Cohocton Wind back

Developer:  First Wind
Steuben County, NY

• Project Background
• New York Context
• Siting and Zoning
• Environmental Impact Statement and Public Discourse
• Conclusions
• Bibliography

Project Background top

Cohocton Wind is a 35 turbine wind farm developed by First Wind in Cohocton, New York. The town of Cohocton is in Steuben County, in New York's Southern Tier and Finger Lakes regions. Steuben County has a population of 97,109, or 71 people per square mile. The county has a median household income of $41,192. The turbines used in the Cohocton Wind project are Clipper C-96 2.5 MW models. At their highest, the turbine blades reach 420 feet above the ground. Construction began in the fall of 2007.
First Wind, formerly UPC Wind, also set up an LLC for this project, called Canandaigua Power Partners. First Wind has tried to brand itself as a company which works hard to engage host communities in their projects. They advocate wind energy, generally, as a clean, renewable and local source of power. They claim that this project will help the local economy and provide generous income to the town and landowners.

New York Context top

First Wind worked simultaneously on another project, Dutch Hill Wind, in the town of Cohocton. Other towns in the area—such as Prattsburg, Hartsville, Howard, Naples and Caton— are also seeing new wind development efforts. This wind development boom follows New York's enactment of a Renewable Portfolio Standard in 2004, and other state incentives for renewable energy. New York State has 1260.8 MW of installed wind capacity, with another 21 MW under construction.
Most of the turbines for the Cohocton project are clustered on Pine Hill and Lent Hill north and east of the Town of Cohocton. Three other turbines stand on Brown Hill, on the other side of town. In addition to the turbine towers, the project includes about nine miles of gravel access roads, buried electric cables, a substation, an office, meteorological towers and nine miles of transmission lines strung on wooden poles.

The transmission lines required a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, because it goes through regulated wetland habitat. There are also several state forests in the area. The Cohocton Wind project is likely visible for many sections of the Finger Lakes Trail, which stretches across the southern tier of New York, and loops around Cohocton. The impacts of the project on the wetlands or on the scenic hiking route do not seem to have been major concerns.

Siting and Zoning top

The Town of Cohocton passed a law in 2006 in reaction to the proposed wind projects, creating guidelines for development. It specified that utility scale turbines could not be over 500 feet, had to be a distance equal to 100 feet plus the height of the turbine away from property lines, and had to be 1500 feet from buildings. The law also instituted a process for wind development in the town. Projects would have to be awarded Special Use Permits by the Planning Board. A site review would be necesary before a building permit would be issued. The Windmill Local Law also required that wind developers perform an environmental impact review in accordance with SEQRA and specified that it would require a visual impact assessment meeting several requirements.

The Windmill Local Law was later amended by Windmill Local Law 2. The second version was not substantively different, but was made more specific and with stronger legal wording. A public hearing was held when the Board was considering the second Windmill Law. The Cohocton Windmill laws have been challenged in court.

First Wind arranged a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) in August of 2007. This was a very important agreement, as it defines the financial incentive of the project for local agencies and residents. The development of the PILOT agreement included at least one open hearing and a period for public comment.

The money in the PILOT agreement was less than what could have been collected in property taxes. That is, it was offered by the SCIDA as an incentive for wind development in Steuben County. Under the agreement, SCIDA (a tax-exempt organization) took nominal ownership of the project while First Wind agreed to actually run the project and make payments in lieu of taxes to local governments and schools. Over twenty years, the developer will pay $14.5 million in lieu of taxes.

The PILOT agreement, however, does not represent the full payments that will be made to the community by First Wind. A host agreement between the Town of Cohocton and First Wind calls for a payment of $11.5 million dollars over twenty years. The first $725,000 were paid in January 2008 and were used to offset property taxes by about 30%. First Wind also agreed to make payments to a local historic society and for area Special Improvement Districts.

The discovery that three turbines were in the Avoca School District, rather than the Wayland-Cohocton School District required that First Wind and SCIDA negotiate a new PILOT agreement including the second school district. The final PILOT agreement, approved in March 2008, split $14 million over twenty years between the town of Cohocton and the two school districts.

Cohocton residents followed PILOT agreement negotiations closely and turned out for public hearings. One blogger noted that fifty people came out for Cohocton's hearings, a turnout far greater than at a similar hearing on wind development in nearby Howard.

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Discourse top

New York State's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires an Environmental Impact Statement from developers of projects such as Cohocton Wind. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS - PDF) was accepted by the Cohocton Planning Board on June 27, 2007. Prior to the acceptance of the FEIS, two drafts were presented, followed by periods for public comment. The Environmental Impact Statement documents were prepared by Environmental Design & Research (EDR), one of the largest companies providing such services and a frequent consultant in New York Projects.

First Wind acquired a permit from the DEC approving the construction of a transmission line through regulated wetlands. The developer also needed an Army Corps of Engineers permit to fill in the wetland along the transmission corridor. These permits were granted in March of 2008.

EDR performed a visual impact assessment (VIA) as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The requirements of the VIA were specified by the Cohocton Town Board in the Windmill Local Law 1. The first VIA was part of the Draft EIS submitted in Spring 2006. It was expanded in the Supplemental Draft EIS that Fall. The VIA was updated in summer of 2007 in the Final EIS to reflect some changes in the siting of towers and a substation.

Figure 1: Simulation constructed by First Wind

The VIA consists of several components. EDR mapped "10-mile topographic viewsheds" for both the full height of the turbine blades and the FAA lights atop the nacell, which would be visible by night. They found that the project would be screened from the view in 88% of the area within a ten mile radius, by either topography or vegetation. These maps were made using a USGS database of the topography and vegetation. They assumed a height of forty feet for the vegetation, which means that although the percentages they give may be accurate, particular places on the map may differ in reality, due to vegetation which deviates from that number. Discounting vegetation entirely, they found that the project was hidden in 53% of the area.

The VIA addressed concerns about the cumulative effects of other nearby wind farms, as well as the Cohocton project. EDR made a map which layers the viewshed maps of the Cohocton Wind project with those of the Dutch Hill Wind and Prattsburgh wind projects. In another map, sites were color coded by the number of turbines that could be seen. These examine the effect of having visual exposure from all sides. It is clear that some places are far more impacted than others. Hilltops located in between the three projects would see the greatest impact.

EDR performed cross section analyses on four representational lines-of-sight . These also assume a uniform vegetation height of forty feet. The cross section locations were chosen to include areas labeled visually sensitive, including villages, historic sites and bodies of water. The cross section analyses show that visibility would likely be lower than estimated in the topographic viewshed analysis, as structures and other objects not included in that analysis serve to screen the project.

Analyses based on computer models were complemented by a field analysis using four fifteen foot by six foot balloons. These were tethered at the sites of proposed turbines at a height approximating that of a completed turbine. Crews then took photos illustrating the visibility (or lack of visibility) of the balloons from 184 sites. According to the analysts, the visual impact would be lower than indicated by the viewshed or cross section analyses. This is because vegetative and structural screening in fact is more extensive than had been assumed. Still, it was determined that the turbines would be visible from several visually sensitive areas, including highways and a town park.

Figure 2: Simulation constructed by First Wind

EDR created a series of simulated photographs from ten sites chosen from the field analysis. The sites were chosen to represent a variety of angles, directions and distances from the turbines. Photos taken on site were altered to include the proposed turbines using a 3D modeling program called StudioMax. EDR also created an animated simulation of the turbines at night, to illustrate the flashing FAA lights. These simulations showed a highly variable impact, depending mostly on distance, but also on weather and light conditions, the extent of screening and the viewer's sensitivity.

The overall visual impact was evaluated by EDR's in-house panel of three registered landscape architects. The panelists looked at photographs with and without the simulated turbines. They rated each view from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning the turbine looked completely compatible, and 5 being the opposite. Their rankings were averaged to find the compatibility of wind development from each view, and the overall impact on the landscape.

The highest an individual panelist ranked a viewpoint was "3.75 (moderate to high visual contrast)." They indicated that the visual impact of the turbines was fairly small, but that the FAA lights could be "somewhat distracting to area residents." In the SDEIS, EDR notes a "high degree of variability in perceived visual impact," even among a panel of three. In the DEIS, they predict public reaction "is likely to be generally positive, but highly variable based on proximity to the turbines, the affected landscape, and personal attitude of the viewer regarding wind power."

The SEQRA process is designed to involve some public input through periods of public comment and public hearings. Still, the agency is not required to consider "lay comments." They are only required to credit comments of equal technical expertise to the DEIS.

Through out the process, the residents of Cohocton and its surrounding areas have been engaged in public discourse through formal and informal routes. The town has become split into those to favor the First Wind development, and those who resent it. Some residents displayed placards and clothing expressing a sentiment one way or the other.

A number of organizations arose to protest or support the proposed wind development. One of the most prominent opposition groups is Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW), joined in opposition by Cohocton Free and Reform Cohocton. These organizations have also worked closely with other groups in the area such as Advocates for Plattsburgh and Living in New York, and at the national level, National Wind Watch. A group called Yes! Wind Cohocton formed to support the development.

Opponents give many reasons for rejecting the wind farm. The often express concern about safety, risk to nature, and doubts about the efficacy of wind power. But a recurring theme is what one group lists as "three major costs—unsightliness, noise and loss in property value." Those three problems are connected to the fear that Cohocton risks losing its "rural character." CWW made that claim in one of their lawsuits, saying the industrial turbines would cost Cohocton its "rural, agricultural nature." The opposition to wind development in Cohocton is grounded in a resistance to changes to the area's rural aesthetic.

That opposition is further fueled, however, by resentment towards the process by which the project has proceeded. "It’s not an issue of opposing wind turbines, it’s about the way the decisions are made,” said James Hall, the leader of CWW, at a town hall meeting. Some feel that the decision to approve the project was made before public comment, and that there has been a lack of transparency in all stages of the process. CWW has asked the District Attorney to investigate SCIDA, town and planning board members and First Wind, charging them with bribery, fraud and numerous conflicts of interest. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began an investigation in July 2008. In October, 2008, the Attorney General's office released a voluntary "code of conduct for wind energy companies operating in New York." First Wind and Noble Environmental Power, the other company under investigation, were the first to sign the code.

Cohocton Wind Watch has truly pursued a wide variety of legal routes to prevent wind development in the area. CWW brought lawsuits to prevent the construction of Cohocton Wind, or to indict those they saw as having profited illegally from the project. Three of these lawsuits engage New York's Article 78, which allows citizens to hold their municipalities accountable for following their own laws. CWW alleges that the Town of Cohocton should have completed a SEQRA when it passed the Windmill Local Law to address potential wind developments. They further claim that the code violates the town's comprehensive plan which aims to maintain the area's rural character. CWW has charged that wind companies are monopolies, a charge taken up by US Congressman Eric Massa, then a candidate.
Another interesting episode in the fight over Cohocton Wind is the formation of the group Reform Cohocton. Taking the form of a political party (albeit one whose candidates ran as independents), Reform Cohocton presented a platform they said contrasted sharply with the incumbents in several town positions. Their planks avoided mention of wind, instead focusing on good governance, ethics and transparency. All the same, they were known as the anti-wind ticket.

In a town of 2,626, Reform Cohocton appropriated the kind of political rhetoric usually seen on the national stage. They decried "career politicians who only answer to protect special interest campaign contributors" and promise campaign finance reform. The Reform Cohocton movement was intended to capture anger towards town officials who approved Cohocton Wind in what they saw as an unethical manner.

Reform Cohocton held a town hall meeting with 60 attendees moderated by a Green Party candidate and featuring Democrat Massa. Reform Cohocton candidates and Massa answered questions about wind development before the enthusiastic crowd. On election day, however, none of the Reform Cohocton candidates unseated the incumbents.

Local opposition groups such as Cohocton Wind Watch have gotten a lot of press, and have had enough resources and support to pursue litigation and electoral politics. There are certainly many like-minded individuals. High attendence at hearings and town hall meetings attest to this, as do the 82 ("Membership by referral, recommendation or verified identity disclosure only") members of the CWW listserve.

Still, it seems that it is the passion, time and energy of a very small group which powers the opposition's many activities. James Hall, who is variously noted as the "ringleader" or "spokesman" for CWW and the organizer of the Reform Cohocton town hall meeting, is clearly a central figure. Two of the seven Reform Cohocton candidates were Halls, as well. If we are to view the 2007 local elections as a referendum on the pro-wind policies of the incumbents, we must come to the conclusion that a solid majority of residents favor the wind development.

Despite the completed construction of the Cohocton Wind project, CWW has remained active in opposing other wind projects around the state and in harrying First Wind. Members of CWW have expanded their influence, meeting with communities such as Wolf Island Ontario, describing their negative experiences with wind development. CWW also solicited complaints to the Securities and Exchange Commission with the hope of stopping First Wind from being approved for a NASDAQ public offering.

Conclusions top

In the intensely political wind development context of upstate New York, the Cohocton Wind project was successful in gaining broad local support. In another sense, it is a worst case scenario for such development in a small town. The project has been extremely contentious, turning bitter and litigious and pitting neighbors against each other. It should be expected that any large proposed change to a landscape will engender resistance from some section of the public. In this case, that natural discomfort was only made worse by a process that was seen as forcing the change without input from residents. Despite First Wind's professed interest in community engagement, they were charged with unduly influencing the town's decision makers and with ignoring the interests of neighbors.

Full Bibliography top

Clark, Bob. "Trust-buster: Massa vows to go after 'foreign' wind companies, says they're monopolies: Wind power the major issue in event hosted by Reform Cohocton" Hornell Evening Tribune (September 12, 2007), http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/09/13/trust-buster-massa-vows-to-go-after-'foreign-wind-companies-says-theyre-monopolies-wind-power-the-major-issue-in-event-hosted-by-reform-cohocton/. (accessed June 16, 2008).

"Cohocton Free." http://www.cohoctonfree.com/ (accessed June 16, 2008).

"Cohocton Planning Board." October 26 2007.http://www.cohoctonny.com/Planning.htm (accessed June 16, 2008).

"Cohocton Wind Watch." 2008.http://www.batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/ (accessed June 16, 2008).

"DEC Application #8-4699-00052 NY Dept. of Environmental Conoservation Memo (February 28, 2008), http://www.cohoctonwind.com/UserFiles/File/regulatory_cohocton/Permits/Cohocton_NYSDEC_Permit(1).pdf. (accessed June 16, 2008).

"First Wind - Cohocton Wind." 2008.http://www.cohoctonwind.com/cohocton/ (accessed June 16, 2008).

Perham, Mary. "Wind farm opponents in court; Cohocton group claims zoning changes violate state law" Corning Leader (May 8, 2007), http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/05/09/wind-farm-opponents-in-court-cohocton-group-claims-zoning-changes-violate-state-law/. (accessed June 16, 2008).

Perham, Mary. "Group challenges wind farm zoning" Corning Leader (September 30, 2008), http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/09/30/group-challenges-wind-farm-zoning/. (accessed June 16, 2008).

Perham, Mary. "Opponents demand investigation into wind farms" Corning Leader (May 9, 2008), http://www.the-leader.com/archive/x1478015313/Opponents-demand-investigation-into-wind-farms. (accessed June 16, 2008).

"Reform Cohocton." http://www.cohocton.net/ (accessed June 16, 2008).

Smith, Hilary. "Judge: Wind turbine cases to go forward" Daily Messenger (2008), http://www.mpnnow.com/archive/x1925662405. (accessed June 16, 2008).

"Yes! Windpower for Cohocton." June 10, 2008.http://www.yeswindcohocton.com/ (accessed June 16, 2008).

Image Bibliography

Figure 1, 2 - Environmental Data Resource and UPC Wind. "Revised and Supplemental Visual Simulations." <http://www.cohoctonwind.com/UserFiles/File/regulatory_cohocton/SDEIS/2-Figures/Figure%20S16_Revised%20and%20Supplemental%20Visual%20Simulations.pdf> (Accessed July 31, 2008).