The leadership of Wellfleet Bay Wildlife "Sanctuary" seem to wish to convert the mission of the Sanctuary from wildlife and habitat protection area to Electrical Generation facility area...renewable...but never the less a production facility. It is appalling that a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY has had their mission perverted in to a space hogging, wildlife killing, technology center!!!
The leadership has lost their way. There are so few wildlife sanctuaries and the appeal of these vanity projects is apparently too much for these "care takers". They love the money and attention gleaned with these industrial, nature killing machines! They go to the lobbyists funded conferences telling about all the good that will come from placing these machines in a natural environment. There are the state/federal funded research better known as guessing, as to the harm that will be wreaked. Invariably the "guessers" are regularly wrong, though they get paid to make sure most projects are "viable" and thereby self perpetuating(money in their pockets). Check this research out http://saveourseashore.org/?p=2709 "
Although we predicted abundance would remain relatively constant, raptor abundance was lower post-construction compared to pre-construction levels.""
THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!
Remember electricity can be generated anywhere and transported. Money can be spend on harmless projects that dramatically lowering usage of electricity...but the vanity of these projects just aren't as appealing as 100-200 ft industrial machine in the middle of a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY!
Instead of spending money to acquire more land to in the wonderful true mission of ab Audubon Sanctuary's which is to protect a piece of nature they now spend money on newer buildings, newer larger more harmful power generation machinery! Why exactly does an Audubon center need air conditioning....most people that live nearby don't have it? Why not convert more facilities to open environment and remove the video screen for that simple thing people are really looking for....THE SANCTUARY OF NATURE!
The current industrial wind project being attempted at the Wellfleet Bay "WILDLIFE SANCTUARY"....please note they call it a micro turbine...is only 150ft tall with 40ft blades that will kill birds and bats!
Their first attempt at an even larger wind turbines project in 2008 met with failure as reasonable heads prevailed and shot that project down.
Here is some information about the solar production facility at the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary as more doesn't even seem to be enough.
"Now we’d like to complete the installation of a new 41 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array that, combined with our existing solar array...". Please take note in the following pictures that they take land from the nature to build their production facility. Also called BULLDOZING!!! Note that solar panels raise the temperature of the local environment as welll a fine thing for a "Sanctuary".
Note in the picture above more greenery could have supported butterflies, bees, birds, insects....but alas the Wildlife Sanctuary chooses glass, aluminum, silicon, and higher temperatures, They have chosen an Energy Production Mission over Wildlife and Nature mission.
Please go back an investigate the original mission of the Sanctuary, what does the charter say? It might be time for better leadership!
KEEP IT A SANCTUARY!
Call this the bat effect: A bat killed by a wind turbine in Somerset can lead to higher tomato prices at the Wichita farmers market.
Bats are something of a one-species stimulus program for farmers, every year gobbling up millions of bugs that could ruin a harvest. But the same biology that allows the winged creatures to sweep the night sky for fine dining also has made them susceptible to one of Pennsylvania's fastest-growing energy tools.
The 420 wind turbines now in use across Pennsylvania killed more than 10,000 bats last year -- mostly in the late summer months, according to the state Game Commission. That's an average of 25 bats per turbine per year, and the Nature Conservancy predicts as many as 2,900 turbines will be set up across the state by 2030.
This is a bad time to be a bat.
It may seem like a good thing to those who fear the flying mammals, but the wind farm mortality rate is an acute example of how harnessing natural energy can lead to disruptions in the circle of life -- and the cycle of business. This chain of events mixes biology and economics: Bat populations go down, bug populations go up and farmers are left with the bill for more pesticide and crops (which accounts for those pricey tomatoes in Kansas).
Wind industry executives are shelling out millions of dollars on possible solutions that don't ruin their bottom line, even as wind farms in the area are collaborating with the state Game Commission to work carcass-combing into daily operations.
"If you look at a map and see where the mountains are, everything funnels through Somerset," said Tracey Librandi Mumma, the wildlife biologist who led the March commission report on bird and bat mortality. "If I'm out driving ... I wonder, 'How many are being killed at that one?' "
Bats are nature's pesticide, consuming as many as 500 insects in one hour, or nearly 3,000 insects in one night, said Miguel Saviroff, the agricultural financial manager at the Penn State Cooperative Extension in Somerset County.
"A colony of just 100 little brown bats may consume a quarter of a million mosquitoes and other small insects in a night," he said. "That benefits neighbors and reduces the insect problem with crops."
If one turbine kills 25 bats in a year, that means one turbine accounted for about 17 million uneaten bugs in 2010.
Bats save farmers a lot of money: About $74 per acre, according to an April report in Science magazine that calculated the economic value of bats on a county-by-county basis.
In Allegheny County, bats save farmers an estimated $642,986 in a year. That's nothing compared with more agricultural counties in the region such as Somerset ($6.7 million saved), Washington ($5.5 million) or Westmoreland ($6.1 million).
Lancaster County? You owe bats $22 million.
In all of Pennsylvania, bats saved farmers $277.9 million in estimated avoided costs.
Initially, the "Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture" article was meant to attract attention to the white-nose fungus virus that is wiping out entire colonies of bats across the country.
