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: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***