[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GONE WITH THE WIND:
IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES
ON BIRDS AND BATS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-058 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Carolina
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Jim Costa, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Louie Gohmert, Texas
George Miller, California Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Rob Bishop, Utah
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Dean Heller, Nevada
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Bill Sali, Idaho
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Lois Capps, California Vacancy
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 1, 2007............................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina, Prepared statement of......... 79
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Idaho................................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Arnett, Edward B., Conservation Scientist, Bat Conservation
International.............................................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 33
Daulton, Michael, Director of Conservation Policy, National
Audubon Society............................................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 61
Fry, Donald Michael, Ph.D., Director, Birds and Pesticides,
American Bird Conservancy.................................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 41
Glitzenstein, Eric R., Partner, Meyer Glitzenstein and
Crystal.................................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 52
Hall, Dale, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Mollohan, Hon. Alan B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia..................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional materials supplied:
American Wind Energy Association, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 68
Shuster, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, Statement submitted for the record.. 67
Taylor, Gary J., Legislative Director, Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, Letter submitted for the record......... 67
Vinick, Charles C., President and CEO, Alliance to Protect
Nantucket Sound, Statement submitted for the record........ 80
OVERSIGHT HEARING: ``GONE WITH THE WIND: IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES ON
BIRDS AND BATS''
----------
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Kildee, Rahall and Sali.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will now come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to investigate wind
energy and its effects on wildlife, specifically, negative
impacts on protected bird and bat populations. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member will make the opening statements. If any other Members
have statements, I invite you to submit them for the record.
This morning's hearing, entitled ``Gone with the Wind:
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats,'' will continue the
committee's series of investigations, exploring renewable
alternative energy sources as options to reduce our nation's
dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.
From the outset, we need to recognize the obvious reality
that any future reduction in fossil fuel emissions will be made
possible only through better energy conservation and the
development of alternative energy sources. Many analysts
believe wind energy is an economic alternative because wind
turbines emit no harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and are
capable of generating electricity on a utility-sized scale.
Consequently, wind energy has been viewed conventionally as
a green energy technology. In fact, Congress has acted over the
past 20 years to provide financial incentives to encourage the
private sector development of wind energy, and the industry has
responded. In 2002, wind power generating capacity jumped by 27
percent, and comparable growth is projected for 2007 and
beyond.
Yet recently studies documenting substantial bird and bat
mortality associated with wind turbines in California and West
Virginia indicate that our conventional wisdom concerning this
technology may have been naive, if not flat out wrong.
The committee will hear from this morning's witnesses about
the degree of bird mortality that has been discovered at
several wind projects now in operation. Witnesses will also
testify that we can no longer assume that bat populations are
not at risk from wind turbines. To the contrary, it appears
that we know far too little about how bats interact with this
technology to assume anything.
We will also investigate the adequacy or inadequacy of
current Federal, state, and local oversight in permitting
authorities concerning the development of wind turbine projects
and the protection of our wildlife.
Of particular interest, witnesses will testify about the
wind industry's compliance with longstanding wildlife
conservation laws, especially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered
Species Act, and Federal enforcement.
For example, a plain reading of the language of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act articulates an ambiguous authority
for the Secretary of the Interior to protect over 800 listed
species of migratory birds, and an abridged reading of Section
2 of the Act reads that ``...unless and except as permitted by
regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time by any means or
in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill any
migratory bird.''
On its face, this language would appear to be as
straightforward a directive as can possibly be written by
Congress. But despite having a clearly expressed authority to
protect birds from all sources of harm, it is surprising, if
not alarming, to learn that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has never prosecuted any wind power project for killing birds,
even when the mortality has been documented and the cause of
death irrefutable.
The committee needs to understand why the Federal
government continues to allow protected birds to be
incidentally killed when it has the directive to prohibit any
action from harming birds, including the development and
operation of wind turbines. This responsibility is even more
critical considering the wind industry's plan to quickly bring
more projects on line.
In closing, I want to make it clear that I do not oppose
the development of wind energy. In certain circumstances, I am
confident that this technology can provide genuine green power.
The issue is not whether you support wind energy--we all do.
Rather, the challenge is if we have the patience and the good
sense to develop this promising source of alternative energy
without causing significant harm to the wildlife we strive to
protect.
And now as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr. Brown, or rather,
Mr. Sali. Mr. Brown will be here momentarily, the Republican
Member representing Mr. Brown for any statement that he may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
This morning's hearing entitled, ``Gone with the Wind: Impacts of
Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats,'' will continue the committee's series
of investigations exploring renewable alternative energy sources as
options to reduce our Nation's dependence on non-renewable fossil
fuels.
From the outset, we need to recognize the obvious reality that any
future reduction in fossil fuel emissions will be made possible only
through better energy conservation and the development of alternative
energy sources. Many analysts believe wind energy is a viable
alternative because wind turbines emit no harmful greenhouse gas
emissions and are capable of generating electricity on a utility-sized
scale. Consequently, wind energy has been viewed conventionally as a
``green'' energy technology.
In fact, Congress has acted over the past 20 years to provide
financial incentives to encourage the private sector development of
wind energy. And the industry has responded--in 2006, wind power
generating capacity jumped by 27 percent and comparable growth is
projected for 2007 and beyond.
Yet recent studies documenting substantial bird and bat mortality
associated with wind turbines in California and West Virginia indicate
that our conventional wisdom concerning this technology may have been
naive, if not flat-out wrong.
The committee will hear from this morning's witnesses about the
degree of bird mortality that has been discovered at several wind
projects now in operation. Witnesses will also testify that we can no
longer assume that bat populations are not at risk from wind turbines.
To the contrary, it appears that we know far too little about how bats
interact with this technology to assume anything.
We will also investigate the adequacy or inadequacy of current
federal, state and local oversight and permitting authorities
concerning the development of wind turbine projects and the protection
of wildlife. Of particular interest, witnesses will testify about the
wind industry's compliance with longstanding wildlife conservation
laws, especially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and federal
enforcement.
For example, a plain reading of the language of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act articulates an unambiguous authority for the Secretary of
the Interior to protect over 800 listed species of migratory birds. An
abridged reading of section 2 of the Act reads, ``That unless and
except as permitted by regulations,...it shall be unlawful at any time,
by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or]
kill...any migratory bird.'' On its face this language would appear to
be as straightforward a directive as can possibly be written by the
Congress.
But despite having a clearly expressed authority to protect birds
from all sources of harm, it was surprising, if not alarming, to learn
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has never prosecuted any wind
power project for killing birds even when the mortality has been
documented, and the cause of death irrefutable.
The committee needs to understand why the federal government
continues to allow protected birds to be incidentally killed when it
has clear authority to prohibit any action from harming birds,
including the development and operation of wind turbines. This need
becomes even more critical considering the fact that the wind industry
is ramping up to quickly bring more projects on line.
In closing, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily
oppose the development of wind energy. In certain circumstances I am
confident that this technology can provide genuine ``green'' power. The
issue is not whether you support wind energy--we all do. Rather, the
challenge is if we have the patience and good sense to develop this
promising source of alternative energy without causing significant harm
to the wildlife we strive to protect.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL SALI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a statement
actually that was prepared by Mr. Brown, and I am honored to
read it on his behalf, and I will state for the record I do
agree with him.
Two weeks ago we heard that carbon emissions are the
greatest crisis facing mankind. While I suspect many people
would find that statement an exaggeration today, we have an
opportunity to do something about that problem by examining the
impacts of a clean, renewable, and safe alternative energy
source.
Onshore wind power is growing at a rate of 22 percent each
year, and it provides electricity for about 8 million
Americans. More importantly, wind turbines produce no waste.
They require no external fuel, and they create no air, water,
or noise pollution. Unlike other fuels, they do not emit any
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide or mercury into
the environment. In fact, the existing U.S. wind turbine fleet
displaces more than 19 million tons of carbon dioxide each
year. To generate one megawatt of wind for 20 years, we would
need to burn 29,000 tons of coal, or 92,000 barrels of oil.
Nearly two years ago the General Accounting Office
submitted a report on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife.
While the GAO found that wind farms in northern California and
West Virginia were killing certain bats and birds, their
fundamental conclusion was that, in the context of other avian
mortalities, it does not appear that wind power is responsible
for a significant number of bird deaths.
More recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
solicited names of individuals to serve on the Secretary's Wind
Turbine Advisory Committee. These experts will provide advice,
guidance, and recommendations to minimize impacts to wildlife
relative to land-based wind energy facilities.
While I know that this hearing will focus, or will not
focus on the Cape wind project in Massachusetts, I found it
interesting that a senior staff member of Greenpeace noted
that, ``House cats in Hyannis killed more birds than this wind
farm ever will.''
Madam Chairwoman, we do not have to choose between onshore
wind power or bird protection. In fact, I agree with the
sentiments of the president of the National Audubon Society
that, ``Our challenge is to help design and locate wind power
projects that mitigate the negative impact on birds.''
If we are ever going to get serious about the development
of alternative energy sources, wind power must be a part of the
solution. We can produce this safe, clean, and renewable source
of energy without killing large numbers of birds or bats. We
can accomplish that by strengthening siting standards and by
conducting pre-construction and biological surveys. Our energy
policy can no longer be simply to say no to each and every
energy source.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I am
anxious to hear how wind power and wildlife can co-exist in the
future. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Sali, for your opening
statement, and now as Chairwoman, I have the honor and the
privilege of recognizing for any statement he may have the
esteemed Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Chairman
Nick Rahall, an acknowledged expert on energy policy and a
tireless advocate for the sensible use and conservation of our
nation's natural resources.
Mr. Rahall.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that very kind
introduction. I appreciate it, and certainly want to commend
you, Chairman Bordallo, for your leadership on this important
Subcommittee and for your interest in scheduling this morning's
hearing. I have not yet heard what my colleague from West
Virginia has to say except to say that I am sure I will agree
with whatever he says.
He used to be a very valued member of this committee for
his first term and a half here on Capitol Hill, and he has
since left us for a higher calling, and that is to be a
cardinal, but we still maintain our friendship, and certainly
commend Alan for his superb leadership on this issue and so
many issues important to our home state of West Virginia.
Today, we will shed light on the side of wind power that
few ever hear about; namely, the real and growing threat of
this technology on wildlife, especially birds and bats.
Two years ago I joined with my friend and dear colleague
from West Virginia, from whom we will hear in a moment, Alan
Mollohan, to request that the GAO investigate the environmental
impacts of the birds in the wind industry in the Appalachian
Highlands and across the country.
The GAO made two important findings abundantly clear in its
September 2005 report. The first conclusion was that the wind
industry is subject to relatively indifferent and ineffective
environmental oversight. The second finding was that we know
far too little about the negative effect that this technology
has on bird and bat populations.
Since that time, permit applications have been growing in
my state and elsewhere, but agency oversight has not kept pace
either on the state or the Federal level.
For instance, in June 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service published voluntarily interim guidelines to avoid or
minimize the impacts of wind energy projects on wildlife and
their habitat. Today, May 2007, as far as I know, these
guidelines are still voluntary.
Meanwhile, I suspect that wind projects are on a regular
basis in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Endangered Species Act, yet no enforcement action is being
taken.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, the bottom line is that we
cannot allow ourselves to wholeheartedly embrace wind energy at
every location where a strong wind blows without first
evaluating this technology in its entirety and having in place
a responsible regulatory framework. This hearing will be a
crucial step in reaching that endeavor.
Thank you for having this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for your leadership on this
important subcommittee, and for your interest in scheduling this
morning's hearing. Today we will shed light on the side of wind power
that few ever hear about; namely, the real and growing threat of this
technology on wildlife, especially birds and bats.
Two years ago I joined with my friend and colleague from West
Virginia, Congressman Alan Mollohan, who also joins us here today, to
request that the Government Accountability Office investigate the
environmental impacts of the burgeoning wind industry in the
Appalachian highlands and across the country.
The GAO made two important findings abundantly clear in its
September 2005 report. The first conclusion was that the wind industry
is subject to relatively indifferent and ineffective environmental
oversight. The second finding was that we know far too little about the
negative effect that this technology has on bird and bat populations.
Since that time, permit applications have been growing in my State
and elsewhere, but agency oversight has not kept pace either on the
State or Federal level.
For instance, in June of 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
published voluntary interim guidelines to avoid or minimize the impacts
of wind energy projects on wildlife and their habitat. Today, May of
2007, as far as I know these guidelines are still voluntary.
Meanwhile, I suspect that wind projects are on a regular basis in
violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species
Act, yet no enforcement action is being taken.
The bottom line is that we cannot allow ourselves to wholeheartedly
embrace wind energy at every location where a strong wind blows,
without first evaluating this technology in its entirety and having in
place a responsible regulatory framework. This hearing will be a
crucial step in that larger endeavor. Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Chairman Rahall, for your
statement, and I would now like to recognize our first witness,
our colleagues from West Virginia, Congressman Alan Mollohan,
who has followed very closely the issue of wind energy
development in his state and across his region.
Mr. Mollohan.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Mollohan. Madam Chairwoman, Minority Member Sali, my
good friend and colleague, Mr. Rahall, I can think of no higher
calling than balancing the environmental concerns we have with
the ability to produce adequate, relatively inexpensive energy
for this country which it has relied upon for its prosperity up
to this time.
Madam Chairwoman, I want to commend the Subcommittee first
for holding what I believe is the first congressional hearing
on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife, and I am grateful
for the opportunity to appear before you today.
As Congressman Rahall mentioned, he and I have been very
interested in this. I have been following his leadership, as
usual, on this issue, and we have obviously a great concern
because of the impact that wind energy not thoughtfully
introduced into West Virginia might have on wildlife and also
on viewsheds.
Wind energy developers have targeted the mountain ridges of
our State of West Virginia, and for a number of years I have
expressed my deep concern about their projects. Among the
reasons for my concern are the environmental impacts of these
massive projects, including their impacts on the natural beauty
of our state, and their impacts on wildlife.
In the past, West Virginia's natural resources were
exploited without regard to the long-term environmental
consequences, and I think it is imperative that this not be
allowed to happen again.
For anyone who has ever seen an industrial wind energy
project on mountain ridges, it isn't at all surprising that
they raise serious environmental concerns. For example, the
Mountaineer Project, which is in my district, consists of 44
turbines, each of which is about 340 feet high--in other words,
50 feet higher than the tip of the Capitol dome--and these
turbines are spread out over 4,000 acres of mountain ridge.
This hearing could not be more timely. With last year's
extension of the Federal tax subsidy for wind energy
production, and with the concern over global warming, more
attention is being paid to wind energy now than ever before, as
the Ranking Member indicated.
But at the same time, there is mounting evidence that in at
least some regions of the country--including the Mid-Atlantic
Region--and in some circumstances, wind turbines have a
devastating impact on wildlife. It is especially troubling that
these reasons for this impact are largely unknown, and so real
solutions to these problems simply are not in sight.
Compounding these problems is the fact that critical
information on the bird and bat populations, such as
information on their size and migratory pathways, simply does
not exist.
In short, there is little reason to believe that the wind
energy projects that are being built in environmentally
sensitive areas will be any less deadly to wildlife than those
built in the past. The cumulative impact of all these projects
on wildlife has to be of concern to Congress for at least two
reasons.
First, all wind energy projects--those that are destructive
of wildlife, as well as those that are not--are Federally
subsidized through the Production Tax Credit. Almost certainly
those projects would not exist but for this subsidy, and so
Congress has a real responsibility to address this issue.
Second, the Federal wildlife protection laws are intended
to prevent this kind of harm from occurring, and so it is also
important for Congress to closely examine whether wind energy
developers are complying with those statutes and whether any
changes in the law are warranted.
To that end, I would like to devote the remainder of my
statement to what is occurring in West Virginia regarding the
construction and operation of wind energy projects. Because it
is clear that West Virginia is an environmentally sensitive
area, one would think that both developers and the state
permitting agency--which is West Virginia Public Service
Commission--would adopt a cautious approach to large, new
projects. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Currently there is one energy project operating in the
state, the 44-turbine Mountaineer Project that I referred to
earlier. It was the Mountaineer Project that, according to
studies conducted in 2003 and 2004, killed thousands of bats
during the study periods, resulting in estimates of mortality
that, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, ``...are
among the highest ever recorded in the world.''
The Public Service Commission has approved the construction
of three additional, much larger projects in the state--most
recently, in August of last year, 124 turbine project. Two
weeks ago the commission began hearings on yet another proposed
project.
If these four projects are built as proposed, the number of
turbines in the mountain ridges of West Virginia would jump by
well more than 10-fold, to 584 turbines. If those data weren't
sobering enough, the Fish and Wildlife Service stated recently
that it is reviewing six more wind energy projects that have
been proposed for this state.
The facts relating to the project that was approved last
August, the ``Beach Ridge'' wind energy projects, are
particularly disturbing. That project was approved even though
the developer's own environmental consultant predicted that the
project would kill nearly 7,000 bats annually and thus would
result in the same or greater mortality than had been recorded
at the Mountaineer project.
Moreover, after carefully reviewing the plans for the Beach
Ridge project, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that
before beginning construction, the developer should conduct
specific, multi-year studies on the impacts that the project
would have on bats and birds, but the developer rejected the
agency's conclusions and instead conducted studies that were
far more limited.
Even though the Public Service Commission decides
applications under a ``public interest'' standard, the
commission held that the limited studies conducted by the
applicant were sufficient, thereby holding, in effect, that it
was entirely permissible for the developer to disregard the
determinations that the Fish and Wildlife Service had made.
Overall, there are at least two lessons to be learned here.
First, wind energy developers are not going to voluntarily
take all the steps that are reasonably necessary for the
protection of wildlife. They just aren't going to do it. These
developers are for-profit corporations that, like any other,
are answerable to shareholders. Their basic imperative will
always be to get turbines up and running and thereby generating
some amount of electricity, not much, by the way, and more
importantly for their owners major tax credits.
In the same vein, after the 2003 and 2004 studies on bat
mortality at the Mountaineer site, the project owner refused to
allow further studies there, and it has likewise refused to
alter its operations in a way that could reduce bat mortality.
Second, the state permitting agencies cannot be counted
upon to implement the Federal wildlife protection laws. It is
noteworthy that in disregarding the determinations of the Fish
and Wildlife Service had made on the proposed Beach Ridge
project, the West Virginia Public Service Commission relied
heavily on the point that those determinations were made under
guidelines that are voluntary and interim in nature.
In sum, if the Federal wildlife laws are to be fully
implemented with regard to wind energy projects, the job must
be done by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The action of the
Service in issuing guidelines on wind turbine impacts on
wildlife was certainly appropriate because it is far better to
avoid harm to wildlife in the first place rather than to
address it after the fact.
But one point that needs to be looked at is the effect of
the voluntary nature of the guidelines when combined with the
fact that no wind energy company has yet been prosecuted for
violating the Federal wildlife laws. One question that is
raised is whether these circumstances are tending to create a
situation in which the wind energy companies are enjoying a de
facto exemption from the wildlife protection laws.
More broadly, the problem of the impacts of wind turbines
on wildlife needs to be confronted squarely. It needs to be
confronted honestly. One basic question that needs to be
answered is, if developers are allowed to carry out their plans
to build thousands of turbines on the Appalachian mountain
ridges, what are the specific impacts on wildlife, and on our
ecosystem, what will result?
It is simply a matter of sound public policy that we know
the answer to these questions before construction takes place.
Once we have that information, we will be in a position to make
the informed decisions on where wind energy projects should be
built, and under what terms and what conditions.
This hearing is an important first step in this process. I
look forward to your continuing efforts. I compliment you for
having this hearing, for being insightful enough to look beyond
our rush to implement alternative ways of generating
electricity, to look for the impacts prior to us being left
with legacies that are unfortunate and costly in the long run,
and is all you have to look at the energy-producing areas of
the country to know that we have been playing catch-up because
we did not anticipate the consequences of bad policy, and going
forward without consideration of the impacts of the energy
production that we have had in the past, and we want to
anticipate it into the future.
So I compliment you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me so much time to testify. I would be pleased to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mollohan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan, a Representative in
Congress from the State of West Virginia
Madam Chairwoman, I want to commend the subcommittee for holding
what I believe is the first congressional hearing on the impacts of
wind turbines on wildlife, and I am grateful for the opportunity to
appear before you.
Wind-energy developers have targeted the mountain ridges of my
state of West Virginia, and for a number of years I've expressed my
deep concern about their projects. Among the reasons for my concern are
the environmental impacts of these massive projects, including their
impacts on the natural beauty of my state, and their impacts on
wildlife. In the past, West Virginia's natural resources were exploited
without regard to the long-term environmental consequences, and I think
it's imperative that this not be allowed to happen again.
For anyone who's ever seen an industrial wind-energy project on
mountain ridges, it isn't at all surprising that they raise serious
environmental concerns. For example, the Mountaineer project, which is
in my district, consists of 44 turbines, each of which is about 340-
feet high--in other words, 50 feet higher than the tip of the Capitol
dome--and those turbines are spread out over 4,000 acres of mountain
ridges.
This hearing could not be more timely. With last year's extension
of the federal tax subsidy for wind-energy production, and with the
concern over global warming, more attention is being paid to wind
energy now than ever before.
But at the same time, there is mounting evidence that in at least
some regions of the country--including the mid-Atlantic region--and in
some circumstances, wind turbines have a devastating impact on
wildlife. It is especially troubling that the reasons for this impact
are largely unknown, and so real solutions to these problems simply are
not in sight. Compounding these problems is the fact that critical
information on the bird and bat populations, such as information on
their size and migratory pathways, simply does not now exist.
In short, there is little reason to believe that the wind-energy
projects that are being built in environmentally sensitive areas will
be any less deadly to wildlife than those built in the past. The
cumulative impact of all of these projects on wildlife has to be of
concern to Congress for at least two reasons.
First, all wind-energy projects--those that are destructive of
wildlife, as well as those that are not--are federally subsidized
through the Production Tax Credit. Almost certainly those projects
would not exist but for that subsidy, and so Congress has a real
responsibility to address this issue.
Second, the federal wildlife protection laws are intended to
prevent this kind of harm from occurring, and so it's also important
for Congress to closely examine whether wind-energy developers are
complying with those statutes, and whether any changes in the law are
warranted.
To that end, I'd like to devote the remainder of my statement to
what's occurred in West Virginia regarding the construction and
operation of wind-energy projects. Because it's clear that West
Virginia is an environmentally sensitive area, one would think that
both developers and the state permitting agency--which is the West
Virginia Public Service Commission--would adopt a cautious approach to
large, new projects. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Currently there is one wind-energy project operating in the state,
the 44-turbine Mountaineer project that I referred to earlier. It was
the Mountaineer project that, according to studies conducted in 2003
and 2004, killed thousands of bats during the study periods, resulting
in estimates of mortality that, according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, ``are among the highest ever reported in the world.''
The Public Service Commission has approved the construction of
three additional, much larger projects in the state--most recently, in
August of last year, a 124-turbine project. Two weeks ago the
Commission began hearings on yet another proposed project.
If these four projects are built as proposed, the number of
turbines on the mountain ridges of West Virginia would jump by well
more than 10-fold, to 584 turbines. If those data weren't sobering
enough, the Fish and Wildlife Service stated recently that it is
reviewing six more wind-energy projects that have been proposed for the
state.
The facts relating to the project that was approved last August,
the ``Beech Ridge'' wind-energy project, are particularly disturbing.
That project was approved even though the developer's own environmental
consultant predicted that the project would kill nearly 7,000 bats
annually, and thus would result in the same or greater mortality than
had been recorded at the Mountaineer project.
Moreover, after carefully reviewing the plans for the Beech Ridge
project, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that before beginning
construction, the developer should conduct specific, multi-year studies
on the impacts that the project would have on birds and bats. But the
developer rejected the agency's conclusions and instead conducted
studies that were far more limited.
Even though the Public Service Commission decides applications
under a ``public interest'' standard, the Commission held that the
limited studies conducted by the applicant were sufficient--thereby
holding, in effect, that it was entirely permissible for the developer
to disregard the determinations that the Fish and Wildlife Service had
made.
Overall, there are at least two lessons to be learned here.
First, wind-energy developers are not going to voluntarily take all
the steps that are reasonably necessary for the protection of wildlife.
These developers are for-profit corporations that, like any other, are
answerable to their shareholders. Their basic imperative will always be
to get turbines up and running, and thereby generating some amount of
electricity and--more importantly for their owners--major tax credits.
In the same vein, after the 2003 and 2004 studies on bat mortality at
the Mountaineer site, the project owner refused to allow further
studies there, and it has likewise refused to alter its operations in a
way that could reduce bat mortality.
Second, the state permitting agencies cannot be counted upon to
implement the federal wildlife protection laws. It is noteworthy that
in disregarding the determinations that the Fish and Wildlife Service
had made on the proposed Beech Ridge project, the Public Service
Commission relied heavily on the point that those determinations were
made under guidelines that are voluntary and interim in nature.
In sum, if the federal wildlife laws are to be fully implemented
with regard to wind-energy projects, the job must be done by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. The action of the Service in issuing guidelines
on wind-turbine impacts on wildlife was certainly appropriate, because
it is far better to avoid harm to wildlife in the first place rather
than address it after the fact.
But one point that needs to be looked at is the effect of the
voluntary nature of the guidelines when combined with the fact that no
wind-energy company has yet been prosecuted for violating the federal
wildlife laws. One question that is raised is whether these
circumstances are tending to create a situation in which the wind-
energy companies are enjoying a de facto exemption from the wildlife
protection laws.
More broadly, the problem of the impacts of wind turbines on
wildlife needs to be confronted squarely and honestly. One basic
question that needs to be answered is, if developers are allowed to
carry out their plans to build thousands of turbines on Appalachian
mountain ridges, what are the specific impacts on wildlife, and on our
ecosystem, that will result?
It is simply a matter of sound public policy that we know the
answer to this question before that construction takes place. Once we
have that information, we will be in a position to make informed
decisions on where wind-energy projects should be built, and under what
terms and conditions.
This hearing is an important first step in this process, and I look
forward to your continuing efforts. I would be glad to answer any
questions that you may have.
NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr.
Mollohan has been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, for his testimony, and I ask unanimous
consent that we enter into the record the supporting materials
for the testimony of Congressman Alan B. Mollohan.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Madam.
Ms. Bordallo. Would any of the members wish to ask
questions? Mr. Rahall, we will begin with you to ask a question
of your colleague?
Mr. Rahall. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any
questions really except to highlight a point that my colleague
raised, and that is the tax credits that these corporations
seem to be enjoying both on the Federal and state level, and it
appears to be reminiscent of the controversy we had in the
synfuels industry when that industry came into West Virginia,
applied some kerosene to coal or something they claimed was
new, and use it as a spray, and got tax credits for what was
really nothing new, and ended up being bogus.
At that time it was a Marriott corporation, as I recall,
that was getting these tax credits from the state or Federal--I
am not sure who.
So here, it appears very much the same type of scenario.
These out-of-state, sometimes foreign-owned corporations are
coming in and saying they have this new pollutant abatement
technology, or whatever they are describing it as, in order to
get tax credits, and it seems to be just a mere write-off of
other energy concerns they may have where they are making
profits and trying to offset one from the other.
So I think we need to certainly take a serious look at the
tax credits of these out-of-state corporations maybe enjoying
at our expense.
Mr. Mollohan. I thing I agree totally. I think obviously
because the Federal tax advantages for developing and
implementing wind energy, one of the most important purposes
and interests of the Federal government obviously is to look at
the tax subsidy issue.
I think a cost/benefit study would really be interesting
here, or a cost/benefit look. What is the cost of wind energy
in terms of revenues lost to the Federal government, revenues
lost to the State of West Virginia?
We are really subsidizing an industry which is contributing
on the benefit side extremely little to the electric grid
across the country. You would have to put windmills on every
single ridge in West Virginia to increase the percentage of
contribution that energy generated by windmills would increase,
and I believe it is below 1 percent. I am sorry I don't have
the number in my head, but it is well below 1 percent. You
wouldn't get it up to 1 percent. Then the question is what
damage have you done? What would be the cost not only in
subsidies but in the cost of energy to wildlife, and to the
viewshed?
There is a huge environmental viewshed issue here, and I am
not against windmills at all. There are probably places in the
country that windmills are perfectly appropriate from every
standpoint, from the standpoint of not impacting wildlife in an
unacceptable way, and from a standpoint of not obstructing the
viewshed, but there are special areas that are viewshed-
sensitive, and mountain ridges, these windmills totally
redefine the mountain ridges.
You do not see trees. You see windmills, and I suspect that
is true in any silhouette kind of environmental area. I can
imagine the oceans, it would be close in. It would be a very
objectionable thing. So the viewshed issue is a competing
environmental issue in my mind, and obviously the killing of
bats and birds.
While some of these bats--I am sorry to go on here--but
some of these bats, these bats were not endangered species, but
at the rate they are being killed by these windmills they may
become endangered species in West Virginia.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Alan. Thank you for your superb
testimony.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Sali, of Idaho.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congressman Mollohan, I am trying to figure out exactly
what changes to Federal policy, Federal law that you might be
advocating, and let me ask you some specifics.
Are you proposing that the Federal government assume some
kind of responsibility in siting wind turbine farms?
Mr. Mollohan. I am definitely proposing that the Federal
government develop, after careful hearings and careful
studying, there is a National Academy of Science study going on
right now with regard to siting, siting standards, absolutely.
I think it could be a model like the surface mining
legislation, which addresses after the fact a very unfortunate
environmental degradation with surface mining.
The Federal government can pass the standards and the
states can achieve compliance with the Federal standard and
gain primacy or have stronger standards, but the Federal
government is definitely in the position, and certainly because
of it subsidy is giving to windmills, has an interest in
providing leadership in all the environmental areas, including
the siting areas.
Mr. Sali. You are advocating that the Federal government
take a status of preemption in the siting?
Mr. Mollohan. Well, what I just said was that the Federal
government provide leadership, much in the model that is
available for us with regard to surface mining legislation. Is
the Federal government is in the best position and has an
interest--I am repeating myself because certainly because of
its subsidy interest, but it is the subsidy that it provides to
his industry, but also because these issues are national in
scope, and just like any other environmental control, if you
apply the control nationally, then you create a level playing
field for the cost.
So, yes, I think it would be good policy for the Federal
government to come up with siting standards which, I think, the
states could achieve primacy with regard to by adopting those
standards equally or stronger standards.
Mr. Sali. OK.
Mr. Mollohan. But the Federal government is in the position
to provide leadership, and can you imagine how it would happen
otherwise in 50 states?
Mr. Sali. Well, apparently that is what we are doing today,
and that is what you don't like, and that is what I am trying
to figure out.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. That is what I am advocating.
That is what I am saying. Can you imagine how it would happen
otherwise in 50 states?
If we have a here and now energy crisis issue, then we have
a here and now how are we going to do it right with regard to
each of the alternative industries, the renewable industries
that we are going to bring forward.
But with regard to this windmill, the industrial windmill
industry, there are virtually no standards. Why would we do
that? Why would we repeat the experience that we have had with
regard to coal mining, with regard to oil production, with
regard to oil and gas, and allow this industry to go forward
without in a prospective way looking at the environmental harms
and the wildlife harms? Why don't we do that?
Be wise about it at this point based upon our experience of
not being wise in the past, and anticipate these degradations
and fashion policy to allow the industry to go forward, but to
allow it to go forward only in an environmentally acceptable
way, and siting is certainly one issue, and killing wildlife is
certainly another issue?
Mr. Sali. OK, let us talk abut that second piece there, the
wildlife part.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Sali. I think I am correct that bats are not migratory
birds so we wouldn't regulate them under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you can regulate them under anything
you want because this is the Federal government and you are in
the business of fashioning authorization laws, and if bats are
endangered, as they are particularly in these sensitive areas,
then the Federal government needs to look at that, and I would
recommend come up with standards with regard to it if it is
found that bats are killed in unacceptable numbers.
Mr. Sali. So you are advocating that we add bats to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act?
Mr. Mollohan. No. I am advocating that you look at the
issue as you are doing, and I compliment you for doing that in
this hearing. When you make a determination, number one, if
there is a harm that should be protected against by the Federal
government, and then you look at, as an authorizer, the
appropriate vehicle to provide that protection.
Mr. Sali. Congressman, I am not trying to turn this into a
debate. I am just trying to figure out----
Mr. Mollohan. I am not debating. I am answering your
question. I am telling you that I think you ought to address
it. I am not saying yes to your question, but I am telling you
where I think they should do it. I think you should look at it,
and I think you should address the issue appropriately. I am
just saying, I am over here, as Nick Rahall says, on the
appropriate side. You are on the thinking side. You are over
here really fashioning this policy, and so I compliment you
for----
Mr. Sali. I am glad to know that you agree that----
Mr. Mollohan. I am complimenting you for being able to look
at the right place to address this issue.
Mr. Sali. I am just trying to figure out what areas of the
law you would like us to change.
Mr. Mollohan. I want you to change the area of the law that
you think is appropriate to change, and I think you are in a
better position to determine----
Mr. Sali. But I am asking you which ones you are advocating
for us to change. You have more level of knowledge than--higher
level of knowledge than I do about the specifics of this. That
is why you are testifying.
Mr. Mollohan. I don't.
Mr. Sali. Are you advocating that we change the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act? Yes or no.
Mr. Mollohan. I am advocating that you change or create an
appropriate legislative vehicle to address this unacceptable
kill of bats and birds that aren't migratory and that are being
killed at a rate that they may become an endangered species.
Mr. Sali. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Kildee from Michigan.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Alan, years ago in the northwest of this country dams were
being built and we found out later the effect it had upon the
salmon population, in some instances almost ruined for certain
rivers and further inland, even as far as Idaho salmon, and we
didn't know what we were doing then. We didn't ask ourselves
what would happen to the salmon.
I think what you are doing early on, because this is still
fairly early, to try to ask ourselves what will the effect on
birds and bats be, and I think we commend you, I commend you
for asking those questions that were not asked about the salmon
years ago when those dams were being built, and some are being
unbuilt now because of that.
What can we do, first of all, to mitigate the harm to the
birds and the bats, and when we do destroy or minimize one
species, do we make it easier for other species to move in, and
invasive species move in and have a negative effect upon that
area?
Mr. Mollohan. First of all, may I compliment you, which I
hadn't thought of, on the salmon analogy. That is a very
interesting analogy. And going back to my notion about doing a
cost/benefit study, we are now in a remedial way spending
hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the salmon,
various salmon populations are not devastated or that we can
restore them, and that is the one contribution the subcommittee
that I chair makes annually, and the funding for salmon
restorations in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and we
every year increase the president's request in that regard, and
we have tremendous member interest in that.
We are also--in that cost/benefit study, we should look at
things like how much does it cost us to restore the land after
surface mining, or rivers and streams after underground mining,
and so we fully appreciate, and we should do it in a
prospective way, fully appreciate all of the harms that
windmills can possibly result in that will leave us with these
unacceptable legacies that are very expensive.
When you put in a windmill, I didn't testify about this,
but when you put in a windmill, you essentially clear-cut the
mountain ridge, clear-cut the mountain ridge. That is what you
do, and these are industrial sites all along the mountain
ridge, and it does absolutely redefine the mountain ridge, and
then, as I testified, it has these negative but only
imperfectly documented wildlife losses, and as I pointed out,
this study is totally inadequate in order for us to really
fashion good policy. We have some studies coming.
The second part of your question probably is outside my
area of expertise. It is beyond my area of expertise, and I am
sure there may be some fish and wildlife people here that can
address specifically.
Mr. Kildee. If I could amend that question a bit. I wish
there had been Alan Mollohan around at the time we were
building those dams, or trying now to reverse some of that
because those questions should have been asked at that time.
I mentioned invasive species, what effect it might have,
but even maybe the species that are there that are being kept,
their population kept low with the absence of bats, for
example. The species may grow and have a negative effect upon
the land.
Mr. Mollohan. I have read, and only based upon that and not
my own expertise, bats are veracious consumers of bugs, and so
what is the impact of devastating the bat population with
regard to mosquitoes, with regard to all kinds of----
Mr. Kildee. Beetles, the things that sometime attack our
forests, right?
Mr. Mollohan. Perhaps. I don't know if beetles are a part
of their food chain, but there are lots of--I am sure these
smart gentlemen behind me, and ladies, can testify to there are
all kinds of harmful insects.
This is a lot of killing of bats--just the studies they
did. It is really unacceptable because if they are not
endangered at the rate they are being killed there are some
judgments by experts that they could become endangered, and so
why do that? Why not understand that impact before it happens
so that we can fashion a policy, have windmills, but do it in
the right way?
Mr. Kildee. Well, I commend you for what you are doing
because the forest industry in Michigan is being restored. Back
around the turn of the century my dad was a lumberjack, went to
work in the lumber woods, and when he was 13 years old, and he
can recall when they brought the last load of virgin timber
from the lower peninsula into Traverse City, Michigan. But now
we are trying to restore it, and one of the threats to the
forest industry, of course, are various types of insects, and
the bats might have some role in trying to keep that population
under control.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, that has a huge role in keeping insect
population down. That I do know.
Mr. Kildee. We don't really know, but I think you are
asking the right questions. You are raising that. I wish
someone had done this for the salmon years ago, and they were
just being built but no one ever asked these questions, so I
commend you for what you are doing.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Sali asked the question about is it
appropriate in the first instance for the Federal government to
address this issue legislatively. Well, look at it and see what
they should do legislatively, and my answer was yes.
I would just add to that, that the West Virginia
Legislature has not done that, and I am not sure that any state
has done that, and these issues can easily sneak up on you, and
become real problems before certainly state legislatures take
them up, and commend you for taking leadership by holding this
hearing, and perhaps the Federal government should really step
forward with the leadership.
Mr. Kildee. Perhaps we can find a way where we can have
both the wind-generated power and protect the environment.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, no doubt.
Mr. Kildee. Right. And I think you are helping us.
Mr. Mollohan. I am not here testifying against wind power.
Mr. Kildee. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. I am here testifying for us taking into
consideration the consequences of the industry in different
locations, and having us understand ahead of time what we are
doing and fashion policy to make sure we do it right.
Mr. Kildee. How we can mitigate damage and maybe still have
the wind power, but mitigate the damage that it might----
Mr. Mollohan. I am sure there are lots of places that wind
power is appropriate and doesn't have these unfortunate
consequences.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much for what you are doing.
Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee, and our witness this morning. I thank you very much,
Mr. Mollohan, for coming before us, and answering our many
questions that we had, and I also wish to thank our overall
Chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall, for appearing
before this hearing. You can be excused.
Mr. Mollohan. In turn, I would like to thank you again for
holding the hearing and allowing me to testify. I would like to
thank my good friend, Congressman Rahall, for being here, and
then I would like to invite you all to the only site in West
Virginia right now, as I say there is going to be five more
real quickly and a bunch of others, to come over and view them.
It is in Tucker County, in the Canaan Valley. It is the
500th wildlife refugee in the country. In the wintertime, there
is good skiing. In the summertime, there is all kinds of good
hiking and fishing, there is even a golf course for those who
can't put their clubs away.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. That sounds like an
interesting invitation, and----
Mr. Mollohan. Just three hours away.
Ms. Bordallo.--we will take that under advisement. Thank
you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Bordallo. As Chairwoman, I now recognize our second
panel of witnesses, and our witnesses on this panel include Mr.
Dale Hall, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Mr. Edward B. Arnett, Conservation Scientist, Bat Conservation
International; Dr. Michael Fry, Director, Birds and Pesticides,
American Bird Conservancy; Mr. Eric R. Glitzenstein, attorney
and partner, the law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal;
and Mr. Michael Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy, the
National Audubon Society.
I now recognize Mr. Hall to testify for five minutes. I
would note for all witnesses that the red timing light on the
table will indicate when your time has concluded, and we would
appreciate your cooperation in complying with the limits that
have been set as we have several witnesses to hear from today,
and be assured that your full statement will be submitted for
the hearing record.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, DIRECTOR,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Hall. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding wind energy development and its impacts to wildlife
resources. Wind-generated electrical energy is clean energy. It
is renewable and produces no emissions. However, at this point
we cannot say that wind energy is always green energy. Wind
energy facilities can adversely impact wildlife, especially
birds and bats, and their habitats.
Commercial wind energy facilities have been constructed in
34 states, with developments planned for several other states
as well as offshore areas and locations along all coasts,
including the Great Lakes. As more facilities with larger
turbines are built, the cumulative impacts of this rapidly
growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of
some wildlife populations and may seriously degrade wildlife
habitats.
Wind energy continues to grow exponentially with slightly
more than 16,000 commercial wind turbines currently operating
in the United States, and within the next 12 years it is
predicted that that will grow to more than 155,000, almost 10-
fold increase.
Potential harm to wildlife populations from direct
mortality and from habitat disturbance and fragmentation makes
careful analysis today very important. The impacts of wind
power facilities on energy vary by region and by species.
Studies show that wind power facilities in central California,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, have killed large numbers of
raptures and bats.
However, many wind power facilities in the United States
have not been studied. Also, must is still unknown about bird
migratory pathways and corridors and overall species population
levels. As a result, scientists cannot draw definitive
conclusions about the threat and cumulative impacts that wind
power poses to wildlife.
In addition to impacts to birds and bats due to the air
strikes, the Service is concerned about the cumulative impacts
of wind power to terrestrial fauna. New wind power development
will require not only construction of wind turbines but also
extensive construction of related infrastructure, access roads,
and transmission corridors. Because much of the supporting
infrastructure will be constructed in areas that are currently
completely undeveloped, the effects of habitat fragmentation
will likely impact terrestrial species.
Regulating wind power facilities is largely the
responsibility of state and local governments. However,
regulatory agency officials do not always have experience or
expertise to address environmental and wildlife impacts from
wind power.
The Federal government generally only has a regulatory role
in wind power development when development occurs on Federal
lands or involves some form of Federal participation such as
providing funding for the projects. In these cases, the
development operation of wind power facility must comply with
any state and/or local laws as well as Federal laws such as the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species
Act, which often require pre-construction studies or analyses
and possible modifications to proposed projects to avoid
adverse environmental effects.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act are the Federal laws most relevant to
protecting wildlife from wind power impacts, and these laws
generally forbid harm to various species of wildlife.
Although none of the four laws expressly require wind power
developers and operators to take specific steps to ensure that
wildlife will not be harmed during either the construction or
operation of their facilities, wind power developers or
operators are liable for any harm to protected species that may
occur. In 2003, the Service announced the availability of
voluntary interim guidelines that have provided and continue to
provide a national template for use by Federal, state, and
local governments in the wind power industry, to use in siting
and evaluating wind power development proposals in
environmentally friendly ways.
On March 13, 2007, we announced in the Federal Register the
establishment of a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee.
This committee will provide advice and recommendations to the
Service and the Secretary on effective measure to avoid or
minimize impacts to land-based wind energy facilities.
Nominations for members closed on April 12, and we expect to
have approximately a 20-member task force that will work with
us over the next two years.
The key points that we need to be evaluating, I believe,
are, number one, the pre-construction site evaluation and
biological needs in order to know what the impacts may be, and
then the monitoring and proper siting of the facilities that
comply with the best environmentally friendly aspects of siting
facilities.
With that, I see my time is up, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Statement of H. Dale Hall, Director,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the testimony of the Department of the Interior
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on wind energy development and
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. I am Dale Hall, Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
Introduction
Wind-generated electrical energy is renewable, produces no
emissions, and is considered to be generally environmentally-friendly
technology. The President's National Energy Policy seeks, among other
things, to stimulate development of alternative energy sources,
including wind, and to explore the use of these new technologies along
with energy conservation practices. The Department, through the Bureau
of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, is working to
implement this policy by providing greater opportunities for the
development of alternative energy, including wind energy.
As discussed in more detail below, while there are clear benefits
to wind energy development, some facilities, particularly older
facilities or those sited in areas with a high presence of birds and
bats have the potential to cause deaths due to collisions, with
unspecified long-term results. With this in mind, the Service is
focusing its efforts on determining ways to balance wildlife needs when
wind energy facilities are sited and constructed. My testimony does not
address the benefits of wind power, nor does it compare the impacts of
wind with those of other generation technologies, including traditional
fossil fueled generation.
In addition to wildlife studies from both Europe and North America,
the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that addressed
these issues, and the laws and regulations currently in place to manage
wildlife impacts from wind energy development, I will discuss positive
actions taken by the Service to assist industry in minimizing impacts
to wildlife when constructing wind energy facilities. These positive
steps include publication of interim guidelines relating to siting and
evaluating wind power development proposals and establishment of the
Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee to provide advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on development of
measures to avoid or minimize impacts from land-based facilities to
wildlife and habitat.
Overview of Wind Energy Development
Commercial wind energy facilities have been constructed in 34
states, with developments planned for several other states, as well as
offshore areas and locations along all coasts, including the Great
Lakes. As more facilities with larger turbines are built, the
cumulative impacts of this expanding industry and other energy
generation technologies as well should be evaluated. Land-based
turbines currently are approaching heights of 450 feet above ground
level, while offshore turbines will likely be taller, with rotor swept
areas currently covering nearly 3 acres of airspace and blade tip
speeds exceeding 170 miles per hour at operating speeds. Wind energy
continues to grow, with slightly more than 16,000 commercial wind
turbines currently operating in the United States. The President's
Advanced Energy Initiative of 2005 notes that wind energy has the
potential to provide 20 percent of our national electricity needs, the
estimated equivalent of over 300 gigawatts of electricity or over
150,000 commercial turbines nationwide. The potential harm to wildlife
populations from direct mortality and from habitat disturbance and
fragmentation makes careful evaluation of proposed facilities
essential.
As noted in the GAO's September 2005 report, titled ``Wind Power:
Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating
Development and Protecting Wildlife,'' avian mortality has been well
documented at older wind energy facilities in the western United
States. Based on this knowledge, the wind industry has made many
adjustments to locating facilities and equipment. However, the
potential impact of wind energy developments on wildlife and their
habitats is within the mission area of the Service. Due to local,
seasonal, and annual differences in wildlife concentration and movement
patterns, habitats, area topography, facility design, and weather, each
proposed development site is unique and requires an appropriate level
of evaluation.
Europe has played a leading role in commercial wind development for
at least the past decade, including offshore wind energy siting and
operation. Norway, for example, produces nearly 15 percent of its
electrical energy by wind, including offshore development. Until
recently, detailed analysis of wind energy impacts to birds and bats in
Europe--both for land-based and offshore facilities--had not been
especially robust. However, recent studies of the impacts of offshore
facilities on sea ducks, for example, have shown facility avoidance,
behavioral modification, and feeding disturbance of these waterbirds.
Detecting birds that have collided with offshore facilities is
extremely difficult. The impacts that offshore facilities may have on
increased sea duck energy demands, disruptions to feeding, and
behavioral modification are only now being assessed.
Service personnel may become involved in the review of potential
wind energy developments on public lands or where there is a Federal
nexus (i.e, a Federal permit or Federal funding) through the required
National Environmental Policy Act review. This may be as a cooperating
agency or because of the Service's responsibilities under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; or because
of the agency's special expertise. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be
determined to be compatible with the Refuge system mission and Refuge
purposes. In addition, the Service is required by the Endangered
Species Act to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any
action they authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened
species or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. Service
biologists have also received requests from some industry
representatives for consultation on wildlife impacts of proposed wind
energy developments on private lands. Proposed offshore wind energy
facilities within 3 nautical miles of the coast currently require a
permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which is
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Service routinely
provides Section 10 permit application review and comment. Proposed
offshore wind energy facilities in federal waters are regulated by the
Minerals Management Service per its authorities under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. Their siting and operations will be subject to National
Environmental Policy Act review and Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act requirements.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) September 2005 Report on
Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities
for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife
As previously mentioned, the GAO published a study of wind power
and its effects on wildlife in 2005. The study did not compare the
impacts or benefits of wind with those of other generation
technologies, including traditional fossil fueled generation. Many of
their summaries and findings, which are summarized here, are relevant
to today's discussion.
Habitat destruction and modification is a leading threat to the
continued survival of wildlife species in the United States. Although
wind power facilities were once thought to have practically no adverse
environmental effects, it is now recognized wind energy, like all power
generation technologies, can have adverse impacts, particularly on
wildlife, and specifically on birds and bats and their habitats. Large
numbers of birds and bats have been well documented to cross virtually
all parts of the United States, including along mountain ridges,
coastlines, and in broad front migrations from the Rocky Mountains to
the Atlantic coast during their seasonal migrations. Consequently, wind
power projects located in areas with a high presence of birds and bats
could potentially impact these animals. For example, at older, first-
generation wind power-generating facilities in California's Altamont
Pass west of the Bay Area, wind turbines killed large numbers of
migratory birds. High levels of bat mortality have been documented at
two facilities in Appalachia, as well as at facilities in Oklahoma and
southern Alberta, Canada. Wind power facilities may also have other
impacts on wildlife through alterations of habitat, disturbance, and
behavioral modification.
In this context, GAO assessed (1) what available studies and
experts have reported about the impacts of wind power facilities on
wildlife in the United States and what can be done to mitigate or
prevent such impacts, (2) the roles and responsibilities of government
agencies in regulating wind power facilities, and (3) the roles and
responsibilities of government agencies in protecting wildlife.
As the GAO report points out, uncertainty and gaps in knowledge
have resulted in the inability of scientists to draw definitive
conclusions about the threat and cumulative impacts that wind power
poses to wildlife. The impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife
vary by region and species. Specifically, studies show that wind power
facilities in central California, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have
killed large numbers of raptors and bats. It should also be noted,
however, that studies in other parts of the country show comparatively
lower levels of bird mortality, although most facilities have killed at
least some birds. Many wind power facilities in the United States have
yet not been studied, but where studies have been conducted, research
efforts are not consistent and the findings may not be valid.
Furthermore, much is still unknown about bird migration pathways and
corridors and overall species population levels. Notably, only a few
studies have been or are being performed concerning ways in which to
reduce wildlife fatalities at wind power facilities.
In addition to impacts to birds and bats due to air strikes, the
Service is concerned about the cumulative impacts of wind power to
terrestrial fauna. New wind power development will require not only
construction of wind turbines, but also construction of related
infrastructure such as access roads and transmission facilities. The
effects of such habitat fragmentation could impact terrestrial species.
Regulating wind power facilities is largely the responsibility of
state and local governments. However, there are regulations related to
air safety and obstruction evaluation and analysis of wind projects
administered by the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation
Administration. In addition, wind projects proposed in Federally-
administered offshore waters would be within the purview of the
Minerals Management Service, which serves as lead regulatory agency. In
the six states that GAO reviewed, wind power facilities are subject to
local- or state-level processes, such as zoning ordinances to permit
the construction and operation of wind power facilities. As part of
this process, some agencies require environmental assessments before
construction. However, regulatory agency officials do not always have
experience or expertise to address environmental and wildlife impacts
from wind power.
As a general rule, the Federal government has a regulatory role in
wind power development only when development occurs on Federal land or
involves some form of Federal participation, such as providing funding
for projects. In these cases, the development and operation of a wind
power facility must comply with any state or local laws as well as
Federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Endangered Species Act, which often require preconstruction studies or
analyses and possibly modifications to proposed projects to avoid
adverse environmental effects.
As with any activity, Federal and state laws afford protections to
wildlife from wind power facilities. Four laws, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (for offshore
facilities), are the Federal laws most relevant to protecting wildlife
from wind power facilities, and these laws generally forbid harm to
various species of wildlife. The Service is the Federal agency that has
primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing these laws.
Although none of the four laws expressly require wind power developers
and operators to take specific steps to ensure that wildlife will not
be harmed during either the construction or operation of their
facilities, wind power developers or operators are arguably liable for
any harm to protected species that may occur. In some cases, developers
voluntarily consult with the Service--or a state natural resources
agency--before they construct a project or they do so as a requirement
of a state or local wind power regulatory agency, to identify potential
impacts to wildlife. In other cases, Federal involvement may consist of
Service law enforcement officials investigating instances of wildlife
fatalities at a wind power facility.
Rather than seeking to prosecute wind power facilities companies
when mortality events occur, the Service prefers to work with companies
to encourage them to take mitigation steps to avoid future harm. The
Service has been working with the wind industry to help identify
solutions and ensure that wildlife mortality at wind power facilities
is minimized. For example, the Service has participated in many
industry-sponsored workshops and conferences, issued interim voluntary
guidelines for industry to use in developing new projects that are
wildlife- and habitat-friendly, and served as a member in a wildlife
working group with industry, their consultants, states, other Federal
agencies, scientists, and conservationists since 1995.
Regarding state wildlife protections, all of the six states that
GAO reviewed have statutes that can be used to protect some wildlife
from wind power impacts. However, no states have taken any
prosecutorial actions against wind power facilities where wildlife
mortalities have occurred.
To encourage potential wildlife impacts to be considered when wind
power facilities are permitted, GAO recommended that the Service reach
out to state and local regulatory agencies with information on the
potential wildlife impacts due to wind power and on the resources
available to help make decisions about the siting of wind power
facilities. The Service has taken these recommendations very seriously,
having participated in recent meetings with state and local regulatory
officials in California, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. The Service is also a cooperating
agency on NEPA documents for two proposed offshore wind power
facilities in the Northeast.
2003 Interim Guidelines on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts
from Wind Turbines
At the request of the Secretary of the Interior, the Service
established a Wind Turbine Siting Working Group in 2002, to develop a
set of comprehensive national guidelines for siting and constructing
wind energy facilities. On July 10, 2003, the Service published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the
interim Guidelines and requesting comments through July 7, 2005. The
Service received 25 comments from a wide range of stakeholders
regarding the interim guidelines. After reviewing the comments and
evaluating advances in the science behind wind turbine siting and
design, the Service determined that a Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) advisory group would best balance representation from wind
development, wildlife conservation, and government in the process.
Establishment of Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee
On March 13, 2007, the Service published a notice in the Federal
Register, announcing the establishment of the Wind Turbine Guidelines
Advisory Committee. This Committee will provide advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior through the Director
of the Service on developing effective measures to avoid or minimize
impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind
energy facilities. The Committee will help us examine issues such as
site selection and turbine design, scientifically validated mitigation
measures, peer-reviewed pre- and post-construction monitoring
protocols, and field tested and validated deterrents so that we can
develop land-based wind resources while protecting wildlife. The
Committee will also make recommendations on how to coordinate review
and evaluation of facilities by state, tribal, local, and Federal
agencies. The Committee will be established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and is expected to exist for two years, with its
continuation subject to biennial renewal. Nominations of members closed
on April 12, 2007, and we are working with the Secretary on
recommendations for appointments to the Committee.
Member organizations will be selected to represent the varied
interests associated with wind energy development and wind/wildlife
interactions, including state, local, and Federal agencies, tribes,
non-governmental conservation organizations, and the wind industry and
its consultants. Members will be senior representatives of their
respective constituent groups with knowledge of: wind energy facility
location, design, operation, and transmission requirements; wildlife
species and their habitats potentially affected; wildlife survey
techniques; applicable laws and regulations; and current research on
wind/wildlife interactions.
The Service will review the final recommendations of the Committee,
revise its voluntary guidelines to avoid and minimize wildlife impacts
from wind turbines, and make the guidelines available for public review
and comment prior to making them final. The Service also plans to
develop a national template for an avian protection plan for the wind
industry, possibly based on recommendations from the FACA Committee,
much like what has been developed for the electric utility industry,
with the expectation of regional step-down plans that provide for
wildlife-friendly wind power.
Bolstering Service Efforts to Address Impacts
The Service believes that the development of consistent,
scientifically valid pre- and post-construction monitoring protocols,
capable of being stepped down to regional and local levels would be
helpful for all energy generation technologies. Results of studies
conducted using scientifically valid protocols to assess risk to
species and habitats at energy development sites could be published,
ideally in refereed scientific journals. The published information
could then be used by the energy industry to validate a risk assessment
process, make course corrections based on new post-construction
findings, adopt mitigation measures, use deterrents where bird and bat
mortality is shown to be problematic, and update and further improve
the Service's future guidance.
The Service wants to work with the states, public utility
commissions, zoning and planning boards, and industry before wind
energy and other generation technology plants are permitted and
developed. The Service would like the opportunity for our biologists to
review pre-construction and risk assessment data/documents prior to
project development. Presently, due to issues of confidentiality, much
of this information, especially on pre-construction monitoring and
potential impacts, is not available. The Service also seeks
cooperation, including site access, to enable monitoring of sites being
proposed for energy project development, sites being selected and
assessed using pre-construction monitoring protocols, sites being
developed, and sites that are operating to assess mortality, changes in
bird and bat behavior, and modifications to habitats that negatively
impact species. The Service can assist in the environmentally
responsible development of all energy generation, including wind
energy, if we have access to research and monitoring information. The
Service believes we can work effectively with industry to help develop
energy projects in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
Conclusion
In closing, Madam Chairwoman, the Service is responsible for
conservation of wildlife in the public trust, and will work to ensure
that development of energy projects is carried out in a manner that is
bird- and bat-friendly and that sound science and adequate
environmental assessments are the basis for informed decisionmaking.
The Service will continue to work collaboratively with all
stakeholders, including the wind industry, to minimize impacts to
wildlife and habitats while maximizing opportunities for energy
development in the most wildlife- and habitat-friendly way possible.
This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
today before the Subcommittee, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
I now recognize Mr. Arnett to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. ARNETT, CONSERVATION SCIENTIST, BAT
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Arnett. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good morning
to the Subcommittee members.
