I've been involved challenging the wind energy build out in Ontario since
2007, and along the way I've grown very appreciative of the wind energy
siting process we have in NYS, as guided by the NYDEC & USFWS. The science
has been much better in NY and the resulting wind build out in NY arguably
has a lower avian fatality rate per turbine than that in Ontario. But this
is I think partly due to geographic circumstances - New York has relatively
good wind resource areas in upland areas of western and northern NY (areas
of less potential bird impact) whereas Ontario's best wind resources for
serving its population are along the shores of the Great Lakes (areas with
more potential avian impact). These shorelines tend to concentrate diurnal
and nocturnal bird migration and there is accordingly more risk of wind
turbine collision impact. New York has only one wind project on the Great
Lakes shoreline (Steel Winds project near Buffalo) whereas Ontario now has
many. The whole northern lake shore of Lake Erie is essentially under wind
development and the north shore of Lake Ontario is not far behind (e.g., the
Amherst Is. wind project).
To give an egregious example of the lack of wind energy science in Ontario,
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (equivalent of our NYDEC) only
required the fatality study at Wolfe Island Wind Project (and other wind
projects in Ontario) to survey out 50 m from the base of wind turbines for
bird and bat carcasses. The resulting avian fatality rate figures were then
reported to the public as the actual fatality rate of the project(s). The
problem with this is that US fatality studies show that similarly high
turbines toss bird carcasses out to at least 100 m away from the wind
turbine support tower. This was demonstrated in fatality studies at NY's
Maple Ridge Wind Project, 70 km southeast of Wolfe Island, part of which
preceded and was in print prior to the Wolfe Island fatality study. This
latter study and other US studies are the basis for concluding that 50% of
the bird carcasses at modern wind turbines are lofted beyond 50 m. In order
to estimate avian fatality rates at wind projects, one must not only make a
statistical correction for carcasses lost to scavengers (raccoons, etc.) and
surveyor efficiency (measured skill of surveyors in finding carcasses), one
needs to correct for the full area where carcasses may fall that is not
surveyed. So, for most of the existing Ontario wind energy fatality data,
one needs to begin by multiplying by two to get closer to reality on the
number of birds killed.
This was recently noted by Environment Canada in the following paper
published last year:
Zimmerling, J. R., A. C. Pomeroy, M. V. d'Entremont, and C. M. Francis.
2013. Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct
habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation
and Ecology 8(2): 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00609-080210
This paper is one of the better overviews I've seen. Unfortunately the
authors conclusions regarding the impact of wind energy on Canadian bird
populations is tainted by the fact that they used antiquated Partners in
Flight (PIF) population estimates from the 1990s without informing the
reader. Updated PIF population estimates were released last year, apparently
after the paper went to press. So, for example they estimate, based on
Canadian fatality data, that 465 Purple Martins are currently killed by wind
turbines in Canada every year. They conclude that this is inconsequential
because they cite a population estimate (base in 1990 PIF data) of 523,000
martins. This translates to less that 0.1% of the population and doesn't
tend to raise any red flags. But the more recent PIF estimate for martins
(based on early 2000s data) is only 200,000. And what they don't tell you is
that based on the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, the martin population in
Ontario (where almost all of the martin-killing wind energy is located) is
only estimated to be 25,000. The martin population has been in a long-term
free-fall of 5-8% per year in Ontario for other reasons, but current wind
collision mortality to martins is estimated to be adding an additional 3% to
the annual decline -- and the wind energy build out in Ontario continues
unabated. The future of the Purple Martin in Ontario looked grim, but now
looks increasingly grim.
Three years of fatality data are publically available for the Wolfe Island
Wind Farm.* These studies indicate that only 8, 5, and 3 martin carcasses
respectively were found in each of the three years. What you won't find,
unless you look at the transcripts of my written testimonies for two wind
project appeal hearings in Canada, is that when you factor in the
statistical corrections, the martin fatality estimates at the Wolfe Island
Wind Project jump to 112, 126, and 36 for each of the first three years of
the study. The drop in the third year led to scrutiny and questions by
Environment Canada with allegations of a potential change in survey methods.
The take away point here is that the reported small numbers of carcasses
found in wind energy fatality studies can be very deceiving. Canadian
fatality studies are estimated in some cases to be finding only 1 out of 25
actual avian fatalities. In the US, for example the Maple Ridge Wind
Project on the Tug Hill Plateau, the find rate is only estimated to be about
1 in 10 actual fatalities. What this means is that the current fatality
survey protocols are perhaps pretty good for estimating the total number of
avian fatalities, but they have low resolution for indicating the species
impacted -- and this doesn't aid legal arguments against a wind project
based on avian impacts. The current legal test for stopping a wind project
in Ontario on environmental grounds is proving that there will be "serious
and irreversible" impact to a species. This is impossible to prove for most
species because of nebulous wind farm fatality estimates for any particular
species and nebulous population estimates for most species. And, for better
or worse, there is the convenient Catch-22 for the wind industry that as a
species becomes less abundant, it becomes less likely to be a collision
victim at wind farms.
From what I've seen, efforts to stop the Amherst Island wind project will
have very little traction with arguments based on collision or habitat
impacts to wintering raptors. Those arguments may delay the proceeding a bit
but will eventually lose as it will be impossible to prove that the wind
project will have an impact on their populations or habitat in Ontario. A
cumulative impact argument could work better in theory, but again one would
be contending with nebulous fatality and population data. There are a
limited number of people who would benefit from the Amherst Is. wind
project -- the farmers who would have the wind energy on their land and the
developer who rakes in the energy profits. Regarding the effort to curb CO2
emmissions, the project could be built somewhere else. Birders are generally
not saying no to wind energy - we do give a damn if it is sited carelessly
with regard to wildlife, and that has been the case in Ontario in recent
years (e.g., Wolfe Island, Ostrander Point, and now Amherst Is.).
I think it's great for birders and bird clubs to write letters and sign
petitions, and the magnitude of the response may make a different in
supporting internal Ontario politics that will likely contribute
substantially in determining whether the project is built. Ultimately, if
the Amherst Is. wind project is built and winter raptor numbers diminish (as
apparently has happened on Wolfe Is.), birders largely won't go to Amherst
Island anymore -- the days of Cayuga Bird Club members in full song around
the piano at the B&B after a day of great raptor viewing will be history.
Bill E
*Canadian wind farm fatality data data went dark after 2011 and is now not
publically available -- only to gov't, the wind industry, and certain NGOs.
-----Original Message-----
From: John and Sue Gregoire
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:49 AM
To: KHAMOLISTSERV
Cc: Bill Evans ; cayugabirds-l
Subject: Wolfe Island Mortality
I was asked by some for the source of the quote that said Wolfe Island avian
mortality was the second highest in NA. After some searching we find that it
came
from an analysis by our own Bill Evans. The link to that article is below.
Not to
belabor the point but John Confer's last paragraph goes to the heart of our
concerns
for Amherst Island...the importance of habitat.
I was sent a second source, a PDf outlining deaths across Canadian wind
farms and it
does show Wolfe to be the highest and second for tat year only to Altamont
in CA.It
was written by Lyle Friesen of the CWS for the OFO (Ontario Field
Ornithologist)
Journal. Unfortunately I can't get that PDF to link in acceptable form.
john
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/windfarm-turbines-deadly-for-birds-bats/article4392511/
--
John and Sue Gregoire
Field Ornithologists
Kestrel Haven Avian Migration Observatory
5373 Fitzgerald Road
Burdett,NY 14818-9626
Website: http://www.empacc.net/~kestrelhaven/
"Conserve and Create Habitat"
--
Cayugabirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsWELCOME
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsRULES
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm
ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/cayugabirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Cayugabirds
3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CAYU.html
Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/
--
