SaveOurSeaShore’s Response to the National Parks Conservation Association’s Letter
National Parks Conservation Association Letter of Support!!!
We are overjoyed to receive the support of the National Parks Conservation Association the leading voice in protecting and enhancing America's National Parks with more than 340,000 members. We are humbled by their words of encouragement and support in our effort to protect Cape Cod National Seashore from industrial wind turbines.
Concern for birds
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. ...There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
April 23, 2010 by Andres Hoag in The Lindsay Post
I read the article on the success the osprey is having here in the City of Kawartha Lakes and it certainly is a good news story.
But with the possible allocation of wind turbines throughout our municipality, I have real concern for the future of our birds of prey. It would be difficult for anyone to argue this area seems to be a hot spot for birds. I've counted 10 species of hawk, falcon and eagle including osprey and the bald eagle just off the top of my head and there could be possibly more.
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. We also have to hope that 1% is the truth and not a doctored number. Birds of prey are attracted to the up drafts the turbines produce and tend to circle the turbines until they get too close and get struck by one of the blades. A bald eagle has already been found dead in southern Ontario only 40 metres from a wind turbine.
I feel the City of Kawartha Lakes is part of a natural migration route and the wind turbines will have a significant toll on our birds of prey simply because of the numbers of prey birds that live in this area.
Once the turbines are up they will not be moved, so we need to ask ourselves if this is a logical place for them. In California which is also another part of the migratory route of birds of prey, 2,000 to 5,000 birds are killed each year.
According to a web site called the Heartland Institute, quote, "A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that Altamont Pass bird deaths are more prevalent than previously thought. According to the Jan. 30Oakland Tribune, previous studies conducted by wind farm operators had underestimated Altamont Pass bird kills by 25 to 300%. Moreover, new technologies designed to reduce the number of bird deaths will actually have the effect of increasing turbine bird kills.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined that new technology that would reduce the number of turbines by increasing the size of each tower's blades would kill more birds than the preexisting turbines. The larger turbines would increase the area of "swept" air and would have more lethal blades and components than their smaller cousins.
There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
Remember, we're supposed to be making the world a better place, not a more dangerous one.
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
Long time Resident Makes Statement on Wellfleet Wind Turbine to Cape Cod Advisory Commission
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
Maine Citizens Task Force on Wind Power
- 350 miles of ridgelines blasted away, including many miles of high altitude, sub alpine ecosystems, home to rare flora and fauna
- 50,000+ acres of permanently clearcut forest, with a loss of carbon sequestration from the forest and fragmenting wildlife habitat
- Silt and herbicide residues from ridgeline clearcuts washing into our streams and lakes, contaminating fish and silting spawning areas
- 1800 turbines, each 380 to 400 feet tall, with blinking aviation lights 24/7, industrializing wilderness and ruining extraordinary viewsheds
- 1800 turbines, killing bats and birds (especially raptors like eagles and hawks), disrupting patterns of wildlife, driving them away
- 1800 turbines, sending out annoying audible noise like the never ending sound of low flying jets, shuddering and "whumping" noises
- 1800 turbines, sending out low frequency sound waves, registered on the dBc scale that are unhealthy to humans and wildlife
- 1,000+ miles of connector powerlines that will be like a spiderweb across rural Maine
- An expansion of 345 kv transmission lines (the big ones whose electromagnetic fields cause health problems) to carry the power out of state
- Higher electric rates to pay for mandated use of more expensive, intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable wind power that Maine does not need
- Higher electric rates to pay for the $1.5 billion transmission line expansion, locking us into sharing the future high costs of other NE states
- Ask everyone you know who is concerned about this issue to also join the website, as we need to grow membership to look strong
- Write letters to the editor of the state's three regional dailies and your local weekly newspaper; comment on-line against pro-wind stories
- Contact your local State Rep and State Senator and tell them how this is bad for the state and to support repeal of PL 661
- Use the website as a resource; letters can be written by mining material here, a bit of "cut & paste", some personal tweaking & Voila--a letter!
- Use the website as a resource; feel free to go viral by sending our material or links to our material to everyone---help spread the word!
- Attend public hearings and speak out! Get your local community to pass an ordinance to control wind development (See Dixmont's ordinance)
- Arm yourself with the truth about industrial wind and counter in every way the propaganda that the iconic wind turbine will save the world
Wind turbines: ‘Eco-friendly’ – but not to eagles
Telegraph By Christopher Booker Published: 6:51PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.
This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.
In the US, the local branch of the Audubon Society withdrew its opposition to a giant wind farm off Cape Cod after a substantial sum of money was promised for ornithologists to monitor its effects on bird life. In Britain, the RSPB claims to keep a critical eye on those effects, but nevertheless urges a major expansion of wind farms, on the grounds that “climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet”. The RSPB receives £10 from the wind-farm builder Scottish & Southern Energy for every customer signing up for electricity under its “RSPB Energy” scheme. Ornithologists also derive a good income from developers for providing impact assessments for planning applications or for monitoring existing wind farms for bird collisions.
Various official bodies, such as Scottish National Heritage (SNH), are responsible in law for protecting bird populations. One particular scheme that sparked a long and fierce controversy – and was mildly opposed by the RSPB – was a wind farm now under construction at Edinbane on the Isle of Skye, on hills known to attract young golden eagles and sea eagles. A first run of the SNH “collision model” showed that, over 25 years, this was likely to kill 137 golden eagles, nearly 10 times the permissible conservation limit of 15. But when SNH revised a key parameter, the “avoidance rate”, from 95 per cent to 98 per cent, and the developer removed nine turbines from its plan, the result was that predicted eagle deaths fell to exactly 15, allowing the scheme to go ahead.
Details of what Mr Duchamp calls “the scandal of the Edinbane wind farm” are included in a complaint he has lodged with the European Commission (also available on his Iberica 2000 website), asking Brussels to be much more rigorous in enforcing its own environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which are widely disregarded by national authorities. The Commission did order the Scottish Executive to veto a 178-turbine wind farm on the Hebridean island of Lewis (for once, strongly opposed by the RSPB) because its devastating effect on eagles and other protected birds would breach its directives. But many similarly damaging schemes on Lewis and elsewhere are still being driven forward as part of Edinburgh’s mad dream that 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity should come from wind and other renewable sources within 10 years.
Large birds of prey are far from being the only victims of wind farms, and the thousands of miles of power lines needed to connect them to the grid. A study cited by Birdlife International shows that, each year, power lines can be responsible for up to 800 bird kills per mile. Vast numbers of other birds are killed by turbines each year, as are countless thousands of bats, which also seem to be drawn to wind farms, and which recent studies have shown die with their lungs distended by air pressure from the blades.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
Letter about Wind Turbine to Massachusetts Audubon in Wellfleet
To: RPrescott@massaudubon.org
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 12:03 pm
Subject: Wind turbines Dear Mr. Prescott: My name is George Zebrowski. My wife, Marsha, and I live in the Berkshires and have a vacation home/future retirement home off of Ocean View Drive in South Wellfleet. My wife's parents began building a house there in the early 1950s and moved there around 1956; at the time they were one of only two families to live on the back shore year-round. So obviously we've been following the plans to erect a 400-foot-wind turbine down the street within the Cape Cod National Seashore. What I simply cannot understand is why an organization such as the Massachusetts Audubon Society has not taken a strong stand AGAINST siting an industrial-size wind turbine within a National Park. What possible outcomes of additional studies might convince you that this is a good idea? First of all nothing in the founding legislation of the CCNS in any way suggests that such a project would be acceptable. I'm absolutely amazed that park superintendent George Price favors such a proposal (even going so far as to claim that executive orders encourage development of alternative energy within national parks, when in fact the executive orders he refers to actually suggest installing low-flush toilets or solar panels or adding insulation to park headquarters, visitor centers or bath houses is encouraged). Previously built wind turbines in other areas of the country have been shown to have negative impacts on the environment. As you're obviously aware, the CCNS lies within the biggest migratory bird route on the East Coast. Have you really and truly not read about birds being killed by wind turbines in areas that don't even lie within migratory routes? Several weeks ago my wife and I viewed a segment on the television program Chronicle that described the volunteer work being done at the Audubon. With my retirement coming in 2012 (or sooner), we concurred that once we're retired on the Cape what a great activity that would be to take part in. But when officials of your organization can't take a stand on something that is so counter to conservation efforts we have to wonder if our future volunteer efforts should be directed elsewhere. Please let me hear back from you on what could possibly come out of additional studies that would make you think this is a project the Massachusetts Audubon Society should support.
