I knew the wind farms of Northern California were killing birds in their giant blades. I knew it was enough of a problem that researchers were spending big bucks on studies designed to explain the avian deaths and find ways to reduce the mortality. What I didn't know was how many birds the turbines chewed up, nor did I have a breakdown of the kinds of species affected. I also did not know exactly how the birds died.
Six months later
After a six-month investigation and a computer analysis of mortality reports, I had my answers - and my readers did, too. On May 14, 1995, the Contra Costa Times reported that about 8,900 turbines in the hills east of San Francisco had killed or injured 679 birds over a period of three years and one month. Most were birds of prey.
The death toll included 266 red-tailed hawks, 64 golden eagles, 48 barn owls, and 34 American kestrels. None of these are protected by state or federal endangered species laws, but all are by other federal laws.
The government can fine companies and individuals thousands of dollars if they kill golden eagles or other migratory birds under the Bald Eagle Protection Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The computer analysis also revealed that the deaths were on the increase. The wind farms killed 10 golden eagles, for example, in 1992, 23 the following year and 28 in 1994. The toll on red-tailed hawks climbed from 40 in 1992 to 164 in 1994. These numbers, however, were only a small part of the three-story package that began on the cover and filled most of two inside pages. The main story explored a deep rift in California's sizable environmental community over the issue. After all, wind energy is clean energy. It produces no greenhouse gasses, which many scientists blame for causing global warming.
It also detailed industry and government efforts to curb the deaths and revealed that there had been no prosecutions. Persuading a jury that the companies were intentionally violating the law would be difficult, a former federal prosecutor told me.
The second story documented how wind energy, once a booming affair in California, was facing an uncertain future due to land-use conflicts, the loss of subsidies and changing politics. Elsewhere in the United States, and in other countries, wind farms are expanding.
The third story was a short sidebar on a proposed new Bay Area wind farm.
It all started with a tip from a source who said he had heard that golden eagle deaths were increasing. I called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and asked for mortality statistics, but was quickly rebuffed. They said the records were part of an ongoing criminal investigation, so I couldn't have them.
'No' is not an answer
Instead of filing a lawsuit, I followed another lead and found the records, or at least many of them. Companies operating wind farms in the region have to report mortality data to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
In Alameda County, thanks to a planning commission requirement, they must also submit the reports to the county planning department. The largest company, Kenentech, which has since filed for bankruptcy protection, also reported mortality data for neighboring Contra Costa Solano counties to Alameda County.
Had Contra Costa and Solano counties also required companies to report mortality incidents, my numbers would have no doubt been higher. Those counties told me they weren't in the business of regulating wildlife.
The records came in two formats. One was a list that itemized each death or injury and included the date of the incident, species of bird, type of injury and location. The other was a sheet of paper that included the same information for each incident.
Notes on the data also included written descriptions of how the birds died. "It was these notes that impressed me, the descriptions of just how badly these birds were being mutilated, and the fact that the birds couldn't see the danger they were about to face," said Project Editor Gene Williams.
Building the database
Contra Costa Times computer guru Morgan Cartwright used Visual Basic to design a front-end program that allowed easy data entry. To make sure we entered the data in a consistent fashion, he designed a series of scrolling list boxes. One list, for example, contained all the different kinds of birds. Another was the location of the incident. One more provided choices for different kinds of injuries.
Cartwright chose the database program Microsoft Access to use on our IBM-clone 486 computer to manage and manipulate the data.
It took a temp worker and myself three days to enter the data. Once the data was in, the numbers were extremely simple to calculate.
After we crunched the numbers, I presented them to a variety of sources including the Fish and Wildlife Service, which had refused to share their information. Were we on target? No one objected.
We presented the numbers in roughly four paragraphs in the main bar and in a front-page graphic that also included the location of the turbines and energy trade-offs between wind and other sources.
Tips
If one government source won't give you the data you need, don't give up. Look for other agencies that might have the same information.
Balance and juggle. Though I worked on this project for more than six months, I still produced regular daily stories. I'd try to devote one day a week to the birds. Once I was ready to write, I persuaded my editors to give me two weeks to complete the project. See what others have written on the subject. A Nexis search turned up wind farm articles from around the globe. Check your results. Run them by a variety of experts and see what they think.