DOCSLIB.ORG

Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07–2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07-2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Technical Review Committee on Wind Energy Facilities and Wildlife Edward B. Arnett, Ph.D. (Chair) Albert M. Manville, Ph.D. Bat Conservation International U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. O. Box 162603 Division of Migratory Bird Management Austin, TX 78716-2603 4401 N. Fairfax Drive – MBSP-4107 Arlington, VA 22203 Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D. National Wildlife Federation Russ Mason, Ph.D. 11100 Wildlife Center Drive Nevada Department of Wildlife Reston, VA 20190-5362 1100 Valley Rd. Reno, NV 89512 Douglas H. Johnson, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Michael Morrison, Ph.D. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Department of Wildlife and Fisheries University of Minnesota Sciences 1980 Folwell Ave. Texas A&M University St. Paul, MN 55108 College Station, TX 77843-2258 Ronald P. Larkin, Ph.D. M. Dale Strickland, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 607 E. Peabody Drive 2003 Central Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Stephanie Manes Robert Thresher, Ph.D. North American Grouse Partnership National Renewable Energy Laboratory 222 S. Houston #A 1617 Cole Blvd. Tulsa, OK 74127 Golden, CO 80401 The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 COVER: Wind turbines at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville, New York (center): Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International; Silver-haired bat (left): Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International; Bluetit in spring (upper right); Greater prairie chicken (lower right): U.S. Geological Survey. Copyediting by Kathryn Sonant and Divya Abhat Design by Lynn Riley Design Cover photos courtesy of USDA NRCS Foreword Acknowledgments Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally We wish to thank past-President Richard Lancia appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on and The Wildlife Society Council for appointing select conservation issues. The reports ordinarily the Technical Review Committee on the Impacts appear as either a Technical Review or a Position of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Statement. Review papers present technical infor- Habitat and addressing this important and grow- mation, and position statements are based on these ing issue. Tom Franklin, Jim Mosher, and Paul reviews. Preliminary versions of position state- Racey reviewed a previous draft of this document. ments are published for review and comment by We also thank Laura Bies, Associate Director of Society members. Following the comment period, Government Affairs for TWS, and TWS Council revision, and Council’s approval, the statements Technical Review Subcommittee Chair Gary Potts are published as official positions of The Wildlife and Subcommittee members Tom Decker, Marti Society. Kie, and Tom Ryder for their guidance and review Both types of reports are copyrighted by the of previous drafts. Bat Conservation International Society, but individuals are granted permission to and TWS provided financial assistance and logisti- make single copies for noncommercial purposes. cal support for the review, committee meetings, Otherwise, copies may be requested from: and publication. The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 897-9770 Fax: (301) 530-2471 Citation: Arnett, E. B., D. B. Inkley, D. H. John- son, R. P. Larkin, S. Manes, A. M. Manville, J. R. Mason, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Soci- ety Technical Review 07-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Table of Contents FOREWORD iii OFFSHORE WILDLIFE—WIND ISSUES 27 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii Offshore bird movements and behavior 27 SYNOPSIS 7 Offshore impacts on habitat and animal movements 29 INTRODUCTION 8 European studies 29 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS ISSUES REGARDING STUDIES ON AND PERMITTING 10 WIND AND WILDLIFE 31 Federal regulatory approaches 10 Peer review and publication 31 State regulatory approaches 11 Study design and duration 31 Metrics and methods guidance SIDEBAR FEATURE 13 document Washington Department of Fish and Inconsistent methodology Wildlife Wind Power Guidelines and implementation 33 Technological tools for studying WILDLIFE COLLISION FATALITY AT WIND wildlife-wind interactions 33x FACILITIES 14 Factors influencing the estimation RESEARCH NEEDS 35 of collision fatality rates 14 Birds and bats 35 Raptors 15 Habitat loss, fragmentation, and Older generation turbines disturbance 36 Newer generation wind facilities Habitat and prey density management 36 Resident and migratory passerines 17 Curtailment experiments 36 Other avian species 19 Alerting and deterring mechanisms 37 Bats 20 Offshore 37 Cumulative effects 37 WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPACTS AND DISTURBANCE AT WIND FACILITIES 21 RECOMMENDATIONS 38 Habitat loss and fragmentation 22 LITERATURE CITED 40 Habitat-related impacts on birds 23 TABLES 1 – 3 47 Grassland birds Raptors Prairie grouse Other avian species Habitat-related impacts on bats 26 Habitat-related impacts on large mammals 26 Habitat-related impacts on other wildlife 27 SYNOPSIS Given the projected growth of wind power genera- tion, it is essential that future analysis of the impacts Development of wind power offers promise of con- of wind energy development consider population tributing to renewable energy portfolios to reduce effects for some species of bats and birds. greenhouse gas emissions from carbon-based sourc- Often overlooked are impacts resulting from loss es, which contribute to accelerating climate change. of habitat for wildlife due to construction, the foot- This report summarizes information on the impacts print of the facility, and increased human access. of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife Future development of transmission lines to facili- habitat, including state and federal permitting pro- tate wind generation will exacerbate the impacts of cesses, wildlife fatality, habitat loss and modification, wind energy development on wildlife. Ultimately, the animal displacement and fragmentation, offshore greatest impact to wildlife from habitat modification development, and issues surrounding monitoring and may be due to disturbance and avoidance of habitats research methodology, including the use of techno- in proximity to turbines and fragmentation of habi- logical tools. tat for wide-ranging species. For example, habitat Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife can for many species of grassland birds in the Northern be direct (e.g., fatality, reduced reproduction) or Great Plains has been dramatically reduced by land indirect (e.g., habitat loss, behavioral displacement). use changes, primarily agriculture, and further de- Although fatalities of many bird species have been velopment of wind energy in undisturbed native and documented at wind facilities, raptors have received restored grasslands may result in further declines of the most attention. Turbine characteristics, turbine these species. siting, and bird abundance appear to be important Offshore wind facilities have been established factors determining risk of raptor fatalities at wind throughout Europe, but few studies have been con- energy facilities. In comparison with other sources ducted to determine direct impacts on animals. A of fatality (e.g., collision with buildings and commu- major concern with offshore developments in Europe nication towers, predation by domestic cats), wind has been loss of habitat from avoidance of turbines turbines, at the current rate of development, appear and the impact that boat and helicopter traffic to and to be a relatively minor source of passerine fatalities, from the wind development sites may cause with but these fatalities are cumulative with other sources regard to animal behavior and movements, although and their impact may become more pronounced over little is known about such effects. Resident seabirds time. As turbine size increases and development and rafting (resting) waterbirds appear to be less at expands into new areas with higher densities of birds, risk than migrating birds, as they may adapt better to risk to birds could increase. Bat fatalities have been offshore wind facilities. The effects on marine mam- recorded either anecdotally or quantified at every mals and bats are currently unknown. Although wind wind facility where post-construction surveys have turbine/bird collision studies seem to indicate that been conducted, worldwide, and reported fatalities onshore wind-generating facilities in those locations are highest at wind facilities located on ridges in east- of the United States studied to date result in few ern deciduous forests in the United States. However, fatalities compared with other sources of collision recent reports of high numbers of bats killed in open mortality, we cannot assume that similar impacts prairie in southern Alberta, Canada, and in mixed would occur among birds (or bats) using wind-gen- agriculture and forest land in New York raise concern erating sites established in unstudied areas such as about impacts to bats in other landscapes. Because coastal and offshore areas. bats are long-lived and have exceptionally low repro- There is a dearth of information upon which to ductive rates, population growth is relatively slow base decisions regarding siting of wind energy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elevated Opportunities for the South with Improved Turbines and Reduced Costs, Wind Farms the South Is a New Frontier for the Wind Industry
    Southern Alliance for Clean Energy October 2014 Advanced Wind Technology Expanded Potential Elevated Opportunities for the South With improved turbines and reduced costs, wind farms The South is a new frontier for the wind industry. now make economic sense in all states across the Advanced wind turbine technology and reduced costs South. Using currently available wind turbine have expanded the resource potential and have made technology, over 134,000 megawatts (MW) of wind wind energy economically feasible in more places in the potential exists within the region - about half as much Southern United States. of the total installed electric utility capacity. Megawatts of Onshore Wind Potential Improved Turbines The biggest changes in wind turbine technology over the past five years include taller turbines and longer blades. Just five years ago, wind turbines with a hub height of 80 meters (about 260 feet) and blade lengths of 40 meters (about 130 feet) were fairly standard. Taller turbines reach stronger, more consistent wind speeds. Hub heights of up to 140 meters (460 feet) are now available for wind farm developers. Longer blades are capable of capturing more wind, thus harnessing slower wind speeds. Blades are now available over 55 meters (180 feet) in length. Reduced Costs Wind energy is now one of the least expensive sources of new power generation in the country. Costs have Source: Adapted from National Renewable Energy Lab 2013 declined by 39% over the past decade for wind speed As can be seen in the chart above, all states in the areas averaging 6 meters per second. This reduced cost particularly applies to the Southeast, a region with South now contain substantial onshore wind energy typically lower wind speeds.
    [Show full text]
  • P501 Numerical Simulation of Wind Power Potential in Upstate New York
    P501 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF WIND POWER POTENTIAL IN UPSTATE NEW YORK Robert Ballentine *, Scott Steiger and Daniel Phoenix State University of New York at Oswego 1. INTRODUCTION 2. METHODOLOGY Consistent with the national goal of moving away 2.1 Grid Arrangement from our dependence on carbon-based fuels, there is considerable interest in New York State in developing We are running the ARW-core of WRF on a wind power especially in areas with highest potential. doubly-nested grid (Fig. 1) to ensure that both large- The purpose of this research is to simulate low-level scale meteorological forcing and local geographical winds over upstate New York by running the Weather effects are well-represented. The grid spacings of the Research and Forecasting (WRF, Skamarock, et al large, intermediate and fine grids are 12 km, 4 km and 2005) model every day on a high-resolution (1.333 1.333 km respectively. We use 33 sigma levels where km) domain. Using the standard wind speed-versus- the lowest levels correspond to 10m, 40m and 80m power generation curve for a GE 1.5 MW wind above ground under typical meteorological conditions. turbine, we can estimate the monthly and seasonal We employ the Noah LSM and Yonsei PBL schemes. average wind power potential at all of our grid points (covering much of upstate New York and adjacent Lake Ontario). To determine the accuracy of WRF wind predictions, we are comparing winds simulated by WRF at 10 m AGL with hourly observations at three regularly reporting sites near Lake Ontario. 1.1 Brief Description of Wind Power Sites As of November 2009, New York State had more than 1200 MW of wind generating capacity from sites such as Horizon Wind Energy's Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County and farms operated by Noble Environmental Power in Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion and the Environmental, Economic and Aesthetic Impacts of Offshore Wind
    Public Opinion and the Environmental, Economic and Aesthetic Impacts of Offshore Wind * Drew Busha,b , Porter Hoaglandb a Dept. of Geography and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A0B9, Canada1 b Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA E-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected] * Corresponding Author for all stages: Drew Bush, (202)640-0333 1 Permanent/Present Address: Drew Bush, PO Box 756, 17 Becker Lane, New Castle, NH 03854 Bush D. & Hoagland, P. 1 Highlights • Early Cape Wind advocates and opposition use impacts to sway uninformed public. • “Extremist" arguments perpetuate uncertainties about impacts in public's mind. • Expert elicitation compares stakeholder understandings of impacts with scientists. • We find "non-extremist" stakeholder attitudes converge with scientists over time. • We hypothesize scientific education at outset may improve planning process. Abstract During ten-plus years of debate over the proposed Cape Wind facility off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the public’s understanding of its environmental, economic, and visual impacts matured. Tradeoffs also have become apparent to scientists and decision-makers during two environmental impact statement reviews and other stakeholder processes. Our research aims to show how residents’ opinions changed during the debate over this first- of-its-kind project in relation to understandings of project impacts. Our methods included an examination of public opinion polls and the refereed literature that traces public attitudes and knowledge about Cape Wind. Next we conducted expert elicitations to compare trends with the level of understanding held by small groups of scientists and Cape Cod stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners
    Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu Updated June 20, 2011 ‐ by Roger A. McEowen* Overview Current Emphasis On Wind-Generated Electricity Farmers have long used the wind. Beginning in the 1800’s, farmers in the United States installed In large part, the current push for wind- several million windmills across the Midwest generated electricity (and other forms of and Plains to pump water and (later) generate “renewable” energy) is based in power for lights and radios. Those windmills fit environmentalism.4 Concerns over the nicely into the existing landscape and generally environment began to be raised in the U.S. did not create problems for others. Today, during the 1960s and the 1970s. These concerns however, the wind energy industry is using the have had a profound impact on the political wind in a different manner by virtue of large- debate surrounding the belief by some in “global scale aerogenerators1 that have a tremendous climate change.”5 Proponents of wind energy impact on the visual landscape and the rural claim that wind generated electricity reduces culture.2 In some communities, wind energy emissions of carbon dioxide, which they claim development has raised issues between (contrary to a scientific study by the U.S. neighbors, between private landowners and wind National Academy of Sciences) is a significant energy development companies, and between contributor to “global warming.”6 local officials and development companies.3 Note: The National Research Council of Some farmers and other rural landowners have the National Academies concluded in a 2007 entered into long-term agreements with wind study that even under the most optimistic energy companies for the placement and conditions, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • WHERE IS ELECTRIC GENERATION HEADED? Rodney Andrews, Phd
    WHERE IS ELECTRIC GENERATION HEADED? Rodney Andrews, PhD PE Director UK Center for Applied Energy Research The Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (January 29, 2020) 2 Key Takeaways from U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2020 • The electricity generation mix continues to experience a rapid rate of change, with renewables the fastest‐growing source of electricity generation through 2050 because of continuing declines in the capital costs for solar and wind that are supported by federal tax credits and higher state‐level renewables targets. With slow load growth and increasing electricity production from renewables, U.S. coal‐fired and nuclear electricity generation declines; most of the decline occurs by the mid‐2020s. • The United States continues to produce historically high levels of crude oil and natural gas. Slow growth in domestic consumption of these fuels leads to increasing exports of crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas. 3 Production grows faster than consumption with shift toward electrification Energy production (AEO2020 Reference case) Energy consumption by sector (AEO2020 Reference case) quadrillion British thermal units quadrillion British thermal units 2019 2019 50 50 history projections history projections dry natural gas 45 45 electric power 40 40 35 35 industrial 30 30 25 crude oil and lease 25 condensate transportation 20 other renewable energy 20 15 15 coal residential 10 natural gas plant 10 commercial liquids 5 nuclear 5 hydro 0 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 4 What is driving the energy markets nationally? • Future oil prices are highly uncertain and are subject to international market.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites
    Summary of Delta Dredged Material Placement Sites Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes 1 S1 2 S4 3 S7 4 S9 5 S11 Port of Sacramento S12 (Department of 6 1,710,000 3, 5 South Island Prospect Island Interior Bureau of Land Management?) 7 S13 S14 8 USACE N/A 3 Grand Island Placement Site S16 9 USACE 3,000,000 3 Rio Vista Placement Site DWR, Mega S19 10 Sands, Port of 20,000,000 3 Decker Island Placement Site Sacramento S20 Port of Sacramento 11 1,000,000 3, 5 Augusta Pit Placement Site (DWR?) S31 12 Port of Sacramento Placement Port of Sacramento Site Reclamation S32 13 Districts 999 and (six segments) 900 S35 DOW Chemical 14 Montezuma Hills Placement 890,000 3 Company Site 15 SX Sacramento Muni 1 Capacity Overall Map Dredge Material Placement Active Types of Material Years in Remaining Capacity ID Site (Yes/No) Owner/Operator Accepted Service (CY) (CY) Notes Utility District Sherman Lake (Sherman 16 USACE 3,000,000 3 Island?) 17 Montezuma Wetlands Project Montezuma LLC Montezuma Wetlands 18 Montezuma LLC Rehandling Site Expanded Scour Pond Dredge material 19 Placement Site (also called Yes DWR according to WDR #R5- 250,000 1, 2, 3,4 Sherman Island?) 2004-0061 Port of Stockton McCormack Pit Placement maintenance material 20 Site (also called Sherman Yes DWR only 250,000 3,4 Island?) WDR R5-2003-0145 Proposed Iron House Levy repair and 21 Jersey Island Placement Site Restoration 3 Sanitation District maintenance
    [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]
  • 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]
  • The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection
    The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection Executive Summary Patrick ten Brink, Konar Mutafoglu, Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Marianne Kettunen, Clare Twigger-Ross, Yoline Kuipers, Manon Emonts, Liisa Tyrväinen, Teppo Hujala, Ann Ojala A project funded by the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039) Funded by the European Commission, DG Environment (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039) Legal notice The contents and views contained in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the European Commission. Cite this report: ten Brink P., Mutafoglu K., Schweitzer J.-P., Kettunen M., Twigger-Ross C., Kuipers Y., Emonts M., Tyrväinen L., Hujala T., Ojala A. (2016) The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection – Executive summary. A report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039), Institute for European Environmental Policy, London / Brussels. Corresponding author: Patrick ten Brink – [email protected] Acknowledgements: This executive summary by the core author team builds on and benefits from the inputs by the wider study team – including Owen White and Jonathan Baker (Collingwood Environmental Planning), Irene Lucius and Magdalena Peneva (WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme), Holger Robrecht, Pamela Mühlmann and Elisa Kerschbaumer (ICLEI Europe), Rudolf de Groot (Wageningen University), the extensive literature cited, and the case studies, presentations and discussions at a stakeholder workshop held on the 27th and 28th of January 2016 in Brussels. A summary of the workshop and the presentations are available here. For the workshop, we would like to thank Roby Biwer, Carsten Brauns, and Martine Lartigue at the Committee of the Regions and the contributing participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Energy Economy