Sincerely,
George Zebrowski
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
U.S. Congressman overwhelmed by wind turbine noise complaints
Transcript of AM 1480 WLEA (Hornell, NY) interview with U. S. Congressman Eric Massa (D, NY) on April 25, 2009, talking about the “virtual flood of constituents,” and even non-constituents, complaining about wind turbine noise.
Brian: Hi, and welcome to Connections with Brian O’Neil, on the phone today with Congressman Eric Massa. Congressman, good morning.
Congressman Massa: Good morning, and thank you for having me with you today.
Brian: Well, it’s always great to be on the line with you Eric.
Congressman Massa: How can I help?
Brian: Well, Congressman, one of the big stories lately on AM 1480 WLEA and, of course, the Corning Leader is what’s been going on in Prattsburgh. On Friday, you met with two Prattsburgh town board members Steve Kula and Chuck Schick. Now, having attended the last few Prattsburgh meetings myself, I’m guessing your meeting had something to do with the controversy over wind energy in Prattsburgh?
Congressman Massa: Well ,yes, and as some listeners may remember and certainly you might remember, for almost three years of my candidacy, and certainly since I have become an incumbent, I have been very focused on the challenges this area faces as foreign-owned industrial wind turbine corporations attempt to build thousands of these 450 foot tall towers on virtually every hill in western New York State, despite the fact that the United States Meteorological Service has stated very clearly we simply don’t have the wind in this area of the world to economically justify this. We have seen a consistent effort by these foreign companies to subvert local governments who are ill prepared to deal with these million-dollar industrial systems, to back out of commitments they’ve made through the industrial development agencies, not to pay their contributions to the local schools that they promised, not to create new jobs. So, this is, unfortunately, what we’ve been talking about, and I wish I was wrong, but everything I said for the last three years has come true. But nowhere is that more apparent than now, with the fact that these wind turbines generate so much noise that the very homes on the properties that leased agreements to the wind turbines now can’t be occupied. Now I’m not making this up. I have been in my office with a virtual flood of constituents who have come to me, both on and off properties that were leased to the wind companies, saying that they can’t live in the houses anymore, yet they can’t sell them, and in fact the town supervisor of Cohocton, a man that would not even shake my hand at a parade because he was so upset that I dared challenge this issue, has written a letter to the very company that he invited into his community, saying – we can’t have these wind turbines here because they’re too noisy. Well, you know, three years too late, and I am meeting with the folks in Prattsburgh so that they get – first off, they requested to meet with me, because they’re asking for help, to make sure that what was rammed down Cohocton does not get rammed down Prattsburgh. And it’s very disconcerting that everyone has such a wonderful opinion of these 450 foot towers that frankly don’t even produce electricity, and I don’t say that comically, I say that realistically. It’s a huge local issue.
Brian: Now, Congressman, are more wind farmers besides Hal Graham stepping forward to you and telling you that the wind turbines are driving them nuts?
Congressman Massa: Its – I have been, I would say, every weekend a different family in the office, talking with me.
Brian: Wow. And they’re wind farmers, some of them?
Congressman Massa: Yes. In fact one is the, one owns a home and he agreed to have a lease on his property and now he is saying – I have to move out of my property. It’s quite amazing. Not to mention the fact that as we talked about, hunters are now coming up and telling me that there’s no wildlife anywhere within distance, and I’m talking three to four miles, of any of these wind turbines because these wind turbines emit low frequency vibrations that drive the deer away. So if some foreign companies have their way you’ll never be able to hunt in the southern tier again because we won’t have any deer. And that’s, again, I know that sounds like an exaggeration.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: But it’s not an exaggeration. Anybody who can tell you about animals in the wild will tell you they hear frequencies that humans cannot. And the low frequency vibrations from these industrial wind turbines drive the deer away. It’ll be the end of hunting for us.
Brian: Now, Congressmen Massa, back to what you said just a moment ago – you said these things don’t generate electricity at all?
Congressman Massa: Bingo. So, if the winds not blowing, they’re not generating. But if the wind is blowing, the electricity they’re generating, even now, is not going to come to New York it’s being shipped to other states like Massachusetts. And even now, we have a very limited capability technologically with the Independent System Operator, that’s the technical name of the individuals that oversee the incorporation of all electrical production into our New York Grid, a very limited ability to actually absorb the very unpredictable and highly variable nature of the electricity driven by wind turbines. Period.
Brian: Congressman Massa, when you met with those Prattsburgh officials on Friday afternoon, or Friday morning I think it was, what sort of impression did you walk away with when you left the meeting with those two Prattsburgh board members on Friday.
Congressman Massa: Well, first off, that they were very serious and concerned, that they were local officials of what I call gravitas. In other words, they’ve thought this through, they’ve asked the tough questions, they’ve asked for help from every, anyone and they told me that I was the only local, state or federal official that would sit down and talk to them.
Brian: I can believe that.
Congressman Massa: Now, this is an issue that I have been dealing with for years because I refuse to take the side of these very powerful foreign companies who are willing to do all kinds of things to get me to spout the party line for them. By the way, speaking of party lines, just about everybody that’s come up to me and asked me for this help is not of the same political party I am, because this, like every other issue that I deal with, cuts across party lines. This is about the future of this area. One of the last things we have, after everything else has been taken from us, is our environment, and now they want to take that too, and I will not rush willy-nilly down a road, a road by the way that has been torn up by the heavy tractors transporting these windmills and then we have to pay to repave them, I won’t go down that road without a fight, and that’s what I am trying to make happen.
Brian: We’re talking with Congressman Eric Massa on Connections here on AM 1480 WLEA. Congressman Massa, it seems to me that the two big issues right now in regards to wind energy are the problems with noise and the problem with corruption, with politicians having conflicts of interest. Some of these politicians out there, it seems like they’re just being out and out agents for wind companies in more than one way. One way would be bullying around anyone at these meetings who asks any, who questions at all, anything at all that the wind company wants. Another way would be for them to vote just down the line in every way that the wind company wants them to. As a matter of fact, at the last Prattsburgh meeting I attended, a man stepped forward and complained that one of the Prattsburgh Town Board members had given his name to a wind company person and this wind company person showed up at this Prattsburgh man’s house. And the Prattsburgh man was furious that his address and name had been given out to a wind company official by a Prattsburgh Town Board member for purposes of solicitation. Congressman, what’s going on here?
Congressman Massa: I think it’s a combination of opportunism and short- sightedness. I have been to these meetings. I have seen the bullying. You can’t – I am not easy to bully.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: Many people will tell me they don’t like me because I’m too outspoken.
Brian: And you’re fast on your feet, yeah, I’ve seen you in a debate.
Congressman Massa: But on the other hand, I think that the voices of the people that have no voice need to be represented. Now, if in a free and fair and open and informed decision a town decides they want to do this, then great, that’s a local issue. But I want it to be free, fair and informed and when the information actually gets out there, people say – well, we don’t want that. Nobody, including me, is against the clean production of wind energy where it makes economic and technical sense, at all. It doesn’t here. We are being taken advantage of because we ‘re being treated like a bunch of country bumpkins by these foreign folks from European capitals, and it’s got to stop.
Brian: Congressman, one person said to me recently that you seem to be way ahead of most of your political colleagues on this subject of wind energy because most leaders at the federal level that we’ve seen are just acting like, basically, public relations guys for wind companies. Do you think that someday that wind will be looked on in some areas like ours as a fad and a phase that just didn’t work out?
Congressman Massa: Yeah, but the problem is when they look at that, we’re going to have hundreds of these industrial wind turbines broken and rusting and spilling oil that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to take down and return those forests to what they were so we can go back to enjoying and attracting people for what they come here for. That’s the problem. So we shouldn’t have to wait to realize that a mistake has been made. If we had wind greater than 33 percent, which means that more than a third of the time the wind blew strong enough to actually turn the blades and make electricity, we could have some hope of having a real contribution to help stop environmental degradation, and yes that’s global warming, and to make inexpensive electricity. But, none of that electricity is staying here and those turbines are not generating electricity, so you can look at this from many different levels. And it’s very sad. And then, of course, I get painted as an out of control you know, aggressive, guy. Well, I’m going to be very aggressive when it comes to fighting for our local interests, because, candidly, nobody else is.
Brian: Congressman, it seems that you have a lot of knowledge about laws regarding wind power. Do you know who would be held responsible if a neighbor of a wind project suffered something like property value loss or their house was vibrating and, you know, they’re living next door to a wind turbine that’s causing their house to shake or the noise is terrible at night. Do you know who’s responsible for that – the wind company, the IDA, the town? Do you know who has to take responsibility?
