4/12/10 Why aren't the turbines turning? Why is the road repair undone? Why are the landowners mad? And why won't the project developer answer inquiries from Rock County?
Jeff Hammond, project developer for Acciona, said residents may have noticed that EcoGrove's turbines are not turning all the time. This is because there are many days when the wind is not strong enough to turn the blades and generate power, he said. ...Stephenson County Engineer Chris Isbell said there are two or three damaged roads in West Point Township and Winslow Township that were used for hauling equipment to EcoGrove during construction.
Company officials have also cleared up some of the rumors circulating about EcoGrove not being operational, and area landowners not being satisfied with their financial arrangements.
Jeff Hammond, project developer for Acciona, said residents may have noticed that EcoGrove's turbines are not turning all the time. This is because there are many days when the wind is not strong enough to turn the blades and generate power, he said.
Also, the EcoGrove farm was off line from March 22 through a portion of March 27, as part of a scheduled outage, Hammond said. The purpose of the outage was to allow ComEd crews to move a transmission line in the area to make way for highway construction work, he said.
"The wind power was off (during that time)," Hammond said of the outage. "It was a normal process. We don't like it, but sometimes we have to do it. It's back on now, but the wind hasn't been strong enough sometimes to generate power."
The EcoGrove wind farm outside Lena began generating power in July 2009. Local officials hope this project and others will place Stephenson County on the forefront of a renewable energy revolution in Northwest Illinois.
The farm was dedicated in September 2009, and organizers say the facility will be able to deliver enough energy to power up to 25,000 homes. The 100.5 megawatt wind farm is phase one of a three-phase project being pursued by Acciona in this area.
Recently, there have been rumors that certain landowners are dissatisfied with the money they've received from Acciona for use of their property. Hammond said landowners received their initial payments in late January, based on the power that was generated by EcoGrove from July to December.
According to Hammond, some landowners were confused by the payment schedule and expected to receive their checks in December. In addition, a few landowners were upset because they thought their payments would reflect a whole year of operations, not just half a year, Hammond said. These concerns have been addressed, he said.
"One or two people did not understand the payment schedule," Hammond said. "We're also cleaning up some crop damage. Everything is going very well. ... Long story short, all the landowners have been paid and all the questions that came up with that have been addressed."
Road Work
Some of the township roads in Stephenson County that were used by Acciona to deliver equipment to the EcoGrove site have been damaged, and still need to be repaired, Hammond said. As part of an agreement with the county, Acciona will be responsible for funding these repairs.
First, however, the county and townships will make their own repairs on the roads in question, before the wind farm damage is addressed, Hammond said. Negotiations regarding these repairs are ongoing, he said.
"As part of developing the wind farm, we agreed to upgrade and repair the roads as we use them," Hammond said. "We did that with the vast majority of the roads, but there is a set of crossroads that still need repairing. ... We are going to finalize the scope of the repairs we're responsible for. The delay has been in getting the final agreement done."
Negotiations Continue
Stephenson County Engineer Chris Isbell said there are two or three damaged roads in West Point Township and Winslow Township that were used for hauling equipment to EcoGrove during construction. Negotiations involving Acciona, the county, and the townships had been delayed for a while, but are now moving forward once again, he said.
"We're still in negotiations with them over the work that needs to be done, and the timing of that work," Isbell said. "Negotiations had been stalled for a little while, but they have been renewed."
Hammond said Acciona is dedicated to keeping up its end of the bargain for road repairs.
"The wind farm has invested a considerable amount of money in repairing and maintaining the roads," Hammond said. "I think that speaks volumes of Acciona's commitment to the county. ... I'm hoping we resolve this and can make an agreement by the end of this month."
Next Phases
Meanwhile, phases two and three of Acciona's Stephenson County initiative are still in the planning stages. Phase two, known as Wolf Creek, is planned as a 116-turbine wind farm in Stephenson and Jo Daviess counties, and will likely begin construction in 2012, Hammond said.
Organizers had hoped to begin work on phase two next year, but the recent economic downturn has slowed things down somewhat for large-scale wind farm projects in the U.S., Hammond said. The economy is now looking up, however, and Acciona officials are hopeful the second phase will be underway soon, he said.
"Wolf Creek is going along very well," Hammond said. "We think it will be a good project, but the build schedule is for 2012."
The third phase, Otter Creek, will be built just north of Dakota and is still in the preliminary planning stage. Hammond declined to comment on the possible size of Otter Creek, but said organizers hope to build it "right after" Wolf Creek.
"We are still evaluating Otter Creek," Hammond said. "That's still percolating at this point."
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Magnolia Township, Town of Magnolia, acciona, rock county
|
Comments Off
4/9/10 Vice Chair of Wind Siting Council is from Rock County AND What's on the WSC docket? AND Watch the April 7th Wind Siting Council Meeting
ROCK COUNTY MAN NAMED VICE CHAIR OF STATE WIND COUNCIL
By Gina Duwe
UNION TOWNSHIP — Doug Zweizig will bring experience from developing the town of Union’s wind siting ordinance to the state level during his work as vice chairman of the council that is drafting state regulations for wind turbines.
The council is a couple weeks into its work and will keep an intense schedule of meetings to meet its goal of completing work by early June, Zweizig said.
Legislators approved a bill last fall to allow the Public Service Commission to create rules to regulate wind projects statewide. The law called for a council to draft the rules, and members needed to be representatives of specific categories.
The 15-member council includes representatives of the energy industry, uncompensated landowners, wind developers, real estate agents, medical and research experts, environmentalists and local government.
Zweizig, co-chairman of the Union Plan Commission, worked on the special committee that drafted Union’s wind ordinance. He was elected vice chairman of the state wind council, and Dan Ebert, a vice president of WPPI Energy, is chairman.
The council’s work will go to the PSC, which must have two hearings. Final copies of the siting standards will go through relevant legislative committees for revisions before taking effect, Zweizig said.
Before the new law, wind projects under 100 megawatts went through local siting ordinances, while projects 100 megawatts and larger went to the PSC for approval.
The council brings people from competing interests, so Ebert has laid out a process to have council members agree on general guiding principles before drilling into the details, Zweizig said.
One of the most contentious aspects likely will be setback distances, which have strong implications on land use, property rights and how many turbines can be sited in an area, he said.
Having uniform guidelines makes sense, he said, but they should be as good as Union’s ordinance.
Union’s ordinance prohibits construction of turbines within a half-mile of occupied structures, but the setback may be reduced to 1,000 feet with permission from property owners or neighbors.
The study committee that wrote the ordinance spent months researching health and safety aspects of setback distances and sound levels. The result was an ordinance that writers said would be legally defendable.
Zweizig said he’s not sure what the council’s regulations will look like.
“But it will be fairly quick. In a couple months, we should know,” he said.
Want to keep up with what's going on with the wind siting council?
Remember to check the docket
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket 1-AC-231
WHAT'S ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL DOCKET TODAY?
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind Siting Council member Bill Rakocy is founder and wind developer for Emerging Energies, which is mentioned in the following post on the WSC docket. Rakocy is one of many Wind Siting Council members whose financial interests are directly tied to the outcome of the WSC guidelines.
Resident of St Croix County urges WSC to consider impacts on rural community.
Submitting a copy of the letter I gave to the town board of Forest,WI on Thursday 4/8/10 7pm.
To: Town of Forest Board 8 APR 10
From: Jeff Ericson
Subject: Proposed Wind Turbine Project
The proposed wind turbine project in the town of Forest has been presented from the standpoint of the developer, Emerging Energies Of Wisconsin,LLC, and the land owners whom have expressed interest in hosting turbine sites so far.It is essential that effects on surrounding homesteads, farms and the community in general are considered before approving such a radical change to the area we live in.
The largest misconception is the understanding of what these machines really are.
The term wind mill is often used in general discussion, and is associated with the old fashion water pumps used on farms for providing irrigation or supporting livestock. The steel truss frames and the fan blades are a familiar symbol of rural life and we even have one as a decoration in our town.
The wind turbines that would be erected on the project are drastically different than this picture, these are huge industrial machines that are 300 feet tall and can be seen for miles.
The plan calls for (40) 2.5 megawatt turbines mounted on towers over 300 feet high with three 100 foot propeller blades. The Town of Forest is 36 square miles, so just about all the residents will be affected.The current set back guidelines allows a tower to be placed 1100 feet from a private residence or 1.1 times the height of the tower from a property line, in this case 330 feet. As long as your neighboring property owner gives consent and signs a contract with the developer, there is nothing you can do to prevent living next to one of these industrial turbines.
