Documents
Category:
Impact on Wildlife
Note: counts do not include items in sub-categories
|
Dan Boone's Response to Maryland PSC's proposed siting guidelines for windpower projects
August 4, 2006
The attached two documents include the MD Public Service Commision's (PSC) proposed Siting Guidelines for wind energy facilities in MD, and a detailed critique of this draft by Dan Boone, a conservation biologist with nearly 30 years of professional experience involving wildlife biology, forest ecology, and biodiversity protection.
Draft- Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy
August 1, 2006
by International Finance Corporation
The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are reference documents designed to provide project developers, financiers, facility managers, and other decision makers with relevant industry background and technical information. This information supports actions aimed at avoiding, minimizing, and controlling EHS impacts during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of a project or facility.
Lempster Wind Project: USFWS Letter to Community Energy
July 28, 2006
by Vernon B. Lang, Assistant Supervisor, New England Field Office
Starting with our first interagency meeting on April 8, 2005, we have generally discussed three broad categories of activities that pose a potential concern for fish and wildlife resources. These include the potential for bird and bat collisions with turbines, habitat fragmentation effects on wildlife and impacts to waters/wetlands. At the April 8, 2005 interagency meeting, we recommended that CEI collect three (3) years of radar data on spring and fall bird/bat migrations to document the spatial and temporal use of the airspace by these flying vertebrates. Three years of radar data should be sufficient to gather information on the spatial and temporal distribution of birds in the airspace, including the year-to-year variability in migration patterns at this site, and represent our normal request for these data at wind projects. We have consistently requested that this data be collected at our meetings and field visits and continue to make this request for radar information.
Representative Mollohan's Letter to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia
July 26, 2006
by U.S. Congressman Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
WV's Congressman Mollohan submitted a letter on July 26, 2006 to the WV Public Service Commission (PSC) concerning the Beech Ridge wind energy project proposed for Greenbrier County, WV by Chicago-based Invenergy, Inc. This wind energy developer successfully pushed through a windplant in Wisconsin nearby the Horicon Marsh - a globally-significant wildlife area and National Wildlife Refuge - despite the widespread outcry by national and local wildlife groups who opposed such close siting.
Mollohan's letter points out that Invenergy disregarded recommendations by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for multi-year pre-construction studies regarding the project's potential impacts on migratory birds and bats. He also observed that although WV's one operating wind project in Tucker County has been the site of record-setting bat mortality due to collision with turbine blades, the project operator (FPL Energy) has cut off access to the site for scientific study or investigation, even by the National Research Council/National Academies committee charged by the U.S. Congress to study the environmental impacts of wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (see footnote #2 in his letter).
Mollohan's letter points out that Invenergy disregarded recommendations by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for multi-year pre-construction studies regarding the project's potential impacts on migratory birds and bats. He also observed that although WV's one operating wind project in Tucker County has been the site of record-setting bat mortality due to collision with turbine blades, the project operator (FPL Energy) has cut off access to the site for scientific study or investigation, even by the National Research Council/National Academies committee charged by the U.S. Congress to study the environmental impacts of wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (see footnote #2 in his letter).
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Birds|
Impact on Landscape|
Noise|
Impact on Economy|
Energy Policy|
Zoning/Planning|
West Virginia]
Vermont PSB Denies 'Certificate of Public Good' to East Haven Project
July 17, 2006
by Vermont Public Service Board
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont that:
1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted, as modified above.
2. The proposed Project will not promote the public good of the State of Vermont, and a certificate of public good shall not be issued pursuant to 30 V.S.A. ยง 248.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of July , 2006.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont that:
1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted, as modified above.
2. The proposed Project will not promote the public good of the State of Vermont, and a certificate of public good shall not be issued pursuant to 30 V.S.A. ยง 248.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of July , 2006.
Renewable Energy on Federal Lands
July 11, 2006
by Sally Collins, Associate Chief Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture
Sally Collins' statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Because time seems to be running out on fossil fuels and the lure of
non-polluting windpower is so seductive, some people are now promoting windpower
initiatives at any cost, without investigating potential negative consequences-- and with
no apparent knowledge of even recent environmental history......Throughout my experience, I could not substantiate a single claim developers made for
industrial wind energy, including the one justifying its existence: that massive wind
installations would meaningfully reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. When you
understand this, you realize the wind business is not really that complex. But there are a
lot of complicated issues swirling around it that obscure and distract from this main point,
issues such as global warming, property values, the nature of wind leases, local revenues
and taxes, wildlife, natural views, and a host of others. So how does one know the truth of
it all? How does one go about separating the reality from spin?
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Birds|
Impact on Bats|
Impact on People|
Noise|
Impact on Economy|
Property Values|
Tax Breaks & Subsidies|
New York]
Compliments of Andrew Chapman, the attached pdf files contain extensive documentation particularly with respect to the impact of wind turbines on wildlife as part of an ongoing effort to prevent the construction of the Bald Hills Wind Farm, South Gippsland, Victoria.
While it has been approved by the Victorian State Government the presence in the Bald Hills area of migratory species of national and international significance that are protected by treaties with Japan and China in the Bald Hills has placed the final decision in the hands of the Federal Government. This decision is pending.
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Birds|
Impact on Bats|
Impact on People|
Noise|
Impact on Economy|
Property Values|
Tourism|
Australia / New Zealand]
Macarthur Windfarm Proposal: Evidence On Behalf Of The Department Of Sustainability And Environment
March, 2006
by Andrew Gosden on behalf of the Department of Sustainability and Environment
In its submission today, the department will not reiterate all of the matters raised in the 21 October submission, rather the department wishes to focus largely on the matters arising from this proposal affecting Brolga and Southern Bent-wing Bat.
Vermont Public Service Board: Hearing Officer's Recommendation re. East Haven Windfarm
March, 2006
by Kurt Janson, Esq., Hearing Officer
For the reasons set forth.., I conclude that the proposed Project will not promote the
general good of the state. Therefore, I recommend that the Board not issue a Certificate of
Public Good for the proposed Project. However, if the Board does issue a CPG, I recommend
that it include the conditions outlined in this Proposal for Decision.
| << Technology | Impact on Landscape >> |