ENERGY IN AMERICA: SACRIFICE OF PROTECTED BIRDS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF WIND POWER DEVELOPMENT

SOURCE www.foxnews.com

17 August 2011

As California attempts to divorce itself from fossil-fueled electricity, it may be trading one environmental sin for another — although you don’t hear state officials admitting it.

Wind power is the fastest growing component in the state’s green energy portfolio, but wildlife advocates say the marriage has an unintended consequence: dead birds, including protected species of eagles, hawks and owls.

“The cumulative impacts are huge,” said Shawn Smallwood, one of the few recognized experts studying the impact of wind farms on migratory birds. “It is not inconceivable to me that we could reduce golden eagle populations by a great deal, if not wipe them out.”

California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state’s largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles per year. But the state is set to triple wind capacity in the coming years as it tries to become the first state in the nation to generate 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

“We would like to have no bird deaths and no bird injuries. But, once again, we have to balance all the needs of society. All the people who want to flip their switch and have electricity in their homes,” said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County planning commissioner.

Kern County has identified some 225,000 acres just north of Los Angeles as a prime wind resource area. Unfortunately, the area’s rolling hills and mountains are prime hunting grounds for raptors and a layover spot for migratory birds traveling between Canada and Mexico. The updrafts enjoyed by birds of prey are ideal for generating power.

“I’m not against wind power — it is a viable form of energy generation — but it needs to be developed more carefully,” Smallwood said.

Case in point: In the Bay Area, when activists in the 1980s demanded a cleaner planet, the state responded with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The state-approved wind farm, built with federal tax credits, kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles, according to biological reports generated on behalf of the owners.

Smallwood said replacing the small, older turbines with larger blades has cut some species fatalities roughly in half.

Oviatt said Kern County is trying to learn from Altamont’s mistakes.

“We’re requiring full environmental impact reports, which take at least 12 to 18 months,” Oviatt said. “Can I promise that a bird will never be injured or killed? I can’t. But again, we have this tradeoff in society, between the things we need to function as an economy and the fact that we wanna make sure we have an environment for future generations.”

Pine Tree is one of the wind farms in Kern County and is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to an internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010, bird fatality rates were “relatively high” at Pine Tree compared to 45 other wind facilities nationwide. The facility’s annual death rate per turbine is three times higher for golden eagles than at Altamont.

“Politics plays a huge role here,” Smallwood said. “Our leaders want this power source so they’re giving, for a time being, a pass to the wind industry. If you or I killed an eagle, we’re looking at major consequences.”

Smallwood and others say it is almost inconceivable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, hasn’t acted.

“There’s a big, big hypocrisy here,” Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County said. “If I shoot an eagle, it’s a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice.”

She’s not far off from the reality.

In 2009, Exxon pleaded guilty to causing the deaths of about 85 migratory birds in five states that came into contact with crude oil in uncovered waste tanks. The fine for this was $600,000.

Likewise, PacifiCorp, an Oregon utility, owed $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming.

And in 2005, the owner of a fish hatchery was ordered to serve six months in a federal halfway house and pay a $65,000 fine for shooting an eagle that was feeding at his uncovered hatchery.

Wind power in the U.S. generates 41,400 megawatts of electricity. California represents just a fraction of that total, suggesting the number of raptor kills is considerably higher nationwide. Yet according to records, USFWS has not prosecuted a single company for violating one of the many statutes protecting threatened and endangered birds.

FROM MINNESOTA

DEBATE GROWS OVER WIND TURBINES IN THE PATH OF EAGLES

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: KARE11.com

July 26, 2011

By Trisha Volpe

GOODHUE COUNTY, Minn. -- Next to the crops, an environmental debate is growing in Goodhue County farm country - green energy on one side and saving wildlife on the other.

"Like a lot of farmers in the area, it's pretty deep in tradition," says local dairy farmer Bruce McNamara.

The McNamara farm has been in the area for 60 years. Bruce and his wife Marie are now worried about what could happen to their land and the birds they share it with, when a wind turbine project moves forward.

"Energy facilities should be sited in an orderly manner and they're clustered right over eagles' nests," says Marie, who is also a member of a local citizens group against a project to build wind turbines in the area.

The developer, AWA Goodhue Wind, plans to build 50 to 60 wind turbines over several thousand acres. Some residents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are concerned the turbines will interfere with eagles nesting and feeding. There are at least four confirmed nests in the area according to fish and wildlife officials.

"The issue we're more concerned about is the birds flying into them and being killed," says Mags Rheude of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The developer says it's done everything possible to protect the eagles and doesn't believe their travel patterns bring the birds in the path of the turbines. The company has conducted several environmental studies, many still ongoing.

"We're probably 150 hours field time watching and monitoring eagle movements," says Ron Peterson, Director of Environmental Services for Westwood, the environmental consultant working with Goodhue.

Company officials say the issue may be about more than just eagles. Many landowners have bought into the project and turbines will be located on their farms.

"People who aren't participating or benefitting financially... don't want to look at them or listen to them if they're close enough to them," says Peterson.

The project has the go-ahead from the Public Utilities Commission, but in order to receive its permit Goodhue Wind has to conduct more studies and come up with a bird and bat management plan.

Goodhue hopes to start construction on the turbines by the end of the year.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommending a two mile buffer zone between turbines and the eagles.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

 The photo below was found on the Westwood Land and Energy Development Consultants website where the 'company biologist' Ron Peterson (mentioned in the previous article) is said to work. Wind companies often employ the services of one-stop-shopping 'consulting' firms like Westwood. The caption for the photo below reads: "We've been dancing through the years!"

Photo from Westwood Land and Energy Website

Short-eared owls disappearing from island

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Whig-Standard

May 13, 2011

By Paul Schliesmann

The short-eared owl, listed as a species of special concern in Canada, has all but disappeared from the west end of Wolfe Island.

A noted Kingston-area birder says the decline has everything to do with the construction and startup of wind turbines on that part of the island two years ago.

"They're definitely avoiding the area," said Kurt Hennige, who has been watching and documenting the short-eared populations on Wolfe Island for more than 25 years.

The owls specifically congregated on the northwest corner of the island because of an abundance of their favourite food — meadow voles. As well as being a favourite hunting ground, short-eareds also winter there.

"Now we see that where the most windmills are, we hardly see any short-eareds," said Hennige.

"We weren't studying this specific to windmills … the area where they were common, the short-eared owls were displaced from the heavy area where the windmills are. They've moved to the east end.

"That's a threatened species."

Two years ago, an 86-turbine wind farm opened on the western half of Wolfe Island, built on leased properties.

The facility is owned and operated by Calgary-based Trans­Alta, which purchased it from Canadian Hydro Developers.

Hennige said that part of the island, along with Amherst Island, has consistently offered one of the most important hunting and nesting grounds available to short-eareds in all of North America.

"I have seen up to 30 birds feeding in a small area," he said. "They're very social birds. Up to 30 or 40 can roost in one area."

Hennige is affiliated with the Kingston Field Naturalists, a volunteer organization that has been documenting bird sightings in the region for decades.

Two years ago, he began assisting Kristen Keyes, a student from McGill University, with her thesis on short-eared owls.

The absence of the birds on Wolfe Island became instantly apparent to Hennige.

He insists, however, that the disappearance of the owls should come as no surprise. For several years, birder friends in Mexico have documented similar findings where turbines have been installed in large numbers.

"They learned years ago it's not the migrating birds that get killed, it's the residential birds that can no longer use the feeding area," said Hennige.

A report released by TransAlta in January showed about 22 raptors were killed by wind turbines on Wolfe Island from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010.

The company pledged to find ways to reduce the raptor death count.

In the same time period, an estimated 1,151 birds were killed along with 1,720 bats.

Hennige said that from his recent observations, it appears all 10 of the resident red-tailed hawks were victims.

Despite all of the information gathered over the years by the Kingston Field Naturalists, he said, none of it was used by the companies that sited the wind turbines.

Hennige suspects that the staggered alignment of the 80-metre towers, with their 93-metre diameter blades, has contributed to the large hawk kill numbers.

"If the whole population is gone, to me that's pretty bad. Maybe with good placement of the windmills it could have been avoided," he said.

Hennige believes it's possible for industry and scientists to work together to avoid similar environmental degradation.

He holds up his own special project, reclaiming habitat in the Napanee area for the endangered loggerhead shrike, as a case in point.

When it was learned that solar electricity company SunEdison wanted to install a massive panel project in that area, Hennige and Wildlife Preservation Canada pushed the company to consider the shrikes' needs.

By avoiding a certain area of the property critical to its survival, the shrike appears to be thriving — growing from four pairs last year to seven this year.

"You can have solar farms and you can have shrikes," said Hennige. "It took a bit to get them convinced. We had to explain why they should not build on the front of the property.

"They often buy more land than they're using anyway."

Hennige said it will take further study to determine if the east end of Wolfe Island can sustain the short-eared owl population.

His concern is that Amherst Island, the other popular spot for the owls in this area, could also be threatened by a proposed wind farm there.

