 
### Spinning a Green Yarn

### Another Inconvenient Truth

### —Commercial Wind Farms Are Impacting National Finances, the Environment, and Wildlife in a Non-green Way

By Dan Cecchini, Jr.

© 2011 by Dan Cecchini, Jr.

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Game Hawker Publishing  
GamerHawkerPublishing@gmail.com

This book is dedicated to my loving, encouraging, and patient wife Sue, for the years of time we have both spent in the outdoors with Sage Grouse and waiting for me during the many hundreds of hours it took to assemble this book.

Photo by Petr Kratochvil. Public domain photo

### Spinning a Green Yarn

### Another Inconvenient Truth

### —Commercial Wind Farms Are Impacting National Finances, the Environment, and Wildlife in a Non-green Way

****

### Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1  
What Does Green Mean?  
Do Commercial Wind Farms Negatively Impact Climate Change?  
"Green" to Meet Political Goals  
Wind Farm Installations

Chapter 2  
The Cost of Wind Energy  
Cost to Wildlife  
Taxpayer Subsidies

Chapter 3  
Laws For Wind Farms—Are They Sufficient?

Chapter 4  
The Charismatic Sage and Prairie Grouse and Commercial Wind Farms  
Game Changer

Chapter 5  
Eagles, Hawks, and Falcons Getting Chopped Up by Wind Farm Turbines

Chapter 6  
Nature's Amazing Beneficial Bats Take Big Hit From Commercial Wind Farm Turbines  
Fatal Impact of Wind Turbines On Bats

Chapter 7  
ESA—A Game Changer

Chapter 8  
The Spanish and Danish Wind Energy Industry—A Closer Look

Chapter 9  
Habitat Fragmentation Problems

Chapter 10  
Small Home Renewable Energy Systems vs. Commercial Energy Farms  
Location, Location, Location!!!  
Size Does Matter  
Commercial Wind Farm Energy Output Hard to Optimize

Epilogue  
Do Something -- Make a Difference  
What You Can Do To Make A Difference

References

****

### Preface

The purpose of this book is to help average citizens have a better understanding of the full impact of commercial wind power to the environment. With their tall gleaming white towers and intimidating gleaming white blades, creating energy from out of thin air—what could be more wholesome for the environment, wildlife, humankind, and the planet?! When I first heard about green energy alternatives, I was studying biology as an undergraduate 35 years ago, and it was considered the same, true win-win deal for people and wildlife. This topic should be interesting to most people in the US today. Why? Because there is a strong push to sell green energy technology to the American public. The concept is a good one, but like all things which seem to be getting traction or have a good image, a lot of free riders are jumping on board. It's not good enough for us to just parrot the phrase "I'm using a low carbon footprint source of power, therefore I'm a good and moral person." That is the behavior of sheep, not thinking people. It is important to learn about the good and the bad points of new technology. From that point, we are in a position to make decisions as an informed society.

The reader, no matter what your personal views, needs to recognize that doing things green just to be green is only good for a fairly limited number of people. Green technology needs to make economic sense and not have an negative impact to be widely adopted. We are nowhere near that goal at this point, on either count. In America today, with giant financial deficits and rapid loss of intact ecosystems in the lower 48 states, wind power has a long way to go.

As someone who has had an intense interest in wildlife and the environment since I was a young boy, wind power was something I just had to get behind. My interest in wildlife was strong enough that biology was the obvious choice for my first college degree. Even before I had thoughts of going to college I turned into a self-taught naturalist as a kid. I spent many hours reading books and articles about animals, and wildlife in particular; I just couldn't get enough. I learned the scientific names and genus of many different types of birds and mammals. Predators held a particular fascination to me. My focus was often on predators in any shape or form. From predatory whales to insectivorous shrews, and also included the big cats, reptiles, weasels, and particularly the birds of prey; they all captivated my imagination. I grew up in southern Michigan, just outside of Detroit, so truly wild places were not part of my daily living. I grew up with a father that was an avid angler and hunter, so I learned to hunt and fish at a young age. My uncles and some school friends were also avid outdoorsmen. Hunting and fishing provided a special opportunity to fulfill an internal drive to harvest wildlife for food, no different than native Americans or aboriginal people the world over. Even more important than harvesting food from the wild was the opportunity to spend as much time out in rural areas and observe wildlife first hand, as well as to be able absorb being in the "wild." I loved catching a snake or turtle, then learning about its natural history. The woods and fields were exciting and alive specifically because of the exciting diversity of creatures, great and small that made their lives there. The same for brooks, streams, ponds, and lakes, without the wild things that lived there, no fascination was held there for me. The painted turtles and garter snakes gave those places character. Catching a glimpse of one, moments before it slipped off a rock into a pond provided endless thoughts about the hundreds of wild animals that were hidden among the leaves and branches of the countryside. Imagining the many and varied predatory animals that lurked there trying to outmaneuver and capture their prey (or die themselves) gave those places a sense of life and vitality. The entire environment and ecosystem was alive and vibrant. Then turning my gaze and thoughts to the pond itself, I would begin to imagine the same predator—prey, life-and-death struggle occurring. This time with the large mouth bass or northern pike stalking their prey of minnows or yellow perch. Truly, a case of the whole being much more than the simple sum of the parts. A largely intact ecosystem is a living thing itself. That is the why biologists always try to make the point to the public that simply saving a species by keeping it in captivity is not really success. The species are parts of the living ecosystem, not complete without being a member of the ecosystem itself. You can think of a species isolated from their environment the same as a football quarterback off the football field, out of the stadium. That quarterback no longer gives others any sense of what he is or what his potential is as part of the complete football team competing during a game.

This book will explore the meaning and use of the term "green" technology. It will also look at some significant species which have already been identified as being negatively impacted by commercial wind farms. We will also look to Europe where there are some serious problems associated with their commercial wind industries, but the American public has rarely been exposed to that side of the discussion up to this point. We move into a discussion of the significant difference between large commercial wind farms and individual home units or small-scale, low density commercial projects set-up in close proximity to where their power will be used. The book will wrap up with a discussion of how the reader can have a voice deciding the details of how wind power technology is developed going forward—as a society we are on the cusp of being able to do it right the first time if we are smart with our decisions of just how we implement wind energy technology.

The point of this book is to inform average members of the public at large about the good, the bad, and the ugly of the "green energy" wind industry. To reach that goal the book is written in layman's terms rather than in scientific prose. It is rather short, to prompt people who might be just peripherally interested in the topic to sit down and read the information in this book quickly and easily. The concepts are presented so that this book can be read and understood by students who have not yet entered college. They will have to live with the decisions being made by adults today and they will be making the decisions for society soon.

****

### Introduction

During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama made it clear that science was going to be a center piece of the government's decision making process if he were elected to office. Shortly after taking office, he reiterated that commitment to the people of the United States of America. Less than two months after the Presidential inauguration President Barak Obama issued an official memorandum whose subject was scientific integrity. In the memorandum the first sentences state "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security." You will see that this statement sounds very similar to the rationale for the US congressional mandate to produce ethanol from American grown corn. There is a lot of the American flag, mom, and apple pie associated with these statements, but the details often don't match the public rhetoric from politicians. In his presidential memorandum on scientific integrity President Obama continues with "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. ... To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking." This concept of transparency is important to reflect upon when evaluating the huge subsidies given to large American corporations and the actions of the administration's Department of Energy (DOE), the Treasury and the White House budget office (OMB) as reported in the Wall Street Journal in late 2010 and covered in more detail later in the book under Business Economics 101.

In the past, as Americans, we sometimes did things that created problems, but we often did it because we didn't know better. Hydro-electric dams come to mind regarding an early "green" energy source. We have since learned a lot about the high negative environmental impact that large hydro-electric projects have had on American wildlife and habitat. We will look at some of these problems a little later. The $6 billion ethanol mess was pushed hard and fast by many American lawmakers. It produced the unintended consequences of elevated corn prices and taking wildlife habitat, in the form of idled prairie lands, back into service as agricultural fields. Also, as we all know now, the cost of water to produce the ethanol is huge! We have, also, learned that many of our household small engines and boat motors deteriorate when using gasoline that has the legal limit of ethanol in it. Yet ethanol was another quick "sustainable and green" fix for our dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy; hyped more than it was well thought through. In their article, "Ethanol's Failed Promise" in The Washington Post, published on Earth Day in 2008, Lester and Lewis state "These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis." They make the point that the policies were created with the best of intentions. It was to help farmers, help national security, and protect the environment, but failed on all three counts. They conclude by saying "Congress took a big chance ...that, unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead." Big money was spent, but the outcomes didn't match the hype. Other green technologies can have the same problems when rushed to market, subsidized with taxpayer funds, and big business works the system to collect the tax subsidies.

Things are different when we understand the negative consequences of societal actions and still pursue a dangerous or immoral position. That is why it is important to take a close look at all aspects of renewable energy technologies before we get too far into it. It is also important to understand that if doing "A" is good or acceptable, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that doing 100 times A is better. If that were the case, then if taking one aspirin for a headache is good, then taking a whole bottle of aspirin must be better!

The dream of clean, no impact, energy, is a wonderful one. Looking to science and engineering magic to develop the hype behind benefits of renewable energy is exciting and so very American. As worldwide leaders in science and engineering for the past 100 years, Americans have a deep belief in science. Renewables have been touted as a way to boost our economy with a whole new manufacturing industry, create green jobs that people can get with a quick stint at the local community college, and I support all of those goals wholeheartedly, but can it really be that simple and clean? Is it just a marketing sound byte? I continue to watch the president on TV talking about the promise of green energy for America. Then again, in just the last several weeks (early 2011) I have come across news reports that these industries are already being taken over by China. I saw an article that the Chinese are becoming dominant in the wind turbine manufacturing industry. I saw even more recently that a solar panel manufacturer in America's Northeast is moving all of its manufacturing to China. Some American community colleges are beginning to realize that there are not unlimited green jobs in the wind or solar energy industry after a year long certificate program or even after a two year associates degree.

This book will provide an explanation of the often untold impacts of commercial wind farms on the environment, things often not discussed in the popular press. It will provide a brief summary of what is known about how large commercial wind farms are impacting wildlife in the most remote areas of North America today. It takes some arcane scientific academic information and lays it out in an understandable, easily comprehendible way. There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting this information at this time.

If you haven't been hiding under a rock for the last five years, you already know that commercial wind farms are seen as one of cornerstones of creating a utopian energy strategy for the US. I regularly hear that if Americans want to protect wildlife and mankind we can do no better than to embrace large commercial wind farms and solar farms to get us away from our dependence on the dirty coal and oil energy industry. After all, what could be better than an energy source that has no smoke stacks involved in the energy it generates.

Environmentalist or private property rights advocate, which one are you? I am both and passionate about both. I have been totally captivated by animals and wildlife in particular, since I was a little kid. Any day that I can't spend outdoors enjoying watching or better yet, interacting with wildlife feels like a wasted day to me. The natural environment that supports a wide and fascinating biodiversity of life forms is awe-inspiring to me. Even things I may have seen a time or two before, even things I may have seen a thousand times over the decade still fascinate me. A flock of hundreds of robins landing in my juniper trees eating the berries, a garter snake stalking a frog in the garden, a red-tailed hawk riding a thermal off the heat of my rooftop on a summer day to a thousand feet in seconds, mallards flying over my yard, a flock of 50 sage grouse exploding at my feet from the short sage steppe in the dead of winter, all of these things and hundreds more give me an adrenaline rush and sense of awe like nothing else.

I believe in protecting our global environment. As an American, I believe in our capitalist system of private property ownership and freedom for individuals to profit from their property. At the same time, there are many precedents in society which prevent the unregulated use of private property if profit is the sole determinate of how property is planned to be used. A good example of limits on how private property can be used can be seen in local zoning laws. If someone lives in a residentially zoned area, they can't just set up a commercial dump or landfill on their property, even though it would provide a service for members in that community. Unregulated landfills create a hazard to people, wildlife, and the environment. This hazard is often not immediate, but over time can become one of the biggest environmental hazards to local communities. Additionally, locating landfills on property without careful consideration of the how close the neighbors are from it can result in immediate esthetic problems for human neighbors. Yet we know that all communities require landfills, they create a vital service, can generate revenue, and have been around since the beginning of human history; however, we don't approve them willy-nilly just because someone says they can create jobs and generate revenue. Interestingly, many people seem to have taken the approach with commercial wind farms that they create jobs, so must be good; plus, we have added many government subsidies, both state and federal, to encourage commercial wind farms, apparently and mostly because they have been labeled "green." We are being conditioned to believe that a "green" label makes something good by definition. Wind turbines, of the appropriate size and placed in appropriate locations, could be an important part of green energy strategies. At the same time it is important for the public to understand that commercial mega wind farms are not by definition "green." Size and placement of commercial wind farms can easily mean the difference between them being green and being a very "brown" energy technology.

Private property owners need to embrace solutions that will preserve critical habitat, not fight against protecting critical habitat for imperiled species. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon in December of 1973. The ESA is intended to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation." The Endangered Species Act takes into consideration the plant and animal species, not whether the land they are on is public or private. Unlike in Europe, in the US, wildlife and wild plants collectively belong to the public, not to private property owners; therefore, populations of species which are endangered receive federal protection, no matter who owns the property on which they live or inhabit. Once wild species are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act in the United States, a whole series of things start to happen to try to assure that those potentially imperiled species don't actually become extinct. One of the key things that happens that can affect private property landowners with endangered species on their properties is severe limitations on how that land can be developed or even used. If the use causes damage to the critical habitat or the species themselves then the use is typically denied or severely restricted by the federal government. This means that the best thing that private property owners with critical wildlife habitat for imperiled species can do is to advocate for whatever measures can be taken by both private individuals and by state and federal government agencies to keep all species healthy and robust, and therefore off the endangered species list.

This is an opportunity to look at the environmental, economic, and ethical questions facing us when we look at what kinds of big winds are coming out of the wind energy industry.

Photo by Dan Cecchini, Jr.

Illustration showing the type of power transmission lines in sage grouse habitat which can be used to connect remote commercial wind turbine farms to the country's electrical grid. These tall structures in wilderness areas create perches for sage grouse predators such as Golden Eagles to launch attacks on sage grouse. Studies show that sage grouse will avoid or abandon a very wide area where overhead transmission lines are installed in their breeding areas. Sage grouse seem to be genetically programmed to avoid area where tall structures or tree are part of the landscape. This type of corridor may also have a negative impact in creating habitat fragmentation for species such as prairie grouse and sage grouse.

****

### Chapter 1

### What Does Green Mean?

The Miracle of Clean Energy from Commercial Wind Farms

Green technology, what does that term mean? If it decreases our dependency on fossil fuels that must be the right and moral thing to do and support—right? How can any American or person on earth argue otherwise? It's about all that is good and healthy. If an energy technology doesn't emit carbon during its operation then it must be what the world needs now. If an energy source doesn't have much of a carbon footprint, but leads to the increased use of pesticides, is it still green? If an energy source doesn't have much of a carbon footprint, but directly leads to the loss of biodiversity in the world, is it still green? We are hearing from a number of quarters that the more wind turbines, the better. There is a push to start installing commercial wind farms everywhere. How much more idyllic is the scene from Holland with a windmill spinning amongst fields of tulips, but the proposed wind turbines are like the traditional windmills on steroids. Wind turbines might have a place in the modern world to contribute to reducing carbon emissions, and there certainly is something to be said about the fascination with wind energy. However, maybe we need to pause and do a reality check to make sure that this isn't just too good to be true. Proponents of commercial wind power, many with huge potential financial gains, seem to be giddy with pronouncing that the gleaming white turbines are pure as the driven snow.

