Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,965,523 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Is the miniscule CO2 reduction offered by a small wind project on a mountain like Seneca Mountain worth extirpating endangered or threatened species?
I would have to see the EIA studies. I sat on my jurisdiction's Endangered Species board for 14 years, so the science is important to me on these issues. FUD though does nothing for me. Do you have a link to studies? (not advocacy websites, please)
I would have to see the EIA studies. I sat on my jurisdiction's Endangered Species board for 14 years, so the science is important to me on these issues. FUD though does nothing for me. Do you have a link to studies? (not advocacy websites, please)
In the context of the question posed that's a pretty poor answer. Endangered species come before a small wind project environmentally. The slight carbon reduction of one wind project would not be of more importance than protecting a threatened species.
The only EIA study done on Seneca Mountain was by a paid contractor for the wind developer in a permit application for MET towers to test the wind. It is highly suspect as it contradicts known facts. Here it is:
Page 18 claims no Bicknell's thrush is present. Its presence has been documented and in a previous Public Service Board CPG its presence was noted and restrictions on the MET tower site work were included: http://www.state.vt.us/psb/orders/20...es/7037cpg.pdf
The EIA is also filled with assumption that would raise questions about what if any field work to verify their claims was done. Page 15 (under heading endangered species), for example, they assume no rare species of plants are present because a site was disturbed. The VT nongame and natural heritage project is poorly funded and their mapping highly incomplete.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,965,523 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
In the context of the question posed that's a pretty poor answer. Endangered species come before a small wind project environmentally. The slight carbon reduction of one wind project would not be of more importance than protecting a threatened species.
No, it was not a poor answer; however, thank-you for providing at least some background. Facts matter.
Quote:
The only EIA study done on Seneca Mountain was by a paid contractor for the wind developer in a permit application for MET towers to test the wind. It is highly suspect as it contradicts known facts. Here it is:
It is very normal for a developer or proponent of a project has to pay a qualified consultant. In fact, your link to the Vermont Public Service Board requires that. Quote: Prior to construction, EMDC shall work with a qualified consultant to develop detailed site maps which show the location of sensitive areas, such as wetlands and vernal pools,. Yes, I am aware that it is for the site wind measurement installations, but the principle is the same.
You forget that these EIAs are reviewed by government scientists, and trust me, they would be all over it for deficiencies. I've seen it more than once where a study was sent back to the consultant, and I have seen consultants lose their ability to provide that work in the future. Those consultants take their work very serious, and yes, they are qualified scientists also.
Quote:
Page 18 claims no Bicknell's thrush is present. Its presence has been documented and in a previous Public Service Board CPG its presence was noted and restrictions on the MET tower site work were included: http://www.state.vt.us/psb/orders/20...es/7037cpg.pdf
Actually, the Public Service Board does NOT say Bricknell's Thrush is present. It states that the habitat used by the bird is. There are massive amounts of Sage Grouse habitat in Montana in the US and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada, yet the bird is not using it, even when numbers were much higher and viable. Please do not confuse suitable habitat with an indication of use.
As an aside, it is criminal that the Sage Grouse was not allowed to be listed as a threatened or endangered species due to politics and the Sage-Grouse and Endangered Species Conservation and Protection Act that was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the federal government from listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act for 10 years, as long as states prepare and carry out plans to protect the species within their borders. Absolutely criminal that politics overruled an independent scientific body.
Quote:
The EIA is also filled with assumption that would raise questions about what if any field work to verify their claims was done. Page 15 (under heading endangered species), for example, they assume no rare species of plants are present because a site was disturbed. The VT nongame and natural heritage project is poorly funded and their mapping highly incomplete.
Now your casting the FUD factor without substantiating it. Look, I get the concern, but the concern needs to be backed up with facts. When we delisted the Peregrine Falcon, there was a massive uproar, based on emotion, not scientific fact. The actual case was the scientist who worked most of his career on Peregrines was the prime one recommending it, because of the facts, not the feelings or emotions.
The site for WAS disturbed, and they were not going to be causing any further disturbance per the EIA. Am I missing something?
No, it was not a poor answer; however, thank-you for providing at least some background. Facts matter.
It is very normal for a developer or proponent of a project has to pay a qualified consultant. In fact, your link to the Vermont Public Service Board requires that. Quote: Prior to construction, EMDC shall work with a qualified consultant to develop detailed site maps which show the location of sensitive areas, such as wetlands and vernal pools,. Yes, I am aware that it is for the site wind measurement installations, but the principle is the same.
You forget that these EIAs are reviewed by government scientists, and trust me, they would be all over it for deficiencies. I've seen it more than once where a study was sent back to the consultant, and I have seen consultants lose their ability to provide that work in the future. Those consultants take their work very serious, and yes, they are qualified scientists also.
Actually, the Public Service Board does NOT say Bricknell's Thrush is present. It states that the habitat used by the bird is. There are massive amounts of Sage Grouse habitat in Montana in the US and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada, yet the bird is not using it, even when numbers were much higher and viable. Please do not confuse suitable habitat with an indication of use.
As an aside, it is criminal that the Sage Grouse was not allowed to be listed as a threatened or endangered species due to politics and the Sage-Grouse and Endangered Species Conservation and Protection Act that was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the federal government from listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act for 10 years, as long as states prepare and carry out plans to protect the species within their borders. Absolutely criminal that politics overruled an independent scientific body.
Now your casting the FUD factor without substantiating it. Look, I get the concern, but the concern needs to be backed up with facts. When we delisted the Peregrine Falcon, there was a massive uproar, based on emotion, not scientific fact. The actual case was the scientist who worked most of his career on Peregrines was the prime one recommending it, because of the facts, not the feelings or emotions.
The site for WAS disturbed, and they were not going to be causing any further disturbance per the EIA. Am I missing something?
The Public Service Board here is known for being rather excessively friendly towards industry. The EIA was not heavily reviewed by government scientists. The process in VT is not as rigorous on these issues as might be expected. There's a reason we don't normally allow industry to regulate itself. The drive for profit doesn't lend itself to honesty if it hurts the bottom line. The consultant was paid by the wind developer and the wind developer wanted specific results. How many people will bite their employer's hand. The consultant was less than open about their work. There should have been a neutral party behind any EIA.
He raised multiple issues with the EIA. Such as the fact the field work was brief at best and done in the middle of Winter. When many of these species are absent from the state. They apparently couldn't even confirm the presence or lack thereof of wintering deer during the best time of year to determine that.
It was listed as Bicknell's thrush habitat because they were (are) present. Local bird watchers can confirm that. I've been on that mountain and they are there. I've seen marten up there too.
The site was disturbed previously but it had been years. The forest was actually beginning to reclaim the site quite well. There would be new disturbance. You can't simply assume either that if a site had been disturbed years earlier a rare plant won't show up there. A former farm down the road from me has a few rare plants present even though it was farmed not 10 years ago. The EIA should either confirm or deny the existence of a rare plant on a site not make an assumption with no hard evidence.
I am somewhat familiar with sage grouse. There are many species in a similar position due to politics.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,965,523 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
The Public Service Board here is known for being rather excessively friendly towards industry. The EIA was not heavily reviewed by government scientists. The process in VT is not as rigorous on these issues as might be expected. There's a reason we don't normally allow industry to regulate itself. The drive for profit doesn't lend itself to honesty if it hurts the bottom line. The consultant was paid by the wind developer and the wind developer wanted specific results. How many people will bite their employer's hand. The consultant was less than open about their work. There should have been a neutral party behind any EIA.
He raised multiple issues with the EIA. Such as the fact the field work was brief at best and done in the middle of Winter. When many of these species are absent from the state. They apparently couldn't even confirm the presence or lack thereof of wintering deer during the best time of year to determine that.
It was listed as Bicknell's thrush habitat because they were (are) present. Local bird watchers can confirm that. I've been on that mountain and they are there. I've seen marten up there too.
The site was disturbed previously but it had been years. The forest was actually beginning to reclaim the site quite well. There would be new disturbance. You can't simply assume either that if a site had been disturbed years earlier a rare plant won't show up there. A former farm down the road from me has a few rare plants present even though it was farmed not 10 years ago. The EIA should either confirm or deny the existence of a rare plant on a site not make an assumption with no hard evidence.
I am somewhat familiar with sage grouse. There are many species in a similar position due to politics.
Thanks for the link to Dr. Gerhart's testimony.
It is clear that there is no question the EIA was not done at the right time of the year, and consequently did not and could not assess all flora and fauna. I concur with his perspectives in that regard.
I do not concur with his observations of use by moose, deer and lynx. Even he advises the fact that lynx populations are highly dependent on the snowshoe hare cycle. Moose and deer to well with habitats that have a significant edge effect, so clearings in forested, particularly those forests that are dominated by a monoculture, are paramount for winter browse. As such, any clearing done would in fact be a positive, not a negative for those two ungulates. Moose are not herd animals, but deer do yard up in the winter time. What they look for is thermal cover, with good sources of browse, often because of the aforementioned edge effect is present. They do not prefer high areas, but tend to yard up in lower altitudes. Again, although not familiar obviously with the specific site, it's existence from the perspective of ungulates and lynx is not an issue.
An EIA certainly should contain field observations and tests, depending on which level is required. Not being familiar with Vermont, I can only point out that other jurisdictions have various levels with various details required. At the least sensitive would be a literature review and perhaps a site visit. At the most sensitive it may require an interdisciplinary in detail analysis, including perhaps original research. Often the lower level findings may trigger a higher level requirement. As example, the fact that the sites have Bricknell's Thrush habitat, may require on site visits at the appropriate times of year to determine if those sites are being used.
The EIA process does appear to be flawed. That does not mean that the wind turbines should not be there, it just brings into question if the process needs to be adjusted. On the basis of what you have provided, the answer appears to be yes, adjustments are needed.
It would be relatively easy to avoid putting too many wind turbines in areas considered to be "scenic."
There are plenty of areas with almost no scenery (the entire center of the USA for example) for wind turbines. For example, why not cover Iowa and Illinois with wind turbines? It's flat and windy and already ~100% altered by humans (in the form of farms).
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,965,523 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
It would be relatively easy to avoid putting too many wind turbines in areas considered to be "scenic."
There are plenty of areas with almost no scenery (the entire center of the USA for example) for wind turbines. For example, why not cover Iowa and Illinois with wind turbines? It's flat and windy and already ~100% altered by humans (in the form of farms).
Have you been there lately? There are tons of wind farms there, many of them very recent.
Have you been there lately? There are tons of wind farms there, many of them very recent.
Last time I was in Iowa (all the way through on I-80) was about 10 years ago. I saw a few wind turbines, but not many. Sounds like there are much more now.
Near me, there are some big wind farms up near Buffalo, NY. I admit, they are kind of an eyesore since there are so many of them and they seem to be randomly placed.
To my south, on the higher terrain of northern PA, there are wind turbines spaced at regular intervals, which looks much nicer.
The Seneca Mountain project I helped fight in VT was at over 3,100 feet. It never should have even been proposed. Areas above about 2,700 feet should simply not be developed in the northeast but the wind developers want to do so. I have seen significant habitat threatened here by pure greed on the part of wind developers. I'm not necessarily in the no wind at all camp but I think what was seen here for a few years was like a Gold Rush for the government handouts for wind projects with no thought as to what was being destroyed in the process.
So what's the difference between a wind lobbyist and a coal lobbyist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