The effects of constantly being in close proximity to these turbines are as follows:
HUMAN HEALTH RISKS - Wind turbines create both audible sounds we can hear and infra-sounds that are so low that the human ear can`t detect it. Both sound levels have an impact on the body and daily life. Residents of other communities who live near turbines have complained of the following symptoms:
1. Sleep interruption or deprivation
2. Mood swings, increased stress, anxiety, anger, and even depression
3. Nausea - effect of low decibel sounds on the inner ear - sometimes referred to as "wind turbine syndrome"
4. Headaches
5. Heart related diseases such as irregular rhythm
6. Lack of concentration
7. Vibrating pulses or tremors felt by the body that are generated by the turbines shifting to certain positions.
8. Strobe Effect - The sun behind the rotating blades creates a flickering effect that may cause dizziness, disorientation and trigger migraines.
9. Senior citizens may be more susceptible to these symptoms
10. Restriction of emergency services - Medical flight helicopters WILL NOT fly into a turbine field
EFFECTS ON ANIMALS - PETS, LIVESTOCK, AND WILD LIFE
1. Animals may be affected much more severely than humans because of their acute senses. Low decibel noises generated by wind turbines may be uncomfortable or even agonizing for your family pet, however you may not be aware because they have no way to tell you what is really wrong.
2. Livestock issues concerning milk and beef cattle include:
- Reduced milk production
- Problems with calving
- Inflamed hearts
- Kidney/liver problems
- Increased infections due to immune system problems.
- Cows are going lame because they do not want to lay down and remain standing for prolonged periods
3. Hunting and Sport animals - Fond du Lac, Wisconsin hunters have noticed a significant decrease in deer and turkey population in their favorite hunting spots after a wind turbine system was installed in their area. The noise and sunlight flickering generated by the turbines has scared away the wildlife
EFFECTS ON REAL ESTATE VALUES:
1. The value of homes located near wind turbines decreased significantly, the only studies that find there is no impact are the ones commissioned by the wind energy industry.
2. Would anyone want to buy your home even if it is discounted? There are families in southern Wisconsin that have had to declare bankruptcy and abandon their homes. No one will want to buy a house located too close to wind turbines.
3. Land values and uses would be affected. If turbines are allowed to be erected 310 feet from your property line, forget about selling the land as an investment for the future or gifting it to family members to build their homes on.
COMMUNICATIONS INTERFERENCE:
1. Wind turbines cause disruption of radio, television, satellite TV & internet services, and cellular phones. If a tower is placed in the path of where you receive these services from, you will have spotty coverage and signal interruption.. The wind turbine developer must file plans and do studies for possible interference with the military and Minneapolis Airport Radar signatures, but nothing is required for possible effects on residential services.
VISUAL EFFECTS:
Take a look at a few pictures of industrial wind turbines either on the internet or at the library, and then go out in your backyard on a calm clear afternoon, would you want them included in the view? A few things we will have to look at:
- (40) 300 foot Industrial Wind Turbines
- Over head feeder cables from the turbines
- Numerous transformers - large metal green boxes mounted on cement pads
- A substation complex that feeds the power generated to the transmission lines.
- Huge steel transmission line towers to carry the power - most likely going to Minnesota for Xcel Energy.
- Many additional gravel service roads to each tower and service points.
- Traffic during the construction and also from service vehicles after the project comes online.
NO TURNING BACK:
Once the contracts are signed in the fall of 2010 by the developer with the land owners where the towers will be sited, and the Town of Forest has no ordinances in place to regulate set backs from neighboring property owners.....CHECKMATE !!!!!!!! The town will have no legal recourse to question or even stop any aspect of the project. The majority of the residents in our area would be faced many of the issues outlined in this letter and only a small minority would benefit financially. Please review the following considerations and recommendations and make sound decisions that will benefit our community.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Town of Forest board members have an intrinsic responsibility to protect the citizens that elected them.
2. All meetings with the wind turbine project developer must comply with the open meetings law and should be posted ahead of time.
3. Town of Forest board members that have signed any type of contract with the wind turbine project developer are reminded that it will be a conflict of interest if they vote on anything regarding the turbine siting.
4. Maps and details of the proposed wind turbine project should be displayed at the Town of Forest meeting hall for public inspection.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Town of Forest should go into a moratorium on any wind turbine project planning or development until the new state siting rules are written.
2. The Town of Forest should appoint a committee to study the issues and recommend a local set back ordinance.
3. Adopt a resolution and send it to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission`s Wind Siting Council that states The Town of Forest supports a state mandated 5000 foot set back of wind turbines from property lines.
4. Hold a public forum on the proposed wind turbine project in June or July. Invite the citizens groups advocating public safety issues that have been formed in eastern and southern Wisconsin to attend and give presentations on their concerns and experiences.
5. Consider a special referendum vote and let the citizens of the Town of Forest decide whether or not they live in the middle of an industrial wind turbine facility.
Respectfully Submitted by,
Jeff Ericson - Resident, Town of Forest
WATCH THE APRIL 7 2010 Wind Siting Council Meeting Video
Held at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
MORE TO COME
NOTE: The PSC does not record or preserve any recordings of the meetings. However the public is free to record the live broadcasts.
CLICK HERE to see who is on the council
CLICK HERE for WSC meeting schedule-- all meetings are open to the public
CLICK HERE to watch the April 1, 2010 Wind siting council meeting
What has the WSC decided so far?
Wind Siting Council’s Guiding Principles- General
Adopted by Wind Siting Council April 7, 2010
1. We will organize ourselves to arrive as consensus positions, and we will respect minority and majority positions throughout the process. In each area, we will first focus on those areas of broad agreement in arriving at a position. To the extent there are strong minority positions, we will reflect these positions in our advice to the Commission.
2. We recognize the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.
3. We support the responsible development of additional wind resources in Wisconsin.
4. We understand that the commission must balance a number of competing priorities in arriving at rule recommendations. We recognize these competing priorities—regulatory, economic, environmental, land use, health and safety, business development, landowner protections—and will arrive at recommendations that seek to achieve a balance between competing priorities.
5. We seek pragmatic, common sense solutions.
6. We encourage the development of efficient, open and transparent regulation.
7. We recognize that various governmental agencies regulate wind siting and we will be mindful of jurisdictional boundaries. We will work to ensure that the Commission’s regulations interact effectively and efficiently with those of other agencies.
8. We will be cognizant of the size of the wind energy system to which individual requirements apply.
Wind Siting Council’s Guiding Principles – Developer/Owner Responsibilities
1. Identify clear method for determining or defining what is part of the “project area.”
2. Provide appropriate and timely notice to those who are reasonably anticipated to be affected by wind development.
3. Streamline and standardize provision of information to local government.
4. Streamline and standardize decision-making process for local governments.
5. Recognize/identify situations that are not appropriate for standardization.
6. When standardization is not possible, establish guidance of some kind.
7. Standards should be clearly defined, understandable by all parties and easy to enforce.
8. Requirements should have a clear benefit or purpose.
9. Establish clear channels of timely communication between developer and participating and non-participating landowners.
10. Provide free flow of information from developer/owner to the community and political subdivision.
11. Impose lesser levels of regulations for smaller wind energy systems.
12. Identify how to define projects that are smaller, for example, turbine size v. project size; turbines constructed for personal use.
13. Provide clear avenues for resolution of complaints and concerns, and identify clear remedies.
14. Focus on broad general concepts that can address specific situations, rather than attempting to establish an all-inclusive list of specific requirements.
15. Use past examples of wind development as case studies for how best to address concerns.
What the WSC discussed today:
DRAFT Wind Siting Council Guiding Principles - Siting, Process
1. Take local features and resources into account in siting decisions.
2. Address avoidance, mitigation, and remediation of impacts.
3. Clearly identify how to apply siting criteria (i.e. measuring distances).
4. Provide access to information about siting to the public.
5. Political subdivision should accommodate a reasonable amount of siting flexibility for the developer.
6. Developer shall use reasonable efforts to anticipate the needs and requirements of political subdivision and the public.
7. Developer shall be responsive to reasonable local concerns raised during the development process.
8. Siting requirements should be transparent and provide for efficient development of wind resources.
9. Recognize that some aspects of siting are under the jurisdiction of other governmental entities.
10. Provide reasonable protection from noise impacts.
11. Health impacts should be taken into account in all siting decisions.
Wind Siting Council’s Guiding Principles – Local & Commission Process
1. Establish an open and transparent process for local government approval and appeal to the Commission.
2. Establish a clear and straightforward process for obtaining local approval and for appeals.
3. Facilitate timely decision-making.
4. Provide appropriate public notice and access to information.
5. Utilize Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 68 (Municipal Administrative Procedure) to the extent possible.
6. Local process should be as thorough and complete as possible to avoid the need for appeal to the Commission whenever possible.
7. Establish a clear process for enforcement of the rules.
4/8/10 Dear Wind Siting Council. How are you? Two members of the public with two different objectives post comments to WSC docket AND Video from WSC April 7th 2010 meeting
Want to keep up with what's going on with the wind siting council?
Remember to check the docket
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket 1-AC-231
CLICK HERE for location, time and dates of WSC meetings.
