In the push to decrease U.S. dependence on oil, wind鈥檚 often touted as a key part of the renewables equation; the most aggressive scenario forecasts that will generate 35 percent of our energy by 2035. Yet despite its promise, wind has a big problem: Turbine blades鈥攖owering hundreds of feet in the air, rotating at hundreds of miles per hour鈥攌ill birds and bats.
That鈥檚 one reason why a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposal this past May, which affects companies from wind-energy producers to mining operations, didn鈥檛 sit well with groups like the 探花精选. The guidance both significantly increased the allowable number of Bald Eagles killed annually and lengthened the duration of permits for doing so.
To fully grasp the issue at hand, it鈥檚 important to first understand what鈥檚 been proposed and why it matters.
Endangered animals sometimes die in the process of doing business. Companies must go out of their way to prevent such casualties, but when they do happen, they鈥檙e called incidental take. 鈥淚t could be a sage-grouse being run over by a mower when a guy鈥檚 cutting hay,鈥 says Brian Rutledge, 探花精选鈥檚 vice president and Central Flyway conservation and policy advisor, 鈥渙r an eagle flying into a wind turbine or an owl getting caught in a heater-treater at a methane well.鈥
Until now, companies with permits from the USFWS could collectively kill up to 1,100 Bald Eagles a year. The agency quadrupled that number (though it assures the conservation community it鈥檚 unlikely to ever be hit). For Golden Eagles, whose populations now show the first signs of decline, the threshold was, and remains, zero. Previously, these take permits could last five years, max, but the new proposal extends them to 30.
Brian Millsap, national raptor coordinator for the USFWS division of migratory bird management, says the longer timeframe would allow the agency to more efficiently work with and monitor companies whose operations will continue beyond that initial half-decade. For their part, companies say they feel more comfortable applying for a 30-year permit because it lays out expectations鈥攁nd provides some security, both legally and financially鈥攆or long-term projects.
But it鈥檚 this extended permit length that most bothers 探花精选. Though Fish and Wildlife incorporated survival and reproduction rates from eagle species assessments into its latest proposal, Rutledge says the data are still incomplete. He also says different birds have varying value for a population鈥檚 survival鈥攎ost important are adult nesting females, least are sub-adult males鈥攁nother factor the guidance doesn鈥檛 address.
鈥淣ow is not the time to be granting 30-year permits,鈥 says Garry George, 探花精选 California鈥檚 renewable-energy director. 鈥淸USFWS] may be giving the industry certainty in a permit that allows them to kill eagles for 30 years, but they鈥檙e not giving us any certainty that it鈥檚 not going to send the population into a spiral.鈥
What 探花精选 wants is a stronger plan, one that incorporates scientifically proven methods to achieve what George calls 鈥渁voidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation,鈥 technical terminology for what essentially means assessing a project鈥檚 risk to local eagles, changing course if necessary, and coming up with solutions to decrease and offset deaths that do happen.
George says he鈥檚 optimistic the science will get to that point鈥攂ut it's not there yet.
探花精选 at a similar permitting change, which a federal judge overturned in 2015. Now that the agency has collected the additional data the courts requested, it鈥檚 back on the table. During the current, which ends July 5, 探花精选 plans to tap into the power of its network to make its collective voice heard.
鈥淚鈥檓 really hopeful that we can get to a good permit at some point that actually conserves eagles,鈥 George says. 鈥淲e鈥檙e working toward that.鈥