -- you
8 know, it will be dated June 16th, they added

9 the bird study, I'm making that up now, all
10 right?
11 Once those are on, once we feel there is
12 enough information to reconvene the public

13 hearing, we will reconvene this public
14 hearing, do additional comments with an
15 additional period of written comment. Okay?
16 Now, humor me and let's assume that at

17 that point we now have enough information, we
18 think, to make a determination on the
19 environmental impacts, not that we're ready to
20 vote on it, but we have enough we think we got

21 a handle. Maybe at that point in time they
22 are going to be ready, they've submitted
23 supplemental documents, right, we're all
24 buried in paperwork, and they're going to

25 submit their final EIS.

315-436-7775
001261
92
1 When they submit the final EIS, all

2 right, then at that point in time we will do
3 another public hearing. But we're not going
4 to let them submit their final EIS to us until

5 they have completed all the studies required,
6 period. So I can't tell you when this public
7 hearing would be.
8 Does that answer your question?

9 MS. DRABICKI: What the Planning Board is
10 doing is one thing, but the opportunity for
11 public comment, and then as I'm sure you know,
12 the developer has to respond to the public

13 comments, that's the time frame that I'm
14 really asking about before you get to the
15 FEIS.
16 What I'm hearing you say is that whenever

17 those studies come in, there will be a minimum
18 period of time for a public hearing as well as
19 public comment. So it could be three years
20 from now. So that's what I'm --

21 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: I can't tell you --
22 first of all, there is no time frame locked in
23 stone. No matter what you've read, where
24 you've read it, or who you've heard it from.

25 The process is they have studies to do.

315-436-7775
001262
93
1 Now, I am not a environmentalist, okay?

2 I don't know how long it's going to take them
3 to do wetland delineation. They'll either get
4 it done this summer or they won't. If they

5 get it done this summer, that document will be
6 out and be available.
7 When they get their bird studies done,
8 one of the things I want to look at is the one

9 from Maple Ridge, okay? Even though they're
10 different areas, we want to look at them. All
11 right? Maybe we order another year, maybe
12 two. I don't know, I can't comment on how

13 long they're going to do the studies.
14 When the studies are done and there are
15 enough of them done to make it worthwhile to
16 do another public hearing, we will do a public

17 hearing, and there will be a comment period,
18 all right? And people will -- one of the
19 things that we have been -- the Planning Board
20 has been criticized about is not getting the

21 information out, then we were criticized for
22 getting it out.
23 What we're saying is we want the public
24 to comment, we want you to look at it. You

25 are all an expert in something, and because at

315-436-7775
001263
94
1 the end of the day the answer may not be

2 there's going to be 96 sites, because I don't
3 think anybody believes there will be 96 sites,
4 the answer is is this project allowable under

5 SEQR, and if it is how many can be put in, you
6 know, what do you work out here, all right?
7 And I guarantee at the end of the day there
8 will be some people unhappy on both sides.

9 Our job is to do the site -- after the
10 SEQR is done, if the SEQR is successful for
11 the wind turbine company, our job is then to
12 do a site plan and do the best job that we can

13 with the cards that we were dealt.
14 So have I answered your questions?
15 MS. DRABICKI: Yes. Except I would point
16 out that the DEIS does say they want to start

17 construction in spring of 2007 -- or 2008. So
18 there is a date.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: You know what? The
20 only way that that is ever going to happen is

21 if the information is done, they have a site
22 plan done, we've gone through all these
23 hearings, and the Planning Board has stamped
24 an official site plan document, including some

25 sort of a performance guarantee, construction

315-436-7775
001264
95
1 project follow-up, et cetera. All right?

2 One of the issues, and -- that I will --
3 that I've already raised is that in the -- if
4 you get to the construction phase, that you

5 have to be concerned about erosion, silt
6 runoff, right, damage to the streams, the
7 waters, the fisheries. I know that in other
8 areas of the state I see a lot of construction

9 sites. Sometimes it's done well and sometimes
10 it's done poorly. What we're requiring is
11 that in the performance contract that we set
12 up as part of the site plan that we have our

13 own independent supervisor making sure that it
14 is done correctly. All right?
15 So their date, they can put on whatever
16 date they want. The process right now is

17 until we accept their studies as final,
18 complete, and their final environmental impact
19 statement, the time frame runs ever how long
20 it takes; one year, two years, five years, or

21 less. I don't know.
22 MS. DRABICKI: Are you including the
23 involved agencies as well, like Lyme and DEC,
24 in that whole time frame?

