Resource Documents: New York (96 items)

RSSNew York

---

Wind Energy Facilities Law, Town of Richland, New York

Author:  Town Board, Richland, N.Y.

The Town Board of the Town of Richland finds and declares that:

5-1 The New York State Constitution’s “Bill of Rights for Local Governments” (Article IX, §2-10) obligates local legislators to protect the health, safety and well-being of their community.

5-2 While wind energy is a semi-renewable energy resource of electricity generation, and under some circumstances it may reduce the use of nonrenewable energy sources, the possible benefits must be balanced against potential negative impacts to local citizens, local economy, local ecosystems and regional military facilities.

5-3 Regulation of the siting and installation of wind turbines is necessary for protecting the health, safety and well-being of neighboring property owners, the general public, the local economy and local ecosystems.

5-4 Several independent legal and economic experts have concluded that there can be serious legal and economic detriments for landowners entering into the secretive, complicated and one-sided lease/easement contracts written by industrial wind energy developers.

5-5 Large-scale multiple-turbine industrial wind energy facilities present significant potential negative aesthetic impacts because of their enormous size, lighting, dissimilarity from the natural environment, and possible shadow flicker effects.

5-6 Installation of large-scale multiple-turbine industrial wind energy facilities can create and/or exacerbate drainage problems through erosion and lack of sediment control of facility and access road sites, and harm farmlands and agriculture through construction methods utilized and arable land conversion to industrial purposes.

5-7 Construction of industrial wind energy facilities can create traffic problems, dangerous road conditions for local and other travelers and damage local roads

5-8 There is significant evidence from independent appraisers that industrial wind energy facilities will likely reduce property values of nearby property owners. Said property value reductions will reduce the Town’s tax base, resulting in a tax rate increase on all Town property owners.

5-9 A large-scale industrial wind energy facility may be a significant source of noise and vibration, These can have negative health impacts on residents in neighboring properties, particularly in areas with low ambient noise levels. According to various medical experts (by way of limited example, the World Health Organization), the infrasound component of such noise can be the most problematic.

5-10 In certain circumstances, industrial wind energy facilities can cause electromagnetic interference with some types of communications.

5-11 Independent experts have concluded that bats killed by industrial wind energy turbines can result in an appreciable reduction in regional agricultural yields. Estimates have been done for every county in the United States, and these experts have projected that this could adversely affect our local community’s economy.

5-12 Independent experts have concluded that turbines kill large quantities of birds. Especially troublesome are the raptors that are destroyed. The Town of Richland is located on a major migration route for many species of birds, and is habitat for many species, both year-round and seasonal.

5-13 Independent experts have concluded that industrial turbines can have a variety of adverse health effects on other wildlife, livestock and domestic animals.

5-14 Independent experts have also concluded that industrial turbines can have a variety of adverse effects on hunting and fishing.

5-15 The Town of Richland has many scenic viewsheds, and some of these would be negatively affected by industrial wind energy facilities.

5-16 The Town of Richland is considering adopting a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan which will include the establishment of a Scenic Overlay District in recognition of the importance of the scenic assets of the community.

5-17 Public and private dollars have been invested in infrastructure within the Town to enhance and promote tourism, an important regional industry. Several studies by independent experts have concluded that nearby industrial wind energy facilities can have a major negative economic impact on tourism-sensitive communities.

5-18 The Town and its citizens desire to maintain the pastoral, rural nature of this region. An industrial wind energy facility is in conflict with the culture and character of this community.

5-19 Due to the unusually broad array of potentially problematic findings (and lack of scientifically proven net benefits), the precautionary principle dictates that the Town be particularly conservative and cautionary in its regulation of industrial wind energy.

5-20 In formulation of this Local Law, many studies have been reviewed – and those written by independent experts were given the greatest consideration. (See WiseEnergy.org for good examples of such reports.) Many wind energy ordinances through the United States have been analyzed. Experiences of other communities with industrial wind energy have been studied. An ad hoc Committee was appointed to make recommendations regarding industrial wind energy regulation. Some of the Committee’s conclusions were incorporated into this Local Law.

Noise Impacts:

Applicant will provide a post-construction noise monitoring plan which shall, at a minimum, provide verification from a qualified party that at the WEF [Wind Energy Facility] boundaries and at proximate residences, WEF noise does not exceed 35 dBA for more than five (5) consecutive minutes during a representative range of operating and atmospheric conditions. Instrumentation to verify this shall meet ANSI or IEC Type 1 standards, and measurement procedures shall comply with relevant portions of ANSI 812.9, Part 3. Each report will include the SCADA/Power output data at the time of the testing.

WEF Dimensional Requirements:

To provide for at least minimal operational safety for persons and property located outside of a WEF, all WEFs shall comply with the minimums and maximums contained in the following table:

Type of Wind Energy Facility	Minimum Wind Turbine Setback* from any Property Line, Public or Private Right of Way, and/or Access Easement	Maximum Wind Turbine Height†
Small (≤100 kW)	1.5 feet for each foot of height from any property line and any vacant or occupied dwelling unit on the same property	75 feet
Large (>100 kW)	One (1( mile from facility property lines	500 feet

* Such minimum setbacks for a WEF shall be measured from its outermost extension (whether blade tip, nacelle/turbine housing, or tower/pole edge) that is nearest the WEF property line, public or private right-of- way, and access easement.

† Height is measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest point of the structure, including any attachments (such as a lightening protection device or a turbine rotor or tip of the turbine blade when it reaches its highest elevation). No portion of any wind turbine blade shall be closer than 25 feet to any portion of the ground that surrounds any WEF. No LWEF wind turbine shall be permitted to be within five (5) miles of any operating or proposed radar facility (NEXRAD, military, commercial etc.).

Download original document: “Wind Energy Facilities Law, Town of Richland, New York”

---

Mad River Wind Farm Impact Assessment Study in the Tug Hill Region of New York State

Author:  Newman, David; and Fisher, Brian

Abstract: Atlantic Wind, LLC, a subsidiary of the renewable energy company Avangrid Renewables of Portland Oregon, is proposing to construct a state-of-the-art large-scale wind turbine energy farm (LSWF) of approximately 88 Gamesa G-132 wind turbines in the heart of the rural Tug Hill region at the intersection of Jefferson, Lewis and Oswego counties in upstate New York. The proposal, entitled the “Mad River Wind Farm,” would have a nameplate capacity generate [electricity at a rate of] up to 350 MW (megawatts, or million watts), enough to provide power for 60,000 typical households over the course of the 20-30 year life span of the project (however, the actual power produced may be substantially less). The project is to be sited under a new, unified review and approval process for electrical facilities generating in excess of 25 MW, according to provisions of Art. 10 of the NYS Public Service Law. Traditionally, forested landscapes were considered as “no-go” locations for siting LSWFs, [owing] to their inaccessibility and problems with airflow turbulence in potentially uneven forested canopies. However, as technology has improved and turbines have increased in height (400 to 600+ feet), forests are receiving new attention as large-scale landscapes to site wind farms. Only a handful of LSWFs have been constructed in forested landscapes in the US. While wind farms are often considered as beneficial, renewable forms of “green energy” and are increasingly favored by the environmental community for their important contributions to sustainable energy development and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, they may not always have benign impacts to the environment where they are sited. This white paper, prepared for the Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust, examines the potential ecological and environmental impacts from the proposed Mad River project, and focuses on direct and indirect impacts from both the construction and operational phases of the project.

The bio-physical ecological impacts addressed include:

• soils;
• micro-climate and air quality;
• noise and visual impacts;
• riparian water quality and palustrine wetlands;
• timber stand dynamics and the potential for forest fragmentation;
• invasive species;
• bat and bird mortality;
• recreational impacts;
• transportation, road building, and ancillary energy facilities construction;
• the potential impact on DOD radar and electronic facilities;
• safety and security issues; and
• connectivity issues related to the existing structure and assimilative capacity of the electric grid network of the region,

among others.

Prepared for Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust by Dr. David H. Newman (Principal Investigator), and Prof. Brian L. Fisher, M.S. (PhD Student; Primary Author), Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, April 2018

Download original document: “Mad River Wind Farm Impact Assessment Study in the Tug Hill Region of New York State”

---

KTYX Wind Farm Impacts

Author:  National Weather Service

There are 4 National Weather Service (NWS) offices that use the Fort Drum KTYX radar to accomplish their mission of protection of life and property in the nearby counties. These offices are: NWS Albany, NWS Buffalo, NWS Binghamton, NWS Burlington.

NWS Albany Impacts:

• The turbines can cause beam blockage and under-sampling of the radar echoes downstream (25-30 nautical miles) into northern Herkimer County.

• Precipitation underestimate is likely (warm and cool season) in lake effect and widespread precipitation events.

• Turbines can also cause partial beam blockage impacting dual polarization data, and display large amounts of erroneous data.

• Downstream turbine clutter can impact precipitation data by over/ underestimation, incorrect wind speed data, and false storm identification and tracking over Lewis County before moving into northern Herkimer County.

• In the winter, lake effect snow features could be masked or underestimated, negatively impacting warnings and advisories.

• During severe weather, erroneous data (especially wind velocities) can impact early detection and warnings of high winds, hail, and tornadoes.

NWS Buffalo Impacts:

• The height of existing turbine towers and turbines’ spinning blades are causing beam blockage and under-sampling of the radar echoes downstream for Jefferson, Lewis, and Oswego counties.

• Resulting precipitation estimates in the vicinity of turbines are not useable, while precipitation estimates downstream have been degraded.

• Turbines are causing partial beam blockage impacting dual polarization products. This results in large amounts of erroneous data.

• Additional turbine installations will nearly surround the radar, further exacerbating these issues and will make radar interpretation and the detection of severe weather increasingly difficult.

• Wind turbine clutter has a negative impact on several radar capabilities:
  • Precipitation estimation algorithms produce false estimates.
  • Velocity products are often not useable near the turbines, particularly during severe weather.
  • This can cause false and/or missed detection of tornadoes by radar algorithms and forecasters.

• Thunderstorm or winter storm characteristics will be further masked or misinterpreted, reducing warning effectiveness in the vicinity of and downrange of existing and future wind turbines.

• False signatures contaminating Doppler velocity data will further reduce forecasters’ situational awareness, especially during hazardous weather events.

• Potential radar relocation, particularly east or northeast from the current location will further reduce radar coverage south of Lake Ontario from Monroe, Wayne and Cayuga counties, with completely unseen lake effect events by radar. In any move, beam blockage will continue to be an issue near and over the Tug Hill Plateau.

NWS Binghamton Impacts:

• Thunderstorm or winter storm characteristics will be further masked or misinterpreted, reducing warning effectiveness in the vicinity of and downrange of existing and future wind turbines.

• False signatures contaminating Doppler velocity data will further reduce forecasters’ situational awareness, especially during hazardous weather events.

• The beam blockage will hamper our abilities to detect thunderstorm circulations in Oneida/Madison Counties and hence tornado warnings could be delayed. It is important that we have good radar coverage in Oneida/Madison Counties because there is a local maximum in tornadoes in these areas since the Mohawk Valley will often skew winds to the southeast leading to increased atmospheric rotation.

• The beam blockage could also significantly hamper our ability to forecast and detect lake effect snow. Oneida County (especially northern Oneida County) sees more than 200″ of snow per year on average and is one of the snowiest places east of the Rockies. The beam blockage could affect our ability to detect lake effect snow along the NY State Thruway between Syracuse and Utica of which is a major travel corridor. Our office provides almost daily briefings to the NYS Thruway Authority when a lake effect snow pattern is present. Significant beam blockage could erode our ability to time and track heavy lake effect snow bands that severely impact travel which would lead to less accurate decision support to the Thruway Authority.

• Oneida and Madison Counties have a history of severe local flash flooding and beam blockage will hamper our ability to accurately estimate rainfall in these counties which would negatively impact the timeliness of flash flood warnings.

NWS Burlington Impacts:

• Wind turbines close to the radar close to the radar cause some uncertainty/confusion about actual storm characteristics while monitoring storms that are moving north or northeast. This can delay warnings, resulting in a lower lead time prior to the storm reaching St. Lawrence or Franklin Counties.

• The wind turbines “look” like precipitation, even on a clear day. This can cause confusion to users of the data, including the media, pilots, and general public.

• If the radar is forced to be relocated because of wind turbines, concerns would be magnified. Any move to the east or south of the current location would result reduced radar coverage over St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties. This would mean poorer detection of lake effect snow and low level severe weather features, such as tornadoes, high winds, and hail.

---

Lawsuit against Invenergy for loss of amenity and well-being

Author:  Andre, Mark; Andre, Donna; et al.

State of New York Supreme Court, County of Wyoming—

FACTS

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Invenergy created and owns a wind energy operation, including wind turbines on property located within 800-1500 feet from the properties owned by Plaintiffs.

34. Upon the construction of and operation of the· wind turbines, Defendant has destroyed Plaintiffs’ rural viewshed from their property.

35. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise, vibrations and flicker to enter Plaintiffs’ property, significantly impacting the health and wellbeing of the Plaintiffs and causing them to become sick, sore, lame and disabled.

36. Upon the construction of and operation of the wind turbines, Defendant has caused constant noise and vibrations significantly diminishing the value of Plaintiffs’ property and home.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s wind turbines have violated, on a regular basis, town noise ordinances that restrict the noise levels to 50 decibels.

38. Moreover, Defendant’s operation of such wind turbines caused noise pollution, vibrations, and flicker to occur, creating a nuisance and interfering with Plaintiffs’ exclusive possessory interest in their property, and causing Plaintiffs’ quality of life to be significantly diminished.

39. In spite of being informed of the nuisance condition created by the Defendant, the Defendant has refused to either abate the nuisance or otherwise engage in any mitigating measures, intentionally continuing the nuisance that they have created, causing a significant diminishment of the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property, quality of life, health, value of Plaintiffs’ property and economic wellbeing.

Download original document: “Andre et al. v. Invenergy”

---

Earlier Documents »

Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Or see Contact page for more anonymous options.