Many bird species in severe decline, groups warn

[XemaSab]

Hundreds of species of birds, including many once-common songbirds such as the meadowlark and American bobwhite, are in severe decline in the United States, falling in population by as much as 90 percent since the 1960s, scientists, government officials and conservation groups told Congress today.

The chief cause is destruction of habitat, scientists told the House subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife and oceans. They said rising food prices and the push for alternative fuels are putting intense pressure on farmland set aside for conservation.

Other killers include invasive plant species that take over native seed and nesting sources, wind turbines located near critical flyways, lighted and glass-encased buildings, lighted cell-phone towers, domestic cats, disease, pesticides and climate change, which also is shrinking habitat ranges.

Farmers racing to plant corn for ethanol, which is subsidized by the federal government, and livestock feed are pulling millions of acres out of the nation's largest private land conservation program, the 32-million-acre Conservation Reserve Program, in which the government pays farmers under 10- and 15-year contracts to keep fragile lands out of production. Rising food and energy prices are leading to political pressure from Congress on the Bush administration to allow farmers to break their conservation contracts without penalty.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/10/MNO511N21T.DTL

[dysfunctional press]

1. fewer potential spreaders of bird flu can't be all bad...

can it?

[JanusAscending]

2. Maybe you'd rather have............

Lyme disease, or Rocky Mountain spotted fever. There are many diseases spread by the "critters" that birds eat. Ever heard of ECOLOGY ? Mother nature isn't happy when we upset the balance, now is she?

[dysfunctional press]

3. so i guess that means that you're one of those people...

who can't recognize sarcasm without one of these: :sarcasm: ???

[silverojo]

5. Around here, you never can tell n/t

[MH1]

39. I've seen statements just as ridiculous at DU that weren't sarcasm.

as evidenced by the poster's subsequent posts.

If you don't want to incur wrath, you should mark your posts. :)

(My first reaction to your post was, OMFG someone actually thinks that?!? Holy shit... But then I did look for the tag.)

[kgrandia]

4. Save the songbird petition

http://www.saveourborealbirds.org/sign.html

Pass it around and help save these poor little critters.

[kristopher]

6. Puttiing wind turbines on that list is so out of place it is absurd.

Having wind turbines on that list is totally irresponsible. The Audobon Society position on wind:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/wind/audubon_view.html


This is from a comparative study done in 2001 and sponsored by the National Wind Coordinating Committee. It has stood the test of time, and siting decisions on wind farms taken since it was published have resulted in better site selection, better monitoring, and much fewer avian deaths from wind towers. The current review processes (NEPA EIA) have reduced mortality to about 1/2 death per turbine per year.

We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in
the United States:

• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000

The large differences in total mortality from these sources are strongly related to the differences
in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million miles
of road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk
transmission lines (and an unknown number of miles of distribution lines), 80,000
communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.
However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely
cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.

- Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States
August 2001

[XemaSab]

7. O RLY?

Altamont Pass is basically in the Bay Area, and this is a Bay Area paper.

It's the textbook location for bird mortality.

[kristopher]

8. It's also one of the first. That's why avian impacts are now part of NEPA review.

While it may be a Bay Area paper, it is still a story about the causes declining bird populations nationwide. As demonstrated by the relative causes of mortality shown in my last post, wind has no business on that list except as part of someone's pet peeve or personal agenda.

[XemaSab]

9. All the potential impacts covered under NEPA are the result of a long, serious legislative process

If bird mortality due to collision with wind turbines was not potentially significant, it would not be subject to environmental review.

You're the only supposed "environmentalist" I've ever heard try to make the argument that NEPA is too stringent in any area. As a matter of fact, NEPA review is often seen as a rubber stamp for project proponents to get their way, regardless of actual environmental harm.

[kristopher]

10. WTF are you talking about?

I didn't say NEPA was too stringent nor did I imply it. What I said was Altamont showed why avian mortality studies SHOULD be part of NEPA review.

Get a grip.

[XemaSab]

11. You said:

"As demonstrated by the relative causes of mortality shown in my last post, wind has no business on that list except as part of someone's pet peeve or personal agenda."

You're overtly stating that potential strike mortality is a nonissue.

I think I HAVE a grip.

And just so you're aware, I'm a biologist. My specialty is birds. I work in the environmental consulting field. I write EIR, EIS, BA, BE, NES, AFC, Initial Studies, Wetland Delineation Reports, and other documents you've probably never heard of. Many of our clients are utilities, and I've worked on hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, solar, and wind projects. Two weeks ago, I walked a power line from Palermo to Roseville, and now I am writing a report about it. You know what I found? Coots hit power lines a lot. But that's not my point.

My point is you might not want to pick this fight with me.

[kristopher]

12. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension instead of making false appeals to authority

Whether you have a degree in biology or not is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. I've provided both the Audubon position on wind and a link to a legitimate study placing the risks of wind turbines into their proper context. I stand by my statement that the inclusion of wind with the other causes of avian mortality is absurd. There are several orders of magnitude difference in the scale of damages. The inclusion is only explainable as I said, either someone has a pet peeve or they have a personal agenda.
And YES I'm overtly stating that with the current EIA policies now in place, mortality due wind turbines is a nonissue when discussing the decline of songbird populations in the US.
If you have evidence that contradicts that, by all means, please share it. Otherwise take your threats and...


My initial post:
Having wind turbines on that list is totally irresponsible. The Audobon Society position on wind:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/wind/audubon_view.html


This is from a comparative study done in 2001 and sponsored by the National Wind Coordinating Committee. It has stood the test of time, and siting decisions on wind farms taken since it was published have resulted in better site selection, better monitoring, and much fewer avian deaths from wind towers. The current review processes (NEPA EIA) have reduced mortality to about 1/2 death per turbine per year.

We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in
the United States:

• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000

The large differences in total mortality from these sources are strongly related to the differences
in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million miles
of road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk
transmission lines (and an unknown number of miles of distribution lines), 80,000
communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.
However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely
cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.

- Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States
August 2001

[XemaSab]

13. Thanks for re-posting both of your original comments in this thread

Oh, and thanks for using the word "songbird."

Most species threatened by wind turbines are raptors.

But you knew that.

[kristopher]

14. Wrong again.

Perhaps you should study a topic before making declarations of fact. Altamont Pass has a problem with raptors. Lesson learned: lattice towers are favored nesting sites. Solution: Tubular monopole towers are now the standard means of mounting a turbine.

In point of fact, no species, including raptors, are generally threatened by wind turbines. Now if you want to isolate Altamont Pass for discussion and condemnation, I probably wouldn't be inclined to argue.

Suggested reading: "Remote techniques for counting and estimating the number of bird–wind turbine collisions at sea: a review"
M. DESHOLM,1* A. D. FOX,1 P. D. L. BEASLEY2 & J. KAHLERT1

It includes a composite radar tracking image of avian traffic over the course of a year, showing the behavior and flight patterns when a wind farm is encountered. Desholm is lead author and has written much more on the topic; he's probably the top person in the field.

[XemaSab]

15. No, I'm not wrong

Since you're so dismissive of my credentials on the topic, might I ask what YOUR credentials are?

'Cause you seem to be such an expert, ya know. :eyes:

[kristopher]

16. No, you may not.

So far you have argued exclusively from a base of logical fallacies and here you continue that tradition.

It isn't relevant what my background is unless I'm using it as a basis for an argument - and I'm not. Such an appeal may or may not have merit. Your use of it has no merit to the discussion at hand but it could have in other circumstances. Whether you are or are not trained in biology you should be able to either refute the factual information I've offered or dispute the logic that I've used to present the data. You've chosen to do neither.

If you have the education you assert then you may have learned to do research. If so, then please do some and get back to me.

[XemaSab]

18. Let's see. So far you're an expert in

CO2 sequestration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=159853&mesg_id=159921

Peak oil

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=158882&mesg_id=159402

Internal combustion engines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=159157&mesg_id=159332

Solar panel funding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=157487&mesg_id=158633

Whaling and Japanese culture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3373043&mesg_id=3376000

The problems of storage in renewable energy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=157723&mesg_id=157921

World cultures, population growth, and environmental demands

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153706&mesg_id=154349

Battery technology

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=152052&mesg_id=152083

Ethanol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=149539&mesg_id=149664

World food

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=144347&mesg_id=144553

Economics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=143939&mesg_id=143952

Oil and Coal supplies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=143779&mesg_id=143873

Offshore wind energy (where you say there are no birds offshore... Debi Shearwater of www.shearwaterjourneys.com would beg to differ with you)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=143607&mesg_id=143867

Electric cars

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=142861&mesg_id=143791

Peatlands

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=143638&mesg_id=143714

The grid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=143289&mesg_id=143627

Diagnosing candidates from afar (thank you, Dr. Frist)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5485936

Culture and environment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=140782&mesg_id=140788

More offshore wind resources:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=140181&mesg_id=140401

LCA of ethanol:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=138650&mesg_id=139843

Physics:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=137921&mesg_id=139174

Loading ammo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=137921&mesg_id=138694

Logic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=138097&mesg_id=138208

Assessing externalities:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=135598&mesg_id=135644

Religion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2882847&mesg_id=2885304

What post-partisanship means:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4635580

What being black means:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4565629&mesg_id=4567254

Fission:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=135262&mesg_id=135378

Medicine and ethics:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=32230&mesg_id=32287

The carbon cycle:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=137938&mesg_id=138093

Environmental policy and review:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=135598&mesg_id=135817

Risk analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=137858&mesg_id=137917

Global energy supply and human cultures and economic systems:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=136515&mesg_id=136726

Ignorance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3216148&mesg_id=3216398


And finally, in this thread you have shown that you're also an ornithologist.

You're just a goddamn polymath, aren't you?

You're also very demeaning to other people. You're SO demeaning that I guess I was expecting you to have something to back it up with, such as a degree or a job in the field, but it's not the first time I've been wrong, and it probably won't be the last. :shrug:

[kristopher]

19. More false logic.

It would have been a lot easier for you to have done the research to prove me wrong. Of course, that would require that I be wrong, wouldn't it? Lacking that you are left resorting to this type of antic and a descent into ad hominem. :thumbsdown:

[XemaSab]

23. Do you want some significant and unavoidable impacts with that?

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/departments/resourcemgmt/drm/Hatchet%20Ridge/DEIR/Ch_3-04_Bio.pdf

[kristopher]

24. Please provide the name and author of the paper and I'll read it.

Having wind turbines on that list is totally irresponsible. The Audobon Society position on wind:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/wind/audubon_view.html


This is from a comparative study done in 2001 and sponsored by the National Wind Coordinating Committee. It has stood the test of time, and siting decisions on wind farms taken since it was published have resulted in better site selection, better monitoring, and much fewer avian deaths from wind towers. The current review processes (NEPA EIA) have reduced mortality to about 1/2 death per turbine per year.

We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in
the United States:

• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000

The large differences in total mortality from these sources are strongly related to the differences
in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million miles
of road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk
transmission lines (and an unknown number of miles of distribution lines), 80,000
communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.
However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely
cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.

- Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States
August 2001

[XemaSab]

27. Enjoy.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/departments/resourcemgmt/drm/Hatchet%20Ridge/Hatchet%20Ridge.htm

[kristopher]

28. You already posted the link

I'm having trouble with it. Please post paper title and author.

[XemaSab]

33. Actually, I haven't previously posted the link

It's the EIR for the Hatchet Ridge Wind Project. Or can't you read?

[kristopher]

34. And what, exactly, is it supposed to reveal?

You posted the link first here:
23. Do you want some significant and unavoidable impacts with that?

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/departments/resourcemgmt/drm...

And then here:
27. Enjoy.

http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/departments/resourcemgmt/drm...

It doesn't open - I get a file error message.

What is it, precisely, that I'm supposed to wade through this (probably extremely long document) looking for? I've read EIS for wind farms before, is there something that supposedly proves that wind farms cause hundreds of millions of bird fatalities rather than tens of thousands?

[XemaSab]

35. Here's the deal:

I'm sick of your shit.

You seem to think you're some kind of fucking e/e supergenius, but I think you're just a troll.

Therefore, your pathetic ass is going on ignore.

At any rate, I'm sure it's past your bedtime, and I don't want your mom to be mad at you.

[kristopher]

36. Have a nice evening.

It's too bad you're not mature enough to have a simple factual exchange. The inclusion of wind in the OP was inappropriate - with no distinction at all it treated wind - which causes tens of thousands of avian fatalities - in with other sources of mortality that result in tens or hundreds of millions of avian fatalities. It isn't "shit" or being a "troll" to point that out. What IS really sad is your defense of the inclusion and your manner of defending it.

[Nihil]

49. Actually, here's the deal ...

Friend K didn't list "Computer Science" as one of the multitude of subjects
that he professes "expertise".

This was a good decision as he is apparently incapable of *clicking* on links
and thinks that he can glean the information therein by looking at the
abbreviated form displayed on DU pages ... thus explaining his ignorance
of the differences between your two links (and the subject matter beyond).

I think that there are parallels that can be drawn with regard to his level
of "expertise" in other fields but that's just MHO.

HTH! :hi:

[kristopher]

50. It could be that

Or it could be that when I clicked on the first posted link it downloaded but wouldn't open in my browser. When I saw the second link I thought it was the same as the first since it is truncated. When I asked for the author and title, explaining that it wouldn't open, I was told that "the" link had not previously been posted. As I'm on dialup I didn't want to spend the time downloading what appeared to be the same 330kb file titled Ch_3-04_Bio.pdf that wouldn't open.

As I now see, the second link takes me to an array of documents:
Final Environmental Impact Report -
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -
Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Certification of an Environmental Impact Report
And to Approve, Conditionally Approve, or Deny a Use Permit -
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Completion for the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for An Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Completion for Notice of Preparation
Notice of Preparation
Project Description
Initial Study

These documents themselves do not make an argument justifying the inclusion of the wind turbines among the other causes of avian mortality listed in the OP.
If the topic has been "what possible impacts are covered by one particular EIA" then such a list would be an appropriate response.

From the beginning I supported my opinion with valid information; the response was hostile, threatening, and totally lacking in substance - a condition that persists even now.

But thank you for your concern.

[hatrack]

51. Ah, so our friend's handle starts with a "K"? That explains much.

I flipped the Big I Switch on Dr. Pangloss The Robo-Randroid, gosh, weeks ago.

[DainBramaged]

53. I have never met anyone like yourself who knows their shit about birds

and I am truly impressed. You are a blessing for DU.


Don't let the dolts get you down, in the end, they remain dolts.

[kgrandia]

17. Coal versus birds

Love the anti-wind bird argument! Works until you mention that coal kills people: http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html

[kristopher]

20. Absolutely true, but you don't even have to go there.

Solely on the basis of impact on wildlife, coal is an amputation compared to wind as a hangnail.

[malakai2]

22. Do you have the reasoning behind this part?

However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely
cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.

Seems like they couldn't say that without a lot of assumptions that would be relevant to the discussion here.

[kristopher]

25. Did you read the entire paper? It is available online.

The relevant information for your question is in the quoted portion, but the entire paper is a very good overview (I was shocked at how many birds are killed by cats). Look at the number of turbines existing at the time of the study, and the mortality numbers for them, then multiply. I think the actual performance is better, though, since the stats provided in this paper include some early, poorly sited wind farms that are being steadily "diluted" statistically by the ones brought on line since avian mortality was recognized as relevant to siting decisions.

The Audobon Society position on wind: http://www.audubon.org/campaign/wind/audubon_view.html


This is from a comparative study done in 2001 and sponsored by the National Wind Coordinating Committee. It has stood the test of time, and siting decisions on wind farms taken since it was published have resulted in better site selection, better monitoring, and much fewer avian deaths from wind towers. The current review processes (NEPA EIA) have reduced mortality to about 1/2 death per turbine per year.

We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in
the United States:

• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000

The large differences in total mortality from these sources are strongly related to the differences
in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million miles
of road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk
transmission lines (and an unknown number of miles of distribution lines), 80,000
communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.
However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely
cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.

- Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States
August 2001

[malakai2]

26. No, it isn't in the quoted section

And this...

Look at the number of turbines existing at the time of the study, and the mortality numbers for them, then multiply. I think the actual performance is better, though, since the stats provided in this paper include some early, poorly sited wind farms that are being steadily "diluted" statistically by the ones brought on line since avian mortality was recognized as relevant to siting decisions.

...highlights the assumptions I'm talking about. On the one hand, you are assuming mortality figures per installation will be fixed with massive buildout, but on the other hand you are assuming that all (or at least a statistically overwhelming majority of) future siting decisions will be favorable enough to decrease the average number of kills per tower. You also haven't included an error interval around the simple multiplication product.

If you know where the empirical evidence supporting such assumptions is, quote it here. That should end the handwringing.

[kristopher]

29. I've repeatedly given the reference.

The paper is available online. The quoted section I referred to gave a range of turbines and fatalities - the basis of those numbers is in the body of the analysis. It is a simple matter to extrapolate from the numbers in to quoted section to larger deployment - if you feel the absurd need for an "error interval" then by all means work one out.

And YES I assume that ongoing deployment will show a decline from the historic levels quoted in the paper; given more recent research (noted elsewhere in the thread) and knowing that siting is guided by an awareness of the need to mitigate and avoid avian mortality. Since it is an industry and governmental standard in the present day it isn't exactly a leap of faith to make such a prediction.

Finally, there is no "handwringing"; just a couple of jaybirds trying to argue against the obvious. The OP made an absurd statement regarding the effect of wind turbines on current declining bird populations - an idiocy that was more than adequately supported by showing the relative numbers of avian deaths aggregated from each cause.

[malakai2]

30. I know the paper is available online

I'd like to know how you figure those figures support your point of view. Extrapolation is fine to a point, but when you start extrapolating by orders of magnitude with a simple deterministic "it will look exactly like this because there is no conceivable error," your simple statistical method loses all meaning. Why not quote that part of the paper and then affix a citation to it, as in (author, year) or (author, direct link)? I've found that usually ends an argument quickly. No more handwringing.

I am familiar with the industry best practices to reduce avian collisions. I am also aware that as the minimally contentious sites are used, pressure to site in questionable locations increases. Even with slower blade rotation, non-latticed towers, replacement of long pulse red lights with short pulse white lights, and a lack of guy wires, I could see the strikes/tower/year increasing as buildout progresses on ridgelines, in passes, and adjacent to migratory stopovers. This will continue to be a matter mostly of siting, and those siting choices will be largely driven by demand for electricity and availability of resources rather than concern for wildlife.

To that end, I don't see how turbine strikes can be discounted as a mortality source unless your assumptions about siting choices into the future are clear, or you are clear that three or four percent of the total mortality is irrelevant when other sources account for much larger percentages individually. Personally I'm much more concerned about habitat loss, exotic diseases, feral cats, and guyed towers, but I'm not convinced that turbines aren't a problem, particularly for certain habitat specialists.

[kristopher]

31. No one discounted turbines as a mortality source.

What I did was place them into the proper perspective. What I'm wondering is why you are so intent on moving the discussion away from its context in relation to the OP. And please, don't attribute things to me that I've not written: ""it will look exactly like this because there is no conceivable error,""

I stand by the statement I made earlier."While it may be a Bay Area paper, it is still a story about the causes declining bird populations nationwide. As demonstrated by the relative causes of mortality shown in my last post, wind has no business on that list except as part of someone's pet peeve or personal agenda."

You seem terrifically concerned about potential errors that might arise from back of the envelop calculations, yet you remain silent on the orders of magnitude falsehood that was included in the original posting. Kids with BB guns probably kill more birds than wind turbines.

[malakai2]

37. You mean this part of the OP?

Other killers include invasive plant species that take over native seed and nesting sources, wind turbines located near critical flyways, lighted and glass-encased buildings, lighted cell-phone towers, domestic cats, disease, pesticides and climate change, which also is shrinking habitat ranges.

The part that says not just wind turbines but a specific subset of wind turbines? The part that doesn't rank causes of additive mortality in order of relative importance and is not exhaustive? I'm no more concerned with the actual error on your poor statistical analysis than you are with what the OP actually said.

If you want proper perspective, how about analyzing the number of house sparrows and starlings killed by kids with air rifles versus the number of raptors, waterfowl, and cranes killed by improperly sited turbines? How about including the impact of those deaths on the effective population size in the species studied? Yes, overall the raw number of deaths due in whole or part to wind turbines is small relative to a few other causes, but that does not mean the number is necessarily insignificant, and does not mean those who include turbine strikes somewhere on the list have any sort of axe to grind. Especially when the best you can do to run them down is an analysis based on assumptions you are unwilling to provide.

[kristopher]

38. More of the same tripe.

Each of the causes listed are several orders of magnitude more significant than wind turbines. That they aren't "ranked" is totally irrelevant. I've provided a firm basis for the assertion I've made that the inclusion of wind turbines in this list is indicative of a personal bias or agenda of the author. The best you can can do to refute that is to question an incidental remark in the supporting document that, at best, is tangentially related to the subject egregious misrepresentation of the OP. If you have evidence that the OP is correct in the decision to include a 10,000 - 40,000 agent of mortality in a list that is otherwise populated with agents responsible for between tens of million and billions of deaths annually, then please present it. Otherwise you are just a jaybird making meaningless, off topic attempts to distract the discussion.

[Kali]

41. I see your point in some of this but it seems like you have missed one "detail"

It may be the TYPES of losses that matter, rather than the broad statistic of large numbers. For instance there may be more significance to the loss of one eagle than the loss of hundreds of house sparrows. If the eagle's death was from wind and the sparrows are something else (cats, say) then that cause becomes more significant than the pure numbers of birds might indicate.

Other than that I am following this discussion with interest. Thankyou and carry on.

[kristopher]

42. That wasn't lost on me.

Specifically to your point is the affect on raptors. To my knowledge, and I'm fairly well versed on the topic, there are no chronic problems with any site other than Altamont. I understand they had a round of permit renewals there a couple of years ago, but I don't know if the outcome was related to the avian impacts or not. I can't imagine that it wasn't but I don't know the nature of the repermitting process. Other than that, I doubt if wind turbines are a significant source of raptor fatalities. If they are, I have not seen research establishing the fact. And if Altamont is the specific case in point being used in the article, it should have so stated.

The statement "wind turbines located near critical flyways" isn't the "subset" of wind turbines that some claim. Virtually EVERY wind farm is located NEAR a flyway. That is an extremely subjective term for distance that works to unreasonably slant public opinion against the use of the technology. Of all industries out there wind has probably accrued the best record of working to minimize or mitigate their ecological footprint.

On the flip side there is an unbroken record of people with absolutely no regard for actual environmental issues who work diligently spending millions of dollars to slander the technology. There has been a boom of "astroturf" antiwind sites that are linked to the same network of climate change deniers who are attempting to protect their interests. The first line was "It isn't happening - we need more research", next came "man isn't responsible - we need more research" now we are at "wind doesn't work - - we need more research" or "wind is an environmental disaster - we need more research". With the same message being spread about solar.

I'm not saying that the person who wrote the OP is a shill of the coal industry, but the inclusion of the wind in that list fits perfectly with the material produced by the anti-global warming blogosphere and the yuppies whose sole concern is not to have to look at wind turbines.

Altamont pass is a good example of a bad decision regarding wind, but it has for too long been used to paint with a broad brush the entire effort to shut down coal with wind.

The author didn't specify wind turbines by accident. And the author didn't use the word "near" bird flyways instead of "in" bird flyways by accident. Since Altamont, I don't think any windfarms have been built "in" flyways; but most have been built "near" flyways. The one just approved for Delaware offshore is "near" a flyway. Many migrating species follow the shoreline swinging out as far as a few - maybe 5 - kilometers. The proposed wind farm is going to be 11 miles (16km) from shore; should that be canceled because it is "near" a critical flyway?

Another point should be added in. Recent work by Desholm in Europe has been extremely productive both in understanding the bahavior of birds encountering a wind farm and in advancing the technology used to evaluate the interaction. If you are interested in the topic, get someone with journal access to track his 2005 paper down and check out the one year radar tracking composite. Trust me, it is worth the effort. I'd post it if I knew how to get an image from a PDF up here, but I don't.

