Twice in the past week, I have been blown away by the looming prospect of what wind farms in our area could mean.
First was a drive through the existing wind farm in the rural hills, of Fenner, a community just east of Syracuse. There they were - some 20 towering white-winged wind turbines set among field and forest, turning on their massive bases. One was squeaking for need of oiling, the others were purring or laying idle. Thinking back to the experience several days later, all I can remember is the beguiling, overwhelming presence of the massive white turbines. The surrounding rural scenery was totally lost to my mind.
Second was attendance at the information meeting convened by Cohocton Wind Watch at the Naples Hotel August 28. Several thoughtful and articulate members of our regional community laid out a tapestry of devious and disturbing facts about the wind farm movement that is quietly preparing to invade the hills all about us.
For me the most riveting fact is the number 519. That is the projected number of 400-foot wind turbine towners that could be in place in a few years time among some 8 to 10 wind farms that industrial developers have in mind for the towns in our immediate region.
This is the stuff nightmares! Now is the time to wake up and stop the wind tower industrialization of this gentle part of the world in which we are all so fortunate to reside.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Ecogen and Global corporate connection
Ecogen is really Prattsburgh Wind Farm
Global is really Prattsburgh Wind PARK
Anyway isn't the lead agent responsible to check out the NYISO to see projects!!
NYISO_Interconnection_Queue.pdf
Global is really Prattsburgh Wind PARK
Anyway isn't the lead agent responsible to check out the NYISO to see projects!!
NYISO_Interconnection_Queue.pdf
Thursday, September 07, 2006
CWW letter to the Cohocton Planning Board - September 7, 2006
September 7, 2006
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At another of the special meetings of the Cohocton Town Board a motion was passed to refer back to the Cohocton Planning Board your recommendation on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, specifically regarding the 600 foot setback from roads and the property assurance protection coverage.
It is imperative that public safety needs to be a foremost concern in any new legislation. Adding a mere 100 foot increase to the original setback from public roads provides minimal improvement. Any efforts, from the Town Board Councilmen, Town attorneys or financial development vested interests to pressure the Cohocton Planning to reduce this setback would be a major assault on the necessary and required standard of independence and integrity.
As you are already aware Cohocton Wind Watch views your setback recommendations to be inadequate. Since the Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for any industrial windmill projects, CWW urges that your board act with the fortitude to guarantee real protection of the public safety. Mr. Fox’s own recommendation of one and a half times the height of the industrial wind turbines from public roads is especially important wording since your board voted to reverse (Mr. Fox voted to reject his own suggestion) that initial proposal of reducing the height limit of such towers to 400 feet.
With the adoption of a 500 foot tower limit means that the setback from public roads should be 750 feet in order for any future industrial wind turbine to be built to that height perimeter. At the very least, this benchmark needs to be retained in your new review of your own Cohocton Planning Board recommendations.
Keeping the one and a half times the tower height will also mitigate noise issues in the future.
With reference to your property assurance protection requirement, CWW supports the addition of a real estate and fully funded property value escrow indemnity requirement to any new legislation.
The Town Board expressed doubt that such a proposal was vague. Cohocton Wind Watch is ready and able to assist in formulating an active effort to secure a professional real estate insurance consultant that could draft a specific and detailed proposal for inclusion of such a vital protection for all Cohocton property owners. Beverly Cota has direct career expertise in the insurance industry. James Hall has extensive international insurance experience with Lloyds of London. Both are available to coordinate options, in a timely schedule, to present a valid property assurance protection plan for insurance coverage to the Cohocton Planning Board.
Loss of property values from illegitimate spot zoning practices to accommodate industrial wind turbines is an essential grievance that CWW has against the current UPC project.
Last night the Town Supervisor indicated that Cohocton needs to raise $50,000 in the next budget by way of issuing a bond or raise property taxes because of litigation costs. Without a serious inclusion of indemnification for property owners from the negative proximity of industrial wind turbines, further and future legal actions against the Town of Cohocton is inevitable. The prudent and responsible action to safeguard such adverse affects should be a primary concern of the Cohocton Planning Board. Mr. Zigenfus stated that the CPB must take all the needed time necessary to clarify its recommendation.
CWW stands ready to assist either the Cohocton Planning or Town Boards in securing an independent professional consultant who will develop and formulate a true and practical property assurance protection coverage plan. The costs for such an inquiry search can be privately funded with no direct expense to the Town of Cohocton. Therefore, CWW appeals to the Cohocton Planning Board to accept our offer to assist in securing the creation of a substantial real estate property proposal.
All Cohocton residents should work together for the mutual benefit of the entire community. Especially since a second developer, Empire State Wind Energy, has gone public with intentions to make application for their own industrial wind project, now is the time to write a reasonable and protective windmill local law.
The best way to diminish legal exposure for the Town of Cohocton is to enact legislation that has the real support of those most affected in the township. Your written reply to this offer is requested with suggestions how we can contribute to delineate the details of a property assurance protection coverage that is a crucial element in your recommendations to the Town Board.
Cordially,
Steve Trude – President Cohocton Wind Watch
cc: all Cohocton Town Board Councilmen
Cohocton Planning Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
Dear Mr. Fox and Planning Board Members:
At another of the special meetings of the Cohocton Town Board a motion was passed to refer back to the Cohocton Planning Board your recommendation on the Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2, specifically regarding the 600 foot setback from roads and the property assurance protection coverage.
It is imperative that public safety needs to be a foremost concern in any new legislation. Adding a mere 100 foot increase to the original setback from public roads provides minimal improvement. Any efforts, from the Town Board Councilmen, Town attorneys or financial development vested interests to pressure the Cohocton Planning to reduce this setback would be a major assault on the necessary and required standard of independence and integrity.
As you are already aware Cohocton Wind Watch views your setback recommendations to be inadequate. Since the Cohocton Planning Board is the lead agency for any industrial windmill projects, CWW urges that your board act with the fortitude to guarantee real protection of the public safety. Mr. Fox’s own recommendation of one and a half times the height of the industrial wind turbines from public roads is especially important wording since your board voted to reverse (Mr. Fox voted to reject his own suggestion) that initial proposal of reducing the height limit of such towers to 400 feet.
With the adoption of a 500 foot tower limit means that the setback from public roads should be 750 feet in order for any future industrial wind turbine to be built to that height perimeter. At the very least, this benchmark needs to be retained in your new review of your own Cohocton Planning Board recommendations.
Keeping the one and a half times the tower height will also mitigate noise issues in the future.
With reference to your property assurance protection requirement, CWW supports the addition of a real estate and fully funded property value escrow indemnity requirement to any new legislation.
The Town Board expressed doubt that such a proposal was vague. Cohocton Wind Watch is ready and able to assist in formulating an active effort to secure a professional real estate insurance consultant that could draft a specific and detailed proposal for inclusion of such a vital protection for all Cohocton property owners. Beverly Cota has direct career expertise in the insurance industry. James Hall has extensive international insurance experience with Lloyds of London. Both are available to coordinate options, in a timely schedule, to present a valid property assurance protection plan for insurance coverage to the Cohocton Planning Board.
Loss of property values from illegitimate spot zoning practices to accommodate industrial wind turbines is an essential grievance that CWW has against the current UPC project.
Last night the Town Supervisor indicated that Cohocton needs to raise $50,000 in the next budget by way of issuing a bond or raise property taxes because of litigation costs. Without a serious inclusion of indemnification for property owners from the negative proximity of industrial wind turbines, further and future legal actions against the Town of Cohocton is inevitable. The prudent and responsible action to safeguard such adverse affects should be a primary concern of the Cohocton Planning Board. Mr. Zigenfus stated that the CPB must take all the needed time necessary to clarify its recommendation.
CWW stands ready to assist either the Cohocton Planning or Town Boards in securing an independent professional consultant who will develop and formulate a true and practical property assurance protection coverage plan. The costs for such an inquiry search can be privately funded with no direct expense to the Town of Cohocton. Therefore, CWW appeals to the Cohocton Planning Board to accept our offer to assist in securing the creation of a substantial real estate property proposal.
All Cohocton residents should work together for the mutual benefit of the entire community. Especially since a second developer, Empire State Wind Energy, has gone public with intentions to make application for their own industrial wind project, now is the time to write a reasonable and protective windmill local law.
The best way to diminish legal exposure for the Town of Cohocton is to enact legislation that has the real support of those most affected in the township. Your written reply to this offer is requested with suggestions how we can contribute to delineate the details of a property assurance protection coverage that is a crucial element in your recommendations to the Town Board.
Cordially,
Steve Trude – President Cohocton Wind Watch
cc: all Cohocton Town Board Councilmen
Cohocton Town Board Ethic Committee
This date the Cohocton Town Board went on record that they will reestablishment the ethic committee.
September 6, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
RE: Ethics Committee Required By Law Appointments
Dear Cohocton Town Councilmen:
Pursuant to local law #1, 1970, article 111, sec.-1, an ethics committee was established but at the present time is non-existent. It is imperative in the interest of good government that the Town Board Of Cohocton must administer the reinstitution of the three (3) persons ethics panel immediately as required by law at the next regular town board meeting. Note that the board has the responsibility to appoint the majority two (2) members who are not employees, office holders or currently serving an appointed post for the Town Of Cohocton. Also it is important that the appointee from current elected or appointed individuals needs to be of independent integrity. It is essential that all three (3) candidates selected have the character, reputation and credibility beyond reproach for this important position.
Recommended resident names for the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots will be submitted in the future.
The prompt reestablishment of a Cohocton Board of Ethics Committee is needed in order to comply with existing Cohocton Town law. Your written reply and acknowledgement of intent to appoint such a commission, at your next regular monthly Town Board meeting is requested.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
September 6, 2006
Cohocton Town Board
15 South Main Street
Cohocton New York 14826
RE: Ethics Committee Required By Law Appointments
Dear Cohocton Town Councilmen:
Pursuant to local law #1, 1970, article 111, sec.-1, an ethics committee was established but at the present time is non-existent. It is imperative in the interest of good government that the Town Board Of Cohocton must administer the reinstitution of the three (3) persons ethics panel immediately as required by law at the next regular town board meeting. Note that the board has the responsibility to appoint the majority two (2) members who are not employees, office holders or currently serving an appointed post for the Town Of Cohocton. Also it is important that the appointee from current elected or appointed individuals needs to be of independent integrity. It is essential that all three (3) candidates selected have the character, reputation and credibility beyond reproach for this important position.
Recommended resident names for the two non Town of Cohocton employee slots will be submitted in the future.
The prompt reestablishment of a Cohocton Board of Ethics Committee is needed in order to comply with existing Cohocton Town law. Your written reply and acknowledgement of intent to appoint such a commission, at your next regular monthly Town Board meeting is requested.
Cordially,
Cohocton Wind Watch
UPC Wind misinforms
UPC, the company proposing 26 400-foot-high wind energy machines in Sheffield and Sutton [Vt.], took out a full-page ad in the July 1 Caledonian-Record (page B4). This was in reponse to the 48 people that were not employees of UPC who testified at the June 26 Public Service Board hearing in Sutton -- all of them describing the project's many negative impacts and its lack of significant benefits. UPC's ad quotes Abraham Lincoln that a dog still has four legs even if you call the tail a leg. They then proceed to argue that the tail of their dog is indeed a leg. But, as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog don't hunt.
(click above for full article)
(click above for full article)
Wind farms no economic boon for North, South Dakotans by Glenn Schleede
Global Winds Harvest Inc. and UPC Wind Partners, LLC announced in April a joint effort to install wind turbines with a total capacity of 480 megawatts (MW) in Dickey County, North Dakota and McPherson County, South Dakota. While the partners tout the project as an economic development boon, the economics of the proposal in fact leave much to be desired.
(click above for full article)
(click above for full article)
Monday, September 04, 2006
THIS WIND BLOWS ILL FOR WILDERNESS
A highly controversial proposal for 10 giant wind turbines next to the Gore Mountain ski slopes that would be visible from a number of peaks within the Adirondacks got a surprising nudge forward last week.
The Adirondack Park Agency approved the erection of a second 168-foot meteorological tower on the industrial footprint of the former Barton Mines in North Creek to assess wind speeds and directions. Much data already have been collected. Presumably this all leads to a full-fledged project proposal before the APA. That project by Adirondack Wind Partners will be a doozy if it materializes. Not so much for its size. Ten turbines in a wind farm is a modest proposal. But each would rise 400 feet and together trump the natural world around them, all inside the Adirondack Park.
Which is why this is not only a controversial proposal. It also sets an awful precedent.
The APA has jurisdiction over any tower 40 feet or higher, and the strict guideline the agency has used in the past is "substantial invisibility" when it comes to man-made structures in the park.
That's what drove the cell tower debate in Fort Ann, for example, over the so-called Frankenpine tower. The 104-foot phony pine tree is an attempt at cobbling "substantial invisibility." Frankenpine is being erected right now among the real pines, having won APA approval over the spirited objections of the Adirondack Council.
With Frankenpine, "substantial invisibility" is at least arguable.
No such efforts will be made to hide or mask the giant turbines, yet the APA continues to encourage them before there's a full-fledged proposal from Adirondack Wind Partners that can trigger appropriate debate and response. You can bet there will be plenty of that. This inching along without a complete proposal on the table sends the wrong signal, and can only encourage others to take a long shot at getting wind farms up and spinning on some other Adirondack mountain peaks - before the fundamental argument is settled as to whether they belong there at all.
How many such turbines will it take to compromise the unique natural topography of the Adirondacks?
To my mind, within the Adirondack Park, the answer is one. Because one will inevitably lead to many, and then poof, there goes that delicate illusion of the Adirondack forever wild wilderness. Forever.
"We're not at all happy with this latest approval," says Brian Houseal, executive director fo the Adirondack Council. "This whole project shouldn't get out of the starting gate, yet it seems to be creeping ahead."
Dave Gibson, executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, concurs. "The Barton Mines wind power proposal calls for highly engineered wind towers and turbine blades on a 3,000-foot mountain summit that would reach heights over 400 feet - or the equivalent of a 40-story urban building."
The fly in the soup here is the action of the current Adirondack Park Agency, which is admittedly caught in a bind. Wind power is the darling of the alternative energy crowd, including some elements of the environmental community. Politically, Governor Pataki is pushing both alternative energy for the state and economic development for the Adirondacks, and he's running out of time.
And this is his state agency. At least for the moment.
Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.
The Adirondack Park Agency approved the erection of a second 168-foot meteorological tower on the industrial footprint of the former Barton Mines in North Creek to assess wind speeds and directions. Much data already have been collected. Presumably this all leads to a full-fledged project proposal before the APA. That project by Adirondack Wind Partners will be a doozy if it materializes. Not so much for its size. Ten turbines in a wind farm is a modest proposal. But each would rise 400 feet and together trump the natural world around them, all inside the Adirondack Park.
Which is why this is not only a controversial proposal. It also sets an awful precedent.
The APA has jurisdiction over any tower 40 feet or higher, and the strict guideline the agency has used in the past is "substantial invisibility" when it comes to man-made structures in the park.
That's what drove the cell tower debate in Fort Ann, for example, over the so-called Frankenpine tower. The 104-foot phony pine tree is an attempt at cobbling "substantial invisibility." Frankenpine is being erected right now among the real pines, having won APA approval over the spirited objections of the Adirondack Council.
With Frankenpine, "substantial invisibility" is at least arguable.
No such efforts will be made to hide or mask the giant turbines, yet the APA continues to encourage them before there's a full-fledged proposal from Adirondack Wind Partners that can trigger appropriate debate and response. You can bet there will be plenty of that. This inching along without a complete proposal on the table sends the wrong signal, and can only encourage others to take a long shot at getting wind farms up and spinning on some other Adirondack mountain peaks - before the fundamental argument is settled as to whether they belong there at all.
How many such turbines will it take to compromise the unique natural topography of the Adirondacks?
To my mind, within the Adirondack Park, the answer is one. Because one will inevitably lead to many, and then poof, there goes that delicate illusion of the Adirondack forever wild wilderness. Forever.
"We're not at all happy with this latest approval," says Brian Houseal, executive director fo the Adirondack Council. "This whole project shouldn't get out of the starting gate, yet it seems to be creeping ahead."
Dave Gibson, executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, concurs. "The Barton Mines wind power proposal calls for highly engineered wind towers and turbine blades on a 3,000-foot mountain summit that would reach heights over 400 feet - or the equivalent of a 40-story urban building."
The fly in the soup here is the action of the current Adirondack Park Agency, which is admittedly caught in a bind. Wind power is the darling of the alternative energy crowd, including some elements of the environmental community. Politically, Governor Pataki is pushing both alternative energy for the state and economic development for the Adirondacks, and he's running out of time.
And this is his state agency. At least for the moment.
Fred LeBrun can be reached at 454-5453 or by e-mail at flebrun@timesunion.com.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Senate Republicans give $1 million to fight power line project
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Republican state Senators are giving one (m) million dollars in taxpayer money to help several upstate counties battle a plan to run a 200-mile power transmission line across New York.
The money will help Oneida, Herkimer, Madison, Chenango, Broome,
Delaware, Ulster, Sullivan and Orange counties fight New York Regional Interconnect's plan to build the power line from Marcy to the lower Hudson Valley.
The Albany-based company says a new high-capacity line is needed to bring power from central and western New York to the New York City area.
But many residents and government leaders in communities along the possible route have come out against the plan, saying it will damage local economies and drive down property values.
G-O-P leaders in the Senate say the money to fight the project will come from discretionary funds that were included as part of this year's state budget.
The money will help Oneida, Herkimer, Madison, Chenango, Broome,
Delaware, Ulster, Sullivan and Orange counties fight New York Regional Interconnect's plan to build the power line from Marcy to the lower Hudson Valley.
The Albany-based company says a new high-capacity line is needed to bring power from central and western New York to the New York City area.
But many residents and government leaders in communities along the possible route have come out against the plan, saying it will damage local economies and drive down property values.
G-O-P leaders in the Senate say the money to fight the project will come from discretionary funds that were included as part of this year's state budget.
Monday, August 28, 2006
WindFarm Prattsburgh EIS Response Group
August 26, 2006
WindFarm Prattsburgh EIS Response Group
Steuben County Industrial Development Agency
SCIDA, Route 54, Bath, NY 14810
(607) 776-3316
Dear SCIDA,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the EIS for the WindFarm Prattsburgh project. Below you will find my comments, which I believe you will find useful in your efforts to protect the rights of non-participating landowners who would be potentially negatively affected by the inappropriate siting of wind turbines. The focus of these comments is on setbacks. In my comments, I will at times also refer to the EIS Response submitted by Advocates for Prattsburgh, which provides relevant technical recommendations. Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John G. Servo
11752 Black Lock Road
Naples/Prattsburgh, NY 14512
(585) 727-8819
Response to the WindFarm Prattsburgh EIS
The Setbacks Issue and Recommendations
Wind projects in the U.S. are predominantly located are very large tracts of land owned by single owners in the sparsely populated semi-arid West. Prattsburgh in Steuben County is far more densely populated then these Western sites. And while several large contiguous parcels of hundreds of acres with good wind profiles are located in the town (where these projects should be located), land ownership in Prattsburgh is predominantly in smaller parcels of insufficient size in themselves for windfarm development. For this reason, UPC and GWH want to place their turbines in between the homes and properties of non-participating landowners. For this reason, it is critical that appropriate and adequate setbacks from property lines be provided to non-participating landowners to protect their rights through adequately addressing the potentially significant negative impacts of:
· invasive industrial noise generated by the wind turbines,
· issues of health and safety,
· near-view viewshed concerns,
· property values,
· the freedom to build homes in the future on our properties where we want to build them, and
· the right to freely negotiate fair compensation, should a property owner decide to grant an easement of these adequate setbacks.
UPC and GWH imply in the EIS that their project will not be economically viable if run on a smaller scale. This is clearly untrue, as shown by the 20-turbine project in Fenner, the 14-turbine project proposed by UTC Atlantic Renewable in Springwater, and the 15-turbine projects proposed by Empire State Wind. Instead, this claim represents a poorly disguised effort by the developer to persuade the lead agent to grant them the inadequate setbacks they seek, with the implied threat that without the proposed 1200' setbacks from houses and 500' setbacks from property lines, the Project will not succeed. This should be dismissed by the lead agent out-of-hand. SCIDA should require that UPC/GWH provide "a harder look" - a more adequate and substantive assessment - of the setbacks which will be required in order to protect non-participating landowners.
Setbacks and compensation as two sides of the same coin.
· In the semi-arid West, wind turbines are placed on large dryland farms and ranches. Typically, 2000 acres (3.1 square miles) is required for these farms and ranches to be financially viable, and historically they are single-owner contiguous properties of 2-10 square miles.
· On these wind projects out West, the owner of the land representing the footprint for the tower/turbine - who is compensated - and the owner of the surrounding, potentially negatively-affected land are one and the same.
· However, in Prattsburgh - if UPC/GWH is allowed to implement the proposed clearly inadequate setbacks - the non-particpating landowners will not be compensated. Only the landowner immediately under the tower is compensated.
· Windfarm development in Upstate New York and Steuben County is being run like a shell game: get the public to look at the right hand (extravagant claims for alternative power), so they don't see what the left hand is doing - ripping off the non-participating landowners to dramatically increase the profitability of their projects.
· Those of us non-participating landowners who don't want wind turbines are highly concerned about securing adequate setbacks to address noise, health, safety, viewshed and property value issues. However, there is a strong additional reason which is often not discussed for providing adequate setback protection: the rights of those non-participating landowners who may elect to sacrifice some use-value and financial value - through allowing closer siting of wind turbines on adjoining properties - for the right price. Unfortunately, these landowners are denied the right to negotiate away these rights in exchange for freely negotiated fair compensation, and they are currently being told they deserve nothing, and that there are no problems. The issue is that the denial of fair and adequate setbacks is primarily an issue of avoiding payment.
· The developers could, with effort and higher expense, create de facto industrial parks for these windfarms based on a combination of direct ownership, leases, and granted/paid easements. A successful (though perhaps less outrageously profitable) project can be effectively accomplished within the framework of adequate setbacks for non-participating landowners. Advocates for Prattsburgh has shown SCIDA that it can be done, and how they can do it. However, not paying people is far more profitable than freely negotiated fair compensation. The lead agent should take the high ground and protect the rights of non-participating landowners through requiring that UPC/GWH more effectively address these critical issues.
The Noise Impact Assessment done by Hessler Associates, Inc. is highly flawed and the lead agent should require that a new assessment be conducted which more accurately reflects actual site conditions.
· The setbacks are based on computer modeling analysis alone, which employ strategies which lead to a self-serving assessment of low noise impact (see the EIS response from Advocates for Prattsburgh for specifics). The noise impact assessment should be based on noise studies at actual wind find farms using similar turbines, operating under similar conditions. This site exists, and nearby: the 20-tower Fenner wind project, which employs GE 1.5s turbines.
· For several years, GWH (and more recently, UPC) have emphasized to the public that the Fenner wind farm project as an example of a safe and beneficial project. This effort has included providing transportation for citizens wishing to visit the site.
· It is absolutely unconscionable that the developers and Hessler Associates did not conduct a detailed study of the Fenner site in its assessment, especially considering the problems which this study would readily reveal. (Please see the accompanying letters from two non-participating homeowners in Fenner - Pastor Kathleen Danley and Pam Foringer - indicating persistent and very disturbing nosie problems. Pastor Danley's home is approximately 2000' from the nearest tower.)
· In addition, when I visited Fenner last Summer on an otherwise clear and sunny day, my experience was highly disturbing. Standing on Milestrip Road at a 2300' distance and about 80' in elevation downhill from the nearest wind turbine, the low frequency noise from these industrial machines was incessant was clearly audible and unpleasant. If similar machines were placed 2300' from my home, I would be driven indoors to escape the noise. Worse still, the attractiveness of my property (should I decide to sell in order to escape the noise) would be severely damaged, if I could sell it at all.
· The lead agent should protect the citizens of Prattsburgh and require UPC and GWH to conduct credible noise studies at the Fenner wind farm before approving the EIS.
o These noise studies should be of sufficient duration to track changes in atmospheric conditions affecting noise propagation and should be conducted at different times during the year.
o These noise studies should also be conducted at different locations reflecting the highly varied topographical relationship of the proposed turbines and the properties of non-participating landowners. Of special concern are locations on slopes and in valleys below these turbines.
o Computer modeling should be restricted to the applications where it can enhance accuracy of actual noise readings at the Fenner site, rather than their current role in creating self-serving projections. For example, the potential greater noise propagation distance for taller towers and the higher initial noise level of the 2.0MW Gemesa Eolica G87 turbines can be factored in the provide even greater setbacks from property lines of non-participating landowners.
o The claim by the developers (though Hessler and Associates) that it is appropriate to use mean daytime noise levels is highly self-serving and should be thrown out. At issue is the noise these turbines make at their worst, not on average, and the lead agent should insist on setbacks which adequately mitigate this to near inaudibility. At sites where background noise levels are shown to be lower at night, these nighttime reading should be applied toward a worst-case noise model.
· It is astonishing the UPC and GWH have the boldness to claim that "sensitive receptors" should only refer to houses. Sensitive receptors should refer to people. We are the ones who will actually hear this noise, and we should not be driven into our homes in order to escape it. Non-participating landowners should have the right to enjoy (the term stated on their deeds) all of their property free from the unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of noise.
· The "pro-noise" ordinances of 50dBA (mentioned by Hessler Associates) enacted by some towns should be an embarrassment to any elected official who has accepted the public's trust. Background noise levels for significant periods in the 28-35 dBA are quite common in similar regions. The initially-recommended conservative guidelines provided in October 2004 by NY DEC of no greater than 6dBA above background noise levels at property lines should be followed. SCIDA has this document on file (provided upon request).
UPC/GWH should study the problems at actual working wind farms and the implications of these problems for determining adequate setbacks.
· On page 153, the EIS claims that "data gathered at existing wind farms documented ice fragments from 50' to 328' from the base of the tower". Not addressed is that ice fragments (especially smaller ones) melt quickly, and it is the smaller projectiles (with the potential for traveling significant distances) which are the concern of non-participating landowners.
· Far more astonishing, however, is the willingness of UPC and GWH to use data from operating wind farms only when it suits them. This is unacceptable. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
· The lead agent should require that conduct substantive noise studies and interviews to assess the incidence of shadow flicker and other complaints at the Upstate wind farms utilizing virtually identical machines - such as the Fenner wind farm, which employs GE 1.5s turbines.
Ice throw. Please see the comments and recommendations provided by the Advocates for Prattsburgh EIS Response regarding calculating appropriate setbacks - at least 1500' - to protect against ice throw. The lead agent should require UPC/GWH to take a hard look at these issues and provide setbacks which adequately protect citizens.