    JUNE 2009 The Pew Charitable Trusts applies the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Our Pew Center on the States identifies and advances effective policy approaches to critical issues facing states, and our Pew Environment Group promotes practical, meaningful solutions to some of the world’s most pressing environmental problems. PEW CENTER ON THE STATES PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP Susan Urahn, managing director Joshua Reichert, managing director Project Team Kevin Curtis Kil Huh Brendan Hill Phyllis Cuttino Lori Grange Jeannette Lam Laura Lightbody E. Brooks Riley Michele Mariani Vaughn Shannon Heyck-Williams Jill Antonishak Melissa Maynard Jane Breakell Carla Uriona, design Sean Greene Research Consultants: Collaborative Economics, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report benefited tremendously from the insights and expertise of an advisory panel and two additional external reviewers. These experts provided feedback and guidance at critical stages in the project. While they have screened the report for accuracy, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse its findings or conclusions. Advisory Panel: Marilyn Brown, professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Doug Cameron, managing director and chief science advisor, Piper Jaffray; Joe Cortright, vice president and principal, Impresa; Jeff Finkle, CEcD, president and CEO, International Economic Development Council; Tim Woodward, managing director, Nth Power; and Joel S. Yudken, PhD, principal, High Road Strategies, LLC. External Reviewers: Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and director, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University; and Joe Fargione, Lead Scientist, North America Region, The Nature Conservancy. We would like to thank our Pew colleagues—Andrew McDonald, Brandon MacGillis, Kymberly Escobar, Lisa Cutler, Janet Lane, Alyson Freedman and Jessica Riordan—for their assistance with communications and dissemination.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy in NY State
    2010 New York State Wind Energy Study Final Report Source: Milian, Chris; www.photosfromonhigh.com Submitted by: Christina Hoerig Kimballe Campbell Daniel Grew Nicole Gumbs Happiness Munedzimwe Sandeep George Jun Wan Timothy Komsa Karl Smolenski Tyler Coatney Cornell University II Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................II List of Figures .................................................................................................................... VI List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... VII 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. VIII 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................10 3 New York State Present Energy Supply/Demand ....................................................14 3.1 New York Energy Background ............................................................................14 3.2 Current NYS Wind Power ...................................................................................16 3.3 Near Term Growth of New York State Wind Power .............................................17 3.4 Progress of Other Renewables in New York State ..............................................19 3.5 Power Demand in Tompkins County ...................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Before the State of New York Board on Electric
    15-F-0122 Sokolow Post Hearing Brief BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT In the Matter of Baron Wind LLC Case 15-F-0122 INITIAL POST-HEARING BRIEF Alice Sokolow Case #15-F-0122 also for Parties: Thomas Flansburg Mary Ann McManus Bert Candee Virginia Gullam Dated: 4/15/2019 1 15-F-0122 Sokolow Post Hearing Brief TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction 2 II Facility 2 III Legal Background 2-3 IV. Issues- Fremont Wind Law 3 V. Nature of Env Impact-Avian & Bat 5 VI. Nature of Env Impact –Safety Exh1001.6 11 Exh 1001.15 29 VII Nature of Env Viewshed & Flicker 54 VIII Not Addressed 70 IX Conclusions 70 I Introduction We are five individual parties with grave concerns over conditions and completeness of Baron Winds Applications for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 to Construct a Wind Energy Facility. II. Facility Description Baron Winds LLC (the Applicant) is proposing to construct the Baron Winds Project, a wind energy generation facility and associated infrastructure (the Facility) in the Towns of Cohocton, Dansville, Fremont, and Wayland in Steuben County, New York (See Figure 1).The Facility will consist of up to 69 utility scale wind turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 242 Megawatts (MW). Other proposed components will include: access roads, buried collection lines, up to four permanent meteorological (met) towers, one operations and maintenance (O&M) building, up to two temporary construction staging/laydown areas, and a collection/point of interconnection.
    [Show full text]