[Kali]

43. Not sure just how one could determine the motivations of the author

in the OP without more research. You may be correct or you may be over-sensitive. I know I tend to be "on watch" with issues close to my areas of concern so I do understand that part of it. Just trying to point out how parts of this thread could be a simple misunderstanding. A lot of times the fight escalates before the chance for understanding happens. Then posturing, arrogance, and name calling precludes it altogether.

[kristopher]

45. Even now I haven't attributed motives to the author

Originally I said the inclusion of wind turbines in the list was absurd, and I continue to believe that. I went a bit further later ans wrote that the inclusion is *indicative* of a pet peeve or a personal agenda. In my post to you I elaborated regarding pet peeve (people with viewshed objections) and agendas (viewshed or financial interests).

Any rational analysis of wind must include the alternatives to wind power.

Any rational analysis of wind power's ecological footprint in relation to other energy sources results in the unequivocal conclusion that properly sited wind power is highly desirable from a societal point of view. That is the position of the Audubon Society as well as my own.

The OP leaves the reader with an impression regarding the risk of wind that is patently false. It included wind inappropriately and I believe that inclusion is *indicative* of a bias.

[Kali]

46. *indicative* of a bias and motive are pretty dang close to having the

same meaning in the context we are discussing. I don't really have any problem with your main points. (this is a fairly new topic for me)

I can understand that there may be bias and I said that. (I am a rancher in the west - I have some experience with bias in environmental "reporting") But looking objectively and without experiencing that bias in particular for this issue I could ALSO see that the meaning might be as I proposed at first. That the numbers don't tell the whole story. Your Audubon link seems to address some of that and the EIS/biological opinion or whatever that the OP posted (and I believe helped to write) also addressed the issue of significant damage in relation to specific species rather than a single whole catagory of "birds" in general, my point.

[defendandprotect]

47. ...and maybe there's more significance to the number of species we're destroying . . .

and that rather than simply looking at birds, we look at all animal life on

the planet -- and recognize how destructive and suicidal patriarchy's war on

nature and animal life have been?

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are suicidal theories ---

and our own species and the planet are paying the price for this ignorance.

[Kali]

48. uh, well since the subthread was about birds and wind farms...

I tend to try and stay in the realm of science and generally agreed on language that knowledgeable lay people use, so "patriarchy's destructive and suicidal war on nature and animal life" is a little out of my area of experience.

[defendandprotect]

52. The cited reason is "loss of habitat" . . .

About half the nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its prairie grasslands have been lost, scientists told the panel.

Well, I guess you haven't heard about Rachael Carson's "science" --

or scientists talking about Global Warming, or maybe polar bears?

Perhaps you've never given thought to the destructive nature of capitalism, itself?

Or the destructive nature of "Manifest Destiny" . . . or are you saying you've never

heard of it?

[MH1]

40. The statement was qualified: "wind turbines located near critical flyways"

Not all wind turbines. Just ones that are NOT properly sited.

As a supporter of wind power AND a birder, I believe the two can coexist, but it is true that wind turbines should be sited carefully. The decline of bird populations is so bad that we should definitely try to avoid siting turbines in flyways. I realize that limits the potential of wind power, but so be it. If we could arrest and reverse the other issues leading to avian population decline, then perhaps we could allow a few more bird deaths from wind, and thus relieve some siting restrictions.

[stuntcat]

21. I can k

I'm too late to R.

This stuff has broke my heart forever.

[Shoelace]

32. Cats Kill Over 1 Billion Birds Each Year in U.S.

according to the figures in the report at the link. It is heartbreaking and I can say that we have far fewer birds of all kinds in our once bird filled city.
Between the disappearance of Bees and birds, am feeling quite alone in my gardens now.
See details here:
http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/cats-kill-over-1-billion-birds-each.html

[Maestro]

44. Very distrubing and continues

a horrible trend.

[marions ghost]

54. bobwhites are so much rarer where I am

than they used to be only 10 years ago.

Human encroachment on habitats IMO...