.: Ibérica 2000 :.

iberica

2000.org

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

500 WINDFARM PROJECTS THREATEN THE SURVIVAL OF THE SCOTTISH EAGLES - OPEN LETTER TO SNH.
THE SCOTTISH AUTHORITIES FAIL TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.

Over 25 years, the Edinbane project alone may kill 150 golden eagles, of which there are only 434 breeding pairs in Scotland. Rare white-tailed sea eagles are also on the menu (only 33 pairs). Minimized mortality predictions (15 golden eagles) presented by the developer are not credible - in Tasmania, a windfarm supposed to kill no more than 1 eagle per year has killed 3 of them in 3 months.

(imagen omitida)

White-tailed sea eagle killed by a windfarm in Norway - courtesy of the Norwegian newspaper Sunnmørsposten.
9 were killed in 10 months at the Smola island windfarm

OPEN LETTER TO SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE*

* (a government agency)

........................................................................................................August 24, 2006

Dear Mr Thomson,

Thank you for your letter of August 16th replying to my email.

Having considered the position of SNH on the points raised, I think your continued absence of consideration for the precautionary principle will have severe consequences for Scotland´s eagle population.

BEINN GHLAS (B.G.) AND BEINN AN TUIRC (B.&T.) WINDFARMS:

It is incorrect to interpret the findings as if the resident eagles had been “displaced” by the B.G. turbines when there is not the slightest bit of evidence to prove it. All we know is that they have disappeared, and the same may be said of the adult male that may no longer be seen at B.& T.. The unsuccessful search that was conducted to find the body of that particular eagle cannot be held as proof that the bird was not killed, given the features of the terrain, the forestry, the scavengers, and the fact that a victim may be able to fly some distance before falling to the ground (or on trees). To give just one example: the body may be held up in forestry, out of reach and out of sight. As for the B.G. eagles, no searches were conducted at all, so it is clear that your “displacement” claim is pure speculation.

What is more, there is a large body of evidence (circa 2,500 eagle deaths at windfarms around the world) that proves your interpretation to be unlikely. In the light of these numerous deadly collisions, the precautionary principle should have guided your hand, establishing a presumption that the eagles who disappeared from B.G. and B. & T. have been killed by the turbine blades.

All of this clearly shows that SNH has no grounds for considering, as you state in your letter: “In general, therefore, we would expect the effect of a windfarm to be to displace any resident eagles.”

THE FATE OF THE SCOTTISH GOLDEN EAGLE POPULATION:

Whitfield et al. (2006) - “A conservation framework for the golden eagle in Scotland” - showed that this population is in “demographic difficulty”, meaning that any additional mortality will tip it into decline*. The same study suggests that immigrant eagles from the Isle of Skye help make up for an overall reproduction deficit on the mainland**. Yet you fail to acknowledge these facts, and are agreeable to the Edinbane windfarm project that may kill 15 golden eagles on Skye (if we are to believe a computer-modelled prediction presented by the developer).

You claim that 15 casualties will not affect the viability of the GE population on the island, but you fail to consider the mainland birds, which need the influx of immigrants from Skye and the rest of the Hebrides to remain sustainable (Whitfield et al. 2006 - "A conservation framework…").

*GOLDEN EAGLE EXTIRPATION (http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/BIRD_MORTALITY/Golden_eagle_extirpation_Scotland.doc)

** Whitfield et al. (2006) - “A conservation framework for the golden eagle in Scotland” - examine the status of the species in 16 regions (Natural Heritage Zones) of Scotland: "The Western Highlands (zone 8) failed both Level 2a and 2b tests as both mean and 2003 fledging rates were very low. Since there was little evidence of a decline across the three censuses (Table 1 and 51 pairs in 1982), this suggested that recruitment in this NHZ must be supplemented by immigrants from other NHZ... The most likely source of immigrants was the neighbouring NHZ 6 (Western Seaboard)." [NHZ 6 is the Isle of Skye and its small neighbouring islands].

(imagen omitida)

Golden eagle struck by a turbine blade at the Altamont Pass windfarm, California - courtesy of Dr. Smallwood

THE COLLISION MODEL AND THE UNRELIABILITY OF ITS PREDICTIONS:

You also fail to apply the precautionary principle as you rely on a modelling exercise conducted by a special interest consultant. We know that the input data (bird speed, flight height, avoidance factor etc.) include unusually high margins of error that could easily change the 15 predicted deaths to 150. The British Trust for Ornithology published a noteworthy critique of the model, pointing to a large margin of uncertainty in the resulting predictions.

In another study (Mike Madders et al., 2006 – “Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts” ) we read this critique: “However, there are practical problems associated with gathering the data required to run the model and numerous assumptions must be made concerning bird behaviour. This can lead to deficiencies in the input parameters which potentially have a large effect on the model outputs.
... In addition, the model outputs are usually adjusted to take account of turbine avoidance by birds and this aspect of birds´behaviour is poorly understood.”

SNH is obviously not paying attention to these precautionary warnings from the experts.

THE LACK OF A SCOTLAND-WIDE CUMULATIVE STUDY:

It is an aberration to consider windfarm applications on a case-by-case basis when it is known that there are 500 projects in the pipeline for Scotland (figure disclosed by Whitfield et al. 2006: “Spatial association as an indicator of the potential for future interactions between wind energy developments and golden eagles in Scotland”. )

How many of these windfarms will affect the eagle population? How can you not oppose the likely killing of 15 golden eagles (or a larger number – see above) if you don’t know how many more may be killed by the numerous other windfarms? And how can you claim that the killing of 15 golden eagles is acceptable, when their national population is already in “demographic difficulty” (Whitfield et al. 2006 - "A conservation framework…)?

And what about the white-tailed sea eagles, which only number 33 breeding pairs? Most of them live in the Hebrides, where a number of large windfarms have been planned. Why have you not assessed the cumulative impact? May I remind you that 9 eagles of that species have been killed in only 10 months, by a single windfarm in Norway.

(imagen omitida)

Short-toed eagle killed by a windfarm in Aragon, Spain - courtesy of http://blog.sekano.org/

CONCLUSION:

It is no secret that there are at present too many windfarm applications in the Scottish “pipeline”, and that some will have to be rejected (Whitfield et al. 2006: “Spatial association…" - and other sources).
In the circumstances, agreeing to an ill-sited and severely damaging project such as Edinbane would be reckless.

Sincerely

Mark Duchamp

MORE INFORMATION, PICTURES ETC:
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp
or
http://mark-duchamp.spaces.live.com/
.
.
.

>> Autor: Mark Duchamp (25/08/2006)
>> Fuente: Mark Duchamp

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