Wind Farms versus Eagles

[k4nil]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9952873-feds-propose-allowing-wind-farm-developer-to-kill-golden-eagles

my Friend Mike made me aware of this proposal with a Feb 2 Deadline

in short the proposal is to kill Eagles

Big business and money are behind this proposal .. at the cost of our Eagles !  if this passes ..Pray that D1 won't be one of those killed.
the time is now to write ... because, if this passes ... chances are good for more permits to be issued.
who knows how many Eagles wil be sacrificed in the years to come !
Sincerly k4nil  2011.01.04

[elfruler]

I urge everyone who has been alarmed by this news report to read the Draft Environmental Assessment issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service yesterday:

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/West%20Butte%20DEA.pdf

The Service is considering 4 alternatives, ranging from denying the permit (essentially shutting down the wind turbine project because if they proceed and "take" (ranging from disturb to kill) one single eagle they will be in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) to allowing takes for a period of 30 years (which they actually are not empowered to do by law).  They are leaning toward issuing a 5-year permit that would allow the "take" of up to 3 eagles during the entire period, during which the operators would undertake extensive conservation and preservation measures.  If they deny the permit altogether, they would lose the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with this company to monitor and manage the eagle population.  The goal of the entire process is to maintain or even increase the population of golden eagles in the area.

It is an incredibly detailed and well-researched report, and after having read it, I believe the FWS is attempting to act in the best interests of our beloved eagles (golden and bald) while balancing the demands of the human population.

Others may disagree with me, but the DEA is requesting input from the public before it makes a decision.  Please read the report.

[Misdeed67]

We all know what those turbines do to birds. This will limit the amount of take. Which means, they will be in trouble if more than 3 are killed. I would like to know, what kind of penalty they would face.

[Braveheart]

Please be mindful in your responses. Did you know that over 1,000 raptors/birds are killed daily by wind farms ? Why no prosecutions? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtOI5N0DGQ
Yes, far more than lead.Video explains more in depth. We both have a common goal here though. Wind Farms and GTLO are a growing concerns requiring a proactive stance.When it comes to our beloved raptors allowing "Take Permits" is illogical even in a proposal. Big business is behind this for sure. Read the first and last sentence, everything in between is hogwash. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/West%20Butte%20DEA.pdf It's open for public input here http://www.fws.gov/ Doing nothing now makes no sense to me. Providing input,either way, seems to me to be the more rational approach. Here is another good source to help inform and educate us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE

[Lani]

Braveheart,
Welcome to the forum!
I agree with your post and appreciate your input on this subject.
It has been something I have quietly thought about myself.
Especially, after reading 135+? golden eagles have been killed in
California last year. I can't remember where I read that, or I would
provide the link. I will try to find it.
Take care,
Happy Posting!
Lani

[pwatson17]

I am not taking sides on this, just wanted to print what Ed Clark said this morning about it. He is the Wildlife Center Director in Virginia.
 "The US Fish and Wildlife Service was ordered to develop a permit system that regulates how wind energy generatots can operate, relative to migratory birds. It is basically no different from the way lots of permit systems operate. Essentialy, those big turbine fans that sit on ridge tops or out in open fields, turning with the power of the wind, generating "green" energy are obstacles that can present a problem to eagles and lots of other birds, and bats, for that matter. Currently, USFWS has a zero tolerance for killing golden eagles, but that has been found to be unreasonable. So, they were ordered to develop a permit system that limits the risk to eagles but still allows alternative energy generation. That is what this boils down to be... It is not "permission" to kill eagles; it is forgiveness in advance for killing up to three in a five year period, as I recall. Given that hundreds of eagles are electrocuted on rural power poles each year, this is really not such a big deal....again, it is just that the story is getting headlines, and people--including EN/CN--are reacting to the press story before getting the full facts....."
 

[AliceWitt]

Braveheart,
Welcome to the forum!
I can't remember where I read that, or I would provide the link. I will try to find it.
Lani

The discussion of windfarms has brought up a number of times in this same Off Topic section of the Bird Forum in the "What can we do for wildlife" thread. When this information was first brought up in "Cheers" last night I gave this reference. There is a lot of information in that thread dealing with a lot of things which harm wildlife. You would need to browse through and find a number of pictures and links to windfarm projects and proposals. As I said in "Cheers", wind farms are a bug-a-boo to me. Someone in "Wildlife thread" suggested more use of solar power may help to decrease the use of windfarms.

[Misdeed67]

I've been reading up some on this. I also googled coal mining and burning effects on eagles. I would ask that everyone do a little research, before making a decision.