"We were getting a lot of questions about why we should care about white-nose syndrome," said author Justin Boyles, a post-doctoral fellow in bat research at the University of Tennessee. "Really, it's the economic impact that makes people listen."
The white-nose syndrome is compounding the wind turbine problems, having killed more than a million bats in the northeastern United States since 2006. It surfaced in Pennsylvania in 2008 and has killed thousands of in-state bats.
Meanwhile, the same creatures that save Pennsylvania farmers millions of dollars each year are also costing energy companies some big bucks as they try to stave off a mass execution beneath the blades.
Technology is being developed on sound generators that would deter the creatures from getting too close with a high-pitched noise only heard by bats. Some studies suggest that a slowdown in blade speed would reduce mortality.
But new technology is expensive and a blade slowdown would reduce the number of megawatts produced.
"All these options cost money," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, and it can be a tough sell to the private industry handing over the information that helps in the research. "You don't want to penalize the hand that's giving you the data."
Companies that have signed a Game Commission cooperation agreement must foot the bill for the commission's pre-construction reconnaissance and post-construction monitoring. The cost of the process varies, but the research can last several months and involve extensive habitat monitoring.
Under the agreement, each site conducts two years of mortality monitoring, sending a lucky employee out every day from April to November to comb the six meters around each turbine for carcasses. The employees are tested to see "how good they are at finding dead things," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.
"We got a dead snake once, because it was on the road and they were just collecting everything dead," she said. "It wasn't because the wind turbine killed it. The guy was just being thorough."
Some retrievers aren't so good.
"The average person finds 30 percent of the carcasses that are under a turbine," said Ms. Librandi Mumma, so the commission has come up with an algorithm that accounts for the missing bodies.
Agents will leave a carcass on the ground and note how long it takes to disappear -- this provides some insight on how many carcasses are unaccounted for because of living animals that have a taste for decomposing flesh.
Some wind companies with Pennsylvania operations have already seen seven-figure expenses on account of the bat problem.
NextEra Energy Resources, which operates the Somerset wind farms visible from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, has five active sites in Pennsylvania but did not participate in the Game Commission study.
The company monitors its mortality rates in house and funds outside research to reduce bird and bat deaths at its sites, said Skelly Holmbeck, environmental business manager at the Juno Beach, Fla.-based firm.
The funding program involving nine different research facilities is "in the millions overall," she said.
Migratory research that precedes any construction can employ bird watchers, nets or tape recorders designed to read the local ecosystem.
PPL Renewable Energy LLC of Allentown had planned on installing four turbines at its Lancaster County wind farm, but went with only two after sensitive avian populations were found nearby.
"There were design aspects that we elected not to use," said spokeswoman Mimi Mylin. "Some construction sites use lattice towers, but those can become roosting sites" for birds.
It's not just bats that are dying around wind turbines. An estimated 1,680 birds were killed by turbines last year, according to the state Game Commission report.
The disparity in mortality stems from biology. Birds typically crash into the blade and die from blunt force trauma, while bats suffer from a condition called barotrauma. It's the bat equivalent of the "bends" that scuba divers can suffer if they surface too quickly.
The rapid drop in air pressure around the blades causes the bats' lungs to burst, and they collapse with no ostensible lacerations or scars on the body.
"They just look like they're sleeping," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.
Bats must fly very close to the blades for their lungs to burst, and some researchers say the lights around the turbines might attract insects, which in turn attract bats.
Barotrauma in bats was only discovered in 2008, when a Canadian biologist thought to dissect one of the unblemished carcasses turning up at wind farms across North America.
"It was an 'a-ha' moment," said Ms. Librandi Mumma.
The turbine problem has yielded some other, unexpected contributions to bat research.
One carcass hunter in central Pennsylvania found a Seminole bat felled by barotrauma under the blades. Seminole bats live in the southeastern United States and rarely show up in Pennsylvania.
"It's like a double-edged sword," said Ms. Librandi Mumma. "You're excited because it's a new bat, but it's a dead one."
The Seminole specimen was kept on dry ice in a small styrofoam container by a commission employee and handed over to Suzanne McLaren, the collection manager at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's research center in East Liberty. They met in the Ligonier Diamond town square -- home to a postcard-perfect gazebo and lots of sunlight -- for the transfer.
The bat, which may have traveled here from as far as Florida, found its final resting place in a freezer in East Liberty.
A letter to:
Dear Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary,
I would like to draw your attention to some research concerning raptors and wind turbines and why you should not choose a wind turbine for the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. We are sure some of you think this is a broken record….but we wish to convince you with HARD FACT that wind turbines have a dramatic impact on wildlife and that the wind turbine lobby has been successful so far in soft pedaling the dramatic impact.
"Overall raptor abundance was on average 47% lower post-construction"
"Although we predicted abundance would remain relatively constant, raptor abundance was lower post-construction compared to pre-construction levels."
This from A pre- and post-construction study conducted to determine the impact of a windfarm on the abundance and behaviour of raptors in Wisconsin, USA.
Garvin, J. C., Jennelle, C. S., Drake, D. and Grodsky, S. M. (2011), Response of raptors to a windfarm. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 199–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01912.x
Once again the prediction that wind turbines won’t have an effect on animals and once again animals are impacted. A Wind Turbine is an extremely poor choice to have at the Audubon Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. Please, we ask you to send us any data you have on Wind Turbines not impacting animals…beyond anecdotal …I visited a turbine and it didn't look that bad…or someone I know has one and he says is isn’t bad or we didn’t look for any dead animals so we didn’t find any. The evidence of 50% avoidance is horrific for an Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary.
KEEP IT A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY!
FAIRHAVEN — Fairhaven's two industrial-sized wind turbines are in violation of Massachusetts noise regulations, according to preliminary results of a sound study conducted by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
The announcement at a meeting Tuesday night prompted opponents to demand the turbines be shut down.
DEP Deputy Commissioner Martin Suuberg told the Board of Health that noise from the turbines exceeded state regulations in five of the 24 periods during which the DEP conducted testing.
DEP started its sound study in August to determine whether the turbines were more than 10 decibels louder than ambient noise at homes of residents who had complained about the turbine noise.
Five different locations were tested overall but the five periods of noncompliance came from only single locations on Little Bay Road, Peirces' Point Road and Teal Circle.
Winds were blowing from the northwest and northeast, at varying speeds, when the turbines were found to be exceeding noise regulations by differences of .7 to 1.5 decibels, according to DEP data presented Tuesday night.
The DEP still needs to collect more noise samples at varying wind speeds before the test is complete, but Suuberg said the state agency would work with the town and developers to "mitigate the problem."
Developer Gordon Dean said he disputed some of the methodology used in the DEP's study but agreed to work with the town and DEP to "see what might be done in a cost-effective manner."
He said he hoped a solution could be found before winter, when many of the violations were found.
That response was not good enough for the more than 30 members of the turbine opposition group Windwise who were in attendance and cheered and booed various speakers throughout the meeting.
At one point, many in the audience began shouting for Board of Health Chairman Peter DeTerra to make a motion to shut down the wind turbines until Fairhaven Wind presented the board with a mitigation plan.
"Until you find a way to fix this, it's only fair to shut them down," Grant Menard said.
Lisa Plante agreed, saying "the burden of proof is on the developers to prove they can be in compliance."
Planning Board Chairman Wayne Hayward warned the Board of Health against taking any action "without the advice of counsel," saying "don't allow yourself to be pressured by the 35 people here."
His comments were met with boos and yells from Windwise members.
DeTerra said he would wait to make a decision until the Board of Health could meet with selectmen and town counsel.
SOSS Editor Note - Sadly Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary once again is pushing to use wildlife killing wind energy. The previous larger project was killed, but now there is attempt at a smaller version which will still kill local wildlife without even admitting the first effort was wrong headed. We find it unseemly and irresponsible that current management of the wildlife sanctuary built by many, with donation from many, to protect the environment and wildlife..would turn to wind energy which 100% guaranteed to kill wildlife. Pretty much every wind energy project makes lowball estimates of how many animals will killed and find the actual harm is MANY FOLD WORSE! This is SHAMEFUL. A number of wildlife entities have erected wind turbines finding they have to be removed once they have to deal with the ugly reality that wind energy kills. If this gets built, will they even have the integrity remove it when the the killing begins? We all know for a fact much more could be accomplished with impactless projects such as high efficiency equipment, smart architecting and materials than erecting a wind energy machine at a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. A simple exercise should be what could be changed to remove one light bulb, A/C, heater or computer. Wonder how much industrial noise this machine will be introducing to the sanctuary?
Gull killer micro turbines are removed in Devon, England The 15m (50ft) high 6kW turbines at the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth were installed in 2006 for a £3.6m sustainable energies project. But the Hoe-based attraction has taken them down after several birds died, it said. The aquarium also said they had not produced as much electricity as hoped.
http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Wind+Farms++Bird+Killers/article18641.htm “…30 raptors were killed "during an initial year of operations - more than seven times the number forecast in a pre-construction study.”
What is the current management's forecast for how many deaths they will be responsible for and how much energy they can guarantee. I think they need to make a public forecast.
Wellfleet Bay Audubon proposes a Micro-Wind Turbine
Read more: Wellfleet Bay Audubon proposes a Micro-Wind Turbine - - Wicked Local Wellfleet http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellfleet/news/x1379222368/Wellfleet-Bay-Audubon-proposes-a-Micro-Wind-Turbine#ixzz2TrVyIjzT
micro-wind turbine near existing solar panel arrays adjacent to the sanctuary’s parking lot.
The wildlife sanctuary in South Wellfleet is hosting a community open house Thursday, May 23 from 5–7 PM to provide more information about the project, including images of the proposed turbine and to answer questions.
The proposed 120-foot, two-bladed turbine is an example of micro-wind technology as categorized by government and industry and is not comparable to the much larger industrial-sized turbines erected in other areas of the Cape. Its modest scale has been designed to generate only enough power for the sanctuary to return to the regional grid as much power as it uses and has been sited to minimize visual and other impacts, both on and off the sanctuary.
Sanctuary director Bob Prescott said adding wind power to the sanctuary’s green energy mix is a logical next step following the installation of solar panels at the sanctuary in 2006 and 2011 and the 2008 construction of the award-winning LEED Platinum-certified nature center, an energy-efficient building incorporating recycled materials.
“This proposal dovetails with Mass Audubon’s organization-wide commitment to demonstrate affordable, practical ways to reduce one’s carbon footprint and help to offset emissions contributing to climate change,” Prescott noted. “We also anticipate using the turbine as part of our education programs and to further engage the greater community to which we belong.”
The turbine will require approval by Wellfleet’s Zoning Board of Appeals. Mass Audubon will also conduct environmental studies to ensure the turbine will not have adverse impacts. If approved, the turbine would be constructed in the off-season to minimize impact on visitors and wildlife.
“We hope people will join us for what I expect to be an informative and productive session,” Prescott said.
In a reversal that has outraged environmentalists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced it will not penalize a Southern California wind operator if its turbines kill or injure one California condor. One of the world's most critically endangered animals with fewer than 250 birds in the wild, the condor's range in the Tehachapi Mountains is being encroached on by intensive wind turbine development.
FWS biologist Ray Bransfield told ReWire that FWS has completed its Biological Opinion (BiOp) on condors for Google and Citicorp's Alta East project, which would be built and operated by wind developer Terra-Gen. Occupying 2,592 acres, mostly on public lands, near the intersection of state routes 14 and 58 in Kern County, Alta East would generate a maximum of 318 megawatts of electrical power with 106 wind turbines, each with 190-foot-long blades.
FWS's BiOp for Alta East includes an "incidental take statement" that in effect allows one "lethal take" of a California condor. "Incidental take" of a protected species is a term of art covering any kind of injury, harassment or disturbance, or even habitat damage that a project causes inadvertently. "Lethal take" is when the species in question dies. If the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approves the project, FWS would require formal re-review of the project's impact on condors if a single condor is killed over the 30-year operating life of the facility.
According to FWS, other wind developers are welcome to apply for similar permits. "This is the first time we've authorized incidental takes of California condors -- and we're approaching them very cautiously," said FWS Director Dan Ashe in an interview with Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times.
According to FWS press spokesperson Stephanie Weagley, the BiOp was issued approximately a week ago and delivered to the BLM, which is in the process of determining whether to approve Alta East. Standard practice dictates that BiOps for a project are made public when the lead agency -- the BLM, in this case -- issues a Record Of Decision on the project. Attempts by ReWire to obtain an advance copy of the Alta East condor BiOp have so far been unsuccessful.
Condors are especially threatened by the new generation of wind turbines because they fly slowly, their 9-foot wingspans making them somewhat slow to maneuver. They tend to soar while watching the ground, searching for activity of other scavengers. This habit makes them vulnerable to injury from blade tips approaching from above, often at speeds exceeding 150 miles per hour.
Alta East has come under heavy scrutiny for its threat to condors in the east Tehachapis. It's far from the only wind facility that poses such a threat: the area has seen startling growth in wind installations in the last four years, many of those installations every bit as much a threat to California's largest bird. According to Bransfield, the Alta East facility is the first to come up for incidental take consideration because it occupies BLM land. Asked in email whether this pending incidental take permit offered a precedent for neighboring facilities, Bransfield told ReWire:
Our biological opinion (and the incidental take statement included in the biological opinion) are specific to this project. We would need to evaluate any future projects on their own merits; therefore, I do not have an answer to that question. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that numerous wind projects are already in operation in this area; none of them applied for an incidental take permit from the Service; also, none of them are on Federal land, so this is the first to undergo consultation.
Of the 132 free-flying condors in California as of March 2013, nearly half -- 65 birds -- live in the Tehachapis, well within an easy day's flight of the burgeoning wind developments in the vicinity of Alta East. And according to telemetry from the transmitters worn by many of the birds, they're moving right up against the Tehachapi Wind Energy Area -- and in many cases flying across it.
The revelation of the pending take permit caught many wildlife protection activists by surprise, and several told ReWire that it was difficult to offer a measured response on behalf of their organizations without access to the text of the BiOp. But the reaction of Center for Biological Diversity attorney Adam Keats quoted in Friday's Times article aptly summarized most of the sentiment ReWire found among activists: "This is a sad day for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," Keats told the Times. "We're talking about perhaps one of the most endangered species on the planet, let alone in this country."
"It's premature and inappropriate," said condor expert Sophie Osborn, wildlife program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council and author of "Condors in Canyon Country: The Return of the California Condor to the Grand Canyon Region." Osborn, who managed the Peregrine Fund's involvement with the Grand Canyon condor reintroduction for many years, told ReWire that the incidental take permit flies in the face of what we know about how to help birds survive wind energy development. "Proper siting means finding out which areas pose less threat to birds. It means not putting turbines in high use areas, not allowing development in places that have heavy wildlife traffic."
"This just seems like a recipe for losing condors," she added.
Osborn also took issue with a statement by Dan Ashe quoted in Louis Sahagun's Los Angeles Times piece, in which the FWS chief said "The good news is that we have an expanding population of condors, which are also expanding their range."
"The reason we have an expanding population is that we're breeding and releasing condors," said Osborn. "That doesn't offer an accurate picture of how they're doing once they're released."
If a condor is killed at Alta East during that 30-year period, the BLM will have to do what's known in the endangered species business as "reinitiating formal consultation" -- essentially restarting the process by which FWS determines whether a project will jeopardize the existence of an endangered species.
That's a reassuring-sounding prospect: FWS will assess whether a project that has killed an endangered animal poses further threat to the species. The process is often less reassuring in practice than it is in theory. Endangered species advocates were hoping for a "jeopardy" finding when solar developer BrightSource started finding hundreds more federally threatened desert tortoises on the site of its Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System than were forecast in that project's BiOp. The original BiOp and take permit allowed BrightSource to kill, harm, harass, or disturb no more than 40 tortoises. Once it was clear there were a lot more tortoises than that onsite, BLM estimated as many as 2,862 tortoises (including eggs) could be harmed by the project. Despite the 70-fold increase in potential "takes," FWS merely required a few changes to the project's tortoise relocation plan and issued a revised BiOp that allowed construction to proceed.
Reviewing a project's impact on condors after a single death may seem fairly stringent by comparison to the Ivanpah tortoise example, but compared to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000 -- the existing penalties under the Endangered Species Act for killing a condor -- it's definitely getting off easy. And the number of remaining tortoises in the Ivanpah Valley, as beleaguered as they are, is many times higher than the entire population of California condors worldwide.
This is an abrupt about-face for FWS, whose representatives were stating as recently as last year that issuing lethal take permits for the California condor to wind developers -- or anyone -- was out of the question. In a 2011 letter regarding Alta East sent to Jacqueline Kitchen of the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department -- and included as a public comment in the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement -- FWS's Assistant Field Supervisor Carl Benz said that "we consider avoidance of mortality of California condors to be the only acceptable conservation strategy at this point in time." That was the same point in time in which FWS was rebuking Kern County for downplaying the existence of condors on the site of a different proposed wind project. In a letter to the county's Board of Supervisors, Diane Noda -- Field Supervisor of the FWS Ventura office -- warned the county that careless approval of enXco's 350-megawatt Catalina wind project could land the county in hot water with regard to illegal take of condors, adding "We cannot envision a situation where we would permit the lethal take of California condors."
The decision also marks a change from policy stated recently in the behemoth Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), an overarching Habitat Conservation Plan in the works for the California Desert, being prepared by FWS in cooperation with the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As recently as this past January, this is what the DRECP's planning documents had to say about the idea that wind developers would be granted permission to "take" condors:
Based on best available information for the California condor, it is anticipated that no lethal take would be authorized for condor, but that the DRECP would promote conservation of the species.
So what prompted this volte-face on FWS's part? It's hard to tell without looking at the Biological Opinion, which has not so far been made publicly accessible. Stephanie Weagley told ReWire that a commitment by Terra-Gen to implement a condor warning system played a role in FWS writing the first-ever incidental take statement for California condors.
"These measures include... a system to detect condors flying in the vicinity of the project [and] curtailment of operation prior to any bird entering the area of the wind turbines," Weagley told ReWire.
What this likely means, given the flaws inherent in standard detection tech such as bird radar, is that Terra-Gen has agreed to use a system that will detect the radio transmitters worn by many condors and slow their turbines when the alarm signals the birds' approach.
Those transmitters are worn by many condors. They are not worn by every condor. A double-digit percentage of condors in California may be without transmitters, and those with them may stop signaling due to equipment failure. "Transmitters often have failed batteries," Sophie Osborn points out. "They fall off. It's a hell of a lot of work to capture condors to attach new transmitters, especially if the condors in question aren't habituated to food subsidies. It can take weeks or months to recapture a condor whose transmitter has failed, or to capture a fledgling that's never had one attached. It takes a big commitment of people on the ground to do the work."
Condors' social behavior may offer some level of "herd immunity" to windmill strikes in that radio-silent condors will often be accompanying those with transmitters. But that's not by any means a certainty. Eventually, Terra-Gen will have to find some other way of detecting condors, and no reliable way other than constant live observation really exists.
FWS's Stephanie Weagley points out that this reality is in part what drove the Alta East BiOp's findings. "Because the detection system is not fool-proof," said Weagley, "the Service's biological opinion on the proposed action anticipates the lethal take of a single condor over the 30 year life of the project."
If condors do move into the area in increasing numbers, that poses another problem with mitigation through detection. Wind turbine operators are in business to sell power. If they're obliged to cut their output drastically every time a condor flies by, and if condors start flying by more than a few days a year, that cuts into profits, and into investors' income, and into the creditworthiness of the operator. The temptation to err on the side of threat to condors will grow with the local condor population.
And that threat may involve a single condor only rarely. Condors are intensely social animals -- one biologist has called them "primates with feathers." The birds tend to gather in huge flocks at a carcass, and they can assemble those huge flocks quickly, as shown in these camera trap images caught just a few moments apart:
It may turn out to be hard to kill only one California condor by accident.
A more likely broad cause of the FWS reversal on condors is overarching pressure from the Obama administration to develop renewable energy generating capacity at all costs, even going so far as to help conceal the deaths of protected and endangered bird species at wind installations. Dan Ashe, according to the Times, pointed out that the condor issue had been a thorn in the side of wind developers in the Tehachapis:
Fish and Wildlife Director Daniel Ashe said the decision reflects a difficult reality. The threat of prosecution jeopardized the construction of large-scale alternative energy facilities... in the wild and windy places preferred by condors.
Which observation prompted one commenter on social media to point out in exasperated all-caps: "YES THAT IS WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO."
Obama administration allows wind farms to kill(and keep it secret) eagles, birds, despite federal laws
By DINA CAPPIELLO
CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo.
Obama administration allows wind farms to kill eagles, birds, despite federal laws
The Associated Press
Wind farms in this corner of Wyoming have killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009, one of the deadliest places in the country of its kind.
But so far, the companies operating industrial-sized turbines here and elsewhere that are killing eagles and other protected birds have yet to be fined or prosecuted - even though every death is a criminal violation.
The Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines.
But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly.
"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody.
It's a double standard that some Republicans in Congress said Tuesday they would examine after an Associated Press investigation revealed that the Obama administration has shielded the wind power industry from liability and helped keep the scope of the deaths secret.
"We obviously don't want to see indiscriminate killing of birds from any sort of energy production, yet the administration's ridiculous inconsistencies begs questioning and clarity— clarity on why wind energy producers are let off the hook," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
The House Natural Resources Committee, which was at the beginning stages of an investigation, vowed to dig deeper Tuesday.
"There are serious concerns that the Obama administration is not implementing this law fairly and equally," said Jill Strait, a spokeswoman for the committee's chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan. His administration has championed a $1 billion-a-year tax break to the industry that has nearly doubled the amount of wind power in his first term.
"Climate change is really greatest threat that we see to species conservation in long run," said Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe in an interview with the AP on Monday. "We have an obligation to support well-designed renewable energy."
But like the oil industry under President George W. Bush, lobbyists and executives have used their favored status to help steer U.S. energy policy.
The result is a green industry that's allowed to do not-so-green things.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren't required to disclose how many birds they kill. And when they do, experts say, the data can be unreliable.
When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.
Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.
"We are all responsible for protecting our wildlife, even the largest of corporations," Colorado U.S. Attorney David M. Gaouette said in 2009 when announcing Exxon Mobil had pleaded guilty and would pay $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states, including Wyoming.
The large death toll at wind farms shows how the renewable energy rush comes with its own environmental consequences, trade-offs the Obama administration is willing to make in the name of cleaner energy.
"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this," said Tom Dougherty, a long-time environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West, until his retirement in 2008. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."
The Obama administration has refused to accept that cost when the fossil-fuel industry is to blame. The BP oil company was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants in Wyoming, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.
But PacifiCorp also operates wind farms in the state, where at least 20 eagles have been found dead in recent years, according to corporate surveys submitted to the federal government and obtained by the AP. They've neither been fined nor prosecuted. A spokesman for PacifiCorp, which is a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, said that's because its turbines may not be to blame.
By not enforcing the law, the administration provides little incentive for companies to build wind farms where there are fewer birds. And while companies already operating turbines are supposed to avoid killing birds, in reality there's little they can do once the windmills are spinning.
Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.
Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan for food, they don't notice the industrial turbine blades until it's too late.
The rehabilitation coordinator for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Michael Tincher, said he euthanized two golden eagles found starving and near death near wind farms. Both had injuries he'd never seen before: One of their wings appeared to be twisted off.
"There is nothing in the evolution of eagles that would come near to describing a wind turbine. There has never been an opportunity to adapt to that sort of threat," said Grainger Hunt, an eagle expert who researches the U.S. wind-power industry's deadliest location, a northern California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.
Eagle deaths have forced the Obama administration into a difficult choice between its unbridled support for wind energy and enforcing environmental laws that could slow the industry's growth.
Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an interview with the AP before his departure, denied any preferential treatment for wind. Interior Department officials said that criminal prosecution, regardless of the industry, is always a "last resort."
"There's still additional work to be done with eagles and other avian species, but we are working on it very hard," Salazar said. "We will get to the right balance."
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles. The regulation is currently under review at the White House.
The proposal, made at the urging of the wind-energy industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill a set number of bald or golden eagles. Previously, companies were only eligible for five-year permits.
In exchange for the longer timetable, companies agree that if they kill more eagles than allowed, the government could require them to make changes. But the administration recently said it would cap how much a company could be forced to spend on finding ways to reduce the number of eagles its facility is killing.
The Obama administration said the longer permit was needed to "facilitate responsible development of renewable energy" while "continuing to protect eagles."
A similar explanation was given when the Fish and Wildlife Service recently authorized the killing of a single California condor, an endangered species, by a proposed wind farm in California. It also authorized a real estate developer to disturb four birds for its project.
That's because without a long-term authorization to kill eagles, investors are less likely to finance an industry that's violating the law.
Typically, the government would be forced to study the environmental effects of such a regulation before implementing it. In this case, though, the Obama administration avoided a full review, saying the policy was nothing more than an "administrative change."
"It's basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they're saying 'trust us for oversight.' This is not the path forward," said Katie Umekubo, a renewable energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a former lawyer for the Fish and Wildlife Service. In private meetings with industry and government leaders in recent months, environmental groups have argued that the 30-year permit needed an in-depth environmental review.
The tactics have created an unexpected rift between the administration and major environmental groups favoring green energy that, until the eagle rule, had often been on the same side as the wind industry.
Those conservation groups that have been critical of the administration's stance from the start, such as the American Bird Conservancy, have often been cut out of the behind-the-scenes discussions and struggled to obtain information on bird deaths at wind farms.
"There are no seats at the exclusive decision-making table for groups that want the wind industry to be held accountable for the birds it kills," said Kelly Fuller, who works on wind issues for the group.
The eagle rule is not the first time the administration has made concessions for the wind-energy industry.
Last year, over objections from some of its own wildlife investigators and biologists, the Interior Department updated its guidelines and provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law.
The administration and some environmentalists say that was the only way to exact some oversight over an industry that operates almost exclusively on private land and generates no pollution, and therefore is exposed to little environmental regulation.
Under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the death of a single bird without a permit is illegal.
But under the Obama administration's new guidelines, wind-energy companies — and only wind-energy companies — are held to a different standard. Their facilities don't face additional scrutiny until they have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife or habitat. But under both bird protection laws, any impact has to be addressed.
The rare exception for one industry substantially weakened the government's ability to enforce the law and ignited controversy inside the Interior Department.
"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not do this for the electric utility industry or other industries," Kevin Kritz, a government wildlife biologist in the Rocky Mountain region wrote in government records in September 2011. "Other industries will want to be judged on a similar standard."
Experts working for the agency in California and Nevada wrote in government records in June 2011 that the new federal guidelines should be considered as though they were put together by corporations, since they "accommodate the renewable energy industry's proposals, without due accountability."
The Obama administration, however, repeatedly overruled its experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service. In the end, the wind-energy industry, which was part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines, got almost everything it wanted.
"Clearly, there was a bias to wind energy in their favor because they are a renewable source of energy, and justifiably so," said Rob Manes, who runs the Kansas office for The Nature Conservancy and who served on the committee. "We need renewable energy in this country."
The government also declared that senior officials in Washington, many of whom are political appointees, must approve any wind-farm prosecution. Normally, law-enforcement agents in the field have the authority to file charges with federal attorneys.
While all big cases are typically cleared through headquarters, such a blanket policy has never been applied to an entire industry, former officials said.
"It's over," Eicher said. "You'll never see a prosecution now."
Not so, says the Fish and Wildlife Service. It said it is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities, and seven have been referred to the Justice Department. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to discuss the status of those cases.
Ashe said his agency always made it clear to wind companies that if they kill birds they could still be liable.
"We are not allowing them to do it. They do it," he said of the bird deaths. "And we will successfully prosecute wind companies if they are in significant noncompliance."
But officials acknowledge that their priority is cooperating with companies before wind farms are built to encourage them to be put where they won't harm birds. Once they are built, there is little companies can do except shut down turbines or remove them — and that means reducing the amount of electricity they generate and violating deals struck with companies purchasing their electricity.
By contrast, there are easy fixes for oil companies and companies operating power lines to stop killing birds. The government often requests companies take such steps before it decides to prosecute.
"We just can't be bringing a criminal case against a company that is up and running if there is not a solution," said Jill Birchell, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement office in California and Nevada. "We can fine them, but that doesn't help eagles."
In the meantime, birds continue to die. The golden eagle population in the West, prior to the wind energy boom, was declining so much that the government's conservation goal in 2009 was not to allow the eagle population to decrease by a single bird.
The reason boils down to biology. Eagles take five years to reach the age when they can reproduce, and often they only produce one chick a year.
In its defense, the wind-energy industry points out that more eagles are killed each year by cars, electrocutions and poisoning than by turbines.
Ashe noted that the government doesn't require other industrial facilities to disclose the numbers of birds they kill.
Documents and emails obtained by the AP offer glimpses of the problem: 14 deaths at seven facilities in California, five each in New Mexico and Oregon, one in Washington state and another in Nevada, where an eagle was found with a hole in its neck, exposing the bone.
Unlike the estimates, these are hard numbers, proof of deaths, the beginnings of a mosaic revealing the problem.
One of the deadliest places in the country for golden eagles is Wyoming, where federal officials said wind farms have killed more than 50 golden eagles since 2009, predominantly in the southeastern part of the state. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the figures.
At a different facility, Duke Energy's Top of the World wind farm, a 17,000-acre site with 110 turbines located about 35 miles east of Casper, 10 eagles have been killed in the first two years of operation. It is the deadliest of Duke's 15 wind power plants for eagles.
The company's environmental director for renewable energy, Tim Hayes, said Duke is doing all it can, not only because it wants to fix the problem but because it could reduce the company's liability. Two of the company's wind farms in Wyoming — Top of the World and Campbell Hill — are under investigation by the federal government for the deaths of golden eagles and other birds, according to a report the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week. The report was filed after the AP visited a Duke facility in Wyoming and asked senior executives about the deaths.
Duke encourages workers to drive slower so as not to scare eagles from their roosts. They remove dead animals that eagles eat. And they've removed rock piles where the bird's prey lives. They also keep internal data on every dead bird in order to determine whether these efforts are working. The company is also testing radar technology to detect eagles and is considering blaring loud noises to prevent the birds from flying into danger.
The only other option is shutting off the turbines when eagles approach. And even that method hasn't been scientifically proven to work.
At Top of the World, Duke shut down 13 turbines for a week in March, often the deadliest time for eagles. The experiment, the company says, paid off. Not a single eagle was killed that month.
Hayes says the company has repeatedly sought a permit from the federal government to kill eagles legally, but was told it was killing too many to qualify.
When an eagle is killed, Duke employees are also prohibited by law from removing the carcass.
Each death is a tiny crime scene. So workers walk out underneath the spinning rotors and cover the dead bird with a tarp. It lies there, protected from scavengers but decaying underneath its shroud, until someone from the government comes to get it.
Published on 08/05/2013 16:56
Walkers had a narrow escape as blades on a wind turbine ripped off in high winds across common moor land.
The 17m turbine blades split and scattered across Ovenden Moor Wind Farm, Cold Edge Road, Wainstalls, Halifax.
Walkers and local residents were stunned at what could have been a nasty accident and fear for further blade breakages.
Energy provider E-on has a total of 23 wind turbines which tower at 32 metres tall on Ovenden Moor Wind Farm.
After the accident, a workman erected a safety fence around the turbine and a sign saying “danger, falling objects” was attached to the moor entrance gate.
But local resident Ann Arran, 64, of Lower Hazel Hurst Farm, Wainstalls, Halifax, who discovered blade debris said: “The safety fence they’re erecting after the carnage is inadequate as broken blade pieces could fly and land anywhere in high winds.”
Sue Midgley, 37, of Spring Mill Fold, Wainstalls, was out walking with Ann. “I couldn’t believe what we saw, it was frightening having to continue walking across the land.”
Ann said: “At any minute more of the blades could shatter and who knows how long it will be until other turbine blades break - with disastrous consequences.
“It’s public land. More must be done to protect the people.”
E-on issued the following statement: “We can confirm that one of the turbines at our Ovenden Moor Wind Farm has suffered damage due to a technical issue and is under further investigation.
“Health and safety is of utmost importance to us. A fence has been erected to secure the area as a precaution with a 24 hour security presence on site.”
The wind power farm has been in operation since 1993. In 2012, Calderdale Council Planning permitted the construction of nine turbines, up to 115 metres to blade tip, on Ovenden Moor Wind Farm.
SOSS Editor Note: Town to Fight State over Misrepresented Wind Energy.
The Falmouth Board of Selectmen and the Falmouth Finance Committee held a joint April 4 meeting and unanimously stood by the selectmen’s prior vote to remove the town’s wind turbines, despite receiving none of their requested financial assistance from the state to do so. The latest estimate is that it will cost the town about $14 million to remove both Wind 1 and Wind 2 at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Wind 1 was funded by a mix of general obligation bonds, grants and advanced payments on renewable energy credits (RECs), which are generated when carbon-neutral electricity is produced and then sold on the market. On April 2, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) asked its board of directors to authorize the board chairman to appoint a subcommittee that will potentially modify the existing REC purchase agreement with Falmouth. However, the MassCEC staff memorandum that makes this request also states that Falmouth will not receive a contract waiver if Wind 1 is decommissioned and removed.
Wind 2 was funded entirely by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 through the state’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund grant/ loan program. Town Manager Julian Suso stated April 4 that he received electronic communication from Susan Perez, executive director of the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust (MWPAT), which is the state's "pass-through" agency for the federal stimulus funds. Perez stated the MWPAT is requiring the town enter into an agreement to operate Wind 2 at a level that qualifies as an ‘energy efficient' project, or it will reinstate the town’s obligation to pay principle and interest on the loan and “take such other actions as it deems necessary and appropriate.”
Selectmen Chairman Kevin Murphy said he believes the state is being punitive. "I think it’s fair to say that the state does not want to see what the Board of Selectmen wanted to see happen," Murphy said.
Despite this, the selectmen and Finance Committee stood firm and united in requesting an indefinite postponement of Article 21 and supporting Articles 22 and 23 at special Town Meeting.
Article 21 was postponed because its content is now addressed in the proposed Article 22, as an attempt to vote on everything together at the special Town Meeting. "I took considerable effort with Town Counsel to develop a recommendation on one article so the town can take one vote and one motion to represent the town’s goals," said Heather Harper, Falmouth's assistant town manager on April 4.
Article 22 will require a 2/3 majority of Town Meeting voters for Falmouth to borrow money to pay for costs related to dismantling and decommissioning the wind turbines. Special legislation is also required to both remove an asset like the wind turbines, and to potentially resell the turbines to a non-government entity. The total estimated obligation to remove Wind 1 and Wind 2 is now listed as about $14 million in this warrant article.
Article 23 will not require a 2/3 majority vote, since it does not borrow money. Instead, this article would transfer $140,000 from the town's free cash fund to supplement the FY 13 and FY 14 operating budgets necessitated by the curtailment or shutdown of both turbines.
Murphy said he is resolute that the issue be brought to voters. "Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to take two steps forward. We have a lot of things facing this community in dollars and cents. But it’s important we gain the trust of the entire community," he said.
More details to come in the April 11 issue of The Bulletin.
Read more: POLL: Falmouth selectmen, finance committee stand firm on removing turbines - News - - Falmouth Bulletin http://www.wickedlocal.com/falmouth/news/x1959367870/Falmouth-selectmen-finance-committee-stand-firm-on-removing-turbines#ixzz2Pb6XmEIh
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @WickedLocal on Twitter | 119311408344 on Facebook