BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Galloo Island - Article 10 - Visual Impacts

If visual impacts are an issue for the DEC in their Open Space Plan, how can the siting board, which includes DEC Commissioner Joe Martens, possibly approve an Article 10 proposal to erect 30, 600+ ft high industrial wind turbines on Galloo Island?
Excerpts from NY 2014 Draft Open Space Plan:

 Galloo Island wind as proposed 2009
The geographic area of Region 6 has a long history of providing for the generation and transmission of energy for all New Yorkers. Water power and hydroelectric generation shaped most of the region’s economy and communities. The region is home to many hydro generation facilities, including the state’s second largest hydroelectric generation facility at the Robert Moses St. Lawrence power project, the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River and more than 20 additional proposed wind facilities, has one of the State’s three biomass-fired electrical generation facilities, as well as several large transmission corridors of international, statewide and regional significance. Clearly, the region is a major source of carbon free and alternative electrical generation capacity. This energy production and distribution capacity and the potential for future projects are important to New York State and the Northeast as a whole, and the future planning for and siting of electrical generation and transmission facilities has the potential to dramatically effect open space within the region.

In light of the current and future importance and impact to the region of energy generating

facilities, the Region 6 Open Space Committee strongly supports consideration of Open Space Conservation in the siting of these facilities including a review of the visual aspects and impacts on Open Space resources under the provisions of Article 10.

Link here to Citizens Task Force On Windpower Maine ~ to view more Galloo photos like the one above

Link here to read the NYS DEC 2014 Draft Open Space Plan


Anonymous said...

The opening line in the 2014 Plan notes that the open spaces preservation concept has been in operation since 1992. If so, then how the hell did the DEC approved Upstate's demolition plan for Galloo Island on December 23, 2009?

In the Upstate project the DEC offered to offset the visual blight with, "This change of setting will be offset by enhancements to these resources (e.g., parks and historic sites) by state and local agencies."

So, what were the proposed enhancements? Increase access to the lake front parks so more visitors could see the Galloo windmills. Improve trails so more hikers can view Lake Ontario sunsets over an industrial wind farm. Restore a cottage in Sackets Harbor. All great ideas for mitigating the industrial blight from the Galloo Island Wind Farm (I am being sarcastic in case you wondered).

What a sad commentary for an agency whose supposed mission is to protect our state's natural resources for generations to come. Bastardize one of a few Lake Ontario islands in order to light a few neon signs on Broadway. Crazy.

Anonymous said...

1:06 the failure of DEC to refuse the application by Upstate Energy is clearly evidence that the New York State Energy Policy ,which promotes industrial wind power via its RPS and NYSERDA ,is paramount to all other concerns.

Tea Party residents of Hammond, contend that this is a valid reason not to embrace a New York State SASS designation. They opine that it would just be another program with good intentions for the State to ignore. Instead of protesting the ineffectiveness and capitulation by the DEC of its own policies, and holding the agency's feet to the fire, the preferred course of action is to disassociate ourselves from any and all actions by the State.

If the citizens of New York want responsible and representative government, they must demand it through action other than voting for their favorite candidates.

Art Pundt said...

The visual "offset" mitigation crap is one more absurd wind developer slight of hand scams.

They get you distracted to look at and think about something else as a mis-direction to the tremendous irreversible visual damage they will do over a wide range of viewscape...WHICH THEY CAN NOT MITIGATE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Think about it...there mere fact they are talking about visual offset mitigation is a full admission by wind developers that their projects are highly visually disruptive over a large area and can not be mitigated.

They know this and they also know the best they can do is offer a bribe for you to ignore what can NOT be ignored no matter what they offer.

It's like stealing the wheels and engine from your car, and then being offered a nice new car stereo to offset the fact your car has been destroyed and you won't notice or complain.

Who the hell gets sucked into this nonsense??

It is also an admission that the misdirection of pro wind people that wind mills are "beautiful" is just plain BS.

If the majority of people actually believed that then there would be no need for visual mitigation, and even the wind companies are admitting wind turbines are not visually beautiful or visually acceptable by offering mitigations and offses bribes.

Don't kid yourself. Towers 600 ft. high placed in a flat glacial landscape will cause a massive out of context visual disruption to the Eastern Lake Ontario viewshed and well beyond.

Don't be stupid and get take in by this scam.

The wind companies have figured out long ago that dangling enough $$$$ in front of some people turns their brains to a pile of mush and they become willing to suck up any wind propaganda.

Cape Vincent was a stunning example of how otherwise normal thinking people became automatons willing to do anything wind developers told them even as their community completely crumbled around them.

It reminds me of the experiments with monkeys and cocaine. The money just keeps pushing the lever for more cocaine until he dies!!!

Anonymous said...

Pandora, perhaps you could provide a realistic interpretation of the ART.10 process for your readers.
The following is a disturbingly inaccurate perspective on ART.10 left as a comment on another local blog. It occurs to me that maybe many folks do not fully understand the true basis and intent, or function of the ART.10 review.

"The basic purpose of the Article 10 process is to verify that a local wind ordinance is "reasonable."

In this case there is NO local wind ordinance.

So, the issue is not Article 10, but rather that Hounsfield has not passed a protective wind law.

After they do that, it will then be appropriate to make sure that the Article 10 people do not undermine it."

A puzzling misinterpretation.