A legal, and neighbor-against-neighbor, battle in northeastern St. Croix County continues as the pros and cons of wind-generated power are debated. The issue has already been brewing for four years and it may not be settled anytime soon as we enter the fifth year of the controversy.
Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — that’s the easy part.
But then, try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.
Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.
As the debate continues, we are starting to see new terms in the discussions of wind energy. Terms such as “shadow flicker” and “turbine noise levels” are things that no one thought much about in the past.
The latest developments in the Forest project find that the company attempting to build the turbines, Highland Wind Farm LCC, increased the size of the project from 97 to 102.5 megawatts. The Highland Wind Farm project has been a controversy in the town of Forest since the town board approved a wind development agreement with the wind farm developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in 2008.
In 2010 the town board was recalled and replaced by turbine opponents. They had made things difficult for the proposal with various town regulations and citizen lawsuits. The 102.5 megawatt proposal is significant because it makes the plan subject to state approval instead of town approval. The cutoff is 100 megawatts.
A bit of history finds that the original project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall. Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began. Battles erupted over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety, “shadow flicker” and more.
With the latest proposal now involving the state, the clock began ticking last week on state regulators to review the application to construct the larger 102.5 mega-watt wind energy farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon. By statute, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has 30 days to determine if the application submitted by Highland Wind Farm LCC is complete, and if so, then six months to approve or deny it. If necessary, a circuit court can grant the PSC a six-month extension. The town’s role in the decision is now uncertain.
The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.
Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The people in the video below live in the last wind project to be developed by this wind company. That project has just 8 turbines but they've made life hell for several families, at least two of whom have abandoned their homes because of noise and vibration from the wind turbines.
Click on the image below to meet some of them and hear their story
"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."
FEDS PROPOSE ALLOWING WIND-FARM DEVELOPER TO KILL GOLDEN EAGLES
“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”
The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.
Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.
The federal government is proposing to grant a first-of-its-kind permit that would allow the developer of a central Oregon wind-power project to legally kill golden eagles, a regulatory move being closely watched by conservationists.
The Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service on Tuesday released a draft environmental assessment that would allow West Butte Wind Power LLC to kill as many as three protected golden eagles over five years if the company fulfills its conservation commitments.
It’s the first eagle “take permit” application to be received and acted on by U.S. Fish and Wildlife under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. (“Take” means to kill, harass or disturb the birds, their nests or their eggs.) [Ed. Read the application here]
The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.
Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. In this case “taking” would be the killing of eagles hit by the wind turbines’ huge blades.
Public comments on the draft environmental assessment of the Wind Butte project will be accepted until Feb. 2.
The permit, if ultimately issued, stipulates that there must be no net loss to breeding populations of golden eagles from the wind farm project. That means for every protected bird permitted killed, developers must contribute to conservation efforts for breeding them.
“Our goal is to maintain stable or increasing populations of eagles protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” said Chris McKay, assistant regional director for Migratory Birds and State Programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Region.
“Regulations under the Act allow us to issue permits for activities that are likely to take eagles provided the activity is otherwise lawful and the taking is not the purpose of that activity, the take is unavoidable even though advanced conservation practices are being implemented, and the take is compatible with eagle preservation,” McKay said in a press release.
California-based West Butte Wind Power LLC is proposing to build a 104-megawatt wind energy generation facility on ranchland in Oregon’s Deschutes and Crook counties, consisting of up to 52 wind turbines. Electricity generated by the project could power as many as 50,000 homes.
Conservation groups expressed cautious optimism at the government’s proposal to award the eagle take permit.
“This is a type of project where it’s appropriate for them to issue this kind of permit,” said Liz Nysson, energy policy coordinator with the Oregon Natural Desert Association She noted that only a small number of golden eagles are believed to be in and around the area where the wind turbines will be built.
“I say ‘cautious optimism’ because we fear that the agency is going to go forward and start issuing these permits … for a multitude of golden eagles every year, and that would be a bad use of the policy,” Nysson said.
It’s not mandatory for wind-power projects to apply for the eagle “take” permits.
Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator for the American Bird Conservancy, praised West Butte for being the first company to apply for one. She described the latest development as “precedent-setting,” according to the Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group of the nation’s governors dedicated to expanding the development of wind energy.
Fuller said the eagle permit process gives conservationists more opportunity to participate in the development process.
She said the conservancy group will ask Fish and Wildlife to extend its public comment period an additional 30 days beyond the Feb. 2 deadline, according to the Wind Energy Coalition.
MORE ON THIS SUBJECT:
LOWELL WIND OPPONENTS DECRY USDA FOREST SERVICE APPROVAL OF DEERFIELD WIND PROJECT
Just three days into 2012, Vermont’s critics of industrial wind power already have a new ridgeline in the sand to fight about: The USDA Forest Service just granted final approval to Iberdrola, Inc. to build more than a dozen, 393-foot wind turbines on two ridgelines in the Green Mountain National Forest in southern Vermont.
The project, known as Deerfield Wind, located near the towns of Readsboro and Searsburg, gained federal approval for 15 of the 17 turbines that were OK’ed two years ago by the Vermont Public Service Board. The PSB approval came despite objections from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and others that the project would damage critical bear habitat. The new ridgeline development will be located not far from the existing Searsburg Wind Power Facility, Vermont’s first industrial wind project, which went online in July 1997.
According to Iberdrola, Deerfield Wind is expected to generate enough power to light 14,000 Vermont homes, or roughly three-quarters of the households in Windham County. In September 2010, Central Vermont Public Service announced a long-term, fixed-rate power purchase agreement with Iberdrola Renewables to buy 20 of the 30 megawatts generated by the Deerfield project for its Vermont customers. According to the Iberdrola website, it’s now looking to secure other Vermont-based purchasers of the Deerfield electricity so all the power is consumed locally.
If Vermont’s industrial wind opponents thought they were in a David-and-Goliath fight with Green Mountain Power — now in the process of merging with CVPS — their latest nemesis is exponentially larger. Portland, Ore.-based Iberdrola is the second largest wind developer in the United States, with more than 40 utility-grade energy projects nationwide, including wind, solar, biomass and gas-fired generators, as this map reveals. Iberdrola Renewables is the U.S. division of its Spanish parent, Iberdrola, S.A. Iberdrola S.A.’s website claims it has the largest renewable asset base of any company in the world, which includes 11,400 MG of renewable energy globally. ¡Muy enorme!
A familiar cast of local enviros have sounded alarm bells about this latest regulatory action. To wit: Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) put out a press release this afternoon condemning the decision — even before the USDA Forest Service had a chance to announce it.
Steve Wright of Craftsbury is the former Forest Service employee and Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner who’s led the fight against th Kingdom Community Wind Project in the Lowell mountains.
“As a former USFS employee, I am appalled that the Forest Service would approve the wholesale damage to critical black bear habitat in order to squeeze out a few kilowatt hours of electricity,” says Wright, in a press statement. “This is a serious error in judgment by the Obama administration for little or no effective climate change result.”
As Wright points out, the ridgeline turbines would be located less than two miles from the George D. Aiken Wilderness, a fact that he and other opponents say was initially downplayed by both wind developers and the Forest Service. They claim that maps used at the public meeting for the project as recently as several months ago did not identify the nearby wilderness area.
“The decision is based on a process plagued with conflict of interest,” alleges VCE executive director Annette Smith. “Experts were working for Iberdrola, the developer on a wind project in New Hampshire, at the same time they prepared the supposedly independent analysis for the Forest Service.”
Smith claims the final EIS also violates the management plan for the George D. Aiken Wilderness, noting that the turbines would be visible from more than half the wilderness, “completely eviscerating” its whole purpose.
Justin Lindholm, a Mendon resident who serves on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board and is a frequent visitor to the Aiken Wilderness, says that politicians “want to turn the Aiken Wilderness into nothing more than a tree park.”
Added Smith, “This is a bad project based on bad information leading to a bad decision.”
Spokespeople for Iberdrola Renewables and the USDA Forest Service did not return calls as of press time.
We invite public comment on the proposed DEA. If you wish, you may submit comments by any one of the methods discussed above under ADDRESSES.Show citation box
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. You can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
DATES:
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by February 2, 2011.Show citation box
SEND YOUR COMMENT:
You may download a copy of the DEA on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/nepa.html. Alternatively, you may use one of the methods below to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” on all correspondence.Show citation box
Submitting Comments: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by one of the following methods.Show citation box
Email: pacific_birds@fws.gov. Include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message.Show citation box
U.S. Mail: Please address written comments to Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232.Show citation box
Fax: Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, (503) 231-2019, Attn.: DEA for the West Butte Wind Project.Show citation box
For more information contact Michael Green, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (503) 231-2019 (phone); pacific_birds@fws.gov (email, include “DEA for the West Butte Wind Project” in the subject line of the message). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
Next Feature
From Vermont
PRECEDENT-SETTING WIND PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE APPEALED
(Host) A 15-turbine wind project just approved by the Green Mountain National Forest could set a precedent as the nation’s first commercial wind farm on national forest land.
But opponents say the Deerfield Wind project will be appealed.
VPR’s Susan Keese has more.
(Keese) Deerfield Wind is a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, a Spanish company that’s one of the largest wind developers in this country.
The development covers 80 acres of National Forest in Readsboro and Searsburg. It was one of 14 renewable power projects fast-tracked this summer by the Obama administration.
The proposal has been under scrutiny for years. The state Public Service Board approved it, with conditions, in 2009.
Green Mountain National Forest spokesman Ethan Ready says the Forest Service’s decision was scheduled for the end of December, even without the president’s help.
(Ready) “With projects of this magnitude we have to go through the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires us to do in-depth policy analysis and… a lot of scientific work. So we’re really proud of the work we’ve done… and we think that it’s been an extensive and thorough process which has involved the public.”
(Keese) Ready says the forest received more than a thousand comments. They’re addressed in the 400 page environmental impact statement and 70-page decision.
At 410 feet tall, the new turbines would be twice the height of towers at an existing adjacent wind farm, and will require aircraft safety lighting.
That’s a major concern for the group Vermonters for a Clean Environment. Annette Smith directs the group. She says the lights will be visible from the 5,000 acre George D. Aiken Wilderness, a few miles away.
(Smith) “More than half the area inside the wilderness you will be able to see the wind turbines from, with their blinking lights… and this is totally contrary to everything that the wilderness plan calls for.”
(Keese) The project has also drawn concern from biologists and wildlife advocates, who worry about the removal of beech groves used by black bears as a food source.
The permits require the developer to set aside 144 acres of comparable bear habitat and to continue extensive bear, bat and bird impact surveys once the turbines are running.
The Forest Service says the public will have 45 days to appeal the decision, after legal notices are published.
Annette Smith says her group will appeal, and she expects others to do the same.
I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property.
I have lived in the Cross area of Mineral County my entire life and have done so because of the peace and quiet of the small community. However, over the past months, things have changed, and the reason is the windmills on the mountain across from my home.
The windmills cause an extremely loud disturbance to the point that lying down at night to have a good night’s sleep is impossible. I recently attended a county commission meeting, to see what the commissioners could do to help the Cross residents with the noise from the windmills. The three commissioners showed no interest in helping with this problem. One in particular spoke to a relative and said, “You wanted the windmills, now live with them.”
I personally did not want the windmills in the county. Prior to the approval of the windmill project and the construction, I do not remember hearing anything or reading newspaper reports concerning how much noise would be produced by the windmills. I can verify there is noise from the windmills, and it has ruined my way of life in my home, out in the yard and even in the garage with the radio playing. I name all three areas because the noise of the windmills can be heard anywhere on my property. For those living near railroad tracks, I agree there is a time to become adjusted to the noise of passing trains. The sound from the windmills is like having a train come through the middle of my house for seven or eight hours straight.
On another comparison subject, the smell emitted by what was called the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company was one to be tolerated. Those living in Luke, Westernport and Piedmont did tolerate the smell because the paper factory that created the unpleasant odor was the company that sent paychecks to many homes in the Tri Towns. That odor put the food on their plates and a roof over their heads.
Edison Mission, the owners of the Pinnacle Wind Farm, has nothing to do with whether my family eats or has suitable housing, so there is no reason for me to tolerate the noise from the windmills.
Dave Friend and Jim Cookman, top people with US WindForce, the developers of the wind farm, visited in this area to gain support for the windmills. They have been contacted about the noise factor and their response is that it is now a problem for Edison Mission. If that is the case, why do they continue to be the spokespeople for windmills at advisory meetings?
Then on the subject of windmills creating a green environment for the area, the comment I have about that is the only thing green the developers and owners are interested in the kind they fold and put in their pockets.
I was told by Edison Mission that they knew the Mitsubishi wind turbines were a lot louder than the ones that are normally used. In addition, surely there were noise studies conducted prior to the plans to build the windmills on Pinnacle, but the company installed them anyway. Everyone talks of how quiet other wind farms are, but that is only if a person stands directly beneath them, where there is little noise. Further away from the windmills, there is noise as we can hear in Cross.
I feel like the county commissioners should not have allowed US WindForce to place these noisy wind turbines so near to private homes. They and the Public Service Commission have ruined the lives of those residing near the Pinnacle Wind Farm. I was told the windmills would shut down during the night until a way was found to correct the noise. This has not happened.
How does the wind farm think they are protecting the environment by clear-cutting over 2 miles of timber to erect 23 noisy windmills? I understand additional wind farms could be built in Mineral County Those that may live near them are in for a real treat, that is if they want to get a good night’s sleep. Better yet, get all the sleep you can now, because you will not be able to if any future windmills are built close to your house. With a situation like this, causing disruption and unsettling problems with quality of life, something must be done.
One more thing, I have lived with the deposit of sludge from NewPage in the ground near my home, and this has been ongoing for 30 years. The sludge is at least 100 feet deep over many acres, with the possibility of ruining the water supply.
Book review by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute
January 2, 2011
On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.”
He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response. Now I realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”
A new book, Windfall: Wind Energy in America Today, by historian Robert Righter, was recently published by University of Oklahoma Press. Righter also wrote an earlier history of wind energy, published by UofO Press in 1996. In the intervening years, of course, the wind industry has blossomed from its initial mini-boom-and-bust in the California hills (Altamont, anyone?), with bigger turbines, larger government incentives, and growing commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electric generation all leading Righter to feel that an update was in order.
As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter will startle many with his strong call for not building turbines “where they are not wanted.” He spends chunks of three chapters addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast. While not ruling out wind farms in the latter areas, he calls for far more sensitivity to the quality of life concerns of residents. (Ed. note: Righter’s book shares a title with, but should be clearly distinguished from, a recent documentary investigating local anti-wind backlash in a NY town.)
Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today’s turbines are huge mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations. At the same time, he suggests that a look back at earlier technological innovations (including transmission lines, oil pump jacks, and agricultural watering systems) suggests that most of us tend to become accustomed to new intrusions after a while, noting that outside of wilderness areas, “it is difficult to view a landscape devoid of a human imprint.”
He acknowledges the fact that impacts on a few can’t always outweigh the benefits for the many in generating electricity without burning carbon or generating nuclear waste, but goes on to ask:
No matter how admirable this is, should a few people pay the price for benefits to the many? Should rural regions lose the amenities and psychological comforts of living there to serve the city? Should metropolitan areas enjoy abundant electricity while rural people forfeit the very qualities that took them to the countryside in the first place? The macro-scale benefits of wind energy seldom impress local opponents, who have micro-scale concerns. The turbines’ benefits are hardly palpable to impacted residents, whereas the visual impact is a constant reminder of the loss of a cherished landscape.
Righter also takes a realistic stance about the fact that our appetite for electricity leads to inevitable conflicts wherever we might want to generate it. He says, “…wind turbines are ugly – but the public produced the problem and must now live with it. Turbine retribution is the price we must pay for a lavish electrical lifestyle.”
But unlike most wind boosters, he doesn’t content himself with this simple formulation. He goes on to stress that even as recently as 2000, most experts felt that technical hurdles would keep turbines from getting much bigger than they were then (500kW-1MW). The leaps that have taken place, with 3MW and larger turbines in new wind farms, startle even him: ”They do not impact a landscape as much as dominate it….Their size makes it practically impossible to suggest that wind turbines can blend technology with nature.” He joins one of his fellow participants in a cross-disciplinary symposium on NIMBY issues, stressing: ”Wind energy developers must realize the ‘important links among landscape, memory, and beauty in achieving a better quality of life.’ This concept is not always appreciated by wind developers, resulting in bitter feeling, often ultimately reaching the courts.”
He was obviously touched by the experience of Dale Rankin and several neighbors in Texas, who were affected by the 421-turbine Horse Hollow Wind Farm. Righter generally agrees with my experience there, that such wide open spaces seem the perfect place for generating lots of energy from the wind. But two of these hundreds of turbines changed Rankin’s life. These two sat between his house and some wooded hills, and Righter says that to him, “the turbines seemed inappropriate for this bucolic scene. For the Rankins the change is a sad story of landscape loss…” He asked whether the developer had talked with them before siting the turbines here, but they hadn’t, since the land belonged to a neighbor and local setback requirements were met, so “the utility company placed the turbines where its grid pattern determined they should be. Perhaps such a policy represents efficiency and good engineering, but (reflects) arrogance and poor public relations….(The developer) crushed Rankin with their lawyers when fairness and reason could have ameliorated the situation…the company could well have compromised on the siting of two turbines. But they did not.”
On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.” He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response. Now i realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”
While offering many nods to the constructive role of better public engagement early in the planning stages and making the case for societal needs sometimes outweighing those of a few neighbors, Righter also stresses:
While some objections to wind farms are clearly economically inspired and quite political in nature, no one can deny the legitimacy of many NIMBY responses. When the electrical power we want intrudes on the landscapes we love, there will be resistance, often passionate. This is part of the democratic process. The vocal minority, if indeed it is a minority, has a legitimate right to weigh the pros and cons of wind development in the crucible of public opinion, in public hearings, and if necessary in our court system.
As a bottom line, and despite his support for the industry and belief that we may learn to appreciate a landscape with more turbines, Righter calls strongly for new development to proceed in ways that minimize or eliminate intra-community conflict. Recounting one of many stories of a community torn apart by hard feelings between nearby neighbors (at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in New York), he concludes:
Should the wind companies shoulder the blame? I believe they should. Good corporate citizens must identify potential problems and take action, and that action should precede final placement of the wind turbines….The most optimal ridge need not be developed at the expense of residents’ rights to the enjoyment of their property.
“In the final analysis,” writes Righter, “we can best address the NIMBY response by building wind turbines where they are wanted…and where they do not overlap with other land use options.” He elaborates:
Conversely, wind developers should give serious consideration to not insisting on raising turbines where they are not wanted…Unlike Europe, our nation has land. there are vast areas of the United States that have excellent wind resources and welcome the wind turbines….We can hope the industry will adopt the attitude of Bob Gates, a Clipper Wind Power vice president: “If people don’t want it, we’ll go someplace else.” Fortunately, the country can accommodate him.
Righter also stresses that current setbacks requirements encourage the building of wind farms in ways that almost inevitably cause heartbreaking problems for some neighbors. While at one point he makes the mistaken assumption that most setback limits are already a half mile or more, he addresses in some detail the findings of a 2007 report from the National Research Council’s Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects. Righter observes that scientific difficulties with subjectivity led the committee to “shy away from the most important subject,” the impacts on humans, including social impacts on community cohesion and psychological responses to controversial projects. But he’s pleased to note:
Yet they did address one key impact on human beings: the fact that those individuals and families who suffer negative visual or noise effects from the turbines live too close to them. This is not the fault of the homeowners, for in most cases the home was erected before the wind turbines arrived. Usually it is attributable to local government regulations, which often allow setbacks of only 1,000 feet. Significantly, in their study the NRC’s wind committeee observed that ‘the most significant impacts are likely to occur within 3 miles of the project, with impacts possible from sensitive viewing areas up to 8 miles from projects.’
One might expect that this would preclude setbacks of less than at least a mile. But the industry prefers setbacks measured in feet rather than miles.
Righter’s book also includes chapters addressing grid integration, government incentives, reliability, and smaller turbines. He repeatedly makes the case for more research and development into smaller, vertical axis turbines, which, even with their smaller outputs, could be far more acceptable in many locations where landscape disruption and noise issues are paramount. Anti-wind campaigners won’t find Righter to be very comfortable company, for he sees the technological and grid challenges as easily surmountable, and the government support and investment in the industry as both warranted and of proper scale. He also supports various efforts to achieve better community consensus, including making royalty payments to those not hosting turbines. Make no mistake, this is an avid supporter of the industry.
Indeed, his long history and his deep knowledge of wind energy make his final recommendations about siting all the more striking. Righter’s experience and stance has fueled my confidence that the path AEI has been pointing to for the past year or so is more than the pipe dream of a tiny non-advocacy nonprofit. Larger setbacks, to protect unwilling neighbors from quality of life upheavals, combined with easements obtained via royalty-sharing or annual payments to neighbors who don’t mind hearing turbines a bit more often, is a fair and promising path forward.
As Righter says in his conclusion:
The days of an oil patch mentality of greed and boom-bust cycles are about over. Most developers understand that it is in their best interest to operate openly and in good faith with the local community. More problematical is the question of landscape. Wind turbines placed in a pleasing agrucultural, scenic, or historic landscape evoke anger and despair. At the heart of the issue is visual blight. Residents do not want to look at the turbines and are willing to fight wind development. Their wishes should be respected.
Wind developers should take to heart geographer Martin Pasqualetti’s advice: “If developers are to cultivate the promise of wind power, they should not intrude on favored (or even conspicuous) landscapes, regardless of the technical temptations these spots may offer.” The nation is large. Wind turbines do not have to go up where they are not wanted. We can expand the grid and put them where they are welcome.
Some members of the Wind-Siting council seemed to think so.
With the fate of the Wisconsin wind-siting rules (PSC 128) is still up in the air, Better Plan takes a look back at some of the wind siting council meetings that lead to PSC 128. This was filmed on July 15, 2010
The video below was shot on the 8th of December, 2011, just a few weeks ago.
How much louder is the wind turbine noise limit proposed by the wind siting council? How were the noise levels determined by Wind Siting Council? You'll have to see it to believe it: one of the discussions that lead to the decision about turbine noise limits.
Next Feature: A BETTER PLAN! Plant trees not wind turbines
From the UK
THE CONTRIBUTION OF TREES TO OUR LIVES: IT'S TIME TO TAKE STOCK
The Jardin des Plantes in Paris viewed from above. A tree planted in the entrance to the gardens by the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, in 1785 still stands today. Photograph: Yann Arthus-Bertrand/Corbis
Humans, with a mere 2 square metres of skin, underestimate the surface area of a tree. To calculate that you need to measure both sides of each leaf, add the surface of the trunk, the branches and boughs, the perennial and feeder roots and the absorbent root hairs, not forgetting the bark pockets. A 15-metre tree in leaf would cover a total area of 200 hectares, which is the size of Monaco. A tree doubles its weight when wet, and its entire surface breathes and allows us to breathe.
Give me a tree and I'll save the world – that is the message that comes across from a book just published by the French botanist Francis Hallé, Du bon usage des arbres (Making good use of trees). The book is a defence of trees addressed to decision-makers and town planners. It is hard to know which specific tree to start with, but let's take as our prime example the plane tree planted by the Comte de Buffon in 1785 at the entrance to the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. Visitors can see how well it has fared 226 years on, even though it has never been pruned.
Plane trees, like many others, have a long lifespan. They are even "potentially immortal", claims Hallé. "Man is senescent, that is to say is programmed to die, but a plane tree is not," he said. After its leaves have fallen, life begins again in the spring and the tree recovers its youthful genomes. If it is not subjected to accidents, diseases or humans, the plane tree could live for centuries. "When you talk about a 100-year-old tree, it's just a kid in shorts," said the botanist, who knows of a 2,000-year-old olive tree in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin on the Côte d'Azur.
And trees create colonies. To reproduce they distribute seeds all around, but they also spread roots from which offshoots can grow. That is why 100-year-old plane trees are often surrounded by their younger brothers, and why poplars have grown for the past 10,000 years in Utah, and there are 13,000-year-old creosote bush clones in the Mojave desert of southern California, and 43,000-year-old stands of King's holly spread over an area of one kilometre in Tasmania. Hallé says: "The history of our zoological species can be found in the life of a tree. That should make us feel humble." Perhaps that is the first good turn trees do for us.
Another marvellous thing about trees is that they solve their own problems without moving. They are model citizens, decorative, quiet, economical, calm and courageous. They are content with so little, just light, water and trace elements, and silently elude their enemies by developing an arsenal of chemicals. Trees produce molecules to keep mice and insects at bay and in doing so provide man with taxol, an efficient anti-cancer drug. As we all know, lime, birch, willow, hazel and lemon trees are all used for medicinal purposes.
Humans, with a mere 2 square metres of skin, underestimate the surface area of a tree. To calculate that you need to measure both sides of each leaf, add the surface of the trunk, the branches and boughs, the perennial and feeder roots and the absorbent root hairs, not forgetting the bark pockets. A 15-metre tree in leaf would cover a total area of 200 hectares, which is the size of Monaco. A tree doubles its weight when wet, and its entire surface breathes and allows us to breathe.
Hallé believes that arboreal photosynthesis is our best ally in the fight against global warming. Buffon's plane tree, like all trees, absorbs quantities of carbon dioxide, responsible for greenhouse gases, and between 20% and 50% of matter produced by the tree, including wood, roots, leaves and fruit, is composed of CO2. When trees breathe they clean the atmosphere and retain CO2 and urban pollutants such as heavy metals, lead, manganese, industrial soot and nitrous oxide. These are stored in the wood. That is why we should refrain as much as possible from cutting down old trees. The older they are, the better they control pollutants.
At the same time, trees release oxygen that allows us to live. An adult human consumes about 700g of O2 per day, or 255kg per year. In that time, an average tree produces 15kg to 30kg, so about 10 trees are required to provide oxygen for one person. Trees also humidify and cool the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration. A wooded area of 50 square metres brings the temperature down by 3.5C and increases the humidity by 50%. Leaf movement, especially in conifers, releases negative ions that are supposed to have beneficial effects on health and mood. And the tree is home to many useful species.
Pascal Cribier, a professional gardener, lives in a flat overlooking the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris. He points to the tree tops there. "We only ever see half the tree and can't imagine all the underground activity, the size and strength of the roots, and the many species that live in symbiosis with it. We forget that without trees the earth would deteriorate rapidly and lastingly." It is the secret underground life of trees that led Cribier to his vocation when he was 18. He wanted to understand, to plant and put his hands to the earth.
Now he is also a "garden artist", and exhibits blocks of knotted roots in galleries. In the undergrowth, those roots and the subsoil give life to mushrooms, lichen, ferns, epiphytic plants, insects, worms and mammals. Beneath the ground, the roots circulate tonnes of water for the leaves, and they are often longer than the branches. The Libyan jujube tree is two metres high but has branches 60 metres long. "Man can't live without trees, and yet they are under threat everywhere," warns Hallé. The UN declared 2011 to be the International Year of Forests. Trees are home to 50% of the world's biodiversity, and provide subsistence to 1.6 billion humans.
Surveys by the United Nations collaborative programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries show that half the planet's forests were destroyed in the 20th century. From 2000 to 2005, 7.3m hectares of tropical forest disappeared every year, or 20,000 hectares a day. As a result, tropical deforestation and forest degradation account for between 15% and 20% of CO2 emissions, because trees release carbon when they are burned or felled. The UN believes that tree planting could offset 15% of carbon emissions in the first half of the 21st century.
Take a (French) city dweller dining on a cafe terrace. He or she orders a salad with olive oil, lemon and pine nuts, followed by a truffle omelette and a glass of Chablis, and a poire belle-hélène for dessert (poached pears with melted chocolate). The meal ends with a cup of coffee sprinkled with cinnamon and a gin-based liqueur. Then our diner takes an aspirin and jots down a few lines in a notebook with a disposable ballpoint. That person has just used the output of 15 trees: ash for the chair, elm for the table, olive for the oil, umbrella pine for the nuts, a lemon tree, oak for the truffles, false acacia for the white wine barrel, a pear tree, a cocoa tree, a coffee tree, a cinnamon tree, juniper tree to flavour the gin, willow for the aspirin, castor tree for the plastic and Scots pine for the paper. We could not live without trees.
Nor could cities. The urgent need to protect trees in cities led the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) to dedicate October 2011 to urban and periurban forestry. By 2030, 70% of Earth's population will be urban and will need to be fed, since the countryside will not be enough. Urban and periurban agriculture exist already in wastelands and slums. City dwellers plant trees and vegetables to feed themselves and the FAO has been providing assistance and credit for years.
In Europe, Brussels has protected the Forêt de Soignes in the middle of the city, and Zurich is doing the same. Barcelona has made its nearby forest a protected area, and Nantes intends to plant 1,400 hectares of trees just outside the city. Julien Custot, FAO adviser, says: "Urban trees are vital in preserving the soil, containing floods, providing energy and producing healthy foodstuffs. They make cities cooler and more pleasant."
The Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, co-director of Deutsche Bank in Mumbai, is also study leader for the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project. In October 2010, he made a financial assessment of the services rendered by ecosystems for the Nagoya Convention of Biological Diversity, whose protocol France has just signed. He calculated the economic value of nature and its deterioration, after a three-year survey led by 100 experts. According to Sukhdev, if we halved the deforestation rate by 2030, the reduced CO2 emissions would cut the cost of global warming by €2.6 trillion ($3.5tn). The erosion of forests, soil and coastal areas leads to losses of between €1.3tn and €3.1tn a year. "It is the economic invisibility of ecosystems that has led to this ecological crisis," says Sukhdev.
As a gardener, Cribier is concerned about those figures. "A tree is invaluable," he said. "What we get from trees is priceless."
Vermont’s Energy Options is a documentary work-in-progress being produced by non-profit Energize Vermont. The purpose of the documentary is to examine the different paths Vermont has to a renewable energy future and create a dialogue around their respective impacts and benefits. The final product is intended to be full length 40-60 minute film, and may be adapted as the state’s energy landscape changes. Before the final product is released, we plan to update this space with extended interviews and additional information. The documentary is completely funded by Energize Vermont, which is funded by its members.
Video below from Scotland: Do you call this green? Forest gone, clearcut logs piled to the side, mud roads: what to expect when you are expecting turbines.
Want to watch more? What people living near turbines have to say about it.
ABC is filing this petition because it’s clear that the voluntary guidelines the government has drafted will neither protect birds nor give the wind industry the regulatory certainty it has been asking for.
(Washington, D.C., December 14, 2011) American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization, today formally petitioned the U.S. Department of the Interior to protect millions of birds from the negative impacts of wind energy by developing regulations that will safeguard wildlife and reward responsible wind energy development.
The nearly 100-page petition for rulemaking, prepared by ABC and the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm of Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal (MGC), urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue regulations establishing a mandatory permitting system for the operation of wind energy projects and mitigation of their impacts on migratory birds. The proposal would provide industry with legal certainty that wind developers in compliance with a permit would not be subject to criminal or civil penalties for violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The government estimates that a minimum of 440,000 birds are currently killed each year by collisions with wind turbines. In the absence of clear, legally enforceable regulations, the massive expansion of wind power in the United States will likely result in the deaths of more than one million birds each year by 2020. Further, wind energy projects are also expected to adversely impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and another 4,000 square miles of marine habitat.
The petition highlights the particular threat from unregulated wind power to species of conservation concern and demonstrates the legal authority that FWS possesses to enforce MBTA regulations and grant take permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The petition also provides specific regulatory language that would accomplish the petition’s objectives, identifying the factors that would be considered in evaluating a permit for approval, including the extent to which a given project will result in adverse impacts to birds of conservation concern and species that are under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
ABC is filing this petition because it’s clear that the voluntary guidelines the government has drafted will neither protect birds nor give the wind industry the regulatory certainty it has been asking for. We’ve had voluntary guidelines since 2003, and yet preventable bird deaths at wind farms keep occurring. This includes thousands of Golden Eagles that have died at Altamont Pass in California and multiple mass mortality events that have occurred recently in West Virginia,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator for ABC.
“The status quo is legally as well as environmentally unsustainable. The federal government is seeking to promote "a smart from the start” energy sector in a manner that is in violation of one of the premier federal wildlife protection statutes. ABC’s petition seeks to bring wind power into harmony with the law as well as with the needs of the migratory bird species that the law is designed to safeguard,” said Shruti Suresh, an attorney at MGC, the law firm that prepared the petition with ABC and that has brought many legal actions enforcing federal wildlife protection laws.
ABC supports wind power when it is “bird-smart”. A coalition of more than 60 groups has called for mandatory standards and bird-smart principles in the siting and operation of wind farms. The coalition represents a broad cross-section of respected national and local groups. In addition, 20,000 scientists, ornithologists, conservationists, and other concerned citizens have shown their support for mandatory standards for the wind industry.
"ABC’s petition would safeguard more than just birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It proposes a model rule that would allow the government to consider impacts of wind farms on all bird species, as well as bats and other wildlife,” said Fuller.
