‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight

Sunday Times, 3 January, 2010

‘Britain’s upland birds are in danger of being driven off hills and mountains by onshore wind farms.

‘Scientists have found that birds, including buzzards, golden plovers, curlews and red grouse, are abandoning countryside around wind farms because the turbines act as giant scarecrows, frightening them away.

‘The impact is small now because there are few wind farms but researchers warn that, with hundreds more planned, plus an increase in the size of turbines, the effect could become much worse.

‘“We found evidence for localised reductions in bird breeding density around upland wind farms. Importantly, for the first time, we have quantified such effects across a wide range of species,” said James Pearce-Higgins, an ecologist with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland.

‘His research was conducted with scientists from Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish government’s environment research directorate. It is one of the first scientific analyses of how the wind-farm construction programme might affect wildlife.

‘The UK has 259 onshore wind farms, of which 108 are in England, 91 in Scotland, 33 in Wales and 27 in Northern Ireland. Planning permission has been granted for a further 222 and there are plans for another 270 after that.

‘In the study Pearce-Higgins surveyed the populations of 12 bird species around a dozen upland wind farms in Scotland and northern England.

‘These were compared with a similar number of control sites that had no turbines, but which had similar topography and vegetation.

‘Upland areas were chosen because they have the strongest winds and so are preferred by wind-farm developers. They are also favoured, however, by some of Britain’s most vulnerable bird species.

‘Writing in the Journal of Applied Ecology, Pearce-Higgins and his colleagues said birds tended to stop nesting within half a mile of any turbine. Since the effect extends around each machine, up to two square miles could be affected by one turbine.

‘Pearce-Higgins said: “Our results highlight significant avoidance of otherwise apparently suitable habitat close to turbines in at least seven of the 12 species studied, with equivocal evidence for avoidance in a further two species.”

‘[...]’

---

Turbines “keep aerial vermin away”

BBC Radio Four’s ‘Farming Today This Week’ programme on Saturday, 14 November, had a memorable interview with landowner James Hamilton Stubber who has 20 turbines on his land in Northern Ireland.

Mr Stubber, though lukewarm about the visual impact of turbines, enthused at the “beneficial effect on the environment” of the turbine access roads across the moor which apparently benefited his grouse because they had access to road grit. Another benefit he mentioned was that the turbines “keep aerial vermin away”.

The BBC interviewer did not bother to ask Mr Stubber what sort of aerial vermin he had in mind - Hen Harriers? Buzzards? Red Kites? Eagles?

---

‘RSPB causing harm to birds across Europe’

(Press release from Mark Duchamp, Director, Iberica 2000 and President, Save the Eagles International, 19 October 2009).

‘The Red Kite International Symposium took place Saturday 17th and Sunday 18th in Montbéliard, France.’

‘Contrary to delegates from Germany, Italy, France, and Spain, RSPB members downplayed the risk that wind farms represent for the survival of the Red Kite in Europe.’

‘[...]’

------------------------

See also Mark Duchamp’s observations on the behaviour of RSPB and SNH in Scotland in favouring wind development over the welfare of large raptors.

---

---

‘Poorly positioned’ wind farms reduce rare birds’ breeding

The Scotsman, 26 September 2009.

‘Some of Scotland's most vulnerable bird species are in decline because of “poorly positioned” wind turbines, a new study has shown.

‘The RSPB Scotland study looked at 12 operating upland wind farms in the UK and found that numbers of several birds of high conservation concern are reduced close to the turbines.

‘Affected birds include the hen harrier and golden plover, which are protected under European law, and the curlew, which is a high-priority species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

‘The study found that the population density of breeding birds is reduced by between 15 and 53 per cent when nests are within 500 metres of a turbine.

‘[...]’

---

‘Bird deaths soar at wind farms

Associated Press, 21 September 2009.

‘For years, a huge wind farm in California's San Joaquin Valley was slaughtering thousands of birds, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls.

‘The raptors would get sliced up by the blades on the roughly 5,400 turbines in Altamont Pass, or electrocuted by the wind farm's power lines. Scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts came together in an attempt to solve the problem. The result?

‘Protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study.

‘The slaughter at Altamont Pass is being raised by avian scientists who say the drive among environmentalists to rapidly boost U.S. wind farm power 20 times could lead to massive bird losses and even extinctions.

New wind projects “have the potential of killing a lot of migratory birds,” said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy in Washington.

‘[...]’

