Western Catskill Preservation Alliance

Welcome to home page of the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA). The WCPA was formed in the late summer of 2006 to fight what we believe is an ill-conceived industrial wind energy project which will have a devastating impact on our rural lands and wilderness. The WCPA is concentrating its efforts in the Towns of Stamford, Roxbury and Gilboa where Invenergy, a Chicago based wind energy company, has proposed to build a industrial wind farm consisting of 34 turbines, each standing 410 feet tall. The turbines will be placed on the ridge along Rt 23 from the Village of Stamford to Grand Gorge and then down Rt 30 toward Roxbury. This is only the first phase of an extensive plan that will eventually extend down to the Roses Brook ridge and throughout others areas in Roxbury.

The WCPA members include working families and retirees, full-time residents and second homeowners, professionals and farmers. If you would like to join our cause please email us at wcpa06@aol.com.

Our home page provides regular updates on the status of the Industrial Wind issue. We also maintain a history of the updates so that newcomers can quickly learn about the issue.

June 21st Update - Letter to Mayor Jacobs

To Friends of the WCPA,

I hope all are doing well.

First of all I would like to remind everyone that our website contains a chronological history of all of our communications. We also now have links to relevant video clips supporting our cause. Add our website to your favorites list www.westerncatskillpreservationalliance.org.

At the Stamford Village meeting conducted this past Tuesday (June 16), Eric Miller from Invenergy spoke to the Village Board and “decided” that the Invenergy Wind project was good for the village. He also told Mayor Jacobs that many residents support the project.

As you know, the Village owns the park at the top of Mt. Utsayantha. Invenergy desperately needs to use the road leading to the top of Mt. Utsayantha to build the access roads to Turbine # 1 and beyond. Invenergy came to the meeting and offered the Village payment for granting Invenergy permission to build a road through the park, to grant a waiver to the setbacks requirements and to use the road leading to the top of the mountain.

For some of you who may not know, recently the Fire Tower and Building have been designated an educational facility. According to the Stamford Town law, a wind tower cannot be built within 2500 ft of an educational facility. This means that without a waiver from the Village, Invenergy cannot build the first three turbines. Also, without access to the top of the mountain, Invenergy will have to find another way to the ridge line which will be quite problematic for them. This one of the key tactical challenges in our overall strategy.

They have offered the village $5000 per year for the waiver, and $2500 per year for use of Tower Road.

We are asking all of our supporters to write letters to the Village Board asking them to reject Invenergy’s offer. Please have a look at the attached letter I sent to Mayor Jacobs today explaining the WCPA’s position on this matter. The more letters we send the better.

We are entering crunch time folks, the Village’s decision is absolutely critical to our fight. We need to send as many letters to the Stamford Village Mayor and Village Board stating our opposition. Mr. Jacobs and the board are seem to be very reasonable people so I do think they will seriously consider our position on the matter.

Please address your letter to:
Mayor Mike Jacob
Stamford Village Hall
Main Street
Stamford, NY 12167
As always, thanks for your support and I hope to see you during the summer.

Thanks!
Ron Karam
President, WCPA

Please see the letter to Mayor Jacobs below:

Western Catskill
Preservation Alliance

P.O. Box 136

Stamford, NY
12167

June 21, 2009

Mr. Mike Jacobs

Mayor, Village of Stamford

Village Town Hall

Stamford, NY 12167

Subject: Invenergy
Industrial Wind Project

Dear Mike,

Congratulations on your election as Mayor of the Village of Stamford. I wish you the best of luck.

We haven’t had the pleasure of meeting. My name is Ron Karam and I am representing the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA). I currently manage the WCPA along with directors Kenny Haas and Carol Mangan. As you may know our alliance was formed to build a coalition of support to challenge and hopefully stop Invenergy from industrializing our prestigious mountain range.

As a bit of background and status, the project is currently in the SEQRA process. Last year, Invenergy submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), a key milestone in the process. Invenergy is now required to address
the many public comments it received during the public review commenting period. These comments should be addressed when Invenergy submits the Final EIS expected this year. It will then be up to the Roxbury Planning Board (lead agency) to approve or reject the FEIS. The WCPA is tracking this process to ensure that the SEQRA process is being followed and that the public comments are adequately addressed.

