An Assessment Between the US and Germany By

Policies and measures for protected species in wind energy: An assessment between the U.S. and Germany

Victoria Gartman, MSc.

A Thesis

Arid Land Studies

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Sciences

Approved

Prof. Dr. Johann Köppel Chair of Committee

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Zeller

Dr. Gad Perry

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to Prof. Dr. Zeller in the continued support of my Master’s thesis and research, for his patience, and assistance in Germany and this great experience I have had while studying in Berlin. I would also like to thank Dr. Perry for his assistance, support, and motivation in continuing my education and encouraging me to become a better person, student, and research scientist. After all of these years we have known each other, you have been my biggest mentor and leader and I am beyond thankful for everything you have done for me. I want to give my sin- cerest appreciation to Prof. Dr. Köppel who was able to take me on as a master’s candidate with only six months to create a completely new thesis topic. Your advice, com- ments, and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and I want to thank you for encouraging me to be passionate about my work and research as you are.

I would also like to thank my undergraduate aid, Denise Schneite, for taking the time out of her schedule and helping me in translating case documents and Patrick Molligo for being the master proofreader. It is greatly appreciated! Secondly, I want to thank the beautiful Lea Bulling, my “partner in crime” who has been so helpful and supportive of my work and research. Your assistance in my thesis and motivation kept me going and I am beyond grateful for it.

Furthermore, I want to thank Krystina Parker, for taking this incredible journey with me to Berlin and completing our Masters. Without you, I would have not made it this past year and I am so happy it was with you whom I cried, laughed, smiled, learned and made these wonderful unforgettable experiences. Lastly, I could not have done this without the support of my mother, father, and sister. Their endless love and encouragement kept me motivated and words cannot express how grateful I am to have them in my life.

Thank you to Texas Tech University, the University of Sheffield, and Humboldt Univer- sity of Berlin for the creation of FIPSE Arid Lands Studies Program and the opportunity for me to live in two different countries and experience worlds I would have never gotten the chance to do any other way. Thank you to all the administration, fellow students, and professors who contributed to making this an unforgettable experience. ii Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT v LIST OF FIGURES vi ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS vii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Context & Background ...... 1

1.1.1 Policy & Wind Energy ...... 1 1.1.2 U.S. & Germany in wind energy goals ...... 3 1.2 Concerns in Wind Energy ...... 4

1.3 Best Management Practices: Avoidance & Minimization Measures ...... 6

1.3.1 Definition ...... 6 1.3.2 State of Research ...... 8 1.3.3 Research Questions & Hypothesis ...... 9 1.3.4 Criteria & Conditions ...... 10 2. MATERIALS & METHODS 13 2.1 Study Area ...... 13

2.1.1 Country Selection ...... 13 2.2 Case Studies ...... 13

2.2.1 United States ...... 13 2.2.2 Germany ...... 13 2.3 Literature Research ...... 14

2.4 Methodology ...... 14

3. RESULTS 16 3.1 United States ...... 16

3.1.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines ...... 16 3.1.2 U.S. Case Studies ...... 20 3.1.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion ...... 38 3.2 Germany ...... 41 iii Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

3.2.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines ...... 41 3.2.2 German Case Studies ...... 48 3.2.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion ...... 60 3.3 Comparative analysis between U.S. & Germany ...... 63

3.3.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines comparison ...... 63 3.3.2 Comparison of Cases ...... 65 4. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION 68 4.1 Discussion ...... 68

4.1.1 Conclusions ...... 69 4.2 Future Research ...... 70

5. LITERATURE CITATIONS 72 6. APPENDIX 81 7.1: U.S. Endangered species allowed to be legally taken at the wind facilities ...... 81

7.2: U.S. geographical map of all nine wind facility locations ...... 82

7.3: Germany species of concern at the wind facilities ...... 83

7.4: Germany geographical map of all nine wind facility locations ...... 88

7.5: U.S. avoidance, minimization, & compensatory measures at each of the nine wind facilities 89

7.6: Germany avoidance, minimization, & compensatory (CEF) measures at each of the nine wind facilities 90

7.7: U.S. and Germany combination of all measures taken at all 18 wind facilities ...... 91

7.8: U.S. EIA and EA Processes with relevant steps highlighted, Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012) ...... 92

iv Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

ABSTRACT

Political frameworks and guidelines concerning endangered species and species of concern affect the development of wind energy in many countries such as the United States and Germany. Renewable energies, with a focus on wind development, are rapidly growing worldwide and the necessity to ensure environmental and species protection during this development is essential. Concerns in wind energy development include direct and indirect effects on endangered species or species of concern. Through such policies as the Endangered Species Act in the U.S. and the Habitats Directive in Europe, mitigation measures have been taken to lower possible negative impacts on species around wind facilities and wind turbines.

This paper shows a multiple-case study analysis of eighteen locations, nine in the U.S. and nine in Germany, with a thorough analysis of literature, political reports, and policies, comparing trans-Atlantic commonalities and differences at or around onshore wind facilities. The biggest differences between U.S. and German policy in terms of species protection is the legal and illegal taking of endangered species, along with avoidance and minimization measures, CEF and compensatory mitigation, and the different levels of accessibility of information for wind development. With this collection of research, this paper not only aims to show the different mitigation strategies for wildlife management around wind facilities, but to also aid policymakers, regulators, and the wind industry in developing the most beneficial cost effective guidelines and/or policies for species protection and wind energy development.

v Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Installed wind power capacity in Germany up to 2012, Source: http://www.windenergie.de/en/infocenter/statistics ...... 2 2. Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2012, Source: http://awea.rd.net/Resources/Content.aspx ...... 2 3. Direct (red) and indirect (blue) impacts on wildlife from wind energy, Source: (Drewitt and Langston 2006) ...... 7 4. Mitigation Pathway, Source: (Jakle 2012) ...... 7 5. Federal Wildlife Protection Laws, Source: (Government Accountability Office 2005) ...... 18 6. Amount and extent of legal taking of Peninsular bighorn sheep during Construction and O&M, Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012) ...... 36 7. Wind turbine W2, W3 locations in Pilsach, Source: (Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011) ...... 54 8. The concentration zones (red) around the town of Weßling, Source: (NarrRistTürk 2012) ...... 59

vi Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

ASP Artenschutzprüfung (German endangered species impact assessment) AWEA American Wind Energy Association BfN Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) BGEPA Bald & Gold Eagle Protection Act (U.S.) BLM Bureau of Land Management (U.S.) BMJV Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (Federal Ministry of Justice) BMP Best Management Practice BMU/ BMUB Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, & Nuclear Safety Construction) BNatSchG Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Federal Nature Conservation Act) BO Biological Opinion (U.S.) BRE Beech Ridge Energy BWE Bundesverband WindEnergie (German Wind Energy Association) CCSM Chokecherry & Sierra Madre CEF Continued ecological function (E.U.) DOE Department of Energy (U.S.) DOI Department of the Interior (U.S.) EA Environmental Assessment EEG Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (German Renewable Energy Sources Act) EIAA Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Germany) EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act (U.S.) EU European Union FCS Favorable conservation status FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FFH Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive (The Habitats Directive) (German FFH- Richtlinie) FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWS Fish & Wildlife Service (U.S.) GAO Government Accountability Office HCP Habitat Conservation Plan (U.S.) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITP Incidental Take Permit ITS Incidental Take Statement KF Konzentrationfläche (German, concentration area) KWP Kaheawa Wind Power LLC Limited Liability Company (U.S. Corporation)

vii Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act (U.S.) MW Megawatts NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO Non-governmental Organization NRC National Research Council NWCC National Wind Coordinating Collaborative NWR National Wildlife Refuge O&M Operations and Maintenance PBO Programmatic Biological Opinion PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ROD Record of Decision (U.S.) ROW Right of Way (U.S.) SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment UBA Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environmental Protection Agency) USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service UVPG Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (Environmental Impact Assessment) WEAP Worker environmental awareness program WP Windpark (German)

viii Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context & Background 1.1.1 Policy & Wind Energy Interest in wind energy and the exploitation of renewable energy sources, arose in the 1970’s after a world-wide oil crisis and a global realization of dependence on fossil fuels. For the last two and a half decades, momentum has picked up with the growing concern about environmental problems and the world’s dwindling non-renewable energy sources. Through policies, regulations, and investment, renewable wind energy production has grown exponentially and has led to Germany becoming a leader in the European Union and the U.S. being the second highest in installed wind power capacity in the world behind China (American Wind Energy Association 2013, Bundersverband WindEnergie 2013). During the past two decades a significant number of countries have created renewable energy policy frameworks that have played a major role in the expansion of wind energy. Wind policy in the U.S. has few federal regulations for wind development and operations, leaving mainly states to decide on mandates and regulations, location of wind facilities, and the type of land owners (Geißler, Köppel et al. 2013). For example, California has had a feed-in tariff with aggressive tax incentives since the 1980’s which has spurred other states to do the same in creating state renewable portfolio standards (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2012) (p.559). These renewable portfolio standards have been used as well as similar feed-in tariffs in European countries since the 1990s. In 1969 the U.S. passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was the first policy of its kind in terms of environment and species protection. Fifteen years later the European Union created an Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and five years after in 1990, Germany implemented its own Environmental Impact Assess- ment Act (EIAA) (Köppel, Geißler et al. 2012). With the creation of necessary impact assessments (IA) on construction and operation of activities like wind energy development, environmental factors such as species protection became a decision-making factor in primary planning stages.

1 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

In 2012, Germany produced more than 23,000 wind turbines with an installed capacity of approximately 31,300 MW (megawatts) of clean electricity for businesses and households.

Figure 1: Installed wind power capacity in Germany up to 2012, Source: http://www.windenergie.de/en/infocenter/statistics

In October 2012, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced it had reached the President’s goal of authorizing 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects on public land. U.S. wind installations in 2012 stood at just over 60,000 MW, the highest installed wind capacity of any other country that year (American Wind Energy Association 2013).

Figure 2: Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2012, Source: http://awea.rd.net/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059&navItemNumber=742

2 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Figures 1 and 2 show installed wind power capacities in Germany and the U.S. up to 2012. Statistics from December 2013 show Germany’s total wind energy capacity reached 33,729 MW with only 2,998 MW installed over the year. The U.S. installed 1,084 MW, reaching its capacity of 61,108 MW. With the extension of the Production Tax Credit in 2013 in the U.S., 12,000 MW are currently under construction and should be completed in 2014 (American Wind Energy Association 2013, Bundersverband WindEnergie 2013).

1.1.2 U.S. & Germany in wind energy goals After Japan’s Fukushima nuclear incident, Germany passed an “Energiewende” or “Energy Transformation” in 2011 stating the country was closing all nuclear facilities and the nine existing plants by 2022. Their goal has become to hugely expand the use and production of renewables, and in particular, wind power (The Economist 2012). “Ener- giewende” includes a 55 percent reduction of Greenhouse gases by 2030, achieving a 60 percent share of renewable energy targets, giving producers a fixed feed-in tariff for 20 years guaranteeing a stable income, and having electricity efficiency up by 50 percent by 2050. The EU’s binding “20 percent by 2020” target for renewable energy in Member States is a major reason Germany has set such high targets (European Commission 2014).

In the U.S., President Obama has given a goal to reach 20 GW from renewable energies by 2020 and the Department of Energy hopes to reach its goal of wind energy at 20 percent by 2030 (U.S. Department of Energy 2008). Unlike Germany, the U.S. does not have a nationwide federal policy in renewable energy targets or a federal mandate aiming for reductions of Greenhouse gases. The federal government leaves these up to state governments, with many states creating their own mandates and goals in terms of renewable energies. One of the biggest drivers the U.S. government is using for investment of renewable energies is the Federal Production Tax Credit combined with state Renewable Portfolio Targets. The NRC Committee estimates by 2020 that the U.S. wind energy development will contribute approximately 4.5 percent electricity generation offsetting CO2 emissions (National Research Council 2007).

3 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

1.2 Concerns in Wind Energy Quite a bit of research has been done about the concerns of endangered species around wind facilities. Katzner (2013) writes; “wind energy is unusual in that it has both direct and indirect effects that are demographically relevant […]. Wind energy development is habitat intensive, as each turbine requires a maintained ground clearing and a service road, as well as installation of electric lines to transport power to the grid” (Katzner, Johnson et al. 2013 p.367). Katzner goes on further to explain that these direct and indirect consequences will affect wildlife populations and community dynamics. Jakle, Drewitt, and the National Research Council (NRC) all discuss similar points that turbine characteristics such as size and capacity, siting, abundance of turbines, and human activity all determine the risk to wildlife directly through habitat loss and turbine collisions or indirectly though habitat displacement or avoidance (also called barrier effects) (Drewitt and Langston 2006, National Research Council 2007, Jakle 2012).

The NRC further details habitat displacement should be considered the biggest concern rather than direct collision. In Europe, “impacts of wind-energy facilities on habitat are considered to be greater than collision-related fatalities on birds[…]” (National Research Council 2007 p.107-108). It is considered habitat disturbance when bird species such as waterfowl, shorebirds, waders, and passerines avoid the turbines from 75 to 800 meters. Additionally, the NRC goes on to say bird displacement associated with wind- energy development has received little attention in the U.S. (National Research Council 2007).

Bird vulnerability and mortalities around wind facilities are a combination of site specific, “wind-relief interaction” that is also species specific and can depend on seasonal factors (Barrios and Rodriguez 2004). Fatalities occurring most at wind facilities are mainly nocturnal, migrating passerines but it has been noted that raptors are most vulnerable. These migrating passerines are in abundance so the higher numbers of collisions is predicable, but raptors due to their small abundance and higher flight altitudes have become a concern. Migratory tree-roosting bird and bat species also appear to be suscepti- ble to collision (National Research Council 2007 p.7). Birds are known to collide with a number of manmade structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power and 4 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

communication lines, and wind turbines. Buildings kill 500 million birds annually or 58.2% out of total bird mortalities while wind turbines kill <.01% (Erickson, Johnson et al. 2005). Bat mortality around wind facilities has recently become a worldwide concern and there is some research to see how wind turbines are affecting bats directly and indirectly. After reported bat fatalities in the thousands in U.S. states like West Virginia and Penn- sylvania, research began focusing on mitigation measures such as curtailment1 to minimize these already declining bat populations (Arnett, Huso et al. 2010). With higher bat activity and mortalities coinciding at low wind speeds, the option of curtailment or changing the turbine cut-in speed and reducing the operational hours during low wind periods at wind facilities as forms of avoidance and minimization mitigation measures has led to a reductions of bat fatalities by at least 50% without causing major revenue losses (Arnett, Huso et al. 2010, Voigt, Popa-Lisseanu et al. 2012). Yet there are still concerns about the size and form of catchment areas from which these bats originate and biologists such as Voigt feel there needs to be an international agreement to develop and implement bat species conservation and monitoring in the EU (Voigt, Popa-Lisseanu et al. 2012).

Besides birds and bats, very little research has been conducted on other species. In terms of mammalian effects from habitat disturbance, the destruction of wooded areas could threaten preferred locations, but overall populations would not be affected by wind- energy development (National Research Council 2007 p.120). Amphibians are often more sensitive to habitat alteration than birds and mammals but no studies around wind- energy developments have been created (as of 2006) (National Research Council 2007 p.121).

There is a noticeably vast amount of literature and research involving the impacts of wind energy on wildlife as well as other related impacts such as noise pollution, human participation, land development, and visual impacts. The investigation of wind energy

1 Curtailment can be broadly defined as the consumption of less wind power than is potentially available at the time. Even though wind is available at a wind facility, the turbines will not run until a certain threshold of wind speed is met, then the turbines would be turned on to generate electricity.

5 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 impacts on wildlife is in the process of being consolidated through international cooperation of researchers, agency officials, conservationists, planners, project managers, developers, and representatives of the energy industry. Conferences such as the CWW2015 (“Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts 2015”) in Berlin next year are events which are designed to discuss and introduce methods used to properly assess and mitigate impacts. Additionally, they address the adequate planning and permission processes and policy-making in the wind energy industry, covering cumulative wind energy effects, wind energy in forested areas, and the efficiency of avoidance and mitigation measures (Technische Universität Berlin 2014).

1.3 Best Management Practices: Avoidance & Minimization Measures 1.3.1 Definition Mitigation is generally defined as (1) avoiding impacts when possible, (2) minimizing remaining impacts, and (3) compensating for unavoidable impacts (Jakle 2012). The two main focuses within this paper regarding species protection around wind facilities are mitigation by avoidance and mitigation by reduction/minimization. Mitigation by avoidance covers the siting, design, process, technology, alternative routes, and adaptive options to avoid impacts. This form of impact mitigation is often the cheapest and most effective option with the best approaches and the greatest benefit in avoiding impacts early on in the planning stages (Rajvanshi 2008). These minimization measures closely follow avoidance measures, can be grouped together, and are applicable in all phases of a development project. Figure 3 shows direct and indirect impacts on wildlife from wind energy and Figure 4 shows the different mitigation pathways with examples in each.

6 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Habitat fragmentation

Altered Altered species behavior & competition displacement

Direct collision/ Mortality

Acoustic Decreased masking fecundity

Decreased breeding success

Figure 3: Direct (red) and indirect (blue) impacts on wildlife from wind energy, Source: (Drewitt and Langston 2006) Best management practices to reduce bird and bat fatalities have been through such measures of avoiding construction and development of wind facilities in environmentally sensitive areas, using technological and physical changes such as the use of monopoles and burying cable lines, and changing surrounding vegetation types to remove attractiveness for raptors to feed and bats to roost (Baerwald, Edworthy et al. 2009). Mitigation measures can be found detailed in state and federal guidelines and can be observed at wind facilities/sites with HCPs or land development plans.

Avoiding siting turbines in sensitive habitats i.e. Curtailment during nesting, foraging, soaring sensitive seasons, Avoidance for large birds, locations feathering, increase cut-in heavily utilized by speeds migratory birds and bats Monitoring

Minimize lighting to avoid Restrict construction attracting insects and thus, around seasonal activities Minimization birds & bats

Constructing bird & bat boxes, protecting or Funding towards recovery enhancing existing habitat programs , aid, and/or Compensation on or away from project conservation project site

Figure 4: Mitigation Pathway, Source: (Jakle 2012)

7 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

1.3.2 State of Research Wind energy is known to have direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. The identified direct impacts are habitat displacement and direct collisions with the wind turbines. Indi- rectly, wind energy can alter species behavior, decrease fecundity, decrease breeding success, and create barrier effects. The causes of bird fatalities may be attributable to factors such as bird behavior, high prey abundance, turbine design, special arrangement of turbines, and topography (Sterner 2002). However, through appropriate planning and siting, wind facilities can create environmental and social effects which might outweigh some negative impacts on wildlife species and the surrounding environments (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2012 p.576). These negative impacts can be predicted and mitigated through avoidance and minimization measures in the siting and development phase. These measures are determined through careful planning by the developer, but are guided and enforced through local and regional regulations, state mandates and goals, and federal and/or international acts and policies.

