DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Sample 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Sample 1 Appendix M Draft EIS Comment Responses Appendix Table M-1 – General Comment Responses Appendix Table M-2 – Volume I Comment Responses Appendix Table M-3 – Volume II Comment Responses Volume II June 2012 Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Final EIS Appendix M M.1-1 Appendix Table M-1 General Comment Responses GCR Number Category General Comment General Comment Response We believe that the VRM amendment was meant to be done at the Field According to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1, pp. 42), in those instances when activity-level or project-specific EISs (or EAs) are being used to Office level instead of at the Project level. The draft VRM Plan analyze an action that may not conform to the current land use plan, the BLM has several options: adjust the actions or condition the authorization to conform to Amendment needs to visually address the Field Office as a whole. We the plan or achieve consistency with the terms, conditions, and decisions in the approved RMP; or prepare the EIS (or EA) as a RMP amendment, as described do not support the "piecemeal" process. in Section VII. If the BLM determines that a plan amendment may be necessary, preparation of the EIS (or EA) and the analysis necessary for the amendment may occur simultaneously (43 CFR 1610.5). As discussed in Volume I Section 1.2.1, land use plan decisions are made according to the procedures of BLM’s planning regulations in 43 CFR 1600. Plan amendments (see 43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan. These decisions may include those relating to desired outcomes; measures to achieve desired outcomes, including resource restrictions; or land tenure decisions. Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to: 1. Consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan; 2. Implement new or revised policy that changes land use plan decisions; 3. Respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on public land; and 4. Consider significant new information from resource assessments, monitoring, or scientific studies that change land use plan decisions. GCR-1 Project Level PA A land use plan amendment may be necessary to consider monitoring and evaluation findings, substantive new data, new or revised policy, changes in circumstances, or a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved RMP. BLM’s land use planning regulations allow for a plan amendment to be completed simultaneously with a project NEPA analysis if a proposed project does not conform to the RMP. As a result of the remanded VRM decisions in the 2008 RMP, substantive new data is available following completion of the 2011 visual resource inventory (VRI) that could be used in this effort as well. In a separate effort, the BLM is initiating a plan amendment to address VRM decisions for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office, outside the Decision Area that is addressed in the CCSM Plan Amendment. Both efforts are using the same baseline information from the 2011 VRI and the same approach to managing visual resources as outlined in BLM’s guidance (H-1601-1, M-8400, and M-8410). Therefore, while a plan amendment is associated with the CCSM project, BLM will ensure consistency by applying the same guidance and direction to both efforts. The CCSM Plan Amendment contains sufficient data necessary to meet the requirements of both NEPA and FLPMA, and internal BLM guidance for a land use plan level document. As indicated in Chapter 1 of Volume I, the purpose of land use plan decisions are to provide a broad comprehensive framework for managing and allocating public resources. The impacts of these decisions are disclosed in the NEPA document and made available for public comment. Lights on turbines will have night time visibility; 1,000 turbines and 1,000 Comment noted. Volume I, Sections 1.4 and 1.5 disclose the rationale behind BLM's delineation of the Planning Area and Decision Area. Section 1.4 clearly red lights that flash. This is a major impact on the night time viewscape indicates that "at 30 miles, the motion of a WTG is generally not discernible although project facilities and night lighting are generally still identifiable” and and should be considered in the EIS. The Project only considers a 30 "However, nighttime lighting contrasts appear to continue to attract attention up to 30 miles." Delineation of the Planning Area also considered the following mile radius for visual. In Carbon County you can usually see over 30 factors: "consistency with BLM VRM class management objectives; literature review of comparable wind energy visual assessments; and field observations of miles on a clear day. This needs to be considered when developing the CCSM physiographic region and physiographically similar locations of other wind farms." The Decision Area was delineated based on "those areas that were GCR-2 Turbine Visibility alternatives. At a minimum, the Planning Area and Decision Areas most likely to be influenced by the CCSM Wind Energy Project proposal as well as other features that influence the visual setting including landownership should be the same. patterns and major transportation and utility corridors in the area" and "the remaining area outside the Decision Area boundary (but within the Planning Area boundary) will be addressed in the upcoming VRM Plan Amendment for the RFO area." Project-specific impacts from nighttime lighting are discussed in Volume II Chapter 4. Volume II June 2012 Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Final EIS Appendix M M.1-2 Appendix Table M-1 General Comment Responses GCR Number Category General Comment General Comment Response The VRM Plan Amendment references a Visual Resource Inventory The VRI completed by OTAK, Inc in February 2011 was conducted for the entire Rawlins Field Office area and served as the baseline information for this plan (VRI) which serves as a baseline for developing a reasonable range of amendment. Relevant VRI baseline information is included in Volume I Section 3.13 and referenced throughout the EIS. The VRI has been publicly available on alternatives for VRM classes. Some commenters noted