9:00am meeting scheduled for this Friday will be conducted by telephone. The PSC will broadcast the meeting live. To find out more about PSC live broadcasts visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Website by CLICKING HERE
Then click on the Live Broadcast button to find directions on how to listen.
NOTE: The PSC does not record or preserve any recordings of the meetings. The public is free to record the live broadcasts.
What's on the WSC Docket today?
Public comments recently posted:
COMMENT FROM A RESIDENT IN BROWN COUNTY WHERE A WIND PROJECT HAS BEEN PROPOSED ON THE PURPOSE OF THE WSC:
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and thank you for serving on the Wind Siting Council.
In your April 1st meeting, Dan Ebert said:
"Our work has to help our state's utilities and developers move
toward meeting their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements"
This is not the purpose or authority of the Wind Siting Council spelled out in the legislation that created this council. Act40 specifically states the following about the work of the Wind Siting Council:
"The subject matter of these rules shall include setback
requirements that provide reasonable protection from
any health effects, including health effects from noise
and shadow flicker, associated with wind energy systems.
The subject matter of these rules shall also include
decommissioning and may include visual appearance,
lighting, electrical connections to the power grid, setback
distances, maximum audible sound levels, shadow
flicker, proper means of measuring noise, interference
with radio, telephone, or television signals, or other matters"
It is the job of the council to promulgate rules that protect Wisconsin residents by addressing these issues, NOT promulgate rules that make the Renewal Portfolio Standards (RPS) achievable at the expense of the items listed above.
Wind Energy is one of many clean energy sources. The RPS has to be met responsibly and safely. The council's job is to determine the siting rules that protect Wisconsin citizens by thoroughly researching the topics spelled out in ACT40, and NOT to endorse wind turbines (one of MANY clean energy sources) as the answer to the RPS, and NOT to create rules that build in an "acceptable amount of suffering" for some people to bear simply to ensure the RPS is met through Wind Energy.
There are many renewable energy sources that can help utilities / developers meet the RPS without the massive impacts to peoples' lives that Wind Turbines inflict **when** sited too close to where people live, work, or frequent. When sited properly Wind Energy can be a good technology to use for generation.
**Please do not put the technology ahead of Wisconsin citizens.
Thank you for your time and effort in creating responsible siting rules. I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Steve Deslauriers
Brown County, WI
COMMENT FROM A WIND DEVELOPER IN MADISON WITH PROJECTS PENDING THE WSC GUIDELINES, SAYING ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS ON WIND FARM RESIDENTS ARE SELF-IMPOSED
Firstly, I thank the Wind Siting Council (Council) for its work.
Second, I address two issues about which there has been considerable comment and debate.
SoundWith hundreds of thousands of wind turbines operating throughout the world, the sound characteristics of wind turbines are well understood. What starts out as an aversion to the idea of wind turbines nearby can, with some people, evolve into an ongoing source of stress, which could have health-related consequences.
The Council should weigh these essentially self-imposed health effects against the overall public benefit of clean energy generation. Furthermore, the Council can certainly exercise the precautionary principle without "...awaiting definitive research." (Acoustic Ecology Institute mission statement at http://www.acousticecology.org/aboutus.html) The Council can review the extensive record established in proceedings before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, for example. It could also compile and summarize allowed sound levels established in state-level rule-makings, for example in Minnesota and in Canada.
Finally, in evaluating sound levels, the Council should recommend levels in the middle of the range established in previous rule-makings, as those levels are most likely to balance the public benefit of clean energy generation with the effects of noise on residents. It could choose to weigh more heavily the rule-makings that affect more turbines and/or more residents.
I mention this because the Council is likely to be served many examples of very low sound levels, spiced with anecdotes of the suffering caused by sound. News stories, anecdotes and examples do not pass the test of information that helps to weigh the benefits and the costs that is necessary to make good public policy.
Preempting the right to use land within a setback
According to information submitted by CWEST (see Hilgenberg's second submitted comment), a neighbor holding acreage within a setback (e.g., one from a wind turbine to an inhabited structure), would be prevented from building on this acreage. In fact, this is not how zoning generally works. When the permit for a wind turbine's placement is issued, the setbacks specified apply to existing conditions. Subsequent landowners can choose to build closer to the wind turbine than what the setback for the original inhabited structure allowed, assuming their structures meet other zoning requirements.
