    Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities
    for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife (16-SEP-05,
    GAO-05-906).

    Wind power has recently experienced dramatic growth in the United
    States, with further growth expected. However, several wind
    power-generating facilities have killed migratory birds and bats,
    prompting concern from wildlife biologists and others about the
    species affected, and the cumulative effects on species
    populations. 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. GAO reviewed a sample of six states with
    wind power development for this report.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-906
        ACCNO:   A37079
      TITLE:     Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government
    Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting
    Wildlife
         DATE:   09/16/2005
      SUBJECT:   Electric power generation
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Federal regulations
    	     Migratory birds
    	     Policy evaluation
    	     Regulatory agencies
    	     Wildlife
    	     Wildlife conservation
    	     Wind energy

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-906

                     United States Government Accountability Office

                         GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

    September 2005

    WIND POWER

     Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development
                                and Protecting Wildlife

                                           a

    GAO-05-906

    [IMG]

    September 2005

    WIND POWER

    Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development
    and Protecting Wildlife

      What GAO Found

    The impact of wind power facilities on wildlife varies by region and by
    species. Specifically, studies show that wind power facilities in northern
    California and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have killed large numbers
    of raptors and bats, respectively. Studies in other parts of the country
    show comparatively lower levels of mortality, although most facilities
    have killed at least some birds. However, many wind power facilities in
    the United States have not been studied, and, therefore, scientists cannot
    draw definitive conclusions about the threat that wind power poses to
    wildlife in general. Further, much is still unknown about migratory bird
    flyways and overall species population levels, making it difficult to
    determine the cumulative impact that the wind power industry has on
    wildlife species. Notably, only a few studies exist concerning ways in
    which to reduce wildlife fatalities at wind power facilities.

    Regulating wind power facilities is largely the responsibility of state
    and local governments. In the six states 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. The federal government plays a minimal
    role in approving wind power facilities, only regulating facilities that
    are on federal lands or have some form of federal involvement, such as
    receiving federal funds. In these cases, the wind power project must
    comply with federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act,
    as well as any relevant state and local laws.

    Federal and state laws afford generalized protections to wildlife from
    wind power as with any other activity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) is the primary agency tasked with implementing wildlife protections
    in the United States. Three federal laws-the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
    the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act-
    generally forbid harm to various species of wildlife. Although significant
    wildlife mortality events have occurred at wind power facilities, the
    federal government has not prosecuted any cases against wind power
    companies under these wildlife laws, preferring instead to encourage
    companies to take mitigation steps to avoid future harm. All of the six
    states GAO reviewed had statutes that can be used to protect some wildlife
    from wind power impacts; however, similar to FWS, no states have taken any
    prosecutorial actions against wind power facilities where wildlife
    mortalities have occurred.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    Studies Show Wind Power Facility Impacts on Wildlife Vary,

    Although Notable Gaps in the Literature Remain and Few Studies Address
    Mitigation Regulating Wind Power Facilities on Nonfederal Land Is Largely
    the

    Responsibility of State and Local Governments Federal and State Laws
    Protect Wildlife Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency
    Comments and Our Evaluation

    1 2 5

    10

    21 33 43 44 44

      Appendixes

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

    Appendix II: Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by Region 49

    Appendix III:	Comments from the Department of the Interior 51 GAO Comments
    54

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

    Bibliography

    Tables Table 1: Type of Regulatory Process and Responsible Agency in

    Select States 22

    Table 2: Federal Wildlife Protection Laws 34

    Table 3: Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by

    Region 49

    Figures Figure 1:

    Figure 2: Figure 3:

    Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6:

    Installed Wind Power-Generating Capacity in Megawatts,
    by State, as of January 24, 2005 7
    Areas of the United States with High Wind Potential 8
    Example of Older Generation Wind Turbines in Altamont
    Pass, Northern California 12
    Example of a Newer Generation Wind Power Facility 13
    Wind Power Facility in Sherman County, Oregon 27
    Wind Power Facility in Somerset County,
    Pennsylvania 28

    Contents

            Figure 7: Wind Power Facility in Tucker County, West Virginia 30

    Abbreviations

    BLM Bureau of Land Management
    DOE Department of Energy
    FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    MW megawatts

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    September 16, 2005

    The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II
    Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan

    Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Science,
    the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce
    and Related Agencies

    Committee on Appropriations

    House of Representatives

    The production of wind power, a renewable energy source, has recently
    experienced dramatic growth in the United States, although it still
    generates less than 1 percent of the electricity used in this country.
    Wind
    power-generating facilities were first built in California about 25 years
    ago.
    Now wind power facilities can be found in over 30 states, and the industry
    is expected to continue to grow rapidly. The vast majority of wind power
    facilities are located in just 10 western and midwestern states; most are
    on
    nonfederal land. Development has slowly made its way east and is
    currently being pursued along the ridge tops of the Appalachian Mountains
    in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Once thought to
    have practically no adverse environmental effects, it is now recognized
    that
    wind power facilities can have adverse impacts-particularly on wildlife,
    and most significantly on birds and bats.

    Large numbers of birds and bats are believed to follow and cross through
    many parts of the United States, including along mountain ridges, during
    their seasonal migrations. Consequently, wind power projects located in
    these areas could potentially impact these species. At wind
    power-generating facilities in Appalachia and California, wind turbines
    have killed large numbers of migratory birds and bats. Wind power
    facilities may also have other impacts on wildlife through alterations of
    habitat. Habitat destruction and modification is a leading threat to the
    continued survival of wildlife species in the United States.

    In this context, we 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.

    To address these objectives, we reviewed major scientific studies and
    reports on direct impacts from wind power on avian species and other
    wildlife (we did not assess indirect impacts, such as habitat impacts). We
    interviewed experts from the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), state agencies, academia, industry, and
    conservation groups and obtained their views on these studies and reports.
    We also reviewed a nonprobability sample of six states with wind power
    development-California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and
    West Virginia.1 We selected these states to reflect a range in installed
    wind generating capacity, regulatory processes, history of wind power
    development, and geographic distribution and to reflect our requesters'
    interests. We identified and reviewed relevant federal, state, and local
    laws and regulations. In addition, we interviewed federal, state, and
    local officials who were responsible for implementing related programs.
    More information about the objectives, scope, and methodology of our
    evaluation is presented in appendix I. We conducted our work between
    December 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards, including an assessment of data reliability
    and internal controls.

    Results in Brief	Recent studies and interviews with experts indicate that
    the impacts of wind power facilities on birds and other wildlife vary by
    region and by species. Wildlife mortalities in two locations in particular
    have elicited concerns from scientists, regulators, and the public.
    Specifically, a recent study shows that over 1,000 raptors are killed by
    wind power facilities in northern California each year. Many experts
    attribute this large number of fatalities to unique aspects of wind power
    development in northern California, such as the unusually large number of
    turbines (over 5,000), the type of turbines in the region, and the
    presence of abundant raptor prey in the area. On the other side of the
    country, a recent study estimated that over 2,000 bats were killed during
    a 1-year period at a wind power facility in the mountains of eastern West
    Virginia. Studies from these two locations stand in contrast to studies
    from other wind power facilities. These studies

    1Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
    about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
    the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
    selected as part of the sample.

    show relatively lower bird and bat mortality. However, bat estimates are
    less precise because most of the studies were designed to estimate only
    bird mortality. These studies have not elicited the same degree of concern
    from biologists as the studies from West Virginia and California. However,
    significant gaps in the literature make it difficult for scientists to
    draw conclusions about wind power's impact on wildlife in general. For
    example, experts told us that there is a shortage of information on
    migratory bird routes and bat behavior as well as the ways in which
    topography, weather, and turbine type affect mortality. In addition,
    studies conducted at one location can rarely be used to extrapolate
    potential impacts or mitigation effectiveness at other locations because
    of differences in site-specific conditions, such as topography, the types
    and densities of species present, and the type of wind turbines installed.
    Finally, while some authors have recommended mitigation strategies for
    reducing bird and bat kills, there are relatively few comprehensive
    studies testing the effectiveness of these strategies.

    Regulating wind power facilities on nonfederal land is largely the
    responsibility of state and local governments. In the six states we
    reviewed, the permitting of wind power development consisted of
    local-level processes, state-level processes, or a combination of the two.
    In California, New York, and Pennsylvania, local governments regulate the
    development of wind power. Local governments in these states generally
    require wind developers to adhere to local zoning ordinances and obtain
    special use permits before construction. In addition, California and New
    York have state environmental laws that require various studies and
    analyses to be conducted before a permit can be issued. West Virginia uses
    a state-level process, whereby its Public Service Commission is
    responsible for, among other things, regulating the activities of all
    public utilities operating in the state, including wind power. The
    commission has the authority to include certain conditions in wind power
    certificates, such as requiring wildlife studies before and after
    construction. In Minnesota and Oregon, local and state agencies regulate
    wind power development. In these two states, local agencies, such as
    county planning commissions or zoning boards, permit the development of
    wind power unless a project exceeds a certain level of electric-generating
    capacity; larger facilities are regulated by a state agency. While some
    state and local regulatory agencies require environmental assessments
    before construction, some state and local regulatory agency officials told
    us that they have little experience or expertise in addressing
    environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. For example, officials
    in one state told us that they did not have the expertise to evaluate
    wildlife impacts and review studies prior to

    construction. The federal government generally only has a regulatory role
    in wind power development 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 and 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. Three laws-the Migratory Bird Treaty
    Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species
    Act-are the federal laws most relevant to protecting wildlife from wind
    power facilities, and these laws generally forbid harm to various species
    of wildlife. FWS is the federal agency that has primary responsibility for
    implementing and enforcing these three laws. Although none of the three
    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 some cases, developers voluntarily consult with FWS-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 FWS law enforcement officials investigating instances of
    wildlife fatalities at a wind power facility. While significant mortality
    events have occurred at some wind power facilities-and, in some cases, are
    recurring-the federal government has not prosecuted any cases against wind
    power companies for violations of federal wildlife laws. In some cases,
    FWS has not taken action because the species killed are not federally
    protected, such as the bat species killed in West Virginia. In cases where
    violations of federal law have occurred, FWS law enforcement officials
    told us that before FWS pursues civil or criminal penalties, the agency
    prefers to work with companies to encourage them to take mitigation steps
    to avoid future harm. According to FWS officials, they have been
    reasonably successful in resolving impacts to wildlife by following this
    approach with the electric power industry. FWS has also referred cases
    against wind power developers to either the Interior's Office of the
    Solicitor San Francisco field office or the Department of Justice for
    killing raptors, but Justice was unable to comment on the specifics of its
    ongoing investigation. FWS has been working with the wind industry to help
    identify solutions and ensure that wildlife mortality at wind power

    facilities is minimized. For example, FWS has participated in
    industry-sponsored workshops and conferences, issued voluntary guidelines
    for industry to use in developing new projects, and served as a member in
    a wildlife working group with industry. Regarding state wildlife
    protections, all of the six states we reviewed have statutes that can be
    used to protect some wildlife from wind power impacts. However, similar to
    FWS, 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, we are making a recommendation to FWS to 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.

    We received written comments on a draft of this report. The Department of
    the Interior stated that they generally agree with our findings and our
    recommendation in the report. Written comments from the department are
    included in appendix III.

    Background 	The energy used to generate our nation's electricity comes
    from many different sources. Currently, most electricity in the United
    States is generated with fossil fuel and nuclear technologies-coal (52
    percent), nuclear (20 percent), natural gas (16 percent), and oil (3
    percent). Fossil fuels are considered nonrenewable because they are finite
    and will eventually dwindle or become too expensive or environmentally
    damaging to retrieve. Wind, however, is one of several sources of energy
    known as renewable energy. Other forms of renewable energy sources include
    sunlight (photovoltaics), heat from the sun (solar thermal), naturally
    occurring underground steam and heat (geothermal), plant and animal waste
    (biomass), and water (hydropower).

    To reduce our dependence on nonrenewable energy sources, the United States
    has promoted the development of renewable resources, such as wind. A key
    federal program supporting the development of such sources is the federal
    production tax credit established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.2 This
    law provides a tax credit for electricity generated by renewable

    226 U.S.C. S: 45. Section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L.
    No. 109-58, extended the tax credit through January 1, 2008.

    energy sources, such as wind turbines. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of
    1981 provides an additional incentive for wind power growth.3 In some
    cases, this law allows a 5-year depreciation schedule for renewable energy
    systems. In conjunction with the tax credit, this accelerated depreciation
    allows an even greater tax break for renewable energy projects, such as
    wind projects, that have high initial capital costs.4

    Some states also provide incentives for wind power development. One of the
    strongest drivers is a renewable portfolio standard. Generally, a
    renewable portfolio standard requires utilities operating in a state to
    acquire a minimum amount of their electricity supply from renewable energy
    sources. As of June 2005, 18 states had some form of renewable power
    requirements capable of being met by wind power. Other common types of
    incentives for renewable energy development provided by several state and
    local governments are income tax incentives and property and sales tax
    exemptions. Many states provide more than one type of incentive. In
    addition, 25 states have statewide wind working groups that are funded (at
    least partially) through grants from the Department of Energy (DOE). The
    purpose of these working groups is to promote more widespread development
    of wind power.

    These federal and state programs have helped spur significant wind power
    development in the last 5 years. At the end of 2004, the total installed
    capacity from wind power in the United States was 6,740 megawatts (MW), or
    enough capacity to meet the electricity demand of between 1.5 and 2.0
    million average American households (see fig. 1).

    326 U.S.C. S: 168(e)(3)(B)(vi).

    4See GAO, Renewable Energy: Wind Power's Contribution to Electric Power
    Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities, GAO-04-756
    (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2004) for prior work related to this issue.

    According to DOE, 36 of the 48 continental states have wind resources that
    would support utility-scale wind power projects (i.e., projects that
    generate at least 1 MW of electric power from 1 or more turbines annually
    for sale to a local utility). A DOE goal for wind power is to generate 5
    percent of the electricity generated in the United States by 2020; the
    American Wind Energy Association has a similar goal.5 To reach this goal,
    the association estimates that about 100,000 MW of installed capacity will
    be needed-approximately 15 times the current installed capacity. On the
    basis of the average MW size of wind turbines commonly being installed
    today (1.5 MW), more than 62,000 additional turbines will need to be added
    to the existing 16,000 turbines already constructed in the United States
    to meet such a goal.

    Most of the wind power development in the United States has occurred in 10
    western and midwestern states-California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New
    Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. In fact, these
    10 states have over 90 percent of the total installed wind power capacity
    nationwide. Only recently have developers begun to build wind energy
    facilities in the eastern United States. As shown in figure 2, wind power
    potential in this geographic area is best along mountain ridges, primarily
    the Appalachian Mountains, and along the coast of the northeastern United
    States.

    Wind power is considered a "green" technology because, unlike fossil fuel
    power plants, it does not produce harmful emissions, such as carbon
    dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter,
    which can pose human health and environmental risks such as acid rain.
    However, it is now recognized that wind power facilities can adversely
    affect the environment in other ways, specifically in impacting wildlife
    such as birds and bats. Wind power facilities located in migratory
    pathways or important habitats may harm the wildlife living or passing
    through the area by killing or injuring them or by disrupting feeding or
    breeding behaviors. But wind power is not alone in its impacts on
    wildlife. Millions, or perhaps billions, of wildlife are killed every year
    in the United States through a myriad of human activities. While sources
    of bat mortality are not as well known, FWS estimates that some of the
    leading sources of bird mortality, per year, are collisions with building
    windows-97 million to 976

    5The American Wind Energy Association is a national trade association that
    represents wind power plant developers, wind turbine manufacturers,
    utilities, consultants, insurers, financiers, researchers, and others
    involved in the wind industry.

    million bird deaths, collisions with communication towers-4 million to 50
    million bird deaths, poisoning from pesticides-at least 72 million birds,
    and attacks by domestic and feral cats-hundreds of millions of bird
    deaths. Human activities also result in the destruction or modification of
    wildlife habitat; habitat loss and fragmentation are leading threats to
    the continued survival of many species.

    Studies Show Wind Power Facility Impacts on Wildlife Vary, Although
    Notable Gaps in the Literature Remain and Few Studies Address Mitigation

    Recent studies and interviews with experts reveal that the impacts of wind
    power facilities on birds and other wildlife vary by region and by
    species. Specifically, studies showing raptor mortality in California and
    bat mortality in Appalachia have elicited concerns from scientists,
    environmental groups, and regulators because of the large number of kills
    in these areas and the potential cumulative impact on some species. Thus
    far, documented bird and bat mortality from wind power in other parts of
    the country has not occurred in numbers high enough to raise concerns.
    However, gaps in the literature make it difficult to develop definitive
    conclusions about the impacts of wind power on birds and other wildlife.
    Notably, only a few studies have been conducted on strategies to address
    the potential risks wind power facilities pose to wildlife.

    Wildlife Mortality Varies by Region and by Species

    Studies Have Found Large Numbers of Raptors Killed by Wind Turbines in
    California

    Our review of the literature and discussions with experts revealed that,
    thus far, concerns over direct impacts to wildlife from wind power
    facilities have been concentrated in two geographic areas-northern
    California and Appalachia.6 (For a discussion on how we selected these
    studies, see app. I.) While bird and bat kills have been documented in
    many locations, biologists are primarily concerned about mortality in
    these two regions because of the numbers of wildlife killed and the
    species affected.

    Wind power facilities in northern California, specifically in the Altamont
    Pass Wind Resource Area about 50 miles east of San Francisco, have been
    responsible for the deaths of numerous raptors, or birds of prey, such as
    hawks and golden eagles, and, as a result, these deaths have elicited
    concern from wildlife protection groups, biologists, and regulators.
    Studies conducted in the last two decades have documented large numbers of
    raptor deaths in this area. One study in our review found estimates as
    high

    6Many of these studies were conducted by consultants for wind power
    companies and were not scientifically peer-reviewed. In addition,
    protocols used in these studies may vary.

    as over 1,000 raptor deaths per year. Such large numbers of raptor kills
    due to wind power are not seen elsewhere in the United States. A 2001
    summary that examined raptor mortality rates from studies in 10 states
    estimated that over 90 percent of the raptors killed annually in the
    United States by wind power turbines occurred in California.7

    Several unique features of the wind resource area at Altamont Pass
    contribute to the high number of raptor deaths. First, California was the
    first area to develop wind power in significant numbers and thus has some
    of the oldest turbines still in operation in the United States. Older
    turbines produce less power per turbine, so it took many turbines to
    produce a certain level of energy; today, newer facilities producing the
    same amount of energy would have much fewer turbines. For example,
    Altamont Pass has over 5,000 wind turbines-many of which are older
    models-whereas, newer facilities generally have significantly fewer
    turbines (see figs. 3 and 4). Some experts told us that the sheer number
    of turbines in Altamont Pass has been a major reason for the high number
    of fatalities in the area.

    7Erickson, Wallace P., Gregory D. Johnson, M. Dale Strickland, David P.
    Young Jr., Karyn J. Sernka, and Rhett E. Good. Avian Collisions with Wind
    Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources
    of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. A National Wind
    Coordinating Committee Resource Document, August 2001. Because summaries
    of studies generally do not present detailed information about the
    methodologies of the studies they include, these results should be
    considered with caution.

    Figure 3: Example of Older Generation Wind Turbines in Altamont Pass,
    Northern California

    Source: California Energy Commission.

    Figure 4: Example of a Newer Generation Wind Power Facility

    Source: Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

    Secondly, some scientists believe that the design of older generation
    turbines, like those found in Altamont Pass, are more fatal to raptors.
    Specifically, early turbines were mounted on towers 60 feet to 80 feet in
    height, while today's turbines are mounted on towers 200 feet to 260 feet
    in height. Experts told us that the older turbines at Altamont Pass have
    blades that reach lower to the ground, and thus can be more hazardous to
    raptors as they swoop down to catch prey. Experts also reasoned that the
    relative absence of raptor kills at newer facilities with generally taller
    turbines supports the notion that these turbines are less lethal to
    raptors. Third, the location of the wind turbine facilities at Altamont
    Pass may have contributed to the high number of raptor deaths. Studies
    show that there are a high number of raptors that pass through the area,
    as well as an abundance of raptor prey at the base of the turbines. In
    addition, the location of wind turbines on ridge tops and canyons may
    increase the likelihood that raptors will collide with turbines. Some
    experts note that one reason why other parts of the country may not be
    experiencing high levels of raptor mortality is partly because wind
    developers have used information from Altamont Pass to site new turbines
    in hopes of avoiding similar situations.

    Studies Have Found Large Numbers of Bats Killed by Wind Turbines in
    Appalachia

    Studies Show That Bird and Bat Mortality from Wind Power in Other Parts of
    the Country Is Comparatively Lower Than in California and Appalachia

    Recent studies conducted in the eastern United States in the Appalachian
    Mountains have found large numbers of bats killed by wind power turbines.
    A 2004 study conducted in West Virginia estimated that slightly over 2,000
    bats were killed during a 7-month study at a location with 44 turbines.
    More recently, a 2005 report that examined wind resource areas both in
    West Virginia and Pennsylvania estimated that about 2,000 bats were killed
    during a much shorter 6-week study period at 64 turbines. Lastly, a study
    conducted of a small 3-turbine wind facility in Tennessee estimated that
    bat mortality was about 21 bats per turbine, per year, raising concerns
    about the potential impact on bats if more turbines are built in this
    area.

    Various species of bats have been killed at these wind power facilities
    and experts are concerned about impacts to bat populations if large
    numbers of deaths continue. For example, one expert noted that "it is
    alarming to see the number of bats currently being killed coupled with the
    proposed number of wind power developments" in these areas. He explained
    that bats live longer and have lower reproductive rates than birds, and,
    therefore, bat populations may be more vulnerable to impacts. In addition,
    there are proposals for hundreds of new wind turbines along the
    Appalachian Mountains. A recent report from Bat Conservation International
    estimated that if all ridge-top turbines are approved and the mortality
    rates continue at their current rate, these turbines might kill tens of
    thousands of bats in a single season. Although none of the bats killed by
    wind power to date have been listed as endangered species, FWS-
    recognizing the seriousness of the problem-has initiated a study with the
    U.S. Geological Survey to study bat migration and to develop decision
    tools to provide assistance in identifying locations for wind turbines and
    communication towers.

    Results from studies on bird and bat mortality from wind power conducted
    in areas other than northern California and Appalachia have not caused the
    same degree of concern as in these two locations. Our review of studies
    conducted in areas other than the Appalachian Mountains showed bat
    fatality rates ranging from 0 to 4.3 bats per turbine, per year-compared
    with rates as high as 38 bats per turbine, per a 6-week study period, in
    the Appalachian Mountains (see app. II). Raptor fatalities outside
    Altamont Pass ranged from 0 to 0.07 raptors per turbine, per year,
    whereas, rates in Altamont Pass ranged from 0.05 to 0.24. Our review of
    studies found that overall bird fatalities from wind power ranged from 0
    to 7.28 birds per turbine, per year. In addition, a 2004 National Wind
    Coordinating Committee fact sheet shows that an average of 2.3 birds per
    turbine, per

    year are killed at facilities outside of California.8 However, it is
    important to also look at the number of turbines and the vulnerability of
    the species affected when interpreting these rates. For example, the high
    rate of 7.28 overall bird fatalities per turbine was found at a facility
    of only 3 wind turbines. Therefore, if no additional turbines are built in
    this area, the overall impact to the bird populations may be minimal;
    whereas, a lower fatality rate may cause impacts if there are many
    turbines in that particular area. In addition, comparing study findings
    can be difficult because researchers may use differing metrics and many
    areas of the country remain unstudied with regard to avian and bat impacts
    from wind power. While interpreting these statistics can be complicated,
    the experts we spoke with agreed that outside of California and Appalachia
    at the current level of wind power development, the research to date has
    not shown bird or bat kills in alarming numbers.

