In our last post, we heard from Important Bird Area Caretakers in British Columbia. In this post we follow Ted, Nature Canada's manager of bird conservation, to Alberta where he speaks with two Caretakers about the value of the IBA Caretaker Network.
For Judy Boyd, caring for Bearhills Important Bird Area was a good fit with her volunteer work with a young naturalist club in Red Deer, Alberta. Part of what she does as a Caretaker is monitor birds at the IBA – and counting birds is something young naturalists are more than ready to help out with!
In this video Greg Wagner, IBA Caretaker for Frank Lake Important Bird Area, talks about the special features of this IBA, which lies just 50km south of Calgary, Alberta. Greg also explains why he thinks IBA Caretakers can effectively promote bird conservation by talking to local stakeholders.
As IBA Caretakers, Greg and Judy channel their passion for nature and protecting birds by monitoring birds, assessing habitats, and conducting conservation activities at Important Bird Areas. They are part of a larger network of volunteers that participate in the IBA Caretakers program. Their work promotes effective bird conservation in Canada.
Do you want to protect your local birds and habitat? Consider becoming an Important Bird Area Caretaker!
On Tuesday evening, I was invited as speaker for the Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club (OFNC) monthly meeting in the theatre of the Canadian Museum of Nature. My topic was Important Bird Areas, but I was not going to miss the opportunity to bring the local club up to date with recent changes in Nature Canada. It had been many years since a Nature Canada staffer had talked to the OFNC; in fact no one could remember the last time. Nature Canada Executive Director, and member of the OFNC, Ian Davidson, was in attendence, and by the end of the presentation, he was an active participant in the lively round of questions.
Forty-four people were in the theatre, many of whom confided that they did not know that there was an IBA in their backyard (Lac Deschenes). I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to our local club, and discuss the IBA program with its members and to consider opportunities for collaboration. Nature Canada's roots are with the naturalists of Canada. Staying connected to our 'foundation' is important to Nature Canada as an organization and to me personally as a naturalist.
I was delighted that two friends of mine, Jeff Skevington and Linda Burr, both members of the OFNC, introduced me and thanked me. I look forward to working with OFNC members on common projects around Lac Deschenes and other areas of joint interest. I also look forward to my own participation in the OFNC as a member and a participant in some of their events, such as the Christmas Bird Count.
Across Canada, Canadians are engaging their communities to protect birds and their habitats by becoming Important Bird Area Caretakers.
As a Caretaker, they are part of the Important Bird Areas Caretaker Network, a nationwide initiative involving volunteers who watch over and protect natural spaces that are vitally important for breeding, migrating, staging and wintering birds.
Ted Cheskey, Nature Canada’s manager of bird conservation, recently met with Caretakers from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
In this blog series, we follow Ted as he makes his way back east and discovers the many ways Important Bird Area Caretakers are making a difference on the ground to protect our birds.
Picking up where the last post left off, Ted pays a visit to the southern Okanagan Valley of British Columbia where he speaks with Doreen Olsen, an Important Bird Area Caretaker for White Lake IBA.
People join the IBA Caretaker Network for a wide range of reasons. For many, a love of birds and wild spaces in their communities drew them to the network and inspired them to become Caretakers. In this video, Doug Brown, a bird bander at Vaseux Lake Bird Observatory in south Okanagan Valley, briefly explains why he was motivated to become a Caretaker for Osoyoos Oxbows IBA.
Conservation of Important Bird Areas is a cornerstone of effective bird conservation in Canada and around the world. Caretakers – the eyes, ears and feet on the ground – make this important work possible. As a Caretaker, they channel their passion for nature and protecting birds by monitoring birds, assessing habitats, and conducting conservation activities at Important Bird Areas. To date, there are Caretakers in every province in Canada.
Do you want to protect your local birds and habitat? Consider becoming an Important Bird Area Caretaker!
For over a year, I have worked with colleagues with National Resources Defence Council and Boreal Songbird Initiative on writing the Birds at Risk: The Importance of Canada’s Boreal Wetlands and Waterways.
It is good to see it out in the public forum. Though I’ve lived most of the my life in southern Canada, I have spent considerable time in the boreal region, first as a Park Naturalist on Lake Superior, and afterwards as an atlasser for the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario – both in the early 1980s, and between 2001 and 2005, with the Quebec Breeding Bird Atlas in 1987, and a range of other trips both related to work and pleasure.
I’ve learned that canoeing is the only viable means of getting around in the summer, that in the Hudson Bay lowlands, even with gloves, long sleeves and a bug net over my head, 64 black flies can bite me under my watch band in one day, that there can still be ice along some of the rivers in late June, and most importantly that the vast forests and river systems are not uninhabited, but rather part of the homelands of First Nations peoples. The bugs, the rapids and the sudden changes in temperature do not scare me . . . but the red tinted water escaping from the mine tailings empoundment, the sickly smell of herbicides from aerial spraying and the distant din of machines do.
I am one of those auditory birders – though I enjoy seeing birds, I love hearing them and find great satisfaction in knowing their voices. The sound scape of the boreal wetlands is unequal for drama and beauty. The Common Loon’s song is at the top of the most emotive and haunting sounds on earth. Add to this the melodic flute-like refrains of Hermit Thrushes, a cheery chorus of White-throated Sparrow, the staccato explosiveness of a Connecticut Warbler’s song, and the emphatic “Whip-three-beers” of the threatened Olive-sided Flycatcher, and you have, in my view, the perfect symphony.
Sadly, members of the orchestra are dropping out as pressures to exploit the rich resources of the boreal accelerate destruction and change, and climate change tightens its grip on these northern biomes.
As manager of bird conservation programs for Nature Canada, I know that part of our mission is to be a voice for nature, including the species that are being silenced. We hope that the messages from this report will be discussed, debated and inform decisions related to this precious biome. This is our chance as a country to make a difference for our children, and their children with our largest ecological contribution to the earth’s health, our boreal forest.
Keith Riding is a retired surgeon who volunteers his time to monitor birds and habitats in remote coastal Important Bird Areas off Vancouver Island. In this short video, Keith joins our bird conservation manager Ted Cheskey on an overcast, windy day at the Boundary Bay Important Bird Area, where he talked about being a Caretaker in these "wild places, so full of life."
Community stewardship of local bird habitat is essential for the health of the Important Bird Area system - and for the birds. These natural spaces are vitally important for breeding, migrating, staging and wintering birds, and the conservation of these sites is a cornerstone of effective bird conservation.
Keith is part of something called the Canadian Important Bird Areas Caretaker Network. It's a nationwide initiative involving volunteers who watch over and protect these special places. BC Nature, with financial assistance from Nature Canada's Communities in Action Fund, launched the first Caretaker Network in Canada. Then in 2009, TransCanada Corporation committed $1 million over five years as a national sponsor of the network, so that today, volunteer Caretakers are in all ten provinces. Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada co-deliver the program nationally.
Thanks Keith for being a volunteer Caretaker for not one, but four IBAs!
Ted Cheskey, our manager of bird conservation, is out on Canada’s west coast meeting volunteer Caretakers who are part of the Important Bird Areas Program. On a visit to the Sidney Channel IBA in North Sidney B.C., Ted had a chance to speak with James Finley, IBA Caretaker, about marine IBAs, being a Caretaker, and his love for the beautiful Bufflehead:
Sidney Channel is a 4 km wide body of water that lies along the extreme southeast shore of Vancouver Island between James Island (and the larger Saanich Peninsula) and Sidney Island.
The Sidney Channel IBA is a terrific place to birdwatch. In one short boat excursion, Ted saw Marbled Murrelet, Rhinoceros Auklet, Herrmann's Gull, Bald Eagle, Brant Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant, Common Loon, Pacific Loon, and Harlequin Duck, as well as Harbour Seals and Harbour Porpoises. Of particular significance at this site are the large concentrations of Brandts Cormorants during fall migration (just over 1% of the worlds estimated population), and Mew Gulls and Brant during spring migration.
As a Caretaker, James is the eyes, ears and feet on the ground at his IBA. Like other Caretakers, James has been matched to his specific IBA to monitor birds, assess habitats, and conduct conservation activities. He works with local communities, scientists, governments and nature groups to promote Important Bird Areas and to ensure that local conservation ideas are put into action. Hands-on volunteer work from people like James helps build healthier bird communities and more sustainable environments for future generations.
BC Nature, with financial assistance from Nature Canada's Communities in Action Fund, launched the first Caretaker Network in Canada. In 2009, TransCanada Corporation committed $1 million over five years as a national sponsor of the Canadian IBA Caretakers Network, so that today, volunteer Caretakers are in all ten provinces.
BirdLife International began the IBA program in Europe in the 1980s in order to identify, conserve and monitor a network of sites that provides essential habitat for bird populations. Since that time, BirdLife partners in more than 178 countries and territories have joined together to build the global IBA network. Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada co-deliver BirdLife's IBA Program in this country.
Bufflehead, photo by Vladmir Morozov
This weekend, James and many of his neighbours in Sidney will be celebrating the return of that community’s adoptive bird, the Bufflehead. According to James, who has been observing these birds at Sidney Channel Important Bird Area (IBA) for many years, Buffleheads arrive there and at Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary on Vancouver Island on the 298th solar day of the year, every year. This timing equates to the 15th day of October (except in Leap Years), and October 15 has come to be known as All Buffleheads Day in recognition of the annual migratory event.
So this weekend, take a moment to consider the Bufflehead and the special place it holds in Canada's natural history. If you happen to be in Sidney, British Columbia, join the celebrations for All Bufflehead Day and the 80th anniversary of the Shoal Migratory Bird Sanctuary at Lillian Hoffar Park.
Yesterday, the Ontario Superior Court made a very significant ruling that appears to be a major victory for nature and for First Nations communities in Northern Ontario. The essential point of the decision is Justice Mary-Anne Sanderson's declaration that the Ontario Government cannot take away the rights of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, as described in Treaty Three, by authorizing development including logging and mining. Grassy Narrows First Nation was among the first to suffer significantly from the effects of mercury poisoning when the English and Wabigoon River systems were polluted by a notorious Dryden pulp mill in the 1970s.
In a press release by the Anishinaabe First Nation about the court decision yesterday, there was a call on the federal and provincial governments to "honour the spirit and intent of this decision by moving to eliminate clearcut logging in Grassy Narrows Traditional Territory and to develop a meaningful new approach to the management to this territory in partnership with Grassy Narrows."
For Nature Canada, this decision is very encouraging, and we hope that it begins a new era and approach in the north that puts the rights of First Nations, and the protection of their culture and the environment ahead of industrial development.
Yesterday I participated in a webinar put on by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service on the impacts of the Gulf oil spill on migratory birds. The presenter, a scientist from the fisheries and wildlife branch of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Department, described the complex assessment process and touched on some of the results of ongoing work.
The bottom line is that there is still a considerable amount of oil not accounted for, and that beneath the silts and muds in many of the coastal wetlands in Louisiana, and beneath the sand of beaches, are several layers of oil and tar in the substrate.
Some of the coastal mangrove islands with bird colonies have been impacted; mangroves have died and birds are forced to nest on the ground, only a metre of so above sea level, exposing their nests to inundation risk. There is still evidence of some light oiling of Pelicans.
The impact on oiled birds, particularly migratory birds, appears less than it potentially was – about 8 thousand birds were observed/ recovered oiled or found dead, representing some fraction, perhaps 10%, of the total killed. Laughing Gull, Brown Pelican, (Gulf Coast breeders), Northern Gannet (Canada – Atlantic coast), and Roseate Tern were the most affected species identified.
