Eric Bibler, President of the Massachusetts based Save Our Seashore citizen group, challenges the leadership of the Wellfleet Wildlife Sanctuary (Mass Audubon) to assess industrial wind on the merits.
Some folks have a problem getting their point across. Well, that doesn’t seem to be the problem here.
To: Bob Prescott – head of the Wellfleet Wildlife Sanctuary, Dr. Taber Allison – Chief Scientist, Jack Clarke – public relations (or advocacy), and Jennifer Ryan – head of legislative affairs.
Have you folks ever even bothered to ask yourselves if wind energy actually works? Have you ever done the numbers?
Do you realize that the developers are using your name – and all of the toothless rules that you subscribe to – to give their projects the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” – even though their projects are ruining the health and the quality of life of thousands of people who find it intolerable to live in their presence and even though the turbines kill birds and bats and produce “chronic noise” which destroys large swaths of habitat? Can’t you see that you are actually providing the political cover they need to abuse the environment in service of this trumped up grand vision of “green” energy?
Why don’t you educate your members, rather than living in abject fear of alienating those who are rabidly pro-wind energy – and who are doubtless grossly misinformed?
Shouldn’t your proper role be to fight like hell to protect conservation areas against this onslaught and to educate your members why they should resist the sacrifice of what little wildlife habitat remains to us, rather than squandering it on this technology which holds so little promise in the grand scheme of things?
How is it possible not to conclude that you have just cynically decided to bend with the political winds and avoid alienating the Audubon members who are rabidly pro-wind, rather than doing the hard work of educating them – and reminding them why conservation is also vitally important, in and of itself? Isn’t that the purpose which your organization was actually founded to serve?
It is truly tragic to see such a great organization frustrating the very purpose for which it was founded – and doing so much harm. All the more so since you all seem to believe that you can lay claim to the moral high ground on this issue, despite that fact that you are enabling so much destruction.
Well, it seems Mr. Bibler’s efforts are appreciated. Take a look at this recent correspondence to Mr. Bibler from the National Parks Conservation Association:
Find out next time about the efforts of Mr. Price, the NPS and the CCNS. There’s just way too much going on in Mr. Bibler’s neighborhood to fit into one post.
AT Note: Thanks to Jon Boone for pointing us in this direction. View Mr. Boone’s excellent assessment of the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club at his very informative Stop Ill Wind.
Mr. Bask, in his article focusing on North Carolina suggests, “While most attention has focused on mountain ridgelines, there’s been little focus on massive industrial wind turbines on the coast. There’s nothing equivalent to the Ridge Law for coastal communities.
Imagine lines of wind turbines, the height of 50-story skyscrapers, located a couple miles off the shore. That’s the future for North Carolina unless coastal communities are protected. This is precisely what’s happening now off the coast of Nantucket.”
Jon Boone, of Stop Ill Wind, takes this further and views the entire Appalachian region suggesting we consider a scenario that places “massive wind projects stretching from Maryland through Virginia and West Virginia, down through the mountains of North and South Carolina.
Let’s say there were 3000, 2.5MW wind turbines providing a combined installed capacity of 7000MW. Because their performance would be a function of the cube of the wind speed, they would be continuously skittering between zero and, extremely rarely, their installed capacity. Together, their likely capacity factor would be 25%, meaning that their actual output would produce an annual average of around 1800MW to a grid that generates over 140,000MW at peak demand times. Sixty percent of the time, the aggregate wind projects would produce less than 1800MW; around 20 percent of the time, they would produce 700MW or less. Around 10 percent of the time, they would produce nothing, particularly at peak demand times. Always they would be changing their production from one minute to the next, unpredictably. Occasionally, they would produce wide swings of energy, increasing in one hour, say, from producing 50MW, to, in the next hour, 5000MW–and vice versa. All this would threaten grid security by commandeering the grid’s marginal reserves.
Coal and natural gas generators would have to be entangled with the wind generation and these would actually provide around 75 percent of the wind projects’ installed capacity. Since they would be operating inefficiently to follow and balance the continuous wind flux–remember, supply and demand must be balanced at all times–the harsh truth is that the wind projects would induce more net CO2 emissions than would be the case without any wind at all. And the need for more coal and natural gas consumption.