My name is Ed Arnett. I am a conservation scientist with
Bat Conservation International, but I also am program
coordinator for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, which is
an alliance of state and Federal agencies, private industry,
academic institutions, and non-governmental organization that
was initiated in the late fall of 2003, to try to determine and
solve problems associated with bat fatalities.
I am here today at your request, and appreciate the
invitation to share some information with you about bats and
wind energy development. I would also point out that my
testimony is provided on behalf of Bat Conservation
International and my comments may not necessarily reflect the
opinions of all entities associated with our cooperative, which
has been working together over the past three years.
I would like to first point out that bats play an essential
role in virtually every ecosystem in the world and occupy very
unique ecological niches, and it was noted earlier about pest
control. Most notably here in North America, they are key
nocturnal predators of insects, and studies of Mexican Free
Tail Bats in the State of Texas, for example, have demonstrated
extraordinary economic benefits of pest control by these
particular bats, and that extends to other ecosystems as well.
Unfortunately, little is know about historical and current
populations of most species of bats, but currently many are
believed by scientists to be in substantial decline for a
number of different reasons. We know that bats are being killed
at wind facilities worldwide and large numbers have been
documented at several of the facilities that have been studied
to date.
This has led to the consensus among world's leading experts
that although population impacts remain unknown the projected
expansion of wind development and levels of fatalities at some
facilities suggest that significant cumulative impacts must be
considered for some species, and there are projected numbers
that are available in my written testimony, and I would be
happy to elaborate on those as needed.
These numbers really escalate rapidly also as we consider
projecting out over a particular project for 20 years, 25
years, over the duration, and also considering those impacts
from a wide perspective across the distribution of any of these
species that are being affected. So the potential for
cumulative impacts becomes even more obvious, and this is a
serious concern for bats because they are long-lived, they have
exceptionally low reproductive rates, population growth is
slow, and they are slow to recover from population declines.
Furthermore, several colleagues and I believe that bats are
in fact attracted to wind turbines, and they are killing prime
breeding-age adults which further exacerbates the population
impacts.
Leading experts from around the world have reviewed
existing information on wind energy impacts, and all agree that
our state of knowledge is unsatisfactory. Pre-construction
studies are inconsistently implemented across states, ranging
from no effort whatsoever to very intensive studies that we
have been working on with proactive companies and other
agencies, but they are typically short duration, lack clear
objectives, and are underfunded.
Post-construction studies vary in duration and intensity,
and may be seriously biased due to field sampling biases that
are oftentimes not accounted for.
However, we have learned some things from our existing
studies and we have made some recommendations; most notably,
the curtailment of operations during predictable periods may in
fact provide an opportunity to reduce fatalities, but those
experiments have not been implemented and remain untested to
date. Thus we see an urgent need for increasing support for
comprehensive interdisciplinary research programs that address
priority needs to quantify risks and document the success of
potential solutions.
In regard to legislative actions, we believe that perhaps
most importantly involves additional funding support at two
broad levels. First, agency support for environmental review,
permitting, and oversight, and research initiatives to quantify
impacts and develop solutions.
It is our opinion that the Federal agencies such as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, land management agencies such
as the BLM and Forest Service are grossly understaffed and
underfunded to effectively handle the onslaught of permits of
wind development on both public and private lands, and they are
currently facing budget constraints and staffing issue, and
this situation creates potential threats not only for wildlife
but also costly delays to the industry, and streamlining and
eliminating processes are unacceptable in our view, and both
state and Federal agencies need support adequate to
participate.
Second, we feel additional funding support for research
initiatives is imperative to not only agencies but also to
entities such as the National Science Foundation, the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other entities to support this
much needed research.
Finally, realizing that it is not the charge of this
Subcommittee, Congress could potentially strengthen the Federal
tax production credit by requiring when projects to meet
standards, including best management practices and guidelines
that are in fact developed by the Federal government and other
stakeholders to protect wildlife, which would level the playing
field and provide equal consideration for wildlife among
projects throughout their duration.
In conclusion, Bat Conservation International wants to
recognize that we understand threats to the environment and the
economy from global climate change, and support the development
of clean renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, current
evidence has led to the consensus among leading experts that
impacts can become severe if facilities continue to operate
without careful planning and developing solutions to minimize
harm to both birds and bats, which are both ecologically
essential.
The Federal government must increase efforts to support the
responsible development of wind while protecting wildlife
resources. Cooperation access to study sites, funding, and
transparency of information from industry has been mixed, but
generally we have been pleased--and sometimes frustrated--with
the progress of efforts, but our partnerships for the bats and
wind energy cooperative and other cooperatives that have been
ongoing have been successful to some degree, and we are moving
forward and in the right direction, and applaud the companies
and organizations working proactively with us to move forward
in solving this problem.
Unfortunately, more needs to be done. We need to expand our
breadth of cooperation to develop a sound scientific basis for
decision-making.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf
of BCI I would like to thank you for inviting me and sharing
this information. I look forward to helping you with this issue
and answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arnett follows:]
Statement of Edward B. Arnett, Conservation Scientist,
Bat Conservation International
Introduction
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Ed
Arnett, Conservation Scientist and Co-Director of Programs for Bat
Conservation International (BCI). I am also the program coordinator for
the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (herein referred to as ``the
Cooperative'') an alliance of state and federal agencies, private
industry, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations
interested in cooperating to develop solutions to minimize or, where
possible, prevent mortality of bats at wind facilities. The Cooperative
was initiated by BCI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and the Department of Energy's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and is supported
financially by these entities and a diversity of stakeholders including
wind industry companies, clean state energy funds, and private
individuals and foundations. The Cooperative seeks to secure and
administer cooperative funding among interested parties and allocate
those resources to promote research needed to address issues and
develop solutions surrounding wind energy development and fatality of
bats. I studied bat presence and habitat relationships in Oregon for
eight years while serving as a research biologist for Weyerhaeuser
Timber Company and for my Ph.D. dissertation research. I have led
research efforts for the Cooperative since May 2004, which includes
post-construction fatality searches at the Mountaineer, West Virginia
and Meyersdale, Pennsylvania facilities, pre-construction assessments
of bat activity at multiple sites in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin, and investigations on possible acoustic deterrent devices
that may reduce fatality of bats at wind facilities. I currently am
Chair of a technical review committee on wind energy impacts on
wildlife for The Wildlife Society (final report due for public release
by early summer 2007), serve as a committee member for the Wind and
Wildlife Subcommittee for the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, and provide technical input on bats and wind energy issues to
several agencies, organizations, and private industry.
I am here at your request and appreciate the invitation to discuss
impacts of wind energy development on bats and address questions from
the Subcommittee. In my invitation, I was asked to address four topics
and, after providing background information, I will focus most of my
comments on these specific areas. My testimony is provided on behalf of
BCI and my comments may not necessarily reflect the opinions of all
entities associated with the Cooperative.
Background
Fatalities of bats have been recorded at wind facilities worldwide,
first noted in Australia in 1972 by Hall and Richards (1972). Before
2001, relatively small numbers of bat fatalities were reported at wind
energy facilities in the U.S. (Johnson 2005). These were first noted at
facilities in California during avian fatality searches (e.g., Orloff
and Flannery 1992). However, bat kills at wind facilities generally
received little attention in North America until 2003 when between
1,400 and 4,000 bats were estimated to have been killed at the
Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia (Kerns and Kerlinger
2004). During that same year, a high kill rate of bats also was
discovered at Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee in 2003 (Fiedler 2004).
Shortly after the reports from Mountaineer and Buffalo Mountain in
2003, representatives from the AWEA, BCI, NREL, and the USFWS met in
late 2003 and established the Cooperative to further understand causes
of bat fatalities at wind facilities and work toward developing
solutions. A two-day workshop was held in February 2004 that brought
together leading experts on bat ecology, radar and thermal imaging
technology, and avian acoustical monitoring from the United States,
Canada, and the United Kingdom. Experts concluded that causes and
solutions would be extremely difficult to identify without more
reliable information about 1) bat migration; 2) bat interactions with
turbines, particularly their responses to moving versus non-moving
blades and how they are being killed; 3) patterns of fatality in
relation to location, topography, weather, and turbine characteristics;
and 4) potential deterrents and/or avoidance mechanisms. Based on the
recommendations of its experts, the Cooperative under took field
research during the summer of 2004 to improve carcass search protocols
and observe bat interactions with turbines. The Cooperative also has
conducted extensive pre-construction assessments of bat activity at
multiple sites in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and
initiated investigations on possible acoustic deterrent devices that
may reduce fatality of bats at wind facilities.
Since the inception of the Cooperative, we have learned that high
bat fatality continued at the Mountaineer facility in 2004 (Arnett
2005) and that this site was not an isolated incident in the eastern
U.S.; large kills also were reported at facilities in Pennsylvania in
2004 (Arnett 2005) and high fatality rates have continued at the
Buffalo Mountain facility in Tennessee (J. Fiedler, Tennessee Valley
Authority, personal communication). Colleagues in Europe also have
reported widespread bat fatality at wind facilities, especially in
Germany (Durr and Bach 2004, Brinkman 2006), and, most recently, much
higher than expected bat fatalities were discovered in mixed forest and
agricultural lands in New York (Jain et al. 2007) and in open prairie
in southern Alberta Canada (Robert Barclay, University of Calgary,
unpublished data). Incidental discoveries by ornithologists in Oklahoma
indicate that the Mexican free-tailed bat, the most abundant and
economically valuable species of the Southwest, also is vulnerable to
wind turbine kills (Piorkowski 2006), yet no formal studies have been
conducted in this region.
While current estimated fatality rates of bats are highest for
sites located on forested ridges (Johnson 2005, Kunz et al. 2007), it
is now irrefutable that increased search efforts since the 2003
findings at Mountaineer have documented a more widespread problem than
previously believed. These fatalities raise serious concerns about
potential impacts on bat populations at a time when many species of
bats are known or suspected to be in decline (Pierson 1998, Racey and
Entwistle 2003) and extensive planning and development of wind energy
is increasing throughout North America (Kunz et al. 2007). Future
developments of wind energy facilities, and expected impacts, depend on
complex interactions of economic factors, technological development,
regulatory changes, political forces, and other factors that cannot be
easily or accurately predicted at this time (Kunz et al. 2007). Current
and projected fatality rates should provide an important wakeup call to
agencies, developers, and decision makers to support additional
monitoring and hypothesis-based research to address a growing concern
of national and international importance.
Topics Requested by the Subcommittee
1) What steps are being taken by federal and state governments to
ensure that this emerging technology is appropriately sited and
monitored to limit or prevent the incidental take of bats, especially
T&E species?
Key Points:
There currently is little empirical evidence to determine
what represents ``appropriate siting'' of wind facilities for bats.
Extensive research in this area is needed immediately.
Criteria and standards need to be established, determined
based on the best available information, for high risk areas for bats
(and other wildlife) that can be integrated into siting guidelines
among states or regions so these areas can be protected in a consistent
manner.
Although there is a paucity of empirical evidence
supporting actions to limit or prevent incidental take of bats, what
evidence and recommendations are available (e.g., curtailment of
operations during predictable high risk periods) have not been
implemented and remain untested.
Some states are beginning to integrate mitigation
measures into permits (e.g., limited curtailment during low wind
periods when most bats kills occur), but these measures still have not
been tested in the field.
Bats usually are protected under state laws pertaining to
``nongame'' animals, but most states do not enforce take of bats. Bats
that have been killed most frequently by wind turbines are not
protected under federal law.
There are no consistent guidelines or processes for
siting, permitting, or monitoring and little commonality among states,
although several states have embarked on developing voluntary
guidelines for siting and monitoring wind facilities.
Numerous steps have been taken to improve working
relationships, cooperation, and information exchange that include
developing and participating in state and national working groups,
research partnerships, and greater involvement in consultation during
permitting.
Federal resource and land management agencies, non-governmental
organizations, contractors, developers, and utilities have dominated
the discussion about wildlife interactions with wind energy facilities.
Until recently, state fish and wildlife agencies have not been deeply
or proactively involved. This limited participation reflects a variety
of factors, including more immediate management priorities, lack of
fiscal and human resources, and the limited regulatory authority to
apply wildlife considerations to these decisions. These facts
notwithstanding, wind energy permitting and regulation in most of the
U.S. is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments,
and wildlife agencies have served only in an advisory capacity with no
regulatory authority. Often times, wildlife agencies are not consulted
or their recommendations considered during permitting. This situation
is beginning to change, as several states have embarked on developing
guidelines for siting and have set up wind working groups to address
issues and advise legislators and regulators about the potential
impacts and benefits of wind development, including effects on wildlife
resources.
Unfortunately, there currently is little commonality from state-to-
state regarding permitting or requirements for pre- or post-
construction monitoring. While several states have embarked on
developing guidelines for siting, consistency and coordination among
states is critical and as yet rare. Developing consistent guidelines
for siting, monitoring and mitigation strategies among states and
federal agencies would assist developers with compliance with relevant
laws and regulations and establish standards for conducting site-
specific, scientifically sound biological evaluations. Renewable
Portfolio Standards should account for wildlife impacts and inclusion
of guidelines in the permitting process would further strengthen agency
participation and implementation of guidelines. Permits for wind
projects should contain language regarding monitoring and mitigation
requirements; recently, some states have integrated these requirements
into permits (e.g., curtailment for a specified period of time and
under certain conditions), although mitigation measures remain untested
and some may be inadequate.
Criteria and standards need to be established, determined based on
the best available information, for high risk areas for bats (and other
wildlife) that can be integrated into siting guidelines among states or
regions so these areas can be protected in a consistent manner. An
unfortunate reality is the fact that if a responsible developer decides
to abandon a particular site because of environmental sensitivity,
there are no state or federal regulations or guidelines that prohibit
another developer from pursuing a wind project on that site. Unless the
playing field is leveled and all developers are held accountable
equally, through regulation or guidelines that are linked to
permitting, renewable portfolio standards, and the Production Tax
Credit, sensitive, high risk sites could be developed in the future.
The USFWS issued voluntary guidelines in 2003 to avoid and minimize
wildlife impacts by wind turbines and consults with industry on project
scope and issues, recommends studies and relevant information, reviews/
comments on studies and applications, makes recommendations and
coordinates with state regulatory and authorizing entities and
interested parties. When incidental take is likely to occur, the USFWS
recommends to the developer that a Habitat Conservation Plan be
prepared pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act,
the preparation of which is voluntary. The Service also advocates for
implementation of a pre-filing 3-stage consultation process that would
include 1) scoping of wildlife issues, 2) studies to address issues
raised in scoping, and 3) review of study results and recommendations.
This is the same process codified in FERC regulations for hydroelectric
projects (18 CFR 4.38).
State and federal agencies and other stakeholders have participated
with processes like the National Wind Coordinating Committee and have
sponsored or participated in conferences, workshops, and symposia at
professional meetings. Federal and state agencies also have joined with
other stakeholders in research partnerships like the Bats and Wind
Energy Cooperative (http://www.batcon.org/home/index.asp?idPage=55) and
the NWCC facilitated Grassland and Shrub Steppe Species Collaborative
(http://www.nationalwind.org/workgroups/wildlife/gs3c_overview.
pdf). These efforts are important, positive steps, but state and
federal agencies require more support, including funding, to
effectively participate in these endeavors.
Wind energy is expanding rapidly within the range of threatened and
endangered species of bats such as the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis),
the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), and the Virginia big-eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). Although no threatened or
endangered species have been found killed at existing wind facilities,
not all sites have been searched thoroughly or for multiple years, and
bats are very difficult to find during searches. Most biological
assessments conducted at existing and proposed facilities have used
literature searches, limited site visits and survey efforts, and
present habitat conditions to speculate the potential impact on
threatened and endangered species of bats; interestingly, almost all
conclude no impacts with limited empirical evidence for support. New
evidence from radio-telemetry studies in Pennsylvania and New York
suggests that Indiana bats travel considerable distances across ridges
and may in fact be at risk given their flight paths from hibernacula to
summer habitat (see http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/
2006_wildlife/71402-05.pdf for an example). Continued development of
wind facilities will likely pose risks to these species and increase
the probability of take. Some species could be pushed to threatened or
endangered status resulting proximately, ultimately, or independent of
wind energy development. More studies are needed to fully elucidate
risk of all bats, including endangered species.
Better Coordination and Integration is Needed. Given projected
increases in multiple sources of energy development, including biomass,
wind, and oil and gas development, future conflicts surrounding land-
use, mitigation, and conservation strategies should be anticipated.
Habitat mitigation options, for example, when developing wind in open
prairie may be compromised by development of other energy sources.
State and federal agencies must partner with multiple stakeholders to
implement regional assessments of existing and future land uses.
Planning regional conservation strategies among industries, agencies
and private landowners could reduce conflicts and increase options for
conservation. Comprehensive monitoring and research programs are needed
to gather required information to develop better siting guidance and
mitigation strategies in the immediate future.
2) What is the status of bat populations?
Key Points:
Little is known about historical or current populations
of most species of bats, but many are believed to be in substantial
decline.
Bats are long-lived and have exceptionally low
reproductive rates, population growth is relatively slow, and their
ability to recover from population declines is limited.
Although population impacts are unknown, given the level
of fatalities at some wind facilities significant cumulative impacts
must be considered for some species.
Some species could be pushed to threatened or endangered status
resulting proximately, ultimately, or independent of wind energy
development.
More than 1,100 species of bats worldwide account for nearly a
quarter of all mammals, yet their populations are poorly understood.
Many populations have been extirpated or have declined alarmingly
(O'Shea and Bogan 2003). Eastern red bats, for example, are one the
most frequently killed species, yet are already reported to be in
decline (Whitaker et al. 2002, Carter et al. 2003, Winhold et al.
2005). There are nine species or subspecies of bats in the U.S. and
territories that are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act, and 24 that are designated as species of concern (formerly
Category 2 candidates for listing under the ESA; O'Shea and Bogan
2003). Like birds, bats play essential ecological roles in maintaining
the balance of nature. However, as previously mentioned, unlike birds,
bats that are most frequently killed by wind turbines are not protected
under federal law and, although bats usually are protected under state
laws pertaining to ``nongame'' animals, most states do not enforce take
of bats.
Little is known about historical or current populations of most
species of bats. Better information exists for species of bats that
primarily use caves for either winter hibernation (e.g., gray and
Indiana bats) or summer maternity roosts (e.g., Mexican free-tailed
bat). Most experts base inferences on population trends from indices on
changes in capture rates over time, winter counts at hibernacula,
trends in habitat loss or protection, and public submissions of species
for examination by state health departments (e.g., Carter et al. 2003).
Unfortunately, current techniques are ineffective to quantify
populations and no long-term studies exist for documenting changes in
trends of tree- and foliage-roosting species of bats (Carter et al.
2003).
Bats are long-lived and have exceptionally low reproductive rates
(Kunz 1982), population growth is relatively slow, and their ability to
recover from population declines is limited, thereby increasing the
risk of extinctions (Barclay and Harder 2003, Racey and Entwistle 2000,
2003). Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance and/or loss of roosts,
and persecution by fearful humans have contributed greatly to the
decline of many species of bats (Kunz 1982, Pierson 1998, Racey and
Entwistle 2003). Fatality of bats at wind turbines has been recognized
only recently as a major conservation concern. Although population
impacts are unknown, given the level of fatalities thus far documented
at wind facilities, biologically significant additive mortality must be
considered for some species as wind power development expands and
fatalities accumulate (Kunz et al. 2007). As previously mentioned, some
species could be pushed to threatened or endangered status resulting
proximately, ultimately, or independent of wind energy development.
Kunz et al. (2007) projected numbers of bat fatalities in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands from wind turbines expected in to be installed by
2020 (installed capacity of 2,158 MW based on National Renewable Energy
Laboratory WinDS Model for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands for the year 2020
[http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/]); they projected 32,818 to 64,281
would be killed in just one year in this region under the assumptions
used. The potential for serious cumulative impacts is obvious in just
this one region and when considering all regions continent-wide and
over the full life of a project (20-25 years), the numbers escalate
rapidly and heighten concerns.
3) To what degree does industry account for bats in their
preliminary planning and subsequent construction and operation of wind
turbines?
Key Points:
Pre-construction studies are inconsistently implemented
across states, ranging from no effort to intensive studies, but are
typically short duration, lack clearly stated objectives, and are under
funded to adequately evaluate true risks to bats and other wildlife.
Correlations between pre-construction monitoring data and
post-construction bat fatality rates currently do not exist, seriously
limiting our understanding of risks.
Post-construction studies vary in duration and intensity
and often are seriously biased depending on how well investigators
design the study and account for field sampling biases (e.g., searcher
efficiency, scavenger removal, habitat variation, seasonality).
Industry has collaborated with partnerships such as the
Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative to conduct needed research to
understand issues and develop and test mitigation strategies.
There is an immediate need to increase support for
research programs that address priority needs for pre-and post
construction monitoring and to develop and test mitigation strategies.
Pre-construction. Industry has performed pre-construction studies,
but there are no consistent requirements and level of effort ranges
from no work to extensive studies, the later being a rare extreme (see
Arnett et al. 2006 as an example). Pre-construction studies have lacked
consistent implementation of methods and often are fundamentally flawed
in a number of ways. They are typically short duration, lack clearly
stated objectives, and are under funded to adequately evaluate true
risks to bats and other wildlife. Pre-construction surveys for bats
commonly employ mist nets and acoustic detectors to assess local bat
species presence and activity. However, using this information to
predict bat fatality and, thus risk at a site has proved to be
challenging. Mist netting may be useful for determining presence of a
species on site, but multiple surveys are required (Weller and Lee
2007) and mist netting does not confirm absence of a species.
Unfortunately, past and current efforts to acoustically monitor bat
activity prior to construction of turbines may suffer from flaws in
study design, including small sample sizes, poor temporal and spatial
replication, and inappropriate inference because limitations and
assumptions were not understood or clearly articulated (Hayes 2000).
Also, there is a lack of information and lack of agreement among
stakeholders, biologists, and scientists regarding what constitute
different levels of risk in relation to bat activity and potential
fatality of bats at wind facilities. Perhaps most importantly, we
currently are unaware of any study that has correlated pre-construction
monitoring data with post-construction fatality, a fundamental link
necessary for extrapolating pre-construction data to predict potential
risk of wind facilities to bats. More extensive pre- versus post-
construction comparisons are urgently needed to understand risk-levels
and to develop criteria for high risk sites that should be avoided.
Post-construction. At least some post-construction monitoring for
birds has been conducted at most existing wind facilities, though bat
fatalities were typically recorded only incidentally. Nevertheless, bat
kills have been documented at almost every facility where post-
construction searches were conducted. However, until recently, efforts
to specifically estimate bat fatality rates have been rare. Criticism
of survey protocols used in past efforts centers on field sampling
biases (e.g., small sample sizes, poor accounting for carcass removal
by scavengers and searcher efficiency, and failure to account for
detectability among habitats) that can profoundly bias the number of
estimated fatalities. Searches are typically conducted at seven, 14 or
28-day intervals, and often do not adequately account for scavenger
removal rates or searcher efficiency. During an intensive 6-week study
at Mountaineer, West Virginia, scavengers removed up to 70% of killed
bats within 24 hours, and at Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, searcher
efficiency averaged only 25% on this heavily vegetated site (Arnett,
2005). With few exceptions, post-construction studies are conducted for
just 1-2 years.
Both pre- and post-construction studies have lacked standardized
procedures, thus making it impossible for broad comparisons that could
facilitate an understanding of potentially cumulative impacts or of the
relative risks associated with varied habitat and topography. Most have
been conducted without adequate peer review of methodology, results, or
interpretations of findings, and few studies have been published in the
scientific literature, although that trend is starting to change.
It is critical that future post-construction monitoring be
conducted using standard protocols for consistency so as to facilitate
broad comparisons among facilities. Daily searches are required at some
turbines in order to correlate fatality with weather variables. This is
important because several studies have reported that most bat
fatalities occur on low wind nights (Fiedler 2004, Arnett 2005,
Brinkmann 2006) and understanding these patterns will help determine
predictable periods of high fatality for implementation of mitigation
measures such as curtailment of operations. More research is needed on
fatalities in regions with existing wind facilities that have been
poorly studied (e.g., eastern forested ridges, the southwest) and
regions with new developments (e.g., coastal areas). There is an urgent
need for increasing support for comprehensive, interdisciplinary
research programs that address priority needs to quantify risks and
document the success of potential solutions. Funding should emphasize
cooperative efforts among private organizations, industry, and
government agencies.
4) What legislative actions might Congress consider to ensure that
an expansion of wind energy does not come at an unnecessary expense to
bats and other wildlife?
Federal funding. Perhaps the most important and immediate
legislative action involves funding support at two broad levels: 1)
agency support for environmental review, permitting, and oversight; and
2) research initiatives to quantify impacts and find and test
solutions.
Wind energy development is relatively new and emerging wildlife
issues have created financial burdens on federal agencies responsible
for public trust resources. It is our opinion that the USFWS, for
example, is grossly understaffed and under funded to effectively handle
the onslaught of permits for wind development on both private and
public lands. As wind energy has now expanded beyond private lands and
onto public lands, the Nation's resource management agencies, most
notably the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Mineral
Management Service, have now been dealt an additional land use
objective that requires environmental review, permitting, and
monitoring to evaluate and reduce environmental impacts and protect
public trust resources. Unfortunately, land management agencies already
are facing budget constraints and simply cannot deal effectively with a
new management issue like wind energy permitting without funding and
staffing in addition to an already constrained situation. This
situation creates potential threats to wildlife and costly delays for
industry. Stream-lining or eliminating processes for environmental
review on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife are unacceptable and
both state and federal agencies need support to adequately participate.
Second, we sorely lack the scientific information required to make
decisions. Federal funding has been minimal and sporadic at best and
additional appropriations to support research initiatives will be
critical in the immediate future. This should include appropriations to
all federal agencies involved with wind energy development, and also to
the National Science Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and other appropriate venues for supporting much needed research on
wind energy and wildlife.
A second approach would involve establishing a federal fund for
priority research on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife. This
funding could be appropriated to and administered by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, for example. Wind developers could draw
funding for the wildlife research associated with a project and if that
project is built, the developer would re-pay the fund. A scientific
advisory committee would determine: (a) what research needs to be done
at a given site; (b) how research should be done (e.g., the study
design should be peer-reviewed); and (c) peer-review processes required
for credibility of work performed. All research findings would be
available to other wind developers and the public. This would lead to
developing a body of well-designed, peer-reviewed, accessible research
that helps evaluate potential impacts of wind energy on wildlife and
that decision-makers can rely on to assess information for individual
sites.
Federal Tax-Credit and links to wildlife protection. While
realizing it is not the charge of this subcommittee, Congress should
strengthen the Federal Productive Tax Credit (the tax credit extension
H.R. 197 currently is in Ways and Means) by requiring wind projects to
meet standards, including best management practices and guidelines,
developed by federal agencies and other stakeholders to protect
wildlife and their habitats. Such provisional conditions would help
level the playing field among developers and provide equal
consideration for wildlife among projects and over the duration (20-25
years) of projects.
Although a state-level issue, we also believe that Renewable
Portfolio Standards should account for wildlife impacts and inclusion
of guidelines in the permitting process, further strengthening agency
participation in permitting and implementation of guidelines.
Migratory Bat Treaty Act. Migratory bats currently are not offered
laws for protection and conservation across borders similar to
migratory birds. Given new threats to bats from wind turbines across
the North American Continent, we believe it is now time for federal
adoption of such a law similar to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Such
an act would foster protection for bats and better collaboration for
conservation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Bat Conservation International recognizes threats to
our environment from climate change and supports the development of
clean, renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, current evidence has
lead to consensus among leading experts that cumulative impacts of wind
energy development could become severe if facilities continue to
operate without careful planning to minimize harm to birds and bats,
both of which are ecologically essential. We believe that minimizing
and mitigating harmful impacts to wildlife is an essential element of
``green energy'' and that developers of wind energy must substantially
increase efforts to improve siting and develop and test methods to
minimize harm to wildlife. Additionally, the federal government must
increase its efforts and funding to support the responsible development
of wind energy while protecting wildlife resources. Cooperation, access
to study sites, funding, and transparency of information from industry
have been mixed. We are pleased with progress of efforts such as our
partnership on bats and wind energy and other collaborative efforts,
and applaud those companies and organizations working proactively with
resource agency specialists and scientists to solve problems.
Unfortunately, more has to be done immediately to expand and improve
the breadth of our cooperation in developing a sound, scientific basis
for decision-making.
To quote from a distinguished colleague, Dr. Gary White, and a
paper he published in 2001 (White 2001): ``All too often in wildlife
management, [we] are asked to resolve conflicts that are impossible
because the basic biological knowledge to understand the issue is
lacking. All stakeholders are right, under the assumptions each brings
to the issue, but because the biological knowledge is inadequate to
refute any of the assumptions, the conflict cannot be resolved in an
objective fashion based on the biology of the problem.'' Thus, we must
ask ourselves ``would we rather collect knowledge up front to resolve
the issue or pay for litigation to resolve the issue without knowledge?
In the end...such `train wrecks' prove even more expensive in time,
money, and consternation among the players and all the while decisions
will be made without reliable knowledge.'' History is replete with
examples where science lags behind on-the-ground implementation. In the
case of wind energy impacts on wildlife, the lag is due in large part
to poor funding and commitment to priority research. We must increase
cooperation, access to study sites, and logistical and financial
support for research to gain the reliable knowledge needed for
decision-making to solve wind energy and wildlife conflicts. This
Subcommittee and Congress can make a difference through implementation
of suggestions offered as part of this hearing.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Bat
Conservation International I want to thank you for inviting me to share
this information and assist you on this important issue. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Literature Cited
Arnett, E. B., editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind
turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of
bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and
behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report
submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA.
Arnett, E. B., J. P. Hayes, and M. M. P. Huso. 2006. Patterns of pre-
construction bat activity at a proposed wind facility in south-
central Pennsylvania. An annual report submitted to the Bats
and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International.
Austin, Texas, USA.
Barclay, R. M. R., and L. M. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life
in the slow lane. Pages 209-253 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton,
editors. Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois, USA.
Brinkman, R. 2006. Survey of possible operational impacts on bats by
wind facilities in southern Germany. Report for Administrative
District of Freiburg--Department 56, Conservation and Landscape
Management. Ecological Consultancy, Gundelfingen, Germany.
Carter, T. C., M. A. Menzel, and D. A. Saugey. 2003. Population trends
of solitary foliage-roosting bats. Pages 41-47 in T. J. O'Shea
and M. A. Bogan, editors. Monitoring trends in bat populations
of the United States and Territories: problems and prospects.
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline,
Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0003,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Durr, T., and L. Bach. 2004. Bat deaths and wind turbines--a review of
current knowledge, and of the information available in the
batabase for Germany. Bremen Beitrage fur Naturkunde und
Naturschutz 7: 253-264.
Fiedler, J. K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at
Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, eastern Tennessee. Thesis,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Wind power impacts on
wildlife and government responsibilities for regulating
development and protecting wildlife. U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Report No. GAO-05-906, Washington, DC,
USA.
Hall, L. S., and G. C. Richards. 1972. Notes on Tadarida australis
(Chiroptera: Molossidae). Australian Mammalogy 1: 46.
Hayes, J. P. 2000. Assumptions and practical considerations in the
design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies.
Acta Chiropterologica 2: 225-236.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual report
for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project post-construction bird
and bat fatality study--2006. Unpublished report prepared for
PPM Energy and Horizon Energy. Curry and Kerlinger LLC.
Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy
developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46: 45-49.
Kerns, J, and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision
fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker
County, West Virginia. Annual Report for 2003. Curry and
Kerlinger, L. L. C., McLean, Virginia, USA.
Kunz, T. H., editor. 1982. Ecology of bats. Plenum Publishing, New
York, New York, USA.
Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson,
R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D.
Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on
bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 5: in press.
Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian
activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and
Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989-1991. Final Report to
the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, USA.
O'Shea, T. J., and M. A. Bogan, editors. 2003 Monitoring trends in bat
populations of the United States and territories: problems and
prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-
2003-0003.
Piorkowski, M.D., 2006. Breeding bird habitat use and turbine
collisions of birds and bats located at a wind farm in Oklahoma
mixed-grass prairie. Thesis, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
Reynolds, D. S. 2006. Monitoring the potential impact of a wind
development site on bats in the northeast. Journal of Wildlife
Management: 70: 1219-1227.
Weller, T. J., and D. C. Lee. 2007. Mist net effort required to
inventory a forest bat species assemblage. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71: 251-257.
Whitaker, J.O., V. Brack, Jr., and J. B. Cope. 2002. Are bats in
Indiana declining. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Sciences 111: 95-106.
Winhold, L., and A. Kurta. 2006. Are red bats (Lasiurus borealis)
declining in southern Michigan? Bat Research News 46: 229.
White, G. C. 2001. Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 380-386.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by
Edward Arnett, Bat Conservation International
Questions from Mr. Brown:
(1) Mr. Arnett, what are the causes of bat mortality at wind farm
facilities?
Without having clarified the question with your staff, I will
answer this in two ways. First, the actual causes of death. Most
studies report that the majority of bat fatalities discovered have
obvious injuries including broken wings, broken back, and crushed
skulls which are consistent with direct collision with moving blades.
However, several studies report bat fatalities with no external trauma
which suggests that some are killed either by ``glancing blows'' from
the turbine blades further from the tip and more toward the blunt end
near the hub, or through a phenomenon known as rapid decompression.
Wind turbines produce obvious blade-tip vortices and if bats get
temporarily trapped in these moving air masses it may be difficult for
them to escape. Once trapped in these vortices, they may experience
rapid pressure changes that could cause internal injuries leading to
death. If bats are not killed, but only injured, and fall to the ground
into habitats without shrubs or trees, many species of bats would not
be able to lift off the ground, and thus would die because they require
some level of height to drop, swoop and take off in flight. Other
species are capable of lift off from flat ground. I do not believe that
bats strike the turbine's monopole or non-moving blades and are killed
only by fast moving turbine blades. Thermal imaging video footage
gathered at Mountaineer in 2004 shows bats investigating stationary
turbines, chasing slow-moving blades, and consistently being struck by
fast-moving blades, thus providing strong evidence to support this
contention.
Second, there are several hypothesized reasons why bats are killed
by wind turbines. Several colleagues and I believe that bats are
attracted to turbines for perhaps any number of reasons. Leading
attraction hypotheses include perception of turbines as roost trees,
perception of roosts as rendezvous sites for migrating bats to
encounter mates during the fall breeding season, insect attraction to
turbines which then attracts bats to feed, and sound attraction (both
ultrasonic and audible below 20kHz--i.e., the ``swishing'' sound of
moving blades). Regardless of the actual cause, we do not believe bat
fatality at turbines is a random chance event and some level of
attraction exists, which further complicates our efforts for mitigating
impacts.
(2) If so little is know about the historical or current populations
of most species of bats, how do you know they are substantially
declining? Where is the scientific evidence or is your data
based only anecdotal information?
There is both scientific evidence and anecdotal observations over
the past century that suggests bats were once far more numerous than
they are today. There is strong supporting evidence for the decline of
several cave-roosting species that are now endangered, most notably the
Indiana bat and the gray bat. Methods for enumerating and tracking
changes in populations of bats that hibernate in caves provide the most
reliable data for trends of these species. Tracking populations of
other species are far more problematic because several species that are
widely dispersed, such as those that use forests for example, are
extremely difficult to monitor and long-term trends difficult to
establish. Nevertheless, scientists have used indices such as data from
long-term mist-netting stations, records of the number of bats
submitted to public health agencies for rabies testing, and measures of
habitat loss to evaluate potential changes in numbers of some species
of bats over time. Anecdotal observations from historic literature
suggest that tree-roosting species like the red bat and hoary bat,
those most frequently killed by turbines in North America, were once
far more numerous. In the late 1890s, naturalist Edgar Mearns reported
observations of ``great flocks'' of red bats migrating in the fall that
would often take days to pass over. There are numerous other anecdotal
accounts suggesting many species of bats were once far more abundant.
(3) Why don't states enforce their wildlife laws for bats?
I do not feel it is appropriate for me to speak on behalf of an
agency and speculate why such laws are rarely if ever enforced. I
suggest that specific states be contacted in regard to their
regulations and enforcement in regard to non-federally listed species
of bats.
(4) While I understand bats migrate across state lines, do they also
migrate from the United States into Canada and Mexico?
Yes, several species are known to migrate across international
borders. Hoary bats, for example, are known to breed far north into
Canada and winter in Mexico. Other species of migratory tree roosting
bats, such as silver-haired bats and red bats, exhibit similar
patterns. Brazilian free-tailed bats, which have been reported killed
at wind facilities in Oklahoma, readily migrate into Mexico during
winter.
(5) How many lawsuits have you or your organization filed against the
Federal government in the last five years? Please elaborate on
what issues the suits concerned and which agencies were the
target of the lawsuit. Have you filed any related to wind power
projects?
BCI has never filed a lawsuit against any entity in its history.
(6) Do you or any members of your organization serve on any Federal
advisory panels or committees as a representative of your
organization?
Founder and Executive Director Dr. Merlin Tuttle has served on the
Indiana Bat Recovery Team from 1982 to present, and the Gray bat
recovery team from 1981 to present.
(7) Do you, your organization, or any of the officers or full time
employees of your organization receive any Federal grants,
contracts or other funds? If so, please elaborate.
In addition to grants received from agencies in the Department of
Interior and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation that were
disclosed prior to my testimony, BCI has partnered with several federal
agencies including the U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Department of Defense and others to achieve bat
conservation and management objectives. For most projects, federal
funds are matched with private funds generated by BCI.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnett.
I would like now to invite Dr. Fry to testify.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FRY, DIRECTOR,
BIRDS AND PESTICIDES, AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY
Mr. Fry. Chairman Bordallo, Member Sali, Distinguished
Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for
inviting me to testify on wind projects.
My name is Dr. Michael Fry. I work for American Bird
Conservancy. I am responsible for science and policy issues of
wind project impacts on mortality and habitat impacts on birds
and documenting the fact that there is more danger from these
than communications towers or even house cats. However, as the
U.S. develops many more of these wind projects, the projected
kill will be about one to two million birds per year from wind.
Data from Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological
Survey indicated that at least 25 percent of all our native
bird species are in decline. The mortality at wind farms is
significant because many of the species most impacted by wind
are already in decline, and all additional sources of mortality
are significant.
Unfortunately, today the collaborative efforts to address
the impacts of wind projects on birds have been a failure. The
Department of Energy formed the National Wind Coordinating
Committee in 1994. The NWCC has been an active forum for
environmental issues, had developed fact sheets and methods
documents to identify risks. The NWCC has recommended actions
that could be taken by industry to prevent mortality and
habitat destruction from wind projects.
The industry has largely ignored these recommendations as
either too costly or unproven. The wind energy is essentially
unregulated.
The wind industry has been constructing and operating wind
projects for almost 25 years with little oversight. At the
Altamont Pass in California more than a thousand Golden Eagles
have been killed and have been put in the freezer. Not a single
prosecution for killing eagles has been brought by Federal
officials. No explanation has been provided why the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act has been ignored. Without any
enforcement the industry has no incentive to prevent bird
mortality.
Fish and Wildlife Service developed an interim series of
voluntary siting guidelines in 2005. The Federal guidelines
must be mandatory rather than voluntary when industry is
provided ample evidence that they regard voluntary guidelines
as unimportant and they have been ignored.
American Bird Conservancy wants to see meaningful Federal
participation to solve wildlife problems. While I know it is
not the purview of the Natural Resources Committee's
jurisdiction, H.R. 197 has been introduced in the Ways and
Means Committee to renew the Production Tax Credit for wind.
ABC recommends that any renewal of the Production Tax Credit
include amendments that require developers to follow best
management practices to avoid bird impacts.
Because of the Federal tax credit, there is already a
Federal nexus in all wind projects. ABC wants to see amendments
that require a national mapping program to identify important
areas and sensitive bird areas. We want to require efforts to
reduce habitat loss during construction in the operation of
wind projects. We want to require modification or relocation of
turbines that kill a disproportionate number of birds, and we
want to require studies to implement real time radar at wind
projects to signal when flocks of birds approach the project
and require hour-by-hour shutdowns to avoid mortalities. These
are currently being done in Spain at wind projects now.
The implementation and oversight of these measures would be
best accomplished by identification of a Federal lead agency
and to provide authority for enforcement and development of
best management practices. The logical lead agency would be the
Fish and Wildlife Service, or if they are overburdened or do
not want to take that, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
could be given this responsibility if there were adequate
resources.
In my written testimony, I have described the groups of
birds most at risk, and have also listed critical areas of
research to protect birds. Also in my written testimony is a
description of the failure to protect critically endangered
Puerto Rican Nightjar, a bird species with a total population
of less than 1,700 individuals.
In 2006, the Fish and Wildlife Service granted an
incidental take permit to destroy dozens of nesting territories
and allow construction of a major wind project in Puerto Rico
in areas described by the Department of Energy as poor to
marginal wind. This is a prime example of the lack of
responsibility of Federal oversight to protect fish and
wildlife in projects.
Thank you again for the opportunity present my testimony. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fry follows:]
Statement of Donald Michael Fry, PhD, Director,
Pesticides and Birds Program, American Bird Conservancy
Chairman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members
of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, I would first like
to thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) on the effects of wind turbine energy projects on
birds in the United States.
My name is Dr. Michael Fry, and I am the Director of the Pesticides
and Birds Program at American Bird Conservancy. In addition to being
responsible for science and federal policy issues concerning
pesticides, my job includes federal policy and science issues related
to the effects of wind projects on mortality and habitat impacts to
birds.
My qualifications include a PhD in Animal Physiology from the
University of California, Davis, and 30 years experience in avian
ecology and toxicology at the University of California and at American
Bird Conservancy. I am a member of the Wildlife Workgroup of the
National Wind Coordinating Committee, funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy I serve on the Minerals Management Service, Outer Continental
Shelf Environmental Studies Program, Science Advisory Committee, and am
Chair of the Subcommittee on Alternative and Renewable Energy.
American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit
organization, whose mission is to conserve wild birds and their
habitats throughout the Americas. It is the only U.S.-based, group
dedicated solely to overcoming the greatest threats facing birds in the
Western Hemisphere. In brief, ABC has been an active participant in
national symposia on wind power, birds and wildlife for the past ten
years and believes that with proper siting, operation, and monitoring,
wind energy can provide clean, renewable energy for America's future
with minimal impacts to birds and bats. ABC has developed a policy
statement on wind energy and birds available on our website at: http://
www.abcbirds.org/policy/windenergy.htm
Unfortunately, to date, collaborative efforts to successfully
address the impacts of wind projects on birds and wildlife have been a
failure.
As members of this subcommittee may know, the Department of Energy
formed a consensus-based collaborative in 1994, the National Wind
Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC), which is comprised of
representatives from the utility, wind industry, environmental,
consumer, regulatory, power marketer, agricultural, tribal, economic
development, and state and federal government sectors. The purpose of
the collaborative was ``to support the development of an
environmentally, economically, and politically sustainable commercial
market for wind power''. The NWCC has been an active forum for
discussion of environmental issues, and subcommittees of the NWCC have
developed several fact sheets and methods and metrics documents in an
effort to identify risks to wildlife from wind projects, and to
recommend actions that could be taken by industry to prevent, reduce,
or mitigate collision mortality and habitat destruction arising from
the construction and operation of wind projects within the US.
My experience with NWCC, however, has been that there has been much
discussion and almost no real action on the part of the wind industry
to resolve bird collision issues at wind project areas.
The wind energy industry has been constructing and operating wind
projects for almost 25 years with little state and federal oversight.
They have rejected as either too costly or unproven techniques
recommended by NWCC to reduce bird deaths. The wind industry ignores
the expertise of state energy staff and the knowledgeable advice of
Fish and Wildlife Service employees on ways to reduce or avoid bird and
wildlife impacts.
Federal and state oversight for wind energy projects has been
virtually nonexistent.
Federal participation in regulation and enforcement of wind energy
has been particularly conspicuous in its absence. At Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, more than a thousand Golden Eagles have been killed, and
enforcement officials have archived carcasses for decades. Not a single
prosecution for take of eagles has been brought by federal officials,
and no adequate explanation has ever been provided to explain why the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been ignored for so long.
The Fish and Wildlife Service developed an interim series of
voluntary siting guidelines in 2003, and revised them after a prolonged
comment period in 2005. Federal guidelines must be required rather than
voluntary. The wind industry has provided ample evidence that voluntary
guidelines are regarded as unimportant and are thus summarily
dismissed.
The State of California has worked diligently to document habitat
issues and bird kills. They have recommended studies to evaluate
techniques to prevent or minimize the killing of birds of prey at
several wind resource areas in California. Permits for development and
operation continue to be issued by California and its counties. They
have done so after being promised by wind developers that the wind
industry would take all measures ``feasible'' to prevent or minimize
bird injuries and deaths. However, without any meaningful regulatory
oversight or enforcement, the industry has exhibited very little change
in its behavior over the past 25 years. Technology has advanced
substantially, and promises have been made that newer technologies
would reduce bird deaths, but very little evidence has been provided by
industry to substantiate their claims.
In fact, when independent researchers finally gained access to the
Altamont Pass area, under contract from the California Energy
Commission, the results of their research and documentation were
viscously attacked by staff from the California Wind Energy
Association. Every effort was made to discredit the research and
personally discredit the researchers. The NWCC website provides an
excellent bibliographic resource to much of this information, and
documents and links are available at: http://www.nationalwind.org/
workgroups/wildlife/.
The State of Maryland has recently exempted wind projects from
meaningful environmental review. Maryland has eliminated the
requirement for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCN) before construction of a wind farm. The law eliminates the
ability of stakeholders other than the wind developer to have input
into the process. The law now: 1) Exempts wind energy developers from
obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and necessity (CPCN) from
the Public Service Commission. The developer only needs a construction
permit.; 2) Blocks the public from having meaningful participation in
the decision process for wind energy projects; and 3) Prevents public
and expert testimony at Public Service Commission hearings for wind
energy projects proposed on state-owned lands and offshore, in waters
of the Chesapeake Bay.
In summary, there has been a great deal of discussion and very
little action on the part of industry and the federal government to
resolve bird and wildlife issues.
Bird populations at greatest risk include birds of prey and grassland
songbirds.
The bird species at risk at individual wind projects vary greatly,
as habitats with good wind resource are highly variable across the US.
In general, the two bird species groups at greatest risk are birds of
prey, (both hawks and eagles that hunt during the day, and owls, which
are nocturnal, and hunt at night) and grassland birds, species groups
living in the Great Plains and in flat or rolling hill country in the
Pacific Northwest, California, and Texas.
The bird species that have been documented to have the greatest
risks from collision mortality are:
Collision Mortality Risk:
Birds of Prey:
Especially in California and the Pacific Northwest
Golden Eagles
Red-tailed Hawks
White-tailed kites
American Kestrels
Burrowing Owls
Barn Owls
Great Horned Owls
Grassland ground birds and songbirds:
Especially in the Pacific Northwest and Great Plains
Horned Larks
Mourning Doves
Swallows
Pheasants
Western Meadowlarks
Sparrows-several species
``Generalist'' species, found in many places:
Gulls-several species
Common Ravens
Migratory birds
Warblers-several species
Thrushes
Wrens
Sparrows and finches
Bluebirds
Swallows
More than 50 species of other migratory songbirds
Habitat loss:
Especially in the Great Basin and the Great Plains and Texas
Sage grouse
Prairie chickens
Birds of prey have long been recognized as the most vulnerable
group of birds to suffer direct mortality from collisions with rotor
blades of wind turbines. It appears that resident birds are killed in
the greatest numbers, that is, those birds that live in the area of the
wind project and are apparently killed while hunting. This has been a
particularly difficult problem in California at Altamont Pass and also
at the Montezuma Hills wind area in Solano County. The risk to resident
birds of prey appears directly related to the population density of
birds of prey in the area. To date, very few well documented mitigation
attempts have been tried to reduce the kills of birds of prey at
existing wind projects.
There have been early planning efforts at one major wind project:
Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming, where careful location of wind turbines to
avoid raptor flight patters has resulted in minimizing collision
mortality of birds of prey. This type of effort should be undertaken at
every wind project, early in the planning stages, prior to leasing land
or siting turbines.
Grassland bird species are also at risk of both collision mortality
and habitat loss. Horned Larks are a small songbird species that has
been disproportionately killed at windfarms in the Great Basin and
Great Plains, apparently because of courtship behaviors that involve
aerial display flights that take the birds into the path of turning
rotors. Other ground dwelling songbirds and grouse are not at as high
risk from collision mortality, but may be at very high risk of
disturbance and displacement from wind projects, because of their
apparent aversion to tall structures. Active research sponsored by the
NWCC and funded by others is ongoing, in an effort to identify the
displacement risks to grassland species.
Habitat loss in Puerto Rico and tretas to the endangered Puerto Rican
Nightjar:
The Puerto Rican Nightjar is a critically endangered insect eating
``Whip-poor-will'' like species, with a total population estimated at
less than 1700 individuals. They live in tropical dry forests at only a
few locations in Puerto Rico, and have been listed as Endangered by the
FWS since 1973. In 2006, the FWS granted an incidental take permit to
destroy approximately 46 nesting territories in prime habitat in
Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, to allow the construction of a major wind
project (WindMar) in an area described as ``marginal'' wind resource by
the Department of Energy. It is completely inexplicable why the FWS
would grant such a permit to allow destruction of an endangered species
for development of a wind farm at a marginal resource, with a very
inadequate habitat conservation plan under the ESA. This is a prime
example of the lack of regulatory oversight provided by the FWS to
protect wildlife at wind projects.
A Proposal for Meaningful Federal Participation to solve wildlife
problems:
While I know that it is not the Natural Resources Committee's
jurisdiction, there is a bill in the Ways and Means Committee to renew
the production tax credit for wind energy, H.R. 197. ABC recommends
that any renewal of the production tax credit include provisions that
require meaningful research into ways of minimizing bird and bat kills
by wind projects, and require developers follow standard Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in avoiding and minimizing bird and
wildlife impacts.
Below several important research topics that have not been
adequately addressed since their discovery shortly after operation of
the wind projects at Altamont Pass began 25 years ago. When answers to
these questions are available, they should be incorporated into the
BMPs, and enforced by the appropriate authorities. The logical federal
agency to have authority over promulgation and enforcement of BMPs.
would be the FWS.
Require efforts to reduce habitat loss during
construction and operation of wind projects.
Require adequate studies prior to siting wind projects to
avoid important and sensitive bird areas.
Require modifications to locations or operation of
turbines that kill a disproportionate number of birds.
Require real-time radar to be installed at wind projects
that are located in regions with high numbers of migratory birds, and
require project shut-downs when flocks of birds at risk from collisions
are detected approaching the wind project.
Critical research needs to be done in the following areas:
Identification of important bird areas.
These areas should be off-limits to wind development unless
adequate preventative measures can be discovered to minimize incidental
take of protected bird species.
Better analysis of direct mortality.
The methods used to evaluate collision mortality in operating wind
farms are controversial and uncertain in their conclusions. Birds and
bats killed by wind turbines are searched for by field teams at
infrequent intervals, and the methods to extrapolate to the true number
of birds or bats killed still remain controversial. For example, it is
unknown whether small birds struck by a turbine blade moving with a
speed of greater than 150 mph remain intact, or whether they
disintegrate into a ``poof'' of feathers and small fragments. It is
unknown how far carcasses of small birds that do remain intact can be
catapulted by a turbine blade that is 130 feet long traveling at 150
mph. It is unknown how frequently and quickly scavengers remove
carcasses of dead or injured birds, so that monitoring personnel (when
present) do not observe the mortality. The formulas and algorithms used
to estimate scavenging rates remain controversial and the environmental
community remains skeptical of the accuracy of mortality estimates.
Do turbines on ridge tops significantly affect migrants?
The ``typical'' modern turbine is a 1.5 MW, 3 blade monopole
turbine with a hub height 55-80 m (180-260 ft.) above ground level, and
turbine blade length of 35-40 m (115-130 ft.). The rotor typically
spins at 12-20 rpm, and the rotor tip travels at 150-180 mph. The
height of the rotor, the speed of the blades, and the speed of the wind
are all factors in where a bird carcass might land after being struck
by a blade.
Recent published scientific reports indicate that greater than 10%
of nocturnal migrating songbirds migrating over ridges fly at
elevations putting them within the area of rotating turbines (Mabee at
al. 2006, WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN 34(3):682-690). It is not known
whether these birds are at risk of being struck by turbines blades,
whether they can adequately avoid them, and whether inclement weather
might increase the collision risk, as it does with communications
towers.
What locations in the U.S. are unsuitable for wind projects? This
would be based on the presence of vulnerable bird and bat
species.
What areas of the U.S. are significant migratory corridors or broad
regions with huge numbers of migratory birds, both songbirds
and raptors?
The Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana are known to be critical
passage areas for billions of protected migratory bird species. Weather
radar has been employed to evaluate the numbers of birds migrating
along the Texas coast, and flocks of millions of birds are routinely
observed in spring and fall. Texas, however, does not even involve its
Department of Parks and Wildlife in the permitting process, which is
carried out by the Texas General Land Office. I believe this is totally
unacceptable.
Can real-time radar and short-term turbine shutdowns successfully
prevent mortalities of migrating birds without economic
hardship to wind projects and without harmful interruptions to
the electric grid?
Real-time radar is currently operational in Spain to prevent
collision mortality to migrating birds of prey. This or similar
technologies need to be developed in this country, in spite of the
frequently heard statement that such measures are too costly, and that
financers of projects will not stand for the economic loss from
temporary or seasonal shutdowns. The World Bank is requiring such
technologies to be developed at wind projects in Mexico to prevent
mortalities to migrating hawks that funnel through the Oaxaca region in
very large numbers.
Can automated technologies be developed that detect bird strikes to
turbine blades?
If acoustic, photographic or other sensitive automatic detectors
could be developed within rotor blades or turbine hubs to monitor bird
strikes, the uncertainty and expense of carcass searches and
repetitious monitoring of wind farms could be eliminated, and better
information on problem turbines would be generated. The costs of
incorporating sensitive detectors into rotor blades or hubs would be
very small compared to the overall costs, and cost reductions from
reduced monitoring and analysis would be significant.
How will bird strikes be evaluated at offshore wind projects?
Which bird species (ex Brown Pelicans and Gannets) are at risk from
offshore wind projects?
Will offshore wind projects exclude wintering migratory sea ducks and
other birds from traditional feeding habitats?
The last three questions deal primarily with offshore wind
projects, and need to be addressed to the Minerals Management Service
Environmental Studies Program, as they gear up for environmental
studies in conjunction with leasing offshore areas for wind projects.
All of these unanswered questions have been posed to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory of the Department of Energy and to the
Minerals Management Service. At the current time there is no adequate
budget to answer these or other questions, but wind projects are going
forward at an increasing rate without answers to these questions, and
without adequate involvement of the Fish and Wildlife Service for
development of enforceable guidelines for preventing or minimizing bird
kills and habitat losses.
Biological Significance of wind turbine mortality.
While the actual number of birds killed by wind turbines is
unknown, estimates have been made in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 per
year at the current level of wind development. The wind industry is
prepared to increase the number of turbines 30 fold over the next 20
years, in order to fulfill the President's request that renewable
energy projects supply 20% of the nation's energy needs by 2030.
At the current estimated mortality rate, the wind industry will be
killing 900,000 to 1.8 million birds per year. While this number is a
relatively small percentage of the total number of birds estimated to
live in North America many of the bird species being killed are already
declining for other reasons, and losses of more than a million birds
per year would exacerbate these unexplained declines. Data from the FWS
Migratory Bird Management and Breeding Bird Survey by the U.S.
Geological Service indicate that at least 223 species of our native
bird species are in significant decline (about 1/4 of all species in
US). The mortality at wind farms is significant, because many of the
species most impacted are already in decline, and all sources of
mortality contribute to the continuing decline.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to present my testimony
today Chairman Bordallo.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Michael Fry
Questions from Ranking Minority Member Brown
(1) Why are so many birds being killed at the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area? Is it a siting problem, outdated technology or
some other factors? Should this facility be closed?
The Altamont Pass Wind Resource area was the first large scale wind
project in the United States, and was built in a rural area of Central
California that has a very high resident population of eagles, hawks
and owls, as well as a large population of birds of prey that migrate
from northern areas and winter in Central California. The area also has
a large population of ground squirrels and rabbits, which are the main
prey resources for the birds of prey. The most significant problem at
Altamont appears to be resident and wintering birds that actively hunt
these prey, and while focusing on prey, they do not watch where they
are flying, and they collide with turbine rotors and are killed. There
is relatively little evidence that migrating birds passing through the
Altamont area are killed while migrating.
The County of Alameda, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and
the wind farm operators have participated in several large studies to
determine ways to minimize the mortalities, and to determine which
turbines are most dangerous to birds. Because the Altamont area has
more than 7000 turbines of several different designs, it is a very good
place to study the problem, and try different mitigation methods.
Fortunately, in the last few years, the County and CEC have been able
to persuade the operators to actively participate in finding solutions
to the problem, because many of the turbines are now obsolete, and the
projects need to be ``repowered'' with newer, more modern, turbines
that are more efficient, and, hopefully, less dangerous to birds. As
condition of the new repowering agreements, the wind farm operators
have been required to begin intense studies and mitigation trials to
identify the best turbine designs, identify problem turbine locations,
move or shut down individual problem turbines, and conduct land
management activities to try and reduce the number of rodents living in
the area. This involves managing cattle grazing on the land, moving
rock piles that are havens for rodents, and other measures to reduce
rodent populations. Turbine rotor blade painting, placing new turbines
away from flight corridors, changing the heights of turbines to move
them out of flight paths, and installing bird diverter pylons are all
methods that are being studied to solve the collision problems.
