[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

First, consider the source  

Credit:  The Daily News Online, thedailynewsonline.com 21 September 2010 ~~

In reply to Mr. Mike Mulcahey’s letter regarding misrepresented facts about Stony Creek Wind Farm printed on Sept. 15, I would like to remind citizens of Orangeville to “consider the source.”

I would also advise Mr. Mulcahey to take the time to read the comment letters from the U.S. Department of the Interior (pg. 2). He has attacked Mrs. (Cathy) Orr for misrepresenting the facts. When in fact she quoted from the federal and state agencies’ DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) comment letters to the Orangeville Town Board word for word.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) comment letter (pg. 2) states, “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.” “The NRC also found that almost no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide would be eliminated from the operation of wind energy projects.”

USFWS comment letter (pg. 2) further states, “Centrally located in Wyoming County, the project area contains some of the largest remaining blocks of forest habitat – 7,438 acres in total. The project will result in temporary and permanent disturbance to approximately 380 acres. We note, however, that these numbers do not reflect the indirect effects of habitat fragmentation. Fragmentation can also lead to increased predation, lower productivity, and the spread of invasive species.”

On page 7 the USFWS states: “We find that the DEIS does not contain adequate information regarding potential impacts of the project on wildlife.” “We find that insufficient data currently exist to adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this project.” Mr. Mulcahey, this is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote, not citizens of Orangeville.

If the comments written by USFWS were less than complimentary, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) comments are even less so. I would like Mr. Mulcahey to explain why Invenergy has been directed to continue additional environmental studies in 2010. I would also ask Mr. Mulcahey to provide the post-construction mortality studies that are under way in Sheldon. Also Mr. Mulcahey, can you prove that the Sheldon wind turbines were producing electric more than 10 percent of the time over the last three months? From my observation the turbines are either shut down or using electricity to turn the blades more than 90 percent of the time.

In your attack on Mrs. Orr you mentioned the industrial turbines in eastern New York. You failed to mention that towns in that area receive as much $46,000 per turbine. Quite a difference in Wyoming County.

Unbiased, third-party (USFWS, NYSDEC, state Department of Agriculture & Markets, state Public Service Commission, Wyoming County Health Department, and independent engineering firm) comment papers are available to read by anyone in the Orangeville town clerk’s office. Clear Skies Over Orangeville has also compiled copies of all of the above unbiased agency comments/research papers and they are available at the Attica and Warsaw public libraries for your review.

As Invenergy so correctly states, such third-party information will give Orangeville residents an accurate and unbiased understanding of what their future would be with the acceptance of the proposed Orangeville turbine complex.

Steven Moultrup

Orangeville

Source:  The Daily News Online, thedailynewsonline.com 21 September 2010

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter