Eight State Habitat Conservation Plan Needs Public Comment

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced on August 30, 2012 that they are taking public comment until October 1, 2012 * regarding plans to produce an eight state Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP would be a basis for industrial wind projects to receive Incidental Take Permits  - permits to kill endangered and protected species without prosecution. The "planning partners" in this endeavor are the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and The Conservation Fund.

9/27/12 UPDATE: USFWS's Rick Amidon stated that the initial comment period will be extended by 60 days.

The Coalition for Sensible Siting is asking citizens to:

1.  Request an extention of this initial comment period beyond October 1, 2012.

2.  Send comments about the multi-state Habitat Conservation Plan Process

Send your comments or request information by any one of the following methods:

U.S. Mail: Regional Director, Attn: Rick Amidon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437–1458;

Facsimile: 612/713–5292 (Attn: Rick Amidon); or

Email: midwestwindhcp@fws.gov

USFWS excerpts from the Federal Register and press release include:

Public Comments The Service is asking the public to help identify issues that are important to them as the plan is developed. The incidental take permit(s) will cover participating wind energy facilities in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin.  USFWS is requesting information and comment concerning the planning process, our permitting approach, biological aspects of the interaction of wind facilities and species, scientific data that may help inform the MSHCP or monitoring of impacts, and any other information that interested parties would like to offer.

Comments merely stating support for, or opposition to, the MSHCP under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not provide information useful in determining relevant issues and impacts. The public will receive additional opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIS and draft MSHCP when they are completed.

Planning partners  in this effort include the conservation agencies for the eight states, The Conservation Fund, and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

The eight State conservation agencies participating in the development of this MSHCP are the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Conservation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

‘‘Covered activities’’ under the MSHCP include the siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of wind energy facilities within all or portions of the eight-State planning area. Activities associated with the management of mitigation land would also be covered.

Background In 2009, the Conservation Fund solicited the eight States that make up the planning area to support their submission of an application for a grant. The grant would fund development of the MSHCP and an incidental take permitting program. The grant application included virtually identical August 2009 letters of suppport from the eight States' conservation agencies.

Review of the grant materials shows the grant activities would be completed between 2010 and 2012:.

"Work for which funding is requested is scheduled to be accomplished in two years."

Start: June 2010, End: May 2012

Task 1: MSHCP

Task 2: NEPA

Task 3: GI Network Design Focus Groups

Task 4: Mitigation Site Reports Focus Groups

Task 5: Operational Mitigation Measures

USFWS anticipates that "the issuance of individual ITPs would be the permitting approach under this MSHCP. Currently there are additional permit structure options being considered; however, under any permit structure, the MSHCP would meet all ITP issuance criteria found at 50 CFR 13.21, 17.22(b), and 17.32(b), and would be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536)."

"The MSHCP planning partners envision that under any permit approach, no additional NEPA or Section 7 analysis would occur, and ‘‘No Surprises’’ assurances would apply to the MSHCP. Evaluation of the MSHCP and permitting program would include public review by all interested parties. In the event that the MSHCP might need to be amended in the future (e.g., to add a species or consider an activity not previously evaluated), further public review would occur." 

The Conservation Fund states that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced award of this grant for the development of a landscape-level, multi-species habitat conservation plan throughout the states that "will provide conservation benefits to threatened and endangered species while accommodating wind energy development."

"As the demand for wind energy grows, this plan will provide a means for wind energy developers to avoid, minimize, mitigate and compensate for adverse effects to protected species....  The...states will work in collaboration...[with] the wind energy industry and The Conservation Fund to lead a strategic conservation planning process that focuses on combining species’ needs with potential habitat mitigation across the landscape."

 

Kris Hoellen, director of the Conservation Leadership Network for The Conservation Fund said. “This provides a better way forward for wind energy development that integrates economic and environmental goals.”

Page 28/72 MSHCP Grant Application August 19, 2009

Coalition for Sensible Siting's Kristi Rosenquist contacted Kris Hoellen to determine what, if any, work had occurred on this grant since its award in April 2010. Ms. Hoellen stated that they hired an outside consultant and talked about process. USFWS identified the consultant as SAIC. When asked what information had been gathered and considered already, Ms. Hoellen stated, "none".

This seems odd since the USFWS just finished taking comments on their land-based wind turbine siting guidelines in July 2012. This is the same comment process for which AWEA stated in November 2, 2011, "Last fall, early draft version of Service’s eagle conservation plan guidance was leaked. AWEA staff obtained advance copy." In past years, AWEA has objected to any move by USFWS that would slow or hinder the installation of industrial wind turbines at any location in the US. AWEA is a major participating planning partner driving this MSHCP.

The number of installed industrial wind turbines in the eight state region has nearly doubled in the three years since this grant application was made. State conservation agencies are normally charged with management of State owned lands, not private property. Nearly all industrial wind turbines in these eight states are located on private property leased by wind developers. There is no basis to believe that state conservation agencies possess any detailed knowledge of wildlife on these privately held lands. Certainly they do not posess sufficient information to produce an MSHCP with any meaningful baseline data. This problem with wind turbine siting became clear in Minnesota starting in 2011. 

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has become far more actively involved in the review of industrial wind permit applications in Minnesota since mid-to-late 2011. The increased scrutiny of the MN DNR is directly attributed to the grassroots work of local citizens in response to the AWA Goodhue, LLC site permit.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) required AWA Goodhue to produce an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) after citizens revealed that incomplete and inaccurate wildlife information had been provided to the State by the project.  Subsequently, the ABPP presented at the February 23, 2012 MPUC hearing was exposed by citizens as an Avian and Bat Protection Deception Plan and was rejected by the MPUC.

The MN DNR has pointed out numerous concerns and deficiencies to virtually every MN wind permit site application in the past year. This includes the July 2012 review of Spanish owned Gamesa's Eco Harmony wind project in Southeastern Minnesota. The MN DNR noted that the proposed site map shows 28 turbines on, or directly adjacent to, known mapped sink holes. This is also an area riddled with caves in which bats hibernate.

Three years after the grant application, it seems likely that the other seven states' conservation agencies may also have a far different view of wind energy than when they wrote their letters of support in August 2009.

The Coalition for Senisble Siting is concerned that the primary participants in forming and driving this MSHCP process are: 

1. AWEA whose interests are purely financial for the wind industry - not wildlife,
2. The Conservation Fund whose website looks like AWEA promotional material,
3. USFWS staff under pressure to fulfill Ken Salazar's wind energy fantasies, and
4. State DNRs with neither existing data, nor the staff to gather data, about wildlife on private land in their respective States.

Region 3 USFWS staff have been instrumental in confirming citizen's wildlife reports in Goodhue County, Minnesota and providing feedback to wind project owner AWA Goodhue, LLC. Like the state DNR, USFWS does not have detailed wildlife data on privately held lands. A review of recent USFWS information obtained through FOIA requests make it appear that USFWS is under tremendous pressure from Ken Salazar and other political appointees to say and do whatever is required to allow installation of industrial wind everywhere.

Is it really possible for USFWS to perform their mission, demonstrate scientific excellence AND support the development of wind energy all at the same time?

"The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is leading development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Midwest that will conserve endangered species, promote development of clean energy which in turn will reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide."
 

 

 

 

 

Read More...

Minnesota Court of Appeals Rubber Stamps T. Boone's Lost A#@!

Time for the Minnesota Supreme Court? In an opinion rendered today by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the three judge panel not only supported the June 30, 2011 decision by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, they donned their own cheer-leading skirts, picked up the pom poms and championed T. Boone Pickens' AWA Goodhue project.  The judges were SO enthusiastic they even made up new promotional "facts" never before presented even by the wind developers themselves:


"...modeling studies show that the 10-RD setback would essentially prevent all wind energy projects in Goodhue County—an ideal location for wind development—and, if applied throughout the state, would preclude wind development in the vast majority of Minnesota and thereby drive up the cost of wind power."

Every map ever generated for wind development shows Goodhue County's wind resource to be "fair" at best. "Fair" is not "ideal". 


The question of whether or not the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) decision precludes construction of the AWA Goodhue project, or any other industrial wind project, was not the question before the Court. The question before the Court was whether or not the MPUC had acted properly in accordance with Minnesota law when they trampled Goodhue County's duly adopted land use ordinance. 


The Court also stated that the MPUC has a duty to aid Minnesota's public policy to "promote" industrial wind. "The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's mission is to create and maintain a regulatory environment that ensures safe, reliable and efficient utility services at fair and reasonable rates". Of course, it's impossible for the MPUC to promote industrial wind and fulfill their Mission at the same time.


The only "substantial evidence" cited by the judges in their "unpublished" opionion, are models presented by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and by the Minnesota Department of Commerce on behalf of AWA Goodhue. 

The same models were used to determine there would be no noise problems in other Minnesota industrial wind projects such as Bent Tree and Elm Creek II- where post construction measurement demonstrated that the projects failed to meet the Minnesota Noise Standard for audible industrial noise. This is the same Minnesota Noise Standard that does not measure unique wind turbine noise, but is the only basis for determining turbine setback from a home.

The same models said projects would not interfere with television reception - that model for signal interference was also proved wrong in the Bent Tree project.

The same models showed no electrical current going to ground - even while the Grand Meadow and Nobles wind projects were burning up underground cables.

AWA Goodhue is the same project and involves the same State employees who stated that there are "Zero bald eagles nesting in the proposed project footprint..." Below is a photo taken last week at one of many nests in and near the proposed AWA Goodhue industrial wind project. The photo shows two of 2012's hatch of American Bald Eagles with either "mom" or "dad". Siting Eagle blogger, Kristi Rosenquist, saw and photographed Juvenile Bald Eagles on or near four of the seven nests she looked at last week. "There may have been eaglets on the other three nests, but the leaf canopy is so dense this time of year that some nests are difficult to see from the public roadways."


T. Boone Pickens said "I've lost my a%& in the [wind] business". He owns the AWA Goodhue project. Citizens of Goodhue County and across American stand to loose a lot more if this project ever moves forward. Citizens will need to decide whether to continue the pursuit for justice.  You can help by making a donation to The Coalition for Sensible Siting.

Adult Bald Eagle with two juveniles 6/22/2012

Read More...

Creating jobs or poisoning the economy?

Industrial wind promoters have been trying to revive $1 million-per-turbine cash grants. Created as part of the 2008 stimulus package, Section 1603 pays wind companies 30% of their capital costs from federal tax payers for building industrial wind projects. 

The1603 cash grants program was allowed to expire December 31, 2011 after having been extended by Congress the previous year. The Coalition for Sensible Siting observed a failure of wind to green the economy.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has modified it's sales pitch to Congress over the last half decade from "save the world from man-made global warming" to "jobs, jobs, jobs". Packaging your grant application in the "JOBS" wrapper during an extended economic downturn with high unemployment is a smart move.  But is it honest?

Illinois: Carolyn Gerwin responds to a recent E&E story (below):

"I like to think we had something to do with the highlighted comments as we have been giving his office lots of info on the jobs issue, including my report that IL DCEO reports show that federal taxpayers are paying $8 million per job here in Illinois.  That's not stimulating the economy, that's poisoning it."

Popular Treasury grant program takes hit as Boehner lashes out at Obama admin

by John McArdle, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, March 29, 2012

Supporters of the Treasury Department's Section 1603 renewable energy program have gone to great lengths to explain the many differences between the popular grant-in-lieu-of-tax-credit effort and the controversial Department of Energy loan guarantee program that was responsible for the Solyndra debacle.

But those efforts didn't much matter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) today as he lumped the two programs together in a broadside against the Obama administration over stimulus spending and the unemployment rate.

At his weekly news conference, Boehner called the 1603 program a "Solyndra-style stimulus program" that has so far cost the government $10 billion.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu "said it created 'tens of thousands of jobs,' except there's no evidence to support that," Boehner said. "Listen, the American people continue to ask the question, 'Where are the jobs?' They deserve answers, and they deserve the truth."

The speaker's comments come as the White House has been working to revive the 1603 program after Congress failed to extend it past last year's Dec. 31 statutory end date.

Boehner noted that the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently sent a document request to DOE and Treasury for information about the precise number of jobs the 1603 program has created.

The Energy and Commerce Committee, which is also taking the lead role in the Solyndra probe, said in its March 15 letters that "overall, significant doubts have been raised about the [1603] program's vetting and selection of recipients, high costs, and record of achievement in its job growth objectives thus far, calling into question the wisdom of President Obama's proposed extension."

The deadline for their response is today, and committee officials said this afternoon they had yet to hear from either agency.

Boehner's comments indicate a willingness to repackage some of the same attacks that gained so much traction during the height of the Solyndra controversy, but there are differences between the Treasury program and the DOE loan program, which provided a half-billion-dollar loan guarantee to the failed solar company.

Rather than guaranteeing loans to clean energy projects, the 1603 simply allows renewable energy projects to take a 30 percent grant instead of the existing investment tax credit or a production tax credit. The program, which is only eligible for projects that have been built, merely changes the timing of when the energy incentive can be claimed.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said the 1603 program doesn't "pick winners and losers," which has been one of the main Republican complaints against the loan program.

"I think you wouldn't have to talk to very many leaders in the energy industry to come to the conclusion that it made a huge difference economically and it's a tool we should have," Blumenauer said.

A DOE spokeswoman said today that the 1603 program has supported more than 20,000 renewable energy projects, leveraging nearly $30 billion in private sector investments and creating tens of thousands of jobs in installation, construction and operation, as well as up and down the manufacturing supply chain.

Late last year, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) released estimates that 37,000 additional jobs could be created in the solar sector alone by extending the 1603 program by a year. The report found that a five-year extension would provide more predictability and stability and would support as many as 114,000 jobs, including more than 55,000 direct and indirect solar workers.

But Boehner's comments today appear to give credence to the widely held belief that with so much focus on election-year politics, any possible extension of the 1603 program might have to wait until the lame duck session this year (Greenwire, March 27).

Reporter Nick Juliano contributed.

How are States counting jobs? Direct, indirect and induced impact.

Minnesota: the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) weighed in on T. Boone Pickens' controversial AWA Goodhue project. DEED predicts "direct, indirect and induced" job creation based upon a model rather than upon the outcome of two decades of wind projects built in the State. Then Governor Tim Pawlenty was promoting the project at the time.

December 14, 2010 • Minnesota

DEED’s McElroy weighs in on wind farm in Goodhue County  

Credit:  by Arundhati Parmar, Dolan Media Newswires, www.dolanmedia.com ~~

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Minnesota’s outgoing economic development commissioner is throwing his weight behind a proposed wind project in Goodhue County while the county tries to impose restrictions on large wind-farm development.

Dan McElroy, head of the Department of Employment and Economic Development, sent a letter Dec. 8 expressing his “strongest support” for a 78-megawatt wind project that he says could have a significant economic impact.

“Not only will this project enhance Minnesota’s position as a national leader in wind production, but it will have a major economic impact in southeastern Minnesota,” McElroy writes.

The letter was sent to administrative law judge Kathleen Sheehy, who is looking at the controversial project at the request of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

A Goodhue County commissioner acknowledged that jobs would be created but said he was more concerned about residents, some of whom fear that living too close to wind farms has negative health effects.

“Our job is to see that our citizens are protected,” said Ted Seifert, a Goodhue County commissioner.

Those concerns led the county to adopt a strict ordinance that, if applied by the PUC, would kill the project developed by Minneapolis-based National Wind.

National Wind, which wants to build a 50-turbine wind farm on behalf of AWA Goodhue LLC, sought the support of the DEED commissioner to bolster its case before Sheehy.

“We asked for his support and are very pleased that he gave it,” said Joe Jennings, a National Wind spokesman.

In the letter posted on PUC’s website, McElroy writes that a DEED analysis has found that 916 jobs will be created in the first year of the wind project’s construction. Further, between 42 and 90 jobs will be created during the first four years of operation and beyond, according to the letter.

The numbers are based on computer models that take into account direct, indirect and induced impact of a project.

But the employment estimates from National Wind are quite a bit lower than DEED’s.

National Wind’s Jennings said that 100 to 150 construction jobs are to be created over a six- to nine-month period. Another five permanent jobs are anticipated as a result of the project.

“Our estimates are conservative estimates that are based on direct effects of the project, such as people employed in construction,” Jennings said. “We are comfortable with our numbers.”

A DEED spokesman said that the commissioner routinely offers letters of support for projects that have an economic impact, but he wasn’t sure whether McElroy was aware of National Wind’s employment estimates.

“We conducted an economic analysis of the project and felt it was important to get our findings on the record,” said Monte Hanson, a DEED spokesman.

Some Goodhue County residents are unhappy with McElroy’s letter.

“I don’t know where [McElroy] got his information from and how he reached those conclusions,” said Paul Reese, a resident of Goodhue Township and a vocal critic of wind projects, on Tuesday. “I don’t think this makes sense.”

Another resident was less forgiving in an e-mail to McElroy.

“Have you lost your mind?” wrote Kristi Rosenquist, who forwarded a copy of her e-mail to Finance & Commerce. “Or is this a political favor for someone? Not even the wind company claims more than 2-5 jobs after initial construction.”

Reese and Rosenquist are two of the residents who were successful in getting Goodhue County commissioners to adopt a stricter wind ordinance in October. Under the new ordinance, wind turbines need to be constructed at a distance of 10 rotor diameters (in this case, 2,700 feet) from the residences of landowners who have not leased their land to wind developers.

National Wind representatives repeatedly have insisted said that the 10-RD requirement would kill the project. They have asked the PUC to ignore the local ordinance in granting its applications for a site permit and certificate of need.

But the PUC has twice declined to make a decision on AWA’s application.

Instead, commissioners have shifted the burden on to Judge Sheehy with the Office of Administrative Hearings. One of the issues that Sheehy has to sort out is a term contained in a Minnesota statute. The law requires PUC to apply stricter local wind ordinances unless there is “good cause” not to.

As the case goes to a contested hearing, the goal of National Wind is to get a quick and speedy resolution – within 60 days. The project could have accessed a $37 million federal grant if AWA Goodhue could begin construction this year. Now the developers have to wait to get a production tax credit.

Seifert, the Goodhue County commissioner, questions the true economic benefit highlighted by McElroy if taxpayers are subsidizing businesses.

“[McElroy] is in charge of developing jobs throughout the state, so I don’t have a problem with the commissioner putting in his two bits about the project, but how much of this is plain tax subsidy?” Seifert said.

By the numbers

916

Number of direct, indirect and induced jobs from the Goodhue wind project

Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

100-150

Direct construction jobs created from the same project

Source: project developer National Wind

Read More...