June 22, 2006 DEIS response cover letter

June 22, 2006

Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, New York 14826

Lead Agency for the UPC Cohocton Windmill Power Project

Mr. Chairman and Board Members:

The submission of the enclosed opposition documents in response to the DEIS prepared by Environmental Design & Research for Canandaigua Power Partners LLC (CPP) aka UPC is an unnecessary exercise. While the hope that the Cohocton Planning Board will find the information useful in the ongoing process of community education, the fact exists that UPC does not have a valid project. No application has been filed and no action has been made. Also, it has been represented that the Town of Cohocton, in its freedom of information law response that no agreement, written or oral exists, between UPC and the Town Supervisor and the Board. If this is true, without a clear and specific plan and proposal based upon legitimate zoning authorization, the entire DEIS process is premature. Since Cohocton Windmill Local Law #1 is under the cloud of an Article 78 challenge and the “so called” replacement ordinance Windmill Local Law #2 is under review, the basis for proceeding ahead with a DEIS is superfluous.

The DEIS is incomplete in all areas. It is nothing more than a generic proposal for a wind project with specifics to be determined later. The purpose of a DEIS is review and analysis of actual impacts and the mitigation measures that will be taken by concerned citizens and involved agencies. There are no alternative plans presented or evaluated in the document. There are no significant site specific studies merely generalities and comments. “For purposes of this report”, “wherever possible”, “for the purpose of this DEIS it is assumed” statements abound. The DEIS reads like a high school term paper. Much of the material has been used in several other environmental impact statements in the State.

However, the wealth of scientific data and peer review research that is included in this response should well serve the deliberative investigation that the Cohocton Planning Board has been charged to undertake. It is with sincere intent that the solemn duty of the lead agency will be assisted in that enormous task.

Included is a detailed outline with a point-by point format from the DEIS proposal, consisting of 34 pages and the supplementary documents of 1-461 pages, and this cover letter. Additional supporting documents are included which provide proof and evidence regarding specific aspects in the DEIS. A copy of the Advocates of Prattsburgh response to the Ecogen Prattsburgh/Italy Wind Farm is included since the ownership interests in both projects is the same and the attempt to avoid segmentation issues is so obvious. Also a DVD on the “Voices of Tug Hill” is presented as an illustration of area resident evaluation of life under the canopy of industrial wind turbine zoning. This experience and lessons learned apply to Cohocton and all the UPC “so called” mitigation measures are inadequate to resolve the fundamental deficiencies in the size, scope and scale of the UPC project.

Special thanks in compiling this response to all members and supporters of the community citizen organization Cohocton Wind Watch and Cohocton Free, Rick Bolton, John Bose, Katherine Bush, James and Judith Hall, Jim and Shannon Lince, Terry and Ruthe Matilsky, Dr. William Morehouse, Karl and Bonnie Palmiter, Alice and Saul Sokolow, Gary and Pat Struck, Robert and Michelle Strasburg II, Steve and Hollis Trude, Nancy Wahlstrom, Amy Wolfe. The list is endless and we thank everyone for their input.

Since the time given to respond to this DEIS proposal was so limited, the full range of information wherewith provided could have been expanded. Trust that future DEIS responses will be more extensive.