[Natural Resources Secretary belies Electrical Authority claims and confirms charges made by the Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco]

[Scroll down for English translation.]

Guayanilla — En expresiones vertidas a la prensa por el Secretario del DRNA Javier Vélez Arocho donde justifica el “acuerdo” entre Windmar y su agencia por el que le condonan las serias violaciones ambientales en Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro y Punta Verraco en Guayanilla, al proponente del proyecto Windmar, Víctor González Barahona a cambio de recibir unos terrenos en el lugar propuesto, desmiente al director ejecutivo de la AEE Jorge Rodríguez. Durante la inauguración del Gasoducto del Sur en Peñuelas y a preguntas de la prensa en el sentido del anuncio que ya habían firmado el “contrato” entre Windmar y la AEE, y que la oposición a este proyecto señala que Windmar no tiene los permisos para su construcción el Sr. Rodríguez reaccionó diciendo, “el Proyecto Windmar va, no le quepa duda a nadie, Windmar tiene todos los permisos habidos y por haber”. (30 de junio de 2008)

El pasado domingo 3 de agosto en un artículo publicado en rotativo de la Capital, Vélez Arocho indica y cito, “Vélez Arocho precisó que, entre los permisos que todavía le faltan a Windmar, se encuentran el del estudio hidrológico-hidráulico y el de movimiento de corteza terrestre, que podría tomar entre 90 y 120 días. El de mitigación que tampoco había sido obtenido, quedaría cubierto por el acuerdo con el DRNA, aclaró Vélez Arocho”. (3 de agosto de 2008)

Esta información la esta brindando el Sr. Rodríguez desde principios del 2008. Las expresiones del Sr. Jorge Rodríguez tratando de justificar la firma de dicho contrato brindando información fuera de contexto, tergiversada y manipulada no hacen honor a la verdad. La Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco ha venido denunciando que el Proyecto Windmar no tiene los permisos. Emplazamos al Sr. Jorge Rodríguez a que hable con la verdad, que no engañe al pueblo, ¿Por qué la insistencia y lo apresurado del anuncio de la firma del contrato?

Martes 12 de agosto de 2008

José F. Sáez Cintron
Portavoz Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175
jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Guayanilla — Comments obtained by the press by the Secretary of the DRNA [Department of Natural and Environmental Resources] Javier Vélez Arocho justifying the “agreement” between Windmar and his agency — in which he condoned the serious environmental violations in Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro, and Punta Verraco in Guayanilla — to the proponent — in exchange for receiving some land in the proposed site — of the Windmar project Victor Gonzalez Barahona bely statements by AEE [Electrical Energy Authority] executive director Jorge Rodriguez.

Earlier this year, during the inauguration of the Gasoducto del Sur in Peñuelas, Sr. Rodriguez responded to questions from the press about the announcement that the “contract” between Windmar and AEE was already signed and that the opposition to this project claims that Windmar does not have permits for construction, saying, “The Windmar project is moving ahead, nobody should doubt it, Windmar has all the permits it needs.” (June 30, 2008)

Last Sunday, however, August 3, an article printed in la Capital stated, “[DRNA Secretary] Vélez Arocho explained that among the permits still lacking at Windmar, there are hydrological/hydraulic and seismological studies, which could take between 90 and 120 days. The mitigation that has yet to be obtained would be covered by the agreement with the DRNA, clarified Vélez Arocho.” (August 3, 2008)

This information has been available to Sr. Rodriguez since early 2008. The statements of Sr. Jorge Rodriguez attempting to justify signing the contract took information out of context, misrepresented, and manipulated it without respect for the truth. The Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco has been criticizing the fact that the Windmar project does not have permits. We demand that Sr. Jorge Rodriguez state the truth, not mislead people: Why the insistence on and the hasty announcement of the signed contract?

On October 6, 2007, more than 1,500 French citizens, members of national federations and local associations, came from all over France along with local elected officials to demonstrate against unjustified and scandalous industrial wind. Received by the minister of the environment, a delegation presented their demands.

Despite its promises, the state has still not kept its commitments.

One year later, in contempt of the most elementary democracy, the demented program instigated by the industrial wind lobby risks being voted on:

The law proposed by the Grenelle de l’environnement to Parliament in October 2008 equals a check from taxpayers of 2.5 billion euros/year for 25,000 MW of wind energy, more than 10,000 to 15,000 giant wind turbines erected throughout France.

It is to denounce that planning error, which imperils the economy as well as the natural and cultural heritage of the French people, that the Collectif du 4 octobre will demonstrate in Paris at the ministries.

“Wind is catching fire,” said L. Preston Bryant Jr. Virginia’s secretary of natural resources. “It is literally all the rage.”

Although the Washington Post article highlights the “conflict within the environmental community” concerning this development push, it fails to provide much in the way of details concerning the basis for the objections. It also repeats a number of the industry’s deceptive talking points without offering any analysis.

For example:

The article repeats misleading claims that wind energy in Virginia has the potential to produce as much as 20 percent of the state’s electricity needs.

More than 90% of that potential is offshore, where wind energy development is not considered economically viable at present. Yet wind energy proponents cite the offshore-based estimate to support the current push for development on our forested mountain ridges. (www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Onshore-Offshore.pdf)

The article repeats exaggerated claims concerning the number of households that would be served by two proposed ridgeline projects in western Virginia. It states that the proposed Highland New Wind project is expected to produce enough electricity to power 15,000 homes, and that the proposed FreedomWorks project will produce enough electricity to power 86,000 homes.