I believe that the Altamont is our best ``field laboratory'' for
working to reduce bird kills, and that active management needs to
continue if regulators and the industry are to find the best management
practices that will be used at other projects to reduce wildlife
mortality. I do not believe Altamont should be shut down at the present
time.
(2) Dr. Fry, is it safe to say, you disagree with the General
Accounting Office that concluded in 2005 that ``Studies from
these two locations (Altamont Pass and Mountaineer) stand in
contrast to studies from other wind power facilities. These
studies show relatively lower bird and bat mortality''? Please
cite your studies?
I participated in the writing of the document: ``Wind Turbine
Interactions with Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and
Remaining Questions'', November 2004, published by the National Wind
Coordinating Committee, which I have included as an attachment to this
letter. The wildlife workgroup reviewed and compiled all available
data, both public and proprietary industry data, on wind farms that was
available to do the statistical analysis for the report. Much of the
data in the report were the data used by the GAO in their analysis.
While the GAO report concludes that only California and Appalachia
have been identified as areas with high mortality, the conclusions do
not accurately reflect the data presented in the GAO report. Table 3 of
Appendix II is particularly important, and has been included below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5058.001
.epsTable 3 shows that the Altamont Pass area has a lower mortality
rate than many other areas around the US, but because of the very high
number of turbines, the overall kill at Altamont is higher than other
areas. The Altamont Pass mortality rate for birds is 0.19-0.87 birds
per turbine, while 4 facilities in Oregon, and facilities in Wyoming,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and West Virginia are all higher than
Altamont, based on fatalities per turbine per year. The GAO report
further states: ``Lack of comprehensive data on bird and bat fatalities
from wind turbines makes it difficult to make national assessments of
the impact of wind turbines on wildlife''. The GAO report continues:
``...relatively few postconstruction monitoring studies have been
conducted and made publicly available. It appears that many wind power
facilities and geographic areas in the United States have not been
studied at all. For example, a bird advocacy group expressed concern at
a recent National Wind Coordinating Committee meeting that most of the
wind projects that have been monitored for bird impacts are in the
west. The American Wind Energy Association reports that there are
hundreds of wind power facilities currently operating elsewhere in the
country. However, we were able to locate only 19 postconstruction
studies that were conducted to assess direct impacts to birds or bats
in 11 states. Texas, for example, is second only to California in
installed wind power capacity, but we were unable to find a single,
publicly available study investigating bird or bat mortality in that
state''.
Texas has since become the State with the largest number of wind
turbines, and there is still not a single public report documenting
wildlife impacts of wind projects in Texas.
Altamont Pass, therefore, is not singularly high in mortality of
birds, but is actually below average. It is just better studied, and is
larger than most wind projects. The mortality problem is nationwide,
both for birds and for bats.
(3) Dr. Fry, in your testimony, you seem to object that large
companies like General Electric now own and operate the new
large emerging wind power farms? Would you feel better about
this technology if they were small rather than large companies
that made this investment?
The wind industry was begun by small companies that were idealistic
and truly wanted to develop energy resources that did not depend on
fossil fuels. This idealism is the same force that has motivated
scientists and the public to fight global climate change. I look
forward to the day when giant energy corporations like BP and GE make
just as strong a commitment to solving the problems of global warming.
The size of a corporation owing or operating a wind farm does not
matter. In my opinion, an important factor is the commitment to
providing energy while minimizing impacts on the environment.
(4) Cats and high rise windows kill millions of birds each year. In
fact, many times more than your estimates from wind turbines.
What is your organization doing to combat the huge cat and
window collision problem?
American Bird Conservancy believes all the cumulative causes of
mortality to birds should be addressed and reduced. Currently there are
223 species of birds in trouble, because their populations are steeply
declining, and some of them will need the protection of the Endangered
Species Act if the trends are not reversed. The Fish and Wildlife
Service has identified these as ``Species of conservation concern'',
and the causes of population decline are generally uncertain.
American Bird Conservancy would like to request that the Committee
on Natural Resources hold a hearing on the causes of decline of our
native bird species, and take testimony on actions that might be taken
to protect them. Birds are our most conspicuous wildlife, and the
public has consistently supported efforts to protect birds.
Causes of bird mortality:
Glass Buildings
House cats
Pesticides
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
Automobiles
Utility power and transmission lines
Communications towers
Wind turbines
Fishing gear, especially commercial long lines
Lead fishing sinkers
Cats: American Bird Conservancy started the Cats Indoors campaign
in 1997. The campaign is designed to educate cat owners, decision
makers, and the general public that cats, wildlife and people all
benefit when cats are kept indoors, in an outdoor enclosure, or trained
to go outside on a harness and leash. ABC developed many education
materials, including fact sheets, posters, the popular brochure,
Keeping Cats Indoors Isn't Just For The Birds, an Educator's Guide for
Grades K-6, print and radio Public Service Announcements (PSAs). Much
more about the program is available on the ABC website at: http://
www.abcbirds.org/cats/ ABC has had a full-time director for the Cats
Indoors! Campaign since 1997, and has worked with many State agencies,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and others to promote keeping cats
indoors and safe. ABC has also conducted a program to work with feral
cat colonies to prevent feral cats from killing threatened and
endangered Piping Plovers along beaches in eastern States, and has
worked with the Humane Society of the United States and other not for
profit organizations to promote keeping cats indoors.
Windows: American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has a nationwide network
of cooperating organizations in the Bird Conservation Alliance (BCA).
The BCA Director, Alicia Craig, is a full-time ABC employee whose
responsibility it is to coordinate programs with out conservation
partners. One of the programs is FLAP--Fatal Light Awareness Program, a
non-profit in Toronto, Canada. Another is Lights Out Chicago, which has
been conducting a campaign to encourage large building owners in
Chicago to shut off lights at night. One of the strongest supporters of
Lights out Chicago is a former Board Member of ABC.
(5) Congressman Mollohan mentioned the ``impacts on the natural
beauty'' of wind power facilities. How much should the Federal
government regulate view impacts of Federally-permitted
activities and projects? If you agree that the Federal
government should, how would you create standards?
I think regulating the ``viewshed'' should be a local, County or
State responsibility, except in National Parks or on federal lands,
where the agency overseeing the federal lands should work cooperatively
with the local authorities. American Bird Conservancy does not have a
policy on visual impacts of wind projects, because ABC's concern is
focused on the threats of wind projects on birds.
(6) How many lawsuits have you or your organization filed against the
Federal government in the last five years? Please elaborate on
what issues the suits concerned and which agencies were the
target of the lawsuit. Have you filed any related to wind power
projects?
American Bird Conservancy is not a litigious organization. We have
always tried to work with parties responsible for harming birds, and to
reach agreements voluntarily. ABC has only resorted to four lawsuits,
two against communications towers killing birds: one in Hawaii
affecting endangered Hawaiian birds and one in Mississippi in the major
migratory flyway. ABC also filed suit against the Corps of Engineers
for their attempt to destroy the largest breeding colony of Caspian
Terns on Earth in the Colombia River Basin by removing a dredge spoil
island. Subsequently the Corps has hired ABC in a contract to help them
avoid destruction of Least Tern habitat. The last suit was against EPA
to stop the use of the pesticide Fenthion for mosquito abatement in
Florida following the documented killing of more than 300,000 birds,
including endangered Piping Plovers. EPA subsequently has supported the
creation of an ABC pesticide database.
(7) Do you or any members of your organization serve on any Federal
advisory panels or committees as a representative of your
organization?
Yes, I serve on two FACA committees currently, and have served on
special scientific panels for EPA and the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences.
Current Participation:
EPA: Pesticide Program Dialog Committee 2005-present
U. S. Dept. Interior Minerals Management Service Science
Advisory Committee 2006-present.
Former Participation:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ecological
Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods, 1997-1999
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Panel
for refined terrestrial and aquatic models, probabilistic risk
assessment for pesticides. 2004
U. S. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council:
Panel on Hormone Related Toxicants, 1995-1999
(8) Do you, your organization, or any of the officers or full time
employees of your organization receive any Federal grants,
contracts or other funds? If so, please elaborate.
The list of federal grants is included in my disclosure statement
which has been attached.
[NOTE: The document, ``Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds and
Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions'', November
2004, published by the National Wind Coordinating Committee, has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5058.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5058.003
.eps__
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr.
Fry, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Glitzenstein. You are now
recognized to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC R. GLITZENSTEIN, PARTNER,
MEYER GLITZENSTEIN AND CRYSTAL
Mr. Glitzenstein. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Chairman
Rahall, and Members of the Subcommittee.
My perspective on this comes from my work in a public
interest law firm where we represent nonprofit conservation
organizations, including organizations like Friends of Black
Water, an organization within the State of West Virginia that
has done significant work on the wind power issue, and in that
connection we have followed very carefully a number of the wind
projects that have been going on, and the ones that are
currently, or are in the planning stage.
We also brought a Freedom of Information in that case on
behalf of Friends of Black Water against the Fish and Wildlife
Service to obtain documents reflecting the Service's approach
to enforcement, or as the case may be, non-enforcement of the
Federal wildlife laws and what that pattern of non-enforcement
might in fact be based upon.
What we have learned over the course of time I think is
actually what a number of other members of the Subcommittee and
witnesses have already testified to, and that is that we do not
have a current coherent, comprehensive policy for addressing
the potential adverse impacts on wildlife and other
environmental values.
Most of the protections to this date have been laid at the
doorstep of local and state permitting agencies. The reality is
that those agencies are in no position whatsoever to address
impacts on national, indeed international resources like
migratory birds, and I think the most obvious way of looking at
that is they don't even have jurisdiction over the cumulative
impact issue which really only a national entity like the Fish
and Wildlife Service can take any kind of coherent approach to.
If you look at the major Federal wildlife laws, each of
them has proven to be fundamentally inadequate for I think what
have turned out to be fairly obvious reason. The Endangered
Species Act only comes into play when there is a listed and
endangered threatened species. Even in that situation, the Fish
and Wildlife Service has an enormous problem even obtaining
access to the sites. Unless the owner of the plant allows the
Service on the site, the Service may not even be able to
determine that, in fact, this is the habitat of a listed
species, and the protections of that one never come into play.
National Environmental Policy Act only applies when there
is already some other Federal licensing or funding at work, and
even then it is only a procedural statute. There could be
acknowledgment that there are massive wildlife impacts, and yet
there is no substantive obligation under that law to do
anything about them.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act would appear to be the most obvious statutes for
addressing these problems, but the reality is that there are
fundamental flaws in how those statues have been enforced.
A critical thing to realize is that, unlike many other
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, there is
no citizen enforcement mechanism within those statutes.
Endangered Species Act, citizens, if they believe a species is
being illegally taken, can go to court and seek some kind of
prospective enforcement. That is not possible under those
statutes. As a consequence, enforcement is entirely left up to
the Fish and Wildlife Services. If it does not enforce the law,
essentially the law goes completely unimplemented.
We found out when we did our Freedom of Information Act
case that many of the line officers within the Fish and
Wildlife Service have documented repeated violations. Dr. Fry
gave the overall statistics. Let me give you an example of one
of the reports and what it said.
It says that migratory bird mortalities at the wind farms
usually occur by the birds being dismembered when they come
into contact with the fully exposed spinning turbine blades,
and that `One particular Golden Eagle was found in four
separate pieces with the left wing and one leg so badly twisted
together they could not be readily separated.''
It went on to say that other types of injuries documented
over the decades include severed beaks resulting in massive
hemorrhage, decapitations, midskull or complete fractures,
midbody separation. So just to give some concrete sense as to
what we are talking about, these are massive ongoing impacts on
migratory birds, yet there has been no enforcement as people
have already testified to.
What we are recommending and what I have suggested in my
testimony is three specific measures. One, an obligation to
engage in a cumulative impacts analysis and to adopt measures
that would bring that cumulative impacts perspective to bear on
wind operation siting decisions.
Second, I think the Subcommittee should seriously consider
adding a citizen enforcement mechanism to the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. That is in many other environmental statutes. There
is no coherent reason why it should not be brought up to date
with respect to that statute and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act.
And third, basic elementary standards for monitoring pre-
construction surveys and adaptive management as you have with
nuclear power, hydro-electric facilities, the whole range of
energy production facilities. No reason why that should not
also be done with respect to wind power, we respectfully
submit.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glitzenstein follows:]
Statement of Eric R. Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on
the vitally important topic of the impact of wind turbines on wildlife,
particularly migratory birds and bats. I am a partner with the
Washington, D.C. public-interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal,
which provides legal representation to non-profit environmental,
conservation, and animal protection organizations. I am also the
President of the Wildlife Advocacy Project, a non-profit organization
dedicated to assisting grassroots activists in their efforts to educate
the public concerning threats to wildlife. A brief Biographical
Statement is being provided.
As requested by the subcommittee, my testimony will focus on the
current legal and regulatory framework that applies to the impact of
wind turbines on wildlife. As discussed below, while a number of
federal environmental laws may come into play when wind turbines are
being planned and constructed, there is, at present, no comprehensive,
effective federal system for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating the
effects of wind power projects on migratory birds, bats, and other
wildlife. In addition, some of the most important regulatory and legal
tools that are available depend entirely on the willingness of
officials in the Department of the Interior to threaten or bring
appropriate enforcement actions. Because such officials have
demonstrated that they are completely unwilling to bring such actions,
even in the face of flagrant violations of federal laws, wind power
companies have little incentive to avoid or minimize impacts on
wildlife, including federally protected species.
Before turning to these issues in greater detail, it is important
to stress that wind power facilities, if properly sited, constructed,
and monitored, can and should be a part of the answer to the global
climate change crisis. At the same time, strenuous efforts must be made
to avoid creating new ecological crises in the name of solving an
existing one. By the same token, the fact that wind power may prove to
be a piece of our energy puzzle does not mean that the wind power
industry should get a free pass when it comes to safeguarding wildlife
and other natural resources. Nor does it mean that the industry should
have blanket immunity from federal environmental laws. Just as the
nation would not tolerate the nuclear, oil, or coal industries asking
to be relieved of all obligations to protect wildlife and other
resources, nor should that be an acceptable outcome for the wind power
industry. As in most situations, it is crucial to find the appropriate
balance between encouraging the construction of wind turbines in
appropriate locations while, at the same time, ensuring that common-
sense protections for wildlife are adopted and satisfied. After
explaining the current untenable situation, my testimony will suggest
appropriate legislative solutions for striking that balance.
THE INADEQUACY OF CURRENT CONSERVATION LAWS AND REGULATORY SYSTEMS TO
ADDRESS THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF WIND POWER PROJECTS ON WILDLIFE
To date, the federal government has played an extremely limited
role in ensuring that wind turbines are sited and constructed in an
environmentally sound and sustainable fashion. At present, all that is
required for most wind power projects to begin construction and
operation is a permit from the relevant state or local public service
commission. These agencies have neither the expertise, the incentive,
nor the legal mandate to fully evaluate the impact of wind power
projects on wildlife and other natural resources. Most important, state
and local agencies cannot reasonably be expected to evaluate, let alone
to act upon, the potential cumulative effects of projects over which
they have no jurisdiction--particularly impacts to migratory birds,
which are a uniquely national (indeed, international) resource.
On the other hand, while several federal conservation laws may be
used to reduce the impacts of wind turbines on birds, bats, and other
wildlife under some circumstances, each of these statutes has proven to
have severe limitations and deficiencies in addressing this issue.
Taken together, they fall woefully short of the sort of comprehensive
protection that will be necessary, particularly if wind power projects
expand at the exponential rate presently being projected.
The Endangered Species Act only affords protections to the
relatively few species that have been formally listed as endangered or
threatened. Under the best of circumstances, it generally takes years
to persuade the Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'') to list a new
species. Accordingly, while the ESA has afforded some vital protections
to listed species like the Indiana bat and Northern flying squirrel
(which the FWS is now proposing to delist on highly dubious legal and
factual grounds), it provides no protection at all for the vast
majority of birds and bats that are killed, injured, and harassed by
wind turbines. And even for listed species, the ESA can be a crude
instrument for protecting wildlife from wind turbines. If projects are
not being built on federal lands--as is the case with most projects--
the FWS has no legal authority to secure access to sites even to
ascertain whether listed species are present in the area, let alone to
insist that siting or construction changes be made to protect such
species. Accordingly, although the ESA makes it unlawful for any power
company to build a turbine that kills, injures, or harms a listed
species--including, in some circumstances, through habitat
destruction--the companies presently have a perverse incentive to
remain ignorant regarding such impacts and hoping that the safeguards
of the ESA never come into play.
The National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') requires all
federal agencies to analyze--in Environmental Impact Statements--the
environmental impacts of ``major federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the environment.'' However, where--as is the
case with most wind power projects--there is no necessary federal
approval or other agency action, the EIS requirement is not triggered.
Moreover, even where NEPA applies, the statute is purely procedural,
i.e., the NEPA analysis could disclose that a project will have massive
adverse impacts on a project that involves federal action (such as a
project being build on national forest land, or with federal funding),
but NEPA would not prevent the project from going forward.
On their face, the two federal statutes with the greatest potential
to ameliorate the adverse effects of wind turbines are the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (``MBTA'') and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(``BGEPA''). The MBTA, which implements various treaties between the
U.S. and other countries to protect migratory birds, makes it
``unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt,
take, capture, [or] kill'' any migratory bird protected by the
treaties. Any person who ``kills'' or ``takes'' a migratory bird in
violation of the Act may be fined or even imprisoned for up to six
months. Similarly, the BGEPA generally prohibits the taking, wounding,
killing, or disturbing of bald and golden eagles--species that are also
protected by the MBTA--and provides for criminal penalties when there
is ``wanton disregard for the consequences'' of actions on eagles. In
addition, civil enforcement actions may be brought by the government
even when there is harm but no intent to harm eagles.
Unfortunately, while these statutes should be of enormous value in
addressing the adverse effects of wind turbines on birds, their actual
benefit has been negligible at best. This is because of two related
problems--first, neither the MBTA nor the BGEPA contains a ``citizen
suit'' provision; accordingly, citizen enforcement of the statutes
directly against wind projects that are killing and injuring protected
birds is, at present, legally impossible. Second, although enforcement
of these statutes against private violators is entirely dependent on
the willingness of federal officials to bring, or at least threaten,
actions for civil or criminal penalties, Interior Department and other
federal officials have consistently refused to do so with respect to
wind turbines, although they have known for decades that these projects
may--if not properly sited and constructed--result in rampant
violations of the MBTA and BGEPA.
Unlike the Endangered Species Act and most other modern
environmental laws--such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and
Toxic Substances Control Act--neither the MBTA nor BGEPA authorizes
citizens to bring enforcement actions against statutory violators.
Indeed, ``citizen suit provisions are now fixtures in the landscape of
federal environmental law,'' Fadil, Citizen Suits Against Polluters:
Picking Up the Pace, 9 Harv. Env. L. Rev. 23, 24 (1985), precisely
because Congress has repeatedly recognized that the enforcement of
environmental laws will be lax to nonexistent unless vigilant and
concerned citizens are empowered to bring suit.
That has certainly been the case with wind power projects. Interior
Department officials have known since the early 1980's--when wind
turbines were installed in the Altamont Pass in California--that such
projects have the potential to maim, dismember, and otherwise destroy
eagles, hawks, owls, falcons, and many other bird species. Indeed, in
disturbing documents my firm obtained in a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit on behalf of Friends of Blackwater--a West Virginia
conservation group--FWS enforcement officers documented that even
single turbines were killing, every month, hundreds of such birds in
the most horrific manner imaginable.
For example, according to one internal ``Report of Investigation''
documenting ``Violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act'' and
``Violations of the Eagle Act,'' the report explains that ``[m]igratory
bird mortalities at the wind farms usually occur by the birds being
dismembered when they come into contact with the fully exposed spinning
turbine blades,'' and that one ``particular Golden eagle was found in
four separate pieces,'' with the ``left wing and one leg [] so badly
twisted together, they could not be readily separated.'' According to
the Report, other ``[t]ypes of injuries observed are: severed beaks
resulting in massive hemorrhage; decapitations, either mid-skull or
complete; complete mid-body separation; wing amputations or
fractures.'' (A copy of this Report and several similar internal FWS
investigatory records are being submitted along with this testimony for
the convenience of the Subcommittee). The Report also documented many
``electrocution mortalities,'' while stressing that ``[m]ost migratory
bird electrocutions are preventable using current technology.''
Yet although such killing and injuring of eagles, hawks, and other
birds has now been going on for decades and this constitutes a patent
violation of the MBTA and the BGEPA, federal officials have never even
initiated civil or criminal enforcement actions against any of the
Altamont (or any other) facilities. Unfortunately, the same pattern of
official abdication of enforcement responsibilities is now being
repeated on the East Coast. For example, soon after a 44-turbine
project called the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center became operational in
December 2002 in the West Virginia Appalachian highlands, dozens of
migrating songbirds--including blackpoll, magnolia, and Canada warblers
and other species on the FWS's list of migratory birds of ``special
concern''--were killed in a single night after colliding with turbines
during foggy conditions characteristic of the Appalachian ridges. Once
again, although this was the largest single bird kill ever recorded at
a wind power facility in the U.S., Interior Department officials again
took no enforcement action against the company for this flagrant
violation of the MBTA,
It has become painfully apparent that, without further direction
from Congress, the situation facing wildlife will become even more
ominous as Interior Department officials adhere to their ``hands off''
policy. Indeed, in an effort to prompt a change in approach, in June
2003, over thirty national and regional conservation groups--including
Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society--along with
concerned scientists and citizens wrote to the Secretary of the
Interior and the Director of the FWS urging them to exercise their
authority under the MBTA to take ``immediate steps to ensure that
appropriate biological information is gathered and considered before an
expansive series of large-scale wind power projects is constructed
throughout the Appalachian Mountain ridges, with potentially
devastating and irreversible impacts on the hundreds of migratory bird
species that funnel through those ridges each year.'' The conservation
groups and scientists urged the Interior Department to establish
appropriate siting and construction criteria and, equally important, in
order to ``ensure that these criteria are followed by the wind power
industry,'' to ``us[e] the threat of MBTA enforcement as leverage if
necessary, so that illegal ``takes'' of migratory birds are avoided or
minimized.''
In a September 2003 response, the Department made clear that it had
no intention of enforcing the MBTA or even using the threat of such
enforcement to ameliorate the impact of wind turbines. Thus, while
acknowledging that ``impacts on birds, bats, other wildlife, and []
disruption and fragmentation of habitats are of concern,'' the
Department stated that it would merely ``encourage'' compliance with
``voluntary'' siting and monitoring ``guidelines,'' and that it hoped
that a ``spirit of partnership and cooperation'' would prompt power
companies to comply with the guidelines. In other words, the Department
made clear that it would continue to rely on the same laissez-faire
approach that has already proven to be woefully inadequate in
preventing bird kills at the Altamont pass and other wind turbines.
Finally, as bad as the present regulatory situation is for birds,
it is, if possible, even worse for bats. Except for the few bat species
that are presently listed as endangered or threatened, bats have no
substantive protection under any federal conservation law, although the
projected wind facilities may well decimate bat populations. The FWS
has estimated that the Nedpower Mount Storm Wind Project in West
Virginia could alone ``kill approximately 9,500 bats a year,'' which is
a ``significant level of fatalities which local populations would have
a difficult time sustaining.'' (9/15/07 letter from FWS West Virginia
Field Office to Newpower).
Likewise, scientists with Bat Conservation International (``BCI'')
found that 66 turbines at two wind power sites in West Virginia and
Pennsylvania killed as many as 2,900 bats in just a six-week study
period--an alarming rate that the organization said was simply not
``ecologically sustainable.'' Yet FPL Energy--which owns the plants--
reneged on a commitment to allow further monitoring of bat impacts
because it might put pressure on the company to shut down turbines. In
the absence of further legal safeguards, it is inevitable that bat
populations will be decimated by the ever-expanding wind power
operations, and that additional bat species may eventually have to be
listed as endangered or threatened as a direct result of wind power.
In sum, there are, at present, gaping holes in the protection of
wildlife--and birds and bats in particular--from poorly sited,
constructed, and monitored wind turbines. While migratory birds are
ostensibly protected by the MBTA and BGEPA, that protection has proven
illusory because federal officials simply refuse to enforce those
statutes against even the most egregious violations in connection with
wind turbines. Except for a handful of listed bat species, bats lack
even theoretical protection under federal law. And, even in the rare
instances where federal regulatory tools are being brought to bear on
individual projects--such as projects on federal lands or where the FWS
knows that an endangered or threatened species is present--no agency is
even evaluating the cumulative effects of present and planned wind
turbines on at-risk wildlife species, let alone incorporating such
analysis into a precautionary regulatory regime. Accordingly, in the
absence of further federal safeguards, it is inevitable that the nation
will, perversely, wind up creating a new ecological crisis in the guise
of addressing another one. Now is clearly the time for Congress to act,
before it is too late.
PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE LOOMING WILDLIFE CRISIS POSED BY
EXPANDING WIND TURBINES
Fortunately, relatively modest measures can afford wildlife
invaluable protections, while still allowing wind power projects to
expand into ecologically appropriate locations.
First, Congress should require the FWS, based on recommendations of
an independent committee of scientific experts (i.e., experts who have
not served as consultants for, and have no other financial connection
with wind power companies) to (1) evaluate the likely cumulative
effects of present and planned wind turbines on birds, bats, and other
wildlife populations, and (2) devise appropriate measures for
minimizing and mitigating such cumulative effects to the greatest
extent practicable. A temporary moratorium on the construction of new
turbines should be imposed while this analysis--which could probably be
completed within six to twelve months--is conducted.
Second, Congress should amend the MBTA by authorizing citizens to
bring appropriate enforcement actions for violations of the statute.
There is no sensible policy reason why citizens should be able to
enforce the ESA and other major environmental laws, but may not do so
with regard to MBTA violations; rather, the lack of a citizen suit
provision is merely an historical artifact, i.e., the MBTA was enacted
long before it became routine for Congress to look to citizen
enforcement as a critical supplement to enforcement efforts by
perennially underfunded and frequently indifferent federal officials. A
citizen suit provision in the MBTA could be modeled after the ESA's
citizen suit provision (section 11(g) in that Act), which has generally
worked well in helping to curb egregious violations of that law.
Third, Congress should require the FWS to adopt, following public
notice and comment procedures, mandatory siting, construction,
monitoring, and adaptive management standards that are designed to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate wildlife (and particularly bird and bat)
impacts, and with which all wind turbines must comply. These standards
should be informed by and consistent with the cumulative impacts
analysis conducted by the FWS and independent scientists. Many such
standards could parallel the voluntary ``guidelines'' on which the FWS
is now relying and which are sound in principle but largely ignored by
the wind power industry--which, once again, has no incentive to comply
with such guidelines and concrete financial reasons not to do so.
Turbines should not be permitted to operate unless the FWS
expressly certifies that they are in compliance with the standards; to
ensure that they remain in compliance, such certifications should be
renewed periodically. In addition, as with other major energy
facilities--such as nuclear and hydroelectric plants--the public should
have an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of a company's plans for
complying with standards designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
environmental impacts.
For example, as with the present guidelines, such standards should
provide that turbines must be sited so as to minimize wildlife impacts,
including by avoiding ecologically sensitive areas such as known bird
migration routes, wetlands where birds and other wildlife are known to
congregate, and all hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery
colonies of bats. In addition, turbines should be sited and configured
so as to avoid landscape and other features that are known to attract
wildlife (e.g., because eagles, falcons, and other raptors are known to
use cliffs and ledges for perching, turbines should be set back from
such features).
To ensure that appropriate information is brought to bear on such
siting and configuration decisions, the standards should require
comprehensive pre-construction site surveys that are of sufficient
scope and duration to reasonably evaluate the extent to which a
particular site is used by migratory birds, bats, and other wildlife.
Congress should make clear that the FWS has authority to oversee all
such surveys and, of critical importance, to obtain access to all sites
under consideration so that the Service can evaluate for itself the
value of a particular site for wildlife.
Consistent with the present voluntary guidelines, mandatory
standards should also require wind companies to monitor impacts of
turbines on wildlife, to ensure that predictions of acceptable impact
are not exceeded. All monitoring plans should be approved by the FWS,
and all data produced as a result of the monitoring efforts should be
made available to the Service and, in turn, the public. Where
monitoring reveals that turbines are exceeding anticipated wildlife
impacts, the standards should require that adaptive management measures
be brought to bear to reduce such impacts to the ``baseline''
conditions predicted by the turbine operator. Where companies fail to
comply with the standards for siting, constructing, monitoring, and
reducing unanticipated impacts, both the FWS and interested citizens
should be authorized to bring appropriate enforcement actions to ensure
such compliance.