While there are many environmental, safety and quality of life reasons why the WCPA is against the project, one of the key reasons is to protect the Village’s unique park and education center at the summit of Mt. Utsayantha. We
view this park as a national treasure and one that must be protected. We hope the Village board agrees.

I understand that Invenergy is now offering to purchase rights from the Village to use Tower Road, to build a road through the Village property and to waive the setback requirements for the 410’ towers. While the decision to accept or reject Invenergy’s offer is entirely with the Village, we hope that you will reject this offer in favor of protecting the park. The park should not be for sale, no matter what the price, just as our National Parks are not for sale and never will be.

In considering this decision the WCPA and its supporters (many from the Village) can only ask that you consider the environmental and safety issues associated with granting Invenergy permission. The setback requirements were developed by the Town of Stamford after much research, discussion and debate. The WCPA urged for one mile setbacks which many jurisdictions with wind turbine experience are now starting to adopt. In any event, the Stamford ordinance was enacted with the current setbacks
which were established to protect the public from the environmental hazards associated with these one hundred-ton turbines.

The ordinance does allow for a landowner to waive the setback requirement. However, we ask you to consider that it is one thing for an individual landowner to grant a waiver as the impact will be limited to one person or one
family. In the case of the Village, a waiver would have a negative impact on the general public and the hundreds of people that frequent the park.

On another matter, Invenergy is seeking to use Tower Road which to the best of my knowledge is a “right-of-way” owned by many landowners along the road. According to one landowner, opposed to the project, his deed states that the “right-of-way” may only be used by landowners to access their land including the Village. The “right-of-way” may not be used for commercial use. Given this, when Invenergy asks the
Village for permission to use the road, we ask the board to consider whether it has the legal authority to grant permission to Invenergy to use the road.

Finally, Invenergy has established a Limited Liability Corporation for this project. The LLC should be a red flag for anyone doing business with them as you will have no recourse in the event the LLC fails to meet its obligation
or goes bankrupt. Invenergy, as the parent company, has done a good job in legally protecting itself from any liability of the LLC and the Stamford wind project. The LLC conveniently will never
have any material assets from which to address a liability claim.

We appreciate the decisions that lie ahead of you and the board on this matter but we believe the decision is really an easy one given the environmental and safety issues. We also believe there are many other ways to obtain funding/grants to maintain the road and the park.

I would be happy to discuss this with you and the board.

Thanks for listening!

Ron Karam

President WCPA

CC: Stamford Village
Board Members

U.S. Congressman overwhelmed by wind turbine noise complaints

Check out Wind Watch: U.S. Congressman overwhelmed by wind turbine noise complaints

Important WCPA Update

To Friends of the WCPA,

I hope everyone is doing well after a long and cold winter.

Below please find a letter from our attorney, Peter Henner, to the Roxbury Planning Board. The letter addresses concerns we have regarding how the planning board is handling certain public comments against the DEIS submitted by Invenergy.

The letter also serves to remind Invenergy and the Roxbury Planning Board that the vast majority of property owners in Roxbury, Stamford, Gilboa and surrounding areas remain vehemently opposed to the Industrial Wind Turbine project and that we will use all of our legal options to stop this project to protect our environment and our mountain range.

Thanks for your on-going and unrelenting support!!

Ron Karam
President, WCPA

PETER HENNER
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
P.O. BOX 326
CLARKSVILLE, NEW YORK 12041-0326
(518) 768-8232
Fax: (518) 768-8235
peter@peterhenner.com
WEB SITE: peterhenner.com
*

April 30, 2009

Roxbury Planning Board
Town Hall
P.O. Box 187
Roxbury, NY 12474

To the Planning Board:

I am writing, on behalf of the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (”WCPA”), to express our concerns about the Roxbury Planning Board’s (“the Board”) administration of the SEQRA process with respect to the proposed Invenergy wind turbine project. Specifically, we are concerned that the Board, as evidenced by its recent actions, may not be complying with its obligations under SEQRA to prepare a full Final Environmental Impact Statement (”FEIS”), and may also be improperly deferring critical environmental issues until after the completion of the SEQRA process. We are writing to make a record of our concerns, both in the hope that the Board will correct its apparent mistakes and fulfill its obligations under SEQRA, and to forestall any claim that the WCPA has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, should litigation ultimately be necessary.