In terms of the expectations of those who support the idea, wind technology wholly subverts their goals. It really is the dumbest modern energy idea imaginable. And this dysfunctional production would require 600 miles of terrain and would likely clearcut 60,000 acres. To coin a phrase, “What hath God wrought” with this kind of pretension?”
Seems wind farms in Spain registered themselves as photovoltaic generators, claiming the higher subsidy that solar plants earn.
I don’t know what the fuss is all about, in Germany they have diesel powered solar.
Anyway, it appears Spain’s National Energy Commission, while investigating a complaint that the solar folks were claiming to produce power at night, stumbled over the wind farm scam. Not sure what will happen to the wind farm folks, but the Commission didn’t release the names.
The Commission found that the original complaint about producing solar power at night was not a problem. The “night sun” was actually the result of a few faulty clocks unable to tell the difference between noon and midnight.
And to think, all this embarrassment could have been avoided if only the Spanish government had provided subsidies for clocks.
“Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.”
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
Legal issues facing Highland New Wind Development (HNWD) will most-certainly delay construction of the wind utility, if not set in motion a chain of events that halt it indefinitely.
Endangered Species Act
Since 2003, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) have both expressed concern that if HNWD’s turbines are erected, there exists a “strong, or extremely high likelihood” of deaths (otherwise known as “takes”) of endangered species, including the Indiana bat and Virginia Big-Eared bat, because of the proximity of the utility to the largest hibernating colonies in the region, located in West Virginia.
Despite the recommendations of these agencies that HNWD be required to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) before receiving authorization to begin construction, the Virgina State Corporation Commission (SCC) declined to take their advice. Instead, the SCC required a post-construction monitoring, adaptive management, and payment “per take” plan be developed by the VDGIF and implemented by the utility.
The problem is that the SCC-authorized plan is, in essence, illegal. It is in violation of Section 9 of the ESA, which prohibits the “taking” of any endangered species, and Section 10, which allows a limited exception to Section 9 if (and only if) the US FWS has issued an ITP in accordance with a site-specific Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) before any “take” occurs. The ESA is clear that in the absence of an ITP, anyone who undertakes activities that are likely to take members of endangered species, or who authorizes such activities, may be subject to criminal and civil federal enforcement actions as well as civil actions by citizens.
This is where Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal (MGC) comes in. MGC is the Washington D.C.-based law firm that, in December 2009, secured a precedent-setting federal court ruling requiring the Invenergy-Beech Ridge wind project in Greenbrier County, WV to obtain an ITP for the Indiana bat.
May 14, the law firm filed notice on behalf of citizens, conservationists, and the Animal Welfare Institute, of intent to sue HNWD and the Highland County Board of Supervisors (HCBOS) if the utility proceeds with construction in defiance of the ESA.
In January of this year, HNWD advised the HCBOS that the company would obtain an ITP. More recently, however, HNWD spokesmen have declared that an ITP is not required and that they don’t plan to seek one. This inconsistent behavior is totally in-line with the arrogant disrespect if not reckless disregard of the regulatory process that the developer has displayed for more than seven years. Who ya gonna believe–their public relations shills or your lyin’ eyes?
We at Brightside can only wonder if, instead of working so hard to dodge federal regulation, HNWD had simply embraced the regulatory process from the get-go, their turbines would’ve been up and running years ago. Their loss in production tax credits is certainly our gain. Well, ours and that of the HNWD lawyers.
Camp Allegheny
It’s going to happen. Perhaps, if we’re lucky, before the case ever gets to a judge, but certainly after a judge rules on the matter, it’s going to happen. HNWD is going to come to grips with the fact that there’s just no getting around the Endangered Species Act. The wind utility is going to have to comply with federal law in order to build. And as soon as they begin the ITP process with the US FWS, their project becomes “a federal undertaking,” subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
The triggering of NHPA will not, necessarily, dislodge a silver bullet where Camp Allegheny is concerned. However, there is little doubt that the evolution of HNWD from an essentially local to an essentially federal project will empower the federal authorities, beginning with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), to speak strongly where they have been previously muzzled. Some of our elected and appointed representatives might even be compelled to take their concerns back to the Highland County BOS and the SCC. It could happen. Stranger things have.
In its 2010 “History Under Seige” report, the Civil War Preservation Trust identified Camp Allegheny as one of the ten most endangered Civil War battlefields in the nation because of its proximity to HNWD’s proposed 40-story wind turbines.
This acknowledgment of Camp Allegheny’s endangered status, coupled with the federal mandate to protect and preserve sites on the National Register of Historic Places as codified in the NHPA (and triggered by HNWD’s beginning the process of applying for an Incidental Take Permit) is, as mentioned, not a silver bullet.
But once HNWD begins the permit process, it’ll be much more ammunition than we’ve had until now.
Ammunition is only as valuable as those who are willing to carry it forward into battle.
Your carrying capacity will be needed in the days ahead. Please check back.
The Society for Wind Vigilance is “an international federation of individuals like you, who are concerned about the adverse health effects of wind turbines.” It is a very important site for members of communities facing potential wind turbine deployment, or citizens experiencing health issues as a result of turbines installed near their homes.
This, from their Mission Statement:
The Society provides Internet communication on matters including the existing and emerging science related to wind energy and related health effects.
Our goal is to disseminate facts and references regarding industrial wind turbines and wind farms which are vetted by appropriate experts and external referees. The material will appear on www.windvigilance.com.
Our ultimate goal is to mitigate the risk of adverse health impact through the advancement of independent third party research and its application to the siting of industrial wind turbines by advocating:
public education.
education of health care professionals and others
the advancement of unbiased research and its application including third party health studies
ongoing vigilance and surveillance
policy decisions based on best available science and research
authoritative regulations designed to protect human health
Please visit this excellent clearing house for industrial wind health issues.
May 14, 2010 by William S. Eubanks II and Eric R. Glitzenstein
Summary:
Concerned citizens and conservationists have joined with the Animal Welfare Institute and the public-interest law firm, Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal, to notify Highland New Wind Development, LLC and the Highland County Board of Supervisors of their intent to sue if HNWD proceeds with turbine construction in defiance of the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this year HNWD “promised” the county supervisors that it would obtain the required Incidental Take Permit (ITP). The notice letter can be downloaded by clicking on the link(s) at the bottom of this page.
These are not the words of a single NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). These words represent an ever growing chorus of citizens rising against the onslaught of industrial wind. Of course, the dismissive term NIMBY, used by wind shills to attack folks with whom they disagree, is quickly losing its potency as more and more evidence surfaces about the dismal performance of these over-sized tax shelters and their terrible impact on the environment. The wind lobby has to wake up to the fact NIMBYs are the least of their problems. The greatest threat to the wind industry’s growth is, in fact, the wind industry’s growth.
Melodie Burkett, concerned enough to post these comments to a recent AT post on Cape Wind, represents the increasing louder voice of citizens willing to speak out against these inefficient erector sets. She writes:
Hello from my 100 acre farm in Ontario where my farm and my health have been deemed expendable, by our Liberal Majority Government & our Premier Dalton McGuinty! Nine 40 story Industrial wind turbines are slated to go up on the farm beside our farm! What I will lose:
1- SLEEP- due to low density sound or Infrasound-
2- Equity- After 40 years of upkeep and taxes, can’t sell it!
3- Wildlife- leaves the area, Deer, Coyote,Rabbits, turkeys,etc!
4- Raptors, Bats, Eagles & Hawks killed by turbines!
5- Earth worms and morning dew, so important for crops!
6- Frogs and Peepers have died in ponds with IWT’s near!
7- $$$$$, as I will use a gas generator rather than pay triple hydro bills!
8- Perhaps most importantly, my faith in government and democracy that has deemed that myself and my family is expendable! And for what? No reduction in emissions, No gain, intermittent and paltry out put of power!
I say North America must REVOLT big time and put a stop to this madness! This period of time will be known as the biggest Boondoogle of all time in North America! Especially when history proves that Al Gore was wrong! So damn wrong!
Credit: By MICHAEL DEN TANDT, QMI Agency, Toronto Sun, www.torontosun.com 14 May 2010
Employees of the wind industry and Ontario Liberal politicians are scratching their heads. Why the fuss about wind turbines?
Some of them still think the furor will blow over. It’s just the griping of a few malcontents and health quacks — people who wear tinfoil helmets in their living rooms to ward off spy beams. The march of progress can’t be stopped. The Green Energy Act is law, turbines are coming to the countryside and that’s it.
Here’s a tip, from the hinterland. This is incorrect. The furor is building, not waning. Premier Dalton McGuinty was already a long shot for a third term. With wind in the mix and barring a radical re-do of the Green Energy Act, he is positioned to lose every rural and small-town seat.
People who live in the country do so by choice. Some stay because we wish to raise our children close to family. Others leave to pursue a career and then eventually come home. And others still, mainly boomers, retire to a small town or a farm because they’re tired of city life.
People who live in small towns or on farms are connected to the countryside in a way that most city people are not. We hunt, fish, cycle, hike, walk or drive through it all the time. Many residents of small towns are linked through family to a farm or plot of land.
For 30 years now, people who live on or near the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO World Biosphere Preserve, have lived within the strictures of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. This appointed body tells rural people what they can or cannot build on their property.
There are many rules. They do not account for family circumstances or in many cases for common sense. For example, the NEC won’t permit a landowner to build a second home on a 100-acre plot of land to house an ailing parent. Yet it does permit the Blue Mountain ski resort in Collingwood, Ont.
Despite these seeming contradictions, farmers and landowners have grudgingly learned to live with the NEC. But now along comes Big Wind, propelled by the vision of former Ontario deputy premier George Smitherman.
The vision is one in which the Ontario landscape, including land directly proximate to the Escarpment, is festooned with massive industrial turbines. Suddenly, preserving our agricultural and geographic heritage is less important. Indeed, such values don’t even seem to figure in the debate. Nor has there yet been a serious effort to expand nuclear — still the only way to produce huge quantities of energy without emitting carbon.
An irony about current-day Ontario: We have a government that says it is deeply committed to environmental protection. If a rare species of dung beetle is unearthed in a marsh, chances are no building will be allowed there. But disrupting the ecosystem of thousands of rural people? Not a problem. Disrupt away.
There was a good way to bring in wind energy.
The good way would have respected the wishes of communities that chose not to allow industrial-scale projects. It would have induced industry to offer small, farm-sized wind turbines at a reasonable price. It would have made it much easier for people to use wind (or solar) to satisfy their own energy needs, and sell any excess back to the grid. It would have been a local-first movement.
Instead McGuinty chose big industry, backed by big government. In doing so he trampled on the most important political idea to hit rural Canada in modern times: Greater local control of the food supply and stewardship of the land.
No, this revolt will not go away.
AT Note: Citizen’s groups such as Wind Concerns Ontario continue to build strength in Canada as similar groups consolidate here in the US. It would be wise for the politicians who have been riding the wind express, courtesy of the industrial wind lobby, to think about getting off at the next stop. Once people realize it is not about NIMBY, but the heavy cost burden placed on taxpayers and rate payers to finance these dismally performing 747 size tinker toys, they will begin to look to the legislatures that permitted the scam. When the high cost/low performance of industrial wind is exposed, likewise the inept politicians who support this scourge on citizens, animals and landscape will find themselves under the spotlight.
There is no border when it comes to pillaging the land and assaulting the great migratory flyways. As demonstrated by the concerns raised by our friends to the North, and the growing frustration here in the States, politicians who continue to support industrial wind in spite of the mounting evidence against it, will be replaced. It is as simple as that!
The pulse of industrial wind is weakening and soon the transfusion of government subsidies will be cut off. As this ancient power source fades once again, so will the political life of those who chose to support it with taxpayer earnings and the heavily inflated rates paid by consumers.
Should you care to learn more about the reality of wind as a modern energy source, these links will direct you to a variety of information resources and an organization near you:
and maybe this at MasterResource: The Cape Wind Approval: It’s Not Over Yet – and take special note to the comments following the article, provided here for your convenience:
1- The Nantucket Alliance (SOS) almost immediately was labeled as NIMBYs due to their own poorly thought out public position on wind energy. Essentially they said wind energy was OK in other places, just not in their area. This is not only a false premise, but was guaranteed to be a losing public relations tactic. In my view the Salazar result was assured by their strategy.