The eastern end of Lake Ontario, encompassing Kingston and the islands, is considered a globally significant migratory route.

"If you put a lot of windmills there, where can they go?" he asked.

"We have sensitive habitat that needs protecting. I have no issue with green technology, but it needs to be scientifically done."

IN SHEFFIELD, WIND OPPONENTS UPSET ABOUT EROSION

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Chronicle, vdigger.org

May 13, 2011 by Chris Braithwaite of

Calling it “an obscene abuse of our environment,” Vermonters for a Clean Environment says erosion at the Sheffield wind energy development is threatening sensitive streams and their fish populations.

The group has posted dozens of photos, taken at the site over the past nine days, which it says document violations of a storm water runoff permit obtained by the developer, First Wind, from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The state says First Wind has not violated its permit. The developer is in the middle of constructing 16 turbines in Sheffield.

First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne says that when state inspectors visited the site Friday, May 6, “they were happy with the site and said it was in compliance with the permit.”

David Mears, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, said he had a quick briefing Monday morning with department officials who inspected the site on Friday. He said the section of the site where gravel roads had been completed to wind turbine sites that had been cleared and leveled “appears to be fully compliant with the permit.”

In a second part of the site, Mears said, “they’re still doing forestry work, cutting the trees.”

That portion is subject to a lower level of storm water runoff regulation, Mears said, “the same as any forestry project.”

There are some deficiencies in that area, Mears said. “But none appeared to have resulted in any harm to the waters of the state.”

Some areas which posed a risk to streams were pointed out to a First Wind representative, who agreed to correct them, Mears said.

“We’ll continue to monitor and evaluate the site,” the commissioner added. But at the moment, he said, DEC plans no further action.

Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment said the photos show “hundreds and hundreds” of feet of roads that were never stabilized when the site was shut down last fall.

“We’re talking about multiple failures here,” she added. “The sediment is running off into trout streams.”

Paul Brouha of Sutton, a member of the Ridge Protectors, a group that opposed the wind project and fought the storm water runoff permit in the state Environmental Court, accused Mears of splitting hairs by distinguishing between First Wind’s finished site work and the logging portion of its operation.

Ridge Protectors is currently appealing the permit to the state Supreme Court.

“What we’re after here is natural resource protection,” Brouha said. “I would say there’s been a large amount of erosion, and water has carried that soil into the streams, especially the tributaries of Calendar Brook.”

“We’ve got resource damage,” Brouha continued, “and more will occur if the site is not stabilized. That sediment flows into the Calendar Brook Wildlife Management Area.”

Calendar Brook is a native brook trout fishery, Brouha said. “It will be affected by that sediment. Fish and vertebrate habitat will be reduced in quality and quantity.”

Smith said First Wind should be subject to the sort of fine imposed on Jay Peak in 2007, after heavy rains washed pollution into streams from a golf course the resort was building. After considerable negotiation with the state, Jay Peak agreed to a fine of $105,000.

ONTARIO GREEN PROJECT MAY KILL ENDANGERED SPECIES

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: CBC News, www.cbc.ca

May 13 2011

By Mike Crawley

What the company is applying for is a permit that would allow it to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species — Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill.

A Toronto-based wind power company is proposing to build a green energy project on the shores of Lake Ontario, but building the project could threaten two endangered species.

Gilead Resources would have the legal right to kill the two species — if the province approves the new proposal.

What the company is applying for is a permit that would allow it to “kill, harm and harass” two endangered species — Blanding’s turtle and the whippoorwill.

Gilead wants to build a wind farm on the shoreline in Prince Edward County. But the location is designated an “important bird area” and the endangered turtle nests there, as well.

Anne Bell of Nature Ontario says her group supports green energy but only so far. “We have to keep good projects out of bad locations,” said Bell, “and this is exactly what we’ve got here.”

The final decision rests with Natural Resources Minister Linda Jeffrey who says that “for the most part we can find ways to mitigate around endangered species reasonably, so that the species continues, and continues to thrive.”

But Myrna Wood, a resident in nearby Picton says she “just cannot believe the government will do this. None of us here can, we’re all astounded.”

But Jeffery counters that the “ministry has to find a balance between protection and allowing economic development — no matter what the species.”

In an email statement the company says it will do its best to mitigate the harm to the birds and turtles. It says it will create new nesting habitat and will build the project in winter, when the wildlife aren’t around.

Next Story

CONSTANT NOISE OF OFFSHORE WIND FARMS MAY STRESS FISH

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE: New Scientist, www.newscientist.com

May 12, 2011 J

Jeff Hecht

Sonar’s effect on marine mammals has been a hot-button topic for years, and recent research shows that loud sounds damage the balance organs of cephalopods.

But we also should worry about the potential effect of lower-level, constant noise on fish, Arthur Popper of the University of Maryland in College Park will warn the Acoustical Society of America at a meeting in Seattle, Washington, later this month.

Navy sonar, acoustic guns used in seismic exploration and pile driving can produce sound levels of 180 decibels in water. These sounds can seriously affect nearby marine animals. For instance, injuries or distress caused by such intense sounds have been blamed for the beaching of cetaceans. They can also drive whales from their feeding grounds. But the loud noises don’t last long, so uninjured individuals can swim away until they stop.

But what if they don’t stop? This is Popper’s concern: the constant lower levels of noise from shipping or offshore wind farms can increase background noise by 10 decibels over a very large area. Although this noise is less intense than sonar, Popper says that long-term exposure to this constant rumble stresses fish. Experiments have shown that exposure to recorded ship noise increases levels of the stress hormone cortisol in fish.

The constant din may have other repercussions. Another experiment showed that recorded ship noise blocked Lusitanian toadfish from hearing sounds produced by others of their species. The extra noise can also prevent fish from hearing natural sounds that alert them to predators or prey.

Imagine living near a busy highway to understand how a busy shipping lane or an offshore wind farm might affect fish. Like highway noise, low-level machinery noise can be relentless.

The effects have not been well studied, but Popper suspects they may be serious. “It’s very hard to do experiments in the lab,” he told New Scientist, because the laboratory environment itself stresses fish enough to obscure the effects of several decibels of noise. He’s giving his talk primarily to increase awareness, he says. “We need to be doing some very critical experiments to understand long-term effects on animals on the wild.”

[Also see:  "Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods" by Michel André, Marta Solé, Marc Lenoir, Mercè Durfort, Carme Quero, Alex Mas, Antoni Lombarte, Mike van der Schaar, Manel López-Bejar, Maria Morell, Serge Zaugg, and Ludwig Houégnigan, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2011, doi:10.1890/100124]

CONNECTICUT WIND PROSPECT DENIED

READ FULL STORY AT THE SOURCE: Citizen's Neews, www.mycitizensnews.com

May 12, 2011

by Laraine Weschler

NEW BRITAIN – After months of research and over $100,000 spent on legal fees and experts, the hard work has finally paid off for members of Save Prospect who fought to protect what they saw as their quality of life.

The Connecticut Siting Council voted 6-2 on May 12 to deny BNE Energy’s petition to build two 1.6 megawatt commercial wind turbines in Prospect.

Despite health and safety concerns from the project’s opponents, the decision turned on visual impacts.

The two, 463 foot turbines would be visible from 50 residences year-round and 248 residences seasonally.

“Given the mass of the turbine towers, the height of the turbine hubs, the height and rotation of the blades and lack of an effective means of visual mitigation, the Council finds a substantial adverse visual impact sufficient to deny the proposed project,” wrote the council in its opinion.

After the vote, opponents of the Wind Prospect project in the audience applauded.

“We’re very happy,” said Fred Bonyai, who lives near the proposed site. “I didn’t believe it would ever happen because I thought it was a done deal. I guess the council listened to us and the made the right decision.”

Tim Rielly, President of Save Prospect Corp. said the council did the right thing.

“It’s nice to see a small group of people who fight for their cause against big government and end up winning,” Reilly said.

He said he looked forward to being able to hang out in his back yard and leave the windows open at night without having to worry about the noise and sight of the turbines.

“To us now, the American dream is still alive,” Reilly said.

Rich Sargeant, who lives about 1,700 feet away from the site on Radio Tower Road, said it was astonishing to see a simulation of how big the turbines would look from his front door.

“We’re not looking to stop wind energy in Connecticut. We just want to have it done correctly so people aren’t adversely affected,” Sargeant said.

Even though the council sited visual impact as the main reason they denied the petition, Reilly said he still believes that noise could have a health impact.

Sargeant agreed that the noise was still a big concern. He said he didn’t believe BNE’s noise studies were very accurate, especially at night, when the wind blows the hardest and people are trying to sleep.

Sargeant said the site tour and listening to residents at public hearings in Prospect had a big impact on the council’s decision.

Representatives from BNE said they were disappointed with the council’s decision.

“It’s troubling that the Siting Council would shoot down a wind project because people don’t want to see them off in the distance,” said BNE Chairman Paul Corey.

BNE President and CEO Gregory Zupkus said the council’s decision was a major blow to the future of wind energy in Connecticut.

“This is a real bad message sent to renewable energy,” Zupkus said.

Even though the Prospect project was denied, Zupkus said he is still optimistic that his company’s two other petitions for wind projects in Colebrook will be accepted.

“There’s no denying that wind energy is the right energy source for the future. The question just becomes is whether Connecticut can accept it and make it a part of Connecticut’s future.”

After over 250 fact findings in favor of the project, Zupkus said it was a shame it was rejected because people don’t want to look at the turbines.

Zupkus, who lives in Prospect, said many of his neighbors supported the project.

“This is just a small NIMBY anti-wind crowd that disagree with it,” Zupkus said.

BNE representatives said they didn’t want to comment on whether they would appeal the case.

Several members of the council expressed their understanding of the complexities of the issue and difficulty in making a decision.

They said their decision only applied to the unique characteristics of the Prospect proposal.

“I don’t want this to be an end of wind turbine projects in Connecticut,” said council member Daniel Lynch.

Brian Golembiewski, designee of the Department of Environmental Protection, said a smaller scale project could still be viable on the site.
One of two dissenting voters, Ken Braffman, designee of Department of Public Utility Control, said the proposal is in accordance with the law as it is now, even if it’s not how the council wished it would be.

The other dissenting vote, Council Chair Robert Stein said that the issues and resident’s concerns have to be balance against legal requirements.

“I feel this project should be approved,” he said.

He said he looked at whom and what the Council was trying to protect, how serious the issues were, how many people would be impacted, how frequently, and what mitigation was possible.

In the case of ice throw, Stein said that although it was a potentially serious threat, mitigation made the likelihood of it hurting anyone highly improbable.

The council found that the project would not produce any air emissions or greenhouse gas, have no adverse impact on water quality, would not disturb wetlands and would not adversely impact birds. In the council’s opinion, shadow flicker is a potential annoyance rather than a health threat and could be mitigated using greenery and blinds.

The council’s opinion did state that noise is a serious concern, but that the project would meet Connecticut DEP allowable limits. However, the council noted that some health professionals are challenging the adequacy of state regulations and that mitigation of noise issues would be difficult and costly.

After brushing aside most of the issues brought up in the case, they only one left was visual impact. The council found that the turbines would be visible from many homes and attract attention because of their movement. Although BNE said it would plant trees along the property line to help shield the sight of the turbines from their neighbors, the council found such mitigation would not be effective.

Stein said that even though some people had described the turbines’ size as monstrous, visual impact does not affect health or safety.

On the other side, council member Philip Ashton said he was very worried about the impact of the turbines on surrounding neighborhoods. He said he was very much aware of the precedent the council would be setting in the Wind Prospect decision.

“We all felt an obligation to do it right the first time,” Ashton said.

Council Vice-Chair Colin Tait recused himself from the vote as per BNE’s request because he is involved in a group opposed to the wind projects in Colebrook. He said he had been impartial, but wanted to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Another request for Council Chair Robert Stein to abstain because he came into the process late, replacing former Chair Daniel Caruso, was denied. Stein said he’d done his homework, read all the transcripts, and did not have any pre-judge position.



WIND FIRM MAKES FINAL OFFER

SOURCE: Renewablesbiz.com

March 31, 2011

By David Giulliani

A wind company has made its "last and final offer" to residents complaining about problems with their TV reception, which they blame on nearby turbines.

Big Sky Wind, a subsidiary of Edison Mission Group, has a wind farm with turbines in Lee and Bureau counties.

Bureau County residents near the turbines have been particularly vocal about TV reception and noise problems. They also have complained about shadow flicker, which are the shadows of rotating blades that pass over windows that experts say cause seizures in some people.

Last week, Big Sky sent letters via Federal Express to residents who have complained about the problems.

In the letter, the company stated it had offered a settlement of $2,500 for each resident to resolve their TV reception complaints.

"We believe this to be a fair market offer that has already been accepted by several of your neighbors," the letter says. "With this in mind, we consider the $2,500 to be our best, last and final offer to resolve your TV reception complaint."

In the letter, Big Sky said it understands that residents also have complaints about noise and flicker. The company said it's prepared to offer a fair monetary settlement to resolve those issues, as well.

To start those settlement discussions, Big Sky requires that residents sign confidentiality agreements already sent out. The company asks that those agreements be faxed to its attorney in California.

Big Sky spokesman Charley Parnell said the letter and confidentiality agreement are intended to jump-start settlement discussions. He said most of the complaints his firm has received have come from Bureau County, but a few have come from Lee County.

Parnell said his company has received many more complaints about this wind farm than it has about others around the country.

"The vast majority of our complaints have to do with TV reception. This is our first experience on that front," he said.

Mark Wagner, a supporter of greater wind farm regulations in Lee County, said the letter is the "same old story." Companies put up their turbines with the approval of county governments, making many promises that they won't bother neighbors, he said.

"They say the problems won't happen, and then they do," he said. "They don't remediate the problems because you have to physically move the turbines; they won't do that. They'll pay you off and keep you quiet. That's the pattern we're seeing."

Parnell said his company is following Bureau County's ordinance on wind farms.

"We have to mitigate the issues. We're working through a process to mitigate the complaints and concerns," he said.

The Big Sky wind farm has 58 turbines in Lee County and 56 in Bureau County. It covers 13,000 acres.

Another company, Chicago-based Midwest Wind Energy, is planning the Walnut Ridge wind farm, which would be next to Big Sky's in Bureau County.

Some Walnut-area residents are trying to delay the proposed project until further study can be done. The group's members say Big Sky's issues trouble them.

The Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals expects to decide today whether to recommend conditional-use permits for the Walnut Ridge project.

Bird Deaths Prompt Wind Rules

SOURCE: Ogdensburg Journal

Sunday April 3, 2011

By Nancy Madsen

After some wind power projects have had dramatically higher bird deaths than predicted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a set of voluntary guidelines to reduce bird deaths.

Those guidelines, if adopted by the government and developers, could force significant changes to projects, including those along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.

Bird conservation groups want the guidelines to be mandatory rules. Wind power proponents say the guidelines are too strict as they stand.

William R. Evans, director of the nonprofit Old Bird Inc., Ithaca, said the placement of wind projects is a complicated balance between the need and political momentum for renewable wind energy and the desire to protect wildlife.

“With a few projects, there’s probably not too much damage, but a major build-out would cause damage. Where do you draw the line?” he said. “We have to face the consequences.”

The guidelines call for:

* Three years of pre-construction bird population studies.

* At least two and up to five years of post-construction bird fatality studies.

* Site development decisions made as a coordinated effort among the developer, the Wildlife Service and state and tribal agencies.

* If the parties can’t agree on the adverse effects on wildlife, the service may document concerns, but the decision to proceed lies with the developer.

* Use of operational modifications – raising the speed at which turbines start turning or not operating during key migratory times or using radar to turn off turbines when flocks pass – was suggested.

* Further testing on other measures, such as multicolored turbines, and effects, such as turbine noise on birds, were suggested.

The public can comment on the guidelines until May 19.

The American Wind Energy Association, Washington, D.C., takes issue with the guidelines, saying they were changed after a committee reached a consensus on reasonable measures. The extensive studies and management based on deaths will add expense and delay construction of projects, the association said in a news release. It also adds to the number of projects that would have federal oversight, raising cost without giving additional staff to review more applications, the association said.

“While the wind industry has the responsibility to minimize the impacts of development and operations to the greatest extent practicable, and are constantly striving to achieve that goal, the reality is that every form of development, energy or otherwise, has an impact on the natural environment and the choice we are left with as a society is to pursue those avenues that have the lowest amount of impact,” AWEA siting policy director John Anderson said via email.

But the American Bird Conservancy, Washington, D.C., says the guidelines aren’t strong enough because they are optional.

“The conservancy believes we must have mandatory standards to reduce impacts from wind energy,” said Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator. “The industry is not going to support standards even though they’re optional.”

A key piece of the guidelines, which was also part of the previous version, called for three years of bird population studies.

“The most important thing is that wind farms be built in areas that are not so high-risk for birds that they can’t be mitigated,” Ms. Fuller said. “The only way to find that out is by having good data to find out where those areas are.”

Mitigation measures, such as curtailing turbine use during certain seasons or times of day, also depend on the species of birds involved.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that 440,000 birds are killed each year by turbines. Because the push is to increase from 25 gigawatts now to 300 gigawatts in 2030, that number will grow, said Robert Johns, the conservancy’s public relations director.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean 12 times, but there will be a lot more birds killed,” he said. “We don’t have data on whether bigger turbines kill birds at the same rate that more smaller ones do.”

Such measures as radar to detect bird flocks and burying power lines could go a long way toward protecting bird populations, the conservancy said.

“Wind power needs to be ‘bird smart,’” Mr. Johns said. “Don’t site where lots of birds should be, employ mitigation when constructing infrastructure and compensate for lost habitat.”

The American Wind Energy Association argues that wind turbines are a very minor human cause for bird deaths. It disputes the service’s number, saying the annual number of bird deaths from turbines is about 108,000.

The association’s figure is “based on national averages as derived from over a decade of on-the-ground scientifically designed and statistically robust post-construction monitoring conducted at wind farms across the U.S. by biological consultants,” Mr. Anderson said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service extrapolated the 440,000 figure from partial data and assumptions, the association said.

Buildings kill 550 million birds per year, while power lines kill 130 million, cars kill 80 million and domestic cats kill 10 million, it said. And wind power is far less risky for bird populations than other sources of energy, it said.

Just across the Canadian border from proposed projects in Jefferson County, the Wolfe Island Wind Farm has a very high bird death rate per turbine, at 13.4 birds per turbine and a Canadian high of 0.27 birds of prey per turbine. The deaths have alarmed Canadian and U.S. conservation groups.

Mr. Evans suggested that bird deaths at St. Lawrence Wind Farm and Cape Vincent Wind Farm would be comparable to those on Wolfe Island.

“But they were proposed before the data from Wolfe Island came out,” he said. “It’s not easy to draw the line on which developments. The ones that already started could be allowed, but then others that want to come in and aren’t could say the process isn’t fair.”

Mr. Evans conducted the bird population studies for Galloo Island Wind Farm, which were “the most robust and thorough bird studies of any project in the U.S.”

The studies showed that many bird populations didn’t visit the island during migration because it is six miles offshore from the mainland.

“A substantial number of bird populations don’t want to fly over the lake,” Mr. Evans said.

Very few bird of prey species visit the island, too. A certain number of cormorants, gulls and Caspian terns fly over the island daily in search of food. But terns, the only species of concern, likely would experience 30 to 40 turbine-related deaths per year, which will hardly put a dent in a colony of 1,700 from Little Galloo Island, he said.

“It will kill terns and a substantially smaller number of raptors,” Mr. Evans said. “All these things have to be weighed against Galloo Island having one of the best wind resources on land in the Eastern U.S.”

Next story:

NO EASY ANSWERS BLOWING IN THE WIND: WIND FARMS TRICK RADAR, RAISING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS

SOURCE: www.caller.com

April 2 2011

By Mark Collette,

CORPUS CHRISTI — Three or four times a day, an alarm goes off at the National Weather Service in Corpus Christi, warning of a tornado in San Patricio County.

In a dark air traffic control room at Naval Air Station Kingsville, a shadow looms on the radar screen over Kenedy County.

There is, of course, no tornado and no phantom lurking on the horizon.

But the wind farms that trigger these radar images are real, and they’re causing a collision between clean energy, military and public safety priorities.

The wind industry worries that proposed laws intended to keep turbines from interfering with military installations would thwart business in Texas, the nation’s leading wind energy state.

Weather forecasters and military officials fear turbines, which look like planes and storms on radar images, could lead to failed public warning systems and cripple the Kingsville base’s mission to train jet pilots.

For the Coastal Bend, the economic fallout of any check on the exponential growth of the industry reaches beyond the developers and the landowners who can earn around $5,000 a year on a lease for one turbine.

Shipments of wind turbine equipment through the Port of Corpus Christi in 2008 and 2009 generated $39 million in direct revenues and 256 jobs for regional businesses, according to a study by Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi economics professor Jim Lee.

As more developers pursue Coastal Bend wind projects, the potential for radar clutter rises. More than 400 turbines already have risen in San Patricio and Kenedy counties. They can produce about 1,065 megawatts, enough to power roughly 300,000 homes.

According to information compiled from government and industry sources, developers are proposing new projects in the Coastal Bend that total at least 2,445 megawatts, which could mean 800 to 1,600 more turbines.

Dottie Roark, a spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the agency that collects information on new wind projects, said many of the proposed farms never will be built for lack of financing, technical obstacles or other reasons.

But developers also may be considering projects the council doesn’t yet know about. That’s because state rules don’t require wind project developers to give any form of public notice until they request a connection to the state’s power grid. Even then, the information at ERCOT is geared toward people with a deep knowledge of electricity markets. Names of companies and locations of projects — except for the name of the county — aren’t revealed until late in the process unless a developer gives permission.

Wind developers say this arrangement promotes clean energy development and helps companies compete for leases on coveted land in a business where location means everything. Developers like the Coastal Bend because it has access to long-distance transmission lines and steady winds that are strong on hot afternoons when statewide electricity demand peaks.

Radar clutter has bred tense, delicate relationships between stakeholders who don’t want to be seen at odds with their counterparts — viewed as anti-clean energy or anti-military, for example — but who nonetheless have huge economic, environmental and safety interests to protect.

Within the National Weather Service, a careful balancing act is under way.

“There are people within the weather service who don’t want these wind farms anywhere near the radars,” said Ed Ciardi, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service Radar Operations Center in Norman, Okla., and one of the service’s leading wind farm clutter analysts.

Ciardi said despite the internal disagreements in the weather service, it has striven to work with wind developers, encouraging them to work out siting issues as early as possible.

“They don’t have to work with us,” he said. “In order not to cause them issues, we protect any data that could compromise them in a competitive way.”

That can mean not publicly disclosing potential wind farm sites unless forced by a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Ciardi said. Even then, the information usually is exempt from disclosure, he said.

In turn, the wind industry provides valuable information to the weather service. John Metz, warning coordination meteorologist for the weather service in Corpus Christi, said E. ON Climate and Renewables, owner of the Papalote Creek wind farm in San Patricio County, provided wind speed data after a rare January tornado cut a 20-mile swath across the Coastal Bend, ravaging trailers in the North Bay area and wrecking homes and a school in Robstown.

Some wind developers are agreeing to shut down turbines when severe weather approaches, Ciardi said.

When a weather radar

scans a wind farm, it interprets the movement of the blades as precipitation. The instruments are sensitive enough to detect bird flocks, so a wind farm — with 100 or 200 sets of blades that each stretch the length of a 747 jetliner and spin more than 100 mph at the tips in a 20 mph wind — can look like a tornado-breeding monster.

At Papalote Creek, the radar thinks it’s raining all the time. Under the right conditions, the blade movement triggers a tornado alarm, Metz said.

The radars can’t be programmed to ignore the wind farms because that could cause forecasters to miss a true storm. So far, there have been no weather warning delays or missed warnings in Corpus Christi, Metz said. The wind farms here are beyond a critical 10-mile range, allowing the radar to see easily beyond the turbines. But at least one proposed farm, near Petronila, is at the edge of the 10-mile radius.

Nationwide, wind farms haven’t caused forecasters to miss warning the public, but there have been instances of false warnings, Ciardi said.

“We’re still on the early stages of wind farm build-out,” he said. “Right now we’re only 10 percent of where the United States wants to be 10 or 20 years from now. Ten years from now, there’s likely to be more wind farms surrounding our radars, and I think that’s where we’re worried.”

It’s also a worry for Naval Air Station Kingsville, the commanding officer, Capt. Mark McLaughlin, said.

Proposed wind farms have the potential to create false radar returns throughout the airspace pilots use on their approach to the Navy base, McLaughlin said. Already, radars can lose track of planes when they fly into certain areas covered with false radar plots caused by turbines. Controllers then have to increase the distance between jets for safety.

“Increased separation means fewer training flights and decreased ability to perform our mission,” McLaughlin said.

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi officials did not respond by Friday evening.

State Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, trying to protect the base — Kingsville’s largest employer — filed a bill that would require wind developers to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and military installations of plans to build turbines within 25 miles of an installation. State Rep. J.M. Lozano, D-Kingsville, filed an identical bill in the House.

Patrick Woodson, chief development officer for E. ON, said the law would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Developers already are required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of a wind farm project 45 days before construction, and it takes weeks to get FAA approval, he said.

Developers spend years erecting towers to test the wind and signing leases with landowners.

“There’s no secret plot here to construct wind turbines without telling anybody,” Woodson said.

Mark Hannifan, vice president of development for Tradewind Energy, said the bills provide no specific timetable for notifying the commission. Notifying too early could hurt competition, and the 25-mile requirement would take away too many potential wind farm sites, he said.

“This bill will send (wind developers) packing out of the state of Texas and send everybody packing out of the Coastal Bend.”Greg Wortham, director of the Texas Wind Energy Clearinghouse trade association, said new state regulations aren’t warranted because the FAA already has oversight and concerns over wind farm clutter are overplayed.

“The radar issue has been abused by people who just want to create an issue,” he said, “because their real story is they just don’t like wind turbines.”

Some technical solutions are on the horizon. Defense contractor Raytheon has plans to roll out new software algorithms as early as 2012 that would help military radars distinguish aircraft from wind turbines.

Patrick Paddock, an operations specialist and radar expert at Naval Air Station Kingsville, said those solutions would require years of testing and procurement processes before the military could begin to implement them. Even then, “because of the physics of this specific radar, software mitigation alone is probably not going to solve all of the problems,” he said.