GAO-05-906, Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-906 
entitled 'Wind Power: Impacts on Wildlife and Government 
Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife' 
which was released on September 19, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2005: 

Wind Power: 

Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating 
Development and Protecting Wildlife: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-906]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-906, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Wind power has recently experienced dramatic growth in the United 
States, with further growth expected. However, several wind power-
generating facilities have killed migratory birds and bats, prompting 
concern from wildlife biologists and others about the species affected, 
and the cumulative effects on species populations. 
GAO assessed (1) what available studies and experts have reported about 
the impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife in the United States 
and what can be done to mitigate or prevent such impacts, (2) the roles 
and responsibilities of government agencies in regulating wind power 
facilities, and (3) the roles and responsibilities of government 
agencies in protecting wildlife. GAO reviewed a sample of six states 
with wind power development for this report. 

What GAO Found: 

The impact of wind power facilities on wildlife varies by region and by 
species. Specifically, studies show that wind power facilities in 
northern California and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have killed 
large numbers of raptors and bats, respectively. Studies in other parts 
of the country show comparatively lower levels of mortality, although 
most facilities have killed at least some birds. However, many wind 
power facilities in the United States have not been studied, and, 
therefore, scientists cannot draw definitive conclusions about the 
threat that wind power poses to wildlife in general. Further, much is 
still unknown about migratory bird flyways and overall species 
population levels, making it difficult to determine the cumulative 
impact that the wind power industry has on wildlife species. Notably, 
only a few studies exist concerning ways in which to reduce wildlife 
fatalities at wind power facilities. 

Regulating wind power facilities is largely the responsibility of state 
and local governments. In the six states GAO reviewed, wind power 
facilities are subject to local- or state-level processes, such as 
zoning ordinances to permit the construction and operation of wind 
power facilities. As part of this process, some agencies require 
environmental assessments before construction. However, regulatory 
agency officials do not always have experience or expertise to address 
environmental and wildlife impacts from wind power. The federal 
government plays a minimal role in approving wind power facilities, 
only regulating facilities that are on federal lands or have some form 
of federal involvement, such as receiving federal funds. In these 
cases, the wind power project must comply with federal laws, such as 
the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as any relevant state 
and local laws. 

Federal and state laws afford generalized protections to wildlife from 
wind power as with any other activity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) is the primary agency tasked with implementing wildlife 
protections in the United States. Three federal laws—the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the 
Endangered Species Act—generally forbid harm to various species of 
wildlife. Although significant wildlife mortality events have occurred 
at wind power facilities, the federal government has not prosecuted any 
cases against wind power companies under these wildlife laws, 
preferring instead to encourage companies to take mitigation steps to 
avoid future harm. All of the six states GAO reviewed had statutes that 
can be used to protect some wildlife from wind power impacts; however, 
similar to FWS, no states have taken any prosecutorial actions against 
wind power facilities where wildlife mortalities have occurred. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that FWS provide state and local regulatory agencies 
with information on the potential wildlife impacts from wind power and 
the resources available to help make decisions about where wind power 
development should be approved. 

The Department of the Interior agreed with GAO’s recommendation. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-906. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Letter: 

September 16, 2005: 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II: 
Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan: 
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The production of wind power, a renewable energy source, has recently 
experienced dramatic growth in the United States, although it still 
generates less than 1 percent of the electricity used in this country. 
Wind power-generating facilities were first built in California about 
25 years ago. Now wind power facilities can be found in over 30 states, 
and the industry is expected to continue to grow rapidly. The vast 
majority of wind power facilities are located in just 10 western and 
midwestern states; most are on nonfederal land. Development has slowly 
made its way east and is currently being pursued along the ridge tops 
of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 
West Virginia. Once thought to have practically no adverse 
environmental effects, it is now recognized that wind power facilities 
can have adverse impacts--particularly on wildlife, and most 
significantly on birds and bats. 

Large numbers of birds and bats are believed to follow and cross 
through many parts of the United States, including along mountain 
ridges, during their seasonal migrations. Consequently, wind power 
projects located in these areas could potentially impact these species. 
At wind power-generating facilities in Appalachia and California, wind 
turbines have killed large numbers of migratory birds and bats. Wind 
power facilities may also have other impacts on wildlife through 
alterations of habitat. Habitat destruction and modification is a 
leading threat to the continued survival of wildlife species in the 
United States. 

In this context, we assessed (1) what available studies and experts 
have reported about the impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife in 
the United States and what can be done to mitigate or prevent such 
impacts, (2) the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in 
regulating wind power facilities, and (3) the roles and 
responsibilities of government agencies in protecting wildlife. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed major scientific studies and 
reports on direct impacts from wind power on avian species and other 
wildlife (we did not assess indirect impacts, such as habitat impacts). 
We interviewed experts from the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (FWS), state agencies, academia, industry, and 
conservation groups and obtained their views on these studies and 
reports. We also reviewed a nonprobability sample of six states with 
wind power development--California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.[Footnote 1] We selected these states 
to reflect a range in installed wind generating capacity, regulatory 
processes, history of wind power development, and geographic 
distribution and to reflect our requesters' interests. We identified 
and reviewed relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 
In addition, we interviewed federal, state, and local officials who 
were responsible for implementing related programs. More information 
about the objectives, scope, and methodology of our evaluation is 
presented in appendix I. We conducted our work between December 2004 
and July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards, including an assessment of data reliability and internal 
controls. 

Results in Brief: 

Recent studies and interviews with experts indicate that the impacts of 
wind power facilities on birds and other wildlife vary by region and by 
species. Wildlife mortalities in two locations in particular have 
elicited concerns from scientists, regulators, and the public. 
Specifically, a recent study shows that over 1,000 raptors are killed 
by wind power facilities in northern California each year. Many experts 
attribute this large number of fatalities to unique aspects of wind 
power development in northern California, such as the unusually large 
number of turbines (over 5,000), the type of turbines in the region, 
and the presence of abundant raptor prey in the area. On the other side 
of the country, a recent study estimated that over 2,000 bats were 
killed during a 1-year period at a wind power facility in the mountains 
of eastern West Virginia. Studies from these two locations stand in 
contrast to studies from other wind power facilities. These studies 
show relatively lower bird and bat mortality. However, bat estimates 
are less precise because most of the studies were designed to estimate 
only bird mortality. These studies have not elicited the same degree of 
concern from biologists as the studies from West Virginia and 
California. However, significant gaps in the literature make it 
difficult for scientists to draw conclusions about wind power's impact 
on wildlife in general. For example, experts told us that there is a 
shortage of information on migratory bird routes and bat behavior as 
well as the ways in which topography, weather, and turbine type affect 
mortality. In addition, studies conducted at one location can rarely be 
used to extrapolate potential impacts or mitigation effectiveness at 
other locations because of differences in site-specific conditions, 
such as topography, the types and densities of species present, and the 
type of wind turbines installed. Finally, while some authors have 
recommended mitigation strategies for reducing bird and bat kills, 
there are relatively few comprehensive studies testing the 
effectiveness of these strategies. 

Regulating wind power facilities on nonfederal land is largely the 
responsibility of state and local governments. In the six states we 
reviewed, the permitting of wind power development consisted of local- 
level processes, state-level processes, or a combination of the two. In 
California, New York, and Pennsylvania, local governments regulate the 
development of wind power. Local governments in these states generally 
require wind developers to adhere to local zoning ordinances and obtain 
special use permits before construction. In addition, California and 
New York have state environmental laws that require various studies and 
analyses to be conducted before a permit can be issued. West Virginia 
uses a state-level process, whereby its Public Service Commission is 
responsible for, among other things, regulating the activities of all 
public utilities operating in the state, including wind power. The 
commission has the authority to include certain conditions in wind 
power certificates, such as requiring wildlife studies before and after 
construction. In Minnesota and Oregon, local and state agencies 
regulate wind power development. In these two states, local agencies, 
such as county planning commissions or zoning boards, permit the 
development of wind power unless a project exceeds a certain level of 
electric-generating capacity; larger facilities are regulated by a 
state agency. While some state and local regulatory agencies require 
environmental assessments before construction, some state and local 
regulatory agency officials told us that they have little experience or 
expertise in addressing environmental and wildlife impacts from wind 
power. For example, officials in one state told us that they did not 
have the expertise to evaluate wildlife impacts and review studies 
prior to construction. The federal government generally only has a 
regulatory role in wind power development when development occurs on 
federal land or involves some form of federal participation, such as 
providing funding for projects. In these cases, the development and 
operation of a wind power facility must comply with any state and local 
laws as well as federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy 
Act and the Endangered Species Act--which often require preconstruction 
studies or analyses and possibly modifications to proposed projects to 
avoid adverse environmental effects. 

As with any activity, federal and state laws afford protections to 
wildlife from wind power facilities. Three laws--the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the 
Endangered Species Act--are the federal laws most relevant to 
protecting wildlife from wind power facilities, and these laws 
generally forbid harm to various species of wildlife. FWS is the 
federal agency that has primary responsibility for implementing and 
enforcing these three laws. Although none of the three laws expressly 
require wind power developers and operators to take specific steps to 
ensure that wildlife will not be harmed during either the construction 
or operation of their facilities, wind power developers or operators 
are liable for any harm to protected species that may occur. In some 
cases, developers voluntarily consult with FWS--or a state natural 
resources agency--before they construct a project or they do so as a 
requirement of a state or local wind power regulatory agency, to 
identify potential impacts to wildlife. In other cases, federal 
involvement may consist of FWS law enforcement officials investigating 
instances of wildlife fatalities at a wind power facility. While 
significant mortality events have occurred at some wind power 
facilities--and, in some cases, are recurring--the federal government 
has not prosecuted any cases against wind power companies for 
violations of federal wildlife laws. In some cases, FWS has not taken 
action because the species killed are not federally protected, such as 
the bat species killed in West Virginia. In cases where violations of 
federal law have occurred, FWS law enforcement officials told us that 
before FWS pursues civil or criminal penalties, the agency prefers to 
work with companies to encourage them to take mitigation steps to avoid 
future harm. According to FWS officials, they have been reasonably 
successful in resolving impacts to wildlife by following this approach 
with the electric power industry. FWS has also referred cases against 
wind power developers to either the Interior's Office of the Solicitor 
San Francisco field office or the Department of Justice for killing 
raptors, but Justice was unable to comment on the specifics of its 
ongoing investigation. FWS has been working with the wind industry to 
help identify solutions and ensure that wildlife mortality at wind 
power facilities is minimized. For example, FWS has participated in 
industry-sponsored workshops and conferences, issued voluntary 
guidelines for industry to use in developing new projects, and served 
as a member in a wildlife working group with industry. Regarding state 
wildlife protections, all of the six states we reviewed have statutes 
that can be used to protect some wildlife from wind power impacts. 
However, similar to FWS, no states have taken any prosecutorial actions 
against wind power facilities where wildlife mortalities have occurred. 

To encourage potential wildlife impacts to be considered when wind 
power facilities are permitted, we are making a recommendation to FWS 
to reach out to state and local regulatory agencies with information on 
the potential wildlife impacts due to wind power and on the resources 
available to help make decisions about the siting of wind power 
facilities. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report. The Department 
of the Interior stated that they generally agree with our findings and 
our recommendation in the report. Written comments from the department 
are included in appendix III. 

Background: 

The energy used to generate our nation's electricity comes from many 
different sources. Currently, most electricity in the United States is 
generated with fossil fuel and nuclear technologies--coal (52 percent), 
nuclear (20 percent), natural gas (16 percent), and oil (3 percent). 
Fossil fuels are considered nonrenewable because they are finite and 
will eventually dwindle or become too expensive or environmentally 
damaging to retrieve. Wind, however, is one of several sources of 
energy known as renewable energy. Other forms of renewable energy 
sources include sunlight (photovoltaics), heat from the sun (solar 
thermal), naturally occurring underground steam and heat (geothermal), 
plant and animal waste (biomass), and water (hydropower). 

