DOCSLIB.ORG

AUWAHI WIND FARM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Draft Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AUWAHI WIND FARM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Draft Amendment AUWAHI WIND FARM HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Draft Amendment Prepared for Auwahi Wind Energy LLC Prepared by May 14, 2019 Auwahi Wind Farm Project Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 APPLICANT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, POLICIES, AND LAWS .................................................................................... 1-6 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ........................................ 2-1 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE HCP ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2 SCOPE AND TERM ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 SURVEY AND RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 2-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 REGIONAL LOCATION ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 LAND USE ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY ................................................................................ 3-1 3.4 SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES .............................................................. 3-1 3.6 TERRESTRIAL FLORA .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.7 NON-LISTED WILDLIFE ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.8 LISTED WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.8.1 Hawaiian Hoary Bat .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.8.2 Hawaiian Petrel ........................................................................................................ 3-17 3.8.3 Nene .......................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.8.4 Blackburn’s Sphinx Moth ...................................................................................... 3-17 3.9 OTHER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 3-17 4.0 GOALS AND CONSERVATION MEASURES ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Goals ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS ............................................. 4-1 4.2.1 General Project Development Measures ............................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Pre-construction Surveys and Timing Considerations ........................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Project Components and Siting Considerations ................................................... 4-2 4.2.4 Invasive Plant Species Management ....................................................................... 4-2 4.2.5 Fire Prevention During Construction and Operation ......................................... 4-2 4.2.6 Measures to Minimize Environmental Impacts ................................................... 4-2 4.2.7 Operational Avoidance and Minimization Measures for the HCP Amendment (New HCP Amendment Section) .................................................... 4-2 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND TAKE LIMITS .................................... 5-1 5.1 HAWAIIAN HOARY BAT ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Direct Take for the HCP Amendment .................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Indirect Take for the HCP Amendment ............................................................... 5-3 5.1.3 Authorized Take Request for the ITP/ITL for the HCP Amendment ............ 5-5 i Auwahi Wind Farm Project Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment 5.1.4 Tiers of Take ............................................................................................................ 5-11 5.2 HAWAIIAN PETREL ...................................................................................................... 5-12 5.3 NENE ................................................................................................................................... 5-12 5.4 BLACKBURN’S SPHINX MOTH ................................................................................. 5-12 6.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS.................................... 6-1 6.1 MITIGATION LOCATIONS ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 HAWAIIAN HOARY BAT ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Tier 1 Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2.2 Tier 2 and Tier 3 Mitigation .................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3 Tiers 4 – 6 ................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.4 Tier 4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 6-4 6.2.5 Tier 5 and Tier 6 Mitigation .................................................................................. 6-33 6.2.6 Triggers for Mitigation at each Tier...................................................................... 6-44 6.2.7 Funding Assurance ................................................................................................. 6-45 6.2.8 Contingency Funds/Adaptive Management ....................................................... 6-46 6.3 HAWAIIAN PETREL ...................................................................................................... 6-46 6.4 NĒNĒ ................................................................................................................................... 6-46 6.5 BLACKBURN’S SPHINX MOTH ................................................................................. 6-46 7.0 MONITORING, REPORTING, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................... 7-47 7.1 PROJECT-SPECIFIC TAKE........................................................................................... 7-47 7.1.1 Monitoring Direct Take ......................................................................................... 7-47 7.1.2 Estimating Indirect Take........................................................................................ 7-48 7.2 NON-FATALITY MONITORING ............................................................................... 7-48 7.2.1 Hawaiian Hoary Bats .............................................................................................. 7-48 7.2.2 Hawaiian Petrels ...................................................................................................... 7-48 7.3 REPORTING...................................................................................................................... 7-48 7.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 7-48 7.4.1 Adaptive Management of Minimization Measures ............................................ 7-49 7.4.2 Adaptive Management of Mitigation ................................................................... 7-54 8.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 FULL NIGHTTIME SHUTDOWN ................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 YEAR-ROUND CURTAILMENT AT 6.9 M/S ............................................................ 8-1 8.3 FULL NIGHTTIME SHUTDOWN FROM AUGUST TO OCTOBER ................. 8-1 8.4 REDUCED PERMIT TERM ............................................................................................. 8-2 9.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 9-1 9.1 RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 SCOPE AND DURATION ............................................................................................... 9-1 9.3 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TOP 100 POWER PEOPLE 2016 the Movers and Shakers in Wind