    While the studies we reviewed showed relatively low levels of mortality in
    many locations, there are also indirect impacts to wildlife from wind
    power facilities. For example, construction of wind power facilities may
    fragment habitat and disrupt feeding or breeding behaviors. According to
    FWS, the loss of habitat quantity and quality is the primary cause of
    declines in most assessed bird populations and many other wildlife
    species. However, this review focuses on the direct impacts of avian and
    bat mortality.

    Several Gaps Exist in Research on Wind Power Facility Impacts on Wildlife

    While experts told us that the impact of wind power facilities on wildlife
    is more studied than other comparable infrastructure, such as
    communication towers, important gaps in the research remain. First,
    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

    8National Wind Coordinating Committee, Wind Turbine Interactions with
    Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions.
    Fact sheet: Second Edition. November 2004. Because summaries of studies
    generally do not present detailed information about the methodologies of
    the studies that they include, these results should be considered with
    caution.

    locate only 19 postconstruction studies that were conducted to assess
    direct impacts to birds or bats in 11 states.9 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.

    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. A 2001 analysis of studies estimated that wind
    turbines in the United States cause roughly 33,000 avian deaths per
    year.10 However, the authors noted that making projections of the
    potential magnitude of wind power-related avian fatalities is problematic,
    in part, because of the lack of long-term data. The authors further noted
    that the data collected at older sites may not be representative of newer
    facilities with more modern turbine technology. In addition, FWS considers
    this estimate to be a "minimum" to "conservative" estimate due to problems
    of data collection and uneven regional representation. In addition to
    limiting assessments of national impacts, a lack of data on actual
    mortality impacts siting decisions for new facilities. Specifically, the
    conclusions of postconstruction studies are often used when making
    preconstruction predictions about the degree of harm to wildlife that is
    likely expected from proposed facilities. If there are no local
    postconstruction studies available, predictions of future mortality at a
    proposed site must be based on information from studies conducted in areas
    that may have different wildlife species, topography, weather conditions,
    climate, soil types, and vegetative cover.

    A second important research gap is in understanding what factors increase
    the chances that turbines will be hazardous to wildlife. For example, it
    can be difficult to discern, among other things, how the number, location,
    and type of turbine; the number and type of species in an area; species
    behavior; topography; and weather affect mortality and why. Drawing
    conclusions about the degree of risk posed by certain factors-such as
    terrain, weather, or type of turbine-is difficult because sites differ in
    their combination of factors. For example, according to experts, data are
    inadequate about what turbine types are most hazardous and to what
    species. This is partly because most wind power facilities use only one

    9See appendix I for the criteria we used for including studies in our
    review.

    10Erickson, Wallace P., Gregory D. Johnson, M. Dale Strickland, David P.
    Young Jr., Karyn J. Sernka, and Rhett E. Avian Collisions with Wind
    Turbines.

    turbine type. Therefore, even if one facility proved more hazardous than
    another, it would be difficult to attribute the difference to turbine type
    alone because other variables, such as topography or migratory patterns,
    are also likely to vary among the sites. Additionally, comparisons between
    studies are difficult because researchers may use different study
    methodologies. Therefore, even if two sites had similar bird populations,
    topography, and weather characteristics but different turbines, it would
    be difficult to isolate the effect of the turbine if the scientists
    collecting the information used differing methodologies.

    Altamont Pass, however, has the potential to allow researchers to
    determine which turbines are more hazardous because it contains many
    different types of turbines in one place. However, even this analysis has
    been complicated by confounding variables. For example, according to
    experts, at one time it was commonly thought that turbines with lattice
    towers killed more birds than turbines with tubular towers in Altamont
    Pass; however, some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. One
    study noted that although the authors found higher mortality associated
    with lattice towers, this relationship might be explained by factors such
    as the fact that lattice towers were found to be in operation more
    frequently than were other towers, including tubular towers, rather than
    the difference in the design of the towers. Complicating matters still,
    some factors may be more hazardous for some species than others. One study
    found that red-tailed hawk fatalities occurred more frequently than
    expected at turbines located on ridgelines than on hillsides. The authors
    found the reverse to be true for golden eagles, demonstrating the
    difficulty of understanding interactions between turbines and bird
    mortality from bird mortality estimates alone.

    A third research gap is the lack of complete and definitive information on
    the interaction of bats with wind turbines. As previously noted, bats have
    collided with wind turbines in significant numbers in some parts of the
    United States, but scientists do not have a complete understanding
    regarding why these collisions occur. Bats are known to have the ability
    to echolocate to avoid collision with objects, and they have been able to
    avoid colliding with comparable structures such as meteorological
    towers.11 Therefore, their collision with wind turbines remains a mystery.
    The few studies that have been conducted show that most of the kills have
    taken

    11Meteorological towers are used to assess weather conditions, including
    wind speed and direction.

    place during the migratory season (July through September), and this
    suggests that migrating bats are involved in most of the fatalities. In
    addition, one study showed that lower wind speeds were associated with
    higher fatality rates. However, experts admit that much remains unknown
    about why bats are attracted to and killed by turbines and about what
    conditions increase the chances that bats will be killed. One expert noted
    that there is still very little known about bat migration in general and
    about the way in which bat interactions with turbines are affected by
    weather patterns. This expert further noted that there still has not been
    a full season of monitoring bat mortality from which patterns can be
    identified.

    Although scientists still do not know why bats are being killed in large
    numbers by wind power turbines in some areas, several hypotheses have been
    offered. One hypothesis states that the lighting on turbines attracts
    insects, which in turn attracts bats, but studies have not demonstrated
    differences in fatalities between lit turbines and unlit turbines. Other
    hypotheses include the notions that bats may be investigating wind
    turbines as potential roosting sites, that open spaces around turbines
    create favorable foraging habitats, and that migrating bats do not
    echolocate and thus are less able to avoid collision. One thing bat
    experts agree on is the need for more research.

    In addition to these research gaps regarding bird and bat interactions
    with turbines, very little is known about bird and bat populations in
    general, such as their size and migratory pathways. An FWS official told
    us that data are available regarding the migration routes and habitat
    needs of only about one-third of the more than 800 bird species that live
    in or pass through the United States each year. In addition, bat
    researchers stressed to us that very little is known about the pathways
    and behavior of migratory bats. This lack of information, among other
    factors, makes it difficult to assess the cumulative impacts from wind
    power on species populations. One expert noted that many bird populations
    are in decline in general and additional losses due to wind power may
    exacerbate this trend. However, it is very difficult to attribute a
    decline in bird populations to wind power specifically or to get good data
    on overall populations that span international borders. Our literature
    search was only able to find one study in the United States that examined
    the impact of fatalities from wind power on a particular species
    population-golden eagles-and those results have been described as
    relatively inconclusive, or mixed, by other scientists. Without this kind
    of information, it can be difficult to determine the appropriate public
    policy responses to wildlife impacts due to wind power.

    Although there are currently several gaps in the study of wind power's
    direct impacts on birds and bats, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey have
    recently initiated a study of bird and bat migration behaviors to address
    some of these data gaps. This study will use radar technology to
    characterize daily and seasonal movements and habitat and landform
    associations of migrating birds and bats, and will seek to develop
    decision support tools to provide assistance in identifying locations for
    wind turbines and communication towers. In addition, Congress has
    appropriated funds for a National Academy of Sciences study on the
    environmental impacts of wind power development in the Mid-Atlantic
    Highlands that will include developing criteria for the siting of wind
    turbines in this area. Finally, the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, a
    partnership of Bat Conservation International, the American Wind Energy
    Association, FWS, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, continues
    to sponsor research on bats and wind turbines focusing on acoustic
    deterrence methods and pre-and postconstruction risk assessment at a
    planned wind farm in the Appalachian region.

    Few Studies Have Been Conducted on Mitigation Measures

    Overall, there is much to be learned about mitigation strategies for
    reducing impacts from wind power facilities on birds and bats, and some
    strategies that once looked promising are now proving ineffective.
    Specifically, we found that relatively few studies have examined
    strategies for reducing the potential impacts of wind power on birds and
    bats. Some of these studies were based on information collected from birds
    in a laboratory setting, and, therefore, their conclusions still need to
    be verified by conducting studies at actual wind power facilities. One
    study examined the idea of addressing motion smear-the inability of birds
    to see moving blades-by painting turbine blades to make them more visible.
    This study indicated that color contrast was a critical variable in
    helping birds to see objects like moving turbine blades and recommended
    painting stripes on blades as a way to test whether this could be an
    effective deterrent. Some developers adopted this strategy; however, a
    recent study found that turbines with painted blades were ineffective in
    reducing bird kills. Another laboratory-based study tested bird reactions
    to noise and sound pressure and suggested that whistles could make blades
    more audible to birds, while making no measurable contribution to overall
    noise levels. However, the authors of this study made no predictions about
    changes in bird flight in response to hearing the noise and noted that
    field tests would be required to test this hypothesis.

    Although there have been relatively few laboratory-based experiments on
    mitigation strategies, some strategies have already been attempted in
    Altamont Pass. A recent 4-year study conducted by the California Energy
    Commission in Altamont Pass tested some of these mitigation efforts
    attempted by industry and suggested possible future mitigation strategies.
    This study found that some of the strategies adopted by industry, such as
    perch guards on turbines and rodent control programs that reduce prey
    availability, were ineffective in reducing kills. Another study compared
    the differences between turbines painted with ultraviolet reflectant or
    nonultraviolet reflectant to see whether one would act as a visual
    deterrent, but the study found no evidence of a difference in mortality
    between the two treatments.

    While there is less than adequate information on the effectiveness of
    mitigation strategies from existing scientific research, the experts with
    whom we spoke were hopeful about several strategies on the basis of their
    experience in the field. Some of these experts noted that because birds
    have been found to collide with electrical wires, wind facilities should
    bury their transmission lines under ground and avoid using guywires on
    their meteorological towers; such fixes have generally been adopted.
    Although some studies have shown that there are no differences in
    mortality rates for lit turbines versus unlit turbines, some experts argue
    that, regardless, it is best to use low lighting to avoid attracting birds
    that migrate at night. In addition, researchers recommended that sodium
    vapor lights should never be used at or near wind power facilities because
    they have commonly been shown to attract birds to other structures. They
    noted that the largest number of birds killed at one time near wind
    turbines was found adjacent to sodium lights after a night of dense fog.
    No fatalities have been discovered near these turbines since the lights
    were subsequently turned off. Some researchers have observed that many
    bird and bat kills occur during the time of year that has the lowest wind
    production. For example, most bats are killed during the fall migration
    season on low wind nights. Consequently, researchers suggested turning off
    some turbines during these times in order to reduce kills. Perhaps most
    importantly, many experts have noted that using preconstruction studies on
    wildlife and their habitats can help identify locations for wind turbines
    that are less likely to have adverse impacts.

    Regulating Wind Power Facilities on Nonfederal Land Is Largely the
    Responsibility of State and Local Governments

    Since most wind power development has occurred on nonfederal land,
    regulating wind power facilities is largely a state and local government
    responsibility. In the six states we reviewed, wind power development is
    subject to local-level processes, state-level processes, or a combination
    of the two. For example, in three of the six states, local governments
    regulate the development of wind power and generally require wind
    developers to adhere to local zoning ordinances and to obtain special use
    permits before construction. The federal role in regulating wind power
    development is limited to projects occurring on federal lands or those
    that have some form of federal involvement, such as projects that receive
    federal funding; to date, there have been relatively few wind power
    projects on federal land. In these cases, wind power projects must comply
    with federal laws as well as any relevant state and local laws.

    State and/or Local Governments Regulate Wind Power on Nonfederal Lands

    State and/or local governments regulate the development and operation of
    wind power facilities on nonfederal lands. The primary permitting
    jurisdiction for wind power facilities in many states is a local planning
    commission, zoning board, city council, or county board of supervisors or
    commissioners. Typically, these local jurisdictional entities regulate
    wind projects under zoning ordinances and building codes. In some states,
    one or more state agencies play a role in regulating wind power
    development, such as natural resource and environmental protection
    agencies, state historic preservation offices, industrial development and
    regulation agencies, public utility commissions, or siting boards. In
    addition, some states have environmental laws that impose requirements on
    many types of construction and development, including wind power, that
    state and local agencies must follow. The regulatory scheme for wind power
    in the six states we reviewed included all of these scenarios (see table
    1).

    Table 1: Type of Regulatory Process and Responsible Agency in Select
    States

                       State/Local
           State        processes            Regulatory agency/authority
        California                   Local governments (are subject to the
                       Local-only    state's environmental quality act, which
                                     requires assessment of environmental impacts
                                                 of proposed actions)
         Minnesota   State and local Local governments regulate facilities under
                                     5 megawatts, Minnesota Public Utility
                                     Commission regulates facilities 5 megawatts
                                                      or larger
                                            Local governments (are subject to the
         New York                       state's environmental quality review act,
                       Local-only                                           which
                                     requires assessment of environmental impacts
                                                 of proposed actions)
                     State and local  Local governments regulate facilities under
          Oregon                            105 megawatts (peak capacity), Oregon
                                       Energy Facility Siting Council regulates
                                          facilities 105 megawatts or larger
    Pennsylvania    Local-only                 Local governments
                                     Public Service Commission (though local
    West Virginia   State-only    authorities could have some regulatory
                                         impact through zoning and subsidies)

    Source: GAO analysis of state and local data.

    In the six states we reviewed, we found that approval for the construction
    and operation of a wind power facility is typically provided in permits
    that are often referred to as site, special use, or conditional use
    permits or certificates. Such permits often include various requirements,
    such as "setback" provisions-which stipulate how far wind power turbines
    must be from other structures, such as roads and residences-and
    decommissioning requirements that are intended to ensure that once a wind
    power facility ceases operation, its structures are removed and the
    landscape is restored according to a specific standard. State and local
    regulations may require postconstruction monitoring studies to assess a
    facility's impact on the environment. In one state we reviewed, facilities
    are required to submit periodic reports on issues related to its operation
    and impact on the surrounding area.

    In most of the six states we reviewed, state and local regulations related
    to wind power are evolving as the industry has developed in the states
    because government agencies realized that their existing authorities were
    not applicable to wind power. For example, when wind power began to emerge
    in Minnesota, an advisory task force held public meetings to determine how
    to proceed in permitting development. In part based on concerns raised
    from counties during these meetings, responsibility for permitting larger
    facilities was given to the state. In addition, West Virginia finalized
    new regulations for electric-generating facilities in May 2005 that
    include provisions specific to wind power facilities. Prior to this, the
    state made decisions on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, the Pennsylvania
    Game

    Commission is developing a policy for wind power development on its lands
    in response to private interest in promoting renewable energy sources on
    state property. Officials with the state's Department of Environmental
    Protection also told us that they are examining a number of options,
    including developing statewide rules and model ordinances that could be
    adopted by local authorities.

    Some state and local regulatory agencies we reviewed generally had little
    experience or expertise in addressing environmental and wildlife impacts
    from wind power. For example, officials in West Virginia told us that they
    did not have the expertise to evaluate wildlife impacts and review studies
    prior to construction, although such studies are required. Instead, they
    said they rely on the public comment period while permits are pending for
    concerns to be identified by others, such as FWS and the state Division of
    Natural Resources. In addition, Alameda County officials in California
    told us that they did not have the expertise to assess the impacts of wind
    facility construction but rely on technical consultants during the
    permitting stage, and that they are planning to form a technical advisory
    committee for assistance with postapproval monitoring. In some of the
    states we reviewed, state agencies were conducting outreach efforts with
    local governments since wind power development is still a relatively new
    industry for regulators. These efforts typically focus on educating local
    regulators about the issues that are often encountered during wind power
    development and about how permitting can be handled. These efforts may
    also include providing sample zoning ordinances and permits.

    California 	California had the most installed wind power in the country,
    with 2,096 MW of generating capacity as of April 2005 and an additional
    planned capacity of 365 MW. California was the first state in which large
    wind farms were developed, beginning in the early 1980s. It is also one of
    the few states with significant wind power development on federal land,
    with over 250 MW on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    Aside from the facilities on BLM land, the state relies on local
    governments to regulate wind power. In addition to the local permitting
    process, the California Environmental Quality Act requires all state and
    local government agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed
    actions they undertake or permit.12 This law requires agencies to identify
    significant environmental effects of a proposed action and either avoid or
    mitigate significant environmental effects, where feasible.

    12California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code S: 21100.

    We met with officials from Alameda County and Contra Costa County, which
    are home to the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area-at one time the largest
    wind energy facility in the world. In both counties, local land use
    ordinances allow wind power development on agricultural lands. These
    counties originally issued conditional or land use permits to various wind
    power developers in the 1980s that contained approval conditions,
    including requirements for setbacks from property lines and noise limits.
    As previously discussed, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area was
    subsequently found to be responsible for the deaths of numerous raptor
    species. The counties are currently renewing or amending some of the
    permits for facilities in this area and will add permit conditions in an
    attempt to reduce avian mortality. Alameda County officials were working
    with various federal and state agencies, environmental groups, and wind
    energy companies to agree on specific permit conditions. At the time of
    this report, Alameda County has recently approved a plan that is aimed at
    reducing bird deaths at Altamont Pass by removing some existing turbines,
    turning off selected turbines at certain times, implementing other habitat
    modification and compensations measures, and gradually replacing existing
    turbines with newer turbines. In addition, Contra Costa County had
    completed the permitting for a wind power facility that included a number
    of conditions to reduce avian mortality.

    Minnesota	Minnesota had 615 MW of installed wind generating capacity as of
    April 2005 and an additional planned capacity of 213 MW. Wind power
    development in Minnesota is subject to either local or state permitting
    procedures, depending on the size of the project. Local governments
    generally issue conditional use permits or building permits to wind power
    developers for facilities under 5 MW. We spoke with officials in Pipestone
    County, which was the first in the state to adopt a wind power ordinance.
    This ordinance focuses mainly on setbacks and decommissioning
    requirements. In southwestern Minnesota-which includes Pipestone County
    and most of the wind power development in the state-a 14-county renewable
    energy board is working to adopt a "model" wind power permitting ordinance
    that would provide uniformity for regulating development in the region.
    Two factors that officials cited in pursuing such guidance is the
    recognition that development is likely to occur under the 5 MW threshold
    for state permitting, and that wind power developers would benefit from
    uniform regulations.

    Between 1995 and the first half of 2005, the Minnesota Environmental
    Quality Board-comprised of 1 representative from the governor's office, 5
    citizens, and the heads of 10 state agencies-was responsible for
    regulating

    large wind energy systems that are 5 MW or larger, studying environmental
    issues, and ensuring state agency compliance with state environmental
    policy.13 Effective July 1, 2005, authority for permitting these large
    wind energy systems was transferred to the Minnesota Public Utilities
    Commission. The commission requires, among other things, an analysis of
    the proposed facility's potential environmental and wildlife impacts,
    proposed mitigative measures, and any adverse environmental effects that
    cannot be avoided. Instead of requiring individual wind developers to
    conduct their own assessments of impacts to wildlife, Minnesota took a
    different approach. Since much of the wind power development is
    concentrated in the southwestern part of the state, the state determined
    that it would be more efficient to conduct one large-scale study, rather
    than requiring each developer to conduct individual studies. Thus, the
    state required wind developers to participate in a 4-year avian impact
    study at a cost of about $800,000 as well as a subsequent 2-year bat
    study. The studies concluded that the impacts to birds and bats from wind
    power are minimal. Therefore, on the basis of the results of the
    state-required studies, state and local agencies in Minnesota are not
    requiring postconstruction studies for wind power development in this
    portion of the state. The costs for these studies were charged back to
    individual wind developers on the basis of the number of megawatts built
    or permitted within a specified time frame.

    New York 	New York had three operating wind power facilities, with 49 MW
    of installed wind generating capacity as of April 2005. An additional 350
    MW of wind power capacity is planned for the state. According to state
    officials, local governments permit the development of wind power in the
    state using their zoning authorities. In addition to this local
    permitting, the state has an environmental quality review act that
    requires all state and local government agencies to assess the
    environmental impacts of proposed actions, including issuing permits to
    wind power facilities.14 This law requires that an environmental impact
    statement be conducted if a proposed action is determined to have a
    potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Because wind power
    is still new to the state and there are a significant number of proposed
    facilities, a state agency focused on promoting energy development is
    beginning a program for educating local communities about regulating wind
    power. This program includes examples of zoning ordinances that have been
    used in other counties.

    13Minn. Stat. S:S: 116C.691 -116C.697.
    14State Environmental Quality Review Act, N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law S:
    8-0109.

    We met with officials from the Town of Fenner-in north-central New
    York-which has the largest wind power facility in the state. On the basis
    of complaints about noise from the first facility permitted by the town,
    the local planning board now requires that turbines be located a certain
    distance from residences. In order to comply with the state's
    environmental law, the town conducted an environmental assessment to
    determine the potential impacts of the proposed facility and determined
    that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental
    impacts or pose a significant risk to birds. However, elsewhere in New
    York, approval of one wind power project is under review given concerns
    expressed by environmental groups and the state environmental and
    conservation agency about potential impacts to migratory birds.

    Oregon 	Oregon had five large wind projects, with a total of 263 MW of
    installed wind power generating capacity as of April 2005 (see fig. 5).

    Figure 5: Wind Power Facility in Sherman County, Oregon

    Source: GAO.

    Wind turbine blade prior to being installed at expansion of the facility
    in Sherman County (left) and the wind power facility in Sherman County
    (right).

    Several new wind projects and expansions are under way or being planned
    that would take total capacity in Oregon to more than 700 MW. Similar to
    Minnesota, wind power regulation in Oregon is subject to either local or
    state permitting procedures, depending on the size of the project. Local
    governments issue conditional use permits for facilities capable of
    generating up to 105 MW peak capacity. For example, in Sherman County, the
    planning commission approved a 24 MW wind power project near Klondike in
    north-central Oregon. Under its zoning authority, the county attached
    various conditions to the project's permit, including an avian
    postconstruction study, and decommissioning and removal requirements. If
    projects exceed 105 MW peak capacity, they are permitted by the Oregon
    Energy Facility Siting Council, which makes decisions about issuing site
    certificates for energy facilities. The siting council is a seven-member
    citizen commission that is appointed by the governor. Wind power projects

    that are subject to the council's jurisdiction must comply with the
    council's standards and applicable statutes. Some of the standards are
    specific to wind power, such as design and construction requirements to
    reduce visual and environmental impacts.15 The council also ensures that
    wind power facilities are constructed and operated in a manner consistent
    with state rules, such as state fish and wildlife habitat mitigation goals
    and standards, and local agency ordinances. In addition, regulations
    protect against impacts on the surrounding community by requiring that
    minimal lighting be used to reduce visual impacts, and protect some bird
    species by requiring that developers avoid creating artificial habitat for
    raptors or raptor prey. Also in Oregon, energy development-including wind
    power-must not adversely impact scenic and aesthetic values and is
    prohibited in certain areas, such as state parks.

    Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania had 129 MW of installed wind generating capacity
    as of April 2005 and applications for an additional 145 MW to be developed
    (see fig. 6).

    Figure 6: Wind Power Facility in Somerset County, Pennsylvania

                                      Source: GAO.

    15Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) S: 469.300 et seq.; Oregon Administrative
    Rules (OAR) Chapter 345, Divisions 1, 15, 20-23, 26, 27, and 29.

    In Pennsylvania, wind power is regulated by local governments; no state
    agency has the authority to specifically regulate wind power development.
    For example, in Somerset County, which is home to the first wind power
    facility in the state, the county's planning commission regulates wind
    power development through an ordinance that allows for subdividing
    existing land. This ordinance contains requirements for setbacks and
    decommissioning. Some county and state officials have suggested that the
    state should provide a consistent framework for wind power development.
    The state, through its Pennsylvania Wind Working Group, is currently
    discussing whether there should be uniform state-level siting guidelines
    or regulations for wind power development. Pennsylvania was the only state
    of the six we reviewed that did not have state-level requirements for
    environmental assessments. However, one state official told us that many
    developers have done some environmental studies-generally including
    wildlife, noise, and protection of scenic vistas (i.e., viewshed)-in an
    attempt to head off criticism or opposition to a proposed project.

    West Virginia	West Virginia had one operating wind power facility, with 66
    MW of installed wind power generating capacity and a planned additional
    capacity of 300 MW for the state (see fig. 7). The state's Public Service
    Commission has been the only agency involved in regulating wind power to
    date, although state officials noted that local governments could get
    involved through their zoning authorities. Prior to 2005, West Virginia
    permitted construction and operation of wind power facilities under laws
    and regulations designed to regulate utilities providing electrical
    service directly to its citizens. Wind power facilities are wholesale
    generators and do not provide service to consumers, and according to
    commission officials, several provisions of these regulations were not
    relevant to wind power facilities. As a result, in 2003, the state amended
    the legislation to specifically address the permitting of wholesale
    electric generators, such as wind power.

    Figure 7: Wind Power Facility in Tucker County, West Virginia

    Source: GAO.

    West Virginia followed the regulations in place before the legislation was
    amended to approve construction of the two wind power facilities in the
    state; one of these facilities has yet to be constructed. During the
    public comment periods for these facilities, concerns were raised
    regarding potential impacts to wildlife. As a result, certain conditions
    were required of the developers, such as prohibiting turbines in certain
    locations and

    requiring postconstruction wildlife studies.16 In May 2005, the state
    finalized new regulations for wholesale electric-generating facilities
    that include provisions specific to wind power facilities.17 For
    permitting wind power facilities, West Virginia regulations now require
    spring and fall avian migration studies, avian and bat risk assessments,
    and avian and bat lighting studies.

    Federal Government's Role in Regulating Wind Power Is Generally Limited to
    Facilities on Federal Land

    The federal government's role in regulating wind power development is
    limited to projects occurring on federal lands or projects that have some
    form of federal involvement. While the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural
    gas, and oil, it does not approve the physical construction of electric
    generation, transmission, or distribution facilities; such approval is
    left for state and local governments. Certain standards issued by the
    Federal Aviation Administration apply to wind power facilities and other
    tall structures, on all lands. These standards are intended to protect
    aircraft and specify the type of lighting that should be used for
    structures of a certain height.

    Since the majority of wind development to date has been on nonfederal land
    or has not required federal funding or permits, the federal government has
    had a limited role in regulating wind power facilities. In those cases
    where federal agencies do regulate wind power, projects must comply both
    with state and local requirements and with any applicable federal law. At
    a minimum, these laws will include the National Environmental Policy Act
    and the Endangered Species Act.18 These laws often require preconstruction
    studies or analyses of proposed projects, and possibly project
    modifications to avoid adverse environmental effects. For example, if the
    development of a proposed wind power project on federal land could impact
    wildlife habitat and/or species protected under the Endangered Species
    Act, permitting of the project would involve coordination and consultation
    with FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to

    16Developers of these two facilities voluntarily conducted some
    preconstruction wildlife studies.

    17The West Virginia Public Service Commission adopted Rules Governing
    Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators (WV 150 C.S.R. 30) on
    May 25, 2005, effective July 25, 2005.

    18Other federal laws may apply to wind power development on federal land,
    such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which provides BLM
    with a framework for managing its land.

    determine the potential harm to species and the steps that may be
    necessary to avoid or offset the harm.

    To date, BLM has been the only federal agency with wind energy production,
    with about 500 MW of installed wind power capacity.19 This wind energy
    development is located in Southern California in the San Gorgonio Pass and
    Tehachapi Pass areas, and in the Foote Creek Rim and Simpson Ridge areas
    of Wyoming.20 According to BLM officials, as of June 2005, they had
    authorized 88 applications for wind energy development on their land and
    had 68 pending applications-most of which are in California and Nevada.
    Energy development on BLM-administered lands is regulated through its
    process for granting private parties access to federal lands, which is
    referred to as granting a "right-of-way authorization." BLM's Interim Wind
    Energy Development Policy establishes the requirements for granting these
    authorizations to wind energy facilities. This policy requires that all
    proposed facilities conduct the necessary assessments and analyses
    required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species
    Act, and other appropriate laws. In one case, some changes have been made
    to the location of some wind power turbines because of potential impacts
    to avian species that were identified during these preconstruction
    studies.

    Because of an increased focus on developing energy sources on public
    lands, BLM has proposed revising their interim policy by developing a wind
    energy development program that would establish comprehensive policies and
    best management practices for addressing wind energy development. As a
    part of this effort, BLM issued a programmatic environmental impact
    statement in June 2005 that assesses the social, environmental, and
    economic impacts of wind power development on BLM land. This document also
    identifies best management practices for ensuring that the impacts of wind
    energy development on BLM lands are kept to a minimum. While subsequent
    proposed wind power facilities will still need to conduct some
    environmental assessments, they can rely on BLM's programmatic assessment
    for much of the needed analyses. BLM hopes that the availability of this
    assessment will enable wind power development to

    19At the time of this report, a developer had submitted an application to
    build what would be the first wind power project on U.S. Forest Service
    land.

    20Postconstruction wildlife studies in these areas of California and
    Wyoming found low avian mortality. The California study in Tehachapi Pass
    was not included in appendix II because estimating fatality rates was not
    a primary goal of that study.

    proceed more quickly on its lands, assuming that such development complies
    with needed requirements.

    Federal and State Laws Protect Wildlife

    As with any other activity, federal and state laws afford protections to
    wildlife from wind power. Three federal laws-the Migratory Bird Treaty
    Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species
    Act-generally forbid harm to various species of wildlife. While each of
    the laws allows some exceptions to this, only the Endangered Species Act
    includes provisions that would permit a wind power facility to kill a
    protected species under certain circumstances. While wildlife mortality
    events have occurred at wind power facilities, the federal government has
    not prosecuted any cases against wind power companies under these wildlife
    laws, preferring instead to encourage companies to take mitigation steps
    to avoid future harm. Regarding state wildlife protections, all of the six
    states we reviewed had statutes that can be used to protect some wildlife
    from wind power impacts. However, similar to FWS, no states have taken any
    prosecutorial actions against wind power facilities where mortalities have
    occurred.

    Various Wildlife Protections The primary federal regulatory framework for
    protecting wildlife from Are Provided by Three impacts from wind power
    includes three laws-the Migratory Bird Treaty Federal Laws Act, the Bald
    and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered

                              Species Act. (See table 2.)

    Table 2: Federal Wildlife Protection Laws

    Federal wildlife law Protections Permits Penalties for violations

    Migratory Bird Treaty Prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
    Authorizes permits for some Only criminal penalties are

    Act	transportation, and importation of over activities, including but not
    limited possible, with violators subject 860 migratory birds, their eggs,
    parts, to, scientific collecting, depredation, to fine and/or imprisonment
    and nests, except when specifically propagation, and falconry authorized
    by FWS

    No permit provisions for "incidental take"

                       Prohibits the taking   Authorizes       Civil and criminal
    Bald and Golden and sale of bald and   permits for           penalties are
                                              scientific or
            Eagle      golden eagles and        exhibition         possible, with
    Protection Act  their eggs, parts, and  purposes, or     violators subject
                                                 religious
                         nests, except when   purposes by     to civil penalties,
                            specifically      Indian tribes;  fines, and/or
                                              and for
                         authorized by FWS    other purposes     imprisonment

    No permit provisions for "incidental take"

    Endangered Species Protects about 1,265 species that have Authorizes
    permits for the "taking" Civil and criminal penalties are Act been
    determined to be at risk for of protected species if the permitted
    possible, with violators subject extinction, referred to as threatened or
    endangered species; prohibits the taking of protected animal species,
    including actions that "harm" or "harass"; federal actions may not
    jeopardize listed species or adversely modify habitat designated as
    critical activity is for scientific purposes, is to establish experimental
    populations, or is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as
    construction of wind turbines to civil penalties, fines, and/or
    imprisonment

    Source: GAO analysis of federal laws.

    FWS is primarily responsible for ensuring the implementation and
    enforcement of these laws.21 In general, these laws prohibit various
    actions that are deemed harmful to certain species. For example, each law
    prohibits killing or "taking" a protected species, unless done under
    circumstances that are expressly allowed by statute and authorized via
    issuance of a federal permit. The Endangered Species Act may also prohibit
    actions that harm a protected species' habitat. In addition, each federal
    agency that takes actions that have or are likely to have negative impacts
    on migratory bird populations are directed by Executive Order 13186,
    "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds," to work
    with FWS to develop memorandums of understanding to conserve those
    species. While the executive order was signed on January 10, 2001, no
    memorandums have yet been signed. Wildlife species that fall outside the

    21FWS shares responsibility for enforcing the Endangered Species Act with
    the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is responsible for protecting
    ocean-dwelling species and anadromous species, such as salmon.

    scope of these three laws, such as many species of bats, are generally not
    protected under federal law. However, FWS is not only responsible for
    ensuring the survival of species protected by specific laws, but also for
    conserving and protecting all wildlife.

    All three of the federal wildlife protection laws prohibit most instances
    of "take," although each law provides for some exceptions, such as
    scientific purposes. The Endangered Species Act is the least restrictive
    of these laws in that it authorizes FWS to permit some activities that
    take a protected species as long as the take meets several requirements,
    including a requirement that the take be incidental to an otherwise legal
    activity. Wind power facilities may seek an incidental take permit under
    this act for facilities sited on private land or where no federal funding
    is used or federal permit is required. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
    the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also allow permits for take, but
    incidental take of migratory birds is not allowed. Under all three
    statutes, unauthorized takings may be penalized, even if the offender had
    no intent to harm a protected species.22

    Although not required by these federal laws, in some cases, state or local
    entities that regulate wind power, or wind power developers themselves,
    will consult with FWS for information on protected species or advice on
    how to ensure that wind power facilities will not harm wildlife. For
    example, in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda County officials
    and the companies operating wind facilities there have asked FWS for
    technical assistance related to renewing permits for existing wind power
    facilities. FWS officials told us that their technical assistance in
    Altamont Pass is aimed at avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to
    threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. In
    addition, FWS officials from the New York field office told us that they
    are asked to provide input on wind power proposals during the state's
    environmental review process. These officials noted that they will likely
    not be able to review all of the wind power development proposals in the
    state due to staffing constraints. Similarly, FWS officials in five of the
    six states we reviewed told us that they have not conducted outreach to
    state or local regulators to inform them of the potential for wildlife
    impacts from wind power primarily because of workload constraints. If
    state and local regulators do not consult with FWS during the regulatory
    process, it can be

    22FWS identifies violations of federal wildlife laws in several ways,
    including by receiving citizen complaints and self-reporting by industry
    or individuals.

    difficult for FWS to encourage actions that might reduce wildlife deaths
    before wind turbines are sited.

    Federal Government Uses Prosecutorial Discretion in Dealing with Wildlife
    Mortality

    Although FWS investigates all "take" of federal trust species, the
    government has elected not to prosecute wind energy companies for
    violations of wildlife laws at this time. In most of the states we
    reviewed, there were relatively few law enforcement officials, and they
    told us that they often had higher priority violations of federal wildlife
    laws than mortality events due to wind power, particularly given the
    relatively low levels of mortality that have occurred in most wind power
    locations. In West Virginia, the agent-in-charge told us that most of his
    time is spent on the commercialization of wildlife, such as the illegal
    import and export and interstate commerce of protected species; illegal
    hunting is also a major problem, particularly for bears and eagles. FWS
    law enforcement officials in all of the six states we reviewed told us
    that in cases of violations, they prefer to work cooperatively with the
    owners of wind power facilities to try to get them to take voluntary
    actions to address impacts on wildlife, rather than pursuing prosecution;
    however, other cases of wildlife violations, such as illegal trade in
    protected species, are pursued via prosecution.

    FWS has been investigating and monitoring avian mortality at Altamont Pass
    for nearly 20 years, including the mortality of many protected species,
    such as golden eagles and other raptors.23 Since that time, FWS has opened
    investigations and tried to work with the owners of wind power facilities
    to reduce the level of mortality. In the earlier years, some avian
    mortality was due to electrocutions along power lines. FWS had been
    working with electrical utility companies to resolve this problem
    elsewhere, and several relatively easy "fixes" were known to reduce
    electrocutions. As a result of official correspondence and conversations
    between FWS and company officials, many companies implemented these fixes,
    and avian mortality due to electrocutions has been reduced. However, large
    numbers of birds, particularly raptors, were still being killed due to
    actual collisions with wind turbines. On several occasions, FWS expressed
    concern about these mortalities to wind power companies and Alameda
    County-the county government with the most wind power development in
    California. In response, Alameda County and some wind power companies have
    conducted avian monitoring studies and tested several mitigation

    23Of all the species that have been killed, only two endangered species
    kills have been documented-a peregrine falcon in 1996 and a brown pelican
    in 2002.

    measures, including painting turbine blades, installing perch guards on
    lattice-work towers, and conducting rodent control. However, these actions
    appear to have no significant impact on reducing avian mortality. Since
    January 2004, the wind power companies have worked together to develop an
    adaptive management plan for reducing avian mortality at Altamont Pass.
    The plan contains various mitigation measures, such as (1) removing old
    turbines and replacing them with fewer, new turbines and (2) implementing
    a partial seasonal shutdown of turbines.

    Over the past 6 years, FWS has referred about 50 instances of golden
    eagles killed by 30 different companies in Altamont Pass either to the
    Interior Solicitor's office for civil prosecution or to the Department of
    Justice for criminal prosecution. Officials noted that, in general,
    prosecutions by both the Departments of the Interior and Justice focus on
    companies that kill birds with disregard for their actions and the law,
    especially when conservation measures are available but have not been
    implemented. Despite the recurring nature of the avian mortality in
    Altamont Pass and concerns from federal, state, and local officials, no
    prosecutions pursuant to federal wildlife laws have been taken against any
    wind power companies. Justice has not pursued prosecution in these cases,
    although they currently have an open investigation on avian mortality in
    Altamont Pass. As a matter of policy, Justice does not discuss the reasons
    behind specific case declinations, nor does it typically confirm or deny
    the existence of potential or actual investigations. However, Justice
    officials told us 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. Regarding the
    matters that FWS referred for civil enforcement, Interior's regional
    solicitor has also not pursued prosecution in any of these cases.
    Interior's Office of the Solicitor San Francisco field office declined to
    pursue the most recent civil referrals because Justice agreed to review
    turbine mortalities for possible criminal prosecution. Some citizen groups
    remain concerned about the lack of enforcement of federal and state
    wildlife protections. For example, in November 2004, the Center for
    Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the wind power companies in
    Altamont Pass to seek restitution for the killing of raptors.24

    24Center for Biological Diversity v. FPL Group, No. RG04183113 (Calif.
    Super. Ct., Alameda County, filed Nov. 1, 2004).

    In addition to the avian mortalities at Altamont Pass, significant
    wildlife mortality has also occurred at wind power locations in the
    Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia and Pennsylvania in 2003 and 2004.
    FWS has reviewed high numbers of bat kills; however, these bat species are
    not protected under federal law. Several studies have been completed or
    are under way in these regions to better determine the potential causes of
    the mortality events and how future events might be mitigated. The FWS law
    enforcement agent-in-charge in West Virginia told us that he has contacted
    wind power developers of some of the proposed facilities in the state
    about potential violations of federal wildlife laws should an endangered
    bat or other protected species be killed. The agent said that he prefers
    to have early involvement with wind power facilities, rather than wait for
    violations to occur.

    FWS law enforcement officials told us that the way they have handled avian
    mortalities at wind power facilities is similar to how they deal with
    wildlife mortality caused by other industries. These officials explained
    that FWS recognizes that man-made structures will generally result in some
    level of unavoidable incidental take of wildlife and, as a result, FWS
    reserves a level of "enforcement discretion" in determining whether to
    pursue a violation of federal wildlife law. Law enforcement officials told
    us that before FWS pursues civil or criminal penalties, the agency prefers
    to work with a company to encourage them to take mitigation and
    conservation steps to avoid future harm. If a company shows a good-faith
    effort to reduce impacts, FWS will likely not refer such a case for
    prosecution. If, however, a company repeatedly refuses to take steps
    suggested by FWS, officials said they are likely to refer it for
    prosecution.

    Work that FWS has done with the electric power industry illustrates this
    approach to resolving impacts to wildlife. FWS began working with the
    electric power industry in the early 1980s to reduce significant avian
    mortality due to collisions with and electrocutions at power lines,
    particularly mortality events involving eagles and other large birds.
    Pursuant to investigations of avian mortality at power lines and
    conversations with individual companies, solutions were identified that
    reduced mortality events. Because these solutions were relatively
    inexpensive and generally easy to install based on scientific testing-and
    were known to work-FWS law enforcement officials expected other electric
    line companies to install them. According to law enforcement officials,
    the threat of a potential conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
    or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was generally enough to get
    companies to voluntarily install the fixes without FWS

    prosecuting them. However, by the late 1980s, some electric companies were
    aware of mortalities due to electrocutions but were not taking actions to
    resolve the causes. The federal government in 1998 charged an electric
    utility cooperative-the Moon Lake Electric Association in Colorado and
    Utah-with criminal violations of these two laws. This is the first and
    only instance of a federal criminal prosecution of an electric power line
    company under any of the three federal wildlife protection laws. Civil
    cases have been filed and out-of-court agreements have been reached with
    other electric utilities for similar cases of wildlife mortalities.

    FWS Has Taken Some Even though FWS does generally not have a direct role
    in determining

    Proactive Steps to Help whether and how wind power facilities are
    permitted, FWS has been

    Minimize the Impacts of	involved for about 20 years with the wind power
    industry to help avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife from wind power
    development. FWS's work

    Wind Power on Wildlife	has been in the following three main
    areas-participating on a national wind working group and in technical
    workshops, and issuing guidance.

    Working Group	An FWS senior management official has been a member of the
    National Wind Coordinating Committee since 1997. The wildlife workgroup
    serves as an advisory group for national research on wind-avian issues and
    a forum for defining, discussing, and addressing wind power-wildlife
    interaction issues. The workgroup has facilitated five national avian-wind
    power planning workshops to define needed research and explore current
    issues. The most recent workshop also included discussions of bat-wind
    turbine interactions. In addition, the working group released a report in
    December 1999, Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interaction: A Guidance Document,
    that includes metrics and methods for determining or monitoring potential
    impacts on birds at existing and proposed wind energy sites.

    Workshops	FWS officials have participated in industry-sponsored workshops
    and conferences. For example, a senior FWS official presented information
    on cumulative impacts on wildlife from wind power at a 2004 workshop
    cosponsored by the American Wind Energy Association and the American Bird
    Conservancy. Another FWS official presented information on the agency's
    experience and expectations for regional wildlife issues at a national
    workshop on wind power siting sponsored by the wind association. FWS also
    helped to sponsor and organize, and participated in, a 2004 bats and wind
    power technical workshop attended by both wind industry representatives
    and researchers. As a result, FWS was

    instrumental in establishing the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative
    discussed elsewhere in the report.

    Guidance	In July 2003, in an effort to inform wind power developers about
    the potential impacts to wildlife and encourage them to take mitigating
    actions before construction, FWS issued interim voluntary guidelines for
    industry to use in developing new projects. FWS developed the interim
    guidelines in response to the Department of the Interior's push to expand
    renewable energy development on public lands. The wind power interim
    guidelines are intended to assist FWS staff in providing technical
    assistance to the wind energy industry to avoid or minimize impacts to
    wildlife and their habitats through (1) proper evaluation of potential
    wind energy development sites, (2) proper location and design of turbines,
    and (3) preand postconstruction research and monitoring to identify and
    assess impacts to wildlife. The voluntary guidelines were open for public
    comment for a 2-year period that ended on July 10, 2005. At the time of
    this report, FWS had received numerous comments from the wind industry on
    the guidelines. In general, industry representatives thought that the
    guidelines were overly restrictive-to a degree not supported by the
    relative risk that wind power development poses to wildlife compared with
    other sources of mortality. FWS also had received comments from other
    groups-such as the Ripley Hawk Watch, the Clean Energy States Alliance,
    the Humane Society of the United States, the Massachusetts and
    Pennsylvania Audubon, the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of
    Wildlife, and Chautaqua County Environmental Management Council-that were
    generally in support of the guidance or recommended that it be put into
    regulation. BLM also provided comments and expressed some concerns over
    the review process outlined in the guidelines. FWS will be reviewing and
    incorporating the public, industry, and agency comments received on the
    interim guidelines as appropriate in order to revise and improve them, and
    will solicit additional public input before disseminating a final version.

    In addition, FWS recently began developing a template for a letter to be
    sent to wind power project applicants to alert them to federal wildlife
    protection laws, FWS's interim guidance, and FWS's role in protecting
    wildlife. FWS officials told us that they hope the letter will assist
    developers in making informed decisions regarding site selection, project
    design, and compliance with applicable laws. The availability of a
    ready-to-use template is important because most field officials told us
    that working with the wind power industry is just one of many
    responsibilities in FWS offices that often do not have enough staff, given
    their workloads.

    Field officials also noted that if wind power developers, their
    consultants, or state or local regulatory agencies do not contact them,
    they may not know about wind power projects until there is a problem with
    an operating facility.

    All Six States We Reviewed Have Wildlife Protections

    Although federal jurisdiction for migratory birds has not been delegated
    to the states and primary responsibility for the protection of these birds
    resides with Interior, all states we reviewed had additional wildlife
    protections. Responsibility for protecting species and implementing
    wildlife laws and regulations is typically found in a state's natural
    resource protection agency. In some states, however, responsibility is
    assigned according to the type of species addressed. For example, in some
    states, agriculture departments address plant issues, while in other
    states, fish and boat commissions address fish, amphibian, and reptile
    issues; in these cases, wildlife agencies typically address the remaining
    species.