To reduce our dependence on nonrenewable energy sources, the United 
States has promoted the development of renewable resources, such as 
wind. A key federal program supporting the development of such sources 
is the federal production tax credit established by the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992.[Footnote 2]This law provides a tax credit for electricity 
generated by renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines. The 
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 provides an additional incentive for 
wind power growth.[Footnote 3] In some cases, this law allows a 5-year 
depreciation schedule for renewable energy systems. In conjunction with 
the tax credit, this accelerated depreciation allows an even greater 
tax break for renewable energy projects, such as wind projects, that 
have high initial capital costs.[Footnote 4]

Some states also provide incentives for wind power development. One of 
the strongest drivers is a renewable portfolio standard. Generally, a 
renewable portfolio standard requires utilities operating in a state to 
acquire a minimum amount of their electricity supply from renewable 
energy sources. As of June 2005, 18 states had some form of renewable 
power requirements capable of being met by wind power. Other common 
types of incentives for renewable energy development provided by 
several state and local governments are income tax incentives and 
property and sales tax exemptions. Many states provide more than one 
type of incentive. In addition, 25 states have statewide wind working 
groups that are funded (at least partially) through grants from the 
Department of Energy (DOE). The purpose of these working groups is to 
promote more widespread development of wind power. 

These federal and state programs have helped spur significant wind 
power development in the last 5 years. At the end of 2004, the total 
installed capacity from wind power in the United States was 6,740 
megawatts (MW), or enough capacity to meet the electricity demand of 
between 1.5 and 2.0 million average American households (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Installed Wind Power-Generating Capacity in Megawatts, by 
State, as of January 24, 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Between January 2000 and December 2004, installed electric-generating 
capacity more than doubled, adding over 4,200 MW of capacity. Although 
wind power generates less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity, 
with an average annual growth rate of over 24 percent, it is the 
fastest growing source of electricity generation on a percentage basis. 
Because wind energy is a function of wind speed, the best locations for 
turbines are areas that have frequent strong winds to turn the blades 
of the power-generating turbines. See figure 2 for areas of the United 
States with high wind potential. 

Figure 2: Areas of the United States with High Wind Potential: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

According to DOE, 36 of the 48 continental states have wind resources 
that would support utility-scale wind power projects (i.e., projects 
that generate at least 1 MW of electric power from 1 or more turbines 
annually for sale to a local utility). A DOE goal for wind power is to 
generate 5 percent of the electricity generated in the United States by 
2020; the American Wind Energy Association has a similar goal.[Footnote 
5] To reach this goal, the association estimates that about 100,000 MW 
of installed capacity will be needed--approximately 15 times the 
current installed capacity. On the basis of the average MW size of wind 
turbines commonly being installed today (1.5 MW), more than 62,000 
additional turbines will need to be added to the existing 16,000 
turbines already constructed in the United States to meet such a goal. 

Most of the wind power development in the United States has occurred in 
10 western and midwestern states--California, Colorado, Iowa, 
Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and 
Wyoming. In fact, these 10 states have over 90 percent of the total 
installed wind power capacity nationwide. Only recently have developers 
begun to build wind energy facilities in the eastern United States. As 
shown in figure 2, wind power potential in this geographic area is best 
along mountain ridges, primarily the Appalachian Mountains, and along 
the coast of the northeastern United States. 

Wind power is considered a "green" technology because, unlike fossil 
fuel power plants, it does not produce harmful emissions, such as 
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and 
particulate matter, which can pose human health and environmental risks 
such as acid rain. However, it is now recognized that wind power 
facilities can adversely affect the environment in other ways, 
specifically in impacting wildlife such as birds and bats. Wind power 
facilities located in migratory pathways or important habitats may harm 
the wildlife living or passing through the area by killing or injuring 
them or by disrupting feeding or breeding behaviors. But wind power is 
not alone in its impacts on wildlife. Millions, or perhaps billions, of 
wildlife are killed every year in the United States through a myriad of 
human activities. While sources of bat mortality are not as well known, 
FWS estimates that some of the leading sources of bird mortality, per 
year, are collisions with building windows--97 million to 976 million 
bird deaths, collisions with communication towers--4 million to 50 
million bird deaths, poisoning from pesticides--at least 72 million 
birds, and attacks by domestic and feral cats--hundreds of millions of 
bird deaths. Human activities also result in the destruction or 
modification of wildlife habitat; habitat loss and fragmentation are 
leading threats to the continued survival of many species. 

Studies Show Wind Power Facility Impacts on Wildlife Vary, Although 
Notable Gaps in the Literature Remain and Few Studies Address 
Mitigation: 

Recent studies and interviews with experts reveal that the impacts of 
wind power facilities on birds and other wildlife vary by region and by 
species. Specifically, studies showing raptor mortality in California 
and bat mortality in Appalachia have elicited concerns from scientists, 
environmental groups, and regulators because of the large number of 
kills in these areas and the potential cumulative impact on some 
species. Thus far, documented bird and bat mortality from wind power in 
other parts of the country has not occurred in numbers high enough to 
raise concerns. However, gaps in the literature make it difficult to 
develop definitive conclusions about the impacts of wind power on birds 
and other wildlife. Notably, only a few studies have been conducted on 
strategies to address the potential risks wind power facilities pose to 
wildlife. 

Wildlife Mortality Varies by Region and by Species: 

Our review of the literature and discussions with experts revealed 
that, thus far, concerns over direct impacts to wildlife from wind 
power facilities have been concentrated in two geographic areas-- 
northern California and Appalachia.[Footnote 6] (For a discussion on 
how we selected these studies, see app. I.) While bird and bat kills 
have been documented in many locations, biologists are primarily 
concerned about mortality in these two regions because of the numbers 
of wildlife killed and the species affected. 

Studies Have Found Large Numbers of Raptors Killed by Wind Turbines in 
California: 

Wind power facilities in northern California, specifically in the 
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area about 50 miles east of San Francisco, 
have been responsible for the deaths of numerous raptors, or birds of 
prey, such as hawks and golden eagles, and, as a result, these deaths 
have elicited concern from wildlife protection groups, biologists, and 
regulators. Studies conducted in the last two decades have documented 
large numbers of raptor deaths in this area. One study in our review 
found estimates as high as over 1,000 raptor deaths per year. Such 
large numbers of raptor kills due to wind power are not seen elsewhere 
in the United States. A 2001 summary that examined raptor mortality 
rates from studies in 10 states estimated that over 90 percent of the 
raptors killed annually in the United States by wind power turbines 
occurred in California.[Footnote 7]

Several unique features of the wind resource area at Altamont Pass 
contribute to the high number of raptor deaths. First, California was 
the first area to develop wind power in significant numbers and thus 
has some of the oldest turbines still in operation in the United 
States. Older turbines produce less power per turbine, so it took many 
turbines to produce a certain level of energy; today, newer facilities 
producing the same amount of energy would have much fewer turbines. For 
example, Altamont Pass has over 5,000 wind turbines--many of which are 
older models--whereas, newer facilities generally have significantly 
fewer turbines (see figs. 3 and 4). Some experts told us that the sheer 
number of turbines in Altamont Pass has been a major reason for the 
high number of fatalities in the area. 

Figure 3: Example of Older Generation Wind Turbines in Altamont Pass, 
Northern California: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4: Example of a Newer Generation Wind Power Facility: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Secondly, some scientists believe that the design of older generation 
turbines, like those found in Altamont Pass, are more fatal to raptors. 
Specifically, early turbines were mounted on towers 60 feet to 80 feet 
in height, while today's turbines are mounted on towers 200 feet to 260 
feet in height. Experts told us that the older turbines at Altamont 
Pass have blades that reach lower to the ground, and thus can be more 
hazardous to raptors as they swoop down to catch prey. Experts also 
reasoned that the relative absence of raptor kills at newer facilities 
with generally taller turbines supports the notion that these turbines 
are less lethal to raptors. Third, the location of the wind turbine 
facilities at Altamont Pass may have contributed to the high number of 
raptor deaths. Studies show that there are a high number of raptors 
that pass through the area, as well as an abundance of raptor prey at 
the base of the turbines. In addition, the location of wind turbines on 
ridge tops and canyons may increase the likelihood that raptors will 
collide with turbines. Some experts note that one reason why other 
parts of the country may not be experiencing high levels of raptor 
mortality is partly because wind developers have used information from 
Altamont Pass to site new turbines in hopes of avoiding similar 
situations. 

Studies Have Found Large Numbers of Bats Killed by Wind Turbines in 
Appalachia: 

Recent studies conducted in the eastern United States in the 
Appalachian Mountains have found large numbers of bats killed by wind 
power turbines. A 2004 study conducted in West Virginia estimated that 
slightly over 2,000 bats were killed during a 7-month study at a 
location with 44 turbines. More recently, a 2005 report that examined 
wind resource areas both in West Virginia and Pennsylvania estimated 
that about 2,000 bats were killed during a much shorter 6-week study 
period at 64 turbines. Lastly, a study conducted of a small 3-turbine 
wind facility in Tennessee estimated that bat mortality was about 21 
bats per turbine, per year, raising concerns about the potential impact 
on bats if more turbines are built in this area. 

Various species of bats have been killed at these wind power facilities 
and experts are concerned about impacts to bat populations if large 
numbers of deaths continue. For example, one expert noted that "it is 
alarming to see the number of bats currently being killed coupled with 
the proposed number of wind power developments" in these areas. He 
explained that bats live longer and have lower reproductive rates than 
birds, and, therefore, bat populations may be more vulnerable to 
impacts. In addition, there are proposals for hundreds of new wind 
turbines along the Appalachian Mountains. A recent report from Bat 
Conservation International estimated that if all ridge-top turbines are 
approved and the mortality rates continue at their current rate, these 
turbines might kill tens of thousands of bats in a single season. 
Although none of the bats killed by wind power to date have been listed 
as endangered species, FWS--recognizing the seriousness of the problem-
-has initiated a study with the U.S. Geological Survey to study bat 
migration and to develop decision tools to provide assistance in 
identifying locations for wind turbines and communication towers. 

Studies Show That Bird and Bat Mortality from Wind Power in Other Parts 
of the Country Is Comparatively Lower Than in California and 
Appalachia: 

Results from studies on bird and bat mortality from wind power 
conducted in areas other than northern California and Appalachia have 
not caused the same degree of concern as in these two locations. Our 
review of studies conducted in areas other than the Appalachian 
Mountains showed bat fatality rates ranging from 0 to 4.3 bats per 
turbine, per year--compared with rates as high as 38 bats per turbine, 
per a 6-week study period, in the Appalachian Mountains (see app. II). 
Raptor fatalities outside Altamont Pass ranged from 0 to 0.07 raptors 
per turbine, per year, whereas, rates in Altamont Pass ranged from 0.05 
to 0.24. Our review of studies found that overall bird fatalities from 
wind power ranged from 0 to 7.28 birds per turbine, per year. In 
addition, a 2004 National Wind Coordinating Committee fact sheet shows 
that an average of 2.3 birds per turbine, per year are killed at 
facilities outside of California.[Footnote 8] However, it is important 
to also look at the number of turbines and the vulnerability of the 
species affected when interpreting these rates. For example, the high 
rate of 7.28 overall bird fatalities per turbine was found at a 
facility of only 3 wind turbines. Therefore, if no additional turbines 
are built in this area, the overall impact to the bird populations may 
be minimal; whereas, a lower fatality rate may cause impacts if there 
are many turbines in that particular area. In addition, comparing study 
findings can be difficult because researchers may use differing metrics 
and many areas of the country remain unstudied with regard to avian and 
bat impacts from wind power. While interpreting these statistics can be 
complicated, the experts we spoke with agreed that outside of 
California and Appalachia at the current level of wind power 
development, the research to date has not shown bird or bat kills in 
alarming numbers. 

While the studies we reviewed showed relatively low levels of mortality 
in many locations, there are also indirect impacts to wildlife from 
wind power facilities. For example, construction of wind power 
facilities may fragment habitat and disrupt feeding or breeding 
behaviors. According to FWS, the loss of habitat quantity and quality 
is the primary cause of declines in most assessed bird populations and 
many other wildlife species. However, this review focuses on the direct 
impacts of avian and bat mortality. 

Several Gaps Exist in Research on Wind Power Facility Impacts on 
Wildlife: 

While experts told us that the impact of wind power facilities on 
wildlife is more studied than other comparable infrastructure, such as 
communication towers, important gaps in the research remain. First, 
relatively few postconstruction monitoring studies have been conducted 
and made publicly available. It appears that many wind power facilities 
and geographic areas in the United States have not been studied at all. 
For example, a bird advocacy group expressed concern at a recent 
National Wind Coordinating Committee meeting that most of the wind 
projects that have been monitored for bird impacts are in the west. The 
American Wind Energy Association reports that there are hundreds of 
wind power facilities currently operating elsewhere in the country. 
However, we were able to locate only 19 postconstruction studies that 
were conducted to assess direct impacts to birds or bats in 11 
states.[Footnote 9] Texas, for example, is second only to California in 
installed wind power capacity, but we were unable to find a single, 
publicly available study investigating bird or bat mortality in that 
state. 

Lack of comprehensive data on bird and bat fatalities from wind 
turbines makes it difficult to make national assessments of the impact 
of wind turbines on wildlife. A 2001 analysis of studies estimated that 
wind turbines in the United States cause roughly 33,000 avian deaths 
per year.[Footnote 10] However, the authors noted that making 
projections of the potential magnitude of wind power-related avian 
fatalities is problematic, in part, because of the lack of long-term 
data. The authors further noted that the data collected at older sites 
may not be representative of newer facilities with more modern turbine 
technology. In addition, FWS considers this estimate to be a "minimum" 
to "conservative" estimate due to problems of data collection and 
uneven regional representation. In addition to limiting assessments of 
national impacts, a lack of data on actual mortality impacts siting 
decisions for new facilities. Specifically, the conclusions of 
postconstruction studies are often used when making preconstruction 
predictions about the degree of harm to wildlife that is likely 
expected from proposed facilities. If there are no local 
postconstruction studies available, predictions of future mortality at 
a proposed site must be based on information from studies conducted in 
areas that may have different wildlife species, topography, weather 
conditions, climate, soil types, and vegetative cover. 

A second important research gap is in understanding what factors 
increase the chances that turbines will be hazardous to wildlife. For 
example, it can be difficult to discern, among other things, how the 
number, location, and type of turbine; the number and type of species 
in an area; species behavior; topography; and weather affect mortality 
and why. Drawing conclusions about the degree of risk posed by certain 
factors--such as terrain, weather, or type of turbine--is difficult 
because sites differ in their combination of factors. For example, 
according to experts, data are inadequate about what turbine types are 
most hazardous and to what species. This is partly because most wind 
power facilities use only one turbine type. Therefore, even if one 
facility proved more hazardous than another, it would be difficult to 
attribute the difference to turbine type alone because other variables, 
such as topography or migratory patterns, are also likely to vary among 
the sites. Additionally, comparisons between studies are difficult 
because researchers may use different study methodologies. Therefore, 
even if two sites had similar bird populations, topography, and weather 
characteristics but different turbines, it would be difficult to 
isolate the effect of the turbine if the scientists collecting the 
information used differing methodologies. 

Altamont Pass, however, has the potential to allow researchers to 
determine which turbines are more hazardous because it contains many 
different types of turbines in one place. However, even this analysis 
has been complicated by confounding variables. For example, according 
to experts, at one time it was commonly thought that turbines with 
lattice towers killed more birds than turbines with tubular towers in 
Altamont Pass; however, some studies have reached the opposite 
conclusion. One study noted that although the authors found higher 
mortality associated with lattice towers, this relationship might be 
explained by factors such as the fact that lattice towers were found to 
be in operation more frequently than were other towers, including 
tubular towers, rather than the difference in the design of the towers. 
Complicating matters still, some factors may be more hazardous for some 
species than others. One study found that red-tailed hawk fatalities 
occurred more frequently than expected at turbines located on 
ridgelines than on hillsides. The authors found the reverse to be true 
for golden eagles, demonstrating the difficulty of understanding 
interactions between turbines and bird mortality from bird mortality 
estimates alone. 

A third research gap is the lack of complete and definitive information 
on the interaction of bats with wind turbines. As previously noted, 
bats have collided with wind turbines in significant numbers in some 
parts of the United States, but scientists do not have a complete 
understanding regarding why these collisions occur. Bats are known to 
have the ability to echolocate to avoid collision with objects, and 
they have been able to avoid colliding with comparable structures such 
as meteorological towers.[Footnote 11] Therefore, their collision with 
wind turbines remains a mystery. The few studies that have been 
conducted show that most of the kills have taken place during the 
migratory season (July through September), and this suggests that 
migrating bats are involved in most of the fatalities. In addition, one 
study showed that lower wind speeds were associated with higher 
fatality rates. However, experts admit that much remains unknown about 
why bats are attracted to and killed by turbines and about what 
conditions increase the chances that bats will be killed. One expert 
noted that there is still very little known about bat migration in 
general and about the way in which bat interactions with turbines are 
affected by weather patterns. This expert further noted that there 
still has not been a full season of monitoring bat mortality from which 
patterns can be identified. 

Although scientists still do not know why bats are being killed in 
large numbers by wind power turbines in some areas, several hypotheses 
have been offered. One hypothesis states that the lighting on turbines 
attracts insects, which in turn attracts bats, but studies have not 
demonstrated differences in fatalities between lit turbines and unlit 
turbines. Other hypotheses include the notions that bats may be 
investigating wind turbines as potential roosting sites, that open 
spaces around turbines create favorable foraging habitats, and that 
migrating bats do not echolocate and thus are less able to avoid 
collision. One thing bat experts agree on is the need for more 
research. 

In addition to these research gaps regarding bird and bat interactions 
with turbines, very little is known about bird and bat populations in 
general, such as their size and migratory pathways. An FWS official 
told us that data are available regarding the migration routes and 
habitat needs of only about one-third of the more than 800 bird species 
that live in or pass through the United States each year. In addition, 
bat researchers stressed to us that very little is known about the 
pathways and behavior of migratory bats. This lack of information, 
among other factors, makes it difficult to assess the cumulative 
impacts from wind power on species populations. One expert noted that 
many bird populations are in decline in general and additional losses 
due to wind power may exacerbate this trend. However, it is very 
difficult to attribute a decline in bird populations to wind power 
specifically or to get good data on overall populations that span 
international borders. Our literature search was only able to find one 
study in the United States that examined the impact of fatalities from 
wind power on a particular species population--golden eagles--and those 
results have been described as relatively inconclusive, or mixed, by 
other scientists. Without this kind of information, it can be difficult 
to determine the appropriate public policy responses to wildlife 
impacts due to wind power. 

Although there are currently several gaps in the study of wind power's 
direct impacts on birds and bats, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey 
have recently initiated a study of bird and bat migration behaviors to 
address some of these data gaps. This study will use radar technology 
to characterize daily and seasonal movements and habitat and landform 
associations of migrating birds and bats, and will seek to develop 
decision support tools to provide assistance in identifying locations 
for wind turbines and communication towers. In addition, Congress has 
appropriated funds for a National Academy of Sciences study on the 
environmental impacts of wind power development in the Mid-Atlantic 
Highlands that will include developing criteria for the siting of wind 
turbines in this area. Finally, the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, a 
partnership of Bat Conservation International, the American Wind Energy 
Association, FWS, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 
continues to sponsor research on bats and wind turbines focusing on 
acoustic deterrence methods and pre-and postconstruction risk 
assessment at a planned wind farm in the Appalachian region. 

Few Studies Have Been Conducted on Mitigation Measures: 

Overall, there is much to be learned about mitigation strategies for 
reducing impacts from wind power facilities on birds and bats, and some 
strategies that once looked promising are now proving ineffective. 
Specifically, we found that relatively few studies have examined 
strategies for reducing the potential impacts of wind power on birds 
and bats. Some of these studies were based on information collected 
from birds in a laboratory setting, and, therefore, their conclusions 
still need to be verified by conducting studies at actual wind power 
facilities. One study examined the idea of addressing motion smear--the 
inability of birds to see moving blades--by painting turbine blades to 
make them more visible. This study indicated that color contrast was a 
critical variable in helping birds to see objects like moving turbine 
blades and recommended painting stripes on blades as a way to test 
whether this could be an effective deterrent. Some developers adopted 
this strategy; however, a recent study found that turbines with painted 
blades were ineffective in reducing bird kills. Another laboratory- 
based study tested bird reactions to noise and sound pressure and 
suggested that whistles could make blades more audible to birds, while 
making no measurable contribution to overall noise levels. However, the 
authors of this study made no predictions about changes in bird flight 
in response to hearing the noise and noted that field tests would be 
required to test this hypothesis. 

Although there have been relatively few laboratory-based experiments on 
mitigation strategies, some strategies have already been attempted in 
Altamont Pass. A recent 4-year study conducted by the California Energy 
Commission in Altamont Pass tested some of these mitigation efforts 
attempted by industry and suggested possible future mitigation 
strategies. This study found that some of the strategies adopted by 
industry, such as perch guards on turbines and rodent control programs 
that reduce prey availability, were ineffective in reducing kills. 
Another study compared the differences between turbines painted with 
ultraviolet reflectant or nonultraviolet reflectant to see whether one 
would act as a visual deterrent, but the study found no evidence of a 
difference in mortality between the two treatments. 

While there is less than adequate information on the effectiveness of 
mitigation strategies from existing scientific research, the experts 
with whom we spoke were hopeful about several strategies on the basis 
of their experience in the field. Some of these experts noted that 
because birds have been found to collide with electrical wires, wind 
facilities should bury their transmission lines under ground and avoid 
using guywires on their meteorological towers; such fixes have 
generally been adopted. Although some studies have shown that there are 
no differences in mortality rates for lit turbines versus unlit 
turbines, some experts argue that, regardless, it is best to use low 
lighting to avoid attracting birds that migrate at night. In addition, 
researchers recommended that sodium vapor lights should never be used 
at or near wind power facilities because they have commonly been shown 
to attract birds to other structures. They noted that the largest 
number of birds killed at one time near wind turbines was found 
adjacent to sodium lights after a night of dense fog. No fatalities 
have been discovered near these turbines since the lights were 
subsequently turned off. Some researchers have observed that many bird 
and bat kills occur during the time of year that has the lowest wind 
production. For example, most bats are killed during the fall migration 
season on low wind nights. Consequently, researchers suggested turning 
off some turbines during these times in order to reduce kills. Perhaps 
most importantly, many experts have noted that using preconstruction 
studies on wildlife and their habitats can help identify locations for 
wind turbines that are less likely to have adverse impacts. 

Regulating Wind Power Facilities on Nonfederal Land Is Largely the 
Responsibility of State and Local Governments: 

Since most wind power development has occurred on nonfederal land, 
regulating wind power facilities is largely a state and local 
government responsibility. In the six states we reviewed, wind power 
development is subject to local-level processes, state-level processes, 
or a combination of the two. For example, in three of the six states, 
local governments regulate the development of wind power and generally 
require wind developers to adhere to local zoning ordinances and to 
obtain special use permits before construction. The federal role in 
regulating wind power development is limited to projects occurring on 
federal lands or those that have some form of federal involvement, such 
as projects that receive federal funding; to date, there have been 
relatively few wind power projects on federal land. In these cases, 
wind power projects must comply with federal laws as well as any 
relevant state and local laws. 

State and/or Local Governments Regulate Wind Power on Nonfederal Lands: 

State and/or local governments regulate the development and operation 
of wind power facilities on nonfederal lands. The primary permitting 
jurisdiction for wind power facilities in many states is a local 
planning commission, zoning board, city council, or county board of 
supervisors or commissioners. Typically, these local jurisdictional 
entities regulate wind projects under zoning ordinances and building 
codes. In some states, one or more state agencies play a role in 
regulating wind power development, such as natural resource and 
environmental protection agencies, state historic preservation offices, 
industrial development and regulation agencies, public utility 
commissions, or siting boards. In addition, some states have 
environmental laws that impose requirements on many types of 
construction and development, including wind power, that state and 
local agencies must follow. The regulatory scheme for wind power in the 
six states we reviewed included all of these scenarios (see table 1). 

Table 1: Type of Regulatory Process and Responsible Agency in Select 
States: 

State: California; 
State/Local processes: Local-only; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Local governments (are subject to the 
state's environmental quality act, which requires assessment of 
environmental impacts of proposed actions). 

State: Minnesota; 
State/Local processes: State and local; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Local governments regulate facilities 
under 5 megawatts, Minnesota Public Utility Commission regulates 
facilities 5 megawatts or larger. 

State: New York; 
State/Local processes: Local-only; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Local governments (are subject to the 
state's environmental quality review act, which requires assessment of 
environmental impacts of proposed actions). 

State: Oregon; 
State/Local processes: State and local; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Local governments regulate facilities 
under 105 megawatts (peak capacity), Oregon Energy Facility Siting 
Council regulates facilities 105 megawatts or larger. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
State/Local processes: Local-only; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Local governments. 

State: West Virginia; 
State/Local processes: State-only; 
Regulatory agency/authority: Public Service Commission (though local 
authorities could have some regulatory impact through zoning and 
subsidies). 

Source: GAO analysis of state and local data. 

[End of table]

In the six states we reviewed, we found that approval for the 
construction and operation of a wind power facility is typically 
provided in permits that are often referred to as site, special use, or 
conditional use permits or certificates. Such permits often include 
various requirements, such as "setback" provisions--which stipulate how 
far wind power turbines must be from other structures, such as roads 
and residences--and decommissioning requirements that are intended to 
ensure that once a wind power facility ceases operation, its structures 
are removed and the landscape is restored according to a specific 
standard. State and local regulations may require postconstruction 
monitoring studies to assess a facility's impact on the environment. In 
one state we reviewed, facilities are required to submit periodic 
reports on issues related to its operation and impact on the 
surrounding area. 

In most of the six states we reviewed, state and local regulations 
related to wind power are evolving as the industry has developed in the 
states because government agencies realized that their existing 
authorities were not applicable to wind power. For example, when wind 
power began to emerge in Minnesota, an advisory task force held public 
meetings to determine how to proceed in permitting development. In part 
based on concerns raised from counties during these meetings, 
responsibility for permitting larger facilities was given to the state. 
In addition, West Virginia finalized new regulations for electric- 
generating facilities in May 2005 that include provisions specific to 
wind power facilities. Prior to this, the state made decisions on a 
case-by-case basis. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Game Commission is 
developing a policy for wind power development on its lands in response 
to private interest in promoting renewable energy sources on state 
property. Officials with the state's Department of Environmental 
Protection also told us that they are examining a number of options, 
including developing statewide rules and model ordinances that could be 
adopted by local authorities. 

Some state and local regulatory agencies we reviewed generally had 
little experience or expertise in addressing environmental and wildlife 
impacts from wind power. For example, officials in West Virginia told 
us that they did not have the expertise to evaluate wildlife impacts 
and review studies prior to construction, although such studies are 
required. Instead, they said they rely on the public comment period 
while permits are pending for concerns to be identified by others, such 
as FWS and the state Division of Natural Resources. In addition, 
Alameda County officials in California told us that they did not have 
the expertise to assess the impacts of wind facility construction but 
rely on technical consultants during the permitting stage, and that 
they are planning to form a technical advisory committee for assistance 
with postapproval monitoring. In some of the states we reviewed, state 
agencies were conducting outreach efforts with local governments since 
wind power development is still a relatively new industry for 
regulators. These efforts typically focus on educating local regulators 
about the issues that are often encountered during wind power 
development and about how permitting can be handled. These efforts may 
also include providing sample zoning ordinances and permits. 

California: 

California had the most installed wind power in the country, with 2,096 
MW of generating capacity as of April 2005 and an additional planned 
capacity of 365 MW. California was the first state in which large wind 
farms were developed, beginning in the early 1980s. It is also one of 
the few states with significant wind power development on federal land, 
with over 250 MW on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 
Aside from the facilities on BLM land, the state relies on local 
governments to regulate wind power. In addition to the local permitting 
process, the California Environmental Quality Act requires all state 
and local government agencies to assess the environmental impacts of 
proposed actions they undertake or permit.[Footnote 12] This law 
requires agencies to identify significant environmental effects of a 
proposed action and either avoid or mitigate significant environmental 
effects, where feasible. 

We met with officials from Alameda County and Contra Costa County, 
which are home to the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area--at one time the 
largest wind energy facility in the world. In both counties, local land 
use ordinances allow wind power development on agricultural lands. 
These counties originally issued conditional or land use permits to 
various wind power developers in the 1980s that contained approval 
conditions, including requirements for setbacks from property lines and 
noise limits. As previously discussed, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 
Area was subsequently found to be responsible for the deaths of 
numerous raptor species. The counties are currently renewing or 
amending some of the permits for facilities in this area and will add 
permit conditions in an attempt to reduce avian mortality. Alameda 
County officials were working with various federal and state agencies, 
environmental groups, and wind energy companies to agree on specific 
permit conditions. At the time of this report, Alameda County has 
recently approved a plan that is aimed at reducing bird deaths at 
Altamont Pass by removing some existing turbines, turning off selected 
turbines at certain times, implementing other habitat modification and 
compensations measures, and gradually replacing existing turbines with 
newer turbines. In addition, Contra Costa County had completed the 
permitting for a wind power facility that included a number of 
conditions to reduce avian mortality. 

Minnesota: 

Minnesota had 615 MW of installed wind generating capacity as of April 
2005 and an additional planned capacity of 213 MW. Wind power 
development in Minnesota is subject to either local or state permitting 
procedures, depending on the size of the project. Local governments 
generally issue conditional use permits or building permits to wind 
power developers for facilities under 5 MW. We spoke with officials in 
Pipestone County, which was the first in the state to adopt a wind 
power ordinance. This ordinance focuses mainly on setbacks and 
decommissioning requirements. In southwestern Minnesota--which includes 
Pipestone County and most of the wind power development in the state--a 
14-county renewable energy board is working to adopt a "model" wind 
power permitting ordinance that would provide uniformity for regulating 
development in the region. Two factors that officials cited in pursuing 
such guidance is the recognition that development is likely to occur 
under the 5 MW threshold for state permitting, and that wind power 
developers would benefit from uniform regulations. 

Between 1995 and the first half of 2005, the Minnesota Environmental 
Quality Board--comprised of 1 representative from the governor's 
office, 5 citizens, and the heads of 10 state agencies--was responsible 
for regulating large wind energy systems that are 5 MW or larger, 
studying environmental issues, and ensuring state agency compliance 
with state environmental policy.[Footnote 13] Effective July 1, 2005, 
authority for permitting these large wind energy systems was 
transferred to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The 
commission requires, among other things, an analysis of the proposed 
facility's potential environmental and wildlife impacts, proposed 
mitigative measures, and any adverse environmental effects that cannot 
be avoided. Instead of requiring individual wind developers to conduct 
their own assessments of impacts to wildlife, Minnesota took a 
different approach. Since much of the wind power development is 
concentrated in the southwestern part of the state, the state 
determined that it would be more efficient to conduct one large-scale 
study, rather than requiring each developer to conduct individual 
studies. Thus, the state required wind developers to participate in a 4-
year avian impact study at a cost of about $800,000 as well as a 
subsequent 2-year bat study. The studies concluded that the impacts to 
birds and bats from wind power are minimal. Therefore, on the basis of 
the results of the state-required studies, state and local agencies in 
Minnesota are not requiring postconstruction studies for wind power 
development in this portion of the state. The costs for these studies 
were charged back to individual wind developers on the basis of the 
number of megawatts built or permitted within a specified time frame. 

New York: 

New York had three operating wind power facilities, with 49 MW of 
installed wind generating capacity as of April 2005. An additional 350 
MW of wind power capacity is planned for the state. According to state 
officials, local governments permit the development of wind power in 
the state using their zoning authorities. In addition to this local 
permitting, the state has an environmental quality review act that 
requires all state and local government agencies to assess the 
environmental impacts of proposed actions, including issuing permits to 
wind power facilities.[Footnote 14] This law requires that an 
environmental impact statement be conducted if a proposed action is 
determined to have a potentially significant adverse environmental 
impact. Because wind power is still new to the state and there are a 
significant number of proposed facilities, a state agency focused on 
promoting energy development is beginning a program for educating local 
communities about regulating wind power. This program includes examples 
of zoning ordinances that have been used in other counties. 

We met with officials from the Town of Fenner--in north-central New 
York--which has the largest wind power facility in the state. On the 
basis of complaints about noise from the first facility permitted by 
the town, the local planning board now requires that turbines be 
located a certain distance from residences. In order to comply with the 
state's environmental law, the town conducted an environmental 
assessment to determine the potential impacts of the proposed facility 
and determined that the project would not have any significant adverse 
environmental impacts or pose a significant risk to birds. However, 
elsewhere in New York, approval of one wind power project is under 
review given concerns expressed by environmental groups and the state 
environmental and conservation agency about potential impacts to 
migratory birds. 

Oregon: 

Oregon had five large wind projects, with a total of 263 MW of 
installed wind power generating capacity as of April 2005 (see fig. 5). 

Figure 5: Wind Power Facility in Sherman County, Oregon: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Several new wind projects and expansions are under way or being planned 
that would take total capacity in Oregon to more than 700 MW. Similar 
to Minnesota, wind power regulation in Oregon is subject to either 
local or state permitting procedures, depending on the size of the 
project. Local governments issue conditional use permits for facilities 
capable of generating up to 105 MW peak capacity. For example, in 
Sherman County, the planning commission approved a 24 MW wind power 
project near Klondike in north-central Oregon. Under its zoning 
authority, the county attached various conditions to the project's 
permit, including an avian postconstruction study, and decommissioning 
and removal requirements. If projects exceed 105 MW peak capacity, they 
are permitted by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, which makes 
decisions about issuing site certificates for energy facilities. The 
siting council is a seven-member citizen commission that is appointed 
by the governor. Wind power projects that are subject to the council's 
jurisdiction must comply with the council's standards and applicable 
statutes. Some of the standards are specific to wind power, such as 
design and construction requirements to reduce visual and environmental 
impacts.[Footnote 15] The council also ensures that wind power 
facilities are constructed and operated in a manner consistent with 
state rules, such as state fish and wildlife habitat mitigation goals 
and standards, and local agency ordinances. In addition, regulations 
protect against impacts on the surrounding community by requiring that 
minimal lighting be used to reduce visual impacts, and protect some 
bird species by requiring that developers avoid creating artificial 
habitat for raptors or raptor prey. Also in Oregon, energy development-
-including wind power--must not adversely impact scenic and aesthetic 
values and is prohibited in certain areas, such as state parks. 

Pennsylvania: 

Pennsylvania had 129 MW of installed wind generating capacity as of 
April 2005 and applications for an additional 145 MW to be developed 
(see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: Wind Power Facility in Somerset County, Pennsylvania: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In Pennsylvania, wind power is regulated by local governments; no state 
agency has the authority to specifically regulate wind power 
development. For example, in Somerset County, which is home to the 
first wind power facility in the state, the county's planning 
commission regulates wind power development through an ordinance that 
allows for subdividing existing land. This ordinance contains 
requirements for setbacks and decommissioning. Some county and state 
officials have suggested that the state should provide a consistent 
framework for wind power development. The state, through its 
Pennsylvania Wind Working Group, is currently discussing whether there 
should be uniform state-level siting guidelines or regulations for wind 
power development. Pennsylvania was the only state of the six we 
reviewed that did not have state-level requirements for environmental 
assessments. However, one state official told us that many developers 
have done some environmental studies--generally including wildlife, 
noise, and protection of scenic vistas (i.e., viewshed)--in an attempt 
to head off criticism or opposition to a proposed project. 

West Virginia: 

West Virginia had one operating wind power facility, with 66 MW of 
installed wind power generating capacity and a planned additional 
capacity of 300 MW for the state (see fig. 7). The state's Public 
Service Commission has been the only agency involved in regulating wind 
power to date, although state officials noted that local governments 
could get involved through their zoning authorities. Prior to 2005, 
West Virginia permitted construction and operation of wind power 
facilities under laws and regulations designed to regulate utilities 
providing electrical service directly to its citizens. Wind power 
facilities are wholesale generators and do not provide service to 
consumers, and according to commission officials, several provisions of 
these regulations were not relevant to wind power facilities. As a 
result, in 2003, the state amended the legislation to specifically 
address the permitting of wholesale electric generators, such as wind 
power. 

Figure 7: Wind Power Facility in Tucker County, West Virginia: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

West Virginia followed the regulations in place before the legislation 
was amended to approve construction of the two wind power facilities in 
the state; one of these facilities has yet to be constructed. During 
the public comment periods for these facilities, concerns were raised 
regarding potential impacts to wildlife. As a result, certain 
conditions were required of the developers, such as prohibiting 
turbines in certain locations and requiring postconstruction wildlife 
studies.[Footnote 16] In May 2005, the state finalized new regulations 
for wholesale electric-generating facilities that include provisions 
specific to wind power facilities.[Footnote 17] For permitting wind 
power facilities, West Virginia regulations now require spring and fall 
avian migration studies, avian and bat risk assessments, and avian and 
bat lighting studies. 

Federal Government's Role in Regulating Wind Power Is Generally Limited 
to Facilities on Federal Land: 

The federal government's role in regulating wind power development is 
limited to projects occurring on federal lands or projects that have 
some form of federal involvement. While the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, 
natural gas, and oil, it does not approve the physical construction of 
electric generation, transmission, or distribution facilities; such 
approval is left for state and local governments. Certain standards 
issued by the Federal Aviation Administration apply to wind power 
facilities and other tall structures, on all lands. These standards are 
intended to protect aircraft and specify the type of lighting that 
should be used for structures of a certain height. 

