July 5, 2009 • Opinions, Oregon, Washington
Northwest wind power a threat to raptors
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «
The Columbia Gorge Audubon Society has monitored Northwest wind power for almost 20 years. We were not surprised by the recent eagle kill The Columbian reported May 18: “Washington wind turbines claim first known eagle victim.”
The Goodnoe Hills Wind Project that is responsible for the death of the golden eagle is sited in National Audubon Society’s designated Columbia Hills Important Bird Area in Klickitat County overlooking the Columbia River Gorge. The IBA program is Audubon’s attempt to identify and protect significant bird habitat. Gorge Audubon conducted bird counts in the Hills, and our nomination led to its IBA designation.
The main factor in securing the IBA designation was the intensive use of the area by raptors. It is well known that raptors commonly fly at an altitude that puts them at particular risk for collision with wind power blades.
Proper siting was touted as the key to green wind power. So why is wind power being sited in an Audubon Important Bird Area, and why is that Important Bird Area slated for border to border wind power development? The answer is simple. Instead of proper planning, Northwest wind power is being allowed to develop wherever infrastructure is available and politicians are agreeable.
Gorge Audubon believes wind power is already a disaster for Northwest birds. Who is responsible for this mess?
During years of reviewing wind power permits, we found that many significant omissions and deceptions were used to secure permits. For instance, The Columbian story reported that the proponent for the Big Horn Wind Energy Project in eastern Klickitat County had predicted the annual raptor mortality would be three to four birds, whereas follow-up monitoring suggests the actual raptor kill to be 31 to 49 birds per year. Drastically underestimating project bird kills is likely a common method for securing wind power permits.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to force the wind power industry to solve the bird kill problem on the Columbia Hills site years ago with a warning of criminal arrest. That problem was never solved.
Politics changed, and state and federal wildlife agencies have since stood by and watched the Northwest wind power disaster unfold. They protested but took no action. Now they are scrambling to “fix” the problem. If development is allowed to continue in the Columbia Hills IBA and other areas intensively used by birds, you will know that they have failed.
Lack of attention
Where are National Audubon Society and the environmental groups that authored voluntary siting standards for wind power back when the industry first arrived in the Northwest? The answer is that most of them have received Bullitt Foundation grants and hope to receive them again. The Bullitt Foundation of Seattle is a strong advocate of wind power. In fact, Denis Hayes, Bullitt Foundation Director, once wrote Audubon Washington not to “monkey wrench” wind power in the Gorge. Since then, National Audubon Society has written a few letters protesting wind power in their Important Bird Area, but they have ignored our pleas for the one thing that would save the Columbia Hills IBA: a publicity campaign exposing this siting disaster.
It’s time for a wind power reality check. Voluntary siting standards and wildlife guidelines may make the authors feel good, but they do not work. “Proper siting” has nothing to do with how wind power is actually sited. Phony mitigation measures offered by the wind power industry are unlikely to save even one bird. And the wildlife agencies need to find their spines.
The great hope of wind power is being squandered and turned into just another corporate money maker for the developers and equipment suppliers. Wind power will be joining the ranks of the other environmentally hazardous energy producers if our political leadership fails to make changes.
Governors Gregoire and Kulongoski, and President Obama, are you listening?
BY DAVE THIES
Dave Thies of White Salmon is president of the Columbia Gorge Audubon Society.
columbian.com
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Massachusetts and wind farms
July 5, 2009 • Massachusetts
Cohasset keeps wind turbine bylaw
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «
Cohasset’s bylaw governing industrial wind turbines will remain on the books despite an effort by a citizens group to have the ordinance “sundowned’’ to review and overhaul it.
Voters who turned out for the June 27 Special Town Meeting were told the Planning Board had not voted a recommendation on the proposed petition article. Under state law, the board must hold a public hearing, which it did the night before the meeting, and vote a recommendation. Instead, planners postponed action on a recommendation until mid-July.
Petition proponents tried to keep their effort alive by asking voters to continue the Special Town Meeting to September after the Planning Board took its vote. But a majority “did not have the appetite’’ to continue it, according to Conrad Langenhagen, one of those who had petitioned to have the bylaw sundowned.
“It’s unfortunate that the Town Meeting voters weren’t given a chance to vote on the article,’’ he said.
Selectmen chairman Paul Carlson motioned to “continue action on the petition article indefinitely,’’ and that was approved.
According to Town Clerk Marion Douglas, that killed any consideration of the article beyond the Special Town Meeting.
The citizens’ petition drive had been launched in May, shortly after the Planning Board defeated a request from CCI Energy in Plymouth to build two, 400-foot industrial turbines on top of the Graham Waste landfill property.
Neighbors of the site had attended the hearings and strongly urged planners to deny the request. When the May vote was taken, one of the four Planning Board members voted against CCI’s request, which needed approval by all four members considering the proposal.
By Christine Legere
Globe Correspondent
The Boston Globe
5 July 2009
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
Some possibly related
Cohasset keeps wind turbine bylaw
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «
Cohasset’s bylaw governing industrial wind turbines will remain on the books despite an effort by a citizens group to have the ordinance “sundowned’’ to review and overhaul it.
Voters who turned out for the June 27 Special Town Meeting were told the Planning Board had not voted a recommendation on the proposed petition article. Under state law, the board must hold a public hearing, which it did the night before the meeting, and vote a recommendation. Instead, planners postponed action on a recommendation until mid-July.
Petition proponents tried to keep their effort alive by asking voters to continue the Special Town Meeting to September after the Planning Board took its vote. But a majority “did not have the appetite’’ to continue it, according to Conrad Langenhagen, one of those who had petitioned to have the bylaw sundowned.
“It’s unfortunate that the Town Meeting voters weren’t given a chance to vote on the article,’’ he said.
Selectmen chairman Paul Carlson motioned to “continue action on the petition article indefinitely,’’ and that was approved.
According to Town Clerk Marion Douglas, that killed any consideration of the article beyond the Special Town Meeting.
The citizens’ petition drive had been launched in May, shortly after the Planning Board defeated a request from CCI Energy in Plymouth to build two, 400-foot industrial turbines on top of the Graham Waste landfill property.
Neighbors of the site had attended the hearings and strongly urged planners to deny the request. When the May vote was taken, one of the four Planning Board members voted against CCI’s request, which needed approval by all four members considering the proposal.
By Christine Legere
Globe Correspondent
The Boston Globe
5 July 2009
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
Some possibly related
Ontario and wind farms
July 5, 2009 • Ontario, Press releases
Group fed up with Gerretsen’s lack of concern over wind-turbine health issues – Calls for resignation
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «
The Coalition for the Protection of Amherst Island is so fed up with John Gerretsen’s lack of concern over the serious health problems being suffered by Ontarians living too close to wind turbines, that they have decided take out the advertisement set out below in the Whig Standard charging that Mr. Gerretsen, as Minister of the Environment, is ignoring the right of Ontarians to a ‘healthful environment’ as provided for under the Environmental Bill of Rights.
The advertisement also accuses the Ministry of the Environment of ruining people’s lives by allowing his Ministry to approve siting wind turbines too close to homes. Further, the ad. states that his Ministry has shown a chilling indifference to the harm caused by the 86 turbines now turning on Wolfe Island knowing that 266 dwellings would be located at or within 1 km of these turbines. The Coalition is calling for a moratorium on further construction of wind turbine farms while full independent medical and noise studies are conducted, and is asking Mr. Gerretsen how many more Ontarians may be put in harm’s way. The media are urged to seek answers to these questions.
The advertisement appeared in the Whig Standard on Saturday, July 4th.
About the Coalition to Protect Amherst Island. The Coalition to Protect Amherst Island was formed in 2006 in response to a proposal to build a 100-turbine wind power plant on Amherst Island. Amherst Island is one of the Thousand Islands in Lake Ontario
- 30 -
Contact: Coalition for the Protection of Amherst Island, General Delivery, Stella, Ont. KOH 2S0 — ProtectAi@kos.net.
Media Contact: Janet Grace – 613 389 8166
Further information and documents can be provided upon request
JOHN GERRETSEN
M.P.P., MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
Group fed up with Gerretsen’s lack of concern over wind-turbine health issues – Calls for resignation
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «
The Coalition for the Protection of Amherst Island is so fed up with John Gerretsen’s lack of concern over the serious health problems being suffered by Ontarians living too close to wind turbines, that they have decided take out the advertisement set out below in the Whig Standard charging that Mr. Gerretsen, as Minister of the Environment, is ignoring the right of Ontarians to a ‘healthful environment’ as provided for under the Environmental Bill of Rights.
The advertisement also accuses the Ministry of the Environment of ruining people’s lives by allowing his Ministry to approve siting wind turbines too close to homes. Further, the ad. states that his Ministry has shown a chilling indifference to the harm caused by the 86 turbines now turning on Wolfe Island knowing that 266 dwellings would be located at or within 1 km of these turbines. The Coalition is calling for a moratorium on further construction of wind turbine farms while full independent medical and noise studies are conducted, and is asking Mr. Gerretsen how many more Ontarians may be put in harm’s way. The media are urged to seek answers to these questions.
The advertisement appeared in the Whig Standard on Saturday, July 4th.
About the Coalition to Protect Amherst Island. The Coalition to Protect Amherst Island was formed in 2006 in response to a proposal to build a 100-turbine wind power plant on Amherst Island. Amherst Island is one of the Thousand Islands in Lake Ontario
- 30 -
Contact: Coalition for the Protection of Amherst Island, General Delivery, Stella, Ont. KOH 2S0 — ProtectAi@kos.net.
Media Contact: Janet Grace – 613 389 8166
Further information and documents can be provided upon request
JOHN GERRETSEN
M.P.P., MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
Danny's Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor:
The experts in the field of medicine recommend a minimum set-back distance of one and one half miles (2400 m) of a Wind Turbine from a human habitation.That can be understood as a truth of medicine.
The proponents of a Wind Project on Digby Neck are proposing a 600 m.distance from homes in some instances. People, of which I am one, are upset about that. Well-meaning leaders tell us there must be compromise.I agree with that.However, it is at best unethical to compromise the truth.
Case in point: one partner in a committed relationship has been found to be unfaithful by the other.When the former is confronted by the other,the offer of a compromise is made. The paramour of the former wants the compromise,i.e.let him/her "be with me three nights a week and all day Sunday!" Dr.Phil would ask:"How's that gonna work for ya?" The truth about committed relationship is that is inclusive of two exclusively and permanent. There is no middle road. Compromise for less than that is a lie.
To compromise the truth of medical science is equally ludicrous and odious.
For this reason alone, aside from the detriment to tourism and small business in Gullivers Cove, the best compromise is that there be no turbines there. Place them a minimum of 2400 m from residences along highway 217 and strategically out of sight so as not to diminish the enjoyment of those who come here from the world over to enjoy the peace,beauty, and serenity for which this place is recognized.There aren't many left like it!
Daniel Mills
The experts in the field of medicine recommend a minimum set-back distance of one and one half miles (2400 m) of a Wind Turbine from a human habitation.That can be understood as a truth of medicine.
The proponents of a Wind Project on Digby Neck are proposing a 600 m.distance from homes in some instances. People, of which I am one, are upset about that. Well-meaning leaders tell us there must be compromise.I agree with that.However, it is at best unethical to compromise the truth.
Case in point: one partner in a committed relationship has been found to be unfaithful by the other.When the former is confronted by the other,the offer of a compromise is made. The paramour of the former wants the compromise,i.e.let him/her "be with me three nights a week and all day Sunday!" Dr.Phil would ask:"How's that gonna work for ya?" The truth about committed relationship is that is inclusive of two exclusively and permanent. There is no middle road. Compromise for less than that is a lie.
To compromise the truth of medical science is equally ludicrous and odious.
For this reason alone, aside from the detriment to tourism and small business in Gullivers Cove, the best compromise is that there be no turbines there. Place them a minimum of 2400 m from residences along highway 217 and strategically out of sight so as not to diminish the enjoyment of those who come here from the world over to enjoy the peace,beauty, and serenity for which this place is recognized.There aren't many left like it!
Daniel Mills
Labels:
Digby Neck wind park
Truth and Turbines
To: voice of the people halifaxherald
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:02 AM
Subject: Compromise
Dear Editor:
The experts in the field of medicine recommend a minimum set-back distance of one and one half miles (2400 m) of a Wind Turbine from a human habitation.That can be understood as a truth of medicine.
The proponents of a Wind Project on Digby Neck are proposing a 600 m.distance from homes in some instances. People, of which I am one, are upset about that. Well-meaning leaders tell us there must be compromise.I agree with that.However, it is at best unethical to compromise the truth.
To compromise the truth of medical science is equally ludicrous and odious.
For this reason alone, aside from ther detriment to tourism and small business in Gullivers Cove, the best compromise is that there be no turbines there. Place them a minimum of 2400 m from a residences along highway 217 and strategically out of sight so as not to diminish the enjoyment of those who come here from the world over to enjoy the peace,beauty, and serenity for which this place is recognized.There aren't many left like it!
Daniel Mills
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:02 AM
Subject: Compromise
Dear Editor:
The experts in the field of medicine recommend a minimum set-back distance of one and one half miles (2400 m) of a Wind Turbine from a human habitation.That can be understood as a truth of medicine.
The proponents of a Wind Project on Digby Neck are proposing a 600 m.distance from homes in some instances. People, of which I am one, are upset about that. Well-meaning leaders tell us there must be compromise.I agree with that.However, it is at best unethical to compromise the truth.
To compromise the truth of medical science is equally ludicrous and odious.
For this reason alone, aside from ther detriment to tourism and small business in Gullivers Cove, the best compromise is that there be no turbines there. Place them a minimum of 2400 m from a residences along highway 217 and strategically out of sight so as not to diminish the enjoyment of those who come here from the world over to enjoy the peace,beauty, and serenity for which this place is recognized.There aren't many left like it!
Daniel Mills
Labels:
wind turbines Digby Neck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