As part of its environmental review, the Board is required to analyze the possible impact of the project upon birds and bats. The Board has received comments from state agencies, environmental organizations and a number of individuals pertaining to the inadequacy of the studies that were performed by Invenergy, and are included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (”DEIS”). Specifically, the Board received comments from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, from the New York State Department of Public Service, and from the Delaware Otsego Audubon Society. Each of these comment letters, as well as comment letters received from the general public, set forth a scientifically-based rationale detailing the inadequacies of the analysis contained in the DEIS. In particular, these agencies and organizations urged the Board to require at least one full season, and preferably two seasons of studies prior to making a final determination that adverse impacts on bats and birds could be mitigated.

The FEIS will need to respond to these comments, and, if the recommendations contained in the comments are not followed, the FEIS will need to explain why they were not followed. Nevertheless, even though the FEIS still has not been completed, it appears that the Board has indicated to Invenergy that it only needs to provide a one month study, rather than the more lengthy and comprehensive studies that the agencies and organizations have requested. We strongly urge the Board to reconsider such a determination, and, in any event, respectfully maintain that the Board should not make a determination as to the length of the studies that may be required until it has promulgated an FEIS and fully considered the comments that it has received. Doing otherwise may violate the requirement of SEQRA to fully consider all environmental impacts before making a final determination as to how to proceed.

Similarly, we are concerned about the inadequacies of the Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (”SWPPP”) that is included in the DEIS. The SWPPP is necessary, not just for full consideration of the environmental impacts under SEQRA, but is also a prerequisite for Invenergy to be “covered in” under New York State’s General Storm Water SPDES Permit. We maintain that the SWPPP that is included in the DEIS is too generic and lacks sufficient detail to provide meaningful comments. We also note that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Riverkeeper also made comments taking strong exception to the lack of detail or specifics that were included in the SWPPP.

It is our understanding that Invenergy is not planning to prepare a detailed SWPPP at this time, but instead intends to defer the preparation of such a plan until it determines the exact location and number of turbines. Such a deferral is a plain violation of SEQRA. In order to fully understand the full impacts of Invenergy’s proposal, possible storm water pollution must be considered as part of the environmental review, before the completion of the SEQRA process. If the Board permits Invenergy to defer to the consideration of such a significant environmental impact until after the preparation of the FEIS and the Findings Statement, the Board will be in derogation of its responsibilities under SEQRA, and its SEQRA findings will be subject to legal attack.

Furthermore, it should be understood that, regardless of the adequacy or inadequacy of the Board’s SEQRA findings, a possible change in the project, such as a material change in location and number of turbines that are presently proposed, may require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (”SEIS”), subject to all of the rules and regulations set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 617 for the preparation of an SEIS.

We trust that the Board desires to fully comply with its legal obligations under SEQRA. We sincerely hope that the Board will fully comply with SEQRA procedures, and make a full and reasoned determination with respect to all prospective environmental impacts. We also sincerely hope that the Board will comly with SEQRA by completing the SEQRA process before making irrevocable determinations, not only with respect to the ultimate approval or disapproval of a project, but also with respect to the number and quality of the environmental studies that Invenergy must perform. We respectfully remind the Board that such studies must be considered as part the Board’s review process.
Very truly yours,

Peter Henner
Attorney for Western Catskill Preservation Association
c: Kevin Young, Esq.
WCPA

Company Explains Cause Of Turbine Collapse

MSNBC story about a Noble Environmental Power turbine collapse in Altona, N.Y. - Company Explains Cause Of Turbine Collapse

Industrial Wind Action Group Link

Industrial Wind Action Group - the latest facts, analysis, and exposure of wind energy’s real impacts - you can search on NYS activities to see the latest local news.

Wind Action Videos

Health Issues
http://www.windaction.org/videos/18823

Ice Throw
http://www.windaction.org/videos/19335

Bats
http://www.windaction.org/videos/17713
 
Flicker
http://www.windaction.org/videos/19134

Albany County Towns Push Back on Wind
http://www.windaction.org/videos/18369

Wind Turbine Disaster
http://www.windaction.org/videos/19063

Noise: Does this sound like a Refrigerator
http://www.windaction.org/videos/18460

WCPA Wind Project Update

To Friends of the WCPA,

I hope you are all well and surviving all the snow and cold! Spring is right around the corner….. we hope!

We would like to bring everyone up to speed with what is going on with the wind project.

The project is still alive and moving forward through the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review process. For the most part the ball is completely in Invenergy’s court.

Here’s the recap: Early last year Invenergy submitted the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project. The DEIS is intended to address all of the impacts on the environment (safety, birds, view shed, economy, noise, traffic, water supply, etc, etc) and relevant mitigation plans. Following the submission of the DEIS, in accordance with the SEQRA process, the Roxbury Planning conducted public hearing and solicited written comments from the public. Please note that the DEP, DEC, Dept of Public Service and other State and County agencies are considered as part of the public. Some of these agencies are “permitting” agencies meaning that in order for the project to proceed Invenergy must receive certain permits from the governing agencies.

The public comments were received by late spring. From my perspective, the comments were quite thorough and well documented; this was also acknowledged by the Roxbury Planning Board. All of the comments have been posted on Roxbury’s website. http://www.roxburyny.com/windproject/index.html

Following the public commenting period, on August 1, 2008, LaBella, Roxbury Planning Board’s engineering firm managing the review process, sent Invenergy a summary of all of the public comments. Click here for the public comments. Invenergy is required to respond to all of the comments.

Then in November 2008, LeBella, on behalf of the planning board, delivered two additional documents to Invenergy (also refered to as Moresville Energy LLC, a subsidary of Invenergy). The November 7, 2008 document is a letter to Invenergy from LaBella. In the letter LaBella provides Invenergy with a list and description of additional studies that are being requested by the board. These studies were handled separately from the public comments given the amount of time it will take Invenergy to respond. Click here for the list of additional studies being requested.

The second document (November 24, 2008) was again sent from LeBella to Invenergy providing Invenergy with a detailed set of comments from the Planning Board (obviously prepared by LeBella on behalf of the board).
Click here for the comments.

Collectively the documents on August 1, Novermber 7 and November 24 make up the super set of comments that Invenergy needs to address in the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS). They are quite extensive.

While it is customary for an applicant, in this case Invenergy, to provide a response to the comments in advance of issuing a FEIS, it is not required.

As of now, Invenergy has not provided any official response to the comments.

So where does that leave us and what are our next steps?

We can say with some certainty that the additional studies required by the board will consume most of 2009, at least through the fall nocturnal migration season. To remind everyone, the additional studies include Raptor Migration, Nocturnal Migration, Archaeological, Architectural, Visual, Traffic/Road Impact, Tourism/Property Value Study, Noise Study, Well Survey, Forest/Habitat Survey, and Plant/Wildlife/Insect. These studies are in addition to the plethora of comments that also need to be addressed.

During 2009 the WCPA will keep close tabs on what’s going and will be reporting to you accordingly.

We will also be focusing on public awareness and making sure the government agencies are fully aware of the public’s concerns with the project; we will continue to seek their support.

We will also be continuing to work with the united group of impacted landowners who are opposed to the project. Remember, that even if Invenergy clears the FEIS, they still do not have enough land owner support for a viable project.

Sorry for the long update but we wanted to make sure that we are all up to date on the status of the project and our next steps.

As always, don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Ron Karam
President
Western Catskill Preservation Alliance

Important WCPA Update - Moresville Energy Project

To Friends of the WCPA,

The Roxbury Planning Board has officially notified Invenergy of its comments against the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). While the WCPA is still reviewing the information which was posted to the Roxbury website yesterday, we are encouraged with the Planning Board’s response. (http://www.roxburyny.com/windproject/index.html).

