[ posts only (not attachments) ]


View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Resource Documents: U.S. (139 items)


Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.

Date added:  November 6, 2017
Law, Michigan, Noise, OrdinancesPrint storyE-mail story

Opinion and Order Affirming the Decision of the Almer Charter Township Board of Trustees

Author:  Ludington, Thomas

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff Tuscola Wind III, LLC, (“Tuscola”) filed a complaint naming the Almer Charter Township and that Township’s Board of Trustees as Defendants. Count One of the Complaint is the “Claim of Appeal.” Tuscola Wind’s claims arise out of Defendants’ denial of a Special Land Use Permit (“SLUP”) that would have permitted Tuscola Wind to construct the “Tuscola III Wind Energy Center” in Tuscola County, Michigan. Oral argument on the claim of appeal was held on October 5, 2017. For the following reasons, the Board of Trustee’s denial of the SLUP will be affirmed. …

The Zoning Ordinance addresses noise emissions from the turbines:

Noise emissions from the operations of a [Wind Energy Conversion System] shall not exceed forty-five (45) decibels on the dBA scale as measured at the nearest property line of a non-participating property owner or road. A baseline noise emission study of the proposed site and impact upon all areas within one mile of the proposed WECS location must be done (at the applicant’s cost) prior to any placement of a WECS and submitted to the Township. The applicant must also provide estimated noise levels to property lines at the time of a Special Use application.

Similarly, “[a]ll efforts shall be made not to affect any resident with any strobe effect or shadow flicker.” And the Zoning Ordinance provides the general admonishment that “[t]he wind energy conversion system shall not be unreasonably injurious to the public health and safety or to the health and safety of occupants of nearby properties.”

On September 23, 2016, Tuscola submitted its SLUP application to the Almer Township Planning Commission. …

To assist in its consideration of the application, the Township retained the Spicer Group, Inc., an engineering consulting firm. On October 25, 2016, the Spicer Group sent Tuscola an email requesting clarification and/or additional information regarding several aspects of the application. Three of the Spicer Group’s concerns are relevant. First, Spicer questioned several aspects of the sound emissions report, including how Tuscola chose the 1-hour LEQ as the proper metric. The Spicer Group further asked when Tuscola would be submitting an economic impact study, indicating concern that “the property value information provided on pages 10 through 11 of the TW3 SUP Application is not local and not pertinent to Almer Township.” Finally, the Spicer Group indicated that Tuscola’s proposal to place the power lines above the ground did not conform with the Zoning Ordinance requirement that all electrical connection systems and lines from a wind farm be placed underground. The Spicer Group acknowledged that the Planning Commission has discretion to waive that requirement, but suggested that Tuscola had not yet sought that waiver.

Tuscola responded to the Spicer Group’s inquiries on October 31, 2016. …

On November 8, 2016, the Spicer Group submitted a report to the Planning Commission analyzing Tuscola’s SLUP application. In the report, the Spicer Group concluded that Tuscola had complied with many, indeed most, of the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements. But the Spicer Group did identify a number of outstanding issues. …

On November 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the SLUP application. At the hearing, a representative from Tuscola discussed the project. … For the rest of the hearing, members of the community expressed their opinions on the proposals. Most speakers communicated objections to various aspects of the application (if not the project as a whole), but some expressed support for the wind energy project. Two sound engineers testified at the hearing. The first engineer, Rick James, is an employee of e-Coustic Solutions and was hired by concerned citizens. First, Mr. James opined that Tuscola’s noise emissions report likely understated the dBA level at several property lines. Second, Mr. James challenged Tuscola’s assertion that the noise emissions provision in the Zoning Ordinance allowed for an averaged sound level measurement, as opposed to a maximum level: “[T]he words are very explicit, they say, ‘Shall not exceed 45 dBA.’ When you read law you can’t read into it when the words aren’t there. It doesn’t say 45 dBA Leq, it does not say 45 dBA average, it says not exceed 45 dBA.” Id. at 109. Ms. Kerrie Standlee, the principle engineer for Acoustics by Design [Acoustics by Design was retained by the Township to assist in reviewing the application], also testified. Ms. Standlee concurred with Mr. James’s interpretation of the ordinance:

[T]he limit is stated in there that the level shall not exceed 45 dBA. It doesn’t give any descriptor, is it supposed to be the Lmax or – and as was mentioned, an L90 or an L10 at 50, an Leq, it doesn’t specify. Mr. James is correct in that when something is not specified, you take the normal interpretation, which would be Lmax. I’m with – I’m on the City of Portland Noise Review Board and we have an Lmax standard. It’s not specified as the Lmax it’s just – like yours it says it shall not exceed this level. And that is an absolute level, not – not an equivalent energy level.

Ultimately, the Planning Commission concluded that additional information was necessary before the SLUP application could be ruled upon. …

The day after the public hearing, Tuscola sent the Planning Commission a response addressing several of the concerns raised by the Spicer Group. …

Several days later, Tuscola sent another communication to the Planning Commission further addressing several of the issues identified by the Spicer Group. …

On November 17, 2016, the Almer Township Board approved a “Wind Energy Conversion Systems Moratorium Ordinance.” … Thus, the Board enacted a

moratorium, on a temporary basis, on the establishment, placement, construction, enlargement, and/or erection of Wind Energy Conversion Systems within the Township and on the issuance of any and all permits, licenses or approvals for any property subject to the Township’s Zoning Ordinance for the establishment or use of Wind Energy Conversion Systems. … [T]his Ordinance shall apply to any applications pending before any Township board or commission, including the Township Board, Planning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals.

… On December 7, 2016, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing. … In large part, the Tuscola representative summarized the company’s November 15, 2016, submission to the Planning Commission. … The Planning Commission discussed the outstanding issues, and … [t]he Township’s attorney summarized the requested information as follows: “[Y]ou want to request information from NextEra on property values, noise, sound models based on Lmax and if there is the justification you just referenced regarding the cost estimate on the decommissioning of the individual towers.”

On December 22, 2016, Tuscola provided the supplemental information which the Planning Commission had requested. … On December 29, 2016, the Spicer Group responded to Tuscola’s supplemental memorandum. … On January 3, 2017, Tuscola’s representative sent a letter to the Planning Commission addressing the Spicer Group’s memorandum. …

On January 4, 2017, the Planning Commission held its third and final public hearing on the SLUP application. … Planning Commission member Daniels moved to recommend denial of the SLUP application. … He asserted that “[t]he ordinance does not allow for the averaging varying levels of sound. We, as a Planning Commission, are not here to rewrite the ordinance, but to enforce the ordinance as written. And it mandates a maximum sound level of 45 decibels.” …

Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend denial of the SLUP application (two members did not vote because of a conflict of interest).

On January 17, 2017, the Almer Township Board held a public meeting to review the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the SLUP application. … The Board simultaneously issued a Resolution articulating its rationale for denying the SLUP application. In the Resolution, the Board identified five areas in which the SLUP application did not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. … Finally, the Board noted that it had previously approved a moratorium on wind energy projects in the Township and thus was precluded from approving the SLUP application even if it had complied with the Zoning Ordinance. …

Tuscola argues each of the Board’s purported reasons for denying the SLUP application were contrary to Michigan law and not supported by substantial evidence. Tuscola further argues that the Board did not have the authority to enact a moratorium on wind energy projects in the did not appeal from a final decision of the Township. For its part, the Township argues that Tuscola’s appeal is not ripe because the company did not appeal from a final decision of the Township. Next, the Township argues that each of the Board’s expressed reasons for denying the SLUP application were reasonable and permitted by law. And, finally, the Township argues that the temporary moratorium on wind energy project permits was valid. …

A. The denial of the SLUP application is ripe for review.

(Although the moratorium on wind energy projects was enacted after Tuscola’s SLUP application was submitted (but before it was rejected), the Planning Commission and Township Board proceeded to consider the SLUP application on its merits. At most, the Township Board relied upon the moratorium as an alternative (and secondary) basis for denying the SLUP application. Because the Board’s denial of the application was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law, the legitimacy of the moratorium need not be resolved.)

B. Michigan Courts have repeatedly confirmed that courts should defer to municipal interpretations of zoning ordinances. … Thus, this Court does not sit in de novo review of the Zoning Ordinance provision regarding noise emission levels (assuming that the ordinance is ambiguous). Rather, the question is whether the Township Board’s interpretation of the ordinance was “reasonable.” … The “[s]hall not exceed” language in § 1522(C)(14) is facially indistinguishable from a Lmax standard. … Even if the Court were to conclude that § 1522(C)(14) is ambiguous regarding how to measure sound emissions (and not just ambiguous regarding the length of time over which to measure them), Tuscola’s argument still falls short. …

Tuscola’s final argument regarding § 1522(C)(14) is that the Township Board’s interpretation would result in exclusionary zoning,* which is prohibited by Michigan law. Specifically, Tuscola argues that “[u]sing an Lmax metric would make development of commercial wind energy in the Township impossible because a single wind turbine could not be sited within at least a half-mile of a nonparticipating line.” This conclusory argument has no merit. Under Michigan, “a zoning ordinance may not totally exclude a land use where (1) there is a demonstrated need for that land use in the township or surrounding area, (2) the use is appropriate for the location, and (3) the use is lawful.” Even assuming that the Township Board’s interpretation of the ordinance completely excludes wind energy development in the Township, Tuscola cannot prevail.

(*And that assumption is questionable. Tuscola asserts that application of an Lmax standard would prevent the company from siting a turbine within 2,775 feet from a nonparticipating property line. See Dec. 22, 2016, Supp. Info. at 1. Thus, Tuscola would be forced to reach agreements with a significantly larger number of property owners in order to build the turbines as currently planned. But it seems plausible that Tuscola might be able to enter into more land use contracts with property owners and/or site a fewer number of turbines in Almer Township. Both of those alternatives would undoubtedly impact the profitability of the project, but Tuscola has not demonstrated that it is entitled to deferential or economically favorable conditions. Perhaps application of an Lmax standard creates such an economic hardship that it constitutes de facto exclusionary zoning. But Tuscola’s conclusory briefing on this point falls far short of showing that to be true.)

Tuscola has made no attempt to show that there is a “demonstrated public need” for wind turbines in Almer Township, and the Court cannot comprehend why such a need would exist. “Presumably any entrepreneur seeking to use land for a particular purpose does so because of its perception that a demand exists for that use. To equate such a self-serving demand analysis with the ‘demonstrated need’ required by the statute would render that language mere surplusage or nugatory, in contravention of usual principles of construction.” Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Clawson. Further, “the public need must be more than mere convenience to the residents of the community.” DF Land Dev., LLC v. Charter Twp. of Ann Arbor.

Wind turbines produce energy, which is, of course, needed by the Almer Township community. But Tuscola cannot reasonably argue that the Township will have inadequate access to energy absent the wind energy project. The Michigan Court of Appeals has explained that, to show demonstrated public need, the plaintiff must do more than show that “residents of the township would benefit from” the excluded use. Tuscola has not carried that burden here.

C. The Township Board reasonably interpreted its Zoning Ordinance and, under that reasonable interpretation, Tuscola was undisputedly in noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Because at least one of the bases on which the Board premised its denial was lawful, the remaining four bases need not be examined. The Township Board’s denial will be affirmed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Almer Township Board’s denial of Plaintiff Tuscola Wind III, LLC’s, SLUP application is AFFIRMED.

Dated: November 3, 2017

United States District Judge

Case No. 17-cv-10497
United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan
Northern Division

Download original document: “Tuscola Wind III, LLC,, Plaintiffs, v Almer Charter Township, et al, Defendants

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 30, 2017
Health, Noise, U.S.Print storyE-mail story

Wind Turbine Syndrome: The Impact of Wind Farms on Suicide

Author:  Zou, Eric

Abstract – Current technology uses wind turbines’ blade aerodynamics to convert wind energy to electricity. This process generates significant low-frequency noise that reportedly results in residents’ sleep disruptions, among other annoyance symptoms. However, the existence and the importance of wind farms’ health effects on a population scale remain unknown. Exploiting over 800 utility-scale wind turbine installation events in the United States from 2001 to 2013, I show robust evidence that wind farms lead to significant increases in suicide. I explore three indirect tests of the role of low-frequency noise exposure. First, the suicide effect concentrates among individuals who are vulnerable to noise-induced illnesses, such as the elderly. Second, the suicide effect is driven by days when wind blows in directions that would raise residents’ exposure to low-frequency noise radiation. Third, data from a large-scale health survey suggest increased sleep insufficiency as new turbines began operating. These findings point to the value of noise abatement in future wind technology innovations.

Download original document: “Wind Turbine Syndrome: The Impact of Wind Farms on Suicide

Download reader’s report by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 28, 2017
Minnesota, Noise, Regulations, SitingPrint storyE-mail story

Wind Turbine Siting in Minnesota

Author:  Rosenquist, Kristi

A Report for the Legislative Energy Commission, 10/19/2017 —

Many Minnesotans report sleep deprivation, migraine headache, vertigo and ringing in the ears after large wind turbines are installed near their homes. Some have left their homes.

MN Department of Health identified low-frequency noise as the most likely cause and confirms that the health of some Minnesotans is being harmed by wind turbines.

Setback distance between a turbine and a home is based on wind turbine noise. State agencies concur that they understand so little about wind turbine noise they cannot even enter into rulemaking on wind turbine noise.

Minnesotans who are harmed have no recourse.

European countries more experienced with wind turbines than Minnesota have setbacks that are 10 times the height of the turbine to the blade tip at its highest point (5000 feet for large modern wind turbines).


  • Background
  • Site permit setback distance from homes is based on “noise” even though the State knows so little about turbine noise they cannot enter into rulemaking on the topic.
  • Minnesotans’ homes are inside the turbine Safety Evacuation Zone.
  • What studies does the PUC have in front of it and how did they respond?
  • Citizens whose health and peaceful enjoyment of their private property are harmed by wind turbines have no recourse.
  • PUC approved research of LFN by the University of Minnesota that fails to study LFN in homes and the health of people living next to turbines.
  • Audible Noise – agreement that 40 dB(A) should be the limit, but no good measurement protocol to determine if it is met.
  • Low-Frequency Noise is the problem. Measurable – but no standards.
  • What should the Minnesota Legislature adopt for a siting standard?
  • Appendix: Partial list of wind turbine LFN and health studies in PUC Docket 09-845

Download original document: “Wind Turbine Siting in Minnesota: A Report for the Legislative Energy Commission

Download presentation (view below): “Presentation to the Legislative Energy Commission, October 19, 2017

(Bill creating a process to address certain noise complaints resulting from wind energy siting: HF2170, SF1906)

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  October 23, 2017
Texas, WildlifePrint storyE-mail story

American Bird Conservancy letters to EDF Renewables: Vista Mountain project

Author:  Hutchins, Michael

I am writing again to express American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC’s) serious concern over EDF Renewable’s proposed Vista Mountain Wind Power Project in the sensitive Texas Hill Country/Cross Timbers region (in Hamilton, Coryell, Lampasas and Mills Counties) and associated high voltage lines and towers to connect it to the existing grid. This is the second letter we have written; the purpose of this correspondence is to point out some additional concerns.

ABC is a 501(c) (3) not-for-profit membership organization whose mission is to conserve native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas (www.abcbirds.org). ABC acts by safeguarding the rarest species, conserving and restoring habitats, and reducing threats, while building capacity in the bird conservation movement.

ABC is a proponent of Bird Smart Wind Energy, which is described in some detail in Hutchins et al. (2016). Careful wind generation siting is crucial in preventing unintended impacts to native bird and bat species. ABC is concerned that the proposed Vista Mountain Wind Power Project and its associated power lines and towers pose an unacceptably high risk to protected U.S. wildlife. This is especially true, as we have become aware that there are other proposed and existing wind energy facilities in this ecologically sensitive area, including the Priddy, Goldthwaite and Flattop Wind Energy Projects. As such, the cumulative impact of any future development on wildlife becomes an important issue. As you may know, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that cumulative impacts be taken into consideration during pre-construction risk assessments. This argues for a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not a cursory Environmental Assessment (EA).

The presence of Threatened and Endangered species in the area, such as the Whooping Crane, are also of great concern to us as a bird conservation organization. We recently conducted a study of Whooping Crane stopover sites (Moore et al, 2017), overlaying them with existing and proposed wind turbines and power lines and towers. The current siting of wind turbines probably poses limited threat to this species; however, the power lines and towers are another story. Collisions with power lines and towers are a major killer of cranes worldwide (Morkill and Anderson, 1991, Janss and Ferrer 2000, Sundar and Choudhury 2005, Shaw et al. 2010, Stehn and Wassenich, 2008, Wright et al. 2009). Thus, the new power lines and towers you propose to connect your facility to the existing grid may increase the risk to this species in its Migratory Corridor. Subsequently, approval of this project will require Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act and a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This should be based on at least three years of pre-construction risk studies, all of which should be done by independent experts (not paid consultants to the industry) using standardized methods.

Thank you for your consideration of ABC’s views. ABC will be watching this proposed project and reviewing any risk assessments produced very carefully.

Michael Hutchins, October 20, 2017

[References available in original document]

(((( o ))))

I am writing to express American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC’s) serious concern over EDF Renewable’s proposed Vista Mountain Wind Power Project in the sensitive Texas Hill Country/Cross Timbers region (in Hamilton, Coryell, Lampasas and Mills Counties) and associated high voltage lines and towers to connect it to the existing grid.

ABC is a 501(c) (3) not-for-profit membership organization whose mission is to conserve native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas (www.abcbirds.org). ABC acts by safeguarding the rarest species, conserving and restoring habitats, and reducing threats, while building capacity in the bird conservation movement.

ABC supports the development of clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind power, but also believes that it must be done responsibly and with minimal adverse impact on our public trust resources, including native species of birds and bats, and particularly Threatened, Endangered and other protected species.

ABC is a proponent of Bird Smart Wind Energy, which is described in some detail in Hutchins et al. (2016). Careful wind generation siting is crucial in preventing unintended impacts to native bird and bat species, and ABC is concerned that the proposed Vista Mountain Wind Power Project and its associated power lines and towers pose an unacceptably high risk to protected U.S. wildlife.

This project will reportedly consist of 91 500-foot tall turbines set atop 1,400-foot vistas and spread out over four counties and with a four mile-long high voltage line and towers (and the possibility of additional lines) connecting it to the existing grid. All of the counties the project encompasses are located in the ecologically sensitive Texas Hill Country/Cross Timbers Region on the Edwards Plateau. The Edwards Plateau is a region of west-central Texas bounded by the Balcones Fault to the south and east, the Llano Uplift and the Llano Estacado to the north, and the Pecos River and Chihuahuan Desert to the west. The cities of San Angelo, Austin, San Antonio and Del Rio roughly surround the region.

The landscape of the plateau (eroded flat-topped buttes and escarpment capped by Edwards limestone) is mostly savanna covered primarily with juniper and live oak trees and a mesquite-acacia mix over short grasses, which grow well in the alkaline soils. Extensive grasslands are interspersed with valleys, with high, narrow wooded, mesa-like divides. The area is largely undeveloped, containing many ranches that raise cattle, sheep and goats. Wildlife is abundant. The region is a birder’s paradise, with many species either residing in, wintering in, or moving through the area during their annual migrations. These include several Threatened and Endangered Species, such as the Black-Capped Vireo, Least Tern, Piping Plover, Red Knot and Whooping Crane (the location is within the whooping Crane Migratory Corridor). It is also home to many declining avian species of conservation concern, such as the Golden-Cheeked Warbler, Harris’ Sparrow, Lark Bunting, Lewis’s Woodpecker, Loggerhead Shrike, Orchard Oriole, Painted Bunting, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. Mccowan’s Longspur, Short-eared Owl, Prothonotary Warbler, Sprague’s Pipit, Dickcissel, Fox Sparrow, Little Blue Heron, Chestnut-collared Longspur, Burrowing Owl, Le Conte’s Sparrow, Bell’s Vireo, and Hudsonian Godwit (FWS 2017). Federally protected Bald Eagles are also present and are being sighted with increasing regularity.

When it comes to wind energy, siting is everything, and turbines and their associated power lines and towers, need to be kept away from large concentrations of birds and bats, such as key migratory routes, and foraging and breeding areas (Arnett and May 2016, Hutchins et al, 2016). Wind turbines and their associated power lines and towers, are among the fastest growing threats to birds and bats in North America. Hundreds of thousands of birds are killed annually by the fast-spinning turbine blades (Smallwood and Thelander 2008, Loss et al. 2013, Smallwood, 2013, Erickson et al. 2014), and that number grows with each turbine built. Bats are affected too, with around 888,000 being lost annually at 2012 build-out levels (Smallwood 2013), possibly because tree-roosting species are attracted to turbines (Cryan et al. 2014). Fragile-bodied bats can even succumb to the pressures created when the turbine blades pass through the air (known as barotrauma) (Grodsky et al. 2011).

The actual numbers of birds and bats killed may be much higher because nearly all mortality data are collected by paid consultants to the wind industry—a direct conflict of interest (Hutchins et al. 2016), and sampling is often insufficient or non-standardized (Beston et al. 2015, Johnson et al. 2016). Based on the Smallwood (2013) and Loss et al. (2013) studies, ABC estimates that around 5 million birds and many more bats will be killed by wind turbines alone by 2050 or earlier when wind energy produces 35% of our electrical energy (Pyper 2015). This is especially true, since our native birds are already in serious trouble, with fully one-third of North America’s species requiring concerted conservation action to ensure their continued existence (North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2016).

Yet the numbers are far higher, going into the tens of millions annually when collisions and electrocutions at power lines and towers are included (Loss et al. 2015). The generation of energy and its transportation cannot be separated as risks to wildlife, and many additional transmission lines are being built to accommodate renewable energy (Magill 2014).

Furthermore, these figures do not take into account the effects of habitat loss, road-building and other infrastructure construction that are associated with wind energy facilities, and that can have serious impacts on birds and bats, such as displacement, migratory impediments, reproductive failure, isolation and loss of genetic diversity, and increased predation (Schroeder 2010, Cryan 2011, Stevens et al. 2013, LeBeau et al. 2014, DeGregorio et al. 2015, Schaffer and Buhl, 2015, Winder et al. 2015, Associated Press 2016, Mahoney and Chalfoun 2016).

We understand that Fort Hood was contacted as a prospective buyer for energy produced by this project. Only some 19 miles away from the proposed Vista Mountain project, this facility has been an important center for Golden-Cheeked Warbler and Black-Capped Vireo conservation (Ferrell et al. 2013). Furthermore, two Endangered Whooping Cranes were sighted at Fort Hood during Spring, 2017 (http://whoopingcrane.com/spring-migration-2017/). The Department of Defense has an excellent record with regard to bird conservation and ABC would therefore be surprised if it would consider purchasing power from such a poorly placed wind energy facility. Responsible energy consumers should first assure that the wind energy facilities they buy from are bird and bat friendly. This was demonstrated most recently with ABC’s and Black Swamp Bird Observatory’s success in stopping a large wind turbine to be built at the Ohio Air National Guard’s Camp Perry facility in one of the world’s greatest concentrations of migratory birds and bats within 0.6 miles of Lake Erie (ABC 2017).

We realize that these projects are in their early stages of development. However, we wanted to record our concerns before the process proceeds any farther. Both the turbines and associated power transmission lines appear to be poorly sited with regard to bird and bat conservation. At the very least, these projects will require extensive, independent surveys of the birds and bats that inhabit the region, as well as an Avian and Bat Conservation Plan, a compensatory mitigation plan (including a plan for installing APLIC-approved mitigations for the new power lines and towers, APLIC 2012), and plan for the independent, standardized monitoring of bird and bat mortality post-construction. Applications for incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act are also warranted.

ABC would be pleased to consult with you as this project proceeds. We also intend to monitor this project very closely for adherence to all state and federal guidelines, to communicate with local residents concerned about the project, and to raise our concerns with elected officials, state and federal wildlife authorities, and any prospective buyers of energy.

Thank you for your consideration of ABC’s views.

Michael Hutchins, July 31, 2017

[References available in original document]

Bookmark and Share

« Later DocumentsHomeEarlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter