Long -the expert -Bill Evans- on Ontraio wind projects including Wolfe and Amherst. John Ive been involved challenging the wind energy build out in Ontario since 2007, and along the way Ive 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 Ontarios 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 NYs 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. dEntremont, 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. dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00609-080210 This paper is one of the better overviews Ive 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 wont 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 doesnt 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 Ive 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 its 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 wont 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 govt, the wind industry, and certain NGOs.
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:40:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015