This free executive summary is provided by the National Academies as part of our mission to educate the world on issues of science, engineering, and health. If you are interested in reading the full book, please visit us online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11935.html . You may browse and search the full, authoritative version for free; you may also purchase a print or electronic version of the book. If you have questions or just want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, please contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373.
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Friday, May 04, 2007
Antitrust Complaint Update - Brad Jones
Just wanted to clarify that you were not accurate in your note describing the recent Antitrust Complaint as "just a letter" to the Department of Justice.
It was not a letter. It was a formal 22 page Antitrust Complaint filed by 94 citizens of New York, Vermont, California, and Maryland alleging numerous intentional violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These violations are serious and obvious (the Act calls them "per se" violations), and cannot be easily refuted. The Complaint was accepted by the DOJ and referred for review. If they decide to move forward, the FBI will conduct the investigation.
Since the filing, we have had calls from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine, and we anticipate that additional Complaints will be filed over the next few weeks.
If this was "just a letter", why would I now have requests from wind energy law firms (including Alston and Bird) for copies of the Complaint? They did not ask for a "copy of the letter", they asked for a "copy of the Complaint". If Alston and Bird is taking this seriously perhaps UPC should as well.
You just may want to check with an attorney to determine if you might have any personal liability regarding this matter. As you saw in the Press Release, violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act can receive both fines and jail terms. Better to be safe than sorry.
It is our understanding (see the Department of Justice website) that the Department will treat more leniently individuals who report their own involvement in antitrust violations, in exchange for their full cooperation. Here is a direct quote from DOJ:
"Under the Antitrust Division's amnesty program, companies and individuals may approach the Division and apply for a pass from criminal prosecution if they are the first to come forward and fully cooperate."
Who will be the "first to come forward""? Will this lucky person be from Everpower, Ecogen, UPC, BP Alternative Energy, Babcock and Brown, Community Energy, Goldman Sachs, Invenergy AES, Evergreen, Clipper, Global, or Horizon? What about all of the Lead Agencies, the crooked town officials, and the hundreds of consultants? So many possibilities, but only one Get Out Of Jail Free Card, for the first to come forward.
There are other conditions associated with Amnesty Applicants as well. Your personal attorney would be the proper person to advise you on such matters.
Or you could send any questions regarding liability to askDOJ@usdoj.gov, or simply call them at 1-888-647-3258. They are very helpful people. They are also very committed and dedicated people who take allegations such as ours quite seriously.
Brad Jones
PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
It was not a letter. It was a formal 22 page Antitrust Complaint filed by 94 citizens of New York, Vermont, California, and Maryland alleging numerous intentional violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These violations are serious and obvious (the Act calls them "per se" violations), and cannot be easily refuted. The Complaint was accepted by the DOJ and referred for review. If they decide to move forward, the FBI will conduct the investigation.
Since the filing, we have had calls from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine, and we anticipate that additional Complaints will be filed over the next few weeks.
If this was "just a letter", why would I now have requests from wind energy law firms (including Alston and Bird) for copies of the Complaint? They did not ask for a "copy of the letter", they asked for a "copy of the Complaint". If Alston and Bird is taking this seriously perhaps UPC should as well.
You just may want to check with an attorney to determine if you might have any personal liability regarding this matter. As you saw in the Press Release, violators of the Sherman Antitrust Act can receive both fines and jail terms. Better to be safe than sorry.
It is our understanding (see the Department of Justice website) that the Department will treat more leniently individuals who report their own involvement in antitrust violations, in exchange for their full cooperation. Here is a direct quote from DOJ:
"Under the Antitrust Division's amnesty program, companies and individuals may approach the Division and apply for a pass from criminal prosecution if they are the first to come forward and fully cooperate."
Who will be the "first to come forward""? Will this lucky person be from Everpower, Ecogen, UPC, BP Alternative Energy, Babcock and Brown, Community Energy, Goldman Sachs, Invenergy AES, Evergreen, Clipper, Global, or Horizon? What about all of the Lead Agencies, the crooked town officials, and the hundreds of consultants? So many possibilities, but only one Get Out Of Jail Free Card, for the first to come forward.
There are other conditions associated with Amnesty Applicants as well. Your personal attorney would be the proper person to advise you on such matters.
Or you could send any questions regarding liability to askDOJ@usdoj.gov, or simply call them at 1-888-647-3258. They are very helpful people. They are also very committed and dedicated people who take allegations such as ours quite seriously.
Brad Jones
PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)
Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests by MATTHEW L. WALD
Building thousands of wind turbines would probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, but it would slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found, however, that officials who will decide whether to build the turbines have few tools to measure the devices’ impact on air quality, on animals like birds and bats, and on wilderness preservation.
In fact, making good decisions about wind energy may be difficult, said David J. Policansky, the study director, because negative effects occur locally while benefits are probably regional or national.
(Click to read entire article)
The study found, however, that officials who will decide whether to build the turbines have few tools to measure the devices’ impact on air quality, on animals like birds and bats, and on wilderness preservation.
In fact, making good decisions about wind energy may be difficult, said David J. Policansky, the study director, because negative effects occur locally while benefits are probably regional or national.
(Click to read entire article)
Energy from wind farms comes with cost to bats and birds by RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
Wind farms could generate as much as 7 percent of U.S. electricity in 15 years, but scientists want to spend more time studying the threat those spinning blades pose to birds and bats.
The towers appear most dangerous to night-migrating songbirds, bats and some hunting birds such as hawks and eagles. The risk is not well enough known to draw conclusions, a panel of the National Research Council said Thursday in a study requested by Congress.
"The human impacts of wind farms can be both positive and negative," said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the committee that prepared the report.
Clearly the farms provide jobs and in some cases they can even be a recreational attraction, he said. But there can also be an effect on property values and reflections off the rotor blades can be distracting to some people, said Risser, of the University of Oklahoma and current acting director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Wind has powered sailing ships for thousands of years and has long been important to turn windmills that move water and grind grain. Only in recent years had the potential of the wind to generate electricity been tapped.
Wind farms generate electricity by using the wind to turn giant blades that rotate turbines to make power. The blades have diameters ranging from 230 to 295 feet and are mounted on towers between 197 and 295 feet tall. Some farms contain hundreds of towers. The one at Altamont Pass , Calif. , has more than 5,000.
Growing from almost nothing in 1980, wind powered turbines generated 11,605 megawatts of electricity in the United States in 2006, though that was still less than 1 percent of the national power supply.
Wind farms now operate in 36 states. The report says estimates are that this source could generate from 2 percent to 7 percent of the nation's electricity within 15 years.
"There is a great diversity of opinion on how much there is going to be a ramping up of wind energy," said report co-author Mary English of the University of Tennessee .
By reducing the need to generate electricity from by burning fossil fuels the turbines have been welcomed as a boon to the environment. Others worry about the danger to birds and bats, impacts on wildlife habitat and what some see as a blight on the scenery.
Overall, the report noted, the benefits of wind-energy development such as reductions in air pollutants benefit wide areas, while the environmental costs, such as effects on the ecology and increased mortality of birds and bats, occur locally.
The Research Council, as arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:
-By the year 2020 wind generators could offset as much as 4.5 percent of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity production. The savings would be less in the mid-Atlantic states where there is less regular wind.
-Wind generation in the mid-Atlantic highlands - elevated regions of Virginia , West Virginia , Maryland and Pennsylvania - is unlikely to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide because current and upcoming regulation will limit those emissions in eastern states.
-In the mid-Atlantic highlands, preliminary studies indicate that more bats are killed than expected based on experience with bats in other regions. There is not enough information to determine whether the number of bats killed will have overall effects on populations. However, there has been a region-wide decline in several species of bats in the eastern states, so the possibility of population effects is significant.
-Turbines placed on ridges, as many are in the mid-Atlantic highlands, appear to have a higher probability of causing bat fatalities than those at many other sites
-At current levels of use, there is no evidence that fatalities caused by wind turbines result in measurable demographic changes to bird populations nationwide, with the possible exception of raptor fatalities in the Altamont Pass area. However, data are lacking for a many facilities.
-While aesthetic concerns often are the most heard about proposed wind-energy projects, few decision processes adequately address them.
-Other potential human impacts include effects on cultural resources such as historic, sacred, archaeological and recreation sites and the potential for electromagnetic interference with television and radio broadcasting, cellular phones and radar.
-Building wind farms requires clearing land and soil disruption and has the potential for erosion and noise.
-Regulation of wind farms is a developing area and better technical guidance to the costs and benefits needs to be made available. This guidance could be developed by state and local governments working with groups composed of wind-energy developers and non-governmental
organizations representing all views of wind energy, the committee said.
The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
---
National Research Council: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc
The towers appear most dangerous to night-migrating songbirds, bats and some hunting birds such as hawks and eagles. The risk is not well enough known to draw conclusions, a panel of the National Research Council said Thursday in a study requested by Congress.
"The human impacts of wind farms can be both positive and negative," said Paul G. Risser, chairman of the committee that prepared the report.
Clearly the farms provide jobs and in some cases they can even be a recreational attraction, he said. But there can also be an effect on property values and reflections off the rotor blades can be distracting to some people, said Risser, of the University of Oklahoma and current acting director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Wind has powered sailing ships for thousands of years and has long been important to turn windmills that move water and grind grain. Only in recent years had the potential of the wind to generate electricity been tapped.
Wind farms generate electricity by using the wind to turn giant blades that rotate turbines to make power. The blades have diameters ranging from 230 to 295 feet and are mounted on towers between 197 and 295 feet tall. Some farms contain hundreds of towers. The one at Altamont Pass , Calif. , has more than 5,000.
Growing from almost nothing in 1980, wind powered turbines generated 11,605 megawatts of electricity in the United States in 2006, though that was still less than 1 percent of the national power supply.
Wind farms now operate in 36 states. The report says estimates are that this source could generate from 2 percent to 7 percent of the nation's electricity within 15 years.
"There is a great diversity of opinion on how much there is going to be a ramping up of wind energy," said report co-author Mary English of the University of Tennessee .
By reducing the need to generate electricity from by burning fossil fuels the turbines have been welcomed as a boon to the environment. Others worry about the danger to birds and bats, impacts on wildlife habitat and what some see as a blight on the scenery.
Overall, the report noted, the benefits of wind-energy development such as reductions in air pollutants benefit wide areas, while the environmental costs, such as effects on the ecology and increased mortality of birds and bats, occur locally.
The Research Council, as arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that:
-By the year 2020 wind generators could offset as much as 4.5 percent of emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity production. The savings would be less in the mid-Atlantic states where there is less regular wind.
-Wind generation in the mid-Atlantic highlands - elevated regions of Virginia , West Virginia , Maryland and Pennsylvania - is unlikely to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide because current and upcoming regulation will limit those emissions in eastern states.
-In the mid-Atlantic highlands, preliminary studies indicate that more bats are killed than expected based on experience with bats in other regions. There is not enough information to determine whether the number of bats killed will have overall effects on populations. However, there has been a region-wide decline in several species of bats in the eastern states, so the possibility of population effects is significant.
-Turbines placed on ridges, as many are in the mid-Atlantic highlands, appear to have a higher probability of causing bat fatalities than those at many other sites
-At current levels of use, there is no evidence that fatalities caused by wind turbines result in measurable demographic changes to bird populations nationwide, with the possible exception of raptor fatalities in the Altamont Pass area. However, data are lacking for a many facilities.
-While aesthetic concerns often are the most heard about proposed wind-energy projects, few decision processes adequately address them.
-Other potential human impacts include effects on cultural resources such as historic, sacred, archaeological and recreation sites and the potential for electromagnetic interference with television and radio broadcasting, cellular phones and radar.
-Building wind farms requires clearing land and soil disruption and has the potential for erosion and noise.
-Regulation of wind farms is a developing area and better technical guidance to the costs and benefits needs to be made available. This guidance could be developed by state and local governments working with groups composed of wind-energy developers and non-governmental
organizations representing all views of wind energy, the committee said.
The National Academy is an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters.
---
National Research Council: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Turbine noise raises concern
State regulators indicated Wednesday that they plan to pay closer attention to potential noise levels generated by wind farms proposed within the Unorganized Territory.
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
Some neighbors of the Mars Hill farm said they accepted the impact the nearly 400-foot-tall turbines would have on their views. But they never expected that noise from the turbines would be so loud as to disrupt sleep and affect their quality of life.
The wind farm’s operator, Evergreen Wind Power LLC, is studying the noise issues.
On Wednesday, LURC board member Stephen Wight said the commission had heard plenty of concern expressed about wind farms’ impacts on the environment and scenery. But the Mars Hill project’s noise issues were "a real surprise to everybody," Wight said.
"We should learn from every project that goes into the state," he said.
Current policy requires that landowners within 1,000 feet of a property be notified in order to address possible impacts. Commission member Edward Laverty suggested that LURC staff and project applicants may want to "liberally interpret" the notification laws to ensure that any affected landowners are informed because of the potential of wind noise.
Representatives for UPC Wind Management, the parent company of Evergreen Wind Power, have said that the Stetson Mountain site is ideal for a new wind farm because it is so isolated.
Stetson Mountain is a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The nearest residential structure — a seasonal cabin — is more than 2,500 feet from a turbine.
Additionally, UPC officials said Wednesday that the ridge already has established logging roads that provide ready access to the top and that no significant wildlife or environmental issues have been identified so far.
Dave Cowan, vice president of Environmental Affairs for UPC, said the company is now trying to get the message out about the low-impact project.
"It’s a gem of a site," Cowan said.
LURC staff members are just beginning the formal review of the application. On Wednesday, the commission authorized the staff to set a date for a public hearing and to begin contacting potential intervenors in the review process.
UPC is seeking to rezone approximately 4,800 acres for the project. If constructed as proposed, the project would generate an estimated 57 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power roughly 27,500 homes.
Each turbine would stand roughly 400 feet tall from the base to the highest point of the rotating blades.
For more information on the Stetson Mountain or other wind farm projects, go to http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc and click on the links at the bottom of the page.
Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission said the state should learn from the noise concerns that have arisen since a wind farm in the Aroostook County town of Mars Hill became operational earlier this year.
LURC currently has three wind farm applications pending: a 38-turbine operation in northern Washington County and two proposals in the western Maine mountains. The Washington County proposal, located on Stetson Mountain, has been submitted by the same company that built the Mars Hill wind farm.
Some neighbors of the Mars Hill farm said they accepted the impact the nearly 400-foot-tall turbines would have on their views. But they never expected that noise from the turbines would be so loud as to disrupt sleep and affect their quality of life.
The wind farm’s operator, Evergreen Wind Power LLC, is studying the noise issues.
On Wednesday, LURC board member Stephen Wight said the commission had heard plenty of concern expressed about wind farms’ impacts on the environment and scenery. But the Mars Hill project’s noise issues were "a real surprise to everybody," Wight said.
"We should learn from every project that goes into the state," he said.
Current policy requires that landowners within 1,000 feet of a property be notified in order to address possible impacts. Commission member Edward Laverty suggested that LURC staff and project applicants may want to "liberally interpret" the notification laws to ensure that any affected landowners are informed because of the potential of wind noise.
Representatives for UPC Wind Management, the parent company of Evergreen Wind Power, have said that the Stetson Mountain site is ideal for a new wind farm because it is so isolated.
Stetson Mountain is a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The nearest residential structure — a seasonal cabin — is more than 2,500 feet from a turbine.
Additionally, UPC officials said Wednesday that the ridge already has established logging roads that provide ready access to the top and that no significant wildlife or environmental issues have been identified so far.
Dave Cowan, vice president of Environmental Affairs for UPC, said the company is now trying to get the message out about the low-impact project.
"It’s a gem of a site," Cowan said.
LURC staff members are just beginning the formal review of the application. On Wednesday, the commission authorized the staff to set a date for a public hearing and to begin contacting potential intervenors in the review process.
UPC is seeking to rezone approximately 4,800 acres for the project. If constructed as proposed, the project would generate an estimated 57 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power roughly 27,500 homes.
Each turbine would stand roughly 400 feet tall from the base to the highest point of the rotating blades.
For more information on the Stetson Mountain or other wind farm projects, go to http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc and click on the links at the bottom of the page.
Judith Hall May 3, 2007 letter to the Cohocton Planning Board
May 3, 2007
Dear Planning Board Members,
We have all heard much emotional comment from impacted neighbors of the wind project this past month. I’ve watched your faces as you realized most of the impacted residents are very upset with the current plan UPC is proposing.
Most would concede wind energy is not a bad thing. But WE, we being all residents of Cohocton including the Boards, leaseholders and impacted residents, need to also agree there is a proper place for industrial turbines.
You do not need to be pressured by UPC to permit a bad plan. Cohocton will better help the world by doing this correctly. Law suits into the next decade will not help anyone. Proper siting , away from residences will. Why can’t UPC buy all the land they need as other wind companies are doing to protect the town? The noise issue is real, the health risks are real, the insurance and property value issues are real.
Jack and Wayne have a noble goal, sacrificing Cohocton for the greater good. But there don’t need to be any sacrificial lambs slaughtered in the process. You are our front line of reason. A poorly done project will hurt all future projects as well as Cohocton. Please take the time to site these turbines correctly and you will be the real life heroes of Cohocton, the Finger Lakes and all of New York.
Cordially,
Judi Hall
Dear Planning Board Members,
We have all heard much emotional comment from impacted neighbors of the wind project this past month. I’ve watched your faces as you realized most of the impacted residents are very upset with the current plan UPC is proposing.
Most would concede wind energy is not a bad thing. But WE, we being all residents of Cohocton including the Boards, leaseholders and impacted residents, need to also agree there is a proper place for industrial turbines.
You do not need to be pressured by UPC to permit a bad plan. Cohocton will better help the world by doing this correctly. Law suits into the next decade will not help anyone. Proper siting , away from residences will. Why can’t UPC buy all the land they need as other wind companies are doing to protect the town? The noise issue is real, the health risks are real, the insurance and property value issues are real.
Jack and Wayne have a noble goal, sacrificing Cohocton for the greater good. But there don’t need to be any sacrificial lambs slaughtered in the process. You are our front line of reason. A poorly done project will hurt all future projects as well as Cohocton. Please take the time to site these turbines correctly and you will be the real life heroes of Cohocton, the Finger Lakes and all of New York.
Cordially,
Judi Hall
Cynthia Cole letter about UPC Prattsburgh
Dear Global Wind, etc.
We received the review of your approved windfarm for Prattsburgh. http://www.prattsburghwind.com/about-rr-feis.php. Certainly we are tired of fighting and in that you developers and few landowners and politicians win. Hopefully others will continue the awareness to fight against large scale industrial wind development in Upstate NY. YOU obviously have the current politicians and IDA in your pockets. How did you do that so well?
We are relieved that you will not be putting turbines between Burke Rd. and Rte 53 near our home on Rte 53. That particular turbine would have LOOMED over our place by being just up the hill and would have totally interfered with the sunrise and moonrise there. The turbine's flicker affect and flashing lights would have ruined one of our property's strongest features even though the site was on a neighboring property on Burke Rd. That is how critical the impact of the turbine placement is and yet is so ignored. We know that we are extremely fortunate and the site change is strictly due to factors having nothing to do with the impact on our place. Sadly, it is hard to say "thank you".
We have our place for sale. We have an interested buyers who will NOT buy if the turbine was sited there. We have had other interested parties back out due to the windfarm plans here. We know of 2 buyers who backed out of offers on a Dillenbeck Rd.property (original offers of $225,000. and 230,000.) and 1 successful buyer on that same property for $185,000.00 (due to the wind farm impacting views). No value on viewshed? We beg to differ. Thank you developers and Steuben IDA! People came and built the lovlier homes and get-a-ways because it is so beautiful here. Too bad the town of Prattsburgh couldn't work harder on enforcing junk car and property laws - instead they just add wind turbines. Now thats some real "vision" for you!
Feedback from buyers and tourists is mostly negative due to the size and concentration of the turbine area in the region. Most (some are just adamantly opposed to windfarms period) were ok with smaller turbines in smaller windfarms (up to 20 like Fenner or 7 like Weathersfield). The opposition is that the county area will be covered with 100s of turbines making it an industrial area rather than a residential/recreational area. People buying trailer homes or low income properties seem unaffected. Buyers of "nicer" homes and properties are very off-put by the size of the Prattsburgh, ohocton, Italy windfarm area. Its not the green energy - its the way you are doing it. Geo-thermal and solar have their place as well - and maybe better choices in areas where tourism is the fastest growing "industry" and where migratory birds are in such abundance, variety and will be at risk.
Over the years, our town supervisor Harold McConnell, Jim Sherron from the IDA and the representatives of Global UPC and Ecogen repeatedly told us that there would only be 1 smaller windfarm due to the ability of the power grid to handle them. Lies, lies, lies. Now we have 2 approved windfarms for Prattsburgh with turbine sites over 100 in phase one. As if the IDA didn't know - right. Randy Kuhl told us we are "home ruled" in the state of NY. That is supposed to mean that the towns determine what they want or don't want. Lies, lies, lies. If that were true we could have voted on a referendum in Prattsburgh (they did for adult book stores and booze). If that were true, the Town of Italy wouldn't be fighting the law suit by Ecogen - who proudly badgers with big law guns to force the town to allow the windfarm and substation. Why is this allowed? Will business developers seize our lands under imminent domain for windfarms, strip malls or other projects that "those who know best" determine while stuffing their pockets with pork?
With consideration of the PILOT programs(payment in lieu of taxes HA! HA!) - one wonders just where the tax revenues will come from in the future. The windfarms cannot afford to pay taxes, the low income properties pay little or subsidized taxes, as well as the farmers are subsidized by tax dollars as well. The "nicer" properties (well kept family homes, retirement homes, recreational) support the tax base for the towns by paying a disproportionate share. Will the landowners loose their leased land in 15 years when they run out of payments and didn't use innovation and work to solve their money problems to pay taxes?
Oddly, many of us with improved properties received yet another increase in our share of the taxes, as well as increases pending for NYSEG electric (to support the windfarms). This formula for tax and revenue to the county of Steuben is flawed. It does not take a brain bigger than a walnut to see that the "green" is still tax money siphoning away to developers and political entities like our IDA's.
Lately, Congressman Kuhl "helped" an Ontario County bowling alley with a subsidized government loan (thank you taxpayers!) to help keep the business afloat. Like farming - what happened to good adaptable business practice or loose?. Since when are Americans just a bunch of politically supported free-loaders due to lack of sound innovation and solid business sense?
The same applies to our towns. If they can't survive by growth, innovation and adapting to change, why should a few landowners and developers cover our region with turbines that won't produce enough electric to pay for themselves?
Eventually, more NY residents will leave the state of disaster and you have helped make it that way by playing on rural ignorance, opportunists and desperation. YOU developers could have proposed smaller windfarms with better returns and better science for our area instead of being greedy for 100s of them here! YOU IDA's could consider just more than ways to keep your agencies from extinction due to lack of value. YOU supervisors should think of life here after your terms of office.
Thanks for the idea of wind energy - no thanks for shoving it down our throats in an area that should be preserved from such flawed science and huge negative impact. Sure, there are buyers for our properties that will come forward that are not offended by your plans, but we think that those of us who have had the blessing of living here without your turbines will have the best memories of all - beautiful hillsides, flocks of migrating birds and dark nights with the only twinkles coming from stars.
We are moving as soon as we successfully sell our home of 25 years and our tourist lodging will be gone. All due to the windfarms? no, there are other factors and include lousy politics, high energy costs and taxes. We would tough it out but there are better opportunities for us eslewhere - maybe Ontario County or even out to a well-managed state - out of NY. There is a long list and NYS is at the bottom. Why? If you aren't part of the solution - you are part of the problem. We really hope people vote out their poorly performing incumbents next election. They blew it last year.
As residents since 1973, we will finally, definitely and sadly, put Steuben County, and Prattsburgh - "In the Rear View Mirror".
Warm Regards,
Richard & Cynthia Cole
Riders' Rest - Falling Waters
"A Heartfelt Place to Connect in the Heart of Finger Lakes Wine Country"
E-mail: ridersrest@empacc.net
Phone: (607) 522-6100
Web: www.RidersRest.com
We received the review of your approved windfarm for Prattsburgh. http://www.prattsburghwind.com/about-rr-feis.php. Certainly we are tired of fighting and in that you developers and few landowners and politicians win. Hopefully others will continue the awareness to fight against large scale industrial wind development in Upstate NY. YOU obviously have the current politicians and IDA in your pockets. How did you do that so well?
We are relieved that you will not be putting turbines between Burke Rd. and Rte 53 near our home on Rte 53. That particular turbine would have LOOMED over our place by being just up the hill and would have totally interfered with the sunrise and moonrise there. The turbine's flicker affect and flashing lights would have ruined one of our property's strongest features even though the site was on a neighboring property on Burke Rd. That is how critical the impact of the turbine placement is and yet is so ignored. We know that we are extremely fortunate and the site change is strictly due to factors having nothing to do with the impact on our place. Sadly, it is hard to say "thank you".
We have our place for sale. We have an interested buyers who will NOT buy if the turbine was sited there. We have had other interested parties back out due to the windfarm plans here. We know of 2 buyers who backed out of offers on a Dillenbeck Rd.property (original offers of $225,000. and 230,000.) and 1 successful buyer on that same property for $185,000.00 (due to the wind farm impacting views). No value on viewshed? We beg to differ. Thank you developers and Steuben IDA! People came and built the lovlier homes and get-a-ways because it is so beautiful here. Too bad the town of Prattsburgh couldn't work harder on enforcing junk car and property laws - instead they just add wind turbines. Now thats some real "vision" for you!
Feedback from buyers and tourists is mostly negative due to the size and concentration of the turbine area in the region. Most (some are just adamantly opposed to windfarms period) were ok with smaller turbines in smaller windfarms (up to 20 like Fenner or 7 like Weathersfield). The opposition is that the county area will be covered with 100s of turbines making it an industrial area rather than a residential/recreational area. People buying trailer homes or low income properties seem unaffected. Buyers of "nicer" homes and properties are very off-put by the size of the Prattsburgh, ohocton, Italy windfarm area. Its not the green energy - its the way you are doing it. Geo-thermal and solar have their place as well - and maybe better choices in areas where tourism is the fastest growing "industry" and where migratory birds are in such abundance, variety and will be at risk.
Over the years, our town supervisor Harold McConnell, Jim Sherron from the IDA and the representatives of Global UPC and Ecogen repeatedly told us that there would only be 1 smaller windfarm due to the ability of the power grid to handle them. Lies, lies, lies. Now we have 2 approved windfarms for Prattsburgh with turbine sites over 100 in phase one. As if the IDA didn't know - right. Randy Kuhl told us we are "home ruled" in the state of NY. That is supposed to mean that the towns determine what they want or don't want. Lies, lies, lies. If that were true we could have voted on a referendum in Prattsburgh (they did for adult book stores and booze). If that were true, the Town of Italy wouldn't be fighting the law suit by Ecogen - who proudly badgers with big law guns to force the town to allow the windfarm and substation. Why is this allowed? Will business developers seize our lands under imminent domain for windfarms, strip malls or other projects that "those who know best" determine while stuffing their pockets with pork?
With consideration of the PILOT programs(payment in lieu of taxes HA! HA!) - one wonders just where the tax revenues will come from in the future. The windfarms cannot afford to pay taxes, the low income properties pay little or subsidized taxes, as well as the farmers are subsidized by tax dollars as well. The "nicer" properties (well kept family homes, retirement homes, recreational) support the tax base for the towns by paying a disproportionate share. Will the landowners loose their leased land in 15 years when they run out of payments and didn't use innovation and work to solve their money problems to pay taxes?
Oddly, many of us with improved properties received yet another increase in our share of the taxes, as well as increases pending for NYSEG electric (to support the windfarms). This formula for tax and revenue to the county of Steuben is flawed. It does not take a brain bigger than a walnut to see that the "green" is still tax money siphoning away to developers and political entities like our IDA's.
Lately, Congressman Kuhl "helped" an Ontario County bowling alley with a subsidized government loan (thank you taxpayers!) to help keep the business afloat. Like farming - what happened to good adaptable business practice or loose?. Since when are Americans just a bunch of politically supported free-loaders due to lack of sound innovation and solid business sense?
The same applies to our towns. If they can't survive by growth, innovation and adapting to change, why should a few landowners and developers cover our region with turbines that won't produce enough electric to pay for themselves?
Eventually, more NY residents will leave the state of disaster and you have helped make it that way by playing on rural ignorance, opportunists and desperation. YOU developers could have proposed smaller windfarms with better returns and better science for our area instead of being greedy for 100s of them here! YOU IDA's could consider just more than ways to keep your agencies from extinction due to lack of value. YOU supervisors should think of life here after your terms of office.
Thanks for the idea of wind energy - no thanks for shoving it down our throats in an area that should be preserved from such flawed science and huge negative impact. Sure, there are buyers for our properties that will come forward that are not offended by your plans, but we think that those of us who have had the blessing of living here without your turbines will have the best memories of all - beautiful hillsides, flocks of migrating birds and dark nights with the only twinkles coming from stars.
We are moving as soon as we successfully sell our home of 25 years and our tourist lodging will be gone. All due to the windfarms? no, there are other factors and include lousy politics, high energy costs and taxes. We would tough it out but there are better opportunities for us eslewhere - maybe Ontario County or even out to a well-managed state - out of NY. There is a long list and NYS is at the bottom. Why? If you aren't part of the solution - you are part of the problem. We really hope people vote out their poorly performing incumbents next election. They blew it last year.
As residents since 1973, we will finally, definitely and sadly, put Steuben County, and Prattsburgh - "In the Rear View Mirror".
Warm Regards,
Richard & Cynthia Cole
Riders' Rest - Falling Waters
"A Heartfelt Place to Connect in the Heart of Finger Lakes Wine Country"
E-mail: ridersrest@empacc.net
Phone: (607) 522-6100
Web: www.RidersRest.com
Wind farms are 'surprisingly controversial,' report says by Margot Roosevelt
A National Academy of Sciences report today criticized "the lack of any truly coordinated planning" in the rapid growth of wind farms across the country, and called on federal, state and local governments to pay more attention to the effects of turbines on wildlife and scenic landscapes.
Wind currently provides less than 1% of the nation's electricity. But it is the fastest-growing alternative to fossil fuel-produced power, a major source of global warming.
In the past six years, U.S. wind capacity has more than quadrupled. And by 2020, the federal Department of Energy predicts, it could offset as much as 4.5% of the planet-warming carbon dioxide that American utilities would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.
But wind, the report notes, "is surprisingly controversial...not everyone considers (turbines) beautiful," and they can kill birds and bats. The effects on wildlife have diminished considerably since California built the nation's first wind farms, clusters of small turbines, in the 1980s.
Today's larger models cause far less damage, and, the report notes, birds may be more likely to die colliding with vehicles or buildings than with turbines.
California has nearly completed new guidelines to reduce the impacts of wind farms on birds and bats, but few other states have addressed the issue. Julia Levin, policy director for Audubon California, endorsed the report's findings, noting that, "In some parts of the country, wind power may increase more than ten-fold, yet we don't know what the cumulative impacts of that will be on wildlife."
The report's call for more research on the environmental effects of wind farms and for cost-benefit analyses of individual projects comes as Congress is considering an extension of tax credits for wind development.
At a House subcommittee hearing this week, the American Bird Conservancy called for any new tax credit to be tied to requirements that developers minimize the impact on wildlife.
Voluntary guidelines are being ignored by the wind industry, while between 30,000 and 60,000 birds are killed by turbines a year, according to the Conservancy's Michael Fry, a member of the National Wind Coordinating Committee, a government and industry task force.
The congressionally-mandated report was drafted by a group of academics assembled by the National Research Council, an arm of the Academy.
Wind currently provides less than 1% of the nation's electricity. But it is the fastest-growing alternative to fossil fuel-produced power, a major source of global warming.
In the past six years, U.S. wind capacity has more than quadrupled. And by 2020, the federal Department of Energy predicts, it could offset as much as 4.5% of the planet-warming carbon dioxide that American utilities would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.
But wind, the report notes, "is surprisingly controversial...not everyone considers (turbines) beautiful," and they can kill birds and bats. The effects on wildlife have diminished considerably since California built the nation's first wind farms, clusters of small turbines, in the 1980s.
Today's larger models cause far less damage, and, the report notes, birds may be more likely to die colliding with vehicles or buildings than with turbines.
California has nearly completed new guidelines to reduce the impacts of wind farms on birds and bats, but few other states have addressed the issue. Julia Levin, policy director for Audubon California, endorsed the report's findings, noting that, "In some parts of the country, wind power may increase more than ten-fold, yet we don't know what the cumulative impacts of that will be on wildlife."
The report's call for more research on the environmental effects of wind farms and for cost-benefit analyses of individual projects comes as Congress is considering an extension of tax credits for wind development.
At a House subcommittee hearing this week, the American Bird Conservancy called for any new tax credit to be tied to requirements that developers minimize the impact on wildlife.
Voluntary guidelines are being ignored by the wind industry, while between 30,000 and 60,000 birds are killed by turbines a year, according to the Conservancy's Michael Fry, a member of the National Wind Coordinating Committee, a government and industry task force.
The congressionally-mandated report was drafted by a group of academics assembled by the National Research Council, an arm of the Academy.
Alisha’s Law
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc.
P.O. Box 1013
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Prepared for: New York State and Federal Officials
1. The Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. group was formed to:
a. Oppose the degradation of the natural, human, and social environment by acting as an advocacy organization with respect to issues which affect the community, including but not limited to, the development of wind farms and power lines;
b. Engage in education and activism, and litigation to improve the environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Town of Fairfield, in Herkimer County, and in the State of New York, acting either independently, or in cooperation with other organizations and individuals that share similar goals and ideals;
c. Encourage the active participation of informed citizens, especially, but not exclusively, in the Town of Fairfield and the surrounding community, with respect to the preservation of the environment, and with respect to respecting the needs and interests of neighbors of prospective energy sites.
2. Current Directors
a. Andy McEvoy 315-823-4773
b. Jimmy Salamone 315-823-3477
c. Don Denapole 315-891-3036
3. Our view of why the Fairfield Town Board should not have been allowed to decide on the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine project in Fairfield, N.Y.
a. Proper procedures were not followed and were not carried out in a responsible manner from before the project was even made public.
b. The Town Boards have not made an attempt to contact the landowners and inform them of the project. Since the landowners and residents will be directly affected, the Town should have notified “everyone” about the project, especially the people in close proximity of the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Development. There are over 120 homes within a 3000’ radius of the proposed turbines. The Town should have notified them of their intentions involving an Industrial Development of this magnitude. Taxpayers should have had a “voice” in the process.
c. There has been a conflict of interest on the Planning Board since before the Town voted to approve the project. Two members were advised to abstain from voting, but were allowed to vote in favor of allowing “wind turbine” development in the town. This should be dealt with through the “Code of Ethics” for town boards.
d. When people did finally start to find out about the project and started to attend meetings to ask questions in June and July of 2006, the Town Board stopped allowing anyone to speak on the subject of Wind Turbines at the Town meetings. You could not even ask a question about the project if you were new to the area and
knew nothing about it. Is this Democracy?
e. There has never been a survey of the Health conditions of residents in close proximity to the proposed development to determine if the project could potentially endanger someone’s well being.
f. The Town Board passed a resolution allowing a participating landowner to have a wind turbine constructed 260’ from his neighbor’s property line, but yet the neighbor would not be allowed to build a home within 1250’ of the turbine. This results in almost 1000’ of the neighbor’s property useless. This is unjust. Imagine a
40 story skyscraper with a spinning rotor the size of a 747 Jet; just 260 FEET from your property line or 1250 FEET from your door step. Now imagine being in the middle of 60 – 70 of these monstrousities!!!!
4. Our concerns
a. Health issues – people’s lives need to be put ahead of an industrial project. Studies need to be done in the proposed areas to protect the residents and landowners.
i. Noise – both audible and inaudible have to be addressed. We’ve witnessed the “feel” of the turbines at the Flat Rock Inn at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. You can feel the vibrations as well as hear the sounds of them. They should not be built in populated areas.
ii. Strobing and Flicker – Doctors have said the flicker from the blades can cause seizures in epileptics.
iii. There are many studies and papers documenting the negative effects the turbines have on “Humans” and if the information was not accurate the developers and manufacturers would be more responsive in trying to discredit them.
b. Quality of Life – many landowners buy property in an area such as Fairfield for the “scenic vistas” and the “peaceful environment”. Fairfield offers panoramic views of up to sixty miles.
c. Property values – Contrary to some studies that have been done, many real estate agents have stated that the properties in close proximity to the turbines will go down in value. Would you buy a home 1250’ from a 400’ tall tower?
5. Regulation is needed
a. State and Federal officials need to draft a set of regulations to protect the people from being overrun by these 400’ monstrosities.
b. A moratorium must be enacted immediately to stop any project currently in the process of permitting. Once regulations are in place, the developers should then have to start over and abide by the guidelines set forth.
c. Home Rule should not apply to “wind energy facilities” in New York State or any other state. Most Town Boards do not know enough about the “negative effects” of Industrial Wind Turbines to make informed decisions on the siting of the turbines.
d. Experts in their respective fields should be commissioned to participate in the process of setting guidelines on siting Industrial Wind Turbines. Consultants such as Glenn Schlede and Dr. Nina Pierpont are excellent choices as you can see from the
documentation they have made available to the public. This involves Health issues as well as Economic issues.
6. Alisha’s Law
a. Because of the serious nature of the Health concerns brought to our attention by Lisa Sementilli (mother of 11 year old Alisha Sementilli who suffers from “Central Auditory Processing Disorder”) we are requesting our State and Federal Officials address the “wind turbine” issue and enact a law known as “Alisha’s Law” stating:
i. Industrial Wind Turbines over 150’ tall shall not be erected closer than 1.5 miles from any residential building, including schools and hospitals, nor shall they be erected closer than .5 miles from the property line of a nonparticipating
landowner with vacant land. A “medical and health condition” survey of every resident within a 5 mile radius of a “turbine” or “turbine cluster” is required.
b. There are over 20 turbines proposed for construction within a 1 mile radius of the Sementillis home. Alisha’s Doctors have recommended a minimum “safe” setback of 1.5 miles from the turbines for her protection from the noise.
c. Please give this issue careful review and remember, “No Child should be left behind”!
Thank you,
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc
P.O. Box 1013
Little Falls, N.Y. 13365
Prepared for: New York State and Federal Officials
1. The Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc. group was formed to:
a. Oppose the degradation of the natural, human, and social environment by acting as an advocacy organization with respect to issues which affect the community, including but not limited to, the development of wind farms and power lines;
b. Engage in education and activism, and litigation to improve the environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Town of Fairfield, in Herkimer County, and in the State of New York, acting either independently, or in cooperation with other organizations and individuals that share similar goals and ideals;
c. Encourage the active participation of informed citizens, especially, but not exclusively, in the Town of Fairfield and the surrounding community, with respect to the preservation of the environment, and with respect to respecting the needs and interests of neighbors of prospective energy sites.
2. Current Directors
a. Andy McEvoy 315-823-4773
b. Jimmy Salamone 315-823-3477
c. Don Denapole 315-891-3036
3. Our view of why the Fairfield Town Board should not have been allowed to decide on the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine project in Fairfield, N.Y.
a. Proper procedures were not followed and were not carried out in a responsible manner from before the project was even made public.
b. The Town Boards have not made an attempt to contact the landowners and inform them of the project. Since the landowners and residents will be directly affected, the Town should have notified “everyone” about the project, especially the people in close proximity of the proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Development. There are over 120 homes within a 3000’ radius of the proposed turbines. The Town should have notified them of their intentions involving an Industrial Development of this magnitude. Taxpayers should have had a “voice” in the process.
c. There has been a conflict of interest on the Planning Board since before the Town voted to approve the project. Two members were advised to abstain from voting, but were allowed to vote in favor of allowing “wind turbine” development in the town. This should be dealt with through the “Code of Ethics” for town boards.
d. When people did finally start to find out about the project and started to attend meetings to ask questions in June and July of 2006, the Town Board stopped allowing anyone to speak on the subject of Wind Turbines at the Town meetings. You could not even ask a question about the project if you were new to the area and
knew nothing about it. Is this Democracy?
e. There has never been a survey of the Health conditions of residents in close proximity to the proposed development to determine if the project could potentially endanger someone’s well being.
f. The Town Board passed a resolution allowing a participating landowner to have a wind turbine constructed 260’ from his neighbor’s property line, but yet the neighbor would not be allowed to build a home within 1250’ of the turbine. This results in almost 1000’ of the neighbor’s property useless. This is unjust. Imagine a
40 story skyscraper with a spinning rotor the size of a 747 Jet; just 260 FEET from your property line or 1250 FEET from your door step. Now imagine being in the middle of 60 – 70 of these monstrousities!!!!
4. Our concerns
a. Health issues – people’s lives need to be put ahead of an industrial project. Studies need to be done in the proposed areas to protect the residents and landowners.
i. Noise – both audible and inaudible have to be addressed. We’ve witnessed the “feel” of the turbines at the Flat Rock Inn at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. You can feel the vibrations as well as hear the sounds of them. They should not be built in populated areas.
ii. Strobing and Flicker – Doctors have said the flicker from the blades can cause seizures in epileptics.
iii. There are many studies and papers documenting the negative effects the turbines have on “Humans” and if the information was not accurate the developers and manufacturers would be more responsive in trying to discredit them.
b. Quality of Life – many landowners buy property in an area such as Fairfield for the “scenic vistas” and the “peaceful environment”. Fairfield offers panoramic views of up to sixty miles.
c. Property values – Contrary to some studies that have been done, many real estate agents have stated that the properties in close proximity to the turbines will go down in value. Would you buy a home 1250’ from a 400’ tall tower?
5. Regulation is needed
a. State and Federal officials need to draft a set of regulations to protect the people from being overrun by these 400’ monstrosities.
b. A moratorium must be enacted immediately to stop any project currently in the process of permitting. Once regulations are in place, the developers should then have to start over and abide by the guidelines set forth.
c. Home Rule should not apply to “wind energy facilities” in New York State or any other state. Most Town Boards do not know enough about the “negative effects” of Industrial Wind Turbines to make informed decisions on the siting of the turbines.
d. Experts in their respective fields should be commissioned to participate in the process of setting guidelines on siting Industrial Wind Turbines. Consultants such as Glenn Schlede and Dr. Nina Pierpont are excellent choices as you can see from the
documentation they have made available to the public. This involves Health issues as well as Economic issues.
6. Alisha’s Law
a. Because of the serious nature of the Health concerns brought to our attention by Lisa Sementilli (mother of 11 year old Alisha Sementilli who suffers from “Central Auditory Processing Disorder”) we are requesting our State and Federal Officials address the “wind turbine” issue and enact a law known as “Alisha’s Law” stating:
i. Industrial Wind Turbines over 150’ tall shall not be erected closer than 1.5 miles from any residential building, including schools and hospitals, nor shall they be erected closer than .5 miles from the property line of a nonparticipating
landowner with vacant land. A “medical and health condition” survey of every resident within a 5 mile radius of a “turbine” or “turbine cluster” is required.
b. There are over 20 turbines proposed for construction within a 1 mile radius of the Sementillis home. Alisha’s Doctors have recommended a minimum “safe” setback of 1.5 miles from the turbines for her protection from the noise.
c. Please give this issue careful review and remember, “No Child should be left behind”!
Thank you,
Fairfield Concerned Citizens Inc
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for WINDFARM PRATTSBURGH
http://www.windfarmprattsburgh.com/PDFs/FEIS/2007-04-26_FEIS_Final_Accepted.pdf2007-04-26_FEIS_Final_Accepted.pdf
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
http://www.windfarmprattsburgh.com/about-rr-feis.php
(Click to save and download the FEIS for UPC Prattsburgh
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Below please find links to the WindFarm Prattsburgh Final Environmental Impact Statement that was accepted by SCIDA on April 26, 2007. The Final EIS is also available for public review at the Prattsburgh and Naples public libraries, the Prattsburgh and Italy Town Halls, and our office in Prattsburgh:
Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC
3 Naples Road
PO Box 301
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Tel: 607.522.4598
Thank you.
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
Final Environmental Impact Statement (report text)
FIGURES
Figure 1A_Project Modifications
Figure 2_Project Area
Figure 3_Proposed Project Layout
Figure 5_Surface Waters
Figure 6_NWI Wetlands
Figure 7_NYSDEC Wetlands
Figure 8_Vegetative Communities
Figure 10_Revised Visual Simulations
Figure 12_Agricultural Districts
Figure 14_Proposed FAA Lighting Plan
APPENDICES
A-Visual_Shadow Flicker
B-FREE Info
C-Decommissioning Plan
D-Leventhall Paper
E-NYSERDA Study
F-Community Relations Plan
G-Cohocton Property Value
H-NYISO Study
I-NYSDEC Letter
J-Public Road Graphics
— Delivery Route
— Public Road Improvements
K-ECS Specs
Directory 1 Overbuild
— 05007_FEIS_Existing 34_5kv Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-1 34.5 kV Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-2 ROW Clearing Diagram
Directory 2 Water Crossing Diagrams
— SK-COL1
— SK-COL2
— SK-COL3
L-NYSEG Correspondence
M-Cultural Impacts
Directory 1
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 16 Feb 2007
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 8 Aug 2006
Directory 2
— OPRHP Tech Memo Historic Structures 29 Dec 2006
Directory 3
— PBH_3-21-07
Directory 4
— prattsburg windfarm ECS_3-23-07
N-O&M Schematic
O-Snowmobile Trails
P-SCIDA SEQR Guidelines
Q-Cumulative Simulation
R-Sound
— Directory 1 Updated Analysis
— Directory 2 Modeling Conservatism
S-Communications
T-Setback Analysis
U-Parcel Information
V-Public Comments
— Directory 1_WFP Comment List
Directory 2_WFP_WrittenComments
— 1
— 2
— 3
— 4
— 5
— 6
— 7
— 8
— 9
— 10
— 11
— 12
— 13
— 14
— 15
— 16
— 17
— 18
— 19
— 20
— 21
— 22
— 23
— 24
— 25
— 26
— 27
— 28
— 29
— 30
— 31
— 32
— 33
— 34
— 35
— 36
— Directory 3_WFP_Transcript_7-20-2007
(Click to save and download the FEIS for UPC Prattsburgh
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Below please find links to the WindFarm Prattsburgh Final Environmental Impact Statement that was accepted by SCIDA on April 26, 2007. The Final EIS is also available for public review at the Prattsburgh and Naples public libraries, the Prattsburgh and Italy Town Halls, and our office in Prattsburgh:
Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC
3 Naples Road
PO Box 301
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Tel: 607.522.4598
Thank you.
DOCUMENTS (PDFs)
Final Environmental Impact Statement (report text)
FIGURES
Figure 1A_Project Modifications
Figure 2_Project Area
Figure 3_Proposed Project Layout
Figure 5_Surface Waters
Figure 6_NWI Wetlands
Figure 7_NYSDEC Wetlands
Figure 8_Vegetative Communities
Figure 10_Revised Visual Simulations
Figure 12_Agricultural Districts
Figure 14_Proposed FAA Lighting Plan
APPENDICES
A-Visual_Shadow Flicker
B-FREE Info
C-Decommissioning Plan
D-Leventhall Paper
E-NYSERDA Study
F-Community Relations Plan
G-Cohocton Property Value
H-NYISO Study
I-NYSDEC Letter
J-Public Road Graphics
— Delivery Route
— Public Road Improvements
K-ECS Specs
Directory 1 Overbuild
— 05007_FEIS_Existing 34_5kv Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-1 34.5 kV Overbuild
— SK-TRAN-2 ROW Clearing Diagram
Directory 2 Water Crossing Diagrams
— SK-COL1
— SK-COL2
— SK-COL3
L-NYSEG Correspondence
M-Cultural Impacts
Directory 1
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 16 Feb 2007
— WFP agency correspondence OPRHP 8 Aug 2006
Directory 2
— OPRHP Tech Memo Historic Structures 29 Dec 2006
Directory 3
— PBH_3-21-07
Directory 4
— prattsburg windfarm ECS_3-23-07
N-O&M Schematic
O-Snowmobile Trails
P-SCIDA SEQR Guidelines
Q-Cumulative Simulation
R-Sound
— Directory 1 Updated Analysis
— Directory 2 Modeling Conservatism
S-Communications
T-Setback Analysis
U-Parcel Information
V-Public Comments
— Directory 1_WFP Comment List
Directory 2_WFP_WrittenComments
— 1
— 2
— 3
— 4
— 5
— 6
— 7
— 8
— 9
— 10
— 11
— 12
— 13
— 14
— 15
— 16
— 17
— 18
— 19
— 20
— 21
— 22
— 23
— 24
— 25
— 26
— 27
— 28
— 29
— 30
— 31
— 32
— 33
— 34
— 35
— 36
— Directory 3_WFP_Transcript_7-20-2007
Kathleen A. Janicki ad in the Valley News
Last month I decided to visit the UPC office and gather information so that I could form an educated opinion re: FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY leasing land in Cohocton.
I asked what UPC stood for Mrs. Towner did not know the answer but she advised me that it was an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, even though they have offices here on the east coast.
I researched information regarding ownership of the wind industry leases, UPC is an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and its parent company is ITALY. if you think you are buying AMERICAN, you are not....
While attempting to find out what UPC stood for, I found many articles regarding this industrial corporation including articles about its foreign profits arid tax exemptions.
As a local citizen who does business in the community and lives within sight of the proposed foreign wind industry project, I see it like this:
• Cohocton has farmers and property owners who are fortunate to own enough acreage and are willing to be "used" by an international company in return for MONEY. Under the pretense they want to help save the environment, they will rationalize this venture by calling it a WIND FARM.
• The Pro wind people are willing to let FOREIGN COMPANIES lease our land for the sake of our national energy supply. What Patriots! They must have watched the moyje produced by Al Gore.....the same man who has an annual electric bill of $30,000...can you spell CONSERVE?
• Cohocton has more than one committee of concerned citizens who are frantically trying to inform everyone of the negative aspects of bringing. FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY to our town. It is not just a few NIMBY. I am insulted Mr. Wayne Hunt!
• The Cohocton Town Board is not very adept at practicing conflict resolution within the community so that there is a win win situation. With this in mind, how can they be any match for negotiating with UPC?
* There are town and village citizens who own or have access to a computer, who have adequately researched FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY not only in our country but also in Europe. I would like to think they have read ALL the literature on both sides of the issue. If they have, they would find pro wind proponents and corporations are all talking money and profits for the most part while the anti wind people are very much concerned about the environment, health issues, and realistic ways to reduce energy usage without selling out our quiet, rural country side.
* We have a population of citizens who have no computer with which to read about the truths to help them form a sound opinion. They only hear incomplete and one sided information at town meetings or perhaps via neighborhood "gossip" OR they have no real use fora computer due to lack of knowledge on how to use one or FEAR of what they might read on it......
• And like any other community in the USA, there are the people who just plain don't care one way or the offier.
PLEASE READ THE BOLD PRINT IN MY LETTER WHAT WORDS STAND OUT?
... FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY ... FOREIGN COMPANIES ... MONEY ... PROFITS ... TAX EXEMPTIONS ... INDUSTRIAL TOWN ... INDUSTRIAL ENERGY ZONE ...
PLEASE ! If you don't have access to a computer. RUN to the library and ask someone to direct you information regarding wind industry. PLEASE read both sides of the issue. People all over America a Europe are fighting the corporate giants who are proposing 'this type:of energy source in rural communities. Gohocton is not the only town that I; being torn apart over MONEY.
As a result of my visit to the UPC office in Cohocton my conviction against FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY is strengthened.
Mrs. Towner, thank you for the information on UPC (whatever those letters stand for) and for bearing with my tears as I left the office. I know that I arn one of MANY citizens who have been under emotional turmoil as a result of a self serving Town Board and FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY.
To The Town Board: This issue isn't about trying to take over the local government as some pro wind people are claiming. It's not about slandering anyom or telling you what a lousy job you're doing in office, it's about LISTENING to ALL the people and working to finding a win - win situation for everyone, no matter how long it takes, it's about finding other viable solutions for a win - win situation. It's called CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Right now, all I see is a stubborn, closed minded Town Board forging ahead no matter what, determined to win a power struggle at EVERYONE's expense.
Can't you wait and find a better way?
Shame on you, and God help us all-including our children and future farm generations. Deceased farmers as well as bur ancestors that fought to keep foreign countries out of America during the America? Revolution are' up in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. You're giving our "territory" right back to them!
With all due respect,
Kathleen A. Janicki
PS This article is paid for our of my OWN pocket... not any committee..and I figured out what UPC stands for: UNDERMINING PEACEFUL COHOCTON ..... *
I asked what UPC stood for Mrs. Towner did not know the answer but she advised me that it was an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, even though they have offices here on the east coast.
I researched information regarding ownership of the wind industry leases, UPC is an INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and its parent company is ITALY. if you think you are buying AMERICAN, you are not....
While attempting to find out what UPC stood for, I found many articles regarding this industrial corporation including articles about its foreign profits arid tax exemptions.
As a local citizen who does business in the community and lives within sight of the proposed foreign wind industry project, I see it like this:
• Cohocton has farmers and property owners who are fortunate to own enough acreage and are willing to be "used" by an international company in return for MONEY. Under the pretense they want to help save the environment, they will rationalize this venture by calling it a WIND FARM.
• The Pro wind people are willing to let FOREIGN COMPANIES lease our land for the sake of our national energy supply. What Patriots! They must have watched the moyje produced by Al Gore.....the same man who has an annual electric bill of $30,000...can you spell CONSERVE?
• Cohocton has more than one committee of concerned citizens who are frantically trying to inform everyone of the negative aspects of bringing. FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY to our town. It is not just a few NIMBY. I am insulted Mr. Wayne Hunt!
• The Cohocton Town Board is not very adept at practicing conflict resolution within the community so that there is a win win situation. With this in mind, how can they be any match for negotiating with UPC?
* There are town and village citizens who own or have access to a computer, who have adequately researched FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY not only in our country but also in Europe. I would like to think they have read ALL the literature on both sides of the issue. If they have, they would find pro wind proponents and corporations are all talking money and profits for the most part while the anti wind people are very much concerned about the environment, health issues, and realistic ways to reduce energy usage without selling out our quiet, rural country side.
* We have a population of citizens who have no computer with which to read about the truths to help them form a sound opinion. They only hear incomplete and one sided information at town meetings or perhaps via neighborhood "gossip" OR they have no real use fora computer due to lack of knowledge on how to use one or FEAR of what they might read on it......
• And like any other community in the USA, there are the people who just plain don't care one way or the offier.
PLEASE READ THE BOLD PRINT IN MY LETTER WHAT WORDS STAND OUT?
... FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY ... FOREIGN COMPANIES ... MONEY ... PROFITS ... TAX EXEMPTIONS ... INDUSTRIAL TOWN ... INDUSTRIAL ENERGY ZONE ...
PLEASE ! If you don't have access to a computer. RUN to the library and ask someone to direct you information regarding wind industry. PLEASE read both sides of the issue. People all over America a Europe are fighting the corporate giants who are proposing 'this type:of energy source in rural communities. Gohocton is not the only town that I; being torn apart over MONEY.
As a result of my visit to the UPC office in Cohocton my conviction against FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY is strengthened.
Mrs. Towner, thank you for the information on UPC (whatever those letters stand for) and for bearing with my tears as I left the office. I know that I arn one of MANY citizens who have been under emotional turmoil as a result of a self serving Town Board and FOREIGN WIND INDUSTRY.
To The Town Board: This issue isn't about trying to take over the local government as some pro wind people are claiming. It's not about slandering anyom or telling you what a lousy job you're doing in office, it's about LISTENING to ALL the people and working to finding a win - win situation for everyone, no matter how long it takes, it's about finding other viable solutions for a win - win situation. It's called CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Right now, all I see is a stubborn, closed minded Town Board forging ahead no matter what, determined to win a power struggle at EVERYONE's expense.
Can't you wait and find a better way?
Shame on you, and God help us all-including our children and future farm generations. Deceased farmers as well as bur ancestors that fought to keep foreign countries out of America during the America? Revolution are' up in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. You're giving our "territory" right back to them!
With all due respect,
Kathleen A. Janicki
PS This article is paid for our of my OWN pocket... not any committee..and I figured out what UPC stands for: UNDERMINING PEACEFUL COHOCTON ..... *
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Power Failure series
Reporter James Heaney is writing a blog as a companion to "Power Failure," a major investigative series published by The Buffalo News. The blog is intended to provide readers with a forum for comment, along with periodic updates and insights.
Western New York is losing more than just population. Most of the low-cost electricity generated at the huge state-controlled hydropower plant north of Niagara Falls is exported out of town. In a three-part series, The Buffalo News explores how and why the byproduct of our natural resource is being squandered.
For a long time, having Niagara Falls in our backyard was a source of not only tourists, but abundant, cheap power that helped make the region an industrial powerhouse.
Western New York is losing more than just population. Most of the low-cost electricity generated at the huge state-controlled hydropower plant north of Niagara Falls is exported out of town. In a three-part series, The Buffalo News explores how and why the byproduct of our natural resource is being squandered.
For a long time, having Niagara Falls in our backyard was a source of not only tourists, but abundant, cheap power that helped make the region an industrial powerhouse.
Local residents are co-complainants in anti-trust complaint against wind energy industry
NAPLES — A grassroots coalition of nearly 100 citizens of New York, Vermont and other states, including Andrew McEvoy and James Salamone of Little Falls, have filed a federal anti-trust complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.
The complaint, filed with the Department of Justice’s Anti-Trust Division, maintains that wind farm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors and, in some cases, public officials engaged in illegal geographic market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bradley E. Jones of the Industrial Wind Action Group said that as a result of this “illegal conspiracy” thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.
(Click to read entire article)
The complaint, filed with the Department of Justice’s Anti-Trust Division, maintains that wind farm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors and, in some cases, public officials engaged in illegal geographic market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bradley E. Jones of the Industrial Wind Action Group said that as a result of this “illegal conspiracy” thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.
(Click to read entire article)
Spitzer's new state energy proposals need powerful revision by Fred LeBrun
New Yorkers need cheaper energy. But at what price?
For a couple of decades at least, New York's economic growth woes have been tied to the extraordinarily high costs of electricity for business and, not incidentally, for consumers as well. We have the highest energy costs in the continental United States, twice as high as North Carolina's, and three times as high as West Virginia's.
Yet, since 2002, when Article 10 -- the state law covering the siting of new power plants -- lapsed, our ability to increase production and clean up what we've got has been hampered. That law might have offered a controversial gauntlet for industry to follow that was maddening even in its so-called expedited version, but at least it allowed a few power plants to be built.
Steve Mitnick, Gov. Spitzer's point man on energy, is shopping around an alternative Article 10 to various stakeholders. A broad range of opinion from both the energy industry and environmental watchdog groups is largely negative so far, so a re-writing before we see legislation is likely.
(Click to read entire article)
For a couple of decades at least, New York's economic growth woes have been tied to the extraordinarily high costs of electricity for business and, not incidentally, for consumers as well. We have the highest energy costs in the continental United States, twice as high as North Carolina's, and three times as high as West Virginia's.
Yet, since 2002, when Article 10 -- the state law covering the siting of new power plants -- lapsed, our ability to increase production and clean up what we've got has been hampered. That law might have offered a controversial gauntlet for industry to follow that was maddening even in its so-called expedited version, but at least it allowed a few power plants to be built.
Steve Mitnick, Gov. Spitzer's point man on energy, is shopping around an alternative Article 10 to various stakeholders. A broad range of opinion from both the energy industry and environmental watchdog groups is largely negative so far, so a re-writing before we see legislation is likely.
(Click to read entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)