Must Read: MAPLE RIDGE WIND POWER AVIAN AND BAT FATALITY STUDY REPORT

Comment

Comment by Jim Wiegand on August 7, 2017 at 6:00pm

It should be very clear to all, that these lying insider dirtbags make it up as they go along.  That's what the new rule allowing industry to kill 4200 bald eagle each year was all about.

Comment by Eskutassis on August 7, 2017 at 4:59pm

Get used to it. As long as our socialist governments both Federal and State continue to pour our tax dollars, dollars that could be used for real growth and infrastructure, providing REAL jobs and prosperity, into useless projects like this, we are doomed to a declining Nation. These people are worse than Bernie Maddoff and Enron. AT least those "investors" knew the investments were tenuous, but the scammers sucking the tax dollars down now are lying through their teeth about the benefits of wind and solar.

Comment by Barbara Durkin on August 7, 2017 at 4:40pm

The engineered collapse of species protections begins at the top of the federal food chain...

When the US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Advisory Committee was formed Dirk Kempthorne, then Department of Interior chief, appointed Taber Allison of Massachusetts Audubon to serve as Advisor.

The wind industry is killing our birds because the DOJ fails to enforce species protections against wind developers. 

 

The following pertains to an admitted and published violation of the MBTA. 

 

 

August 25, 2009

 

 

 

Christopher E. Dowd
Resident Agent in Charge - New England
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Law Enforcement
70 Everett Avenue Suite 315
Chelsea, MA 02150
(617) 889-6616 (Ext. 15)
FAX (617) 889-1980

 

Dear Agent Dowd:

 

Thank you for your response regarding the violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act confirmed by Lucy Vlietstra Associate Professor of Marine Science at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. I was present when the death of an Osprey by Mass Maritime 660 kilowatt turbine was confirmed by Ms. Vlietstra at the November 14, 2007 Wind Turbines Impacts on Wildlife seminar conducted by FAC member Taber Allison of MA Audubon, and Ms. Vietstra.

 

I am gravely concerned that the Osprey mortality by one WTG in the vicinity of the proposed Cape Wind project is a harbinger of what should be reasonably anticipated an avoided as the mortality of up to 6,600 birds per year by Cape Wind's 130 proposed WTGs. (see MA Audubon's testimony to USACE provided with link below)

 

My understanding is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a strict liability statute. 

 

Will you please kindly confirm if your office intends to investigate this event reported by Professor Vlietstra? {cut}

 

« More on Solar Energy at Wellfleet Bay | Main | A New Direction for the Green Building Blog »

November 24, 2007

Wildlife and Wind Power

The on-going attention to developing wind power on Cape Cod—both large scale projects like Cape Wind and smaller municipal and private turbines—has raised many questions over the direct and indirect impacts to birds and other wildlife to which Mass Audubon is responding in various ways. To address issue of special concern to Cape residents, Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative (CIREC) and Wellfleet Bay held a presentation on November 14 at the sanctuary that featured Taber Allison, Mass Audubon’s Vice President for Conservation Science, and Lucy Vlietstra, Associate Professor of Marine Science at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

Taber started the evening with a reminder of the impacts of climate change and how, in addition to developing renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency and conservation are essential to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. His graphs and charts, gleaned from a variety of scientific studies, provided greater detail on the latest understanding on wind power and its impact on wildlife, specifically birds. Comparisons were shown between wind power and other things that kill large numbers of birds—collisions with communication towers, tall buildings, and automobiles and predation from cats among them. When viewed next to the affects of communication towers (almost 1 billion birds killed annually), the impacts of wind towers seemed arguably negligible (30,000 birds annually), as Taber pointed out. But he also presented the other side to the coin—concerns over the cumulative effects on bird populations and the impact to rare and endangered species. Questions also remain on how some of these studies generate their numbers and critics point to the lack of rigorous, standardized methods for assessing mortality.

One of the more sobering parts of Taber’s presentation was his perspective on wildlife impacts from traditional sources of power—fossil fuels—beyond their well-documented contributions to climate change. Extracting methane and coal causes tremendous habitat destruction, and offshore oil platforms cause direct mortality of migrating birds. How much “take” of wildlife is acceptable to satisfy our consumption of energy? Taber pointed out that fully understanding the environmental impacts of any source of energy requires a “cradle to grave” approach that considers everything from the habitat destruction caused by the physical extraction or development of the energy source, to its contributions to climate change, to the disposal of the byproducts. The gaps in our understanding of these complex issues became quite obvious.

With Taber recently named one of 22 individuals to serve on a special Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee, formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, maybe these information gaps will become smaller. This committee will advise the Secretary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats from land-based wind energy facilities.

Lucy Vlietstra closed the evening with her summary of data that looked at the Mass Maritime 660 kilowatt turbine’s possible impacts to birds, with a specific focus on Common and Roseate terns. In   addition to documenting bird use of the airspace around the turbine, Lucy and her students also looked for dead birds around the turbine. In 2006 they put in 602 observation hours and one bird fatality was confirmed. This year, two birds have been confirmed dead including an Osprey. This mortality rate mirrors those found at other turbine study sites.  In addition, by turning off the turbine 3-4 days per week they discovered that birds altered their flight patterns when the rotor was spinning, avoiding the rotor swept zone completely.

While it is clear that major information gaps remain when it comes to the impacts of wind power on wildlife populations, studies like Dr. Vlietstra’s are encouraging that with thoughtful siting of turbines, careful pre and post-construction monitoring, and perhaps new wildlife-deterring technologies coming on line, wind and wildlife may be able to coexist after all.

Posted by Melissa Lowe.

Editor's Note: Another good report on Taber's talk was published in the Barnstable Patriot and archived on a site called National Wind Watch.

http://greenbuilding.typepad.com/naturecenter/2007/11/wildlife-and-...

Most Respectfully,

Barbara Durkin

48 Moore Lane

Northboro, MA  01532

Telephone:  (508) 612-4133

 

 

Attached Message

From	Bjdurk@aol.com
To	Rachel_London@fws.gov
Subject	Please enter my comments into the record RE: FAC draft v. 4
Date	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:42:40 EDT

September 23, 2009

 

Rachel London
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 840
Arlington, VA  22203

Dear Ms. London:

 

Please enter my comments into the record in response to the Wind Turbine FAC draft v. 4 of the Guidelines. 

 

The Wall Street Journal and USA Today have recently published contributions regarding the unacceptable high levels of avian and bat mortalities by wind turbines.  A disturbing fact these articles highlighted is that the Department of Justice fails to enforce strict liability statutes, like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, when these species laws are violated by wind turbine operators.  Such selective enforcement by the DOJ undermines efforts to protect the Public Trust. 

 

Another cited criticism that I consider falls on the Wind Turbine Siting Advisory Committee is that wind turbine siting guidelines continue as optional observance by wind developers.  It is abundantly clear that your FAC ignores Best Science as it limits development potential for wind developers. If this FAC was acting in the interest of bird and bat life, these guidelines would be mandated to reflect Best Science.  Best Science offered to your FAC indicates optional WTG siting guidelines continue to be summarily dismissed by the wind industry. 

 

As you are aware, I have contested the appointment of Taber Allison of MA Audubon to your Advisory Committee by former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, unsuccessfully.  I believe your FAC only has the integrity of the 22 members who comprise it.  In FAC appointee Taber Allison’s case, he flatly denied MA Audubon’s testimony on bird kill estimates by Cape Wind, by MA Audubon staff scientists, in writing.  To make matters worse, Taber Allison and Jack Clarke of MA Audubon launched a public relations campaign for Cape Wind as they upstaged the federal regulator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, during their evaluation of Cape Wind project impacts under the Section 7 permit consultation review process.

   

MA Audubon is identified as a “Key Partner” in the Cape Wind NEPA permit review process by MMS.  You are indeed aware that NEPA analysis should preclude the involved from taking on a project advocacy position.  Taber Allison, none-the-less, undermined the “world’s largest” NEPA review of the “U.S. first” offshore wind project when he became the Cape Wind media darling.  Taber Allison of MA Audubon is consistently contradicted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife that dutifully avoided the media during their Section 7 consultation process in the Cape Wind NEPA review.   

 

Mass Audubon's testimony on Cape Wind to the USACE:

The President of Mass Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted Mass Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District -- Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1, EOEA No. 12643:

"By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf

Taber Allison flatly denies MA Audubon's testimony on bird kill by Cape Wind made to federal regulators, in writing:

 

Excepts that are relevant with links provided to full opinions/letters: 

 

SouthCoastToday 7/25/06 LTE-MA Audubon is inconsistent

 

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-06/07-26-06/06opinion.htm

 

"MA Audubon's staff scientists have concluded that up to 6,600 birds per year would be killed if Cape Wind is permitted in testimony."

"MA Audubon has challenged Cape Wind to accept an Adaptive Management Plan that includes rigorous monitoring, beginning at the construction phase and continuing at least three years post construction; to be funded by Cape Wind; with contributions from independent institutions and government agencies as appropriate.

I wish to challenge MA Audubon to answer one question: What agency do they suggest should be eligible to bid on, or awarded this lucrative, long-term monitoring contract if Cape Wind is permitted in Nantucket Sound?"

BARBARA DURKIN
Northboro

Taber Allison of Mass Audubon responds: http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-06/11-21-06/07opinion.htm

SouthCoastToday: 8/03/06

"Mass Audubon scientists have never concluded that up to 6,600 birds, or any number of birds, would be killed if this project is permitted."

"We don't understand Ms. Durkin's closing question."

TABER D. ALLISON
Lincoln

SouthCoastToday 8/16/06  http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-06/08-16-06/08opinion.htm

'Conflicting data on collision risks for birds'

"In his letter titled "Letter writer gets bird facts wrong," Taber Allison presents a misleading and untrue statement regarding Barbara Durkin's comments in her letter to the editor on July 25 titled "Mass. Audubon is inconsistent."

"I did, and my conclusion is that Allison misrepresents the truth and seems to be attempting to rewrite history."

DONA TRACY
Osterville