Since the majority of wind development to date has been on nonfederal 
land or has not required federal funding or permits, the federal 
government has had a limited role in regulating wind power facilities. 
In those cases where federal agencies do regulate wind power, projects 
must comply both with state and local requirements and with any 
applicable federal law. At a minimum, these laws will include the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 
Act.[Footnote 18] These laws often require preconstruction studies or 
analyses of proposed projects, and possibly project modifications to 
avoid adverse environmental effects. For example, if the development of 
a proposed wind power project on federal land could impact wildlife 
habitat and/or species protected under the Endangered Species Act, 
permitting of the project would involve coordination and consultation 
with FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine the 
potential harm to species and the steps that may be necessary to avoid 
or offset the harm. 

To date, BLM has been the only federal agency with wind energy 
production, with about 500 MW of installed wind power 
capacity.[Footnote 19] This wind energy development is located in 
Southern California in the San Gorgonio Pass and Tehachapi Pass areas, 
and in the Foote Creek Rim and Simpson Ridge areas of Wyoming.[Footnote 
20] According to BLM officials, as of June 2005, they had authorized 88 
applications for wind energy development on their land and had 68 
pending applications--most of which are in California and Nevada. 
Energy development on BLM-administered lands is regulated through its 
process for granting private parties access to federal lands, which is 
referred to as granting a "right-of-way authorization." BLM's Interim 
Wind Energy Development Policy establishes the requirements for 
granting these authorizations to wind energy facilities. This policy 
requires that all proposed facilities conduct the necessary assessments 
and analyses required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, and other appropriate laws. In one case, some 
changes have been made to the location of some wind power turbines 
because of potential impacts to avian species that were identified 
during these preconstruction studies. 

Because of an increased focus on developing energy sources on public 
lands, BLM has proposed revising their interim policy by developing a 
wind energy development program that would establish comprehensive 
policies and best management practices for addressing wind energy 
development. As a part of this effort, BLM issued a programmatic 
environmental impact statement in June 2005 that assesses the social, 
environmental, and economic impacts of wind power development on BLM 
land. This document also identifies best management practices for 
ensuring that the impacts of wind energy development on BLM lands are 
kept to a minimum. While subsequent proposed wind power facilities will 
still need to conduct some environmental assessments, they can rely on 
BLM's programmatic assessment for much of the needed analyses. BLM 
hopes that the availability of this assessment will enable wind power 
development to proceed more quickly on its lands, assuming that such 
development complies with needed requirements. 

Federal and State Laws Protect Wildlife: 

As with any other activity, federal and state laws afford protections 
to wildlife from wind power. Three federal laws--the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the 
Endangered Species Act--generally forbid harm to various species of 
wildlife. While each of the laws allows some exceptions to this, only 
the Endangered Species Act includes provisions that would permit a wind 
power facility to kill a protected species under certain circumstances. 
While wildlife mortality events have occurred at wind power facilities, 
the federal government has not prosecuted any cases against wind power 
companies under these wildlife laws, preferring instead to encourage 
companies to take mitigation steps to avoid future harm. Regarding 
state wildlife protections, all of the six states we reviewed had 
statutes that can be used to protect some wildlife from wind power 
impacts. However, similar to FWS, no states have taken any 
prosecutorial actions against wind power facilities where mortalities 
have occurred. 

Various Wildlife Protections Are Provided by Three Federal Laws: 

The primary federal regulatory framework for protecting wildlife from 
impacts from wind power includes three laws--the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered 
Species Act. (See table 2.)

Table 2: Federal Wildlife Protection Laws: 

Federal wildlife law: Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 
Protections: Prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, 
and importation of over 860 migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and 
nests, except when specifically authorized by FWS; 
Permits: Authorizes permits for some activities, including but not 
limited to, scientific collecting, depredation, propagation, and 
falconry; No permit provisions for "incidental take"; 
Penalties for violations: Only criminal penalties are possible, with 
violators subject to fine and/or imprisonment. 

Federal wildlife law: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; 
Protections: Prohibits the taking and sale of bald and golden eagles 
and their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized 
by FWS; 
Permits: Authorizes permits for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 
religious purposes by Indian tribes; and for other purposes; No permit 
provisions for "incidental take"; 
Penalties for violations: Civil and criminal penalties are possible, 
with violators subject to civil penalties, fines, and/or imprisonment. 

Federal wildlife law: Endangered Species Act; 
Protections: Protects about 1,265 species that have been determined to 
be at risk for extinction, referred to as threatened or endangered 
species; prohibits the taking of protected animal species, including 
actions that "harm" or "harass"; federal actions may not jeopardize 
listed species or adversely modify habitat designated as critical; 
Permits: Authorizes permits for the "taking" of protected species if 
the permitted activity is for scientific purposes, is to establish 
experimental populations, or is incidental to an otherwise legal 
activity, such as construction of wind turbines; 
Penalties for violations: Civil and criminal penalties are possible, 
with violators subject to civil penalties, fines, and/or imprisonment. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal laws. 

[End of table]

FWS is primarily responsible for ensuring the implementation and 
enforcement of these laws.[Footnote 21] In general, these laws prohibit 
various actions that are deemed harmful to certain species. For 
example, each law prohibits killing or "taking" a protected species, 
unless done under circumstances that are expressly allowed by statute 
and authorized via issuance of a federal permit. The Endangered Species 
Act may also prohibit actions that harm a protected species' habitat. 
In addition, each federal agency that takes actions that have or are 
likely to have negative impacts on migratory bird populations are 
directed by Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal 
Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds," to work with FWS to develop 
memorandums of understanding to conserve those species. While the 
executive order was signed on January 10, 2001, no memorandums have yet 
been signed. Wildlife species that fall outside the scope of these 
three laws, such as many species of bats, are generally not protected 
under federal law. However, FWS is not only responsible for ensuring 
the survival of species protected by specific laws, but also for 
conserving and protecting all wildlife. 

All three of the federal wildlife protection laws prohibit most 
instances of "take," although each law provides for some exceptions, 
such as scientific purposes. The Endangered Species Act is the least 
restrictive of these laws in that it authorizes FWS to permit some 
activities that take a protected species as long as the take meets 
several requirements, including a requirement that the take be 
incidental to an otherwise legal activity. Wind power facilities may 
seek an incidental take permit under this act for facilities sited on 
private land or where no federal funding is used or federal permit is 
required. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 
Protection Act also allow permits for take, but incidental take of 
migratory birds is not allowed. Under all three statutes, unauthorized 
takings may be penalized, even if the offender had no intent to harm a 
protected species.[Footnote 22]

Although not required by these federal laws, in some cases, state or 
local entities that regulate wind power, or wind power developers 
themselves, will consult with FWS for information on protected species 
or advice on how to ensure that wind power facilities will not harm 
wildlife. For example, in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda 
County officials and the companies operating wind facilities there have 
asked FWS for technical assistance related to renewing permits for 
existing wind power facilities. FWS officials told us that their 
technical assistance in Altamont Pass is aimed at avoiding or 
minimizing potential impacts to threatened or endangered species under 
the Endangered Species Act. In addition, FWS officials from the New 
York field office told us that they are asked to provide input on wind 
power proposals during the state's environmental review process. These 
officials noted that they will likely not be able to review all of the 
wind power development proposals in the state due to staffing 
constraints. Similarly, FWS officials in five of the six states we 
reviewed told us that they have not conducted outreach to state or 
local regulators to inform them of the potential for wildlife impacts 
from wind power primarily because of workload constraints. If state and 
local regulators do not consult with FWS during the regulatory process, 
it can be difficult for FWS to encourage actions that might reduce 
wildlife deaths before wind turbines are sited. 

Federal Government Uses Prosecutorial Discretion in Dealing with 
Wildlife Mortality: 

Although FWS investigates all "take" of federal trust species, the 
government has elected not to prosecute wind energy companies for 
violations of wildlife laws at this time. In most of the states we 
reviewed, there were relatively few law enforcement officials, and they 
told us that they often had higher priority violations of federal 
wildlife laws than mortality events due to wind power, particularly 
given the relatively low levels of mortality that have occurred in most 
wind power locations. In West Virginia, the agent-in-charge told us 
that most of his time is spent on the commercialization of wildlife, 
such as the illegal import and export and interstate commerce of 
protected species; illegal hunting is also a major problem, 
particularly for bears and eagles. FWS law enforcement officials in all 
of the six states we reviewed told us that in cases of violations, they 
prefer to work cooperatively with the owners of wind power facilities 
to try to get them to take voluntary actions to address impacts on 
wildlife, rather than pursuing prosecution; however, other cases of 
wildlife violations, such as illegal trade in protected species, are 
pursued via prosecution. 

FWS has been investigating and monitoring avian mortality at Altamont 
Pass for nearly 20 years, including the mortality of many protected 
species, such as golden eagles and other raptors.[Footnote 23] Since 
that time, FWS has opened investigations and tried to work with the 
owners of wind power facilities to reduce the level of mortality. In 
the earlier years, some avian mortality was due to electrocutions along 
power lines. FWS had been working with electrical utility companies to 
resolve this problem elsewhere, and several relatively easy "fixes" 
were known to reduce electrocutions. As a result of official 
correspondence and conversations between FWS and company officials, 
many companies implemented these fixes, and avian mortality due to 
electrocutions has been reduced. However, large numbers of birds, 
particularly raptors, were still being killed due to actual collisions 
with wind turbines. On several occasions, FWS expressed concern about 
these mortalities to wind power companies and Alameda County--the 
county government with the most wind power development in California. 
In response, Alameda County and some wind power companies have 
conducted avian monitoring studies and tested several mitigation 
measures, including painting turbine blades, installing perch guards on 
lattice-work towers, and conducting rodent control. However, these 
actions appear to have no significant impact on reducing avian 
mortality. Since January 2004, the wind power companies have worked 
together to develop an adaptive management plan for reducing avian 
mortality at Altamont Pass. The plan contains various mitigation 
measures, such as (1) removing old turbines and replacing them with 
fewer, new turbines and (2) implementing a partial seasonal shutdown of 
turbines. 

Over the past 6 years, FWS has referred about 50 instances of golden 
eagles killed by 30 different companies in Altamont Pass either to the 
Interior Solicitor's office for civil prosecution or to the Department 
of Justice for criminal prosecution. Officials noted that, in general, 
prosecutions by both the Departments of the Interior and Justice focus 
on companies that kill birds with disregard for their actions and the 
law, especially when conservation measures are available but have not 
been implemented. Despite the recurring nature of the avian mortality 
in Altamont Pass and concerns from federal, state, and local officials, 
no prosecutions pursuant to federal wildlife laws have been taken 
against any wind power companies. Justice has not pursued prosecution 
in these cases, although they currently have an open investigation on 
avian mortality in Altamont Pass. As a matter of policy, Justice does 
not discuss the reasons behind specific case declinations, nor does it 
typically confirm or deny the existence of potential or actual 
investigations. However, Justice officials told us that, in general, 
when deciding to prosecute a case criminally, they consider a number of 
factors, including the history of civil or administrative enforcement, 
the evidence of criminal intent, and what steps have been taken to 
avoid future violations. Regarding the matters that FWS referred for 
civil enforcement, Interior's regional solicitor has also not pursued 
prosecution in any of these cases. Interior's Office of the Solicitor 
San Francisco field office declined to pursue the most recent civil 
referrals because Justice agreed to review turbine mortalities for 
possible criminal prosecution. Some citizen groups remain concerned 
about the lack of enforcement of federal and state wildlife 
protections. For example, in November 2004, the Center for Biological 
Diversity filed a lawsuit against the wind power companies in Altamont 
Pass to seek restitution for the killing of raptors.[Footnote 24]

In addition to the avian mortalities at Altamont Pass, significant 
wildlife mortality has also occurred at wind power locations in the 
Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia and Pennsylvania in 2003 and 
2004. FWS has reviewed high numbers of bat kills; however, these bat 
species are not protected under federal law. Several studies have been 
completed or are under way in these regions to better determine the 
potential causes of the mortality events and how future events might be 
mitigated. The FWS law enforcement agent-in-charge in West Virginia 
told us that he has contacted wind power developers of some of the 
proposed facilities in the state about potential violations of federal 
wildlife laws should an endangered bat or other protected species be 
killed. The agent said that he prefers to have early involvement with 
wind power facilities, rather than wait for violations to occur. 

FWS law enforcement officials told us that the way they have handled 
avian mortalities at wind power facilities is similar to how they deal 
with wildlife mortality caused by other industries. These officials 
explained that FWS recognizes that man-made structures will generally 
result in some level of unavoidable incidental take of wildlife and, as 
a result, FWS reserves a level of "enforcement discretion" in 
determining whether to pursue a violation of federal wildlife law. Law 
enforcement officials told us that before FWS pursues civil or criminal 
penalties, the agency prefers to work with a company to encourage them 
to take mitigation and conservation steps to avoid future harm. If a 
company shows a good-faith effort to reduce impacts, FWS will likely 
not refer such a case for prosecution. If, however, a company 
repeatedly refuses to take steps suggested by FWS, officials said they 
are likely to refer it for prosecution. 

Work that FWS has done with the electric power industry illustrates 
this approach to resolving impacts to wildlife. FWS began working with 
the electric power industry in the early 1980s to reduce significant 
avian mortality due to collisions with and electrocutions at power 
lines, particularly mortality events involving eagles and other large 
birds. Pursuant to investigations of avian mortality at power lines and 
conversations with individual companies, solutions were identified that 
reduced mortality events. Because these solutions were relatively 
inexpensive and generally easy to install based on scientific testing-
-and were known to work--FWS law enforcement officials expected other 
electric line companies to install them. According to law enforcement 
officials, the threat of a potential conviction under the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was 
generally enough to get companies to voluntarily install the fixes 
without FWS prosecuting them. However, by the late 1980s, some electric 
companies were aware of mortalities due to electrocutions but were not 
taking actions to resolve the causes. The federal government in 1998 
charged an electric utility cooperative--the Moon Lake Electric 
Association in Colorado and Utah--with criminal violations of these two 
laws. This is the first and only instance of a federal criminal 
prosecution of an electric power line company under any of the three 
federal wildlife protection laws. Civil cases have been filed and out- 
of-court agreements have been reached with other electric utilities for 
similar cases of wildlife mortalities. 

FWS Has Taken Some Proactive Steps to Help Minimize the Impacts of Wind 
Power on Wildlife: 

Even though FWS does generally not have a direct role in determining 
whether and how wind power facilities are permitted, FWS has been 
involved for about 20 years with the wind power industry to help avoid 
and minimize impacts to wildlife from wind power development. FWS's 
work has been in the following three main areas--participating on a 
national wind working group and in technical workshops, and issuing 
guidance. 

Working Group: 

An FWS senior management official has been a member of the National 
Wind Coordinating Committee since 1997. The wildlife workgroup serves 
as an advisory group for national research on wind-avian issues and a 
forum for defining, discussing, and addressing wind power-wildlife 
interaction issues. The workgroup has facilitated five national avian- 
wind power planning workshops to define needed research and explore 
current issues. The most recent workshop also included discussions of 
bat-wind turbine interactions. In addition, the working group released 
a report in December 1999, Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interaction: A 
Guidance Document, that includes metrics and methods for determining or 
monitoring potential impacts on birds at existing and proposed wind 
energy sites. 

Workshops: 

FWS officials have participated in industry-sponsored workshops and 
conferences. For example, a senior FWS official presented information 
on cumulative impacts on wildlife from wind power at a 2004 workshop 
cosponsored by the American Wind Energy Association and the American 
Bird Conservancy. Another FWS official presented information on the 
agency's experience and expectations for regional wildlife issues at a 
national workshop on wind power siting sponsored by the wind 
association. FWS also helped to sponsor and organize, and participated 
in, a 2004 bats and wind power technical workshop attended by both wind 
industry representatives and researchers. As a result, FWS was 
instrumental in establishing the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative 
discussed elsewhere in the report. 

Guidance: 

In July 2003, in an effort to inform wind power developers about the 
potential impacts to wildlife and encourage them to take mitigating 
actions before construction, FWS issued interim voluntary guidelines 
for industry to use in developing new projects. FWS developed the 
interim guidelines in response to the Department of the Interior's push 
to expand renewable energy development on public lands. The wind power 
interim guidelines are intended to assist FWS staff in providing 
technical assistance to the wind energy industry to avoid or minimize 
impacts to wildlife and their habitats through (1) proper evaluation of 
potential wind energy development sites, (2) proper location and design 
of turbines, and (3) pre-and postconstruction research and monitoring 
to identify and assess impacts to wildlife. The voluntary guidelines 
were open for public comment for a 2-year period that ended on July 10, 
2005. At the time of this report, FWS had received numerous comments 
from the wind industry on the guidelines. In general, industry 
representatives thought that the guidelines were overly restrictive--to 
a degree not supported by the relative risk that wind power development 
poses to wildlife compared with other sources of mortality. FWS also 
had received comments from other groups--such as the Ripley Hawk Watch, 
the Clean Energy States Alliance, the Humane Society of the United 
States, the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania Audubon, the American Bird 
Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and Chautaqua County Environmental 
Management Council--that were generally in support of the guidance or 
recommended that it be put into regulation. BLM also provided comments 
and expressed some concerns over the review process outlined in the 
guidelines. FWS will be reviewing and incorporating the public, 
industry, and agency comments received on the interim guidelines as 
appropriate in order to revise and improve them, and will solicit 
additional public input before disseminating a final version. 

In addition, FWS recently began developing a template for a letter to 
be sent to wind power project applicants to alert them to federal 
wildlife protection laws, FWS's interim guidance, and FWS's role in 
protecting wildlife. FWS officials told us that they hope the letter 
will assist developers in making informed decisions regarding site 
selection, project design, and compliance with applicable laws. The 
availability of a ready-to-use template is important because most field 
officials told us that working with the wind power industry is just one 
of many responsibilities in FWS offices that often do not have enough 
staff, given their workloads. Field officials also noted that if wind 
power developers, their consultants, or state or local regulatory 
agencies do not contact them, they may not know about wind power 
projects until there is a problem with an operating facility. 

All Six States We Reviewed Have Wildlife Protections: 

Although federal jurisdiction for migratory birds has not been 
delegated to the states and primary responsibility for the protection 
of these birds resides with Interior, all states we reviewed had 
additional wildlife protections. Responsibility for protecting species 
and implementing wildlife laws and regulations is typically found in a 
state's natural resource protection agency. In some states, however, 
responsibility is assigned according to the type of species addressed. 
For example, in some states, agriculture departments address plant 
issues, while in other states, fish and boat commissions address fish, 
amphibian, and reptile issues; in these cases, wildlife agencies 
typically address the remaining species. 

In all six states, the most common laws related to wildlife protection-
-and likely the most utilized wildlife laws--are those that govern 
hunting and fishing. These laws and regulations may include limits on 
the type and number of species that can be killed and the manner in 
which they can be taken. In addition to identifying the species that 
can be hunted or fished, the six states we reviewed identify as 
threatened or endangered specific species that are at risk for 
extinction or extirpation in their state. These states also identify 
"species of concern" or rare species. Such species are identified as a 
way to provide an early warning signal for species that are not yet 
endangered or threatened, but could become so in the future. 

All of the six states we reviewed have laws that provide at least some 
degree of protection for species that are at risk of extinction or 
extirpation in their state. These protections generally go beyond what 
the federal Endangered Species Act provides by protecting more species 
than are protected under the federal law, although the protections may 
not be as extensive. In the five states that have specific protections, 
protection is provided through prohibitions on taking a protected 
species. In some cases, these protections are only applicable under 
certain circumstances. For example, in Oregon, protections apply only 
to state actions or on state-owned or -managed lands. All of the state 
laws or regulations that include take prohibitions, also include 
exceptions for when permits can be issued in order to allow the take to 
occur. Such permits are issued according to prescribed conditions or on 
a case-by-case basis. Two of the six states also provide protections 
for habitat. In West Virginia, the primary protection for wildlife, 
aside from hunting and fishing regulations, is a prohibition on the 
commercial sale of wildlife and specific protection for bald and golden 
eagles. 

Most of the states' wildlife protection laws for threatened and 
endangered species include enforcement provisions. In some cases, these 
laws identify violations as misdemeanor crimes. Similar to FWS law 
enforcement's approach to wind power, we found that state agencies had 
not taken any prosecutorial actions in response to wildlife mortalities 
at wind power facilities. Instead, many state officials told us that 
they prefer--like FWS--to work with developers to try to identify 
solutions to the causes of mortality. For example, in Minnesota, after 
impacts to native prairie grass caused by a wind power facility were 
discovered, the state natural resource agency required the facility to 
purchase additional habitat elsewhere to compensate for the loss. In 
California, Alameda County has worked with wind power facilities and 
others, and recently approved a plan that is aimed at reducing bird 
deaths at Altamont Pass by having wind power companies turn off 
selected turbines at certain times and replace some turbines with newer 
turbines. 

State natural heritage programs serve as key sources of information on 
wildlife for federal and state wildlife protection agencies. All six of 
the states we reviewed have natural heritage programs that manage 
information on natural resources, including threatened and endangered 
species (all 50 states have such programs). These programs are part of 
an international effort to gather and share information on biological 
resources. This effort has slightly different designations and criteria 
for identifying imperiled species and habitat than the federal 
Endangered Species Act. In five of the states we reviewed, the natural 
heritage program is run by the states' natural resource agencies; in 
the sixth state, Oregon, it is run by a university. Although West 
Virginia does not have a state endangered species law and protects only 
bald and golden eagles, it does identify other imperiled species 
through its natural heritage program. 

State natural resource agencies--which typically house the natural 
heritage programs--are sometimes consulted by a state or local wind 
power regulator or a wind power developer during the permitting process 
for help in identifying potentially sensitive species or concerns about 
possible impacts to wildlife in general. For example, staff from West 
Virginia's natural resources agency were involved in reviewing wildlife 
monitoring studies conducted by the first wind power facility in the 
state. During the consultation process on another proposed facility in 
the state, agency staff requested that certain studies be conducted 
because of concerns about impacts on bat populations. Similarly, in 
Minnesota, natural resource agency staff requested changes in the 
location, construction, and operation of certain proposed wind power 
turbines through the state's environmental review process. However, in 
some cases, the process for regulators or wind power developers to 
consult with natural resource agency staff on wildlife is often an 
informal one and is not necessarily required by states' species 
protections or laws and regulations used to permit wind power. 

Conclusions: 

In the context of other sources of avian mortalities, it does not 
appear that wind power is responsible for a significant number of bird 
deaths. While we do not know a lot about the relative impacts of bat 
mortality from wind power relative to other sources, significant bat 
mortality from wind power has occurred in Appalachia. However, much 
work remains before scientists have a clear understanding of the true 
impacts to wildlife from wind power. Scientists, in particular, are 
concerned about the potential cumulative impacts of wind power on 
species populations if the industry expands as expected. Such concerns 
may be well-founded because significant development is proposed in 
areas that contain large numbers of species or are believed to be 
migratory flyways. Concerns are compounded by the fact that the 
regulation of wind power varies from location-to-location and some 
state and local regulatory agencies we reviewed generally had little 
experience or expertise in addressing the environmental and wildlife 
impacts from wind power. In addition, given the relatively narrow 
regulatory scope of state and local agencies, it appears that when new 
wind power facilities are permitted, no one is considering the impacts 
of wind power on a regional or "ecosystem" scale--a scale that often 
spans governmental jurisdictions. FWS, in its responsibility for 
protecting wildlife, is the appropriate agency for such a task and in 
fact does monitor the status of species populations, to the extent 
possible. However, because wildlife, federally protected birds in 
particular, face a multitude of threats, many of which are better 
understood than wind power, FWS officials told us that they generally 
spend a very small portion of their time assessing the impacts from 
wind power. Nonetheless, FWS has taken some steps to reach out to the 
wind power industry by, among other things, issuing voluntary 
guidelines to encourage conservation and mitigation actions at new wind 
power facilities. In addition, FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey are 
initiating some studies to capture data on migratory flyways to help 
determine where the most potential harm from wind power might occur and 
to gather data for use in assessing wind power's cumulative impacts on 
species. Although these are valuable steps in educating industry and 
improving science, FWS has conducted only limited outreach to state and 
local regulators about minimizing impacts from wind power on wildlife 
and informing them about species that may be particularly vulnerable to 
impacts from wind power. Such outreach is important because these are 
the entities closest to the day-to-day decisions regarding where wind 
power will be allowed on nonfederal land. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Given the potential for future cumulative impacts to wildlife species 
due to wind power and the limited expertise or experience that local 
and state regulators may have in this area, we recommend that the 
Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the FWS to develop 
consistent communication for state and local wind power regulators. 
This communication should alert regulators to (1) the potential 
wildlife impacts that can result from wind power development; (2) the 
various resources that are available to help them make decisions about 
permitting such facilities, including FWS state offices, states' 
natural resource agencies, and FWS's voluntary interim guidelines--and 
any subsequent revisions--on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts 
from wind turbines; and (3) any additional information that FWS deems 
appropriate. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided copies of our draft report to the Department of the 
Interior and received written comments. (See app. III for the full text 
of the comments received and our responses.) Interior officials stated 
that they generally agree with our findings and our recommendation in 
the report. We also sent portions of the report to state and local 
regulators and state wildlife protection agencies. Many of these 
entities provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. Interior also provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated where appropriate. 

