My apologies for the second post. I hit the send button before reading Mike Denny's post.
If readers can graciously allow me to extrapolate on a second post I'd like to share some information.
Mike states that "a gold rush with the wind industry paid biologists providing all of the " field data" that State and Federal wildlife agencies are steering by."

This sentence makes it seem like the data is horribly biased. I am one of the biologists. The wind industry does pay for the studies, for that he is correct. On the other hand who else should pay for the studies? It is a applicants job to provide the EIS, not the agencies. This is no different than if a housing developer does an EIS for a subdivision. A consultants does the wildlife and natural resources work, agency reviews. State and federal budgets are already way over tapped and not enough resource to do their own work, are we going to make them perform these extensive tasks also? With what money? Our company (and myself) is currently responsible for about half to two thirds of the data on winds farms in OR and WA. If you look in your latest WOS news you'll see a research study on Ferruginous and Swainson's Hawks, next to it says "wind Power funded". Wind power has funded satelitte transmitters to help better understand Ferruginous hawk migration. This helps everyone.

The correct statement above is "wind power funded". The wind industry as they should, pays for the studies. Unless corrupt consulting companies are being sellouts, the data should fit sound scientific principles. I can't speak for all biolgists, but many have worked for agencies before and no-profits and are regarded with some of the highest standards of integrity. State and Federal officials sit on the TAC committees, as does Audubon and others when they want to (they are invited to). The studies are reviewed with a critical eye and if something sounds fishy then its commented on, as it should.
Here are some other wind power funded results:
Rare plant searches which have discovered sensitive plants not known in the state databases before.
Washington Ground Squirrel colonies in OR (which are endangered there) not previously known.
Many new raptor nests in WA and OR including FEHA, GOEA, PRFA, SWHA not before known to the state databases (most wind projects are required to be flown for raptors nests).
Without wind power funding this wildlife on private land would not have been known. These are all positive aspects.
State resources are taxed to the max. District bios are tasked for covering whole counties and regions. The people of USFWS and WDFW and ODFW aren't perfect, but they are working like crazy to try to keep a tackle on everything. I know from personal that agencies are grateful for the extra discoveries of data that happen in regards to wind power fund studies. It all helps, trust me.

Finally Mike references: Many are being placed on poor sites (class 3 or less wind resource) with 18%-20% efficacy at best.

The statement is true, what it doesn't state is where alot of the class 1 and 2 is. I would like people to go to the following link http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/major_projects/graphics/wind_power_resource_estimates_map.jpg
This is a map put together by NREL (National Renewable energy Lab) which is Department of Energy Lab in Golden CO. showing where the different classes of wind resources are. To put in a wind farm requires several elements, access to transmission lines fairly close by, hopefully low impact to environment, usually people dont want them right around cities (for various reasons). Some of the highest class area shown on the map are 1. Offshore WA 2. Top of the Cascades and Olympic Mountains 3. Ellensburg and the Vantage to Wenatcheee west side of the Columbia river. For offshore, are people ok with impacts to seabirds and other marine life (not to mention technology for offshore plants is behind those for land, so logistics are harder)? Of top of the mountains is logistically impossible and nobody wants a wind farm on the top of rainier, adams or hurricane ridge. For the ellensburg area, those following the developements know that residents have fought installation there for years for both scenic impediments and wildlife impacts, this a complex area with lots of wintering raptors as those who bird the area know. This leaves us with less optimal areas. How do the companies work on this? Research, they have a major national lab in Golden CO that works on how to maximize energy from lower areas. Unless somebody is willing to put 3000 turbines in Ellensburg or off coast of WA I'm not sure the above statement on suboptimal areas is valid. Wind is here, is going to be here for a long time. Mike is correct on how much wind is coming. Best we can do is make informed decisions on location that least impacts where it goes. The arguement that no wind is ok is just delaying the discussion and hiding our head while hundreds of turbines get put up. To meet energy requirments will require hundreds of turbines. If we aren't ok wnd wind effects then champion another evergy. Lets deal with the realities of a very real electricity crisis we are going to have. I dont know the ultimate answer, but hopefully together we can find one. To simply argue against without providing solutions is going to help anybody. Remember people in WA voted for the 15% renewable mandates in the WA initiative thats driving this. If people are really concerned, please research. The problem needs input from everyone, but it needs informed opinion. To make uniformed statements hurts everyone. In my prevous post I do urge people to go to that national wind site. That site is about as unbiased as you can get. Input is from agencies, enviro groups, consultants and companies. On the wildlife board sits members of the nature conservancy, national audubon, defeders of wildlife, consultants, state agencies, USFWS along with wind companies and consultants. They all have equal say, for that I would applaud that committee trying to make informed decisions. If you want to help check out the site, nationalwind.org and stay informed and comment.


Thanks for indulging me. Blame the 100 degree heat in Yakima for allowing me to time to wrote 2 long emails today! :)

Scott downes
downess at charter.net
Yakima WA