It is common to see an oily sheen on the water, and there is concern of storms in the Gulf stirring up the sediment and exposing the oil again in the marshes.
Information on toxicology is embargoed, as are many other specific details due to litigation around damages. This may be the case for many, many years. The last fisheries have opened recently, but there is still concern about what people are eating. Every type of study imaginable is underway, but again, with no information forthcoming (e.g. toxicology, ecology). Some partial payment from BP for damages has been made, and the Coastal states have each received large sums which are being dispersed to a range of organizations.
Much more information is available on the NRDA website – though, as I mentioned, many details and results are embargoed.
It's also worthwhile to check out the USFWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill website that keeps on tally of birds and wildlife impacted, which is revised from time to time. It breaks down the species found.
Tomorrow, June 9, is the deadline for public comment on Gilead Power Corporation's proposed wind energy plant at Ostrander Point.
ACT NOW – Tell the Province of Ontario what you think about Gilead’s permit applications to destroy endangered species and their habitat.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry for a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) which “would allow Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.”
The permit application is posted on the Province’s electronic review board for comment. Nature Canada, Ontario Nature and Prince Edward County Field Naturalists do not believe that issuance of this permit will lead to overall benefit for the species. Now is your opportunity to comment on the proposed permit through the Environmental Registry. The deadline for comment is June 9, 2011.
This video, recorded during a visit to Ostrander Point on June 1, shows Blanding’s Turtle swimming in a stream beside Ostrander Point Road. This road runs along the eastern side of Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, an area that provides habitat for many endangered species like Blanding's Turtle.
Nature Canada along with its partners Ontario Nature and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are in agreement with the belief that climate change poses one of the greatest risks to biodiversity. We fully support the government’s intention to expand the use of clean and renewable sources of energy through its Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. However, in responding to climate change, we must not sacrifice biodiversity and significant habitats. Protecting wildlife, threatened species and their habitat is vitally important if we are to buffer the effects of climate change and provide options for wildlife that must cope with predicted changes.
It commenting on this particular EBR posting, it is important to note that the ESA permitting process for the Ostrander point project goes forward separately from the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process for the Ostrander project as a whole. We are firmly and publicly opposed to the granting of an REA for the proposed wind farm development at Ostrander Point, part of a globally significant Important Bird Area and an extremely important site for migration for birds, bats and Monarch Butterflies on the north shore of Lake Ontario.
In terms of the ESA permitting process, Ostrander Point provides habitat for many species, including Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will, both listed as threatened in Ontario. In order for an “overall benefit” permit to be issued under the ESA the following legal requirements must be met:
(i) an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and, (ii) reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and, (iii) reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit. (ESA, section 17 (2) c)
We have serious doubts as to whether these requirements have or can be met. Outlined below are our key concerns about this proposed permit.
1. Alternative locations must be thoroughly considered. With respect to the siting of the project at Ostrander Point, it is unclear whether alternative locations have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and whether the best alternative has been adopted, as required by the ESA. The information provided indicates only that six different layouts of the turbines at the Ostrander site were examined. There is no evidence that this site was compared with other reasonable alternative sites. If indeed other sites outside Ostrander Point were NOT thoroughly considered (e.g., farm land where the landowners are willing, where natural cover has already been removed, and where endangered species are not present), in our view the proposed project does not meet the ESA requirement to consider reasonable alternatives.
2. The “overall benefit to the species” has not been adequately demonstrated. The ESA sets a high standard regarding permits to damage or destroy endangered species habitat or to harm or harass a member of an endangered species: in the end the project proponent must provide an overall benefit to the species. In other words, the species must be better off than it was prior to the project going forward. In this case, the proponent Gilead Power Corporation, proposes to acquire and manage a property outside the project area. No details on what this “swap” would look like have been provided in the EBR posting. No actual sites or techniques to recreate this already highly functioning habitat have been identified. To be clear, the benefit must be over and above what already exists if the trade off is to constitute an overall benefit. Merely acquiring other already existing habitat provides no additional benefit whatsoever. Furthermore, in the case of the Whip-poor-will, there is every reason to believe that building massive wind turbines on Ostrander Point will introduce a new and permanent risk to this declining nocturnal species which depends on areal hunting of insects.
Risk is another critical factor that must be considered when calculating overall benefit. When destroying one habitat and replacing it with another there is a great deal of risk involved, and generally speaking established, functioning habitat is of much higher value than manufactured habitat. This means that for every key habitat feature that is rendered non-functional, a greater number of equivalent habitat features must be created, based on a ratio that takes risk of success into account; for example, a 3:1 ratio would mean that 3 habitat features would be created for every 1 destroyed. The higher the risk, the higher the ratio should be. To further address risk, created habitats should be functional prior to the destruction of established sites. The EBR posting provides no indication of how risk will be addressed.
Given the lack of information provided to demonstrate that alternative sites have been considered and that an overall benefit will be achieved, Nature Canada opposes the granting of this ESA permit.
Make your voice heard! Let the Province know that no permit should be granted until alternatives sites to Ostrander Point have been considered and measures to achieve overall benefit have been demonstrated. Also, please keep in mind that original responses are weighed more heavily than are form letters. We suggest that you use the points above to draft your own letter and either post it online to the link below or send a hard copy to the listed address by June 9, 2011. Be sure to reference the EBR registry number: 011-3181.
For more information and to submit comments online click here
Thanks to Ontario Nature for providing some of the content for this blog.
Last night, Prince Edward County Council voted to endorse local naturalist objections to a proposed wind power project inside an Important Bird Area. In a 13-3 vote, the Council voiced agreement with local residents who oppose plans to build and operate nine wind turbines within Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, a critical refuelling spot for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from Canada's Boreal Forest.
This is the message Prince Edward County Field Naturalists members Myrna Wood and Cheryl Anderson brought to council last night.
The best wind power is offshore on Lake Ontario, said Wood, but there is a moratorium on offshore turbines. She added there are a lot of other appropriate areas in the County and other parts of the province that would not disturb significant wildlife and would have just as much wind power. “We support the Green Energy Act and wind energy but it has to be put in the right place,” said Wood. “Ostrander Point is the wrong place.”
“Prince Edward County is the penultimate refuelling refuge for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from the boreal forest,” Anderson said. “In the spring they can be seen on Doppler radar massing on the south shore of Lake Ontario waiting for an appropriate time to cross over to the closest land – which is Prince Edward County. When they arrive they are tired and hungry.”
Anderson explained the data of the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory confirms millions of birds use this flyway. “If the plans of the Ontario government and Gilead Power are allowed to go forward, millions of birds will have to confront another obstacle when they arrive at their refuge. Nine wind turbines on the Ostrander Crown Land block and a further 20 proposed turbines in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area, part of the WPD proposal, will have to be negotiated by the already exhausted and famished birds. There is no doubt that the mortality will be significant.”
Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate the wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.”Gilead permits to lease Ostrander Point and destroy SAR habitat. Nature Canada has been working with local naturalists to protect this Important Bird Area and halt plans for the wind project.
Last weekend I went birding. Not for long as the weather in Gatineau was wet and cool. However, life outside goes on. Last weekend was also a celebration of migratory birds across the Americas - International Migratory Bird Day. I head out for a short walk in Gatineau Park to experience the birds and talk about how I feel as a birder. Join me on my walk, learn about "pishing," and see what happens.
