Current Biology, Volume 18, Issue 16, 26 August 2008, Pages R695-R696

Erin F. Baerwald, Genevieve H. D’Amours, Brandon J. Klug, and Robert M.R. Barclay

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada T2N 1N4

WHEREAS, wind turbines were once assumed to have no adverse environmental impacts, however, onshore wind-energy facilities have killed thousands of bats and birds (Government Accountability Office 2003; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and,

WHEREAS, onshore wind-turbine construction and associated infrastructure have pronounced effects on wildlife habitat (Government Accountability Office 2005; Arnett et al. 2007), including increased habitat loss and fragmentation and subsequent loss of species from areas around developments, and alteration of dispersal or migration corridors; and,

WHEREAS, many onshore and offshore wind-energy facilities are being planned and constructed without adequately considering the potential or actual effects on wildlife (Barclay et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown 2007; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and

WHEREAS, fatalities of bats and other wildlife at existing onshore wind-energy facilities have raised concern that wind turbines may have population-level impacts on these species (Kunz et al. 2007b; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, researchers independent of the wind industry have been unable to adequately evaluate the magnitude of impacts because of limited access to wind-energy facilities, but preliminary results indicate that species such as migratory tree bats already may be experiencing fatality rates that will lead to population declines (Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of wind-energy development on wildlife likely will increase as new facilities are constructed (Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007); and,

WHEREAS, proposed and existing wind-energy projects have the potential to severely impact species that cross state and national borders, particularly continental migrants, such that no single state or regional agency can adequately analyze or assess the cumulative impacts of these projects on wildlife (National Research Council 2007; Arnett et al. 2008); and,

WHEREAS, scientific guidance and leadership are required before negative effects on wildlife become severe and irreversible (Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Society of Mammalogists, meeting at their 88th Annual Meeting, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 21-25 June 2008, recommends the following steps be implemented to provide appropriate protection for our valuable wildlife resources:

(a) Commitments to comprehensive environmental assessments that include multi-year pre- and multi-year post-construction studies be made prior to selection and construction of sites for wind energy facilities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003; Government Accountability Office 2005; National Research Council 2007).

(b) Environmental assessments by professional biologists or organizations with no conflict of interest in any aspect of financing construction or operation of wind energy facilities (Kunz et al. 2007a; National Research Council 2007).

(c) Independent external review of evaluations and reports before siting of wind energy facilities to insure the techniques and interpretation of results are appropriate, adequate, scientifically rigorous, and in the public domain Kunz et al. 2007a; Arnett et al 2008).

(d) Siting and placement of turbines and their associated infrastructure to avoid fragmenting large contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (Arnett et al. 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(e) Siting and placement that avoids bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity colonies, or flight paths between colonies and feeding areas (Arnett et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown, 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(f) Siting and placement to avoid local pathways of bat or bird migration or areas where these species are highly concentrated (Arnett et al 2007; National Research Council 2007).

(g) Siting and placement that avoids documented locations of any species of wildlife protected under State or Federal authority, that could be affected adversely (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003; Arnett et al. 2007).

(h) Increased research on effects of onshore and offshore wind-energy facilities to assess the nature and extent of risks to wildlife (Arnett et al. 2007, 2008; Kunz et al. 2007a, 2007b). (i) Systematic investigation of effectiveness of operational procedures, such as feathering of blades or voluntary temporary shutdowns that might reduce impacts of wind turbines on wildlife (Barclay et al. 2007; Cryan and Brown 2007; Horn et al. 2008; Kunz et al 2007a; National Research Council 2007.

(j) Implementation of scientific peer-review of all aspects of wind-energy development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003; Government Accountability Office 2005; Kunz et al. 2007b; National Research Council 2007).

References

Arnett, E. B., D. B. Inkley, D. H. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, S. Manes, A. M. Manville, J. R. Mason, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Arnett, E.B., K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fielder, T.H. Henry, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns,

R.R. Kolford, T. Nicholson, T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersly. 2008. Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61-78. Barclay, R.M.R., E.F. Bearwald, and J.C. Gruver. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 381-387.

Cryan, P.M., and A.C. Brown. 2007. Migration of bats past remote island offers clues to the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation, 139: 1-11.

Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters. 2005. Wind Power, Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. GAO-05-906. Washington D. C., 64 pp. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-906

Horn, J. W. E. B. Arnett and T. H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 123-132. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/horn_et_al_2008.pdf

Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007a. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2449-4486. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wild-71-0845.pdf

Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers of Ecology and Environment, 5: 315-324. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/kunzbatswind.pdf

National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.eswr.com/latest/307/nrcwind.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Memorandum to Regional Directors, Regions 1-7 on Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines, 13 May 2003, 57 pp. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.pdf

Download “ASM Resolution: Effects of Wind-Energy Facilities on Bats and Other Wildlife”

Worldwide, development of wind energy is projected to increase substantially in the next decade, and installed wind energy capacity increased 27% in 2006 and 45% in 2007 in the U.S. alone. While we recognize issues concerning climate change, the long-term environmental impacts from past and continued use of fossil fuels, and the need to develop clean sources of renewable energy, the fact that large numbers of bats are being killed by wind turbines cannot be ignored. There are likely to be biologically significant cumulative impacts for some species, especially migratory tree-roosting bats, unless solutions are found.

It is our collective opinion that the state of our knowledge of factors associated with bat fatalities at wind facilities is unsatisfactory and that there is a dearth of reliable information upon which to base policy and management decisions. We assert that more consistent, longer-term pre- and post-construction studies are needed to further elucidate patterns of bat fatality and to test ideas about possible solutions and efficacy of mitigation measures. We support the use of standardized protocols to improve consistency of data collection and comparability among studies. We also are concerned that the seriousness of the effect on bats has not been adequately articulated to managers, decision makers, and the public.

Based on the current state of the situation, we support:

• Multi-year monitoring and hypothesis-based research in regions and at sites with the highest potential for adverse environmental impacts on bats;
• Establishing standards for conducting site-specific, scientifically sound, and consistent pre- and post-construction evaluations, using comparable methods as much as is feasible;
• Development and implementation of consistent guidelines for siting, monitoring and mitigation strategies among states, provinces, and agencies that would assist developers with compliance with relevant laws and regulations;
• Conducting experiments at wind facilities in different regions to test mitigation treatments, evaluate their effect on reducing bat fatalities, and determine the economic costs of undertaking them;
• Development of methods to assess the relationship between bat abundance and fatality risks at local and regional scales;
• Avoiding wind energy development at sites proposed by developers that are identified as high-risk by bat experts using the best science available; criteria and standards for high-risk sites will need to be established for different groups of bats and any habitats deemed to be critically important to the conservation of bats on a state, provincial, or regional basis;
• Educating the public and decision-makers regarding the full range of trade-offs and benefits regarding all forms of energy, including wind energy; impacts on bats and other wildlife must be integrated into decision-making consultations;
• Coordinating efforts to ensure transparency and data sharing among stakeholders.

Download “Preliminary Evaluation on the Use of Dogs to Recover Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities”

Download “Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America”

Pour un sommaire français, voir à Fédération Environnement Durable (cliquer).

English summary by Mark Duchamp:

A five-year monitoring report of 8 wind turbines near the coast in Vendée, France, by the French ornithological society LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux), discloses the following:

bird mortality: 5.7 to 33.8 per turbine/year, depending upon the year and the estimation method. It is estimated that 20% were migrating birds.

bat mortality: 6.0 to 26.7 per turbine/year, depending upon the year and the estimation method. It is thought that many of them were migrating. The bats showed no external injury. But the autopsies revealed that their internal organs had been destroyed, possibly as a result of high air pressure created by the blades. This is what we learn from the abstract and from an enclosing email from FED, which reports the words of a researcher 4 years ago at an ornithology meeting in the region (body imploded, internal organs destroyed):

“Il y a 4 ans, un chercheur aux journées internationales de l’avifaune à Menigoute dans les Deux Sevres avait dit: ‘lorsque l’on dissèquent ces cadavres, on dirait qu’ils ont implosés, l’aspect exterieur est intact et ce sont les organes internes qui ont été détruits’.”

Télécharger/Download “Evaluation de l’impact du parc e?olien de Bouin (Vende?e) sur l’avifaune et les chauves-souris”

This letter provides each of you with notice that the failure of each individual agency to reinitiate consultation violates the substantive requirements of sections 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2), and 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1)(2) & (d).

Litigation can be avoided if the agencies re-initiate consultation so that each biological opinion includes an analysis of the threat of white-nose syndrome in conjunction with ongoing management activities. …

Download “Sixty-Day Notice Letter of Intent to Sue for Violations of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act”

The attached brochure is provided as a counterpoint to the Virginia State Wind Symposium at James Madison University on June 18th and 19th [2008].

This symposium is sponsored by the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC), a state and federally funded organization that purports to promote balanced development of wind generated electricity in Virginia. The symposium, however, is remarkably unbalanced.

Although concerns have been widely raised about the overstated benefits and understated costs of industrial-scale wind development on our region’s mountain ridges, it is apparent that these concerns will not be fairly addressed at the VWEC symposium.

Those sessions of the symposium that might provide an opportunity for a balanced treatment of the issues are dominated by ardent wind energy advocates, entrepreneurs, and lobbyists. The agenda includes no one to present a countering viewpoint.

Six of the speakers and session moderators are on record supporting the controversial Highland New Wind Project either before the State Corporation Commission or in the media. These include Jonathan Miles, Deborah Jacobsen, Don Giecek, Mitch King, John Flora, and Frank Maisano.

Remarkably, the only speaker addressing the wildlife impacts of wind energy development is John Flora, the attorney and spokesman for the proposed Highland project. Mr. Flora has been dismissive of wildlife impacts – despite concerns expressed by state agency biologists that the project presents unacceptable risks to wildlife and may result in the highest mortality of birds and bats among wind projects in the eastern United States.

It seems that the purpose of the symposium is to discount legitimate concerns about wind development on Virginia’s mountain ridges, to promote unrealistic expectations for wind energy, and to foster a political climate that will favor additional mandates and incentives for the wind industry – while reducing environmental review requirements.

It is disappointing that state government and a state university have chosen to support and participate in this biased treatment of an increasingly important issue.

VaWind.org

Contacts: Rick Webb (540) 468-2881, rwebb@vawind.org – Dan Boone (301) 464-5199, dboone@vawind.org

Industrial Wind Power in the Mountains of Virginia: Overstated Benefits and Understated Costs

Aunque la propuesta para construir 25 turbinas de viento en la zona de Guayanilla puede parecer acertada a primera vista, hay que estudiarla con cuidado antes de darle paso.

Los molinos propuestos por Windmar harían necesario el desmonte de 125 cuerdas de Bosque Seco Tropical, lo que implicaría que 500,000 árboles dejarían de prestar su servicio.

En nuestro país a diario vemos las consecuencias de tomar decisiones a la ligera, sin el análisis ponderado y preciso de todos los ángulos de cada situación. Vemos también la improvisación constante. Y es que, como decía mi papá, “pensar da trabajo” y buscamos el camino fácil.

A veces se hacen las cosas al revés. Se comienza con la propuesta de un proyecto. Suena bien de primera instancia, así que se consigue el financiamiento de la banca y el apoyo de agencias gubernamentales.

Finalmente es que se entra en el examen riguroso de las posibles consecuencias del mismo.

De esta forma todos perdemos: el desarrollista porque invierte dinero en vano, y recibe críticas y ataques con o sin justificación; la banca, ya que tiene que asumir los costos en las ocasiones en que el proponente se va a la quiebra; los técnicos de las agencias, pues, cuando por fin les toca evaluar los proyectos, ya sus supervisores tienen opiniones preconcebidas de los mismos; y sobre todo, nosotros, el pueblo. Nos quedamos con proyectos inútiles luego de haberse desperdiciado el dinero de nuestras contribuciones y valiosos recursos naturales, culturales o históricos. Luego asoman las protestas, los casos en los tribunales, el arrepentimiento, y frecuentemente terminamos con proyectos que se convierten en elefantes blancos que desde un principio no tuvieron razón de ser.

En la actualidad existe una propuesta de la compañía Windmar Renewable Energy System para la construcción de 25 turbinas de viento de 400 pies de altura en los sectores Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro y Punta Verraco, en el municipio de Guayanilla. Con este plan se pretende generar y vender electricidad a la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica. Este proyecto, que no cumple con la zonificación vigente y sin previo estudio, fue anunciado por el Gobernador en su Mensaje de Estado.

La propuesta, de entrada, podría parecer una iniciativa en la dirección correcta. La dura realidad del cambio climático ha llevado a científicos de todo el mundo a enfrascarse en investigaciones de diversos tipos, buscando formas de reducir las emisiones de carbono.

La energía eólica (que deriva del viento) es una de las alternativas que se estudian y que, de hecho, ya se utiliza en algunos lugares del mundo.

Como especialista y consultora en manejo ambiental, podría caer en la trampa de entusiasmarme a la ligera con un proyecto de este tipo. La urgencia del calentamiento global puede llevarnos a tomar decisiones precipitadas. A pesar de eso, entiendo que esta propuesta, como cualquier otra de esa magnitud, aunque pueda parecer ser amigable al ambiente, debe someterse a un proceso cuidadoso de estudio antes de llegar a cualquier tipo de decisión.

Veamos los hechos. Según se expone en la Resolución del Senado 3170, el sector residencial en Puerto Rico ahorró el año pasado 3% en su factura de luz. Esto evitó que se emitieran gases de invernadero equivalentes a 10 fincas eólicas como la que se está proponiendo en Guayanilla. Ese mismo 3%, o sea, un mero ahorro de $4 en su factura de luz, equivale a 7,000 cuerdas de terreno que habría que destinar a desarrollo eólico.

Por otro lado, el proyecto propuesto representaría un ahorro en emisiones equivalente al uso de 55,000 a 110,000 bombillas. Este mismo efecto se lograría al cambiar las bombillas luminarias por fluorescentes en unos 12,000 a 24,000 hogares del país, lo cual podría costar entre $80,000 a $165,000. O sea, $60 millones que cuesta el proyecto eólico versus $165,000 sin ningún impacto a zonas de altísimo valor ecológico, ni el uso de grandes predios de terreno, un recurso tan escaso en Puerto Rico.

Los molinos propuestos por Windmar harían necesario el desmonte de 125 cuerdas de Bosque Seco Tropical. Esto implicaría que 500,000 árboles dejarían de prestar su servicio, según un estudio de los doctores Peter G. Murphy y Ariel E. Lugo.

Esto levanta una bandera de alerta. Según el portavoz de la Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Luis Silvestre, “sin los debidos permisos y sin una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental, el proponente Víctor González construyó varios kilómetros de camino de 65 pies de ancho y terraplenes, y agrandó veredas, destruyendo miles de árboles y plantas característicos de los bosques xerofíticos, impactando un humedal y una quebrada intermitente, causando daños irreparables”.

Como si esto no fuera suficiente para provocar inquietud, en las vistas públicas celebradas con relación al proyecto, varios científicos contratados por el proponente han puesto en duda el valor ecológico del Bosque Seco de Guánica. Esta importante área natural está reconocida como Reserva de la Biosfera por la Organización de Ciencia, Educación y Cultura de las Naciones Unidas (Unesco). La designación destaca la importancia internacional del Bosque de Guánica y su estado único en la región del Caribe.

No creo que sea casualidad que estos comentarios se den luego de que científicos locales hayan planteado que el proyecto tendría un efecto adverso a la avifauna puertorriqueña y a áreas situadas, precisamente, en el Bosque Seco de Guánica. Amén de que el geógrafo físico Brilton Rodríguez haya señalado que las propuestas excavaciones para construir las turbinas de los molinos y los caminos ocasionarían la destrucción de cuevas y de los arcos marinos en el Bosque. O de que se haya expuesto que podría impactar el hábitat del guabairo (Caprimulgus noctitherus), un ave endémica en peligro de extinción, y afectar al pelícano pardo, la palometa y a la población de murciélagos del sistema de Cuevas El Convento. Además, han planteado que podría alterarse toda una zona de características muy particulares, ya que alrededor de Punta Ventana convergen un extenso manglar, un área de levantamientos tectónicos y espacios con residuos arqueológicos.

La explicación más clara sobre el asunto que nos concierne la ofreció el doctor Ariel Lugo, director del Instituto de Dasonomía Tropical del Servicio Forestal Federal, en su comparecencia en las vistas públicas sobre el proyecto. Lugo presentó diez asuntos ambientales que recomienda se consideren al momento de decidir la ubicación del Parque Eólico. Los cito a continuación:

