DOCSLIB.ORG

Operational Impacts to Raptors (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Operational Impacts to Raptors (PDF) To: John Ford, Director From: Bob Roy County of Humboldt Planning and Building Stantec Consulting Department 30 Park Drive 3015 H Street Topsham, ME 04222 Eureka, California 95501 [email protected] Date: August 23, 2019 Reference: Operational Impacts to Raptors Humboldt Wind has commissioned Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to review the draft EIR for the Humboldt Wind Project and provide a re-evaluation of the DEIR’s analysis of potential impacts to raptors. WEST is a firm that is expert in conducting ecological studies and analyzing complicated natural resource data. The attached memo provides WEST’s recommended analysis of the likely impacts of the project on raptors. As noted in WEST’s memo, the DEIR appears to overestimate what the likely impacts of the project will be on local and regional raptor populations. The DEIR reviews several data sets but does not set an explicit expectation of what the project’s likely impact will be. Rather, it reviews a range of potential impacts using different datasets and metrics, and then concludes that impacts will be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. However, WEST’s analysis provides compelling evidence that the DEIR’s analysis is flawed and that actual impacts at the project are likely to be significantly less than that stated in the DEIR and would not lead to local or regional populations of raptor species to fall below self-sustaining levels. Key to this analysis, or the difference between the two analyses, is that raptor impacts at the Humboldt project would not be similar to those documented at projects in central and southern California (where raptor use is far greater than at the project) and the fact that raptor use at the project site is very similar to that documented at Hatchet Ridge, where raptor fatalities have been found to be very low after three years of post-construction monitoring. While the DEIR speculates that raptor fatalities at the project may be as high as 114 fatalities per year, WEST provides an estimate of 25 fatalities per year, based on a thorough analysis of 82 post-construction surveys at 44 modern, comparable wind projects in California, Oregon, and Washington. Given the significant differences between raptor use and habitat at the Humboldt project compared to that at projects included in the DEIR’s assessment, WEST’s analysis provides more realistic evaluation of these potential impacts. In fact, WEST’s estimate my very well be an overestimate of the potential impacts. Based on the population data and analysis in the WEST memo, it is Stantec’s professional opinion that the project’s operational impacts on raptor populations will not be “significant” on a project-specific basis as is defined by CEQA because it will not result in population-level impacts. Nonetheless, assuming conservatively that the project could contribute to significant cumulative impacts to raptors, Stantec recommends that the County add the following language to MM 3.5-11 immediately following the reference in Measure 3.5-11 to Mitigation Measure 3.5-5c: August 23, 2019 Reference: Humboldt Wind – Operational Impacts to Raptors In addition to adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5-5a, 3.5-5b and 3.5-5c, the applicant shall: • Underground 6 miles of existing overhead PG&E electrical distribution lines that represent existing electrocution and collision hazard for raptors. • Pay $600/raptor to a raptor rehabilitation facility such as the Humboldt Wildlife Care Center in Arcata, California. ENVIRONMENTAL & STATISTICAL CONSULTANTS 2725 NW Walnut Blvd. Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-230-1790 west-inc.com August 23, 2019 To: Mr. John Ford, Director County of Humboldt Planning and Building Department 3015 H Street Eureka, California 95501 [email protected] Subject: Humboldt Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 201872076 – Operational Impacts to Raptors Dear Mr. Ford: This document was prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), on behalf of Humboldt Wind, LLC (Humboldt Wind), to provide an alternative assessment of potential operational impacts to raptors at the Humboldt Wind Project, to that provided in the project’s DEIR. The DEIR provides an evaluation of potential impacts of project operation on raptors and, based on an estimated mortality of as many as 114 raptors per year, concludes that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on raptors (DEIR at p. 3.5-111.). The DEIR summarizes information provided in Stantec reports and then goes on to summarize other available datasets, such as American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI; 2019) and post- construction reports for the nearest wind facility with available post-construction data; Hatchet Ridge (Tetra Tech 2013). Based on additional analysis, WEST suggests that the DEIR’s estimate of raptor mortality from the project should be adjusted downward. There are two main reasons we believe the DEIR’s projection of raptor mortality is an overestimate. First, in attempting to assess project-level impacts, the DEIR referenced three mortality datasets, Stantec (2018), AWWI (2019), and Tetra Tech (2013) which use different metrics of raptor mortality (i.e., fatalities/turbine and fatalities/megawatt [MW], respectively) to determine the potential range in raptor fatalities at the project. The use of a combination of these two metrics to estimate the potential for raptor mortality is not appropriate, particularly the use of fatalities/turbine which is an inappropriate unit of measurements given the range of turbines types and sizes included within those datasets. Second, the DEIR fails to take into consideration the vastly different ecological characteristics (raptor use, species assemblages, topography, prey base) between the Humboldt project and the projects in the Coastal California region which were predominantly used to generate the high end of the predicted range of fatality estimates in the DEIR (114 raptor fatalities per year). An evaluation of potential risk to raptors at the project should first consider the raptor use and species composition of raptors documented during site-specific avian use surveys. Diurnal 1 ENVIRONMENTAL & STATISTICAL CONSULTANTS 2725 NW Walnut Blvd. Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-230-1790 west-inc.com raptors were observed regularly at the project during surveys, composing 19.2% of all large bird use recorded during bird use counts from October 2017 – October 2018 (Stantec 2018). Nine diurnal raptor species were recorded, the most abundant of which were red-tailed hawk (347 of 434 total raptor observations) and American kestrel (44 observations) which together composed 90.1% of all diurnal raptor observations. This was followed by Cooper’s hawk (23 observations) and sharp-shinned hawk (seven observations), which together composed another 6.9% of diurnal raptor observations. The remaining five species (ferruginous hawk, northern harrier, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and osprey) were represented by five or fewer individual observations recorded during 235 hours of survey. Diurnal raptor use documented during the 2017-2018 study at the project was higher in summer (2.12 birds/plot/30-min survey), and lower and more consistent during other seasons (0.34 in fall, 0.28 in winter, and 0.27 in spring). Higher use in summer was largely attributed to red-tailed hawk which composed 87.8% of diurnal raptor use during that season. To put this project-specific raptor survey data into context, WEST has compiled post- construction mortality data from a larger and more relevant subset of projects, many of which are also included in the Stantec (2018) and AWWI (2018) datasets presented in the DEIR; however, all fatality rates in the WEST analysis are presented on a raptors/MW basis. This subset of projects includes 82 post-construction fatality monitoring studies at 44 wind energy facilities in California and the Pacific Northwest (PNW, i.e., Oregon and Washington). Diurnal raptor fatality rates at these projects have ranged from zero to 1.06 fatalities/MW/year, with a mean of 0.15 fatalities/MW/year (Figures 1 and 2; Appendix A). Fatality rates from old generation turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (WRA), Tehachapi Pass WRA, and San Gorgonio WRA were excluded from this assessment as they likely do not reflect collision risk for raptor species from larger, more modern turbines. Based on the Humboldt Project’s nameplate generating capacity of up to 155 MW, this range in diurnal raptor fatality rates estimated for modern wind energy facilities in California and the PNW translates to an estimate of zero to 165 total diurnal raptor fatalities at the Project annually. Based on the mean of diurnal raptor mortality at California and PNW facilities (0.15 fatalities/MW/year), the projected number of diurnal raptor fatalities at the project each year is 25. To establish project-specific mortality estimates, it is also appropriate for the EIR to look towards the wind energy facility in the western US with species assemblages and topography similar to the Project. This facility is Hatchet Ridge, located approximately 125 miles east of the project (Figure 2). At Hatchet Ridge, direct impacts to birds have been low relative to other facilities in the western US. In fact, during three years of post-construction fatality monitoring conducted at Hatchet Ridge from 2011-2013, diurnal raptor fatality rates were not calculated due to low sample size (less than five fatalities found per year; Tetra Tech 2014). Given the Project’s regional proximity to Hatchet Ridge and mountainous terrain, we believe that overall direct impacts to raptors at the project would be more similar to those documented at Hatchet Ridge than to other facilities in California. Nonetheless, we recommend using the mean fatality 2 ENVIRONMENTAL & STATISTICAL CONSULTANTS 2725 NW Walnut Blvd. Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-230-1790 west-inc.com estimate of 25 raptors per year based on the relevant data set of 44 other facilities in California and the PNW.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WASHINGTON – the Energy Department Released Two New
