Wouldn't it be great if KDFWR spoke up in favor of the cranes' habitat and
opposed the siting of the solar farm in the place where the cranes congregate.
Afterall, it will negatively affect the hunting and killing of the cranes and
that is definitely an interest of KDFWR's. Just thinking....
Ceci & friends at
The Far Side FarmFranklin County KY
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: mikesindahouse
<mikesindahouse@xxxxxxxxx>To: "estiles74@xxxxxxxxx" <estiles74@xxxxxxxxx>Cc:
"mtwyandell@xxxxxxxxx" <mtwyandell@xxxxxxxxx>; BirdKY listserve
<birdky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 10:46:18 AM
ESTSubject: [birdky] Re: Public comment on Hardin Co solar proposal
Andrew,
Is there anyone to sue if the local board does not fully consider/study
wildlife impact.
Might be worth bringing in a nationally recognized organization like NAS or
Defenders of Wildlife etc… they could probably aid us with legal resources.
Seems to me that someone, at both the state and federal level would need to
sign off too since all of the proposed farms combined will essentially
eliminate a major stop on the eastern Sandhill population’s flyway. Hoping the
migratory bird treaty might have enough teeth to save us.
Btw In my comments to the PSC I have proposed a compromise of allowing solar on
20% any square mile of farmland in areas heavily used in the crane’s flyway,
and 50% in areas that are not deemed to have a detrimental impact to any animal
species, but also forbids solar farms from converting anything but existing
farmland (e.g. destruction of any forest, prairies, shubland, wetland, or other
natural habitats).
The climate change will kill the birds slowly compared to habitat loss and
hunting/persecution and the priority must be to save vital habitat.
Thanks,Mike Callan502-592-7008
On Jan 12, 2022, at 10:22 AM, andrew melnykovych <estiles74@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-
Keep in mind that this case is before the state siting board, which, although
attached to the PSC, is a distinct entity with very limited jurisdiction.
By law, the siting board can consider only those issues not under jurisdiction
of other agencies. It is basically restricted to the following: noise and
traffic impacts both during construction and operation, visual impacts,
economic impacts, and grid interconnection. It also has to examine whether the
project has been authorized by the local planning and zoning entity, if one
exists. It does in Hardin County. If the local P&Z does not authorize the
project, the siting board can't approve it. That issue killed projects in the
past, though not solar farms. [So the real action is with the P&Z in this case.]
The siting board cannot consider issues such as wildlife or habitat impacts,
wetland preservation, or historic or archeological resources.
In past cases, the board has dealt with any visual impacts from solar farms by
requiring a vegetation screen, which suggests that it does not believe that the
visual impact of solar farms in rural areas is much of an obstacle.
It may be that the strongest argument against this project in terms of siting
board jurisdiction is economic, with the loss of farmland and its impact on the
agricultural economy. However, keep in mind that the proponents argue that the
added property tax revenue offsets the loss to the agricultural revenue.
If it sounds like an uphill climb, that's because it is. The law creating the
siting board was - like so many other statutes - intended to be industry
friendly. It also pushes the real decision down to the local community level,
which is why the P&Z decision is critical and why it's important for folks who
vote in Hardin County to not only make their feelings known to the P&Z board,
but to the local elected officials who appoint the board.
However, the siting board does read public comments, so there is no downside to
sending them in and letting them know folks are concerned about this so they'll
take a close look at it.
I am not trying to discourage comments - just trying to give a sense of how the
process works. I worked at the PSC for 18 years, so I am pretty familiar with
it.
Andrew MelnykovychLouisville KY
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:16 AM Mary Yandell <mtwyandell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
FYI - Public comments will be accepted on the Rhudes Creek Solar project until
1 April 2022. The proposed site is located largely on the key Sandhill staging
area at Cecilia.See the following to submit by email or mail. Email to.
psc.comment@xxxxxx
When submitting a letter or email, you need to include your full name, address
and the case file number that you are commenting on. The Rhudes Creek Solar
case number must be included.
Case Number: 2021-00127
From https://psc.ky.gov/home/pc
Public comments
Written comments may be submitted by email to the Public Information Officer;
psc.info@xxxxxx. Include the case number and provide your full name and place
of residence in the body of the e-mail.
NOTE Case-related comments submitted online or by other means while a case is
in progress become a part of the official case record. All documents within a
case record are publicly available online. Case-related comments submitted
after a case has closed do not become a part of the official case record.
Kentucky Public Service Commission
Address: P.O. Box 615, 211 Sower Boulevard, Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-0615
Phone: (502) 564-3940, Fax: (502) 564-3460, Hotline: 1-800-772-4636
Office Hours: Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm
There are other solar projects proposed for the same area. Once I have more
information I will pass it along.
Mary YandellLouisville, Jefferson Co.