1. La situación precaria de los bosques secos en Puerto Rico.

2. La abundancia de aves migratorias.

3. La alta concentración de biodiversidad en la región.

4. El alto valor del Bosque Enano.

5. El alto valor de Punta Ventana.

6. La ubicación del proyecto relativo al Bosque de Guánica.

Apoyamos las alternativas de energía renovable en Puerto Rico. Sin embargo, nuestra posición es que estas deben considerarse luego de una amplia reflexión sobre todos los aspectos ecológicos del lugar y áreas contiguas. La utilización de fuentes de energía renovable no debe ser justificación para demoler políticas públicas ni estropear las medidas para la protección de los bosques que rinden beneficios importantísimos e insustituibles. Proyectos de energía eólica son recomendables en terrenos distantes a la colindancia de reservas forestales y fuera de áreas que actualmente están en la necesidad de protegerse como áreas de amortiguamiento para prevenir impactos negativos causados por el ser humano. Deben ubicarse fuera de corredores importantes de aves migratorias y locales.

7. La velocidad baja del viento en la propiedad.

Los vientos en Punta Verraco son de 8 millas por segundo y de acuerdo con la DIA-P eso permite operar las turbinas a un 40 por ciento o menos de capacidad durante la época de más viento y a una capacidad de 17 por ciento o menos durante la época con poco viento. Para que las turbinas funcionen a la capacidad de diseño, se requeriría una velocidad de viento de 20 millas por segundo (datos obtenidos de las especificaciones de las turbinas en un anejo de la DIA-P). Existen otras áreas en Puerto Rico con mayor velocidad del viento y menores conflictos ecológicos.

8. Los peligros al Bosque de Guánica por la operación de las turbinas.

9. La importancia relativa de la diversificación de las fuentes de energía vs. el lugar donde ubican las instalaciones.

10. La necesidad de una zona de amortiguamiento alrededor del Bosque de Guánica.

Nos alarma que la prisa, el afán por el llamado desarrollo económico y la creación de empleos o la mismísima seriedad del cambio climático confundan nuestro entendimiento y nos induzca a error a la hora de tomar decisiones. Pensemos bien las cosas, aunque eso nos dé trabajo.

Por Marian González / mariannatural@gmail.com

Are they giants or are they mills?

Although the proposal to erect 25 wind turbines in the Guayanilla area may appear to be the right move at first glance, it has to be carefully studied before giving it the go-ahead.

The mills proposed by Windmar would require the clearing of 125 acres [cuerdas] of the Bosque Seco Tropical, which means that 500,000 trees would no longer provide their services.

In our country, every day we see the consequences of taking decisions at facing value, without the balanced and accurate analysis of all the aspects of each situation. We also see constant improvisation. And it’s, as my father would say, “think of the work” and let’s look for the easy way.

At times, things are done in reverse. It begins with the proposal of a project. It sounds good at first, so that it gets financing from the bank and support from government agencies. Only at the end is there a rigorous examination of the possible consequences.

In this way, we all lose: the developer for investing money in vain, and because he receives criticism and attacks, with or without justification; the bank, who must assume the costs on those occasions that the promoter goes into bankruptcy; even the bureaucrats, when at last the project evaluation reaches them, because their supervisors hold preconceived opinions about it; and above all, we, the people. We are left with useless projects after their having wasted our money and valuable natural, cultural, and historical resources. Then protests arise, court cases, repentance, and frequently we end up with projects that turn into white elephants from the beginning had no reason for being.

Currently, there is a proposal from Windmar Renewable Energy Systems for the erection of 25 wind turbines 400 feet in height in the Punta Ventanas, Cerro Toro, and Punta Verraco sections of the municipality of Guayanilla. With this, they plan to generate and sell electricity to the Electric Power Authority. This project, which does not comply with current zoning and without prior study, was announced by the Governor in his State Message. …

As a specialist and consultant in environmental management, I might have fallen into the trap of quickly being enthusiastic about a project of this type. The urgency of global warming can lead us to make hasty decisions. Despite this, I understand that this proposal, like any other of such magnitude, though it may appear to be friendly to the environment, must undergo a careful process of study before any kind of decision.

Let’s look at the facts. As described under Senate Resolution 3170, the residential sector in Puerto Rico last year saved 3% on its light bill. This avoided emitting greenhouse gases equivalent to 10 wind farms like the one being proposed in Guayanilla. The same 3%, that is, a mere $4 savings on your light bill, is equivalent to 7,000 cuerdas of land required for developing wind energy.

On the other hand, the proposed project would represent a savings in emissions equivalent to the use of 55,000 to 110,000 lightbulbs. This same effect would be achieved by changing the lightbulbs with fluorescent lights in some 12,000 to 24,000 households in the country, which could cost between $80,000 and $165,000. That is, $60 million, which is the cost of the wind project, versus $165,000 without any impact to areas of high ecological value nor the use of large plots of land, a resource so scarce in Puerto Rico. …

According to the spokesman for the Puerto Rican Ornithological Society, Luis Silvestre, “without the proper permits and without an Environmental Impact Statement, the proponent Victor González built several kilomters of road 65 feet wide and embankments, and widened paths, destroying thousands of trees and plants characteristic of the dry forests, impacting a wetland and an intermittent creek, causing irreparable damage”.

If this were not enough to raise concern, at public hearings held in connection with the project, several scientists hired by the proponent have questioned the ecological value of the Bosque Seco de Guánica. This important natural area has been recognized as a Biosphere Reserve by the Organization for Education, Science, and Culture of the United Nations (UNESCO). The designation emphasizes the international importance of the Bosque de Guánica and its unique status in the Caribbean region.

I don’t believe that it is an accident that those comments were given after local scientists raised that the project would have an adverse effect on Puerto Rican birdlife and in areas situated precisely in the Bosque Seco de Guánica. Furthermore the physical geographer Brilton Rodríguez has indicated that the proposed excavations for building the wind turbines and roads would cause the destruction of caves and marine arches in the Bosque. And it has been shown that it could affect the habitat of the guabairo (Caprimulgus noctitherus), a native bird in danger of extinction, and affect the brown pelican, the palometa, and the bat population of the Cuevas El Convento. And they have raised that it could entirely alter an area of very special character, as around Punta Ventana is an extensive mangrove forest, an area of tectonic upheavals, and sites containing archaeological remains. …

We support renewable energy alternatives in Puerto Rico. Nonetheless, our position is that they must be considered after full reflection on all of the ecological aspects of the site and adjacent areas. The use of renewable energy sources must not be justification for destroying public policy or abusing measure to protectthe forests that yield important and irreplaceable benefits. …

We are alarmed that haste, the quest for so-called economic development and job creation, or the very serious issue of climate change confuses our understanding and induces us to error when the time comes to make decisions. Let us think things through, even though it requires work.

Bats Interacting with Wind Turbines

from: Horn et al. 2008 Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1 123-132

The video clips on this site are presented to support a study that appears in the Journal of Wildlife Management. This study deals with the recent finding that forest-dwelling bats are often found dead beneath operating wind turbines at wind energy facilities. We used thermal infrared video cameras to record the flight behavior of bats at night near these turbines in an attempt to understand the cause of these fatalities. We encourage you to read the study so that you will have a context as you view the clips.

---

Investigating the Turbine Tower and Nacelle (power generating unit)

One or more bats repeatedly investigate the turbine blades and tower (monopole).

A bat investigates the turbine tower (monopole), showing typical ‘touch-and-go’ behavior.

A bat repeatedly investigates and briefly lands on the turbine tower while the rotor spins slowly.

A bat investigates the nacelle.

A bat investigates moving blades.

---

Investigating and Chasing Turbine Blades

A bat investigates and lands on a still blade.

Bats chase blade tips (1) or are possibly caught in tip vortices.

Bat chases blade tip (2) or is possibly caught in tip vortex.

A bat performs ‘touch-and-go’ behavior on the turbine tower, then a stopped blade.

---

Bat Avoidance Behavior

A high-flying bat narrowly avoids being struck by moving blades.

A bat reacting to the movement of (and perhaps avoiding) turbine blades.

A bat narrowly avoids being struck, or receives a glancing blow from a passing turbine blade

---

Contact with Blades

A bat is struck on the downswing of a blade.

A bat is struck by a rotating turbine blade in the lower portion of the rotor-swept zone.

A bat is struck by a rotating blade from below as the blade swings upward.

A bat is struck by a fast-moving blade.

A bat is struck by a downward-moving turbine blade.

---

Birds

A flock of birds flies high overhead in a V formation.

A bird flies high above the turbines.

---

Multiple Bats

Three bats flying low and close to the camera.

Multiple bats fly near an operating turbine.

---

Height Reference: The altitude of bats relative to the height of moving turbine blades

Height example: A bat within the area swept by moving turbine blades. An insect also flies low and close to the camera.

Height example: A bat flying above the reach of moving turbine blades.