The Council should remember that the right to use one's property is also held by the landowner who wishes to lease land for the purposes of generating clean energy from a wind turbine. Imposing unreasonable setbacks and local moratoria effectively denies that right to use one's land.
Respectfully submitted,
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Alexander DePillis
Dane County
4/7/10 Today's Wind Siting Council Meeting
Better Plan will be uploading video from the third WSC meeting which was held this morning at the PSC.
Click on the image below to watch part 1
4/7/10 Why are so many bats dying in Wisconsin wind projects? Shining a spotlight on a glaring problem
Want to keep up with what's going on with the wind siting council?
Remember to check the docket
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket 1-AC-231
CLICK HERE for location, time and dates of WSC meetings.
NOTE: The 9:00am meeting scheduled for this Friday will be conducted by telephone. The PSC is still working out the details of how the public will have access to it.
When it comes to big wind projects, bats in Wisconsin are in need of a super-hero
Three recent reports indicate bat kill rates in Wisconsin wind projects are ten times the national average. No state except Pennsylvania has ever had such high bat kill numbers which are among the highest in North America.
[CLICK HERE Download the We Energies Post Construction Bird and Bat Mortality Final Report]
How many bats are dying in Wisconsin wind projects?
According to the We Energies report, 3,500 bats a year are being killed in the Blue Sky Green Field 88 turbines project. Each 1.5 MW turbine represents 41 bat deaths a year. According to the study, 7,000 bats have perished in the Blue Sky, Green Field wind project during the last two years.
The kill rate is the same in the Cedar Ridge project. The Invenergy Forward project may show higher bat kill numbers.
Given this, Better Plan felt the following posting on the Wind Siting Council Docket was especially worth reading.
WHAT'S ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL (WSC) DOCKET TODAY?
Visit the docket by CLICKING HERE. The docket number to enter is 1-AC-231
Public comment from Brown County resident regarding concerns about lack of DNR involvement with WSC
The following is the text of a letter I sent to Department of Natural Resources Secretary, Matthew Frank regarding DNR representation on the Wind Siting Rule Making Commission:
April 6, 2010
Dear Secretary Frank,
My wife and I reside within the boundaries of the currently proposed Ledge Wind Energy facility in southern Brown County.
You can imagine that we have a keen interest in the proceedings of the Public Service Commission Wind Siting Commission, which convened on Monday, March 29. We attended that first meeting and plan to be in attendance at the 9:00AM meeting on April 7, as well.
At the onset, I was taken aback by the lopsided fashion in which the commission is populated with wind energy developers and proponents.
As a retired high school social studies and environmental studies teacher, I find it distressing to find no Department of Natural Resources representation on this commission. The Department`s absence raises the following questions in my mind.
Ms. Marilyn Weiss, the Public Service Commission case manager for the Ledge Wind Energy Project, in communication with people in the Ledge Wind Project area has mentioned Shari Koslowsky as the DNR Energy Division contact person for wildlife issues related to wind energy projects.
Why is she not in attendance at Siting Commission meetings?
A recent DNR reviewed bird and bat study conducted at the Blue Skies Green Fields wind farm yielded higher than average mortality rates.
With that wind farm`s location on the Niagara Cuesta, a known bird and bat migration route, should this not be a significant factor of consideration in the development of standards by the Siting Commission? If wildlife species are observed to avoid areas of wind turbine concentration, should habitat loss by abandonment not be a Department concern in a continued focus of wind energy development along the Niagara Escarpment?
The proposed Ledge Wind Energy Project is extensively underlain by karst feature, and significant groundwater contamination has occurred within the project area in the past. The construction of a wind farm involves miles of buried collection cables in addition to excavation of tower foundations. Should Department staff oversee excavation and site restoration procedures?
Considering the elevation of the Niagara Cuesta makes it particularly attractive to wind energy development, should the Department not be heavily involved in the siting standards developmental process to protect ground water resources in such sensitive areas?
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your reply.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Carl Johnson
Greenleaf, WI 54126
(920) 532-4725
cc:
Tomas Hauge, Director, Wildlife Management, DNR
David Siebert, Director, Office of Energy, DNR
Shari Koslowsky, Conservation Biologist, DNR
NOTE FROM THE BPWI Research Nerd:
If you are a member of any organization that might be as concerned as we are about the Wisconsin bat kill numbers, please make sure they are aware of the recent findings.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Bats wind turbines, Ledge Wind Wisconsin, bat bird death wind farm, bat dnr wiscinsin wind farm, bat wind farm, wind siting council PSC, wisconsin wind farm bat
|
Comments Off