With regard to turbines already in existence, while it may be
impractical to relocate them, they should not be relieved of all
obligations to monitor for wildlife impacts, and to make appropriate
technological and other adjustments to reduce such impacts.
Accordingly, Congress should direct that the FWS should adopt specific
standards--again, with public notice and comment--regarding the
appropriate means to minimize and mitigate impacts at turbines already
in operation. Because impacts on bats have already proven to be an
enormous concern at such facilities, Congress should make clear that
the standards should specifically focus on appropriate measures for
reducing such impacts, including by requiring plant operators to
retrofit turbines with newly available technologies for reducing
impacts and/or to compensate for them by, e.g., offsetting any
unavoidable impacts by purchasing and preserving in perpetuity
mitigation habitat. Of course, all such turbines should remain fully
subject to preexisting conservation laws, such as the ESA and MBTA.
If common-sense measures such as these are adopted to conserve
precious wildlife resources, wind power will be worthy of the ``green
energy'' and ``environmentally friendly'' labels that its promoters and
supporters use to describe it. Without them, those labels will, over
the coming years and decades, be increasingly viewed as tragically
ironic, as birds, bats, and other wildlife are needlessly killed and
maimed in ever-increasing numbers.
______
May 25, 2007
By Electronic Mail
Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Responses to Follow-Up Questions for May 1, 2007 Oversight Hearing
on Wind Turbines and Wildlife Impacts
Dear Chairwoman Bordallo:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the May 1, 2007 hearing
on the impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats. The following are my
answers to the follow-up questions from Rep. Brown. Where a question
has several different parts to it, I will answer each part in
individual paragraphs.
1. It is correct that a principal reason why the federal government
has played an extremely limited role on this issue is because most wind
projects have been sited on non-federal lands. However, certain federal
environmental statutes come into play even where projects are not built
on federal lands. For example, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act broadly
makes it unlawful for any person to kill a migratory bird without
authorization. The Endangered Species Act makes it unlawful for any
person to kill or otherwise ``take'' members of a listed species
without a permit. Accordingly, another central reason for why the
federal government has played a limited role with regard to the adverse
impacts of wind power projects on wildlife is that there has been
woefully inadequate enforcement of the federal environmental laws that
do apply to such projects on non-federal lands.
I am not proposing that the federal government replace state and
local entities in all siting decisions. Rather, I am suggesting that
where uniquely national resources are at stake--such as migratory birds
and bat populations that overlap state boundaries--and where states are
not, and cannot be expected to, address impacts that transcend
individual state concerns (such as cumulative effects on wildlife
populations that will be impacted by projects in multiple states)
federal regulations are necessary and appropriate to address and
mitigate environmental impacts. This is not a radical concept. As
mentioned in my testimony, the federal government establishes minimum
siting and other standards for nuclear power plants, hydroelectric
facilities, and other energy projects. There is no reason why the
federal government should not play a similar role with regard to wind
power projects.
2. I am not suggesting that states do not care about their
wildlife. Indeed, some states have done extremely well in managing
wildlife populations, while others do not have as strong a record.
However, as suggested in my answer to the first question, no state
agency can be expected to address impacts on interstate wildlife
resources such as migratory bird populations. For example, the State of
Maryland--where a number of wind projects are being built and/or
proposed--has neither the legal jurisdiction nor the expertise to
address the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in various states
on migratory bird populations. Only a federal agency--such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife--has the capacity and expertise to address such
impacts.
While I cannot provide examples of where states have failed to
enforce their own wildlife laws, the problem with wind power projects
is that states simply do not have wildlife laws that are adequate to
address the problems now being experienced. For example, I am not
familiar with any state law that makes it unlawful for a wind power
project to kill a large number of bats. Indeed, if such laws existed,
we would not be seeing bat kills of the magnitude now being experienced
and projected. Accordingly, while state laws are sufficient to address
some kinds of wildlife problems, the national development of wind power
clearly calls for a national solution to ameliorate adverse wildlife
impacts that are plainly not being adequately addressed by state
agencies.
3. My public-interest law firm regularly brings lawsuits against
federal agencies for failing to enforce federal environmental statutes.
I have been lead counsel in approximately 10 such cases in the last
five years and have been co-counsel in many other such cases. We do not
receive any federal taxpayer money as up-front ``compensation'' for
bringing such cases. Some of the statutes under which we bring suit--
such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act--provide
that ``prevailing parties'' may recover attorneys' fees awards when the
Court deems it appropriate. Congress included such provisions for the
precise purpose of encouraging private enforcement of federal
environmental laws. When fees are awarded in cases brought by my firm
they are used primarily to reimburse the non-profit conservation
organizations we represent.
An example of a lawsuit I have brought recently is a case pursued
on behalf of Save the Manatee Club and 18 other conservation and animal
protection organizations to address the large numbers of manatees that
are killed and maimed by power boats. The lawsuit was brought against
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which gives federal permits for
projects that increase power boat access to manatee habitat) and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement
that has significantly increased the number of manatee sanctuaries and
refuges in Florida. I have brought many other lawsuits to gain and
increase protection for imperiled species under the Endangered Species
Act; some species that have benefitted from such lawsuits include the
Canada lynx, the Wood stork, the Right whale, and the Grizzly bear. I
have represented both national conservation and animal protection
groups (such as Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Humane
Society of the U.S.) and grassroots groups (such as the Florida
Biodiversity Project and Friends of Blackwater, a West Virginia
organization). A docket of the past and pending cases of Meyer
Glitzenstein & Crystal can be found at www.meyerglitz.com.
The only lawsuit my firm has filed related to wind power projects
is a Freedom of Information Act case to obtain documents from the
Interior Department shedding light on why the Service has failed to
enforce laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act against wind power projects that are
violating these laws. As mentioned in my testimony, that lawsuit
resulted in the release of documents demonstrating that there have been
rampant legal violations in connection with wind power projects, and
yet no enforcement actions have ever been brought by the federal
government to curtail such violations.
4. Reasonable efforts should be made to minimize the numbers of
birds killed by all causes. More pertinent to the topic at hand,
however, the fact that bird populations are already being decimated by
many different sources is a compelling reason to take modest
precautionary steps to ensure that wind power does not become one more
lethal blow to populations that are already suffering greatly.
Otherwise, as a society, we will have learned nothing from past
experience. For example, only after many communications towers were
built did it become apparent that such facilities were killing millions
of birds. Why would we, as a society, want to repeat such a ``leap
before we look'' approach with wind power projects instead of now
adopting modest measures for siting, constructing, and monitoring
projects so that we can both benefit from properly sited and built
projects and avoid unnecessary impacts on birds, bats, and other
wildlife? We teach our children that an ``ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.'' It is also a good adage on which to base federal
wildlife policy.
It is also important to recognize that simply comparing total
numbers of bird impacts from different sources is a misleading
comparison because different species of birds are killed in
disproportionately high numbers by different kinds of sources. For
example, wind power projects built along Appalachian ridges will have a
disproportionately high impact on bald eagles, golden eagles, falcons,
and hawks who fly over these ridges while migrating. Thus, for example,
while cars and trucks may kill more birds in total, wind power projects
may have a particularly devastating cumulative impact on eagles and
other raptors--as has happened at the Altamont Pass Wind Facility in
California. For this reason as well, it makes little sense to conclude
that wind power projects should go largely unregulated by the federal
government because many birds die from other causes.
I and others have brought lawsuits to address adverse impacts on
birds from other sources. For example, I am presently involved in
litigation concerning the impacts of limestone mining on Everglades
wetlands used by Wood storks and many other bird species. Recent cases
brought by other environmental attorneys have focused on the adverse
impacts of pesticides on endangered birds and other wildlife. But at
the same time, it is far better public policy to put reasonable
protections in place before the fact so that such lawsuits are
unnecessary. Congress has that opportunity with wind power projects.
5. To begin with, the problem posed by the Altamont Pass Wind
Facility highlights the importance of making informed siting and
construction decisions before the turbines are built. Once they are
built--as at Altamont--options are obviously more constrained. That
experience should not be repeated on the East Coast. Because I am not a
scientist or engineer, I am reluctant to provide specific
recommendations on the best way to deal with the ongoing killing and
injuring of eagles, hawks, and other birds at Altamont. It is my
understanding that there are available technological ``fixes'' that can
be used to significantly reduce some of the sources of mortality (such
as electrocutions), while others may prove more intractable. If there
are ongoing impacts that cannot be adequately ameliorated through
retrofitting of equipment or other technological fixes, turbines should
be shut down if there is to be compliance with the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. These laws--
and the treaties on which they are based--flatly forbid the killing or
injuring of eagles, hawks, and other migratory birds, and basic respect
for the rule of law, to say nothing of the interest in wildlife
protection, demands that wind project operators should not be permitted
to simply violate the law with impunity.
6. While I do not believe that the aesthetic impact of a wind power
projects is the most important environmental consideration, it is
certainly a legitimate concern when it comes to siting federally-
approved projects. Many of our nation's ``special places''--such as
national parks, monuments, forests, and refuges--have been set aside
precisely so that they may afford opportunities to the public for quite
contemplation and enjoyment of the natural splendor and unspoiled
beauty that make our country such a unique place. Accordingly, if wind
power projects--or any other project for that matter--can be sited in
such a way as to avoid or minimize marring an otherwise unblemished
view of a mountain, shoreline, or other special natural place, then
such considerations should indeed help guide siting decisions.
As for the creation of appropriate federal ``standards'' concerning
aesthetic impacts, they should be based on the reasonable principle
that, where feasible, unspoiled areas should be avoided and areas that
already have, as part of their ``baseline'' condition, other industrial
activities should be the preferred locations for wind projects. This is
already a standard concept in evaluations under the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other federal
environmental laws, and it should also be applied in the wind power
context.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Glitzenstein
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Glitzenstein, and
now Mr. Daulton. I appreciate your patience in waiting to go
last, and the floor is yours to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAULTON, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION POLICY,
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Daulton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I am happy to
demonstrate my patience as I begin my testimony.
My name is Mike Daulton, and I am Director of Conservation
Policy for National Audubon Society. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the impacts of wind
power on migratory birds, bats and other wildlife.
National Audubon Society has 24 state offices, and more
than 500 local chapters throughout the United States, serve
more than 1 million members and supporters. Our mission is to
conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds,
other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity
and the earth's biological diversity.
Audubon has an extensive history of involvement in wind-
wildlife interaction issues, including efforts to develop state
guidelines for wind development in California, Washington,
Pennsylvania, and New York, and working cooperatively to
improve the siting, design, and management of wind facilities
throughout the country.
Audubon believes that wind power must be considered in the
context of its importance as a solution to global warming.
Global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels is a
severe threat to birds, wildlife, and habitat, and we have
moral obligation to take action to control the pollution that
causes global warming before it is too late.
Birds and wildlife will face losses of habitat due to sea
level rise, more frequent and severe wild fires, loss of prey
species, flooding and droughts, and other significant
ecological changes. Birds, like most species, are highly
adapted to particular vegetation and habitat types that may no
longer exist or rapidly decline.
As the threats of global warming loom every larger, Audubon
recognizes that alternative energy sources like wind power are
essential. Many new wind power projects will need to be
constructed across the country as part of any serious
nationwide effort to address global warming. Audubon supports
the expansion of properly sited wind power as a solution to
global warming, and supports Federal legislation such as the
Production Tax Credit and renewable electricity standard that
would further encourage this expansion and help to reduce
pollution from fossil fuels.
However, at the same time it is critical that this
expansion be managed responsibly because it is clear that wind
field facilities are capable of killing a large number of birds
and other wildlife. Wind energy facilities can have detrimental
impacts on birds, bats, and other wildlife in four fundamental
ways: collision mortality, loss or degradation of habitat,
disturbance and displacement from habitat, and disruption of
ecological links.
If the wind industry expands significantly from 1 percent
of the nation's electricity supply to 10 percent, or 20 percent
or more, the cumulative effects on bird populations could be
significant. Some early wind projects like Altamont in
California are notorious for killing many raptures, including
Golden Eagles. In cases where the birds affected are already in
trouble such as sage grouse in windy parts of the plain states,
the turbines could push them closer to extinction.
Overall, however, we believe the impacts can be greatly
reduced through proper siting that avoids the most important
habitat areas for birds and wildlife. The first rule of
avoiding impacts will always be the old adage, ``Location,
location, location.''
Efforts to otherwise minimize impacts are hampered by
significant gaps in the research. These research gaps make it
difficult for scientists to draw conclusions about wind power's
overall impact on birds and wildlife. There is a shortage of
information on migratory bird routes, bird behavior, as well as
the ways in which topography, weather, time of day, and other
factors affect bird and bat mortality, and there are few
comprehensive studies testing the effectiveness of various
mitigation strategies.
Audubon strongly encourages an expansion of research
capacity to best determine how to maximize the benefits of wind
power while reducing the potential for harm to birds, wildlife,
and the environment. We recommend that the committee consider
establishing a greater Federal role in research in wind-
wildlife interaction, and we also recommend that the committee
consider policy options for providing incentives to the wind
industry to follow the voluntary guidance that emerges from the
Federal FACA process.
In conclusion, Audubon believes a significant expansion of
properly sited wind power is necessary to address the severe
threat of global warming, but much work needs to be done to
ensure the expansion of the wind industry occurs without
serious consequences for bird, wildlife, and their habitat. We
look forward to working with the committee to find ways to
support development of wind energy while providing adequate
safeguards for birds, bats, and other wildlife.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my prepared statement, and I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daulton follows:]
Statement of Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy,
National Audubon Society
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy for the National
Audubon Society. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the
impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats. I commend you for holding
this important hearing today.
National Audubon Society's 24 state offices and 500 local chapters
throughout the United States serve more than one million members and
supporters. Audubon's mission is to conserve and restore natural
ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for
the benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity. Our
national network of community-based nature centers and chapters,
scientific and educational programs, and advocacy on behalf of areas
sustaining important bird populations, engage millions of people of all
ages and backgrounds in positive conservation experiences.
Audubon has a long history of involvement in wind-wildlife
interaction issues, including efforts to develop state guidelines for
wind development in California, Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York;
providing substantive input regarding the Bureau of Land Management's
policy for wind development on public lands; and working cooperatively
to improve the siting, design, and management of wind facilities across
the country.
As the threats of global warming loom ever larger, alternative
energy sources like wind power are essential. Many new wind power
projects will need to be constructed across the country as part of any
serious nationwide effort to address global warming. This shift toward
renewable energy is well underway. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, over the past year the U.S. wind energy industry
installed more than 2,400 megawatts of new power generation, making
wind one of the largest sources of new power generation in the country
at a time of growing electricity demand. The state of Texas recently
announced its intention to become the country's wind power capital.
Audubon supports the expansion of properly-sited wind power as a
solution to global warming, and supports federal legislation, such as
the Production Tax Credit and a Renewable Electricity Standard, which
would further encourage this expansion and help to reduce pollution
from fossil fuels.
At the same time, it is critical that this expansion be managed
responsibly, because it is clear that wind facilities are capable of
killing a large number of birds and other wildlife. Some early wind
projects like Altamont in California are notorious for killing many
raptors, including Golden Eagles. The lessons learned from Altamont
still loom over the industry: if wind turbines are located in the wrong
places, they can be hazardous and they can fragment critical habitat.
In cases where the birds affected are already in trouble, such as sage
grouse in windy parts of the Plains States, the turbines could push
them closer to extinction.
Much work remains before scientists have a clear understanding of
the true impacts to birds and wildlife from wind power. Scientists are
particularly concerned about the potential cumulative effects of wind
power on species populations if industry expands dramatically.
Significant development is being considered in areas that contain large
numbers of species or are believed to be major migratory flyways, such
as the Prairie Pothole region and the Texas Gulf Coast.
On balance, Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean
alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming.
Each individual wind project, however, has a unique set of
circumstances and should be evaluated on its own merits.
Global Warming is a Severe Threat to Birds, Wildlife, and Habitat
Global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels is a
severe threat to birds, wildlife, and habitat, and we have a moral
obligation to take action now to control the pollution that causes
global warming before it is too late. Global warming already is
impacting birds, their prey, and their habitat, and these impacts will
become more severe if action is not taken to greatly reduce pollution
from the burning of fossil fuels.
Global warming threatens birds and wildlife in many ways. Birds and
wildlife will face losses of habitat due to sea level rise, more
frequent and severe wildfires, loss of prey species, flooding and
droughts, increased invasive species, changes in vegetation and
precipitation, and loss of snow and ice, and other significant
ecological changes. Birds, like most species, are highly adapted to
particular vegetation and habitat types that may no longer exist, shift
toward the poles or higher elevations, or rapidly decline. New pests,
invasive species, and diseases will create additional risks.
The timing of birds' migration, breeding, nesting, and hatching are
highly adapted to the availability of suitable habitat, adequate prey
and other food sources, and other factors. Since global warming is
unlikely to cause different species to adapt or move at the same rate,
bird behavior may no longer be in sync with their food sources and
habitat needs.
Scientists are already observing global warming's impacts on birds.
The results are alarming. More than 80 percent of plant and animal
species studied have shown changes in timing of migration or
reproduction, shifts in habitat or migratory routes, or other changes
associated with global warming. Some of the observed impacts on birds
include:
Migratory birds, seabirds, and songbirds in North America
are shifting toward the poles, as well as migrating and laying eggs
earlier in spring
Several North American warbler species have shifted
northward more than 65 miles. The Golden-winged Warbler's range has
moved nearly 100 miles north just in the past two decades.
Adelie Penguins are taking longer routes to find food in
the ocean as icebergs break off Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf.
Birds that already live at high altitudes or latitudes may not be
able to move with the changing climate. Endangered species with limited
habitat and/or gene pools may also not be able to move or adapt quickly
enough to avoid extinction. Species that depend on habitat types such
as particular coastlines or polar ice also will be vulnerable as those
habitats diminish or disappear.
In the United States, both prairie and coastal species will be
severely impacted by global warming. More frequent and severe droughts
in the Central U.S. are likely to cause prairie potholes to dry up,
jeopardizing millions of waterfowl during breeding season. Sea level
rise and erosion will jeopardize the threatened Western Snowy Plover
and other shorebirds. Projected loss of neotropical migrant songbirds
also is very high: 53 percent in the Great Lakes region, 45 percent
loss in the Mid-Atlantic, 44 percent loss in the northern Great Plains
and 32 percent fewer in the Pacific Northwest.
Significant Expansion of Renewable Energy Sources Such As Wind Power
Is Needed to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuels and Address
Global Warming
To protect birds, wildlife, and habitat from global warming, it is
necessary to reduce pollution resulting from the burning of fossil
fuels, particularly when generating electricity. Fossil fuel power
plants account for more than one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted by
the United States, and carbon dioxide emissions from power plants were
27 percent higher in 2004 than in 1990.
To reduce pollution from fossil fuels, we must diversify our energy
sources with clean alternatives such as wind and solar power. There are
numerous opportunities to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from a
variety of sources and set us on a course that can minimize the
economic and ecological damages of global warming.
However, it is important to be mindful that real solutions will
require major shifts in America's energy generation and use. As the
analysis published by Robert Socolow in the journal Science in August
of 2004 demonstrates, in order to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere globally, emissions must be cut by more than half from
their projected levels in 2050 under a ``business as usual'' scenario.
This amounts to slowing growth by 7 gigatons of carbon emissions per
year. Reductions of this magnitude will require rapid expansion of
available renewable power sources such as wind power. To achieve 14
percent of the reduction goal, for example, would require development
of 2 million 1 megawatt wind generators worldwide. On a shorter time
horizon, to generate 5 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020
using average size (1.5 MW) wind turbines, would require more than
62,000 additional turbines to be constructed in the United States,
adding to the more than 16,000 turbines already constructed.
To achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gases, America
must begin moving rapidly on a thoughtful, environmentally-responsible
path toward a significant expansion of properly-sited renewable energy
sources such as solar and wind power. The infrastructure that will be
necessary to expand renewable energy generation and transmission at the
level that is necessary to reduce global warming will result in a
transformation of the landscape in many parts of the country. This
transformation has the potential to come into conflict with efforts to
conserve birds, wildlife, and their habitat.
Our challenge is thus to help design and locate wind power projects
that minimize the negative impacts on birds and wildlife. All wind
power projects should be fully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, prior
to development, to ensure that site selection, design, and long-term
monitoring and adaptive management plans avoid significant harm to bird
and wildlife populations.
Planned Expansion of Largely Unregulated Wind Power Raises
Conservation Concerns
Audubon is concerned about the potential cumulative effects of wind
power on species populations if the wind industry expands dramatically.
Significant development is being considered in areas that contain large
numbers of species or are believed to be major migratory flyways, such
as the Prairie Pothole region and the Texas Gulf Coast.
Wind energy facilities can have detrimental impacts on birds, bats,
and other wildlife in four fundamental ways:
1. Collision mortality
2. Loss or degradation of habitat
3. Disturbance and subsequent displacement from habitat
4. Disruption of ecological links
Collision mortality:
Collision mortality occurs when animals collide with the moving
turbine blades, with the turbine tower, or with associated
infrastructure such as overhead power lines. Impacts vary depending
upon region, topography, weather, time of day, and other factors.
Several recent publications have reported that collision mortality is
relatively low, e.g., a 2005 Government Accountability Office report
concluded, ``it does not appear that wind power is responsible for a
significant number of bird deaths.'' That same report, however, noted
that mortality can be alarmingly high in some locations. It also
pointed out that there are vast gaps in the mortality data, and that
the record may be biased because most of the information collected thus
far has come from the West where collision mortality appears to be
lower than in other regions, such as the Appalachians. Currently,
collision mortality is being assessed at only a small minority of the
wind energy facilities in the country. In some regions, it has not been
assessed at all.
Loss or degradation of habitat:
Development of wind power facilities results in destruction of
habitat from support roads, storage and maintenance yards, turbine
towers, and associated infrastructure. It may involve blasting and
excavation to bury power lines. Such activity may cause contiguous
blocks of habitat to become fragmented, leading to increased abundance
of predators, parasites, and invasive species. This may not be a
problem where native habitats have already been disturbed, such as
agricultural areas, but it can have substantial impacts if the wind
energy facilities are sited in areas of pristine or rare native
habitats.
Disturbance and subsequent displacement from habitat:
The impacts of wind energy facilities extend well beyond the
footprint of the roads, power lines, and other structures. Disturbance
from human activity and turbines may displace animals from the habitat.
While this is seldom lethal, it may cause birds and other animals to
abandon preferred habitat and seek lower-quality habitat elsewhere,
where disturbance is less. This may result in reduced survival or
reduced breeding productivity, which may cause lower or declining
populations.
It appears that some birds, such as prairie grouse and other
grassland birds, avoid places with tall structures. These species are
adapted to open habitats where raptor predation is a major source of
mortality. Tall structures in such habitats give raptors an advantage
by serving as perching sites, allowing them to survey the landscape in
search of prey. Some ornithologists believe prey species, such as
Greater Sage-grouse and prairie chickens, are behaviorally programmed
to perceive tall structures as a threat, and therefore avoid using
habitats where tall structures exist. In cases where the birds affected
are already in decline, the turbines could push them closer to
extinction.
Disruption of ecological links:
Large wind energy facilities may interfere with the ability of
birds and other wildlife to travel between feeding, wintering, and
nesting sites. Alternatively, they may cause birds to make longer or
higher flights between such areas. This results in higher metabolic
costs, and therefore may reduce survival and reproduction.
Federal Guidelines and Expanded Research Capacity Are Needed
Impacts to birds, bats, and other wildlife from wind projects can
be largely avoided if the most important habitat areas are not
developed. The first rule of avoiding impacts will always be the old
adage ``location, location, location.'' Audubon believes that places
where birds gather in large numbers or where many species are present,
such as the Prairie Pothole region, the Texas Gulf Coast, or raptor
migration bottlenecks in the Northeast, should be largely avoided.
If impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimized. However,
minimizing impacts effectively requires that the impacts be accurately
predicted, verified, and mitigated. Sound project-level decisions
regarding minimization of impacts require a comprehensive body of
scientific research to predict wildlife impacts, a process for
gathering adequate information at the site-specific project level
before and after construction, and a process for modifying projects
effectively after problems arise.
Currently, there are no mandatory federal regulatory standards, and
few state standards, regarding the design or siting of wind power
facilities to reduce risks to birds and other wildlife. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and several states have published
guidelines, but these are merely advisory in nature, and in most cases
compliance is voluntary. Some federal land management agencies have
adopted guidelines for wind power developments on public lands, but the
guidelines fail to provide adequate measures for mitigating the risks
to birds.
In most cases, county or local governments are responsible for the
regulation and permitting of wind turbine siting. Siting decisions are
often made based on wind resources, ease of access to land, and
accessibility of transmission lines. At present, little or no effort is
made to coordinate the siting of wind facilities at a regional scale to
avoid conflicts with migratory birds and bats. At the local scale,
minimal pre-construction inventories of bird use are conducted to
assess potential risks to birds. Furthermore, because there are no
widely recognized standards for unacceptable levels of mortality and
other risks such as displacement, it is rare for a wind power proponent
to reject a site solely on the basis of risks to birds.
According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, some
state and local regulatory agencies have little experience or expertise
in addressing environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. For
example, officials from one state agency interviewed by the GAO said
they did not have the expertise to evaluate wildlife impacts and review
studies prior to construction, and they rely on the public comment
period while permits are pending for concerns to be identified by
others.
At the federal level, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
responsible for implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other
laws protecting migratory birds. Generally, the FWS carries out its
responsibility to protect migratory birds by issuing guidelines to
advise energy developers about the best management practices needed to
prevent or minimize violations of federal bird protection laws, and has
not prosecuted a single case citing a violation of wildlife laws
against a wind developer.
In July 2003, the FWS published its Interim Guidelines to Avoid and
Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines, and accepted public
comment on the proposed guidelines until July 2005. The proposed
interim guidelines received criticism from both the wind industry and
wildlife conservation advocates. In late 2005, an attempt was made to
establish a collaborative forum in which the FWS, the wind power
industry, wildlife conservationists, and renewable energy advocates
could seek common ground and try to develop guidelines that would meet
the needs of all interests. These efforts continued until February
2006, when they were suspended due to the threat of a lawsuit charging
the FWS with violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Over
the next year, the FWS worked to form a multi-stakeholder process that
will comply with FACA. In March 2007, the FWS announced the formation
of a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (that will be chartered
under FACA) to develop new guidelines.
Audubon encourages this FACA process as a necessary means of
providing guidance to state and local regulatory authorities, to
prevent local conflicts that may unnecessarily arise in the absence of
such guidance, and to better ensure protection of birds, wildlife, and
habitat.
Research:
Significant gaps in the literature make it difficult for scientists
to draw conclusions about wind power's impact on birds and wildlife.
There is a shortage of information on migratory bird routes, bird and
bat behavior, as well as the ways in which topography, weather, time of
day, and other factors affect bird and bat mortality. Studies conducted
at one location can rarely be extrapolated to another location due to
differences in site-specific conditions such as topography, types and
densities of species present, types of wind turbines present, and use
of different monitoring and surveying protocols. Mortality studies and
monitoring conducted by industry is considered proprietary information
and often is not openly shared with the public or with government
agencies. Finally, there are few comprehensive studies testing the
effectiveness of various mitigation strategies.
Some significant research questions that deserve priority attention
are as follows:
Is it possible to predict what fatalities (number and
species) will occur before construction begins, and what data should be
collected to accurately predict fatalities?
Can we identify areas of high bird abundance and high
risk, and find ways to steer wind development away from those areas?
What is the level of collision mortality in regions other
than the West? Can we develop a single, scientifically sound,
consistent protocol to assess sites and compare mortality levels across
all regions of the country? What can we learn about risk factors (e.g.
region, habitat type, topography, season, time of day, weather, etc.)
from mortality assessment data?
What levels of fatalities are being documented regarding
protected species, including threatened and endangered species and
Birds of Conservation Concern? What are the cumulative population
impacts of wind facilities on birds and bats?
What are the specific habitat and behavioral impacts and
effects of wind energy facilities, and how do they influence
populations?
What are effective methods to reduce mortality? If they
exist, what is the best protocol to deploy them?
Audubon strongly encourages an expansion of research capacity to
best determine how to maximize the benefits of wind power while
reducing the potential for harm to birds, wildlife and the environment.
We recommend that the Committee consider establishing a greater federal
role in research on wind-wildlife interaction, with particular
attention to the research gaps identified. The Committee should
consider establishing a formal structure, such as a task force, to
direct this expanded federal research role, to collect and review its
results, and to propose modifications to the federal guidelines. The
task force should include representatives from government agencies such
as the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as scientific experts
from academia and nongovernmental organizations such as Audubon.
Congress Should Consider Providing Incentives to the Wind Industry to
Address Bird and Bat Impacts
Establishing federal voluntary guidelines is an important first
step toward improving the siting, design, and management of wind
facilities, and will have particular value in educating state and local
regulatory authorities regarding the appropriate considerations to be
taken into account in permitting decisions. However, some regulators
and wind developers may choose to ignore the voluntary guidance. For
that reason, Audubon recommends that the Committee consider policy
options for providing incentives to the wind industry to follow the
voluntary guidance that emerges from the federal FACA process.
Policy options may include developing a certification process that
would provide assurances to financial institutions providing financing
for wind projects that they carry low risk while also providing
assurances to electric utilities that they are purchasing wildlife-
friendly renewable energy projects; and establishing a mitigation fund
or grant program that would lower the costs of project modifications
and other forms of mitigation. A federal investment in these incentives
would help to guide the necessary expansion of renewable energy while
helping to provide adequate safeguards for birds, bats, and other
wildlife.
Conclusion
A significant expansion of properly-sited wind power is necessary
to address the severe threat of global warming, but much work needs to
be done to ensure the expansion of the wind industry occurs without
serious consequences for birds, wildlife, and their habitat. Research
suggests that rare raptors and sensitive grassland birds may be put at
risk by wind development, and many scientists are concerned that
expansion of major wind developments into important migratory bird
habitat and flyways in areas like the Prairie Pothole region and the
Texas Gulf Coast could have serious consequences for bird and wildlife
populations. Audubon supports efforts to establish federal guidelines
for the wind industry to better ensure protection for birds and
wildlife, and recommends that the Committee consider ways to expand
research capacity to provide better scientific information that would
inform project siting, design, and management decisions. The Committee
also should consider providing incentives to the wind industry to help
guide the necessary expansion of renewable energy while providing
adequate safeguards for birds, bats, and other wildlife.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by
Michael Daulton, National Audubon Society
Questions from Mr. Brown:
(1) Mr. Daulton, in your testimony, you noted that: ``A significant
expansion of properly-sited wind power is necessary to address
the severe threat of global warming''. I agree that it is
important that all wind power facilities be properly sited, how
do we achieve that goal?
At this time, there should be nationwide minimum guidelines on the
siting of wind power projects to minimize their impacts on birds and
other wildlife. They should clarify which areas should be excluded from
wind power development due to conservation concerns and which areas are
more suited for siting, the appropriate pre-construction studies, and
other factors. In addition, the federal government should increase
funding for research and quickly engage in a mapping effort that would
provide a coarse filter for determining the areas of high and low risk
for conflicts between wind development and bird and wildlife
conservation. Additional incentives (both financial and regulatory) may
be needed to provide further guidance to industry to attain the highest
standards for bird and wildlife protection.
(2) Was Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area simply sited in the wrong
location?
The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area was very poorly sited in an
area that is both a ground squirrel colony providing an abundant food
source for raptors and also an important wintering area for Golden
Eagles. Audubon is working closely with the wind industry and the local
permitting agencies to develop a long-term conservation plan that
facilitates re-powering (replacement of old turbines with newer, more
efficient ones) while striving to reduce bird impacts by more than 50
percent.
(3) What are your hopes and expectations in regard to the new Wind
Turbine Advisory Committee?
I hope that the Wind Turbine Advisory Committee can develop the
guidance necessary to provide adequate safeguards for birds and
wildlife while allowing the wind industry to further grow as necessary
to be an important part of the solution to global warming.
(4) In your judgment, why hasn't a single violation of wildlife laws
against a wind developer been prosecuted?
In their study published in September 2005, the Government
Accountability Office reviewed this question and found that more than
50 instances of Golden Eagles killed by 30 different companies at
Altamont Pass were referred by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
the Interior Solicitor's office for civil prosecution or the Department
of Justice for criminal prosecution. Justice officials told GAO that,
in general, when deciding to prosecute a case criminally, they consider
a number of factors, including the history of civil or administrative
enforcement, the evidence of criminal intent, and what steps have been
taken to avoid future violations. The Justice Department does not
discuss the reasons behind specific case declinations as a matter of
policy, nor does it typically confirm or deny the existence of
investigations. Interior's Office of the Solicitor General told GAO
that they have not pursued prosecution of cases at Altamont Pass
because Justice agreed to review turbine mortalities for possible
criminal prosecution.
(5) What are the federal protections for non-listed bat species?
We would refer the committee to Bat Conservation International,
which also was represented on the hearing panel, for questions
regarding the statutory protection for bats.
(6) Congressman Mollohan mentioned the ``impacts on the natural
beauty'' of wind power facilities. How much should the Federal
government regulate view impacts of Federally-permitted
activities and projects? If you agree that the Federal
government should, how would you create standards?
View standards may be appropriate for existing protected areas to
ensure protection of natural scenic attributes. Areas that may be
appropriate for such protection include National and State Parks,
Wilderness Areas, National Monuments, and National Seashores.
(7) How many lawsuits have you or your organization filed against the
Federal government in the last five years? Please elaborate on
what issues the suits concerned and which agencies were the
target of the lawsuit. Have you filed any related to wind power
projects?
See enclosed.
(8) Do you or any members of your organization serve on any Federal
advisory panels or committees as a representative of your
organization?
No.
(9) Do you, your organization, or any of the officers or full time
employees of your organization receive any Federal grants,
contracts or other funds? If so, please elaborate.
I provided the committee with documentation as requested via
facsimile prior to the hearing. Please let me know if any additional
documentation is needed.
Response to Question 7 from Congressman Brown regarding litigation
against the federal government filed by the National Audubon
Society during the last five years
Audubon has identified 20 cases filed in the last five years in
which the National Audubon Society has participated as a plaintiff
against the federal government. Below is a list of those cases. The
agency is identified as well as the principal statute or issue
involved. National Audubon has not filed any suits related to wind
power projects.
National Wildlife Federation v. Souza, No. 2-07-cv-14114-JEM (S.D.
Fla. filed Apr. 6, 2007). The federal defendants are the Department of
the Interior, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of
Engineers. The suit concerns a development in the Corkscrew Swamp and
presents issues principally under the ESA, the Clean Water Act, and
NEPA.
Friends of Congaree Swamp v. South Carolina Department of
Transportation, No. 3:06-CV-02538 (D.S.C., filed Sept. 13, 2006). The
federal defendant is the Department of Transportation. The suit
concerns South Carolina Highway 601 improvements and presents issues
principally under the Clean Water Act and NEPA.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
No. 06-80532-CIV-HURLEY (S.D. Fla, filed May 18, 2006). The federal
defendants are the Department of the Interior, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers. The suit concerns a
development in the Corkscrew Swamp and presents issues principally
under the ESA, the Clean Water Act, and NEPA.
National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 06-349-RCL (D.D.C.
filed Feb. 28, 2006). The federal defendant was the Department of the
Interior, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. The suit concerned
the Cerulean Warbler and presented issues under the ESA.
National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Souza, No. 06-CV-80532
(S.D. Fla. filed June 1, 2005). The federal defendants are the
Department of the Interior, including the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Corps of Engineers. The suit concerned a development in the
Corkscrew Swamp and presents issues principally under the ESA, the
Clean Water Act, and NEPA.
National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-CV-0008 (D.
Alaska, filed Mar. 26, 2005). The federal defendant was the Department
of the Interior. The suit concerned oil and gas leasing in the area of
Teshekpuk Lake/Northeast Planning Area NPR-A and presented issues
principally under the ESA and NEPA.
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service,
421 F. 3d 797 (9th Cir. 2005). The federal defendant was the United
States Forest Service. The suit concerned Roadless Areas in Tongass
National Forest and presented issues under NEPA.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers, No. 2:88-CV-01658
(E.D. Cal.). Settled in 2006. The federal defendant was the Bureau of
Reclamation. The suit concerned Friant Dam water contracts and
restoration of the San Joaquin River.
Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Norton, 361 F. Supp. 2d
1069 (D. Alaska 2005), aff'd sub. nom., Northern Alaska Environmental
Center v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006). The federal
defendant was the Department of the Interior, including the Bureau of
Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The suit concerned
oil and gas leasing in the Northwest Planning Area of NPR-A and
presented issues principally under the ESA and NEPA.
Utah v. United States, No. 2:97-CV-927-AK (D. Utah, filed Aug. 24,
2005. The federal defendant was the Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management. The suit concerned Utah's claim to sovereign lands
and the public trust doctrine.
The Wilderness Society v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 05-04038-EDL
(N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 6, 2005). The federal defendant was the
Department of Agriculture, including the Forest Service. The suit
concerned the repeal of the Roadless Area Policy and presented issues
principally under NEPA.
National Audubon Society v. Department of the Navy, No. 2:04-CV-2-
BO(2) (Eastern NC District, filed May 4, 2005). The federal defendant
was the Navy. The suit concerned a proposed offsite Navy land field
near Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and presented issues
principally under NEPA.
Washington County, N.C. v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Nos.
CV.A.2:04-CV-3-B0(2), CV.A.2:04-CV-2-B0(2) (E.D.N.C., filed April 20,
2004). The federal defendant was the Navy. The suit concerned
compliance with NEPA.
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, Nos. 02-2130, 02-2135, 02-2151,
02-2152, 02-2160, 02-2186; 355 F. 3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). The federal
defendants were the Department of the Interior, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. The suit concerned the endangered silvery minnow
and presented issues principally under the ESA.
National Audubon Society v. Evans, No. Civ.A.99-1707(RWR) (U.S.D.C,
District of Columbia, filed July 3, 2003). The federal defendant was
the Department of Commerce, including NOAA Fisheries. The suit
concerned the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan under
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The Wilderness Society v. Norton (E.D. Ca., decided June 12, 2003).
The federal defendant was the Department of the Interior. The suit
concerned management of the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National
Wildlife Refuges and presented issues principally under NEPA.
The Ocean Conservancy v. Evans, No. 8:03CV124T24EAJ (M.D. Fla,
decided Dec. 17, 2003). The federal defendant was the Department of
Commerce, including NOAA Fisheries. The suit concerned an emergency
rule issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
National Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis, No.CV-98-04610-CAL. (N.D.
Cal., filed September 24, 2002). The federal defendant was the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The suit concerned issues under the ESA.
National Audubon Society v. Evans. No. 99-1707 (D.D.C. decided July
3, 2003. The federal defendant was the Department of Commerce,
including NOAA Fisheries. The suit concerned conservation of Atlantic
bluefin tuna under the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Vermont Public Interest Research Group v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
No. 2:01-CV-332 (D. Vt., decided Sept. 13, 2002). The federal defendant
was the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The suit concerned
proposed releases of lampricides into a like and presented issues under
NEPA.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Daulton, and I will
now recognize members for any questions they may wish to ask
the witnesses alternating between the majority and the
minority, and allowing five minutes for each member. Should the
members need more time, we will have a second round of
questions, but at this time since our distinguished Chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee with us, I would like to give
him the opportunity to ask questions first.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really don't have any
questions, specific questions for this panel on the subject at
hand. I do appreciate their expert testimony.
I would just like to remind Mr. Hall, Director of Fish and
Wildlife Service, of a communication that I have sent him in
regard to the proposed de-listing of the Northern Virginia fly
squirrel, and hope that he could supply those documents to my
office per the letter I have written him, which you should have
in your office.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions for Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall, the
Service published interim guidelines in 2003 regarding the
siting, construction, and operation of wind turbines, and
received significant public comment on them. Since closing the
public comment period in 2005, however, the Service has
declined to publish the final guidelines.
Mr. Hall, what is the status of these guidelines? Does the
Service intend to publish final guidelines in the near future,
and why wasn't the formation of a new advisory committee
necessary?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
After the 2005 two-year public comment period, there were
extended discussions with members of the public and others, and
there was a Federal Advisory Committee Act allegation, and so
the efforts there were basically put on hold for the formation
of this formal Federal Advisory Committee Act that would work
with us over the next two years.
I would also like to point out that after two years of
public comment, there was very little resolved on how to site
because the information isn't there. A lot of the biology isn't
there. There is so much we don't know that there was still a
lot of controversy even associated with the 2005 draft interim
guidance.
So we are hopeful, we are very hopeful that this Federal
Advisory Committee Act that we will be forming will get us to
some substantive approaches to try and work through these
pretty sticky issues.
Ms. Bordallo. To follow up, Mr. Hall, on the same
questioning. As noted earlier, as I said, the Service held open
an extensive public comment period. It was for a couple of
years. So it is my understanding that a significant majority of
responders were in favor of the guidelines. Is that accurate?
Mr. Hall. I think it is accurate to say that the vast
majority of people supported getting some sort of protocol,
some sort of guideline out there, or a series of guidelines on
how to do this. The devil was in the details on what they
should be. There was a lot of disappointment that the Fish and
Wildlife Service just didn't have the authority to go on to
property and do analyses ahead of time without the permission
of the landowner. There was a lot of concern about the
biological aspects of what we know and don't know about the
flight paths, and therefore several studies are underway now,
and the Appalachian one is one of those, to try and figure out
how the birds and bats move at night in these high-structured
mountain areas.
So I think that there was a lot of support to have
guidelines, a lot of support to have some rules, if you will,
that people could follow, but not a lot of consensus on exactly
what those rules should say.
Ms. Bordallo. You said in answer to my first question, I
think, that you put it on hold.
Mr. Hall. Well, we stopped the discussions.
Ms. Bordallo. I was wondering if there was financial
constraints or whatever the case might be. Did you note that?
Mr. Hall. I think we made it public that the challenge that
we were working outside of compliance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and we let the public know that we wanted to go
back and try and form this Federal advisory committee to try
and help us work through it because after all these years it
seems fruitless to try and get that far and then to be
challenged because of the process.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, OK. I have one other question now. Even
though the Service has not published the final guidelines, can
you tell us to what degree the industry adopted the voluntary
guidelines in their siting and development decisions? And in
light of this experience, should compliance with the future
guidelines be mandatory or voluntary?
I think one of our witnesses stated what he thought of
that. I think it was Dr. Fry.
Mr. Hall. I think compliance is sketchy at best. I think
everything that you have heard about the industry's ability to
accept or not accept them is accurate. We have very little
Federal nexus unless it is on Federal lands working through an
EIS or some other form to force them to follow them.
I do believe, my personal opinion, I believe if we go
through all this effort to try and come up with guidelines that
they should be more than advisory. However, I don't know
exactly what kind of legal authority that we would have to make
them binding.
Ms. Bordallo. Let me ask Dr. Fry. Would you like to comment
on that?
Mr. Fry. If you give Federal money to a project and you
just decide that you are not going to have any oversight, it is
stupid. You really do need to have Federal oversight if you are
going to give Federal money, and you do also have to enforce
Federal laws. When you kill a thousand Golden Eagles, and you
have no explanation for why you haven't done any enforcement,
you are giving the industry a complete green light to just go
ahead and do business as usual.
Mr. Glitzenstein. May I respond to that?
Mr. Hall. May I respond to that?
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Glitzenstein, yes.
Mr. Glitzenstein. I think, just to follow up on what has
just become clear, if there is a need for clear authority for
the guidelines, Mr. Hall just testified that he would like to
see those guidelines as more than simply advisory, as I
understand his testimony, and he said the problem is what is
the authority for making them more than advisory. I think that
is clearly, as I understand it, a statement to the Subcommittee
as to why we need some explicit legislation that would provide
for those guidelines to have some enforceable effect.
So it appears that there is some kind of a consensus, at
least on this panel, that there is a need for that, and without
that I think there would be a concern about whether or not you
can currently adopt enforceable guidelines of that kind.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Are there any others that would
like to comment?
Mr. Hall. I would like to respond. Several times it was
pointed up that we have not taken enforcement action, and I
would like to clarify for the record that every time we have
received under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act an allegation our special
agents have gone to investigation. Mr. Glitzenstein read from
one of those reports.
We do not bring prosecutorial actions for criminal offense.
We have to refer those to the United States attorney, and when
those cases are brought and we provide the information to the
United States attorney, it is the United States attorney that
decides whether or not they will or will not bring cases of
criminal malfeasance against anyone, but the Fish and Wildlife
Service doesn't bring that.
We do the investigative work. We hand it over to the United
States attorney, and the United States attorney makes that
decision on behalf of the U.S. Government.
Ms. Bordallo. Are there any other--yes, Mr. Daulton.
Mr. Daulton. I would just like to point out that the
Audubon Society would welcome discussion of any proposals,
including possibly making those guidelines mandatory, to
improve bird protection with regard to the siting and design of
wind turbines. However, I do think that the committee should
consider a broad range of options in terms of providing
incentives to the industry to enter into some--to take more
action both in terms of predicting the impacts and mitigating
the impacts.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Mr. Hall, would it be possible for
you to--you have declined to publish the final guidelines, but
all of this public input, could you provide--it must be reams
of paper over there in your department of the public input, so
could we get a copy of those----
Mr. Hall. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo.--comments from the public?
Mr. Hall. Absolutely.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
I now would like to call on the Ranking Member, Mr. Sali,
for questions.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I have a statement from Congressman Shuster,
another statement or a letter to Ranking Member Brown from the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and a statement by
the American Wind Energy Association, and I would like to ask
unanimous consent that they be included in the record for
today.
Ms. Bordallo. So ordered.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Shuster
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important
hearing. Wind development and its positive and negative impacts on the
environment are very important priorities for us to consider as wind
power grows across the nation. In my district, there is a lot of
potential wind development, so I consider hearings like this essential
to gathering facts and information. I would encourage the committee to
take a very open, objective look at this important topic.
To that end, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the committee's attention
to a bold, collaborative approach the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
aggressively pursued over the last year on this topic. Just last week,
the Pennsylvania Game Commission held a ceremony in which they
announced cooperative agreement spearheaded by the Pennsylvania Wind
and Wildlife Collaborative. The Collaborative is partnership between
government officials, scientists, bird/bat experts, wind developers and
environmental groups. This Pennsylvania-led collaborative effort can
set a bold example for partnership that will provide better information
and science, minimize and potentially mitigate adverse wildlife
impacts, and create stronger partnerships to develop this important
renewable resource.
By no means is wind power the sole answer to our environmental and
energy challenges today, but it must certainly be a key part of
advancing clean, renewable energy, while at the same time, providing
economic opportunities for some of our most rural communities.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies follows:]
ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-7890
Fax: (202) 624-7891
E-maih [email protected]
www.fishwildlife.org
Honorable Charles Brown, Ranking Republican
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans
1124 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Congressman Brown:
As you know, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(Association) represents the perspectives of the collective State Fish
and Wildlife Agencies on important fish and wildlife issues. All 50
State Fish and Wildlife Agencies are members. The Association's members
have a vital and vested interest in wind energy development and its
potential impacts on wildlife and therefore request the submission of
this letter to the hearing record of May 1, 2007. In the future, we
would like to be considered to provide testimony related to wind energy
and wildlife.
The Association appreciates that the development of wind and other
renewable energy resources have potential environmental advantages over
the development and use of nonrenewable sources. We also believe that
thoughtful placement of wind energy development is necessary to
maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations across North America. In
order to better engage the State Fish Wildlife Agencies, industry,
federal agencies, and non governmental agencies in a landscape-level
dialogue, the Association created a Wind Energy Subcommittee under our
Energy and Wildlife Policy Committee.
We have also worked with numerous partners including the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop a collaborative effort to
address wind energy and wildlife interactions at the national scale.
Although partners attempted to develop a collaborative in late 2005,
due to legal constraints, the USFWS was required to develop the USFWS
Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee on which we are now engaged.
The USFWS has been fully supportive of collaborative efforts in this
policy area. It was threatened legal challenges that compelled the
creation of the Federal Advisory Committee (FAC). The USFWS acted
expeditiously in creating the FAC and securing its approval by the
Administration.
We believe that we have an unprecedented opportunity to work with
industry and land use and regulatory agencies at a landscape scale to
lessen potential wildlife impacts including direct impacts to birds and
bats; habitat fragmentation from wind energy farms and transmission
lines; and changes in migratory patterns of big game. We look forward
to working with the Subcommittee on this issue.
I appreciate your time and consideration of this issue. Please
don't hesitate to contact Gary Taylor, Legislative Director,
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, at (202) 624-7890 for
additional information.
Respectfully,
Gary J. Taylor
Legislative Director
cc: Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo
______
[A statement submitted for the record by the American Wind
Energy Association follows:]
Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
Wind energy is one of the most environmentally-friendly energy
technologies in the world. One hundred per cent clean, wind energy
provides electricity without harmful global warming pollutants like
carbon dioxide. In addition, wind energy does not require any mining,
drilling, transportation, or waste disposal.
``Wind energy development's overall impact on birds is extremely
low compared with many other human-related activities,'' said AWEA's
Executive Director Randall Swisher. ``Many more birds are killed flying
into buildings, for example, than wind turbines.''
Wind energy will never be a significant source of bird mortality
compared to other sources such as buildings, vehicles, communication
towers, and even cats. For every 10,000 birds killed by human
activities, less than one is caused by a wind turbine.
National Audubon Society President John Flicker himself is an
outspoken proponent of wind energy. In a column he wrote for the
November-December 2006 issue of the Society's magazine, he stated that
Audubon ``strongly supports [properly sited] wind power as a clean
alternative energy source'' and pointed to the threat global warming
poses to birds and other wildlife.
``The wind industry is a conscientious and highly active steward of
the environment and supports and funds innovative wildlife research
through collaborative agreements with conservation groups and
foundations,'' said Swisher.
The wind energy industry has worked for years to reach out and
cooperate with conservation groups and government agencies on research
and joint initiatives:
National Wind Coordinating Collaborative--10 years
Bats & Wind Energy Cooperative--3 years
Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Collaborative--2 years
Swisher added: ``Wind power is an essential element in responding
to both climate change and the exponentially increasing demand for
electricity in the U.S. It's 100 per cent clean, free and
inexhaustible, and a readily available and cost-effective source of
energy.''
AWEA estimates that in 2007, wind electricity will displace
approximately 19 million tons of carbon dioxide--the leading greenhouse
gas and primary global warming pollutant--which otherwise would be
emitted by traditional energy sources such as coal, natural gas, oil
andother sources. With the growing public demand for clean energy,
there is broad recognition--among President Bush, Congress and business
leaders--that wind energy is essential in balancing our nation's energy
needs.
AWEA is the national trade association of America's wind industry,
with a membership that includes global leaders in wind power
development, wind turbine manufacturing, and energy, as well as a broad
range of component and service suppliers. More information on wind
energy is available at the AWE A Web site: www.awea.org.
______
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Arnett, I am trying to think back through the testimony
and I didn't take notes, but did you say that the impact of
bats could accumulate and be one to two million within a very
short time with the projects that are on the table, is that
correct?
Mr. Arnett. Dr. Fry gave specific numbers. We have a paper
that is being published in the ``Frontier Ecology and the
Environment'' by some colleagues that have made some
projections for the Mid-Atlantic Region based on a number of
assumptions on installed capacity. Those numbers currently were
estimated at--given the National Renewable Energy Lab's
projection for installed capacity in that region to be
somewhere between 33,000 and 64,000 bats that would be killed
given those assumptions.
My point was, was that as we think about other projects,
other regions and differing fatality rates across those
regions, the numbers certainly could escalate. And if we think
about the 20 percent factor that is being touted now, and that
would probably--National Renewable Energy Lab as speculated
that that would be somewhere abound 325,000 megawatts installed
capacity. If you do the math, the numbers escalate very
rapidly.
Mr. Sali. OK. Now, I appreciate that clarification. You
said during your testimony that bats are attracted to the wind
turbines. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Arnett. We have evidence from the Mountaineer studies
that I was involved with in 2004 to suggest that the bats most
certainly are attracted to these turbines. And if you would
like, I have thermal imaging videos I would be happy to show
you after the hearing.
Mr. Sali. OK. Well, my question is this. If they are
attracted to the turbines, then how can you site them in a
place where they won't be attracted to them?
Mr. Arnett. That creates a very interesting conundrum for
us because in fact the studies that are conducted pre-
construction may lead us down the path of committing what is
called a Type 2 error in statistics where we actually would
collect the data pre-construction and assume no potential
impact, but in fact the bats are attracted they may be killed
at higher than expected rates and leading to the fatal
conclusion that there was an impact when we previously said
there was none, and it is a real problem for us.
Mr. Sali. OK. I am trying to recall my biology and you are
the expert and I am not, but basically I have understood that
bats essentially hunt by some kind of sonar.
Mr. Arnett. Echo location, that is correct.
Mr. Sali. OK. And I have watched bats. I have them in my
backyard, and thankfully they hunt lots of insects there, but
as they dart and turn very sharply to catch those insects, I am
wondering how is it that they can locate those insects, which
are very small, and navigate in a way to catch them but they
can't locate those blades of that turbine and something that is
coming at a constant rate of speed, they can't navigate away
from those.
Mr. Arnett. Well, the one thing we clearly do not
understand is how the animals actually receive the echoes
returning from a plastic-based or whether there are other
substance turbine blades are made of moving at up to speeds of
estimated between 140 and 180 miles per hour on full
operational speed. We simply don't have any information on how
they receive those signals from something moving that fast.
Furthermore, as the bats are moving through the air space
at time one they may not detect any action of the blades or
detect the presence of the blade, and at time two they are
struck or caught in the wake. We think some of the bats may in
fact actually be killed by the bodices that are created and
thrown to the ground via the wake of the turbines moving that
fast.
So your point is very well taken. How can they not perceive
them? We think they do when they are moving slowly. We actually
have a video tape of bats chasing slow moving blade tips, but
there are a number of uncertainties as to how they perceive
these turbines, none the least of which is we actually believe
they may be attracted to them as potential roost sites or
places to congregate with potential mates in the fall.
Mr. Sali. Because other bats are attracted to the blades?
Mr. Arnett. There is a hypothesis that has been generated
recently about the behavior of the bats that are killed most
frequently at these turbines. They happen to be migratory tree-
roosting and foliage-roosting bats, and these are animals that
are solitary in the landscape during spring and summer. They go
their separate ways, males and females segregate, but they do
tend to congregate in the fall for breeding purposes, and there
is a hypothesis suggesting that they may aggregate at tall
structures in the landscape. If that hypothesis is true, then
there may be some sort of flocking, mating type behaviors that
attract these.
Regardless, we are left with a few options other than
understanding how to better site, curtail operations, or scare
the bats away so to speak, and we are in fact embarking on some
work on deterring mechanisms, and in fact to try and jam their
echo location system, not so much to scare them away but to
make the air space around the turbines uncomfortable and so
they can't get return echoes and such. Those investigations
have proved promising in the lab and in initial field
experiments but we have yet to develop a fully operational
system, and tests are underway this summer to continue
embarking on that endeavor.
Mr. Sali. Thank you Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, and now I
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we can all learn from the past. The Fish and
Wildlife Service was established in 1903, over 100 years ago,
and I had mentioned to Congressman Mollohan about the salmon,
and I think we can learn from the past.
Can you recall what was the role--I know this is going back
in history, but the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service when
they were building the dams and diverting the water, I know
they did some fish flatters and things like that--what was the
role at that time? Were they anticipating the damage that would
be done?
Mr. Hall. I think the role at that time--it depends on the
date of the dam. If it was after the thirties, then the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act might have been in play, and
there would have been reports written and consultations done,
and I worked in the northwest for about six and a half years,
and heard lots of discussions about the salmon and the dams,
and how they got started, and I have heard people discuss the
fact that it was recognized that there could be impacts to the
salmon fishery out there, to the salmon runs.
But at the time that things were going on rural development
for electricity, lots of homes didn't have it, and they were
weighing those kinds of needs of the public, and I have heard
at least two people who have really researched this say that
they believed it was a conscious decision.
I think in learning from those types of experiences though
we have the opportunity to do a lot better with wind power, and
have it be an alternative source of energy but have one that is
done correctly.
Mr. Kildee. I am happy to hear that, that you have learned
from the past because there is something analogous there
between the two, and I think all of us support increasing our
electrical energy power. I have no problems with wind power,
but I want to make sure that we can mitigate the negative
impacts.
Let me ask you this question. I come from the Great Lakes.
My district borders on the Great Lakes. A renewable energy
study by the Environment Michigan estimates that up to 150
percent of Michigan's electrical energy needs could be met by
fully developing Michigan's offshore wind energy potential;
that is, five to 12 miles off the coast.
What do we know about offshore wind energy and its impact
on wildlife and habitat, especially in the Great Lakes, Mr.
Hall?
Mr. Hall. Well, unfortunately, we don't know a lot. We
don't know a lot about on land and the impacts that are
occurring, but you can imagine in an ocean or a Great Lakes'
environment where any damaged birds would not be readily seen
probably 30 minutes after they have been hit. So I think there
is a lot of unknowns associated with wind power over
significant bodies of water.
Mr. Kildee. Considering that you, and I appreciate your
candor as you admit that we know very little about the present
and cumulative impacts of wind energy on wildlife, do you agree
that we should be operating more cautiously to evaluate wind
power projects before they are built?
Mr. Hall. I do, sir. I think that it is very prudent to do
the studies that are necessary pre-construction to try and find
out the wind vectors, the use of those vectors by the birds
both onshore and offshore, and then there are other impacts in
the offshore arena as well that are below the surface that
would probably need to be looked at, and the National Marine
Fishery Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Great
Lakes with the fisheries involved as well.
Navigation, there are lots of things involved in the open
water environment, but I really do encourage prudence. We know
that this is a source that could be a very good clean source of
energy, but we really do want it to be green.
Mr. Kildee. Appreciate it. Anyone else want to comment on
that?
Mr. Arnett. Congressman, I was just going to add that
recently I have been chairing a technical review committee for
the Wildlife Society, preparing a summary document on the
impacts of wildlife and wind energy development which will be
released soon. We did a summary of offshore issues, and I would
call to your attention, and can get the information to you that
the National Renewable Energy Lab has recently--I believe it
was last year--published a review by Dr. Michael Morrison from
Texas A&M University who summarized the impacts of offshore
development, and drew inferences from studies that had been
conducted in Europe most extensively, and related that to
development in not only the Great Lakes but also the Atlantic
coast and probably most importantly, the lower Gulf coast where
there are serious concerns about development in that particular
region.
The Wildlife Society review will be out shortly, and I can
get you the information on the review that is currently
available on National Renewable Energy Lab's website.
Mr. Kildee. Madam Chair, could we include that in the file
or the record of this hearing?
Ms. Bordallo. No objection.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
[NOTE: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory report
entitled ``Bird Movements and Behaviors in the Gulf Coast
Region: Relation to Potential Wind Energy Developments'' by
M.L. Morrison, Texas A&M University, has been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fry. Member Kildee.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Fry. The Minerals Management Service has just
commissioned a review, worldwide review of literature on
wildlife impacts from offshore wind. That was prepared by
Research International in South Carolina, and I received a
draft of it yesterday. I sit on the Federal Advisory Committee
for Minerals Management for Offshore Wind, and we could--while
I don't think it would be appropriate for the draft, but
certainly when that becomes final, and the next comments are on
due on the 7th of May, so we should have it in the next month,
we could provide that as well, which summarizes all the
European literature as well as what we know from this country,
but it is going to be very difficult, no question, to look at
the impacts of offshore wind on birds because the carcasses
disappear.
Mr. Kildee. Madam Chair, also if I could ask consent that
that be contained in the file or record of this----
Ms. Bordallo. Without objection.
[NOTE: The report submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Dr. Fry.
Mr. Hall, I have a question for you. You note in your
statement that Federal regulation of wind power generally
occurs only if a proposal is located on Federal property or the
development involves some form of Federal participation such as
providing funding.
Why is a statutory responsibility to protect a wildlife
resource held in trust for the American public not included in
this list?
Mr. Hall. Are you talking about the migratory birds?
Ms. Bordallo. That is correct.
Mr. Hall. And the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Mr. Hall. When I am talking about us having a legitimate
legal entry into--before the fact--development, it is not much
different for wind power than it would be for the Corps of
Engineers having the responsibility to develop, or the Bureau
of Reclamation develop dams, and we are involved early on there
to work with them. And our efforts in those early
consultations, and that was what I was pointing to early, we
need early involved pre-construction so that we can talk about
what the potential impacts might be, and hopefully avoid those
impacts, or find ways to minimize or mitigate the impacts.
But we can't under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or under
the Bald and Golden Eagle Act go in before anything has
happened and require them to come sit down and talk with us,
and let us help develop the project. Our only real avenues are
those projects that have a Federal nexus.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. The other question is other witnesses
have testified that the current regulatory process does not
provide for competent consideration of environmental threats.
Now, you seem to agree with the need for environmental review
when you note in your written statement that the, and I will
quote you, ``potential harm to wildlife populations from direct
mortality and from habitat disturbance and fragmentation makes
careful evaluation of proposed facilities essential.''
Why has the Service not instituted a more rigorous process
to ensure that wind energy proposals are given the necessary
scrutiny to ensure that protected wildlife are put at a minimal
risk?
Mr. Hall. In those areas where there is not a Federal
nexus, we have encouraged and have been working with the wind
industry for at least 10 years that I am aware of as a person
in the Fish and Wildlife Service, and longer, but we simply
cannot require them to allow us to sit down if there is no
Federal nexus and it is before the fact.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Glitzenstein, could you please respond to
that?
Mr. Glitzenstein. Yes, thank you. I actually would take a
more expansive view of the Service's authority. I think that
since the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, I think as you pointed out
in your opening statement, clearly forbids taking migratory
birds by killing them wind turbines and that sort of thing. I
think the Service, if it wanted to, could accomplish much more
comprehensive protection in a number of ways.
One thing it could do is put out the guidelines that it has
suggested to the public, and say that if these guidelines are
not followed, then we will in fact bring appropriate civil and
criminal enforcement action. I think it would get the attention
of the wind power industry a lot more quickly if you said that
failure to comply with those kinds of guidelines would in fact
result in some kind of meaningful enforcement.
I have to take a bit of issue with Mr. Hall. He is
absolutely right that on some occasion there have been efforts
to refer with respect to the California turbines to the U.S.
attorney's office and there was no prosecution. The Service
does have pretty broad civil enforcement authority, however,
and I believe under the MBTA the agency could go in and ask
that those facilities not be built unless they were being
operated in a way that would avoid wildlife impacts.
So I understand the concerns that Mr. Hall is suggesting,
but I think that if the agency really wanted to get better
compliance with those kinds of guidelines there are ways they
could do that under existing law. But the fact of the matter is
they made clear they are not going to do that and I think that
counts in favor of further action by Congress.
Mr. Hall. If I might just clarify----
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Hall, yes.
Mr. Hall.--for the record. There is no civil penalty under
the MBTA. There is a civil penalty under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, but not under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, only criminal.
Ms. Bordallo. Let me ask this, Mr. Hall. Short of a
mandatory process, is there any way then to ensure the kind of
evaluation that you say is necessary?
Mr. Hall. In any law enforcement function, whether it is
the cop walking the beat or the kinds of things we are talking
about, the overall objective is voluntary compliance. Now if
they don't, then you really should have some means of ensuring
that the public's interest is looked after. When I look at the
MBTA or our attorneys do, I am not an attorney, but when we
look at the MBTA, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,
I have to defer to them to tell us what they think that our
authorities are, and our guidance so far has been we can't
really require anything to happen until a violation has
occurred.
Ms. Bordallo. So you really don't have an answer. Dr. Fry,
did you want to comment on that?
Mr. Fry. Well, the Fish and Wildlife Service says they
don't have any authority until a violation has occurred. Excuse
me. Violations occur routinely and no enforcement has been
brought by Justice or by Fish and Wildlife Service. So, of
course, if the industry has been given a green light to kill as
many birds as necessary or as unavoidable or as convenient,
then they are not going to comply with anything, and the idea
of having voluntary guidelines with no teeth at all just--it is
not tenable.
This is the only energy sector that is unregulated, and
Members of Congress are upset about it in their own districts.
The environmental community is upset about it. We would like
green energy. You know, nobody really wants mountain top coal,
which really does a lot of damage, but you really have to
enforce some laws. You have to put teeth in something or the
industry is just going to go on as though nothing were
happening.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I certainly agree with that.
Dr. Glitzenstein, do you have a comment on that question I
just asked Mr. Hall?
Mr. Glitzenstein. I believe again that if there is not some
step taken to hold the industry's feet to the fire in some
fashion, there is not going to be any change, and I think it
does reenforce what I mentioned in my opening statement, which
was if the Service is not going to be prepared to bring
enforcement action for whatever reason, because they can't do
it or because the U.S. attorney's office won't prosecute if it
is referred to the U.S. attorney's office, then I think counsel
is in favor of an additional enforcement mechanism in the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, allow for citizen enforcement.
I can assure you that if there was an opportunity for some
kind of citizen oversight--this is not a radical proposition,
we have this in virtually every modern environmental law, the
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species
Act--I can assure you that very quickly the wind industry
companies would pay a lot more attention to the requirements of
those statutes.
So if the Service feels that it can't do it or won't do it,
then I think there are alternatives that the Subcommittee would
be wise to look at.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I would like now to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Sali.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fry, you had given the statistic that the wind turbines
could--at the potential that I guess is on the table right
now--account for one to two million bird deaths per year.
Mr. Fry. Yes.
Mr. Sali. You are the one that made that testimony?
Mr. Fry. Yes.
Mr. Sali. In the GAO's report from 2005, they listed five
major sources of bird mortality, and one is office windows that
apparently account for at least 100 million, maybe a billion
bird deaths annually.
In terms of scale, is your organization doing anything to
stop what is a much greater problems in terms of siting
buildings?
Mr. Fry. There are non-governmental groups working on glass
buildings. Clearly, that is a problem. I would like to say that
we are not going to solve our energy crisis by building new
power plants. We are going to have to do conservation, and if
you don't want glass buildings to kill birds, turn the damn
lights off.
The birds are attracted to buildings at night because they
are lit up, and you can save energy, you can save money, you
can save birds by just turning the lights off, and
organizations like the group called FLAPP in Ottawa, Canada,
publish brochures and work on this issue.
American Bird Conservancy has worked on other issues
primarily, but we do work with FLAPP and we do have the Bird
Conservation Alliance, which has worked on tall buildings. We
have worked with communications towers which are another----
Mr. Sali. Am I correct that your organization has a lawsuit
going to stop the building and maybe remove cell towers, is
that correct?
Mr. Fry. Very specific ones on the Gulf coast of the U.S.,
yes, and----
Mr. Sali. Well, how about domestic and feral cats that
account for hundreds of millions of bird deaths every year,
would your organization want to outlaw cats too?
Mr. Fry. We have a program called ``Cats Indoors''. We have
been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and with
coastal communities around the northeast and in California to
eliminate feral cats. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not
want to get into the business of irritating cat owners by
destroying feral cats, and I understand the political----
Mr. Sali. Well, what about domestic cats though too----
Mr. Fry. Domestic cats, feral cats----
Mr. Sali.--do you think all cats ought to be kept indoors?
Mr. Fry. If you kept the cats indoors, they wouldn't be
killing birds.
Mr. Sali. OK.
Mr. Fry. That is the Cats Indoors Program.
Mr. Sali. How about cars and trucks that the GAO says
accounts for about 60 million bird deaths every year, do you
want to outlaw cars and trucks?
Mr. Fry. I understand all of these things contribute to the
death of birds, and that is why I did preface my remarks by
saying 25 percent of all the bird species in this country are
declining. They have been declining significantly since we
started doing the breeding bird survey in 1966. That bird
survey was instituted because DDT and dieldrin were killing a
lot of birds, and the habitat loss from agriculture, whatever,
there are lots and lots of habitat fragmentation causes--
urbanization that caused the loss of birds.
But all of the effects are cumulative so that if you have
an avoidable process of killing birds----
Mr. Sali. But wouldn't you agree that these other causes of
bird deaths are many, many--hundreds of times as many bird
deaths per year. While I would agree with you that we certainly
shouldn't have a Federal or state policy anywhere that results
in unnecessary bird deaths, wouldn't you agree that their is a
need for a reasonable approach to this? If we eliminated every
single bird death from wind turbines, so what? The cumulative
total from all these other causes is so much greater it would
be an unnoticeable difference. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Fry. No, I don't. I don't think it would be an
unnoticeable difference.
Mr. Sali. So you think that one to two million that we
might save if we got rid of every wind turbine----
Mr. Fry. No, no, no, I don't say got rid of. I say work
with the industry so the industry reduces the number of birds
killed. The industry has no incentive now to not to kill birds,
none at all. There is no enforcement mechanism in their way
that bother them. There is cause, whatever.
Mr. Sali. But the states have the authority to site these
in places, and I think we would have to agree that the state
has the authority to say, no, you can't build it here if they
have a concern, and I guess my point is maybe the states are
taking a reasonable approach here because there are just so
many birds that are killed by other--I mean, if you have a
billion birds that are killed by collisions with office
windows, if you got rid of all one to two million deaths from
the wind turbine problem, then who would notice?
Mr. Fry. I guess if you are concerned that we kill a
billion birds with office windows, why is the Natural Resources
Committee not doing anything about killing birds at windows?
Mr. Sali. OK, now we are talking. But my point is, isn't it
unfair to the wind energy industry to just focus on these
turbines when there are so many other things that perhaps we
should be focusing on to address your concerns?
Mr. Fry. Well, I think you have to work on all of the
environmental issues simultaneously, and we are a small
organization. We are not going to take over your responsibility
for maintenance of the environment, you know, on all things. We
have to work on specific and specific places. Wind energy is
one of them.
You know, this started out as a very green industry. It has
been taken over by BP, Shell, Florida Power & Light, GE,
companies that work on the bottom line. They are no longer
environmental communities. So you know, I would like to see
some regulation to these large mega corporations, international
corporations just the same way I would like to see meaningful
legislation in coal, meaningful legislation in climate change,
carbon question, a lot of different issues. I world on
pesticides primarily. You know, I do wind on my days off. But
the environmental community is fully committed to trying to do
conservation, and I think it would be really nice to get
Congress to participate.
Mr. Sali. You would agree with me though that if we
conserved all of the energy from these wind turbines though, it
still wouldn't reduce the number of bird collisions and deaths
from office windows and those kinds of things, correct?
Mr. Fry. No. If you want to get rid of the collisions at
office windows, turn the lights off. It is real simple.
Mr. Sali. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
I have one final question. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. No, I have nothing.
Ms. Bordallo. One final question, I guess, for Mr. Daulton.
You note in your statement that the National Audubon Society
supports the expansion of properly sited wind power facilities,
and supports the Federal Production Tax Credit and Renewable
Energy Standard.
Would Audubon also support conditioning these financial
incentives to make their availability contingent upon wind
power facilities being certified as some kind of a wildlife
friendly standard?
Mr. Daulton. At this time we are not prepared to support
that, no. I think that that question needs to be considered
within the context of some well-earned momentum that the wind
industry has gained and its potential to offset global warming.
So I do think that something that is so important to the
growth of the industry, like the Production Tax Credit, and
they have gone through feast or famine cycles based on whether
the Production Tax Credit is in place or about to expire, and
gets renewed, they have gone through those kinds of feast or
famine cycles. I think it is so critical to that industry and
in turn to solving global warming that we do need to be careful
about ways in which we bring regulatory frameworks into that
tax credit.
That said, we are absolutely committed to improving bird
protection in this area and would welcome discussion of any
policy options, including that one.
Ms. Bordallo. Just to follow up. Are the various types of
available mitigation actions cost prohibitive? In other words,
would they raise the cost of compliance so high as to cancel
out the financial benefit of the tax credit?
Mr. Daulton. I don't think so. I do not think that
mitigation options are so cost prohibitive that they would
cancel out financial benefits for the wind industry. No.
Ms. Bordallo. Are there any other answers to that from the
panelists? Care to comment on that?
Mr. Fry. I don't have information on the cost of the
compliance.
Ms. Bordallo. On the cost, yes.
Mr. Fry. I also do agree that it would not be cost
prohibitive. I think that the tax credits are something that
the industry finds are absolutely essential for development.
Well, I think if something is absolutely essential for
development, it is a great thing to put an amendment on to make
them comply environmentally.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Any other comments?
Mr. Arnett. Just wanted to point out on some mitigation
issues from a research perspective and some things that we have
found out. I mentioned earlier that curtailment of operations
is a possible mitigation strategy which clearly would have an
impact on number of kilowatts produced during certain periods
of time, and would have some level of financial impact.
But one thing I want to point out that our science is
starting to show, although there is very little information,
what we have seen is a pattern of bat fatalities in particular
as it related to lower wind periods, and periods of the late
summer and fall, particularly in this region that are generally
the low wind periods, if you will, for this region. So our
science is trying to understand the predictability of those
periods to mitigate or to minimize the costs of those types of
mitigation strategies.
They haven't been implemented as of to date. They need to
be implemented immediately and test these experimentally to
understand the reductions and fatality and the economic costs
so we can put all of this together for the information we need
to make these kinds of decision.
I can say that conceptually BCI certainly supports linkages
of standards and best practices that are developed among
multiple stakeholders to do things like the Production Tax
Credit, renewable portfolio standards, and other things, but
obviously we need to move forward at the science and get better
information to understand those issues.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnett.
Just for the record, my district is Guam, Territory of
Guam, and we have quite a few bats in that part of the world.
However, our bats are a little bit different than other bats
from the United States and around the world. They are bats that
feed on fruits, tropical fruits, and they are a delicacy in our
territory. So I have been listening with a great deal of
interest to the comments that were made today, but I just
wanted that to be placed on the record.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bordallo. So I thank all the witnesses for their
participation in the hearing today, and members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses. We will ask you to respond to these in writing, and
the hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these
responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
our witnesses. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Brown
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Madam Chairwoman, I compliment you for the creative title of this
oversight hearing. It apparently refers to a obscure movie that was
filmed in the late 1930's. After looking at the witness list, I full
expected we would hear testimony from Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara.
Two weeks ago, we heard that carbon emissions are the greatest
crisis facing mankind. While I suspect many people would find that
statement an exaggeration, today, we have an opportunity to do
something about that problem by examining the impacts of a clean,
renewable and safe alternative energy source.
Onshore wind power is growing at a rate of 22 percent each year and
it provides electricity for 8 million Americans. More importantly, wind
turbines produce no waste, they require no external fuel and they
create no air, water or noise pollution. Unlike other fuels, they do
not emit any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide or mercury
into the environment. In fact, the existing U.S. wind turbine fleet
displaces more than 19 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. To
generate 1 megawatt of wind for 20 years, we would need to burn 29,000
tons of coal or 92,000 barrels of oil.
Nearly two years ago, the General Accounting Office submitted a
report on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife. While the GAO found
that a wind farm in Northern California and West Virginia were killing
certain birds and bats, their fundamental conclusion was that: ``In the
context of other avian mortalities, it does not appear that wind power
is responsible for a significant number of bird deaths''.
More recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has solicited
names of individuals to serve on the Secretary's Wind Turbine Advisory
Committee. These experts will provide advice, guidance and
recommendations to minimize impacts to wildlife relative to land-based
wind energy facilities.
While I know that this hearing will not focus on the Cape Wind
Project in Massachusetts, I found it interesting that a senior staff
member of Greenpeace noted that: ``House cats in Hyannis kill more
birds than this wind farm ever will''.
Madam Chairwoman, we do not have to choose between onshore wind
power or bird protections. In fact, I agree with the sentiments of the
President of the National Audubon Society that: ``Our challenge is to
help design and locate wind-power projects that mitigate the negative
impacts on birds''.
While we may not have wind farms in South Carolina, if we are ever
going to get serious about developing alternative energy sources, wind
power must be part of the solution. We can produce this safe, clean and
renewable source of energy without killing large numbers of birds and
bats. We can accomplish that by strengthening siting standards and by
conducting pre-construction and biological surveys. Our energy policy
can no longer be--simply saying NO--to each and every energy source.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I am anxious to
hear how wind power and wildlife can co-exist in the future.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by the Alliance to
Protect Nantucket Sound follows:]
Statement of Charles C. Vinick, President and CEO,
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
Dear Chairwoman Bordallo and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf
of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (Alliance) I would like to
submit the following testimony for the record. The Alliance is a
nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the long-term
preservation of Nantucket Sound. An area of water hugged to the North
by Cape Cod and to the South and East by Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket Island, Nantucket Sound is a rich and diverse biological
community. It serves as habitat for numerous species of Seabirds and is
within the foraging and migratory route of multiple bat species. Our
goal is to protect Nantucket Sound, and its wildlife resources, in
perpetuity through conservation, environmental action, and opposition
to inappropriate industrial or commercial development that would
threaten or negatively alter the coastal ecosystem.
Background
Wind energy projects have been documented to negatively affect both
the avian and bat populations that reside in, and migrate through,
areas containing wind turbines. Wind energy production may affect birds
in three ways: 1) fatalities, as experienced among a wide variety of
bird species, resulting from collisions with rotors, towers, power
lines, or with other related structures, or electrocution on power
lines; 2) habitat fragmentation; and 3) the direct impacts on bird
habitat from the footprint of turbines, roads, power lines, and
auxiliary buildings. This is a problem for both onshore and offshore
turbine energy projects located in areas of concentrated bird and bat
activity.
There are a number of environmental concerns associated with birds
and wind turbines. One of the key concerns is mortality or other
effects on birds listed as protected species under international,
federal, and state legal authorities. There also are concerns about
local or regional population impacts, as well as cumulative impacts on
species at national and regional scales. The increase in the number of
wind turbines associated with individual projects, as well as the
height and size of each turbine, has also elevated the level of avian
impact.
Bat mortalities caused by wind turbines have been observed
throughout the U.S., with the highest levels occurring in the Eastern
United States. Generally, bat mortality is highest in the late summer
and early fall, a period which is thought to coincide with large levels
of bat migration. Migrating bats are thought to be most threatened by
turbines because research shows that they may navigate during migration
without the use of echolocation, which would otherwise help them to
avoid turbines and related structures. In addition, there is some
indication that bats may be attracted to turbines, confusing them for
traditional roost sites. Historic records reflect that, whether over
land or water, bats appear to seek out relatively tall structures for
overnight roosting. 1 Thus tall turbines can be mistaken for
tall trees and increase the potential for turbine-bat collisions as the
structures lure in the bats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is evident from the historic records of red bats landing
on ships at sea off the coast of New England, and reports of these bats
colliding with tall anthropogenic structures on shore and roosting in
trees at inland sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlation between wind energy development and impacts on
avian and bat populations is an issue that has been receiving an
increasing amount of attention in recent months. In addition to this
hearing, numerous other studies have either begun or been completed. In
May 2007, for example the National Research Council released a report
titled Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. The report notes,
``environmental influences of wind energy facilities can propagate
across a wide range of spatial scales, from location of a single
turbine to landscapes, regions, and the planet, and a range of temporal
scales from short-term noise to long-term influences on habitat
structure and influences on presence of species.'' 2 It has
become increasingly clear that wind turbines have a direct effect as
well as an indirect effect on avian species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council; Prepublication copy of Environmental
Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (2007) Pg 49. Last accessed on May 11,
2007 at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record--id=11935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Need for Mandatory Guidelines
In recognition of the relationship between bird and bat mortality
and wind energy facilities, various guidelines have been developed for
the permitting of such facilities.
For example, in April 2007, the California Energy Commission and
California Department of Fish and Game released a draft staff report,
titled California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats
from Wind Energy Development. The guidelines include recommendations on
preliminary screening of proposed wind energy project sites; pre-
permitting study design and methods; assessing direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts to birds and bats in accordance with state and
federal laws; developing avoidance and minimization measures;
establishing appropriate compensatory mitigation; and post-construction
monitoring, analysis, and reporting methods. Perhaps the most
comprehensive guidelines, however, are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) ``Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts from Wind Turbines'' (May 2003). See Attachment 1. 3
The voluntary guidance is intended to assist FWS staff in providing
technical assistance to the wind energy industry to avoid or minimize
impacts to wildlife and their habitats. It does this through: 1) aiding
in the proper evaluation of potential wind energy development sites; 2)
promoting the proper location and design of turbines and associated
structures within sites selected for development; and 3) specifying
pre- and post-construction research and monitoring to identify and/or
assess impacts to wildlife. One of the most important provisions of the
Interim Guidelines calls for three consecutive years of radar data for
site-specific projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Attachment 1 includes only the interim guidance document. The
full document including guidance and technical appendices for
implementation are available at http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/
wind.pdf. Last accessed on April 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, voluntary guidelines are only as effective as each
developer's willingness to abide by them. The Cape Wind Project
proposed for Nantucket Sound is an example of the problems that result
when wind developers choose to ignore the guidelines and proceed with
insufficient data. The project is also an example of why mandatory,
rather than voluntary, federal requirements are necessary
Land surrounding Nantucket Sound serves as a breeding and feeding
ground to many different species of birds, including globally
significant populations of the federally protected piping plover, an
endangered species. The area also provides habitat for other federal
and state endangered species such as the roseate tern and peregrine
falcon. The U.S. breeding population of roseate terns was declared
endangered in 1987. In recent years, nearly 90% of the Northeast U.S.
breeding population nested around Cape Cod. An estimated 500,000 sea
ducks winter in Nantucket Sound, the highest concentration of wintering
ducks in North America. The Sound is home to common eiders and black
scoters. The area is part of the Atlantic Flyway--a major migratory
bird route and generally abounds with birds vulnerable to wind energy
development.
There is currently a complete absence of site-specific bat data for
Nantucket Sound. 4 It is, therefore, impossible to state
with certainty the bat population of the area at this time. However,
Nantucket Sound is well within the migratory range of eastern red bats,
hoary bats, and silver-haired bats and the nightly foraging ranges of
other species that occur in New England. This suggests that wind
turbine construction in the area may also have a significant impact on
bat populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Despite repeated requests, the Wind project proponent has
refused to conduct the necessary site-specific studies necessary to
obtain actual population data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in this avian sanctuary that Cape Wind Associates have
proposed to construct an industrial sized wind complex. The proposed
Cape Wind project is likely to have a significant impact on avian
species in the Nantucket Sound area. It is slated to have 130 wind
turbines each 440 feet high spread over 25 square miles.
For over five years, FWS and other parties have called upon Cape
Wind Associates to conduct the research called for under the FWS
Interim Guidelines, especially the three years of radar data so that
the impact of the proposed project can be adequately assessed. See
Attachment 2. These studies are necessary, practicable, and reasonable.
However, they have not been conducted, due to the recalcitrance of the
project developer. The studies that Cape Wind has conducted are
insufficient as a basis for biological assessment. For example, Cape
Wind's widely criticized ``visual observations'' of birds in Nantucket
Sound produced a count of 365 ``targets'' in the ``rotor-swept area''
of the project over a single day of observation in September, 2002. A
radar study of the same zone and time period, however, reported 11,156
``targets.'' This great disparity shows the clear need for reliable
data and studies, and the need for mandatory requirements for their
collection. The necessary studies could have been conducted at a
reasonable cost and would have been completed well in advance of agency
review for permitting purposes, had Cape Wind followed the FWS Interim
Guidelines and agency recommendations. Unfortunately, Cape Wind's
responses are dismissive of the serious impacts that the project is
likely to have on endangered and threatened birds and in no way provide
federal agencies with the scientific data or relevant information that
they need to make legal and regulatory determinations about the
project. Prior to permitting, large-scale projects such as Cape Wind
must be required to complete studies of bird and bat impacts that
provide complete and useful data to aid agency decisionmakers in the
permitting process. If the Subcommittee is serious about the protection
of birds, the now voluntary FWS guidelines must be made mandatory.
The Department of the Interior is currently forming a ``Wind
Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee'' for the purpose of developing
permanent guidelines, and providing additional advice and support. See
Attachment 3. The Alliance asks Congress to encourage the speedy
development of these guidelines and to insist that the guidelines
include minimum site-specific data collection standards. In addition,
Congress should pass a law that prohibits any wind project, including
currently pending projects, from being authorized, onshore or offshore,
unless either the FWS guidelines have been satisfied or FWS makes a
finding of no significant impact.
Adaptive Management is Not the Solution
The Wind industry has advocated for adaptive management to be the
primary response to the need for more avian information and the lack of
a current mitigation strategy. The mentality is ``build now and
mitigate impacts, to the extent possible, later.'' But historical
evidence suggests that wind projects have the potential to wreak havoc
on bird and bat populations. Relying on adaptive management as
alternative to adequate preconstruction studies and mortality avoidance
is particularly problematic for raptor and bat populations, which have
slow reproductive cycles and low reproductive rates. Impacts to these
populations are long-lasting and once harmed, they cannot quickly
recover. Resource stewardship requires more protection than the ``build
now, fix later'' philosophy would provide.
Congress cannot allow adaptive management to be used as a
substitute for necessary pre-construction data collection. Congress
needs to mandate that agencies responsible for the review of individual
projects rely on the precautionary principal and deny project permits
in areas of significant importance to avian species, including
migratory bird routes until the government can establish that post-
construction mitigation efforts are successful. If a location on a
migratory bird route is good for developing now, it will be good for
development later, after the government has a better understanding of
the viability of mitigation options.
Conclusion
While further research is greatly needed to understand the threat
that wind energy poses to bird and bat populations, as well as to
understand how to mitigate such impacts, it is clear that there is a
direct correlation between increased bird and bat mortality and wind
energy facility construction and operation. It is also clear that
congressional action is needed to remedy the situation. The Alliance
urges the Subcommittee to mandate compliance with the FWS guidelines
for wind energy development and to require reviewing agencies to rely
on the precautionary principle and not adaptive management, in the
absence of necessary resource and impacts data.