---

‘Circling turbines spell doom for vultures ’

New Scientist, 6 September 2009

‘COULD wind farms hasten the local extinction of an endangered vulture in southern Spain?

‘Studies have so far focused on the short-term effects of wind turbines, looking at the number of bird collisions per turbine per year. Martina Carrete of the Doñana Biological Station in Seville and colleagues took a new approach. They recorded the number of Egyptian vulture carcasses with collision injuries found around 675 wind turbines in southern Spain between 2004 to 2008. They then plugged this information and data on wind turbine locations and vulture nesting sites across Spain into a computer model to predict what will happen to the entire population of Spanish birds over the next 100 years. The results suggest that if the number of wind turbines stays the same as it is today, the population will go extinct 10 years sooner than if there were no wind farms.’

---

The RSPB and Onshore wind Development

Read Dr Mike Hall's response¹ to the RSPB’s call for more onshore wind development²:

....I have been too busy writing evidence for a Public Inquiry for the past 5 weeks at Armistead ( Cumbria) to write to you with my own objection until now. For Armistead, the RSPB adopted its usual fig-leaf cop-out position in supporting ‘a habitat management plan’ proposed by the developer and so did not object. Your lack of objection is despite the existence on and around the site of Hen Harrier (14 sightings in the last 6 years including a pair this year), Merlin, Peregrine, Curlew, Lapwing (including a field adjacent to the site in the Countryside Stewardship scheme for lapwing breeding), Yellowhammer, Skylark, Twite, Reed Bunting, and many other more common birds. Quite appalling....

....One would not mind if you had any basis for your ‘carefully considered position’ but you have none. Wind farms destroy peoples lives, split communities, devastate habitats, kill bats and some birds, decimate the landscape, destroy peat, and are only built because of the subsidies they can reap. I attach an article from the Building Magazine ( April 11th 2008) about the peat on Whitelee wind farm site. Just read it and see if you don't get angry. They see peat as an engineering challenge to be destroyed and tamed. I also attach a Proof I have prepared for the Armistead Public Inquiry, and a summary of the history of CO2 savings by wind farms - which the BWEA has just HALVED to 0.43t/MWh after repeated defeats by the ASA. The BWEA action alone will have halved the savings or (put another way) doubled the number of turbines needed for any given saving. I won't go on in detail except to point out that even these supposed savings are greatly overstated. I believe in reducing CO2 emissions but unlike the RSPB realise that this is the wrong technology to even begin to address the issue. Hence the RSPB have mistakenly decided to back a technology which cannot contribute anything significant to the issue of climate change, the issue you use as your only excuse for backing this deceitful, dishonest and divisive industry. Your action is indefensible as well as being contrary to your charitable status.

---------------------------

¹ Full text of Mike Hall’s response to the RSPB.
² RSPB. ‘UK can have wind power and wildlife’, 23 March 2009.

MOORSYDE

Mike Hall’s experience of the RSPB sounds all too familiar to us. Here, having mentioned some of the many and crucial inadequacies of the ‘Moorsyde’ ES bird surveys, the RSPB required merely that it be done properly, “in future applications”.
And, “As is our practice [!], however, we have requested that the local planning authority include conditions on the planning permission requiring the developer to monitor local bird populations in the area and take appropriate action should this reveal any problems.” So that's all right then!

(See 'RSPB DUCKS OUT' below for the full story).

---

‘BIRDS V. ENVIRONMENTALISTS?

The wind industry may be green, but it's proving deadly to wildlife.

Christina Gillham, Newsweek, 13 August, 2009.

‘In Wyoming, it's the sage grouse. In Colorado, it's the lesser prairie chicken. In the Northwest, it's the Washington ground squirrel. Across the country, a growing number of species are finding themselves at the epicenter of a new battle being waged by environmentalists and developers. The issue—species being threatened by encroaching human development—is nothing new, of course. What is new? The encroachers aren't the usual suspects—say, a sprawling McMansion community developer—but the environmentally friendly wind-energy industry.

‘Wind energy has been touted as cost-effective to produce clean energy as well as jobs. That promise, along with new government subsidies, has helped wind turbines pop up on hills and fields throughout America. But not every environmentalist is happy about that development. Critics charge that wind-energy development can cause habitat fragmentation—a displacement of a species that can eventually reduce its numbers—as well as the deaths of birds and bats (a species that is especially vulnerable due to its low reproductive rates) that collide with the wind turbines' massive rotor blades. A 2007 study by the National Academy of Sciences puts the number of birds killed each year at about 20,000 to 30,000. That's a low estimate, says Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy. According to his group, turbines kill three to 11 birds per megawatt of wind energy they produce. Right now, there are about 20,000 megawatts produced in the United States, which can mean—at worst—up to 220,000 bird fatalities a year. With wind energy expected to produce 20 percent of this country's energy by 2030, output would grow tenfold and, environmentalists worry, deaths could increase at a similar rate. Whatever the number, the wind industry is hoping to avoid damaging its green reputation and is struggling with finding the right solution.

[...]’

---

‘GREEN POWER IS A BLACK HOLE FOR RARE EAGLES

Australia’s biggest wind farm in north-west Tasmania has become a “black hole” for endangered wedge-tailed eagles.

The 62-tower Woolnorth farm has killed up to 18 of the island's endangered subspecies of the wedge-tail in its giant rotor blades.

[...]’

(See full article: Sydney Morning Herald. 3 January 2008.

---

‘THE DEADLY TOLL OF WIND POWER

‘The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area is also a symbol of the wind industry's biggest stain - the killings of thousands of birds, including majestic golden eagles, by turbines. The result has been a wrenching civil war among those who are otherwise united in the struggle to save the planet and its creatures. It's been nearly a year since a controversial legal settlement was forged among wildlife groups, wind companies and Alameda County regulators. That agreement, opposed by some parties to the dispute, promised to reduce deaths of golden eagles and three other raptor species by 50 percent in three years and called for the shutdown or relocation of the 300 or so most lethal of the approximately 5,000 windmills at Altamont. But five scientists appointed by the county say the settlement and accompanying efforts to reduce bird deaths are not on track to meet the 50 percent goal ...“We are deeply distressed about the continuing bird deaths and about the companies not being on track for the 50 percent reduction, ” said Elizabeth Murdock, executive director of the Golden Gate Audubon Society, a chief plaintiff in the lawsuit that has reshaped the battle over the birds.

[...]’

(See full article: San Francisco Chronicle. 2 January 2008 and another article in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 2, 2008.)

---

THE GULL CULL

Tesco's small turbines in Barrow have proved to be pretty efficient bird killers:

'THE seagull population of Barrow has a new hazard to contend with — the whirling blades of the Tesco wind turbines.

'Pat Denny, of Cliff Lane, who runs a bird sanctuary, believes more than 40 seagulls have now been killed by the whirling wind turbine blades.

'She is nursing a permanently grounded gull which had a wing smashed by one of the turbines in the Tesco car park and is calling for the superstore group bosses to take action to save birds' lives in future.

'And she appears to have been backed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which says in a letter that although it is not against wind turbines, it believes Tesco in Barrow should be doing more to save birds.

[...]

'Rowena Langston, a senior research biologist for the RSPB, said in a letter that the bird group was not against wind turbines. [Indeed not, they are actually in the turbine business through 'RSPB Energy' and their relationship with Scottish and Southern Energy PLC].

'The purpose of putting up the turbines had been to generate energy not to kill birds but in Barrow "birds are being killed as an unfortunate outcome of this energy installation".

'She added: "Morally, knowing birds are being killed by these turbines, Tesco ought to be trying to avert further deaths."

[...]'

(See full article: North West Evening Mail, 20 July 2007).

Comment: The RSPB is good at preaching after the event. Here, they can't even be bothered to insist that proper bird surveys are carried out according to normal best practice and the scoping guidelines for the environmental assessment. If the turbines were ever built and geese were killed, no doubt they would be telling the operators that 'something must be done'.

---

RARE BIRD KILLED BY WIND TURBINE

'A rare bird has been killed after getting caught in the blade of a wind turbine in Stirlingshire.

'The red kite, one of the rarest birds in the UK, was discovered at the Braes of Doune wind farm near Stirling.

'Wind farm owner Airtricity said the death had been "unfortunate" and added that it had carried out a risk assessment on the red kite population.

'This, it said, was done in consultation with other agencies such as the RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).

[...]'

(See full article: BBC News. 10 July 2007).

---

'WIND FARM 'IS THREAT TO EAGLES'

'Golden eagles are gravely threatened by a £200m wind farm scheme proposed for the Hebridean island of Lewis, campaigners have warned.

'Three of the predatory birds a year could be killed in collisions with turbine blades - the highest mortality from any wind power project in the UK.

'The figures come from the developer's own environmental statement.

'The planned 205 megawatt (mW) Pairc wind farm in south-eastern Lewis would comprise 57 turbines.

"When people talk about displacing birds from one area to another, they are simply moving them on to another wind farm"
Martin Scott, RSPB

[...]

'"The eagle kill is pretty horrific, as is the threat of peat slide," said Catriona Campbell, of anti-wind farm group Moorland Without Turbines (MWT).

'Collision risk

'Golden eagles are on the Amber list of birds of conservation concern and are afforded the highest level of protection under UK law. There are about 60 pairs in total on Lewis.

'"[Pairc] is a significant site, not only for golden eagles but also for sea eagles," said Martin Scott, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Western Isles conservation officer.

'The site has a high density of eagles in a relatively small area. There are three to four golden eagle pairs in the vicinity of the wind farm, with one pair nesting at the heart of the site.

'Extrapolating the figure of three deaths per year over the project's 25-year lifetime arrives at a figure of 76 golden eagles killed in collisions over the course of the scheme.

[...]'

(See full article: BBC News. 3 July 2007)

---

'BIRD EXPERTS SAY TURBINES EVIDENCE WAS LACKING

'Leading ornithologists claimed yesterday that Highland planners had based their approval for a number of windfarms on inadequate environmental data.

'The warning came from RSPB Scotland which is gravely concerned that, in many cases, insufficient time is allowed to gauge flight paths and breeding patterns of birds as part of essential environmental impact assessments (EIAs).

[...]'

(See full article: This is North Scotland. 7 April 2007)

---

SMØLA'S WHITE TAILED EAGLES

News of turbine and power line kills of white tailed eagles at the Smøla wind power station in Norway is very disturbing and underlines the threat posed by wind turbine arrays and power lines, especially to raptors. After initial reports (see the Birdlife website February, 2006), it now [23 June, 2006] appears that the news is even worse than feared:

'The RSPB says nine white-tailed eagles have been killed on the Smøla islands off the Norwegian coast in 10 months, including all of last year's chicks.
Chick numbers at the species' former stronghold have plummeted since the wind farm was built, with breeding pairs at the site down from 19 to one.'

(See the full BBC News article).

---

NAVARRE'S BIRD KILLERS

It is now well documented that turbines do kill birds (and bats), though the industry continues to assert that this is a myth. Ignoring the well known mass kills of raptors at Altamont, there are recorded kills at numerous other sites around the world (a brief survey of some of the international information that is available can be seen on the Iberica 2000 website). Spain has some of the worst problems with badly sited turbines, see this gallery of images from Spain.

---

SMALL TURBINES CAN KILL

Even a single, small turbine in the middle of a town in this country can do some damage, see 'Swan 'cut to pieces' by wind turbine blades'.

---

Do have a look at the GURELUR website. Gurelur is an environmental organisation in the Navarre region of Spain.
They accuse EHN [Energía Hidroeléctrica de Navarra], the company currently scoping 3 power stations near Chillingham, Old Bewick and Edlingham, of constructing dense lines of turbines on the ridge lines of hills on major migration routes, with the inevitable consequence of large scale bird kills.

RSPB DUCKS OUT

“The RSPB insists that wind farm proposals are subject to rigorous environmental assessment before development is permitted.”

RSPB - Windfarms

“A snapshot, not a survey”

The bird surveys in the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement [ES] use a flawed methodology which was described by the local representative of the RSPB who was directly concerned in scoping consultations and site visits as “a snapshot, not a survey”. She described the EIA surveys to the writer as “flawed”. Despite this, the regional office of the RSPB refused to address these issues.

Both Northumberland County Council and Berwick Borough Council specifically stated as part of the scoping exercise that the Wintering Bird survey should comprise a number of site visits between early September and late March. In fact the four visits that made up the survey took place on 13-14 November, 19-20 December, 16-17 January and 6-7 February. The applicants state that conditions on two of these days (ie. a quarter of the survey) were 'sub-optimal' with rain and wind (ES Appendix I, 2.1.2).

The surveys do not conform to normal good practice because they lack any detail on walkover routes, times and weather conditions. The person that carried out the surveys was based in Manchester, so there is some question as to whether he carried out early and late walkovers. The marked under-recording of geese, which normally fly through the site shortly after dawn and at dusk, raises questions about times as does the lack of owl recordings in the summer survey.

Again, only four visits took place to conduct the Breeding Bird survey and at least 12 species known to be breeding on the site were missed. That is a 20% under-recording.

Under-recording of species.