In the interest of "doing something," many people who care a great deal about the environment and the well-being of planet earth have started running around simply parroting the phrase "low carbon footprint"; their belief is that is the Holy Grail upon which the saving of the planet can occur. Now if your only criteria of saving the planet is really saving people, then there is some truth to that mantra. However, if what you believe in your soul is that you want a healthy ecosystem, with great species biodiversity, and intact ecosystems with truly wild places still in existence, then "low carbon footprint" all by itself is a completely inadequate measure. This is like saying that the criteria to a successful life is a high income. At first blush, on the surface, in a capitalistic society, that sounds like it may be a reasonable measure. However, it won't take you long, as a thinking person, no matter how strong you believe in capitalism (I feel pretty strongly about it myself) to say "what about ...." For example, if a high income was all it takes to be successful then Bernie Madoff, of mega-financial ponzi schemes in modern America is successful, but in 2011, Madoff sits in a federal prison at the age of 72. How about drug dealers that pedal illegal crack, cocaine, and heroin on the streets to our children? After 20 years of this, and buying big homes and fast cars, they get arrested, convicted and end up in prison for 30 years. Again, doesn't sound like the picture of success we have in our minds, even though financially they were quite successful. We could sit here all day and think of similar examples. I think it is safe to say that complex social challenges typically don't have simple, single variable solutions or answers. As adults we need to look at the whole picture. We know that modern people like a quick fix, Americans are certainly no exception to that rule, but changing our energy infrastructure takes time. To just say "Oil Bad, Wind Good" is a form of magical thinking. We have to expect more of ourselves. We need to recognize that our next steps in national and even global energy technology and production for more than six billion people needs to be thought through carefully. No need to make the case that things are changing and we need to consider how to provide energy for billions of people, the world and the governments get it. It is up to us to make sure that the "next big thing" doesn't create a new set of unanticipated consequences. Another set of conditions that precipitate new global ecological problems or even catastrophes.

Not spewing black soot into the air doesn't automatically qualify a technology as "green." To be truly "green", a technology should not have a negative impact on the environment, flora and fauna included. As a society, we can't use the simple test of whether or not an energy source has a low carbon footprint to give it an "A" as a green technology. Why do I say that, how can it be anything but "green" as a shamrock if there is zero carbon emissions from an energy source? Why does the discussion need to be broadened from the simple test of "No carbon foot print equals Green Energy"? Let's take an example of a theoretical situation where the last stronghold of a rare species, let's say Lowland Gorillas, lives in a single, isolated tropical forest in the Congo. Let's call the valley King Kong Valley. Everything the last remaining wild lowland gorillas on earth need is in that environment and nowhere else on earth. A company, let's call it NoGo, has struck a deal with the Congo government to put a dam at one end of the valley. The dam will have a hydroelectric plant built into it. The hydroelectric plant will have zero carbon emissions and will not burn any hydrocarbons during its operations. With a neutral carbon footprint the new NoGo hydroelectric dam will be touted around the world as a wonderful green initiative for the Congo nation. To help fund the dam, the company NoGo will work with an international bank for financing. So far so good. Just before the project begins someone asks the question, "How high will the water in the valley rise when the dam is built?" The answer comes back that the valley will fill to within 50 feet of the top of the valley. All of the gorillas will die out as a result of the hydroelectric dam. Once the new dam and hydroelectric plant is in place there will be no hydrocarbon emissions and there will be no gorillas left in the valley or in the world. The question that needs to be asked, "Is the hydroelectric plant built into the dam on that river in the bottom of the valley a "green" project or not"? If we simply use air quality as our gage, then the project is "green." If we ask, "Is there a negative impact on a rare wildlife species, then the answer is the project is not "green." Now to complicate the matter a bit for people who say they couldn't care less about gorillas, what if the riparian habitat in the bottom of the valley is an area that has unique wild plant species. And what if those unique plant species might have important value to western medicine. Perhaps they could be used in the treatment of life threatening human diseases, such as diabetes or cancer. The construction of the hydroelectric dam would wipe out these wild plant species. These are plant species that have not yet even been studied or even cataloged and described by western science. Now we are talking about wiping out significant and unique biological diversity in plant, as well as animal species from the face of the earth, forever. Is the question about greenness of the hydroelectric dam getting more cloudy and difficult to answer in a black and white way? Let's add another complication to the question of greenness. Shouldn't we consider the moral and ethical impact of an energy technology, even with no carbon emissions, if say it has a negative impact on endangered wildlife, such as the declining lowland gorilla populations? What about a hydroelectric dam that will flood a remote valley that may have as yet undiscovered unique plant species. What if there is an isolated, unique aboriginal tribe that has lived for millennia in the valley? What if the hydroelectric dam will wipe the culture of those people out when the reservoir is full? Is that hydroelectric dam "green"? Does the simple lack of carbon dioxide emissions translate into being beneficial or at worst, benign to the environment? The case would be hard to make in this instance. The same can be said to be true of other forms of "green" energy technologies. What this means is that energy sources are not either pure good or pure evil for the planet or humankind. All forms of energy generation can have good and bad aspects associated with them. Let's take a look at the biggest nuclear reactor that every human on planet earth has intimate knowledge, our sun. Without our sun, life as we know if on the planet would not exist and neither would humans. At the same time, most of us realize that the sun can have many negative, dangerous, and even deadly impacts on humans. The warmth we enjoy and crave from the sun on bitter cold days in far northern or far southern reaches of the globe also kills people directly through heat stroke in hot climates. It also causes thousands of cases of deadly skin cancers annually in humans and other animals. We understand and accept the good and the bad with the sun. Nuclear power in well designed power plants has the opportunity to be a very green source of energy for Americans. While there can be dangers associated with nuclear power, each newly plant is designed and built to be safer than the last one. In numerous countries in Europe and Asia, they have learned to embrace the possibilities of nuclear power, just as we all embrace the positive warmth and energy from our sun.

Green Washing the American Public—the history of the term greenwashing is discussed by Jim Motavalli in his article in the online personal finance web site WalletPop. It was coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westerveld, in an essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing green placards in each room, promoting reuse of guest-towels, ostensibly to "save the environment". Westerveld believed that the hotel's real reason for the placards was primarily to save money and increase its profits by washing towels less. The goal wasn't to save the planet or be eco-friendly. The term came from taking the common term whitewashing and applying it to corporations or institutions who whitewashed their profit motives with green claims to burnish their public images. We can see this happening today in the wind energy industry. It can also happen with public servants who might have their own agendas or business connections, but wrap them in a publicly popular concept, like "green" or "low carbon footprint."

Just because an Energy Source is has a low "carbon footprint" when operating doesn't make it "green." An object or product's carbon footprint is a measure of the total carbon dioxide or the total greenhouse gases (GHG) produced or emitted. While the carbon foot print of a product or energy source is one measure of the eco-friendliness of that object, it can not be used as the sole measure of how environmentally sound that product or object is. An example of an action that can have a very low carbon footprint, but have very negative environmental consequences might be to use a pick and shovel to breach every beaver dam on a steep mountain stream in a mountain ecosystem. There would be no measurable carbon emitted during the manual labor to accomplish the task with manual tools. However, there would likely be a tremendous negative impact to the mountain ecosystem due to the draining of the expansive wetlands of beaver ponds created by the beaver dams. Beaver ponds become relatively quiet aquatic ecosystems that can support a very diverse wildlife ecosystem by creating a backwater in contrast to a small trickle of water from a steep stream. A narrow, steep mountain stream may hold very little larger wildlife, such as trout, ducks, wading birds, turtles, and beavers themselves. While a beaver pond often contains fish such as trout, breeding ducks, wading birds, turtles, beavers and a watering hole for larger mammals, such as deer, elk, and predatory mammals.

Wind turbines themselves are not good or bad and they may be able to provide a safe and green source of renewable energy for people, depending on the place and way they are used. If small individual turbines are installed in backyards and in downtown areas of cities they can probably provide a valuable way for individuals to get renewable green energy to save them money and help to cut carbon emissions. Some European countries, such as Germany are installing wind turbines in the windy corridors created by large, commercial buildings. The same kinds of positioning and installations can probably be used effectively in American cities such as the windy city, Chicago.

Wind Resistance—

Do Commercial Wind Farms Negatively Impact Climate Change?

This is the title of an article on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) web site from March 2010. An interesting article that has gotten no traction in the popular press, why is that? Let's take a look at what the article has to say. Generally, the article is about analysis from MIT which suggests that mega-wind farms could be a negative to climate change! The most vocal proponents of wind power continually push it as a way to diminish the threat of global warming. Current estimates of the amount of electricity production from wind turbines is roughly 2 percent according to the American Wind Energy Association. The Department of Energy (DOE) in America has stated that wind turbines could account for up to 20% or one fifth of the U.S. electricity supply by 2030.

Everyone from financial investment companies to auto companies nowadays seems to have video clips of large commercial wind farms in their television commercials. The investment companies seem to want to capitalize on the investment potential of commercial wind power, with the idea of wrapping themselves in the uncontroversial excellence of wind power as our next energy source. At the same time car companies that have all electric cars seem to want to convey that their new vehicles will have a neutral impact on the environment by using commercial wind farm created energy. No more global warming to worry about if their cars are powered by electricity generated by commercial wind farms. Building contractors line up to get certified at $100,000 plus for high end commercial Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, commonly known as LEED certification, which includes reserved parking spaces in the front of the building for electric vehicles, with an electric outlet to charge electric vehicles. A 2010 MIT press release about the analysis of commercial wind farms should serve to temper some of this euphoria about wind power. This is particularly true about the largest scale installations. An online paper, cited in the MIT press release, published in the February 22, 2010 issue of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, authored by Ron Prinn and Chien Wang, suggests that using wind turbines to meet just 10 percent of the global energy demand by the end of the century could cause temperatures to rise by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 degrees) in the land regions where the wind turbines are installed. There are predictions that there would be smaller, but still increases, in areas beyond where the turbines are installed. The researchers assumed that to reach a 10 percent total energy production level it would mean the implementation of millions of wind turbines. These millions of wind turbines would require the implementation of mega wind farms on a massive scale. They would need to be implemented across massive areas of land. The researchers make the observation that the non-steady nature of wind energy production due to wind coming and going in an inconsistent fashion will require backup power systems. Those backup systems would most likely require using more traditional energy sources, such as power plants running on natural gas.

While the researchers do not come out against wind power, they do urge that their research be used as a guide to explore downsides of mega wind farms before society invests huge amounts of resources in constructing those massive wind farms.

The researchers used a climate model developed by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research to perform their analysis of the atmosphere over a 60 year period. Their calculations observed that the overall surface air temperature over the regions dominated by large wind farms would increase by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (one degree Celsius). The authors attribute this temperature increase to the wind turbines reducing the speed of the wind over land. This wind reduction is greater on the downwind side of wind farms. This slowing of the wind speed reduces the horizontal transport process away from the earth's surface and less heat moving into the cold upper reaches of the atmosphere. They used the analogy of a warm beach on a summer day if the wind disappears or drops, it would quickly get warmer.

The researchers modelling also believed there would be changes in large-scale precipitation. These precipitation changes are believed to be greatest at the mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, which is where the U.S. is located. They predict these changes could exceed 10 percent in some areas. If those estimates are correct, it could significantly change the rain and snow patterns for large agricultural areas of the U.S.. As the American heartland is an important region for food production for the U.S. and the world, it would seem to this author that these changes could have dramatic, unpredictable impacts on overall food production.

Prinn and Wang made the point that the seasonal variations in wind over large areas of North America will mean unreliable wind production, requiring backup power generation, even if there is a massive high power transmission line infrastructure across the continents. Again, it would seem to this author that the billions spent on transmission lines and habitat degradation will not allow us to escape the use of another power source.

The MIT researchers say it is too early to tell if they are correct, but they caution that there may be something to the negative impact of massive commercial wind farms on temperature and regional precipitation patterns. Meanwhile some politicians seem to be in a headlong rush to show just how green they are by taking taxpayer monies and throwing it quickly at the companies such as General Electric. As a multinational conglomerate, General Electric had 2008 revenues of $183 Billion dollars. Yet they must find the commercial wind farm business does not pencil out as a business investment without massive taxpayer subsidies. Before even more taxpayer money is shovelled into G.E. it would behove us to find out if massive commercial wind farms are as benign, or even beneficial, as we have been lead to believe by our elected officials.

"Green" to Meet Political Goals—

Do Politicians Use The Words Green and Science in Decision Making or Only To Meet Political Goals?

Candidate Barack Obama pushed for using science and scientists to make decisions about the environment. Newly elected President Obama issued a press release on March 9, 2009 which directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to "develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." President Obama outlined the goals of his new policy to "...ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; ... we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals—to preserve our environment ..." I believe that President Obama was sincere in his words as a candidate for president of the United States. To give him the benefit of the doubt, we can assume that he is truly an urban person and simply doesn't understand complex biological systems in nature. If he knew better,he would likely be making better choices when it comes to American wildlife. Some things, such as protecting polar bears due to climate change, can not be fixed by a simple US presidential rule, regulation, or advocacy. But protecting sage grouse and prairie grouse is something that the president can have a direct impact on. President Obama has shown a distinct fascination with and appreciation of President Theodore Roosevelt. Some of Teddy Roosevelt's greatest accomplishments had to do with restoring and protecting America's wildlife. Roosevelt was particularly fascinated with iconic species that were game animals and food sources for early Americans, such as bison, elk, and sage grouse. Now Mr. Obama has the opportunity to continue that legacy. During a television interview with Bill O'Riley before Super Bowl XVL, Mr. Obama said that as President of the United States, only the really hard things land on his desk, all of the easy things have already been dealt with at a lower level. This is an example of having to understand that using science to make decisions about protecting the earth is more than the simple carbon/no carbon choice. This is about understanding that that kind of thinking is good for sound bites and speaking to the average elementary student, but when it comes to public policy a much more mature thought process needs to occur. The subtleties and nuances of what makes an energy technology environmentally friendly or not is much harder than carbon/no carbon. It needs to consider the true environmental costs and impacts, which is much broader than carbon/no carbon.

Wind Farm Installations—

Importance of Location and Size of Wind Farm Installations

As Americans,we all need to be cautious as we look for solutions to climate change causes. In our rush to do the right thing,we need to be careful not to just do things to make ourselves feel good about having done something. When we put in place multi-billion dollar programs they are not easy to undo. Wind energy is one of those things that ALWAYS seems like the right thing to do for some people. In some cases wind power may be a good solution, in other cases it is not the right thing to do. The two most important things that can make wind power the wrong solution today are size and location.