    Wind Scalability and Performance in the real World: A performance analysis of recently deployed US Wind Farms G. Bothun and B. Bekker, Dept. of Physics, University of Oregon. Abstract We are engaged in researching the real world performance, costs, and supply chain issues regarding the construction of wind turbines in the United States for the purpose of quantitatively determining various aspects of scalability in the wind industry as they relate to the continued build out of wind energy in the US. Our analysis sample consists of ~600 individual wind farms that have come into operation as of January 2011. Individual unit turbine capacity in these farms ranges from 1-5 to 3 MW, although the bulk of the installations are ≤ 2.0 MW. Starting in late 2012, however, and continuing with current projects, turbines of size 2.5 – 3.0 MW are being installed. As of July 1, 2014 the Horse Hollow development in Texas has the largest individual wind farm nameplate capacity of 736 MW and 10 other locations have aggregate capacity that exceeds 500 MW. Hence, large scale wind farm operations are now here. Based on our analysis our overall findings are the following: 1) at the end of 2014, cumulative wind nameplate capacity in the US will be at ~ 70 GW or ~ 5% of total US electrical infrastructure 2) over the period of 2006—2012, cumulative wind capacity growth was sustained at a rate of 23.7% per annum, 3) production in 2013 was dramatically lower than in 2012 and was just starting to pick up in 2014 due to lingering uncertainty about the future of the
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind Farm 'Mega-Project' Underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times
    Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times ← Back to Original Article Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert The Alta Wind Energy Center — with plans for thousands of acres of turbines to generate electricity for 600,000 Southern California homes — officially breaks ground Tuesday. July 27, 2010 | By Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times It's being called the largest wind power project in the country, with plans for thousands of acres of towering turbines in the Mojave Desert foothills generating electricity for 600,000 homes in Southern California. And now it's finally kicking into gear. The multibillion-dollar Alta Wind Energy Center has had a tortured history, stretching across nearly a decade of ownership changes, opposition from local residents and transmission infrastructure delays. But on Tuesday, the project is officially breaking ground in the Tehachapi Pass, a burgeoning hot spot for wind energy about 75 miles north of Los Angeles. When completed, Alta could produce three times as much energy as the country's largest existing wind farm, analysts said. It's slated to be done in the next decade. The project will probably be a wind power bellwether, affecting the way renewable energy deals are financed, the development of new electricity storage systems and how governments regulate the industry, said Billy Gamboa, a renewable energy analyst with the California Center for Sustainable Energy. "It's a super-mega-project — it'll definitely set a precedent for the rest of the state and have a pretty large impact on the wind industry in general," he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Avian Fatality Studies in the Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc
    Appendix D Avian Fatality Studies in the Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) Database This page intentionally left blank. Avian Fatality Studies in the Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc (West) Database Appendix D APPENDIX D. AVIAN FATALITY STUDIES IN THE WESTERN ECOSYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC. (WEST) DATABASE Alite, CA (09-10) Chatfield et al. 2010 Alta Wind I, CA (11-12) Chatfield et al. 2012 Alta Wind I-V, CA (13-14) Chatfield et al. 2014 Alta Wind II-V, CA (11-12) Chatfield et al. 2012 Alta VIII, CA (12-13) Chatfield and Bay 2014 Barton I & II, IA (10-11) Derby et al. 2011a Barton Chapel, TX (09-10) WEST 2011 Beech Ridge, WV (12) Tidhar et al. 2013 Beech Ridge, WV (13) Young et al. 2014a Big Blue, MN (13) Fagen Engineering 2014 Big Blue, MN (14) Fagen Engineering 2015 Big Horn, WA (06-07) Kronner et al. 2008 Big Smile, OK (12-13) Derby et al. 2013b Biglow Canyon, OR (Phase I; 08) Jeffrey et al. 2009a Biglow Canyon, OR (Phase I; 09) Enk et al. 2010 Biglow Canyon, OR (Phase II; 09-10) Enk et al. 2011a Biglow Canyon, OR (Phase II; 10-11) Enk et al. 2012b Biglow Canyon, OR (Phase III; 10-11) Enk et al. 2012a Blue Sky Green Field, WI (08; 09) Gruver et al. 2009 Buffalo Gap I, TX (06) Tierney 2007 Buffalo Gap II, TX (07-08) Tierney 2009 Buffalo Mountain, TN (00-03) Nicholson et al. 2005 Buffalo Mountain, TN (05) Fiedler et al. 2007 Buffalo Ridge, MN (Phase I; 96) Johnson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
    March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kawailoa Wind Power Draft HCP Amendment
    Kawailoa Wind Power Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Applicant Kawailoa Wind, LLC 1166 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 HCP Amendment Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 737 Bishop Street, Suite 2340 Honolulu, HI 96813 Revised September 2018 This page intentionally left blank Kawailoa Wind Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment Table of Contents Introduction and Project Overview ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Hawaiian Hoary Bat .............................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 Hawaiian Petrel .................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Applicant Background ................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Project Description ................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Project History ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4.2 Project Design and Components ............................................................................. 5 1.4.3 Purpose and Need for Kawailoa Wind Project ...........................................................