    In all six states, the most common laws related to wildlife protection-and
    likely the most utilized wildlife laws-are those that govern hunting and
    fishing. These laws and regulations may include limits on the type and
    number of species that can be killed and the manner in which they can be
    taken. In addition to identifying the species that can be hunted or
    fished, the six states we reviewed identify as threatened or endangered
    specific species that are at risk for extinction or extirpation in their
    state. These states also identify "species of concern" or rare species.
    Such species are identified as a way to provide an early warning signal
    for species that are not yet endangered or threatened, but could become so
    in the future.

    All of the six states we reviewed have laws that provide at least some
    degree of protection for species that are at risk of extinction or
    extirpation in their state. These protections generally go beyond what the
    federal Endangered Species Act provides by protecting more species than
    are protected under the federal law, although the protections may not be
    as extensive. In the five states that have specific protections,
    protection is provided through prohibitions on taking a protected species.
    In some cases, these protections are only applicable under certain
    circumstances. For example, in Oregon, protections apply only to state
    actions or on state-owned or -managed lands. All of the state laws or
    regulations that include take prohibitions, also include exceptions for
    when permits can be issued in order to allow the take to occur. Such
    permits are issued according to prescribed conditions or on a case-by-case
    basis. Two of the six states also provide protections for habitat. In West
    Virginia, the primary

    protection for wildlife, aside from hunting and fishing regulations, is a
    prohibition on the commercial sale of wildlife and specific protection for
    bald and golden eagles.

    Most of the states' wildlife protection laws for threatened and endangered
    species include enforcement provisions. In some cases, these laws identify
    violations as misdemeanor crimes. Similar to FWS law enforcement's
    approach to wind power, we found that state agencies had not taken any
    prosecutorial actions in response to wildlife mortalities at wind power
    facilities. Instead, many state officials told us that they prefer-like
    FWS-to work with developers to try to identify solutions to the causes of
    mortality. For example, in Minnesota, after impacts to native prairie
    grass caused by a wind power facility were discovered, the state natural
    resource agency required the facility to purchase additional habitat
    elsewhere to compensate for the loss. In California, Alameda County has
    worked with wind power facilities and others, and recently approved a plan
    that is aimed at reducing bird deaths at Altamont Pass by having wind
    power companies turn off selected turbines at certain times and replace
    some turbines with newer turbines.

    State natural heritage programs serve as key sources of information on
    wildlife for federal and state wildlife protection agencies. All six of
    the states we reviewed have natural heritage programs that manage
    information on natural resources, including threatened and endangered
    species (all 50 states have such programs). These programs are part of an
    international effort to gather and share information on biological
    resources. This effort has slightly different designations and criteria
    for identifying imperiled species and habitat than the federal Endangered
    Species Act. In five of the states we reviewed, the natural heritage
    program is run by the states' natural resource agencies; in the sixth
    state, Oregon, it is run by a university. Although West Virginia does not
    have a state endangered species law and protects only bald and golden
    eagles, it does identify other imperiled species through its natural
    heritage program.

    State natural resource agencies-which typically house the natural heritage
    programs-are sometimes consulted by a state or local wind power regulator
    or a wind power developer during the permitting process for help in
    identifying potentially sensitive species or concerns about possible
    impacts to wildlife in general. For example, staff from West Virginia's
    natural resources agency were involved in reviewing wildlife monitoring
    studies conducted by the first wind power facility in the state. During
    the consultation process on another proposed facility in the state,

    agency staff requested that certain studies be conducted because of
    concerns about impacts on bat populations. Similarly, in Minnesota,
    natural resource agency staff requested changes in the location,
    construction, and operation of certain proposed wind power turbines
    through the state's environmental review process. However, in some cases,
    the process for regulators or wind power developers to consult with
    natural resource agency staff on wildlife is often an informal one and is
    not necessarily required by states' species protections or laws and
    regulations used to permit wind power.

    Conclusions	In the context of other sources of avian mortalities, it does
    not appear that wind power is responsible for a significant number of bird
    deaths. While we do not know a lot about the relative impacts of bat
    mortality from wind power relative to other sources, significant bat
    mortality from wind power has occurred in Appalachia. However, much work
    remains before scientists have a clear understanding of the true impacts
    to wildlife from wind power. Scientists, in particular, are concerned
    about the potential cumulative impacts of wind power on species
    populations if the industry expands as expected. Such concerns may be
    well-founded because significant development is proposed in areas that
    contain large numbers of species or are believed to be migratory flyways.
    Concerns are compounded by the fact that the regulation of wind power
    varies from location-to-location and some state and local regulatory
    agencies we reviewed generally had little experience or expertise in
    addressing the environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. In
    addition, given the relatively narrow regulatory scope of state and local
    agencies, it appears that when new wind power facilities are permitted, no
    one is considering the impacts of wind power on a regional or "ecosystem"
    scale-a scale that often spans governmental jurisdictions. FWS, in its
    responsibility for protecting wildlife, is the appropriate agency for such
    a task and in fact does monitor the status of species populations, to the
    extent possible. However, because wildlife, federally protected birds in
    particular, face a multitude of threats, many of which are better
    understood than wind power, FWS officials told us that they generally
    spend a very small portion of their time assessing the impacts from wind
    power. Nonetheless, FWS has taken some steps to reach out to the wind
    power industry by, among other things, issuing voluntary guidelines to
    encourage conservation and mitigation actions at new wind power
    facilities. In addition, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey are initiating
    some studies to capture data on migratory flyways to help determine where
    the most potential harm from wind power might occur and to gather data for
    use in assessing wind power's cumulative impacts on

    species. Although these are valuable steps in educating industry and
    improving science, FWS has conducted only limited outreach to state and
    local regulators about minimizing impacts from wind power on wildlife and
    informing them about species that may be particularly vulnerable to
    impacts from wind power. Such outreach is important because these are the
    entities closest to the day-to-day decisions regarding where wind power
    will be allowed on nonfederal land.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Given the potential for future cumulative impacts to wildlife species due
    to wind power and the limited expertise or experience that local and state
    regulators may have in this area, we recommend that the Secretary of the
    Interior direct the Director of the FWS to develop consistent
    communication for state and local wind power regulators. This
    communication should alert regulators to (1) the potential wildlife
    impacts that can result from wind power development; (2) the various
    resources that are available to help them make decisions about permitting
    such facilities, including FWS state offices, states' natural resource
    agencies, and FWS's voluntary interim guidelines-and any subsequent
    revisions-on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines;
    and (3) any additional information that FWS deems appropriate.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided copies of our draft report to the Department of the Interior
    and received written comments. (See app. III for the full text of the
    comments received and our responses.) Interior officials stated that they
    generally agree with our findings and our recommendation in the report. We
    also sent portions of the report to state and local regulators and state
    wildlife protection agencies. Many of these entities provided technical
    comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Interior also provided
    technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

    Interior officials agreed in most part with our recommendation to develop
    consistent communication to deliver to state and local wind power
    regulators. However, they stated that because the comment period on the
    FWS voluntary interim guidelines has closed and final guidelines have yet
    to be developed, it would be inappropriate to include these in such
    communication. However, because FWS is currently disseminating the
    voluntary interim guidelines on wind power to its field offices to share
    with regulators and developers, we believe that it is appropriate to
    include reference to this document in communications to local and state

    regulators. As Interior noted, these voluntary guidelines are currently
    undergoing review and revision. Therefore, it would be appropriate to draw
    attention to this fact in any such communication and to provide
    information about how the most current version might be accessed.

    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
    the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
    Secretary of the Interior, as well as to appropriate congressional
    committees and other interested Members of Congress. We also will make
    copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
    available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me
    at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
    Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
    Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

    Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources

    and Environment

    Appendix I

                           Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    On the basis of a June 22, 2004, request from the Ranking Democratic
    Members-House Resources Committee and the House Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce
    and Related Agencies-and of subsequent discussions with their staffs, we
    reviewed wind energy development and impacts on wildlife. Specifically, we
    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 from the risks posed by wind power facilities.

    To determine what available studies and experts have reported about the
    direct impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife, we reviewed
    scientific studies and reports on the subject that were conducted by
    government agencies, industry, and academics. Our review focused on
    wildlife mortality as opposed to indirect impacts, which include habitat
    modification and disruption of feeding or breeding behaviors due to wind
    power facilities. We used several criteria to select studies for review.
    We chose studies that included original data analyses (rather than
    summaries of existing literature) conducted in the United States since
    1990, and we primarily focused on the impact of wind power on birds and
    bats and/or ways in which to mitigate those impacts. We did not include
    preconstruction assessments of wildlife impacts in our review. We excluded
    studies that had preliminary findings when there was a more recent version
    available. We located studies using a database search with keywords of
    "wind power" and "birds," "bats," or "wildlife" in the following
    databases: AGRICOLA, DOE Information Bridge, National Environmental
    Publications Information, Energy Citations Database, Energy Research
    Abstracts, Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management, and JSTOR. In
    addition, we located studies using bibliographies of other studies and
    through publicly available lists of studies from the National Wind
    Coordinating Committee, the California Energy Commission, the National
    Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Bat Conservation International. We shared
    our list of studies with experts and asked them to identify any studies
    missing from our list. When studies were not publicly available, we
    contacted the authors and attempted to obtain copies. Using these methods
    and criteria, we obtained 31 studies. We reviewed the studies'
    methodology, assumptions, limitations, and conclusions for the purposes of
    excluding

    Appendix I
    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    studies that did not ensure a minimal level of methodological rigor.1 We
    excluded 1 study, leaving 30 studies that are used in this work. In
    addition to these studies, we also reviewed two summaries of studies
    produced by the National Wind Coordinating Committee. Generally, we did
    not directly use these two summary studies, we did use them as a check for
    our conclusions and findings in relation to the studies we reviewed.2 We
    also interviewed experts and study authors from the Department of the
    Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), state government
    agencies, academia, wind industry, and conservation groups and obtained
    their views on the risks of wind power facilities to migratory birds and
    other wildlife and on ways in which to minimize these risks.

    To determine the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in
    regulating wind power facilities, we identified and evaluated relevant
    federal laws and regulations for wind power development. We reviewed a
    nonprobability sample of six states with wind power development-
    California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
    We selected these states to reflect a range in installed capacity,
    different regulatory processes, a history of wind power development, and
    geographic distribution and to reflect our requesters' interests. For
    these states, we identified and evaluated relevant state and local laws
    and regulations for wind power development. We interviewed federal
    officials from FWS, Bureau of Land Management, and Interior's Office of
    the Solicitor as well as officials from the Department of Justice. We
    interviewed officials from FWS headquarters and from field office
    locations in the six states that we selected. We also interviewed
    officials from various state agencies, such as the Oregon State Siting
    Council and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and from local
    and county governments that were responsible for issuing permits or
    certificates for the development of wind power facilities in their states.
    Finally, we visited wind power facilities in California, New York, Oregon,
    Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and interviewed wind industry company
    officials.

    To determine the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in
    protecting wildlife from the risks posed by wind power facilities, we
    identified and evaluated relevant federal, environmental, and wildlife

    1Many of these studies have not been scientifically peer-reviewed, and the
    protocols in each study may vary.

    2We referenced one of these studies in two places in this report. In each
    of these places, a source and associated caveat are presented in a
    footnote.

    Appendix I
    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    protection laws and regulations. We interviewed FWS law enforcement
    officials from headquarters and the six states that we reviewed. For the
    six states that we selected, we identified and evaluated relevant state
    and local environmental and wildlife protection laws. We also interviewed
    officials from state environmental and wildlife agencies in California,
    Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

    We conducted our work between December 2004 and July 2005 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards, including an
    assessment of data reliability and internal controls.

    Appendix II

    Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by Region

    Table 3 includes only studies where calculating bird or bat mortality was
    a primary goal. Some studies may contain more than one study location.

     Table 3: Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by Region Fatalities
                     per turbine, per year Region Location and year

                                           Number of
                                           turbines      Birds       Bats Raptors
    Pacific NW   Stateline, OR -2003          181      1.93       1.12
                   Nine Canyon, OR - 2003         37      3.59       3.21
                  Klondike, OR - Phase I -        16     1.16a       1.16
                            2003
                     Vansycle, OR -2000           38      0.63       0.74
          West     Foote Creek Rim, WY -          69       1.5       1.34
                            2003
                     National Wind Tech       Varies         0          0
                      Center, CO -2003
    California Altamont Pass, CA            5,400     0.19`        ***     ***
                  -(Thelander et al) -2003
                  Altamont Pass, CA -(CEC)     5,400      0.87      0.004
                           - 2004
                  Altamont Pass and Solano                 ***        ***   0.058
                  County, CA -1992             7,340                       (1989)
                                                                            0.025
                                                                           (1990)
                  Altamont Pass, CA -1991      3,000       ***        ***  0.047b
                    Montezuma Hills, CA          600  0.074b          ***  0.047b
                           -1992
        Midwest    Buffalo Ridge, MN - P1         73      0.98       0.26     ***
                           -2000
                   Buffalo Ridge, MN - P2        143      2.27       1.78     ***
                           -2000
                   Buffalo Ridge, MN - P3        138      4.45       2.04     ***
                           -2000
                  Buffalo Ridge, MN               73 0.33-0.66        ***     ***
                  -(Osborn et al) - 2000
                     Buffalo Ridge, MN           281       ***    3.02        ***
                       -(Bats) - 2004                            (2001)
                                                               1.3 (2002)
                  Northeastern, WI - 2002         31      1.29       4.26
                     Top of Iowa - 2004           89     0.12c      1.88c     ***
    Northeast    Searsburg, VT -2002           11         0        ***

    Appalachian Mt. Region

          Mountaineer, WV - 2004            44    4.04d       47.53d          ***
             Tennessee - 2005                3    7.28         20.8           ***
          Mountaineer, WV - 2005            44     ***        38.0e           ***
           Meyersdale, PA -2005             20     ***        23.0e           ***

    Source: GAO analysis of various scientific studies and reports.

    Notes:

    *** indicates that the study authors did not calculate a mortality rate
    for that category.

    Some of the studies that presented a bird/turbine/year mortality rate also
    included raptors in that calculation. With the exception of the studies
    conducted in the Appalachian region, most of the studies listed were
    designed and timed to focus on bird mortality. Bats were found only
    incidentally to the study

    Appendix II
    Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality
    Rates, by Region

    objectives; therefore, rates of bat mortality reported from those studies
    may not represent a reliable measure.

    aFatality rate applies to small birds only.

    bFatality rate not adjusted for both searcher efficiency and scavenging
    rate.

    cFatality rate represents number of birds and bats killed per turbine per
    8-month study period.

    dFatality rate represents number of bats killed per turbine per 7-month
    study period.

    eFatality rate represents number of birds and bats killed per turbine per
    6-week study period; however, bat mortality has been shown to be
    concentrated in the season during which these study periods took place.

    Appendix III

    Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    See comment 1.

    See comment 2.

    Appendix III
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

                                     See comment 3.

                                     See comment 4.

    Appendix III
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

                                      Appendix III
                          Comments from the Department of the
                                        Interior

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
    letter dated September 2, 2005.

    GAO Comments	The Department of the Interior raised one issue with our
    recommendation that we have addressed in the Agency Comment and Our
    Evaluation section in the report. We address below the four other points
    the department raised in its letter. In addition, the department provided
    technical comments that we have incorporated into the report, as
    appropriate.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    We agree that it is important to point out that many of these studies were
    not scientifically peer-reviewed and have added a footnote to this effect
    in the body of the report. However, we disagree that in some cases
    protocols used in the studies were unknown. As we explain in appendix I,
    we only included studies that were determined to have reasonably sound
    methodologies. We did not include any study for which we were unable to
    assess the protocols or methodology.

    We believe the section on law enforcement reflects continued investigation
    of "take" of federal trust species by wind turbines and FWS's and the
    Department of Justice's enforcement and prosecutorial discretion, although
    we have added some clarification on these points.

    We did not find any instances where state or local agencies that regulate
    wind power included in our review had incorporated or adopted the interim
    guidelines into their own jurisdictional requirements for approving wind
    power facilities. We did, however, find agencies in two states that had
    used the guidelines to inform either their development of regulations or
    their monitoring of the wildlife impacts at operating wind power
    facilities.

    We did not assess how various local controls provide for protection of
    individual animals that are interjurisdictional in their life cycles. The
    section of the report that pertains to state wildlife laws is descriptive
    in nature and serves to highlight the fact that state laws sometimes
    provide additional protections to species, beyond federal laws, that may
    be affected by wind power. We added language to highlight that federal
    jurisdiction for migratory birds has not been delegated to the states, and
    that primary responsibility for the protection of these birds resides with
    the federal government (Interior).

    Appendix IV

                         GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                        GAO Contact Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841

    Staff 	In addition to the individual named above, Patricia McClure,
    Assistant Director; Jose Alfredo Gomez; Kimberly Siegal; and William Roach
    made

    Acknowledgments	key contributions to this report. Important contributions
    were also made by Judy Pagano, John Delicath, and Omari Norman.

    Bibliography

    Anderson, R., N. Neumann, J. Tom, W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M.
    Bourassa, K. J. Bay, and K. J. Sernka. Avian Monitoring and Risk
    Assessment at the Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area, Period of
    Performance: October 2, 1996 - May 27, 1998. NREL/SR-500-36416. September
    2004.

    Arnett, E. B., technical editor. 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. 2005.

    Dooling, R. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines.
    NREL/TP-500-30844. June 2002.

    Erickson, W. P., B. Gritski, and K. Kronner. Nine Canyon Wind Power
    Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report, September 2002 - August 2003.
    Technical report submitted to Energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon
    Technical Advisory Committee. October 2003.

    Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. Stateline Wind
    Project Wildlife Monitoring Final Report, July 2001 - December 2003.
    Technical report peer-reviewed by and submitted to FPL Energy, the Oregon
    Energy Facility Siting Council, and the Stateline Technical Advisory
    Committee. December 2004.

    Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. Avian
    and Bat Mortality Associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla
    County, Oregon 1999 Study Year: Final Report. Prepared for Umatilla County
    Department of Resource Services and Development. February 7, 2000.

    Hodos, W. Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with
    Wind Turbines Period of Performance: July 12, 1999 - August 31, 2002.
    NREL/SR-500-33249. August 2003.

    Hoover, S. The Response of Red-Tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles to
    Topographical Features, Weather, and Abundance of a Dominant Prey Species
    at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: April 1999

    - December 2000. NREL/SR-500-30868. June 2002.

    Bibliography

    Howe, R. W., W. Evans, and A. T. Wolf. Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds
    and Bats in Northeastern Wisconsin. Report submitted to Wisconsin Public
    Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company. November 21,
    2002.

    Howell, J. A., and J. DiDonato. Assessment of Avian Use and Mortality
    Related to Wind Turbine Operations Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa
    Counties, California; September 1988 Through August 1989: Final Report.
    November 7, 1991.

    Howell, J. A., and J. Noone. Examination of Avian Use and Mortality at a
    U.S. Windpower, Wind Energy Development Site Montezuma Hills, Solano
    County, California: Final Report. September 10, 1992.

    Howell, J. A. Bird Mortality at Rotor Swept Area Equivalents, Altamont
    Pass and Montezuma Hills California. Transactions of the Western Section
    of the Wildlife Society. 33: 24-29. 1997.

    Hunt, W. G., R. E. Jackman, T. L. Hunt, D.E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. A
    Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area:
    Population and Trend Analysis 1997. Report to the National Renewable
    Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459-01. Predatory Research Group,
    University of California, Santa Cruz. 1998.

    Johnson, G., W. Erickson, J. White, and R. McKinney. Avian and Bat
    Mortality During the First Year of Operation at the Klondike Phase I Wind
    Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for Northwestern Wind Power.
    March 2003.

    Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, and D.A.
    Shepherd. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind
    Resource Area: Results of a 4-Year Study. Prepared for Northern States
    Power Company. September 22, 2000.

    Johnson, G. D., M. K. Perlik, W. P. Erickson, and M. D. Strickland. Bat
    Activity, Composition, and Collision Mortality at a Large Wind Plant in
    Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1278-1288. 2004.

    Kerlinger, P. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power
    Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migratory Birds in
    Seasburg, Vermont July 1996 - July 1998. Prepared for the Vermont
    Department of Public Service. March 2002.

    Bibliography

    Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities
    at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia:
    Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Wind Energy Center
    Technical Review Committee. February 14, 2004.

    Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner, and A. Hancock. Avian Mortality Associated
    with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm: Progress Report Calendar Year 2003.
    February 28, 2004.

    National Wind Coordinating Committee. Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds
    and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions. Fact
    Sheet: Second Edition. November 2004.

    Nicholson, C. P., R. D. Tankersley, Jr., J. K. Fiedler, and N. S.
    Nicholas.

    Assessment and Prediction of Bird and Bat Mortality at Wind Energy
    Facilities in the Southeastern United States. Prepared for the Tennessee
    Valley Authority. 2005.

    Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity,
    Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind
    Resource Areas 1989-1991: Final Report. Prepared for Planning Departments
    of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties and the California Energy
    Commission Grant #990-89-003. March 1992.

    Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. A Continued Examination of Avian Mortality in
    the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Prepared for the California Energy
    Commission. January 1996.

    Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, C. D. Dieter, and R. E. Usgaard. Bat
    Collisions with Wind Turbines in Southwestern Minnesota. Bat Research
    News. Vol. 37, No. 4. Winter 1996.

    Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, R. E. Usgaard, C. D. Dieter, and R. D.
    Neiger.

    Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind
    Resource Area, Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist. 143:41-52.

    Schmidt, E., A. J. Piaggio, C. E. Bock, and D. M. Armstrong. National Wind
    Technology Center Site Environmental Assessment: Bird and Bat Use and
    Fatalities - Final Report, Period of Performance: April 23, 2001 -
    December 31, 2002. NREL/SR-5000-32981. January 2003.

    Bibliography

    Smallwood, K. S. and Thelander, C.G. Developing Methods to Reduce Bird
    Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report by
    BioResource Consultants to the California Energy Commission, Public
    Interest Energy Research - Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019;

    L. Spiegel, Program Manager. August 2004.

    Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and
    Minimizing Avian Mortality Without Significant Loss of Power Generation.
    The California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental
    Research. CEC-500-2005-005. December 2004.

    Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. Bird Risk Behaviors and
    Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Period of Performance:
    March 1998 - December 2000. NREL/SR-500-33829. December 2003.

    Young Jr., D. P., W. P. Erickson, R. W. Good, M. D. Strickland, and G. D.
    Johnson. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the
    Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, November 1998 -
    June 2002. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc., SeaWest Windpower, Inc., and the
    Bureau of Land Management. January 10, 2003.

    Young, Jr, D. P., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, R. E. Good, and K. J.
    Sernka. Comparison of Avian Responses to UV-Light-Reflective Paint on Wind
    Turbines: Subcontract Report July 1999-December 2000. NREL/ST500-32840.
    January 2003.

    GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
    and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents at no cost

    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
    every afternoon, go to

    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:
    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

    Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***