25 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Here is the deal:

315-436-7775
001265
96
1 Yeah, anybody would who wants to comment can

2 comment.
3 MS. DRABICKI: No, I mean the time frames
4 of what they need to do their comments, DEC

5 and Lyme.
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: They have until
7 June 15th. If that's not enough time, I
8 don't know what to do. The only -- Lyme is

9 only impacted in this one. This is not the BP
10 project; this has nothing to do with BP.
11 MS. DRABICKI: They have a transmission
12 line.
13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: They have a
14 transmission line, all right? Which they will
15 have to go to Lyme and get their own permit to
16 put it up. Whenever they're ready to even

17 apply for that.
18 As part of the original letter that we
19 sent out to Lyme and everyone else, the 30-day
20 notice was in there per the regulation, and

21 they signed off on that. They just didn't
22 respond back. So technically the public
23 hearing does cover the impact of the
24 transmission line.
25 You know, we're already into the middle

315-436-7775
001266
97
1 of this. Then Lyme all of a sudden, you know,

2 got waylaid in another project, and they're
3 saying wait a minute, this is way beyond our
4 control.
5 There is no towers here in the Lyme
6 project. All there is is a transmission line
7 or not a transmission line, depending on what
8 goes on. All right? I mean, the transmission

9 line will be covered through this SEQR
10 process. Anybody who wants to comment can
11 comment. The Public Service Commission has
12 already commented; I've already talked to

13 them.
14 And I'll be honest with you, the
15 environmental impact on that depends on how
16 long the tower is going to be -- how long the

17 transmission line is going to be. Because
18 there's a different set of laws relating to
19 that.
20 So yes, this process handles the

21 transmission line. It was part of all the
22 information that was sent out originally.
23 Lyme didn't respond, but they got the letters,
24 we have proof they got the letters. We don't

25 want to get into an argument with the town of

315-436-7775
001267
98
1 Lyme, they apparently had some confusion over

2 the project or somebody just filed it and
3 didn't bother to tell somebody. I don't know,
4 I can't comment on them. This has nothing to

5 do with the BP project. Right now BP and Lyme
6 are working that out or not working it out.
7 When they work it out or don't work it out
8 they'll let us know, and then we'll figure out

9 what Cape Vincent is going to do or not do.
10 Any other questions? Judy, do you have
11 any other? Yes.
12 MR. METZGER: Mr. Chairman, the Public

13 Service Commission report that you say you've
14 seen.
15 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: No, I talked to the guy
16 on the phone and asked him some questions.

17 MR. METZGER: So there's no report that's
18 available to the public.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: No. Basically it has
20 to do with at what point do you no longer do a

21 SEQR process and at what point is there
22 another process involved in transmission line
23 construction. Right now this still fits under
24 the SEQR process. It's a clarification of an

25 issue. If it crosses -- if it becomes more

315-436-7775
001268
99
1 than 10 miles, it's not part of the SEQR

2 process; it's got a different thing it has to
3 go through.
4 Wait a minute. Who was -- Paul?

5 MR. MASON: Paul Mason. You approve a
6 site plan only after the Ag and Markets and
7 the Conservation and all your other agencies
8 approve. You're the final approval after all

9 of those others say yes or no, it can be here
10 or it can't be here.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Paul, if you come in
12 for a trailer park today, we will -- and let's

13 assume that we're going to approve because it
14 fits in with everything else. We're not
15 giving you final approval until the Health
16 Department signs off, Niagara Mohawk signs

17 off, the DEC signs off. We don't give -- we
18 would say to you we'll give you temporary
19 approval, but you've got to get Public Health,
20 DEC, State Highway, whoever, to sign off.

21 There is no guarantees. And we have said
22 this from day one, there is no guarantee
23 anybody gets a turbine. I want to make that
24 clear. You have to go through the process.

25 But they have the legal right to go through

315-436-7775
001269
100
1 the process, and that's what we want to have

2 happen. We want to get through the
3 environmental review process to find out are
4 they even allowed under the environmental

5 review process. That's what we're doing here
6 today and we'll be doing at least the next two
7 meeting, if not more.
8 Other questions? Yes.

9 MR. GORMEL: Speaking of these -- this
10 transmission line, you're speaking like it's a
11 done deal, you're just -- and --
12 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: The transmission line

13 under the Lyme zoning apparently is an
14 allowable use.
15 MR. GORMEL: It is. But how is BP and
16 how are these all --

17 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: BP is out of it right
18 now. There is no BP involved in this at this
19 point in time.
20 MR. GORMEL: So when I spoke of the

21 cumulative impact of different projects,
22 you're ignoring Clayton and you're ignoring
23 BP?
24 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: First of all, the

25 cumulative impact -- we aren't -- all we're

315-436-7775
001270
101
1 doing now is in data collection. We aren't

2 making any decisions here.
3 MR. GORMEL: No, SLW should be making
4 some comments in their DEIS.

5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Our purpose is to take
6 the DEIS, expose it to everybody who wants to
7 look at it, find out are there any additional
8 studies that need to be done, and then go back

9 and say to the developer these are the studies
10 we want done. We are not prepared today or
11 next week or the week after to go to them and
12 say what studies are going to be done.