Interior officials agreed in most part with our recommendation to 
develop consistent communication to deliver to state and local wind 
power regulators. However, they stated that because the comment period 
on the FWS voluntary interim guidelines has closed and final guidelines 
have yet to be developed, it would be inappropriate to include these in 
such communication. However, because FWS is currently disseminating the 
voluntary interim guidelines on wind power to its field offices to 
share with regulators and developers, we believe that it is appropriate 
to include reference to this document in communications to local and 
state regulators. As Interior noted, these voluntary guidelines are 
currently undergoing review and revision. Therefore, it would be 
appropriate to draw attention to this fact in any such communication 
and to provide information about how the most current version might be 
accessed. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the Secretary of the Interior, as well as to appropriate 
congressional committees and other interested Members of Congress. We 
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

On the basis of a June 22, 2004, request from the Ranking Democratic 
Members--House Resources Committee and the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and 
Commerce and Related Agencies--and of subsequent discussions with their 
staffs, we reviewed wind energy development and impacts on wildlife. 
Specifically, we assessed (1) what available studies and experts have 
reported about the impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife in the 
United States and what can be done to mitigate or prevent such impacts, 
(2) the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in regulating 
wind power facilities, and (3) the roles and responsibilities of 
government agencies in protecting wildlife from the risks posed by wind 
power facilities. 

To determine what available studies and experts have reported about the 
direct impacts of wind power facilities on wildlife, we reviewed 
scientific studies and reports on the subject that were conducted by 
government agencies, industry, and academics. Our review focused on 
wildlife mortality as opposed to indirect impacts, which include 
habitat modification and disruption of feeding or breeding behaviors 
due to wind power facilities. We used several criteria to select 
studies for review. We chose studies that included original data 
analyses (rather than summaries of existing literature) conducted in 
the United States since 1990, and we primarily focused on the impact of 
wind power on birds and bats and/or ways in which to mitigate those 
impacts. We did not include preconstruction assessments of wildlife 
impacts in our review. We excluded studies that had preliminary 
findings when there was a more recent version available. We located 
studies using a database search with keywords of "wind power" and 
"birds," "bats," or "wildlife" in the following databases: AGRICOLA, 
DOE Information Bridge, National Environmental Publications 
Information, Energy Citations Database, Energy Research Abstracts, 
Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management, and JSTOR. In 
addition, we located studies using bibliographies of other studies and 
through publicly available lists of studies from the National Wind 
Coordinating Committee, the California Energy Commission, the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Bat Conservation International. We 
shared our list of studies with experts and asked them to identify any 
studies missing from our list. When studies were not publicly 
available, we contacted the authors and attempted to obtain copies. 
Using these methods and criteria, we obtained 31 studies. We reviewed 
the studies' methodology, assumptions, limitations, and conclusions for 
the purposes of excluding studies that did not ensure a minimal level 
of methodological rigor.[Footnote 25] We excluded 1 study, leaving 30 
studies that are used in this work. In addition to these studies, we 
also reviewed two summaries of studies produced by the National Wind 
Coordinating Committee. Generally, we did not directly use these two 
summary studies, we did use them as a check for our conclusions and 
findings in relation to the studies we reviewed.[Footnote 26] We also 
interviewed experts and study authors from the Department of the 
Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), state government 
agencies, academia, wind industry, and conservation groups and obtained 
their views on the risks of wind power facilities to migratory birds 
and other wildlife and on ways in which to minimize these risks. 

To determine the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in 
regulating wind power facilities, we identified and evaluated relevant 
federal laws and regulations for wind power development. We reviewed a 
nonprobability sample of six states with wind power development-- 
California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West 
Virginia. We selected these states to reflect a range in installed 
capacity, different regulatory processes, a history of wind power 
development, and geographic distribution and to reflect our requesters' 
interests. For these states, we identified and evaluated relevant state 
and local laws and regulations for wind power development. We 
interviewed federal officials from FWS, Bureau of Land Management, and 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor as well as officials from the 
Department of Justice. We interviewed officials from FWS headquarters 
and from field office locations in the six states that we selected. We 
also interviewed officials from various state agencies, such as the 
Oregon State Siting Council and the West Virginia Public Service 
Commission, and from local and county governments that were responsible 
for issuing permits or certificates for the development of wind power 
facilities in their states. Finally, we visited wind power facilities 
in California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and 
interviewed wind industry company officials. 

To determine the roles and responsibilities of government agencies in 
protecting wildlife from the risks posed by wind power facilities, we 
identified and evaluated relevant federal, environmental, and wildlife 
protection laws and regulations. We interviewed FWS law enforcement 
officials from headquarters and the six states that we reviewed. For 
the six states that we selected, we identified and evaluated relevant 
state and local environmental and wildlife protection laws. We also 
interviewed officials from state environmental and wildlife agencies in 
California, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West 
Virginia. 

We conducted our work between December 2004 and July 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards, including an 
assessment of data reliability and internal controls. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by 
Region: 

Table 3 includes only studies where calculating bird or bat mortality 
was a primary goal. Some studies may contain more than one study 
location. 

Table 3: Studies of Bird, Bat, and Raptor Fatality Rates, by Region: 

Region: Pacific NW; 
Location and year: Stateline, OR - 2003; 
Number of turbines: 181; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 1.93; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 1.12; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.06. 

Location and year: Nine Canyon, OR - 2003; 
Number of turbines: 37; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 3.59; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 3.21; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.07. 

Location and year: Klondike, OR - Phase I - 2003; 
Number of turbines: 16; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 1.16[A]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 1.16; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0. 

Location and year: Vansycle, OR - 2000; 
Number of turbines: 38; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.63; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 0.74; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0. 

Region: West; 
Location and year: Foote Creek Rim, WY - 2003; 
Number of turbines: 69; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 1.5; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 1.34; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.03. 

Location and year: National Wind Tech Center, CO - 2003; 
Number of turbines: Varies; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0 ; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 0; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0. 

Region: California; 
Location and year: Altamont Pass, CA - (Thelander et al) - 2003; 
Number of turbines: 5,400; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.19; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Altamont Pass, CA - (CEC) - 2004; 
Number of turbines: 5,400; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.87; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 0.004; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.24. 

Location and year: Altamont Pass and Solano County, CA - 1992; 
Number of turbines: 7,340; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: *** ; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.058 (1989) 0.025 (1990). 

Location and year: Altamont Pass, CA - 1991; 
Number of turbines: 3,000; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: *** ; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.047[B]. 

Location and year: Montezuma Hills, CA - 1992; 
Number of turbines: 600; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.074[B]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0.047[B]. 

Region: Midwest ; 
Location and year: Buffalo Ridge, MN - P1 - 2000; 
Number of turbines: 73; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.98; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 0.26; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Buffalo Ridge, MN - P2 - 2000; 
Number of turbines: 143; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 2.27; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 1.78; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Buffalo Ridge, MN - P3 - 2000; 
Number of turbines: 138; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 4.45; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 2.04; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Buffalo Ridge, MN - (Osborn et al) - 2000; 
Number of turbines: 73; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.33-0.66; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: *** ; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: *** . 

Location and year: Buffalo Ridge, MN - (Bats) - 2004; 
Number of turbines: 281; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 3.02 (2001) 1.3 (2002); 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Northeastern, WI - 2002; 
Number of turbines: 31; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 1.29; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 4.26; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0. 

Location and year: Top of Iowa - 2004; 
Number of turbines: 89; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0.12[C]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 1.88[C]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Region: Northeast; 
Location and year: Searsburg, VT - 2002; 
Number of turbines: 11; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 0; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: 0. 

Region: Appalachian Mt. Region; 
Location and year: Mountaineer, WV - 2004; 
Number of turbines: 44; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 4.04[D]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 47.53[D]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Tennessee - 2005; 
Number of turbines: 3; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: 7.28; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 20.8; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Mountaineer, WV - 2005; 
Number of turbines: 44; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: ***; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 38.0[E]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Location and year: Meyersdale, PA - 2005; 
Number of turbines: 20; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Birds: *** ; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Bats: 23.0[E]; 
Fatalities per turbine, per year: Raptors: ***. 

Source: GAO analysis of various scientific studies and reports. 

Notes: 

*** indicates that the study authors did not calculate a mortality rate 
for that category. 

Some of the studies that presented a bird/turbine/year mortality rate 
also included raptors in that calculation. With the exception of the 
studies conducted in the Appalachian region, most of the studies listed 
were designed and timed to focus on bird mortality. Bats were found 
only incidentally to the study objectives; therefore, rates of bat 
mortality reported from those studies may not represent a reliable 
measure. 

[A] Fatality rate applies to small birds only. 

[B] Fatality rate not adjusted for both searcher efficiency and 
scavenging rate. 

[C] Fatality rate represents number of birds and bats killed per 
turbine per 8-month study period. 

[D] Fatality rate represents number of bats killed per turbine per 7- 
month study period. 

[E] Fatality rate represents number of birds and bats killed per 
turbine per 6-week study period; however, bat mortality has been shown 
to be concentrated in the season during which these study periods took 
place. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY: 
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: 
Washington, DC 20240 

SEP 2 2005: 

Ms. Robin Nazzaro: 

Director, Natural Resources and the Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) the 
opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Wind Power: Impacts on 
Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and 
Protecting Wildlife," GAO-05-906, dated July 28, 2005. In general, we 
agree with the findings and concur in part with the recommendation in 
the report. 

A number of the studies used by GAO in the report, investigating direct 
mortality impacts on migratory birds and bats, were conducted by 
consultants for companies developing the wind energy facilities being 
studied. These studies have not been scientifically peer-reviewed, and 
the protocols used have varied and are in some cases unknown. We 
believe that use of literature that has not been peer-reviewed should 
be noted in the report. 

We believe that the report accurately describes the Office of Law 
Enforcement (OLE) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), approach to 
addressing the impact of wind power facilities on protected wildlife. 
We would stress, however, that OLE has investigated and continues to 
investigate "take" of Federal trust species by wind turbines. Companies 
that violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by killing birds face 
fines of up to $15,000.00 and/or imprisonment for up to six months. 
Higher penalties can be involved if the birds killed are bald or golden 
eagles or a species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 
Prosecutions by OLE and the Department Justice (DOJ) focus on companies 
that kill birds with disregard for their actions and the law, 
especially when conservation measures are available but have not been 
implemented. At this time, there have been no prosecutions of any wind 
energy development company for violations involving "take" of these 
species. The OLE protects migratory birds not only through 
investigating violations of the MBTA, but also by fostering 
relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that seek to 
eliminate impacts on these species. The OLE recognizes that some birds 
may be killed even if all reasonable measures to prevent such deaths 
are taken; however, it is important that industries continue to work 
toward eliminating these losses of migratory birds. While it is not 
possible under the MBTA to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies 
from liability if they follow recommended conservation practices, the 
OLE and DOJ have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the 
past toward those who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take of 
migratory birds. These efforts are exemplified by the 25 years of work 
in collaboration with the electric power industry to identify ways to 
prevent bird electrocutions and power line collisions. 

The FWS's effort to assist in proper location and design of wind energy 
facilities through the voluntary Interim Guidelines to Avoid and 
Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines, released for public 
review and comment in July 2003, is adequately described in the report. 
The FWS stressed that the guidelines were interim in nature pending 
public review and comment, were voluntary, flexible, and were not 
intended to be used as a set of rigid requirements that should be 
applied in every situation. There has been some concern that local and 
State regulatory agencies were using the voluntary guidelines as 
regulatory requirements in their local permitting processes, creating 
unreasonable demands on developers. Several interested parties have 
requested that the Interim Guidelines be rescinded for this reason. GAO 
informed the FWS during the review that it had investigated these 
allegations during the development of the current report, and found no 
evidence of any local or State regulatory entity using the Interim 
Guidelines as regulation. We recommend that this finding be included in 
the report. We believe this would help to dispel the perception that 
inappropriate use of the voluntary Interim Guidelines has had a 
negative effect on the wind industry. 