    2016 Top 100 Power People 1 TOP 100 POWER PEOPLE 2016 The movers and shakers in wind Featuring interviews with Samuel Leupold from Dong Energy and Ian Mays from RES Group © A Word About Wind, 2016 2016 Top 100 Power People Contents 2 CONTENTS Compiling the Top 100: Advisory panel and ranking process 4 Interview: Dong Energy’s Samuel Leupold discusses offshore 6 Top 100 breakdown: Statistics on this year’s table 11 Profiles: Numbers 100 to 41 13 Interview: A Word About Wind meets RES Group’s Ian Mays 21 Profiles: Numbers 40 to 6 26 Top five profiles:The most influential people in global wind 30 Top 100 list: The full Top 100 Power People for 2016 32 Next year: Key dates for your diary in 2017 34 21 Facing the future: Ian Mays on RES Group’s plans after his retirement © A Word About Wind, 2016 2016 Top 100 Power People Editorial 3 EDITORIAL resident Donald Trump. It is one of The company’s success in driving down the Pthe biggest shocks in US presidential costs of offshore wind over the last year history but, in 2017, Trump is set to be the owes a great debt to Leupold’s background new incumbent in the White House. working for ABB and other big firms. Turn to page 6 now if you want to read the The prospect of operating under a climate- whole interview. change-denying serial wind farm objector will not fill the US wind sector with much And second, we went to meet Ian Mays joy.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 2017 Fowler Ridge Wind Farm
    Bat Evaluation Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm Benton County, Indiana Final Report April 1 – October 15, 2019 Prepared for: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm Prepared by: Rhett E. Good, Kristen Nasman and Anna Ciecka Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 408 West 6th Street Bloomington, Indiana 47404 January 17, 2020 Fowler Ridge 2019 Bat Evaluation Monitoring Study Results STUDY PARTICIPANTS Rhett Good Project Manager Anna Ciecka Field Supervisor and Report Compiler Kristen Nasman Statistician Kristen Klaphake GIS Technician Jolie Blevins Project Tracking and Data Manager Linda Koepsell Technical Editor Ashley Matteson Permitted Bat Biologist Beth Rogers Field Technician Sara Grillo Field Technician Ryan Madden Field Technician Hannah Yoquelet Field Technician REPORT REFERENCE Good. R. E., K. Nasman, and A. Ciecka. 2020. Bat Evaluation Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, Benton County, Indiana: April 1 – October 15, 2019. Prepared for Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, Benton County, Indiana. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Bloomington, Indiana. January 17, 2020. WEST, Inc. i January 2020 Fowler Ridge 2019 Bat Evaluation Monitoring Study Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fowler Ridge Wind Farm (FRWF) collectively includes Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, and Fowler Ridge IV Wind Farm LLC. The FRWF consists of 420 wind turbines in four phases in Benton County, Indiana. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. conducted post-construction fatality studies of bats within Phases I, II and III in the fall of 2009 and 2010, when two Indiana bat carcasses were found. The FRWF worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Indiana bat, designed to minimize Indiana bat fatalities.
    [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]
  • Hoopeston Wind, LLC Vermilion County, Illinois
    Hoopeston Wind, LLC Vermilion County, Illinois Final Habitat Conservation Plan for the Indiana Bat and the Northern Long-Eared Bat Hoopeston Wind Project Vermilion County, Illinois September 3, 2017 310 4th Street NE, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.220.7595 | F 434.220.3712 hoopestonwind.com HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE INDIANA BAT AND THE NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT Introduction October 21, 2016 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Applicant Information ...................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Background and Purpose ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 Habitat Conservation Plan Contents ............................................................................... 6 2.0 Background .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Permit Duration .............................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Regulatory and Legal Framework ................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Endangered Species Act ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy Standard and the Cost-Effectiveness of the Energy Standards
    REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE P.A. 295 RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD AND THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ENERGY STANDARDS John D. Quackenbush, Chairman Greg R. White, Commissioner Sally A. Talberg, Commissioner MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs In compliance with Public Act 295 of 2008 February 13, 2015 Table of Contents Page Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Report Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 1 Renewable Energy Plans and Commission Approval ............................................................. 2 Renewable Energy Cost Reconciliation Cases and Commission Approval ............................ 4 Summary of Renewable Energy Data Collected ........................................................................... 4 Renewable Energy Credit Requirements – 2013 Compliance ................................................. 4 Status of Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................... 8 Michigan Renewable Energy Certification System (MIRECS) .............................................12 Competition in Areas Served by Multiple Providers…………………………………………….14 Cost-Effectiveness of Power Purchase Agreements and Owned Generation ................................16 Impact of the Renewable Energy Standard on Employment
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices And
    2012 Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices and Guidance for States NARUC Grants & Research January 2012 NARUC The National Association A report for the Minnesota Public Utilities of Regulatory Commission Funded by the U.S. Department of Utility Energy Commissioners The report you are reading was created under the State Electricity Regulators Capacity Assistance and Training (SERCAT) program, a project of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Grants & Research Department. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-OE0000123. The report was authored by Tom Stanton. Throughout the preparation process, the members of NARUC provided the author(s) with editorial comments and suggestions. However, the views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author(s) and may not necessarily agree with positions of NARUC or those of the U.S. Department of Energy. Special thanks to the Commissioners and staff at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for guiding this work, and to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the National Energy Technology Lab for their continued technical assistance to NARUC. Please direct questions regarding this report to Miles Keogh, NARUC’s Director of Grants & Research, [email protected]; (202) 898-2200. Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Vectren Corporation 2014 Integrated Resource Plan
    Vectren Corporation 2014 Integrated Resource Plan Vectren Electric Overview 2 Emissions Control 4 Vectren’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Summary 6 Overview of Public Stakeholder Process 12 Conclusions & Short-term Action Plan 13 Vectren Electric Overview Vectren provides electricity to approximately 142,000 residential, small business and large customers in southwestern Indiana. (Note large customers are primarily industrial but also include universities and hospitals.) Vectren is committed to providing safe, reliable service for customers and maintaining affordable bills. A high proportion of Vectren’s energy sales are made to a relatively small number of small business and large customers. In 2013, about 29% of Vectren’s annual retail electric energy was consumed by residential customers, 23% was consumed by small businesses and 48% was consumed by approximately 100 large customers. Less than 1% was consumed by street lighting. The diagrams below show Vectren’s electric territory (in blue) and the percent of energy used by customer type. Vectren Electric Customer Breakdown Street Lighting <1% DUBOIS PIKE GIBSON Residential 29% SPENCER POSEY WARRICK VANDERBURGH Large SPENCER POSEY 48% WARRICK VANDERBURGH Vectren’s Electric Service Territory Small Business 23% Vectren owns and operates several electric generating facilities in southwestern Indiana. Of Vectren’s total generating capacity 1,158 Megawatts (MW) are credited towards meeting our capacity requirement with the regional transmission operator, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). Capacity is the amount of power that can be produced at a given time. The table at the top of page 3 shows unforced capacity (UCAP), which takes into consideration system downtime for unforeseen maintenance and unit testing and is, therefore, less than the total capacity of each unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: References
    Chapter 7 References This page intentionally left blank. Final Environmental Impact Statement Buckeye Wind Project April 2013 7 References Ahlén, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats: a pilot study. Final Report Dnr 5210P-2002- 00473, Swedish National Energy Commission, Eskilstuna, Sweden. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2008. Wind Energy Siting Handbook, Chapter 5. Washington, D.C. http://www.awea.org/sitinghandbook/download_center.html. Accessed 6 April 2010. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2010. U.S. Wind Energy Projects. http://www.awea.org/projects/. Accessed 6 April 2010. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2012. U.S. Wind Energy Projects. http://www.awea.org/projects/. Accessed June 2012. Arnett, E. B., technical editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. O’Connell, M. D. Piorkowski, and R. D. Takersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:61-78. Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. Associated Press. 2007. Oregon Wind Tower Collapse Kills Worker.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Bat Activity at the Proposed Resolute Wind Project in Wyoming
    Patterns of pre-construction bat acoustic activity at the proposed Resolute Wind Energy Project, Wyoming, 2009–2010 Final Project Report Cris D. Hein, Michael R. Schirmacher, and Edward B. Arnett Bat Conservation International Manuela M. P. Huso EcoStats, LLC. Final Project Report Prepared for the BATS AND WIND ENERGY COOPERATIVE October 2011 REPORT CITATION Hein, C. D., M. R. Schirmacher, E. B. Arnett, and M. M. P. Huso. 2011. Patterns of pre- construction bat activity at the proposed Resolute Wind Energy Project, Wyoming, 2009–2010. A final project report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was conducted under the auspices of the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC). We thank the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Bat Conservation International (BCI), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory- Department of Energy (NREL), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). John Anderson (AWEA), Ed Arnett (BCI), Bob Thresher and Karin Sinclair (NREL), and Christi Johnson-Hughes (USFWS) provided oversight for the BWEC on this project. We thank Clipper Windpower Development (Clipper) for funding this study, and the numerous donors to BCI, member companies of AWEA for additional support. At Clipper, we thank Leif Bang, Casey Willis, Kyle Paulson and David Hazel for logistical support. At Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), we thank Brenda Orszulak for field assistance and Jeff Gruver for logistical support. We thank Brian Farless and Jennifer Yantachka for assisting with call analysis. We also thank Tom Kunz, Paul Cryan, and Taber Allison of the BWEC Scientific Advisory, and Scott Darling and Michael Herder of the Technical Advisory Committees for their review of this report.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]