WIND TURBINES at Woodstock Massanutten GW forest.

[Joe Schad]

ALERT: We are at serious risk of loosing Woodstock to Wind Turbines.

The US Forest Service is holding public meetings about their "2008 Forest Plan Revision". The first is July 14, 2008 at 7-9pm at the Peter Mulhenberg Middle School on Susan Ave in Woodstock, VA. Susan Avenue is off the street that is the main Woodstock exit from I-81. There are also public hearings in Lexington Jul 15, 2008, Verona July 18, 2008 and another in West Virginia. You can go to the forest service web site www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj to get more information about the plan and a map of proposed locations for wind turbines. They have sites all along the Woodstock ridge from Signal Knob south. Their plan would effectively close the mountain to hang gliding and paragliding and possibility to all soaring depending on the number of turbine the erect. Our local paper is quoting 130 wind turbines in the plans but there was an earlier statement that indicated as many as 300 might eventually be built along the valley on both ridges (North mountain and south as well as the Massanutten range).

I plan to attend the Public Meeting in Woodstock. I hope everyone will try to attend a meeting and write the forest service in opposition to their proposal. I don't know if our national organization can be of any help but we might want to contact them for help. The more people the better.

Joe

[tdilisio]

This would REALLY suck!!! Didn't they go through something similar in the past with erecting cell towers? I think the Apalachan Trail Club had a lot to do with defeating that measure (or at least limiting it's impact). Might be a valuable partner in defeating this... or at least limiting it's effects on us. (http://www.appalachiantrail.org). Anyone a member that can garner their support?

[Dan T]

Most people who have never seen a windfarm do not fully appreciate the magnitude of the visual blight they create on the countryside. 300 windmills will completely alter the appearance of that portion of the countryside. I encourage you to pull a couple of photos off of the net and send them to the local newspapers. The windfarm at Morongo Valley near Palm Springs is a particularly illustrative example.

There are a lot of wealthy families living adjacent to our little front range. I am sure that if you can get them engaged they could be a great benefit to any initiative to defeat this measure.

As a side note I once read that the initial tests in the Morongo Valley demonstrated that the best source of wind for the purpose of running those turbines is not on the tops of the ridges. Apparently it is steadier and therefore more usable off the ridges and in the valley floor at that location at least. I am sure the valley floor there experiences a venturi effect.

Speaking of effects, don't forget the Woodstock effect. A 5 mph reduction in average windspeed could render the windfarm to be economically impractical. If they are modeling the windspeeds off of soundings in a broader general area, they are going to be overstated. I don't know how you will ever convince the proponents to be wary of this local micrometeorlogical effect but we all know it's real.

Good luck,
Dan T
From Baghdad

[RedBaron]

Haven't they heard of the "Woodstock Effect"? Those windmills will not be moving much
It wouldn't be the end of the world. The setup area at WS sucks anyway, too many scratches on my lovely carbon base tube already. Plus there will be more pilots to fly the Pulpit then

[mcgowantk]

I agree with Joe that this is a pretty serious issue. While North Mountain has been noted as best suited for the turbines, the map shows lots of areas on the main woodstock ridge that could handle wind turbines too. It would help if some pilots show up at the hearing at Woodstock on July 14th. I spoke with a ranger organizing the hearings and they all ready have a request in to build wind turbines. We need to say if using turbines would be incapatable with hang gliding and other activities if we have any hope of saving the site. We may want to draft a letter from the club on this as well.

Since I have been flying, we have only lost sites. If you fly Woodstock, consider the hours you have spent or will spent in the air and decide if spending a couple of hours trying to protect the site would be too much to ask. I hope to see you out at the meeting.

