Better Plan, Wisconsin

Here's a well written, thoughtful letter sent to the the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation by, among others, the senior avian biologist at the Sutton Avian Research Center , University of Oklahoma. It's in response to a proposal to put a wind farm on protected land that is one of the last habitats of the lesser prairie chicken. Though the wind industry has been thus far successful at down-playing the negative impact wind turbines have on birds and bats, the word is getting out slowly. After you read this, if you would like to drop a line to the Wildlife Commission to let them know you are concerned, a certain lesser prairie chicken would very much appreciate it.

                                                             January 3, 2008

                                                              M. David Riggs, Chairman
Wildlife Commission, ODWC
PO BOX 53465
OKC, OK 73152

Dear Sir,

We are writing this letter in response to the proposal
recently presented by Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) regarding wind development on the Hal and Fern Cooper Wildlife Management Area (WMA).  We appreciate your Commission’s commitment to the management of Oklahoma’s resources, and we recognize that commitment includes financial leadership. Therefore, the potential for leasing of wind rights or outright sale of ODWC lands demands your attention.  However, we have serious concerns regarding the likely outcomes a decision to allow wind power development on WMAs will have.  We have outlined these below for your consideration.

First, a decision to allow wind development on WMAs would set a precedent not only for other Oklahoma public lands, but also for public lands in adjacent states.  This could cascade into large-scale habitat fragmentation which would directly conflict with the stated goals of management of these lands.  Additionally, private landowners in the immediate area would essentially see any wind development on public land as an indication that wind power is compatible with ecological integrity and function.  The scientific and conservation communities have ample data that indicates it is not.  We believe that wind development on WMAs would seriously impede the outreach efforts of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), The Nature Conservancy, Sutton Avian Research Center, and Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service in addressing habitat fragmentation concerns on private lands.   Furthermore, endorsing wind development on a WMA would directly contradict the professional recommendations of wildlife biologists, including ODWC staff, which will compromise the credibility of wildlife professionals at multiple levels.

Second, we feel that the sportsmen who contribute the bulk of ODWC funding, and the Federal Aid providers that match those funds, will not be supportive of wind development on WMAs.  The political backlash could be a serious impediment for the Department for years to come.  In particular, nonresidents contribute large amounts of income to local economies in NW Oklahoma.  They come to Oklahoma for high quality hunting and scenic vistas.  Wind power will negatively influence both of these experiences.  Additionally, many ODWC land acquisitions are made possible because the landowner selling or donating the land believes in ODWC’s mission.  We can not speak for how Hal and Fern Cooper would feel about wind turbines on this land, but it is likely that development on WMAs will hinder future land donations or acquisitions that could add to public hunting access and species recovery in the state.

Finally, as you are well aware the Lesser Prairie-chicken, a game species in serious decline, is known to have recently occupied the Cooper WMA and adjacent lands.  The USFWS is currently considering if the Lesser Prairie-chicken’s candidate status warrants elevation.  This is due primarily to the effects of habitat fragmentation from rapidly increasing oil, natural gas, and wind power development within the range of the species.  Prairie grouse in general exhibit strong avoidance of vertical structures, habitat fragmentation, and human disturbance.  As Cooper WMA is one of the few publicly-managed parcels within occupied range, wind power development would be detrimental to the Lesser Prairie-chicken’s current status and future recovery.  If the last remaining protected lands are developed for wind energy, the USFWS may be forced to report the species in imminent threat of extinction.  We fear that an Endangered Species Act listing in partial response to wind development on public land would be looked upon most unfavorably by the agricultural community and national public.  In addition to concerns regarding the Lesser Prairie-chicken, this area also falls within essential flight zones for the endangered Whooping Crane and Mexican free-tailed bat maternity caves.

We realize that, on the surface, wind power appears attractive as a source of renewable, non-polluting energy - something all of us in the conservation community support.  However, we must stand by the data, which raise serious concerns regarding wind energy production potential, limited carbon offset, minimal local economic benefit, and permanent fragmentation of habitat.  Thus, the ecological footprint is large relative to the meager environmental benefits.  We can provide data from around the world to support that wind turbines and the associated infrastructures have deleterious effects on wildlife species.  In fact, The Wildlife Society (the professional organization of wildlife biologists) recently released an official statement entitled “Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat” that clearly states the negative consequences of wind power with recommendations regarding placement.  

We believe there are ample private lands in Oklahoma that are appropriate for wind development, such as cultivated lands where wildlife habitat has been degraded.  However, high quality public native rangeland occupied by sensitive species is not an appropriate place for such development.  We recognize that ODWC could potentially purchase additional lands with funds acquired from leasing wind rights or selling public lands.  However, we submit that the above mentioned concerns of fragmentation, federal regulatory protection, public perception, public land precedent, impediments to outreach, and loss of future land acquisition options outweigh any possible short-term financial gains.

Our professional recommendation as wildlife ecologists is that leasing or selling any public lands for wind energy should be unilaterally rejected.  This position in no way precludes the development of wind siting plans and mitigation policies with the wind industry in Oklahoma.  We support the development of relationships with state legislators and the wind industry to identify pathways that accommodate both wind development and wildlife values.  To begin this dialogue, we request that your Commission approach Governor Brad Henry to convene a special summit on how wind development may move forward in this state without jeopardizing the unique cultural and ecological assets of the region.  Similar directives from Governor Dave Freudenthal in Wyoming regarding energy development and the Greater Sage-grouse have proven beneficial.  

In closing, we write only to offer perspective and support for the decision the commission must make on this issue.  The inescapable reality is that Oklahoma lies at the national forefront for wind development potential.  This will require great leadership from the elected and appointed officials responsible for the natural resources in this state. If we can provide any information to assist the Commission, please contact us at any time.  We thank you for your consideration in this matter, and we appreciate your dedication to the natural resources and biological wealth of Oklahoma.


Respectfully,



Dr. R. Dwayne Elmore, Treasurer         Dr. Craig A. Davis, President
Oklahoma Chapter, The Wildlife Society    Oklahoma Chapter, The Wildlife Society




Dr. Rick Baydack, President               Dr. Steve K. Sherrod, Executive Director
North American Grouse Partnership        Sutton Avian Research Center



Donald H. Wolfe, Senior Biologist        Dr. Timothy J. O’Connell, President
Sutton Avian Research Center            Oklahoma Ornithological Society

ATTACK OF THE 20 MILES OF UNEXPECTED WIRES:

IS IT COMING TO A PROPERTY LINE NEAR YOU?

What are the rules when it comes to wires?

DON'T LET THEM TAKE OUR FUTURE OUT OF OUR HANDS!

(WATCH UNION TOWNSHIP WIND STUDY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN  MAKE HIS PRESENTATION TO THE TOWN BOARD BY CLICKING HERE )

Should residents and township government have a say over where 40 stories turbines are placed near our homes? Or should it be left up to what wind developers and lobbyists want?

 Write the members of the Committee on Energy and Utilities and urge them not to support any kind of of turbine siting reform that takes the power from our residents and local government.

Tell them we do not want the Public Service Commission to decide how close turbines can safely be placed near our homes, schools and churches.

Tell them creating a siting board would be a move to give wind developers more power than they already have and leave us tax-payers unprotected.

Copy and send your letter to the legislators who make up the committee. They are listed at the end of this posting. 

And if you feel like writing a longer letter, here are some other points to mention: 

Tell them about the work done by the study committee on wind turbines for Union Township.
 
Tell them what the committee found through extensive research and questions posed to the PSC: that the set back in the model state ordinance was created with no medical or scientific support. Ask your legislators how the PSC decided 1000 feet was a safe setback distance from our homes. Ask them to explain just how they came up with this number.


  Tell them how inappropriate it is to use no scientific or medical data to determine setbacks that may have an adverse impact on residents near a wind project. Tell them it is inappropriate to use the set back distance created by the wind industry without looking into it.

Tell them the Union Township study committee requested documents utilized by the PSC related to medical and scientific support of a 1000 foot setbacks and nothing was provided.

Tell them the PSC only answered 5 of the many written questions posed to them by the Union Township Study Committee and left the majority of the health and safety related questions unanswered.

Tell them when a study committee member followed up by calling the PSC , he was referred to an attorney who advised he was shocked that nothing existed pursuant to the request related to health & safety.

Ask if this is the same PSC that is suppose to protect us?
 
 Tell them to recognize the findings of the National Research Council and other documented medical and scientific professionals who have serious questions about the safety, environmental impact and efficiency of these huge machines.

Tell them that like anything else, there is another side to these wind projects, and we must recognize the adverse consequences before wind projects are allowed to proceed.
 
 Tell them research of the Union township wind turbine study committee finds numerous problems associated with improper wind turbine siting. These problems are being reported daily around the world. It is important we learn from the mistakes of others and recognize that improper siting has and will continue to cause problems.

Tell them to support Rep. Brett Davis in his effort to organize a Legislative Counsel Study Committee related to Wind Turbine siting so the whole issue can to be re-examined closely by those not associated with the Wind industry.
 
Tell them to read the Union Township Study Committee's final report.
 
Tell them we do have other renewable alternatives that we must explore and that limiting the production tax credit to fund wind and solar has given an unfair advantage to wind developers.

Tell them we need manure digesters for our farmers ASAP! Manure may not be the most beautiful of our renewable energy options but there is plenty of it in Wisconsin and it's a renewable energy option that doesn't tear up farmlands and tear apart communities.

 Write a letter, short or long, copy it and click on the names below to send it, and FEEL BETTER because you have made a difference in the future of our community.

THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO CONTACT: 

Representative Phil Montgomery  Rep.montgomery@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Kevin Petersen  Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Eugene Hahn  Rep.hahn@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative John Steinbrink  Rep.steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative James Soletski  Rep.Soletski@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Mark Honadel  Rep.honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Brett Davis  Rep.davis@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Lee Nerison  Rep.nerison@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Josh Zepnick  Rep.zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov

Representative Tony Staskunas  Rep.staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov

THIS JUST IN: READ THE LONDON TIMES ARTICLE ABOUT THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF HOW WIND FARMS CREATE A RADAR BLIND SPOT, AND WHY IT MATTERS, (CLICK HERE )

 And now, back to our regular program--
What are you doing Wednesday! About Noon! Want to see wind turbines from a paid salesman's point of view? Want to listen to an actual paid wind lobbyist? Want to hear from a salesman from a company that constructs wind turbines? We don't either, but we will be there! Come and make a difference!

The UNPAID staff of Better Plan, Rock County, invite you to attend a presentation at our state capitol building, (which is more than 10 stories shorter than the industrial wind turbines proposed for our community) this Wednesday, February 6, at noon.

One of the speakers is a salesman from EcoEnergy, the company that sold development rights to put up a wind farm in our community to Acciona of Spain.

The presentation is described by Renew Wisconsin this way:

"Why Wisconsin Must Warm Up to Wind "

A brown-bag briefing at 12:00 noon in the Capitol, Wednesday, Feb. 6.
The first half-hour will consist of prepared presentations from three speakers listed below.The second half-hour will be devoted to Q & A and a more informational discussion touching upon such topics as state and federal policies, local regulation of wind installations, project economics, and resources for state lawmakers, etc. This event is sponsored by Rep. Montgomery.
Date: February 6, 2008
Time: 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM
Location: GAR Hearing Room, 4th floor, State Capitol
Speakers: Curt Bjurlin (EcoEnergyLLC)
Mark Hutter (Michels Wind Energy) –invited
Michael Vickerman (RENEW Wisconsin)

 OK. Now, how big are those turbines again?

And how many are there going to be in Magnolia township? 

Let Each Orange Dot

Equal One 40 Story Turbine

EcoEnergy is unable to give us a map of where the 67 turbines proposed for Magnolia township would go, but just to get an idea of how many turbines we're talking about we thought we'd spread them out evenly across the entire township. Each turbine will be 40 stories tall and have a wing span wider than a 747. This map has 66 dots. Where would you put the 67th?

 (Click Here to download a copy of the Union Township Draft Wind Ordinance)

Proposal Would Limit Turbine Locations

by Gina Duwe 

THE JANESVILLE GAZETTE  (click here to link to source)

EVANSVILLE — Regulations being considered for wind turbines in Union Township would make a proposed wind energy project in the township impossible, the wind developer said this morning.

Wind turbines in Union Township would need to be at least one-half mile from homes and 1,000 feet from property lines, according to a proposed wind ordinance presented to the Town of Union Plan Commission on Thursday night.

The town’s Wind Turbine Study Committee was charged with investigating wind turbines and writing a proposed ordinance to regulate them.

Curt Bjurlin, Wisconsin project developer for EcoEnergy, said he is disappointed with the draft ordinance because he said it is “far more restrictive” than the state’s model draft ordinance.

“I think the town leadership realizes the people in the town and surrounding area greatly desire the need to have renewable energy,” he said.

The proposed setbacks leave “very, very little land” available, he said, “and certainly not enough for a renewable energy project.”

Bjurlin said EcoEnergy staff will work with town officials and residents to answer questions.

“We’re dedicated to building this project and moving forward,” he said.

The recommended setbacks are the absolute minimum, committee chairman Tom Alisankus stressed, because the committee’s research suggested distances of up to 1.5 miles.

The town board appointed the seven-member committee in September, and it has met nearly every Saturday since. The town board imposed a stay on construction of large wind energy systems until August.

EcoEnergy is proposing to put three 397-foot tall wind turbines in the township. Wisconsin Public Power would buy the energy to be used by Evansville Water and Light customers.

A town attorney will review the committee’s recommendations, and the plan commission will discuss the ordinance at its Thursday, Feb. 28, meeting and likely hold a public hearing at its March 27 meeting.

Committee members worked hundreds of hours, and committee member Jim Bembinster visited wind farms as far away as Wasco, Ore., Alisankus said. The committee’s results are summarized in a 318-page report, along with a 25-page draft ordinance.

Members looked through thousands of pages of documents and only considered information that was peer-reviewed or cited by reputable sources, Alisankus said. Doing so eliminated any influence from members’ personal feelings, he said.

Committee members started with the state’s model draft ordinance, which Alisankus said left a sour taste in their mouths. They sent an open records request seeking the scientific and medical documentation used to develop the state’s model ordinance, which has an “aura” of state approval, he said.

“The committee was shocked to receive a response to this open records request that in fact there was no scientific or medical documentation used to create the model draft ordinance,” he said.

Instead, the state sent them 11 pages, most of which were notes from meetings used to write the ordinance. It appeared the ordinance was written predominantly by a Florida power company, Alisankus said.

The committee also invited stakeholders to participate and sent lists of questions to the companies involved.

“We were not particularly pleased with the responses we got,” Alisankus said. “In one case, even though there were scores of questions, we only received five answers back.”

Setbacks and sound were key to the committee’s work, he said.

“If you control … the setbacks and the sound levels appropriately, there should be no issue with ultimate construction of these turbines, at least with respect to the health and safety boundaries that we had to live by,” he said.

The state’s model ordinance makes the “assumption” that a 1,000-foot setback is OK, Alisankus said.

EcoEnergy plans its projects to have at least a 1,150-foot setback, Bjurlin said.

But the majority of the scientific and medical documentation the committee found recommended a minimum of one-half mile from homes, Alisankus said.

Their research came from the World Health Organization, audiologists, physicists, acoustical engineers, doctors and residents, he said.

“The whole problem area that a lot of people have been focusing a lot of time on can be solved by proper siting and proper testing ahead of time,” he said. “If the community does that and if the wind industry goes along with that, there shouldn’t be too many issues left over beyond that.”

WIND COMMITTEE

Members of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee are Tom Alisankus, chairman; Renee Exum, secretary; Scott McElroy, Jim and Cathy Bembinster, Mike Leeder and Sue Pestor.

ORDINANCE HIGHLIGHTS

Under the Town of Union Wind Study Committee’s recommended draft ordinance:

-- Wind turbines must be sited at least one-half mile from the nearest home, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other inhabited structures.

-- Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line and at least five times the rotor diameter from the property lines of all adjoining property owners who have not granted an easement for a lesser setback.

-- Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet or three times its total height from any road, railroad, power line right-of-way and above-ground public electric power line or telephone line.

-- Applications for a wind energy system must include—in part—a pre-construction noise survey within a 1-mile radius of each proposed turbine location, a sound study, an environmental study, ice and blade throw calculations plans, a shadow flicker and blade glint map, a stray voltage and ambient voltage test/plan and a fire prevention, emergency response and rescue plan.

-- Limits would be placed on the sound produced by turbines as measured from the outside of the nearest residence and other inhabited structures.

REGULATION LIMITS

Wind turbine ordinances can only regulate turbines in regard to public health and safety, said Tom Alisankus, chairman of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee.

Alisankus said the committee could not address:

-- Necessity of a meteorological tower to gather data in a proposed site

-- Impact on farmland

-- Divisiveness in communities

-- Impact on property values

-- Decommissioning of turbines

-- Other alternative energy sources