Wellfleet selectmen kill turbine plan
By Doug Fraser dfraser@capecodonline.com
March 31, 2010 2:00 AM
WELLFLEET — Five years of work to build a 400-foot-tall wind turbine on town-owned land overlooking White Crest Beach came to a crashing halt last night as selectmen voted unanimously to kill the project.
"I embrace alternative energy and it grieves me to be supporting the end of this project," Selectman Jacqueline Wildes-Beebe said. "There is a lot of risk for too little gain."
The risk, selectmen felt, was primarily to the character of that oceanfront stretch of towering bluffs and wind-stunted vegetation that symbolized the relatively undeveloped beauty that the Cape Cod National Seashore was first created a half century ago to protect.
The idea of placing a large industrial-sized turbine that required a 30-foot wide, paved access road was too much to consider, many said.
"It will change the landscape we have struggled to maintain for 50 years," Wildes-Beebe said. "Many residents and visitors use and cherish it."
Selectman Ira Wood called the turbine "environmentally disruptive" with "dubious economics for a small town." He pointed out that Wellfleet has undertaken many recent capital projects, including a new fire station and municipal water system, and still has to deal with an aging police station. Taxpayers have seen double-digit increases in their property taxes and he didn't think it was the right time for the town to be taking on an expensive project where the economics were still not clearly laid out.
Other concerns included how noise from the blades could affect those people living nearby, and whether the area was just too stormy.
Selectman Michael May, the board's liaison to the town energy committee, which presented the project last night, said wind speeds at the harbormaster's offices were clocked at 75 mph the other night. He wondered if the turbine might suffer damages in the more powerful storms that frequently slam their Atlantic-side beaches with higher wind speeds, possibly in excess of what the turbine can stand.
Despite the fact there appeared to be a lot of momentum among residents toward building the turbine as the project progressed from the formation of a committee in 2005 through town meeting votes, opponents gained traction in recent months. A big cheer went up from the audience when it was unanimously voted down.
"From the start it was obvious to us that it should never be part of this pristine area," said Jim Rogers, a nonresident taxpayer who lives in Sandwich but owns property near the proposed turbine site. Rogers helped spearhead the anti-turbine effort. He said a lot of residents just weren't aware of the size of the structure and of the amount of alteration to the land needed to build and maintain it.
The town has appropriated $290,000 toward design and site preparation work, but has only spent around $29,000 of it. Wood suggested they consider putting that toward municipal conservation efforts.
Selectmen and many in the audience applauded the efforts of the town's energy committee.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100331/NEWS/3310301
Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore
March 31, 2010
Dear Mr. Price, and Members of the CCNS Advisory Commission,
Although there were many reasons to believe that the Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the Town of Wellfleet – the developer of the project – just couldn’t bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore. The voters of Wellfleet, and the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit in order “to preserve the character of the Seashore.” We applaud their decision.
We hope that the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet’s example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission – to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations – relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be “sensitive,” including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: “no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park.” This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed Director’s Orders and almost one hundred years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an Order from the Secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a Federal Advisory Committee specially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for “responsible development” of land-based industrial wind energy resources. I think that you will agree, when you read these Guidelines, that the fundamental concept underlying the final recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development – such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
It is our hope that the Superintendent will appreciate that he now has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the Federal Advisory Committee – whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the Board of Selectmen and the voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States; to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion which compromises the core conservation mission of the park.
In other words, the only sense of “balance” that must be applied to the consideration of any projects – including wind turbines -- which are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park’s mission, and which threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, is to reject them out of hand. You have Congress, the law, one hundred years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on your side. What authority do you lack?
We urge the Superintendent and the Advisory Commission to use these tools, without apology, for the benefit and preservation of the National Seashore and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in you, and who rely upon you to do your duty.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
President
Save Our Seashore
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINES IN WELLFLEET, MA
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINE!!!! March 30, 2010
The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen wisely voted 5-0 to spend no more money to develop a wind farm.
Thanks to everyone that helped out!
Once you take the time to understand the issues, no other honest judgement could be made!
