WHAT'S THE LATEST? Click here to read about why pilots of emergency medical helicopters can't rescue people who live in wind farms

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

Click on the icon below to listen to a Minnesota Public Radio report on the use of eminent domain to force a wind farm onto a community that doesn't want it. (Text article appears below)

New Ulm Bullying its way to Wind Energy, Landowners say

Think it can't happen in Wisconsin?

On Page 29 of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Glacier Hils wind farm prepared by the Public Service Commission we read:

WEPCO needs long-term easements for the land used by the wind turbines, access roads, and collector circuits. WEPCO has stated it intends to obtain easements from willing landowners. However, WEPCO could use the power of eminent domain if it is granted a CPCN by the Commission.

[Click here to download complete EIS document]

  Let’s stop right there:

What is Eminent Domain?

[click here for source of our definition]

 Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use.

The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

New Ulm 'bullying' its way to wind energy, landowners say

by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio

[Click here to read at source]

Lafayette, Minn. — For the first time in Minnesota, the powerful government tool known as eminent domain could be used to take property rights in a wind energy project.

There's been a growing public backlash against wind energy; complaints about noise, visual pollution and even bird kills.

The city of New Ulm, as other cities around Minnesota have, wants to put up five wind turbines as a power source. The proposal has angered a group of landowners just across the Minnesota River from the southern Minnesota city.

Among them is Jeff Franta. The proposed site is surrounded by fields of corn and soybeans. He said most landowners here opposed the project from the start.

"We feel like that it will very likely grow into something a lot larger than just a few turbines," he said.

Franta said it is wasteful to convert even small amounts of highly-productive farmland to wind turbine sites, but that's not all that's fueling the opposition. The farmers are also upset with how New Ulm has pursued the project.

Jeff Franta

Franta's neighbor, Clete Goblirsch, said the city is bullying landowners. He said opposition to the project is so strong there's no way it could be built under normal circumstances. Goblirsch said the city is threatening to use brute force.

"It's eminent domain. The power of eminent domain," he said.

Most people think of eminent domain as government taking ownership of private land for a public project. That apparently will not happen here. The city has already gotten access to the land it needs from several farmers.

Those landowners aren't talking.

But eminent domain can be used to seize something other than land.

Clete Goblirsch

In this case, Goblirsch said the government can also use it to acquire wind rights -- the right to use the wind on hundreds of acres owned by Goblirsch and other farmers.

"If outsiders tell you that's it's a money issue, it's not a money issue," Goblirsch said. "It's who's got the power over us, and the people with eminent domain got the power."

Before New Ulm can build turbines, the city is required to obtain the wind rights on nearby farmland. The farmers would still own the land, but would lose some control. For example, they couldn't build their own wind turbines if they wanted to.

"The issue of controlling wind rights is the stumbling block," said Hugh Nierengarten, a New Ulm City Attorney.

He said the city needs to lock in a source of power, and developing wind energy is the right way to do it.

"How do we undertake the acquisition of the necessary wind rights in order to build and operate the five wind turbines that we propose for Nicollet County," he said.

Hugh Nierengarten

Nierengarten said the state requires wind farms to obtain the right to winds a certain distance from each turbine. That's to insure the machines are spaced far enough apart to have sufficient wind to operate efficiently. He said, even though the city is offering twice what he calls the going rate for wind rights, landowners have been reluctant to sign.

"We've already got approximately 55 percent of the area we need under control via leases with affected landowners that we negotiated over a year ago," Nierengarten said. "And there remain about 235 acres of wind rights that we have not yet secured control of."

Nierengarten said the city may use eminent domain to get those rights, although he calls it a last resort. That threat really irks landowners like Clete Goblirsch. He said it's a case of government trampling on individual rights.

"Taking your freedom of deciding what you want to do with your land," he said.

The entire wind industry may have a stake in this dispute about a relatively small wind project. A report from the state Energy Security Office predicts the use of eminent domain could have "severe adverse consequences" on other wind projects.

The report says the public may be less willing to even consider wind projects knowing they could lead to forcible loss of land or wind rights.

Broadcast Dates

• Morning Edition, 10/14/2009, 7:25 a.m.

Click on the image above to see photos of Wisconsin windfarm homes taken by Gerry Meyer, who is a resident of the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties. The PSC-approved setback from no- participating homes in Wisconsin wind farms is 1,000 feet.

Where did the 1,000-foot setback come from?

The PSC says they didn't come up with that number.

If they didn't, who did?

And who decided it was safe?

Wind turbines generate health, farming concerns

Farm Country September 30-October 6, 2009

[Click here for source]

By Judy Brown
 jlbrown@vbe.com

Johnsburg—Allen Hass, an eastern Fond du Lac County grain farmer, agreed to host three wind turbines when the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm was developed about three years ago.
 
With 88 turbines producing 145 megawatts of electricity for WE Energies, Blue Sky Green Field is Wisconsin’s largest wind farm. Utilities are under a state mandate to provide 10 percent of their power from renewable-energy sources by 2015.
 
Yet Hass, 55 is feeling something similar to buyers remorse. “We were told we could farm up to the base of the turbine.” Hass said. “Now I have three too many.”

(Click on the image below to see a news story which shows what the wind company did to Al Hass's land.)
 
Hass is concerned about how the ground near the turbine was left after construction. Topsoil wasn’t replaced to his satisfaction. Near the base of a 400-foot turbine, a layer of small stone was left that damages his combine’s head.
 
Beyond that the soil at a radius at about 75 feet from the turbine’s base is less productive than it once was, he said.
 
On an early September day, that part of the cornfield yielded nubbins of cobs. The rest of the stalks stood at least two feet taller than those surrounding the turbine.
 
Hass complained to WE Energies in Milwaukee which operates the wind farm. He hired a lawyer and has filed a lawsuit in an effort to recover normal use of the land surrounded the three wind turbines.
 
He receives $5200 a year, for each of the three turbines on his farm.
 
Under the standard contract with developers, landowners are prohibited from talking negatively about the wind farm. Otherwise, Hass said he believes there would be more public complaints from farmers who regret allowing turbines on their land.
 
Other farmers complain about buried cables that transport electricity to the grid, while others worry about the potential effect of stray voltage on dairy cattle. For many fields, aerial spraying is no longer and option.
 
Others are concerned about health issues they say are related to the wind turbines.
 
Brian Manthey, WE Energies spokesman, said that since Blue Sky Green Field was built, the utility has received numerous calls from people who want turbines on their property.
 
“We get more calls like that than people who are upset with the wind turbines,” he said.
 
He wasn’t aware of any litigation the company was involved in, although there were some out-of-court settlements when turbines were sited too close to houses, he said.
 
Manthey said some people have expressed concern about low-frequency sounds emitted by the turbines.
 
“It’s another case of whether there’s really an issue there or not. We have requirements as to how many decibels a wind turbine can produce,” he said.
 
Irv Selk, a member of the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, was among those who fought for an ordinance in that county to regulate wind farms. He said the 1,000 foot setback allowed in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm isn’t enough. He favors a minimum of 1800 feet.
 
A survey of residents in the Johnsburg area living within a half-mile of wind turbines concluded that 30 percent of respondents were awakened at least once a week because of sound from the wind turbines, Selk said.
 
There is no scientific basis for the 50- decibel setback, Selk said. “One thousand feet is unquestionably too close to people’ houses.”
 
Selk, 65, said many residents have problems trying to describe their health symptoms.
 
“They are more subtle,” he said. “It’s almost easy to dismiss that as you as you are getting old. Some people are more sensitive.”
 
Teresa Weidermann-Smith, a spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, said the 1000 foot setback is not a PSC requirement.
 
For each of the major wind projects the PSC authorized, a requirement already existed at the local level that specified the 1000-foot setback, she said in an e-mail.
 
The project was laid out by the developer on that basis.
In none of those cases did the PSC specify the setback, rather it authorized the project to be constructed (more or less) as it was designed and the 1000 foot setback was a design criterion,” Weidemann-Smith said.
 
The biggest complaints associated with the wind farm east of Lake Winnebago have been about TV reception and shadow flicker, Manthey said.
 
He said WE Energies has dealt with a couple of dozen residents individually to fiz the TV reception either by provided satellite service to obtain Green Bay channels or by adjusting individual antennas.
 
For those who complain about shadow flicker when the turbine is in line with the sun and the house, the utility hires specialists who recommend blinds or some other remedy.
 
In the southern part of Fond du Lac County, Ralph Mittlestadt of Oakfield grows more than 1000 acres of corn, soybeans, alfalfa and other crops on his dairy farm. His land is in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties.
 
This year he expects to take an $8,000 loss because of the inability to obtain aerial spraying to combat fungus, corn rootworm and plant diseases.
 
“We were told by the utility that they would have enough room to fly,” Mittelstadt said. “But they plunked them right at the end of the runways.”
 
A spraying service formerly used the farm as a staging area, but since the wind farm was construction that has stopped,” he said.
 
Mittelstadt understands why pilots don’t want to fly in the area.
 
“They don’t light every tower, which is something I don’t understand, because the (Federal Aviation Administration) requires every turbine to be lit if higher than 100 feet,” Mittlestadt said.
 
Helicopters are also subject to the wind coming off the blades, he said.
 
Spraying crops with ground machinery also becomes problematic, he said.
 
“Crop sprayers may get around to it in four to five days, and by that time it’s too late,” MIttelstadt said.
 
Spraying corn with fungicides in the past has garnered Mittelstadt 15 to 30 bushels more per acre, he said.  
He doesn’t have any wind turbines on his land although he hosted a test windmill. “We found out it wasn’t financially feasible” he said.
 
Landowners receive $5,200 per year per turbine in the Forward Wind Energy wind farm.
 
Mittlestadt said that when the turbines were being built he believed about half of the people favored them and half were against the project.
 
“I think now it’s less,” he said. “A lot of people who put them p on their land wouldn’t do it again.”
 
Mittelstadt said he also has a problem with the noise produced by the wind turbines.  
 
“It sounds like a jet engine at times with a woof every time the blade moves. At night, it’s worse.
 
However, he didn’t say his sleep was interrupted by the turbines.
 
“I’m tired. I farm,” Mittlestadt said.

Click to see an interview with Ralph Mittlestadt and his son Kevin as they speak about living in the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm

The configuration of turbines in Forward Wind Energy’s wind farm in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties led Flight for Life, which operates a helicopter service, to send out a memo last year saying that accident victims have to be transported to pre-determined sites away from the wind farm instead of having the helicopter fly directly to the scene of an accident.

[Click here to downloadwind farm  memo from Flight for Life]

Diane Cappozzo, Fond du Lac County health officer, said her office has received complaints from a bout a half dozen people who live within the three wind farms in the county.
 
She said sleep disturbances are the top complaint. Many of the concerns are hard to document, she said, granting that for those affected it’s an issue because of the noise and vibrations from the wind turbines.
 
“For some people, it started as soon as the turbines started turning,” she said.
 
The county has forwarded concerns to the state epidemiologist.
 
“An epidemiological study will tell us if people here have more issues than just the general population,” Cappozzo said, “With wind turbines, the issues are very real for the individual making the complaints.”
 
The long-term impact of how residents react to wind farms is still unknown, she said.
 
“If the state is going to be involved in expanding wind farms, maybe this is something they should be aware of,” Capezzo said.
 
Gerry Meyer, of rural Brownsville has taken 1,600 pictures and written a diary since the Forward Wind Energy wind farm was established. The dairy can be accessed [by clicking here]

“I was neutral when it started,” Meyer said, “ didn’t help the people who were fighting it. I trusted the town board and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin that they would do the right thing.”
 
With several wind turbines surrounding his 6-acre property, Meyer and his wife Cheryl, find their quality of life diminished and report reactions such as loss of sleep from wind turbine noise.
 