Congressman Massa: Well, the immediate supposition is that the source of the problem is culpable for the property degradation. That’s generally the rule, but the wind companies then seek protection by saying – well, the town boards and the local towns gave us permission to do that, it’s their problem. The town board says – yeah, but the IDA gave us permission to do this, so it’s their problem. Then all of a sudden, a single family has to go running around, all up and down trying to get someone to help them when they are given the run around. This is exactly what happened in Cohocton. When people went to the town board and complained and said – listen, you guys voted to put these things up here, it exceeds the noise limit. The town board said – well, don’t talk to us, talk to the wind company. They went to the wind company, the wind company said – not our problem, the town board issued us a permit. And this is how you end up going in that circular run around that drives people crazy and they shouldn’t have to. So I’ve said – come see me, it’s my job to help where I can help, and I’m going to do that.
Transcript provided by Helderberg Community Watch
Wind Turbines Continue To Kill Birds
Golden Gate Audubon and four other local Audubon chapters sent a letter Jan. 28 to Alameda County demanding that the county ensure that wind turbines operating in the Altamont Pass remain shut down until the county implements a management plan that significantly reduces avian mortality resulting from wind turbine operations in the Altamont.
“Wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass kill as many as 9,600 birds each year, including many species that are fully protected by state and federal laws,” said Mike Lynes, Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon. “While we support responsible development of alternative energy resources, we cannot maintain the status quo in the Altamont without risking local bird populations. If wind energy generation is to remain in the Altamont Pass, the old wind turbines that cause the most mortality must be replaced with new turbines that are safer for birds.”
According to the draft 2009 Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study recently released by Alameda County, the wind companies that operate in the Altamont Pass have failed to significantly reduce the number of bird deaths that occur due to wind operations as required by a 2007 settlement agreement between the wind companies and the Audubon chapters. In this agreement, the companies were required to reduce bird deaths by 50 percent within three years, by November, 2009. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties must now implement a new management plan that will achieve the required reduction in bird deaths. According to Alameda County’s independent Scientific Review Committee, the best way to reduce bird mortality without removing wind power altogether is to remove these old generation turbines and replace them with new turbines that, if sited appropriately at Altamont, will result in fewer bird deaths.
According to the most recent data, wind operations in the Altamont Pass kill approximately 7,300 to 9,600 birds each year, including as many as 94 golden eagles, 477 American kestrels, 433 red-tailed hawks, and 718 burrowing owls. Species such as the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and the burrowing owl are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes any killing of the birds a violation of federal law.
Background
The Altamont Pass became one of the world’s largest wind farms in the 1980s as companies, spurred by enthusiasm for alternative energy and federal economic incentives, installed more than 5,500 wind turbines across 80 miles of the hilly grassland habitat. Despite the importance of the area for migratory and breeding birds, particularly hawks, owls and eagles, the wind turbines were installed without any environmental review. Thousands of birds were killed annually at Altamont; and in 2004 an independent study funded by the California Energy Commission affirmed what had been happening for two decades.
In 2005, Golden Gate Audubon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon, Mt. Diablo Audubon, Ohlone Audubon, and Marin Audubon joined with Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and sued Alameda County, alleging that its failure to conduct an environmental impact report assessing the impacts of the turbines on wildlife in the Altamont Pass was illegal and threatened wildlife. In 2007, the County and wind companies settled with Audubon and CARE, promising to reduce the killing of hawks, eagles and owls by 50 percent within three years.
According to Bob Power, executive director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, “It is clear that the existing, out-dated and poorly sited wind turbines at Altamont Pass continue to kill far too many birds, including rare and protected species like the golden eagle and burrowing owl. If wind turbine operations are to remain in the Altamont Pass, they must be modernized immediately; and, sited and operated to significantly reduce the killing of these birds.”
Problem with Wind Power
The following is an abreviated version of some of the problems with wind energy, for the full version go to the link below.
A Problem with Wind Power
by Eric Rosenbloom
Output figures from wind developers are typically annual averages expressed in the vague figure of "number of homes provided for." Homes, however, account for only a third of all electricity use, and electricity represents only a third of all energy consumption (only a fifth in Vermont). Further, home use of electricity varies widely through the day, week, and year, but wind plants generate electricity by the whims of the wind rather than the actual needs of the grid.
As averages, the figures ignore the fact that hour to hour, day to day, season to season, even the most windy sites experience periods of calm when the turbines are producing no electricity at all and cycles of slower wind when they are producing far less than their maximum capacity. When the wind is too fast, the turbines must shut down to avoid damage.
This variability, they say, is balanced by wiring up a multitude of sites, one of which at any time must surely be producing significant power. Instead of a "free and clean" source of energy, then, the necessary proposal is an expensive network of redundant installations that must fill most of our land and seascapes to make any meaningful contribution.
Despite local variabilities, however, the overall rise and fall of the wind is generally the same over the larger region. The grid must plan for the likely low point, i.e., the least power it may see from all of the attached wind plants. Large power plants cannot respond quickly to the hourly variations of the wind, so they must be already going when the power from the wind plants drops off.
There are solutions to this on a small scale, but for most grid systems, any power produced by wind plants is therefore in practice superfluous. The backup generation is already providing it.
On top of this uselessness, the turbines use a great deal of electricity themselves. Most of them cannot even run without input from the grid. Although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. In every report I've seen, input from the grid is not accounted for in the figures of net output. Specifications from turbine manufacturers do not include the amount of electricity they require.
It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.
It is clear that industrial wind generation is not able to contribute anything against the problems of global warming, pollution, nuclear waste, or dependence on imports. In Denmark, with the most per-capita wind turbines in the world, the output from wind facilities equals 15%-20% of their electricity consumption. The Copenhagen newspaper Politikenreported, however, that wind provided only 1.7% of the electricity actually used in 1999. The grid manager for western Denmark reported that in 2002 84% of their wind-generated electricity had to be exported, i.e., dumped at extreme discount. The turbines are often shut down, because it is so rare that good wind coincides with peaking demand. A director of the western Denmark utility has stated that wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions, the primary marker of fossil fuel use.
But industrial wind facilities are not just useless. They destroy the land, birds and bats, and the lives of their neighbors. Off shore, they endanger ships and boats and their low-frequency noise is likely harmful to sea mammals. They require subsidies and regulatory favors to make investment viable. They do not move us towards more sustainable energy sources and stand instead as monuments of delusion.
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
URGENT- Wind Energy Siting Act will allow wind turbines anywhere!
|
Industrial Wind Power Threatens Maine’s Mountains
By Meg Gilmartin
Industrial wind power is on the fast track to devastate the remote mountain ridges of Maine. Mainstream groups would have you believe that wind power is the next best solution to climate change; however, many Maine residents are beginning to realize that the only thing green about industrial wind power is the money that lines the corporate CEOs’ pockets. Activists from around the state are joining Earth First!ers’ to fight the most recent “green-washed” corporate attempt to pillage the mountains of Maine.
This threat is particularly relevant and frightening in the face of our current climate crisis. Wind power, amongst mainstream environmental groups stands as the answer to the crisis. Industrial wind power is not the answer to our current climate situation. Most wind power projects actually require more energy for their construction than they are able to produce, not to mention the energy needed to manufacture all of the elements for such projects. (To manufacture one of the cement pads that the average industrial wind turbine is placed upon produces 250,000 pounds of carbon.) However, nothing compares to the ecosystem destruction necessary to implement these projects in remote areas. Conservation, preservation and restoration of forested landscapes is one of the most valuable solutions to the effects of climate change on this planet’s non-human inhabitants. Yet the thousands of acres of clear-cutting, miles of new road-building, grading and clearing of sensitive alpine forests necessary for industrial wind power is being justified in the name of climate change. Allowing these sensitive mountain ecosystems to remain intact as wilderness corridors and carbon sinks provides an opportunity for these forests to regenerate; to eventually be capable of re-wilding the North Woods to its natural forested state, stretching from Maine to Minnesota, adding to this planets’ overall stability. Mountain ecosystems are also extremely important in the role they play in the hydrological cycle, with snow melt acting as a head water to rivers, streams, and ponds. Erosion and sedimentation that are often associated with wind power has the potential to contaminate these fresh water supplies: poisoning the life blood of this planet.
Corporations and the Maine government have been pushing through industrial wind power proposals around the state, following the creation of the “Wind Power Law,” signed in 2008, which placed two-thirds of the state within expedited wind power development areas. Within these zones, wind power projects require little to no environmental regulations and can be placed upon mountain ridges with no concern for the plants and animals who inhabit these areas. Two agencies—the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC), infamous for their part in the Plum Creek proposal to develop Moosehead Lake (see EF! J January-February 2009) and the
Department of Environmental Protection—have been given the authority to expand these expedited areas at the industry’s request despite having no qualifications or experience in making such decisions.
