[BCNnet] Fwd: Sierra Club's wind energy advisory document
Birdchris@aol.com
Birdchris@aol.com
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:50:55 EDT
--part1_6b.356e6baf.2e95ecef_boundary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="-----------------------------1097110255"
-------------------------------1097110255
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Some resources for people concerned about birds and wind power plants.
-------------------------------1097110255
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>Some resources for people concerned about birds and wind power plants.=20
</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1097110255--
--part1_6b.356e6baf.2e95ecef_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <owner-cons-wpst-wes-forum@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
Received: from rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (rly-ya02.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.34]) by air-ya04.mail.aol.com (v101_r1.4) with ESMTP id MAILINYA43-143416231b61e1; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:48 -0400
Received: from DIABLO.SIERRACLUB.ORG (lists.sierraclub.org [207.90.163.2]) by rly-ya02.mx.aol.com (v101_r1.5) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYA23-143416231b61e1; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:31:37 -0400
Received: from DIABLO (10.1.3.2:3782) by DIABLO.SIERRACLUB.ORG (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.FF50503A@DIABLO.SIERRACLUB.ORG>; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:31:22 -0700
Received: from LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG by LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP
release 1.8e) with spool id 1393765 for
CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:31:22
-0700
Received: from web11001.mail.yahoo.com by DIABLO.SIERRACLUB.ORG (LSMTP for
Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <0.FF505039@DIABLO.SIERRACLUB.ORG>;
Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:31:22 -0700
Received: from [68.50.76.72] by web11001.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Oct
2004 22:31:31 PDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Approved-By: Dan Boone <ddanboone@YAHOO.COM>
Message-ID: <20041005053131.88632.qmail@web11001.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:31:31 -0700
Reply-To: Wildlife and Endangered Species Forum <CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
Sender: Wildlife and Endangered Species Forum <CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>
From: Dan Boone <ddanboone@yahoo.com>
Subject: Sierra Club's wind energy advisory document
To: CONS-WPST-WES-FORUM@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
In-Reply-To: <OFEIIDNLNKNLCADOCGBGKEOMFKAA.katzen5@aaahawk.com>
Precedence: list
X-AOL-IP: 207.90.163.2
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Thanks Tom,
Appreciate your effort in finding additional info regarding bird
interactions with wind turbines...
On other "wrinkle" in this issue is that the National Environmental
Policy Act is mostly unavailable as a legal tool to require adequate
environmental assessment of the impacts from industrial wind plants
built on private lands (see p. 4 in:
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/62403LettertoFWS.pdf ).
Here are recommendations for siting and evaluation of wind energy
projects by Audubon groups in 2 other states:
http://www.njaudubon.org/Conservation/Opinions/07-03.html
http://wa.audubon.org/new/audubon/default.cfm?pageID=191
Also, in July 2003 USFWS released its Interim Guidelines for siting
wind energy facilities, which are nationwide in scope:
http://www.fws.gov/r9dhcbfa/wind.pdf . However, the USFWS Guidelines
are only voluntary - and a GAO study has been called for to see if they
are effective (see:
http://www.responsiblewind.org/docs/GAOltr.6.21.04.pdf ).
The Sierra Club has been developing a wind energy "advisory document"
for more than a year. I believe it may be approved soon by the
Conservation Governance Committee... Unfortunately, in my opinion the
current draft of this document goes way overboard in pushing back any
potential barriers that might hinder or limit maximum development of
industrial wind energy... It also gives short-shrift to wildlife and
habitat concerns.
Incredibly bats are only mentioned one time in the text of the Document
- in reference to FAA lighting. And the concern for bats due to
turbine lighting is misplaced as research has indicated that wind
turbines with FAA lighting are not a factor in bat kills.
The Advisory Document also avoids any reference to "nocturnal
migrants", "migrant songbirds" or "neotropical migrants" - none of
these terms (or words) are mentioned in the Document. In fact, the
word "migration" is only used once! This is really troubling in that
the vast majority of the birds that have been killed at wind plants and
towers have been nocturnal migrants – of which most are neotropical
songbirds (who travel cross-country twice each year and thus are
especially susceptible to collisions with tall structures).
I've commented to the authors of the Advisory Document about wording of
earlier drafts regarding inappropriate and inadequate safeguards for
rare species. The Document still limits the protections for
biodiversity and endangered species to those sites which are deemed
"critical" - presumably to species' survival. Sadly, the Advisory
Document appears to push back any other environmental concern in order
to maximize the likelihood for the rapid and extensive deployment of
industrial wind energy projects.
Although the Advisory Document points out that “there are locations in
every region in the country where wind power can be responsibly sited
and generated", it is remiss in not mentioning that siting guidelines
or planning processes are basically non-existent or ineffective as far
as helping to steer industrial wind energy development towards the most
appropriate sites! The Document repeatedly proclaims that "It is
extremely important for the Club to support responsible wind
development proposals where the sites are appropriate." However, there
is no mention that the planning and regulatory framework needed to help
ensure that wind energy development is “appropriate” and to encourage
developers to be “responsible” is lacking in most areas of our country.
Lastly, it is frustrating to repeatedly read in the Club's Draft
Advisory Document that a change in design of wind turbines has been
successful in reducing wildlife impacts. The claim is made that
monopole turbine towers are safer for birds since they lack perching
sites which could fatally attract hawks and other birds. The older
turbines, such as those used at Altamont, had open lattice towers, and
there was speculation that the cross-members of these older towers may
have contributed to the very high raptor kill of this notorious wind
energy facility.
This plausible speculation was widely promoted by the wind industry and
the monopole turbine bases were heralded as significant design
improvements to safeguard birds. The claim was made so frequently that
it was accepted as “gospel” by many organizations and government
agencies (e.g., USFWS). However, two recently published peer-reviewed
studies have found this wishful thinking to be without merit. In fact
at Altamont the latest scientific research documented that turbines
with the tubular monopole tower are significantly more likely to kill
raptors than turbines with the older lattice tower base (see graph in
slide #42 from the Nov. 2003 NWCC presentation - Raptor Mortality at
the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area;
http://www.nationalwind.org/events/wildlife/20031117/presentations/Smallwood.pdf
).
Dan Boone
Maryland
--- Tom Green <katzen5@aaahawk.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm not an expert on this issue, but I've heard of many troublesome
> issues
> with birds and windfarms. This was the first time I've heard of
> bats. It's
> worth noting that windfarms in high-risk areas are *really* bad for
> wildlife. A quote from the lawsuit in California against the
> Altamont wind
> farm is eye-opening, "The suit charges that the roughly 5400 wind
> turbines
> in Altamont Pass have killed up to 10,000 birds [over the past] 20
> years
> [...] earning it the reputation as the most lethal project in North
> America."
>
> http://www.countryguardian.net/Birds%20and%20Bats.htm
>
> There has been some research about windfarms and birds, and sometimes
> changing the spacing between rows of turbines is enough. Often the
> location
> is of critical importance too. In the case of Altamont, 12% of
> turbines
> cause 80% of the bird deaths. Migration pathways, such as the
> Mississippi
> valley, are probably really poor choices for windfarms for these
> reasons,
> regardless of techniques that can be used to mitigate against
> accidents.
> Also, techiques such as nocturnal lighting of turbines to warn birds
> might
> work against bats by attracting insects to hover around the turbines.
>
> It seems until more is known about their environmental impacts, most
> windfarm projects should begin with pilot tests before ramping up to
> large
> scale operations. As Dan Boone mentioned, wind farms may be well
> suited for
> some areas of the country, but entirely inappropriate in other areas.
> Here
> is an example of the strategy employed by the New York chapter of the
> Audubon Society http://www.audubon.org/chapter/ny/ny/wind_power.htm
>
> Perhaps the Sierra Club could recommend a nationwide policy and make
> it more
> comprehensive (both geographically and ecologically)?
>
> Cheers,
> Tom Green - Dallas Sierra Club
> tomgreen@nortelnetworks.com
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
--part1_6b.356e6baf.2e95ecef_boundary--