2 – The issue of whether a wind project should go forward should consider FAR more than whether it is “commercially reasonable and whether it will operate in compliance with existing laws.” For instance, there are few “existing laws” that adequately protect citizens health concerns — e.g. from such effects as low level noise.
3 – You made several good observations about cost, but in doing so it seems that you are implying that wind energy is an equivalent to our other conventional sources. In other words it seems that you are saying that if wind energy is competitively priced, then it would be OK to “substitute” it for a conventional source (e.g. nuclear).
The problem with that premise is that we are comparing apples and oranges. It is like saying it makes sense (to save fossil fuel) to substitute sailing ships for 20% (let’s say) of our current military ocean going vessels.
I’m a tad surprised by CRM analysis, as they most often do credible work. In this instance they failed to provide a complete analysis of the benefits/costs–they only did half the work (yes, there’s another term, somewhat impolite.) They did not loook at the value impacts (aka benefits) which are negative given wind patterns as Lisa alludes to. They also did p.p. work on the cost side and were overly optimistic. If cape Wind could lower costs, why are the ratepayaers being FORCED into buying the output under long term contracts? The question provides the answer.
A well written, subtle, nuanced analysis, providing a glimpse into the market realities of ISO New England, which has one of the most opaque information disclosure apparati in the country. Given the pandering politics at both the national and state levels that Lisa Linowes mentions, no one should have been surprised by the Interior Secretary’s decision on the Cape Wind farrago. This is especially true given the block-headed opposition mounted by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which embraced perhaps the dumbest modern energy idea imaginable while urging that Cape Wind would be better situated in someone else’s backyard.
Lisa fairly well describes the socio/economic/political tap dance that would attend the integration of the Cape Wind project into the pricing system of ISO New England. Her tale reminds ever so much of the intricacies involved in Wall Street’s use of bundling worthless securities in the derivatives market, gambling away billions in risk proof ways, since taxpayers would cover the cost of investments gone wrong. She touches on how the Charles River Associates wind impact report mirrors the way AIG gave high ratings to the questionable casino schemes of Goldman Sachs. She thumbnails the blowback expected from an assortment of opposition groups, not least from her own organization and, most intriguingly, from TransCanada Power. And, very importantly, she exposes the reality of the capital cost of Cape Wind–at minimum, $2.3 billion, although perhaps she should have mentioned that most of those dollars would be revenues lost to the federal treasury, meaning reductions in public services or increased tax bills to make up the difference.
The blowhards who endorse the Cape Wind scam shamelessly tout the LLC’s claim of a 39% capacity factor, the evidence for which remains enshrouded in “proprietary confidentiality.” (So much for transparency.) Although the ocean winds swirling around Nantucket Sound may be stronger and steadier than most onshore locations, offshore conditions are often more environmentally hostile, increasing downtime for maintenance. Cape Wind LLC would be lucky to get a 30% capacity factor.
And here’s more blowback for the blowhards. With an installed capacity of 468MW and a more reasonable annual capacity factor of 30%, the wind LLC would generate a yearly average of 140MW into the ISO NE grid, which has a peak demand generation of over 28,000MW. Those 130 skyscraper-sized wind turbines are likely to produce less than 140MW 60% of the time, and, around 10% of the time, they would likely generate nothing, especially at peak demand times. To infill the constantly skittering yield, they would have to be continuously entangled with conventional generators at up to 90% of the installed wind capacity, most likely open cycle natural gas units, operating thermally and economically in highly inefficient ways–thereby subverting both greenhouse gas offsets and lower consumer rates. Moreover, the $2.3 billion projected cost would not include new transmission lines and voltage regulation systems necessary to bring the wind to market.
It’s a mell of a hess. Few things illustrate the intellectual lacuna at the soul of the Republic better than the wild rumpus for wind. If this massive wind project gets built, what people entering Cape Cod from the ocean will see is not the natural beauty of Nantucket Sound, nor anything like the inspiration of the Statute of Liberty–but rather the spawn of Enron, signifying a whole lot of dumb and ugly.
Cape Wind will ultimately fail to achieve any of the goals claimed for it – decreasing CO2 emissions, increasing energy independence, etc. Such a failure would almost be worth its cost in resources and environmental damage if there were any chance that wind proponents would learn from it. Unfortunately, that will never be. The environmental religion offers its adherents feelings of moral and intellectual superiority over nonbelievers, and that is something few of them will relinquish, regardless of the environmental damage that results.
Feedback is essential to any action. Consider, for example, how dangerous the world is for a person who has lost the ability to feel pain, as happens with certain forms of leprosy. Imagine placing your hand on a hot stove and not realizing it until you smell your own flesh burning.
Those in the Left’s environmental movement have created a sort of moral leprosy for themselves by ignoring any facts that do not support their world view. But it is rarely their flesh that gets burned.
Richard:
Interestingly, a prominent Italian journalist last spring began referring to what he dubbed “the leprosy of wind” threatening contagion around the Italian countryside. Works for me.
I wish that the wind mess was only a creature of the Left’s environmental movement, which it partly is, to be sure. But there is bipartisan support that puts the blame squarely on the Right as well. And on the Center. As Glenn Schleede and others have shown on this forum, wind is a win win for politicians of every stripe, who benefit from giving the impression they’re opposing the badasses from the fossil fuel industry by supporting wind, while all the while knowing that the more wind, the more need for fossil fuels. It’s a lose lose for rate and taxpayers, for more enlightened energy policy, and for the environment.
And, rather than exposing what a disreputable player wind is, conventional power corporations have welcomed wind into their fold, knowing it’s not a competitor, knowing that it will increase the need for their products and services, and serve as a nifty PR tool while rather substantially reducing their corporate tax obligations–a la GE and Florida Power and Light, among others.
Nofreewind’s observation appears correct for 2008. For those who focus solely on this measure, this puts UK offshore wind at the high end of projections for onshore and the low end of that for offshore.
It must be remembered though that average production over a year of a highly volatile output (within short time periods of often considerably less than an hour) is not a realistic measure of value. Using averages in this way is like saying with your head in a freezer and your feet in a turned-on oven that on average you are OK.
To balance this volatility and produce useful electricity, fast-reacting (but inefficient in terms of fuel use and CO2 emissions produced) fossil-fuel generation of about twice the wind plants’ output is needed. More of such wind capacity is not an improvement: less is.
The other observation to make here, Kent and Nofreewind, is is that one year of performance is not an adequately informed metric. Let’s see the UK’s offshore performance average over five years, say, to confirm that 35%.
Good point Jon. Year to year variations are common. Again for those who want to focus on this metric, in 2006 the total UK offshore wind fleet capacity factor was 29.3%. I did not mention this before because it is not central to the issue of the value of utility-scale wind power, as nofreewind would indicate.
Lisa Linowes essay is quite valuable. We do know more about the economics, however. The recently released AEO 2010 from the U.S. Energy Information Administration provides data on both conventional and offshore wind. In 2008 dollars the cost differential is striking — $1,996/kW versus $3,937/kW. To an economist, the question is not “why wind?” so much as it is “why offshore wind?” NIMBY issues are a reality wherever wind is placed, but conventional wind provides nearly a $2,000/kW cost advantage to mitigate local disadvantages. Bluntly put, move the turbines onshore and some lucky community will get a share of the $1 billion is cost savings.
On the integration issue, wind works best when coupled with hydroelectric storage or a nearby rapidly dispatchable gas unit. Cape Cod is not known for either of these advantages. The operatng issues connected with Cape Wind will be both interesting and challenging.
Agree with your final comment, Robert McCullough. But your recommendation about putting the damned thing onshore and expecting a “lucky community” to get a share of the “cost saving” seems, well, delusional, given that the project is basically a tax shelter for large corporations. No responsible CFO of the project would short-shrift investors by cost sharing much with the locals–no matter where a wind project would be located.
As for wind and hydro, sure, this is a great tandem, if you like environmental pillage at no savings of CO2 emissions. Hydro without wind, simply as an energy source, is much better than hydro with wind, since the latter can only very marginally “improve” the production of the former.
AT Note: How many warning signs does it take to stop these folks from driving off the green energy cliff?
American Battlefield Trust
The American Battlefield Trust preserves America’s hallowed battlegrounds and educates the public about what happened there and why it matters
Allegheny Treasures 