Tom McGowan

[tdilisio]

Is it just me not knowing what I'm looking at.... or does the forest service not know east from west. Seems to me... the fingers of the Woodstock mountain face W/NW.... not east. If they base their decisions on this map, I don't have a lot of confidence that an accurate survey was ever performed.... http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/forestplan/ ... _Power.pdf

[Matthew]

No one cares a rats ass about hang gliding. Thus, any argument that windmills will damage hang gliding won't go anywhere. Also, arguments about windmills being a blight on the landscape are crap. Cookie cutter housing developments are blights upon the landscape. Power lines and poles are a blight. And you don't see these things being slowed down. The blight argument is what rich people argue to save their view. Won't work for us. The main argument is that there are diminshed winds at Woodstock due to a topographical effect that we call the Woodstock effect. Putting windmills along the main ridge at Woodstock doens't make economical sense. This needs to be our main argument. We also need to challnge any conclusions regarding the windmill map. How did they derive their choices and rankings for places that would be good for windmills? Have they measured wind speeds or just looked at a topo map for high points or venturis? If they don't have actual wind measurements for at least a couple of years, then their whole plan is based upon crap. Thus, we need to find out how they came up with the basis for windmill locations.

Matthew

[stevek]

I assume the communities along the mtn -- Strausburg, Toms Brook, Woodstock .. will oppose this. United local opposition should certainly count for something. Another point is that the ridge has a large number of Bald Eagles -- some that live there, others that migrate through. Wind turbines are going to slaughter them. Not sure what the status of the Bald is. If it is still on the endangered list, that alone could be used to derail the project.

[Dan T]

If you google commercial windmills I think you will find that they are most efficient in steady winds above 10 mph and that average daytime winds below those speeds do not usually make for cost effective locations. Windmills also aren't very effective at exploiting the wind gusts since they need to run in synch with each other. It's a reasonably good bet that the company(s) considering installing windmills at that location are using the same general area forecasts that we use when deciding to fly. It is exceedingly unlikely that they are aware of the Woodstock effect and almost as unlikely that they will take our words about the Woodstock effect at face value. We would be wise to prove it.

It might be easier to make a persuasive case on July 14 than one might think. We have a long history of posts regarding where we plan to fly and for what reason. These posts can be compared to the surface forecasts on those days when we were debating which NW site to fly. Since those historical posts are untainted by an agenda regarding our opposition to windmills, they make a compelling case that the Woodstock effect is real. I think there is a reasonable chance that if we can demonstrate that they should subtract 5 mph from the historical surface forecasts they will conclude that there are better candidate locations.

I encourage you all to attend and to speak calmly, rationally and consistently regarding the meteorlogical facts at that location. You might also consider inviting the company representatives to join us there on a 10-15 mph day. They could watch us hang waiting and take readings from the tower. For that matter they could stick a windspeed indicator on the tower and prove it to themselves.

I also encourage you to engage a local birding society, letting them know that there are a couple of nesting eagles nearby and that many more use that range as a migratory flyway. Prior posts about flying with the eagles will prove this point. If the birders don't show up have someone speak to those facts anyway. Eagles are no longer on the endangered species list but I believe they are still threatened and that should carry some weight. The eagles often fly up to me from a pont about two or three fingers north of our launch location. I believe they are nesting there. Steve's post came in while I was writing and covered some of the ground I mentioned in this paragraph.

I am sorry that I cannot attend personally, but it is a long way from Baghdad.

Dan T

[eggzkitz]

This is a tough one for me. As a passionate PG who is also an avid and active proponent of alternative, non-carbon forms of energy, I think there is a mutually agreeable solution possible. And I think Matthew is right, that there is no case to make in foot launched freeflight vs. alternative energy windfarm. The political pressure of "not in my backyard" will far outweigh any case made on "not in my launch slot"... But there is a case to make on suitability and mutual use.

I for one, find it hard to believe that Woodstock is a good place for a windfarm. Anyplace that is a good windfarm location is almost by definition not a good HG/PG spot, which is probably why this issue of windfarm vs HG/PG doesn't seem to arise too often. We thrive on winds of 5-10. They would need something more consistently above 10, as has been pointed out. There is the "woodstock effect" -- but they'll seek to resolve by building TALL towers -- likely above the boundary layer we are usually sitting in, even in the firetower.