“My wife has ringing in her ears, and one night at choir she was asked why she can’t get the pitch right,” Meyer said.
 
Low-pitched sounds may account for their sleep disorders, ringing in the ears and crackling noises they hear, he said. Once they leave their property their symptoms subside about three days later.
 
Meyer said he’s gained 37 pounds since the turbines were built.
 
“I was told my cortisol level was moderately high and that I should consult an endocrinologist,” Meyer said. “What I’m talking about is something new. I’m not about to blame the wind farm for pre-existing conditions.”
 
Meyer didn’t have a baseline cortisol number established before the wind farm was built.
 
“Almost every time I’ve heard from someone who has issues it’s mostly sleep deprivation and headaches,” Meyer said. He said he gets about two hours of sleep each night.
 
“We’re fortunate we have trees surrounding us to reduce the noise level,” he said.

(Click on the image below to see a video shot last winter by Invenergy wind farm resident Gerry Meyer. The video shows the turbines that are closest to his home. The second video shows shadow flicker affecting several homes in his community)

Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, wrote a study in which she describes about a dozen health issues – such as sleep deprivation, anxiety and loss of motivation—as “wind turbine syndrome.”
 
Critics point out that the study involved 38 people, too few to draw conclusions about wind farms.
 
Others who support Pierpont’s conclusions say they experienced those same symptoms and were glad to see a description identified.
 
Curt Kindschuh, a resident near the Forward Wind Energy wind farm in southern Fond du Lac County, led efforts to keep wind turbines from being sited close to Horicon Marsh, which has hundreds of species of birds flying by on a regular basis.
 
“I personally know a lot of people who host a wind turbine who cannot speak out publicly about turbines,” Kindschuh said.
 
Some people express regret to him that they agreed to host wind turbines; Kindschuh said.
 
“They can’t speak out publicly because the fear legal consequences from the company,” Kindschuh said.
 
Calls to the legal department at Invenergy Wind in Chicago, the developer of Forward Wind Energy, were not returned.
 
Kindschuh said the quality of life is spiraling downward for many people, especially those who have tried to sell their rural homes.
 
He knows of seven or eight people who have put their homes up for sale.
 
“None have received offers,” he said.
 
He agreed the state of Wisconsin should embark on an epidemiological study on the three wind farms in Fond du Lac County because it appears the study isn’t going to be conducted locally.
 
However, he noted that the wind farm issue which has split neighborhoods and families, has produced some positive residual effects.
 
“You meet your neighbors, even though longtime neighbors don’t talk to each other,” he said. “It’s forever split the community.”
 

(Click on the image below to watch an interview with Curt Kindschuh about the changes the wind farm has brought to his community)

Wind developers talk a good line. They tell us there will be no negative health impacts for the residents of the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm. With a setback of 1000 feet, noise won't be a problem, shadow flicker won't be a problem, there will be no loss of value to your home.

Wind developers will tell you that the experts agree....

Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.

If you would like to contact our health department to ask them to investigate  the issue of wind turbine impacts on public health in our state, Click here to visit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services webstite, and Click here to send e-mail

In light of the many questions being raised about negative health effects resulting from inadequate setbacks from wind turbines, we need our health department to step in and research this issue, speak to the hundreds of residents in wind farms in our state and issue a report like the one recently done by the Minnesota Department of Health. Our state has a goal of siting 14,000 wind turbines by 2024. This is an issue that must be taken seriously now.

Click here to download a copy of the report from Minnesota Department of Health, entitled "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines"

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

 The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

 The purpose of the final EIS is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the new wind electric generation facility.

 It was prepared prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission or PSC) with input from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

 This final EIS will be a subject of the hearing to be held for the Glacier Hills project. The Commission’s decision to approve, modify, or deny ATC’s application for this project will be based on the record of the technical and public portions of the hearing.

SAVE THE DATE:

The public hearing will be held at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, at the Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street, Friesland, Wisconsin.

At the hearing, members of the public may testify about the project or the final EIS. In addition, written comments may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Written comments submitted at the public hearing.

• Written comments submitted via the Commission’s ERF system by October 28, 2009. The form used to file comments electronically can be found on the Commission’s web page, http://psc.wi.gov/, by selecting the Public Comments button, then selecting Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (WEPCO) Glacier Hills Wind Park, docket 6630-CE-302 from the list provided.

• Written comments may be submitted by mail by October 28, 2009, addressed to:

Docket 6630-CE-302 Comments

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

 Members of the public who submit comments should understand that those comments will be included in the record on which the Commission will base its decision to approve, modify, or deny Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s application. As such, the comments are subject to objection during the hearing.

If objected to, the comments might not be admitted into the hearing record. Members of the public who have doubts about the admissibility of their comments should plan to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. All comments and a transcript of oral testimony will be posted to the Commission’s website as an open public record.

 The public and technical portions of the hearing will satisfy the WEPA requirements of both the Commission and DNR. A Commission decision on the proposed project is expected January 2009.

Specific questions on the final EIS should be addressed to:

Michael John Jaeger

Public Service Commission

(608) 267-2546

michaeljohn.jaeger@psc.state.wi.us

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: You can help by reading over the EIS [download it by clicking here] and commenting on specific parts of it is one way for the PSC to understand what the concerns are of rural residents in our state. There is no limit to how many comments you can file. Supporting documents are always welcome.

 Better Plan will continue to look closer at the Glacier Hills EIS in the up-coming days.

Download the entire EIS by clicking here

Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.

Download the entire EIS by clicking here

Today we're looking at the section called ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE GLACIER HILLS WIND PARK which begins on page 24 with the issue of bird mortality.

We're very troubled to learn the pre-construction bird and bat studies were done by same utility that is proposing the project.

Here's what the EIS says about birds:

"The potential for avian mortality and displacement from feeding and nesting habitat is a major environmental concern. Bird collisions with turbine blades and towers have been widely reported in this country and abroad.

WEPCO conducted a pre-construction avian study of the project area between mid-June 2007 and mid-June 2008.1 The methodology used and the timing of the survey was consistent with the Breeding Bird Survey methodology and provided a general assessment of bird use in the project area during the one-year study period. The avian study did not identify any heavily used local flight paths or any locations in the project area
where bird activity was heavily concentrated.

The surveys recorded observations of 151 bird species.
Three state-listed threatened species were recorded. An additional 20 species that are listed as species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) were observed in the project area.

Almost all project construction would occur on active agricultural lands. Only a small amount of habitat other than agricultural lands would be directly disturbed by the project. Active agricultural lands provide feeding areas for some bird species during migration and winter but provide only limited habitat for nesting birds. The impact to bird habitat from direct habitat removal and from fragmentation of existing habitat would be relatively low."

NOTE: Though the impact to bird nesting habitat would be relatively low, what about the impact to the birds themselves? Concern about the effects of a large scale industrial wind farms on actual bird populations is growing.

According to a new study by the Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, wind farms can reduce bird numbers by up to half. [click here for source]The research, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests the most likely cause of the decline is the fact that birds are less likely to live near wind farms because of the noise and development.

In another report, [source]  Purdue University Associate Professor John Dunning says wind turbines  could also pose a threat to animals that share the airspace: “The worry is if you put something dramatically different, like big towers with whirling blades in it, some of the species that previously used that area, might not get killed but they might avoid going into the area,” Dunning said.

Newsweek published a recent report entitled "Birds VS Environmentalists" with the sub-heading:"The wind industry may be green, but it's proving deadly to wildlife"[source] In it, Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy says turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate.

Because the turbines in the Glacier Hills wind farm will cover over 17,000 acres, and because out of the 151 species of birds identified in WEPCO's pre-construction study, 3 species are threatened and 20 more qualifiy as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) we believe another independent study should be conducted by a party with no financial interest in providing results required to get approval of this project.

Residents in both the Invenergy wind farm near the Town of Byron and in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm near the Town of Malone in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties have said there have been fewer birds since the turbines have gone up. Many have specifically mentioned the loss of barn swallows, even on farms where barn swallow flocks have been coming to nest for years.

