
Proposed New Hampshire wind farm imperils falcons, other threatened species. New Hampshire IBERDROLA/Audubon involved
Groton, New Hampshire 1/29/11
Possible collusion and fraudulent Environmental Impact studies may be paving the way for the $120 million Groton Wind Project to move forward despite very real danger to threatened species, including the Peregrine Falcon. Mortality would come from falcons colliding with the turbine blades as well as the environmental degradation caused by the construction.
Deadline to approve or deny the project is April 26, 2011.
The Environmental Impact study was conducted jointly and prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc., and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire Conservation Department. Recent review of the study by raptor expert and biologist Jim Wiegand revealed glaring flaws in the methods and conclusions of the Falcon Survey.
“Peregrine Falcons are spectacular to observe in flight. They are so quick that they can make other birds look like they are moving in slow motion. They routinely dive from thousands of feet at speeds exceeding 250 mph. They can travel several miles in less than a minute. They can zip though the proposed turbines of the project in less than 60 seconds. So to think or even suggest that these birds do not use the airspace at 100-500 feet above the ridgelines and peaks in the Groton Project area is preposterous.“
Jim Wiegand has a long history with the peregrine falcon. Decades ago his falcons were used as breeding stock to help replenish this endangered species in the Western US. Offspring were released through the supervision of UC Santa Cruz.
Threatened peregrine falcons hunt, roost and nest in aeries around the proposed Groton wind farm construction site. Soaring birds, bats and other flying species are at grave risk from the guillotine-like action of the rotating blades (with tip speeds of over 220 miles an hour.) Birds of prey are unfortunately drawn to such farms due to large, clear, disrupted areas because of the hunting opportunities presented there as well as the placement of many wind farms precisely along migratory flight paths of cranes, geese and other wildlife.
Even so, studies by the Audubon Society of New Hampshire and Stantec Consulting claim peregrines will not be impacted by the construction of this facility
“Their survey is a joke and has so much bias that I am convinced it is by design,” Wiegand observed in a recent email. “The wording, graphs, and limited observations in my opinion are solely used for the purpose of deception. Somebody should sue to stop the project and force them to do a new INDEPENDENT study. Somebody needs to look very close at the nearby cleared areas of the ski trails on Tenny Mountain and transmission line path. I know without a doubt these falcons hunt these areas. I know how these birds think and hunt. As the turbine sites are developed the clearing of trees and brush around the turbines will create breaks that the falcons will hunt. They will do this because they will catch birds trying to cross these new open areas before they can reach cover. Much like they do when catching prey over a river. Because of this, the turbine sites will actually attract more hunting falcons.”
He goes on to say that this bogus survey is actually helpful because their prey list for the falcons unknowingly shows species of birds that live along these cleared areas. “A survey should be done in those areas to show that the falcons are hunting the breaks in the forest and that the project development will create new hunting opportunities for the falcons that will increase fatalities,” Wiegand advises.
A look at the accompanying images will illustrate his point.
Other species at risk include American bald eagles, golden eagles, American kestrels, broad-winged hawks, red tailed, red shouldered, cooper’s and sharp shinned hawks, northern harriers, northern goshawks, merlins, turkey vultures and osprey. Any species that migrates is also at risk.
Why would anyone wish to produce misleading studies?
There is a great deal of money invested in, and profit to be made by, the construction and operation of wind farms. This is big business on the utility company scale, and anything involving such immense sums is wide open to manipulation.
Such manipulation extends as far as downgrading protection for Federally protected endangered species should such protection interfere with a profitable utility project; for instance current pressure for down-listing the California condor from Endangered status to Threatened, despite the fact that there are no truly free-flying wild California condors in existence (the ones flying in California are fed at feeding stations to prevent NATURAL foraging behavior from leading them right into the guillotine blades of various lethal wind farm projects such as the ones located near Tehachapi Pass in California.)
As far as New Hampshire, it’s already known that the falcons are drawn to such cleared areas to hunt, and the nearby ski trails etc., are already luring falcons into this area. Combining this hunting activity with whirling turbine blades (which are infamous for slicing soaring birds in half) will certainly have a negative impact on the fragile peregrine population. Why does the study not acknowledge this?
“Keep in mind there are not very many Prairie Falcons hanging around at Altamont Pass (California) but they have been killed there. It is in the records. Another thing to note is that these falcons have huge, heavily defended territories. So there never will be many in any given area. An honest way of stating the true impact of the proposed project it is that, with complete certainty, peregrine falcons will be killed by the (New Hampshire) project. The uncertainty is how many are killed?”
Based on the nest locations and turbine placement, the first nest site to be abandoned will be the one on Rattlesnake Mountain. Less breeding activity of course means fewer falcons.
“Will the turbines in the project kill off of individual birds until there are none left to kill or count? It is very possible.”
This is not the kind of Environmental Impact logic needed to protect threatened or endangered species
The motivating factor of course is money. For evidence of the kind of money involved, take a look at this, from the Iberdrola web site:
Iberdrola USA News Releases
Iberdrola USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iberdrola S.A., is a super-regional energy services and delivery company with operations throughout Maine and New York State. Iberdrola USA’s assets include the regulated utilities: Central Maine Power, New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas and Electric.
2010
11/17/2010
Iberdrola Closes Sale of Three U.S. Subsidiaries in Transaction Valued at
$1.25 Billion
09/28/2010
05/25/2010
When this kind of money is involved, even so called conservation organizations are not immune to persuasion.
The official Falcon Survey report shows that researchers did not even observe the falcons when they would be the most active; during courtship in the Spring and during their dawn and dusk daily hunts. Yet the stated objective of the survey was to investigate whether peregrine falcons use the Project area. From the way the study was conducted, it appears the survey was purposely designed so observers would see the falcons using the project area as little as possible.
Even the researchers themselves note this flaw in the survey; "Therefore, the results of the 2009 surveys can not describe peregrine activity during all daylight hours during the period of interest, or describe activity across the entire Project area.”
Yet Iberdrola, in their Executive summary, boldly makes the following statement; " Rare, threatened, or endangered bird species that were documented in the Project area during these surveys include peregrine falcon (state- listed threatened), bald eagle (state-listed threatened), and common loon (state- listed threatened). None of these species reside within the project area. No federally-listed threatened or endangered birds were observed during any of the field surveys."
“This statement is totally false because I know these falcons do use the air space above the proposed project area. They do this during courtship, defending territories, hunting, to travel easily several miles to a preferred perch or even just having fun or showing off in the air currents,” Jim Wiegand explained. “I watch them do these activities every year in the Shasta lake area. The ridge lines and peaks around Shasta Lake in California are larger than those in the Groton area project sites, so those in New Hampshire are not much of an obstacle for these birds. Yet the survey produced for the project would have the ignorant thinking otherwise. And if the project is completed they will attempt to use the project area even more.”
To put the scale of this new development in perspective, “These 25 turbines do not sound like much of a threat to birds and bats when compared to the thousands of infamous KVS-33 turbines installed at Altamont pass,” Jim stated, “Here is the reality; these turbines are so huge that the deadly kill zone for birds and bats (rotor sweep area) equals approximately 750 of the early turbines installed at Altamont. They extend 400 feet into the air. Put the blades tip to tip and they stretch approximately 1 1/2 miles.
“Think about this; a kill zone as wide as a football field and 1 ½ miles long. These blades also have far greater tip speeds than the killer turbines at Altamont. The original turbines installed at Altamont and Tehachapi had maximum tip speeds of 110-125 mph at 80 rotations per minute. The new so called "safer" turbines proposed for the Groton Wind project will have blade tip speeds of 220 mph at 20 rotations per minute.”
That’s 30 times the size of previous turbines and vastly more wildlife mortality.
Yet we’re told by those representing the Groton Wind Project that their wind utility is "not likely" to kill the falcons?
Apparently wind farms and other utilities are now assigning themselves the role of guardians of our wildlife, and thus conducting their own biased research studies for proposed projects.
This begs the question, should the fox be put in charge of drafting impact statements on vulnerable hen houses? Where are the opposing views from wildlife agencies entrusted to protect our wildlife? Should a utility company such as Iberdrola be entrusted to truly protect the best interests of the rare and endangered species at risk directly due to their profitable corporate/utility activity within their ranges? “Look at their history with the Manzanza Wind project located in California condor habitat,” Jim reminds us. “It was approved with a bogus Environmental Impact Report.”
If we are to begin enjoying truly ‘Green’ energy sources, it has to include wildlife-friendly technology. From all evidence, no wind farms built are yet environmentally friendly.
Jim Wiegand states, “Regarding this report statement, ‘The Rattlesnake aerie prey remains analysis provided some information on how likely peregrine falcons are to forage in habitats that occur within the Groton Wind Project area,’ the truth is, prey species change with all the seasons. The study did not take this into consideration. I know how these birds think and hunt. As the turbine sites are developed, the clearing of trees and brush around the turbines will create breaks that the falcons will hunt. They will do this because they will catch birds trying to cross these new open areas before they can reach cover. Much like they do when catching prey over a river. Because of this, the turbine sites will actually attract more hunting falcons, owls and accipiter's after the habitat is changed.
“There are serious problems with this survey (including the time of day and time of year observations were made) and in my opinion the only real use of the survey that was conducted is to document the numerous types of raptors and birds that use the area throughout the year. Eventually every one of these species listed will perish at the turbine sites.”
To take action and assist wildlife in the fight against the proliferation of wind farms and the Groton Wind Project in particular, please visit: Groton Wind Project: New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee
Condors and Wind Farms:http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/5
General Wind Farm information: Marc Duchamp, Iberica 2000
Or add related content to this report
News Stories | Blogs | Images | Videos | Comments
The Soul of the Profiteer
Take the profit out of the wind farm equation and the turbine peddlers would be nowhere in sight. They are not representing what is good for society, they represent what is good for them. The profiteer is in it only because they are seeking personal gain and are driven by greed.
The bottom line is this..... Just like a slimy used car salesman, they will say anything to sucker you in. They are selling a product and want your money. Only in this case it represents a fortune.
I am a wildlife biologist and every Environmental Impact Report I have ever seen from this industry has been BOGUS. The industry is marketing a green friendly product that is really a disaster for birds and bats. If they would fraudulently produce documents about their impacts to rare and endangered species they would lie about anything else. And they do.
People should believe nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing generated from the wind industry.
As truth emerges from the onslaught of propaganda and lies, the crowds will continue to grow in opposition to this terrible industry.
Check the internet search engines. The crowds are building against this industry.
What is your preference of energy production if I might ask?
All energy sectors play the money game, no doubt about it. That's what happens in a dying, corrupt, self-absorbed society where critical thinking becomes too inconvenient and is easily subjugated by ideology--green, corporate, or any other. There still is no free lunch, even with so called "renewables". The question is, which energy sources can provide the most dense, reliable source of power with the smallest ecological footprint? (hint: it isn't coal, gas, oil, or wind)
While you are in school, please study up on a) the difference, in physics, between energy and power, and b) how a modern electrical grid (the same one that enables your education) operates! Sure, wind may well be appropriate for small-scale, mostly off-grid applications where it can be connected to deep-cycle batteries that produce a steady, but small stream of power. But no such translation to utility scale exists (batteries not included). No conventional generators are ever taken off line because wind is added to the system--they can't be, because they do the real work, always there in the background, forced to inefficiently ramp up and down on a moment's notice to match wind's fickle output, resulting in even greater carbon emissions. See: Denmark. Some old, dirty coal plants may be shut down, but they are always replaced by other conventional generators, usually advanced combined-cycle gas generators that produce alot less carbon when they can run at full steam instead of having to be throttled up and down all the time to balance wind (as we call it, driving electrons in stop and go traffic). And just because "damn near every state have at least one wind farm" only proves what we already know about our science-challenged, money-soaked politicians. They're as gullible as everyone else and aim to please all comers (especially ones with deep pockets). They gladly dish out mucho dineros to Rube Goldberg schemes. Just look at the housing bubble. Industrial wind is shaping up to be the next one.
Take it from one who knows: industrial wind is the grid operator's nightmare. Madison Avenue has done a stellar job of dressing it up as humanity's green savior from climate change, but it is purely symbolic. An intermittent civilization is a dead civilization. Even the most jaded politician, environmentalist, or energy company CEO knows that. The carbon-free baseload future is nuclear. Do the math.
Stantec is doing the work for many of the wind developers in Vermont, including the Deerfield Wind project, which is proposed for US Forest Service land by Iberdrola and has been approved by Vermont's Public Service Board. At two recent open houses on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the USFS' third party contractor, EDR, was represented by John Hecklau. John Hecklau of EDR is also currently an expert witness for Iberdrola in the Groton, NH wind proposal by Iberdrola. This seems like an obvious conflict of interest, since the SDEIS is supposed to be "independent."
Reading the materials produced by Stantec's wildlife biologists is not for the faint of heart, as it involves mortality, fatalities, and counting carcasses. How many wildlife biologists are making a living counting dead birds and bats at wind projects around the country and why are we permitting this at a time when especially the bat populations are critically threatened?
So John Hecklau is selling guns to both sides.. I wonder if he is the guy who started the war! Do you know what I mean?? This is a major conflict of interest. This iberdrola project on National Forest lands here in Vermont will be the first wind project on NF lands in the whole country! Stantec is involved in the bat studies here too.
Solar, landfill gas, cow power, run of river hydro, combined cycle biomass (built sustainably) all alternatives to building Highly variable, unreliable wind turbines in our most special places.
Also look at how close the Groton project will be to people's homes! There will be health problems. People will be be miserable. kckahuna doesn't care though. kc is your real name John Hecklau?
If this is the sophistication level of other wind farm workers, I hope everyone here reads your comments. Your integrity shines through loud and clear.
Thank you!
Coal and nuclear are invisible threats. Hydroelectric dams interfere with fish migrations.
It seems to me wind and solar are the way to go along with undersea tidal generators.
Natural selection should select for those animals who avoid the windmills. There will be losses in the mean time, off course.
Just my thoughts. I don't have any industry ties. I just want a clean, healthy earth for animals and people alike.
Just a note: wind is the LEAST ENERGY EFFICIENT power source; no coal or oil generators are EVER replaced by wind power. They are not a panacea for our energy concerns. But -- they are VERY efficient at exterminating species and no -- NO creature can learn to avoid being struck by rotating blades travelling over 220 mph tip speed. We'll just be slaughtering our birds and bats wholesale.
I remember my grandmother telling me how birds used to crash into everyone's windows back when folks started switching to pane-less windows. Eventually the birds learned. I've seen two birds in my life hit a window on a house, but my grandmother said it was such a tragedy because it would happen almost weekly.
Animals can learn to avoid stationary physical threats. I know windmills turn, but they stay in place.
Just a thought...
1)underlying focus on energy conservation and efficiency: take the money we are using today to subsidize the ill-conceived implementation of industrial-scale "renewable" energies (not ready for prime time), and use it instead for grants to regular folks and small businesses to perform deep-energy retrofits of existing buildings, upgrade motors and appliances to more efficient models, and greatly update our pathetic building codes. Our fleet of aging buildings and electrical infrastructure wastes alot of energy. It makes little sense to build out all of this diffuse, low-density renewable energy when we aren't using it efficiently. Its like trying to use a dripping faucet to fill a bathtub that has a basketball-size hole in it.
2) encourage ground-source geothermal heating and cooling systems in every building. We've had ours for 16 years and it has paid for itself 3 times over in energy savings. Needless to say, the carbon footprint is very low. Lots of places in the country still use heating oil, so this is also one way to reduce oil consumption. The geothermal gradient below the surface of the Earth is driven by natural radioactivity in the crust, and is infinitely renewable, at least for another several billion years.
3) phase out coal-fired electrical generators over the next 25 years with highly efficient combined cycle natural gas generators, starting with the dirtiest coal plants. Combined cycle plants are extremely thermally efficient and they emit less than 40% of the carbon that the best coal plants do. This step would reduce all types of emissions (carbon, mercury, SO2, NO2, etc) very rapidly, orders of magnitude more than any amount of industrial wind ever could.
4) "Manhattan" type project to bring liquid fluoride thorium reactors to commercial fruition. Thorium is what nuclear fusion always wanted to be: clean; small volume of short-lived, low toxicity waste; low/no proliferation potential; meltdowns or explosions thermodynamically impossible; passive safety (subcritical reaction); etc. You can even adapt a thorium reactor to utilize our existing high level waste and convert it to something far more manageable that does not require geologic sequestration. A prototype thorium reactor was run successfully for several years at Oak Ridge in the 60's and 70's, and the technology is attracting increased attention by many physicists and energy observers. Here are a few links, and you can find many others by searching on "thorium" and "thorium reactor":
American Scientist �Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors�
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/AmSci_LFTR.pdf
Mechanical Engineering Magazine �Too Good to Leave on the Shelf�
http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm
�Energy Cheaper Than From Coal�
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/07/11/ending-energy-poverty/
Dr James Hansen LFTR endorsement and energy manifesto
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
LFTR nuts to bolts.
http://energyfromthorium.com/
This last one has an informative graphic:
http://www.wellhome.com/blog/2010/12/thorium-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-power/
All of this stratgey is doable with off-the-shelf technologies, can be readily shown using empirical data to significantly reduce all types of emissions (not to mention other impacts, like MTR coal mining), requires no new environmental footprint, and best of all, it won't hammer the poor and middle class with obscenely high energy costs the way most renewable mandates are doing today. By far the greatest challenge is likely to be getting the entrenched nuclear industrial complex to change course.
We might face many challenges, but it will take this kind of thinking, as well as getting more people 'off the grid' and self reliant (on many levels, from energy to small foods production) to make the big changes. Most people never stop to consider, for instance, the vast amounts of petroleum used daily just to import/transport foods -- and commercial fertilizers are petroleum based, to boot. This has to change.
We need to all begin thinking big 'outside the box'. We can do it -- it just takes effort.