These estimates are based on the unrealistic assumptions that all electricity produced will be for residential use, that electricity is not needed on days when there is no wind, and that the two projects will dramatically exceed the performance of existing Appalachian wind projects. (www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/RESIDENCES-PER-TURBINE.pdf)

The article repeats the uniformed claim that wind power provides an alternative to new coal-burning power plants, a claim made both by FreedomWorks, Inc., on its company website, and by some environmental groups opposing Dominion’s Wise County power plant.

Although concerns about the mining and burning of coal are well founded, promotion of wind energy as an alternative is not an effective argument. It would require 2,260 2-megawatt turbines to match the output of the proposed Wise County coal-fired generating plan in August (the peak demand period of the year). That would require about 323 miles of ridgeline, about the length of the Blue Ridge Mountain chain in Virginia. (www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/FreedomWorks.pdf)

Despite these shortcomings, the Washington Post article should be given credit for at least acknowledging that the environmental community is conflicted over the ridgeline development issue.

Also, there is ironic truth in the included statement by Randall Swisher, executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, who acknowledges that wind power “… is no longer an alternative energy source … it’s mainstream.”

The push for wind energy development is now driven by multi-national business interests, and along with that goes the usual investment in the manipulation of public perception.

In this context it will be difficult to achieve the informed public debate that is clearly needed if we are to achieve real solutions to our energy and environmental problems.

This book of photos is available from Blurb: Click here to preview and order.

Also see photo galleries at Fotopic (click here).

Washing Wind Turbine from Helicopter (Spain, 3 min.)

Sin embargo, una reciente investigación ha confirmado que dicho proyecto no ha sido radicado ante el Consejo para la Protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico Terrestre de Puerto Rico. Tampoco existe ninguna autorización o endoso por parte de esa agencia. Esta irregularidad es significativa ya que el endoso del Consejo es requisito para que una DIA-F pueda proceder al proceso final de aprobación.

Se encontró además que el proponente de dicho proyecto aún no ha sometido al Consejo los estudios de impactos arqueológicos requeridos por dicha agencia. Esto le fue requerido a Windmar luego de que arqueólogos del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña encontraron en el 2006 que esa empresa impactó varios yacimientos arqueológicos registrados como recursos culturales, sin los debidos permisos, durante la construcción de caminos nuevos. Al menos dos áreas de concheros precolombinos fueron raspadas por la maquinaria en Punta Verraco. En la colina de Punta Ventanas resultó impactado el sistema de cuevas de las Madamas.

Estas nuevas irregularidades se suman a otras recopiladas por el Departamento de Recursos Naturales (DRNA) y de la propia JCA, según informes redactados a partir del 2004. Los informes confirman que por varios años y sin el conocimiento de las agencias, Windmar ocasionó la destrucción de miles de árboles, así como de hábitat crítico esencial para varias especies en peligro de extinción e impactos a otros recursos únicos e irremplazables. En el 2006, el Cuerpo de Vigilantes intervino otra vez con Windmar, por haber ocasionado destrucción de patrimonio natural y arqueológico al construir nuevos caminos valiéndose de un controvertible permiso del DRNA para limpieza de caminos. Este permiso fue otorgado pese a la oposición de la Secretaria Auxiliar de Permisos del DRNA, tras haber evaluado la solicitud.

El DRNA y el Instituto de Cultura aún no han enviado los resultados de las investigaciones a la JCA y demás agencias a cargo de la evaluación y otorgación de permisos. Esto ha dado paso para que la JCA y agencias como la Junta de Planificación, lleguen a conclusiones erradas, al no poder tomar en consideración la totalidad y magnitud de los impactos.

El permiso otorgado por el Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) en el 2007 para permitirle a Windmar la toma incidental (muerte o daño no intencional) de especies en peligro de extinción se debió a que el FWS desconocía de la existencia de estos informes, por su falta de voluntad para investigar el asunto de manera imparcial y responsable.

###

Lunes, 14 de julio de 2008

Contacto:
José Saéz Cintrón, Portavoz — Coalición Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
787 601-3175, jsaezcintron@yahoo.com
www.coalicionventanasverraco.org

Controversy over the Wolfe Island Wind Project centres on the location of a handful of the 86-wind turbines that Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation hopes to build on the island later this year.

The northwest part of Wolfe Island contains designated Important Bird Areas and important natural areas. Expert evidence commissioned by members of the community and supported by some government agencies raised concerns that the wind turbines would destroy rare, critical habitat. With more than 80% of Lake Ontario’s wetlands gone and bird habitat disappearing, the loss of these natural areas could be devastating.

For the last year, Waterkeeper, Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment, and other individuals have attempted to improve the wind project by identifying the locations where turbines could be built such that Wolfe Island’s natural heritage is protected.

We requested a bump up to a full Environmental Assessment of the proposed Wind Project. Or, at the very least, we sought mediation to address environmental concerns. Ingoring these request, the Ministry of the Environment went ahead and approved the CREC’s self-assessment of the Project. In response, Waterkeeper and others appealed to the Ministry of the Environment. Just before the decision-making deadline, Environment Minister John Gerretsen recused himself and the Minster of Tourism denied the appeal.

The Minister of Tourism’s decision arrived before Waterkeeper was provided with notice of the conflict-of-interest.

This week on Living At the Barricades, Waterkeeper talks about the province’s approval for the Wolfe Island Wind Project and the remaining regulatory process — the federal environmental assessment process that is in its early stages.

Listen to this week’s show online (right-click to download).

waterkeeper.ca