· Characteristically, a study presenting data which contradicts its own recommendations is considered sloppy engineering. The EIS does this. The 500' property line setback requested by UPC and GWH is contradicted by the for ice throw in the European safety threshold of 660' to 820' quoted on page 157. The issue is UPC/GWH's claim that the falling ice, which they apparently acknowledge would fall on the properties of non-participating landowners, would not be "of significant size". In addition, as "mitigation" they would then "contact local landowners and snowmobile clubs, and inform them of the potential risks posed by falling ice in the vicinity of wind turbines." This is breathtakingly self-serving. The issue is not to warn non-participating landowners, but to protect them with adequate setbacks.
Tower collapse/ blade throw. Tower collapse and blade throw are highly serious potential threats to health and safety posed by these colossal industrial machines. The lead agent should require UPC/GWH to give a hard look at offering non-participating landowners adequate setback protection from these hazards.
· The EIS states that "the risk of catastrophic tower collapse or blade failure is minimal" (pg. 158) and offers no substantive mitigation. The clear implication is that UPC/GWC believes this problem does not need to be addressed. This is equivalent to stating that, as catastrophic fires in music clubs seldom happen (statistically speaking), there is no need for fire codes for these facilities. However, even a cursory study of the wind industry indicates multiple instances of tower collapse and blade failure within the past year. For this reason, this clearly needs to be addressed through setbacks.
· And on page 161, the EIS states that "even a worst case failure would not endanger adjacent properties, roadways…". This is clearly not the case, as an analysis of the physics of these machines indicates that blade throw can be 1000', and an instance of blade tip throw of 1300' was reported in the U.K. (Calculations and data provided upon request, and please see the response from Advocates for Prattsburgh). In order to provide adequate protection for citizens, the lead agent should require that wind turbines be sufficiently set back from property lines to protect against both calculated and demonstrated worst case scenarios.
Viewshed. The EIS acknowledges the overwhelming near-view visual dominance posed by these 400' industrial machines, but offers no setbacks or mitigation to address this whatsoever.
· On page 187 in the EIS, the assessment done by EDR (the contractor hired by UPC/GWH to assess viewshed) states that "the presence of the turbines will result in a change in the perceived land use from some viewpoint, and the turbines will contrast with the landscape (to varying degrees) where visible."
· On page 106, the EDR states "The greatest impact typically occurs when the turbines are close to the viewer (i.e. less than 0.5 miles), which heightens the projects contrast with the landscape in color, line, texture, form and especially scale. In such views, the turbines become focal points, and begin to alter the perceived use of the land."
· And on page 107, EDR states that the "high concentration of red lights flashing in unison will be discordant with the current dark nighttime conditions."
· The implication (by omission) is that 'there is a problem, but nothing can be done about it, so you are just going to have to live with it, as the lead agent will let us put in our project on our terms.' This conveys a profound disrespect and lack of concern for the rights of pre-existing non-participating landowners and their right to enjoy their property.
· On numerous occasions, Jim Sherron of SCIDA has stated his opinion that viewshed issues "can't be mitigated". This is clearly true for visibility at considerable distances, as these turbines are potentially visible up to 20 miles away. However, viewshed mitigation can be offered while still maintaining the health of the project.
· For example, for instances where the turbines are within 5 miles of locations/entities dependent upon tourism - and when these entities state a concern regarding the potential negative impact posed by the high visibility of these turbines - the only mitigation is to not sites theses towers where they will be visible. While this critical issue does not appear to be a concern for Phase I of the UPC/GWH project, this may need to be addressed in future phases of the project.
· However, an effort can and should be made to address the impact posed by these colossal industrial machines on near-view locations. EDR clearly states that the potential greatest negative impacts (as quoted above) occur when turbines are within one-half mile. For this reason, the setback to mitigate this overwhelming visual dominance for non-participating landowners should be at least 2640' from property lines, which corresponds to EDR's one-half mile. Clearly, an effort to protect citizens from near-view viewshed threats can be made. SCIDA should require that UPC/GWH address the implications of its own study and provide significant setbacks to address viewshed concerns.
Viewshed and property values. ·
A number of prominent local realtors have indicated that viewshed concerns have already had a negative impact on the purchase behavior of potential buyers. They have also stated that siting turbines where they will be visible from the properties of non-participating would have a negative impact on the potential value of these properties, with the negative impact greater the closer these turbines are sited. (SCIDA has these letters already on file, and they can be provided again upon request.)
· The lead agent should require that the developer provide a property value guarantee during the first 5 years of the project for each property within 5 miles from a visible tower. The comparative valuations should be based upon comparable properties from which the Project's turbines are not visible. This 5 mile Zone of Visual Impact would not be a true setback. Nonetheless, it would represent a zone of acknowledged responsibility to provide mitigation - where warranted - against the potential negative impact posed by the specific siting of their turbines.
Shadow flicker.
To effectively mitigate shadow flicker (and other assessments of potential threats and hazards), the definition of "receptors" should be people rather than buildings. This follows the incontrovertible logic that people are potentially negatively affected by shadow flicker, rather than inanimate objects. The lead agent should require that UPC/GWH site its towers at a distance where the shadow flicker effect will not be visible from the property lines of non-participating landowners.
· The assessment offered by EDR states that "at distances greater than 1000' between wind turbines and receptors, shadow flicker generally occurs only near sunrise and sunset…" (page 110). By implication, EDR is stating that shadow flicker is a common occurrence within 1000'. Non-participating property owners should have the right - which they already have now, pre-Project - to walk (and potentially enjoy) their properties. For this reason alone, the setback from property lines should be at least 1000' to protect these property owners from high-incidence near-view shadow flicker affects (please see Pam Foringer's attached letter).
· EDR also states that the model they employed "assumes shadows will be of sufficient intensity to cause flicker at a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 miles)", but that this distance is "more likely to be on the order of 2900'". EDR then goes on to state that the frequency of occurrence is not sufficient to require any mitigation whatsoever. That the developer supports this assessment conveys an extraordinary hubris and lack of respect for the rights of non-participating landowners. Evidently, UPC/GWH makes two key assumptions:
o They, not the potentially negatively affected landowners, have the right to determine the "acceptable" level of negative impact which non-participating landowners should suffer at their hands.
o They are confident that the lead agent will rubber stamp their claim to trump the rights of these pre-existing landowners. However, if the lead agent accepts that their responsibilities extend beyond the interest of the developers to encompass the interests of the non-participating landowners, this assumption is mistaken.
· It is easy (and potentially highly self-serving) for a developer to claim this is just 'no problem' with shadow flicker. However, two "real life" factors indicate that this problem is pervasive.
o EDR acknowledges a shadow effect up to 4750' away (0.9 miles) - not just 2900' - it is fair to assume that this visual disturbance is a dominant effect.
o The "receptors" should be people enjoying their property, and in rural Prattsburgh where owners of hill property acres of land, this most often means outdoors, not just within their houses. Standards appropriate for urban dwellers driven indoors do not apply.
o SCIDA should address this problem and require that UPC/GWH address both
§ high-incidence near-view shadow flick effects and
§ study the actual impact of shadow flicker experienced by property owners at representative Upstate wind farms.
Wind rights.
The lead agent should require UPC and GWH to give a hard look at protecting the wind rights of non-participating landowners downwind from proposed tower sites. These non-participating landowners should be able retain the right to maintain their option to chose to have a developer place wind towers on their properties at a future date.
· In order to retain this right, the viability of the wind resource on their properties must not be damaged. Wind turbines create a wake 8 to 11 rotor diameters downwind, and this turbulence effectively damages the viability of the land within this wake as viable wind turbine sites. 8 to 11 rotor diameters represents a distance of 2021" to 2779' for a GE 1.5 sle turbine (77m rotor) and 2283' to 3140' for a Gemesa Eolica G87 turbine (87m rotor).
· The rights to this above-ground wind resource should be considered as significant as sub-surface rights for natural gas resources. The non-participating owners of properties downwind from these turbines within this range (as little as 2021' and as much as 3140') are potentially subject to having their wind rights seized without compensation.
· SCIDA should require that UPC and GWH freely negotiate fair compensation for the wind rights of non-participating landowners or require that these turbines be sited 11 rotor diameters from the property lines of non-participating landowners.
Future use of property for home building.
· Non-participating landowners should retain the right for the future use of our property for home building, which will require that the maximum setbacks be from property lines. This will allow the pre-existing non-participating property owner the flexibility to site his home at the optimal location on his property. The most appropriate site fro a new home or cabin is often by a road or at the edge of a field, which may be across from a proposed tower site.
· Placing more distant setbacks only from pre-existing houses effectively precludes sane property owners from placing future home sites near these boundaries. This - and all other inadequate setbacks - represent a "taking" of value from the non-participating landowner without compensation. The lead agent should make every to protect non-participating landowners from these potential thefts of value.
Wind turbines should not be placed along prominent traffic corridors where their distraction can pose a threat to safe driving, and therefore a threat to traffic safety. Scida should require that the potential negative impact of traffic safety resulting from the placement of turbines along Route 53 be given a much harder look.
The lead agent needs to require that the developer provide adequate protections to non-participating landowners. Placing wind turbines too close to property lines would subject non-participating landowners to
· turbine-generated industrial noise,
· potential threats to health and safety,
· threats to the value and future usefulness of their properties, and
· the overwhelming visual dominance of these 400' machines with flashing red lights 24 hours/day.
All of these problems can be successfully addressed through providing adequate setbacks from property lines, with the maximum setback distance determined by the distance required to effectively address worst-case scenario threats. This can be accomplished by having all the potentially negatively affected property be within a controlled space. Through a combination of direct ownership by the project, leases, and granted easements, these vast industrial machines can effectively be placed within an industrial park. SCIDA should require that the developer to take a much harder look at each of these serious concerns. SCIDA should also require that UPC and GWH provide a project plan which includes setbacks which more effectively address all of the potential threats posed by siting their turbines close to the property lines of non-participating landowners.
WindFarm Prattsburgh EIS Response Group
Steuben County Industrial Development Agency
SCIDA, Route 54, Bath, NY 14810
(607) 776-3316
Dear SCIDA,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the EIS for the WindFarm Prattsburgh project. Below you will find my comments, which I believe you will find useful in your efforts to protect the rights of non-participating landowners who would be potentially negatively affected by the inappropriate siting of wind turbines. The focus of these comments is on setbacks. In my comments, I will at times also refer to the EIS Response submitted by Advocates for Prattsburgh, which provides relevant technical recommendations. Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John G. Servo
11752 Black Lock Road
Naples/Prattsburgh, NY 14512
(585) 727-8819
Response to the WindFarm Prattsburgh EIS
The Setbacks Issue and Recommendations
Wind projects in the U.S. are predominantly located are very large tracts of land owned by single owners in the sparsely populated semi-arid West. Prattsburgh in Steuben County is far more densely populated then these Western sites. And while several large contiguous parcels of hundreds of acres with good wind profiles are located in the town (where these projects should be located), land ownership in Prattsburgh is predominantly in smaller parcels of insufficient size in themselves for windfarm development. For this reason, UPC and GWH want to place their turbines in between the homes and properties of non-participating landowners. For this reason, it is critical that appropriate and adequate setbacks from property lines be provided to non-participating landowners to protect their rights through adequately addressing the potentially significant negative impacts of:
· invasive industrial noise generated by the wind turbines,
· issues of health and safety,
· near-view viewshed concerns,
· property values,
· the freedom to build homes in the future on our properties where we want to build them, and
· the right to freely negotiate fair compensation, should a property owner decide to grant an easement of these adequate setbacks.
UPC and GWH imply in the EIS that their project will not be economically viable if run on a smaller scale. This is clearly untrue, as shown by the 20-turbine project in Fenner, the 14-turbine project proposed by UTC Atlantic Renewable in Springwater, and the 15-turbine projects proposed by Empire State Wind. Instead, this claim represents a poorly disguised effort by the developer to persuade the lead agent to grant them the inadequate setbacks they seek, with the implied threat that without the proposed 1200' setbacks from houses and 500' setbacks from property lines, the Project will not succeed. This should be dismissed by the lead agent out-of-hand. SCIDA should require that UPC/GWH provide "a harder look" - a more adequate and substantive assessment - of the setbacks which will be required in order to protect non-participating landowners.
Setbacks and compensation as two sides of the same coin.
· In the semi-arid West, wind turbines are placed on large dryland farms and ranches. Typically, 2000 acres (3.1 square miles) is required for these farms and ranches to be financially viable, and historically they are single-owner contiguous properties of 2-10 square miles.
· On these wind projects out West, the owner of the land representing the footprint for the tower/turbine - who is compensated - and the owner of the surrounding, potentially negatively-affected land are one and the same.
· However, in Prattsburgh - if UPC/GWH is allowed to implement the proposed clearly inadequate setbacks - the non-particpating landowners will not be compensated. Only the landowner immediately under the tower is compensated.
· Windfarm development in Upstate New York and Steuben County is being run like a shell game: get the public to look at the right hand (extravagant claims for alternative power), so they don't see what the left hand is doing - ripping off the non-participating landowners to dramatically increase the profitability of their projects.
· Those of us non-participating landowners who don't want wind turbines are highly concerned about securing adequate setbacks to address noise, health, safety, viewshed and property value issues. However, there is a strong additional reason which is often not discussed for providing adequate setback protection: the rights of those non-participating landowners who may elect to sacrifice some use-value and financial value - through allowing closer siting of wind turbines on adjoining properties - for the right price. Unfortunately, these landowners are denied the right to negotiate away these rights in exchange for freely negotiated fair compensation, and they are currently being told they deserve nothing, and that there are no problems. The issue is that the denial of fair and adequate setbacks is primarily an issue of avoiding payment.
· The developers could, with effort and higher expense, create de facto industrial parks for these windfarms based on a combination of direct ownership, leases, and granted/paid easements. A successful (though perhaps less outrageously profitable) project can be effectively accomplished within the framework of adequate setbacks for non-participating landowners. Advocates for Prattsburgh has shown SCIDA that it can be done, and how they can do it. However, not paying people is far more profitable than freely negotiated fair compensation. The lead agent should take the high ground and protect the rights of non-participating landowners through requiring that UPC/GWH more effectively address these critical issues.
The Noise Impact Assessment done by Hessler Associates, Inc. is highly flawed and the lead agent should require that a new assessment be conducted which more accurately reflects actual site conditions.
· The setbacks are based on computer modeling analysis alone, which employ strategies which lead to a self-serving assessment of low noise impact (see the EIS response from Advocates for Prattsburgh for specifics). The noise impact assessment should be based on noise studies at actual wind find farms using similar turbines, operating under similar conditions. This site exists, and nearby: the 20-tower Fenner wind project, which employs GE 1.5s turbines.
· For several years, GWH (and more recently, UPC) have emphasized to the public that the Fenner wind farm project as an example of a safe and beneficial project. This effort has included providing transportation for citizens wishing to visit the site.
· It is absolutely unconscionable that the developers and Hessler Associates did not conduct a detailed study of the Fenner site in its assessment, especially considering the problems which this study would readily reveal. (Please see the accompanying letters from two non-participating homeowners in Fenner - Pastor Kathleen Danley and Pam Foringer - indicating persistent and very disturbing nosie problems. Pastor Danley's home is approximately 2000' from the nearest tower.)
· In addition, when I visited Fenner last Summer on an otherwise clear and sunny day, my experience was highly disturbing. Standing on Milestrip Road at a 2300' distance and about 80' in elevation downhill from the nearest wind turbine, the low frequency noise from these industrial machines was incessant was clearly audible and unpleasant. If similar machines were placed 2300' from my home, I would be driven indoors to escape the noise. Worse still, the attractiveness of my property (should I decide to sell in order to escape the noise) would be severely damaged, if I could sell it at all.
· The lead agent should protect the citizens of Prattsburgh and require UPC and GWH to conduct credible noise studies at the Fenner wind farm before approving the EIS.
o These noise studies should be of sufficient duration to track changes in atmospheric conditions affecting noise propagation and should be conducted at different times during the year.
o These noise studies should also be conducted at different locations reflecting the highly varied topographical relationship of the proposed turbines and the properties of non-participating landowners. Of special concern are locations on slopes and in valleys below these turbines.
o Computer modeling should be restricted to the applications where it can enhance accuracy of actual noise readings at the Fenner site, rather than their current role in creating self-serving projections. For example, the potential greater noise propagation distance for taller towers and the higher initial noise level of the 2.0MW Gemesa Eolica G87 turbines can be factored in the provide even greater setbacks from property lines of non-participating landowners.
o The claim by the developers (though Hessler and Associates) that it is appropriate to use mean daytime noise levels is highly self-serving and should be thrown out. At issue is the noise these turbines make at their worst, not on average, and the lead agent should insist on setbacks which adequately mitigate this to near inaudibility. At sites where background noise levels are shown to be lower at night, these nighttime reading should be applied toward a worst-case noise model.
· It is astonishing the UPC and GWH have the boldness to claim that "sensitive receptors" should only refer to houses. Sensitive receptors should refer to people. We are the ones who will actually hear this noise, and we should not be driven into our homes in order to escape it. Non-participating landowners should have the right to enjoy (the term stated on their deeds) all of their property free from the unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of noise.
· The "pro-noise" ordinances of 50dBA (mentioned by Hessler Associates) enacted by some towns should be an embarrassment to any elected official who has accepted the public's trust. Background noise levels for significant periods in the 28-35 dBA are quite common in similar regions. The initially-recommended conservative guidelines provided in October 2004 by NY DEC of no greater than 6dBA above background noise levels at property lines should be followed. SCIDA has this document on file (provided upon request).
UPC/GWH should study the problems at actual working wind farms and the implications of these problems for determining adequate setbacks.
· On page 153, the EIS claims that "data gathered at existing wind farms documented ice fragments from 50' to 328' from the base of the tower". Not addressed is that ice fragments (especially smaller ones) melt quickly, and it is the smaller projectiles (with the potential for traveling significant distances) which are the concern of non-participating landowners.
· Far more astonishing, however, is the willingness of UPC and GWH to use data from operating wind farms only when it suits them. This is unacceptable. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
· The lead agent should require that conduct substantive noise studies and interviews to assess the incidence of shadow flicker and other complaints at the Upstate wind farms utilizing virtually identical machines - such as the Fenner wind farm, which employs GE 1.5s turbines.
Ice throw. Please see the comments and recommendations provided by the Advocates for Prattsburgh EIS Response regarding calculating appropriate setbacks - at least 1500' - to protect against ice throw. The lead agent should require UPC/GWH to take a hard look at these issues and provide setbacks which adequately protect citizens.
· Characteristically, a study presenting data which contradicts its own recommendations is considered sloppy engineering. The EIS does this. The 500' property line setback requested by UPC and GWH is contradicted by the for ice throw in the European safety threshold of 660' to 820' quoted on page 157. The issue is UPC/GWH's claim that the falling ice, which they apparently acknowledge would fall on the properties of non-participating landowners, would not be "of significant size". In addition, as "mitigation" they would then "contact local landowners and snowmobile clubs, and inform them of the potential risks posed by falling ice in the vicinity of wind turbines." This is breathtakingly self-serving. The issue is not to warn non-participating landowners, but to protect them with adequate setbacks.
Tower collapse/ blade throw. Tower collapse and blade throw are highly serious potential threats to health and safety posed by these colossal industrial machines. The lead agent should require UPC/GWH to give a hard look at offering non-participating landowners adequate setback protection from these hazards.
· The EIS states that "the risk of catastrophic tower collapse or blade failure is minimal" (pg. 158) and offers no substantive mitigation. The clear implication is that UPC/GWC believes this problem does not need to be addressed. This is equivalent to stating that, as catastrophic fires in music clubs seldom happen (statistically speaking), there is no need for fire codes for these facilities. However, even a cursory study of the wind industry indicates multiple instances of tower collapse and blade failure within the past year. For this reason, this clearly needs to be addressed through setbacks.
· And on page 161, the EIS states that "even a worst case failure would not endanger adjacent properties, roadways…". This is clearly not the case, as an analysis of the physics of these machines indicates that blade throw can be 1000', and an instance of blade tip throw of 1300' was reported in the U.K. (Calculations and data provided upon request, and please see the response from Advocates for Prattsburgh). In order to provide adequate protection for citizens, the lead agent should require that wind turbines be sufficiently set back from property lines to protect against both calculated and demonstrated worst case scenarios.
Viewshed. The EIS acknowledges the overwhelming near-view visual dominance posed by these 400' industrial machines, but offers no setbacks or mitigation to address this whatsoever.
· On page 187 in the EIS, the assessment done by EDR (the contractor hired by UPC/GWH to assess viewshed) states that "the presence of the turbines will result in a change in the perceived land use from some viewpoint, and the turbines will contrast with the landscape (to varying degrees) where visible."
· On page 106, the EDR states "The greatest impact typically occurs when the turbines are close to the viewer (i.e. less than 0.5 miles), which heightens the projects contrast with the landscape in color, line, texture, form and especially scale. In such views, the turbines become focal points, and begin to alter the perceived use of the land."
· And on page 107, EDR states that the "high concentration of red lights flashing in unison will be discordant with the current dark nighttime conditions."
· The implication (by omission) is that 'there is a problem, but nothing can be done about it, so you are just going to have to live with it, as the lead agent will let us put in our project on our terms.' This conveys a profound disrespect and lack of concern for the rights of pre-existing non-participating landowners and their right to enjoy their property.
· On numerous occasions, Jim Sherron of SCIDA has stated his opinion that viewshed issues "can't be mitigated". This is clearly true for visibility at considerable distances, as these turbines are potentially visible up to 20 miles away. However, viewshed mitigation can be offered while still maintaining the health of the project.
· For example, for instances where the turbines are within 5 miles of locations/entities dependent upon tourism - and when these entities state a concern regarding the potential negative impact posed by the high visibility of these turbines - the only mitigation is to not sites theses towers where they will be visible. While this critical issue does not appear to be a concern for Phase I of the UPC/GWH project, this may need to be addressed in future phases of the project.
· However, an effort can and should be made to address the impact posed by these colossal industrial machines on near-view locations. EDR clearly states that the potential greatest negative impacts (as quoted above) occur when turbines are within one-half mile. For this reason, the setback to mitigate this overwhelming visual dominance for non-participating landowners should be at least 2640' from property lines, which corresponds to EDR's one-half mile. Clearly, an effort to protect citizens from near-view viewshed threats can be made. SCIDA should require that UPC/GWH address the implications of its own study and provide significant setbacks to address viewshed concerns.
Viewshed and property values. ·
A number of prominent local realtors have indicated that viewshed concerns have already had a negative impact on the purchase behavior of potential buyers. They have also stated that siting turbines where they will be visible from the properties of non-participating would have a negative impact on the potential value of these properties, with the negative impact greater the closer these turbines are sited. (SCIDA has these letters already on file, and they can be provided again upon request.)
· The lead agent should require that the developer provide a property value guarantee during the first 5 years of the project for each property within 5 miles from a visible tower. The comparative valuations should be based upon comparable properties from which the Project's turbines are not visible. This 5 mile Zone of Visual Impact would not be a true setback. Nonetheless, it would represent a zone of acknowledged responsibility to provide mitigation - where warranted - against the potential negative impact posed by the specific siting of their turbines.
Shadow flicker.
To effectively mitigate shadow flicker (and other assessments of potential threats and hazards), the definition of "receptors" should be people rather than buildings. This follows the incontrovertible logic that people are potentially negatively affected by shadow flicker, rather than inanimate objects. The lead agent should require that UPC/GWH site its towers at a distance where the shadow flicker effect will not be visible from the property lines of non-participating landowners.
· The assessment offered by EDR states that "at distances greater than 1000' between wind turbines and receptors, shadow flicker generally occurs only near sunrise and sunset…" (page 110). By implication, EDR is stating that shadow flicker is a common occurrence within 1000'. Non-participating property owners should have the right - which they already have now, pre-Project - to walk (and potentially enjoy) their properties. For this reason alone, the setback from property lines should be at least 1000' to protect these property owners from high-incidence near-view shadow flicker affects (please see Pam Foringer's attached letter).
· EDR also states that the model they employed "assumes shadows will be of sufficient intensity to cause flicker at a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 miles)", but that this distance is "more likely to be on the order of 2900'". EDR then goes on to state that the frequency of occurrence is not sufficient to require any mitigation whatsoever. That the developer supports this assessment conveys an extraordinary hubris and lack of respect for the rights of non-participating landowners. Evidently, UPC/GWH makes two key assumptions:
o They, not the potentially negatively affected landowners, have the right to determine the "acceptable" level of negative impact which non-participating landowners should suffer at their hands.
o They are confident that the lead agent will rubber stamp their claim to trump the rights of these pre-existing landowners. However, if the lead agent accepts that their responsibilities extend beyond the interest of the developers to encompass the interests of the non-participating landowners, this assumption is mistaken.
· It is easy (and potentially highly self-serving) for a developer to claim this is just 'no problem' with shadow flicker. However, two "real life" factors indicate that this problem is pervasive.
o EDR acknowledges a shadow effect up to 4750' away (0.9 miles) - not just 2900' - it is fair to assume that this visual disturbance is a dominant effect.
o The "receptors" should be people enjoying their property, and in rural Prattsburgh where owners of hill property acres of land, this most often means outdoors, not just within their houses. Standards appropriate for urban dwellers driven indoors do not apply.
o SCIDA should address this problem and require that UPC/GWH address both
§ high-incidence near-view shadow flick effects and
§ study the actual impact of shadow flicker experienced by property owners at representative Upstate wind farms.
Wind rights.
The lead agent should require UPC and GWH to give a hard look at protecting the wind rights of non-participating landowners downwind from proposed tower sites. These non-participating landowners should be able retain the right to maintain their option to chose to have a developer place wind towers on their properties at a future date.
· In order to retain this right, the viability of the wind resource on their properties must not be damaged. Wind turbines create a wake 8 to 11 rotor diameters downwind, and this turbulence effectively damages the viability of the land within this wake as viable wind turbine sites. 8 to 11 rotor diameters represents a distance of 2021" to 2779' for a GE 1.5 sle turbine (77m rotor) and 2283' to 3140' for a Gemesa Eolica G87 turbine (87m rotor).
· The rights to this above-ground wind resource should be considered as significant as sub-surface rights for natural gas resources. The non-participating owners of properties downwind from these turbines within this range (as little as 2021' and as much as 3140') are potentially subject to having their wind rights seized without compensation.
· SCIDA should require that UPC and GWH freely negotiate fair compensation for the wind rights of non-participating landowners or require that these turbines be sited 11 rotor diameters from the property lines of non-participating landowners.
Future use of property for home building.
· Non-participating landowners should retain the right for the future use of our property for home building, which will require that the maximum setbacks be from property lines. This will allow the pre-existing non-participating property owner the flexibility to site his home at the optimal location on his property. The most appropriate site fro a new home or cabin is often by a road or at the edge of a field, which may be across from a proposed tower site.
· Placing more distant setbacks only from pre-existing houses effectively precludes sane property owners from placing future home sites near these boundaries. This - and all other inadequate setbacks - represent a "taking" of value from the non-participating landowner without compensation. The lead agent should make every to protect non-participating landowners from these potential thefts of value.
Wind turbines should not be placed along prominent traffic corridors where their distraction can pose a threat to safe driving, and therefore a threat to traffic safety. Scida should require that the potential negative impact of traffic safety resulting from the placement of turbines along Route 53 be given a much harder look.
The lead agent needs to require that the developer provide adequate protections to non-participating landowners. Placing wind turbines too close to property lines would subject non-participating landowners to
· turbine-generated industrial noise,
· potential threats to health and safety,
· threats to the value and future usefulness of their properties, and
· the overwhelming visual dominance of these 400' machines with flashing red lights 24 hours/day.
All of these problems can be successfully addressed through providing adequate setbacks from property lines, with the maximum setback distance determined by the distance required to effectively address worst-case scenario threats. This can be accomplished by having all the potentially negatively affected property be within a controlled space. Through a combination of direct ownership by the project, leases, and granted easements, these vast industrial machines can effectively be placed within an industrial park. SCIDA should require that the developer to take a much harder look at each of these serious concerns. SCIDA should also require that UPC and GWH provide a project plan which includes setbacks which more effectively address all of the potential threats posed by siting their turbines close to the property lines of non-participating landowners.
The Wind Turbine Debate
Dear U.S. News Editor:
Regarding the article titled "Ill Winds Blowing" in the August 7 issue, there is more to the objection to industrial wind turbines than problems with the FAA and Defense Department. Here in Perry, a small town in Western NY, we are being overrun by wind turbine companies who push government subsidized economics and scare tactic ecology that just does not stand up to careful examination.
Imagine a 410' tower (the size of a 40 story building) with three 160' blades rotating at almost 200 mph that sounds like a loud washing machine planted in your "front yard" for somewhere between 20 and 40 years into the future. Now imagine 60 of these machines within a few square miles of relatively heavily populated pristine dairy country in the eastern migratory flyway of the US. This is what we are facing here throughout Western NY State.
Imagine an industry that cannot produce cost competitive electric power without huge state and federal government subsidies, producing tax-sheltered profits in the tens of millions of dollars for Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs. This is money that the American public will pay out of their pockets for wind energy, through a program that amounts to a huge system of transfer payments- transferred from our pockets to theirs with government endorsement.
Imagine the well-meaning public whipped up by a continual bombardment through the media about a "global warming catastrophe" that has yet to be directly linked to human activity. A challenge to almost anyone on this point usually brings the response that "we have to do something" to improve the environment and cut our dependence on foreign oil (even if its wrong).
Imagine ignoring these facts:
1. 30% = the average wind turbine efficiency in this region, compared to about 85-95% for traditional power production methods
2. 0 = the number of coal fired power plants that will be shutdown due to wind turbine energy production
3. 0 = the amount of imported oil that will be reduced because of wind turbine production
4. 0 = the amount of electrical power that we will get in our town as a result of wind turbines
5. $69 per year = the estimated income per household in our town due to payments in lieu of taxes from the wind companies (this amount can be cut from homeowners' electric bills by replacing 3 incandescent light bulbs with fluorescents)
If you can imagine all this you may begin to envision the mess we are facing here. Wind power is not the magic bullet many hope will slay the energy dragon, and the problems created by these projects will be paid for by tax payers not just for decades into the future, but for generations.
Where are energy conservation programs that our governments should be promoting? Where are the programs to clean up our coal-fired plants to reduce greenhouse gases? Where are programs to construct nuclear plants that have almost no emissions? Where are programs to encourage small, safe wind turbine development for residential and industrial applications? Where is the thinking needed to reverse the US power grid from centralized production to decentralized production?
Warren Rudman said "The American people have the right to be wrong". Or if one wishes to feel better in the midst of increasing fear about energy problems, here are the words of an educated man who told me recently that "he just feels better seeing wind turbines, because they are clean".
Sincerely,
Richard Barth
62 Covington Street
Perry, NY 14530
Regarding the article titled "Ill Winds Blowing" in the August 7 issue, there is more to the objection to industrial wind turbines than problems with the FAA and Defense Department. Here in Perry, a small town in Western NY, we are being overrun by wind turbine companies who push government subsidized economics and scare tactic ecology that just does not stand up to careful examination.
Imagine a 410' tower (the size of a 40 story building) with three 160' blades rotating at almost 200 mph that sounds like a loud washing machine planted in your "front yard" for somewhere between 20 and 40 years into the future. Now imagine 60 of these machines within a few square miles of relatively heavily populated pristine dairy country in the eastern migratory flyway of the US. This is what we are facing here throughout Western NY State.
Imagine an industry that cannot produce cost competitive electric power without huge state and federal government subsidies, producing tax-sheltered profits in the tens of millions of dollars for Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs. This is money that the American public will pay out of their pockets for wind energy, through a program that amounts to a huge system of transfer payments- transferred from our pockets to theirs with government endorsement.
Imagine the well-meaning public whipped up by a continual bombardment through the media about a "global warming catastrophe" that has yet to be directly linked to human activity. A challenge to almost anyone on this point usually brings the response that "we have to do something" to improve the environment and cut our dependence on foreign oil (even if its wrong).
Imagine ignoring these facts:
1. 30% = the average wind turbine efficiency in this region, compared to about 85-95% for traditional power production methods
2. 0 = the number of coal fired power plants that will be shutdown due to wind turbine energy production
3. 0 = the amount of imported oil that will be reduced because of wind turbine production
4. 0 = the amount of electrical power that we will get in our town as a result of wind turbines
5. $69 per year = the estimated income per household in our town due to payments in lieu of taxes from the wind companies (this amount can be cut from homeowners' electric bills by replacing 3 incandescent light bulbs with fluorescents)
If you can imagine all this you may begin to envision the mess we are facing here. Wind power is not the magic bullet many hope will slay the energy dragon, and the problems created by these projects will be paid for by tax payers not just for decades into the future, but for generations.
Where are energy conservation programs that our governments should be promoting? Where are the programs to clean up our coal-fired plants to reduce greenhouse gases? Where are programs to construct nuclear plants that have almost no emissions? Where are programs to encourage small, safe wind turbine development for residential and industrial applications? Where is the thinking needed to reverse the US power grid from centralized production to decentralized production?
Warren Rudman said "The American people have the right to be wrong". Or if one wishes to feel better in the midst of increasing fear about energy problems, here are the words of an educated man who told me recently that "he just feels better seeing wind turbines, because they are clean".
Sincerely,
Richard Barth
62 Covington Street
Perry, NY 14530
Sunday, August 27, 2006
WIND FARM DEBATE HAS WIDE REACH by Dan Shapley (Gannett News Service)
Gannett News Service
The wind energy company that has proposed building wind turbines in rural Herkimer County is relying heavily on support from communities in the Lower Hudson Valley for funding.
Community Energy convinced many downstate towns, businesses and individuals to subsidize electricity produced from what would be its first wind farm in New York. The Jordanville Wind Project would have as many as 75 wind turbines on private land that would generate enough power for as many as 60,000 homes.
People paying extra for wind power are supplying some of the capital for the project, which has stirred up controversy reaching all the way to the Hudson Valley.
In 2003 and 2004, the company sold, at a premium, the 30 megawatts of energy produced by 20 wind turbines standing on farms in the Madison County town of Fenner. That wind farm is owned by the Italian energy company, Enel. Community Energy's promise to local buyers at the time was that their money would go toward the building of new wind turbines.
To that end, the new wind farm is funded "in part" by the Hudson Valley's energy purchases, company spokesman Paul Copleman said.
"Community Energy's model has always linked our renewable energy sales to the development of new wind farms," he said.
The Pennsylvania-based Community Energy was purchased in May by Iberdrola, Spain's largest energy company. The purchase won't change Community Energy's strategy, Copleman said, but it will give the company access to more capital as it aims to build wind farms across the country.
In recent years, it has built facilities in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but the Herkimer County wind farm would be the company's largest.
Leases on farmland where wind turbines are built would help keep farmers afloat, while producing energy without air pollution. But there is concern about noise and the alteration of scenery, particularly pastoral and historic landscapes. Some also are concerned blasting and chemicals that may be used to suppress dust on access roads could taint water.
Officials in the towns of Stark and Warren are reviewing a draft environmental impact statement prepared by Community Energy. Hearings were held during the summer.
The Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, based in Poughkeepsie, purchases power marketed by Community Energy from the Fenner farm. Its policy is to support wind turbines, if sited as well as possible, even if they have some negative environmental impacts. To generate electricity without generating pollution that causes acid rain, lung illnesses and global warming is worth some compromise, Environmental Director Manna Jo Greene said.
"Historic resources and viewsheds are extremely important, but unless we're willing to stop using electricity, we can't keep generating it by unsafe nuclear power and unsafe fossil fuels," Greene said.
Clearwater gave what Greene described as "conditional" support for the Jordanville Wind Project. Hundreds of members then wrote in support of it.
Clearwater learned of it from a member who knows one of the landowners that will be paid to rent turbine space, Greene said, adding Clearwater will study the environmental impacts more thoroughly.
Clearwater's endorsement drew the ire of Robert Boyle, who lives near Cooperstown, and other opponents.
Boyle was a founding member of the Hudson River Fisherman's Association, which became the environmental group Riverkeeper. He was a prominent voice in the successful fight to prevent the construction of a hydroelectric-pumped storage power plant on Storm King Mountain. That historic battle lasted decades and was waged largely because opponents didn't want to see the view of the mountain diminished.
Boyle is vehemently opposed to the Jordanville proposal, and has called on Clearwater to "repudiate" an endorsement he said was based on weak research.
"This enormous project, seven miles long and 3.5-miles wide, about half the size of Manhattan Island, threatens to obliterate sensitive headwater streams and wetlands affecting both the Susquehanna and Mohawk Rivers, as well as degrading local groundwater supplies," Boyle wrote to Clearwater, "to say nothing of other adverse impacts."
The wind energy company that has proposed building wind turbines in rural Herkimer County is relying heavily on support from communities in the Lower Hudson Valley for funding.
Community Energy convinced many downstate towns, businesses and individuals to subsidize electricity produced from what would be its first wind farm in New York. The Jordanville Wind Project would have as many as 75 wind turbines on private land that would generate enough power for as many as 60,000 homes.
People paying extra for wind power are supplying some of the capital for the project, which has stirred up controversy reaching all the way to the Hudson Valley.
In 2003 and 2004, the company sold, at a premium, the 30 megawatts of energy produced by 20 wind turbines standing on farms in the Madison County town of Fenner. That wind farm is owned by the Italian energy company, Enel. Community Energy's promise to local buyers at the time was that their money would go toward the building of new wind turbines.
To that end, the new wind farm is funded "in part" by the Hudson Valley's energy purchases, company spokesman Paul Copleman said.
"Community Energy's model has always linked our renewable energy sales to the development of new wind farms," he said.
The Pennsylvania-based Community Energy was purchased in May by Iberdrola, Spain's largest energy company. The purchase won't change Community Energy's strategy, Copleman said, but it will give the company access to more capital as it aims to build wind farms across the country.
In recent years, it has built facilities in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but the Herkimer County wind farm would be the company's largest.
Leases on farmland where wind turbines are built would help keep farmers afloat, while producing energy without air pollution. But there is concern about noise and the alteration of scenery, particularly pastoral and historic landscapes. Some also are concerned blasting and chemicals that may be used to suppress dust on access roads could taint water.
Officials in the towns of Stark and Warren are reviewing a draft environmental impact statement prepared by Community Energy. Hearings were held during the summer.
The Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, based in Poughkeepsie, purchases power marketed by Community Energy from the Fenner farm. Its policy is to support wind turbines, if sited as well as possible, even if they have some negative environmental impacts. To generate electricity without generating pollution that causes acid rain, lung illnesses and global warming is worth some compromise, Environmental Director Manna Jo Greene said.
"Historic resources and viewsheds are extremely important, but unless we're willing to stop using electricity, we can't keep generating it by unsafe nuclear power and unsafe fossil fuels," Greene said.
Clearwater gave what Greene described as "conditional" support for the Jordanville Wind Project. Hundreds of members then wrote in support of it.
Clearwater learned of it from a member who knows one of the landowners that will be paid to rent turbine space, Greene said, adding Clearwater will study the environmental impacts more thoroughly.
Clearwater's endorsement drew the ire of Robert Boyle, who lives near Cooperstown, and other opponents.
Boyle was a founding member of the Hudson River Fisherman's Association, which became the environmental group Riverkeeper. He was a prominent voice in the successful fight to prevent the construction of a hydroelectric-pumped storage power plant on Storm King Mountain. That historic battle lasted decades and was waged largely because opponents didn't want to see the view of the mountain diminished.
Boyle is vehemently opposed to the Jordanville proposal, and has called on Clearwater to "repudiate" an endorsement he said was based on weak research.
"This enormous project, seven miles long and 3.5-miles wide, about half the size of Manhattan Island, threatens to obliterate sensitive headwater streams and wetlands affecting both the Susquehanna and Mohawk Rivers, as well as degrading local groundwater supplies," Boyle wrote to Clearwater, "to say nothing of other adverse impacts."
Golisano back in the game: Company to develop community-based wind development by ANDY THOMPSON and MICHELLE KING
HARTSVILLE - Billionaire Tom Golisano is back in the wind game.
Steve Dombert - a frequent critic of the planned Airtricity development - Friday said Golisano has formed a new company and hired an engineer to develop community-based wind farms.
“We're going to rejoin the battle,” Dombert said of the formation of Empire State Wind Energy.
Golisano first joined the wind debate while exploring a run for New York governor, then became involved with a community-based wind farm project in Perry. He also visited Hartsville and had considered lending his considerable financial support to development of a wind farm there.
Golisano's lead man on the project, Ed Rechberger, however, withdrew for personal reasons and the project stalled.
That is, until Friday.
Dombert said Empire State Wind Energy will focus on small projects, and the main focus will be plowing revenue back into the communities in which they are based.
“The idea is to turn the proceeds over to the town,” said Dombert, who said Hartsville will be just one of several areas explored by Empire State Wind Energy.
According to the organization's Web site, the newly formed wind company aims to benefit all community stockholders, including paying for “up-front” development expenses, trying to avoid payment in lieu of taxes agreements, and participating in whole and retail energy markets.
In addition, Golisano, who is the chairman of Empire State Wind Energy, has become a key figure in the wind effort to help alleviate reliance on fossil fuels, as well as helping communities have more control on the issue.
Councilman George Prior is skeptical the Golisano plan is likely to proceed. An Irish company, Airtricity, also is looking at constructing turbines the town. The company already has contracts with landowners for turbine sites, and Prior said construction could start by summer 2007.
“We're going down the road with the PILOT program and pretty far down the road,” he said. “We've never seen enough about Golisano or the community plan. We asked but it never came forward, so its hard to tell.
“Even if it were alive, I don't see how you can go back to that at this point,” Prior added.
Dombert, however, is supportive of the wind group.
“I'm interested in seeing competent and better ideas than are going on here,” he said.
Keith Pitman, chief executive officer and president of Empire State Wind Energy, did not return phone calls for comment.
Steve Dombert - a frequent critic of the planned Airtricity development - Friday said Golisano has formed a new company and hired an engineer to develop community-based wind farms.
“We're going to rejoin the battle,” Dombert said of the formation of Empire State Wind Energy.
Golisano first joined the wind debate while exploring a run for New York governor, then became involved with a community-based wind farm project in Perry. He also visited Hartsville and had considered lending his considerable financial support to development of a wind farm there.
Golisano's lead man on the project, Ed Rechberger, however, withdrew for personal reasons and the project stalled.
That is, until Friday.
Dombert said Empire State Wind Energy will focus on small projects, and the main focus will be plowing revenue back into the communities in which they are based.
“The idea is to turn the proceeds over to the town,” said Dombert, who said Hartsville will be just one of several areas explored by Empire State Wind Energy.
According to the organization's Web site, the newly formed wind company aims to benefit all community stockholders, including paying for “up-front” development expenses, trying to avoid payment in lieu of taxes agreements, and participating in whole and retail energy markets.
In addition, Golisano, who is the chairman of Empire State Wind Energy, has become a key figure in the wind effort to help alleviate reliance on fossil fuels, as well as helping communities have more control on the issue.
Councilman George Prior is skeptical the Golisano plan is likely to proceed. An Irish company, Airtricity, also is looking at constructing turbines the town. The company already has contracts with landowners for turbine sites, and Prior said construction could start by summer 2007.
“We're going down the road with the PILOT program and pretty far down the road,” he said. “We've never seen enough about Golisano or the community plan. We asked but it never came forward, so its hard to tell.
“Even if it were alive, I don't see how you can go back to that at this point,” Prior added.
Dombert, however, is supportive of the wind group.
“I'm interested in seeing competent and better ideas than are going on here,” he said.
Keith Pitman, chief executive officer and president of Empire State Wind Energy, did not return phone calls for comment.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch Informational Meeting - Naples Hotel Dining Room Monday August 28, 2006
Due to strong demand the CWW Informational Meeting will be held in the Naples Hotel -"Main Dining Room"
Impact on Naples and Canandaigua Lake Region
from the Cohocton and Prattsburgh
Industrial Wind Turbines projects
Community Involvement Needed
protect your property values,
tourism economy and
quality environment
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
(585) 534-5581
Impact on Naples and Canandaigua Lake Region
from the Cohocton and Prattsburgh
Industrial Wind Turbines projects
Community Involvement Needed
protect your property values,
tourism economy and
quality environment
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org
(585) 534-5581
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)