ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has set the public hearing Feb. 2 for the Avian and Bat Protection Plan associated with the AWA Goodhue wind project.
The news was released Friday, one day after the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed separate paperwork challenging or disputing portions of the 127-page ABPP.
Approval of the plan is the final permitting hurdle National Wind, the project developer, must clear before it can begin constructing the 78-megawatt project; it has targeted June to break ground. The process, which includes a legal appeal proceeding concurrently, has taken almost three years.
The bird-and-bat plan, which was finalized in December and is among the first of its kind, has become the latest target of criticism.
Concerns registered
A 12-page report by the USFWS and the five-page document from DNR that were posted to the PUC docket Thursday echo concerns that have been voiced for months by citizens, since Westwood Professional Services, the environmental agency hired by National Wind, identified no bald eagle activity within the project footprint in its initial report filed to the PUC in 2010.
“It’s almost like there might be a showdown between the DNR and (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife and Westwood,” said Rochester’s Mary Hartman, a project critic who has been the catalyst in identifying and verifying six to seven active bald eagle nests within the project footprint. “We were really well represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the DNR. (It shows) our information was fair and accurate.”
Though officials from the DNR and USFWS did not return calls on Friday, both agencies appear to have issues with many of the plans and claims developed in National Wind’s document. For example, the plan specifically states that the USFWS has no recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts from wind turbines on bald eagle nests. In response, the service cited a 2003 guide that calls for a minimum two-mile setback from bald eagle nests and another document from 2007 that contains “explicit spatial buffer recommendations” around bald eagle nests and important eagle use areas.
Issues with eagles
Both agencies also took issue with how the ABPP used eagle baiting allegations to explain increased avian activity in the project footprint. National Wind claims its point count surveys have been “seriously compromised by an active baiting program being conducted by project opponents.” However, no landowner has been cited for baiting and the Minnesota Board of Animal Health has not drawn any correlation between carcass disposal and increased bald eagle activity.
“The service recommends AWA Wind analyzes the data they have collected, rather than attempt to extrapolate potential data,” wrote Tony Sullins, USFWS field supervisor.
Turbine shut downs were also recommended as a potential mitigation plan, while calls for clarification and more data were common — though bald eagle issues were most prevalent.
Across the United States, five bald eagle deaths have been reported in wind projects. The USFWS says information on those incidents cannot be shared because most are tied up in litigation.
It’s unclear if public comment will be allowed at the Feb. 2 PUC hearing. A PUC spokesman did not return calls on Friday.
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission meeting: 121 E. Seventh Place, Suite 350, St. Paul, 9:30 a.m. Feb. 2.
A controversial wind farm proposed near Red Wing plans to ask for federal permission to legally kill eagles, making it one of the first in the nation to participate in a new federal strategy aimed at managing the often-lethal conflict between birds and turbine blades.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials say they urged the developers of AWA Goodhue Wind to seek the new permit because the deaths of an unknown number of eagles and endangered golden eagles will be inevitable once the 50-turbine project is up and running.
The process for such “incidental take” permits was devised in 2009 as a compromise between the demand for clean energy from the growing number of wind farms and the rising concern over the estimated hundreds of thousands of birds and bats that they kill every year.
The 18.75-square-mile site in Goodhue County is home to a number of nesting eagles, and many more migrate through the area every year. There also have been sightings of two rare and endangered golden eagles, which come down from Canada to winter along the Mississippi River bluffs in southeastern Minnesota.
To get a permit, the company must provide a detailed plan designed to minimize the impact on protected species, project how many are likely to be killed each year, and keep track of the outcome.
The plan would have to be approved by the federal wildlife agency, giving it some future influence over the design and operation of the project, which is now under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
“There are a lot of issues,” said Mags Rheude, a wildlife biologist with the Minnesota office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We’d have to come to an agreement.”
The developer, AWA Goodhue Wind, stated its intent to file for the federal permit in filings with the PUC, but did not respond to requests for comment.
Without the permit, the company could be subject to federal prosecution if the project results in the destruction of the birds or their nests.
In recent years, there have been four documented deaths and one injury to bald eagles from North American wind farms, and many more among golden eagles at one wind farm built along their migration path in California, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
So far, only one wind project, the West Butte Power Project in Oregon, has submitted a request for such a permit, but more are expected.
“There are a fair amount of wind farms lined up – hesitantly,” Rheude said. “I think there are a lot of people watching to see how the process will go.”
Regulators have doubts
In the meantime, however, federal and state wildlife officials say they have significant concerns about AWA Goodhue Wind’s wildlife protection plan, which will go before the PUC on Feb. 2. The commission’s decision is key in determining when and if construction starts on the locally contentious project, which has been in the works for more than two years.
For example, in its filings with the PUC, the company says it has been unable to accurately count eagles or predict how many might be harmed, because local opponents are engaged in an artificial feeding campaign to attract birds to the area.
But, in their sharpest critique, both the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Fish and Wildlife Service said in their filings that no such campaign has been verified by state investigators. The project, they noted, is located in an agricultural area, where livestock and wild animal carcasses are common.
“Due to the large number of eagles already present in the area, it is likely eagles will discover carcasses quickly,” federal officials said. “Eagles feeding on carcasses will likely be a long-term issue for AWA Wind.”
Both the state and federal agencies also expressed concern about the company’s plan to remove woods and other habitat to keep birds and other wildlife away from the turbines. That would only serve to harm other species, they said.
They also raised questions about the company’s plans to measure the project’s impact on bats, which are becoming as great a concern among conservationists as birds. New research is finding that some species of bats are particularly susceptible to wind turbines, because even if they manage to avoid the turbines, the pressure changes that occur as the blades move through air can cause fatal internal bleeding.
“In the next few years there may be more endangered species on the site,” Rheude said.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently considering an application from West Butte Wind Power LLC for a permit under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permit would allow for the incidental take of a limited number of Golden Eagles at their proposed facility in central Oregon. This application is the first of its kind for a wind project; historically, many industry developers have ignored permitting altogether and built wind farms at sites with little or no regard for the potential impacts on eagles, resulting in the deaths of possibly thousands of these birds in recent decades.
American Bird Conservancy – the nation’s leading bird conservation organization – is undertaking a careful, in-depth review of the proposed permit conditions.
“As with any permit to allow the unintentional take of birds, the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that all possible eagle deaths are avoided at this site, and that the government follows its own rules for issuing such a permit. In order to have time to do this review, we are asking the government to extend the 30 day comment period to 60 days,” said Kelly Fuller, ABC’s Wind Coordinator.
“Developers in all industry sectors, including wind energy, should be required to do everything possible to minimize their adverse effects on birds. But even with the best mitigation, their activities may result in unintentional, yet foreseeable impacts, including sometimes the deaths of eagles. A permitting system for this accidental take is critical because without it, the government is not in a position to deny the issuance of permits for the most damaging projects,” said George Fenwick, ABC’s President.
“A permitting system enables the government to fully assess each circumstance to ensure everything possible is being done to minimize bird deaths, and to require developers to compensate for any unavoidable bird impacts through the establishment of habitat or other conservation programs. Without such a permitting system, wind development will continue to be a free-for-all that kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year,” Fenwick said.
ABC supports bird-smart wind energy that is properly sited, constructed, and operated to minimize bird impacts, with appropriate compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses. ABC leads a coalition of more than 60 groups promoting mandatory federal standards to protect birds, including Golden Eagles and their habitats, from wind energy development rather than the voluntary guidelines proposed by the federal government and backed by the wind industry.
Last month, ABC formally petitioned the federal government to regulate the wind industry’s impacts on migratory birds. ABC has also publicized the federal government’s double standard of prosecuting oil companies for killing legally protected birds but not prosecuting wind energy companies for doing the same.
The public can help protect birds at wind power projects by endorsing ABC’s petition to regulate the wind industry.
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.
ZUMBROTA — The oldest eagle preservation organization in the United States has joined calls from local citizens demanding that additional avian studies tbe done before constructing a 48-turbine wind project in Goodhue County.
Terrence Ingram, executive director of the Eagle Nature Foundation in Illinois, made that determination Friday after touring the 32,000-acre AWA Goodhue project for about four hours. He documented seven bald-eagle nests, six red-tailed hawk nests, and he saw 20 bald eagles — including two that flew over him less than five minutes into the tour.
Ingram’s visit was prompted by calls from Mary Hartman and Kristi Rosenquist, critics of the wind project, asking for his assistance. However, Ingram refused to take a stance based simply on information they’d sent him. That resulted in him spending almost 10 hours on the road last week in order to get a first-hand look at the area.
Reached Monday after his tour, he was highly critical of the pre-construction avian study submitted to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission by Westwood Professional Services, the consulting company hired by National Wind. Many of the nests viewed Friday were identified by Hartman and Rosenquist after Westwood’s initial examination.
In Wednesday’s print edition, learn about Ingram’s three-pronged proposal concerning the AWA Goodhue project.
The BPRC Research Nerd