    [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]
  • EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File NET State MWh in State MW in Plant ID Plant Name Operator Name MW Installed State Year GENERATION CF* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CF* CF* (mWh) 6304 Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 3.0 AK 2011 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57187 Pillar Mountain Wind Project Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 4.5 AK 2011 12,445 31.6% 418 59 1,564 438 936 1,090 1,300 1,429 753 1,154 1,682 1,621 7.5 12,445 12,445 4.5 31.6% 57098 Dry Lake Wind LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 63.0 AZ 2011 124,401 22.5% 4,340 13,601 15,149 18,430 17,297 16,785 7,124 5,735 4,036 6,320 11,154 4,430 57379 Dry Lake Wind II LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 65.1 AZ 2011 124,330 21.8% 4,340 13,789 16,021 19,219 16,686 16,398 6,345 5,569 3,743 6,281 11,579 4,360 57775 Kingman 1 Kingman Energy Corp 10.0 AZ 2011 6,848 7.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026 1,663 2,999 1,160 138.1 255,579 248,731 128.1 22.2% 7526 Solano Wind Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 63.0 CA 2011 221,067 40.1% 6,705 12,275 17,464 27,415 29,296 29,128 24,813 25,928 14,915 11,870 12,233 9,025 10005 Dinosaur Point International Turbine Res Inc 17.4 CA 2011 23,562 15.5% 715 1,308 1,861 2,922 3,123 3,105 2,645 2,763 1,590 1,265 1,304 962 10027 EUIPH Wind Farm EUI Management PH Inc 25.0 CA 2011 46,718 21.3% 1,417 2,594 3,691 5,794 6,191 6,156 5,244 5,479 3,152 2,509 2,585 1,907 10191 Tehachapi Wind Resource I CalWind Resources Inc 8.7 CA 2011 15,402 20.2% 467 855
    [Show full text]
  • National Wind Coordinating Committee C/O RESOLVE 1255 23Rd Street, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20037
    NuclearRegulatoryCommission Exhibit#-APL000019-00-BD01 Docket#-05200016 Identified:01/26/2012 Admitted:Withdrawn:01/26/2012 Rejected:Stricken: APL000019 10/21/2011 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities A HANDBOOK REVISED 2002 Prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee August 2002 Acknowledgments Principal Contributors Dick Anderson, California Energy Commission Dick Curry, Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. Ed DeMeo, Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc. Sam Enfield, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association Larry Hartman, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Karin Sinclair, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Robert Therkelsen, California Energy Commission Steve Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources NWCC Siting Subcommittee Contributors Don Bain, Jack Cadogan, Bill Fannucchi, Troy Gagliano, Bill Grant, David Herrick, Albert M. Manville, II, Lee Otteni, Brian Parsons, Heather Rhoads-Weaver, John G. White The NWCC Permitting Handbook authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of those who worked on the first edition of the Permitting Handbook. Don Bain, Hap Boyd, Manny Castillo, Steve Corneli, Alan Davis, Sam Enfield, Walt George, Paul Gipe, Bill Grant, Judy Grau, Rob Harmon, Lauren Ike, Rick Kiester, Eric Knight, Ron Lehr, Don MacIntyre, Karen Matthews, Joe O’Hagen, Randy Swisher and Robert Therkelsen Handbook compilation, editing and review facilitation provided by Gabe Petlin (formerly with RESOLVE) and Susan Savitt Schwartz, Editor NWCC Logo and Handbook Design Leslie Dunlap, LB Stevens Advertising and Design Handbook Layout and Production Susan Sczepanski and Kathleen O’Dell, National Renewable Energy Laboratory The production of this document was supported, in whole or in part by the Midwest Research Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory under the Subcontract YAM-9-29210-01 and the Department of Energy under Prime Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs
    WHITE PAPER Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs Prepared by: Taber D. Allison, PhD, AWWI Director of Research Novermber 15, 2018 AWWI White Paper: Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs American Wind Wildlife Institute 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20005 www.awwi.org For Release November 15, 2018 AWWI is a partnership of leaders in the wind industry, wildlife management agencies, and science and environmental organizations who collaborate on a shared mission: to facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat. Find this document online at www.awwi.org/resources/bat-white-paper/ Acknowledgements This document was made possible by the generous support of AWWI’s Partners and Friends. We thank Pasha Feinberg, Amanda Hale, Jennie Miller, Brad Romano, and Dave Young for their review and comment on this white paper. Prepared By Taber D. Allison, PhD, AWWI Director of Research Suggested Citation Format American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI). 2018. Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs. Washington, DC. Available at www.awwi.org. © 2018 American Wind Wildlife Institute. Bats and Wind Energy: Impacts, Mitigation, and Tradeoffs Contents Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Bats of the U.S. and Canada ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions
    Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative June 2011 Acknowledgments This report was funded by the Wind and Water Power Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. The NWCC Wildlife Workgroup thanks Patrick Gilman (U.S. Department of Energy), Karin Sinclair (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), and the Wildlife Workgroup Core Group and blind peer reviewers selected by NREL to review the document on behalf of the Workgroup. Abby Arnold (Kearns & West), Taylor Kennedy (RESOLVE, Inc.), and Lauren Flinn (RESOLVE, Inc.) facilitated the proposal selection process for preparation of the document and the NWCC Wildlife Workgroup document review process. Technical editing provided by Susan Savitt Schwartz, Editor Andrea Palochak, WEST, Inc., Associate Editor Cover design created by Jason Huerta, Bat Conservation International. Cover photo credits - Background: Wind turbines at the Foote Creek Rim Wind Project in Wyoming (photo by Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International; Insets from right to left: Golden eagle (photo courtesy of iStockphoto LP © 2010), male greater sage grouse (photo courtesy of iStockphoto LP © 2010), hoary bat (photo by Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International), mountain bluebird (photo courtesy of WEST Inc.), Rocky Mountain elk (photo courtesy of Puget Sound Energy). Prepared for: National Wind Coordinating Collaborative c/o RESOLVE 1255 23rd Street, Suite 275 Washington, DC 20037 www.nationalwind.org June 2011 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO STUDYING WIND ENERGY/WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS Principal Authors Dale Strickland, WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming Edward Arnett, Bat Conservation International, Inc., Austin, Texas Wallace Erickson, WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming Douglas Johnson, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • GADS Wind Turbine Generation Data Reporting Instructions
    GGAADDSS WWiinndd TTuurrbbiinnee GGeenneerraattiioonn Data Reporting Instructions Effective January 2010 Version 1.1.0 Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 Who Must Report .................................................................................................................... 7 Terms, Definitions, and Equations.......................................................................................... 7 Data Release Guidelines ......................................................................................................... 8 Talk to Us ................................................................................................................................ 8 Section 2 – Data Transmittal and Format .................................................................................. 9 Transmittal .............................................................................................................................. 9 Format ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Wind Generation Data Entry Software ................................................................................. 10 Questions and Comments ..................................................................................................... 10 Section 3 – Plants, Groups, and Sub-Groups ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]