SHAWNA BETHELL

JULY 5, 2023 3:33 AM

A refuge for wildlife in Kansas is no place for a large-scale solar project

     

 A whooping crane family in Sauk County, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, days after this image was taken, the chick went missing, likely from predation. Whooping cranes are a federally listed endangered species due to loss of wetland habitat, power line collision, and illegal hunting. (Shawna Bethell)

Earlier this summer, I took a road trip up to Baraboo, Wisconsin, where the owner of my bed and breakfast mentioned that wild whooping cranes had nested a couple fields up.

They sent me off with directions, and a few minutes later I sat watching a pair of tall, white, red-masked birds elegantly stride across a newly sprouted cornfield, a scrawny yellow chick tagging behind. When I told my nephew, he asked me if I realized how incredible it was to be that close to those whoopers and their next generation. I assured him I did.

Whooping cranes are endangered, numbering only 836 in the world. Of those, 134 live in captivity. To see them as a family was truly a gift. But Kansans are lucky. Barton County is home to not one but two Ramsar designated wetlands of international importance. And Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area and Quivira National Wildlife Refuge are staging sites used by whooping cranes — among other protected species — as they migrate up and down the country each season. People travel considerable distances to see them.

But things may change in Barton County.

Acciona Energy USA, a subsidiary of Madrid, Spain-based Acciona Energy, plans to develop a solar farm on a large swath of land bordering Cheyenne Bottoms. For now, officials have placed a temporary moratorium on all permits for commercial solar development within the unincorporated area of Barton County, allowing the planning commission time to consider zoning regulations.

According to environmental manager and zoning administrator Judy Goreham, the moratorium will last until Dec. 31, with the option to either extend or eliminate that deadline, depending on the amount of time the commission needs.

Generally speaking, I support solar power. But careful placement of large-scale infrastructure is crucial, and locating it anywhere near a wetland — especially a wetland of critical habitat — is unconscionable.

Generally speaking, I support solar power. But careful placement of large-scale infrastructure is crucial, and locating it anywhere near a wetland — especially a wetland of critical habitat — is unconscionable.

– Shawna Bethell

It is often implied that there have not been enough studies to truly understand the impact of solar farms on birds. However, a 2014 study by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, titled Avian Mortality at Solar Energy Facilities in Southern California: A Preliminary Analysis, summarizes data on bird mortality from three types of solar energy facilities, one of which is a photovoltaic facility, the type planned for Barton County. (Note: descriptions and images in the study may be disturbing to some readers.)

Results of the study indicate that while a wide variety of bird species were killed at the solar facilities, there was increased water bird mortality at the photovoltaic facility, where “open water sources were present.”

It also relates that “impact trauma and predation were both present,” and clarified that “predation was documented mostly at the photovoltaic site, and in many cases appeared to be associated with stranding or nonfatal impact trauma with the panels, leaving birds vulnerable to resident predators.”

Further, and most directly pertaining to the wetlands in Barton County, is the discussion of migratory water birds.

Birds were attracted to water features in the region and were “habituated to the presence of an accessible aquatic environment.” This can “translate into a misinterpretation” of the “horizontal polarized light source” as being a body of water. Of the 15 birds that died of predation at the solar farm, 14 were species that made their homes on water and were found near the ponds located near the infrastructure.

An attempt to reach Acciona asking about its mortality mitigation practices, especially in light of the placement of the facility, was unsuccessful.

I also tried to reach the National Wildlife Service to learn the consequences of killing federally protected species by such infrastructure but was again unsuccessful.

The only precedent I learned of was at the High Prairie Renewable Energy Center in Kirksville, Missouri, where a wind farm was built near habitat for federally protected species. When multiple protected species were killed by turbines, the facility had to decrease operation, while attempting to pass increased rates to the consumer to compensate. I hope Kansas is not so shortsighted.

There are only 41 Ramsar sites in the United States, and Kansas is home to two of them. This is something to be proud of, protected and enjoyed. Audubon of Kansas has suggested a well-considered, alternative location for an industrial solar facility in Barton County, and I strongly hope the commissioners and planning committee take it into consideration.

A protected wetland is not the place for industry. It is the place for refuge, for wildlife and humans alike.

Shawna Bethell is a freelance essayist and journalist covering the people and places of Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.