The installation of hundreds of hydroelectric dams across the country at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century created quite an excitement. The small projects on small creeks and streams created local power. Each one also had limited environmental impact, again restricted to the local relatively small ecosystem. However, as the sizes of the projects increased in size, the environmental impact was greater and more widespread. As people began to see the finiteness of the wilderness and wildlife resources, some visionaries among us began to see the environmental problems being created by the "clean" hydroelectric dams being installed at every available opportunity. Wiping out local streamside riparian habitats, flooding small valleys, flooding woodlots upstream of the dam, these things began to have value as there were less of them. Initially, the reservoirs created behind the dams created new habitats that were fascinating to people. As time wore on, the areas behind the dams began to collect silt from the streams and creeks. The water temperature climbed in the backed up water, the water became shallower, and less desirable. Upstream annual migrations by fish, such as salmon, were blocked by hydroelectric dams, and original species in the area begin disappearing. With the old riparian streamside habitat gone and with the new reservoirs seen in a less positive light, people began to question the overall net value of the hydroelectric dams. We now see a strong movement to begin the removal of these dams to restore the watercourses back to their original life. Some will be able to return successfully, others will struggle to be able to return to their original habits with their accompanying species. We are now at the same point with wind turbines. As with hydroelectric dams, small wind turbines in people's yards or on the property of individual businesses will have relatively limited environmental impact. Their connection to the electric grid will be minor, short, and simple. The same will not be true of massive mega wind farms built miles or even hundreds of miles from where they can connect to the electric grid. The losses of wildlife and wilderness may be enough to push species in our crowded world to the edge of extinction or beyond. As the Harvard educated Spanish American philosopher, George Santayana remarked, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" Let's not forget our past so quickly.

****

### Chapter 2

### The Cost of Wind Energy

Cost to Wildlife

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is a division of the US Department of Interior. The US Department of Interior is a Presidential Cabinet level position, with the Secretary of the Interior reporting directly to the President of the United States. Information published by US Fish and Wildlife personnel make the scientific case that large commercial wind turbines installed in inappropriate places can cause large-scale deaths of sensitive and beneficial species such as bats, raptors, and prairie and sage grouse. The deaths are caused by a variety of systems and structures associated with large commercial wind farms. The obvious concern that most people might guess will be dangerous and damaging to flying wildlife are the spinning blades themselves. While large white spinning windmill blades rotating on the horizon or in an advertisement seem bucolic, restive, and like the perfect green energy source, the fact is that the tips of the blades can be spinning at up to 200 miles per hour. Those speeding blades can act like a giant blender for large raptors such as eagles and hawks which fly around the commercial wind turbines and chop those birds of prey up. Biologists have found that even small species of American bats regularly get killed from the spinning turbines of commercial wind turbines.

Less than a century ago, hydro electric power was touted as a wonderful clean energy source, no carbon emissions, no smoke stacks, no particulates in the air—how can anyone argue with that as a great energy source? Some of modern mankind's great engineering accomplishments in the 20th century have been associated with the construction of humongous dams in western America, such as the Hoover dam which was the worlds highest dam when it was constructed and has the ability to produce over 4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity annually. But now we see that this engineering marvel is an environmental problem at many levels. In Oregon, dams on the Columbia River which provide hydro electric power have greatly contributed to massive declines in salmon populations and triggered a litany of lawsuits over the impact of dams on declining salmon fisheries.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has concerns about the dangers of large wind turbines to sensitive American wildlife. Studies at one of the largest wind farms in the world, Altamont in California, shows that the larger the wind turbines the worse the outcomes for wildlife. At the same time, commercial wind farm backers keep pushing for larger and larger wind turbines to maximize the return on investment (ROI). Financial backers of commercial wind farms, as with any commercial investment in technology, are all about what kind of a financial multiple their initial investment will yield over time; the more money over the shorter amount of time translates into a good financial investment. While getting back a smaller amount of money over a longer amount of time translates into a less desirable investment from a purely financial point of view. Once we recognize that financial backers of commercial mega-wind farms are typically doing so to directly benefit their bank account and those of their group of investors, while at the same time wrapping a cloak of environmental righteousness around their motives (green washing), it can allow for a more rational discussion about societies decisions regarding commercial mega-wind farms. We have to remember that we, the people of the United States ultimately are responsible for the decisions being made regarding what technologies are allowed, which are rewarded, which are supported by tax incentives, which are further subsidized by forcing consumers to buy the power they generate, and finally, which ones are given the government and the White House's halo status, of being pure and good beyond reproach—any attempt at a rational discussion is met with derision and accusations that the dissenter is just too ignorant of uninformed to understand what is best for them and the rest of the world.

Changing wilderness landscapes by changing the horizon miles away—will we compromise our purest respite from the stresses of modern life. True wilderness experiences and environments are important to people, even people that will never visit them. Just knowing that pure environment is there is enough for most people. People who have never seen a polar bear in the wild, a whale in the ocean, or a tiger in the wild want to know they are still there and living free. It is important to the human spirit. No matter how much material junk we collect in our modern life, we are inseparably connected through evolutionary forces to nature, wilderness, and the feeling of freedom that only remote, wilderness places can evoke in the human soul. Remote wilderness places don't become more valuable when human development has changed them, but the exact opposite, they lose their spiritual value. As Chris Morgan, the biologist who created the PBS Nature film entitled Bears of the Last Frontier said, "Wilderness isn't the wide open spaces, but the wild things that fill it."

Recently, in late 2010, Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar issued a directive to come up with a plan for finding areas that have "wilderness characteristics"—such as being largely unaffected by human development. Secretary Salazar said this was necessary because unspoiled areas are becoming increasingly rare. The question that we need to ask from that directive is—are we just saving the land or do we want to save wildlife too? Unfortunately for sage grouse they don't live in scenic canyons or on awe-inspiring mountain tops. Sage grouse need the protection of very large areas of sage steppe, which are relatively flat or gently rolling sage flats. Some have called the sage flats North America's inland sea. It creates the same serenity that being on the watery ocean can.

We need to not let sage grouse or prairie grouse slip into the oblivion that consumed the dodo, the passenger pigeon, the Carolina parakeet, and the Heath Hen. Since the world lost those species for eternity we are much more well informed and smarter about ecosystems, wildlife and natural history today. We have obligations to our descendents. We can't tell our children and grandchildren that we had a chance to save the fascinating sage grouse and prairie grouse, but turned our backs on the opportunity.

Theodore Roosevelt commented on his conservation record by saying, "... In addition to certain things were done of which the economic bearing was remote, but which bore directly on our welfare, because they add to the beauty of living and therefore to the joy of life." This powerful statement is important. Teddy Roosevelt was our first environmentally active president. He believed in utilizing and harvesting natural resources, but he understood the importance of protecting beauty and uniqueness in the environment. He protected both the landscapes and the wildlife that live there. Sage and prairie grouse, with their spectacular breeding displays are certainly examples of unique animal species. There is no need to travel to the jungles of South America or sub-Saharan Africa to see some of the world's most spectacular dancers in the animal kingdom—they are right here, right now in North America. We all need to make sure they are here for our posterity as part of our legacy to our children and future generations.

Taxpayer Subsidies—

Business Investment 101

For the vast majority of companies, particularly publicly traded companies, making a profit for the shareholders is the goal. In America's capitalist society there is nothing wrong or unethical about companies seeking to make a profit. Most companies that look to make a profit also understand what makes them popular with the public. Right now advertising that a company is investing in "green" energy is good business. You can see "green" hype on TV, in magazine ads, online, and in product brochures. The companies range from car manufacturers to energy utilities to financial investment firms. Many ads and marketing efforts seen today include gleaming white commercial wind turbines gently rotating in the background of a beautiful, bucolic setting. It is important for stockholders and the general public to not just accept the "green" label in marketing and brand building without understanding its true impact on all aspects of the environment, not just lack of smokestacks. I was just reading in our local paper an article originally from the New York Time News Service about eco-jeans. The article stated that two years ago going green was red-hot in the fashion industry. The article went on to state the various brands of jeans made with at least some amount of organically grown cotton. Organically grown cotton is cotton that is grown without environmentally damaging chemicals. Apparently according to the Sustainable Cotton Project, 25 percent of the world's pesticides and fertilizers are used on conventional cotton crops. The article goes on to say that today none of the major brands listed offering them two years ago are offering them today. The economics and quality were not working in the free market. Yet the article goes on to state that the companies are revisiting what is really eco-friendly when it comes to fabric. It quotes Michael Kobori, VP for social and environmental sustainability at Levi Strauss saying "We're shooting for greater impact." There is a focus on sustainable agriculture techniques, including reducing water use, economic, and labor issues, in addition to reducing chemical use in cotton agriculture. These larger, more encompassing changes occurred without government subsidies using tax payer money. Without tax subsidies and politicians creating sound bites for their campaigns, unsustainable "green" concepts die out and get replaced by new and potentially better ideas.

When smart companies invest their money, they calculate their perceived return on investment (ROI). The ROI is pretty much what it logically sounds like it is; the amount of financial return on money put into an investment. ROI is an important indicator of how much a company profits or loses from each of its investments. The higher the ROI, the better the investment is from a profitability point of view. If a company can invest $100 and make $150 back in sales, then it will have an ROI of 50%. However, the ROI calculation doesn't need to take into consideration whether the money coming in is just from selling products and services or whether it comes from government subsidies. If the company above invests the same $100 and makes $150 back in sales, but also gets an additional $50 in government tax subsidies, then its total ROI will be 100% instead of the 50% ROI without the government subsidies. The stockholders of the company get a better ROI on their initial investment. If the additional $50 comes from tax subsidies, not from customers, who is paying for it? The answer is that taxpayers are footing that bill. When the federal or state governments subsidize energy technologies, they are literally taxing you and giving the money to the energy company. Are these types of tax subsidies a good idea? There are different lines of thought on this topic. Sometimes subsidies help to kick-start a promising new technology. Other times subsidies become a black hole and suck up money from tax payers, with the only winner being the stockholders or owners of the companies receiving the subsidies.

While perhaps the average citizen and some uninformed "environmentalists" might see wind technology as a simple decision to help save the environment from carbon emissions, there are some shrewd business people who see this as an opportunity to develop their own financial green from this technology. With the availability of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks there is a lot of money to be made in the name of low carbon footprints. The excitement over a simplified view of any energy source that is not coal-based is a good energy source, has caused a number of illogical investments of public funds via tax subsidies.

As an example we can take a look at where the state of Oregon is at this point in time. States such as Oregon have created taxpayer funded subsidies which encourage the implementation of commercial wind energy farms which would not pencil out financially as profitable if the taxpayers didn't basically pay the profit to the investors. Many of today's politicians, such as Oregon's Governor Kulongoski, who wanted to be identified as socially responsible, jumped all over the "green" bandwagon. While he was probably sincere in his initial interest in commercial wind farms and commercial solar farms, he must have gotten selective hearing later in his administration. When he was made aware of the environmental consequences of commercial wind power, he still pushed it as if though it was a benign and completely safe energy source.

Examples of the double taxation that American taxpayers are paying, while a handful of investors take that money can be seen with Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC). The Oregon taxpayers subsidize the cost of commercial mega wind farms, with estimated cost for the 2011-13 fiscal biennium estimated at $374,000,000, while Oregonians will be mandated to purchase that electricity at an elevated cost by Oregon law. (Unlike most states, Oregon's legislature does not create an annual state budget, nor does it meet annually. The Oregon legislature only meets every other year for a full session and creates a two-year biennial budget.)

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal addressed the cost to taxpayers of tax subsidies of commercial wind farms. The article, entitled "Wind Jammers at the White House" centers around a memo from Larry Summers, chief economic aide to President Barack Obama and senior policy aides Carol Browner and Ron Klain. The memo addresses the Department of Energy (DOE) dispute with the Treasury and the White House budget office (OMB). The DOE is in the position to give a cash grant to renewable energy developers that is equal to 30% of a project's cost. In addition the DOE is able to give loan guarantees. The Summers memo points out that these two provisions reduce "the cost of a new wind farm by about 55%" compared to a non-subsidized business. Taxpayers therefore become majority partners in these energy ventures. There was concern by OMB and the Treasury department that the energy developers had very little skin in the game because they had such a small amount of their own equity invested in the projects compared to what would be required in the private sector markets. The result was "an insufficient number of financially and technically viable projects."

The article goes on to highlight a very large, commercial 845-megawatt wind farm in Oregon, known as Shepherds Flat; the wind farm is to install 338 General Electric wind turbines. Shepherds Flat had a DOE guarantee, and the cost to taxpayers is about $1.2 billion, when the federal and state subsidies are combined. The sponsors of Shepherds Flat were GE and the Caithness Energy LLC, which has only invested about 11% of the $1.9 billion cost for the wind farm. They also point out that the wind farm, being in Oregon, was in the enviable position of being able to sell power at "above-market rates" due to the renewable portfolio standard mandate in Oregon requiring utilities to buy a certain annual amount of wind, solar, and other "green" energy.

The estimate is that the Shepherds Flat wind farm might result in 18 million fewer tons of carbon through 2033, the memo points out that the carbon reductions would have to be valued at more than six (6) times the primary estimate used by the government for CO2 emissions in evaluating rules.

The WSJ article goes on to point out that the government is paying 65% of the cost of a project which doesn't meet a normal cost-benefit test. The article wraps up by citing from the Larry Summers memo "Failing to make progress on renewable loan guarantees could upset the Hill ([New Mexico] Sen. [Jeff] Bingaman, Speaker Pelosi)" and changes could "signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the Administration." This means there is political motivation to make the wind energy support move forward to defend the federal stimulus program, which is under a lot of negative attacks from critics. Too bad for US and Oregon taxpayers and too bad for Oregon wildlife.

Interestingly enough in Oregon, many of the commercial wind farms are subsidized by Oregon taxpayers to create large profits for out-of-state companies. The energy itself is also used by out-of-state organizations.

Now we see that China is producing and shipping their wind turbines to the US for installation. We are already reaching a saturation of the low-level techs to support the wind turbine farms. The true high-paying jobs in the commercial wind farm industry are coming from community college certificate programs. The high paying jobs come from people who already are journeymen or master electricians, or from engineers. Therefore, we are quickly moving to a situation where Americans will be installing Chinese wind turbines using American taxpayer money. As in Oregon, the wind farms are often installed in states that subsidize the wind farms in the hopes that a few jobs will be created in that state. The big money is actually being made by people outside the state borders.

An associated renewable green energy technology to wind power is solar power. Here we also find problems in the dream. In an article by Keith Bradsher from the New York Times News Service, the article title reads "U.S. solar panel maker moves work to China." This article appeared in the my local paper on January 15, 2011. The article states "Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts ... Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years at the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States."

"But now the company is closing its main U.S. factory, laying off 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China." The article goes on to say that the Chinese are offering their own subsidies to lure Evergreen to China. It also goes on to say "... plunging prices for solar panels. World prices have fallen as much as two-thirds in the last three years—including a drop of 10 percent during last year's forth quarter alone." Dramatically dropping prices are good for the consumer, but is appears that with the commoditization of solar panel technology the outlook for American manufacturers and their employees may not be as good. Look for manufacturing of solar panels to occur in cheap labor market countries. The same article pointed out that "... China just passed the U.S. as the world's largest builder and installer of wind turbines."

People have made the case about the problems with government officials trying to do good by trying to select the "next big thing" in technology. Elected officials often do this by creating tax incentives for their favorite solution. The problem is that the way the favored solution is chosen is often based on what will favor their district. Another reason that tax incentives are created is based on talks from lobbyists for a specific industry or solution. An example of this can be seen in from a recent article from The Washington Post authored by Peter Whoriskey and appearing in the The Bulletin newspaper of Bend, Oregon on March 11, 2011. This article is about cars powered by optimized conventional gasoline engines yielding better mileage than hybrid vehicles. The article points to new cars with conventional gasoline engines from several automakers which are getting between 40-50 miles per gallon. Whoriskey makes the point "... the new fuel-efficient gasoline cars ... raise doubts about government efforts that favor any one technology over another. If subsidies are made ... they should go to efficient cars, no matter what their power source. Moreover, when the fuel economy of a best-selling gas car is improved even incrementally, it can have much larger effects on the nation's oil consumption than an alternative-technology model that doesn't sell well." In this same way caution must be exercised toward unbridled adoption of wind technology. The economics and the environmental benefits may not be what is being projected or portrayed today.

****

### Chapter 3

### Laws For Wind Farms—Are They Sufficient?

In Oregon, there are regulations which prevent commercial wind farms which are greater than 104 MW in size without state land use approval. However there is nothing in the Oregon regulations to prevent dozens of 104MW commercial wind farms from being constructed one next to another from border to border. This one loophole effectively means there is no limit to the size of commercial wind farm sizes. Other states or provinces may have similar regulations that look like Swiss cheese when it comes to having any real protections in them.

Related to regulations associated with wind farms is the non-trivial question of how to move the power generated to the electrical grid system. The old-fashioned system of stringing high voltage lines from tall pylons is becoming a liability to the U.S.. There needs to be serious consideration of placing high voltage lines underground in the US. The technology and processes to do this have been available for a long time. We currently use underground cables in urban areas, where rivers and natural obstacles get in the way, if areas are considered environmentally important, and areas that we don't wish to depreciate in value. With current installation processes and incentives underground installation has added costs associated with it, however there are some important advantages. To begin with high voltages electrical transmission lines can jump out or flash over to anyone, or anything that approaches too close to a live conductor. Surprisingly you don't have to physically touch a high voltage line to be seriously electrocuted or even killed!In our modern world where electrical reliability is more important than in the past and where more severe weather conditions are expected, underground high voltage cables have important advantages. Underground cables are less subject to being damaged from severe weather conditions such as ice storms, high winds, tornadoes, and electrical storms, thus limiting potential weather related outages to homes and businesses. In the right conditions, winds as low as 23 knots can impact overhead conductors and result in electrical flashover that creates an outage. Another thing to consider when it comes to overhead lines in remote or wilderness areas is the risk from wildfire. There have been recent wildfires in places like Arizona that have come close to hitting major power lines. If those lines are damaged by wildfire, there is a very real potential for significant outages to segments of the electrical grid. With more and more of the world and the US technology being dependent on a robust electrical grid, overhead lines are another risk and exposure point in societies infrastructure.

When it comes to any health concerns regarding electromagnetic fields (EMF) from high voltage lines, the earth provides a significant shielding from the range and power of those EMF fields. Underground cables require the use of less land than overhead lines require. Underground cables right-of-ways (ROW) can be only three to 30 feet wide versus the 60-600 feet wide ROWs used for overhead installations. In addition to the amount of land area needed being up to 200 times greater for overhead lines, which space is kept permanently clear for maintenance and safety reasons. That means that huge areas of the American countryside are used by overhead lines. With underground lines the amount of ground level impacts is negligible once the land along the installation has a chance to recover. The planned increase the electrical grid will require setting aside these vast areas just to move the electricity around the nation, with all if the attendant environmental problems. We need to start taking steps to reclaim the space occupied by overhead transmission lines and get those lines buried. Another significant positive aspect of underground transmission lines is they are at much less of a risk from terrorist attacks, sabotage, etc. With our rapidly increasing reliance on data communications, protection from internal and external sabotage is an important consideration. Our current overhead electrical grid system across vast areas of rural countryside, with satellite imagery detailing all of it with the click of a mouse or tap on a screen, puts all of our assets at risk. Underground lines will significantly minimize that risk. Finally, the daily risks to low flying aircraft will can be eliminated, as can risks to wildlife and individuals who get shocked or electrocuted annually from accidental contact with high voltage overhead lines.

We certainly don't need to add any more overhead high voltage lines in the inventory we currently have. This is an area ripe with opportunities to clean-up the environment, create new technologies and processes, and get people employed in high value types of occupations. This can be a gift to future generations.

We need to direct the power industry to be forward thinking in there infrastructure. They need to invest in all of our futures With buried power transmission cable the risk to sensitive wildlife species declines over time, after the initial disturbance to the area heals itself, often in less than 10 years, while the massive steel transmission line pylons that are typically put in place now stay for many decades and if there is a removal of them, there is another significant disturbance to the environment and the people and wildlife in close proximity to them. There continue to be studies showing that these high-voltage lines may be linked to increased incidence of certain forms of cancer.

The practice of stringing power lines overhead goes back over 120 years. In the 1890s the area over the streets of New York City looked like a spider web of lines with different voltages of electrical current and telegraph lines. Perhaps it is time to begin ridding the country's skies of electrical transmission lines. In just a decade or so the cell phone industry has clearly gotten the message from the American public—get rid of the unsightly steel towers covered with large electronic gear. They are already using small, powerful transmitters which can use existing infrastructure to broadcast signals. Some of this is driven by public demand to stop putting towers up everywhere across the landscape. If the nascent cell phone industry can start the process, it is time for the electrical industry to get the same message. They have a list of reasons why they don't want to go that route, but little pressure to do so. Now is the time for the public to ask for that new vision. We send people into space, we cure incurable diseases, cell towers will soon be a relic of the technology past, yet the electrical industry can't come up with ways to manage power without creating clutter on our horizons and hazards to our wildlife. I find it hard to believe.

The noise from commercial wind turbines is often described by wind turbine makers as no more than the sound from a typical home refrigerator, yet that is not the experience reported by many home owners unfortunate enough to be located near a large wind turbine. The problem is getting to be widespread enough that there is actually a term for it—Wind Turbine Syndrome. These mega commercial wind farms have very little in common with a 20 foot tall wind turbine that a private homeowner has to lessen their dependence on the grid. These commercial mega wind farms are gigantic factories. They are often being set up in rural or wilderness areas. What laws do we have to protect individuals who live in rural areas for the peace it brings to their souls and wellbeing, but then get wind farms created literally in their backyards? This is not a case of someone buying a home next to the airport and then complaining that the planes are bothering them, quite the opposite really. There are noise pollution standards, but are those laws enough to protect citizens located in rural and agricultural areas?

The East Oregonian article, published in The Bulletin at the end of 2010 reported that the enormous wind farm at Shepard's Flat is driving residents out. One of the neighbors to the wind farm said he wanted the wind company to buy him out when they approached him to sign a noise easement. It was reported that there was an attempt by the energy company to get the retiree with a 106-acre farm in the local valley to sign a noise waiver for $5,000. The farm owner refused after an exchange with a representative of the wind company which was reported as, "She said, 'We're not in the real estate business,' [the retiree farm owner] said, "I said, 'Fine—I'm not in the windmill business.'" A month later the farm owner signed a purchase agreement with the company to buy his farm and home. The article quoted the farm owner with "Everyone is rolling over and playing dead for (the wind companies)," Joanne Goodhead said. "It's amazing. Anything that's quoted as green is OK, whether is it or not." The article goes on to mention the profits that will be made by the New York based owner of the wind farm, operating in the state of Oregon. The big profits leave the state, while some jobs stay in Oregon. What laws are protecting the landowners from the effects of the mega wind farm? We have assurances from big companies that are making money from mega wind farms that they are safe and green, yet in early 2011 there was a sudden halt put on another safe energy technology, fracking, in Pennsylvania by Chesapeake Energy according to Reuters news service. Fracking is an abbreviated term for hydraulic fracturing of forcing a mix of water, sand and chemicals into the rock to release large quantities of natural gas. This had been put forward as a safe practice to recover natural gas and was supposed to help break the U.S. reliance on foreign imports of fossil fuels. President Obama has made natural gas production another keystone of his energy policy. The sudden halt to the fracking by Chesapeake Energy was due to a well blowout that spilled toxic fluid into a local waterway. There has been concern and controversy over the practice for quite some time, now there is an actual environmental and human health emergency from the practice which the industry assured the public was perfectly safe. Again, we are talking about people and wildlife living in rural areas being the ones immediately negatively impacted by incorrect information about the safety of the technology. The concerns about mega wind farms continues and there is scientific evidence to cast a lot of clouds over the commercial mega wind farms. The President said we would use science to make decisions, but it is starting to look like sound bites about "green" are trumping the real science about the fitness of current commercial mega wind farms.

****

### Chapter 4

### The Charismatic Sage and Prairie Grouse and Commercial Wind Farms

Photo by Gary Kramer. Public domain photo

Sage grouse played an important role as a food source for America's pioneers. There were descriptions of America's pioneers filling wagons with sage grouse to provide food for their communities, and for working groups, such as miners. The various species of prairie grouse also played an important role in feeding early American pioneers, and they were the inspiration for native American ceremonial dances, with many dances still being done at pow-wows. They are simulations of prairie chickens or sharp-tailed grouse performing their courting dances on their leks.

According to a sage grouse plan dated August 2005 entitled "Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat" authored by Dr. Christian Hagen, of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife the sage grouse is a species that requires a variety of plant community types in the sage steppe. They are quite wide ranging during their annual lifecycle. The plan has a sage grouse focus, but its goal is the maintenance and enhancement of sagebrush habitats. The plan recognizes the wide geographic range of many species which are also dependent on sagebrush ecosystems. Today sage grouse also can serve as an indicator species for the overall health of the sage steppe ecosystem. Some species that benefit from that healthy ecosystem are the federally listed as threatened or endangered species in the U.S. Animals that benefit from environments that support viable sage grouse populations include mule deer, pronghorn, pygmy rabbits, black-tailed jackrabbits, sagebrush voles, Brewers sparrows, black-throated sparrows, sage thrashers, sage sparrows, loggerhead shrikes, horned larks, western meadow larks, northern sagebrush lizards, and short-horned lizards.

Sage grouse need a variety of healthy ecosystems to thrive. In general they have evolved to inhabit a habitat that has very low vegetation, particularly during their breeding cycle. The sage steppe environment is one of low shrub-type plants, giving a clear view of approaching danger during courtship displays. Aerial predators in particular are a danger to sage grouse during their courtship on the leks. The low vegetation prevents eagles, hawks, and falcons from being able to sit in hiding in an elevated position to launch attacks on the sage grouse during their displays and breeding. Hawks, falcons, and eagles that prey on sage grouse all regularly look for elevated perches from which to hunt. These aerial predators have traditionally done so from structures such as tall trees or cliff faces. Sage grouse have evolved to avoid this danger by using breeding grounds that are far enough away from tall structures to make it difficult for raptors to launch elevated attacks on them before they can safely escape. If tall structures are suddenly introduced into otherwise excellent courting and breeding habitat it typically will result in them abandoning that area. They have evolved to be hardwired to genetically understand tall structures pose a threat to their lives due to aerial predator attack. That is what causes them to abandon habitat that has high structures like tall wind turbines and miles of high voltage transmission lines erected into otherwise pristine wild lands. They cannot evolve to suddenly accept these tall structures. Even if they could theoretically evolve to accept tall structures in their habitat (perhaps an occasional individual grouse is born to accept tall structures) it would be a bad change for them. The danger from aerial predation is very real today and into the future. Any birds that are born accepting tall structures in their breeding areas will not pass those genes on. If those birds display in areas that are unsafe, they will be quickly eliminated from the population by becoming someone's meal! Additionally, sage grouse have evolved to have a fascinating and highly visual courtship display. They need to have a large, and relatively safe environment for their courtship display. Even people would not do well continuing the species if all of their courting and breeding were subject to around the clock life threatening danger. Jus the threat of danger can cause enough stress to prevent successful future generations from being created.

Sage grouse are an interesting bird to watch, so much so that over the past decade a festival has actually sprung up to celebrate there captivating mating dance on their lek. The festival is growing and creating a positive economic impact to a small eastern Idaho town. It is called Dubois Grouse Days and is situated in the eastern Idaho town of Dubois. Dubois is a town of 647 people, 50 miles north of Idaho Falls and 482 miles NW of Denver, Colorado. This festival was started in 2003. Interests often on opposite sides of the table regarding sage-grouse and the sensitive wildlife, such as ranchers and environmentalists team up in a multi-day event featuring a banquet, arts and craft booths, kids activities, presentations by biologists and ranchers, a raffle and silent auction. There are guided tours and photographic blinds can be rented by the day for photographing the sage grouse displaying on their leks. Proceeds from the event support local conservation and education activities, and a scholarship for a graduating Dubois high school senior. Proceeds from the event go into the Kent L. Christopher Conservation Fund, named after the founder of the festival. Kent was a conservationist, with a special passion for the sage grouse and the American sage steppe habitat they require. Kent was also a falconer and educator, both important in shaping who he was. The festival has grown since its inception. There were less than 40 attendees and the net receipts for conservation were under $200. Five years later the two-day festival in this tiny eastern Idaho town had generated over $5,000 for the conservation fund. Kent was a longtime personal friend and his untimely death from a skiing accident was a blow to all that knew him. Kent's vision was a festival to celebrate grouse and grouse habitat, to engage, and educate the public, get them enthused and make conservation a community effort. It seems that this vision has become a reality. We need to make sure that rash decisions for short-term gains do not end up sealing the permanent fate of sage grouse for generations of sage grouse admirers to come.

Birds took millions of years to evolve from their reptilian ancestral roots. The precursor to modern birds was Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx evolved from a group of small agile reptiles known as pseudosuchians. These little reptiles ran about on their two hind feet. Over time and generations their initial body shapes and functions evolved into the Archaeopteryx. From Archaeopteryx, over the next thirty million years, the modern bird forms began to appear during the Cretaceous period, which began 130 million years ago. The Cretaceous period was at the end of the Mesozoic era, known as the Age of Reptiles. During the Eocene period, which began 65 million years ago, the early representatives in the modern taxonomic Order of Galliformes appeared. Within the Galliformes, the taxonomic Family of Phasianidae evolved. The modern versions of the Phasianidae began to appear 20-25 million years ago, at the boundary between the Oligocene and Miocene periods. Our modern sage grouse are in the taxonomic family Phasianidae and the subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes the prairie grouse (another group impacted by commercial wind farms).

Male Prairie Chicken performing mating display dance on a prairie chicken breeding lek. Note the special colorful, inflated air sac on the neck of the bird. This air sac provides a prominent colorful visual display, as well as providing a resonating air chamber to create the unique booming sound that the males make during their display dance. The Prairie Chicken dance has been imitated by Native Americans during ceremonial dances for hundreds of year. Public domain photo.

Prairie chicken numbers used to be large enough that the sound of large flocks could be heard over great distances. Prairie chickens, like sage grouse, also were an important source of sustenance for early pioneers. They had been an important upland game bird hunted by sportsmen until recently. Prairie chickens are negatively impacted by wind power in the same way as sage grouse, for the same reasons.

If the above taxonomic details about sage grouse evolution is too much Latin, here is a summary in simpler terms. Sage grouse shared an ancestor in common with the turkey. They evolved along a different line about six million years ago and evolved into the current species with the scientific name of Centrocercu urophasianus between one and two million years ago. Compare that ancient history to modern humans in our current form; modern humans evolved into our current basic form only about 200,000 years ago. Sage grouse clearly have one up on us regarding the bumper sticker "Native, Planet Earth."

The many species of birds have created a vast repertoire of displays that have evolved over time, unique to their particular species. These displays are often quite notable and even amazing. Some of the displays are flight displays, while others are performed on the ground. While many living animals have evolved dances on the ground, some birds have taken these dances to an unsurpassed level. Among the most fascinating and stunning of the bird dances are the mating dances performed by some species of the grouse family. The prairie and sage grouse in particular have intriguing dance routines which they perform on their special dancing grounds, known as leks. These dance displays are so captivating that Native Americans, such as the Cree and the Blackfoot, have mimicked the prairie chicken lek dance as part of their societal dancing. The reverence for the prairie chicken is still shown through the performance of the prairie chicken dance in powwows today.

Sage grouse are an iconic species of the American West. A species is considered iconic because something about it is important to people, but what that is can vary. They exist no where else but in the mountain-prairie region of the United States, and are just barely hanging on in the very southernmost area of Saskatchewan and Alberta Canada. Americans are funny sometimes, we watch nature programs about tropical rain forest plants and animals and worrying about those endangered wildlife populations. We see Americans wanting to take action about reduced biodiversity due to declining wildlife populations in South America or in Africa. Yet most of those same worried Americans are completely oblivious of unique and amazing wildlife in their own backyards. Sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, ferruginous hawks, and burrowing owls are unique and fascinating wildlife inhabiting the American West. All of them can be around for generations to come into the future with just a little attention to their habitat needs. Those same habitat needs are the thing that Americans like to feel is a part of the American spirit and psyche—untamed spaces. Places where Americans can go to recuperate from the challenges of everyday life. Places to restore their spirit. Places that are important to simply know exist, even if people can only rarely get there. As a matter of fact, it is important to know they are there, that they still exist, even if most people never get to visit them.

Humans, particularly Americans, owe a debt to sage grouse. They helped with the exploration of America's territories and with the settlement of the American West. Sage grouse provided nourishment to early Americans. Similar to the American bison, hunting and eating sage grouse was an important part of sustaining the European pioneers as they traveled westward. Sage grouse were also an important food source for North American aboriginal peoples and Native American tribes. Sage grouse bones have been found in caves in North America, with the bones in aboriginal caves dating back 14,000 years ago. Sage grouse, when their populations numbered in the millions, nourished our ancestors as they lived and traveled in the western portions of the continent.

Leks are a special and captivating place out in sage grouse country. Lek is the name given to the special dancing grounds that the sage grouse use for their breeding displays. They are very important areas in the sage steppe which the sage grouse have selected as the place they go for their annual exotic courting rituals. Sage steppe refers to the type of ecosystem which sage grouse require. A "steppe" is a large, dry habitat, often a grassland type of environment, while a sage steppe is a steppe habitat that is predominantly dominated by sagebrush.

I have read some uninformed statements about the environmental dangers that wind farms and high power lines pose to sage grouse environments. These statements are clearly from people without any understanding of natural history or evolution in general. Naïve statements such as "...I do think a study should be done but I think once the lines, roads and wind turbines are in place the sage will still grow around it and support the local eco-system." As if though the sage grouse will be able to evolve in a matter of years to a mental state that allows them to adapt to a radically change environment that includes 600 foot tall wind turbines and mile upon mile of high towers supporting transmission lines and depredating raptors. It won't happen, not because sage grouse are stubborn, but just because they are sage grouse, they can't change their hard-wired genetic behavior, but we can change our structures to protect and save them from extinction.

Largest of all North American grouse species and one of the largest grouse in the world, the sage grouse can be called an American Classic Game Bird. They are a large and magnificent bird, with some adult males weighing up to six pounds. They are able to live an extreme environment, from arctic-like cold in the winter to genuine blazing hot desert conditions in the summer. When they lift off (they aren't like most birds, they don't just take off, more like a cargo plane leaving the ground) they create an immediate sense of awe if you are within 50 yards of them. They are large, powerful and live in a beautiful, but stark landscapes, and make quite a striking contrast with the surrounding vegetation once they are in the air. Yet while on the ground they are almost impossible to see when not on their breeding leks.

The things that are or have been a danger to sage grouse populations are habitat destruction by human conversion of sage steppe into agriculture, overgrazing of habitat, energy production in remote sage steppe, badgers, ravens, habitat changes on a massive scale due to western juniper expansion (due to fire suppression by humans in sage steppe habitat), lack of water in some areas, and hitting wires while flying (both barbed wire fences and wires associated with power transmission lines). Today the single biggest threat to sage grouse populations is the much hyped plans to crisscross the American West with commercial wind farms and their attendant high voltage power lines and support towers. Most of the others can be remediated by taking appropriate measures to moderate their impact, but vast, rapid expansion of commercial energy production, including wind power creates problems that we haven't been willing to deal with up to this point in America.

Like most wildlife, the key to keeping healthy populations is to keep suitable habitat for them. Unlike humans, wildlife cannot live in high density housing situations, such as high rise buildings. The habitat has something known as "carrying capacity" associated with it for any given species and more animals than the maximum carrying capacity will allow will not last for long periods in that environment.

America's first scientific description of sage grouse was made by Meriwether Lewis in 1805 during the Lewis and Clark Expedition, ordered by President Thomas Jefferson. They were referred to as the Heath Cock or the cock of the Plains at that time. The observation was that they are a pheasant-like bird the size of a turkey, with male sage grouse weighing up to seven pounds. The Lewis and Clark expedition at times depended on the sage grouse for food. They provided sustenance and needed protein for the men of the expedition. Who knows, without the plentiful and easily killed sage grouse how the expedition would have fared? In The Wilson Bulletin, no. 83, S. S. Visher in Notes on the Sage Hen, he states that "The Sage Grouse ... is in many respects one of the most interesting of the birds of many portions of the west. The cock is almost as large as a hen turkey, so he is big enough to attract anyone's attention. All grouse are wonderfully effectively colored from the standpoint of protection. Some, of which the sage hen is one, have so much confidence in their invisibility that they have been dubbed "Fool Hens," because they allow such close approach. It is astonishing how completely hidden a sage chick can be, even on bare ground. Many a time I have come upon a mother walking conspicuously along with her brood. When she flew they would squat low in the short grass and disappear from sight. It is a mighty good test of acuteness of observation to then try to find all the young. Perhaps some may be located quite easily, but others, 'in plain sight,' will not be seen until they fly almost from under one's feet."

In an article on Wyoming history, A. Dudley Gardner related a story about a family in the late 1890's, and how they relied on eating sage grouse as a food source on their trips to market to sell potato crops; this took several days of travel. "One man, Eugene Cox, whose family homesteaded on Cold Springs Mountain, relates how his family would take several days in making the trip north to Rock Springs."

." . . then come spud time, I'd take a sack and drag it down there and store as many potatoes as I could when Dad plowed them up . . . I'd drag the sack as far as I could, and then Dad would have to come and get it because it'd get too heavy, and he'd throw them up from there.

They were good spuds, real good. In fact, we brought a wagon load of them to Rock Springs and sold them. At that time we come around on top of Quaking Aspen, around the south side of it, down around the Dugway. Now, of course there's another road down home.

We come up through Bull Springs, because we always stopped at Bull Springs, and we'd kill sage chicken for supper. We always stopped there and there was always sage chicken there and they were young ones. Yep, that's right."

American pioneers depended on the sage grouse species as an important part of their food source. Just as Americans refused to let the American Bison or the Bald Eagle slip into oblivion, Americans need to be insistent that we won't let the energy du jour become the death of another iconic species in America, the American Greater Sage Grouse. Sage Grouse are now a truly American species, even more so than the American Bald Eagle, which covers most of Canada, Alaska, the contiguous United States, and northern Mexico. They are a part of the legendary American west and just barely reach into the very southernmost portion of two provinces in Canada by a handful of miles.

Those of us who grew up as baby boomers can remember the amazing photos of the earth from space. The astronauts talked about the blue earth being the only thing of color they could see while traveling from the moon. A special place that has the only sage grouse in the entire universe. Even if there are other planets supporting life elsewhere in the universe, it is as unlikely there are sage grouse on them as for other planets to have humans on them. Like all earth species, they are one of a kind. There are no more of them anywhere in the universe. To let them go the way of the passenger pigeon or the dodo bird at this late time in human history is just not an ethical option.

In the U.S., there is an initiative out there right now to help protect sage grouse called the Sage Grouse Initiative, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. It is a step in the right direction for a number of reasons, but it is much too little to protect the sage grouse in the way they need and deserve to be protected. The plan is to look for the high density sage grouse areas and try to protect those areas. The problem is that it only targets about 25% of the sage grouse habitat, thereby abandoning hope for the 75% not covered by the plan. That is a very bad idea on a number of levels. An area outside of the plan area will be at a much higher risk for continued habitat degradation because it will have effectively been abandoned as a place to preserve. If we truly believe that sage grouse are a sort of canary in the mine indicator for sage steppe ecosystem health, then the abandonment of that area will doom the vast majority of sage grouse habitat to steady and continual degradation through energy development in wilderness type areas. Further, if habitat is not considered important and written off, the chance of any type of future remediation and reparation of that currently less-than-optimal habitat is unlikely and declines over time.

Sage grouse are one of the few species of game birds in the U.S. which have existed in huntable numbers on public lands. They provide an opportunity for Americans to pursue an American heritage of spending time in the wild, harvesting a dinner for themselves and their kin, and using hunting dogs for the very reason they were developed—to hunt. Today's dog breeds of English or Irish setters were developed over 400 years ago to hunt upland game for falconers and early gun hunters. That same flame continues to burn deep within the psyche and soul of the breeds, as it does in the soul of hunters themselves who cherish the very short season they have to pursue the cock of the plains. Keeping the sage and prairie grouse populations healthy will allow this highly managed harvest of wild game to continue into the future. This tradition of harvesting a wild game bird, such as the sage grouse, is an important link to American roots. A sage grouse harvested to feed a hunter and his family creates an amazing sense of gratitude toward nature and a healthy environment. President Theodore Roosevelt hunted sage steppe in pursuit of sage grouse. Understanding the investment of the countless hours required to train dogs, and spending countless hours in the wilds to bring home a meal fit for a king is something too few of us have an opportunity to experience in our "follow the sheep herd" life today. Everyone with a buck can buy a smart phone, get cable, get a car with heated seats and GPS, buy foods from around the word daily in our corner grocery stores. Yet only a very few take the time and effort to harvest a banquet from the wild fields. Although anyone who wishes to has the opportunity to do so in America. While it is an experience fit for a king, it is available to all with a will to pursue it.

Game Changer

There are many things to be concerned about if local land boards are allowed to quickly approved mega wind farm developments instead of going through state and federal approval. Local approvals often are made to address short-term local issues, not big picture scientific concepts, which will likely result in ignoring scientific facts regarding the negative impact on sage grouse populations from the developments and the associated installation of miles of high voltage transmission lines. If sage grouse are listed as an Endangered Species under the ESA due to negative population impacts from continued energy development on public and private lands it will likely result in making cattle grazing in the American west a thing of the past. If cattle grazing on public lands is completely outlawed it could well mean the end of many small towns across the American West, their culture, lifestyle, and that attendant impact on the U.S. economy. Cattle and cowboys can be compatible with healthy sage grouse populations. This can occur on both public and private lands. Care must be taken to prevent overgrazing, water sources must be protected, and in most cases cattle must be moved around the grazing areas based on annual local weather and plant growth. The grazing, monitoring, and land management, if done properly and honestly can actually improve segments of the sage steppe. Most of the sage steppe habitat has evolved in parallel with large hoofed animals, such as deer, elk, and bison. Much like healthy forests do well with limited fires and managed timber harvest, sage steppe can also see improvement with carefully managed grazing. We will look at this in more detail in a following chapter.

****

### Chapter 5

### Eagles, Hawks, and Falcons Getting Chopped Up by Wind Farm Turbines

Mature Bald Eagle in flight. Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, and other raptors are at risk of being directly killed by large commercial wind turbine blades. Some commercial wind turbine facilities have killed thousands of raptors. In the United States eagles, hawks, and falcons are protected by federal laws from being killed or molested. Photo by Ron Holmes. Public domain photo.

It is interesting that hawks, eagles, and falcons are protected in the USA under a law that dates back almost a hundred years to 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA is an agreement between the USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia to protect migratory birds. Over 800 species are currently on the list. This statute makes it unlawful to kill most wild birds listed except under very specific permits and regulations.

Individuals and companies that kill birds of prey in the US are often prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This prosecution under the MBTA has even been extended to falconers who have not killed birds of prey, but merely held them alive without permits. Some of these falconers have gotten prison time for holding those birds of prey without the proper permits, even though the birds were well cared for and still alive when confiscated.

There have been some very recent cases where power companies have been fined millions of dollars for the death of golden eagles being electrocuted from landing on towers for transmission power lines. In these cases it is not only a violation of the MBTA, but in the United State it is also a direct conflict with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEP). The BGEPA was enacted in 1940 and has been amended several times, including in 1962. It provides for criminal penalties if a person, without permits, "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The BGEPA defines "take" above as "..., wound, kill, ... molest or disturb." bald eagles or golden eagles. The definition of "disturb" in the BGEPA means to agitate or bother either species of eagle so that it causes injury to an eagle, or even decrease its nesting productivity through a variety of ways. This includes negative impacts to eagles, even when they are not present. How can that be? Well, if people alter the environment around nest sites while the eagles are not there and the alterations cause the eagles to abandon the area, or even interrupt normal breeding, then the people who altered the area are held responsible. A violation of the BGEPA can result in a $200,000 fine for an organization, and can include a year in prison for a first offense.

On July 10, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued a press release titled "Utility Giant to Pay Millions for Eagle Protection" In the release the Service stated,

"PacifiCorp – one of the largest electric utilities in the West – pleaded guilty today in Federal court in Casper, Wyoming, to unlawfully killing golden eagles and other migratory birds in the State. The company, which does business in Wyoming as Rocky Mountain Power, was ordered to pay over $10.5 million for killing eagles and other protected birds.

"The plea agreement responded to an information charging PacifiCorp with 34 counts of unlawfully taking golden eagles, hawks, and ravens in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. PacifiCorp has killed 232 eagles in Wyoming from January 2007 to the present. The company, which pleaded guilty to all 34 counts, has been sentenced to pay a $510,000 criminal fine and an additional $900,000 in restitution and will spend the next five years on probation. During this period, PacifiCorps has been ordered to spend $9.1 million to repair or replace its equipment to protect migratory birds from electrocution in Wyoming.

"A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigation, which began in 2007, linked excessive eagle mortalities to PacifiCorp's electrical distribution and transmission facilities in six Wyoming counties (Sweetwater, Washakie, Hot Springs, Park, Converse, and Natrona). The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Wyoming filed Federal charges against the company based on this probe. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to kill a protected bird (including eagles and other raptors) by any means without first obtaining a permit."

There have also been some recent cases where American Indians have been prosecuted in US Federal court for violating the MBTA and the Eagle Protection Act for the illegal possession of eagle feather. Eagle and raptor feathers are part of the historic and religious ceremonies for some Native American cultures. An example of the government taking action against a native American for a religious ritual was shown in the 2008 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to reverse a previous lower court ruling dismissing a criminal charge against Winslow Friday, a Northern Arapaho Indian who acknowledged shooting a Bald Eagle in 2005 during the tribe's Sun Dance. The ruling meant that Friday, an American Indian, had to stand trial for shooting the Bald Eagle, even though it was for use in a tribal religious ceremony. Friday faced up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for the shooting. The government contended there wasn't religious discrimination because the government had a program in place of Native Americans to apply for permits to shoot eagles for religious ceremonial purposes. Friday said he didn't know about a federal program that allows American Indians to apply for permits to kill eagles for religious purposes. According to a USA Today article regarding the lower court judge's reason for not prosecuting Friday for the shooting, "In his ruling, Downes said it was clear that Friday wouldn't have received a federal permit to kill an eagle if he had applied for one." The point here isn't whether the Native American defendant, Friday, was legally justified or not. The point is that the U.S. government saw fit to put it resources and money behind appealing and prosecuting a single individual for a single eagle death for religious ceremony.

Yet, for what one can only conclude are purely political reasons, deaths to raptors by commercial wind power companies are basically tolerated or even explicitly ignored by the federal government. It seems reasonable to believe that this direction is coming directly from the Obama White House. It can be assumed that fast-tracking wind power development is of utmost importance to make political hay. This unfortunately seems to fly in the face of early statements claiming that science would be used to make decisions affecting the environment. As citizens of the United States we have the right to expect that penalties for violating federal laws are administered in a fair and even-handed manner. That certain organizations are not given a free pass because they happen to be involved in a pet project of a given president. We need to demand that loopholes be closed and personal agendas of Presidents don't trump U.S. law.

In the third grade I read an article about peregrine falcons. I talked about peregrines being the fastest things on earth. I remember a portion of the article that talked about a World War II fighter pilot that was in a dive and he saw a peregrine falcon pass him. Accurate speeds are hard to get, but it seems that peregrines may be able to stoop at somewhere between 200-300 miles per hour when dropping from very high heights. Many birds of prey, peregrines among them, will sometimes hunt for prey in the sky from extreme heights. Those heights can be thousands of feet above the ground, literally out of sight to the unaided human eye on the ground. After reading that article I just couldn't get over the amazement I felt about the super athletic peregrine falcon. I couldn't get the image of a peregrine falcon flying past a WWII fighter plane out of my mind. I started reading everything I could find about peregrine falcons, any falcon, then any kind of hawk or eagle. I learned there were other very fast falcons, including the arctic gyrfalcon, the largest falcon in the world. While peregrine falcons have been considered the fastest animal in the world, when diving vertically from on high, in something called a stoop, gyrfalcons are even swifter than peregrine falcons when pursuing quarry in level flight. My fascination with falcons and all birds of prey led me constantly bug my parents to take me to the zoo in our city, mostly to visit the birds of prey. I also had them driving me to libraries throughout the area to find books on birds of prey. Through constant reading of books on birds of prey, I eventually learned about falconry. Falconry is the ancient sport and art of training wild birds of prey to hunt wild quarry in partnership with their trainer, the falconer. This fascination with birds of prey and the art of falconry has led to a lifelong commitment to the study and protection of birds of prey, something I share with thousands of falconers around the world.

The wild raptors are top level predators, fascinating humans since the dawn of human existence. Humans love raptors, in our modern world we name sports teams, military planes, automobiles, and companies after them. America choose the Bald Eagle for our national symbol, it is right there with the American flag as a defining image of America. For millennia nations have used eagles as the image to represent them. They are beautiful, powerful, fearless, and tender parents. They inspire awe in any person who sees them up close and alive.

In February of 2011 there was a news report about the death from electrocution of perhaps one of the ten oldest Bald Eagles ever recorded. The article reported that this electrocution "...highlights the threat large birds face from power lines, an issue of particular concern as the nation looks to increase wind energy generation, says American Bird Conservancy, the nation's leading bird conservation organization." This is another example pointing the multiple and dangers created by wind power for highly protected and sometime sensitive species in America.

****

### Chapter 6

### Nature's Amazing Beneficial Bats Take Big Hit From Commercial Wind Farm Turbines

Photo by Paul Cryan, USGS, Insect-Eating Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats (Tadarida Brasiliensis) in a Texas Evening Sky. Public domain photo.

It is possible that city dwellers and farmers could take a big hit with massive amounts of insects not getting eaten annually. What could contribute to such a scenario? A lack of bats.

Bats—are they rabid winged rats that seek out people to get tangled in our hair and give us rabies? Do they deserve the image they have from scary movies, where they are dark, darting creatures, intent on swooping in to attack their chosen victims? Are they related to rats, rodents, or even birds? We will address these questions and we'll take a look at who and what bats really are.

Let's start out by understanding that bats are an important part of a healthy ecosystem for a variety of reasons.

Biological Diversity—this is something that most people who genuinely worry about green energy worry about. An interesting thing about bats is that they account for almost 25% of all mammal species in the entire world. Any energy source that has the potential to negatively impact a group of mammals that makes up 25% of all mammals in the world is something that should make all of us concerned.

It's unfortunate that bats seem to evoke a negative, frightening reaction in many people in the 21st century which is similar to the reaction to mythical werewolves or vampires of old. Bats as a group really deserve a much better place in our psyches. Bats are flying mammals and make up the taxonomic order Chiroptera. Bats are not birds and are not closely related to birds. Bats are the only mammals which have the ability for true flight. They are not flying mice or rats and are not even closely related to either mice or rats. About 70% of bats are insectivores, which means their diet is composed of insects. They consume huge quantities of destructive and annoying insects each year in the US and around the world. In addition to consuming billions of insects, bats also have an important function in many parts of their world through their pollinating activities, in much the same way that bees do from some flowers. Bats are an important pollinator for plants such as mangoes, bananas, and guavas. It is estimated that up to 98 percent of all agave plants are pollinated by bats. In case you don't recognize agave plants by name, they are the plants used to make tequila. So next time you are enjoying a margarita, you can remember that bats helped make that possible. Some bats eat primarily fruit and they are an important way for some plants to get their seeds distributed throughout the environment. It appears that bats evolved as far back as the Eocene period, over 52 million years ago. Genetics classify modern bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria, which includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises, as well as ungulates and pangolins.

Bats benefit American agriculture to an amazing degree. They are a very important "green" and sustainable way to control insect pests that harass and attack all people. They are also a green way to control the insect pests that damage American food crops. Bats consume large numbers of moths, beetles, mosquitoes, termites, flying ants, and most other flying insects. Some bats, such as pallid bats, also eat scorpions and centipedes. Each cave myotis bat can eat up to 3,000 mosquitoes per night; that is for a single bat. They often live in colonies that contain 1,000-5,000 individuals, with some colonies containing up to 15,000 individual bats. Simple calculations would indicate that a SINGLE cave myotis bat colony of 5,000 bats could consume up to 15 million mosquitoes each and every summer night! How much pesticide would need to be sprayed on the environment to kill that many mosquitoes?! What are the side effects of that much pesticide on other animals, including people? Another example of humungous insect consumption can be seen in the Mexican free tailed bats in San Antonio, Texas. These bats are estimated to eat up to 250,000 pounds of insects each night in the summer. That is equal to 125 TONS of insects each summer night. That weight is equal to the weight of three Boeing 747 jets each week. It's hard to imagine how much pesticide would have to be sprayed on crops and in neighborhoods to take out those hundreds of millions of insects each week, and it is hard for me to imagine what would happen if these natural insect predators take a big hit. Resent research shows that large commercial wind turbines do kill bats in the U.S.. Loss of a large number of bats could prove to be expensive to American agriculture. This would be another example of hidden costs associated with taxpayer subsidized wind farms. In addition to their role controlling insects, bats are also instrumental in plant pollination and seed dissemination. They are an important food source for other wildlife such as hawks, owls, and mammalian predators. Just think of it, the weight of the insects consumed annually by just one million bats would be equal to the weight of 2,000 Boeing 747-400 jets.

Fatal Impact of Wind Turbines On Bats

One problem we have now is that we don't know just how lethal commercial wind farms are to bats. Determining how much wildlife is actually killed by massive wind farms in remote location, is not as simple as it might first seem. The simple thought would be that you just walk around the wind turbines for a couple of days and see if there are bird and mammal carcasses laying around. You might then think that you could multiply that number to get the total mortality for the year. Unfortunately it is nowhere near that simple to know just how many animals are killed. The study of wildlife mortality at wind farms is an evolving one regarding small animal kills. The numbers of dead animals are based on scientific estimates instead of direct counts. While it might seem that a direct count is better than an estimate, it isn't that simple. Several things create this difficulty. Wild animal carcasses might be eaten by scavengers before they are found and they simply might not be found at all. If the total number of carcasses found at a given site is not that actual number that were killed, then how does that sampling method provide a way to calculate the total number killed? There are many estimating methods for wildlife mortality currently being used. Before an estimate of wind turbine caused deaths can be considered valid, it is important to understand how they were derived. It is important to know whether they were unbiased, and it is important to understand their level of precision. Can the estimators used be improved? An analysis of one of the estimator calculations can actually show that there are less fatalities than the actual number of carcasses collected by researchers! In other words, if the formulas for calculating the mortality on wildlife from wind farms is not very carefully developed, the resulting scientific estimates of mortality will be incorrect. Incorrect estimates of mortality can be worse than no estimates at all. Once estimates are calculated and published, they continue to be used over and over again. They also tend to get cited over and over again in literatures, articles, and public discourse. Those same numbers may be used as a basis for laws and what or how much remediation needs to be done for permitted activities. Mortality numbers may actually be used to determine if certain activities are permitted at all. Therefore, getting the correct formula for calculating mortality is important. Citizens need to be aware of this and don't just take the scientist's formulas, calculations, and PowerPoint presentations as gospel.

"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again." – William Beebe, 1906.

Why does this topic need to be a worry to the average citizen? The reason is that if we take estimates provided by biologists that are paid by wind farm organizations, we must be sure they are not underestimating the impact on wildlife. Why does the public need to understand the impact on wildlife, simple, because American wildlife belongs to you and me.

According to law in America wildlife is owned by the American public. It is not owned by the person who owns the land it lives on, but by the American public. Wildlife is similar to public lakes and the oceans, it belongs to the public collectively. Therefore, each of us has an obligation to protect that wildlife, as we are the stewards of wildlife for our generation and for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt understood this, which is why he began the American conservation movement. Even though Roosevelt was a keen hunter, he was very interested in protecting the wild areas and the wildlife that called it home. He began an aggressive program of protecting those wild areas, including the creation of the first national park, Yellowstone. He also believed in protecting the ability to wisely harvest and utilize natural resources, including game animals and fish.

****

### Chapter 7

### ESA—A Game Changer

If States Don't Closely Manage Wind Farm Permitting The ESA May Do It For Them

How can listing the Greater Sage Grouse as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act be a game changer? Let's take a brief look at the ESA, which was signed into law in 1973. The ESA is a powerful federal law, and over the past 37 years an entire industry has grown up around the act. It has done a lot of good to protect endangered species and their habitat. It has also been use to halt economic and recreational activities. Litigation in federal courts can go on for many years under the ESA. Once a species is deemed officially endangered, the habitat and ecosystem that the species inhabit becomes critical and therefore highly protected.

I lived for decades in a community, Colorado Springs, Colorado, where something as small as a relatively non-descript field mouse, known as the Preble's Mountain jumping mouse caused a great amount of problems for developers in Colorado Springs. During the 1990s, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse as an endangered species. Many developers in the area, an area which had already been very heavily built up, were in a panic over the potential listing. Those developers understood that an endangered species listing for the Preble's may have meant the end of large-scale development along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. The area from Cheyenne, Wyoming to Colorado Springs, Colorado is considered prime Preble's habitat. The Preble's Meadow jumping mouse is an animal that very few people have seen, particularly alive in the wild, save for the biologists who study them. They hibernate about seven month out of the year and there have even been debates among scientists about whether the Preble's is even a true subspecies of the more common Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. The US Fish and Wildlife Service declared the Preble's Meadow jumping mouse a threatened species in 1998. The threatened designation is well below the endangered status under the ESA. Once critical habitat was designated for the mouse several years later, the development community was beside itself with the restrictions that critical habitat designation carried with it.

With the Greater Sage Grouse, there is no question whether it is really a more common bird species that has been misidentified, as was the case with the Preble's. Additionally, the designation for the Greater Sage Grouse that some protectionist groups are seeking is not threatened, but the much higher level of endangered species. Designation as Endangered would lead to much greater restrictions on property use than the Threatened designation for the Preble's which caused so much consternation among the developers in Colorado Springs.

****

### Chapter 8

### The Spanish and Danish Wind Energy Industry—A Closer Look

Here in the US, we hear from the White House that the Spanish and the Dutch couldn't be happier with the installation of hectare after hectare of wind farms. Again, the message we hear is all about the harmony with nature that commercial mega-wind farms will bring to modern living. The wind farms are creating untold amounts of clean, ecofriendly electricity to power our homes and modern cars. Nary a puff of black smoke or carbon spewing into the environment. We need to ask, can it really be that good?

Before we get too enamored with the European model of implementing massive technology across the countryside, let's consider the landscape in Europe. The US White House often likes to point to Europe as an example to follow regarding clean energy. Europe is an area of the world where wilderness is long a thing of the past. The millennia of dense human habitation has basically completely destroyed their wilderness many generations ago. Their rural areas are completely managed and manipulated environments, including their forests and non-crop producing agricultural areas. North America, particularly the US and Canada, still has intact ecosystems that can support species that Europe cannot support. This is particularly true of areas on the western and far northern regions of the continent.

Spain has often been used as an example of the nation to look to for how successful the wind industry can be in creating green jobs in the renewable energy sector. President Obama cited Spain's wind industry as a model for the US. Sounds good when we look at the fact that wind appears ubiquitous and "free," it just needs to be captured and turned into electricity. The facts to date don't line up with "free." The Spanish government has heavily subsidized their renewable energy industry to the point that it may be an important aspect of their financial troubles today, putting the entire country on the verge of financial collapse.

In December of 2010, a Wall Street Journal article told of one of the world's largest wind turbine manufacturers, Spain's Gamesa, was struggling to stay competitive with China. The WSJ reported that Gamesa's earnings and market value has plummeted over the past year. Orders have dropped and profit margins have been hit hard due to low cost manufacturing pressure from China.

According to a study (Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources) by Dr. Gabriel Calzada Alverez, the Research Director at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, "Every "green job" created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job..."

The University study goes on to say that it believes the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain, with the loss of more existing jobs for every wind energy job created. In other words, there will be a net loss of employment as a result of heavy government subsidy of wind energy.