13 If somebody comes in on June 14th and
14 has a -- I thought Cliff's argument on night
15 noise was excellent, personally. So if
16 somebody came in on the 14th with that

17 argument and we had not heard it before, we
18 would probably say, whoa, stop the presses,
19 we're going to require some kind of study on
20 this.
21 We're not locking ourselves into saying
22 this is all over prior to June 15th. After
23 June 15th we are going to go through
24 everything.
25 I would like to point out in the issue of

315-436-7775
001271
102
1 compromise that the Planning Board is a

2 part-time activity in the town of Cape
3 Vincent. All right?
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You can retire,

5 Rich.
6 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Yeah. Doing so -- and
7 by the way, I am employed, and I do not make
8 my living in Cape Vincent; I'm on the road

9 throughout most of the state.
10 That being said, is that there seems to
11 have been some confusion over how quick we can
12 get letters out in a book at the town clerk so

13 people can come in and look at them, a letter
14 that someone else sent. Our problem is that
15 we don't have anybody to do that. I would ask
16 you to be kind and courteous to the town clerk

17 if you're looking for information.
18 And in the spirit of compromise, let's
19 all be nice. We're not trying to hide
20 anything, but at the best once a week I will

21 try to go up there, date stamp the letters,
22 and put them in the file. However, I am going
23 to take some vacation, so it may only be every
24 two weeks.
25 I would ask you as courteous citizens to

315-436-7775
001272
103
1 not give the town clerk a hard time if your

2 letter is not in there because it's probably
3 down in my bin. And if I'm lucky I'll get
4 back in town one night during the week to open

5 it and make copies for the Board, make copies
6 for the town clerk, make copies for our clerk,
7 and disseminate them. That's the best that we
8 can do.
9 Am I spending part time on your
10 information? No, I am not. We have volumes
11 of stuff at home, my computer and copier and
12 my assistant, who gets paid nothing, are

13 working full time supplying me with data and
14 the rest of the Board. We're doing -- we will
15 make sure the studies are done correctly, we
16 have a town attorney, we have an engineering

17 firm; we're relying on them for the expertise.
18 We're coming into the summertime,
19 everyone should be happy. Let's try to be
20 polite. As someone else pointed out, it's --

21 we don't want -- whichever way these things
22 go, we want to end up with a community where
23 people still talk to one another. We're going
24 to give you multiple opportunities to review

25 additional data and make comments. We're not

315-436-7775
001273
104
1 going into this blind or with any kind of

2 preconceived notions. I don't know what the
3 end result will be. There is probably a more
4 than reasonable chance that there could be

5 some environmental impacts that cannot be
6 mitigated.
7 If you were asking me to bet on this, I
8 wouldn't give you Vegas odds. All right? I

9 don't know because I don't know what's going
10 to be found. You don't know until the stuff
11 is done.
12 Then when the studies are done, I'll

13 guarantee you we'll be having another public
14 hearing, and then if you want to stand up and
15 say that these bird studies are not good,
16 you'll have to give us reasons why they're not

17 good. And if we believe you more than we
18 believe them or whatever we work out, we'll
19 make them keep doing them. There's no
20 drop-dead date. And if I can push it out far

21 enough, I can get, like, retired from the
22 Board.
23 Other questions? Yes.
24 MS. FALCON: My name is Mary Falcon.

25 I've not spoken before.

315-436-7775
001274
105
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give us one second.

2 MS. FALCON: It's Falcon, F-A-L-C-O-N.
3 Personally, I haven't come to grips with
4 the thought of War of the World structures out

5 here in the field when you're driving, things
6 like that, I can't personally -- I can't
7 envision it out here yet.
8 But I've been reading a lot about water

9 runoff and the dangers it has to the
10 environment and things like that.
11 I was encouraged that you mentioned,
12 Rich, that, you know, that will be part of

13 what's looked at, but apparently pet ways and
14 everything like that is dangerous. And I --
15 the reason I'm thinking about this is someone
16 was burning debris out on the river just

17 today. I mean, burning debris. I don't know
18 if that's detrimental to the river or not, but
19 I'm more cognizant of the issues regarding the
20 river now.
21 And I just want to make sure that, you
22 know, farms close to the river will be -- if
23 they get the turbines they'll be part of this.
24 I want to make sure that water runoff and any

25 kind of issues, you know, if something happens

315-436-7775
001275
106
1 that there are contingency plans for it.

2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Good point. Which is
3 the reason we're not cutting this thing off
4 until June 15th. There is always good

5 comments out there.
6 Anyone else like to comment?
7 MR. DOCTEUR: I would like to just ask
8 the Board --
9 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Hang on one second,
10 Dave, I need to get to the right spot in my
11 notes here. Okay.
12 MR. DOCTEUR: I would just like to invite

13 the Board to go with me up to Maple Ridge Farm
14 and talk to the people that can talk up there.
15 Many of them can't because they've signed
16 contracts. But the ones that can that are

17 really impacted, come and look at. And I'll
18 take you up most any time, but really I think
19 it would be good or for anybody else here.
20 Because then we can talk about what's in the

21 book and what we think, but you can see it
22 right there. And live it. See the people
23 that actually live with it.
24 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Yes, sir?

25 MR. METZGER: Mr. Chairman, permission to

315-436-7775
001276
107
1 speak again.
2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Yes, go for it. We're
3 here until noon.
4 MR. METZGER: Thank you. Don Metzger,

5 owner of a business in Cape Vincent for the
6 last 30 years.
7 The FAA -- if the towers go up, if they
8 do, whether it's 96 or two or whatever, if

9 they go up, they're going to be required by
10 the FAA to have the flashing red lights that
11 flash every five seconds on -- at least on a
12 minimum of half of the towers. So let's pick

13 80 towers as the -- and let's assume 80 towers
14 go up. If they go up, you have to have a
15 minimum of 40 red lights.
16 I want the Board to be aware of that

17 fact, that the nighttime will be affected as
18 well. You're talking about daytime visibility
19 and that the nighttime will also be affected
20 by the lights that have to shine by federal --

21 FAA regulation in unison to delineate the farm
22 from the air. So if you feel that the lights,
23 40 for 50 or 60 lights flashing in unison
24 every night, all night long is a good thing,

25 fine. If you feel that you would not like to

315-436-7775
001277
108
1 see those lights, you have to take that into

2 consideration as well.
3 I appreciate the Board's consideration in
4 that matter.
5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: And if you've not
6 driven through the project in Maple Ridge at
7 night, I have multiple times, snow, no snow,
8 whatever, you need to do that. It is

9 different. You need to look at that. If you
10 want to be an informed citizen, that's one of
11 the things that you should look at.
12 Anyone else with comments? Yeah, we'll

13 go with Tom first.
14 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was just
15 going to remark to you that I take
16 encouragement this morning as I see the raptor

17 symbol on your shirt that we will have
18 adequate bird studies.
19 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: I have no conflict of
20 interest on this project; I have no bias. Let

21 the record show -- no.
22 Yes, Urban.
23 MR. HIRSCHEY: Urban Hirschey again. By
24 the way, I commute to Lowville and go up

25 Number -- is it Number Four Road or Number

315-436-7775
001278
109
1 Three Road to Copenhagen? Those turbines are

2 very impressive, particularly at night when
3 they all fire off at once. It's -- yeah.
4 It's worth a trip.

5 I do have a question about Paragraph 2-3,
6 which is the Public Needs and Benefits. And
7 in which it says that the proposed project
8 will result in estimated annual reductions of

9 approximately 236 tons of nitrogen oxides,
10 669 tons of sulfur dioxide, and substantial
11 quantities of other pollutants. That's pretty
12 impressive.
13 My question is it says an annual
14 reduction, but at what percent of efficiency
15 or capacity of the turbines is that based
16 upon? Because as I understand, wind turbines

17 on average produce about 10% of their
18 capacity. And you can substantiate that by
19 going to the NYSERDA website, and there is an
20 article published by General Electric which

21 states that the average annual production is
22 about 10% efficiency. And I also understand
23 that Maple Ridge is about 12.5% efficiency.
24 So I don't know if these numbers are

25 100%, you know, of capacity or what. And I

315-436-7775
001279
110
1 think we should find out.

2 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Okay. Good question.
3 That's what we're here for, you know, people
4 read the things, they -- everybody picks out

5 something different.
6 What I would like to see people do is
7 examine the information, ask their questions
8 over the next whatever how long it takes,

9 rather than down the road say, well, I wish I
10 would have known, or you didn't tell me.
11 Anyone else with questions?
12 We're going to take like a ten-minute

13 break.
14 (A brief recess was taken from 11:09 AM until
15 11:21 AM.)
16 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: We're reconvening the

17 public hearing, so will you please take your
18 seats?
19 Questions came up, someone asked me again
20 during the break, and I would like to go

21 through the June 15th deadline again.
22 When you do a public hearing and allow
23 for comment period, there has to be a date
24 given when that's the end of that comment

25 period for that public hearing. June 15th

315-436-7775
001280
111
1 is the date. However, I've also said that

2 we're doing an additional probably at least
3 two public hearings as we go forward, and each
4 one of them will have a public comment period.

5 It's kind of like when you were in
6 college, if you went to college, and the
7 professor tested you on everything all year
8 long at whatever time you took the test. Or

9 didn't, depending on the professor.
10 In this case it's a test from day one all
11 the way through. So each comment period is on
12 the studies going back to day one.

13 Now, do we have anyone who would wish to
14 comment now? Yes. Please come up, state your
15 name, and we'll go from there.
16 MR. BYRNE: John Byrne, B-Y-R-N-E.

17 I had a couple of comments I'd like to
18 make on comments that other people had brought
19 up that I thought they were a little bit
20 interesting.
21 When they do the noise studies, a lot of
22 times what they'll do is they'll compare them
23 to a suburban area or a street corner. The
24 reason my wife and I moved here about a year

25 ago was for the fact that it's very quiet

315-436-7775
001281
112
1 here. It's not a suburban street corner.

2 It's a very rural setting, and we love the
3 wildlife, we love the quietness of the area.
4 I do believe that the wind turbines could

5 be done in a good way that would be great for
6 the community as a whole, I just think that we
7 do need to look at this and study this. But
8 that's one thing where we need to look into

9 that.
10 Noise is a exponential function or
11 logarithmic function, and it does not behave
12 linearly like most people might think. When

13 you're comparing them it's much different.
14 The other thing I noticed was last summer
15 when we were up here you can sit out on a
16 night sky, look up and see the stars. I don't

17 know if anyone else ever does it, but you can
18 also see satellites going overhead. There's
19 not a lot of interruption as far as light
20 goes.
21 Once you have these red flickering
22 lights, that might play a role. If that can
23 be mitigated or kept to a minimum, I think
24 that would be helpful as well. As far as it

25 being a good thing for the community, we all

315-436-7775
001282
113
1 know the big thing that it's going to bring to

2 the community is money. I don't think that
3 it's been stated, at least I haven't read how
4 much money it will bring to the community. I

5 think that's an important part of this because
6 we all want to benefit the best that we can.
7 Every person in this room that has property in
8 Cape Vincent knows how much we pay in taxes.

9 I think that the wind turbines should pay just
10 as much as everyone else. The wind turbines
11 are going to be more visually -- they're going
12 to stick out more than other people's

13 properties. Why should they get let off easy
14 and only have to pay $5,000 per turbine, or
15 whatever they might pay, when I have to pay
16 two and a half percent of what my property is

17 valued at or whatever that value is?
18 I think these are important things that I
19 would hope that the Board would take into
20 account, and I do -- would like to say that I

21 have a lot of confidence in the Board, I'm
22 sure they'll make the right decision, and take
23 that for what it's worth. Thank you very
24 much.
25 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Thank you. Would

315-436-7775
001283
114
1 anyone else like to comment? We'll be here

2 until 12 if anyone's wishes to comment. Yes?
3 MR. MOEHS: I'm Charlie Moehs. I guess I
4 would like to comment.

5 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Give me one second,
6 Charlie, so I can get to the right set of
7 notes. Yes.
8 MR. MOEHS: A lot of us have spent a fair

9 amount of time reviewing all the information,
10 looking at the DEIS, making copies of it,
11 those kinds of things, and I know that you
12 people are very diligent in trying to keep up

13 with everything and make proper decisions.
14 But the -- there are several issues with
15 the wind towers. One was just brought up by
16 this gentleman, which is what is the benefit

17 to the community. What is it really going to
18 bring to us? What are -- are we going to have
19 tax abatement, those kinds of things.
20 And we've heard a lot of hearsay that

21 there are no tax abatements and in some
22 situations taxes will go up. Or when you ask
23 people in the Lowville area you get differing
24 comments. And so I think financial issues are

25 important, but there is not good information

315-436-7775
001284
115
1 about that, and I'm wondering if there's a way

2 of disseminating what the information is, and
3 perhaps you haven't done any real negotiation,
4 but it would be nice to know what are your

5 negotiating points, what are you looking for.
6 What do you think you want to come up with
7 here, and how is that going to benefit the
8 individual landowner.
9 Another issue is the power. Many people
10 have talked about the fact that we're going to
11 get power. And of course we're not going to
12 get any power at all, but there are options

13 where power could be available. And there are
14 programs and projects that are different.
15 We've talked about compromise here today.
16 So I wondered whether any thought has been

17 given or can be given to a compromise program
18 where income could flow into the community and
19 where power can flow into the community as
20 well. Certainly a few of these towers could

21 be dedicated to the town.
22 And lastly, I wondered whether it
23 wouldn't be a good time to think about a
24 citizen's committee that would help in some of

25 these deliberations and discussions.

315-436-7775
001285
116
1 Certainly there are a lot of smart people

2 around the community that have experience and
3 knowledge, Mr. Brown, Cliff Schneider, various
4 other people that -- or Urban Hirschey that's

5 on different boards. Where not use some of
6 these people? Let's get them together and
7 help them speak for what's going on in the
8 community.
9 MR. HIRSCHEY: I would like to follow up
10 on that.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Go for it.
12 MR. HIRSCHEY: I just had an idea.

13 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Just give me one
14 second, I've got to get to the right spot.
15 Okay.
16 MR. HIRSCHEY: When Fort Howard closed

17 their mill in Carthage they had a lease on a
18 power dam -- a hydro project in Carthage which
19 they assigned to the Carthage Industrial
20 Development Corporation, which returns to that

21 industrial organization $250,000 a year in
22 royalties or rent, lease. That has made a
23 tremendous difference in Carthage in how it's
24 been able to lift itself up by its bootstraps.

25 And that money is used to improve -- as a

315-436-7775
001286
117
1 matter of fact, the CIDC got a -- one of ten

2 awards for historical preservation in downtown
3 for last year. And it was a wonderful reward.
4 But I'm just thinking the same thing

5 could happen if it were negotiated properly,
6 that there could be money put into some sort
7 of a development -- community development
8 which could encourage businesses and other

9 commercial ventures within the -- and for
10 instance, repairing some of the waterfront.
11 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Anyone else? Yes,
12 John?
13 MR. BYRNE: One thing I forgot on my list
14 was --
15 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Speak up, please.
16 MR. BYRNE: -- fencing and/or shrubbery

17 that I believe that people would probably put
18 up to try to shield. And I believe it's in
19 the DEIS statement that they were proposing to
20 put up.
21 I don't think that the town wants to
22 become a town driving down the road and having
23 fences and shrubbery up all over the place and
24 you can't see anything, especially with the

25 properties along the water. The properties

315-436-7775
001287
118
1 along the water, you would think that you

2 would want to keep them unfenced and
3 unscreened so that people can enjoy the view
4 of the water.
5 But if people choose not to look at them,
6 I believe that they would probably put that
7 stuff up, and that would have a long-term bad
8 effect on the community because nobody would

9 choose to either ride their bicycle down
10 the -- I believe it's called the St. Lawrence
11 Seaway Trail, or whatever it might be called,
12 they might not choose to do that because they

13 don't want to ride down a tunnel. They would
14 rather ride down an area where they can look
15 out and have a nice view of things.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Anyone else? Well,
18 we'll be here until noon if you have a
19 comment. Yes? Come on up, state your name.
20 MR. JOHN LAWRENCE: I'm John Lawrence,

21 and I mentioned earlier about stopping by the
22 wind office. And I wasn't sure if that was
23 misunderstood, as a couple comments after, but
24 I just meant to educate ourselves with facts

25 about everything. Because down there they

315-436-7775
001288
119
1 have facts about this project; they have facts

2 about other projects; they have studies and
3 everything. So I just wanted to clarify
4 myself.
5 And also the visual aesthetics in this
6 town are obviously a huge deal. That's why a
7 lot of people are here.
8 And I'd also like to bring to light wind

9 towers or none, they are going to change, I've
10 heard the number 20 years a few times in this
11 meeting, so let's say 20 years, things are
12 going to be different here. There's -- I

13 challenge you to count the number of farms
14 now, and in 20 years it's not going to be
15 nearly the same. And all this land, which
16 might be helped to be preserved as the

17 farmland now with wind -- income from wind
18 towers would maybe be brushland, which would
19 cause the effect that was just brought up of
20 hedges and stuff anyways because there

21 wouldn't be anything to look at.
22 So there's -- there's aesthetic effects
23 both ways because of the agricultural economy
24 right now that will not last the way it is.

25 Thank you.

315-436-7775
001289
120
1 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: Let me know if you want

2 to come up, we'll be here. Otherwise we're
3 just going to chat among ourselves or
4 whatever.
5 (A recess was taken from 11:35 AM until
6 12:00 PM.)
7 CHAIRMAN EDSALL: We are adjourned. This
8 record will remain open until June 15th for

9 written comment. Thank you all for
10 participating. Have a great day.
11 (The proceeding was concluded at 12:00 PM.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

315-436-7775
001290
121
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 I, SALLYANNE B. MAIORANO, Registered Merit

5 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified CART
6 Provider, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public in
7 and for the State of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I
8 attended the foregoing proceedings, took stenographic notes

9 of the same, that the foregoing, consisting of 120 pages, is
10 a true and correct copy of same and the whole thereof.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 _________________________________________
20 SALLYANNE B. MAIORANO, RMR, CRR, CCP, CSR

21
22
23 Dated: April 2, 2007
24
25

315-436-7775
001291
1. This draft response by the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board is
based on material contained in the S1. Lawrence Wind DEIS,
comments made at the public hearing (March 24,2007), and
comments made during the public comment period ending
6/15/2007.
2. The March 24,2007 hearing was the first of 3 public hearings that will
be held on the S1. Lawrence Wind environmental review process.
Each of the remaining public hearings will include a public comment
period. After the next public hearing (date is not yet determined), the
pubHc wHl be aUowed to comment on all documents rece\ved as part
of the DEIS and on any supplementary documents submitted as well.
3. This response does not preclude the Planning Board from requiring
additional studies, documents, or information from S1. Lawrence
Wind in the future.
4. The Planning Board requires that S1. Lawrence Wind redo the map
showing tower locations to conform to the following criteria:
A. No tower is to be c'oser than 1,000 feet to a non-participating
property line.
B. No tower is to be closer than 1,250 feet to a non-participating
residence.
C. No tower is to be closer than 750 feet to a participating
residence.
D. No tower is to be closer than 1,500 feet to the Village of Cape
Vincent line.
The new map is to be submitted to the Planning Board and to all of
the 'ocations where the DE'S is 'ocated.
5. S1. Lawrence Wind will respond to all comments submitted by the

N.Y. State DEC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.Y. Public Service
Commission, N.Y. Ag and Markets, and N.Y. State Historic
Preservation Office that have been submitted during the public
001292
comment period ending 611512007. S1. Lawrence Wind will submit a
copy of this correspondence to the Planning Board.
6. St. Lawrence Wind is to indicate on their new map the \ocation of the
transmission lines inside and outside of the project area. The map
will need to show whether the lines are above ground or below
ground. If below ground, the depth of the lines will need to be
indicated. The map wiH need to show \ine capacity, size of lines,
height of lines, material of lines, and any other pertinent specifics.
The map will also have to show the specifics of any towers and the
tower placement. This new map will also need to be submitted to the
Planning Board and to all of the locations where the DEIS is located.
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. St.
Lawrence Wind is to send this correspondence to British Petroleum
via certified return receipt mail. A copy of the St. Lawrence Wind
letter, certified receipt, and any response by British Petroleum are to
be submitted to the Planning Board.
7. A revised visual impact study will need to be done based on the new
project map_ This revised visual impact study is to include at least 2
locations from the waters of Lake Ontario inland and 3 locations from
the waters of the St. Lawrence River inland. There is to be an
additional location taken from on the water in the vicinity of the
Tibbets Point Lighthouse focusing downriver. Another such location
is to be taken from the Cedar Point State Park area while on the
water looking back toward the Tibbets Point Lighthouse. Further
explanation of the visual study methodology will need to be submitted
to substantiate the study.
8. Background ambient sound levels will need to be done to accurately

measure the entire project and the Village of Cape Vincent. The
background ambient sound measurements submitted need to be
located so as to include commercial and pleasure watercraft on the
river as well. These background ambient sound levels are to include
001293
measurements taken both during daytime and nighttime hours.
Study methodology will need to be submitted to substantiate the
study.
9. A revised shadow flicker study map is to be prepared using the new

project map and submitted accordingly.
10. Wetland delineation studies need to be done and wetland locations

shown on the project map.
11. St Lawrence Wind will need to meet with the Cape Vincent Fire
Department and work out an emergency fire and ambulance
response plan. This plan will need to be submitted accordingly.
12. A traffic/transportation pJan will need to be created and submitted

accordingly.
13. An evaluation of bedrock geology needs to be included. See

attached letter from Kris Dimmick, P.E. of Bernier}Carr &
Associates, P.C.
The following items are not part of the SEQRA process but are issues
raised in the comment letters and will also need to be addressed as part of
any site plan review approval process:
14. A storm water poUution prevention plan and soH erosion control plan
will need to be prepared for appropriate agency approval as part of
the site plan review approval process. All necessary permits will
need to be in place prior to any construction.
001294
15. A plan to protect the existing roads and bridges will need to be
submitted as part of the site plan review approval process. A
development agreement must be In place and shan Include the
necessary fiduciary arrangements between 81. Lawrence Wind and
the involved governmental authorities.
16. S1. Lawrence Wind will need to address potential impacts of this
project on potable wells in the project construction area as part of the
site plan review approval process. 81. Lawrence Wind will have to
submit a plan that outlines the process to protect these wells both
during and at completion of the construction process.
17. Concerns by some of the public over injury to non-residents of the

project property may be addressed by a site plan review approval
requirement that all property in the project be posted against any
and all public access. All access roads entered from a public road
wHl need to be gated. The exemption to the gating of these
access roads would require a legal document that is between the
land owner and 81. Lawrence Wind that clearly exempts a specific
access road from the gating requirement.
18. Concerns about turbine placement in areas of karst geology will

need to be addressed through geo-technical studies after the final
turbine layout is approved.
19. Turbine is an area that still needs to be

addressed by 81. Lawrence Wind.
001295
BERNIER CARR &
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
June 28, 2007
327 MULLIN STREET
WATERTOWN 1 360 I
TEL. 315 782 8130
FAX 315 782 7192
MACH ARCHITECTURE + Mr. Richard Edsall

ENGINEERING P.C.
Planning Board Chairman
5500 MAIN STREIT
SUITE 347
Town of Cape Vincent
WI!...LIAI'1SVILLE NY 1422 I 119 S. Real Street
TEL. 716 565 I 349
FA/. 716565 1389
P.O. Box 911
Cape Vincent, New York 13618
BERNIER CARR &
ASSOCIATES, P.C. Re: Town of Cape Vincent
526 OLD LIVERPOOL ROAD
St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project Review
SUrTE 9
L,VERPOOL NY 13088 Project No.: 2006-167
TEL. 3 I 5 434 9222
FAX 3 I 5 434 9229
Dear Mr. Edsall:
WWW.THEBCGROUP.COM
As was discussed at the Planning Board meeting of June 27,2007, Bernier, Carr &
Associates, P.C. recommends that the applicant, St. Lawrence Wind, include an
FOUNOI,'IG PARTNERS
evaluation of the bedrock geology in their project definition, as well as in the
JAMES T BERN1ER. P. E
Environmental Impact Analysis. The level of detail of analysis needs to be
PAUL G, CARR, PH.D., P.E
commensurate with this stage of an environmental review. This analysis should also
identify potential impacts and mitigating measures that will be implemented during the
JOSEPH L. THE5IER, P.E. site and foundation design. This work is critical to maintain suitable foundations for future
BERNARD H. BROWI'!, A.I.A. turbine towers, as well as to protect and maintain any regional geologic and
RICK W. TAGUE, A.I.A. hydrogeologic conditions of the karst geology present in the area.
PAMELA S. BEYOR, A.I.A.
MICHAEL H.A.RRIS, A.I.A. We understand there is a significant literature base of this information. Remote sensing
ROBERT J. CAI"iPANY, P. E methods have been developed, which can be used on a site-specific basis which would
KRIS 0, DlrV;f'.1ICI<., P. E
gather data suitable for analysis at this time. Prudent foundation evaluation will result in
MICHAEL F PeCK, P.L.S.
site-specific geotechnical investigations at each confirmed foundation site. Our challenge
ROBI!'l R. MACi-l, A.I,A.
during the SEQR review is to identify the potential impacts now which will limit tower
GERALD A. KOSTYK, P.L.S.
locations within sensitive areas of the karst geology.
MARl L. CECIL, A.I.A., C.S.I.
We trust this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss this
MICI,\EY G. LEHMAN, P.E.
matter further.
DOUGLAS D. SCHAEFER, A.I.A.
'
GREGORY A. TOtIlSIC, A.I.A., P.L.S.
BERNIER
CARR
2: :im:ci2°:
Vice President of Municipal Engineering
1:\Projecls\2006-000\2006-167.(T)CapeVincent\Corresp\Owner\ltrs-memo-transmit\Edsall. 062807.doc
KDD:dih
Cc: Planning Board Members - Town of Cape Vincent
MACH File
001296
001297
001298
001299
001300
001301

ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS II

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ST. Lawrence Wind DEIS II

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

St.

Lawrence Wind Project - Historic Architecture Survey, 2006 ID: 339

Buildings on river not

4/1 storms on porch

Windows 6/6 double

Mix of ages needs

6/1 windows, boathouse

Wood Dairy -- very

Foundation only visible

Commercial store front

Might be older because

Collapsed barn across

Foundation not visible

Abandoned silo near

Rear addition has Queen

Stone barn and stone

2 story Bay St.

Scroll work in gable

Scroll work on porch

2/2 on 1st fl 1/1 above

Foundation looks like

Garage part of addition

Small stone outbuilding

Small stone outbuilding

Barn no nearby house

Foundation not visible

Window caps and

CORPORATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE

CEQR Technical Manual Revisions

CEQR Project Review

Long-Range Planning/GEIS Analysis, Energy Facility Siting

High Line (Linear Urban Park) – Historic Resource Consultation

Consultant Procurement & Contract Negotiation/Oversight/Procurement

URS Corporation (August 2001 – August 2004)

Times Square Station Historic Resource Study (New York City)

Client: Metropolitan Transit Authority / New York City Transit

Client: New Jersey School Construction Corporation (Public Authority)

Client: United States Postal Service

Dulles Airport Expansion EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) – Loudoun County, VA

FEMA Seismic Decision-Making Guidelines for Historic Buildings

Milton, Pennsylvania - Hazard Mitigation Plan

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement – Virginia, Maryland & Washington DC

Client: Federal Highways Administration

Statewide Historic Bridges Context – Post-1945 (Maryland)

Client: Maryland State Highways Administration

Client: FPL Energy LLP

Client: District of Columbia - Office of Chief Technology Officer / Jacobs-Sverdrup Engineers

County-wide Historic Resource Survey (Loudoun County, VA)

Client: Loudoun County Department of Planning

CG Consultants (June 1999 – July 2001)

Client: Gensler / Baldwin Historic Properties

Client: Wiss Janney Elsner Engineers / Baldwin Historic Properties

Client: Consour Townsend Envirodyne (CTE) Engineers/ Chicago Park District

Client: Archdiocese of Chicago

Architectural Historian, 2006-present

Darien Historical Society, 2005-present. Consultant on reinterpretation of the Bates-Scofield House

Contributor/Photographer, AIA Guide to New York City (4th edition), 1999.

Cultural Resources Lead, 2006

Cultural Resources Lead, 2006

Cultural Resources Lead, 2005

Cultural Resources Lead, 2005

Cultural Resources Lead

Cultural Resources Lead