International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) celebrates the 350 species that migrate between countries in the Americas. Canada likely holds the record for the country with the most migratory birds. It is estimated that every fall, 90% of our birds leave the country, the great majority heading south. Terns and shorebirds tend to go the farthest. The Hudsonian Godwit, for example, flies from its subarctic and arctic breeding grounds to Tierra del Fuego in Chile. Many songbirds also fly long distances to South America. Purple Martins end up in Sao Paulo State in Brazil. Bobolink's non-breeding destination is the pampas of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uraguay and Brazil. Blackpoll Warblers and Common Nighthawks make it to Brazil, and Venezuala. Veery, Swainson's Thrush and Gray-cheeked Thrush also go to South America, as do several Flycatchers, Scarlet Tanager, and the iconic Canada Warbler. American Redstarts and Chestnut-sided Warblers spend their "winters" in Central America with many other Warbler species, Vireos, Yellow-bellied and Least Flycatchers, Orioles, and Whip-poor-will.
Many species other than songbirds and shorebirds also have impressive migrations, including Peregrine Falcon, Osprey, Swainson's Hawk, Blue-winged Teal and Green Heron. Over one billion Canadian-born birds over-winter in the continental United States, including some of our commonest species such as most blackbird and sparrows including the White-throated and White-crowned Sparrows, and most waterfowl.
Take a moment to think about this. For some long-lived species, this migration would take them to the moon over the course of their lifetimes. In addition to the amazing ecological services that they provide to all of the countries of their passages, these birds wow people with their beauty and their song. Birds inspire me for all of these reasons. They bring me happiness, and make me feel connected to nature.
So fellow Canadians, get out and enjoy these most inspiring members of creation in the next week or so, and always remember to respect their lives and the rest of nature in your daily decisions.
Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate nine wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.” See the breaking CBC TV story that includes an interview of local naturalist Myrna Wood.
This is an unusual step in Canada for a wind energy project, but one that appears to be an admission that the project will be impacting threatened species at the site where the turbines are to be built. The ESA permit which allows for the destruction of habitat and harm to the species, must also demonstrate the following:
(i) the Minister is of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and, (ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and, (iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit.
On the posting, the proponent’s response to these requirements is provided. I’ll only include and comment on the first sentence of the first requirement related to overall benefit.
Proponent to acquire and manage a property outside the project area (that meets appropriate criteria as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources) for the habitat preservation, rehabilitation and/or improvement of both Blanding’s turtle and Whip-poor-will.
Unfortunately, there are no reports or documents to inform us on what this actually means. This posting begs the question of how the public, can be expected to provide meaningful comment if there are no details about where the habitat is, or how protecting and managing it would benefit the species. For example, would the acquired property be an area already occupied with breeding Whip-poor-wills that is facing imminent destruction? If it is unoccupied habitat, is Gilead claiming that it can restore and manage the habitat to attract this rapidly declining species? Is this even possible?
It is a fact is that Whip-poor-will no longer occupies much of the available habitat within its range. Both loss of habitat and declines in its food supply (mainly flying insects) are identified as the main reasons behind the species demise.
This is where the ability of this permit to have an overall benefit for the species becomes dubious at best. If both the existing occupied site where the project is proposed, and the “new” site are occupied by Whip-poor-wills, and the intent is to protect one and damage the other so that it no longer supports the species, there is net harm. A possible and worse scenario is that if Ostrander Point becomes a functioning wind energy plant, it becomes an ecological trap for the species. This would occur if individuals were attracted to the area each year, but more prone to being killed.
My conclusion is that the ESA posting is flawed as a consultation process in that it does not allow for meaningful public engagement. We simply need more detail.
My hunch is that all it will contribute to the Whip-poor-will is more hardship. Wind energy projects should be about a good idea in a good place. Ostrander Point, in my view, is a terrible location for a wind project. Powers that be, please find an alternative location, that is not as risky to birds and other wildlife.
Photo by Ted Cheskey - Whip-poor-will habitat on the upper Bruce Peninsula
Last May, I blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. I called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.
However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.
Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010. And the results for birds are troubling. (I’ll write about bats in a future post.) Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.
The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.
Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture: Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses) Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses) Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses) Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses) Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)
It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.
While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.
While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.
But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.
Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.
In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.
With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:
This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.
With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.
As I write this, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block. Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing "crown lands" as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas. Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.
