wpeg article 78 schneider affidavit 24dec10

8/8/2019 WPEG article 78 SCHNEIDER AFFIDAVIT 24DEC10

1/49

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF JEFFERSON

_____________________________________________

WIND POWER ETHICS GROUP

Petitioner-Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OFCLIFFORD P. SCHNEIDER

against -

PLANNING BOARD OF THE Index No. 10-2882TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT, andRICHARD EDSALL, TOM RIENBECK,GEORGE MINGLE, ANDREW BINSLEY, andKAREN BOURCY, in their capacities asplanning board members,

Respondents-Defendants, and

ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER, LLC,

Respondents-Defendant

________________________________________________

CLIFFORD P. SCHNEIDER being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I live at 1560 Vincent Street, Cape Vincent, New York and I have lived there

since October 2000. Previously I lived at 163 So. James Street, Cape Vincent, NY from

1970.

2. From January 1 through December 31, 2006 I served as a councilman on the

Cape Vincent Town Board. During that period I was able to observe first-hand wind

development issues affected our community, and how town officials dealt with the issue


2/49

interest has been zoning, noise and property value issues related to the wind issue.

4. I have been a member of the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) since

November 2009.

5. On February 5 and 6, 2010 Cape Vincent Planning Board members attended

with the Town's wind law committee a two-day instructional seminar on sound by

William Elliot, an acoustic engineer with Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA), the

Planning Board's acoustic consultants for the board's review of the SLW project

proposal. Mr. Elliot also assisted the committee in their deliberations on the noise

component to a proposed local law regulating wind projects (although the local law was

never finalized and acted on). I attended these sessions as an observer along with many

other Cape Vincent residents.

6. At these sessions CTA outlined their concerns regarding SLW's methodology

for estimating background sound being developed by SLW's acoustic consultant David

M. Hessler. CTA used Hessler's data to estimate 25 dBA is generally the level of

background sound in Cape Vincent compared to Hessler's estimation of 37 dBA. (dBA

denotes an A filter applied to measured sound pressure to mimic the frequencies at the

center of human hearing.)

7. On February 9, 2010, shortly after the CTA seminar, I wrote the Planning

Board advising them if CTA's recommendations regarding noise assessment were

ignored, turbines proposed for the SLW project would be placed substantially closer to


3/49

provide the Planning Board with additional materials related to the noise issue. Based on

this work, Attorney Abraham prepared a letter August 13, 2010 outlining WPEG's

concerns about deficiencies in the SLW noise assessment, then available as part of a Draft

Environmental Impact Assessment. The Abraham letter attaches a letter from Dr. Paul

Schomer, dated April 23, 2010, and a copy of a presentation on the noise issue CTA made

to the Cape Vincent Wind Law Committee on May 1, 2010. I have attached hereto a true

and accurate copy of the letter and attachments as Exhibit B.

9. Earlier in the year the Planning Board and the Town's wind law committee

had jointly developed a complaint resolution plan to address problems that may arise with

the operation of a wind farm in Cape Vincent.

10. However, in early August 2010 I became aware that the Planning Board was

considering an alternative complaint resolution plan proposed by SLW, which now

appears in the SLW FEIS. See CR 4922-4924. I became concerned that the SLW proposal

was far less stringent than the joint wind law committee Planning Board proposal.

11. On August 16, 2010 I visited the Cape Vincent Town office to deliver

information on the town Complaint Resolution Plan, which I asked be made part of the

record of the Planning Board's review of the SLW project. I have attached a true and

accurate copy of my submittal hereto as Exhibit C.

12. When visiting the town office on August 16, I also saw that Mr. Abraham's

August 13 letter and attachments had arrived via FedEx overnight in the Town


4/49

number of items that were related to the SLW wind project application. I have also

reviewed a video of the meeting, attached hereto as Exhibit D, in .wmv format on DVD

(this can be viewed by most Windows or Apple computers), and based on the video

record I later transcribed what was said by Edsall as he reviewed and sorted the Board's

mail.

14. As Chairman Edsall began sorting he commented to the Board secretary,

Start a file for correspondence we don't know what to do with. Edsall identified letters

from Tim Conboy (SLW), Tom Jolliff, contact people for SLW, Don Metzger and others.

See Exhibit D at 40:00 minutes.

15. Near the end of Edsall's mail sorting he opened a FedEx envelope and said,

We have here from the law office of Gary Abraham August 15 for St. Lawrence Wind;

throw it in the file we are not paying attention to because it is outside the comment

period. See Exhibit D, at approx. 50:00.

16. During the meeting's comment period, I asked Chairman Edsall why he and

the Planning Board had allowed SLW to include material outside the comment period in

the FEIS, but not include other materials from the public. Chairman Edsall then stood up,

stopped the discussion, adjourned the meeting and waved me and others out of the

meeting room. See Exhibit D, at 1:12:30.

17. As I left I told Edsall, That's one-sided, you cut off this stuff and you allow

the other stuff from the consultant. Your showing your bias and you're showing your


5/49


6/49

20. The brief time Planning Board members actually discussed the merits of the

SLW project is consistent with the heavy-handed manner in which Chairman Edsall has

conducted all board meetings where there was business or public comments regarding the

project. For example, Edsall has consistently refused to consider written and oral

comments on the SLW project submitted to the Planning Board throughout the last half of

2009 and 2010, asserting that such submissions are beyond the formal public comment

period on the Supplemental Draft EIS, which ended May 30, 2009. See CR 3617-3618.

However, extensive changes in the project proposal have occurred since then the public

has not had an opportunity to comment on, and the board itself has developed a growing

understanding of the noise issue based on presentations and substantial additional

information provided by its environmental consultants.

21. Chairman Edsall has also kept important things out of the record of the board's

review of the SLW project, such as the record CTA's May 2010 slide presentation to the

board outlining its objections to the SLW noise assessment

22. I believe his stubborn refusal to consider comments and concerns from the

public, and to include important documentation about the potential impacts of the SLW

project that was put before the Planning Board, reflects Chairman Edsall's deep bias in

favor of the project so he can benefit from a seemingly unrelated wind power project

proposed in Cape Vincent by BP Alternatives, a/k/a BP Wind Energy North America Inc.,


7/49

General, and more fully discussed in WPEG's reply brief submitted in the above-

captioned matter. The BP disclosure, updated in October and attached hereto as Exhibit F,

shows that Edsall and his wife entered into lucrative lease agreements with BP for use of

their land in Cape Vincent in 2005. The disclosure is publicly available today on internet

at .

23. Early in the SLW review process Edsall led the Planning Board in insisting

that SLW and BP share a common transmission line, ostensibly to minimize impacts of

the two projects. See CR 3699-3700, 3851, 4332.

24. Edsall's bias in favor of wind project development in Cape Vincent has been

obvious to the public and frequently reported on in the local press. For example, on

August, 4, 2005, at the first public hearing on wind development in Cape Vincent, it was

reported that Edsall stated, "It (wind development) would allow these farmers to stay in

business, if they get two or three windmills on their land, they can pay the taxes on the

land. I didn't say it's the best idea, but it makes sense." Watertown Daily Times, WIND

TURBINE BENEFITS SWAY MANY IN TOWN, August 5, 2005.

25. A month later, on September 7, 2005, Richard and Virginia Edsall signed

their first wind lease with Greenlight Energy, which was later acquired by BP Alternative

Energy. Total annual payments for the Edsall family under the leases are $45,211.00. See

Exhibit F.


8/49

6, 2006.

27. It was also reported that at the April 12, 2006 Planning Board meeting, Mr.

Edsall wants to permit turbine development in the town's agricultural/residential zone,

with no setback stipulation, and to ban development in the riverfront and lakefront

district. . . . Mr. Edsall made his suggestion again Wednesday, but not, he said, as the

planning board chairman. He petitioned to be included on the board's agenda as a private

citizen and representative of a community group that has met monthly to discuss wind

turbine issues. Watertown Daily Times, AIRING CONCERNS, April 13, 2006.

28. On July 11, 2007, Mr. Edsall and the Planning Board wrote to SLW with a

list of comments and requirements for the SLW project. CR 57. Among the requirements

is the following: There is to be only one transmission line leaving the wind turbine

projects from the Town of Cape Vincent. Therefore, St. Lawrence Wind is to

communicate with British Petroleum to this effect that both companies must work

together on the transmission line. CR 59 (item 6).

29. The New York State Office of Attorney General's Code of Conduct

Agreement applies only to wind development companies, not public officials. The

Agreement is available today on the AG's website at . However, the agreement seeks to prohibit the

kind of conduct Edsall appears to be involved in, indirectly promoting one wind

company's development from which he and wife would directly benefit by insisting that


9/49


10/49


11/49

EXHIBIT A

Clifford Schneider, letter to Richard Edsall, dated February 9, 2010


12/49


13/49

EXHIBIT B

Gary A. Abraham, Esq., letter to Richard Edsall, dated August 13, 2010


14/49

LAW OFFICE OF GARY A. ABRAHAM

170 No. Second Street [email protected]

Allegany, New York 14706 www.garyabraham.com

716-372-1913; fax is same (please call first)

August 13, 2010

Mr. Richard Edsall - ChairmanTown of Cape Vincent Planning Board

1964 NYS Rte. 12E

Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Re: St. Lawrence Wind Farm Proposed Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

Dear Mr. Edsall:

I am writing on behalf Wind Ethics Power Group regarding the Planning Board's reviewprocedures governing the above-referenced project proposal.

Acciona has provided the board with a proposed FEIS noting, in Section 1, that several newstudies have been included for which the board has afforded no public review, or review by involved

agencies. These new supplemental materials include a Supplemental Wetland Delineation Information

and Wetland Mitigation Plan; a 2009 Pre-Construction Grassland and Sensitive Bird Species Study;a Biological Assessment; a Final Shadow Flicker Analysis; Final Noise Modeling Assessment; a

Final Off-Air TV Station Assessment; a Transportation Route Evaluation Study; a Transmission

Line Engineering Concept Report; a Wildlife Protection Plan; a Residential Well Study and

Mitigation Plan; a Draft Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; a Draft Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasure Plan; an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan; a FAA Final Lighting Plan; a

Revised Complaint Resolution Plan; and a Draft Outline of Construction Environmental Monitoring

Plan. (Proposed FEIS, Section 1, p. 2).

Each topic addressed by these supplemental materials has elicited a high degree of interest by

the public or involved agencies, or both. Each topic also includes previously identified substantive orsignificant adverse environmental impacts. It is therefore very appropriate, and it is specifically

authorized by the SEQRA regulations for the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing, limited to

whether for these particular topics, the alternatives or mitigation measures proposed by Acciona are

adequate.1

For example, potential noise impacts have clearly elicited broad public interest in the

i B h h Pl i B d' i l CTA d WPEG' i l


15/49

background sound levels, or the baseline against which wind turbine noise is assessed.

I have enclosed the most recent presentation made by CTA to Cape Vincent's Wind Committee

on May 10, in response to David Hessler's presentation on behalf of Acciona to you. CTA concludesthat when as few as three wind turbines are in a line with respect to a sensitive receptor, in order to

avoid nuisance levels of turbine noise 2,600 feet will be required to separate the receptor from the

nearest turbine. Hessler's method is criticized by CTA for adopting an average to estimate background

sound levels rather than the L90 measure, recommended by NYSDEC.

Even more serious criticisms of Hessler's approach have been submitted to you on behalf ofWPEG, by Dr. Paul Schomer. Dr. Schomer finds Hessler's method of regression based on windspeeds at turbine height simply wrong, and therefore unprofessional. I have enclosed Dr. Schomer's

April 23 letter to Supervisor Hirschey which includes this conclusion.

Dr. Schomer identifies Hessler's disregard of wind shear as the most important factor rendering

his noise assessment unreliable. Wind shear occurs when wind speeds at turbine hub height are

sufficient to operated turbines, but the ground level air mass is still. Under such conditions there is no

masking of wind turbine noise by wind-induced noise at ground level. The worst case scenario thusincludes a wind shear condition, when there can be no masking sound from wind where people live, at

ground level.

The purpose of Acciona's study of background sound levels was to determine what minimum

environmental [background] sound levels are consistently present and available at the nearest

potentially sensitive receptors to mask or obscure potential noise from the Project. (Proposed FEIS,Appendix C-4, Section 2.1). The purpose is unchanged from the previous background sound study

submitted with the DEIS, to determine how much natural masking sound there might be - as a

function of wind speed - at the nearest residences to the Project. (Hessler,Noise Impact Assessment,October 22, 2008, p. 1). As both CTA and Dr. Schomer have recognized, this artificial restriction in the

purpose of the study cannot be justified by any known standards for assessing community noise. For

example, Hessler states that the primary basis for this approach is NYSDEC guidance,Assessing and

Mitigating Noise Impacts (2001), (id.), but nowhere in the NYSDEC guidance is there any mention thatwind sound masks project noise.

More importantly, the assumption on which the restricted scope of the Acciona study is basedthat wind noise will provide natural masking of wind turbine noisehas been conclusively refuted

by the leading study of wind turbine noise by van den Berg, and several subsequent studies and

literature reviews in the field of acoustics confirm van den Berg's findings.2 Thus, the methodologyutilized in Acciona's study is unprofessional, and clearly against the weight of relevant empirical


16/49

research.

Van den Berg found that wind shear occurred 47% of the time at a wind farm, based on

measurements every half-hour for one year, and this occurred more often at night.3 The worst casescenario thus includes a wind shear condition at night, when there is no masking sound from wind

where people live, at ground level. Acciona's new supplemental sound assessment fails to address the

worst case scenario and is completely unresponsive to CTA's and Dr. Schomer's criticism of Acciona's

masking sound approach to estimating background sound level.

A more realistic prediction of background sound level in a worst case scenario would look atlight wind conditions during the night in wintertime, when there is no background insect noise. Hesslerhas previously acknowledged that the mean sound level in a light 3 m/s wind was found to be about

29 dBA, which is extremely quiet, during the winter. (Hessler, Noise Impact Assessment, October 22,

2008, p. 4). Because wind shear will occur more than half the time at night, higher wind speeds willoccur, operating large wind turbines, while light winds prevail below. The result will be that some

people will experience sleep disturbance, an intolerable impact. See NYSDEC,Assessing andMitigating Noise Impacts at 15 (sound levels over 20 dBA higher than background are very

objectionable to intolerable).

Because Acciona's study is unprofessional, and the assumptions on which its scope is based are

clearly against the weight of relevant empirical research, any reliance on the study is unreasonable andcannot be supported by evidence.

3 Frits van den Berg, The sounds of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound andmicrophone noise (Diss., Univ.Groningen 2006) at 96, available at . See also id. at 81, 85, 142. See also C. J. Bajdek,

Communicating the Noise Effects of Wind Farms to Stakeholders at 2, Proceedings of NOISE-CON (Reno,Nevada 2007), available at (While somecurrent methods attempt to determine the level of masking provided by vegetation noise, those methodsassume that the spectral shape of the turbine noise is similar to that of the ambient noise and that the

temporal fluctuation of background noise is limitedconditions that are often difficult to meet.); G.Kamperman and R. R. James, Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks, 117Proceedings of NOISE-CON 2008 (Dearborn, Michigan 2008) at 7, available at (The most glaring fault with this argument [that the wind noise masks the turbines sound immissions] is

shown during the frequent nighttime conditions with a stable atmosphere when the wind turbines generate the

maximum electricity and noise while the wind at ground level is calm and the background noise level is low.


17/49


18/49

!"#


19/49

$

% #&

'()!!

*()+'#

$ &,% ##'

*&

!

"# $

%&'()*+,-./

(+('0('!1&"233(


20/49

%&45.+.#62#,72,"##).8)95.+:)

8"273)%;(


21/49

$ *-./-.&

###012)

!#-#.

$ 2)##

!'2)

$ !3&'4#

&

:+!!$+


22/49

:+!!$+

$


23/49

$ 2)#!

#0#

##

$ #

:+!!$+


24/49

!

$ :&5% '#

%9'

'''-'!&!.

$ ##% 5;&!'&'&

&&6!*

7869

% '*!()#'

&

% 5!()#'&

#&

:+!!=+)(


25/49

!

>1

$ *#

&'!&'

!'''&

$ '''1#'2)2


26/49

!

>1

$ 6#!&*&

##

$ &4

#&'#&

% &()#'&

% &5&

*

!


27/49

!:+!?

2#.:

+,@

))

=)

2))

2=)

>))

>=)

?))

?=)

? ?<


28/49

!

:+!?

!

!"

"#

#$

$%

%&

&

!"#$%

&

' '

())(*#(*#


29/49

!

:+!?A0B

$ !

2)>#-.

$ '>@>'-B).

$ #'@/

$ @&&

#&

% 5&-

.E?A

% &-

.E?> $&

2#(0

C+

=+&"7#(0

3+


30/49

!

:+!?A0B

$ F

#!2)>#

-.

$ '>@>'-B).

$ #'@/

$ @&&

#&

% 5&-

.E?A

% &-

.E?>

$&

"C##(0

C+

=+&;##(0

3+


31/49

!

:+!?A0B

$ &'#'*#

#!'##

% #&

&


32/49

April 23, 2010

Mr. Urban Hirschey Supervisor

Town of Cape Vincent1964 NYS Rte 12E


Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

This letter is my response to Mr. David Hessler's April 14, 2010 presentation to the Cape Vincent

Planning Board regarding my report, Background sound measurements and analysis in the vicinity of

Cape Vincent, New York.

Mr. Hessler continues to ignore important facts. Specifically, he:

1. Mixes winter and summer wind speed versus ambient sound level together as if the sameprocesses governed both seasons,

2. Continues to reject Site 4 data because they are too quiet.Consider winter. Mr. Hessler examines the ambient when the wind at 10 m is thought to be about 7 m/s

and shows (Hesslers BP winter study Figure 2.5.5) that about 80 % of the ambient data are louder than

37 dB with few data that are greatly quieter.1

This indicates that in winter when the winds (at 10 m) areabout 7 m/s that the wind turbine can produce up to 43 dB at an affected property and be in compliance

with the New York State guideline. But that is all it shows. It cannot necessarily be extrapolated to

other wind speeds, and it definitely cannot be extrapolated to summer. Consider Figure 2.5.5 at 4 m/s.Here, about 80 % of the ambient data exceed 20 dB. So in winter, when the wind is 4 m/s, the turbine

noise at an affected property must be less than 26 dB in order to comply with NYSDEC policy of 6 dBabove background sound levels. Nowhere is this shown to be the case.

In summer, Hessler uses the winter ambient noise versus wind speed relation to predict the summerambient even though, as Cavanaugh-Tocci has correctly noted, the summer data exhibit virtually no

correlation between ambient sound level and wind speed. And, indeed, there is none. The summerdata are dominated by insect noise, a high frequency noise that cannot and does not mask the low-

frequency wind-turbine noise. Even more importantly, regularly and frequently, especially at night, the

l i b i d d d l i d i d b H l b k d l l I i i l


33/49

noise while at the same time there is no masking wind noise at ground level.

How often does this condition occur? At the InterNoise2009 conference last August, the one Hesslermentions in his presentation, I chaired a session in which a paper was presented that contained factual

data showing that this condition, strong winds at hub height and zero winds at 10 m, occurs almostevery other night during the warmer weather months at Cape Vincentalmost every other night.

How loud is it? As Hessler stated during the recent hearing:

Now turbine sound level varies with wind and weather conditions and time of day, no question

about that. In particular, at night, wind tends to blow up above while calmer near the ground;

the curvature of the shear profile is pretty slanted, so the top of the blades are in high wind and

the bottom of the blades are in lower wind. That causes them to make a kind of churning noise,most often it happens at night. So, levels are going to vary, some time it's going to be com-

pletely inaudible and other times temporarily rather loud, it's just the way wind turbines are.

Rather loud means louder than predicted; louder than the permitted 43 dB(A). How much louder?

The wind turbine manufacturers do not measure itperhaps 5 to 10 dB.

What is the bottom line? During warm-weather months, almost every other night, the ambient, as weand Hessler both measured, will be about 25 dB(A). At the same time the wind turbine can be

producing on the order of 50 dB. Rather than the permitted 6 dB increase, the true increase will be

about 25 dB, and this huge increase may occur almost every other night.

People will be very unhappyand rightfully so.

Paul Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.Member, Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering


34/49

EXHIBIT C

Clifford Schneider, letter to Richard Edsall, dated August 16, 2010


35/49

August 16, 2010

Mr. Richard Edsall Chairman

Cape Vincent Planning Board

Town of Cape Vincent

1964 NYS Rte. 12E


Dear Mr. Edsall:

I have attached for your review and to be part of the record the complaint resolution

section of the 2010 draft wind law that you and other members of the Planning Board

helped formulate earlier this year. I thought you should compare what you and the

board drafted with Acciona's Complaint Resolution Plan (FEIS, Appendix C-11). They are

not even comparable.

I suggest that you recommend Acciona adopt the Complaint Resolution Plan that our

community drafted and not the wind industry friendly variety Acciona hopes you will

accept.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Clifford Schneider

PO Box 165



36/49

J. Complaint Resolution Process

(Excerpt from Cape Vincent Wind Committees 2010 Draft Wind Law)

Complaints from the Public will be addressed in the following manner:

All complaints shall be directed to the Applicant/Operator and responded to by the

Applicant/Operator or his duly authorized representative within five (5) calendar days

after receipt of such complaint. The Applicant/Operator shall keep a log of any such

complaints received, which log shall be reviewable by the Town Code Enforcement

Officer upon request.

If the complaint includes the character or quality of the wind turbine sound, then any

subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal,

and/or temporal nature of the wind turbine sound prompting the complaint.

Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be

subsequently directed to the Town Engineer for investigation, and any such

investigation shall be undertaken with the full cooperation of the Applicant/Operator.

In addition, the Applicant/Operator will shut down and Wind Turbines as may be

needed to properly assess noise impacts. The operating data including wind speed and

direction, turbine output, and rotation speed for adjacent turbines shall be available

upon request.

Testing shall commence within ten (10) working days of the report of the initial

investigation. If testing cannot be initiated within ten (10) days (exceptions granted for

lack of stable atmospheric conditions), the wind turbine(s) causing the complaint shall

be shut down until the testing can be started. Testing shall compare actual sound

measurements at property line of complainant with and without turbine operation to

confirm operation complies with sound limits established in Article 3, E3. Sound

Regulations.

A copy of the test results shall be sent to the complainant and the Town within thirty

(30) days of test completion.

After the investigation, if the Town reasonably concludes that operational violation of

any applicable permit conditions or modeled sound levels are shown to be caused by

the Wind Energy Facility, the licensee/operator/owner shall use reasonable efforts to

mitigate such problems. These reasonable efforts include such measures as temporary

cessation of operation.

C i d l i f h l d ill i ddi i l i i i l


37/49

Excerpt from 2010 Draft Wind Law

4. Compliance Survey Protocol for dealing with noise complaints.

Within three (3) months after a wind energy facility becomes operational, acompliance survey shall be conducted by the Town and funded by the applicantand/or operator. The following list of steps outlines the procedure:

a. Sound sensitive sites shall be selected based upon the model used for site plan approval.

b. Sound levels shall be measured at a non-participant property line that is closest to thenearest wind turbine, but at least 25 ft away from buildings and 50 ft. away from roads,driveways, power lines, or any other potential sources of man-made noise.

The A-weighted and C-weighted Leq sound levels shall be use to assess compliance. Inaddition, L90, and L10 levels shall also be collected.

c. Data collection shall occur on any weekday dates (barring holidays). Measurements shall

be made in accordance with the parameters established by the Planning Board and itsconsultants. Additional compliance surveying and monitoring may be required at thediscretion of the acoustical sub-consultant if conditions vary. The actual hub wind speedand power output shall be provided. Compliance surveys are valid only when the fournearest wind turbines arealloperating within the test parameters.

d. Data recording sound level meters shall be used that comply with ANSI or IEC standardsfor Type I meters, and the meters should be placed on the ground in accordance with IEC61400-11. Microphone wind screens shall be used for all measurements in accordancewith best recommendations of the sound level meter's manufacturer.

e. Recording anemometers shall be placed adjacent to each sound level meter 4-5 ft. aboveground and approximately 25 ft. from the meters.

f. Data collection should include a series of continuous 10-minute samples for at least 1hour with the highest, valid 10-minute LeqA and LeqC levels from the same 10 minuteinterval used to define the wind energy facilitys operating sound. Observations mustconfirm that the highest LeqA and LeqC sound levels measured are not influenced by non-wind turbine noise sources. These levels will then be compared to the sound levelspredicted by the computer model at that location.

g. Other technical procedures should generally comply with ISO 1996 standards.


38/49

EXHIBIT D

Video recording of the September 8, 2010 meeting of the Planning Board

(.wmv format on DVD)


39/49

EXHIBIT E

Table prepared by Clifford Schneider, Summary of Cape VincentPlanning Board Minutes


40/49

Summary of Cape Vincent Planning Board Minutes (CR 39- CR99)

Grey shaded entries represent Planning Board minutes that are missing from thecertified record.

MEETING

DATE CR# DISCUSSION SUMMARY

11/08/06 CR 39 SLW manager overview of project. Planning Board Chairman

(PBC) outlines the process.

12/13/06 CR 41 PB votes to be lead agency for SLW and makes positivedeclaration on SEQRA.

01/10/07 CR 44 PBC outlines process going forward with SLW.

01/17/07 CR 46 No SLW discussion.

01/24/07 CR 48 PB sets time for public hearing on SLW DEIS.

02/14/07 No SLW discussion.




06/27/07 CR 53 PBC Edsall instructs SLW manager Hopper to read all the public

comments from the hearing. More procedural instructions

from PBC.

07/11/07 CR 55 PB approves recommendations (CR 57 and CR 5630) to SLW

resulting from public hearing on 3/24/07.


09/12/07 CR 65 SLW applies for another test tower permit.


10/17/07 CR 67 SLW test tower permit discussion.

11/14/07 CR 68 SLW test tower permit discussion.




41/49

MEETING


04/09/08 CR 84 SLW responds to 3/12/08 letter from PB.






10/08/08 Summary letter from Bernier Carr on sound level study given to

PB members.



01/14/09 SLW had business to discuss .with the board. PB tells SLW

they need to submit letter requesting 12-month extension ontest tower permits.

02/11/09 CR 85 SLW requests permit extensions for test towers. PBC and

Mathes advise SLW that further documentation needed for

SDEIS.


03/25/09 CR 87 Mathes is present and reviews SLW process. PB accepts theSDEIS as adequate for review and sets a public hearing.




07/08/09 CR 88 Public comments from SDEIS hearing now available on disc for

review. PBC Edsall informs SLW for their consultants to contactlandowners when working on their property.




42/49

MEETING





03/10/10 CR 90 Letter (no copy in CR) from SLW requesting time to make

presentation on turbine noise. Board agrees to 4/14/10 date.

04/14/10 David Hessler, consultant to SLW gives lengthy presentation to

the board on wind turbine sound assessment.. Edsall

introduces presentation with, Town hired consultant and

consultant gave a presentation. There is a project before the

PB, St. Lawrence Wind, they would like to address their

interpretation of the sound and sound measurements..

Purpose of that meeting tonight is to give them an

opportunity... consider them the plaintiffs, they want to

present their case. For their purposes we are going to listen totheir explanation, politely, and the questions are going to be

restricted in the interest of time to get through the whole thing

to members of the committee and the town board. Questions

from the public were not allowed by PBC Edsall.

05/12/10 Tim Conboy introduces himself to the PB as SLW's new project

manager.


07/14/10 PBC Edsall outlines steps in the upcoming meetings to accept

SLW FEIS and requests public notices be placed in papers.

08/11/10 CR 92 SLW requests permit for test tower.

08/18/10 Special meeting of PB that accepted and designated SLW FEIS

as complete and ready for review and acceptance. Following is

a summary of a video recording of the meeting: Mathes asks

for questions. PB Binsley asks to change wells for drinking as

domestic wells since you can't drink the water in these wells.

PBC Edsall says he agrees and asks about 53 and 51 turbines.

SLW replies one removed to reduce noise the second to protect


43/49

MEETING


votes, motion carried.

09/08/10 Motion passed to accept minutes of 8/18/10special meeting

of the PB, but there is no record of these minutes. PBC opens

and distributes mail to other members of board and places

material directed toward SLW FEIS in Do Nothing file.

09/15/10 CR 94 Special meeting of PB to accept FEIS and issue FINDINGS. PBC

asks Lyme Councilman Bourquin if Town of Lyme had anycomments (Ans. No). PBC asks SLW if they received any

comments from involved agencies (Ans. No). PBC asks Atty

Mathis whether SLW had receipts from distribution of FEIS

(Ans. Yes). Mathes explains 10-day cooling-off period and

issuance of FINDINGS., certifying that SEQRA provisions had

been met.. PBC asks if board members are prepared to adopt

FINDINGS. Rienbeck has questions: 1) strike a duplicate

sentence on page 6, 2) on page 77 CR 6 is not Rosiere Road,

and 3) on page 95 last sentence should say ...followed by SLW.

The PB then had a limited discussion concerning the delivery

routed for wind towers to Cape Vincent. Mathes then read the

resolution to adopt and accept SEQRA FINDINGS. Edsall,

Mingle and Rienbeck approve, Binsley and Bourcy abstain.

10/13/10 CR 99 SLW asks for pre-submission conference to determine what is

needed for site plan review applications. PBC advises meeting

scheduled for 10/27/10.


44/49

EXHIBIT F

BP Wind Energy North America Inc., Financial Interests of MunicipalOfficers/Relatives In Properties Identified by Company for Wind Farm Development

within the last 6 years, dated October 20, 2010


45/49


46/49


47/49

3

Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated projectconfiguration, estimates of energy prices and other factors. The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landownerresponses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new information becomes available.

Name andlocation of Wind

Farm Project

Name ofMunicipal

Officer and/orhis or herRelative

Name ofMunicipality andPosition held (if

a MunicipalOfficer)

Descriptionof Agreement

withCompany

Descriptionof Property

(ParcelNumber)

Nature and Scope ofFinancial Interest in

Property

Annual EstimatedPost Construction

Payments

Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,

Jefferson County,NY

Virginia Edsall,Officer, FrankWorner, III,Lessor

Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- T.I. SchoolBoard, Board

Member Pre2005-present

NY01133 Land Leaseand WindEasement

dated October31, 2005 andamended onJanuary 23,2007

50.00-1-49 Sister to FrankWorner, III, Co-Lessor

$24,000

Cape VincentWind Energy,Cape Vincent andLyme Townships,Jefferson County,NY

Marty T.Mason, Officerand Lessor

Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- Town Board,Councilman, 1994to present

NY01121 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated May 22,2006

50.00-1-4 100% Ownership withCo-Lessor, AnnetteMason

$24,000


Jeri AnnMason, Officer,Marty Masonand AnnetteMason,Lessors

Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- Town Clerk,Clerk, 2008-2010

NY01121 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated May 22,2006

50.00-1-4 Sister to Marty Mason,Co-Lessor

$24,000(Duplicate to

above)


Marty Mason,Officer, NeilMason, Lessor

Town Board,Councilman DPWSuperintendent,2000 to present

NY01124 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated June 8,2006

50.00-1-8 Son of Lessor, NeilMason

$12,000


Marty Mason,Officer, BruceMason, Lessor

Town Board,Councilman DPWSuperintendent,2000 to present

NY01136 Land Leaseand WindEasementdatedNovember 10,2005

50.00-1-9.2 Brother of Lessor,Bruce Mason

$5,000


48/49

4

Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated projectconfiguration, estimates of energy prices and other factors. The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landownerresponses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new information becomes available.

Name andlocation of Wind

Farm Project

Name ofMunicipal

Officer and/orhis or herRelative

Name ofMunicipality andPosition held (if

a MunicipalOfficer)

Descriptionof Agreement

withCompany

Descriptionof Property

(ParcelNumber)


Property


Payments


Jefferson County,NY

DonaldBourquin,Officer, DavidN. Bourquin

and Jeanine E.Bourquin,Lessors

Planning Boardmember, 1/1/06-12/1/09

NY01401 TransmissionOptionAgreement

dated July 18,2008

50.00-2-20.150.00-2-21

Brother to David N.Bourquin, Co-Lessor

$1,200


MarshaBarton, Officerand Lessor

Town of Lyme,Jefferson Co.-Elected Assessor,1/1/87 to present;Town of Lyme,Jefferson Co.-Municipal WaterBoard, Chairman,1/1/05 to present

NY01172 Land Leaseand WindEasementdated June 30,2008

51.00-2-8.5251.00-2-8.551

100% Ownership withCo-Lessor, WilliamBarton

$5,000


AlfredLawrence,Officer andCo-Trustee ofLessor

Town of CapeVincent, JeffersonCo.- AssessmentReview Board,Member, 1999 topresent

NY01139 Land Leaseand WindEasementdatedNovember 28,2005

40.00-1-61.1 Co-Trustee of TheLawrence FamilyRevocable Trust,Trust has 100%Ownership

$5,000


Jefferson County,NY

AudreyLawrence,Officer andCo-Trustee of

Lessor

Jefferson Co.-,Election Inspector,1990 to present

NY01139 Land Leaseand WindEasement

datedNovember 28,2005

40.00-1-61.1 Co-Trustee of TheLawrence FamilyRevocable Trust,Trust has 100%

Ownership

$5,000(Duplicate of

above)


49/49

5

Orion Energy LLC (Company)December 14, 2009

Financial Interests of Municipal Officers/RelativesIn Properties Identified by Company for Wind Farm Development within the last 6 years Post construction payment estimates are estimates only, made based on BP Wind's current assumptions of the anticipated project configuration, estimates of energy prices and other factors.The information on municipal officers and relatives was based on landowner responses to questionnaires sent out in September 2009. We continue to update this information as new informationbecomes available.

Name and location ofWind Farm Project

Name of MunicipalOfficer and/or his or

her Relative

Name of Municipality andPosition held (if aMunicipal Officer)

Description ofAgreement with

Company

Description ofProperty

(Parcel Number)


Property


Payments

Top Notch Wind Farm,Town of Manheim,Herkimer County, New York

James A. Keiper Herkimer County, Chairmanof Zoning Board of Appeals,2000 to present

NY05103- Wind EnergyLease Agreementdated November 11,2004 and amendedNovember 18, 2004

108.003-1-15 100% Ownership withCo-Lessor Deborah K.Keiper

$30,030

wpeg article 78 schneider affidavit 24dec10

Documents