Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics 262–272
TOWERS, TURBINES, POWER LINES, AND BUILDINGS—STEPS BEING TAKEN BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE TAKE OF MIGRATORY BIRDS AT THESE STRUCTURES
ALBERT M. MANVILLE, II 1
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive— MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203, USA
Abstract. As imperiled bird populations continue to increase, new challenges arise from the effects of growing numbers of communication towers, power lines, commercial wind facilities, and buildings. This paper briefl y reviews steps the USFWS is taking to seriously address structural impacts to migra- tory birds. New fi ndings will be briefl y reviewed that address lighting impacts, new challenges facing birds from tower radiation, and collision and habitat fragmentation effects on avifauna. See the paper in this volume by Klem on his ongoing research with building glass, lighting and windows for details in trying to resolve those challenges.
TORRES, TURBINAS, LÍNEAS ELÉCTRICAS Y EDIFICIOS—MEDIDAS QUE SE ESTÁN TOMANDO POR EL SERVICIO DE PESCA Y VIDA SILVESTRE (USFWS) DE ESTADOS UNIDOS, PARA EVITAR O MINIMIZAR EL EFECTO DE ESTAS ESTRUCTURAS EN LAS AVES MIGRATORIAS Resumen. En la medida que el número de poblaciones de aves en peligro continúa aumentando, nue- vos retos surgen derivados de los efectos de la también creciente cifra de torres de comunicación, líneas eléctricas, instalaciones eólicas comerciales y edifi cios. Este documento examina brevemente los pasos que el USFWS está tomando para abordar con seriedad los impactos estructurales en las aves migratorias. Se examinarán brevemente nuevas conclusiones que abordan los impactos del alumbrado eléctrico, los nuevos desafíos que enfrentan las aves a partir de la radiación de las torres y los efectos de las colisiones y la fragmentación del hábitat sobre la avifauna. Ver la ponencia de Klem en este volumen, sobre sus investigaciones en curso, relacionadas con cristales de construcción, alumbrado y ventanales, con detalles de cómo tratar de resolver esos problemas.
INTRODUCTION the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, among others. The growing documented and suspected This paper focuses on research initiatives, sci- impacts of structures on birds—from direct col- entifi c breakthroughs, promising applications, lision mortality, barotrauma, electrocutions, policy efforts, and voluntary guidance discussed cumulative effects, and from habitat fragmen- since the 3rd International Partners in Flight tation, disturbance and site avoidance—bode Conference held in Asilomar, CA (Manville poorly for our avifauna. 2005). Since the release of bird status reports Migratory birds—of which there are cur- at the Asilomar Conference, bird populations rently 836 designated species—are a Federal have continued to slump, and the list of North trust resource managed and protected by the American birds with declining populations or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or otherwise at risk at the regional and continental Service). The published list of the 836 species is levels has increased since 2002 where 131 spe- found at 50 CFR Ch. 1, 10.13, List of Migratory cies were then designated (USFWS 2002). Today, Birds. As an agency, our regulatory goal is to these include 147 species on the 2008 Birds of “avoid or minimize unpermitted take”—i.e., Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008), 92 birds impacts—essentially to ensure that we do no Federally listed as Threatened or Endangered on harm to these species. Unfortunately, with the the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State-listed growing current challenges, we have not done species, and species listed as high priorities on a very good job reaching that goal.
1 E-mail: [email protected] Minimizing Take of Migratory Birds at Structures—Albert M. Manville, II 263
From what we know or suspect about fragmentation, site avoidance and distur- impacts from structures, the combined effects bance—be they from communication towers, of direct annual mortality from communication wind turbines, power lines, or commercial towers, wind turbines, power lines and build- and residential buildings—are often diffi cult ings (both single story and tall structures) may to quantify and are only now beginning to be for some species be causing impacts at the pop- understood. For example, the footprint from a ulation level. This is very troubling. However, hypothetical 600-turbine, 1200 MW (i.e., 2-MW the estimates of structurally-caused mortality per turbine) industrial wind project, the power are at best, “guesstimates” of what actually grid and related infrastructure servicing it, may be happening in the wild, usually based on and the road system connecting it, can hugely extrapolations from individual studies or small- impact the habitat, especially for species sensi- scale surveys. Very few communication towers, tive to development such as “prairie grouse” commercial wind turbines, power transmission and sage-steppe-obligate songbirds. Species and distribution lines, and buildings are being such as the Federally endangered Whooping studied on a full-season, let alone a year-round, Crane (Grus americana) can also be put at direct basis, in a robust and scientifi cally rigorous risk from turbines, power lines and commu- manner, and in any level of detail that would nication towers, both at their overwintering help us better understand cumulative impacts grounds and during migration. With 2008–2009 caused by these structures. near-record winter Crane mortality from appar- Tens of millions of kilometers of power ent starvation at n = 22 bird deaths, structural distribution lines are probably present in the concerns raise further apprehension among U.S. today, but we lack any concrete account- biologists (T. Stehn, National Whooping Crane ing for their lengths (Williams 2000). However, Coordinator, USFWS 2009 pers. comm.). With data from the Electric Power Research Institute the current push to rapidly develop renewable (EPRI) on the power transmission line lengths in energy, and as energy demands increase and as the U.S. indicate the presence of at least 862 207 new power grids are constructed, more issues km (535 865 mi) of line (J.W. Goodrich-Mahoney, involving fragmentation, site avoidance, distur- Senior Project Manager, Environment, EPRI, bance, and cumulative effects will result. While, 2008 pers. comm.)—both transmission and with funding and staffi ng constraints, we may distribution lengths growing as demands for not see detailed cumulative analysis surveys power increase. Transmission lines are charac- conducted on tall structures during our lifetime, terized as those carrying ≥69kV of electricity. there is some good news. For all the aforemen- Unfortunately, very few communication tioned structures, some “corrective tools” and towers and few kilometers of distribution and “conservation measures” are available to sig- transmission lines are ever searched for dead or nifi cantly reduce (in some cases, scientifi cally injured birds primarily due to lack of person- validated, while in others, based on anecdotal nel, funding, and a perceived lack of impor- reviews) structural impacts on protected bird tance. Virtually no systematic mortality studies species. This paper focuses on some of these are presently being conducted at buildings. promising “tools.” Exceptions include (1) migration seasonal sur- veys being conducted by the staff of the Fatal COMMUNICATION TOWERS Light Awareness Program in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (M. Mesure, Director, FLAP, 2007 pers. While diffi cult to track the actual number comm.), (2) efforts by staff and volunteers of the of communication towers constructed nation- New York City Audubon Society (R. Creshkoff, wide, the evidence clearly shows a continuing volunteer, NYCA, 2007 pers. comm.), and (3) exponential expansion of cellular telephone, research being conducted by D. Klem (2009 pers. emergency broadcast, national defense, micro- comm.) at Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA. wave, paging, and related tower growth. Based Although mortality studies are increasing at on current evidence (Federal Communications commercial wind turbine facilities, no full-sea- Commission [FCC] 2006), more than 100 000 son studies have yet been conducted in the East, lighted communication towers >61 m above and little research made available to the public ground level (>199 ft AGL) are sited in the is being conducted at Texas wind facilities—the U.S. today. The website www.towerkill.com is State currently leading the nation in installed an excellent source of information to compare wind capacity (e.g, 8361 megawatts [MW] with tower growth in each of the 50 states. By click- 1061 MW under construction; AWEA 2009). ing on each state, tower expansion based on Direct mortality from collisions and elec- FCC statistics from 1998 and 2004 (i.e., towers trocutions is, however, only part of the over- in the 61–91 m [200–299 ft], 92–153 m [300–499 all impact. The effects and impacts from ft], 153–244 m [500–799 ft], and 245+ m [800+ ft] 264 Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference ranges) can easily be compared (W. Evans 2008 put, where sound scientifi c evidence is not yet pers. comm.). available and where uncertainty remains a con- The expansion of digital television tow- cern, the Service will proceed with caution. For ers (DTV) appears to be relatively small, example, the voluntary tower guidelines devel- even with the requirement to convert to DTV oped and released by the Service (USFWS 2000) by June 2009 under mandates of the 1996 to properly site, construct, operate, and decom- Telecommunications Act, as amended, perhaps mission communication towers are fundamen- diminishing its impact on birds to less than tally based on proceeding with caution where what had been anticipated. However, since uncertainty and risk are prevalent. As new sci- some radio and television towers commonly entifi c fi ndings are discovered (e.g., eliminating reach 611 m AGL (2000 ft), they are situated steady-burning red tower side lights that were in direct confl ict especially with neotropical shown to reduce avian tower collisions at some migratory songbirds, particularly during night towers in Michigan by up to 71%—see beyond), migrations when weather conditions are dete- recommendations such as these are passed on riorating and visibility is poor to negligible. to the FCC for rulemaking and Service guide- Because songbirds tend to migrate in massive, lines will be updated. Therefore, realizing that “broad fronts,” birds will almost certainly be cumulative impact assessments may not be put at risk irrespective of the tower’s location performed in the short term, due especially (Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). Add tower lights to budget constraints and staffi ng limitations, to the scenario, and the potential for signifi cant the Service will take whatever actions it can, confl ict and mass mortality is great. working in concert with the FCC, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the communi- TOWER COLLISION MORTALITY cation tower industry, researchers, and the con- servation community. Direct impacts of communication towers to Documented bird collisions continue to be migratory birds come from two sources, colli- a problem. While C. Kemper documented the sions and possibly from radiation exposure. record for a one-night avian-tower collision of Collisions represent a primary source of mor- more than 12 000 birds retrieved and identifi ed tality and have been well documented since the in 1963 at a Wisconsin television tower (Kemper late 1940s in the U.S. (Aronoff 1949, Kemper 1996), spikes in tower collision numbers have 1996, Manville 2005 and 2007a). From a collision recently been noted. For example, in continuing perspective alone, 4–5 million birds are conser- studies conducted by A. Clark over 29 years at vatively estimated to die each year in tower and three television towers in Buffalo, NY (Morris guy-wire collisions—with high-end estimates et al. 2003), Clark noted a gradual decrease in at 40–50 million birds (Manville 2005). These the number of birds killed at the towers he stud- fi gures are admittedly “guesstimates,” but still ied—ranging from a high of 4787 in 1982 to a based on the best available scientifi c evidence. low of 6 in 1992. The authors hypothesized the Like all structural mortality estimates, not until decline in the rate of mortality was due to 4 pos- scientifi cally valid, cumulative impact analyses sible factors: (1) an overall decrease in migra- are conducted will we clearly understand the tory bird populations, (2) change in weather level of impact each structure is having on bird and wind patterns, (3) increases in predation populations. and scavenging around tower bases, and (4) However, until impacts are better under- changes in migration patterns. stood—including the likelihood of additive However, during the fall 2005 migration mortality effects to some populations—the season, Clark (2006 pers. comm.) documented Service will continue to address impacts using the largest annual kill at his study towers since the precautionary approach (UNEP 2002). 1982. In 2005, he retrieved 1223 birds at the The precautionary approach—also known as bases of those same three New York towers (878 the precautionary principle—has its origin in whole carcasses and 345 “parts thereof” repre- European law. However, the precautionary senting 55 species). This included more than 200 approach was refi ned, based on the develop- Golden-crowned (Regulus satrapa) and Ruby- ment and application of international law in crowned Kinglets (R. calendula). light of scientifi c uncertainty, at the 1992 Earth Also during the fall 2005 migration season, Summit in Rio de Janeiro, most notably through additional troubling reports of large bird kills at Rio Principle 15. It states that, “Where there are both tall and short communication towers also threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack surfaced, particularly kills that occurred dur- of full scientifi c certainty shall not be used as ing a week-long inclement weather event that a reason for postponing cost-effective measures coincided in the East with the songbird migra- to prevent environmental degradation.” Simply tion in October. W. Evans (2005 pers. comm.) Minimizing Take of Migratory Birds at Structures—Albert M. Manville, II 265 estimated more than 500 songbirds killed in a in review). Gehring et al. (2009) recommended three-night period in mid-October at a 336-m the extinguishing of L-810 lights, provided that AGL (1100-ft) tall tower near West Monroe, NY. the lighting system continues to remain safe for Evans also reported several intact, but decaying aviators. The FAA will begin pilot conspicuity warbler carcasses including a Hooded Warbler studies in Michigan during spring and fall 2009 (Wilsonia citrina) at a 61-m AGL (200-ft) cellu- to assess pilot visibility of the towers without lar telephone tower near Alfred, NY. During steady-burning red lights. If deemed safe, they the same weather event, Evans also reported will likely revise their Obstruction Marking and 147 salvaged birds, mostly Blackpoll Warblers Lighting Advisory Circular (FAA 2007), giving (Dendroica striata), at an unlit cellular telephone tower operators the option of extinguishing the tower in northern PA that appeared to be less steady-burning lights, saving electricity, and than 46 m (150 ft) AGL. In the case of two cel- signifi cantly reducing bird mortality. No statis- lular telephone tower morality events, nearby tical differences were found in avian mortality solid/steady-burning bright light sources rates among towers lit only with the different appeared to result in the bird congregations that types of fl ashing lights—i.e., white strobe vs. led to the kills (Manville 2007a). Also during the red strobe vs. red fl ashing incandescent light- fall 2005, on 7–8 September and again on 13–14 ing. The results suggest that the fl ashing of a September, an estimated 400 birds were killed light is more important in reducing avian colli- each night at the 336-m AGL (1100 ft) WMTV sions than is the color of the light. tower near Madison, WI. In the second kill, 172 At this writing, J. Gehring has completed the carcasses of 23 species were retrieved, including fall 2008 season of a 3-year study of n = 6 tall 5 Golden-winged Warblers (Vermivora chrysop- towers (>277 m AGL [>906 ft]) in Michigan, a tera)—of particular concern to USFWS since 107 m AGL (350 ft) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) these are birds of conservation concern. Rescue 21 unguyed tower in Cape May, NJ, and To begin to better understand the dynam- will begin the study of a 138 m (450 ft) USCG ics and the relationships between tower light- Rescue 21 tower that is being built in the vicin- ing, height, guy-wire supports, location, and ity of Cape Hatteras, NC, where bird deterrent impacts to birds, Gehring et al. (2006, 2009) per- devices will be tested on guy support wires. formed a peer-reviewed study on n = 24 towers Preliminary results suggest that, similar to the in various, mostly random locations through- Michigan study of towers 116–146 m AGL, avian out Michigan. Begun in the fall 2003 and com- fatalities can be signifi cantly reduced at taller pleted in the fall 2005, this study was the fi rst to communication towers by using only fl ash- compare bird collision rates at communication ing lighting systems. Like the larger Michigan towers equipped with different types of FAA study (Gehring et al. 2009), preliminary data obstruction lighting. Due to variances allowed suggest that the unguyed tower in Cape May, in 2005 by the FAA on n = 18 towers, steady- NJ, is not involved in large numbers of avian burning, non-fl ashing lights were extinguished. fatalities. Further data collection and analysis These included on, (1) all white strobe-lit tow- are ongoing. The purpose of this study, in part, ers (these towers were unaffected since no red is to replicate the study in Michigan (Gehring et lights are required by FAA on them), (2) all red al. 2009), and if the FAA is willing to allow tem- strobe-lit towers, and (3) all red blinking, incan- porary light change-outs on several of these tall descent-lit towers. Lighting regimes for the towers, we can test the effects of those changes aforementioned towers were compared to (4) on bird attraction and mortality. three guyed towers with a combination of red Evans et al. (2007) subjected night-migrating strobes at the top and mid levels, and steady- birds in 100% cloud-cover conditions at ground burning red lights at the three-quarters and level to alternating short periods of different one-third height levels. This lighting regime artifi cial light, including various intensities, represents the current lighting system for many wavelengths, and fl ash rates from a ground- communication towers nationwide (Gehring et based lighting device. This study in October al. 2009). 2005 in Ithaca, NY, represented the fi rst direct Based on the 2005 data, results strongly investigation of these variables causing bird suggest that by extinguishing the red, steady- aggregation in inclement weather. An acoustic burning L-810 lights, but leaving on the strobe transducer and directional microphone, posi- or incandescent blinking lights, avian colli- tioned 5 m (16 ft) from the light source, were sion mortality can be reduced by as much as used to identify a strong or weak presence of 50–71%. Not surprisingly, the most birds killed birds near the light source. Evans et al. (2007) were found under the tallest, guyed towers, performed spectrographic analysis on loud consistent with many other reported studies calls, basing species identifi cation on the fl ight (Manville 2007a, Gehring et al. 2009 manuscript call reference guide produced by Evans and 266 Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference
O’Brien (2002), and they visually documented (1) Based on the study results from Gehring et bird presence on site. Birds were induced to al. (2006), the Service recommended removal congregate at all wattage levels of white steady- of steady-burning L-810 lights where retrofi ts burning light tested. However, no aggregation were being conducted, and the elimination of was noted at the 1500 W white fl ashing halogen steady burning lights on all new tower con- lights. The study results further reinforce con- struction where lighting is required (i.e., towers clusions reached by Gehring et al. (2006, 2009), >61 m [199 ft]), within 6.1 km [3.8 statute mile] Gauthreaux and Belser (2006), and J. Johnson of airport approach and departure controlled (2005 pers. comm.). runways, and along interstate highways). (2) However, Evans et al. (2007) did not fi nd Based on a preponderance of information about either steady-burning red (L-810) or red fl ash- impacts from tall, guyed towers, the Service ing (L-864) beacons induced bird aggregation suggested a “gold standard” for towers. Keep when tested separately at ground level in 100% them unguyed, unlit, and <61 m AGL (200 ft) cloud cover. As one possible explanation, they wherever possible—ideally collocating new suggested that the disorientation to red light towers on existing structures. And (3), we rec- only occurs if birds are actively using magneto- ommended that migratory birds should become reception and the red light creates an imbalance part of the FCC’s National Environmental in the magnetoreception mechanism. On clear Policy Act (NEPA) review process for tower nights, for example, some avifauna use star and licensing. The rulemaking document and the moon light as sources for navigation, especially comments provided above (Manville 2007a) are stellar arrays around the North Star (Sauer 1957, available in their entirety on the FCC’s website Emlen 1967). On cloudy nights, however, evi- under WT Docket 03-187, FCC 06-164, “Effects dence suggests that birds may orient by sens- of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds” ing the axial inclination of the earth’s magnetic (most easily accessed by searching under FCC fi eld through a light-dependent mechanism, Docket 03-187, Effects of Communication probably located in the avian eye (Wiltschko Towers on Migratory Birds [Service comments et al. 1993, Ritz et al. 2004, Thalau et al. 2005, included in docket fi le 2301-2400]). Wiltschko et al. 2005). A lawsuit was won on appeal by the American Gauthreaux and Belser (2006) fi rst published Bird Conservancy et al. against the FCC in the this hypothesis that aggregation around com- Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in munication towers with red lights may be due February 2008. ABC Inc. v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 to disruption of magnetoreception caused by (2008) requires the FCC to evaluate the effects the red light. W. Evans (2008 pers. comm.) has of communication towers on migratory birds acknowledged the need for further study into in the Gulf Coast region, including through bird aggregation, red light disorientation, cloud MBTA, NEPA, and ESA. While at this point cover, and magnetoreception, and he hopes the FCC has not yet fi nalized any rulemaking, to replicate and expand the study to better currently responding to obligations set by the understand the role of magnetoreception and Court, it is hoped that the recommendations bird aggregation. Efforts to conduct additional made above will be implemented very shortly. research are presently underway. Each migration season delay means more need- Just prior to the apparent “spikes” in less bird deaths. tower mortality documented during the fall 2005 as summarized above, evidence was POSSIBLE TOWER RADIATION ISSUES presented at the Research Subcommittee of the Communication Tower Working Group The radiation issue has only become a (CTWG) that continued to show increased recent development with fi eld studies on birds impacts of lighting, tower height, and guy wire begun around 2000 in Europe (Balmori 2003, impediments to migratory birds, especially 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, Everaert and when night migration and inclement weather Bauwens 2007) and laboratory studies con- coincided. ducted in the U.S. during the late 1990s (T. In November 2006, the FCC published Litovitz 2002 pers. comm., DiCarlo et al. 2002). a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM; Virtually unknown, however, are the potential FCC 2006) requesting suggestions and recom- effects of non-ionizing, non-thermal tower radi- mendations from the public and the agencies ation on avifauna, including at extremely low on how to address the effects of communica- radiation levels, far below the safe exposure tion towers on migratory birds. Through the level previously determined for humans. These Service’s Deputy Director, this author submit- “safe” levels were based on thermal heating ted detailed Service comments in February 2007 standards, now inapplicable. The standards are suggesting the following rulemaking changes. now more than 25 years out of date, and the U.S. Minimizing Take of Migratory Birds at Structures—Albert M. Manville, II 267
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offi ce and Hallberg (2007) reported similar declines in tasked to direct human safety issues was elimi- House Sparrows directly correlated with levels nated due to budget cuts in the early 1980s. No of EMF in Valladolid, Spain. government agency currently monitors the ris- Manville (2007b) raised this concern on behalf ing background levels of electromagnetic radia- of the USFWS at an invited Congressional staff tion (EMF). Current safety standards assume briefi ng. Although Beason and Semm (2002) that non-ionizing radiation is safe if the power tested the natural responses of Zebra Finches is too weak to heat living tissue. However, (Taeniopygia guttata) to 900 MHz radiation under since the 1980s, growing amounts of published laboratory conditions and showed that 76% of research are showing adverse effects far below a the neurons responded by 3.5-times more fi r- thermal threshold—usually referred to as “non- ings, no studies have yet been conducted in the thermal effects,” especially under conditions of U.S. on potential radiation impacts to wild bird long-term, low-level exposure (DiCarlo et al. populations. Magnetite, a mineral highly sen- 2002, Levitt and Morrow 2007). sitive to EMFs has been discovered in human, In 2002 in the U.S., T. Litovitz (2002 pers. bird, and fi sh brains. It has been suggested that comm., DeCarlo et al. 2002) raised troubling con- the radio frequency radiation (RF) may be act- cerns about the impacts of low-level, non-ther- ing as an attractant to birds since their eye, beak mal radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell and brain tissues are loaded with magnetite, a phone frequency on domestic chicken embroyos mineral highly sensitive to magnetic fi elds that (Gallus domesticus) under laboratory conditions birds use for navigation (Ritz et al. 2004, R. (DeCarlo et al. 2002). Litovitz noted deformities, Beason cited in Levitt and Morrow 2007). including some deaths of the embryos subjected Based on research conducted in Europe, to hypoxic conditions under extremely low communication tower radiation may already radiation doses. These included doses as low as be impacting breeding and migrating bird 1/10 000 below the allowable EPA “safe” level populations, as well as other wildlife. Manville of radiation. Meanwhile, preliminary research (2007b) has thus suggested the need to repli- on wild birds at cellular telephone tower sites cate research conducted in Europe on apparent in Valladolid, Spain, showed strong negative radiation impacts to birds from short, cellular correlations between levels of tower-emitted telephone towers, replicating and perhaps mod- microwave radiation and bird breeding, nest- ifying studies performed by Balmori (2005), ing, and roosting in the vicinity of the elec- Balmori and Hallberg (2007) and Everaert and tromagnetic fi elds (Balmori 2003). Birds had Bauwens (2007)—attempting to tease out and historically been documented to roost and nest better understand the dynamics of what may be in these areas. House Sparrows (Passer domesti- taking place. Unfortunately, funding for such cus), White Storks (Ciconia ciconia), Rock Doves studies is as yet unavailable and the priority of (Columba livia), Magpies (Pica pica ), Collared such wildlife research remains low compared to Doves (Streptopelia decaocto), and other species other anthropocentric impacts. exhibited nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, and even COMMERCIAL WIND TURBINES death among some birds found close to cel- lular phone antennas. Balmori did not observe Commercial wind development in the U.S. these symptoms prior to construction of the cell continues to grow at an exponential rate. In phone towers. Balmori (2005) noted that the 2007, the industry noted a >45% growth in tur- White Stork appeared most heavily impacted by bine development (AWEA 2008), and in 2008, the tower radiation during the 2002–2004 nest- records were further broken with 50% growth ing seasons in Spain. Manville (2005) reported (AWEA 2009) Operating turbines are referred Balmori’s (2003) preliminary results, and raised to as “installed capacity,” generally measured concerns of possible similar events in the U.S. in MW rather than in turbine numbers or tur- In continuing European studies, Everaert bine height and rotor swept area. By mid 2009, and Bauwens (2007) found strong negative the U.S. had >29 440 MW of installed capacity correlations between the amount of radiation (with 5866 under construction), lead by TX, IO, presence—both in the 900 and 1800 MHz fre- CA, MN, WA, OR, and NY in decreasing order quency bands—and the presence of male House of capacity (AWEA 2009). With slightly more Sparrows. In areas with high electric fi eld than 23 000 turbines installed and operating on strength values, fewer House Sparrow males the landscape today, and more than 155 000 tur- were observed. Everaert and Bauwens prelimi- bines projected to be operating by 2020 (AWEA narily concluded that long-term exposure to 2008, M. Tuttle 2007 pers. comm., National higher radiation levels was affecting bird abun- Renewable Energy Laboratory 2007 estimate), dance or bird behavior in this species. Balmori the Service has serious concerns about current 268 Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference and potential impacts which continue to grow 2002. However, the PII lacked a component for exponentially. From a wildlife perspective, assessing temporal and spatial use of airspace. however, there is some good news. With the To correct this shortcoming, DMBM submit- exception of the continued high collision mor- ted a research proposal for a Rapid Assessment tality of raptors, such as Golden Eagles (Aquila Methodology (RAM) to the Service’s Science chrysaetos), Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) Support Program (SSP) for funding in 2008. and others—including passerines—at Altamont Approved as one of the three SSP proposals to Pass Wind Resource Area, CA, and the death be funded and implemented in 2009, the Service of Birds of Conservation Concern and Breeding is working with USGS scientist D. Johnson at Bird Survey declining species elsewhere, avian the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center to mortality is not particularly high, at least at the develop, fi eld-test, validate, and perform work- present time. While the wind industry currently shops in using this tool. The RAM is intended to estimates that turbines kill 58 000 birds per be a fi rst-cut analysis of a site’s suitability, ulti- year in the U.S. (National Wind Coordinating mately allowing a potential wind development Collaborative Wildlife Workgroup 2009 statis- site to be ranked and scored based on its known tic), the Service estimates annual mortality at or perceived level of risk to wildlife and their 440 000 birds (Manville 2005). This is based, habitats. More information on the RAM can be in part, on inconsistencies in the duration and found at www.nationalwind.org, then clicking intensity of searches resulting in biases between on the presentations given at the Research VII search areas, the size of the search areas, fail- meeting, October 29, 2008, Milwaukee, WI. ure to estimate mortality during peak periods By asking the operative question, which of migration, impacts from wind wake turbu- “straw” (i.e., impact) will eventually break the lence and blade tip vortices, and biases from “camel’s back,” will wind energy become that unaccounted crippling losses (after Huso 2008). anthropocentric source, will it be something else Until a robust, scientifi cally rigorous cumulative that impacts a population, or will it be the result impacts analysis is performed, we will not know of all cumulative effects? We simply do not with a high degree of certainly the true level of know. Thus, as previously mentioned, USFWS mortality. Admittedly, it still is relatively small. prefers to take the “precautionary approach” However, with high risk, wildlife-unfriendly when addressing issues such as wind devel- sites being selected by wind proponents next opment—especially in light of such a poor to, for example, nesting Golden and Bald Eagles understanding about wind energy’s impacts on (Haliaeetus leucocephlus), and turbines placed on wildlife and their habitats. ridge lines where Golden Eagles and Peregrine The Department of Interior strongly sup- Falcons (Falco peregrinus) migrate, Service con- ports renewable energy, including wind devel- cerns are elevated. Bats, unfortunately, repre- opment, but the Service wants to ensure that it sent a completely different situation based on is bird-, bat- and habitat-friendly. We strongly the high documented take of bats in WV, PA, encourage wind proponents to work at the get- NY, OK, western Alberta, and elsewhere, and go with the nearest USFWS Ecological Services the apparent attraction of some tree roosting Field Offi ce in the proposed development area bats to tall structures such as hoary (Lasiurus where they hope to build, prior to the comple- cinereus) and eastern red bats (L. borealis) includ- tion of a land-owner agreement, approval of a ing turbines (P. Cryan, USGS bat specialist, power-purchase contract, and the application 2009 pers. comm.). Add to this the impacts from or receipt of a bank loan. Very few companies white-nosed syndrome, a likely fungal disease approach the Service early on to address poten- hugely impacting hibernating bats in the East tial impacts from wind development. This is and Northeast, and turbine mortality could further exacerbated by the fact that the Service become additive (P. Cryan 2009 pers. comm.). lacks a strong Federal nexus on private land. However, mortality represents only one of three The exception regarding a Federal nexus on concerns regarding wind development—and all private land is Section 404 of the Clean Water other anthropocentric impacts, for that matter. Act. However, unless there is a Federal permit, Indirect impacts from fragmentation, distur- Federal funding, or the project is on Federal bance and site avoidance are also a huge con- property, ESA Section 7 does not apply and cern for wildlife. With the exponential growth ESA Section 10 (i.e., development of a Service- of industrial wind development, the issue has approved Habitat Conservation Plan through also become one of cumulative impacts and the NEPA public review process to acquire a additive mortality. “takings permit”) is voluntary on the part of To begin addressing risk, the Service devel- the proponent. MBTA is a strict liability statute, oped a Potential Impact Index (PII) to rank there is no consultation process, and the Act is and score potential wind development sites in only applicable after a “take” has occurred. The Minimizing Take of Migratory Birds at Structures—Albert M. Manville, II 269
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is also a wiring can electrocute them. The Service has spe- strict liability statute, but a permit for “take” cial concerns about project development on avi- under otherwise legal activities is being fi nal- fauna. (1) No full-season studies have yet been ized by the Service, but not yet implemented. conducted in the East on avian-wind impacts. From a proactive perspective, the Service’s (2) The “take” of State and Federally-listed birds, legal options are limited. To avoid or minimize Birds of Conservation Concern, Breeding Bird impacts to trust wildlife resources, the Service Survey declining species, “watchlist” species, released interim, voluntary guidelines for imperiled waterbirds, and raptors that migrate land-based commercial wind turbines in July along or below ridge lines are of growing con- 2003, open to two years of public comment and cern. (3) Raptors and other species that nest in review. While the voluntary guidelines remain close proximity to wind facilities is another con- in place, and we encourage the industry to use cern. (4) Known or suspected impacts of turbines them, the Interior Department convened an on grassland songbirds (Leddy et al. 1999) and advisory committee to review and make recom- “prairie grouse” species such as Greater Prairie- mendations regarding updates and changes to chickens (Tympanuchus cupido), Gunnison’s Sage the Service’s guidelines under the auspices of Grouse (Centrocercus minimus), and Greater the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Sage-grouse (C. urophasianus; Manville 2004) The FAC fi rst met in February 2008, and will raise further concerns. (5) The increasing height continue to meet through the summer 2009 at of land-based turbines now exceeding 130 m which point it will provide a recommendation AGL (425 ft) and the increasing rotor swept areas to the Service likely by October 2009 on what exceeding 1.2 ha (3 ac) but projected to reach the FAC thinks the guidelines should contain. 1.6 ha (4 ac) by 2010 (B. Ram, wind consultant, Once a recommendation is received from 2007 pers. comm.) are putting turbines well the FAC, the Service will designate a commit- within the zone of risk for migrating birds, not tee to review the FAC document to ensure it to mention impacts to birds during take-offs and meets trust responsibilities, statutory muster, landings and birds exhibiting breeding behav- and is practical and applicable. The committee iors within the zone of risk. (6) The potential will revise the document, as necessary, before for a single-night, mass mortality event grows, it undergoes Service fi nal review. Next, all especially when turbine numbers increase, mass affected programs from the Service’s regions, migrations and inclement weather coincide, Washington Offi ce, and the Department of where wind facilities are placed in wildlife- Interior will review and approve the document. unfriendly habitats, and where weather ceilings Finally, a notice of availability will be pub- force birds down through a “migratory fall out” lished in the Federal Register soliciting public to well within rotor swept areas. review and comment on the Service’s “fi nal” The major challenge facing the commercial draft guidelines. Once public comments are wind industry is not only to make wind genera- reviewed, fi nal guidelines will be published— tion “clean” but also insure that it is “green.” possibly more than a year after USFWS receives Importantly, that means not creating new prob- the FAC recommendations. D. Stout is the lems for migratory birds while still trying to Designated Federal Offi cial on the Committee address challenges with our “carbon footprint” representing the Service and questions should and greenhouse gas emissions. There are some be addressed to him ([email protected]) that preliminary but promising “tools” that are cannot be answered from information posted on being assessed, some perhaps more pleasing to the Service’s website. the industry than others. These include blade Direct Impacts.—Birds, including species from “feathering” (aka, idling) when bird and/or raptors, passerines, to waterbirds, have been doc- bat risk is high, changes in blade “cut-in” speed umented killed during fl ight by rotating turbine based on increased wind speed that blades blades (Stone 2007, Arnett et al. 2007, Kuvlesky et begin to operate (benefi tting both birds and al. 2007, Kunz et al. 2007, Nicholson et al. 2005). bats), turbine setbacks from ridges, end-of-row New evidence is showing that birds and bats can turbine replacement with pylons, turbine pylon also die from barotrauma—an apparent effect of replacement in ridge dips, and other “tools.” sudden changes in air pressure from wind wake Research is still preliminary. Proper site selec- turbulence and blade tip vortices—that result in tion continues to be critical. collapsed lungs, often with no sign of blunt force Indirect Impacts.—Habitats can be frag- trauma (E. Arnett, Bat Conservation Internatl., mented, disturbed, and disrupted, forcing out 2008 pers. comm., P. Cryan 2009 pers. comm.). In birds and bats, preventing breeding, altering addition, birds can collide with towers, nacelles, behaviors, and possibly impacting popula- meteorological tower guy wires, power lines, the tions—with recent evidence raised in Europe associated infrastructures, and “bird unfriendly” (Stewart et al. 2007). Indirect effects, although 270 Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference frequently diffi cult to quantify, can include (1) hope that the current situation will change. If a reduced nesting/breeding densities; (2) loss of project is approved and is soon to be developed, population vigor and overall density; (3) habitat results from pre-construction surveys and any and site abandonment, and increased isolation risk assessments should become part of the pub- between patches; (4) loss of refugia; (5) attraction lic record, at the very least shared with the state to modifi ed habitats; (6) behavior effects includ- and federal agencies responsible for protecting ing stress, interruption, and behavioral modi- species and habitats. The same should hold true fi cation; and (7) disturbance and displacement for results from post-construction evaluations. resulting in habitat unsuitability. As the industry We continue to work with the industry and grows, these indirect effects may also become its consultants to develop consistent, robust, cumulative. Both direct and indirect effects could scientifi cally credible, and acceptable pre- and become additive to normally compensatory mor- post-construction research protocols—ideally tality—a scenario we wish to avoid. consistent between companies and consultants. Habitat fragmentation is of considerable con- At this writing, positive recommendations cern for grassland songbirds—the suite of avi- are being suggested and discussed between fauna now in the greatest overall decline—not members of the wind Federal Advisory to mention sage-steppe obligate songbirds and Committee. Iberdrola Renewable Energy-USA “prairie grouse” species, in addition to other worked proactively with the Service to develop suites of birds and bats. Until very recently, a company-wide Avian and Bat Protection Plan most fragmentation studies had been based on (ABPP) modeled after the April 2005 avian pro- research conducted at “surrogate” structures tection plan (APP) template developed between such as power lines, oil platforms, fences, and the Service and the electric utility industry. roads, with results then compared to possible Iberdrola’s ABPP was publicly released in late impacts from commercial wind development 2008. Iberdrola is also working proactively with (Manville 2004). That is changing with the wind representatives from the Service’s Offi ce of Law industry funding multi-stakeholder studies of Enforcement (OLE) and DMBM to develop Greater Prairie-grouse-wind turbine effects in a voluntary bird and bat mortality reporting the Flint Hills, KS, area, and through other stud- form, much like >33 electric utilities are pres- ies elsewhere. ently voluntarily providing OLE for birds. This USFWS currently has several concerns effort is primarily focused on dealing with inci- regarding the use of sound science in assess- dent-specifi c issues. Perhaps overall the wind ing risk to wildlife trust species and their habi- industry will consider developing an industry- tats. One is the wind industry’s general lack of specifi c template for an ABPP, borrowing from research independence. Most of the pre- and the APP developed by the Avian Power Line post-construction monitoring and risk assess- Interaction Committee. The Service’s goal is to ment reviews are conducted by consulting fi rms make wind energy truly “green”—i.e., with the heavily dependent on wind companies and goal of avoiding or minimizing take and habitat energy corporations to hire them. While they disturbance—while signifi cantly addressing the may be the most qualifi ed to conduct the stud- challenges avifauna and other wildlife face from ies, this becomes the proverbial “double-edged the impacts of global climate change. The task is sword” because there presently exists no agreed a daunting one but we’re moving in the appro- upon, scientifi cally validated monitoring proto- priate direction. Whether it’s dealing with com- cols that could be used consistently and com- munication towers, wind turbines, power lines, pared between different projects region- and or building windows, the Service will continue nationwide. As a condition of site permitting, to work proactively with those industries, con- some states have monitoring requirements, but sultants, entities, conservationists, and stake- most states only suggest use of voluntary risk- holders who collectively can help us resolve the assessment and monitoring methodologies, if growing impacts from increasing numbers of that. Since the vast majority of wind develop- structures we are placing on the landscape. We ment is currently on private lands, the USFWS strongly encourage all affected “stakeholders” lacks any strong federal nexus (e.g., ESA S. 10 to partner with us. is voluntary, MBTA has no consultation pro- visions and “take” occurs only after-the-fact, LITERATURE CITED NEPA is not required, and CWA S. 404 has limitations) to regulate it. The transparency of AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION. 2008. research results conducted by wind industry Installed capacity. [Online.]
page, July 30. [Online.]
MANVILLE, A. M., II. 2004. Prairie grouse leks atricapilla, borin and currca. Zeitschrift für and wind turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Tierpsyologie 14:20–70. Service justifi cation for a 5-mile buffer for STEWART, G. B., A. S. PULLIN, AND C. F. COLES. leks; additional grassland songbird recom- 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of mendations. Division of Migratory Bird windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Management, USFWS. Arlington, VA. Conservation 34:1–11. MANVILLE, A. M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and STONE, M. 2007. Capturing energy from the at- electrocutions at power lines, communi- mosphere has benefi ts for wildlife—and cation towers, and wind turbines: state costs. Wyoming Wildlife 30:32–35. of the art and state of the science—next THALAU, P., T. RITZ, K. STAPPUT, R. WILTSCHKO, steps toward mitigation, pp. 1051–1064. AND W. WILTSCHKO. 2005. Magnetic com- In C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, [eds.], Bird pass orientation of migratory birds in the Conservation Implementation in the presence of 1.315 MHz oscillating fi eld. Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Naturwissenschaften 92:86–90. Partners in Flight Conference 2002, USDA UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM. 2002. Forest Service General Technical Report Precaution from Rio to Johannesburg. Pro- PSW-GTR-191, Pacifi c Southwest Research ceedings of a Geneva Environment Network Station. Albany, CA. Roundtable. UNEP, GE 2002-01920/E:5. MANVILLE, A. M., II. 2007a. Comments of the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 2000. Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted guidance on the siting, construction, op- electronically to the FCC on 47 CFR Parts 1 eration and decommissioning of com- and 17, WT Docket No. 03-187, FCC 06-164, munications towers. Division of Habitat Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Effects Conservation and Division of Migratory of Communication Towers on Migratory Bird Management, Fish and Wildlife Birds.” February 2, 2007. Service, Arlington, VA. [Online.]