The State-by-State-review of laws and regulations regarding wind power 
development is fairly complete for the States visited by GAO. However, 
we believe the report could better synthesize how well the various 
local controls provide for consistent treatment and protection of 
individual animals and species that are interjurisdictional in their 
life cycles and are protected under Federal law. The report would also 
benefit from a discussion of the difficulties deriving from 
inconsistencies in regulatory requirements and frameworks that now 
exist among States. We believe the report should address that the 
responsibility for the protection of migratory birds continues to 
reside with the Federal Government (DOI), even though State and local 
laws and regulations have also been established for the protection of 
migratory birds. It should also be clarified that Federal jurisdiction 
for migratory birds has not been delegated to the States. 

We concur with the recommendation that the FWS should develop 
consistent communication to deliver to State and local wind power 
regulators alerting them to potential wildlife impacts and to the 
resources that are available to assist them in decision-making. 
However, it would be inappropriate to include the FWS voluntary Interim 
Guidelines in such communication, as the comment period on the interim 
guidelines has closed and final guidelines have not yet been developed. 
The FWS will be reviewing and considering the public, industry, and 
agency comments received on the interim guidelines, and will solicit 
additional public input before making a decision on whether or how to 
finalize them. 

The enclosure provides comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and Bureau of Land Management. We hope these comments will assist you 
in preparing the final report. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

P. Lynn Scarlett: 
Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget: 

Enclosure: 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's 
letter dated September 2, 2005. 

GAO Comments: 

The Department of the Interior raised one issue with our recommendation 
that we have addressed in the Agency Comment and Our Evaluation section 
in the report. We address below the four other points the department 
raised in its letter. In addition, the department provided technical 
comments that we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate. 

1. We agree that it is important to point out that many of these 
studies were not scientifically peer-reviewed and have added a footnote 
to this effect in the body of the report. However, we disagree that in 
some cases protocols used in the studies were unknown. As we explain in 
appendix I, we only included studies that were determined to have 
reasonably sound methodologies. We did not include any study for which 
we were unable to assess the protocols or methodology. 

2. We believe the section on law enforcement reflects continued 
investigation of "take" of federal trust species by wind turbines and 
FWS's and the Department of Justice's enforcement and prosecutorial 
discretion, although we have added some clarification on these points. 

3. We did not find any instances where state or local agencies that 
regulate wind power included in our review had incorporated or adopted 
the interim guidelines into their own jurisdictional requirements for 
approving wind power facilities. We did, however, find agencies in two 
states that had used the guidelines to inform either their development 
of regulations or their monitoring of the wildlife impacts at operating 
wind power facilities. 

4. We did not assess how various local controls provide for protection 
of individual animals that are interjurisdictional in their life 
cycles. The section of the report that pertains to state wildlife laws 
is descriptive in nature and serves to highlight the fact that state 
laws sometimes provide additional protections to species, beyond 
federal laws, that may be affected by wind power. We added language to 
highlight that federal jurisdiction for migratory birds has not been 
delegated to the states, and that primary responsibility for the 
protection of these birds resides with the federal government 
(Interior). 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Patricia McClure, Assistant 
Director; José Alfredo Gómez; Kimberly Siegal; and William Roach made 
key contributions to this report. Important contributions were also 
made by Judy Pagano, John Delicath, and Omari Norman. 

[End of section]

Bibliography: 

[End of section]

Anderson, R., N. Neumann, J. Tom, W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. 
Bourassa, K. J. Bay, and K. J. Sernka. Avian Monitoring and Risk 
Assessment at the Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area, Period of 
Performance: October 2, 1996 - May 27, 1998. NREL/SR-500-36416. 
September 2004. 

Arnett, E. B., technical editor. Relationships Between Bats and Wind 
Turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Bat 
Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral 
Interactions with Wind Turbines. A Final Report Submitted to the Bats 
and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, 
Texas, USA. 2005. 

Dooling, R. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. NREL/TP- 
500-30844. June 2002. 

Erickson, W. P., B. Gritski, and K. Kronner. Nine Canyon Wind Power 
Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report, September 2002 - August 2003. 
Technical report submitted to Energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon 
Technical Advisory Committee. October 2003. 

Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. Stateline Wind 
Project Wildlife Monitoring Final Report, July 2001 - December 2003. 
Technical report peer-reviewed by and submitted to FPL Energy, the 
Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, and the Stateline Technical 
Advisory Committee. December 2004. 

Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. Avian 
and Bat Mortality Associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla 
County, Oregon 1999 Study Year: Final Report. Prepared for Umatilla 
County Department of Resource Services and Development. February 7, 
2000. 

Hodos, W. Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with 
Wind Turbines Period of Performance: July 12, 1999 - August 31, 2002. 
NREL/SR-500-33249. August 2003. 

Hoover, S. The Response of Red-Tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles to 
Topographical Features, Weather, and Abundance of a Dominant Prey 
Species at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: April 1999 
- December 2000. NREL/SR-500-30868. June 2002. 

Howe, R. W., W. Evans, and A. T. Wolf. Effects of Wind Turbines on 
Birds and Bats in Northeastern Wisconsin. Report submitted to Wisconsin 
Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company. 
November 21, 2002. 

Howell, J. A., and J. DiDonato. Assessment of Avian Use and Mortality 
Related to Wind Turbine Operations Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra 
Costa Counties, California; September 1988 Through August 1989: Final 
Report. November 7, 1991. 

Howell, J. A., and J. Noone. Examination of Avian Use and Mortality at 
a U.S. Windpower, Wind Energy Development Site Montezuma Hills, Solano 
County, California: Final Report. September 10, 1992. 

Howell, J. A. Bird Mortality at Rotor Swept Area Equivalents, Altamont 
Pass and Montezuma Hills California. Transactions of the Western 
Section of the Wildlife Society. 33: 24-29. 1997. 

Hunt, W. G., R. E. Jackman, T. L. Hunt, D.E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. A 
Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 
Area: Population and Trend Analysis 1997. Report to the National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-6-16459-01. Predatory 
Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz. 1998. 

Johnson, G., W. Erickson, J. White, and R. McKinney. Avian and Bat 
Mortality During the First Year of Operation at the Klondike Phase I 
Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for Northwestern Wind 
Power. March 2003. 

Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, and 
D.A. Shepherd. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota 
Wind Resource Area: Results of a 4-Year Study. Prepared for Northern 
States Power Company. September 22, 2000. 

Johnson, G. D., M. K. Perlik, W. P. Erickson, and M. D. Strickland. Bat 
Activity, Composition, and Collision Mortality at a Large Wind Plant in 
Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1278-1288. 2004. 

Kerlinger, P. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power 
Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migratory Birds in 
Seasburg, Vermont July 1996 - July 1998. Prepared for the Vermont 
Department of Public Service. March 2002. 

Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision 
Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West 
Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Wind 
Energy Center Technical Review Committee. February 14, 2004. 

Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner, and A. Hancock. Avian Mortality 
Associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm: Progress Report Calendar 
Year 2003. February 28, 2004. 

National Wind Coordinating Committee. Wind Turbine Interactions with 
Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions. 
Fact Sheet: Second Edition. November 2004. 

Nicholson, C. P., R. D. Tankersley, Jr., J. K. Fiedler, and N. S. 
Nicholas. Assessment and Prediction of Bird and Bat Mortality at Wind 
Energy Facilities in the Southeastern United States. Prepared for the 
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2005. 

Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, 
Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind 
Resource Areas 1989-1991: Final Report. Prepared for Planning 
Departments of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties and the 
California Energy Commission Grant #990-89-003. March 1992. 

Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. A Continued Examination of Avian Mortality 
in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Prepared for the California 
Energy Commission. January 1996. 

Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, C. D. Dieter, and R. E. Usgaard. Bat 
Collisions with Wind Turbines in Southwestern Minnesota. Bat Research 
News. Vol. 37, No. 4. Winter 1996. 

Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, R. E. Usgaard, C. D. Dieter, and R. D. 
Neiger. Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo 
Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist. 
143:41-52. 

Schmidt, E., A. J. Piaggio, C. E. Bock, and D. M. Armstrong. National 
Wind Technology Center Site Environmental Assessment: Bird and Bat Use 
and Fatalities - Final Report, Period of Performance: April 23, 2001 - 
December 31, 2002. NREL/SR-5000-32981. January 2003. 

Smallwood, K. S. and Thelander, C.G. Developing Methods to Reduce Bird 
Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report by 
BioResource Consultants to the California Energy Commission, Public 
Interest Energy Research - Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019; 
L. Spiegel, Program Manager. August 2004. 

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and 
Minimizing Avian Mortality Without Significant Loss of Power 
Generation. The California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related 
Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. December 2004. 

Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. Bird Risk Behaviors 
and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Period of 
Performance: March 1998 - December 2000. NREL/SR-500-33829. December 
2003. 

Young Jr., D. P., W. P. Erickson, R. W. Good, M. D. Strickland, and G. 
D. Johnson. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase 
of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, 
November 1998 - June 2002. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc., SeaWest 
Windpower, Inc., and the Bureau of Land Management. January 10, 2003. 

Young, Jr, D. P., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, R. E. Good, and K. 
J. Sernka. Comparison of Avian Responses to UV-Light-Reflective Paint 
on Wind Turbines: Subcontract Report July 1999-December 2000. NREL/ST- 
500-32840. January 2003. 

(360530): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population because in a nonprobability sample, some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

[2] 26 U.S.C. § 45. Section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. 
L. No. 109-58, extended the tax credit through January 1, 2008. 

[3] 26 U.S.C. § 168(e)(3)(B)(vi). 

[4] See GAO, Renewable Energy: Wind Power's Contribution to Electric 
Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities, GAO-04-756 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2004) for prior work related to this issue. 

[5] The American Wind Energy Association is a national trade 
association that represents wind power plant developers, wind turbine 
manufacturers, utilities, consultants, insurers, financiers, 
researchers, and others involved in the wind industry. 

[6] Many of these studies were conducted by consultants for wind power 
companies and were not scientifically peer-reviewed. In addition, 
protocols used in these studies may vary. 

[7] Erickson, Wallace P., Gregory D. Johnson, M. Dale Strickland, David 
P. Young Jr., Karyn J. Sernka, and Rhett E. Good. Avian Collisions with 
Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other 
Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. A National 
Wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document, August 2001. Because 
summaries of studies generally do not present detailed information 
about the methodologies of the studies they include, these results 
should be considered with caution. 

[8] National Wind Coordinating Committee, Wind Turbine Interactions 
with Birds and Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining 
Questions. Fact sheet: Second Edition. November 2004. Because summaries 
of studies generally do not present detailed information about the 
methodologies of the studies that they include, these results should be 
considered with caution. 

[9] See appendix I for the criteria we used for including studies in 
our review. 

[10] Erickson, Wallace P., Gregory D. Johnson, M. Dale Strickland, 
David P. Young Jr., Karyn J. Sernka, and Rhett E. Avian Collisions with 
Wind Turbines. 

[11] Meteorological towers are used to assess weather conditions, 
including wind speed and direction. 

[12] California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100. 

[13] Minn. Stat. §§ 116C.691 - 116C.697. 

[14] State Environmental Quality Review Act, N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 
8-0109. 

[15] Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) § 469.300 et seq; Oregon 
Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 345, Divisions 1, 15, 20-23, 26, 27, 
and 29. 

[16] Developers of these two facilities voluntarily conducted some 
preconstruction wildlife studies. 

[17] The West Virginia Public Service Commission adopted Rules 
Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators (WV 150 
C.S.R. 30) on May 25, 2005, effective July 25, 2005. 

[18] Other federal laws may apply to wind power development on federal 
land, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which 
provides BLM with a framework for managing its land. 

[19] At the time of this report, a developer had submitted an 
application to build what would be the first wind power project on U.S. 
Forest Service land. 

[20] Postconstruction wildlife studies in these areas of California and 
Wyoming found low avian mortality. The California study in Tehachapi 
Pass was not included in appendix II because estimating fatality rates 
was not a primary goal of that study. 

[21] FWS shares responsibility for enforcing the Endangered Species Act 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is responsible for 
protecting ocean-dwelling species and anadromous species, such as 
salmon. 

[22] FWS identifies violations of federal wildlife laws in several 
ways, including by receiving citizen complaints and self-reporting by 
industry or individuals. 

[23] Of all the species that have been killed, only two endangered 
species kills have been documented--a peregrine falcon in 1996 and a 
brown pelican in 2002. 

[24] Center for Biological Diversity v. FPL Group, No. RG04183113 
(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda County, filed Nov. 1, 2004). 

[25] Many of these studies have not been scientifically peer-reviewed, 
and the protocols in each study may vary. 

[26] We referenced one of these studies in two places in this report. 
In each of these places, a source and associated caveat are presented 
in a footnote. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: