ADVERTISEMENT

New federal rule would permit thousands of eagle deaths

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,127
58,304
113
The Obama administration is revising a federal rule that allows wind-energy companies to operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years, even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Under the plan announced Wednesday, wind companies and other power providers could kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles a year without penalty — nearly four times the current limit. Golden eagles could only be killed if companies take steps to minimize the losses, for instance, by retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said the proposal will "provide a path forward" for maintaining eagle populations while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source that's intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan.

Ashe said the 162-page proposal would protect eagles and at the same time "help the country reduce its reliance on fossil fuels" such as coal and oil that contribute to global warming.

"There's a lot of good news in here," Ashe said in an interview, calling the plan "a great tool to work with to further conservation of two iconic species."

The proposal sets objectives for eagle management, addresses how bird populations will be monitored and provides a framework for how the permitting system fits within the agency's overall eagle management, Ashe said.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Blades can reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are about 143,000 bald eagles in the United States, and 40,000 golden eagles.

It's unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings.

Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.

Wednesday's announcement kicks off a 60-day comment period. Officials hope to issue a final rule this fall.

The plan was developed after a federal judge in California blocked a 2013 rule that gave wind energy companies a 30-year pass to kill bald and golden eagles.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled last August that the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to follow environmental procedural requirements in issuing the 2013 directive. The agency had classified its action as an administrative change from a 2009 rule, excluding it from a full environmental review.

The agency adopted the 30-year rule as a way to encourage the development of wind energy, a key source of renewable power that has nearly tripled in output since 2009. A previous rule allowed wind farms to apply for renewable five-year permits.

Golden and bald eagles are not endangered species but are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs without a permit.

The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill.

David Ward, a spokesman for the American Wind Energy Association, said wind power helps conserve eagles by mitigating climate change, a major threat to the birds. "While unintentional take of eagles can occur from wind energy production, it is relatively uncommon and our industry does more than any other to find ways to reduce that small impact," Ward said.

Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy said that unless the plan requires better tracking of bird deaths at or near wind turbines it is unlikely to succeed. Hutchins, whose group filed a lawsuit challenging the 2013 eagle plan, said officials must ensure that bird-death reporting is done by independent observers rather than by the industry, which he said treats such data as "trade secrets."

"Mortality data should be transparent and open to the public," Hutchins said. The group also is concerned that wind farms are not sited in migratory paths of eagles, he said.

Under the new proposal, companies would pay a $36,000 fee for a long-term permit allowing them to kill or injure eagles. Companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than estimated, or if new information suggests eagle populations are being affected.

Companies would be charged a $15,000 administrative fee every five years for long-term permits. The fees would cover costs to the Fish and Wildlife Service of conducting five-year evaluations and developing modifications, the agency said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...would-permit-thousands-eagle-deaths/83946988/
 
Wind powers dirty little secret. I am in favor of eagles and anti- windmill eye sore MFer's. If they'd just put up some nuclear power plants, they'd have all the clean energy they need.
 
For alternative energy to really take-off it needs to be an inspiring movement. This is just another example of us being lazy to shove it down people's throats and ignore consequences. It's not for the greater good if you sacrifice everything to get there.

I kind of skimmed, but it's a pretty horribly biased article right? Do they even report the number of eagles killed by wind energy?
 
"It's unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings."

So, are the gunshots and poisonings Obama's fault too?
 
For alternative energy to really take-off it needs to be an inspiring movement. This is just another example of us being lazy to shove it down people's throats and ignore consequences. It's not for the greater good if you sacrifice everything to get there.

I kind of skimmed, but it's a pretty horribly biased article right? Do they even report the number of eagles killed by wind energy?

I'll try again.

You do realize there's another side to the equation...right?
 
"It's unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings."

So, are the gunshots and poisonings Obama's fault too?
Shooting Eagles is also very illegal.
 
For alternative energy to really take-off it needs to be an inspiring movement. This is just another example of us being lazy to shove it down people's throats and ignore consequences. It's not for the greater good if you sacrifice everything to get there.

I kind of skimmed, but it's a pretty horribly biased article right? Do they even report the number of eagles killed by wind energy?

...except that the habitat impacts and emissions from most fossil fuel activities kill many more birds per GW-Hr than wind or solar.

And, pay attention to the units - this is bird fatalities-per-watt, NOT total fatalities, which would be vastly skewed against fossil fuels anyway, since they are responsible for a much larger fraction of our energy.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...9071069093071067091097091031084121003&EXT=pdf

The bottom line is that wind energy poses a comparable (and likely far lower) threat to avian wildlife than fossil fuels (predominantly coal). And, as researchers find ways to deter the raptors like eagles from habitating near wind turbines, they can very likely lower the impacts - this is generally not possible or plausible with something like a coal plant, where emissions of heavy metals like mercury are spread over vast areas. Coal mining destroys large swaths of avian habitats, as well.

So while we SHOULD be identifying ways to make turbines safer for birds, there is not a strong case to 'freak out' about bird losses vs. our present technologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
And.... we're off.

"Don't worry about wind farms killing birds, because if we don't have wind farms, global warming will kill all the birds anyway."

That's about the worst logic ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
Didn't a plane in Alaska just collide with a bald eagle, killing every person aboard?
 
Serious question: no one has a fan in his house that isn't enclosed in a wire or plastic grate so you can't accidentally stick your hand in the moving blades. Why can't they do this with wind turbines?
 
And.... we're off.

"Don't worry about wind farms killing birds, because if we don't have wind farms, global warming will kill all the birds anyway."

That's about the worst logic ever.

...because eagles and other birds just THRIVE amidst strip-mining operations....:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Not sure what you're trying to say? I support wind energy - I don't support the message that this is sending.

What's the message? If x number of turbines kill y number of eagles you must increase the allowable limit if wind power is to expand. more turbines will, by necessity, impact more birds. The other side of the equation is, of course, what happens to eagles if climate change isn't addressed.
 
And.... we're off.

"Don't worry about wind farms killing birds, because if we don't have wind farms, global warming will kill all the birds anyway."

That's about the worst logic ever.

It's the only logic that matters. And I'm not sure anyone said to not worry about it but both sides of the equation are going to kill birds so explain why it would be illogical to weigh them against each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It's the only logic that matters. And I'm not sure anyone said to not worry about it but both sides of the equation are going to kill birds so explain why it would be illogical to weigh them against each other.

One is based on wild speculation and the other involves actual bird guts on the turbine blades.

If you think all the terrible predictions about global warming will come to pass unless we sacrifice these birds, then you're no better than Aztecs throwing virgins in the volcano to please the gods.
 
One is based on wild speculation and the other involves actual bird guts on the turbine blades.

If you think all the terrible predictions about global warming will come to pass unless we sacrifice these birds, then you're no better than Aztecs throwing virgins in the volcano to please the gods.

Habitat loss from strip-mining is 'wild speculation'?
Heavy metals like mercury which build up in the food-chain and kill raptors is 'speculation'?

Just because there are mechanisms that don't leave dead birds at the front door of the coal-fired power plant is NO indication that it has negligible impact on birds and raptors. Those impacts are well known, they have just been discounted as 'externalized costs' of those energy sources for decades. And, to the proponents of coal, no one cared about it - only now when wind and renewables are starting to impact coal's bottom line, coal suddenly cares....
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Serious question: no one has a fan in his house that isn't enclosed in a wire or plastic grate so you can't accidentally stick your hand in the moving blades. Why can't they do this with wind turbines?
I'm assuming it would be cost prohibitive and aesthetically unpleasing.
 
I'm assuming it would be cost prohibitive and aesthetically unpleasing.


When do we get to hold coal mining operations to the same 'inherently safe for wildlife' and 'aesthetically pleasing' standards?

strip-mine-996789-sw.jpg


mountaintop-removal-mining-video.jpg


656294257-copper-mine-strip-mining-utah-mountains.jpg


mountaintop-removal-coal-mining.jpg


:eek:

Or...is that too 'cost prohibitive'....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
When do we get to hold coal mining operations to the same 'inherently safe for wildlife' and 'aesthetically pleasing' standards?

strip-mine-996789-sw.jpg


mountaintop-removal-mining-video.jpg


656294257-copper-mine-strip-mining-utah-mountains.jpg


mountaintop-removal-coal-mining.jpg


:eek:

Or...is that too 'cost prohibitive'....?


That's beautiful! Amazing. I'm surprised these aren't tourist destinations!
 
When do we get to hold coal mining operations to the same 'inherently safe for wildlife' and 'aesthetically pleasing' standards?

Or...is that too 'cost prohibitive'....?
There isn't much wiggle room with wind turbine technology when it comes to being financially viable. Doubling the metal used for a blade guard would probably put it over the edge. Not to mention the engineering problems caused by the added weight. It has nothing to do with government regulation.

The people of West Virginia must be okay with the aesthetics of the mining operations. I haven't heard anything about them being against it. What does mining have to do with wind turbines?
 
Interesting bit about not requiring a 3rd party observer. I just prepared an exhibit showing bird deaths over the past year at a solar facility out here in CA. We survey the site as a 3rd party consultant. Didn't find any bald eagles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT