BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Wednesday, December 13, 2017


The Realities of Wind Farming

Living in a wind farm: Communities divided over pursuit of clean energy, its incentive
 Wind farms generate clean energy. They also produce some unwelcome effects: Strobe-like shadow flicker. Loud, whooshing sounds. And throbbing, air-pressure pulsations. Some living in these wind farms say it’s tolerable. Others say it’s hell.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Stop the Production Tax Credit for Industrial Wind

United States Industrial Wind Opposition,

We have 4 days to gather as many signatures as we can to deliver to Congress.

Please click the link below and sign the petition. This petition will be accompanying a letter that is being crafted by Lisa Linowes of WindAction.org. The letter will be available on her website as soon as it is finished. Yes, it is true that this whole fight should have been done yesterday but it is today. Tomorrow today will be yesterday. Please sign this petition and pass it on!!

Thank you,
Janna Swanson
Coalition for Rural Property Rights
12-08-2017


Wednesday, December 6, 2017


APEX CLEAN ENERGIES GALLOO ISLAND WIND    SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

The following is an excerpt from exhibit 27, of Apex Clean Energies recently submitted application to the Public Service Commission  for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 to Construct a Wind Energy Project on Galloo Island, NY

Exhibit 27 Socioeconomic (p.4)


With respect to the Galloo Island Facility, the Applicant reviewed the default project cost values subtotaled by each of the following categories in the JEDI model to determine whether they were on par with the real costs as experienced by the Applicant: Equipment during Construction, Balance of Plant Construction, Labor during Operation & Maintenance, Materials and Services during Operation & Maintenance, Financial Parameters, Tax Parameters, Land Lease Parameters and Payroll Parameters.

Adjustments were made to specific default values and included replacing the default local tax value ($0) with the known estimated annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) value ($816,750); increasing the default value of Land Easements during Construction ($0) to the known $6.3 million cost required for purchasing the Galloo Island parcel containing the turbines ($3 million) and a one-time lease of an underwater parcel for constructing the underwater high-voltage transmission line ($3.3 million); decreasing the default value of Annual Lease during Operating Years ($326,700) to the known value ($0); decreasing the default Total Cost of Equipment during Construction value from $136.8 million to a more reasonable value of $108.9 million (due to a lower cost for turbine components); and increasing the default Balance of Plant Total value from $47.4 million to a more reasonable value of $137.0 million (reflecting the higher cost of island development). The remaining cost values were uncertain at the time of analysis (July 2017), therefore the remaining default values were reviewed and determined to be reasonable estimates based on previous experience in wind energy development by the Applicant.

Full Exhibit

Friday, November 17, 2017


LIAR LIAR

 Republican Congress Members Accuse Cuomo of ‘Outright Lying’


Calling New York Republicans who voted for the tax bill in Congress “treasonous,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said on Thursday that he had spoken with “all of them” and that “they all had the same line which was...

Continue reading via this link to the Ny Times

Monday, November 6, 2017

Fort Drum Joint Land Use Study

Fort Drum JLUS Report - Public Review & Comment Period  November 6-27, 2017
The Public Draft Fort Drum Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) and Background Report have been released for public review and comment. These documents are a result of the culmination of a year-long collaborative process among the Development Authority of the North Country, Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence counties, the communities surrounding Fort Drum, Fort Drum staff, and other agencies and organizations in the region.  The documents provide an overview of the JLUS process, the Study Area and communities involved in the JLUS, Fort Drum missions and operations, a list of the compatibility issues identified through the process, and the Implementation Plan that includes the recommended strategies identified to address the compatibility issues. 
Each document can be downloaded by clicking on the associated links. A comment tracker spreadsheet is also available for download.Please submit all comments either through the project website, or by emailing the comment tracker spreadsheet to Hartley Bonisteel Schweitzer hschweitzer@danc.org ) by Monday, November 27, 2017. 

Fort Drum Joint Land Use Study Public Draft Report November 2017 sm.pdf 
Fort Drum JLUS Public Draft Background Report November 2017.pdf 
Fort Drum JLUS Public Draft comment form November 2017.docx
Public Open Houses #3 Scheduled 
A set of public open houses will be held on November 13 and 14, 2017 where attendees can learn more about the JLUS recommendations and the Public Draft, and provide written comments on the draft.  For more information regarding the Open Houses you can view the Press Release HERE .

Thursday, September 21, 2017

H.R. 2810: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 

 Below is Subtitle B, the portion of the bill concerning energy and the environment that passed the house and just passed the Senate. The bill must be reconciled between leaders of both houses before it’s ready to be presented to the president.  

There are provisions in this bill that allow the Secretary of defense to deem a project an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. This coupled with exhibit 26 of NYS Article 10 law that requires wind projects to undergo an evaluation demonstrating no adverse effects on or interference with radar and or instrument systems used for air traffic control, guidance, weather, or military operations including training.


The bottom line is a wind project that is deemed an unacceptable risk is dead on arrival.

Additionally, it should be noted that Senator Gillibrand D-NY voted nay.



SEC. 311. CODIFICATION OF AND IMPROVEMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CLEARINGHOUSE TO COORDINATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON MILITARY OPERATIONS AND READINESS.
(a) Establishment of Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office.—
(1) CODIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING LAW.— Chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 183 the following new section:
Ҥ 183a. Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office for review of mission obstructions
“(a) Establishment.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office.
“(2) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall be—
“(A) organized under the authority, direction, and control of an Assistant Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary; and
“(B) assigned such personnel and resources as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this section.
“(b) Functions.— (1) (A) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall serve as a clearinghouse to coordinate Department of Defense review of applications for energy projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49 and received by the Department of Defense from the Secretary of Transportation.
“(B) To facilitate the review of an application for an energy project submitted pursuant to such section, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall accelerate the development, in coordination with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, of—
“(i) an integrated review process to ensure timely notification and consideration of any application that may have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness; and
“(ii) planning tools necessary to determine the acceptability to the Department of Defense of the energy project proposal included in the application.
“(2) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall establish procedures for the Department of Defense for the coordinated consideration of and response to a request for a review received from another Federal agency, a State government, an Indian tribal government, a local government, a landowner, or the developer of an energy project, including guidance to personnel at each military installation in the United States on how to initiate such procedures and ensure a coordinated Department response.
“(3) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall consult with affected military installations for the review and consideration of proposed energy projects.
“(4) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall develop procedures for conducting early outreach to parties carrying out energy projects that could have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness and to clearly communicate to such parties actions being taken by the Department under this section.
“(5) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall perform such other functions as the Secretary of Defense assigns.
“(c) Review of proposed actions.— (1) Not later than 30 days after receiving from the Secretary of Transportation a proper application for an energy project under section 44718 of title 49 that may have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall conduct a preliminary review of such application. Such review shall—
“(A) assess the likely scope, duration, and level of risk of any adverse impact of such energy project on military operations and readiness; and
“(B) identify any feasible and affordable actions that could be taken by the Department, the developer of such energy project, or others to mitigate such adverse impact and to minimize risks to national security while allowing such energy project to proceed with development.
“(2) If the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office determines under paragraph (1) that an energy project will have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, the Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, shall issue to the applicant a notice of presumed risk that describes the concerns identified by the Department in the preliminary review and requests a discussion of possible mitigation actions.
“(d) Comprehensive review.— (1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing the military impacts of projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49.
“(2) In developing the strategy required by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall—
“(A) assess the magnitude of interference posed by projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49;
“(B) identify geographic areas in which projects filed, or which may be filed in the future, with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49, could have an adverse impact on military operations and readiness, including military training routes, and categorize the risk of adverse impact in each geographic area for the purpose of informing preliminary reviews under subsection (c)(1), early outreach efforts under subsection (b)(4), and online dissemination efforts under paragraph (3);
“(C) develop procedures to periodically review and modify geographic areas identified under subparagraph (B) and to solicit and identify additional geographic areas as appropriate; and
“(D) specifically identify feasible and affordable long-term actions that may be taken to mitigate adverse impacts of projects filed, or which may be filed in the future, with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49, on military operations and readiness, including—
“(i) investment priorities of the Department of Defense with respect to research and development;
“(ii) modifications to military operations to accommodate applications for such projects;
“(iii) recommended upgrades or modifications to existing systems or procedures by the Department of Defense;
“(iv) acquisition of new systems by the Department and other departments and agencies of the Federal Government and timelines for fielding such new systems; and
“(v) modifications to the projects for which such applications are filed, including changes in size, location, or technology.
“(3) The Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office shall make available online access to data reflecting geographic areas identified under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and reviewed and modified under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph.
“(e) Department of defense determination of unacceptable risk.— (1) The Secretary of Defense may not object to an energy project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49 unless the Secretary of Defense determines, after giving full consideration to mitigation actions identified pursuant to this section, that the project would result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. Such a determination shall constitute a finding pursuant to section 44718(f) of title 49.
“(2) Not later than 30 days after making a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on such determination and the basis for such determination. Such report shall include an explanation of the basis of the determination, a discussion of the mitigation options considered, and an explanation of why, in the case of a determination of unacceptable risk, the mitigation options were not feasible or did not resolve the conflict. The Secretary of Defense may provide public notice through the Federal Register of the determination.
“(3) The Secretary of Defense may only delegate the responsibility for making a determination under paragraph (1) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an Under Secretary of Defense, or a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.
“(f) Authority to accept contributions of funds.—The Secretary of Defense is authorized to request and accept a voluntary contribution of funds from an applicant for a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to section 44718 of title 49. Amounts so accepted shall remain available until expended for the purpose of offsetting the cost of measures undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to mitigate adverse impacts of such a project on military operations and readiness or to conduct studies of potential measures to mitigate such impacts.
“(g) Effect of department of defense hazard assessment.—An action taken pursuant to this section shall not be considered to be a substitute for any assessment or determination required of the Secretary of Transportation under section 44718 of title 49.
“(h) Savings clause.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or limit the application of, or any obligation to comply with, any environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
“(i) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) The term ‘adverse impact on military operations and readiness’ means any adverse impact upon military operations and readiness, including flight operations, research, development, testing, and evaluation, and training, that is demonstrable and is likely to impair or degrade the ability of the armed forces to perform their warfighting missions.
“(2) The term ‘energy project’ means a project that provides for the generation or transmission of electrical energy.
“(3) The term ‘landowner’ means a person that owns a fee interest in real property on which a proposed energy project is planned to be located.
“(4) The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given that term in section 2801(c)(4) of this title.
“(5) The term ‘military readiness’ includes any training or operation that could be related to combat readiness, including testing and evaluation activities.
“(6) The term ‘military training route’ means a training route developed as part of the Military Training Route Program, carried out jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of Defense, for use by the armed forces for the purpose of conducting low-altitude, high-speed military training.
“(7) The term ‘unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States’ means the construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, or the proposed construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion, of a structure or sanitary landfill that would—
“(A) endanger safety in air commerce, related to the activities of the Department of Defense;
“(B) interfere with the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport traffic capacity at public-use airports, related to the activities of the Department of Defense; or
“(C) impair or degrade the capability of the Department of Defense to conduct training, research, development, testing, evaluation, and operations or to maintain military readiness.”.
(2) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—
(A) REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISION.—Section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 49 U.S.C. 44718 note) is repealed.
(B) REFERENCE TO DEFINITIONS.—Section 44718(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking “211.3 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 6, 2014” both places it appears and inserting “183a(i) of title 10”.
(C) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 183 the following new item:


“183a. Military Aviation, Range, and Installation Assurance Program Office for review of mission obstructions.”.
(3) DEADLINE FOR INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.—The initial identification of geographic areas under subsection (d)(2)(B) of section 183a of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall be completed not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.—Notwithstanding the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2), any rule or regulation promulgated to carry out section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 49 U.S.C. 44718 note) that is in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act shall continue in effect and apply to the extent such rule or regulation is consistent with the authority under section 183a of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), until such rule or regulation is otherwise amended or repealed.
(b) Conforming amendment regarding critical military-use airspace areas.—Section 44718 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a)(2)(B), is further amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
“(g) Special rule for identified geographic areas.—In the case of a proposed structure to be located within a geographic area identified under subsection (d)(2)(B) of section 183a of title 10, the Secretary of Transportation may not issue a determination until the Secretary of Defense issues a determination under subsection (e) of such section as to whether or not the proposed structure represents an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States (as defined in subsection (i)(7) of such section).”.


Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Stefanik Sends Letter to U.S. Army on Wind Farm Development at Fort Drum


September 12,2017

Press Release

Washington,DC-Today,Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21)sent a letter to Gneral Mark A. Milley,U.S. Army Chief of Staff,expressing concerns over the potential effects of industrial wind turbine development on Fort Drum’s ability to execute current and future missions. Below is a digital copy of the letter.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) Letter to Gen. Milley Re. Wind Farms by pandorasboxofrocks on Scribd

 Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization 
 Opposes Regional Wind Projects

The following message has been posted on the Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization (FDRLO) Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/drum2025/


Below is FDRLO’s position statement on Industrial Wind Turbine Development. This position statement was created and approved by the Board of Directors on a crucial issue to the
Readiness of Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division. We are sharing it today with our elected officials,the public through the news media,and you, our members.
We would appreciate your support.
FORT DRUM REGIONAL LIAISON ORGANIZATION CALLS FOR PROTECTION OF
FORT DRUM’S TRAINING CAPABILITIES AND MISSION READINESS
Protecting the North Country’s airspace is vital to Fort Drum’s future. The Army is continually evaluating the effectiveness of its training installations and Fort Drum is measured against other military bases across the country. Any negative impact on Fort Drum’s capability to sustain mission readiness, any encroachment on the land or airspace, exposes a weakness and jeopardizes Fort Drum during a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) review. If approved, the eight new wind projects proposed in the region surrounding Fort Drum, based on size and density of the turbines, will have a negative impact on Fort Drum and threaten its future.

It is a proven fact that wind turbines adversely affect the radar capabilities at Fort Drum’s Wheeler Sack Army Airfield as well as the Doppler Weather radar site at Montague. Two projects, Maple Ridge in Lewis County and Wolfe Island in Canada, already exist in the region; they visibly distort radar and present negative impacts on safe flight operations for helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, as well as doppler weather radar located in Montague.

As the largest single site employer in New York State, there is no argument that we need to protect Fort Drum so that it remains the major economic driver of the North Country. Fort Drum contributed in excess of $1.6 billion in direct and indirect benefit to the North Country in 2016. Thousands of jobs and the economic vitality of the region depend on its continued relevance to the Army mission.

New York State’s Article 10 Siting Board and the Public Service Commission are considering whether to grant eight projects licenses to operate in Jefferson, Lewis, St. Lawrence and Oswego counties. These projects propose turbines which stand nearly 600 feet, 50% higher than the current 397 foot turbines operating at Maple Ridge and on Wolfe Island. These additional turbines will create massive dead spots on radar used by air traffic controllers and commanders tasked with training soldiers. If approved, these projects will add nearly 400 new turbines to the north country airspace, surrounding the post on virtually all sides and, most significantly, right within Fort Drum’s main flight paths. The attached map highlights the size and location of the projects in the immediate vicinity of Fort Drum.*
The 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum leadership are responsible for protecting its resources; soldiers, civilians, equipment and facilities. The degradation of the Montague weather radar by industrial wind turbines has a dramatic direct impact on their ability to do that as well as their ability to train. The National Weather Service’s (NWS) most valuable tool to detect precipitation is their radar. The lack of accurate weather forecasting capabilities presents risk to Army aviation, soldiers x training in the field and prevents commanders from having current, factual information about the weather conditions, critical to protecting their personnel and vital equipment.

Fort Drum is already feeling the impact of the existing industrial wind turbines, and if the proposed projects are approved, Fort Drum’s mission readiness will be further diminished. While software is able to mask some of the current radar distortions, it leaves blinds spots in the radar, and the sheer number, density, location and size of additional wind towers will overwhelm the existing technology’s ability to address the interference.

The increasing use of Fort Drum and its airspace for operation of unmanned aircraft is also affected by this degradation of radar and weather forecasting systems. Flying expensive high tech aircraft in an environment where there is an impairment of radar and weather information presents a safety concern to not only the military, but the local civilian population as well.

Fort Drum’s open airspace and joint training capability is a highly valued component of Fort Drum’s relevance to the Department of Defense. Aviation units from all service branches across the northeast utilize Fort Drum’s airspace, facilities and ranges to meet their individual flight training requirements and participate in joint training operations. Additionally this training capability at Fort Drum enables the 10th Mountain Division to enhance their mission readiness through these joint exercises. Future training needs at Fort Drum and for the 10th Mountain Division have yet to be identified as regards to new technologies, new methods of warfare and emerging capabilities. We need to prevent airspace encroachments today that would in any way restrict future training capabilities or new mission opportunities.

Fort Drum has proven itself as a premier facility within the Army inventory and as a valuable partner in the North Country, a relationship we have worked hard to continually nurture and enhance. This is not an issue of renewable energy policy, but rather an issue affecting military readiness today, and Fort Drum’s relevance for future new training missions tomorrow. This is an issue of national security.

The Fort Drum Regional Liaison Organization advocates for protecting and enhancing Fort Drum, home to the 10th Mountain Division. The FDRLO Executive Committee visited Wheeler Sack Army Airfield to see the effects first hand and discuss the current and long-term impacts with Fort Drum representatives. We strongly oppose the eight industrial wind projects, as they will greatly reduce the installation’s training capability and thereby diminish the 10th Mountain Division’s readiness.

  Map provided by the Development Authority of the North Country