There is no in-depth analysis of trans-Atlantic commonalities and differences between the procedures and policies set up for protecting endangered species at or around onshore wind facilities. The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) writes: “expanding the amount of research focused on mitigation strategies will not only improve our knowledge of wildlife management, but it will also help guide policymakers, regulators, industry, and the public in developing guidelines or policies that are beneficial for wildlife and cost-effective for development,” (National Wind Coordinating Committee 2007 p.84). Few studies have examined the strategies currently in use for reducing the potential impacts of wind power on wildlife species (Government Accountability Office 2005). While there have been European studies that cover multiple EU Member States, no studies have been conducted on the comparison of policies between the U.S. and Germany in terms of species protection and wind energy development. This comparison between the U.S. and Germany can be used in determining better management practices (BMPs) and what policymakers, either nationally, regionally, or locally, can benefit from in knowing the political commonalities and differences and which measures have been particularly beneficial or unsuccessful. 8 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

1.3.3 Research Questions & Hypothesis Based on what is known about wind energy development and species protection, questions have been posed in areas for further research. The main question of interest in wind energy development is: How do executions of avoidance and minimization mitigation measures for species of concern overlap and differ between the United States and Germany? Through thorough review of literature, policy analysis, and case comparison, this main question can be answered. The second question of interest is: How does the U.S.’s habitat conservation plans (HCPs), the E.U.’s continued ecological functions (CEFs), and Germany’s endangered species impact assessment (Artenschutzprüfung, ASP) compare and differs? This question can be answered by a review of literature and policy analysis between Germany’s and the EU’s environmental and species acts with the U.S’s federal policies regarding species protection. The third question is: To what extent can the measures discussed above have the possibility of becoming trans-Atlantic? Through a continuation of literature review and case comparison analysis, the aim is to see which adaptations and measures each country can take into consideration with regards to the development of future policies. These questions were chosen to understand whether protection methods in the U.S. and in Germany initiate similar environmental assessments and mitigation approaches. I aim to identify whether policies in both countries use similar practices in terms of avoidance and minimization measures, as well as compensatory and CEF measures for species around wind turbines. Many environmental policies tend to converge at different points in wind energy development and in species protection which will be discussed in a later chapter. Before any work was completed, I formed hypothetical results and what I expected would be conclusive of my compilation of literature review, policy analysis, and case comparison based on the above questions. My main hypothesis is that U.S. policies and Germany’s policies will vary in some aspects, yet the comparison will show that their outcomes will be very similar. The U.S. does not have any federal wind energy development regulations, but rather guidelines from federal agencies and NGOs suggesting the best management practices to avoid litigation from such acts as the Migratory Bird Treaty

9 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Act, the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, and NEPA. Germany has more regulations and policy requirements from both the EU and its federal laws with some states providing wind facility guidelines but in conclusion, both the U.S. and Germany’s outcomes are very similar. There are a few differences though, such as the U.S.’s incidental take permit and Germany’s offsite measures. Both countries could benefit in looking at one another’s policies and measures for species protection. Another expected result is that Germany’s continued ecological functions (CEFs) will be similar to some measures within U.S. habitat conservation plans (HCPs) with only slight differences.

In addition, the availability of information I was able to access for the U.S. and Ger- many is important to note and crucial to the understanding of this study. Germany’s lack of transparency included in this research adds difficulty and constraints to public access and my ability to properly analyze cases. The availability of information, such as HCPs and Biological Opinions are easier to access than Germany’s information on protected species impact assessments and what CEF measures will be adapted in detail.

1.3.4 Criteria & Conditions Criteria and conditions have been created in order to further define my research and explain the boundaries, risks, and issues that have arisen. Within my criteria, I limited my collection of literature and data through online databases from the Texas Tech University Library to include journals, books, and articles officially published regarding species protection, wind energy development, and a combination of both. I also went to official government websites to collect reports and policies regarding wind facilities and species protection. Such websites include the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov), Germa- ny’s BMU (BMU.de), and the European Commission for the Environment (ec.europa.eu/environment). I also collected news articles regarding recent events surrounding wind energy and species protection. Since private land owners do not have to make all information public in regards to development on their lands, the focus lies in wind energy developments on majority federal lands in the U.S. Due to lack of transparency in Germany, I am limited on access to information regarding the German cases. Thus, my criteria are broader in case selection and are based on public availability.

10 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

The focus on research of onshore wind facilities and not offshore facilities is to ensure balance among my cases in the U.S. and Germany. Currently, the U.S. has no operational offshore wind energy production unlike Germany, which has 116 offshore wind turbines (Bundersverband WindEnergie 2013). However, there are seven federally fund- ed projects under development off the East and West coasts, the Great Lakes area, and the Gulf of Mexico currently undergoing environmental assessment and planning (three of the seven projects will be selected to complete development and become operational by 2017) (American Wind Energy Association 2013). Additionally, there are different species of concern, different policies and regulations, and different avoidance and minimization mitigation measures at off-shore wind facilities that would be hard to combine and analyze with onshore wind facilities.

In terms of species of concern, I am focusing on federally and internationally endangered species of birds, mammals, and/or insects. There are many different species of concern, particularly within each country and many factors influence how and why species are protected. Species protection is determined by populations, various regions where particular species nest and breed, migration paths which are used, and particular environment and habitats in which species thrive. In Germany, all birds and bats are protected under European (Habitats and Birds Directives), and federal (BNatSchG) laws (along with a number of other legal foundations for bat and bird conservations not pertaining to this paper). In the U.S., the focus will be regarding species which are covered by wind facilities’ Incidental Take Permit (ITP).

Regulatory measures heavily influence the development and construction of wind facilities. The measures of research interest cover avoidance and minimization mitigation measures with compensatory measures briefly discussed. In the documents found for each case lies a description of which avoidance and minimization measures will work best depending on the site. Avoidance and minimization measures vary slightly in wind facility development for species protection in each country. Compensatory measures can be more difficult to analyze due to the fact that most wind facilities cases selected have neither completed nor thoroughly written up proper measures after the wind site is in operation.

11 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

There are some risks involved in the validity of this research, mainly due to my preliminary German language skills. I relied on undergraduate translation abstracts and help from fellow colleagues in summarizing my cases and translation websites to help in understanding the information. Additionally, there has been difficulty in finding information as most content is in German. Secondly, in all comparative case analyses there is a certain degree of bias and the selected sample may not reflect the situation as a whole. Last- ly, since a majority of the cases have not been completely constructed, not all information is available. For example, in Germany not all of the cases have completed an ASP (Ar- tenschutzprüfung) but only baseline surveys with possible CEF measures. In other words, some cases do have concrete measures which will be put into place when wind development sites are constructed, while other cases are still in the planning stages.

12 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS & METHODS

2.1 Study Area 2.1.1 Country Selection Germany is a top leader in wind energy development in Europe and one of the highest installed-capacity wind energy countries in the world. The U.S. is also one of the highest installed-capacity wind energy countries in the world, second behind China. Both of these nations lead in wind energy development and have strong federal policies for the protection of species. Germany and the U.S. have similar policies and regulations for species of concern but research has not been done comparing the two on this topic with respect to wind energy development. Lastly, both countries have rigorous goals to meet in terms of wind energy and renewable energies in general. It is important that wind facility planning methods are created in detail so as to continue the protection of species while reducing greenhouse emissions.

2.2 Case Studies 2.2.1 United States I have selected nine cases located throughout the U.S.: Three are located in California (CA), one in Nevada (NV), one in Wyoming (WY), one in Illinois (IL), one in Ohio (OH), one in West Virginia (WV), and one in Hawaii (HI). Species of concern in these cases are located in Appendix Table 7.1. A geographical map showing the locations of these wind facilities are in Appendix Figure 7.2. A description of each case is found in the “Results” chapter with an analysis and comparison of each along with the German cases.

2.2.2 Germany I selected nine cases located in Germany within the states of Bayern, Nordrhein- Westfalen, and Schleswig-Holstein. Species of concern in these cases are located within Appendix Table 7.3. A geographical map showing the possible locations of these wind turbines are in Appendix Figure 7.4. A description of each case is found in the “Results”

13 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 section with an analysis and comparison of each along with comparison with the U.S. cases.

2.3 Literature Research The research for this thesis is based on a review of relevant laws and regulations within the U.S., the EU’s policies that affect Member States such as Germany, and Ger- many’s own laws and regulations. The focus is on policy, siting, and permitting documents provided by government agencies such as the U.S.’s BLM, Germany’s BMJV & BMU, and the EU’s EC (European Commission). The research is also based on collection of academic literature regarding species protection, mitigation efforts, and wind energy development.

2.4 Methodology The analysis of Germany’s and the U.S.’s procedures of species protection in wind energy development is based mainly on the review of literature on endangered species or species of concern, wind energy development, federal and international policies, and 18 wind facility sites. Each case is selected based on the availability of information provided for public observation. They consist of possible locations with a specified number of wind turbines for development and written up measures for avoidance and minimization techniques. In the U.S., each case has either a Biological Opinion and/or Habitat Conser- vation Plan which contains an Incidental Take Statement. The U.S. cases have been approved an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). In Germany, the cases have a possible location for the wind turbines based around a land development plan and consists of either an ASP (Artenschutzprüfung) with CEF (continued ecological function) measures or reviews containing CEF measures with additional avoidance and minimization measures.

The selected cases in Germany, with the exception of one, pertain to the last three years and in turn some have not been completed. Certain information is unavailable for some of these cases which will be further explained in the “Results” chapter. These new cases are chosen as recent policies within the EU and Germany as they changed and were modified in 2009. The same year, the U.S. modified the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act to include the taking of potential eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013 ). The application process for the approval of a wind facility can take up to several years and

14 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

studies are needed in the potential area for surveying species populations, landscapes, and micro-siting in order to properly follow the new and modified regulations.

Through a comparative case study method I will explain U.S. and EU/Germany situa- tions in terms of species protection. Using a multiple-cases approach I will explain commonalities and differences between each case. I will also compare the U.S.’s and Germa- ny’s policies and measures respectively to explain why particular processes are carried out in each country. This explanation-building technique, best explained by Yin, is a case study method which “stipulate[s] a presumed set of causal links about it, or ‘how’ or ‘why’ something happened” (Yin 2009). I will further explain the similarities and dissim- ilarities between the U.S. process of creating HCPs, BOs, and approvals for ITPs and Germany’s use of ASPs and similar documents. In the conclusion of the analysis I will discuss options and adaptations each country can consider in terms of mitigation in wind energy development and how these policies and measures could become trans-Atlantic.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

3.1 United States 3.1.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines The United States became one of the first countries to create federal policies to not only protect different environments from human development but also to protect threatened or endangered species and their environments. Major acts include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 (MBTA), the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act in 1940 (BGEPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969/1970 (NEPA), and the Endan- gered Species Act in 1973 (ESA). These policies are, for the majority, overseen by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of over 860 migratory bird species (including their eggs, nests, and parts), unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act is similar in that it prohibits the taking and sale of bald and golden eagles (including their eggs, nests, and parts), unless authorized by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012).

Under these two acts, USFWS regulations broadly define the word “taking” to mean “pursue, hunt, kill, trap, capture, or collect” or attempt the taking of these species” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The USFWS does allow permits for scientific collecting, depredation, propagation, and falconry but there are no provisions for “incidental take” within the MBTA. The USFWS may allow permits for scientific collecting as well under the BGEPA which also includes exhibition purposes and religious matters. No permit provisions for “incidental take” under MGEPA were created until 2009, requiring project developers to create an Eagle Conservation plan detailing avoidance and minimization measures to protect bald and golden eagles if the developer were to request eagle takes.

16 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

The U.S. environmental review process at both state and federal levels have been in effect for over 40 years while the European Union’s environmental processes are just over 25 years (Köppel, Geißler et al. 2012). The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is a federal law stating that developers who wish to carry out any action on federal lands with significant environmental consequences must submit an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). For example, if a wind development project is sited on federal lands or is going to connect to a federal transmission line, the developer must create and, through the NEPA EA/EIS process, identify potential measures to mitigate identified impacts (Jakle 2012). Two flow charts of the EA and EIA process can be found in Appendix Figure 7.9.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed in 1973 is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of [certain] treaties and conventions[…]” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Sections 7, 9, 10 are most important regarding the taking of protected species and the cooperation of federal agencies to ensure survival of these species on federal lands. Section 7(a)(2) requires the USFWS to “consider one-time and cumulative effects of federal agency actions on threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and authorizes the imposi- tion of requirements to minimize the impacts of authorized takes” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). It provides that, if a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the FWS deter- mines that the proposed federal agency action complies with Section 7(a)(2) jeopardy and critical habitat standards, the USFWS will issue an incidental take statement to the appropriate agency. Section 9 of the ESA details take violation regulations, specifically Sec. 9(a)(2) stating “it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any such species within the US or the territorial sea of the United States [and] violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threated species of fish or wildlife” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Section 9’s take standard, unlike Section 7(a)(2)’s jeopardy standard, considers injuries to an individual member of a listed species and only to listed wildlife species while Section 7(a)(2) applies to all listed species and plants. In addition, Section 9 applies to any habitat of listed wildlife species unlike the

17 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Section 7(a)(2) critical habitat standard which is only designated to the critical habitats of listed species (Department of the Interior Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee 2008).

Lastly, Section 10 of the ESA authorizes the taking of threatened or endangered species if a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed and will minimize and mitigate impacts of the taking. Section 10 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue an ITP from the FWS Endangered Species program, which will result in the taking of a listed wildlife species by a non-federal landowner engaged in an otherwise unlawful activity covered by the HCP. In order for wind developers to apply for an ITP, the application must accompany an HCP to show that the effects of the approved ITP are minimized and mitigated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). An HCP is a tool used to resolve endangered species conflicts in allowing some loss of endangered species in exchange for compensatory activities which minimize and mitigate for the loss (Bonnie 1999).

Bald & Gold Migratory Bird Endangered Eagle Treaty Act Species Act Protection Act (MBTA) [1918] (ESA) [1973] (BGEPA) [1940] Protects 1,265+ species at Prohibits the taking, Prohibits the taking killing, possession, risk for extinction, and sale of bald & (threatened / transportation, & gold eagles and their endangered); prohibits importation of 860+ nests, parts, nests the taking of protected migratory birds, their (except authorized by animal species, incl. eggs, parts, nests FWS) actions that “harm” or (except authorized by “harass”; federal actions FWS) may not jeopardize listed species or adversely Authorizes some Authorizes permits modify critical habitats activities (i.e. for scientific or scientific collection, exhibition purposes, Authorizes permits for depredation, religious purposes for propagation, the “taking” of Indian tribes. protected species for falconry) NO PERMIT scientific purposes, est. NO PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR experimental PROVISIONS FOR “INCIDENTAL TAK populations, or is “INCIDENTAL TAKE” incidental to an otherwise legal activity

Figure 5: Federal Wildlife Protection Laws, Source: (Government Accountability Office 2005)

18 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

For proposed projects such as the construction of a wind facility, both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must follow the ESA requirements to ensure that any action they authorize or fund will not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or destroy their designated critical habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). One objective of an EIS is to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) supported by a Habitat Con- servation Plan (HCP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The purpose of the HCP process associated with this permit is to guarantee that there will be adequate minimization and mitigation of the effects for the authorized incidental take. Developers with an authorized ITP are allowed to continue activities, such as constructing and operating a wind facility. In order to obtain an ITP, the developer must complete the permit application with the components of a standard application, a HCP with an incidental take statement, and a drafted NEPA EIS or EA. While the permit is processing, the USFWS will prepare the ITP, write a Biological Opinion (BO) under section 7 of the ESA, and finalize the NEPA analysis documents. For 60 days, there will also be a public comment process during this application process and are considered in the permit decision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Since the HCP is done by the developer, the USWFS and BLM have created guidelines to help in creating these documents and, if followed correctly, to help avoid litigation in the future. In terms of wind development on a federal policy level, there are no acts or policies in which the U.S. is only playing a minimal role in approving wind power facilities. The government can regulate wind facilities that are only on federal lands or have some form of federal involvement such as receiving funds (Government Accountability Office 2005 p.31). Most of these regulations vary from state to state and in local agencies, with the regulation of wind power facilities on nonfederal land largely the responsibility of state and local governments. For instance, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) states in its Federal Land Policy & Management Act (Sec. 103(c)) that public lands are to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources (Bureau of Land Management 2001). In terms of wind development on federal lands, the BLM discourages any siting on or near “Areas of

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Critical Environmental Concern,” including Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails (Jakle 2012).

However, there are U.S. federal agencies and organizations that have created guidelines to help in wind energy development and species protection. In 2003, the USFWS created voluntary “Land-Based Guidelines in Wind Energy” that focus on avoidance, minimization, and monitoring for all commercial wind energy projects (Jakle 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). These official guidelines help developers create wind facilities that fall within acceptable measures for species protection. Included in the FWS Guidelines is a Habitat Conservation Plan Handbook Addendum, or the “Five Point Poli- cy,” which provides techniques and guidance in biological goals and objectives, adaptive management, monitoring, permit duration, and public participation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).

Other directives include the “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in Wind Energy Development on BLM Lands in the Western U.S.” Published in 2005, this PEIS provides analysis of mitigation measures, including consideration of avoidance and minimization measures (Bureau of Land Management 2005) . The National Wind Coordinat- ing Council (NWCC) in 2007 created a “Toolbox” compiling mitigation policies, guidelines, and research for direct and indirect impacts on wildlife caused by wind power facilities (National Wind Coordinating Committee 2007). Other wind facility guidelines such as the Federal Aviation Chapter 13, Marking and Lighting (2007), Department of the Interior (DOI) Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Memorandum (2008), and the U.S. Forest Service Final Directives (2011) are recommendations helpful in wind power development but are not crucial to this study (Department of the Interior Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee 2008, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).

3.1.2 U.S. Case Studies The following nine cases are the Alta East Wind Energy Project, the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, the Buckeye Wind Power Project, the Chokecherry & Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project, the Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility, the Mon- arch Warren County Wind Turbine Project, the Ocotillo Express Wind Project, the Searchlight Wind Energy Project, and the Tule Wind Project. Four of the nine have al-

20 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

ready been constructed or are currently under construction. The five others are still in the planning process but will be soon constructed and aim for operation in 2014. Focus lies on the wind project’s HCPs, BOs, ITPs, and in one case, the Record of Decision for descriptions and information pertaining to this research. At each site there is an examining the logistics, the species which are allowed to be legally taken and the dealings within the ITP, avoidance and minimization measures, and, in some cases, what compensatory measures are discussed. While some plant species are protected under the ESA, I will only cover birds, mammals and bats, reptiles and amphibians, and in one case, insects. Appendix Table 7.1 shows which species is allowed to be legally taken and how many at each wind facility.

Alta East Wind Energy Project: The Alta East Project is about 3 miles (4.8 km) away from the town of Mojave and was approved for construction on May 24, 2013 located in Kern County, California. The project footprint would encompass 59 acres (23 ha) of public land within the 1,999 acre (808 ha) BLM right-of-way. A Right-of-Way (ROW) is the formal authorization from the BLM for public lands to be used for projects, such as wind facilities, roads, and transmission lines, for a specific amount of time. Alta Windpower Development, LLC has been allowed to construct 51 turbines, with 42 turbines on BLM lands and 9 on surrounding private lands. Total installed wind capacity for the project maximum would be 153 MW. The BLM has approved all aspects of the project, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), and ROW for the 30-year life of the project. Included in the Final Environmental Impact As- sessment (FEIS) are the USFWS’s BO and ITP which incorporates all mitigation measures to be taken and the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) (Bureau of Land Management 2013). A Habitat Conservation Plan was not created because the USFWS considered the FEIS and ROD covered all mitigation measures needed for the ITP.

The Alta East Wind Energy Project is the first wind project to authorize for the “taking” of the federally endangered California condor (Gymnogyps califorianus). 399 Cali- fornia condors compromised the total world population as of February 28,2013 and are continuing to breed successfully with the help of captive breeding programs and reintro- duction of condors in the early 1990s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2013). While lead poisoning is the main cause of death for this species, collision risk is a large concern as these birds have not evolved to look directly ahead while flying. The Alta East Wind Energy Project is not located within and will not affect the critical habitat of the California condor (they have not been documented within 12 miles of the project site recently or historically). However, with its growing population and large home range, this could be a concern in the future.

The incidental take of a condor is authorized within the BO which includes measures to avoid, reduce, and offset potential adverse effects on the California condor. In accordance with the FEIS, Alta Windpower, LLC is to create a number of detailed plans, protective measures, and surveying measures to avoid litigation. In addition to the California condor, the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is federally endangered and the Alta East wind facility has thus created measures to ensure potential adverse effects are reduced and avoided.

General protective measures include siting turbines away or immediately adjacent to the upwind sides of ridge crests, burying cable lines, and regular monitoring of above- ground cables, and wires. Measures taken for the California condor include implementing a Condor Monitoring Avoidance Plan in which a VHF-detection system will be installed to scan a 16 mile perimeter of the project and send alerts to qualified biologists who will be fully employed at the wind facility. The Condor Monitoring Avoidance Plan will be in effect 30 minutes prior to sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset, during which the fulltime biologists will be observing the whole project site. Hazardous waste, microtrash, and car- casses which may attract condors to the wind facility, will be immediately cleared. The developer and BLM have also created in-depth protocols should a condor be seen, as well as adaptive management strategies, but these will not need to be discussed in this paper. If a California condor is struck by a turbine blade, the project will be immediately con- fined to nighttime-only operations in which the USFWS and BLM will re-initiate formal consultation for future measures.

Even though federally protected, the desert tortoise does not have an ITP as the wind facility will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species. However, measures are still taken to minimize impacts of the wind facility such as the presence of

22 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 an authorized biologist onsite as well as biological monitors to survey and clear them from harm’s way (i.e. under parked vehicles, burrowed under turbines, and inside pipes). One concern of the desert tortoise is the abundance of invasive weeds across its range. Measures like limiting human access can help minimize those impacts to increase tortoise population. Since there is heavy sheep grazing, unauthorized off-road vehicle use, and trash dumbing in the vicinity, the desert tortoise has low numbers within the project site, and thus relatively few will live within this highly active area.

During construction, the facility will create a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) which will be given to all employees within the project. The project describes different protocols for environmental awareness safety and steps to be taken if or when a condor or desert tortoise is seen. A 15 mph speed limit will be in effect throughout the construction and operations period and temporary fencing will be built to exclude desert tortoises from construction areas.

Overall, the ITS estimates that one California condor is likely to be killed at this facility and the extent of take resulting from the construction of this wind facility will be a subset of the number of desert tortoises and eggs estimated within the project site. After the review of avoidance and minimization measures and an adaptive management outline, the ITP has allowed this facility to take one California condor. As a compensatory measure, Alta Windpower LLC, will contribute $100,000 to the California Condor Recovery and to outreach educational programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2013).

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project: The Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project is located in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (WV) and is broken down into two phases. Beech Ridge Energy LLC originally planned 124 wind turbines to be in operation by the end of 2010, the first phase with 67 wind turbines, and the second phase with 57 wind turbines. However, in 2009, a lawsuit was filed against them alleging that the project had violated section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, for its potential in the taking of the federally endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and its failure to properly apply for an ITP. After a detailed settlement agreement, the second phase of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project would contain a HCP with an ITP covering both phase I and II and cutting

23 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

out 24 of the original 124 turbines built on the site. Additionally, phase I has to follow a strict turbine operation timetable with specified times of day and seasons during which bats are not flying and monthly and annual reports on any taking of the Indiana bat has to be submitted (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013).

Beech Ridge Energy (BRE) fulfilled those obligations and on December 5, 2013 was approved for phase II for the construction of 33 wind turbines. The project is located on 63,000 acre (25,495 ha) tract in West Virginia (BRE leased 27,000 acres [10,926 ha] of this tract) and will total 100 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 186 MW (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office 2013). Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project’s HCP gives detailed information on the project and its covered activities, including measures taken for avoidance and minimization mitigation for the Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-eared Bat (Cory- norhinus townsendii virginianus).

The Indiana Bat lives primarily in the Eastern and Midwest U.S. states. During win- ters, the Indiana bat hibernates in only a few cave-like locations (i.e. abandoned mines, railroad tunnels) known as hibernacula and roost in forested areas or fragmented forests in the summer. There are only 88 known Indiana bat hibernacula (37 in West Virginia) which are considered Critical Habitat and cannot be destroyed or disturbed. The USFWS has created a recovery plan to protect these areas and to help monitor population trends. There are no known detections of Indiana bats in the surrounding Beech Ridge site during the summer breeding season and no roost trees have been identified, however the possibility of roosts could occur in the future. A Priority One hibernaculum, Hellhole, is located approximately 75 miles away from the Beech Ridge Wind Energy facility and houses both the Indiana Bat and Virginia big-eared bat (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013).

The Virginia big-eared bat has five caves that are listed as Critical Habitat by the USFWS, all of which are in West Virginia. The species has seen only a slight increase in population in the last 27 years of monitoring. Similar to the Indiana Bat, there are no detections of this species at or around Beech Ridge and there have been no reported collisions at any wind facility of either species (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013).

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

While there have been no reports of these species in pre-surveying and monitoring at Beech Ridge, both bat species are included in the HCP and BO. The project is on the edges of the species’ range and there may be potential for these species to either pass through this area or hibernate in one of the surrounding unoccupied caves in the future. Thus, mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid the taking of these species. Con- servation measures include reducing the number of turbines from 124 to 100, moving the proposed phase II expansion area away from known caves, and working with federal agencies in micro-siting turbine locations to minimize impacts. Tree clearing will be limited when bats are in hibernation, a 25 mph speed limit to be enacted, and lastly, testing and implementing a turbine operation curtailment plan. This curtailment plan specifies feathering all turbines at less than 2rpm below the 4.8 m/s cut-in speed beginning at sunset for a period of five hours from July 15 through October 15, during which the largest peak in bat mortality occurs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office 2013). In terms of compensatory measures, the BRE will complete off-site projects, proposing to fund specific off-site conservation projects which meet USFWS criteria in order to receive an ITP.

The incidental take statement within the BO, after review of the HCP, allows BRE to take up to 14 Virginia big-eared bats and up to 53 Indiana Bats over the course of the 25- year project. The incidental take is either from collision of the blades or from barotrauma during project operations but will not affect the population of either species of bat over the course of time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office 2013).

Buckeye Wind Power Project: On July 18, 2013, the USFWS approved the Buckeye Wind Power Project’s HCP and issued an ITP to Buckeye Wind LLC. The construction of 100 wind turbines with a maximum capacity of 250 MW is taking place in Champagne County, Ohio (OH) and has been issued the legal taking of 130 Indiana Bats. Under the Incidental Take Statement, “no more than 26 Indiana bats may be taken over any consec- utive 5-year period, starting in any one year in which take of more than 5.2 Indiana bats is estimated to have occurred” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological Services Field Office 2012). Additionally, no more than 14.2 Indiana bats may be taken in any 1

25 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 year. Buckeye Wind Power Project is situated within 80,051 acres (32,395 ha) with a permanent footprint of 129.8 acres (52.5 ha) (Buckeye Wind LLC 2013). Pre- construction surveys showed that Indiana bats fly through the project area during summer maternity season for migration, so extra steps have been taken to avoid adverse effects on this species. Other species of concern are the Rayed bean mussel (Villosa fabalis), which is federally endangered, and the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus), which is a federal candidate species. While mitigation measures will be taken to avoid the taking of these species, they are not listed in the ITP, as their environmental preferences and suitable habitat are not located within the project area.

Steps taken to avoid and minimize impacts to Indiana bats as well as the Rayed bean mussel and Eastern massasauga rattlesnake are detailed in the HCP and in the BO. Avoidance measures include the movement of the project site upon discovery of Indiana bats in the area, siting turbines so that none will be closer than 1.8 miles (2.9 km) away from known maternity roost trees, and situating the turbines to avoid disrupting large stretches of contiguous forest habitat and protected areas. Prior to any tree removal, trees will be carefully selected and removed outside seasonal bat activity from 1 November and 31 March with a designated Biologist monitoring the removal of trees. During construction, a speed limit of 10 mph will be required and construction workers will be thoroughly informed and educated about the eastern massasauga rattlesnake in possible habitats around the action area. Outside of these areas, a speed limit of 25 mph during construction and operation of the wind facility, FAA lighting will be applied and controlled by motion detectors or infrared sensors, and scheduled tree trimming during operation will be conducted outside the active period of Indiana bats. Lastly, between 1 April and 30 October of each year, turbines will be feathered from 30 minutes before sunset and 30 min after sunrise until a designated cut-in speed is reached to reduce collision mortality of Indiana bats. Compensatory mitigation that Buckeye Wind LLC included in the BO involve preservation of 217 acres (87.8 ha) of habitat within 7 miles (11.2 km) of an Indi- ana bat hibernaculum in Ohio, or use an approved mitigation bank within Ohio for the Indiana bat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological Services Field Office 2012, Buckeye Wind LLC 2013).

26 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

In conclusion, the Incidental Take Statement within the BO allows the take of 130 In- diana bats over the 25 year lifetime of the project as long as avoidance and minimization measures are met and compensatory mitigation is enacted within two years of the permit being issued. If the taking of Indiana bats is exceeded, adaptive management and re- initiation of federal consultation is required.

Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project: The largest project in Wyo- ming (WY), the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (CCSM) covers two wind farm sites totaling 1,000 turbines with a total capacity of 2,000 to 3,000 MW and an anticipated 30-year project life. The project covers more than 227,638 acres (112,000 ha) of mixed public and private land located about ten miles (16 km) south of Rawlins, WY, in Carbon County, with a disturbance footprint approximately 1,500 acres (607 ha). Phase I of II is located in the westernmost part of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Development Area with the first 500 wind turbines being constructed, designed to provide 1,500 MW of wind energy (Power Company of Wyoming LLC 2012).

The wind facility would avoid a critical Sage-Grouse habitat and follow the BLM’s and USWFS’s Avian Protection Plan to minimize impacts to Bald and Golden eagles and other raptor species. CCSM is located within the Upper Colorado River Basin and must follow the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species (also known as the Recovery Program) and the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP). The BLM has determined that the project’s water depletions from the Colorado River and Platte River system are “likely to adversely affect” fish species and the Recov- ery Program addresses the conservation measures needed to reduce impacts from the project. A programmatic biological opinion (PBO) for the PRRIP was created for the region for a number of species but for the project development area, the whooping crane (Grus americana) was of particular concern.

The whooping crane is the rarest of the world’s 15 crane species and has been federally listed as endangered since 1967. The whooping crane has five areas within their 2,500 mile (4,023 km) migrational path federally designated as critical habitat; Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Texas), Salt Plains NWR (Oklahoma), Quivirea NRW (Kansas), Cheyenne Bottoms State Wildlife Area (Kansas), and the Platte River valley

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

(Wyoming and Nebraska). The population nests almost exclusively in Wood Buffalo Na- tional Park (Canada) where nesting territories occupy poorly drained areas and wetlands. The muskeg and boreal forests intermix and the cranes are able to nest in shallow portions of ponds, small lakes, and wet meadows. Due to loss of wetlands from urbanization, stress during migration, and nesting site specificity, the species nearly became extinct. However, many Recovery Programs, Federal Acts, and NWRs have helped re-establish populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office 2006).

The PBO for the Platte River Recovery Program allow the legal taking of six individuals in the form of “harassment” in the region and one legal taking during the first 13 years of the PRRIP (which began in 2006). The incidental take of whooping cranes may occur during habitat restoration or other land management activities, such as a wind energy facility, which will require plans containing site specific measures to minimize the effects of land management on federally listed species. The PBO has created “Reasonable and Prudent Measures” to minimize take, the first being to survey areas where the whooping cranes migrate through in the Platte River valley and to schedule all activities such as construction, operations, and maintenance, during times when the whooping crane will not be disturbed or harassed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office 2006).

Due to the complexity of the PBO and nature of the Recovery Program, the PBO serves several functions including consultation on future projects, implementation of projects without exceeding the ITP of species, defining water-related activities and its consultation process, and determining which aspects of the Program are and are not within the PBO. The PBO Water Action Conservation Plan covers Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska projects separately, but all aims to adopt water-saving measures to reduce irri- gation needs and over-consumptive use. CCSM has contained a summary of BLM environmental constraints, best management practices, and proposed mitigation measures within the project’s FEIS and thus, does not need to complete an HCP in order to receive an ITP. Measures in addition to an Avian Protection Plan, a Bat Protection Plan, and an

28 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Eagle Conservation Strategy include lek2 monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse and fencing strategies to avoid collision risk with the species and minimize habitat fragmentation. During construction, dust abatement measures will be applied, 25 mph speed limits in the project area will be implemented, and pets will be prohibited to avoid disturbance and harassment of wildlife (Power Company of Wyoming LLC 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office 2012).

The CCSM Biological Opinion also covers the endangered bonytail chub (Gila ele- gans), Colorado pikeminnow (ptychocheilus Lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), ra- zorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), the least tern (Sernula [Sterna] antillarum), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodi- us). However, the USFWS determined that all of the above species including the whooping crane and the bald eagle were not likely to be jeopardized by the construction of this wind facility and that construction would not destroy the critical habitat of the whooping crane. Within this BO, there are no additional conservation measures to reduce impacts from the proposed wind facility (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office 2012).

Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility: Kaheawa Pastures was the first wind facility to create a Habitat Conservation Plan to protect Hawaii’s local bird and bat species: the Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandvicensis), the Hawaiian goose or Nene (Branta sandvicensis), Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularies newelli), and the Ha- waiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006). Created in 2006, Kaheawa Wind Power LLC constructed phase I (KWP I) of the generation facility with 20 wind turbines and completed phase II (KWP II) in 2012 with 14 wind turbines with total maximum capacity installed of 51 MW on the island of Maui

2 A lek is a group of males that gather together to engage in competitive displays that may attract visiting females who are surveying for prospective partners for copulation. Leks are commonly formed before or during breeding seasons. Fiske, P., et al. (1998). "Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis." Behavioral Ecology 9(4): 328-338.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006).

The four species of concern have the potential to fly within the vicinity of the project site and thus could be injured or killed from a turbine collision. Based on pre- construction surveys, species populations were collected and detailed in the HCP to show the necessity for an ITP. Each year the ITP allows the taking of up to two Hawaiian petrels, two Newells’ shearwaters, three Nene, and one Hawaiian hoary bat for the 20 year duration of the project. The Newell’s shearwater is a tropical offshore bird, breeding at heights of 528-3,960 ft. (160-1,200 m), and nesting in densely matted uluhe ferns and open canopy forests, commonly burrowing underneath the base of trees. With the loss of these forested areas to agriculture and human population, along with invasive species, their populations plummeted in the early 1980s. The Hawaiian petrel is one of the larger petrel species with 3 foot wing spans with a longer life span than most (about 30 years) (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006). These strictly nocturnal land based species have been pushed to the limits of their habitat with the introduction of cats, mongooses, and human development. In addition to the ESA, these two species are protected and in recovery through the USFWS’ “Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel and Newell’s Townsend’s Shearwater” (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006).

The third species of concern, the Nene, is a medium-sized goose with a non- migratory and terrestrial lifestyle, nesting on the ground and thus vulnerable to cats, dogs, and mongooses. Distribution of these species is heavily dependent on location of release sites for captive-bred Nene, as the species has been endangered since 1967 (they too has a USFWS Recovery Plan). Lastly, the Hawaiian hoary bat is an insectivorous, nocturnal bat, endemic to Hawaii that roosts solitarily in trees. Today, the Hawaiian hoary bat is the only existing native terrestrial mammal from the Hawaiian archipelago. The hoary bat’s long life-span and slow reproduction rates, low overall population numbers and restricted breeding distributions have put them on the endangered species list since 1970. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006).

30 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Even though these species are federally endangered and two are endemic to Hawaii, the necessity for energy in Hawaii has been an ongoing concern. To compromise between species protection and increased energy to power homes in Hawaii, the ITP with the HCP’s avoidance and minimization mitigation measures became the best option, and one that many other wind facilities are completing today. Minimization and avoidance of impacts are detailed in the BO and HCP but only briefly discussed in the 1999 FEIS and not mentioned in the 2006 FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). Measures include situating few turbines in single rows, rather than a large number of turbines in multiple rows, siting in proximity to existing electrical transmission lines to eliminate more overhead transmission lines, and using a monopole towers that are smaller than typically used (55m) with slower rotational speed rotors (11-20 rpm). New power lines will be buried underground, guy wires will be marked on meteorological towers, and a FAA lighting plan will be adopted to reduce the attraction or disorientating of seabirds. Construction activity will occur during the daytime to avoid nighttime lighting attraction of seabirds, and following an approved avoidance protocol should Nene and/or nest be discovered. Proposed compensatory mitigation includes the establishment of contingency funds for all four species, with an up-front contribution of $20,000 to a research effort of the Hoary bat, and searches for management/protection of colonies of the abovementioned bird species (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006).

The ITP permit was approved to take forty Hawaiian petrels, forty Newell’s shearwaters, sixty Nene, and twenty Hawaiian hoary bats over the course of the 20-year permit term (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006). In 2011 Kaheawa Wind requested an amendment to reduce the permitted level of take for the Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater. Over the first six years of operation of Kaheawa Wind Power I facility, three Hawaiian petrels, nine Ha- waiian geese, and two Hawaiian hoary bats were killed with no Newell’s Shearwater were killed (Foote and Greenlee 2011). At this time, there is no additional information as to whether the ITP has been reduced.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project: The Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project in Illinois (IL) differs from other cases in that it completed NEPA’s EA approach and was written up a “Finding of No Significant Impact” or FONSI in order to receive a BO and ITP from the USFWS. The FONSI, written from the Department of Energy, states that based on the EA, the project does “not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human or natural environmental within the meaning of NEPA” (U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 2011).

For this method, no HCP was created for the development of this 12 wind turbine facility with a maximum installed capacity of 19.2 MW. On 600 acres (242.8 ha) of agricultural land, this facility was approved in 2011 and received an ITP for the legal “take” of six Indiana bats over the lifetime of the project. The site is more than 2.5 miles (4 km) away from all suitable Indiana bat maternity habitats and the site is considered not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify critical habitats of the Indian Bat, but has still created avoidance and minimization measures for the fall migration period (1 August to 30 September) (U.S. Department of Energy 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

A known effective way to reduce bat fatalities around wind facilities is through operational curtailment. All wind turbines located at this facility will operate using a raised cut-in speed of 5.0 m/s and will be feathered at wind speeds below 5.0 m/s during fall migration periods for the 25-year life of the project. Additionally, raised cut-in speeds and blade feathering will be used during this period from 30 minutes before sunset until 30 minutes after sunrise. During operation, spring fatality monitoring will occur for the first three years to determine if additional measures of curtailment need to be extended to year round, and fall mortality monitoring will occur during years 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, and 23 of the project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Other measures are briefly listed in the EA such as use of a previously developed site, a smooth monopole tower, absence of guy wires in turbine design, choice of lighting equipment and operation procedures, placement of turbines in group configuration, installment of all electrical collection equipment underground, soil erosion/run-off prevention measures, proper recycling and waste management procedures, minimization of construction areas, and contractual obligation of

32 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 contractors and subcontractors to all above procedures (U.S. Department of Energy 2011). While briefly paraphrased in the EA, measures are not discussed in the Biological Opinion, with only the “conservation methods” of curtailment and feathering detailed.

Ocotillo Express Wind Project: The Ocotillo Express Project is being constructed on approximately 10,151 acres (4,108 ha) of BLM federal land in Imperial County, Califor- nia (CA). The site is divided into two sections with a total of 155 wind turbines with a maximum installed capacity of 356.5 MW. The species of concern in the area are the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and the Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Ocotillo Energy LLC created an FEIS and ROD (Record of Decision) which allowed for the approval of the USFSW’s Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permit (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

The Peninsular bighorn sheep has been federally listed as endangered since 1998 at only 296 individuals remaining. Their range extends in to the desert southwest from the San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County, CA south to the Mexican border. They live on lower elevation slopes but are for the most part wide-ranging and can survive in a va- riety of habitats. From surveys conducted around the project area, it can be shown the Peninsular bighorn sheep are increasing in abundance. The Least Bell’s vireo was listed endangered in 1986 but it has since increased 10-fold in population, breeding throughout southern California. Vireos prefer diverse, early successional riparian habitats such as cottonwood-willow woodlands, oak woodlands, and mule fat scrub. With both species increasing in abundance and human activity increasing in the area, direct and indirect effects like habitat alteration and displacement could alter population dynamics. Even though there is no suitable habitat on the project site and the taking of any bighorn sheep is not anticipated, Ocotillo Energy LLC has taken specific avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures to reduce and offset potential adverse effects of these species, which is discussed in the ROD and BO (Bureau of Land Management 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

For measures during construction, a speed limit of 15 mph along with minimized night lighting has been implemented during this period. The construction of wind tur-

33 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 bines will occur outside the lambing season (1 January to 30 June), with a Bighorn Sheep Monitor (a biological consultant) to observe nearby lambing sites and focus on suitable habitat during and after construction. After construction, all disturbed areas will be re- vegetated according to a habitat restoration plan approved by the BLM. Additionally, a worker education awareness program (WEAP) will be presented to all workers throughout the life of the project covering information about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and explaining designated work areas and procedures should a sheep be encountered. A designated Biologist and Biological Monitor(s) will be on staff for conducting preconstruction surveys and monitoring construction, operations & maintenance (O&M), decommissioning, and restoration projects. In addition to following a Bighorn Sheep Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Ocotillo Express LLC will provide $200,000 in funding towards a Pen- insular bighorn sheep study or research program (i.e. the possibility for a land bridge or reconnecting populations within Mexico) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

As partial compensation for the project, Ocotillo Express LLC will remove 171 acres (69 ha) of saltcedar (Tamarix sp.) with a prescribed burn and another 128 acres (51.8 ha) by stump cutting and herbicide application or ripping the plants out by the roots as part of the restoration of 318 acre (128.7 ha) Carrizo Marsh. The Biologist and/or Biological Monitor(s) will supervise the Carrizo Marsh restoration plan for the Vireo to monitor and maintain the re-vegetated site, with Ocotillo Express LLC providing $500,000 to ensure perpetual future management of the 318 acres (128.7 ha) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

The USFWS permitted the legal taking of five adult ewes (females), five lambs, and three Vireo pairs. The Service feels the incidental take of Vireos would result from the destruction of saltcedar in order to re-vegetate the area with stands of tall, dense, and structurally diverse native vegetation to better support Vireo breeding. The legal taking of ewes and lambs would be due to the behavioral avoidance from human disturbance and likely impair essential behavioral patterns pertaining to breeding, feeding, or sheltering. With lack of research on the relation of associated human activities to bighorn sheep, there is no sure understanding of how the wind facility will affect their range and behav-

34 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

ioral patterns of the species. While there are concerns about other species such as the Flat-tailed Horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), there are few mitigation measures and no legal taking of such species. Reparation measures for these species include re-vegetation for the disturbance to Flat-tailed Horned lizard habitat at a 1:1 ratio and compensation for the loss of Burrowing owl foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio (Bureau of Land Management 2012).

Searchlight Wind Energy Project: The Searchlight Wind Project is the second wind facility approved for construction in Clark County, Nevada (NV). Located 60 miles (96.6 km) southeast of Las Vegas, this 87 wind turbine project has the electricity production capacity of 200 MW and is located on approximately 9,300 acres (3763.6 ha) managed by the BLM. Only 388.5 acres (157.2 ha) of habitat would be disturbed. Clark County, NV has three regional HCPs, one of which overlaps the action area of the wind facility called “The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (TE-034927) and EIS (RECON 2000).” This HCP serves as the wind facility’s in order to receive the BO and ITP for the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

The Mojave Desert tortoise is restricted only to the Sonoran and Mojave deserts and lives approximately 50 to 80 years, but they have a slow reproductive rate. The Desert tortoise spends most of their lives underground or concealed under shrubs to avoid heat and reduce water loss but become active after seasonal rains. The Mojave Desert tortoise was listed as "threatened" under the California Endangered Species Act in 1989 and under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1990 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

Death or injury could result from activities such as the clearing of vegetation, trench- ing, and collisions with vehicles or heavy equipment. Desert tortoises may become at- tracted to the project site if water is available and could be crushed by moving vehicles. Studies currently being conducted are seeing desert tortoises avoiding these areas alto- gether due to high turbine density and human activity, disrupting their habitat and range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). Due to these possibilities of death, the USFSW allowed the Searchlight Wind En-

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 ergy facility legal take of the desert tortoise. However, with the difficulty in calculating densities and abundance, the USFWS did not limit the number of individuals. Based on preconstruction surveys, estimates that up to 50 tortoises could be in harm’s way, cap- tured, or moved during construction of the wind facility, but only three tortoises per year during O&M. Based on this, the USFWS allowed no more than one sub-adult or adult desert tortoise and two hatchlings or juvenile tortoises be killed during construction and no more than one sub-adult or adult desert tortoise and two hatchlings or juvenile tortoise be killed every year during O&M (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

Anticipated Operation & Construction habitat loss Maintenance (Acres)

Construction: Adults/ Adults/ Critical- 7 Subadults: 1 Subadults: 1 Non-critical- 382

Juveniles/ Juveniles/ Operation & Hatchlings: 2 Hatchlings: 2 Maintenance: 0 (per year)

Figure 6: Amount and extent of legal taking of Peninsular bighorn sheep during Construction and O&M, Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012) Measures taken to reduce potential adverse effects on the desert tortoise include burying collection lines, reducing night lighting, checking underneath parked vehicles, and avoiding the pooling of water with light dust control. For desert tortoises, fencing and caution signs will be installed on access and main roads, and with speed limits of 15 mph during high activity periods (1 April to 31 May and 1 September to 31 October) and 20 mph during low activity periods (1 November to 28/29 February) will be implemented. Compliance Inspection Managers or Biological Monitors will be employed at the facility to conduct routine inspection and monitoring activities for pre-construction surveys, construction, O&M, and decommissioning. If a desert tortoise needs to be relocated out of harm’s way, the designated biologist will be place the tortoise away from the path of ac-

36 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 tivity and record activity. Other conservation measures for the Searchlight Wind Project include a Waste Management Plan, a Weed Management Plan, a Site Rehabilitation and Facility Decommissioning Plan, a Transportation Plan, a worker education awareness program (WEAP), an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012).

The regional HCP that overlaps the project area includes an incidental take permit allowing incidental take of tortoises for a period of 30 years on 145,000 acres (58,679 ha) of non-Federal land. Included in the HCP are a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and EIS which detail the measures to minimize, mitigate, and monitor the effects of covered activities (with wind facilities being one of the activities allowed) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California/Nevada Operations Office 2001).

Tule Wind Project: The Tule Wind Project is 70 miles away from San Diego, Cali- fornia (CA), consisting of 128 wind turbines with the maximum capacity to produce 201 MW of electricity. The project footprint covers 725.3 acres (293.5 ha) split between BLM land, Indian Reservations, and California State public lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). Tule Wind LLC did not complete an HCP as the FEIS was sufficient in providing adequate information and environmental measures taken for this project.

The Biological Opinion for this project addresses the Federally Endangered Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). The Quino was listed as endangered in 1997 and was historically abundant throughout the coastal slope of southern California but with 75 percent of its historical habitat destroyed by urbanization, few locations have been federally set aside for its recovery plan. Primary host plants for the Quino are the dot-seed plantain, thread-leaved bird’s beak, and white snapdragon. Food sources in the area include nectar from the lomatium, goldfields, popcorn flowers, and a number of other native plant species found in open areas and ecotone zones occurring in grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and native open canopy cover woodlands. Densely vegetated areas and areas with invasive, nonnative vegetation cannot support the Quino (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). In general,

37 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Quino are threatened by urban and agricultural development, invasion of nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, grazing, fire management practices, and habitat fragmentation.

Conservation measures for the Quino habitat during construction, operations, and maintenance include offsetting a 2:1 ratio of all disturbed habitat permanently impacted by habitat acquisition as well as perpetual management through a conservation easement and endowment (as explained in a “conservation plan” created before construction) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). A speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads in Quino habitat (during flight season) will be applied, with access roads to be gated to reduce vehicle activity, and to be maintained regularly and monitored to ensure no Quino host or nectar plants grow along the highway. Dust abatement and suppression measures will be taken to avoid dust clouds and reduce visibility with orange snow fencing to be applied to identify exclusion areas of human activity during construction. WEAP will be developed and distributed to every employee during construction, operations, and maintenance and a Biological Monitor will be on site during all phases to implement WEAP, monitor construction activities, and ensure compliance with conservation and regulatory measures. Lastly, a Weed Manage- ment Plan will be implemented at the facility to restore native vegetation through such means as planting or seeding any native plants which were present before construction and adding seeds of host plants within areas of Quino habitat.

The BO for the Tule Wind Project allows the legal taking of the Quino Checkerspot butterfly but does not quantify the precise number due to its small body size, quick life stage, and fluctuation of population numbers based on seasonal and annual basis. Thus, the incidental take is based on the amount of occupied Quino habitat allowed to be destroyed during construction; “death or injury of eggs, larvae, and pupae from crushing, trampling, or removal of host plants during construction within up to 31.9 acres (12.9 ha) of occupied Quino habitat, defined as any suitable habitat within .6 mile (1 km) of a Qui- no sighting” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). The incidental take permit would be violated if more than 31.9 acres (12.9 ha) of occupied Quino habitat are disturbed during construction.

3.1.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

The nine U.S. cases selected have many similar characteristics in terms of the logistics and capacities of the wind facilities, avoidance and minimization measures taken during construction and operation, and the protection and legal taking of endangered species. All nine wind facilities in the U.S. contribute to a total of 1,153 wind turbines with an approximate maximum capacity of 3,025.2MW, covering 284,677 acres (115,204 ha). A chart of the U.S. cases and the measures taken at each facility are found in Appendix Table 7.5. A list of endangered species allowed to be legally taken and its extent are located at each facility is located in Appendix Table 7.1.

In terms of avoidance and minimization measures at U.S. wind facilities, the main points of concerns are micro-siting, wind turbine specifics, and constructional minimization measures. All information presented in the cases was collected from pre-construction surveys of the area, guidelines from Federal Bureaus and NGOs, and published documents pertaining to each location. In terms of micro-siting or land optimization for the wind turbines and the placement of the facilities in general, many factors were taken in to consideration. For instance, Alta East made sure to avoid siting turbines on the upwind sites of ridge crests since birds of prey tend to hunt in those areas. Beech Ridge located their turbines away from important hibernacula and essentially reduced the number of turbines at the site to ensure this precaution. Buckeye followed a similar strategy to that of Beech ridge in placing the turbines and facility away from known roosting trees and the forest area where bats hibernate and feed. Kaheawa placed the turbines in single rows and near existing power lines to avoid further construction and to lower the possibility of birds and bats to fly into the turbines. Monarch Warren County wind facility clustered the turbines and placed them on previously used land.

For wind turbine specifics, all cases preferred the use of monopoles, established lighting measures, and discussed specific feathering and cut-in speeds based on the facility’s topography, seasonality, and the species in the area. Additionally, some sites detailed measures regarding the attraction of species to the wind facilities, such as Alta East’s implementation of carcass removal to deter birds of prey, Kaheawa and Tule facilities’ re-vegetation of native environment to the site and deterring invasive species, and Ocotil- lo’s destruction of saltcedar and replacement of native vegetation for a particular endan-

39 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

gered bird species. On top of a wind facility’s HCP and FEIS, some additional plans were created such as a Condor Monitoring & Avoidance Plan (Alta East), Eagle Conservation Plan (Alta East), Sage-Grouse Implementation Program (Chokecherry & Sierra Madre), Bighorn Sheep Monitoring Program (Ocotillo Express), a Weed Management Plan (Tule), and importantly an Avian & Bat Protection Plan (Alta East, Chokecherry & Sierra Madre, and Searchlight). Most interestingly, four wind facilities (Alta East, Ocotillo, Searchlight, and Tule) require a full-time Biologist(s) and/or Monitors to help in super- vising the area, prepared for any sort of particular species issue that may arise. Alta East is including a “Condor Initial Response Team” if a condor is spotted in the area or col- lides with a turbine. These additional plans were added based on the surrounding species of each location and in order to avoid litigation. Monitoring is briefly discussed in all cases, but Monarch Warren County in particular has listed specific years in which monitoring will occur throughout the lifetime of the project.

Construction measures were discussed in detail in all of the cases, each with different focuses based on topography and seasonality. Some cases discuss motion detectors and minimized night lighting during construction, along with the implementation WEAP (Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program) at Alta East, Ocotillo Express, and Tule. Ocotillo has stated that construction will not occur during lambing season of the Bighorn sheep.

Lastly, compensatory measures are only briefly discussed in less than half of the cases. Beech Ridge will complete an offsite conservation project within the first two years of receiving the ITP. Kaheawa will construct a release facility within the first year of the issuance of the ITP and $20,000 towards bat research in Hawaii. Ocotillo will give $200,000 towards bighorn sheep research and $500,000 to the Carrizo Marsh restoration plan in the area.

Overall, the nine U.S. cases give detailed descriptions of how, when, and why a wind facility is constructed, operated, and maintained, along with detailed reasons pertaining to why an ITP was permitted and measures taken to ensure the safety of particular species. Some concern has arisen though that the HCPs and Biological Opinions are too vague and broad in particular subjects. For instance, the Ocotillo wind facility lists potential

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

threats to the bighorn sheep and its habitat, but the reasons to go forward with the facility are insubstantial and hard to support in order to continue development. The enforceability of what the companies plan to do at the facility within the provided documents seem minimal. Until recently, no wind facility had been penalized for exceeding ITP take numbers and not following appropriate guidelines and recommendations to avoid litigation. In November 2013, Duke Energy Renewables wind facilities in Casper, Wyoming (WY) took 14 golden eagles over a three year period, violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The company was required to pay $1 million dollars to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, WY Game & Fish Department, the National Fish and Wildlife Foun- dation, and The Conservation Fund. They were to also enact more aggressive measures to avoid the continued take of golden eagles (McGee 2013). Most interestingly, Germany has had no such similar events like this in terms of legality and fines.

3.2 Germany 3.2.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines As a member of the European Union, Germany must follow all international policies and directives, as well as its own federal policies. Two major policies the EU enforces in terms of species protection are the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Germany has its own Federal Nature Conservation Act, “Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (BNatSchG)” created in 1976, but its most recent revisions in 2009 better reflect EU’s requirements (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). In terms of environmental impact, EU nations follow the EIA Directive and the SEA Directive with Germany additionally following its own EIA Act “Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVPG)” and the National Strategy on Biological Diversity. As stated in the introduction of this paper, Germany’s renewable energy goals stated in its Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), or “German Renewable Energy Sources Act,” in 2000, was the first key policy for the development of renewable energies in Germany (Bundesministerium fur Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit 2012). This act has allowed this industry to become the fastest growing sector in Germany and with its revisions in 2009 and 2012, has given companies incentives for system services, research and development, and investment protection in the renewable energies industry sector, mainly wind energy (The Economist 2012). The U.S. does not have a renewable energy act, but passed the 2009

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, giving renewable energies industry tax cred- its for clean energy and direct spending for energy conservation initiatives.

The EU’s EIA Directive, amended in 2009, requires that an impact assessment be documented and approved as an application for development for certain types of projects including “installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production” (Drewitt and Langston 2006 p.34). The SEA differs in that it aims to integrate environmental con- siderations into projects and ensuring that environmental impacts and issues are taken into account during early development decision-making processes (Drewitt and Langston 2006, Rajvanshi 2008, European Commission 2011). Germany’s EIA Act are environmental impact assessment regulations for projects with significant effect on the environment, be it landscape, nature, location, and/or size (Köppel, Geißler et al. 2012). I will not go further into detail about the EU’s and Germany’s EIA acts as they are, while important, not relevant to species protection like the Habitats Directive, the Bird Directive, and BNatSchG.

The EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC was created in 1992 and is the cornerstone if Europe’s nature conservation policy. This Directive is formally called the Council Di- rective 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora with Germany terming it as the “Fauna-Flora-Habitat Richtlinie,” or FFH, which can be somewhat unclear. There are two pillars within the Habitats Directive; the first refers to the conservation of natural habitats and the habitats of specific species and the second referring to the protection of species. The first pillar is broken down into bio- geographical regions known as the Natura 2000 network which, combined with the Birds Directive, attempts to ensure long-term survival of specific habitats (European Commission 2011). However, a main focus of this paper surrounds the second pillar where further discussion will be about the Annexes, favorable conservation statuses (FCSs), Article 12, and continued ecological function (CEF) measures within Article 12.

The Habitats Directive contains five Annexes, but the attention lies in Annex II and Annex IV in terms of plant and animal species protection. Annex II lists 297 animal species of “Community Interest” and the designation of areas of conservation. These areas known as Natura 2000 sites overlaps with the Birds Directive and will be discussed later.

42 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Annex IV lists species of Community interest in need of strict protection, covering 922 species, of which 323 are animal species. Combining species from Annex II and IV, 45 percent of the total 447 animal species are covered within this Habitats Directive with currently 5,267 reported FFH areas and bird sanctuaries through the European Union (European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity 2014).

“Favorable conservation status” is the highest environmental condition of all measures taken under the Directive and all areas must aim to reach or maintain a FCS. This overall objective to restore and maintain the long-term distribution and abundance of species which fall under community interest within Natura 2000 and Annexes II, IV, and V. “[These] measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favorable conservation status, natural habitats and species of the wild fauna and flora of Community interest […]. [FCS is] described as a situation where a habitat type or species is doing sufficiently well in terms of quality and quantity and has good prospects of continuing to do so in the future” (European Commission 2011). The main parameters for defining the FCS of a species are listed in Article 1(i) of the Directive. EU member states have created a framework for evaluating conservation status in Article 17 of the Directive (green = favorable, amber = unfavorable/inadequate, and red = unfavorable/bad) (European Commission 2011).

Article 12 within the EU Habitats Directive is concerned with protecting the individuals of the listed species as well as their breeding sites and resting places, contributing to the goal of favorable conservation status for these natural habitats and species of community interest (European Commission 2011). The portion of text within the Directive requires all Member States to take the appropriate measures to “establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV in their natural range prohibiting: (a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild: (b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration: (c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild: and (d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places” (Official Journal of the European Communities 1992 p.6). In addition, member states must also establish a monitoring system for the collision or incidental taking of any animal species listed in Annex

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

IV. Thereafter, Member States must also conduct further research or conservation measures to ensure collision or incidental taking does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned. Article 12 ensures that all EU member states, including Germany, adopt and implement preventative measures in any sort of development, including wind energy. This Article also aims to safeguard specific species during times of resting and breeding, guaranteeing the continued ecological functionality of these sites and places (European Commission 2011 p.45). If a breeding or resting site placed under the protection of Article 12 is threatened with destruction or deterioration, Article 16 may be applied regarding exclusion privileges for developers. But to avoid Article 16, CEF measures may be put into place to allow activities, such as wind development, to be conducted on or around these FFH areas. “Mitigation measures aim at minimizing or even cancelling out the negative impact of an activity through a range of preventative actions […] including actions which improve or manage these certain sites to the CEF is not suf- fered or lost” (European Commission 2011 p.47). Kleeman explains that these protected areas within the Habitats (and Birds) Directive(s) ensure the ecological diversity and the different habitats be “identified, protected and maintained, and that appropriate forms of planning and management are put into place to guarantee that such habitats and species are safeguarded” (Stoll-Kleeman 2001 p.109).

The Birds Directive, created in 1979 but recently amended in 2009, shares the common objectives and provisions with the Habitats Directive in relation to the network of protected sites within Natura 2000. As one of the EU’s oldest pieces of environmental legislation, it bans activities directly threatening birds, such as the intentional killing or taking of birds, along with the destruction of their nests and taking of their eggs. Articles 5-9 of the Birds Directive contain similar provisions regarding species protection such as the illegal killing and taking of bird species, and provisions regarding Annex II and IV of birds (European Commission 2011, European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity 2014).

Within Germany’s legislation is the Federal Natural Conservation Act (BNatSchG), a national framework law responsible for the implementation and financing of nature conservation under scientific authorities of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

(Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN), the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (Um- weltbundesamt, UBA), and Länder offices (Stoll-Kleeman 2001). Created in 1976 and recently revised in 2009, this nationwide regulation was the first of its kind in Germany pertaining to the conservation of wild animal and plant species along with regulations regarding the monitoring, prevention, and elimination of invasive species. Important pieces of this legislation are paragraphs §15, 31-36, and 44-45 of BNatSchG, which refer to the protection of species, minimization measures and mitigation, and exceptions. Para- graph §15 states: (1) the developer or relevant authorities are obliged to refrain from pre- ventable impairments of nature and landscape. Injuries are avoidable if reasonable alternatives are given, with aims to complete the project with less adverse effects on the nature and landscape. Justifications must be made if impairments to nature and landscape cannot be avoided. Part two refers to compensation, saying: (2) the developer is obliged to avoid damage through measures of nature conservation and landscape management (via compensatory measures) or replacement (alternative measures). Balance is repaired if and when the functions of the ecosystem and the landscape is restored or redesigned. (3) Compensatory measures must be maintained in a secure and legally necessary time. This period is fixed by the competent authority in the approval process (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009).

Paragraphs §31- 36 discuss the “Natura 2000” network with Paragraph §32(3) defining the purpose of protection in accordance with relevant conservation objectives and the necessary territorial boundaries. Developers and relevant authorities must show whether priority natural habitat types or priority areas are protected. Paragraph §33(1) states all changes and disorders that can lead to substantial impairment of a Natura 2000 site and its relevance to conservation and protection are not permitted. According to Paragraph §34(1), all project leaders must complete an FFH compatibility assessment to see if the project will fall in line with the conservation objectives and protection of Natura 2000 sites. Paragraph §34(2) states that if the examination of the compatibility that the project may cause significant damage to the site with regard to the conservation objectives or the purpose of protection components, it is inadmissible and the project terminates. One crucial content of the law that allows for activities such as wind energy is within §34 (3.1-2). Section 2 may only be authorized or carried out to the extent it is, for imperative reasons

45 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

of public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, necessary and contains reasonable alternatives (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). The competent authority for nature conservation and landscape management may permit these exemptions under the provisions of §34(3-5). (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). Paragraphs §35 and §36 refer to genetically modified organ- isms (GMOs) and plans for the Federal Highway and Waterways Acts for Natura 2000 which are not relevant to this paper.

Lastly, Paragraphs §44 and §45 discuss requirements for special protection and exceptions under this law. §44 BNatSchG states that it is prohibited to catch, injure, kill, or take wild animals of protected species or damage and destroy their natural habitats. Sec- tion (2) states that significantly disturbing wild animals of strictly protected species as well as European bird species during breeding, rearing, moulting, hibernation, and migration or any considerable disorder is significant by the failure of the conservation status of the local population of a species (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). Paragraph §45 describes the exceptions to the taking of protected species. Section 7.5 under state law states that from the nature protection and landscape conservation authorities, specifically the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, may grant other exceptions from the prohibitions of §44 in the individual case for other imperative reasons overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature. An exception may only be approved if reasonable alternatives are not given and the conservation status of populations of a species is not degraded (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009).

When BNatSchG was revised in 2009, it triggered the implementation of an ASP (Ar- tenschutzprüfung) which examines if a project or activity meets the standards of paragraph §44 and the limitations of paragraph §45 for the special protection of species. All species under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, all birds under the Birds Directive, and all “strictly protected” species are disclosed in an ASP when any development may affect their breeding and/or nesting sites. This species protection impact assessment (Ar- tenschutzprüfung [ASP]) can be divided into three stages. Stage I is the preliminary stage to see if the planned area and its species composition and impact factors will conflict with

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 the Habitats and Birds Directive. During this time all information is collected regarding species in the area and which planning measures will be taken in order to see if local populations would be disrupted or if breeding sites and resting places would be deterio- rated. Stage II is in regard to access restrictions, seeing if general life risks of species of interest will be significantly increased and which mitigation measures will be taken, including pre-determined compensatory measures. Stage III is the exception process to check whether, after compelling reasons, there are no other alternatives and deterioration of the conserved areas are insignificant and thus, the ASP for that area would be ap- proved3 (Ministerium für Klimaschutz 2013).

In Germany, while there are international and federal policies for species protection, the local and regional governments are in charge of creating landscape and development plans determining areas of nature conservation and areas which can be put forth for other activities such as energy development and, in particular, the location of wind turbines. Rajvanshi explains that “in Germany, local landscape plans are prepared in an area wide manner for the entire country. These identify a range of rules for future land use. Fur- thermore, objectives for the development of nature and landscapes are identified […]. These can be used, for example, in later project EIA for identifying suitable mitigation and compensation measures” (Rajvanshi 2008 p.6). The Germany Wind Energy Associa- tion (Der Bundesverband WindEnergie, BWE) coincides with Rajwanshi’s statement in saying “negative environmental influences can be largely avoided through careful site planning.[…]The intervention in nature and landscape are assessed and, where appropriate, compensated” (Bundesverband WindEnergie 2014). These approaches are mainly found at the regional level of the planning and approval process. While a majority of German states have particular guidelines such as “Umsetzung des Arten- und Habi- tatschutzes bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen in Nordrhein- Westfalen,” which help local and regional planners with species protection around wind turbines, there is no specific federal legislation that give formal regulations as to protect

3 It should be noted, however, these stages are not completed in practice. Judges argue there can always be alternative sites for the construction of wind turbines. But due to land availability in Germany, some be- lieve this is untrue. Future research in land development and/or wind development competition needs to be investigated for better insight on legal procedures versus “real-life” practices.

47 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 specific species around wind turbines (Ministerium für Klimaschutz 2013). Organizations such as Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) (Nature & Biodiversity Conservation Union), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) (Association for the Environment & Nature Conservation), Greenpeace, and Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) (Germany for Nature & Environment) all aim to find compromises between nature and wind energy development. These means include different control instruments for the state and regional planning for off-limit zones and/ or criteria for better site selection to specific protection measures for species. Furthermore, the Bund-Länder-Initiative WindEnergie (BLWE) is a Federal-state initiative working group which helps in support- ing and advising appropriate wind energy siting in Germany (Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit 2013).

3.2.2 German Case Studies Germany’s construction of “windparks” differs from those in the U.S. Unlike the U.S., Germany does not have the acreage to construct massive windparks. Germany must also coordinate projects around FFH areas, nature reserves, and parks. Only a small collection of wind turbines are built after local and regional pre-planning proposals are created. Germany does not have an incidental take permit but does discuss the allowance for projects such as windparks and the legal taking of species of concern. Due to this, the number of bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species are taken into account. This scale of avoiding and minimizing adverse effects from wind turbines is broader and there is a significantly higher number of species to take into account. In each of the cases, I discuss the logistics of the project area, the species of concern in the surrounding area, and avoidance and CEF measures taken to lower the risk of harm to a number of species. Not all information is available as most of the projects are neither completed nor is this information shared at all. One important aspect in Germany is their strong protection and security of birds of prey in the region. While many are not endangered, birds of prey such as the Habicht and Sperber (Hawks), Wespenbussard (Buzzard), and Rot- and Schwarz- milan (Red and Black Kites) are federally protected and extra precautions are thus made to ensure their safety. A large concern in Germany involves the strong protection of the Schwarz- and Weißstorch (Black and White Storks). Bat species are additionally a large concern with all being taken into account within construction of wind turbines.

48 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Himmelsleiter, Aachen: In the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, south of the town of Aa- chen, there is a ten wind turbine windpark located in a “young” spruce forest (less than 120 years) termed Aachener Münsterwald for a maximum capacity of 30 MW (pro terra 2011). The city of Aachen’s environmental department created an opinion in 2011 regarding species protection around the planned wind farm and discussing observation of bird and bat species in the area along with the Haselmaus (Dormouse) (Muscardinus avellanarius) and Wildkatze (Wildcat) (Felis silvestris). While no dormouse or wildcat were observed in the project area, all birds and bats listed in the area are considered to be strictly protected and thus, listed within tables with avoidance and CEF measures. There are 24 bird and bat species listed in the text, but the main species of concern are the Großer Abendsegler (Noctule) (Nyctalus noctula), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipi- strelle) (Pipistrellus nathusii), Gartenrotschwanz (Redstart) (Phoenicurus phoenicurus), Grünspecht (Green Woodpecker) (Picus picus), Kranich (Crane) (Grus grus), Mäuse- bussard (Buzzard) (Buteo buteo), Schwarzspecht (Black Woodpecker) (Dryocopus martius), and the Waldkauz (Brown Owl) (Strix aluco) (pro terra 2011).

Avoidance measures briefly discussed in this opinion include location optimization for the turbines and allowing construction to occur only at a certain time periods to avoid breeding and nesting times. For instance, the Baumpieper (Tree Pipit) (Anthus trivialis), and the Kuckuck (Cuckoo) (Cuculus canorus) breed from March to September, so mowing and land clearing must only occur between October and February. Older trees with cavities will be checked and bat roosts outside of the wind facility will be created to deter nesting within the project area. Additionally, wind turbine gondolas will be sealed. Inter- estingly, there are no CEF or avoidance measures required at this wind facility.

Bergkamp, Rosendahl: Within the municipality of Rosendahl in the state of Nord- rhein-Westfalen on intensively farmed fields, the construction of two wind turbines has been proposed called Bergkamp. There are older turbines in the area and two other windpark projects are currently in development within Rosendahl, which will be discussed later. With the possibility of destroying nests, risking the abandonment of bird and bat species from their habitat within the area, and disrupting species’ populations and migrational patterns, Bergkamp created measures to help avoid and minimize these impacts.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

After micro-siting, construction will occur outside breeding times, which are from mid- March until the end of June. Acoustic oversight will take place for the first two years from March to November to monitor hit victims. As an avoidance measure, a radius of 100m around each turbine will be designated as intensive land use or “food-poor” surfaces, permanently unattractive for small mammals, insects, and small birds to avoid attracting foraging birds of prey.

The Großer Abendsegler (Noctule) is the most abundant bat species found dead underneath wind turbines in Germany. However, there are no significant signs of migration through the planned area and thus the species is not a concern at Bergkamp. While not described in the opinion, measures will still be taken to avoid collision and barotrauma for the Großer Abensegler as well as the Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipistrelle) (Pipi- strellus pipistrellus), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipistrelle) (Pipistrellus nathusii), Kleinabendsegler (Leisler) (Nyctalus leisleri) and Breitflügelfledermaus (Serotine) (Epte- sicus serotinus) (Echolot GbR 2013).

In the area, 66 bird species were detected but the ones of concern are the Feldlerche (Skylark) (Alauda arensis), Habicht (Hawk) (Accipiter gentilis), Kiebitz (Lapwing) (Vanellus vanellus), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier) (Circus cyaneus), Mäusebussard (Buz- zard), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) (Circus aeruginosus), Rotmilan (Red Kite) (Milvus milvus), Sperber (Hawk) (Accipiter misus), and Turmfalke (Kestrel) (Falco tinnunculus) (öKon GmbH 2013). The wind turbines are located in agricultural fields but are surrounded by forest, so there is a mix between forest birds and semi-open field and meadow birds. The preservation of breeding grounds for the Lap- wings is the highest priority for the project and therefore the turbines will be situated as far away as possible from the nearest breeding colony. These measures in the opinion written April 2013 are considered specific continued ecological functionality (CEF) measures, which are used to avoid conflicts with the bird and bat protection laws by Germany and the EU.

Holwicker Mark, Rosendahl: Also located in Rosendahl, this project area is located in an agricultural and forested area and requests for the construction of four wind turbines. During pre-construction surveys, the study showed two nature reserves within the project

50 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 area and two FHH-directive areas 2-4 km away with a total collection of 67 bird species detected in the area. Relevant forest bird species include the Habicht (Hawk), Sperber (Hawk), Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Waldohreule (Long-eared Owl) (Asio otus) and Wald- schnepfe (Woodcock) (Scolopax rusticola). Relevant field and meadow birds are the Feldsperling (Tree Sparrow) (Passer montanus), Turmfalke (Kestrel), Feldlerche (Sky- lark), and Kiebitz (Lapwing) (öKon GmbH 2013). Located near Holtwicker Lake and adjacent to pools and ponds, water birds in the area are also considered: the Graureiher (Grey Heron) (Ardea cinerea), Kormoran (Cormorant) (Phalacrocorax carbo), Lach- möwe (Black-headed Gull) (Larus ridibundus), Nachtigall (Nightingale) (Luscinia megarhynchos), Schnatterente (Gadwall) (Anas strepera), Silbermöwe (Herring gull) (Larus argentatus), Siberreiher (Egrets) (Casmerodius albus), and the Tafelente (Pochard) (Ay- thya ferina) (öKon GmbH 2013). The birds listed above are main species of concern in the area that could be impacted by the wind turbines through construction and operations, with a list of measures to avoid, mitigate, and compensate for offenses under the species conservation law compiled.

Kapfenburg will create a food surface management for raptors which include creating “food-poor” surfaces 100m around each turbine to avoid the attraction of foraging birds of prey, as well as creating offsite external vegetation or hedge strips and planting trees to direct birds of prey away from the site. Construction will occur outside of breeding season and the turbines will be built 200m away from Holtwicker lake (öKon GmbH 2013).

CEF and avoidance measures have been written up for birds at Holtwicker Mark but information on bats in the area and what measures will be taken to avoid adverse effects on them have not been made available yet.

Midlich, Rosendahl: Similar to Bergkamp and Holtwicker Mark, this windpark is located in Rosendahl near the town of Midlich with the construction of six wind turbines and a written opinion on birds and bats via pre-construction survey information for the area. Nine species of bats were detected in the area: The Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipistrelle), which was the most common in the project area, next to the Rauhautfleder- maus (Nathusius' Pipistrelle), Breitflügelfledermaus (Serotine), Großer Abendsegler (Noctule), Kleinabendsegler (Leisler), Großes Mausohr Fledermaus (Greater mouse-

51 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

eared bat) (Myotis myotis), Wasserfledermaus (Daubenton's bat) (Myotis daubentonii), Fransenfledermaus (Natterer's bat) (Myotis nattereri) and the Bartfledermaus sp. (Whisk- ered bat sp.) (Myotis brandtii / M. mystacinus) (Echolot GbR 2013). The report goes into detail about the impacts wind turbines have on bat species but also gives CEF measures to avoid adverse effects on these species. Acoustic monitoring will occur for the first two years from March to November to help establish the best cut-in speed and adjustment of times for operation.

Bird species in the area were also surveyed, and while 63 species were observed, the ones of main concern are the Feldlerche (Skylark), Fischadler (Osprey) (Pandion haliaetus), Graureiher (Grey Heron), Habicht (Hawk), Kanadagans (Canada goose) (Branta Canadensis), Kiebitz (Lapwing), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier), Kranich (Crane), Mäuse- bussard (Buzzard), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Silberreiher (Egrets), Sperber (Hawk), and the Turmfalke (Kestrel) (öKon GmbH 2013). During the construction period with the potential for destruction of nests, habitat loss, and loss of population, construction will only occur outside of breeding and nesting times which is mid-March till the end of June. During operations, impacts such as increased risk of collision, noise pollution, habitat loss, population avoidance behavior, and habitat fragmentation from roads could affect these species. Micro-siting is done in order to correctly place turbines away from FFH areas, nature reserves, and water bodies. For example, the Kiebitz (Lapwing) is known to avoid vertical structures, so the windpark is placed where the turbines are more than 150m away from the breeding sites. As was written in previous cases, Midlich will create a 100m “food-poor” landscape buffer around the wind turbines, and fallow strips and hedges will be created offsite to deter bird species from the windpark. Lastly, to avoid an increased risk for Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) in search of food outside one of the nearby nature reserves, the locations of planned wind turbines shall be at least 300m from the boundaries of such reserves.

Kapfenburg, Aalen: Near the town of Aalen in Hülen, Baden Wuerttemberg, a concentration zone for wind turbines has been planned by the local government and water supply association of Kapfenburg (Gemeindeverwaltungs- und Wasserver- sorgungsverband Kapfenburg). While no specific number of turbines has been confirmed,

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 the planning includes wind turbines with rotors 115m in diameter, hub heights of 140m, and total turbine heights of 200m with energy production of 2.5 MW. Birds of concern in the area are the Baumfalke (Hobby) (Falco subbuteo), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Schwarzmi- lan (Black Kite) (Milvus migrans), Uhu (Eagle owl) (Bubo bubo), Raubwürger (Great Grey Shrike) (Lanius excubitor), Wanderfalke (Peregrine Falcon) (Falco peregrinus), and the Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) (Pernis apivorus) (Regionalverband Ostwürttemberg Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts 2013). Pre-construction surveys for the area show a tree pair of brooding falcons in the area and a Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) near the site.

To avoid collision and disturbance for the species, conservation measures have been presented to minimize adverse effects on birds. Creating exclusion areas and artificial nesting boxes in nearby locations could lure these species away from the turbines. Con- servation measures listed for the project area include shut-down periods for the turbines during daytime hours from May to August, curtailment for slow wind days, and monitoring of the Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) for the first two years.

In regards to bats, there are nine species possibly located in the study area, with the Mopsfledermaus (Barbastelle) (Barbastella barbastellus) being of particular importance. The forest area for the project is located near younger coniferous and deciduous stands with the possible presence of older trees with tree holes and crevices for bats to roost, along with old bunkers and a town in the area for bats to find additional food and shelter. Furthermore, as an avoidance measure of attracting insects to the wind turbines thus attracting bats, the project may paint the turbines violet4.

The main concern for this project is its location near FFH and nature reserve areas. The case concludes that more surveys need to be completed in order to better understand the surrounding environment and species that could be of concern in the area.

Pilsach W2, W3: An ASP was completed for special areas W2 and W3 for the construction of three wind turbines within the community of Pilsach, in the district of Neu-

4 Important to note though, that evidence-based research is lacking on whether painting the turbines this color will actually deter insects.

53 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 markt of Bayern (Bavaria). Two turbines would be installed in the W3 area and one turbine would be installed in the W2 area. While there are no nature reserves nearby, there is a FFH directive area located 2.2 km south of the projected wind turbines. Both sites are near forested areas but are located in crop fields consisting of corn and wheat, so no trees will be lost.

Figure 7: Wind turbine W2, W3 locations in Pilsach, Source: (Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011) There are roosting possibilities in the area (via buildings in the surrounding villages and possible tree hollows) but no bats were detected near the project sites. Potentially occurring bats in the area are the Große Mausohr- Fledermaus (Greater Big-eared bat), Bechsteinfledermaus (Bechstein’s bat), and Mopsfledermaus (Barbastelle bat) (Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011).

Measures of avoidance within the ASP include construction of wind turbines outside the breeding season of birds (1 October to 28 February), marking the rotor blades red and white to avoid bird collisions, and securing any gaps or openings between parts of the turbines with mist-netting or brushes to prevent roosting colonization. CEF and mitigation measures during operation of the wind turbines include temporary shutdown of the turbines at low wind speeds (<5m/ second) and the creation of five maintenance-free flat boxes on the forest edges and away from roads and the turbines.

54 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Other species besides birds and bats are listed, including the Haselmaus (Dormouse), Zauneidechse (fence lizard) (Lacerta agilis), and Schlingnatter (smooth snake) (Coronel- la austriaca), but are not found to be a concern in the projected area. Butterflies, beetles, and dragonflies were surveyed but not found within the survey area due to unsuitable habitats for these insects.

In terms of birds of concern, the potentially affected species around the wind turbines are ground nesting species. The Feldlerche (Skylark) are of the biggest concern in the area. Adverse effects on the nests as well as the killing of eggs and fledglings can be avoided by mowing outside of seasonal breeding (1 October to 28 February). Other birds found in the area include the Amsel (Blackbird) (Turdus merula), Buchfink (Chaffinch) (Fringilla coelebs), Baumpieper (Tree Pipit), Dorngrasmücke (Whitethroat), Eichelhäher (Jay) (Garrulus glandarius), Goldammer (Yellowhammer) (Emberiza citronella), Gartengrasmücke (Garden Warbler), Heckenbraunelle (Dunnock) (Prunella miodularis), Rotkehlchen (Robin) (Erithacus rubecula), Ringeltaube (Ringdove) (Columba palumbus), Singdrossel (Song Thrush) (Turdus philomenos), Wintergoldhähnchen (Gold- crest) (Regulus regulus), Zilpzalp (Chiffchaff) (Phylloscopus collybita), Sperber (Hawk), Rabenkrähe (Carrion Crow) (Corvus corone), Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Turmfalke (Kes- trel), and the Graureiher (Grey Heron) (Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011). Besides those for the Feldlerche, no other measures will be taken, as most birds will not be heavily affected by the construction and operation of the turbines.

As compensation for the construction of these wind turbines, a development of a 10- 15m wide strip of fallow land will be planned along the extensively landscaped meadow as an “eco-route” for species. Additionally, the development of a deciduous forest by initial offsite planting is planned.

Riepsdorf: The community of Riepsdorf is located near the city Lübeck in the state of Schleswig Holstein. An endangered species impact assessment (Artenschutzprüfung, ASP) was conducted in the area for three sites, including the construction and operation of four Enercon E-101 wind turbines at the Großenholz GmbH & Co.KG windpark (named “Windpark Gosdorf”), where six turbines are already in operation. These six operational turbines would be replaced by the four new turbines. The entire region currently

55 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

has twelve turbines in operation: replacing six turbines with four newer ones in Gosdorf, and another four will be added at the other two sites which the ASP covers.

Bats detected in the area and considered a concern are the Großer Abendsegler (Noc- tule), Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipistrelle), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipi- strelle), and Mückenfledermaus (Soprano Pipistrelle) (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz 2012).

Other species of concern which were detected within the geographical area are the Fischotter (Otter) (Lutra lutra), Haselmaus (Dormouse), and Birkenmaus (Birch mouse) (Scista betulina), Zauneidechse (Fence lizard), Schlingnatter (Smooth snake), Kammmolches (Crested newt) ((Triturus cristatus), Moorfrosches (Moor Frog) (Rana arvalis), and insects including a number of dragonflies (six to be exact), two species of beetle, and the Nachtkerzenschwärmer (Evening Primose Moth) (Proserpinus proserpina). The wind turbines do not affect these species and are thus not included in any avoidance or CEF measures.

Birds in the area were broken down into three categories; Large birds and raptors, open land species, and woody plant breeders. Large birds and raptors include the Mäuse- bussard (Buzzard), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier), Sperber (Hawk), Turmfalke (Kestrel), Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard), Seeadler (Eagle) (Haliaeetus albicilla), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Schwarzstorch (Black Stork), Weißstorch (White Stork) (Ciconia ciconia), Kolkrabe (Raven) (Corvus corvax), Kranich (Crane), and Graureiher (Grey Heron). Open land species include the Kiebitz (Lapwing), Rebhuhn (Partridge) (Perdix perdix), Wachtel (Quail) (Coturnix cortunix), Feldlerche (Skylark), and Schafstelze (Yellow Wagtail) (Motacilla flava). Lastly the woody plant breeders detected in the area are the Buchfink (Chaffinch), Goldammer (Yellowhammer), Amsel (Blackbird), Dorngasmücke (Whitethroat), Kohlmeise (Great Tit) (Parus major), and in particular, the Neuntöter (Red-backed Shrike) (Lanius collurio) (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz 2012).

The ASP explains that during the dismantling of the six turbines and the installation and operation of four new turbines, the risk of collision for all three groups of bird spe-

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

cies would not increase and there would only be a slight disturbance of habitat. For instance, there is a breeding pair of Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) on the edge of the WP Gosdorf within reed vegetation. As a CEF measure, the developers will extend the reed area (shallow water zones with small water bodies) away from the turbines to help move the existing breeding site. A 300m buffer between the nest site and wind turbines will be put into place, but if the Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) are spotted in the vicinity, temporary cut-off times will be enacted on an individual basis during breeding seasons.

Construction would be outside of breeding season beginning in October and lasting until the end of February. No temporary buildings will be erected during construction in order to avoid settlements of breeding birds and the setting up of “flutter bands” (construction tape) will be used. With low bat activity in the area, there are no CEF requirements or measures, such as temporary shutdowns. The Planning Office for Landscape Architecture, Open Space Planning, and Conservation (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsar- chitektur, Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz) for the region called for more avoidance and mitigation measures for the area including repowering of existing plants, using existing access routes, and using three-bladed rotors with the off-white colored turbines. This additional information was found in the approval procedures for the community’s land development plan (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz 2012).

Unkel, Neuwied: The possibility for a windpark located on 829 acres (336 ha) of land in Unkel near Rheinbreitbach, Rhineland-Palatinate is under review. The project may include the construction of up to 16 wind turbines to produce enough energy for the town and local area. It is located in a FFH area but all natural legal constraints and conditions will be met and protection of species will be adequately addressed. This FFH area is to protect the Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-bellied toad) (Bombina variegata), and although wind turbines do not affect this species, conservation efforts will still be put forth for birds and bats in the area as well as those migrating through the area. During construction, forest area will be cleared but the project administrators will complete compensatory measures such as re-forestation, aid for the Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-bellied toad), and other unspecified maintenance or refurbishment of environmental projects.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Bird species recognized in the area are the Bachstelze (Wagtail) (Motacilla alba), Baumpieper (Tree Pipit), Dorngrasmücke (Whitethroat) (Sylvia communis), Garten- grasmücke (Garden Warbler) (Sylvia borin), Girlitz (Serin) (Serinus serinus), Grünfink (Greenfinch) (Carduelis chloris), Hausrotschwanz (Black Redstart) (Phoenicurus ochruros), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Schwarzstorch (Black Stork) (Ciconia nigra), Uhu (Eagle owl), Waldlaubsänger (Wood Warbler) (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), and Wasseramsel (Dip- per) (Cinclus cinclus) (Planungsbüro Valerius 2012). Of particular concern are the Rot- milan (Red Kite) and Schwarzmilan (Black Kite) but the project area has set up a number of avoidance and CEF measures to minimize adverse effects on the local population: Land optimization to comply with distance recommendations and create space barriers between the turbine locations and the breeding sites, mowing in late winter, and setting offsite Luderplätzen, or hunting devices for diverting birds of prey from the project site to avoid collision. In addition to these measures, other such CEF measures will be created for the Uhu (Eagle owl), such as a 1000m buffer distance from its nearby breeding sites, underground cabling, and reducing the risk of electrocution by dismantling catenary masts (hanging railway cables). Lastly, additional CEF and avoidance measures will be taken for the Schwarzstorch (Black Stork), with a 3000m buffer distance between the turbines and breeding sites, securing and maintaining permanent locations, reassurance of familiar and potential breeding sites, conditioning and improvement of local feeding habitats, and keeping open wet meadows in stream valleys.

Interestingly, the ASP for the project discusses bats but does not go into detail about the impacts this windpark would have on them and what measures could be taken to offset collisions and barotrauma with the wind turbines. While it may be discussed later on in the planning and development process of this windpark, no such public documents are available at this time.

Weßling, Starnberg: In Appendix I of the Environmental Report for the community of Weßling, located in Starnberg, Bayern (Bavaria), is an Artenschutzprüfung (ASP) for nature conservation in wind energy. No exact number of turbines has been chosen for the project, but concentration zones have been established and surveyed for the construction

58 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

of wind turbines. Approximately 540m south of Konzentrationfläche 1 (KF1) is a Natura 2000 site and KF3 is approximately 150m away from an FFH directive area.

Avoidance and minimization measures briefly discussed in the environmental report include setting measured distances of the wind turbines away from settlement areas and arranging the turbines so as to not visually impair the surrounding environment and produce glare from the rotor blades. More detailed measures are listed in the ASP such as avoiding construction during breeding, nesting, and hibernation periods, keeping flight paths open, relocating spawning amphibians and tadpoles found in the construction area, reducing the attractiveness of the area around the turbines. avoiding damage to beech and old growth trees with the possibility of having tree holes or crevices, and minimizing construction traffic and working space to avoid disruption of the surrounding habitats. CEF measures for the area before construction include constructing alternative roosts and hunting habitat for bats, nesting boxes, and ponds for amphibians at offsite locations to deter them away from the wind turbines.

Figure 8: The concentration zones (red) around the town of Weßling, Source: (NarrRistTürk 2012) Each of the four locations was surveyed for bird and bat species, with 29 bird species and nine bat species listed. Regularly occurring birds of prey were the Turmfalke (Kes- trel), Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard), Sperber (Hawk), Mau- ersegler (Common Swift) (Apus apus), Neuntöter (Red-backed Shrike), Waldohreule (Long-eared Owl), Uhu (Eagle Owl), Saatkrähe (Rook) (Corvus frugilegus), Bluthänfling

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

(Linnet) (Carduelis cannabina) and Rauchschwalbe (Barn Swallow) (Hirundo rustica). Semi-open land and forest edge species include the Goldammer (Yellowhammer), Feld- schwirl (Grasshopper Warbler) (Locustella naevia) and Kuckuck (Cuckoo). Open field species were the Schwarz- und Grünspecht (Black and Green Woodpeckers), Grauspecht (Grey-headed Woodpecker) (Picus canus) Habicht (Hawk), Kolkrabe (Raven) and Baumpieper (Tree Pipit). Bat species detected in the area are the Abendsegler (Noctule), Breitflügelfledermaus (Serotine Bat), Fransenfledermaus (Fringe bat), Mückenfledermaus (Mosquito bat), Nordfledemaus (Eptesicus nilssonii), Bartfledermaus species (Whiskered bat species) and Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipistrelle), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipistrelle), and Weißrandfledermaus (White border bat) (Pipistrellus kuhlii) (NarrRistTürk 2012).

3.2.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion The nine German cases selected have similar characteristics in terms of avoidance and minimization measures taken during construction and operation, and the protection of endangered species. Unlike the U.S., the majority of windparks have ten or less turbines. In one case old turbines were replaced, and in another there is no definite number of turbines but the possibility that there can be up to 16. All nine facilities combined contribute to approximately 42 wind turbines in three different states of Germany. A chart of the German cases and the measures taken at each facility are found in Appendix Table 7.6. A list showing the species of concern discussed in the cases is located in Appendix Table 7.3.

The regions and/or communities of these areas completed pre-planned regional development proposals which show possible locations for wind turbines. With these windparks developed at smaller regional scales, the number of turbines is limited and thus, there is no possibility for a large area with a large number of wind turbines. Additionally, due to the smaller scale of development for a windpark, there is more regional and community involvement in the development of these areas, with more compensatory measures and offsite plans put into place to decrease adverse effects on species in the area.

60 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

The ASPs from each of the cases are more general, with heavy emphasis on discussion of impacts wind turbines have on species and the surrounding environment during construction and operation. In terms of avoidance and minimization, land optimization is the most important aspect in all nine cases. For instance Bergkamp is ensuring the safety of nearby Kiebitz (Lapwings) by placing the turbines 100m away from a known breeding area as well as in agricultural fields so as to not destroy nearby forested habitat. Midlich was similar in that it placed the turbines 150m from nearby Kiebitz (Lapwings) breeding grounds and 300m away from a nature reserve. Holtwicker Mark positioned the windpark so that it is 200m away from the nearby lake, Pilsach W2 & W3 placed the three turbines in corn and wheat fields so there is no additional tree removal, and Unkel created a 1000m distance buffer between the turbines and nearby FFH sites, 3000m away from Schwarzstorch breeding site and open meadow area where they forage. Lastly, Riepsdorf will replace the old turbines with fewer newer ones and locate them 300m away from Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) nesting grounds.

Every case also discusses seasonal construction of the windparks. Each case states that construction will occur outside migration times and breeding and nesting periods, dependent on species of concern in the area. In Himmelsleiter and Weßling, tree checking before tree removal will be completed to see if roosting of birds and bats are there and to avoid accidental taking during construction.

In terms of wind specifics, Kapfenburg will paint their turbines violet, Pilsach W2, W3 will design red and white markings on the rotor blades to improve visibility, and Riepsdorf will paint the turbines off-white to avoid attracting insects and thus, birds and bats. Himmelsleiter will seal the gondolas to avoid nesting possibilities for bats, and Pil- sach W2, W3 will do the same by securing any gaps or openings with netting to do the same. Unkel will bury cables and dismantle nearby catenary masts (overhead train cables) to avoid bird electrocutions. Lastly, as Riepsdorf is replacing old turbines with new ones, the existing roads shall be used avoid further environmental disruption.

After construction, vegetation of the surrounding area, such as hedges, re-vegetation, re-cultivation, and “food-poor” sections underneath the turbines are mentioned in most of the cases. The creation of hedges surrounding the windpark area can be crucial to the

61 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

deterrence of woody species from entering the windparks at Holtwicker Mark, Midlich, and Pilsach W2, W3. Re-vegetation and re-cultivation of the area after construction are discussed at Kapfenburg and Unkel, and a creation of 100m area underneath the turbines that is “food-poor” or un-habitable for small animals such as squirrels or mice, which attract birds of prey and thus possibly colliding with the turbines, are noted at all three Rosendahl locations.

Monitoring during operation is discussed in over half of the cases (Bergkamp, Holt- wicker Mark, Midlich, Kapfenburg, and Weßling) with three ensuring monitoring the first two years of operation (Bergkamp, Midlich, and Kapfenburg) and the possibility of turn-off times based on information given during that time. Midlich briefly discusses turn-off periods but no specific measures are described as to when it will occur. Pilsach W2, W3 and Weßling will have nighttime shutdowns to avoid collisions with bats. At Kapfenburg, turbines will be shut down on slow wind days (> 5m/s) and if Wespenbussard are spotted in the vicinity. Weßling will also shut down their turbines if the nearby brooding Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) are spotted nearby the windpark.

More Compensatory or CEF measures are given in the German cases than in the U.S. ones with more off-site measures and precautions to lower adverse effects on species. Unkel is creating off-site “Luderplätzen” or hunting devices to attract birds of prey away from the turbines, while reforesting the area damaged by construction and contributing aid for the recovering Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-bellied toad). Himmelsleiter, Kapfenburg, Pilsach W2, W3, and Weßling are creating bird and bat boxes in nearby fields and forested areas for birds and bats to breed and nest away from the windparks. Riepsdorf will extend reed vegetation away from the turbines to expand the habitat for the Graureiher (Grey Heron). Lastly, Holtwicker Mark, Midlich, and Pilsach W2, W3 will create off-site strips of fallow land outside the areas to replace to land lost to the windparks.

Overall, the nine German cases are only brief descriptions of the windparks and their overall impacts to the surrounding areas. German cases only focused on bird and bat species with even more brief discussion on reptiles, amphibians, other mammals, and insects, unlike the U.S. (for example, the Federally Protected Quino butterfly). Due to the availability of information, these cases are analyzed based only on the provided ASPs. Public

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 access to information regarding these impacts and development of these windparks need to be better accessible, especially for local citizens who may feel the impacts of windpark developments.

3.3 Comparative analysis between U.S. & Germany 3.3.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines comparison One of the main questions of this paper is: How are the U.S.’s habitat conservation plans (HCPs), the EU’s continued ecological functions (CEF) and Germany’s endangered species impact assessment (ASP) similar and differ? Through a literature review and collection of policies in the U.S., Germany, and the EU, it can be explained why these measures are chosen in wind energy development. It is important to note that an HCP is an entire document for the purpose of receiving an Incidental Take Permit, while CEF measures are lists of measures to offset impacts to the environment and to species of concern. The ASP is a review of a particular area or region that notes potential impacts to the area’s species and their surrounding habitats. CEF measures are found within the ASP and there are many avoidance and minimization measures in both the HCP and ASP.

Both the U.S. and Germany have recently created guidelines to help develop wind facilities while minimizing impacts to the environment and species. The U.S. has guidelines from the BLM, USFWS, The U.S. Forest Service, and NGOs such as the American Wind Energy Association and the National Wind Coordinating Committee. Some German federal states have created guidelines such as “Umsetzung des Arten- und Habitatschutzes bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen” (Implementation of species and habitat protection in the planning and approval of wind turbines) in Nordrhein-Westfalen. The guidelines in the U.S. such as the NWCC’s “Miti- gation Toolbox” and USFWS’s “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines” help in preparing preliminary site evaluations and field studies, post-construction studies, best management practices, and mitigation in planning a wind facility nationwide. The guideline for Nord- rhein-Westfalen, which is similar to those in most other German states, discusses the endangered species impact assessment for regional and land use planning, methods of species inventory for preliminary site evaluations, FFH compatibility assessment, and requirements for risk management and monitoring. In Nordrhein-Westfalen, the guidelines

63 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 also provide recommendations for species-specific CEF measures, and information necessary to risk management for sensitive species around wind turbines. Both the U.S.’s and Germany’s guidelines review existing policies and summaries to help in understanding why particular measures are necessary to avoid impacts and litigation. Neither country has any direct federal regulation for wind energy but both have laws affecting the construction and operation of wind facilities. In the U.S. the laws are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, and environmentally, the National Environmental Protection Act. Germany is part of the EU’s Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, and EIA Directive with its own German Federal Nature Conservation Act and EIA Act. In the U.S., each state has its own list of endangered species in addition to federally protected species. Both EU and German policies protects many species under these different policies and can be difficult to determine which birds and bats are most threatened by wind development.

Germany has an incredible list of species, as many species become a concern around the development of windparks. Between the EU’s protection of species via Annex II and Annex IV, EUArtSchV, and Germany’s BNatSchG and BNatSchV, illegal taking of species becomes difficult for wind energy developers. Unlike the U.S., Germany does not formally permit the legal taking species of concern as far as windparks are concerned. The U.S.’s Incidental Take Permit allows for a specific number of federally protected species to be taken on federal lands, while Germany does not apply such permits to wind energy siting and operations. However, due to the magnitude of wind facilities in the U.S., the ITP is a reasonable measure, providing appropriate measures are taken to avoid negative impacts on species. In Germany, with smaller capacity wind parks, it can be difficult for appropriate authorities to allow that many permits for one turbine here or one turbine there. But one concern is the cumulative impacts of these widely spread turbines throughout German states. For instance, migrational species in the U.S. has the possibility to fly around a wind facility, but in Germany, the risk of collision and displacement is higher in birds navigating away from one turbine to another. Compensatory measures listed in German state guidelines and conducted at wind facilities can assist in lowering these kinds of impacts but they cannot account for all bird and bat species.

64 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

3.3.2 Comparison of Cases I have combined both U.S.’s and Germany’s avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures to give a better visual comparison between the two and can be found in Appendix Table 7.7. One of the biggest differences between the U.S. and Germany for species protection in wind energy development is the amount of detail put into the development of wind facilities and windparks. Based on the information available to the public, wind facilities on federal lands in the U.S. provide all documentation throughout the development process, while Germany has few documents available for the public to be informed about the windparks and the construction of the turbines.

However, development of wind facilities on private lands in the U.S. differs from that on federal lands. Landowners do not have to provide public documentation and permitting depends on state procedures, which vary widely. For instance, Texas and six other states do not require any permitting, such as an environmental impact assessment, to be completed (Geißler, Köppel et al. 2013), and thus information about species protection and research on impacts from wind farms becomes difficult to analyze. If wind parks in Germany have less than 20 turbines, they do not have to undergo as many permitting and development measures. This is a possible reason why the number of wind turbines per windpark is significantly lower than the number of turbines on U.S. facilities. Additional- ly, Germany does not have the land capacity to develop large windparks such as the ones the U.S. is capable of having. The U.S. creates larger facilities to generate larger energy capacities for a greater number of people in cities such as Los Angeles. Germany has established smaller windparks to generate electricity for the nearby towns and munici- palities. These windparks in Germany are also pre-designed in spatial and comprehensive plans created by the region or county and community, while U.S. wind facilities on federal public land are created by developers and then federally approved. In one U.S. case, there is a Programmatic Biological Opinion which covers the whole region, not just the wind facility. Currently, there are only a couple in the U.S. which cover large portions of land (such as the Great Plains Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan covering eight states (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group 2013) and the Clark County, NV Regional HCP), while Germany does not have any spatial programmatic approval documents regarding species protection.

65 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Interestingly, detailed documentation that the U.S. provides show compensatory measures being barely discussed. Compensatory measures will only be completed after the ITP is issued, and the description of what measures will be taken is brief and incon- clusive. For instance, only three out of the nine U.S. cases discuss compensatory measures and will “come up with a plan” within two years once the ITP is granted. These three cases will either briefly discuss an offsite conservation plan, or a release facility, and/or donate money towards particular research of an endangered species. It is possible that smaller compensatory measures nearby and off-site would not be significant enough for the massive wind facilities developed. In Germany, with fewer turbines in one area, compensatory measures are more feasible to offset the turbines with CEF measures such as bat and bird boxes and vegetation strips. Germany has more general plans in wind development stages, with a heavier focus on the impacts wind turbines have on species. Some are more descriptive on particular species than others. While the focus is heavier on impacts during construction and operation, the cases provide better CEF measures. Along with micro-siting to ensure the best distances away from bird and bat breeding and nesting areas, almost all cases ensure CEF measures such as bird and bat boxes, vegetation strips for ground breeding birds, and re-forestation or re-vegetation at areas offsite to counter the construction of wind turbines. As stated previously, due to the planning on a more regional scale, German sites are more capable of preparing these off-site measures, but it should be noted how surprisingly poor the amount of avoidance and minimization measures is descripted. Through the analysis of all eighteen cases, the main question of this paper has been answered: In wind energy development, how do avoidance and minimization measures for protected species overlap and differ between the U.S. and Germa- ny? One last point of comparison between these two countries is the seriousness and ded- ication both have with the regards to the protection of species and environmental factors in wind energy development. The U.S. and Germany are forerunners in this industry, mitigating the negative impacts on the environment all while ensuring cleaner energy to societies.

The last question of this paper asks: To what extent can the measures discussed above have the possibility of becoming Trans-Atlantic? Wind energy is rapidly expanding in the world, due to government subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives at various levels with the

66 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 eagerness to promote cleaner alternative energy sources. Many projects are ongoing in the U.S. as it is still a young and booming industry, with few guidelines and little regulation to help in this growth. While some incentives, subsidies, and regulations at a national-level can help wind development, a smaller scale approach through state and regional governments may be best in minimizing the negative impacts during planning and regulation. The NRC writes that: “A country as large and as geographically diverse as the US and as wedded to political plurality and private enterprise is unlikely to plan for wind energy at a national scale in the same way as some European countries are doing” (National Research Council 2007 p.11). As a regulatory national approach is unlikely, a comprehensive approach used in other countries such as Germany could be adopted in the U.S., leaving different laws and policies regarding the regulation of wind-energy projects up to the states. Currently this comprehensive approach is occurring in many U.S. states and should be continued in more states.

67 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION 4.1 Discussion Based on the interim evaluations and case comparison between the U.S. and Germa- ny, I have created a few theoretical perspectives on the information presented. First, the U.S. has a few but strong federal laws protecting endangered species, and no policies on wind energy development. Instead of federal policies, guidelines from federal environmental agencies, wind energy organizations, and environmental NGO’s have recently provided detailed recommendations on avoiding federal litigation and proper wind facility development in avoiding and minimizing impacts on endangered and protected species. Germany has intricate and complex EU and nationwide policies which state the protection of species, but only recently have some states, such as Nordrhein-Westfalen, prepared guidelines on how to avoid and minimize threats to species of concern around wind turbines.

Second, due to land availability the U.S. federal government is able to implement large wind energy developments. Germany’s land availability becomes more difficult due to the different levels of land conservation, population, forested habitats, and regional decisions. With the construction of pre-planned development areas/plans, wind energy can only develop wind energy in smaller capacities. For this reason, it is difficult to measure the cumulative impacts of these wind turbines on species. But it should be noted that U.S. wind projects on federal lands differ greatly from those on private lands.

Germany and the U.S. have similar avoidance and minimization measures such as seasonal construction and turbine specifics for all 18 cases but vary in aspects of re- vegetation, location optimization, species and collision monitoring, curtailment and turn- off times, and other factors surrounding migration routes and seasons that affect the generation of energy from wind turbines. The U.S. has detailed construction measures such as lighting and speed limits, wind turbine specifics such as feathering and cut-in speeds, and importantly, monitoring before and during construction and during operations and maintenance. Germany focuses on micro-siting in terms of avoidance and minimization mitigation techniques, ensuring seasonal construction periods and even more curtailments as well.

68 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

The biggest difference between the U.S. and Germany is the illegal and legal taking of species of concern. The U.S. allows a specific number of endangered species to be taken by wind turbines, if enough information and mitigation measures are presented and thus permitted by the appropriate bureaus. Germany only discusses the illegal taking of species, creating more upfront compensatory (i.e. CEF) measures to lessen adverse effects from wind turbines. The number of endangered and threatened species is much higher than the number in the U.S., due to heavier European and federal policies protecting all bird and bat species. Additional information needs to be presented on the number of hit victims by turbines in both Germany and the U.S. to fully comprehend the differences in avoidance and minimization measures and whether both can be truly comparable.

4.1.1 Conclusions Wind is one of the most environmentally friendly and “green energy” resources with no direct carbon dioxide emissions, minimal use of water, and fewest potential impacts to habitats and wildlife populations (Saidur, Rahim et al. 2011). But there are still some impacts such as habitat fragmentation and destruction, displacement, and direct collision on animal species. In wind energy development and nature conservation, Kleeman writes three strategies to optimize low-impact development: As the cases above show, (1) spatial and comprehensive local planning is the most important step before further progress. (2) Integration of planning from other sectors and projects requiring licensing via regulatory intervention (causation-oriented) and EIA (pre-caution oriented), is also discussed above in policy and development cooperation within the U.S. and Germany; and (3) protected area policy, with the U.S. discussing critical habitats for endangered species, and Germany’s FFH Directive areas and nature reserves (Stoll-Kleeman 2001). Kiesecker agrees that: “Wind subsidies targeted at favoring low-impact development and creating avoidance and mitigation requirements that raise the costs for projects impacting sensitive lands could improve public value for both wind energy and biodiversity conservation” (Kiesecker, Evans et al. 2011 p.1). In Germany, the basic position of nature conservation requirements, the expansions of renewable energies, and the threat to species of concern must all be respected (Bundesverband WindEnergie 2014) and coordinated in order to satisfy all conditions. This ideal should be brought into U.S. wind energy devel-

69 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 opment and conservation. In order to generate higher productions of electricity from wind, the future of renewable policy needs to be more aggressive in development, with improved technology of wind-energy generation and transmission, all while increasing energy conservation (National Research Council 2007 p.6) and ensuring the conservation of the environment and animal species.

4.2 Future Research Current research in wind energy impacts on wildlife will to some degree always re- main inadequate, with more and more upcoming recommendations about offsetting impacts, compensatory mitigation, and monitoring. The biggest question researchers, biologists, and politicians want to know is if current avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures truly offsetting adverse effects on animal species. However, this large project would require a collaboration of biologists in many different fields, land owners and developers, and politicians along with those in long-term research to get the full perspec- tive on how these measures are or are not affecting endangered species, or even all species, around wind energy facilities. Another question for future research is: How would the U.S. and Germany be comparable if private lands in the U.S. were studied instead of federal lands, and would they be comparable at all? A further question could be: If Germany made the planning and environmental documents more accessible, would the conclusions of comparison be the same? More time needs to be put into these questions, and the ability to contact appropriate authorities, both in English and German, is necessary. Additionally, to gain the cooperation of private landowners and companies is difficult as this is a competitive field in the energy industry. Jakle discusses a futuristic approach to compensatory mitigation for wind energy called “Development by Design.” This landscape-scale approach, created by The Nature Conservancy, maps the state’s energy resources against high-quality habitat and deter- mines what areas developers may choose to avoid and minimize impacts. By calculating offsets and putting them into a model, this establishes priority sites for compensatory mitigation and the ecological footprint when developing a wind facility (Jakle 2012). This modeling can also be used for species specific conservation. With models such as

70 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014 this in the U.S. and Germany, species protection, along with the continued expansion of wind energy, can be utilized to the greatest extent. Lastly, with the continuation of international cooperation through conferences, conventions, and open dialog on issues surrounding wind energy impacts, such as the CWW2015 in Berlin, renewable energies will continue to effectively grow and prosper while maintaining the protection of the environment and wildlife.

71 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

LITERATURE CITATIONS

American Wind Energy Association (2013). "Get the Facts: 2012 U.S. Wind Industry Market Update." Retrieved February 12, 2014, from http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=4629.

Arnett, E. B., et al. (2010). Effectiveness of changing wind turbines cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. A final report submitted to the Bats & Wind Energy Cooperative.

Baerwald, E. F., et al. (2009). "A Large-Scale Mitigation Experiment To Reduce Bat Fatalities At Wind Energy Facilities." Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1077-1081.

Barrios, L. and A. Rodriguez (2004). "Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines." Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81.

Beech Ridge Energy LLC (2013). Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV. Chicago, IL, Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC.

Bonnie, R. (1999). "Endangered Species Mitigation Banking: Promoting Recovery Through Habitat Conservation Planning Under The Endangered Species Act." The Science of the Total Environment 240(1-3): 11-19.

Buckeye Wind LLC (2013). Final Buckeye Wind Power Project Habitat Conservation Plan. Topsham, ME, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Bundersverband WindEnergie (2013). "Statistics of Wind Energy in Germany 2012, 2013." Policy Director. Retrieved 12.2, 2014, from http://www.windenergie.de/en/infocenter/statistics.

Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz (2009). Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (BNatSchG) - Gesetz uber Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. B. d. Justiz. Deutschland.

Bundesministerium fur Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (2012). Gesetz fur den Vorrang Enereuerbarer Energien, EEG. N. Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit,. Deutschland.

72 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (2013). "Bund- Länder-Initiative Windenergie Federal-state initiative Wind Energy." Retrieved 24.3, 2014, from http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/die-themen/windenergie/bund-laender-initiative- windenergie/.

Bundesverband WindEnergie (2014). "Onshore Policy, German Wind Energy Association." Retrieved 13.2, 2014, from http://www.wind-energie.de/en/policy.

Bureau of Land Management (2001). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, As Amended. U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management and Office of the Solicitors. Washington, D.C.: 69.

Bureau of Land Management (2005). Final Programmatic Environnmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management (2012). Record of Decision Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility & Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan APPENDIX C, Adopted Mitigation Measures. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of the Interior. El Centro, CA.

Bureau of Land Management (2013). "Alta East Wind Project, Authorization Documents." Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/ridgecrest/alta_east_wind_project.html.

Department of the Interior Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (2008). Wind Turbine Guidelines Memorandum. U.S. Department of Interior. Washington, D.C.

Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz (2011). Spezielle Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung (SAP) Sondergebiete Windkraft W2 und W3, Gemeinde Pilsach (Lkr. Neumarkt). W. GmbH. Regensburg, Deutschland.

Drewitt, A. L. and R. H. W. Langston (2006). "Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds." Ibis 148: 29-42.

Echolot GbR (2013). Untersuchung zur Fledermausfauna und artenschutzrechtliche Bewertung. B. GbR. Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen, Deutschland.

73 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Echolot GbR (2013). Untersuchung zur Fledermausfauna und artenschutzrechtliche Bewertung. W. M. GbR. Münster, Deutschland.

Erickson, W. P., et al. (2005). A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortalitiy from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. U. F. S. G. T. R. PSWGTR-191: 1029-1042.

European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity (2014). "Natura 2000 network." Retrieved 11.2, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm.

European Commission (2011). EU Guidance on wind energy development in accordance with the EU nature legislation Ecosystems LTD and Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.

European Commission (2014). "The 2020 climate and energy package." Retrieved 29.3, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm.

Fiske, P., et al. (1998). "Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis." Behavioral Ecology 9(4): 328-338.

Foote, K. and D. Greenlee (2011). Kaheawa Wind Power I- Proposed Permit Amendment to Reduce the Take of Federally Protected Species Available for Public Comment. USFWS Pacific Island Fish and Wildlife Office. Honolulu, HI.

Geißler, G., et al. (2013). "Wind energy and environmental assessments e A hard look at two forerunners’ approaches: Germany and the United States." Renewable Energy 51: 71-78.

Government Accountability Office (2005). Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. GAO Report. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Washington, D.C., Nazarro, R. (Director, Natural Resources and the Environment). GAO-05-906.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report. New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.

74 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Jakle, A. (2012). Wind Development and Wildlife Mitigation in Wyoming: A Primer. Laramie, Wyoming, Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources.

Kaheawa Wind Power LLC (2006). Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility Habitat Conservation Plan. Ukumehame, Maui, Hawaii.

Katzner, T., et al. (2013). "Challenges and opportunities for animal conservation from renewable energy development." Animal Conservation 16: 367-369.

Kiesecker, J. M., et al. (2011). "Win-win for wind and wildlife: A vision to facilitate sustainable development " PLoS ONE 6(4): 1-8.

Köppel, J., et al. (2012). "A snapshot of Germany's EIA approach in light of the United States Archetype." Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14(4): 21.

McGee, T. (2013). Duke Energy Renewable reaches agreement with Department of Justice regarding bird mortalities at two wind facilities. Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, Duke Energy Renewables.

Ministerium für Klimaschutz, U., Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, (2013). Umsetzung des Arten- und Habitatschutzes bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Landesamt für Natur Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen: 51.

NarrRistTürk (2012). Windkraft, Gemeinde Weßling, Landkreis Starnberg Naturschutzfachliche Angaben zur speziellen artenschutzrechtlichen Prüfung (saP). D. I. F. R. K. Dipl. Ing. (FH) D. Narr, Dipl. Ing. (FH) T. Ehnes, Dipl. Ing. (FH) E. Schraml. Marzling, Deutschland.

National Research Council (2007). Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects. B. o. E. S. a. T. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences,.

National Wind Coordinating Committee (2007). Mitigation Toolbox. NWCC Mitigation Subgroup & Jennie Rechtenwald (Consultant).

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Official Journal of the European Communities (1992). Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity. No L 206/9.

öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark "Midlich"; Artenschutzrechlitche Prüfung. W. M. GbR. Münster, Deutschland.

öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark „Bergkamp,“ Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung „Vögel“. B. GbR. Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen.

öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark „Holtwicker Mark,“ Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung „Vögel“. W. H. M. GbR. Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen.

Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz (2012). Gemeinde Riepsdorf B-Plan Nr. 7 und B-Plan Nr. 5 - 1. Änderung Antrag auf Bau und Betrieb von je 4 Windenergieanlagen E 101. Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung gemäß § 44 BNatSchG. Dipl.-Ing. Eike Jürgen Brandes. Lübeck, Deutschland.

Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz (2012). Kreis Ostholstein, Gemeinde Riepsdorf, Windpark Grossenholz, B-Plan Nr. 5 – 1. Änderung und Genehmigungsverfahren nach dem BimSchG Bilanzierung der Eingriffe in Natur und Landschaft. D.-I. E. J. Brandes. Lübeck, Deutschland.

Planungsbüro Valerius (2012). Kreis Neuwied: Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung gemäß §§ 44, 45 BNatSchG zur Ausweisung von Flächen für Windenergieanlagen im Rahmen der Fortschreibung des Flächennutzungsplans Teilbereich Windkraft, der Stadt Unkel Teil 1: Avifauna. M. Valerius. Dorsel, Deutschland.

Power Company of Wyoming LLC (2012). Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project Final Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 2. U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management. High Desert District - Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming. Appendix C, Summary of BLM Environmental Constraints, Applicant Committed Measures, Applicant Best Management Practices, and Proposed Mitigation Measures. pro terra (2011). Gutachten bezüglich Artenschutz für den geplanten Windpark Aachener Münsterwald. Stadt Aachen. Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland, Fachbereich Umwelt.

76 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Rajvanshi, A. (2008). Mitigation and compensation in environmental assessment. TEAM EA Lecturer's Handbook. TwoEA-M. 5.

Regionalverband Ostwürttemberg Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (2013). Spezielle Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung (saP). Konzentrationszone Windenergie, Kreis: Aalen G.- u. W. Kapfenburg. Schwäbisch Gmünd, Deutschland.

Saidur, R., et al. (2011). "Environmental impact of wind energy." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15: 2423-2430.

Sterner, D. (2002). A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California. California Energy Commission Energy Related Environmental Research. California, USA.

Stoll-Kleeman, S. (2001). "Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(1): 109-128.

Technische Universität Berlin (2014). "Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts 10-12 März 2015 in Berlin ". Retrieved 06.2, 2014, from https://www.cww2015.tu- berlin.de/.

The Economist (2012). Energiewende, Germany's energy transformation. The Economist Print Edition. Europe, The Economist Group.

U.S. Department of Energy (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. U.S. Department of Energy- Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Energetics, Inc. (Washington, D.C.) and Renewable Energy Consulting Services Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).

U.S. Department of Energy (2011). Final Environmental Assessment: Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project, Lenox Township, Warren County, IL. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office (2011). Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project, Lenox Township, Warren County, IL. U. S. D. o. Energy. Golden, CO.

77 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011). Biological Opinion on the effects of the Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Moline, IL.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter 1: The Endangered Species Act and Incidental Take Permits.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prohibited Acts: Section 9.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The HCP Handbook Addendum or “Five Point Policy”.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013, January 25, 2013). "Renewable Energy Development in Region 8 (California, Nevada, & Klamath Basin)." Retrieved February 11, 2014, from http://www.fws.gov/cno/energy.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013, 13 December 2013). "Wildlife Concerns Associated with Wind Energy Development." Wind Energy Development. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from http://www.fws.gov/midwest///////wind/wildlifeconcerns.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013 ). Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. U.S. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Volume 2: Module 1 - Land-based Wind Energy.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group (2013). "Great Plains Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan." Retrieved 26.3, 2014, from http://www.greatplainswindhcp.org/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California/Nevada Operations Office (2001). Clark County Desert Conservation Plan Permit PRT 801045. U.S. Deparment of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California.

Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (2011). Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Proposed Tule Wind Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carlsbad, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (2012). Formal Section 7 Opinion on the Proposed Ocotillo Express Wind Project, Imperial County, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carlsbad, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office (2006). Biological Opinion on the Platte River Recovery Implementation. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grand Island, Nebraska.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (2006). Section 7 Consultation for the Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit Application. U.S. Department of the interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Honolulu, Hawaii.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (2013). Biological Opinion for the Alta East Wind Project, Kern County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ventura California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office (2013). Biological Opinion on an Application for an Incidental Take Permit Submitted by Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Progject, in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV. U. S. F. a. W. Service. Elkins, WV, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office (2012). Biologicial Opinion for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Appendix F of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological Services Field Office (2012). Biological Opinion on the Application for an Incidental Take Permit for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) for the Buckeye Wind Power Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Columbus, OH.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (2012). Biological Opinion for the Searchlight Wind Energy Project, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office. Reno, NV.

79 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Voigt, C., et al. (2012). ""The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: a plea for international regulations." Biological Conservation 153: 80-86.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods Series). Thousand Oaks, California, USA, SAGE Publications.

80 APPENDIX

7.1: U.S. Endangered species allowed to be legally taken at the wind facilities

Bell's Vireo California Condor Hawaiian Goose Newell's shearwater Virginia big-eared Bat Quino checker spot Hawaiian Petrel (Lasiurus Whooping Crane (Grus Indiana Bat (Myotis Hawaiian Hoary Bat Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Mojave Desert tortoise (Vireo bellii (Gymnogyps [NeNe] (Branta (Puffinus auricularis (Corynorhinus butterfly (Euphydryas cinereus semotus) americana) sodalis) (Lasiurus cinereus) (Ovis canadensis) (Gopherus agasizii) pusillus) californianus) sandvicensis) newelli) townsendii virginianus) editha quino) Alta East 1 condor Beech Ridge 53 IN bats 14 VA bats Buckeye 130 IN bats 6 individuals for Chokecherry & Sierra harrassment (1st 13 yrs Madre throughout region) Kaheawa Pastures 60 Nene 40 HI petrels 40 shearwaters 20 HI hoary bats Monarch Warren Co. 6 IN bats Ocotillo Express 3 Vireo pairs 5 Ewes, 5 lambs 1 adult, 2 hatchlings during construction. 1 adult, 2 Searchlight hatchlings per year during operation Tule 1:1 ratio re-vegetation

81 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.2: U.S. geographical map of all nine wind facility locations

82 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.3: Germany species of concern at the wind facilities

KEY: RL- NRW: Red Listed North Rhine- RL-D :Red Listed RL-SH: Red Listed RL R-P: Red Listed RL B: Red Listed RL B-W: Red Listed 1: endangered 2: highly risked VS-RL: Bird Directive 3: risked species Westphalia Deutschland (State) Schleswig- Holstein Rhine-Palatine Bayern Baden- Württemberg species species (Regional) SG: Streng BArtSchV: Germany FFH-RL: Red Listed EUArtSchV: EU S: species protection X: species of concern W: endangered R: area of risked G: Gefährdet geschützte Art species protection FFH Directive species protection dependent upon V: Vulnerable species at WP migratory species species protected (Endangered) (Strictly Protected regulation (Annexes II, IV) regulation nature conservation Species)

Mäusebussard (Buteo Wespenbussard Kornweihe (Circus Rohrweihe (Circus Habicht (Accipiter Sperber (Accipiter Merlin (Falco Wanderfalke (Falco Baumfalke (Falco Turmfalke (Falco Birds buteo ) (Pernis apivorus ) cyaneus ) aeruginosus ) gentilis ) misus ) columbarius ) peregrinus ) subbuteo ) tinnunculus ) Himmelsleiter EUArtSchV (Aachen) Bergkamp EUArtSchV RL NRW: 0 RL NRW: 3S RL NRW: V X X RL NRW: VS (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark EUArtSchV X X RL NRW: VS (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) EUArtSchV RL NRW: 0 RL NRW: 3S RL NRW: V X RL NRW: VS Kapfenburg (Aalen) RL B-W: 3 X RL B-W: 3, RL D: 3 Pilsach W2, W3 X X X Riepsdorf RL D: SG X RL-SH: 1, RL D: SG RL D: SG X RL D: SG Unkel (Neuwied) Weßling (Starnberg) X RL B: 3, RL D: V RL B: 3 X X ENGLISH: Common Buzzard Honey Buzzard Hen Harrier Marsh Harrier Hawk Hawk Merlin Peregrine Falcon Hobby Kestrel

Rotmilan (Milvus Schwarzmilan (Milvus Seeadler (Haliaeetus Fischadler (Pandion Waldkauz (Strix Waldohreule (Asio Kanadagans (Branta Graureiher (Ardea Birds Uhu (Bubo bubo ) Kranich (Grus grus ) milvus ) migrans ) albicilla ) haliaetus ) aluco ) otus ) Canadensis ) cinerea ) Himmelsleiter EUArtSchV EUArtSchV, VS-RL (Aachen) Bergkamp RL NRW: 3 (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark RL NRW: 3 X (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) RL NRW: 3 RL NRW: 0 EUArtSchV, VS-RL X X Kapfenburg (Aalen) RL D: 3 X RL D: 3 Pilsach W2, W3 X Riepsdorf RL SH: V, RL D: SG RL D: SG X X Unkel (Neuwied) RL R-P: 3 X RL R-P:3 Weßling (Starnberg) RL B: 3 RL B: V Common Crane or ENGLISH: Red Kite Black Kite Eagle Osprey Eagle Owl Tawny or Brown Owl Long-eared Owl Canada Goose Grey Heron Eurasian Crane

83 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Kormoran Schwarzstorch Weißstorch (Ciconia Siberreiher Kolkrabe (Corvus Rabenkrähe(Corvus Lachmöwe (Larus Silbermöwe (Larus Schnatterente (Anas Tafelente (Aythya Birds (Phalacrocorax (Ciconia nigra ) ciconia ) (Casmerodius albus ) corvax ) corone) ridibundus ) argentatus ) strepera ) ferina) carbo ) Himmelsleiter (Aachen) Bergkamp (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark X X X RL NRW: R X (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) X Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 X RL SH: 2, RLD: SG, EU Riepsdorf RLSH: 1, RL D: SG X VRL Unkel (Neuwied) RL R-P: 1 Weßling (Starnberg) X ENGLISH: Black Stork White Stork Egret Cormorant Raven Carrion Crow Black-headed gull Herring gull Gadwall Pochard

Gartenrotschwanz Grünspecht (Picus Schwarzspecht Grauspecht (Picus Nachtigall (Luscinia Kuckuck (Cuculus Raubwürger (Lanius Kiebitz (Vanellus Rebhuhn (Perdix Wachtel (Coturnix Birds (Phoenicurus picus ) (Dryocopus martius ) canus ) megarhynchos ) canorus ) excubitor) vanellus ) perdix ) cortunix ) phoenicurus ) Himmelsleiter RL NRW: 2/1(Eifel and RL NRW/E: 3/2, RL-D: BArtSchV BArtSchV (Aachen) Siebengebirge) V Bergkamp RL NRW: 3S (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark RL NRW: 3 RL NRW: 3S (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) RL NRW: 3S Kapfenburg (Aalen) X Pilsach W2, W3 Riepsdorf RL SH: 2, RL D: SG RL SH: V RL SH: 3 Unkel (Neuwied) Weßling (Starnberg) RL B: V RL B: V RL B: 3, RL D: 2 RL B: V, RL D: V European Green Grey-headed Northern Shrike or ENGLISH: Black Woodpecker Nightingale Common Redstart Cuckoo Northern Lapwing Partridge Quail Woodpecker Woodpecker Great Grey Shrike

84 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Hausrotschwanz Baumpieper (Anthus Amsel (Turdus Buchfink (Fringilla Eichelhäher (Garrulus Goldammer Heckenbraunelle Rotkehlchen Ringeltaube Singdrossel (Turdus Birds (Phoenicurus trivialis ) merula ) coelebs ) glandarius ) (Emberiza citronella ) (Prunella miodularis ) (Erithacus rubecula ) (Columba palumbus ) philomenos ) ochruros ) Himmelsleiter RL NRW/E: 3/3, RL-D: (Aachen) V Bergkamp (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 X X X X X X X X X Riepsdorf X X X Unkel (Neuwied) X Weßling (Starnberg) RL B: 3, RL D: V RL B: V ENGLISH: Black Redstart Tree Pipit Blackbird Chaffinch Eurasian Jay Yellowhammer Dunnock Robin Ringdove Song Thrush

Zilpzalp Waldlaubsänger Wintergoldhähnchen Bachstelze (Motacilla Dorngrasmücke Gartengrasmücke Girlitz (Serinus Grünfink (Carduelis Feldschwirl Wasseramsel (Cinclus Birds (Phylloscopus (Phylloscopus (Regulus regulus ) alba ) (Sylvia communis ) (Sylvia borin ) serinus ) chloris ) (Locustella naevia ) cinclus ) collybita ) sibilatrix ) Himmelsleiter (Aachen) Bergkamp (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 X X X X Riepsdorf X Unkel (Neuwied) X X X X X X RL R-P:3 Weßling (Starnberg) RL D: V ENGLISH: Goldcrest Chiffchaff Wagtail Whitethroat Garden Warbler Serin Greenfinch Wood Warbler Grasshopper Warbler Dipper

85 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Zilpzalp Waldlaubsänger Bachstelze (Motacilla Dorngrasmücke Gartengrasmücke Girlitz (Serinus Grünfink (Carduelis Feldschwirl Wasseramsel (Cinclus Waldschnepfe Birds (Phylloscopus (Phylloscopus alba ) (Sylvia communis ) (Sylvia borin ) serinus ) chloris ) (Locustella naevia ) cinclus ) (Scolopax rusticola ) collybita ) sibilatrix ) Himmelsleiter (Aachen) Bergkamp (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark RL NRW: 3 (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 X X X Riepsdorf X Unkel (Neuwied) X X X X X X RL R-P:3 Weßling (Starnberg) RL D: V ENGLISH: Chiffchaff Wagtail Whitethroat Garden Warbler Serin Greenfinch Wood Warbler Grasshopper Warbler Dipper Woodcock

Bluthänfling Feldsperling (Passer Schafstelze Feldlerche (Alauda Neuntöter (Lanius Kohlmeise (Parus Mauersegler (Apus Saatkrähe (Corvus Rauchschwalbe Birds (Carduelis montanus ) (Motacilla flava ) arvensis ) collurio) major) apus ) frugilegus ) (Hirundo rustica ) cannabina ) Himmelsleiter (Aachen) Bergkamp RL NRW: 3S (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark RL NRW: 3 RL NRW: 3S (Rosendahl) Midlich (Rosendahl) Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 RL B: 3, RL D: V RL SH: 2, RL D SG, EU Riepsdorf X RL SH: 2 X VRL Unkel (Neuwied) Weßling (Starnberg) X RLB: V RL B: V RL B: 3, RL D: V RL B: V, RL D: V ENGLISH: Tree Sparrow Yellow Wagtail Euasian Skylark Red-backed Shrike Great Tit Common Swift Rook Linnet Barn Swallow

86 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

Zwergfledermaus Mückenfledermaus Großes Mausohr Mammals, Reptiles, Großer Abendsegler Kleinabendsegler Rauhautfledermaus Weißrandfledermaus Breitflügelfledermaus Nordfledemaus Bechsteinfledermaus Wasserfledermaus Fransenfledermaus (Pipistrellus (Pipistrellus Fledermaus (Myotis Amphibian, Insects (Nyctalus noctula ) (Nyctalus leisleri ) (Pipistrellus nathusii ) (Pipistrellus kuhlii ) (Eptesicus serotinus ) (Eptesicus nilssonii ) (Myotis bechsteinii ) (Myotis daubentonii ) (Myotis nattereri ) pipistrellus ) pygmaeus ) myotis ) Himmelsleiter RL NRW: 1, RL D: V FFH- RL NRW: 1, FFH-RL: (Aachen) RL: Annex IV Annex IV Bergkamp RL NRW: 1, RL D: V, RL NRW: V, FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: I, FFH-RL: IV FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: 2, FFH-RL: IV (Rosendahl) FFH-RL: IV Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl) RL NRW: R/V, RL BRD: RL NRW: 2, RL BRD: V, Midlich (Rosendahl) RL NRW: V, FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: R, FFH-RL: IV FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: 2, FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: G, FFH-RL: IV FFhH-RL: IV V, FFH-RL: IV FFH-RL: II + IV Kapfenburg (Aalen) Pilsach W2, W3 X RL B: V, RL D: V Riepsdorf FFH RL: IV RL SH: 3, FFH-RL; IV X FFH RL: IV Unkel (Neuwied) Weßling (Starnberg) RL B: 3, RL D: V X RL B: 3 RL B: G RL B: 3 Leisler/Hairy armed Greater Mouse-eared ENGLISH: Common noctule Nathusius's pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Kuhl's pipistrelle Mosquito bat Serotine bat Northern bat Bechstein's Bat Daubenton's bat Natterer's bat bat bat

Bartfledermaus sp. Mopsfledermaus Haselmaus Nachtkerzenschwärm Mammals, Reptiles, Birkenmaus (Scista Wildkatze (Felis Fischotter (Lutra Gelbbauchunke Moorfrosches (Rana Zauneidechse Schlingnatter Kammmolche (Myotis brandtii / M. (Barbastella (Muscardinus er (Proserpinus Amphibian, Insects betulina ) silvestris ) lutra ) (Bombina variegata ) arvalis ) (Lacerta agilis ) (Coronella austriaca ) (Triturus cristatus ) mystacinus ). barbastellus ) avellanarius ) proserpina) Himmelsleiter FFH -RL Annex IV EUArtSchV (Aachen) Bergkamp (Rosendahl) Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl) RL NRW: 3/2, RL BRD: Midlich (Rosendahl) V, FFH-RL: IV RL B-W: 1, RL D: 2, FFH- Kapfenburg (Aalen) RL: II + IV Pilsach W2, W3 X X X X X Riepsdorf X X X X X X X Unkel (Neuwied) BNatSchV Weßling (Starnberg) RL B: 2, RL D: V Evening Primrose ENGLISH: Whiskered bat sp. Barbastelle Dormouse Birch Mouse Wildcat Otter Yellow-bellied toad Moor Frog Fence/ Sand lizard Smooth snake Crested Newt Moth

87 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.4: Germany geographical map of all nine wind facility locations

88 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.5: U.S. avoidance, minimization, & compensatory measures at each of the nine wind facilities

Monitoring, WT Specifics: Construction: WEAP Pre- & Post- full-time biologists WT Specifics: WT Specifics: Construction: lighting Construction: speed Case Avoidance, Mgmt. Micro-siting Attractiveness feathering & cut- (Workers Envir. Construction: seasonal Compensatory Construction Surveys &/or monitors Monopole buried cables measures limits Plans in speeds Awareness Program)

X- Condor Monitoring & Avoidance Plan, X- no siting on X - Including Condor X- Carcass Alta East X Eagle Conservation upwind sides of X X X X X X Initial Response Team removal Plan, Avian & Bat ridgecrests Protection Plan X- away from X- w/in 2 yrs of ITP, hibernacula, Beech Ridge X X X X X will complete offsite reduced number of conservation project WT X- away from known Buckeye X roosting X X X X trees/forested area X- Avian & Bat Chokecherry & Sierra X Protection Plans, Sage- X X X Madre Grouse X- construction of X- single row WT X- limiting on-site release facility w/in 1 Kaheawa Pastures X siting, near existing X X X X vegetation yr of ITP, $20,000 power lines towards bat research X- grouping, X - specific years for Monarch Warren Co. previously used X X X fatality monitoring lands

X- destroying $200K toward bighorn X- Bighorn Sheep saltcaedar, sheep research, $500k Ocotillo Express X X X X X X X X- lambing season Monitoring Program, replacing with to Carrizo Marsh native vegetation restoration plan

X- Avian & Bat Searchlight X X X X X Protection Plan X- native Tule X X- Weed Mgmt. plan X X X X X vegetation

89 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.6: Germany avoidance, minimization, & compensatory (CEF) measures at each of the nine wind facilities

Construction: Seasonal Vegetation: avoiding Vegetation: re- Collision Construction: Tree Food habitat Micro-siting (Land (each dependent on loss-leader effects cultivation, re- Vegetation: Vegetation: Monitoring (with Switch-off WT Specifics: checking before tree management for Wind Turbines: other Compensatory Optimization) migration, breeding, around stem base vegetation after seasonal mowing Hedges possibility of turn- periods marking removal raptors nesting) (100m) disturbance off times)

Himmelsleiter X- construction of bat X X X X- sealing gondola (Aachen) boxes, X - 100m away from Kiebitz (Lapwings) Bergkamp (Rosendahl) X X X- 1st two years breeding grounds, ag. Fields X- vegetation strips, Holtwicker Mark X - 200m away from X X X X X fallow lands outside (Rosendahl) Holtwicker lake WP area X - 150m away from Kiebitz (Lapwing) X- vegetation strips, Midlich (Rosendahl) breeding grounds, X X X X- 1st two years X fallow lands outside 300m away from WP area nature reserve X- for Wespenbussard X- construction of bird Kapfenburg (Aalen) X X X X- 1st two years X - painting violet & bats, slow wind boxes (Baufalken) days X- construction of bat X- securing any gaps/ X- corn & wheat fields X - for Feldlerche X- nighttime X - red and white boxes, vegetation Pilsach W2, W3 X X X openings with mist- (no tree removal0 (Skyark) shutdown markings on rotors strips, fallow lands netting outside WP area X- replacing old turbine locations, X- if Rohrweihe X- expand reed 300m away from (Marsh Harrier) Riepsdorf X X - off-white color X- use existing roads vegetation away from Rohrweihe (Marsh are spotted in turbines Harrier) nesting vicinity grounds X - 1000m distance to X- reforestation, nearby breeding sites X- Luderplätzen X- buried cables, refurbishmernt of (FFH areas), 3000m Unkel (Neuwied) X X X (hunting devices for dismantling catenary environ., aid for from Schwarzstorch birds of prey) masts Gelbbauchunke breeding site and (Yellow-bellied toad) open wet meadows X- construction of bat X- nighttime Weßling (Starnberg) X X X X boxes, building of shutdown recreational areas

90 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.7: U.S. and Germany combination of all measures taken at all 18 wind facilities

Construction: Construction: Vegetation: Pre- & Post- Monitoring, full-time WT Specifics: Dark Grey: DE Construction: Construction: WEAP (Workers Construction: Tree Checking WT Specifics: WT Specifics: WT Specifics: avoiding loss- Vegetation: Vegetation: Construction Micro-siting Attractiveness Avoidance, Mgmt. biologists &/or feathering & cut- Compensatory measures lighting measures speed limits Envir. Awareness seasonal before tree Monopole marking buried cables leader effect seasonal mowing Hedges Surveys Plans monitors in speeds Program) removal around stem base Himmelsleiter X - sealing X- construction of bat Pre-construction X X X (Aachen) gondola boxes, X - 100m away from Bergkamp Kiebitz (Lapwings) Pre-construction X X X (Rosendahl) breeding grounds, ag. Fields X- vegetation strips, Holtwicker Mark X - 200m away from X- food management Pre-construction X X X X fallow lands outside WP (Rosendahl) Holtwicker lake for raptors area

X - 150m away from X- vegetation strips, Midlich Kiebitz (Lapwing) Pre-construction X X X X X fallow lands outside WP (Rosendahl) breeding grounds, 300m area away from nature reserve

X- for Kapfenburg Wespenbussard & X- construction of bird Pre-construction X X X X - painting violet X (Aalen) bats, slow wind boxes (Baufalken) days X- construction of bat X- corn & wheat fields (no X- nighttime boxes, vegetation strips, Pilsach W2, W3 Pre-construction X X X tree removal0 shutdown fallow lands outside WP area X- replacing old turbine X- if Rohrweihe X- expand reed locations, 300m away X- use existing (Marsh Harrier) X - red and white Riepsdorf Pre-construction X X vegetation away from from Rohrweihe (Marsh roads are spotted in markings on rotors turbines Harrier) nesting grounds vicinity X - 1000m distance to X- reforestation, nearby breeding sites X- Luderplätzen X- securing any refurbishmernt of (FFH areas), 3000m from X - & dismantling Unkel (Neuwied) Pre-construction (hunting devices for X gaps/ openings X - off-white color X X environ., aid for Schwarzstorch breeding caternary masts birds of prey) with mist-netting Gelbbauchunke (Yellow- site and open wet bellied toad) meadows X- construction of bat Weßling X- nighttime Pre-construction X X X X boxes, building of (Starnberg) shutdown recreational areas X- Condor Monitoring & Avoidance Plan, X - Including X- no siting on upwind Alta East X X- Carcass removal Eagle Condor Initial X X X X X sides of ridgecrests Conservation Response Team Plan, Avian & Bat Protection Plan X- w/in 2 yrs of ITP, will X- away from hibernacula, Beech Ridge X X X X X complete offsite reduced number of WT conservation project X- away from known Buckeye X roosting trees/forested X X X X area

Chokecherry & X X X X Sierra Madre

X- construction of release X- single row WT siting, X- limiting on-site facility w/in 1 yr of ITP, Kaheawa Pastures X X X X near existing power lines vegetation $20,000 towards bat research X - specific years Monarch Warren X- grouping, previously for fatality X X X Co. used lands monitoring X- Bighorn Sheep Ocotillo Express X Monitoring X X X X X- lambing season X X Program X- Avian & Bat Searchlight X X X X X Protection Plan X- native vegetation, X- Weed Mgmt. X- conservation plan 2:! Tule X X X X X dust abatement plan Ratio

91 Texas Tech University, Victoria DeLaine Gartman, 2014

7.8: U.S. EIA and EA Processes with relevant steps highlighted, Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012)