Aldyen Donnelly has been the President of GEMCo, the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium. Formed as a not-for profit corporation by Canadian energy companies to demonstrate industry leadership in the development of market-based approaches to greenhouse gas emissions management. GEMCo's mandate has been to develop greenhouse gas emission offsetting projects and "emission reduction credit" transactions for member investment. In a January 2011 posting Mr. Donnelly posted an in-depth analysis look at Spain's renewable energy policy. In her post, she points out that by 1999 Spain had the largest per capita low impact renewable energy market penetration in the world. Ms. Donnelly states that by using Renewable Energy Standards for almost 15 years, Spain had achieved maximum penetration. Then Spain added tariffs to encourage further investment in renewable energy sources, which produced added investments in wind energy for another six years. These tariffs created a construction bubble in Spain, which actually contributed to the Spanish financial crisis. Ms. Donnelly argued that Spain's regulations provided nearly free financing for uncompetitive energy projects. She points out that many of the Spanish projects are constructed by private companies who have put none of their own capital at risk for these wind projects. Ms. Donnelly argues that there is a significant rate of failures among the wind farm developers if the power rates paid drop to anywhere near competitive energy levels at any time. Ms. Donnelly believes there are lessons to be learned from Spain's financial problems related to their subsidized wind farms. Some of these lessons could be very valuable for Americans to consider. She states, "A new industry that is born from and nourished with large government subsidies does not necessarily ever grow into an industry that has the capacity to survive in competitive global markets."

As an American, the image I have had of Holland since I was a little kid is a land of wooden shoes, tulips and windmills. To me, the Dutch not liking windmills would be like Americans not liking hot dogs or apple pie. The traditional famous four-bladed wind mills have been used for eight centuries to almost miraculously create new land from the sea in Holland. By pumping out the sea water from land behind the structure of dikes and from marshes, the Dutch and their ancestors have increased their total land area by 25% (7,000 sq. km.) Yet even in this high density, eco-friendly country, there are troubles with getting new electricity turbines approved for installation. An article written by Arthur Max of the Associated Press on February 14, 2011 and carried by ABC news online and the North Idaho Business Journal Mr. Max cites the wind manager of Ecofys, a research and consultancy firm on sustainable energy as saying that "In Holland, there's hardly any project that doesn't get delayed." Many of the proposed wind projects are tangled in lawsuits and resistance from locals and environmental groups about the impacts of the giant wind turbine farms. Residents are concerned about the negative impact on the tranquility of the area, the impact on fishing and tourism, and the impacts to birds. Even a country which has a history relying on quaint water pumping windmills dating back centuries is not unanimously behind the modern mega wind mills being proposed for the American landscape. The Dutch are a people who owe a quarter of their current land mass to windmill technology to reclaim land from the ocean, yet many of them do not want windmills installed across their landscape and off their coasts. Why is that?

Outside of Europe, in North America, just to the north of the lower 48 in the US, in Ontario, citizens are organizing against wind power. They are citing the disastrous renewable energy policies of Spain as part of their opposition. An interesting analysis of Spain's renewable energy policy comes from Canadian Aldyen Donnelly. Ms. Donnelly, who has been the President of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium, a Canadian not-for profit corporation whose purpose is to develop greenhouse gas emission offsetting projects and "emission reduction credit" transactions for member investment. In a number of online postings in early 2011 Ms. Donnelly makes her point that Canada should not follow the renewable energy policies of Spain. She makes the point that in 1985 Spain was the first European nation to create legally binding renewable energy standards (RES). The Spanish renewable energy penetration reached a plateau under the RES after which they created feed in tariffs (FITs). FITs are policies that are put in place to economically encourage renewable energy sources and make all forms of energy equal in price (known as grid parity). Key provisions of FITs might be a requirement for their electricity to be fed into the electrical grid (i.e. a guaranteed customer), long term contracts for the renewable energy produced (i.e. a known guaranteed revenue stream), prices for the electricity produced that guarantees a profit. After another 5-6 years the Spanish renewable energy industry reached another penetration plateau. At that point, according to Ms. Donnelly, the renewable energy industry lobbyists put great pressure on the government for new regulations. Within several years of getting the new regulations in place Spain began retroactively reneging on the guaranteed prices. Ms. Donnelly makes the case that the new regulatoins "...created unsustainable construction bubbles that contributed to their national financial crises." She explains that overly generous "FITs are simply mechanisms for providing near free financing for uncompetitive energy projects. The FIT is nothing more than an elegant way to borrow money from future rate payers." She points out that the regulations create a situation where private companies build these renewable energy projects with virtually no capital at risk! You can therefore have multimillion or even multibillion dollar companies entering "partnerships" with the government where they have no downside financial risk, but tremendous upside gains possible. At the same time, the taxpayer gets the exact opposite deal. The taxpayer has no financial upside, but tremendous downside risk. If the projects are built, the taxpayer will be forced to both buy the more expensive electricity from these government underwritten renewable energy projects. Once completed the taxpayers will then be required to buy the electricity produced by these renewable energy projects—effectively a double downside outcome. The profits from the projects go to the multibillion dollar builder of the projects. Wouldn't the independent retail entrepreneur on the main street corner wish she could get that kind of underwriting from her government!

Ms. Donnelly writes that there are key lessons to be taken from Spain's catastrophic problems with an excessive subsidy system for their renewable energy industry. Two of the key lessons that Ms. Donnelly makes in her analysis are:

Lesson One: All countries with FITs reach plateaus in after a number of years. At that point the government asks what new and additional subsidies need to be created to maintain a rapid growth rate in their renewable energy industries. They make the mistake of not asking if the industry can become self-sufficient in the foreseeable future. She points out that the idea by governments has been that there will be a long-term profitable industry within the country subsidizing the wind energy industry, but that doesn't seem to the reality. In Denmark Ms. Donnelly points out "In 2000, most of the blades that were installed in Danish wind farms ... were manufactured in Denmark. Today, ... almost all of the blades and other key components ...in new Danish wind farm developments ... are manufactured elsewhere and imported into Denmark." (The same thing is already happening in the U.S., with China being the manufacturer of choice for much of the equipment being installed in new wind farm and solar projects due to price competition from China).

Lesson Two: "A new industry that is born from and nourished with large government subsidies does not necessarily ever grow into an industry that has the capacity to survive in competitive global markets." In Oregon and at the federal level in the U.S. there are calls to extend subsidies for corporate wind farms today, after years of subsidies.

With China quickly moving to dominate manufacturing of wind turbines on a global basis, we will not even be able to keep the manufacturing jobs associated with making wind turbine equipment in the U.S. Most of the wind turbine farm maintenance jobs for the new giant wind turbines being designed and produced are not for the average citizen. Much of the work is physically demanding, requires working at very high heights and requires very specialized training and knowledge. It will only be able to be filled by a very small segment of the US population. This consideration of whether or not there is a net gain for the U.S. as a result of moving toward wind power or using other power sources is not trivial when the US and the world are struggling to recover from the worst global economic crisis in the past 70 years. This question goes well beyond the current economic crisis; we need to think about the implications for the long-term on the work force and the economy when looking at what we want to develop as an energy source.

****

### Chapter 9

### Habitat Fragmentation Problems

So what's the big deal about high power transmission lines through rural or wilderness types of environments? They are no different than very tall trees through those environments. Birds use trees for perches, so transmission lines and their associated poles or towers seem like they could be good things for birds that live in those environments. Birds of prey, such as hawks, eagles, and falcons like to use high perches to hunt from, so it seems like a manmade benefit for birds of prey, not unlike putting up bird houses for bluebirds. The problem with putting very tall structures in environments that never had tall structures as part of the ecosystem is that there can be unintended consequences. An ecosystem, such as western sage steppe in North America where the species have evolved over the millennia to an environment with only low perches, only several feet tall can be drastically altered with artificially high perches. Species such as the Greater Sage Grouse rely on an environment with no tall perches for the deadly predators, such as golden eagles to use as perches. Greater Sage Grouse probably don't know why tall perches are bad for them, but sage grouse have evolved to know that when tall perches are present in what is otherwise good habitat it is no longer good habitat. Those tall perches allow golden eagles to stealthily observe sage grouse on their courting leks and launch attacks on sage grouse from commanding heights. Eagles can effectively launch these attacks from a mile away while the sage grouse are going through their courting rituals. These courting rituals on the leks are very intense, with the males in intense display competition with each other. Their entire being focused on becoming the dominant breeder in that area that year. Their behavior is not unlike that of rutting bull elk, or big horn rams competing for ewes, total concentration, oblivious to every thing in the surrounding environment. Therefore the electrical transmission lines create a manmade barrier, not unlike a fence that fragments their environment.

While the habitat fragmentation that is caused by high power electrical transmission lines is not the most significant problem they cause, it is another potential burden for the greater sage grouse to bear. This type of population disruption is different than dealing with the loss of members of the population due to reasonable levels of predation. All prey animal populations, including sage grouse, have the capacity to absorb loss of individual members such as is caused by predation by predators, as long as that depredation occurs in numbers that the species has evolved to absorb by their annual reproduction. There is a surplus of individuals produced in the population to deal with depredation. Managed, legal hunting by humans can be part of the annual harvest of those surplus populations. Game birds, such as sage grouse have a limited capacity to be stockpiled. In other words, the carrying capacity of the environment is not infinite, but limited. While humans have devised ways to alter our own environment to allow for extremely high densities of people to live in our mega cities such as New York City, wildlife, such as greater sage grouse cannot do so. Actually humans don't really have the capacity to fully "live" in these very high density situations in a self-contained way. A New York City is a place where people may sleep and work, but they can't produce all of the food, water, and energy they need to support the millions of people who are part of their census numbers. They need to import tremendous quantities of those necessary elements of life, as well as export the disposal of huge quantities of waste produced by the people in those cities, but getting back to wildlife, such as greater sage grouse. The carrying capacity of their prime environment allows only so many individuals to occupy a given acre or acres of habitat. Once the population exceeds that, death of individuals is necessary to bring the population back in line. Wildlife typically don't have the option that humans have to migrate to other locations when their population exceeds the carrying capacity of their environment. If the adjacent habitat is suitable to live in, those other adjacent habitats already have competing populations living in them. Those populations will certainly not welcome outsiders with open wings. They will either directly drive them out of the area or indirectly through competing with the interlopers for food, water, and shelter. One other possibility is that the interlopers will outcompete the individual sage grouse already in their own environment. The outcome will still be that specific individuals will perish in one way or another. Once the carrying capacity of the environment is exceeded individuals will either die of starvation or dehydration if there is insufficient food or water. Or possibly individual members will die as a result of predation if there is insufficient shelter and cover. If depredation increases excessively, then the limiting factor may not be a shortage of food, water, and shelter, but an excess of predators. This may occur through a change that causes depredation to increase beyond what the population can support.

****

### Chapter 10

### Small Home Renewable Energy Systems vs. Commercial Energy Farms

Photo of residential wind and solar unit. Unlike large commercial mega wind turbines, small, individual residential wind turbines have minimal if any impact on wildlife. Photo by Peter Griffin. Public domain photo.

Location, Location, Location!!!

Where a wind farm is installed is of huge importance when it comes to the type of impact it will have on the environment. Realtors and retail business experts warn us that the three most important things to look for when selecting a house or a retail business are Location, Location, Location! When locating wind turbines the location of the wind turbines can be a significant variable in whether they have a negative environmental impact or not. If wind turbines are put into areas that contain sensitive and protected species in them, then they may have a very negative impact and not really be considered green. If the wind turbines are put into an area that requires the high voltage transmission lines to be run across sensitive areas, then again they may be a negative environmental impact and not really able to legitimately be called green. If wind farms are put up in areas that allow them to connect to the electrical grid with very little new infrastructure needing to be installed, then they will have a lower negative environmental impact. Wind farm locations need to be very carefully selected if we don't want them to cause massive environmental degradation. Individual wind turbines to supplement individual household electrical needs often have a very insignificant environmental impact. They are smaller and are located within several hundred feet of a connection to the electrical grid. Also, as a tax payer Fortune 100 players like the G.E. deal cited by the Wall Street Journal article or other multibillion dollar investment firm. The individual homeowner credits return the tax money directly to the tax payers to put up low impact wind turbines. The corporate tax credits for billion dollar wind farms moves money from your pocket to the pockets of corporate shareholders. Both types of wind turbines can create wind turbine jobs. One can be a net positive for society, the environment, and the individual tax payer. The other is a net positive for corporate shareholders and executives. Hard-earned tax money being returned to individual families as a tax rebate or tax incentive is quite different than your tax money going to subsidize Fortune. Remember the little beaver ponds impact the environment. But also remember their impacts are quite different the environmental impact of salmon stopping dams like the ones constructed on the Columbia River.

There are many opportunities to use sites near or within urban areas to set up renewable energy projects, including commercial enterprises. A location in close proximity to urban areas puts the electricity generation where it is needed, where the people are living and working. An example of an excellent location for commercial renewable energy farms is the Exelon Corporations urban solar plant on Chicago's South Side. This plant has 32,000 solar panels and is located on 40 acres of land that was a former industrial site. It can generate 10 megawatts of electrical power. The two largest solar markets are Japan and Germany, but even Illinois has more solar energy available to it than either of those countries. This plant is utilizing an industrial site that had been abandoned for 30 years. Utilizing this type of site is a way to produce renewable power source, while having a minimal negative impact on the environment and wildlife. This solar plant is able to connect to the electrical grid without creating any additional transmission line corridors, is easy to maintain and service because it is in the city, therefore no additional roads need to be constructed for those activities. But even with this solar plant's location being constructed in a major urban area,

Size Does Matter

When it comes to environmentally clean wind energy we need to look closely at "How big?" This applies to two different aspects of size. The first is how big is the wind farm itself, the second is how big the individual wind turbines are.

Small home units next to the Grid are much different than mega wind farms. Also, small commercial units, next to non-residential buildings, with an immediate connection to the grid are also different than mega wind farms. While the large commercial wind farms seem to be designed to suck up tax incentives from the federal and state governments, the small local units can still make use of tax incentives. However, with the small individual units meant to power a home of moderate size, the incentive becomes a direct support of the purchase and installation, instead of some sort of large corporate subsidy for a for profit businesss that may already be feeding at the government finance trough. Unfortunately, politically the much lower impact small scale wind turbines don't create the same exciting sound bites. They can't be used by politicians to claim that a single installation will power a small city! Hoever, if you are really interested in a truly "green" approach to energy, then the smaller dispersed units are a better use of tax incentives. If the case can't be made that wind turbines are healthy and safe for people, in close proximity to where people live, then perhaps the public needs to think twice before sticking them into the middle of intact, pristine areas. Through the millennia, as a society we have managed to find very safe ways to deal with most of our garbage and waste in close proximity to our cities, towns, and homes. If we can't do that with a "clean-green" energy technology, you have to wonder just how "green" it really is for the wildlife.

Commercial Wind Farm Energy Output Hard to Optimize

Many or perhaps most small home units are a supplement to a grid connection for the homeowner or the business owner. This creates a different way of looking at the renewable energy produced than is the case for a commercial energy facility such as a commercial wind farm. The home owner or business with renewable energy supplement have already received some sort of government tax incentive to install the system and then enjoy the benefit of reducing their payment to the electric utility for their energy needs. In the best cases, they might even have a positive cash flow from their renewable energy investment, making money occasionally by running their electric meters backward and selling electricity back to the power company.

There are different operating expectations for commercial wind farms. Commercial electricity is not something that can be stored, it has to be used immediately upon creation. With coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants, the production level is adjusted to meet their customer demand by adjusting the amount of heat needed to turn the steam turbines. Wind turbines do not have that type of control available to them for the operators. They are dependent on basically unpredictable natural winds for their income stream, as well as for their ability to meet customer demand.

****

### Epilogue

### Do Something -- Make a Difference

Side View of Insect-Eating Spotted Bat (Euderma Maculatum) in New Mexico. Photo by Paul Cryan, USGS. Public domain photo.

Hopefully what you have learned from this book are the facts about the impact of wind power and solar power deployments on a mega-scale. The difference between a mega commercial wind farm and small scale wind farms is like night and day. The wildlife whose lives literally depend on large scale intact ecosystems are struggling to be able to survive need your help. People who love tranquility and the amazing beauty of the sage steppe wilderness need your help to save that environment. If you got through this book, then it is time for you to move from passive reader to active participant in preserving and protecting your ecosystem and your tax money from being squandered.

An important consideration is to remember that we are not in a spot where just installing a small scattering of wind farms is going to address the problem of energy production. As long as the US and world population continues to grow and need more energy, the more important it is to select the right solution, not the quick solution. Wind farms are quick solutions, They are not "green", particularly when they are placed in wilderness or wild land areas. Perhaps there will be a time when wind energy generation can be done on a large scale and it will not have a negative impact on wildlife, but that time is not today. The design of the mega turbines and the use of non-buried high voltage cables has lead to significant negative impacts on wildlife and a real degradation of wild lands experiences for the public. At one point people used to look at smoke stacks bellowing soot into the air in a positive light. It was a sign of progress and industrialization, now we see the massive environmental problems associated with large stacks belching out black smoke. It used to be, not so long ago that we saw massive hydroelectric dams as sources of clean, green energy—not any more. Now we recognize that environmental cost of Hoover-size dams, which have put an important human food, economic, and recreation source, wild salmon fisheries in peril of extinction. This time we don't need to wait until we've done irreparable harm to the environment before we start the long and costly reversal process on mega wind farms. The solution, don't subsidize them with your tax money. Encourage you legislature to instead focus on tax breaks for small home-based wind systems. Small systems have minimal impact on wildlife or the esthetics of the landscape. They put some extra money in the pocket of average citizens for investing in a renewable energy source. What they don't do is pump hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of tax subsidies into the pockets of giant conglomerates like General Electric and other similar companies.

Insist that new power lines be buried. Stringing high power lines above ground is an antiquated way of doing business. We can do better. "The Edison Electric Institute study concluded that underground power lines built by utilities have ... a slightly better reliability performance than above-ground ones..." In an article about burying high power transmission lines in New Hampshire a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute said "...transmission lines are universally disliked and not wanted."

I've heard and read some pretty silly things from people regarding wildlife and how they need to adapt to change. Hopefully, after having read this book you know better and correct them. It is just plain foolish for people to make major changes to the ecosystem, which puts a species in peril, then naively state that we need to just let nature take its course. A bit like going to a woodlot along a lake that has bald eagles nesting in it. We cut down all of the trees for 10 miles in all directions. Then someone says we need to let nature take its course and eagles will learn how to adapt to nesting without trees!

Remember that Renewable Energy is NOT the same a clean or green energy. Remember that low or no carbon footprint from an energy source is NOT the same as clean or green energy. Green energy clearly implies that the energy has no negative impact on our ecosystems and it is clear that is NOT the case with current wind technologies.

The next time you see an ad on TV by any company trying to burnish their public image, drop them a line telling them that you aren't buying their marketing. Tell them that you want them to be environmentally responsible in a holistic way, not just by measuring the carbon footprint of the energy source. That is much too simplistic and now you understand why.

What You Can Do To Make A Difference

There are some tough questions to consider. Is it moral for humans to make the "tough" decision to doom a species or an entire taxonomic family of birds or animals to complete extinction so we can put out more environmentally unfriendly renewable energy technologies? This question is particularly poignant for "green" advocates to consider.

Become involved in the processes that create our laws, rules, and regulations which are designed to protect our environment. Your active participation in the process can influence just how laws are written, what they protect, and include the moral the way things are implemented.

Nuclear energy requires less widespread environmental impact and can generate huge quantities of electricity with a small environmental footprint. Look to France and Europe for how much electricity they receive from nuclear.

Remind your lawmakers and government bureaucrats about the obligations they have to protecting wildlife and the environment. In the state of Oregon, there is the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 496.012 (aka the Wildlife Policy) contains the statement that "...the policy of the State of Oregon that wildlife should be managed to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations..." Based on US case law going back generations, wildlife belongs to the public, not the land owner of land managers. That means that each of us has a right to demand that our wildlife receive the scientific management that it morally deserves. As was pointed out earlier, the U.S. Department of Interior has issues similar types of statements about protecting our wild heritage, including the flora and fauna that creates the tapestry of our wild lands. President Obama's statements about using science to make federal policy decisions is apropos to consider at this point.

We will need to continue fossil fuels as we develop a much better and comprehensive understanding of the full and true impact on the environment of renewable energy. Much progress can be made with how we acquire and use fossil fuels, another opportunity for research and development, as well as knowledge worker jobs.

Talking points that readers can use to take away from this book

Insist on burying transmission lines instead of constructing towers and stringing the line on towers  
Don't permit wind or solar energy farms in areas that contain sensitive wildlife habitat  
Don't permit new transmission lines through areas that contain sensitive wildlife habitat  
Wildlife belongs to the public, not the landowner, therefore anything that endangers sensitive or endangered wildlife populations is not up to the landowner, but is covered by public wildlife protection laws and regulations  
Request to any permitting agencies that any renewable energy not create problems for wildlife  
Renewable energy is not the same a clean or green energy. Environmental impacts of electricity can be substantial.  
Write Your Governor  
Write Your Legislature  
Let them know who you are and why you are commenting. I typically let the agency know that I'm a falconer, sportsman, naturalist, and conservationist. I let them know I have a high personal interest in sage grouse  
When permitting is requested across public lands, such as BLM, let the agency know that you do not want them to permit or allow the use of public lands for anything which creates a proven long-term hazard to sensitive species or degradation of their habitat.  
Remind them there may be better routes and techniques which can be taken for transmission line infrastructure that do not have high environmental costs to sensitive species.  
Let them know you are interested in sound long-term solutions, not cheap quick fixes for just today.  
Let them know that makes it clear that anything that causes further long-term damage to sage grouse populations will push the species closer to being listed under the ESA.  
If an ESA listing happens for greater sage grouse, it will negatively change the rules and regulations for everybody, including all energy development on public lands, as well as negatively impacting ranchers, and thousands of recreational users of public lands, which Oregon east of the Cascades depends on for much of its tourism and recreation economy.  
An ESA listing for sage grouse due to population pressures from continued energy development on public lands it will likely result in making any cattle grazing in the American west a thing of the past. If cattle grazing is completely outlawed it could well mean the end of many small towns across the American West, their culture, lifestyle, and that attendant impact on the U.S. economy.  
Let them know that recent studies show that sage-grouse courting and breeding areas, their leks, are negatively impacted by how power transmission lines.  
Let them know that to prevent long-term habitat fragmenting and degradation of sage grouse habitat, the permitting of transmission lines through public lands should only be granted with conditions and restrictions to address impacts on sage grouse.  
If projects are approved, request a regular biological monitoring of species potentially impacted from any commercial wind farms, with the funding for such monitoring being paid for by the commercial wind farm company.  
Insist that any monitoring findings of sensitive species decline be followed by habitat enhancement and remediation.  
If the wind farm associated with public land access creates species population declines, insist that the remediation be done on public lands, NOT on the wind farms private land, as the request for a right-of-way permit is to degrade wildlife habitat critical to sensitive species on public lands.  
Remind the agency that sage grouse populations are challenged at this time and anything to keep their environment healthy is the single most significant thing we can do to keep their populations viable.  
Remind the agency that the cost to fix problems created today will be much higher in the future.

We have an opportunity to stop the whacky human behavior of repeating our same historic mistakes over and over again. Sage grouse are not some arcane species of insect or secretive thimble-sized rodent that have a relatively minor impact on the beauty of the human experience. They have substance and make the world a more enjoyable place. I love knowing there are still blue whales in the earth's oceans, even if I never get to see a living example. Sage grouse are live that too. With bats, we are talking about animals whose disappearance could have serious economic and heath impacts on people due to a diminished control of insects without pesticides. Finally, the importance of having large areas of untrammeled wild places where a person can go to recharge themselves can't be underestimated. Thousands of miles of additional above ground transmission lines rob us of that opportunity. We have the technology to have an expanded electric grid with a fraction of the negative environmental impact that above ground wires cause.

To be able to protect the great genetic diversity of the world beyond the human species, we all need to begin to take seriously the continuing human population explosion. In early 2011 the UN predicts that the population of the world is expected to grow to over 10 billion people in less than 90 more years. In 2011 the human population is already well above 6 billion. Not too long ago the world population was expected to stabilize at about 9 billion in the next 40 years, but now that projection is no longer considered valid by the UN. We can't keep adding people to the globe and have much expectation of keeping such amazing natural treasures as sage grouse, prairie chickens, and polar bears if we can't keep our own population under control. As John Bongaarts, a demographer at the New York-based Population Council research group said "Every billion more people makes life more difficult for everybody. It's as simple as that." "Is it the end of the world? No. ...But we obviously would be better off with a smaller population."

Become a member of organizations such as the North American Grouse Partnership. They can be contacted by going to http://www.grousepartners.org/ . The NAGP works to promote the conservation of grouse and the habitats necessary for their survival and reproduction. You can also join an organization that teams up with the North American Grouse Partnership, such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) at http://www.trcp.org/about/vision . The TRCP is a coalition of hunting, fishing and conservation organizations, labor unions and individuals like you who represent the wide spectrum of America's outdoor community. We are dedicated to the foresighted stewardship of America's landscape, helping expand fish and wildlife habitat and increase public access to quality hunting and fishing.

It's not enough to act and just make a difference, it's important to act intelligently and make a positive difference.

Remember the words from Canadian singer and song writer, Joni Mitchell's classic song Big Yellow Taxi "Don't it always seem to go/That you don't know what you've got/Till it's gone/They paved paradise/And put up a parking lot." Let's all work together to hang on to the paradise we have left.

Large wind turbine. Commercial wind turbines create a lethal hazard to beneficial insect eating bats, and protected birds of prey. Photo by Petr Kratcovil. Public domain photo.

****

### References

Brown, Lester, and Jonathan Lewis. "Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis - Ethanol's Failed Promise - Washingtonpost.com." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102555.html>.

"Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies 3-9-09 | The White House." Home | The White House. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/>.

Barnard, Jeff. "When Did People First Come to North America? - Technology & Science - Science - Msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News - Msnbc.com. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26819601/ns/technology_and_science-science/>.

"Kent L. Christopher." 9th Annual Dubois Grouse Days Festival. Dubois Grouse Days. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. <http://www.grousedays.org/Kent_Chris.html>.

"In Holland, Land of Windmills, Flap Over Wind Farm - ABC News." ABCNews.com: Breaking News, Politics, World News, Good Morning America, Exclusive Interviews - ABC News. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=12909691>.

"Aldyen Donnelly: An In-depth Look at Spain's Disastrous Renewable Energy Policy | Energy Probe." Energy Probe | Nuclear Power, Utility Reform. Web. 26 Mar. 2011. <http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/01/14/aldyen-donnelly-an-in-depth-look-at-spains-disastrous-renweable-energy-policy/>.

Motavalli, Jim. "A History of Greenwashing: How Dirty Towels Impacted the Green Movement." Personal Finance News, Advice, Calculators - WalletPop. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.walletpop.com/2011/02/12/the-history-of-greenwashing-how-dirty-towels-impacted-the-green/>.

"MIT Analysis Suggests Wind Turbines Could Cause Temperatures to Rise and Fall." MIT. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/wind-economy.html>.

"Utility Giant to Pay Millions for Eagle Protection." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/09-47.html>.

Neary, Ben. "Court Orders American Indian to Trial for Shooting Eagle - USATODAY.com." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-09-2097889722_x.htm>.

"Death of Second Oldest Alaskan Bald Eagle Highlights Threats to Birds From Power Lines." American Bird Conservancy - Home. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110224.html>.

"Transpower - Grid New Zealand - FAQs Transmission Lines." Transpower - Grid New Zealand - Welcome to Grid New Zealand. Web. 03 Apr. 2011. <http://www.gridnewzealand.co.nz/faqs-transmission>.

"Underground vs. Overhead Distribution Wires." Edison Electric Institute. Web. 03 Apr. 2011. <http://www.eei.org/ourissues/electricitydistribution>.

Smith, Gerry. "As Overhead Costs Shrink, Solar Is Newly Attractive | | The Bulletin." BendBulletin.com. 19 Jul 2010 Web. 23 Apr. 2011. <http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20100719/NEWS0107/7190311/>.

Sickinger, Ted. "Can Energy from Wind Power Be Too Much of a Good Thing? | | The Bulletin." BendBulletin.com. 19 Jul 2010. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. <http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100719/NEWS0107/7190330>.

Mills, Erin. "Wind Farm Splits Neighbors Who Take Cash or Leave | Local/State | The Bulletin." BendBulletin.com. 28 Dec. 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. <http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101228/NEWS0107/12280326/1001/NEWS01>.

McAllister, Edward. "Driller Halts Pennsylvania Fracking after Blowout| Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. 21 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-chesapeake-blowout-idUSTRE73K5OH20110421>.

Hansen, Heather. "Swapping Politics for Science — High Country News." High Country News. Web. 03 May 2011. <http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/swapping-politics-for-science?utm_source=wcn1>.

Morgan, Chris. "Bears of the Last Frontier." Nature. OPB. Bend, Oregon, 8 May 2011. Television.

Tayel, Abeer. "UN Says World Population to Hit 10 Billion by 2100, Africa Expected to Triple to 3.6 Billion." Alarabiya.net English | Front Page. Web. 09 May 2011. <http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/05/06/147994.html>.

###

About the author:

Dan Cecchini, Jr. has been a naturalist since he was a young boy; studying about wildlife and wild places beginning in elementary school. He earned a Bachelor's degree in biology and a Masters degree in Basic Science. He also earned a Bachelors degree in Computer Science and an MBA in Operations Management. He has been a licensed falconer for over 40 years and is the past President of the North American Falconers' Association. He also served as the Journal Co-Editor, with his wife Sue, for the North American Falconers' Association (NAFA) for 20 years. He was awarded lifetime Honorary Membership in NAFA and awarded NAFA's highest award of the Freienmuth Award for his three decades of service to NAFA.He currently is the US Delegate to the International Association for Falconry and Conservation of Birds of Prey, as well as serving as the Secretary of the North American Grouse Partnership and on the Board of Directors of the North American Grouse Partnership.