Most striking is the gross under-recording of geese and swans, the two species that the RSPB expressed concerns about at the scoping stage. Neither the RSPB nor the consultants (Jacobs Babtie) attempted to consult with local bird experts. Had this happened, extensive evidence based on records kept over a number of years and personal evidence from a considerable number of people living close to the site would have shown that large flocks of greylag geese fly through the area on almost a daily basis during the winter months and that they also roost and graze in the area. Such enquiry would also have revealed that mute swans flight through the area very frequently and at low level.
The Environmental Statement records only two flocks of greylag geese, both at great height and the largest being 89 birds! Contemporary local records show flocks of many hundreds of birds flying across the site at varying heights depending on weather conditions at the time. Very large numbers (in the hundreds) of Greylag Geese were also roosting and grazing on the site (in a field next to the anemometer mast) during the period of the survey. They were also frequently to be heard crossing the area at night at low level, when they would be particularly at risk from collision with turbine blades. The Environmental statement admits that geese and swans are particularly vulnerable to turbine strikes.

“Information contained in future applications needs to be much more detailed”

The RSPB representative stated, in a response to the ES, that its statement that, “RSPB indicated ... they were content with the site being developed as a wind farm” was inaccurate. She further states that “11 of the species that are present on the site ... are on the Birds of Conservation Concern red list. They have been placed on the red list because they are considered to be of high conservation concern ... Therefore, the comments within chapter 9 ... that state that ‘The species of concervation [sic] concern recorded on the site are all fairly common and widespread species ...’ is misleading ...”. In a paragraph on wintering birds, she observes that “the bare minimum” had been done to assess the site for the presence of geese and that “information contained in future applications needs to be much more detailed” [!]. She further observes that “This [local] information indicates that geese use the area surrounding the site of the proposed wind far more heavily than the information contained in the ES indicates.”

The RSPB have stated: “With regards to the Moorsyde Windfarm proposal, we believe that the available information does not indicate that there would be a significant impact on birds in the area. Although your own records indicate that geese do utilise the area, the data was gathered from an area a few kilometres from the proposed windfarm site.” [letter from Richard Oxley, RSPB]. Having written off the detailed records of geese movements by a respected local observer living 5 km. from the site (and with a clear view over it) and the reports of people living on the edge of the site, the RSPB then go on in a letter to the Acting Chair of MAG to say that, “we did not just rely on information provided in the ES [Environmental Statement]. We also discussed the proposal and how important the site and the local area are for geese with Phil Davies [sic] (English Nature site manager at Lindisfarne) and the North Northumberland Bird Club.” [Letter from Anna Moody, RSPB, 27 May, 2005]. It should be noted that the Lindisfarne reserve is ca. 15 km from the site and that the North Northumberland Bird Club had no knowledge of the site when consulted at the scoping stage.

Misrepresentation.

The above should be compared with in a response from English Nature, in which Phil Davey is again referenced:

‘He refutes the assertion within 9.3.33 [Moorsyde Environmental Statement] (and requoted within other parts of the ES) that “the route is not on a known flyway”. He advised at the time about the use of sites he knows, he did not discount bird use of the proposed development site and identified those who may know that area in more detail.’ (Consultation response from English Nature to Development Services Manager, Berwick, 16 February 2005).

Having mentioned some of the many and crucial inadequacies of the ES bird surveys, the RSPB requires merely that it be done properly “in future applications”. And, “As is our practice” [!], “however, we have requested that the local planning authority include conditions on the planning permission requiring the developer to monitor local bird populations in the area and take appropriate action should this reveal any problems.” (letter to MAG, ibid). This is risible.

We would ask:

• What is the point of requiring bird surveys if it is not also required that they be properly conducted according to to the criteria agreed at the scoping stage?

• Should the RSPB be making decisions on the basis of unrecorded chats with third parties rather than proper evidence-based procedures; e.g. properly conducted bird surveys?

• Is the RSPB compromised by its financial interest in the construction of turbine arrays? (In 2003-4, when the ‘Moorsyde’ bird surveys were carried out, the RSPB earned “around £190,000” from its relationship with Scottish and Southern Energy PLC, through ‘RSPB Energy’, a so-called ‘green energy’ scheme. The Advertising Standards Authority found against the RSPB for some of its ‘green energy’ claims in this period.)

Postscript:

The RSPB responded to another approach from MAG in relation to the belated ‘consultation’ on the revised proposal in 2007.

Entirely against the ‘Moorsyde’ evidence, they claim: “While we strongly support the sustainable development of wind power, we work hard to scrutinise individual wind farm proposals to assess their potential impact on birds.” (Letter from the Assistant Conservation Officer, Planning. 20 February, 2007).