TransCanada is a 35 billion-dollar oil company from Alberta, Canada, responsible for the environmental devastation associated with tar sands (the most resource-intensive form of fossil fuel extraction). They have submitted an application to LURC to expand the expedited areas to include 631 acres on Sisk Mountain (they have already built 22 of 44 turbines on nearby Kibby Mountain). Sisk Mountain is located in the Boundary Mountains of western Maine in the Chain of Ponds area. Sisk Mountain and the Boundary Mountains are habitat to the Canada Lynx (listed threatened species), historic nesting grounds for the golden eagle, and home to the Bicknell’s Thrush, yellow-nosed vole, rock shrew, northern bog lemming, and thousands of migratory birds that pass through the range annually. Sisk Mountain is above 2,700 feet in elevation, placing it within the mountain protected zone because of the fragility of alpine ecosystems and their susceptibility to erosion. The fate of this remote mountain is being decided by LURC, the same commission that determined the fate of the Moosehead Lake area (the largest area of undeveloped land east of the Mississippi); zoning it to be developed as a playground for the rich.
Luckily, local community groups have formed around the state in opposition to wind power development. One of these groups, Friends of the Boundary Mountains (http://www.boundarymts.org), works to safeguard the Boundary Mountains from development and to conserve the area for traditional uses of wildlife, recreation and forestry. The group formed in 1995 when the protected mountain tops were threatened by rezoning for wind power development. The Friends of the Boundary Mountains has been particularly influential in the fight to protect Sisk Mountain from corporate driven ecological devastation; pushing the lines from “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) driven opposition to industrial wind power to more biocentric-based, no compromise messaging. These groups have recently formed a coalition called “The Citizens Task Force on Wind Power” to protect Maine’s mountain tops.
Because of Maine’s unique rural nature and “wealth” of natural resources, corporations like TransCanada are always around the next mountain ridge waiting to cash in this year’s federal stimulus package check in exchange for their role in ecological devastation. That is why Maine Earth First! is working to restore, re-wild and regenerate the shattered ecosystems that exist here and create long-lasting means of protection for the North Woods ecosystems and all of this planet’s interconnected neighbor ecosystems. Maine Earth First! will continue to take a no compromise stance in their eco-defense!
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=482comments
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
Wind Turbines Are A “SCARECROW” To Birds
Scientists (In the UK) have found that birds, including buzzards, golden plovers, curlews and red grouse, are abandoning countryside around wind farms because the turbines act as giant scarecrows, frightening them away. The impact is small now because there are few wind farms but researchers warn that, with hundreds more planned, plus an increase in the size of turbines, the effect could become much worse.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6974082.ece
County liable for non-compliance with Endangered Species Act – letter
Wood Rogers PLC, the Roanoke law firm representing Highland Citizens, has advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that allowing Highland New Wind Development to proceed without the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) required by the Endangered Species Act will place the county in legal jeopardy. The letter by Attorney James T. Rodier which details the supporting law can be accessed by clicking on the link(s) at the bottom of this page.
Wood Rogers PLC, the Roanoke law firm representing Highland Citizens, has advised the Highland County Board of Supervisors that allowing Highland New Wind Development to proceed without the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) required by the Endangered Species Act will place the county in legal jeopardy. The Highland supervisors have ignored previous warnings on the advice of the county's attorney.
The new warning follows the recent federal court ruling requiring Chicago-based Invenergy Inc., to stop further construction of its Beech Ridge Project in nearby Greenbrier County, WV and to dramatically curtail operation of 40 completed turbines until the required ITP permit is obtained.
As outlined in the Woods Rogers letter, the issues related to Highland New Wind Development, which has started site preparation without an ITP, are even-more compelling.
Whereas the Beech Ridge project threatens one endangered bat species, the Highland project threatens two endangered bat species and both bald and golden eagles. Moreover, unlike the the Beech Ridge case where only the developer was responsible for compliance, in the Highland case, both the developer and the authorizing local officials are responsible for compliance.
Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) have advised Highland New Wind to obtain an ITP before proceeding. Based on the importance of the site as a migratory pathway for birds and bats, the VDGIF contended in testimony presented to the State Corporation Commission that the project may result in the highest mortality rates for any wind energy project in the eastern U.S.
Web link: http://www.vawind.org/
Letter to Highland Board of Supervisors.pdf (290.83 kB)
http://www.windaction.org/documents/24885