logo
Article

Wind company's statement is not the whole story

The Daily News|Steven Moultrup|July 3, 2010
New YorkImpact on WildlifeImpact on Landscape

I would suggest that concerned citizens of Orangeville take the time to read the more than 35 pages of corrections and comments that have been written and sent to the Town Board from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state Department of Agriculture & Markets.


I'm writing in response to Jay Schoenberger's recent letter ("Wind energy is good for the enviornment, wildlife," Another Point of View, June 19). Rather than presenting my own opinion regarding a completely inadequate Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was presented to the Orangeville Town Board (by Invenergy) I would suggest that concerned citizens of Orangeville take the time to read the more than 35 pages of corrections and comments that have been written and sent to the Town Board from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state Department of Agriculture & Markets.

For example, the USFWS wrote on April 23, 2010, to the Orangeville Town Board:

"The DEIS …

... more [truncated due to possible copyright]

I'm writing in response to Jay Schoenberger's recent letter ("Wind energy is good for the enviornment, wildlife," Another Point of View, June 19). Rather than presenting my own opinion regarding a completely inadequate Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was presented to the Orangeville Town Board (by Invenergy) I would suggest that concerned citizens of Orangeville take the time to read the more than 35 pages of corrections and comments that have been written and sent to the Town Board from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state Department of Agriculture & Markets.

For example, the USFWS wrote on April 23, 2010, to the Orangeville Town Board:

"The DEIS indicates that the project will reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, pollutants, and displace the use of fossil fuels. A recent report by the National Research Council (NRC 2007) found that wind energy projects do not deliver the environmental benefits typically described by project sponsors. (p. 2)"

"Three major watersheds are found in the project area including Tonawanda Creek, Stony Creek, and East Koy Creek. Several streams protected by NYS Article 15 regulations are found in the project area. However, the DEIS does not adequately describe these resources. There is no mention of water quality data. (p. 3)"

"Re: Birds, several studies were completed in the project area. We (USFWS) have strong concerns about the adequacy of the winter surveys and we also have reservations about the sufficiency of a one day survey on the Attica Reservoir for bald eagle nest. (p. 4)"

"The USFWS summarized that the DEIS does not contain adequate information regarding potential impacts of the project (Stony Creek) on wildlife, and additional environmental review is necessary. We find that there in insufficient or missing data regarding wind resource data. (p. 7)"

In 2006, the NYSDEC directed Invenergy to complete post construction environmental studies after the Sheldon Wind Farm started operation. To date the DEC has not received any data and does not expect any until 2011. The Noble wind farm post construction mortality studies are the only official studies to be completed to date in this area and the death reports were not mentioned in the DEIS. As stated above Invenergy presented a one-day study of the Attica Reservoir regarding bald eagles yet the NYSDEC wrote (on p. 9), "Bald Eagles, listed as threatened in NY, have been reported numerous times at the Attica Reservoir ... with dates noted."

The NYSDEC further stated (May 20, 2010) in regards to cumulative impacts (DEIS Section 6), "This section completely lacks any mention of the cumulative impacts of wind projects to wildlife species. Increases in habitat fragmentation, exposure to spinning turbine blades, human presence and disturbance to sensitive breeding, feeding or roosting areas, and possible introduction of invasive or parasitic species all result from the presence of multiple wind projects in one area. (p. 10)"

The NYSDEC wrote 3 1/2 pages of comments regarding the issue of noise and the inadequacy of the DEIS on this issue. The DEC recommends a more detailed discussion regarding ambient/background noise levels, nighttime noise impacts, sound characteristics of wind turbines and to more closely examine point source assumption and in-phase generation. (p. 11-14)

The NYS Dept. of Ag & Markets focused its review (April 23, 2010) to sections of the DEIS that pertain to agricultural soils and the implementation of agricultural protection measures. The Department wrote, on page 4, of their comment letter, that the Town of Orangeville should require Invenergy to hire an experienced "agricultural inspector." They further wrote that environmental monitors employed on the High Sheldon Wind Project had little to no prior agricultural or agronomic experience required to ensure compliance with Department Guidelines.

Ag & Markets wrote that, "Placement of junction boxes in agricultural fields should be avoided because of the potential adverse impacts these junction boxes pose to the viability of farm operations ..." (p. 9) Information in the DEIS does not allow for adequate review of potential impacts (to agricultural lands) associated with junction box locations. Based on the site-specific issues noted the department recommended that the project applicant consult with the Wyoming County (Soil & Water Conservation District) and each landowner. (p. 11)

Why hasn't this been done? Thirty-five pages of this is unacceptable.

The Orangeville Town Board recently approved a zoning law that was cut and pasted from Pike and Gainesville zoning laws. Thousands of dollars were spent for a lawyer to use "white-out." Now the Town Board is faced with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that according to an employee of the U.S. Department of Interior was cut and pasted. Orangeville deserves better! Arguments relating the offshore Gulf of Mexico oil spill and industrial wind farms have virtually no relevance here except they both show what corporate greed is doing to our environment.


Source:http://www.thedailynewsonline…

Share this post
Follow Us
RSS:XMLAtomJSON
Donate
Donate
Stay Updated

We respect your privacy and never share your contact information. | LEGAL NOTICES

Contact Us

WindAction.org
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director
phone: 603.838.6588

Email contact

General Copyright Statement: Most of the sourced material posted to WindAction.org is posted according to the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. Some articles we only show excerpts, and provide links to the original published material. Any article will be removed by request from copyright owner, please send takedown requests to: info@windaction.org

© 2024 INDUSTRIAL WIND ACTION GROUP CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
WEBSITE GENEROUSLY DONATED BY PARKERHILL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION