Attwater's Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri).
Just when we thought that we were headed in the right direction, we’re reminded that humans, with our limited minds, just can’t see the whole picture. At least, not until the things that we’ve put into motion start going wrong.
In our search for clean, renewable, eco-friendly alternative “green” energy, wind power sounds like a ‘no-brainer’. It’s free, plentiful (in the right spots) and limitless. It leaves no toxic residue and needs little more than tall turbines to produce it.
With all this going for it, how can using wind energy possibly have a down side?
Well, if you’re a lesser prairie chicken on one of the last remnants of unbroken grassland expanse in Oklahoma, there is a definite downside. . . Or if you’re a sea eagle in Norway . . . Or a bat, an endangered whooping crane, or a kittiwake. Actually, the list goes on and on.
It turns out that the best places to put the new generation of ‘farms’ – wind-turbine farms – are open, expansive, and, of course, windswept; just the places where prairie chickens (and other critically endangered grassland species) are trying to hold on to existence.
According to Don Wolfe, Senior Biologist of the G.M. Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, OK (in an interview with Bridget Wood, in the June 2009 issue of , The Current, ), “Lesser prairie chickens do the best in large expanses of native prairie (some smaller parcels of agricultural land within are okay), with at least some shrub component (primarily sand sage-brush or shinnery oak), with few other fragmentary factors such as roads, transmission lines, trees, fences, etc.
“Historically, lesser prairie chickens had a considerably larger range in Oklahoma, but due to various factors (including those mentioned above), have been constrained to portions of only a few counties in northwestern Oklahoma where those fragmentary forces have been kept to a minimum. It is unfortunate for the prairie chicken that these remaining areas of suitable habitat are often prime wind development areas.”
Just what's causing the problem?
It’s not only collisions with the turbines themselves, although that is certainly a factor. Harder to combat is the damage done by the transmission lines, the roads being built to provide access (just think about how many acres a road ruins in terms of MILES of habitat cleared), the disruptive human presence and associated activity, fences and – something that may never occur to those not familiar with grassland species, the appearance of features taller than the indigenous grasses and low shrubs with which the creatures evolved.
The mere presence of a towering wind turbine can cause ‘avoidance’, by prairie-dwelling species, of otherwise suitable habitat areas, further fragmenting and stressing the remaining, struggling populations. (Pruett, Patten and Wolfe, Conservation Biology, Avoidance Behavior by Prairie Grouse: Implications for Development of Wind Energy, .)
Even all this wouldn’t be as severe a problem if not combined with other threats; Eastern red-cedar encroachment and the proliferation of fences and roads into once pristine grassland areas. (Wolfe)
With these delicate ecosystems under attack from so many fronts, the large-scale installation of wind-turbines might be the ‘nail in the coffin’ for wildlife on the brink.
It’s not just about species here in the US. In a report released last year, “Pre- and post-construction studies of conflicts between birds and wind turbines in coastal Norway”, BevangerEtAlReport409final2008.pdf, “Monitoring of bird mortality within the wind power plant area takes place on a weekly basis assisted by special trained dogs. So far in 2008 (as of December 1) 9 white-tailed sea eagles (WTSE) and 7 willow ptarmigans have been recorded. Another 4 common snipes, 2 hooded crow, 2 golden plovers, 2 greylag goose, one grey heron, one kittiwake, one herring/greater black-backed gull, one merlin and one red-shank have been collected; i.e. a total of 31 victims so far in 2008.”
Thirty one birds may not sound like a lot, considering the real benefits of wind power (less reliance on fossil fuels, fewer carbon emissions, sustainability, etc), but as technology and output from wind turbine ‘farms’ increases, so will the number of turbines and all the associated activities. As the numbers increase and demand for power from these farms rises (although the ability of the ‘farms’ to significantly reduce our need for other energy sources is limited {Wolfe}), fatal interactions between wildlife and wind energy developments will also increase, with dire consequences for fragile species like the prairie chicken.
Complicating matters still further is the incentive for land-owners to make money from their property by allowing the building of such ‘farms’. Even sympathetic land owners would have a tough time turning down that extra income, especially in this time of economic hardship, and may even turn to illegal vandalism of sensitive areas in order to ‘de-list’ their tracts from protected status.
It’s a sad fact that greedy, or desperate, humans will find a way around legislation in order to be able to sell their land for development and exploitation.
This is what happened in parts of North Carolina in 2003, when the extremely rare red-cockaded woodpecker was found on some ancient forested land. In an attempt to preserve this priceless biological treasure, such lands were classified as protected from development or logging by the Endangered Species Act. In a shameful display of short-sightedness and arrogance, property owners deliberately cut down vital, irreplaceable old forests – crucial nesting and feeding sites for the imperiled woodpecker – so that the acreage was no longer suitable for the birds in question and could no longer be part of the protected area.
All this so owners had the ‘option’ of profiting from the sale of the land or timber. (See more about imperiled ancient forests here.)
Tragically, due to numerous factors such as soil structure, soil microbes, primitive plant life etc., that only occur in old-growth, ancient forests, such damage is . . . irreparable.
So how can we keep from repeating this mistake as we enter the alternative energy era?
The best solution may be financial incentives to keep open grasslands (and other critical habitats) pristine. Reward the land owner for NOT allowing turbines to be built in critical habitats (Wolfe).
Other remedies would be easements, as well as intensive efforts to set aside as much critical grassland as possible for protected areas. Wind turbines and wildlife really cannot co-exist, so provisions to safeguard biodiversity are crucial.
Why should we care about prairie chickens?
Lesser Prairie chicken. Photo: dominic sherony
Charming, diminutive birds, with a unique silhouette and attractive coloring, most of us, playing ‘Cowboys and Indians’ as children unwittingly paid homage to the prairie chicken as we bent at the waist and patted our mouths, circling in our ‘Indian camps’. That’s because the prairie chicken came to symbolize the Great Plains and the indigenous peoples who admired them. The prairie chicken was so important to some Native Americans that they mimicked its booming, whistling and stamping courtship ritual in their own dances, turning the grouses’ mating display into the very fabric of American mythology.
With less than 1500 birds left, every loss has a huge impact on the population, and therefore the genetic viability, of this unique little grouse.
To this day the prairie chicken is symbolic of the last, great, awe-inspiring, unspoiled vastness of America. Let’s not lose this important link to our living historical roots.
As a final thought for those feeling discouraged, hopeless or frustrated because even 'green' technology is having negative impacts on wildlife: that was my feeling when I learned of this, too -- a sense of, "Okay, I give up, now what?"
But there ARE solutions. This new technology is in its infancy and we just have to be alert and grow into it responsibly. I have faith that, with just a little encouragement, humans can do that.
Special thanks to Mr. Don Wolfe, Senior Biologist G.M. Sutton Avian Research Center.
Thanks also to Billie Greenwood for her inspiration and encouragement.
Comments
So, just what energy source has NO negative impact? And which energy sources do you enviro's ACCEPT?
It seems most like you prefer animals OVER humans.
No wind because it kills birds.
No hydro because it impedes fish.
No nuclear because who knows why.
No oil because of CO2.
No coal because of CO2.
What DO you people WANT to run our cars and homes on?
BS Zone: "We" are looking for ways to work WITH the planet and all it's irreplacable treasures for long-term, sustainable, respectful stewardship of the only home we have.
It's a sad fact that after the forests are logged, the mountaintops removed for coal, the oceans poisoned and animals are driven to extinction, that the 'monetary gains' of those who sacrificed our planet are . . .very short-lived, still unsatisfied, and long gone. They will never come back, even once we realize we could have had them to work WITH, into the future, if we'd been just alittle more careful.
Even now we're realizing that 'useless' plants and animals are in fact vitally important as medicines, foods, materials for industry . . . and we could have wiped them out unkowingly. Who knows, there might have been a cure Alzheimer's we've already lost by clearing the rainforests?
But the damage we do by not paying attention is forever.
This is no laughing matter. We have one chance to do this right.
The problem is that our society has failed to put a "value" on the world's natural resources, including plants that produce vital medicines, amphibians that are the canary in the coal mine of the Earth's ecosystems, and lower species like prairie chickens and prairie dogs.
People who believe that it has to be human domination over animals and other species at all costs, are short-sighted and they make sanctimonious accusations about prefering animals OVER people. They jump to this assumption, because they believe there is no price or value on anything that stands in the way of human greed.
By their definition, man kind should be free to plunder and pollute every non-renewable thing that makes up Earth's natural systems, even the air we breath and the water we drink.
There should be ways to make energy efficient advances, while considering the impact on wildlife, because man is smart enough to get it done--but in most cases, only if the price is right.
You conveniently or purposely did not answer the question!
What DO you people WANT to run our cars and homes on?
BS Zone. Sir, you have a very appropriate tag name.
Just the way you use the phrase "you people" indicates that you are a condescending person who only has one answer to the world's complex problems, and it involves what ever lines your pocket at the least inconvenience to you.
Sadly, there are tens of thousands who share your kind of mentality populating this planet who don't have ability or the desire to look beyond your own deep-seated self-righteousness to consider the viability of any other point of view on a subject, other than your own.
If "what DO you people WANT to run our cars and homes on" is the basic principle of your gripe, it stands to reason the only answer you would be happy with, would be "drill, baby, drill".
Lets just keep buying oil from countries that support terrorism and run this world into the ground so it is of no use for us or the chickens...or build more wind and solar farms and grill the chicken.. all of the oil and natgas refineries kill just as many birds each year with their pollution...throw in coal and natural gas fired power plants and the numbers would be outrageous...I work on wind farms and watch cattle, deer, turkey. wild hogs and many other animals feed fight and @#$% ......all in the shadows of the towers. ...the detrimental environmental impact is exaggerated to epic proportions
Roger Evens, I see you too neglected to answer the question.
As the Church lady said, How Convieeeeenient!
YOUR condescension sir is no different than your claim of mine. You know nothing about me or how "green" I am do you yet you write like you do. How presumptuous of you.
The answer I am "happy" with means nothing.
Please answer the question. It is not too hard for you is it?
As with everything, there are tradeoffs. Renewables and wind still have quite a halo around them, but they impose different costs. They take up large amounts of land, interfere with other species and don't produce power more than half the time. I believe we need all sources, including clean fossil, nuclear wind, solar and hyrdro; we should just be fully aware of the costs and trade-offs of each source. Thanks for publishing this analysis.
Still. No word from those people who cannot answer a direct simple question, including the writer of this article.
STILL no answer to my question? Whats the problem?
What fuel do we have that will in the next few years replace even 40% of the present gasoline/diesel fuel we use now?
Cmon people, you all are supposed to be so smart and progressive!
The silence is deafening.
BS Zone does raise an interesting and very fundamental issue. More basic is the truth that it is immaterial what "we people" want. What is available and at what actual cost (not in terms of just $ but also in terms of impact on human health and the health of the world ecosystems that sustain us) is the real issue here. To the arrogant BS Zone people of the world who verbally show their lack of interest in protecting the world that sustains us, I would point out that oil, gas, and coal are finite resources which we are using at a rate which cannot be maintained. To continue the process of extracting every drop of oil or every ton of coal from the earth while laughing at those who advocate developing alternate fuels is like going for a joy ride in your new Hummer and continuing to accelerate right off the edge of a cliff. Our first major task should be to maximize the efficiency with which we use these fossil fuels. That will buy us a little more time (ctd.)
Time essential to work out alternative fuel issues. To do otherwise WILL result in an unthinkable disaster, probably for our grandchildren. Then the question is what energy source(s) are available. There are really only 2, nuclear and solar. Nuclear energy has the advantage of a "quick fix." It will provide high intensity energy with existing technology, and there is plenty of fuel for a long time. However, the problem with nuclear is how to deal with the waste. Deadly wastes that will be with us far longer than all of human history. Disasters at Chernobyl and 3 mile Is. are proof that we are not yet able to manage nuclear energy safely. Direct solar is the only other energy supply that is great enough to meet our demands. But ds is low intensity and requires fundamentally new tech and conceptual approach (decentralized high efficient collection) that our current energy experts do not want to accept. Wind, hydro, tidal, etc. (which are indirect solar) will help.Enviro costs with all.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!