Yep. Our town formed a wind turbine study committee and one of our recommendations was to require a site-specific DEIS for each turbine placement. Yes, it's more work, but with the amount of cash flowing from these turbines it's affordable for the companies and points out potential problems not only with wildlife, but also with water tables and earthquake potential before the project begins. Keep us posted.

(BTW, let me know if you want an ECCO-specific page on the site -- happy to oblige)

Although my report says denied, I should have said it has delayed the processed for Clayton and Orleans wind farm. I attended a Planning Board meeting this week. The Environmental Service (hired by PPM) and a representative from PPM Energy were there. Our Planning Board questioned the reason for a DGEIS submission to public instead of a DEIS. Their reply was "all windfarms have the same componets; turbines, access roads, underground connections,construction sites and etc.". This is unacceptable! In reference to the US Fish & Wildlife report, PPM Energy acknowledged that further studies were needed and must be performed over the winter months. This will delay the project for 6 months and they expected this to happen. They also stated to the planning board that they felt the impact to our wildlife would "minimium". They said the same thing at Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville and look at what happened there. I believe 2006 report stated over 15,000 birds died. Unnacceptable, Unnacceptable. I would like to see the numbers through out NYS of all wildlife killed in each of our wind plant locations.

Here is the actual maple ridge numbers. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/maple_ridge_report_2006.pdf 15,000 birds? Where do you get that number from?

Good morning Clinton Visitor Thank you and I have read the report. Go to National Wind Watch posting 6/18/07 under wildlife, NY article "Maple Ridge Wind Power Project Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study 2006"
What we are reading from Curry & Kerlinger, LLC is a 5 month study not a full year and only based on 120 turbines not the full 195 working. You should also want to know according to National Grid wind project map they are getting 80 more turbines.
We have great concerns in northern Jefferson County along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario regarding our wildlife. The impact here will be more devasting than Maple Ridge by far. The US Fish & Wildlife report and NYSDEC report (even though they are prowind)are very concerned. Even the Audobon State Society is concerned. We have numerous endangered species. We have tremendous amount of wetlands and limestone base. We have numerous preservations and State wildlife reservers surrounding us. We are not an agricultural farming district anymore. We do however have an abundance of Amish farms. Residents here are mostly retired citizens moving from cities to live in rural areas along the St. Lawrence River basin. The overlay site of turbines is unbelieveable and consists of 62 turbines 407 ft. tall within 7 miles. The number of residents in this area is over 1000 populated. I would be happy to supply you with copies of any of these reports. The number of land owners are few and most will not live under a turbine they raise hay for other farmers or mushroom factories. They are however continuing to sell lots to new residents and of course new residents are not told turbines are coming. We are contacted almost weekly by new residents who are getting ready to build. There are places for a wind energy plant but not here. We have too many residents to close together and wildlife. One area of the "grid" shows homes impacted by 11 turbines in one mile!

Hello Ecco Jefferson. As per your suggestion, I looked at the site you suggested. I think you know what is posted isn't even close to a study. The 5 month interval of time in the study that was conducted seems to represent the spring and fall migrations. If you notice the beginning of that time and the end the counts tail off to near zero. Bats don't hang around in winter to interpolation to strech the 5 months to 12 -- well is just plain fantasy. Same holds true to a large extent with birds. Futhermore there wasn't a even distribution pattern with the kill either per turbine. Seems like the density aspect of your note points out to more of a visual issue.

Your response, visitor, is typical of why it is I wonder why I bother arguing with you. I don't know whether it's the fact that you don't actually read the studies you post, whether you have near-zero reading comprehension, or you're just "playing dumb" to pester us, but it's tough to argue with a person who acts in such a way.
You say: "The 5 month interval of time in the study that was conducted seems to represent the spring and fall migrations." Really? I direct you to page 8 of the document you linked to, 2nd to last paragraph (emphasis mine): "However, the rates determined for Maple Ridge do not include the spring migration season, so annual rates will likely be slightly greater than rates reported herein." The Fall migration period accounted for > 65% of total "incidents." Further, if you read the study, you'd understand that the numbers were artificially low for the early months because they were having trouble getting the ground cleared to aid in the carcass finding (page 17), which would account for your carcasses "tailing off to near 0" at the beginning of the study. Even without reading the document, that you would believe that bats and birds migrate north primarily in late June/July (especially when bats start migrating South in July) really indicates to me that either the area you live in is way different than the area I live in, or you truly expect bats to bother migrating to live one month out of twelve in an area...

You also say "Furthermore there wasn't a [sic] even distribution pattern with the kill either per turbine." If you mean the 50 turbines they selected for the study do not represent a fair cross-section of the 195 installs such that multiplying the number of kills by 3.9 does not serve as a fair estimation, especially since they seemed to take great pains to select towers based on their environment (with the exception of "woodland/difficult terrain" areas) then they chose the wrong towers for the study, as the whole point was to have a representative sample rather than counting under every turbine...

And there you go with the "purely aesthetics" again. I've personally given you the benefit of a doubt in not automatically thinking that your "pro-wind" stance is financially driven. I have not accused you of it because you have said otherwise and I have taken your word for it. But that you come here and call us liars, over and over again (while clearly not even pretending to comprehend not only what others post, but what you post as well), is the act of someone who perhaps has more of an agenda than simply "spreading the good word of Wind Power." Perhaps you're feeling guilt for the money you've taken at the potential expense of your neighbors, and feel the need to come here to try to rationalize your lease agreement beyond the dollar signs. Maybe you are promoting wind power only because of your personal financial gain...I'm believing it more and more with each of your "you're lying, it's only aesthetics that bothers you. Here's some data that I haven't even bothered reading beyond the numbers that I can twist to kind of support my viewpoint" posts.

And, before you ask, with respect to the study I'm working on, it's not complete yet. I unfortunately do not have access to all the data I need yet, and will not bother posting it until I can. Besides that, it's been a busy Summer for me.

Well Dan. I must say your tone is disapointing. I'll have to respond in like which is a bit unfortunate. Let me first share a bit of my background. First of all I'm financially very secure and I have degrees in the field of mathematics. I am smart enough. The amount of revenue that the turbines brings in is modest. I am however putting it to good use - land purchasing - as is my back neighbor. So lets begin.

Calling you liars - call it what you will for voicing my own opinion. And in my opinion most on this site are so desperate to prevent development that any issue - red herring and all are a rallying cause. From Effie saying that towns don't actually recieve the money, to the zealot that says there is absolutely no carbon offset, to your analogies about giving away millions in tax credits and also saying the plan is ok from a sight line perspective then saying later there is no plan , to Anne tarnishing professional reputations, and the good doctor with her vibro disease claims. And then the negative environmental claims. Yet watch dog agencies like greenpeace, the sierra club, and of course the audobon society all clearly support this. The most common attack method is to review published research (because very little negative published research is found) and to then use a very creative interpolation to fit your need. That is where I have stepped in with a brief statement. I feel very postive about the benefits and have no guilt at all. On the otherhand, You folks are but a very small minority in most towns and are losing in a big way when you look at what decisions are being made on a town by town basis. Of course you can say that the towns are greedy or not as educated as folks on this esteemed site, but do you really even believe that? Good thing that we live in a democracy is all I say. Personally - I do believe most you really a bunch of Nimby minded individuals who are saying everything but that which bothers you most - the sight line. The funny thing is that if you did say that - I would agree that its a real issue to debate within a town.

Nows lets focus on that report and your comments:

Spring Migrations - yes I read that. I do know for a fact that bats don't arrive in numbers until mid june. I have two properties in clinton, one in Franklin and one alone the flyway on lake champlain. To weight a winter time bat population the same as summer is an example of creative interpolation to fit the need to show something negative.

Turbine choices - page 16 of that report went thru pains to describe how the DEC wanted to go beyond a random sample set to include specific hot zones - thus skewing the result. I agree the sample set is large enough if random.

Ground clearing - if you bothered to read this yourself you would have read that they altered their search protocol or was this an example of cherry picking your answer?

Lastly the visual thing. That was directed to Ecco's comment about 1000 people within the mile area. So not bats or birds. What do you think this meant - misuse of tax dollars or an allusion to a pending vibro ascoustic outbreak or even maybe an epilepsy crisis due to the strobe effect?

Lastly I look forward to your tax study. What is interesting here is the sequence of events - you first note is as an personally important issue then being unable to defend your stance you go silent followed by research in hopes of bolstering your original position. Quite a novel way to form an educated opinion and sets an example for all of us how to examine issues with an open mind.

I had thought that maybe giving you a taste of “baseless prejudice” would give you pause to consider, but apparently you take too much pride in your prejudices. It seems you come here not to try to understand the opposing viewpoints but to try to get those with opposing viewpoints to “admit” that they fit the mold you’ve already made for them. Then, whether they confess or not, you chastise them for being closed-minded….

But enough on that, and many of the other topics. Let's get back to the "birds and the bats:"
Spring Migrations: Since you're talking migratory bats, I'm guessing you actually are going into the woods after midnight to see the forest bats (hoary, silver-haired, red) that aren't often seen by humans, correct? These are the only bats that are truly migratory. Not the locally-hibernating brown bats that show up in/around houses at dusk (had one on a screen (outside) upstairs Friday night!). Otherwise, I’d wonder why you’d go so far to contradict the study, especially when the mathematician in you has to be looking at the graphs of “incidents” and saying “there’s only one migration ‘bump.’ Where’s the other one?”

Ground Clearing My “cherry-picking” is of the comments made at the bottom of pages 17 to the top of page 18, which are pretty well summarized in the last statement on page 17: “Given that a complete mowing schedule had not yet begun, searchable ground at the oneday and three-day sites varied from site to site, and changed over time as grass/crop/brush increased in height.” They “altered their search protocol” by reducing the area searched. How is that a cherry-pick? Admittedly, though, this may not have huge effects on the bat results, as they do say that bats tended to be found closer to the towers.

In general, it is interesting to note that, as usual, they try to down-play the results by making them seem “normal.” This is behavior that is typical in the Industrial Wind Power Plant industry, and a reason I always look at their studies (and/or studies commissioned by them and/or on their behalf) cynically. In particular, the bat results are compared favorably to the Appalachian study, a study which raised alarms with naturalists over the threats of turbines to bat populations. In that study, it was estimated that 38 bats per turbine were killed over a six week period. Yes, there’s not much else to compare to (it was one of the first major studies that included bats), but to say it compares favorably indicates that the Appalachian results are within the “acceptable range.” In this current study (per the final draft), even if you accept that their estimate of 15 to 25 bats are killed per turbine during the study is all that would be killed per year, you’re looking at somewhere between 3000 and 4900 bats killed per year at Maple Ridge alone. Since the numbers in the study don’t raise any concerns with you (just certain extrapolations), you shouldn’t blink at the idea that, if we put up 3000 MW of wind capacity (1/2 of the current NYISO queue, and the goal of the NYSERDA report) would amount to 33,000+ bat deaths per year. Now, to be precise, I’m not saying that 3000 MW of wind capacity will result in 33,000 bat deaths per year, I’m just saying that you find that number reasonable. Heck, if you need to have someone from academia tell you a lot of bats could be killed, get this article for some research headed up by Thomas Kunz from Boston University.

Now this is the point where unreasonable turbine folks (I’ve told you before there’s lots of “playing with data” going on both sides of the debate, which is part of the reason why it can be tough to come up with “true” numbers) would say that would mean we’d be using X amount more pesticides/repellents for the millions more mosquitoes there would be. But I won’t, because I have done enough research to understand that, at least at Maple Ridge, many of those killed (the afore-mentioned migratory wood bats) were primarily (from science’s current understanding) moth eaters, so a statement like that would not necessarily be true…

You'd thought you give me a taste of ingorance? Interesting come back. I've seen enough on this site to not need further demonstrations - thank you very much. Seems like you are really struggling to figure me out. How about just accepting that what I've said is accurate.

Spring migrations: If you look at the graph on page 37 it illustrates what the point I had been making. As a reminder - it was that the 23,000 number was fictious, made up, inflated,etc. Your right, I'm not an expert in bats and I can't tell on species from another. Nevertheless - assuming a winter time population is the same as summer is just very creative interplotion oriented in making the number as large as possible instead of realistic. Just like your interpolation that all trubines in the NYSIO queue are equally weighted as far a kills per year. A bit too simplistic my friend. Good thing each wind farm gets its own study for that is what's needed. The Kutz summary didn't post numbers just a stated concern. Do you have the detailed report?

Views on the real number 3000-4000. I never expressed an opinion on that. So why are you asserting that I did? If I have an opinion to share I'll state it. But at least you've come down to earth on what is a number to examine. Which as I just said - was my objective.

So it's that simple. I need to accept who you profess yourself to be while you will not afford me the same luxury. Despite that, as I have stated, I have afforded you that common courtesy, as I am not prejudicial.

So you continue to argue that the Spring migration is included despite the report itself saying otherwise. First you dispute the report's statement with your own observations, and with them dashed you go back to a graph in which I can see only one "spike" for bats and one "spike" for birds. Said spike for bats occurs during July and August which, according to the bottom of page 7, is the Fall migration period for bats. I'm still flummoxed as to where the Spring numbers are.

Yes, the 23,000 number is "fictious [sic],made up, inflated"...by you! The numbers you are so concerned about on wind-watch indicate 8580 to 15967 total kills (birds and bats). While doing an equal distribution year-round (as they appear to do) is faulty, unless you can show me the Spring migration spike that is, according to you, completely non-fictitious, I am prone to believe that there will be more incidents than related. Heck, even the study, on page 8, says that the annual rates would be greater due to the Spring migration not being included. Though, I take exception with the notion of it being a "slight increase," especially with no evidence in the study to the contrary to indicate why Spring migration numbers would not be anywhere near the Fall migration numbers. So I believe a scientist can reasonably extrapolate Spring migration numbers from Fall migration numbers. I personally believe a more reasonable estimate for year-round incidents would be had by multiplying the bat numbers by 1.699 (per the study 69.9% of the kills occurred during Fall migration) and bird numbers by 1.648. So, for bats, for Phase 1 (195 turbines), you'd be looking at a range of 5036-8127. Birds would be 1006-3082. Total would be 6042-11209. Of course they go up with Phase II.

Now, as I was saying above when playing Devil's Advocate (how you interpret the phrase "even if" as "I've seen the light, Visitor! I believe!" is another yet another quandary...BTW, I like how you rounded my 4900 down to 4000...you should get a job with the wind industry!), I think even the numbers they give by themselves are too big, even with all the effort they've put into minimizing the impact. I did tell you that my extrapolations across NY were theoretical (it still amazes me that a mathematician would continually show an inability/unwillingness to discern theoretical/hypothetical talk from literal talk), and that I list them to show what a "reasonable" number of kills state-wide is according to the Industry. After all, the report posits that the incidents are "within the ranges of those found during other wind turbine fatality studies" (page 8), clearly leading the lay reader to believe there is no reason for alarm.

In closing, I do find it amazing how far you'll go to argue over something you just stated you are ambivalent about. If you have no opinion on 3000-4900, what does 10000, 15000, 20000 matter to you?

I would have thought the difference between most folks on this site and me is pretty obvious. But let me state it clearly - I'm not a NIMBY activist and am not acting on desperate hopes of preventing this from happening in my backyard. I don't have an agenda based motivation and I believe you others do. I have not intention to work for a wind company but like to think I have worked effectively and efficently to maximize the clean energy potential on my land.

Dan, when did I say I was ambivalent as to numbers? I would rather understand a wildlife expert view and then be able to have an informed opinion. I thought I explained this using your tax position as an example. For me - I'd like to understand what effect the kills have on the overall population. Do you have this data? Or are you just trying to post something negative?

I said 23,000 because that was what Ecco originally said. I'm not and won't debate this but Effie has been up to her old editing tricks again. Pretty cheap, desperate and not that effective.

Do you know what a bell curve distribution is and how do you feel the graph on page 37 fit and what do you think it says? Here's my read:

a) The spring migration is a lesser effect as noted in that WRA study and included in that graph
B) The fall and spring migrations have a much smaller effect on the kills than the steady state summering population

or

C) There was a spring peak but was missed because of the survey dates and had to have a rapid decline in the kills. In effect - two curves.

I guess the lack of data is pointing you to C. That then you pinpointed the fall migration number from this study and was able to isolate it from the summering population. Not a mere feat. I'm impressed Dan. 69%. I could ask just how you were able to pull it off but personally I know your numbers are whacked based upon zero data. I think C is unlikely but would want to see some of may's data. As mentioned - it doesn't fit with what I see with bat activity on my land. I think this is an example of just trying to find something negative to promote which is in alignment with this site's NIMBY minded agenda. Me, I think the study's numbers are good enough to compare against estimated populations as they have compensated for their search timing and techniques already.

I'm glad you did admit that the wind watch's methods were incorrect. Now just what do you think their underlying motivation was to make the number seem as negative as possible (hint - we are nimby minded folk).

As a foot note, I don't have an issue understanding extrapolations Dan. Extrapolations need to be prodded as to the theory which is their foundation. And sometimes the motivation or agendas of the person creating them. Remember that I had brought up that MIT winter time study as having interesting paralles with northern NY? I thought I had left you behind struggling to make that intellectual and conceptual leap. I look forward to dialogs on different topics. Unless some additional data is presented, I think I'm done with this thread.

I will keep this brief:

• 23,000 - I know ECCO started with 15000. I remember because he slightly mis-spoke in that he used the bird and bat totals from windwatch while saying only birds.
  
• Fall Migration/69% - The last sentence of page 7 of the first draft you linked earlier (2nd sentence of page 9 of the final version I linked): "The greatest number of bat incidents occurred during the fall migration period, with 228 (69.9%) bat carcasses found between July 1st and August 31st 2006."From that sentence, I inferred:
  
  • The bat Fall migration period is between July 1st and August 31st.
    
  • 69.9% of the kills came during that period.

  Where is the flaw in those inferences?

• Spring Migration: Again, you trump the report's statement "the rates determined for Maple Ridge do not include the spring migration season" with your own personal observation of bats that hibernate (as opposed to migratory bats).