Secondly, even IF it were a good spot, they probably won't have the funding, or the motivation, to build a massive farm initially. Farms are best concentrated for purposes of maintenance and upkeep. They would be best served to do a trial set of concentrated turbines before looking at anything on a large scale. And even a large farm couldn't possibly need to take the entire ridge. So the governments should seek a solution that blends the needs of all users, both commercial and recreational (PGs and birders). I could see a solution where PGs/HGs might be restricted from a slice of the northern section of the ridge, and we would be relatively unimpacted.

I won't be able to make the meeting. But I watch with interest.

[mcgowantk]

This is not a debate about wind farms. There will be wind farms on Federal property.

My understanding is that the purpose of the meeting is to get input from users of the National Forest whether a wind farm is capatible with their use of the Forest. Further, my understanding (from a green energy attorney) is that present standards for approving wind farms on National Forest property are high (ie, they are often not approved because the turbines will interfer with other uses), and that there few if any proposed projects to put wind farms on National Forest property. I do believe that we can add our voices to the debate and that we should make an effort to be heard. One point is that building wind turbines near our launch would have an impact.

If the decision of the Forest is to move to the next step, there would be a study. In the study, weather monitoring towers would be built to study and record info on winds. Once that study is done (a year or two) the Forest would accept applications for areas that looked promising. The current map forecasts that North Mountain would be the best site, and many sites are listed as possible on the Massenuten Ridge (some of these look like they would be on the east ridge just behind the west ridge that we soar (that east ridge is often higher than the ridge we soar). I believe these forecasts are based primarily on the altitude of the ridge.

If the towers would be less productive on Massenuten but have a greater impact on users, then perhaps they will not be installed there.

The debate is not whether wind turbines should be built, it is where can they be built for the best net gain (energy less impact on users) and we can influence that decision.

If members don't want to go - fine. I am going and will make an effort.

Tom McGowan

[markc]

I plan to attend the meeting.

The use of national forest land for a for-profit venture, green or otherwise,
necessarily involves tradeoffs between the benefits and impacts of that venture.

Negative effects on our free-flight community are one of the possible
impacts... So I see no reason not to make ourselves known at the hearing,
even though some might see our interests as NIMBY.

We are a small community, yes. But there might be synergies with other
small communities, and our cumulative effect might be more significant
than one would initially expect.

MarkC

[markc]

BTW: If anyone has a photo of the WS ridge from 'out front', could you please
PM me?

The scenic impact of windmills on the ridge could perhaps be conveyed by
a photo that demonstrates their effect on the view of the ridgetop.

MarkC

[Flying Lobster]

We lost a former flying site here in Maine at Mars Hill to a wind turbine farm. Another was just approved for a mid-Maine area. I actually went up there to see what the process of assembly was like--these things are unbelievably big--each blade looks like a twisted wing to a 747 and is a hollow carbon composite which I believe is manufactured in England and is shipped in. Total diameter is over 300 ft and the main impact is that the ridge farm can be seen from great distances or altitudes. This will likely be the greatest factor in resistence to the farm--the fundamental change in "rural life" and the negative impact to tourism and other quality of life issues related to the visual impact of the windfarm. Maybe T. Bone Pickens is behind this...

marc

[tomceunen]

See also similar issue
http://www.paraglidingforum.com/viewtop ... hlight=coo

The Walloon Region has not approved the windmills project in Coo. The promotor can still appeal but it's very seldom that a first decision is changed.
We would like to thank all pilots that signed the petition and off course the Belgian federation and the local people. But most of all, Louis Neys, the local flying site responsible, and Claudy Beaujean who had the magnificent idea to let take off a balloon on a 150m long cable so everybody in the region could see how high the windmills would be. For lots of people in the region that really opened their eyes!

[Matthew]

BIG THANKS TO TOM MCGOWAN FOR VOLUNTEERING TO ATTEND THE MEETING. I'll try to be there-- depends on how work goes. Steve K., Bruce, Christy-- any other retirees out there-- do you think you can also make it to the meeting? How about the pilots who live out that way-- Joe S., Gary, Hank???? The more the better.

As to the view-- let someone else make that argument. Let's stick to the fact that that the Massanuten Ridge is incompatable for windmills due to the Woodstock efffect of being in the shadow of the Dolly Sods plateau. As to the hoops the windmill people have to go through to use National Forest-- shouldn't it be high and the same as for someone who would want to mine or drill for oil????

Matthew

[Flying Lobster]

Reality check Matt--you honestly believe this project could even be floated without the average killowatt hours and megawatts added to the grid not already calculated based on average wind velocity calculations? These guys know what they're doing. Other than public safety factors, the only other way to defeat something like this is to get the local community out in force against it. Show a threat to the local economy. As you said before, nobody cares about pissant soaring pilots.

marc

[Matthew]

Marc,

Note Tom's earlier comments.

--If the decision of the Forest is to move to the next step, there would be a study. In the study, weather monitoring towers would be built to study and record info on winds. Once that study is done (a year or two) the Forest would accept applications for areas that looked promising. The current map forecasts that North Mountain would be the best site, and many sites are listed as possible on the Massenuten Ridge (some of these look like they would be on the east ridge just behind the west ridge that we soar (that east ridge is often higher than the ridge we soar). I believe these forecasts are based primarily on the altitude of the ridge.--

Matthew
Reading. It's fundamental.

[tdilisio]

How about the pilots who live out that way?

Matthew

I plan on attending to support our cause... and the bald eagles that fly with us. Let alone it's really gonna mess up the beautiful views.

[stevek]

Quite a bit of info on wind turbines from a group that is trying to save their mountains

http://www.protectpendleton.com/index.htm

[Dan T]

This is link from inside Steve's post. It's sobering. I did not consider the environmental impact of getting the windmills in place. I suspect the locals will be up in arms if they see this. Show it to them!

Dan T

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills ... /index.htm

[hanging3]

What about the trees?
Don't we get warned about cutting trees near the edge of our slot?
I guess that wind farms, in the name of green energy, get to wipe out big swaths of trees. Can they make as many access roads and powerline cuts as they would need right through national forests? What kind of easement would that be?
Just curious.

joe

[Chromium]

I wouldn't loose a lot of sleep over this proposal. I encourage those who can attend to do so and I would like to hear what they have to say; however, the whole idea I think is really a "pipe dream"! The only thing that is driving this is the price of oil. I would be interested to know if this is an initiative of the forest service or of some particular power company or venture capitalist. In order to make a wind farm "profitable" they need about four square miles of land, that is about 2500 square acres. I know this because a cousin of mine actually solicited a power company to put up some windmills on some land in Montana. That is the figure they told him that they would need to make it practical or feasible. Anyone doing this would have to take total control of the Woodstock ridge for quite a distance to get this much acreage and I just don't think it is realistic given the infrastructure they would have to build in order to get the energy to the power grid. Most of the big windmill farms I have seen have been on high plateaus or high open plains in the midwest and out west, not along ridges like at Woodstock, but who knows!! With the price of oil going up as it is! I guess it depends on how much power they actually think they could get from this.

Look forward from feedback from those who are going to attend the meeting.

Cheers

David

[mcelrah]

Skyline Soaring Club (the sailplane club at Front Royal) will be there too.

I think the raw economics of windmills are somewhat fuzzed up by the subsidy - they strung 39 of them along a ridge at Canaan Valley. Not economic by the standards mentioned above, but there you go...

I thought the presumption was that wind farms would NOT be built on federal lands. What changed?

Over a thousand golden eagle carcasses were found at the Altamont Pass windfarm. They also kill bats and songbirds along with migratory raptors (think of the hawks being counted as they migrate at Pulpit in the fall).

Go green: go nuke!

There's also a pantload of arctic natural gas coming from North West territory, Canada- pipeline opens in 2014 - if you replace coal for electricity generation and petroleum for transportation with gas, you cut your carbon footprint way down.

I can't go - out of town. - Hugh

[davidtheamazing1]

Depending on how the meeting goes, could someone ask if there is a contact or email or postal address setup for collecting further feedback? I'm unlikely going to be able to make the meeting but more than happy to send my 2 cents in.