MOUNT PLEASANT - Amid some opposition from neighbors, SC Johnson is set to build two of the largest wind turbines in Racine County at its Waxdale manufacturing facility, a project expected to supply about 15 percent of the facility's electricity usage.
In a 6-1 vote, the Village Board approved the conditional use petition on Monday to erect the turbines at the facility, 8311 16th St. Trustee Harry Manning dissented, expressing concerns over the size - about 415 feet tall - of the energy facilities.
"The noise is going to be there. There is going to be flickering. You read anywhere, they've had nothing but problems," said Mount Pleasant resident Gail Johnson, 62. Johnson said her home is located on Willow Road, right across from where the turbines are expected to be built.
However, village officials said SCJ has gone "above and beyond" to address concerns by neighbors. Conditions set by the village include ensuring the wind turbines minimize noise decibel levels and shadow flickering.
Any noise would be no louder than traffic heard on Highway 20 or Highway 11, said Christopher Beard, reputation management director at SCJ.
The company has also offered to put in additional landscaping, if needed, such as trees that may block views of the turbines from residences, he added.
In addition, after meetings between the company and some residents, including those who opposed the project, SCJ has reduced the number of turbines from five to two.
Racine-based SCJ has said the wind turbines are the latest in a series of investments at Waxdale that will enable the site to produce 100 percent of its electrical energy on-site, with about 60 percent from renewable sources.
According to Beard, a groundbreaking date for the project remains unknown. SCJ is awaiting approval for the project from the Federal Aviation Administration due to the turbines' height, and proximity to Sylvania and Batten International airports.
The cost of the project was not available Monday, but returns in electrical savings would take years to recoup.
"But we wouldn't propose this project unless we believed it was a good long-term investment," he said, adding customers concerned over environmentally-friendly products now research how products are made.
Waxdale, the size of 36 football fields, is SCJ's largest manufacturing plant globally and where it makes products such as Glad, Pledge, Raid and Windex.
When the battle over wind development in Goodhue County was the Republican Eagle’s top story at the end of 2010, it was expected that some aspects would stretch into 2011. But it wasn’t quite as expected that the fight would be continuing when 2012 came around.
Just about every bit of controversy possible has been swirling around a 78-megawatt large wind energy conversion system that is planned for Goodhue County by wind developer AWA Goodhue Wind.
Ranging all the way from citizens and the developer disagreeing about eagle activity in the project footprint to lawsuits being filed by project participants, disputes have been abundant.
The AWA Goodhue project has taken several months longer than most wind farms to get to its current stage, which still hasn’t included any construction. A variety of factors contributed to extending the project’s original timeline.
Getting approval
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission had been taking its time ever since the end of 2010 to decide whether to approve the project that would be laid out near Goodhue and Zumbrota.
Ultimately, the PUC holds the authority to permit or deny wind farms in the state, but the commission decided to take into consideration a zoning ordinance created by Goodhue County officials in October 2010.
In order to determine the validity of the ordinance, the PUC asked an administrative law judge to review it, which caused the application to drag into April 2011.
It wasn’t until June 30 at a daylong hearing in St. Paul that the PUC approved the project. However, a state government shutdown stalled progress yet again and kept AWA Goodhue Wind from getting its permit.
With the Coalition for Sensible Siting, Goodhue Wind Truth, Belle Creek Township and Goodhue County all interested in filing for reconsiderations with the PUC, the case slowly inched forward as a second hearing was scheduled for November 2011 in St. Paul.
In what was probably the quickest decision made so far regarding the AWA Goodhue wind farm: It only took commissioners a matter of minutes to decide that the project should move forward as originally approved.
Still, reconsideration wasn’t the end of the road. Each group, except for Goodhue County, decided to appeal.
The Goodhue County Board was primarily opposed to the idea since it was likely to cost at least $10,000 to follow through with an appeal. A 3-2 majority made it official: The county’s fight was over.
“Wind turbines are coming to Goodhue County,” Commissioner Jim Bryant said after voting against an appeal. “I don’t think anything we do today is going to stop that.”
Looking out for eagles
Over the past year, citizens have shown a variety of concerns with wind turbines, including stray voltage, shadow flicker and noise pollution.
Perhaps the most talked about, however, has been the concern over the safety of the avian population — whether local or migratory birds — and their chances of getting struck by the blades of a turbine.
On several occasions, area residents invited representatives from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to view the environment within AWA Goodhue’s project footprint.
“It’s nice to try to use alternative energy, but we are right on the Mississippi Flyway,” Jaime Edwards of the DNR said. “You really have to look hard at whether something like this should be placed on a flyway.”
Moving forward
Belle Creek Township made its official decision Nov. 28 to appeal the PUC’s initial decision to approve a site permit. Not long after, however, AWA Goodhue began a lawsuit claiming that a moratorium put in place by the township is interfering with the developer’s rights.
As the new year begins, having lawsuits and appeals up in the air continues to delay progress of the project. Though AWA Goodhue officials would like to start construction in 2012, only time will tell what gets accomplished during the next year.
A timeline
December 2010
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission debates whether to approve the 78-megawatt project proposed by AWA Goodhue Wind for Goodhue County.
The PUC decides to ask administrative law Judge Kathleen Sheehy whether parts of Goodhue County’s zoning ordinance should be applied to the project.
April 2011
Administrative law Judge Kathleen Sheehy submits facts and findings that recommend the Public Utilities Commission not apply the Goodhue County’s ordinance to the AWA Goodhue Wind project.
May 2011
Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher files a response that provides an exception to nearly half of the administrative law judge’s findings.
June 30, 2011
At a hearing in St. Paul, the Public Utilities Commission votes 4-1 to approve an amended site permit and a certificate of need for the AWA Goodhue Wind project.
August 2011
After several weeks of a government shutdown — preventing AWA Goodhue Wind from moving forward with its wind project — the developer receives its official site permit.
Sept. 6, 2011
Goodhue County commissioners vote 4-1 to allow Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher to file for reconsideration with the Public Utilities Commission, asking it to take a second look at its permit approval.
Belle Creek Township and citizen groups Goodhue Wind Truth and Coalition for Sensible Siting also decide to file reconsiderations.
Sept. 20, 2011
Without getting a response from the Public Utilities Commission regarding reconsideration, the Goodhue County Board reluctantly votes 3-2 to submit an appeal to the PUC’s decision.
The county is told the appeal period expires Sept. 22. If it opts not to appeal, Goodhue County’s battle against the wind project would end if the PUC decides not to reconsider its original approval of a site permit.
November 2011
Goodhue County, Belle Creek Township, Coalition for Sensible Siting and Goodhue Wind Truth are told there was a misunderstanding with filing deadlines for appeals, and their appeals are dismissed.
They are allowed to wait for the Public Utilities Commission’s ruling on reconsideration and can then re-submit their original appeal without additional fees.
Nov. 10, 2011
The Public Utilities Commission votes 4-1 not to reconsider its approval of a permit for AWA Goodhue Wind.
Nov. 15, 2011
With misunderstandings and deadlines cleared up, Goodhue County Attorney Stephen Betcher asks the commissioners once more whether he should appeal the Public Utilities Commission’s decision not to reconsider approval of a permit for the wind project.
The County Board votes 2-2 to file with appeal, but without a majority the motion fails and Betcher is not directed to appeal.
Nov. 28, 2011
The Belle Creek Town Board votes 2-0 to file for appeal in the wind case.
Angry citizens in Goodhue County District 2 — potential home to much of the wind farm — announce a petition to recall Commissioner Richard Samuelson. Since they want to file for appeal in the wind case and Samuelson is opposed to an appeal, they feel he is not representing them.
Samuelson was absent from the Goodhue County Board meeting Nov. 15, but told those at the Belle Creek Town Board meeting he would have voted not to appeal had he been present.
Dec. 1, 2011
Commissioner Richard Samuelson requests an opportunity for the Nov. 15 appeal vote to be re-taken so his opinion can be officially reflected as part of the vote.
Just as he said he would at the Belle Creek Town Board meeting, Samuelson votes no to an appeal, contributing to the 3-2 failure of the motion to appeal.
Dec. 15, 2011
Belle Creek Town Board Chair Chad Ryan is served papers informing him that AWA Goodhue Wind is suing Belle Creek Township because a moratorium put in place by the township is interfering with the wind developer’s rights under the site permit it received from the Public Utilities Commission.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to this December 20th news article , wind company NextEra (formerly Florida Power and Light) has quietly settled with DeKalb County residents who brought a lawsuit against them.
Details of the settlement are unknown, however, a website that chronicled the Hulthen family's daily experience of living with turbine noise and shadow flicker in the NextEra wind project is suddenly gone from the web.
Wind companies often refuse to settle unless a gag-order is part of the deal. Was this one of the terms of the settlement? Is this why the website is gone?
Residents of a wind project in DeKalb Illinois talk about their experiences.
Dave and Stephanie Hulthen | "Life with Dekalb Turbines" | February 5, 2011 | Blissfield Middle School
The Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a group opposing the location of wind turbines in Riga, Ogden and Fairfield townships, hosted a seminar at the Blissfield Middle School.
Dave and Stephanie Hulthen spoke on "Life with Dekalb Turbines". They are from DeKalb County, IL. They live in the middle of an industrial wind farm. There are thirteen industrial wind turbines located within one mile of their home, two within 1400 feet
Next features:
A letter from North Dakota:
Subject: Life with turbines From: Paul L Meisel Photography Date: Sat, May 07, 2011 5:55 pm To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com
Hello,
I happened to hear you on KTLK a couple of weeks ago. I live south of Minot, ND. A year and a half ago a wind farm of approximately 80 turbines was installed south of Minot. There are 42 in my township, the nearest one is a little over one mile from me.
I have a 50% hearing loss, yet even on relatively calm days I can hear the sound of the turbines. And on windy days I can feel them. It is as if a diesel truck was idling nearby. I can hear that sound while in my house, but not when I go outside. Therefore I conclude that it is caused by low frequency sound or perhaps earth vibrations which cause my house to vibrate. I now experience occasional vertigo and nausea often while the low sound is occurring.
Driving near the turbines in winter can be dangerous. Ice dislodges from the turbine blades, and if the wind is in the right speed and direction the ice pieces land on the road. I have had several hit my car at night.
It was quite disconcerting.
Opposing wind development is not a very popular activity in this area. When a neighbor and I tried to speak in opposition to the turbines at our annual township meeting, we were quickly told that our opinions did n
ot matter.
Prior to the turbines this was on a prime Bald Eagle migration path. I have only seen one Baldy since the turbines went up. Also, this area was an overnight stopping point for Sandhill Cranes. Accompanying the Sandhills I would occasionally see Whooping Cranes. Now the cranes avoid the region. Speaking out publicly is strongly discouraged and I am not aware of any local action groups.
There is nothing which can be done up here, it is all too late. However I am devoted to helping others avoid what has happened here. If I can help in any way, please let me know. Also, I am attaching a photo of a local turbine which experienced a blade failure several days ago. The wind was less than 50 knots when the incident occurred (I maintain my own weather station). Feel free to use and disseminate the image.
The BPRC Research Nerd