Long time Resident Makes Statement on Wellfleet Wind Turbine to Cape Cod Advisory Commission
RECORD ACTIVITY FOR SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG
Yesterday March 22, 2010 broke the record for the most active day for our website SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG We recorded 192 hits which considering the modest Wellfleet population, IS HUGE! The previous most active day was set five months ago just after our startup. I want to thank the many people getting involved in saving Cape Cod National Seashore. Let's keep getting the word out to protect our National Parks.
If the town is successful in developing this commercial industrial wind farm in our National Park; will the National Park Service see this as a opportunity to develop all the NATIONAL PARKS? No one debates whether this land is in the park boundaries. There is no doubt this is industrial equipment and the commercial purpose is to make money. Once Pandora's box is open then will any park be protected? Mr Price the CCNS Superintendent currently believes this is part of a National mission. Let's not give them that green light!
Letter to Superintendent Cape Cod National Seashore and Our Connection to the Natural World
Haven't you wondered how it is possible that some are so viscerally opposed to this project while others see no particular problem with erecting a 400 foot wind turbine within park boundaries? For us, it goes back to the ongoing debate presenterd in the Ken Burns' series on the National Parks - between those who say, "It's beautiful; leave it alone" and those who want to use the land, just a little - dam just this river, cut down just a few trees here, put up this one wind turbine there, using "just 2 or 3 percent of the area", to use Wellfleet Energy Commission Geof Karlson's rationale .
We noticed that the book, Last Child in the Woods, by Richard Louv is available at the Visitors Center bookstore; we hope you've read it. As you probably know, the book addresses the issue of the many children being brought up in our culture, with no connection to the natural world and the deleterious consequences that ensue from such an upbringing. We agree with the book's main thesis, and feel that what's happening to our children and grandchildren is only possible because their caregivers have already lost their connection to the natural world. In short, there is a significant component of human consciousness that has atrophied in many children and adults, making it possible to view the natural world solely in utilitarian terms.
We hope that you will not regard the above as an exercise in pop psych and sociology, for we offer it in all seriousness.
One issue that got away from us yesterday (like so many people, we think of our best lines later): you noted how unacceptable the use of South Wellfeleet by the Sea would be for acres and acres of photovoltaics; we certainly agree that such a use would be absurd. As you know, we also insist that use of that area for a 400 foot wind turbine is equally absurd. But there is a place in Wellfleet with acres and acres of space for photvoltaics; it's known as the rooftops of Wellfleet. We realize your direct concern is not with the financial decisions of Wellfleet, but couldn't a little more creativity be exercised on the part of Wellfleet, when it comes to spending 5.5 to 8 million dollars? Why is a four hundred foot wind turbine within the Seashore the only answer to our multiple environmental crises?
You mentioned the directives from President Obama, and Secretary Salazar as justification for what you regard as the NPS' complementary mission of enabling green energy projects within park boundaries. We voted for President Obama and probably will again, but we do not feel that we owe him absolute and uncritical allegiance. Politicians and their plans come and go. As much as anything in this country the National Parks (America's best idea) are "eternal" (loosely speaking) and ought not to be desecrated by the fall-out of unexamined political rhetoric and fast changing technologies.
Isn't it possible that even Barack Obama and Ken Salazar would profit from re-viewing Ken Burns series on the National Parks and reading Last Child in the Woods?
Who speaks up for the wild beauty of the Cape Cod National Seashore, if not the NPS itself?
We'll see you again. Thanks for listening.
Jim and Pat Rogers
DID YOU KNOW?
72% of visitors say that one of the most important reasons for preserving national parks is to provide opportunities to experience natural peace and the sounds of nature.
Why does the National Park Service management follow it own finding when it comes to wind energy development in Cape Cod National Seashore.
See what the National Park Service writes about the importance of sound will they protect Cape Cod?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/
Contact George_Price@nps.gov to make your feelings know!
The increasing energy development is resulting in greater noise impacts on park acoustical environments (soundscapes). Noise-related impacts on park acoustical environments may affect visitor experience, wildlife habitat, migration routes, and reproduction.
Meeting on Monday(3/22) Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission at 1:00 PM
Hello Everyone,This is a friendly reminder that there is a meeting on Monday (3/22) of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission at 1:00 PM at the Marconi Park Headquarters in the meeting room.
If you can attend and plan to speak for 2 minutes concerning your opposition to the 400FT industrial wind turbine proposed by the town of Wellfleet in the National Park, it would be helpful.
