iberica 2000.org

[Propuestas]  [En portada] [Directorio]  [Lo + nuevo]

WINDFARMS AND BIRDS - CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT.
EDINBANE WINDFARM, IN SCOTLAND, WILL BE ERECTED IN THE VERY SPOT WHERE YOUNG EAGLES GATHER

The developers "predict" 20 golden eagles and 2 rare white-tailed sea eagles will die - the fact that killing eagles is illegal is not even broached, as if the law did not apply to them. It is the lowest possible prediction based on non-comparable statistics from California. Actually, like Altamont Pass, this windfarm will act as a black hole, a population sink where young eagles will perish before they can fly away to repopulate suitable UK habitats. SNH and the RSPB did not object in principle, and the permission was granted.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT:

AMEC''s EDINBANE WIND FARM PROJECT
Confidential Raptor Annex to the Environmental Impact Assessment
June 2002


Original Document (http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/EDINBANE/)




Geography: Edinbane is on the Isle of Skye (Western Scotland)Beinn an Tuirc is on the Kintyre Peninsula (Western Scotland)

Abbreviations:AMEC = AMEC Wind, British windfarm developer subsidiary of the multinational company AMEC WF = wind farm
WT = wind turbine
g. eagles = golden eagles (400 breeding pairs in the UK)
sea eagles = white-tailed sea eagles (30 breeding pairs in the UK)
RSPB = Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (a private charity)
SPA = Special Protection Area (important bird area - national, European, sometimes world level, as in the case of Lewis)
SNH = Scottish Natural Heritage (a government body whose mission it is to protect Scottish nature)
EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment (report written by a
consultant hired by the promoter of the project)




Critical analysis:

This Annex is part of the EIA for the Edinbane windfarm project. It is marked "confidential" by the developer AMEC with the agreement of the Scottish Authorities, who claim it contains only secret information that could be used by poachers or bird-traffickers. But this restriction does not bear scrutiny, and this unnecessary secrecy maintains the public uninformed of the real impact the wind farm will have on eagles and other protected raptors. So to protect the birds, I have blacked-out the truly sensitive material, and you will agree that the majority of this so-called secret annex is simply the uncomfortable facts of the environmental assessment, gathered together, out of sight of the honest citizens of Skye.

This annex was leaked by an employee with a guilty conscience, in view of the imminent danger for the rare birds whose lives are supposed to be protected by law. It is a duty for any citizen to denounce a crime being committed, or planned.

It is for this reason also I have decided to blow the whistle on this so-called secret document. Going to the Scottish police is out of the question, for it is the Scottish Authorities themselves that approved this document, and also the same Scottish Authorities that own half of the land to be used for this wind farm.

But it must be borne in mind that the worse that could happen to the Scottish eagles would be for me to keep the document quiet and to myself. This wind farm is already approved, and if nothing is done the rare birds will die - as they are doing wherever wind turbines are installed on their territories.

Now that AMEC has got away with it on Skye, the most beautiful of the Hebrides, the company wants Skye''''s sister, the Isle of Lewis. They are boasting that this time they will put up 300 huge windmills inside Lewis'''' Special Protection Area for birds. This designated area is protected by British and European legislations, being a habitat of national importance to 6 different endangered bird species, and of world importance to one more. So, it seems that AMEC is the unacceptable face of the wind business, and I cannot stay silent while it prepares to destroy golden eagles, sea eagles, merlins, whooper swans, geese, divers, golden plovers, and birds of many other species, many of which it is illegal to kill.

Indeed there is plenty of evidence to the effect that wind turbines are lethal to birds, especially eagles and other raptors, swans, geese and a wide variety of birds. It is estimated millions have died already around the globe - see Birds and windfarms - Critical analysis of 4 reports on bird mortality at windfarm sites.

(imagen omitida)



Above picture: 2 griffon vultures killed by turbines in Navarre, Spain. One of them has been sliced in half by the blade.



Here are my notes on the "secret'''' Annex, page by page:


Page 2

Some caveats on the recorded bird activity: points (ii) (iv) and (v) warn us that the results of the observations of bird activity are probably conservative.

Page 3

- 1st line: 55 flights of golden eagles were recorded in 60 hours of observation (this shows it is a very important area for them). Any ornithologist can tell you that seeing one eagle flight per hour is exceptional activity. As we shall see this is because the area is in constant use by many different eagles, mainly young birds. This is because it is one of very few ''''''''neutral territories'''''''' in Skye, and Skye has the most dense g. eagle nesting in Europe (there is a Special Protection Area for g. eagles just a few miles from this wind farm, at the famous Skye Cuillins),

- 2nd paragraph: 30% of the observed flights occurred within 300 meters of the proposed turbine locations (the future danger zone).

- 4th paragraph: more than 10% of daylight hours had eagles in flight. Again, any ornithologist can tell you that this is exceptional.

- 3rd last paragraph: the place is used for soaring (and interacting, as we shall see later).

- Last paragraph: only 27% to 39% of the eagles sighted were adults.

Page 4

- 2nd paragraph: the g. eagles spent 35% of their flying time at the height of the blades of the proposed WTs (20m to 100m above the ground).

- 3rd paragraph: "the area provides habitat for immature or sub-adult g. eagles that more frequently interact with other individuals when present" (like the infamous Altamont Pass WF in California, which kills 40 to 60 golden eagles a year, this is mainly a "dispersion area" for young eagles).

- 4th paragraph: g. eagles spent 90% of the time perching (it is really a "habitat").

- 5th paragraph: here we leave reality to enter into the realm of imaginative ornithology:

1) It starts with the claim that: "from behavioural observations of broad-wing raptors in general it is predicted that g. eagles will show a non preference for the immediate area c. 50m to 150m around individual wind turbines".

Comments: golden eagles are well known to fly into WTs, not avoid them. About 1,000 have died in that manner elsewhere in the world. It has been documented by ornithologists employed by the California Energy Commission and by the Government of Navarre - see "Critical Analysis of 4 reports" on: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1223

2) It continues by predicting the WF will cause "no significant habitat displacement".

Comments: if the habitat continues to attract eagles, more will come to get killed, till there are no more immature eagles left on the Isle of Skye - which portends disaster for the survival of the species in Scotland. It is the black hole effect of windfarms located in important bird habitat, the same that has killed nearly 1,000 eagles in California in the past 20 years.

It must be borne in mind that young eagles roam widely before settling down on a territory of their own, travelling hundreds of miles. Skye is a ''''''''feeder'''''''' of young eagles into the rest of Scotland, so it is not just the eagles of the Isle of Skye that are at risk.

- 3rd last paragraph: reference is again made to fanciful ''''''''studies'''''''' that defy the scientific evidence: "based on the avoidance rate of WT rotors...".

Comments: what we really have here is a doubtful statistical manipulation, one that was used previously for a WF in Argyll. It is important to understand what happened in Argyll, because the developer compares Edinbane only to the damage in Argyll, and never gives an absolute number for the damage at Edinbane. In particular, there is a wind farm in Argyll at Beinn an Tuirc, which was put through planning by the same developer, AMEC, and it is in a golden eagle nesting range. In that EIA, creative ornithology was also applied, which turned damning statistics from Altamont Pass into a ''''good news story'''' for AMEC''''s wind business.

We shall see how, but first some background information on Altamont, the largest WF in the world with 5,400 mostly old model turbines. This Californian WF kills 40 to 60 golden eagles a year. This caused quite a shock when it was realized back in the 1990´s, but the wind industry deflected the flak with a 5 year whitewash field study (see section 3 of: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1223 ). Licences to operate were renewed, but this decision is currently being appealed by a conservation organization - see: Altamont lawsuit (http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/ALTAMONT/Altamont_lawsuit.pdf)

Imaginatively, promoters are using these alarming bird-kills statistics to "predict" that windfarms may be safely installed on eagle territories in Scotland, through a manipulation that is roughly the following:

- 7500 turbines kill 27 g. eagles yearly - Comments: they take the figure 27, which is the lowest Altamont estimate ever ventured, and the highest number of turbines Altamont ever had (now we are down to about 5,400 through replacement by newer, bigger, and deadlier* turbines). * (Thelander et al. 2000, available here: Thelander (http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/ALTAMONT/Altamont_Thelander_report.pdf)

So the figure obtained is already minimized by choosing questionable raw data.

- Then they do the numbers: 27/7500 = 0.0036 eagle per turbine, yearly.

- in the next step they reduce the figure further through the introduction of a factor, 0.447, the explanation of which I did not find. Thus, according to this manipulation, 0.0036 eagled per turbine per year becomes: 0.00161 per turbine year (0.0036 x 0.447).

- applying this very low fraction to Beinn an Tuirc, which has 50 wind turbines, the creative ornithologists obtain: 0.0016 x 50 turbines = 0.08 predicted collision per year - or 1 collision every 12 years.

- they then further reduce the predicted risk by saying: for the pair this amounts to one chance in 24 years.

Comments: 1) if the 0.447 factor applied is questionable, the two eagles would have one chance in 12 years to be destroyed (if we are to believe the validity of using such statistics), leaving room for more eagles to occupy the territory and be killed as well. 2) apart from manipulating statistics in a questionable way with an obvious goal in mind, the authors are comparing mostly old model turbines with larger, more deadly* machines that sweep much larger areas. In addition, the eagle concentration is greater at Edinbane, where the birds use for soaring the very ridge where the WTs will be erected. But the developers don''''t mind comparing apples with oranges, as long as the results minimize the "predicted" eagle mortality to "acceptable levels".
* (Thelander et al. 2000)

In any event, the facts are here to prove their "predictions" wrong: the 2 eagles that got killed in Australia did not wait 24 years, not even 12: the turbine blades smashed them in a matter of months after the windfarm became operational. And in Germany, 8 sea eagles lost their lives already, in the first years of the country''''s windfarm program.

To use an analogy, the consultant is saying something like this: we will turn your peaceful cul-de-sac street into an all-seasons racetrack with cars speeding at up to 292 km/h (this is the top speed of the WT blades, at the tip*). But it''''s OK, because based upon statistics from Indianapolis we estimate that you and your wife will have only one chance in 24 years to get killed by a car (one in 12 years for each of you as an individual).
* Birds and windfarms – Bird and Bat Behavior at windfarm sites.

The comparison is not irrelevant, for it is illegal to kill an eagle: ordinary people go to jail for this, when caught. But SNH and the RSPB do not object in principle to WTs being placed where eagles fly, even though the consultant''''s statistics predict their death. The cumulative effect of well over two hundred windfarms will be devastating on the UK population of supposedly protected eagles, merlins, hen harriers, red kites, ospreys, peregrine falcons, capercaillie, golden plovers, dunlins, red throated divers, black grouse etc.

It does not seem to matter that 40 to 60 eagles continue to be killed every year by WTs in California, that over 500 griffon vultures die yearly in Spain, that 6800 songbirds are killed yearly at San Gorgonio, California ( McGracy et al. 1996), that bodies of eagles have been found in Germany, Spain and Australia, that bodies of red kites have been found in Germany and the UK, etc. (the list is long - see references given above).


Such doubtful statistical reasoning, out of line with reality, was effectively used to obtain the planning permission for building a WF on the core range of a breeding pair of g. eagles at Beinn an Tuirc. And it was also used to push through the approval of Edinbane, in the present Annex, under the creative words "based on the avoidance rate of WT rotors".

- Then the paragraph continues with this: "the current proposal is not predicted to present a collision risk of an order of magnitude greater than that predicted for the existing wind farms in golden eagle territories in Argyll."

Here we have the AMEC consultant''''s sophistry at its height. The Beinn an Tuirc WF was authorized on the understanding that, if the breeding pair of g. eagles was destroyed by the WTs, it would have a "moderate effect" on the total g. eagle population of the UK, which numbers c. 400 pairs (yet, it is illegal to kill eagles, but this did not appear to trouble the Council). Specifically, it was noted that one pair represents only 0.25% of the 400. But if more WFs are built on eagle territories, such as Edinbane, it is clear that we are making a mockery of the 0,25% exception: the effect is no longer "moderate".

Edinbane will kill more eagles than Beinn an Tuirc, for the Edinbane area is used by more of these birds than just one pair. And precisely what does it mean, this phrase "not ... of an order of magnitude greater than"? Sadly, it is AMEC''''s jargon for: "not ... more than ten times worse than" (scientifically, one "order of magnitude" means "ten times".)

So why not just say that, in plain language? If two eagles will be destroyed at Beinn an Tuirc, THEN IT IS 20 EAGLES THAT WILL BE KILLED AT EDINBANE, OR 40 IF THE 0,447 FACTOR IS INVALID, AND EVEN MORE IF WE BASE OURSELVES ON HARD EVIDENCE FROM AROUND THE WORLD, NOT ON QUESTIONABLE STATISTICAL MANIPULATION.

(imagen omitida)



Above picture: red kite sliced in half by a wind turbine in germany. Curtesy of Tobias Dürr.

Question: how legal (and ethical) is it to obtain a license to kill 2 golden eagles on the basis that it will only have a "moderate effect" on the overall population level, and then use it as a precedent for allowing the killing of 20 (or more) of them at another site?

Also notice there is no consideration of the total cumulative impact, no talk of adding the Beinn an Tuirc predicted fatalities to those of Edinbane, Beinn Ghlas and Pentland Road, not to mention the other wind farms in Argyll and the numerous ones in the pipeline targeting other eagle territories in Scotland: Ardnamurchan, the Isle of Skye, Lewis, Mull and other islands, Glen Moriston, Strath Brora, Farr, and others, all of which are important eagle habitats, including those of the rare sea eagle.

This is creative ecology is at its peak: the Beinn an Tuirc blueprint is being used to invade many more eagles territories in Scotland, but each one is considered in isolation, and no care is taken of the total effect. It evidences a surprising disregard for the basic principle of conservation - the cumulative impact - on the part of the 3 actors in this ecological tragedy: the promoter''''s consultant, SNH, and the RSPB.


Now the confidential document comes to the sea eagles:


- Second last paragraph: 12 flights of white-tailed sea eagles were recorded during the same 60 hours of observation (cumulatively with the golden eagles: 67 eagle flights in 60 hours).

- Last paragraph: 40% of them within 300m of the proposed WTs (future danger zone)


Page 5

- Paragraph 6: white-tailed sea eagles seem to mostly come to Edinbane for soaring.

- Paragraph 8: there were 3 adults, 1 immature, 3 undetermined.

- Paragraph 9: they flew 48% of the time at a height of 20 to 100m above ground, which is the altitude swept by the turbines.

- Third last paragraph: it is also a dispersion area for sea eagles (habitat for immature/non-breeding birds).

- Last paragraph: Argyll is again used as a precedent, which is unacceptable. We are indirectly told that it should be less than one sea eagle killed every 12 years. It is worse still in this case, where we are dealing with a different species altogether, a red-listed one of which there are only 30 pairs in the UK, and which was brought back from extinction at great cost and effort.


Page 6

- Paragraph 1. Here the authors give us a good idea of the extent, and shamelessness, of their sophistry: "approximately 50% of their flight activity.... took place at a range of heights above ground level out with the proposed swept area of the wind turbine rotors. The project is therefore not predicted to result in a significant decline in the non-breeding population...... via direct loss of individuals".

This whole argument is a nonsense. What about the 50% of the flight activity that is WITHIN the swept area? This reasoning is tantamount to saying: there is no problem with children crossing the dangerous highway in front of the school because they spend 50 % of the time on the side-walk!


This is unscientific reasoning that seems to fit the developer''''s aim better than the real evidence. In any case, the developer just said, in his roundabout way, "less than one sea eagle every 12 years". But there are only 30 pairs in the UK, with perhaps a similar number of non-breeders. So two dead sea eagles are a significant loss, in the breeding population, in the non-breeding population, and in the whole population, any way and every way: they represent 3% of the whole UK population.

Again, the reality may be worse than the developer''''s prediction. The Isle of Skye "exports" young sea eagles to populate whatever territories they will find suitable in the rest of the UK. Destroying them in their original dispersion area will have deep implications for the future of the species in Europe, particularly as Norway appears to be doing the same mistake (island of Smola) and as sea eagles are presently being destroyed by windfarms in Germany. To make things worse, the Scottish Executive wants to do likewise on other Scottish territories where sea eagles are to be found (other Scottish islands, Argyll, etc.).

In the circumstances, it is remarkable that neither the SNH nor the RSPB did object in principle to such a badly sited WF project. Only points of detail were raised by the RSPB, and planning permission was granted.
See the two RSPB letters on this: RSPB letters (http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/EDINBANE/)


REST OF THE DOCUMENT:

Edinbane is also habitat to other protected species: hen harrier, merlin, golden plover (this one not being a raptor, it is not discussed in the Annex), short-eared owl, and peregrine falcon.

I have written evidence that the observations made by the consultant on the activity of some of these species fall short of reality.

But bringing these birds into focus would only make this document longer, and I am sure you will agree that it is long enough as it is.


(imagen omitida)



Above: the vulture says: "i´ts OK, folks, it´s for eco-friendly energy" - the workers say: "hurry up, lest GURELUR finds out" - Gurelur is the Navarre association which denounced the scandal.

CONCLUSION:

Even without analysing the risk to other protected species present at Edinbane, and even if we only consider the minimized predictions presented by AMEC concerning the two species of eagles, it is clear that this wind farm should never have been approved. And the picture becomes worse if we look at the cumulative effect with other Scottish windfarms, not to speak of other European ill-sited installations.

But it is not too late to save the sea eagles, the g. eagles and their habitat on this most beautiful of the Scottish islands. Killing eagles is a crime punishable with prison terms, and the scale of the contemplated eagle mortality will have obvious repercussions on the population levels in the UK and in Europe.

A reversal of this illegal decision is therefore warranted.

March 14th, 2004

Mark Duchamp
Save-the-eagles@madrid.com
The negative effects of windfarms: links to papers published by Mark Duchamp

>> Autor: Mark Duchamp (16/03/2004)
>> Fuente: Mark Duchamp


[Propuestas]  [En portada] [Directorio]  [Lo + nuevo]

(C)2001. Centro de Investigaciones y Promoción de Iniciativas para Conocer y Proteger la Naturaleza.
Telfs. Información. 653 378 661 - 693 643 736 - correo@iberica2000.org