Interview with Jim and Cheryl Congdon, Horicon Marsh Advocates, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

Q: Would you say that the people who were making decisions on allowing this development to take place did they listen to the concerns of the local people are far as what the impacts would be, and set backs, and environmental concerns

Cheryl: No.

Jim: I would say at the township level in particular, no.

Cheryl: By then the company was so embedded with t the township that there was no chance any more. We went to township meetings, to other townships.

Jim: The townships had to go through their legal– they had to do public hearings and all that because they’re required to but it was very obvious that the towns board had their decision pretty much all made up especially dodge county they listened to us because they had to and that was all. They very clearly had their decision all made before the public hearing even occurred.

Cheryl: And the town of Leroy, which is one of the main townships, the closest one to us. The town chairman would come to the county meetings when they were writing the ordinances for the meetings, she would attend those meetings with the wind company.

Jim: She sat right next to a representative of wind company and the wind company actually helped the county draft the ordinance.

Q. The wind company did.

Jim: The wind company did.

Q: What was the basis of their ordinance? What did they base their facts on? Was it base on some type of sound science or planning or–

Jim: Well, what we’ve learned since, no. The answer to that is no. At the time I have to say we were uninformed. I wouldn’t want to use the term ignorant we were uninformed.

Cheryl: You know how you say people aren’t watching their local government— we did. It’s just that no, you’re not watching every single committee meeting, but we’re very informed.

Jim: Wisconsin right now has a model energy ordinance that they recommend for the townships or counties to use. If remember right it has a 400 foot set back from roads and a thousand foot setback recommended from residences. What we have learned since is that ordinance– the model ordinance it’s not mandatory, but it’s a model ordinance– was actually written by lobbyists for the wind companies. They drafted this and it was just adopted by the state as: “This is the model you should be following”. And we do have a state statute that says that in effect, wildlife does not count. You can only base local ordinances on health and safety. That’s actually written in the statutes. So what we’ve learned since is that the model ordinance is written by lobbyists for the wind companies and has absolutely no science or legal basis for anything that’s in the ordinance. And this is what all of our state representatives, right up to the Governors office, are telling people.

This is the model that we should be using. So that was the basis for the local ordinances being adopted.

Q Could the local community have drafted their own ordinance?

Jim: What we’ve found out since is yes.

Cheryl: That’s what many are doing.

Jim: What we faced, at the time, in our particular case. We testified against what was being proposed at the county hearings. And the wind energy companies sat there with their attorneys and any time we suggested we should have something more restrictive, they would state that the law says you can only consider health and safety. We were threatened that if you do anything other than this model ordinance, you’ll be sued.

Q: Threatened by whom?

Jim: By the wind energy companies. We’ll take you to court and we will sue you if you don’t follow the model ordinance.

Cheryl: Because they would be at these public hearings.

Q: You said you testified before a committee. What were the areas you testified on?

Jim: Well. Personally, for myself– our organization, the Horicon Marsh Systems Advocate fought this project based primarily on wildlife concerns. At all of the hearings, my personal comments, yes I supported the wild life concerns but we always concerned both the aesthetic and health and safety. We didn’t feel what was being proposed was adequate from a health and safety standpoint. And we’re very much opposed to it on the aesthetic effect of putting these things all over the landscape. That was my personal comment, though we were being told that we could only consider health and safety.

Q: Were there any health and safety issues that were brought up that were considered?

Jim: At that time we didn’t have enough knowledge to effectively rebut.

Q: How about at this given time?

Jim: Since that time there has been a lot learned.

Q: Can you share with us what you’ve learned as far as health and safety is concerned?

Jim: Well I think what you heard today– from Gerry Meyer particularly, reflects what we’ve heard. There’s Dr. Pierpont out of New York, is doing a lot of research along these lines and what she says it there is substantial medical basis for concern about the effect of wind turbine noise. She has very thoroughly documented and researched the work she has done. And there have been a number of cases and the one I mentioned earlier in Kewanee County that the property owners won against the wind energy company. And there are other cases we’ve heard about, one in particular in Nova Scotia where a family just had to move out of their house because of the health effects it was having on them. There are more and more cases being documented that there are health effects from the sound.

Q: Now you said this was in the state law that the only consideration a local community can give in their decision-making is for health and safety.

Jim: There are townships now that are working on it– the good example of that is the Town of Union

Cheryl: And Trempealeau County has the strongest ordinance in our state now; they just passed it about a month and a half ago.

Jim: That’d be about right. They have done a lot of research and gotten into the literature. And they are coming up with what they consider substantial evidence that there are health effects from these turbines if they don’t have adequate setback. And I believe Trempealeau County is a one-mile, isn’t it?

I think what Town of Union is proposing is half mile setback from any residence. I believe Trempealeau County’s ordinance says one mile.

Cheryl: It’s definitely the strongest ordinance in the state at this time.

Jim: And they feel that they have adequate research information that if they are threatened with a lawsuit that they can defend themselves.

(CLICK HERE to visit the Horicon Marsh Systems Advocates website)

Interview with Don Sampson, who leases his land for a wind turbine, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

“This thing came up here– you know, they do a lot of tramping around and do tests.

And they apparently found this to be a good windy area –I think the big attraction was that Horicon Marsh is 30 miles long. And that lays about eight miles west of here, and it’s about ten miles wide and it’s about a good thirty miles long.

What they told us was the winds start to pick up over that big marsh and there’s a pretty good wind over here on this east side of the marsh. So they proposed to build over in this area here, more close to the marsh, but then, what they call “The Marsh Advocates” they put up a great big stink. And they said the turbines are going to kill the birds, the geese and the birds, and also the bats. There’s some old coal mines down there- the steel mines, and there’s a bunch bats in there, they say there’s thousands of them in there– and they’re afraid they’re going to kill the bats.

And they got an organization. They call it the Horicon Marsh Advocates, and they fought this like crazy.

They delayed this thing for a couple years. They fought like crazy. And they spent a lot of money. But they lost. I think they lost because of big power and big money. But then when it come down to the end, in the final phase now, they can build this side of the marsh but they have to stay two miles from the marsh. Which is where they are now.

Q: Originally, did they want to be closer to the marsh?

I think so. I think they felt that when the winds come up over the marsh, it was strong by the marsh. Because the other day– I just talked to them now– in Brownsville, and they got 88 of them put up. But they want to put up another 22. But they prefer to build closer to the marsh. So I think they are going to be pushing on that.

I think the other obstacle was these city people come out here to build homes. They bought an acre of land and they built a home and they don’t want to be disturbed. And of course they don’t like that change.

Part of it is the change and part of it is the money. I think the money is the biggest one. The money us farmers are going to get for the turbines. It bugs them. Severely, I think. Because they don’t have enough land. Unless you have — well we only have 80 acres here– but unless you some land where the turbine is at least a thousand feet from a building, you can’t build.

Q: How many feet?

A thousand feet.

Q. Where did they come up with that?

That’s their general rule. Now some people have them closer than a thousand feet from their own buildings, but they have to be a thousand feet from somebody elses.

Q. Do you think– I guess in your opinion, do is a 1000 feet is a good setback?

It isn’t any too much.
Because my tower up here on the hill is a thousand feet from Hickory road here. A guy built a new home there in the woods. And he’s made a hell of a stink. He’s filed a written complaint and he’s really fighting it right now.

Q Is he a thousand feet away?

Yeah. And he claims it’s noisy and it aggravates him.

Q Do you notice any noise here?

You can hear it.

Q What does it sound like?

Sounds like a jet plane.

Q Sounds like a jet plane?

With a little whirl to it (imitates the noise).

Mainly you won’t hear it unless the wind is blowing towards our house. If the blowing the other way you don’t hear it. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t consider it very significant. I would consider it– it’s something I think that as time passes you won’t even notice it.

Q This type development– it you had to stack up some of the pros and the cons– what are the pros and cons of this development?

Well, the pros are– it certainly brings money into the community. We are going to get fifty-five hundred a year. Now–some I guess are getting more than that. They’re going to pay us twice a year now. We’re going to get our first check on August 15– won’t get full six months because they say ours was commissioned on the 7th of March so it will probably be about four and a half months. But then after that it will be a full half. But then it’s going up I guess a couple percent a year. I think two percent per year.

They are very very good– about– they bend over backwards with their P.R. program. And the are bending over backwards to help the people and pay us right. Right now they got a bunch of meetings they are going to pay us for our land that they destroyed. Right now on top of the hill where they put mine in they determined there were 5.3 acres of cover that was destroyed, that was sod and I’m going to get $2,544 for that.

The biggest reason I’m all for it is it’s clean. It’s clean as it can be. Probably the only ones that are as clean are solar power and water power. And I would lean that way personally. For solar or water power.

I think they could do more with that. But I definitely in favor of the whole thing because I think we should get off this oil kick. We burn way too much oil.

Q. You mentioned change,and when there is change in a community– that’s kind of disruptive. Can you comment at all on how that change has impacted the community? Has it been a positive?

No it’s– in general my neighbors are a little sour to me about it. Yeah, my neighbor up the road he was always stopping in here every couple of weeks. He hasn’t been here in six months. He’s mad because I got that tower. And that other ones still got a big sign– says “A good neighbor would not put up a turbine”. And this neighbor over here (pointing) he’s bitching to other people. But in town I haven’t heard too much.

Q Why do you think they’re mad?

They’re mostly jealous. Jealousy. Because they said farmers are greedy. That’s the general idea they have. That farmers are greedy.

Interview with Larry Wunsch, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. See transcript below (again, thanks to Better Plan).

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

Q. What can you tell us about your experience of what’s happened here?

This project started about four years ago when they first came into the area here. A lot neighbors in the area got wind of this kind of late. In fact I first found out about this when a person from the company came here on my property and asked me if I wanted to host some of the turbines.

And then we investigated over the course of the next couple of months and found out the size of the project and how close the turbines could be to my property and of course there were a lot of questions and especially there were a lot of issues. And as we got into it we found that the energy company was lying to the board, they had the board bought into the project, it is a state project, in other words it has to be approved by the state public service commission — and it just seemed like we were a small group trying to fight this– it was big money and we just didn’t have the resources or the money to continue the fight.

And, well, as you can see I have one 1100 feet from my house. Issues that we’ve heard about from other people who live in wind farms– shadow flicker, noise,– for instance this one (points to the turbine)

(Interviewer: I can hear the noise, it’s quite loud, I don’t know if the camcorder is picking it up or not– and you say it gets much louder when it’s winder? There’s not much wind today–)

There’s only about ten mile an hour winds and when the winds are like 15 and gusting, it sounds like a jet engine on a taxi way of an airport is what it sounds like.

The shadow flicker– (points to turbine) that is the west direction– and the sun gets right behind it. This time of year it gets right behind it. (Video shows sweeping shadows going over the entire house, outbuildings and surrounding property) So I have a blade flicker that flickers over everything in the house here. I have a sun room off the back of the house where it looks like someone is flashing a camera. Now maybe some people can adjust to that, but I can’t. My wife and I have a real hard time with this. We have a lot of money invested in our property. This our home, everything we have is invested in this property , and I guess the change from that (points to turbine) to what we had is the problem we’re dealing with.

Q: You mentioned that if the windows are open in your house you’d hear this noise on a windy day can you describe when you hear it at night, would it wake you up at night?

Here’s what the difference is. When you walk out in the field you can hear the wind through your ears, but if you stand inside my bedroom which is off the front of the house here, you’re standing in a completely quiet environment. And if I open up my windows (points to turbine) that’s the sound I hear. I don’t wind running through my bedroom. I’m hearing the sound of the turbine. So people will say “Well I went to a wind farm project, and we listened and it wasn’t that bad.”

But you’ve got to be in an environment where it’s quiet and you open up the windows. That’s where our argument is about the noise. And not only this one (points to turbine) but even ones that are farther away– some of those out 2000 feet, I can still hear those today.

Q. How big of a project is this? How many turbines are here?

The project is cleared for over 100 megawatts. The project is 133 wind turbines. They have 88 of them up now, this is Phase One, they are going into a Phase Two. So with the setbacks they could actually put more into our township. I don’t know. I sure hope they don’t do that.

Q: Have you talked to some of your neighbors in the area? How are they impacted and what are their thoughts on this project?

We have a group of neighbors that has pitted [members of] the township against each other. If you drive through our township you’ll see signs that say “Good Neighbors Don’t Put up 400 Foot Wind Turbines” You know, it’s all about money. It doesn’t have anything to do with renewable energy. And I think the people who are hosting them are aware of that. But you know– there are definitely two sides to the township.

Q: How many people would you say are impacted by this development?

There’s probably– I’m guessing in our township– and we have this in the corner of our town– I’m guessing we have about 20 to 30 landowners that are impacted. There are only about eight that are hosting the the turbines. So the rest are non hosters, is what it is. People will argue that we’re “Not In My Back Yard” people, but I would ask that when you go up to someone who advocates wind turbines, especially the developers ask them if they have a wind turbine 1100 feet from their house. Ask them — when they get out of their house, where ever they live, how many wind turbines they see.

Q. What are your thoughts on how issues were handled at the local government level?

The whole board– now remember this– in the town of Byron, Fond du Lac county here, all three board members do not live in the project. They live in the outskirts of the project. The six people on the board of appeals that decides on the project– none of them can see the project, so that gives you a little bit of insight as to how that was decided.

Q. Do you have anything else you want to add insofar as what it’s done to the community or how people feel about it?

My recommendation to anyone looking at wind development is to take their time and study things. Research it out. There’s a lot of stuff out there. Wind development in the country is fairly new. In the state of Wisconsin, this is the first project of this size. They’ve had smaller projects but– this was “Slam, Bang, Boom, sign this, sign this, let’s get this project going, and we never took the time to research property values, which we asked for– a property value protection plan– which they said “We can’t really do that, we’ll never get the financing”– which was a bunch of BS. They could have done that for us. That would have put me more at ease, knowing if I couldn’t sell my property I would have a back up plan.

Q: … There is a big push for a certain percentage of renewable energy by a certain date– what are your thoughts on that?

There’s a leading manufacturer who employs five hundred people in the city of Fond du Lac. They use 20 megawatts of electricity. That’s their normal production need. These are GE 1.5 megawatts and they need a 30 mile an hour wind– almost a 30 mile an hour wind to produce 1.5 megawatts. You need 15 of these, turning in a 30 mile an hour wind operating at 100% efficiency in order to power one leading manufacturer in Fond du Lac. The state of Wisconsin wants 10% of the states electrical to come from wind turbines? It don’t happen.

I researched this stuff. WInd turbines are nothing but a scam– in my vision– the rate payer and the tax payers are paying for this. My electrical went up 8% already, we’re going to be paying for these things and certain small share holders are going to be making millions of dollars.

Q: What about jobs, we hear a lot jobs, about how this is going to be good for the economy– and they’re going to bring a lot of jobs to the area.

This project– the construction started in September. Was pretty much wrapped up by mid-January, February, with one major construction company, and I’m sure there were a lot of jobs, I mean it gave jobs for three or four months. Now it’s done. So they’ll have a maintenance group– and I wouldn’t have an idea how many– I would think a maintenance group to look after 133 wind turbines consisting for about 8 people– so they are providing work for 8 people here with this project?

Q: Are these local jobs? Around the area? Do you know?

That I’m not sure of.

Q: Do you have anything else you want to add?

I willing to give my name and help people out. Like I said, this is going to affect our life and I’m outspoken, I’m afraid to talk about it. I’m not trying to grind an ax here, I just want to make sure people understand that if a wind turbine gets placed 1100 feet from their house– I want them to understand it’s a possible impact not just on their lives but on the lives of [others living ] where they wind turbine is going to be.

Q: So what you’re saying is 1100 feet isn’t far enough away.

No. If it was a mile– I think that I could live with it. Even though I don’t like it– like I said I think it’s a scam– its a fleecing of America to tell you the truth, but if it was a mile away I could probably live with it. But 1100 feet, no. I can’t.

Q: Could they come into a community like this and put them up at a greater setback?

They could but, state statute– now, remember the energy companies in 2001 lobbied to create a state statute that produced a model ordinance that said they could put them up to a 1000 feet [from homes].

Of course the board that put this together was energy company officials. It wasn’t me, or a town chairman or anybody like that.

Interview with Curt Kindschuh, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.

[ Click here to view or download the entire "Wisconsin Wind" video (1 hr 49 min) ]

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.

Progressive Maharashtra has rushed to install wind energy plants. But, ask Nidhi Jamwal and Shikha Lakhanpal, reporting from Mumbai and Dhule, why so little electricity is actually generated. Is there another purpose to private interest in wind? Of greater note: If India must develop wind energy, should it go the way of this state?

Go to: “Fanning an Alternative”

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”