BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, September 21, 2017

H.R. 2810: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

 Below is Subtitle B, the portion of the bill concerning energy and the environment that passed the house and just passed the Senate. The bill must be reconciled between leaders of both houses before it’s ready to be presented to the president.  

There are provisions in this bill that allow the Secretary of defense to deem a project an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. This coupled with exhibit 26 of NYS Article 10 law that requires wind projects to undergo an evaluation demonstrating no adverse effects on or interference with radar and or instrument systems used for air traffic control, guidance, weather, or military operations including training.

The bottom line is a wind project that is deemed an unacceptable risk is dead on arrival.

Additionally, it should be noted that Senator Gillibrand D-NY voted nay.



SEC. 311. CODIFICATION OF AND IMPROVEMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CLEARINGHOUSE TO COORDINATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON MILITARY OPERATIONS AND READINESS.
(a) Establishment of Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office.—
(1) CODIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING LAW.—Chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 183 the following new section:
Ҥ 183a. Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office for review of mission obstructions
“(a) Establishment.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office.
“(2) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall be—
“(A) organized under the authority, direction, and control of an Assistant Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary; and
“(B) assigned such personnel and resources as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this section.
“(b) Functions.— (1) (A) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall serve as a clearinghouse to coordinate Department of Defense review of applications for energy projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49 and received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of Transportation.
“(B) To facilitate the review of an application for an energy project submitted pursuant to such section, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall accelerate the development, in coordination with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, of—
“(i) an integrated review process to ensure timely notification and consideration of any application that may have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness; and
“(ii) planning tools necessary to determine the acceptability to the Department of Defense of the energy project proposal included in the application.
“(2) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall establish procedures for the Department of Defense for the coordinated consideration of and response to a request for a review received from another Federal agency, a State government, an Indian tribal government, a local government, a landowner, or the developer of an energy project, including guidance to personnel at each military installation in the United States on how to initiate such procedures and ensure a coordinated Department response.
“(3) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall consult with affected military installations for the review and consideration of proposed energy projects.
“(4) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall develop procedures for conducting early outreach to parties carrying out energy projects that could have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness and to clearly communicate to such parties actions being taken by the Department under this section.
“(5) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall perform such other functions as the Secretary of Defense assigns.
“(c) Review of proposed actions.— (1) Not later than 30 days after receiving from the Secretary of Transportation a proper application for an energy project under section 44718 of title 49 that may have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall conduct a preliminary review of such application. Such review shall—
“(A) assess the likely scope, duration, and level of risk of any adverse impact of such energy project on military operations and readiness; and
“(B) identify any feasible and affordable actions that could be taken by the Department, the developer of such energy project, or others to mitigate such adverse impact and to minimize risks to national security while allowing such energy project to proceed with development.
“(2) If the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office determines under paragraph (1) that an energy project will have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, shall issue to the applicant a notice of presumed risk that describes the concerns identified by the Department in the preliminary review and requests a discussion of possible mitigation actions.
“(d) Comprehensive review.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing the military impacts of projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49.
“(2) In developing the strategy required by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall—
“(A) assess the magnitude of interference posed by projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49;
“(B) identify geographic areas in which projects filed, or which may be filed in the future, with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49, could have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, including military training routes, and categorize the risk of adverse impact in each geographic area for the purpose of informing preliminary reviews under subsection (c)(1), early outreach efforts under subsection (b)(4), and online dissemination efforts under paragraph (3);
“(C) develop procedures to periodically review and modify geographic areas identified under subparagraph (B) and to solicit and identify additional geographic areas as appropriate; and
“(D) specifically identify feasible and affordable long-term actions that may be taken to mitigate adverse impacts of projects filed, or which may be filed in the future, with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49, on military operations and readiness, including—
“(i) investment priorities of the Department of Defense with respect to research and development;
“(ii) modifications to military operations to accommodate applications for such projects;
“(iii) recommended upgrades or modifications to existing systems or procedures by the Department of Defense;
“(iv) acquisition of new systems by the Department and other departments and agencies of the Federal Government and timelines for fielding such new systems; and
“(v) modifications to the projects for which such applications are filed, including changes in size, location, or technology.
“(3) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall make available online access to data reflecting geographic areas identified under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and reviewed and modified under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph.
“(e) Department of defense determination of unacceptable risk.— (1) The Secretary of Defense may not object to an energy project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49 unless the Secretary of Defense determines, after giving full consideration to mitigation actions identified pursuant to this section, that the project would result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. Such a determination shall constitute a finding pursuant to section 44718(f) of title 49.
“(2) Not later than 30 days after making a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on such determination and the basis for such determination. Such report shall include an explanation of the basis of the determination, a discussion of the mitigation options considered, and an explanation of why, in the case of a determination of unacceptable risk, the mitigation options were not feasible or did not resolve the conflict. The Secretary of Defense may provide public notice through the Federal Register of the determination.
“(3) The Secretary of Defense may only delegate the responsibility for making a determination under paragraph (1) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an Under Secretary of Defense, or a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
“(f) Authority to accept contributions of funds.—The Secretary of Defense is authorized to request and accept a voluntary contribution of funds from an applicant for a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49. Amounts so accepted shall remain available until expended for the purpose of offsetting the cost of measures undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to mitigate adverse impacts of such a project on military operations and readiness or to conduct studies of potential measures to mitigate such impacts.
“(g) Effect of department of defense hazard assessment.—An action taken pursuant to this section shall not be considered to be a substitute for any assessment or determination required of the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49.
“(h) Savings clause.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or limit the application of, or any obligation to comply with, any environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
“(i) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) The term ‘adverse impact on military operations and readiness’ means any adverse impact upon military operations and readiness, including flight operations, research, development, testing, and evaluation, and training, that is demonstrable and is likely to impair or degrade the ability of the armed forces to perform their warfighting missions.
“(2) The term ‘energy project’ means a project that provides for the generation or transmission of electrical energy.
“(3) The term ‘landowner’ means a person that owns a fee interest in real property on which a proposed energy project is planned to be located.
“(4) The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given that term in section 2801(c)(4) of this title.
“(5) The term ‘military readiness’ includes any training or operation that could be related to combat readiness, including testing and evaluation activities.
“(6) The term ‘military training route’ means a training route developed as part of the Military Training Route Program, carried out jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of Defense, for use by the armed forces for the purpose of conducting low-altitude, high-speed military training.
“(7) The term ‘unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States’ means the construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, or the proposed construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, of a structure or sanitary landfill that would—
“(A) endanger safety in air commerce, related to the activities of the Department of Defense;
“(B) interfere with the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public-use airports, related to the activities of the Department of Defense; or
“(C) impair or degrade the capability of the Department of Defense to conduct training, research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations or to maintain military readiness.”.
(2) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—
(A) REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION.—Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 49 U.S.C. 44718 note) is repealed.
(B) REFERENCE TO DEFINITIONS.—Section 44718(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking “211.3 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 6, 2014” both places it appears and inserting “183a(i) of title 10”.
(C) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 183 the following new item:


“183a. Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office for review of mission obstructions.”.
(3) DEADLINE FOR INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.—The initial identification of geographic areas under subsection (d)(2)(B) of section 183a of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall be completed not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.—Notwithstanding the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2), any rule or regulation promulgated to carry out section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 49 U.S.C. 44718 note) that is in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act shall continue in effect and apply to the extent such rule or regulation is consistent with the authority under section 183a of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), until such rule or regulation is otherwise amended or repealed.
(b) Conforming amendment regarding critical military-use airspace areas.—Section 44718 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a)(2)(B), is further amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
“(g) Special rule for identified geographic areas.—In the case of a proposed structure to be located within a geographic area identified under subsection (d)(2)(B) of section 183a of title 10, the Secretary of Transportation may not issue a determination until the Secretary of Defense issues a determination under subsection (e) of such section as to whether or not the proposed structure represents an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States (as defined in subsection (i)(7) of such section).”.


Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Stefanik Sends Letter to U.S. Army on Wind Farm Development at Fort Drum


September 12,2017

Press Release

Washington,DC-Today,Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21)sent a letter to Gneral Mark A. Milley,U.S. Army Chief of Staff,expressing concerns over the potential effects of industrial wind turbine development on Fort Drum’s ability to execute current and future missions. Below is a digital copy of the letter.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) Letter to Gen. Milley Re. Wind Farms by pandorasboxofrocks on Scribd

 Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization 
 Opposes Regional Wind Projects

The following message has been posted on the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization (FDRLO) Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/drum2025/


Below is FDRLO’s position statement on Industrial Wind Turbine Development. This position statement was created and approved by the Board of Directors on a crucial issue to the
Readiness of Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division. We are sharing it today with our elected officials,the public through the news media,and you, our members.
We would appreciate your support.
FORT DRUM REGIONAL LIAISON ORGANIZATION CALLS FOR PROTECTION OF
FORT DRUM’S TRAINING CAPABILITIES AND MISSION READINESS
Protecting the North Country’s airspace is vital to Fort Drum’s future. The Army is continually evaluating the effectiveness of its training installations and Fort Drum is measured against other military bases across the country. Any negative impact on Fort Drum’s capability to sustain mission readiness, any encroachment on the land or airspace, exposes a weakness and jeopardizes Fort Drum during a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) review. If approved, the eight new wind projects proposed in the region surrounding Fort Drum, based on size and density of the turbines, will have a negative impact on Fort Drum and threaten its future.

It is a proven fact that wind turbines adversely affect the radar capabilities at Fort Drum’s Wheeler Sack Army Airfield as well as the Doppler Weather radar site at Montague. Two projects, Maple Ridge in Lewis County and Wolfe Island in Canada, already exist in the region; they visibly distort radar and present negative impacts on safe flight operations for helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, as well as doppler weather radar located in Montague.

As the largest single site employer in New York State, there is no argument that we need to protect Fort Drum so that it remains the major economic driver of the North Country. Fort Drum contributed in excess of $1.6 billion in direct and indirect benefit to the North Country in 2016. Thousands of jobs and the economic vitality of the region depend on its continued relevance to the Army mission.

New York State’s Article 10 Siting Board and the Public Service Commission are considering whether to grant eight projects licenses to operate in Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence and Oswego counties. These projects propose turbines which stand nearly 600 feet, 50% higher than the current 397 foot turbines operating at Maple Ridge and on Wolfe Island. These additional turbines will create massive dead spots on radar used by air traffic controllers and commanders tasked with training soldiers. If approved, these projects will add nearly 400 new turbines to the north country airspace, surrounding the post on virtually all sides and, most significantly, right within Fort Drum’s main flight paths. The attached map highlights the size and location of the projects in the immediate vicinity of Fort Drum.*
The 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum leadership are responsible for protecting its resources; soldiers, civilians, equipment and facilities. The degradation of the Montague weather radar by industrial wind turbines has a dramatic direct impact on their ability to do that as well as their ability to train. The National Weather Service’s (NWS) most valuable tool to detect precipitation is their radar. The lack of accurate weather forecasting capabilities presents risk to Army aviation, soldiers x training in the field and prevents commanders from having current, factual information about the weather conditions, critical to protecting their personnel and vital equipment.

Fort Drum is already feeling the impact of the existing industrial wind turbines, and if the proposed projects are approved, Fort Drum’s mission readiness will be further diminished. While software is able to mask some of the current radar distortions, it leaves blinds spots in the radar, and the sheer number, density, location and size of additional wind towers will overwhelm the existing technology’s ability to address the interference.

The increasing use of Fort Drum and its airspace for operation of unmanned aircraft is also affected by this degradation of radar and weather forecasting systems. Flying expensive high tech aircraft in an environment where there is an impairment of radar and weather information presents a safety concern to not only the military, but the local civilian population as well.

Fort Drum’s open airspace and joint training capability is a highly valued component of Fort Drum’s relevance to the Department of Defense. Aviation units from all service branches across the northeast utilize Fort Drum’s airspace, facilities and ranges to meet their individual flight training requirements and participate in joint training operations. Additionally this training capability at Fort Drum enables the 10th Mountain Division to enhance their mission readiness through these joint exercises. Future training needs at Fort Drum and for the 10th Mountain Division have yet to be identified as regards to new technologies, new methods of warfare and emerging capabilities. We need to prevent airspace encroachments today that would in any way restrict future training capabilities or new mission opportunities.

Fort Drum has proven itself as a premier facility within the Army inventory and as a valuable partner in the North Country, a relationship we have worked hard to continually nurture and enhance. This is not an issue of renewable energy policy, but rather an issue affecting military readiness today, and Fort Drum’s relevance for future new training missions tomorrow. This is an issue of national security.

The Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization advocates for protecting and enhancing Fort Drum, home to the 10th Mountain Division. The FDRLO Executive Committee visited Wheeler Sack Army Airfield to see the effects first hand and discuss the current and long-term impacts with Fort Drum representatives. We strongly oppose the eight industrial wind projects, as they will greatly reduce the installation’s training capability and thereby diminish the 10th Mountain Division’s readiness.

  Map provided by the Development Authority of the North Country



Tuesday, September 5, 2017


GALLOO ISLAND TURBINES CLEARED by FAA
DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION

Today 9/05/2017 the FAA Issued a determination of no hazard to Apex Clean Energy for their Galloo Island Industrial wind project.

The FAA conducted an aeronautical study to determine the effect the proposed Galloo Island wind turbines would have on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Today the FAA issued a determination of no hazard for the proposed Galloo Island wind project.
This determination becomes final on October 15, 2017 unless a petition requesting additional review is filed on or before October 05,2017 information concerning filing a petition for review is included in the FAA Obstruction determination letter below.

Each turbine included in the proposed the Galloo Island Industrial Wind Project (T1 throughT30) received the same letter of determination.

Link here to FAA Website to view determined cases

 Galloo FAA Aproval Letter by pandorasboxofrocks on Scribd

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

AVANGRID WITHDRAWS HORSE CREEK FROM THE NYISO QUEUE ~ Is Horse Creek Dead?

Updated: 8/23/17
7:49 & 10:16 AM

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) manages New York’s electricity transmission grid – a 10,775-mile network of high-voltage lines that carry electricity throughout the state. The NYISO also oversees wholesale electricity markets where more than $50 billion has been transacted since 1999.

The NYISO Interconnection Queue (the spreadsheet) lists projects that are active in the NYISO interconnection process, or were active in the process but recently went into service (projects that have gone in-service eventually are removed from this list). Additionally, projects that are withdrawn from the Queue are also listed . The NYISO Queue Spreadsheet indicates that the Horse creek wind project was recently withdrawn from the Queue  7/31/2017.

Under the NYISO tariff, a Developer can withdraw their project from the Queue at any time (they don’t have to give a reason). The tariff also allows NYISO to withdraw a project from the Queue for very specific reasons/circumstances spelled out in the tariff. (NYISO cannot withdraw a project from the Queue without a reason defined in the tariff.)  An HTML version of NYISO's  Consumer Interest Liaison Weekley Summary  (Seen here) indicates the NYISO Operating Committee (OC) approved the Horse Creek System Reliability Study or (SIRS) The "SIRS"is an engineering study that evaluates the impact of the proposed Generation Facility or Merchant Transmission System.This would seem to indicate that the withdrawal of Horse Creek was a decision  made by the developer and not NYISO.



Link here to the NYISO Website   Once you are on the NYISO website  click the link that reads "View The Interconnection Queue".  Clicking this link will open the Excell Spreadsheet showing all of the Active projects in the Queue.  Down at the bottom of the page on the left you will see two tabs, one marked Active and one marked Withdrawn.  Click on the Withdrawn tab.   All of the projects that have been withdrawn from the Queue will appear. Scroll down to #375 and you will see that Horse creek was withdrawn  July 31,2017

Below is a copy of the Queue that was downloaded to my Scribd account.

NYISO Interconnection Queue by pandorasboxofrocks on Scribd


Consumer Interest Liaison Weekley Summary
Google link to NYISO -HTML document


AVANGRID / IBERDROLA ~ INDUSTRIAL WIND CONFLICT of INTEREST DISCLOSURES 3/31/2017

Friday, August 11, 2017

Audubon New York does not support the construction of Horse Creek Wind Energy Project as currently proposed.




Link here to Audubon press release and original letter

Qatar, accused of terrorism, first shareholder of Iberdrola


The following article was posted on 

Intereconomia.com

A Spanish media group's website
June 6, 2017

Qatar Investment Authority(QIA), a sovereign fund of Qatar, a country accused of supporting and financing terrorists of the Islamic State, among others, is the main shareholder of Iberdrola, the Spanish power company headed by Ignacio Sánchez Galán. As recorded on Iberdrola's own website, Qatar Investment Authority owns 8.509% of Iberdrola. This sovereign fund of Qatar is the main shareholder of the Spanish power company presided over by Ignacio Sánchez Galán.

Qatar Investment Authority is a sovereign wealth fund of the small but rich country thanks to the Persian Gulf oil. Its neighbors Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Baréin have severed their diplomatic relations with Qatar and have decided to isolate the small emirate from the Persian Gulf because they accuse it of supporting terrorism, specifically "terrorist organizations" among which The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic State (EI) and Al Qaeda.

It is curious that the information provided by Iberdrola on its website does not coincide with the Register of Significant Participations of the National Securities Market Commission. According to the stock exchange supervisor, the latest change in the Qatar Investment Authority in the capital of Iberdrola corresponds to 2011, the year in which this sovereign fund entered the capital of the power company with the purchase of 6.162% of the capital. There are no more communications since.

However, in Iberdrola's own website, that share amounts to 8.509% of the capital, making the Catamarans the main shareholder of Iberdrola. As if to rely on the records of the regulator and supervillar of the Spanish stock markets.

Link here to Iberdrola website to view Significant Investors

Part of the receipt of the light, for Qatar
In the end, if the accusations of terrorism by its neighbors are confirmed, Iberdrola's clients would be unknowingly financing Islamic international terrorism. Iberdrola has committed to its shareholders to allocate between 65% and 75% of their dividends. The Iberdrola profit is nourished by the money it charges its customers for the electric bill. Last year Iberdrola earned 2,422 million. If it allocates 65% of the profit to dividend would be 1,574.3 million to distribute. Qatar Investment Authority is going to carry 127 million for this concept. Those 127 million go directly to the state Catharí, which is the sole shareholder of this sovereign fund and is accused of financing and supporting Islamic terrorism that so much death and terror sows around the world.
And coincidences of the electric ones. Qatar Investment Authority is also the benchmark shareholder of Peninsular Capital, a venture capital fund founded by Borja Prado Eulate, President of Endesa .

Link here to read this article  as published on Intereconomics.com  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Installing turbines near Air Reserve Station puts region at risk

EDWARD RATH
Erie County Legislator
Published in the Clarence Bee 
08/02/2017 Clarence Bee 
www.clarencebee.com 

The Erie County Legislature held our final session before recess on July 27 and dealt with an issue that is important to our entire region.
My colleagues unanimously approved a resolution that I sponsored in support of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. We are asking New York State to request a formal review by the Department of Defense related to a proposal by APEX Clean Energy to construct 70 wind turbines along the shores of Lake Ontario that would potentially reach 600 feet high. The proposal is concerning due to its proximity to the air base, and as such, the Niagara Military Affairs Council has expressed its opposition.
The air base is an important asset to the greater WNY community, providing 3,000 jobs in addition to critical services. The base was first established more than 60 years ago and is currently home to the Air Force Reserve Command’s 914th Airlift Wing and the 328th Air Force Reserve C-130 mission, as well as the Air National Guard’s new Remotely Piloted Aircraft mission.
The issue with the proposed turbines is that they pose a threat of interference with military radar and flight operations. Furthermore, if the turbines are erected as planned, there is a very real concern that the air base itself could be at risk of closure as a result. The base has already been subjected to multiple base closure and realignment commission reviews. My concern is that if the turbines are placed in the base’s flight path, they could be seen as impediments to future operations and could tilt the scales toward closure in the next round of reviews. Encroachment is a key factor that is considered when the federal government is reviewing military bases for potential shutdown, and 70 individual, 600-foot tall wind turbines, located on the edge of
Lake Ontario near the base, could be considered major objects of encroachment.
New York State’s rules and regulations require an application to operate an electrical generation facility, and as a part of that application, detailed information regarding potential impacts on airports and military installations and operations must be provided. The state review board, prior to approval of an application, may request a formal review be conducted by the Department of Defense.
At this point, the Erie County Legislature and the Niagara County Legislature have requested that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state review board request the Department of Defense to conduct a formal review of the Apex application. My sincere hope is that the state acts to request this review quickly. We cannot put the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station at risk.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact my office at 858-8676 or email edward.rath@erie.gov.

EDWARD RATH
Erie County Legislator
District Office:
Old Erie County Hall
92 Franklin Street
Fourth Floor
Buffalo, N.Y. 14202
Phone: (716) 858-8676
Fax: (716) 858-8895
Email: edward.rath@erie.gov