Also, please look at the meetings list on the Town of Wellfleet meetings calendar list for the week.
http://www.wellfleetma.org/Public_Documents/WellfleetMA_Calendar/?formid=158
Important meetings to attend
Tues. 7 pm - Board of Selectmen
Wed. 1 pm - Energy Committee meeting
Wed. 7 pm - Board of Health
If you could plan to attend it is helpful. If you speak it is helpful.
Reminder, please let people know the petition is at Farrell's Market in South Wellfleet.
Proposed Wind Turbine Wellfleet MA
To Barbara Gray, Chair and The Wellfleet Planning Board:
Wind turbine not likely to come up at spring Town Meeting – Wellfleet, MA
WELLFLEET Feb 12 2010
Geof Karlson, chair of the Wellfleet Energy Committee, told the board of selectmen at their meeting on Tuesday that it is likely no articles will appear on the spring Town Meeting warrant for the proposed wind turbine near White Crest Beach.
Wind turbine critics Jim Rogers and Dennis O’Connell, who both spoke out against the proposed project at the fall Town Meeting, listened carefully as Karlson spoke about the project.
The two attended the meeting out of concern that Town Administrator Paul Sieloff had placed two articles on the draft of the warrant for the Annual Town Meeting, one of which would seek an appropriation of money to construct a turbine and the other of which would authorize the selectmen to apply for membership in the Cape & Vineyard Electrical Cooperative.
Referring to the articles, which had been put in the warrant as place holders, board chair Dale Donovan asked Karlson, “Is it the recommendation of your committee that these be held until the fall Town Meeting?”
“I think it’s likely that we will be going in that direction,” Karlson said. He added that he believed the funding voters approved for the project last fall was all they need at this point, but said the committee will make this decision at its next meeting.
Rogers had sent a letter to the selectmen raising concerns about these two articles and their possible placement on the Annual Town Meeting warrant when important information about the project is still not known.
“We’re concerned that they will prematurely put something forward asking for money from the town and that this may end up as an article,” Rogers said.
Prior to the meeting, O’Connell said Sieloff may very well have put those two articles in the draft warrant “just to keep people's options open.”
Karlson said that by next fall the committee will have a lot of information it does not have now about the economic feasibility of the project and related environmental issues.
“We will know how the Seashore feels about it, and by then I think we’ll have all the information we’ll need to proceed to the next stage, which would be to construct it or to decide not to do it.”
Three more Cape Cod towns along with 11 more get Wind Turbine Funding.
Three Cape projects total $450,000
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (CEC) today announced grants supporting 20 new wind energy projects under the Commonwealth Wind Community-Scale Wind initiative.
The six projects receiving design and construction grants are in the towns of Charlton, Plymouth, Brewster, Harwich, and Milton. Awards for the 14 feasibility studies go to the town of Auburn, Bristol Community College, Chesterfield-Goshen Regional School District, Endicott College, the town of Gardner, Gordon College, the town of Lenox, the MBTA, Nantucket Public Schools, Spencer East Brookfield Regional School District, the town of Northborough, and the city of Salem.
BREWSTER: 3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Brewster will build two 1.65 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at Commerce Park, an industrial zoned area. The proposed wind turbines will provide power for the Town to offset electrical expenses and will be an economically meaningful renewable energy project for surrounding towns located on the Cape peninsula.
Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative
3,300-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
HARWICH: CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The town will be the primary user of the electricity and the remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
HARWICH: 3,000-kW (2 Wind Turbines)
Award: $200,000
The town of Harwich will build two 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines at the Town Water Department. The proposed wind turbines will provide the majority of the town's electricity needs and highlight the use of renewable energy for surrounding towns on the Cape peninsula.
CVEC will own the turbines and will be responsible for financing, overseeing the overall design, permitting, construction, operation and maintenance of the project
Harwich will be the primary user of the output. The remaining kWh shall be allocated to CVEC member towns and counties under the MA Net Metering Regulations.
YARMOUTH: 600 kW Wind Turbine
Award: $45,000
The Department of Public Works (DPW) Water Division Headquarters, the site of the town's new wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), is to be studied for a possible wind turbine project. A meteorological tower was constructed on-site in August 2009 to collect a year's worth of wind data because this site is thought to be favorable with respect to the wind resource.
The new WWTF construction will be completed in Fall 2013. It is proposed that the feasibility study, design, and construction of the wind turbine take place concurrently with the WWTF development so that both facilities are brought online around the same time. A 600 kilowatt (kW) turbine is intended for the site and is projected to produce 36% of the energy consumed by the WWTF once all phases of construction are complete.
That tone is the democratic process
Geof Karlson's Jan. 20 My View ("Ugly tone besets Wellfleet project) appears to conflate criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commision, of which he is the new chairman, with an attack on the will of Wellfleet voters and the democratic process.
In a more libelous version of his op-ed that appeared in The Provincetown Banner and The Cape Codder, Mr. Karlson "beseeched the leadership of SOS to direct their sympathizers to refrain from lawlessness," a reference to the recent unfortunate survey stake pulling at the proposed wind turbine site.
Members of Save our Seashore, among other concerned individuals, have raised many valid questions about the proposed wind turbine in Wellfleet. No commission or board in Wellfleet, or any town, is beyond public scrutiny, even if that public consists partly of nonresident taxpayers. Approximately 60 percent of the taxpayers in Wellfleet are nonresidents, who by definition do not vote in that town. Are the legitimate concerns of abutters to the proposed installation, resident and nonresident taxpayers alike, to be dismissed with accusations of maligning the will of the town and the democratic process?
Among Save our Seashore's concerns are: radical change to the landscape; financial viability of the project; noise; safety; the effect on property values for nearby residents; adverse impacts on wildlife and unfragmented habitat; and implications for all users of the National Seashore. The Wellfleet Energy Commission, Wellfleet Board of Selectmen and other town officials must more fully investigate these concerns with the understanding that the town of Wellfleet has a responsibility to all the aforementioned constituencies. The questions of Save our Seashore and others warrant detailed answers before Wellfleet proceeds with this project and spends any taxpayer (resident and nonresident) money on permitting and other related expenses.
Mass Audubon recently abandoned its plan to install a 200-foot wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (the same town!) — half the size of the wind turbine proposed by Wellfleet — because of grave concerns about noise (for neighbors, employees and members), risks to resident wildlife and migratory birds, and potential disruption to valuable habitat. Does Mass Audubon's extensive review and decision to reject a project half the size of the town's reflect the machinations of an irresponsible minority, or a principled decision based upon a thorough and unbiased review?
Mr. Karlson correctly applauds the citizenry of Wellfleet for their profound concern for the environment and, in particular, for maintaining the beauty of their town. Residents and nonresidents of Wellfleet, as thoughtful and caring citizens, are committed to contributing in helpful ways to solutions to the complex problems of global warming and energy independence.
One might argue, however, (as do members of Save our Seashore) over the appropriateness of siting a 400-foot industrial wind turbine on town land within the Seashore. What's the upside? Wellfleet gets a symbol of the new, green economy and a break on its utility bills, an expense the electric company will pass on to other towns. And the downside? One of the most beautiful panoramas in the Cape Cod National Seashore is gone forever and one of the three largest Capewide unfragmented forests with attendant wildlife is severely disturbed.
As Wellfleet voters become better informed on the positive and negative ramifications of the turbine project, resident and nonresident members of Save our Seashore are hopeful that resident voters will defeat the proposed turbine project at a future town meeting.
The democratic process at so many levels is a messy and difficult one. Feelings are bruised on both sides when the hard work of a committee is held up to scrutiny and criticized and, on the other side, when something very beautiful that has been in the hearts of people for so long is threatened. Geof Karlson seems to feel that hard-hitting criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commission equals disloyalty to the town of Wellfleet and the democratic process. I would suggest that dissent and criticism is, in large measure, the democratic process.
James F. Rogers of Save our Seashore lives in Sandwich and is also a nonresident Wellfleet taxpayer.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/OPINION/2090338/-1/NEWSMAP
Letter to National Park Service to STOP Industrial Wind Turbine in a National Park
Dear National Park Service,
I am worried about the development of a onshore 400 ft tall wind turbine in Wellfleet, MA within the boundaries of Cape Cod National Seashore. This development is for the potential financial benefit or loss for the town of Wellfleet. It would result in a negative experience for anyone who would hike, hunt or ride in this previously undeveloped area. This is in stark disregard of the founding legislation of the Cape Cod National Seashore and go directly against the legal obligations highlighted in the National Parks founding legislation. I have copied a couple of key paragraphs from the National Academy of Sciences' Robbins Report which set about to clarify the National Park Service's obligations. It clearly articulates the obligations of the management of our National Parks. Would you be kind enough to inform me how an industrial wind turbine for the financial benefit of the town that results in a negative experience of park visitors, the destruction of the natural setting and causing harm to wildlife will live up to those OBLIGATIONS! This project would result in no benefit for the park, the wildlife, the visitors or the people of the United States.
Abstract of the Robbins Report
The report submitted to the Secretary describes how the Committee conducted its study and surveys the development of the national parks idea, which originated in the United States and has reached its fullest expression there. It calls attention to the responsibilities and obligations which stem from the worldwide recognition and appreciation of the leadership of the United States in this area...
...The objectives or purposes of the National Park Service are discussed in the light of the origin of the national parks and the various Acts of Congress which deal with them. The conclusion is reached that the Service should strive first to preserve and conserve the national parks with due consideration for the enjoyment by their owners, the people of the United States, of the aesthetic, spiritual, inspirational, educational, and scientific values which are inherent in natural wonders and nature's creatures. The Service should be concerned with the preservation of nature in the national parks, the maintenance of natural conditions, and the avoidance of artificiality, with such provisions for the accommodation of visitors as will neither destroy nor deteriorate the natural features, which should be preserved for the enjoyment of future visitors who may come to the parks....
....The report points out that the National Park Service has the responsibility of administering the national parks in accordance with the purposes for which they are or may be set aside by specific Acts of Congress and emphasizes that knowledge about the parks and their problems is needed to discharge this responsibility. Such knowledge comes from research, especially research in natural history...
Sincerely
Barry Doyle
Letter Concerning Wellfleet building a Wind Turbine in a National Park
To Whom it May Concern:Please forward to Wellfleet BOS, Energy Committee and Planning
I am writing about Wellfleet's plan to build a 400 foot wind turbine
On-Shore in Cape Cod National Seashore, one of only 10 National Seashores in
the country. I was reviewing various wind turbine siting guidelines.
Wyoming's seem so sensible and you would guess Massachusetts would have a
similar one. I am forwarding you a link to Wyoming's. Their slogan "Doing it
Smart from the Start". That is so important to avoid a BIG backlash against
Wind Power . That backlash for me has already begun; in that I was
ambivalent to wind power and thought National Parks were safe from Wind
Turbine. How wrong I was and how blind people in the pursuit money can be!Here is a challenge to the people allowing this wind turbine in a National
Park Is Wyoming a more informed and caring State than Massachusetts? You
would think that MTC the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative with their
$250,000,000 budget and a state with it's a renowned progressive liberal
very "green" establishment, would put a bunch of cowboys in a conservative
state such as Wyoming to shame. But alas Massachusetts, the Town of
Wellfleet and CCNS "show me the money guide to Wind Turbines Siting" and a
complete disregard for a NATIONAL PARK is SHAMEFUL!Please read the State of Wyoming Wind Turbine Guidelines. A beautiful
example of owning up to responsibilities of conservation! What exactly would
the town of Wellfleet, CCNS and state protect?http://www.voiceforthewild.org/WindPowerReport.pdf
The Superintendent of Cape Cod National Seashore says it is town land and he
is fine with a big industrial wind turbine. Again we have to look at a
responsible group in Wyoming who clearly state:Exclude from wind power siting consideration: National Parks, Monuments,
and Wildlife Refuges; USFS Roadless..and even "citizens proposed wilderness"Or
National Parks and Monuments
Units of the National Park system (including National Parks and National
Monuments) are managed under a strong legal mandate which
directs the federal government to "protect and preserve" these
lands and their natural resources "for the use and enjoyment of
the public." National Park units are precluded from industrial
development (although commercial development for tourism is
permitted. Wind energy development would not be allowed by
law in these units regardless of their wind energy potential, and
key viewsheds visible from park overlooks should be protected
from visible wind energy development as well.
Even the town of Wellfleet's own Audubon Society claims no position on the
turbine, no matter what birds fly or live where the turbine will be built.
Ideology over conservation is not a position of pride. Shame on
them...Wyoming's guide states:Many types of wildlife are expected to be sensitive to wind power
development. The propensity for wind turbines to kill birds (particularly
raptors) and bats through collisions with spinning blades is well known, and
thus turbines sited in areas where bird and bat activity is not concentrated
are preferable.Obviously Wyoming has lots more land, though a lot is federal and national
park and Massachusetts has lots more money. Responsibility is not relative!
Anyone who proposes or accepts a commercial industrial wind turbine in a
NATIONAL PARK is at fault EVERY STEP OF THE WAY! I am not waiting till the
studies roll in! A National Park is ZERO Tolerance for Industrial Wind
Turbines and I call on everyone involved to stop the Wellfleet Wind Turbine
in Cape Cod National Seashore TODAY!Shame on all involved!SincerelyBarry Doyle
barry@saveourshore.org
4Cs turbine threatens West Barnstable character
I am deeply concerned and shocked with 4Cs' efforts to construct a wind turbine very close to Route 132 near the YMCA within the Old King's Highway District.
The wind turbine would be 242 feet high and the blade sweep is approximately 150 feet in diameter. The sheer size of this turbine is unimaginable!
This turbine will change the character and charm of this densely populated neighborhood, force us to live in the shadow of this turbine, and provide no benefit to the residents of this district.
A balloon test will be done to mark the top of this structure. Look for a balloon that will be 242 feet high. If you see the balloon, you will see the turbine and blades.
The Old King's Highway Historic District Committee was established to preserve and the unique character and aesthetics of old Cape Cod. The turbine has no place within this district and threatens everything that this commission strives to protect.
A second hearing will be held on Jan. 27. Attend the meeting and voice your opposition before we lose forever the special charm that brought me to old Cape Cod.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/OPINION/1150335
Wind farms could blight one in six beauty spots
One in six of the UK's officially-designated beauty spots could soon be blighted by wind farms, an investigation has found.
Out of 89 sites given special protection due to the quality of their landscape, planning permission for turbines has been approved or sought at 14.
Affected areas range from Cornwall and the Isle of Wight to the Lake District, the Outer Hebrides and the Shetland Islands. Campaigners claimed that the projects would spoil much-loved views and called for clearer rules on where wind farms can and cannot be built.
In England, out of 35 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), four are the subject of a planning application for turbines. In one case the development would be within the AONB boundaries, in the other three it would be just outside but close enough to have a dramatic impact on the view enjoyed by visitors.
Among Scotland's 40 designated National Scenic Areas (NSAs), six have already had turbines approved, one inside its boundaries and five just outside. One more is the subject of a planning application for a development inside its boundaries.
Out of nine AONBs in Northern Ireland, three are the subject of planning applications to build turbines within their boundaries.
Environmentalists called for a change in the planning system, and said the current arrangement had led to a "free-for-all" among wind farm developers.
In Cornwall, plans to build 20 turbines, each 415ft in height - taller than Big Ben or St Paul's Cathedral - on land next to Bodmin Moor have been approved by the local council, despite opposition from Friends of the Earth, the RSPB and Natural England.
The wind farm, which will cover 1.5 square miles, will be next to an AONB and a Site of Special Scientific Interest as well as being within an Area of Great Scientific Value, an Area of Great Historic Value and a Cornwall Nature Conservation Site.
Experts have said the turbines will be visible from much of Bodmin Moor and will have a huge impact on an "iconic area of landscape" dominated by Brown Willy and Rough Tor, the two highest points in the county.
The area is also home to a starling roost of more than one million birds and to thousands of golden plover, a protected species. Conservationists estimate that 16,000 starlings and dozens of golden plover would be killed every year by the turbines.
Arthur Boyt, the chairman of the Stop Turbines in North Cornwall (STINC) campaign group, said: "This area of Cornwall is famous for the scenery and the views. It is a singularly wild and beautiful area of countryside.
"The wind farm would dominate the view of Brown Willy and Rough Tor. It would violate what is at the moment a very tranquil, distinct and beautiful landscape, and reduce it to insignificance behind a barrage of rotating turbines."
Mark Jones, a planning and local government adviser for Natural England added: "The proposal would significantly detract from the semi-natural and remote character of Bodmin Moor. The visual impacts on the character of this nationally valued landscape cannot be adequately mitigated."
Natural England, the quango responsible for conserving England's landscape and wildlife, also opposes plans to build three 331ft turbines at a former opencast mine on the borders of Cannock Chase AONB in Staffordshire; a wind farm on a cliff top in Ventnor, Isle of Wight; and nine 335ft turbines on Barrier Hill, Cumbria.
Campaigners claim that the siting of the Barrier Hill wind farm less than a mile from the edge of the Lake District national park would "pollute" views of Blencathra, which climbs 2,848 feet (868 metres) above the northern fells.
Five more proposed wind farms, not sited near AONBs, are also being opposed by Natural England due to their likely impact on the landscape and wildlife.
The revelations come after Gordon Brown announced plans for a £10 billion programme to build a ring of wind farms around Britain's coast. Earlier this year Ed Miliband, the climate change minister, announced plans to increase the number of onshore turbines by "many thousands" and said it should be "socially unacceptable" to be against them. He also admitted that AONBs and national parks could be the sites of new energy infrastructure including wind farms.
Environmentalists have warned that the spread of onshore wind farms threatens some of Britain's best-loved countryside.
Earlier this year the High Court gave permission for a wind farm to be built on the outskirts of the Peak District National Park. Four 335ft (102m) turbines - almost twice the height of Nelson's Column - will tower over one of the most spectacular views of the dales on the boundaries of the national park and next to the Carsington Water beauty spot between Matlock and Ashbourne.
Dustin Benton, a senior policy officer for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, called for clearer rules on where wind farms can and cannot be built.
"There is no strategic planning process for wind farms in sensitive areas, so it's a bit of a free for all," he said. "The general view held by developers is to have a go - to put in an application and see what happens. This has got to be changed.
"The best way of reconciling the need for renewable energy and the protection of the countryside is to have a planning system which states clearly where wind farms can or can't be built."
But Charles Anglin of the British Wind Energy Association, which represents the industry, said decisions should be made on a "case by case" basis.
He said: "The biggest threat to the UK's and the world's habitats and wildlife is catastrophic climate change. To do anything about that we have to change the way we use and produce energy and that does mean expanding the amount of renewable energy we use.
"But every single application has to have its own environmental impact assessment that has to look at the impact on local landscape and habitats, and that forms part of the planning application that then needs to be approved by the local authority.
"The local impact is vitally important but it's part of the wider impact. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we rejected wind out of hand because of purely local considerations."
Mr Miliband has said wind power should be generating 26GW of energy by 2020, enough to power more than 15 million homes. That would mean a total of 10,000 new turbines - 6,000 at sea and 4,000 onshore. There are currently about 2,500 onshore wind turbines in Britain.
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/25150
My family has been there since 1952!
U.S. to Sound out options on wind farm in Cape Cod
| U.S. to Sound out options on wind farm
It is a shame that George Price Superintendent of Cape Cod National Seashore sees nothing wrong with building a 400 foot wind turbine in the Cape Cod National Seashore whereas just the thought of Nantucket Sound being registered Historic Placescould waylay Cape Wind. Wellfleet should not build an INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE in CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE. |
|
| Town of Barnstable among those to be heard
Written by Edward F. Maroney “We shall not be moved” may be the refrain heard from Cape Wind LLC when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar convenes a meeting of project officials, regulators and participating entities in Washington Jan. 13. |
U.S. bird listing to hit energy, wind industries
This effort applies to Wellfleet because it shows that unfragmented habitat needs to be preserved. The area where Wellfleet plans on placing their Wind Turbine is a small scale of the same problem. The coastal north east has few natural areas left. The placement of a 400 ft tall Wind Turbine in the 3rd largest unfragmented area on the Cape will have dire consequence for Wildlife living there, including state registered endangered species! Shame on the CCNS for even considering this project!
Efforts to protect an iconic bird could disrupt oil, natural gas and wind energy development in the U.S. West and add to the Democratic Party's green woes ahead of the 2010 congressional elections. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has until Feb. 26 to decide whether or not to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. This may prove politically charged as it comes in the face of opposition from energy interests and state governments who fear it will hurt economic development.