Dee

[Keystone]

I am big on Solar Panels because it seems there are more and more Windfarms going in, more and more drilling going on everywhere destroying our water, more and more fracking causing earthquakes and poisoning our waterways, more everything but my "essentials" such as my electric and natural gas bills and the gasoline for my car just keep going up and up and up.  Shouldn't it start leveling off at some point instead of more rate increases?  It is getting to the place where I can't even afford the essentials which I need to stay alive.  Where is the money going?  Maybe to the CEO's bonus or to the dividends the shareholders receive.  With Solar you use what you need and "sell" back to the company what you don't need giving you a credit kind of like a cooperative.  It would support everyone instead of everyone supporting the "few". Which would mean to me my bills don't keep going up, up, and up!  Sheesh...

[Braveheart]

Thank you for contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  You may submit your comment via e-mail at: pacific_birds@fws.gov and include "DEA for the West Butte Wind Project" in the subject line of the message.  You may read the full news release by log on http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/news.cfm?id=2144374933

[AliceWitt]

LBLNJ0668 Yesterday posted in Cheers:

Ed Clark
 
It seems that, with the MSNBC coverage of the news that the US Fish and Wildlife Service is about to issue the first permit for wind energy turbines to kill eagles, the eagle lovers of the world have suddenly gotten worked up and interested. WCV has been working on this issue for two years!!! I will have an issue paper drafted on this matter in a couple days, which will include specific recommendations for citizen input. I STRONGLY recommend waiting for the facts before rushing to knee-jerk responses which will do no good. Let's be a bit patient, and make a difference, rather than give in to indignation and just make noise! There is plenty of time!"

Here's a pertinent piece of info from Ed, from this morning's chat:

Ed Clark, WCV:
That is the wonderful thing about our group. There is real power in EN/CN, if it can be channeled and directed to meaningful action. I have been involved in conservation advocacy since the 70's, and used to be a grassroots (that would be all of you) organizer. One thing we taught then and I'll teach again, is that these so-called petitions serve very little value in a policy discussion...especially the online petitions. They are too easily generated, too easily faked, impossible to verify, and represent the absolute lowest level of commitment to a cause. A lot of people who sign them are not even registered to vote.....the most powerful act of conservation advocacy you can do, by the way!!!
I don't think I had imagined that EN/CN would become a political force, but we darn sure can be.....Not "politics" in the partisan rep/dem sense, but in the sense of participating in the regulatory process and in the "citizen activism" sense. I will get out some information about this wind energy permit and we'll see what happens. The wonderful thing about our group is that we are nationwide, and not obviously from the classic Sierra Club demographic. A thousand letters on this issue, all raising the same general points, could be EXTREMELY influential.

One chatter asked if Ed could write something we all could sign and submit. His reply:

Ed Clark, WVC:
It seems like that would be logical, but the answer is NO, definitely NOT. That would count as ONE comment, regardless of how many sign it. Power comes from people providing their own input, not simply endorsing other people. Agencies know how easy it is to get names on a list, and it counts for very little. They logic is that if you don't care enough to compose your own comments, then you won't care enough to follow up and monitor the results. Frankly, that logic holds water.
What I plan to do is to create a list of "talking points" and provide the right addresses. You can compose your comments from the talking points, USING YOUR OWN WORDS, and send it in. I will encourage you NOT to mention WCV or EN/CN... As soon as you identify yourself as being part of a group, the agency recognizes the comments have having been generated by an organizer. It has dramatically more impact if they messages appear to come from across the country and from concerned individuals who care, all on their own. That is the art of organizing for real results.

[twizzkid]

As someone who works for a local environmental government agency that issues permits (unrelated to wind farms), I would like to just reinforce what Ed Clark has said.  From the agency perspective, all meaningful,  comments are welcomed!  I do not know the details of this particular situation, because I haven't followed it or read all the documents, but in fact it does happen sometimes that we might like to go a slightly different direction with a permit, and really can't unless we have that ammunition to say 'the public has spoken and they seem to feel really strongly about....'  Or we are truly looking for good alternatives to propose.  Adding more ideas to the discussion formally is always a good thing.  and I encourage all as Ed says to form their own well thought out and factual points presenting your opinion.  This gives the agency real data to use, and sometimes opens new doors for alternatives that weren't initially avaliable or thought of.  and yes, there are times that hearing from people will change the course of a project (for those who are cynical).     ..Twizzkid

[k4nil]

I've read and reread the 'Proposal' several times and find the most chilling definination of 'The Take' in 1.3 and 1.4 of Chapter 1
when I think of Eagle preservation ... I see D1 in my mind .. and, hoping she grows and teaches us all.
Here is my doodle of her in a tree  listening, watching and learning ...   http://i39.tinypic.com/2nq8hog.jpg
Sincerely k4nil

[maryannlewis]

LBLNJ0668 Yesterday posted in Cheers:

Ed Clark


Here's a pertinent piece of info from Ed, from this morning's chat:

Ed Clark, WCV:
... One thing we taught then and I'll teach again, is that these so-called petitions serve very little value in a policy discussion...especially the online petitions. They are too easily generated, too easily faked, impossible to verify, and represent the absolute lowest level of commitment to a cause. A lot of people who sign them are not even registered to vote.....the most powerful act of conservation advocacy you can do, by the way!!!

 A thousand letters on this issue, all raising the same general points, could be EXTREMELY influential.


One chatter asked if Ed could write something we all could sign and submit. His reply:

Ed Clark, WVC:
It seems like that would be logical, but the answer is NO, definitely NOT. That would count as ONE comment, regardless of how many sign it. Power comes from people providing their own input, not simply endorsing other people.

You can compose your comments from the talking points, USING YOUR OWN WORDS, and send it in. I will encourage you NOT to mention WCV or EN/CN... As soon as you identify yourself as being part of a group, the agency recognizes the comments have having been generated by an organizer. It has dramatically more impact if they messages appear to come from across the country and from concerned individuals who care, all on their own. That is the art of organizing for real results.

Alice, these quotes are very powerful, and make a lot of sense.  Please let us know if Ed Clark recommends a place to send a letter or email, and talking points.  I do think that online petitions, etc. are easy, so is copying and pasting pre-written text. 

Would you read 1000 emails with the exact same text?  Or, 1000 emails with a strong focus on a different point about the same thing?

Mary Ann

[Gracie]

I urge everyone who has been alarmed by this news report to read the Draft Environmental Assessment issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service yesterday:

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/pdf/West%20Butte%20DEA.pdf

The Service is considering 4 alternatives, ranging from denying the permit (essentially shutting down the wind turbine project because if they proceed and "take" (ranging from disturb to kill) one single eagle they will be in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) to allowing takes for a period of 30 years (which they actually are not empowered to do by law).  They are leaning toward issuing a 5-year permit that would allow the "take" of up to 3 eagles during the entire period, during which the operators would undertake extensive conservation and preservation measures.  If they deny the permit altogether, they would lose the opportunity to work hand-in-hand with this company to monitor and manage the eagle population.  The goal of the entire process is to maintain or even increase the population of golden eagles in the area.

It is an incredibly detailed and well-researched report, and after having read it, I believe the FWS is attempting to act in the best interests of our beloved eagles (golden and bald) while balancing the demands of the human population.

Others may disagree with me, but the DEA is requesting input from the public before it makes a decision.  Please read the report.

I have read the report.  Agreed, the FWS is attempting to make a decision that will benefit eagles. But there is something that just does not sit right with me here….

I remain skeptical. Eagles have been "sacrificed" long enough because of man.
I believe that the risks they face just trying to survive on a daily basis i.e.; electrocution, lead poisoning, and collisions with motor vehicles, are enough and outweigh the need to put one more obstacle in their way.  

I am interested in whom the third party is....
   "A one-time payment of $20,000 from WBWP to a third party would be used to address
a high priority Golden Eagle conservation need, to be implemented in the year after
any Golden Eagle mortality.  This money might be used to retrofit more power poles,
address issues of lead contamination in eagles, or to some other measure that results
in reducing eagle mortality. (pg 28)

Since the data presented "assumes" the number of eagles that will be saved to be 168 over the course of 30 years, and it is "assumed" that the retrofitting of poles will remain "raptor safe", (pgs30-31)  I remain skeptical.  Assumptions are made when we don't fully understand a situation. There are too many assumptions in this report... Think of the number of eagles that will be saved if this project is NOT permitted….

It appears that, "Alternative two adequately meets our purpose
and need, was proposed by the applicant, and thus is our preferred alternative.” (pg 40) is the option being focused on.

Read the report, form your own opinion and decide that if you have something to say about this, Speak Up. Sooner than later. Comment  via e-mail at: pacific_birds@fws.gov and include "DEA for the West Butte Wind Project" in the subject line of the message.  Read the full news release by log on http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/news.cfm?id=2144374933