Whatcom Watch Online - Wind and Wildlife Conflicts

August 2012

No Net Loss

Wind and Wildlife Conflicts

by Wendy Harris

Wendy Harris is a retired citizen who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

While the use of wind energy is expanding rapidly around the world1, its future is Whatcom County appears uncertain. In 2008, the C County Council passed a fairly bare-bones ordinance authorizing wind energy systems (WES), generally. For large wind energy facilities, defined as a large tower over 500 Kilowatts, or for multiple towers with a cumulative output above 100 Kilowatts, a conditional use permit is required. The 2008 ordinance lacks provisions addressing wildlife and habitat impacts. WCC Sec. 20.14.041.

Attempts to update the 2008 WES ordinance have been on-going since 2010. Two public hearings this year resulted in the proposed amended ordinance being returned to the planning department for additional work. A third version of the proposed revisions to the 2008 WES is being reviewed by the County Council during a July 24, 2012 special committee of the whole meeting. Currently, the county has a moratorium on applications for large wind energy systems, although applications for small wind systems may still be processed.

Both proponents and opponents of wind energy had trouble supporting the prior draft amendments to the 2003 WES ordinance. Opponents argued that the revisions did not go far enough in addressing public health concerns or in protecting scenic vistas. Proponents argued that the new restrictions were so severe as to prohibit, as a practical matter, development of wind energy in Whatcom County.

As drafted, the proposed amendments to the 2003 WES would increase protection for public health and safety, a primary concern for Whatcom County residents, through new requirements that reduce noise, increase set-backs, decrease tower height and size, address shadow flickers, and lower the threshold requirement for a conditional use permit. Additionally, it would require a wildlife biologist report confirming that the wind energy proposal does not violate the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

During public comment on the proposed ordinance amendments and the moratoriums, relatively few concerns were raised regarding wind and wildlife conflicts, although on a national scale, this remains perhaps the greatest source of conflict and litigation.2 This is somewhat surprising for an agricultural county dependent on the ecological services of bats, which are among the species most impacted by wind turbines.

Proposed amendments to the 2008 WES ordinance do not adequately protect wildlife. Given the county’s history of noncompliance with state and federal growth requirements, and the expensive litigation that has resulted, and in light of the controversy and litigation surrounding WES and wildlife impacts, this is a matter that warrants greater consideration. The proposed WES ordinance lacked provisions for the proper siting of wind turbines, and did not protect threatened wildlife species, such as bats, not already covered under the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Act. It is unreasonable to expect that these issues will be properly addressed through the county Critical Area Ordinance or state Environmental Protection Act without incorporating specific regulatory provisions into the county WES ordinance.

Wind energy causes significant wildlife impacts in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is direct collisions with turbines. The wind energy industry is quick to argue that the number of animals killed by collision is relatively low in comparison to other energy industries, or to other sources of bird mortality. But this argument minimizes the significance of the damage.

Wind towers disproportionately affect raptors and other large, rare birds, which are small in number and slow to reproduce, such as golden eagles, hawks and falcons.3 These birds are more likely to be found in the wind corridors favored by the energy industry, or attracted to the kill found near the bottom of wind towers. And taking out the top predators, which exist in limited numbers, may have long term implications for species survival and ecosystem health, although currently, the repercussions are not fully understood. Regulations that prohibit wind energy systems from being sited within important wildlife migration and habitat areas are necessary. 4

One of the worst threats created by wind towers is loss of habitat.5 Wind energy facilities are generally located in rural areas, where they displace or fragment prime habitat. Loss of habitat is considered the greatest threat to wildlife species survival. Regulations need to ensure that habitat considerations are incorporated into the permitting process, and where permits are approved, adequate compensatory mitigation is provided to replace the habitat that was destroyed.

Additionally, the three primary statutes that protect birds, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, do not cover all species at risk from wind turbines. The best known example is bats. A concerning number of bats are killed when their sensitive lungs explode from the air-pressure changes created by wind turbines. Already threatened by the spread of white-nose fungus, it is unknown whether wind farm fatalities, over time, threaten the survival of certain bat species. This is a matter of scientific concern because bats play a significant role in reducing insect populations that destroy crops and spread disease.6 Wind energy regulations need to protect impacted species not otherwise covered under federal and local laws.

Many conservation organizations, including Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and National Audubon Society, strongly support wind energy, under proper conditions, as an alternative to environmentally harmful fossil fuel. Other conservation organizations, such as the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) take a more guarded approach, but still believe that wind energy and wildlife can become more compatible if consideration is given to proper siting, operations and mitigation. (ABC has developed a wind development bird risk map of the U.S. based on GIS information and Google Earth at http://www.abcbirds.org/extra/windmap.html.) As the Center for Biological Diversity aptly states, the issue is not wind power versus birds, but whether the wind power industry is willing to take simple steps to reduce bird kills and mitigate for impacts to bird populations.7 This is a great question.

Suggestions for reducing conflict include relocating or retiring particularly lethal turbines; siting and configuring turbines to avoid bird flight paths, nesting areas and sensitive habitat; replacing small aging turbines with fewer, larger ones; increasing the minimum speed needed to set turbines in motion (bats are more active in low wind); temporarily shutting down turbines during migration periods or during poor weather conditions; hiring “spotters” who turn off turbines when birds are sighted; retrofitting power poles to prevent bird electrocutions; burying transmission lines in high risk areas; increasing the visibility of wind towers to birds; reducing lights and glare at night, better monitoring at existing facilities; and compensatory mitigation to off-set unavoidable impacts.

There have been some collaborative efforts between conservationists and the wind energy industry, as reflected in the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) or the American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI). In March, the U.S. Department of Interior released voluntary guidelines for the wind energy industry that reflected the efforts of numerous stakeholders.8 Some conservation organizations, such as National Audubon, support the guidelines, while others, such as ABC and Sierra Club, oppose anything other than mandatory regulation.9 It remains to be seen whether these type of collaborative efforts will bear fruit, but everyone is in agreement that more scientific research and study is needed.

Conservationists point out that failure to address bird kills has hampered wind development, and therefore, it is in the industry’s best interest to address these concerns. In particular, reference is frequently made to the notorious wind power facility in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) of northern California, established in 1982. The APWRA is infamous for the highest number and rates of raptor kills of any wind facility in the world.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “the bird kill fiasco at Altamont Pass is the result of poor planning that allowed wind turbines to be built along a major raptor migration corridor in an area with high wintering concentrations of raptors and in the heart of the highest concentration of golden eagles in North America.” Other organizations agree that this facility should never have been built in this location. The APWRA not only impacted rare and endangered bird populations. It threatened other endangered species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, the California red-legged frog and the California tiger salamander. And the mortality rate at APWRA increased over time. 10

Despite initial attempts by conservation organizations to work cooperatively, APWRA failed to adopt meaningful measures to address mortality rates. It was not until conservation organizations took this matter to court that any progress was made in decreasing wildlife impacts. Subsequent studies by a California agency and a wind energy advocacy group indicated that the public back-lash created from APWRA delayed and in some cases, derailed unrelated wind energy projects. 11

It would nice to believe that the wind energy industry has learned its lesson from APWRA, and to a large extent, it has. Conservation groups have built a successful track record of working with renewable-energy developers, facilitating the permitting of approximately 2,600 megawatts of clean energy since 2010.

Unfortunately, this is not universally true. This April, a coalition of conservation organizations, including Sierra Club, filed suit to prevent development of the North Sky River wind project in the Tehachapi Mountains of Kern County, California.12 This has generated more negative publicity, including a January article in Forbes magazine, and reflects how contentious wind and wildlife conflicts remain.13

Ignoring the warnings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and other wildlife agencies and organizations, Kern County approved North Sky River, a project that sites 100 turbines on 12,700 acres privately and publicly owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An environmental review of the site documented 50 golden eagle sightings and 14 nests within 10 miles of the proposed site. A nearby existing wind energy facility has a fatality rate of 11.8 per megawatt, one of the highest fatality rates in the nation.

Perhaps most troubling, Kern County and the project developers are ignoring information that this proposal is likely to kill California condors, North America’s largest bird.14 Condors were saved from the very brink of extinction at a great cost and effort in the 1980s when only 22 birds remained. Today, over 600 birds exist, 60 of which live in the region. These birds have been steadily expanding their range, making conflict with the wind turbines inevitable.15

These examples of wind and wildlife conflicts underscore the need for strong and clear local provisions for wildlife and habitat protection. If Whatcom County does amend its WES ordinance, and lift the moratorium, the ordinance should contain specific regulations that address siting, expand protected species, and the need for compensatory mitigation. Will this be more expensive for the wind industry? Yes, but this is the actual cost of keeping our county healthy.

(Endnotes)

1 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/wind_01-30.html.

2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-bryce/eighty-six-environmental-_b_1339531.html.

3 http://www.nature.com/news/the-trouble-with-turbines-an-ill-wind-1.10849.

4 http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_faq.html.

5 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/impacts_siting.html.

6 http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/08/08/08climatewire-bats-and-birds-face-serious-threats-from-gro-10511.html?pagewanted=all.

7 http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_birds_of_prey_at_altamont_pass/pdfs/factsheet.pdf.

8 http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/DOI_FWS_Final_Wind_Guidelines_FactSheet_final.pdf.

9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/new-wind-farm-guidelines_n_1375668.html.

10 https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_birds_of_prey_at_altamont_pass/index.html.

11 Id.