Wind developers will often say more birds are killed by cats than by wind turbines. True or not, this statement seems intended to make turbine related bird deaths more acceptable.

Scientists study birds killed by wind turbines

By DAVID SCHECHTER / WFAA-TV

www.wfaa.com

13 October 2009

When it comes to generating green energy from the wind, Texas leads the way.

But in the pursuit of cleaner energy, there’s also an environmental cost: dead birds and bats killed by turbine blades.

Now a unique research project in North Texas is trying to find out how many are dying and what can be done to save them.

As Texas continues to flip the switch from dirty coal to clean wind, not all is perfectly green.

That’s why Texas Christian University researchers are scanning the base of a wind turbine at Wolf Ridge, outside Muenster, Texas.

“Some of them are obvious that the turbine killed them. Other times you can’t tell,” said field technician Jennifer Ellis of the dead birds she finds.

Among them are raptors, vultures, yellow-billed cuckoos, said Amanda Hale, TCU researcher.

Birds killed by wind turbines pale in comparison to birds killed by cars, buildings and other animals.

“We do know that birds and bats are being affected by wind turbines,” said Hale.

Hale and her team want to definitively determine how many birds and bats are killed by wind turbines.

Her peer-reviewed research project is funded by the nation’s biggest renewable energy company NexTera.

“We’ve actually seen a huge variety of birds,” Hale said.

But it turns out, dead bats are the surprise finding.

Hale did not expect to find any. Instead, her team has found five times more bats than birds.

Why is that a problem?

The bat population is smaller, more susceptible to disease, and slower to reproduce.

“If we add wind on top of it, it’s enough to be a real concern,” said Hale.

Back at the Hale’s laborartory at TCU, they carry out tests.

“We can measure how good we are at finding these bats,” said Kris Karsten.

Hale’s team analyzes DNA, weather patterns and mortality trends at the Wolf Ridge Wind Farm, all for one purpose.

“If we can predict when mortality happens, we can use that information to prevent it,” said Hale.

As our reliance on wind energy grows, a discovery like that may keep us from making things worse, while we’re trying to make them better.

THIS from USA TODAY: [click here to read at source] 

Bats

We are grateful to the PSC for recognizing that the number of bat fatalities caused by the Glacier Hills wind turbines could be high.

Here's what the EIS has to say about bats:

Bat mortality has exceeded bird mortality at most wind farms where post-construction monitoring of both animal groups has been conducted.

Many species of bats are long-lived and have low reproductive rates.

Also, Bat Conservation International estimates that more than 50 percent of American bat species are in decline.

These characteristics make bat populations more vulnerable to the cumulative impacts that could occur as the number of wind projects continues to increase.

Seven species of bats are known to occur in Wisconsin; five of these are state species of special concern exhibiting some evidence of decline.

Very few bat studies have been conducted in Wisconsin and thus bat numbers and behavior are not well understood.

A pre-construction bat activity study was conducted in the Glacier Hills project area. The study, based on acoustic surveys, focused on bat activity patterns during the post-breeding and fall migration periods. No species identifications were performed during the study.

It is certain there will be some level of bat mortality if the proposed wind farm is constructed. However,due to the lack of research on bat mortality at wind farms in the Midwest, it is not possible to make predictions about the magnitude of bat mortality for this project or whether that mortality would have a significant impact on bat populations.

Post-construction mortality studies are being conducted at three recently completed wind projects in Wisconsin, including WEPCO’s Blue Sky Green Field (BSGF) project. These projects have land cover similar to that present within or adjacent to the Glacier Hills project boundary. In addition, the projected bat activity levels based on pre-construction surveys at BSGF are similar to the pre-construction estimates for the Glacier Hills project.

The initial post-construction data from the BSGF project show a high level of bat mortality.3 Thus, it is possible that bat mortality at Glacier Hills could also be high.

 The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on page 24 of the EIS regarding the impact of 90 wind turbines on bird and bat poplulations in the Glacier Hills project area, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

To watch a short video about bats and wind turbines, click on the image below.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Many residents of wind farms in our state have pointed out that studies have been done on the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats, but none have been done on the effect wind turbines have on the people who are forced to live with them.

Now that the turbine siting reform legislation has passed and the Public Service Commission moves to create uniform siting guidelines for wind farms in our state, many of us who live in areas where wind farms have been proposed are wondering what will happen next.

 A glimpse of the future for rural residents may be had by taking a closer look at the September 2009 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott.

 [download the entire EIS by clicking here]

 Background: Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) proposes to build a new wind farm in the townships of Randolph and Scott in northeast Columbia County. The proposed facility is referred to as Glacier Hills and will be comprised of at least 90 industrial wind turbines, each approximately 410 feet tall. Currently the proposal calls for 1000 foot setbacks from non-participating homes. The image below shows the proposed turbine locations as red dots, and the non-participating homes that will be affected as small red squares in yellow circles. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot setback.

The project area consists of about 17,350 acres of predominately agricultural land in Columbia County. The village of Friesland lies within the project area, while the village of Cambria is just south and the village of Randolph just southeast of the project area.

 WEPCO estimates the capital cost of the proposed Glacier Hills project, exclusive of an allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), to be between $335.2 million and $413.5 million, including up to 30% of the costs in the form of direct cash grants from the federal government.

 The project would be owned and operated by WEPCO. WEPCO expects the proposed project to have a lifespan of 30 years. The average life used in economic analyses is 26 years.

 On October 30, 2008, WEPCO submitted an application to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)

 Why is a CPCN so important and what happens when a CPCN is granted?

 On Page 29 of the EIS we read:

WEPCO needs long-term easements for the land used by the wind turbines, access roads, and collector circuits. WEPCO has stated it intends to obtain easements from willing landowners. However, WEPCO could use the power of eminent domain if it is granted a CPCN by the Commission.

 Let’s stop right there:

What is Eminent Domain?

[click here for source of our definition]

 Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use.

 In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies, typically utilities, such that they can bring eminent domain actions to run telephone, power, water, or gas lines.

 In most countries, including the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property. Proceedings to take land under eminent domain are typically referred to as "condemnation" proceedings.

The Process of Eminent Domain

 Eminent domain law and legal procedures vary, sometimes significantly, between jurisdictions. Usually, when a unit of government wishes to acquire privately held land, the following steps (or a similar procedure) are followed:

* The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the property for fair value.

* If the owner does not wish to sell, the government files a court action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of the hearing as required by law.

*A hearing is scheduled, at which the government must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith negotiations to purchase the property, but that no agreement was reached. The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use, as defined by law. The property owner is given the opportunity to respond to the government's claims.

* If the government is successful in its petition, proceedings are held to establish the fair market value of the property. Any payment to the owner is first used to satisfy any mortgages, liens and encumbrances on the property, with any remaining balance paid to the owner. The government obtains title.

* If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.

 Takings:

 There are several types of takings which can occur through eminent domain:

 Complete Taking - In a complete taking, all of the property at issue is appropriated.

 Partial Taking - If the taking is of part of a piece of property, such as the condemnation of a strip of land to expand a road, the owner should be compensated both for the value of the strip of land and for any effect the condemnation of that strip has on the value of the owner's remaining property.

 Temporary Taking - Part or all of the property is appropriated for a limited period of time. The property owner retains title, is compensated for any losses associated with the taking, and regains complete possession of the property at the conclusion of the taking. For example, it may be necessary to temporarily use a portion of an adjacent parcel of property to complete a construction or highway project.

 Easments and Rights of Way - It is also possible to bring an eminent domain action to obtain an easement or right of way. For example, a utility company may obtain an easement over private land install and maintain power lines. The property owner remains free to use the property for any purpose which does interfere with the right of way or easement.

Fair Value

 Fair value is usually considered to be the fair market value - that is, the highest price somebody would pay for the property, were it in the hands of a willing seller. The date upon which the value is assessed will vary, depending upon the governing law. If the parties do not agree on the value, they will typically utilize appraisers to assist in the negotiation process. If the case is litigated, both sides will ordinarily present expert testimony from appraisers as to the fair market value of the property.

Just Compensation

 At times, fair value includes more than the price of an item of property or parcel of real estate. If a business is operating from the condemned real estate, the owner is ordinarily entitled to compensation for the loss or disruption of the business resulting from the condemnation. In a minority of jurisdictions, the owner may also be entitled to compensation for loss of "goodwill", the value of the business in excess of fair market value due to such factors as its location, reputation, or good customer relations. If the business does not own the land, but leases the premises from which it operates, it would ordinarily be entitled to compensation for the value of its lease, for any fixtures it has installed in the premises, and for any loss or diminishment of value in the business.

Public Use

 Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.

Abuses of Eminent Domain

 In recent decades there has been growing concern about the manner in which some states and units of government exercise their power of eminent domain. Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers or commercial interests, on the basis that anything that increases the value of a given tract of land is a sufficient public use. Critics respond that this is absurd, and that there are few properties, no matter how upscale, which could not be made more valuable if developed in a different manner. They also note that if a developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, it is unlikely that the landowners will truly be offered the value of the property through condemnation proceedings. The governmental response to that point is that the law of eminent domain arose from the experience that some property owners are unwilling to negotiate a reasonable sale price, and such unreasonableness should not provide a basis to extort an above-market price or to prevent the completion of a public project.

 For example, in one case a town wished to exercise eminent domain over a residential neighborhood, so that an upscale condominium development could be built on that land. To advance that goal, they defined any home within the neighborhood as "blighted" if it did not have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an attached two car garage, and central air conditioning. The homeowners challenged the definition in court, and were ultimately successful in fighting the municipality's efforts to take their homes.

 The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on page 29 of the EIS which says WEPCO will have the power to use eminent domain if granted the CPCN, CLICK HERE

 To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.

 The purpose of the final EIS is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the new wind electric generation facility.

 It was prepared prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission or PSC) with input from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP).

 This final EIS will be a subject of the hearing to be held for the Glacier Hills project. The Commission’s decision to approve, modify, or deny ATC’s application for this project will be based on the record of the technical and public portions of the hearing.

SAVE THE DATE:

The public hearing will be held at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, at the Randolph Town Hall, 109 South Madison Street, Friesland, Wisconsin.

At the hearing, members of the public may testify about the project or the final EIS. In addition, written comments may be submitted in any of the following ways:

• Written comments submitted at the public hearing.

• Written comments submitted via the Commission’s ERF system by October 28, 2009. The form used to file comments electronically can be found on the Commission’s web page, http://psc.wi.gov/, by selecting the Public Comments button, then selecting Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (WEPCO) Glacier Hills Wind Park, docket 6630-CE-302 from the list provided.

• Written comments may be submitted by mail by October 28, 2009, addressed to:

Docket 6630-CE-302 Comments

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

 Members of the public who submit comments should understand that those comments will be included in the record on which the Commission will base its decision to approve, modify, or deny Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s application. As such, the comments are subject to objection during the hearing.

If objected to, the comments might not be admitted into the hearing record. Members of the public who have doubts about the admissibility of their comments should plan to provide oral testimony at the public hearing. All comments and a transcript of oral testimony will be posted to the Commission’s website as an open public record.

 The public and technical portions of the hearing will satisfy the WEPA requirements of both the Commission and DNR. A Commission decision on the proposed project is expected January 2009.

Specific questions on the final EIS should be addressed to:

Michael John Jaeger

Public Service Commission

(608) 267-2546

michaeljohn.jaeger@psc.state.wi.us

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: You can help by reading over the EIS [download it by clicking here] and commenting on specific parts of it is one way for the PSC to understand what the concerns are of rural residents in our state. There is no limit to how many comments you can file. Supporting documents are always welcome.

 Better Plan will continue to look closer at the Glacier Hills EIS in the up-coming days.