that the VRI the BLM Rawlins website since it's completion in February 2011 at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/rawlins/vri.html. Since the VRI was not was not presented in the DEIS for public review or agency completed as part of this project, it is not subject to revision as a result of public comments on the CCSM plan amendment process. Revisions to the VRI are GCR-3 VRI Information consideration. Other commenters disagreed with baseline information outside the scope of this NEPA process. presented in the VRI and requested adjustments to scenic quality rating unit boundaries, distance zones, and classifications for sensitivity levels and VRI classes. The alternatives presented in the Draft VRM Plan Amendment are not As discussed in Volume I Section 2.2.1, the VRI serves as a baseline to develop a reasonable range of VRM class alternatives and analysis of impacts consistent with and do not reflect the VRI Sensitivity level Ratings from associated with the various alternatives in this project-specific plan amendment. BLM considers scenic quality, sensitivity levels and distance zones during the the Visual Resource Inventory ("VRI") for the Rawlins Field Office VRI process. According to BLM Manual 8410, the VRI serves as an inventory tool that portrays the relative value of the visual resources. The VRI provides a prepared by Otak, Inc. which serves as a baseline for developing a snapshot in time of the current scenic values of an area without consideration of jurisdiction, manageability, existing leases, pending or approved projects, or reasonable range of alternatives for VRM classes. other resource opportunities or constraints (i.e., wildlife habitats, mineral and energy potential, etc.). VRI Ratings GCR-4 Consistency VRI classes are informational in nature and provide the basis for developing alternatives during the RMP process. They do not establish management direction and should not be used as a basis for constraining or limiting surface disturbing activities. VRM class designations are based on a VRI and consideration of: 1) managing the public lands and their various resources so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people in accordance with FLPMA 103(c); 2) managing public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of scenic values in accordance with FLPMA 102(b); 3) the impacts resource uses may have on scenic values; and 4) the impacts VRM class designations may have on other resources and uses. Both support and opposition were expressed regarding the treatment of Landownership in the Decision Area includes a mixture of public, state, and private land, each with different laws and regulations. Whereas BLM-administered VRM class in the checkerboard land pattern. Some commenters noted lands are managed for multiple uses, in accordance with FLPMA, intermingled private and state lands are protected by their own property rights. The that the ownership pattern should not serve as an excuse to protect checkerboard land ownership pattern in the Decision Area leads to conflicts in managing resources. The checkerboard pattern of alternating public and private visual resources in the checkerboard areas, and land values could in land is a remnant of the public land grants necessary to finance the transcontinental railroad under the Union Pacific Act of 1862. Congress granted every other return be affected by these decisions. Other commenters support the section (one square mile) of land within 20 miles on either side of the railroad right-of-way to the Union Pacific, which then tried to sell the grant lands to raise decision to not apply restrictive VRM classes that can affect surrounding capital for the venture.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary
    Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY07 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2007, there were more than 11,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 4,000 MW projected in both 2007 and 2008. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that the U.S. installed capacity will exceed 16,000 MW by the end of 2007. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Seventeen states now have more than 100 MW installed. We anticipate five to six additional states will join the 100-MW club early in 2008, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. WPA continues to work with its national, regional, and state partners to communicate the opportunities and benefits of wind energy to a diverse set of stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • GWEC Global Wind Report 2016
    GLOBAL WIND REPORT ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE 2016 Opening up new markets for business: Mongolia 8TH NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY FORUM Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 5 May 2017 Mongolia’s wind has the technical potential of 1TW. GWEC is paving the road to that potential. www.gwec.net TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . 4 Foreword from our sponsor . 6 Corporate Sourcing of Renewables – A New Market Driver for Wind . 8 Global Status of Wind Power in 2016 . 12 Market Forecast 2017-2021 . 20 Argentina . 26 Australia . 28 Brazil . 30 Canada . 32 Chile . 34 PR China . 36 Denmark . 40 The European Union . 42 Finland . 44 Germany . 46 India . 48 Japan . 50 Mexico . 52 Netherlands . 54 Norway . 56 Offshore Wind . 58 South Africa . 66 Turkey . 68 United States . 70 Vietnam . 72 About GWEC . 74 GWEC – Global Wind 2016 Report 3 PREFACE verall, the wind industry fi nished up 2016 in good installations of 8,203 MW were about the same as 2015’s, and shape, with solid prospects for 2017 and beyond. The despite the political goings-on, seem to be on track for a strong O economics of the industry continue to improve, with 2017, with 18+ GW either under construction or in advanced record low prices for the winning tender in Morocco last year stages of development. So far so good – fi ngers crossed! of about $30/MWh, and very competitive prices in auctions Europe’s numbers were surprisingly strong, actually sur- around the world, while more and more companies’ P&Ls have passing 2015 for Europe as a whole on the strength of Turkey’s come out of the red and into the black.
    [Show full text]
  • Usa Wind Energy Resources
    USA WIND ENERGY RESOURCES © M. Ragheb 2/7/2021 “An acre of windy prairie could produce between $4,000 and $10,000 worth of electricity per year.” Dennis Hayes INTRODUCTION Wind power accounted for 6 percent of the USA’s total electricity generation capacity, compared with 19 percent for Nuclear Power generation. A record 13.2 GWs of rated wind capacity were installed in 2012 including 5.5 GWs in December 2012, the most ever for a single month. The total rated wind capacity stands at about 60 GWs. Utilities are buying wind power because they want to, not because they have to, to benefit from the Production Tax Credit PTC incentive. The credit has been extended for a year to cover wind farms that start construction in 2013. Previously it only covered projects that started working by the expiration date. Asset financing for USA wind farms was $4.3 billion in the second-half compared with $9.6 billion in the first six months of 2012. Component makers are the General Electric Company (GE), Siemens AG, Vestas AS, Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA and Clipper Windpower Ltd., which is owned by Platinum Equity LLC. Equipment prices for wind have dropped by more than 21 percent since 2010, and the performance of turbines has risen. This has resulted in a 21 percent decrease in the overall cost of electricity from wind for a typical USA project since 2010. From 2006 to 2012 USA domestic manufacturing facilities for wind turbine components has grown 12 times to more than 400 facilities in 43 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Reducing Impacts from Wind Energy Development
    North Dakota Native Wildlife Resources: Guidelines for Reducing Impacts from Wind Energy Development The North Dakota Wind and Wildlife Collaboration DRAFT April 10, 2018 Table of Contents The North Dakota Wind and Wildlife Collaboration ......................................................................1 Contacts................................................................................................................................1 Section 1. Introduction and Background .........................................................................................2 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2 USFWS WEG Integration....................................................................................................4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................5 Authorities............................................................................................................................6 Section 2. Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................8 Key Species ..........................................................................................................................8 Key Habitat ..........................................................................................................................9 Direct Impacts ....................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Gwec – Global Wind Report | Annual Market Update 2015
    GLOBAL WIND REPORT ANNUAL MARKET UPDATE 2015 Opening up new markets for business “It’s expensive for emerging companies to enter new markets like China. The risk of failure is high leading to delays and high costs of sales. GWEC introduced us to the key people we needed to know, made the personal contacts on our behalf and laid the groundwork for us to come into the market. Their services were excellent and we are a terrific referenceable member and partner.” ED WARNER, CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER, SENTIENT SCIENCE Join GWEC today! www.gwec.net Global Report 213x303 FP advert v2.indd 2 8/04/16 8:37 pm TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 4 Preface 6 Global Status of Wind Power in 2015 8 Market Forecast 2016-2020 20 Australia 26 Brazil 28 Canada 30 PR China 32 The European Union 36 Egypt 38 Finland 40 France 42 Germany 44 Offshore Wind 46 India 54 Japan 56 Mexico 58 Netherlands 60 Poland 62 South Africa 64 Turkey 66 Uruguay 68 United Kingdom 70 United States 72 About GWEC 74 GWEC – Global Wind 2015 Report 3 FOREWORD 015 was a stellar year for the wind industry and for Elsewhere in Asia, India is the main story, which has now the energy revolution, culminating with the landmark surpassed Spain to move into 4th place in the global 2Paris Agreement in December An all too rare triumph of cumulative installations ranking, and had the fifth largest multilateralism, 186 governments have finally agreed on market last year Pakistan, the Philippines, Viet Nam, where we need to get to in order to protect the climate Thailand, Mongolia and now Indonesia are all ripe
    [Show full text]
  • Manufacturing Climate Solutions Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S
    Manufacturing Climate Solutions Carbon-Reducing Technologies and U.S. Jobs CHAPTER 11 Wind Power: Generating Electricity and Employment Gloria Ayee, Marcy Lowe and Gary Gereffi Contributing CGGC researchers: Tyler Hall, Eun Han Kim This research is an extension of the Manufacturing Climate Solutions report published in November 2008. It was prepared on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (http://www.edf.org/home.cfm). Cover Photo Credits: 1. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (formerly PPM Energy, Inc.) 2. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (formerly PPM Energy, Inc.) 3. Courtesy of DOE/NREL, Credit – Reseburg, Amanda; Type A Images © September 22, 2009. Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness, Duke University The complete report is available electronically from: http://www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions/ As of September 22, 2009, Chapter 11 is not available in hardcopy. 2 Summary Wind power is a cost effective, renewable energy solution for electricity generation. Wind power can dramatically reduce the environmental impacts associated with power generated from fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). Electricity production is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States. Thus, adoption of wind power generating technologies has become a major way for the United States to diversify its energy portfolio and reach its expressed goal of 80% reduction in green house gas (GHG) emissions by the year 2050. The benefits of wind power plants include no fuel risk, no carbon dioxide emissions or air pollution, no hazardous waste production, and no need for mining, drilling or transportation of fuel (American Wind Energy Association, 2009a).
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Risk Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Montana
    An Ecological Risk Assessment of Wind Energy Development in Montana Brian Martin, Amy Pearson, Brad Bauer The Nature Conservancy Helena, Montana January 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ii List of Tables, Figures, Appendices iii Acknowledgements iii Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Managing Ecological Risk Through Wind Energy Siting 3 Low Risk Lands 7 Species at Risk from Wind Energy Development 7 Greater Sage grouse 7 Grassland endemic birds 10 Piping plover and interior least tern 15 Waterfowl, waterbirds, and wetland concentration areas 18 Bats 21 Grizzly bear 25 Mule deer, antelope, and elk winter ranges 26 Landscape Considerations 31 Conclusion 31 Literature Cited 37 Appendix A: Figure Data Sources 41 Appendix B: Brief: Grassland bird and bat presence and abundance at select 43 locations in Montana with high wind-power development potential ii TABLES Table 1. Declining Grassland Birds Evaluated for the Risk Assessment 13 Table 2. Bat Species Predicted Distribution Selected for Risk Assessment 25 FIGURES Figure 1. Wind Energy Potential in Montana 4 Figure 2. Good-to-Superb Wind Energy Potential in Montana 5 Figure 3. Lands Excluded from Wind Energy Development 6 Figure 4. Low Ecological Risk Lands for Wind Energy Development 8 Figure 5. Relatively Intact Natural Habitat 9 Figure 6. Sage Grouse Leks in Montana 11 Figure 7. Sage Grouse Leks within Good-to-Superb Wind Energy Potential 12 Figure 8. Declining Grassland Bird Predicted Species Diversity in Montana 14 Figure 9. Declining Grassland Bird Predicted Species Diversity within Available Good-to-Superb Wind Energy Potential in Montana 16 Figure 10. Piping Plover and Interior Least Tern Breeding Habitat in Montana 17 Figure 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Testimony of *******
    STATE OF MAINE LAND USE REGULATION COMMISION In the matter of Rezoning Application ZP 702 Maine Mountain Power, LLC PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A HEWSON JR ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF THE WESTERN MOUNTAINS Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, OCCUPATION AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. A: My name is Thomas A Hewson Jr. I have been an energy and environmental consultant for 30 years. Since 1981, I have been a Principal at Energy Ventures Analysis that is located at 1901 N. Moore St. Suite 1200, Arlington, Virginia, 22209-1706. My resume and relevant experience to the issues in this proceeding are provided in Exhibit TAH-1. Q: ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU SUBMITTING TESTIMONY? A: I am submitting testimony on behalf of the Friends of the Western Mountains. Q: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ASSIGNMENT YOU WERE GIVEN FOR THIS PROCEEDING A: I was asked to review the information Maine Mountain Power LLC has provided on the 90 MW Redington Mountain Wind project in its rezoning application to the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission and provide an independent opinion on its claims of power output, project need, local economic benefits and pollution prevention claims. 1 Q: COULD YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR FINDINGS? A: My testimony covers four areas. My major findings discussed in my testimony are: • Project output estimates unsupported and likely overstated • No demonstrated need for the Redington Mountain Wind project • Project’s local economic impacts unstudied with no examination of offsetting economic costs • Project will provide no incremental air pollution control benefits Q: HAVE YOU REVIEWED MAINE MOUNTAIN POWER LLC’S REZONING APPLICATION? A: Yes, I have reviewed their rezoning application.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy Permitting
    14. Permitting New York State recently adopted the Power New York Act, which includes Article X, legislation establishing a state-level process for permitting electrical generation facilities of 25 MW and larger capacity. Under Article X, utility scale wind farms are now sited and permitted by a state siting commission, rather than by local municipalities. However, the state siting commission may defer to local ordinances, or it may overrule local requirements it considers to place an unreasonable burden on the applicant; so it remains incumbent upon municipalities to establish zoning and/or planning ordinances that balance wind energy’s clean electricity generation potential with the public health, safety, welfare concerns that may be involved. Furthermore, residential scale wind turbines, and wind farms of less than 25 MW, will still fall under local municipal control. This section is intended to provide local officials with the information and tools needed to create meaningful and reasonable zoning and planning documents for wind energy facilities. 14.1. Local Ordinance Options and Examples Effective wind ordinance standards should address several objectives, including: ensuring public safety, expressing local preferences, identifying and minimizing on- and off-site impacts, promoting good land use practice, informing and involving the public and providing legal defensibility. Clear and reasonable standards provide fairness for towns, wind developers and the public, and make it less likely that local standards will be overruled in the siting and permitting process. For small wind farms and residential scale turbines, clear standards can help make for a smooth and expeditious review process. Local Review Options A town does not have to employ zoning to develop and adopt a wind energy ordinance, although it is preferable as it better assures that the town will get the type of development it wants.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's High Desert and Wind Energy
    Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development May 2009 Prepared by: Oregon Natural Desert Association 33 NW Irving St, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 330-2638; www.onda.org Endorsed by: Audubon Society of Portland Defenders of Wildlife Hells Canyon Preservation Council Oregon Chapter Sierra Club Western Environmental Law Center WildEarth Guardians Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) is a nonprofit conservation organization that exists to protect, defend, and restore Oregon’s native desert ecosystems for current and future generations. Special thanks to Erik Molvar and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (www.voiceforthewild.org) for allowing us to use “Wind Power in Wyoming: Smart from the Start” as a basis for developing this report. Recommended citation: ONDA. 2009. Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy-Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development. Bend, OR; 81 pp. Available online at www.onda.org. Cover Photo Credits: Pronghorn, George Wuerthner; Wind turbines, Craig Miller; Sage-grouse, Frank Cleland; Steens Mountain, Lord Maitreya. Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Considerations for Wildlife ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Power in Wyoming: Doing It Smart from the Start
    Working to protect wildlife and wild places. voiceforthewild.org Wind Power in Wyoming: Doing it Smart from the Start November 2008 Prepared by: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance PO Box 1512, Laramie, WY 82073 (307) 742-7978 Endorsed by: Wyoming Wilderness Association World Wildlife Fund Earth Friends Wildlife Foundation Western Environmental Law Center Wild Utah Project Sierra Club Californians for Western Wilderness For more information, contact: Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, P.O. Box 1512, Laramie, WY 82073. Phone (307) 742-7978. Email: [email protected] Biodiversity Conservation Alliance is a nonprofit conservation organization working to protect wildlife and wild places in Wyoming and surrounding states. © 2008 Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. All rights reserved. This report may be reproduced for individual use by nonprofit organizations, government entities, wind power corporations, and by individuals for personal use. Recommended citation: Molvar, E.M. 2008. Wind power in Wyoming: Doing it Smart from the Start. Laramie, WY: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 55 pp. Available online at www.voiceforthewild.org/blm/pubs/WindPowerReport.pdf Front Cover Photographs: Wind towers near Medicine Bow, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance photo Recreationist at Joe Hay Rim, Jack Morrow Hills by Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Sage Grouse U.S. Geological Survey Image, Elk by Steve Torbit Table of Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................1
    [Show full text]