Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[Rick]

For reference... arrived in my mailbox Friday...

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

[150thBucktailCo.I]

And the upping the ante' continues...

and that includes going from just straight bribery to fear mongering now "in this slowing economy".

But, as PT Barnum supposedly said ... "there's a sucker born every minute".

How many "suckers" live in the Boro of Tyrone and/or are on Boro Council?


------------------------------------------------------------

One other thing... since Framel conveniently left an email address for questions that people would like answered by Gamesa, how about posing the "hard" questions on this website, emailing them to Gamesa, then providing the answers from Gamesa so everyone can view?

I'd be interested to read their responses.

[Ice Man]

Contrast Gamesa's infomercial with the facts presented by Laura Jackson below:

Webb maintains that the Portage wind facility will not affect the local water supply in any "negative manner" and has asked for proof that the Portage project will affect the local water supply in any "negative manner". I have photographs that show how Gamesa's road-building has drastically changed the natural water flow in the headwaters of Bob's Creek, which is designated as a Class A wild trout stream by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. That designation means that the water is of extremely high quality –or it used to be until Gamesa did its damage.

The water quality in Bob's Creek is directly related to the land management practices in its watershed. What was once a healthy forest with moss-covered rocks, and clean streams, is now sliced and diced with poorly constructed roads. These roads have insufficient erosion controls, so the long expanses of uncrowned roads allow water to run right down the middle, carrying mud that may eventually find its way into Bob's Creek. I looked for the wildlife mix that Gamesa claims is seeded along the roads, but could find little evidence of it. Most of the side berm was a thin layer of soil that looked like it was tailgated in place, but little was done to keep it from eroding. A few drainage ditches did have fiber mats to stabilize the banks, but many were not covered sufficiently. Water impounded along one stretch of the road appeared to be killing the hemlocks trapped in the deep water, as the hemlocks needles were turning yellow. In short, the entire natural system of water infiltration has been altered in a most damaging manner. It takes just a little bit of sediment to smother fish eggs and clog the gills of the stream invertebrates which sustain fish. Over time, degraded streams lose their ability to sustain native trout. This insidious pattern of slow degradation is not always readily discernable, and it may take a number of years, but scientific studies show that roads degrade water quality.

I was astounded at the width of the clearings that connected the turbines. One long corridor was much wider than necessary, since the dirt from a road cut through a steep bank was spread in a wide mound along the road. The huge clearings around the turbines were littered with straw bales, but the straw had never been spread to stabilize the eroding soil.

[Ice Man]

And the upping the ante' continues...

One other thing... since Framel conveniently left an email address for questions that people would like answered by Gamesa, how about posing the "hard" questions on this website, emailing them to Gamesa, then providing the answers from Gamesa so everyone can view?

I'd be interested to read their responses.

Juniata Valley Audubon vice president Dave Bonta sent letters to Gamesa Atlantic Director of Development Ellen Lutz last year and received NO responses!

It's important to note that the Windber Area Water Authority and the Paint Water Authority, in Somerset County, both oppose a Gamesa plan to contruct a 30-turbine industrial windplant in those watersheds. Both water authorities oppose this because of the risk that such development poses to their water supplies.


Water authority votes against wind farm

By DAN DiPAOLO
Somerset Daily American

WINDBER - Windber Area Authority members voted to oppose a wind turbine project slated for the Shaffer Mountain area over concerns that the watershed will be negatively impacted.

However, the move was largely ceremonial as the authority's legal right to restrict operations on the watershed land have already been enacted, solicitor James Cascio said during Wednesday's meeting.
The authority, under a 1989 land use agreement with primary landowner Berwind Natural Resources Corp., of Philadelphia, has only the right to approve or approve with written conditions the terms of any use that would impact the watershed, he said.

In January, the authority asked in writing for restrictions and specifications of the project regarding the watershed, and the developer, Gamesa Energy USA, has complied with that initial request, he said.

At the time, the authority's main concern was the proximity of several turbines to authority wells.

Authority Manager Dennis Mash said that the authority has a total of seven wells, including two along Cub Run and three along Shade Creek.

Many of them run more than 300 feet below the surface, he said. More than 1,000,000 gallons of water per day a drawn from the well system into area water supplies, he said.

Wells No. 2 and No. 3 located along Cub Run, a high-quality trout stream, are within 3,000 feet of the closest windmill and the authority asked geologist James Casselberry to determine any impact surface operations and soil disturbance would have on water quality.

Members are now worried about other environmental impacts the turbines could have on the larger watershed including that of endangered species, spring disruption and wetland destruction.

Chairman William Oldham said that as more information is publicly released, the more concerned he is with the project, which is slated to bring 30 turbines to the mountain.

The site's extensive road system and other details like the potential for a concrete batching plant worry him.

“I think that we haven't been told enough. I'm against them,” he said.

The board subsequently voted 5-1 against the project as a whole. That makes the authority the fourth governing body to make a resolution publicly opposing the watershed project in recent months.

Paint Township supervisors, Paint Borough council and Windber Borough council members have all voted against the project since February.

Where that leaves the project is still to be determined said Project Developer Tim Vought, who represented the company at the authority meeting.

“I don't know what the implications of the vote tonight are,” said Vought.

He said a public response would be made to reporters and other public officials at a corporate level later this week.

For now, Gamesa, who owns the subsidiary company Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm LLC., entered the final permit cycle for the project.

The company filed for permits March 5 with the Somerset County Conservation District, starting a process that could take several months.

The district will first review the application for completeness and if it meets those criteria, then it will enter a technical review of the project's erosion control plan, he said.

That process could take as little as 50 days or much longer, depending on how many clarifications and resubmissions Gamesa is asked to perform.

After those reviews, the plan will be sent to DEP for an individual review because of the nature of the project, said Keith Largent, an erosion and sediment pollution control technician for the agency.

“Any time a project affects a high quality watershed, which this does, the DEP is required to do an individual review,” he said.

Company officials are confident the environmental regulations pertaining to the project have been met and hope to break ground later this year, Vought said.

The wind farm, which is projected to extend through parts of Shade and Ogle townships in Somerset County and Napier Township in Bedford County, has been subject to extensive studies by Gamesa and should meet environmental standards, company officials have said.

However several residents who own land adjoining the properties have already made it clear the project will meet legal resistance if it is not modified drastically.

On March 2, Tucker/Arensburg Attorneys, of Pittsburgh, issued a notice of intent to file suit with federal and state agencies over environmental concerns including the possible killing of migrating Bald Eagle and Eastern Golden Eagles by the project.

Among their concerns is that the project, which will run along the Allegheny Front of the mountain, will impact migrating bird populations including that of the endangered Bald Eagle and Eastern Golden Eagles, environmental attorney Bradley Tupi said.

Another potential issue is the possible damaging of the Ethel Creek spring head which provides high-volume, high-quality water for a local fish hatchery, he said.

Property owner Jack Buchan, who initially retained the legal representation, said the move gives the residents 30 days with state agencies and 60 days with federal agencies to file suit.

The Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretary of Commerce, state Department of Environmental Protection and state Attorney General's offices were among those receiving letters.

Buchan said that he is not against wind turbines, but that the location Gamesa chose is not a good fit for what they're trying to do.

“I don't think they have bad intent,” he said. “These things have their place, just not there.”

[sandstone]

And the upping the ante' continues...

One other thing... since Framel conveniently left an email address for questions that people would like answered by Gamesa, how about posing the "hard" questions on this website, emailing them to Gamesa, then providing the answers from Gamesa so everyone can view?

I'd be interested to read their responses.

It's important to note that the Windber Area Water Authority and the Paint Water Authority, in Somerset County, both oppose a Gamesa plan to contruct a 30-turbine industrial windplant in those watersheds. Both water authorities oppose this because of the risk that such development poses to their water supplies.

From the Tyrone Daily Herald:

To the editor;

Residents of the Borough of Tyrone should be made aware of the threat that an industrial windplant on Ice Mountain poses to our municipal water supply. These risks include the following:

1. The widening of Hoover Road will lead to increased surface runoff into Sink Run and its unnamed tributaries.

2. Increased traffic on Hoover Road will lead to an increased risk of contamination from vehicular fluids. (That's why ATV and snowmobile traffic is prohibited in the watershed.)

3. The extensive new road network (in addition to widening Hoover Road) to accommodate the construction and continuing maintenance of two dozen industrial wind turbines will increase the risk of chemical and particulate pollution of the watershed. This project includes more than a dozen miles of new heavy-duty roads and widening of existing road.

4. A greatly expanded road network on Ice Mountain will invite increased illegal activity in the watershed. ATVs and 4x4s will have access to previously-remote parts of the watershed.

5. Each 400-foot-tall industrial wind turbine contains 200 gallons of lubricating oil and coolant. These fluids are changed regularly, just like in your car, and spills will contaminate our water supply. Leaks from the turbine nacelles also will contaminate ground water and springs.

6. Industrial wind turbines tower above the forest and result in the increased risk of lightning strikes and subsequent forest fires.

7. The clearing of forest for the construction of new transmission line corridors will result in increased runoff and particulate pollution.

Most forward-looking communities prohibit development in the watersheds of their drinking water supplies. As time goes on, the value of uncontaminated drinking water will increase dramatically. A few dozen miles south of us, the Central City Water Authority and the Windber Area Water Authority have gone on record as opposing a Gamesa windfarm in their municipal watersheds because of the risk that such development poses to their drinking waters. See http://www.shaffermountain.com

Let's heed the words of Clair Chappell, who lives near the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, and who spoke at the SAVE ICE MOUNTAIN public forum a few weeks ago: Respect what our forefathers left us, this precious uncontaminated watershed.

Sincerely,

Robert Roseberry
Tyrone, PA

[150thBucktailCo.I]

How about posting some questions that we could copy and paste onto an email, send them to Gamesa, and wait for a response?

Thanks.

[My2Cents]

Remember the movie "The Planet Of the Apes ?" At the very end, they came across part of the Statue Of Liberty sticking out of the ground. That's how I am picturing these wind turbines many eon's from now. Fallen, rusted, contaminated,monstrosities laying idle throughout the land and someone wondering, what were they thinking ??!!
Anyway, back to reality...great idea Bucktail !!
Times getting short... my gut tells me, aside from all the stuff this company has put out lately in the paper, I have a feeling a propaganda biggy is coming and it's gonna' have a long carrot with a lot of money, money, money, "we just can't refuse" attached to it. We are going to start hearing all kinds of things that our town needs money for. Brace yourselves.
One thing for sure, the community is more aware than it was last Fall... still, there are some without a clue. Still there are some that only see the $$$$, which someone thoughtfully broke down for us in the LetterTo Editor.... amounting to something like a mere penance for each resident of the community.
The Ice Mountain Public Forum, The Letters To The Editor, and all the informative articles in the paper were a BIG HELP to most people in town without a computer.

[Bill Latchford]

Get out there and vote today people...Not only for our Country but for our Community....Take Care :thumb:

[no-it-all]

And the upping the ante' continues...

and that includes going from just straight bribery to fear mongering now "in this slowing economy".

But, as PT Barnum supposedly said ... "there's a sucker born every minute".

How many "suckers" live in the Boro of Tyrone and/or are on Boro Council?
I can think of at least one with internet access.

------------------------------------------------------------

One other thing... since Framel conveniently left an email address for questions that people would like answered by Gamesa, how about posing the "hard" questions on this website, emailing them to Gamesa, then providing the answers from Gamesa so everyone can view?

I'd be interested to read their responses.

[My2Cents]

It's a GREAT idea, but, I wouldn't do the above because most of us already know it all, "no-it-all." Asking a question will either, not be responded to... or.... be a read between the line, misleading answer.
To borrow a quote from someone... "You cannot make a man understand something when his job depends on not understanding."

[My2Cents]

Wonder if the "wind mill" votes will be counted this evening ?? Who will be counting them ?? A couple of folks I know were very disappointed they couldn't vote because they lived just outside the borough in Snyder Township. They, of all people, should be allowed to cast a vote, and/or voice an opinion on the subject, since they live in the hollows just below the ridge tops.

[Bill Latchford]

Wonder if the "wind mill" votes will be counted this evening ?? Who will be counting them ?? A couple of folks I know were very disappointed they couldn't vote because they lived just outside the borough in Snyder Township. They, of all people, should be allowed to cast a vote, and/or voice an opinion on the subject, since they live in the hollows just below the ridge tops.

Yes the "WindMill" votes are now counted and I thought I would post the results for you:

Yes Votes: 55% - 601 votes
No Votes: 45% - 493 votes

[hykesmill]

interesting, well maybe the windmills will kill off the gypsy moths and save the boro $120,000.

[Ice Man]

This month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released an important analysis on Federal energy subsidies with a focus on electricity production. The total Federal energy-specific subsidies to all forms of energy was estimated at $16.6 billion for fiscal year 2007, more than double the estimated amounts in 1999 as calculated in 2007 dollars.

Windaction.org was most interested in Table ES5 of the Executive Summary which itemizes subsidies paid per fuel-type as measured in megawatt hours (MWh) of generation. A subset of the table is listed below:

Coal $.44 per MWh
Nat. Gas $.25 per MWh
Nuclear $1.59 per MWh
Biomass $.89 per MWh
Geothermal $.92 MWh
Hydro $.67 per MWh
Solar $24.34 per MWh
Landfill gas $1.37 per MWh
Wind $23.37 per MWh

Wind proponents are quick to discuss absolute amounts paid in subsidies for coal, nuclear, and other traditional sources of generation. But when measured using a common unit (per MWh), subsidies for wind dwarf most fuel types at $23.37 MWh. Currently, wind receives 14+ times the subsidy paid for nuclear and a whopping 53x that of coal.

It's also apparent the Federal government does NOT treat all renewables equally. Subsidies for wind far exceed those paid for Biomass, Geothermal, Hydro, and Landfill gas combined.

Yet, given the unpredictable, intermittent nature of the fuel source, wind energy is the least able, of all renewables, to reliably supply generation during peak periods. Further, wind requires companion generation to address low or no winds conditions, and extensive, costly transmission upgrades to deliver power long distances to load centers.

[Ice Man]

April 17, 2008 by Jon Boone in The Republican
Governor Martin O'Malley's announcement of his decision to protect Maryland's public lands from industrial wind development came from the heart. Standing before a breathtaking early spring view of the Monroe Run vista and addressing about 200 Garrett Countians, the governor spoke eloquently about his stewardship obligations for passing down such natural beauty to our posterity-our children's children. He also commended the articulate passion of so many western Marylanders as they helped him clarify why this issue is so important here, and how intimately tied it is to our quality of life.

Mr. O'Malley's decision might even be considered courageous in light of his belief that massive wind technology should be part of the mix that will drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and end our dependence on foreign oil. The governor is a busy man with much on his mind - all the more reason that he should surround himself with staff who can provide him with better information.

He seemed genuinely surprised when afterwards he was told that oil only contributes 0.3 of 1.0 percent toward the production of our electricity, making it clear that wind energy can do nothing to mitigate our reliance on foreign oil. And given the thermal implications involved in balancing wind's volatility, among other factors, the technology can offset at best relatively miniscule levels of carbon emissions.

Governor O'Malley's rationale for protecting our public lands should be instructive to our local political leaders, who have stated they believe the entirety of Garrett County should be conserved as a natural heritage resource. And they are right. The oafish presence of ineffectual commercial wind installations is incompatible with that idea. County leaders should work to prohibit such development before it devalues property (as even the threat of it has already done), creates unlawful noise, kills wildlife, diminishes hunting grounds, and otherwise diminishes how we literally see ourselves.

Jon Boone