The board has requested that Invenergy conduct additional studies and provide additional data before they submit a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Many of these study requests support the requests made during the public commenting period (our collective comments). I am pleased to report that the board is asking for a new nocturnal avian migration study to cover another full season which should take at least a year to complete. This study is to be completed prior to the submission of the FEIS. This is one example but there are many others.

I have attached two documents for your review (document one and document two). The first is a letter from LaBella (the Town’s engineering firm) to Invenergy that provides a description of the specific additional studies that the Roxbury Planning Board is requiring. The second document is a detailed list of the public comments that need to be addressed by Invenergy. This list is extensive and includes comments from all of the involved State agencies.

Again, the WCPA has not yet conducted a detailed review of this information but what we see is very encouraging.

Also, if there is any silver lining with the current economic environment is that Invenergy’s ability to raise working capital is most likely being impacted. Already, there have been a couple of wind project that were in the construction phase that have been halted due to the current economic situation. In one project in NY they had already cleared the roads and poured the foundations. The question for Invenergy management is how much more will they/can they continue to invest in this project, especially given the costs associated with conducting the new studies and keeping their Stamford office open without any revenue coming in for at least another two-three years.

I will keep you posted on our findings.

The WPCA wishes to thank the Roxbury Planning Board for continuing to take a fair and balanced approached to this highly contentious review process.

I wish to thank you all for your on-going support. Together, we are going to preserve our mountains and defeat this project.

Thanks,
Ron Karam
President, WCPA

WCPA Update - Roxbury Planning Board Meeting Summary

To Friends of the WCPA,

The purpose of this update is to provide you with a summary of what happened at the Roxbury Planning Board meeting on September 17. As you may recall this was the meeting that LaBella (Roxbury’s engineering firm) was to report back to the planning board with its advice on how the board should respond to the public comments.

Here’s what happened.

The meeting started off with Joe Fairleigh, the Planning Board chairman, reading a print out of the WCPA’s latest update from our website. Joe took exception to the comment I made that LaBellla was being paid by Invenergy and was pro-wind. Joe wanted to make it clear that LaBella is contracted and paid by the Town. Invenergy is funding the Town to pay LaBella but has no influence with LaBella. I responded to Joe by saying that LaBella’s actions will determine if they are being objective. In any event, out of respect for Joe and the board I removed the comment from the website.

Following this, LaBella’s provided its feedback to the board. This can be summed up into three actionable activities:

1. LaBella has provided Invenergy with a document that included all of the public comments. This document was apparently given to Invenergy at the last planning board meeting or shortly thereafter. This document should include all of our comments plus the comments from all of the agency (DEP, DEC, etc). LaBella said that Invenergy is already working to respond to all of the comments. We need to find out if we can get a copy of this document. Since it was given to Invenergy it should be available to us to review.

2. In addition to the public comments, LaBella created its own list of comments against the DEIS. This document was handed to the board at the meeting. The document looked substantial (~10 pages of comments) which is encouraging. LaBella informed the board that they included all of their comments, no matter how minor. LaBella told the board that it’s the board’s job to determine level of relevance of each of the comments and that it was the board’s decision to determine which comments needed to be address in the final DEIS. I believe the list includes different issues than the issues raised with the public comments. LaBella said that they have not provided this document to Invenergy and it was the board’s decision to give it to Invenergy or not. The Town’s lawyer said that if the board gave the document to Invenergy than they must make the document available to the public. The board decided that it wanted to review the document first before releasing it to Invenergy and the public.

3. LaBella then gave the board a one or two page spread sheet that included a list of studies that the board may require Invenergy to perform based on all of the comments. Given the amount of time it will take to complete the studies, LaBella suggested to the board that they may want to make a decision now on whether they will require these studies and if so they should tell Invenergy so they can get started. I didn’t catch all of the studies but here’s what I recall: Nocturnal Migration Study (1 complete season), Habitat Studies (dealing with the forestry issues), Architectural Study (to determine what buildings are on the national registry within a five mile radius), Visual Impact studies, Computer Models (noise computation), Traffic and Road Study, Property Value Study, Impact on Tourism Study, and Rapture Migration Study. This appears to be a comprehensive list of the studies that will require the most time to complete. The board said they would take the list under advisement. We were pleased that one board member said she felt all of the studies should be done.

Following this a conversation ensued between the board, LaBella and the town’s attorney. They discussed using post-implementation studies to satisfy some of the studies suggested by LaBella. For example, since requiring a new nocturnal migration study would take a year to complete and might not be able to start until the spring, they discussed a post-implementation mitigation plan in lieu of the 1 year study. So essentially the were discussing an approach to count dead birds are after the turbines are constructed and then to mitigate the issue by shutting down the turbine(s) causing the most damage for certain hours of the day. I don’t believe all of the board members supported this approach but it is remarkable that this would even be considered given the overwhelming objections the board received from the governing agencies and the Audobon Society to the study that was included in the DEIS.

They were also discussing the possibility of approving the Final EIS before all of the studies were completed. This conversation was quite alarming and we were disappointed that the conversation drifted in this direction away from the core issues. It is not acceptable for the board to approave a Final EIS prior to all of the sutides being properly conducted. It appeared from the conversation between the board, LaBella and the town’s attorney that they were trying to find ways to make it easier for Invenergy to receive board approval.

The WCPA will state their concerns formally to the board. Our advice to the board is that there is no need to rush to a decision with incomplete information and that the board shouldn’t feel pressured to complete the review process. If a study needs to be re-done to provide better information to make an informed decision, than so be it. The amount of time it takes should be a non-issue.

At the next Planning Board meeting we should know what the board’s decision is on the studies and whether or not they will ask Invenergy to conduct new studies. We should also be able to get a copy of LaBella’s detailed DEIS comments.

Thanks to all of our supporters who attended the meeting - the Roxbury Town Hall was packed!

Thanks for all of your support!

Ron Karam
President, WCPA

Upcoming Planning Board Meeting

To the Friends of the WCPA,

Welcome back and I hope you all enjoyed the great summer we had (are are having)!

This is the first update since the DEIS public commenting period on the Morseville Industrial Wind Project so if you think you missed an update you haven’t.

Things have been quite quiet since the commenting period as LaBella (Invenergy and Roxbury’s engineering firm) has been preparing their recommendation to the Roxbury Planning Board on next steps with Invenergy. LaBella has been tasked to provide advice to the board on what the Planning Board should say to Invenergy in light of the comments we all provided. (All agree, including the Planning Board, that the comments were quite thorough and on point)

It has taken quite some time for LaBella to provide this input mainly due to the volume of valid comments and probably to allow Invenergy to address some of the issues.

In any event, the time has come. This Wednesday, September 17, at the Planning Board Meeting, LeBella is expected to finally provide the recommendation to the Planning Board on what it should tell Invenergy regarding the public comments. The meeting starts at 7:30 at the Roxbury Town Hall on Main Street. As you know it is a very small Town Hall. Even so, I would like to show as much support as we can. If you can attend, please try and arrive early to get a seat.

The Roxbury Planning Board has been doing a very good job on challenging LaBella and Invenergy on the comments and I do not expect the board to take the advice from LaBella on face value. With this, we will need to assist the board in responding to the LaBella recommendations.

This is the critical meeting that we have been waiting for and the results will help us determine our next steps.

Also, we now have good reason to believe that Invenergy, through masked third parties, are buying key properties that are critical to the project. There is one particular property in the Tower Road area that has already been purchased. Invenergy required 5 variances from this property owner who was totally against the project. Fortunately enough, we have other landowners on our side that also have to provide variances.

Based on what happens on Wednesday, we are likely going to need another fund raising drive for legal expenses. I will provide more information later in the month.

Thanks again for hanging in there and supporting our battle with Invenergy. Together we can defeat this project!!

Thanks,
Ron Karam
President, WCPA