- Energy industry, states wary of federal listing for bird
- Listing, curbs may put heat on regional Democrats
DALLAS - Efforts to protect an iconic bird could disrupt oil, natural gas and wind energy development in the U.S. West and add to the Democratic Party's green woes ahead of the 2010 congressional elections.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has until Feb. 26 to decide whether or not to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. This may prove politically charged as it comes in the face of opposition from energy interests and state governments who fear it will hurt economic development.
It could lead to a battle between the Obama administration and groups linked to the Republican Party -- such as oil and gas interests. The issue could hurt Democratic candidates in the region -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The bird's range includes much of the state.
Wyoming has already taken steps to protect the bird in a bid to stave off an Endangered Species listing which Governor Dave Freudenthal has said would be bad for the state's economy because of the industry regulations it would bring.
The large ground bird is totally dependent on sage brush. Parts of Wyoming have been identified as "core" areas crucial to the bird's survival.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Monday issued guidelines to protect the bird which state officials and environmentalists say will effectively preclude wind power development in about 20 percent of the sprawling state. The BLM move bolstered Wyoming's steps to identify key grouse habitat.
"I don't read the policy to completely ban wind energy in these areas though the restrictions might make it difficult to have an economically viable wind project (in them)," said Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for American Wind Energy Association.
Wind energy is usually seen as "green" but environmentalists say wind turbines and the development that goes with them will further fragment critical sage habitat.
Even before Monday's BLM action, moves to protect the bird had thrown uncertainty around Wyoming projects such as a $600 million wind farm proposed by Horizon Wind Energy.
POLITICAL FLAP?
Analysts say any negative fallout for the wind industry will give Republicans ammunition to argue that the administration will sacrifice green initiatives, such as reducing carbon emissions, for the sake of a bird.
"The idea that wind power is a danger to the grouse is going to be a hard sell politically," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
"It is the sort of thing that the Bush administration would have ignored and said forget it, whereas the Obama administration takes the science seriously. This will convince many of the fecklessness of the Democratic Party," he said.
The BLM is a federal agency responsible for about 253 million acres of public lands and its Wyoming guidelines could be expanded to 10 other states where the bird is found.
"We are concerned about ensuring that there are adequate protections for the sage grouse. It's an issue that we have been looking at since this administration came to office," said Celia Boddington, spokeswoman, Bureau of Land Management.
"BLM Wyoming has issued guidance for the sage grouse and we anticipate national guidance to be forthcoming shortly. The national guidance will have the same goals," she said.
The new rules also mean that in some areas future developments by the oil and gas industry would be restricted to one drilling location, or pad, per square mile (2.6 square km).
"We are carefully reviewing the habitat policy to determine what if any impact it will have on our operations in Wyoming," said Julie Gentz, a spokeswoman for Williams, which produces natural gas in Wyoming.
Environmental groups such as the National Audubon Society say the Wyoming model adopted by BLM was developed with industry to head off the need for a federal listing -- and to allow energy developments such as wind turbines in areas not seen as absolutely crucial to the bird's continued existence.
"The guidelines laid out by the BLM will definitely be considered (in a listing decision)," said Pat Deibert, the lead Fish and Wildlife Service biologist on the issue.
Deibert said a listing would not choke all energy projects in the region but would add an additional regulatory hurdle for those that required federal approval or funds. Federal agencies have to ensure such activities do not jeopardize the existence of a listed species or adversely modify its habitat.
http://www.windaction.org/news/24970
Important meeting CCNS Advisors January 11 2010
SOUTH WELLFLEET — The Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will meet at 1 p.m. Jan. 11 at the federal agency's headquarters in South Wellfleet.
At the meeting, Seashore Superintendent George Price plans to give updates on a pending dune shack management plan, town zoning bylaw proposals under consideration within Seashore boundaries, the Herring River wetlands restoration in Wellfleet and Truro, wind turbines within Seashore boundaries and other issues, according to a published meeting agenda.
The 10-member volunteer board is made up of one federal, two state and one county appointee, as well as representatives of the six towns within the 44,000-acre Seashore. The commission meets several times a year. Its purpose is to serve as an advisory liaison to federal officials on administration and development of the Seashore, according to a 2008 commission member handbook.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held at 99 Marconi Station Road in South Wellfleet.