View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines FAC & Sage Grouse Coalition
IDAHO Wind Working GroupBoise, Idaho April 1, 2010
• Ridgeline started in 2000• Developed 65 MW Wolverine Creek
Wind Farm E of Idaho Falls• Signed a power purchase agreement
with Southern California Edison in April, awaiting Cal PUC approval, plan to build 90‐130 MW in 2010. 50% joint venture with BP
• 200 MW project South of Laramie –likely next project to see construction
• Now Ridgeline is wholly owned by Veolia Environmental
• Headquartered in Seattle with Offices in Boise, Portland, Idaho Falls, Spokane,
• FACA, NWCC, Sage Grouse Collaborative, Governor Otter’s Wind task Force, 2007 Governor’s Renewable Energy Award,
2
WIND SITE PROSPECTING CONCERNS
• Post‐Altamont• Higher Scrutiny• Archaeological/Cultural• T&E, Candidate, Species of Interest
• Large Intact Habitat• Pristine Sensitive Habitat• Habitat for Species of Habitat Fragmentation Concern
6
Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee
Dr. Taber Allison Massachusetts AudubonDr. Ed Arnett Bat Conservation InternationalMr. Mike Daulton National Audubon SocietyMs. Aimee Delach Defenders of WildlifeMr. Robert Manes The Nature Conservancy, KS
Mr. Michael Azeka AES Wind Generation
Ms. René Braud Horizon Wind EnergyMr. Andrew O. Linehan Iberdrola RenewablesMs. Winifred Perkins NextEra Energy ResourcesMr. Steven Quarles Crowell & Moring LLPMr. Rich Rayhill Ridgeline Energy, LLCMr. Patrick D. Traylor Hogan & Hartson, LLP
Mr. David J. Stout Chairman, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Steve Lindenberg U.S. Department of Energy Dr. Robert Robel Kansas State University
Federal Caucus
Ms. Kathy Boydston TX Parks & Wildlife DepartmentMr. Scott Darling VT Fish & Wildlife DepartmentChairman Karen Douglas CA Energy CommissionMr. Greg Hueckel WA Department of Fish & WildlifeMs. Jeri Lawrence Blackfeet NationMr. Mark Sinclair Clean Energy States AllianceMr. Keith Sexson Assn. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
State/Tribal Caucus
NGO Caucus
Industry Caucus
7
Tiered Approach: Tier 1Preliminary desktop evaluation or
screening of potential sites
• Internal company process to:– Conduct landscape‐level review
– Identify high risk/value habitats• Especially for ESA T&E, candidates, species of concern
– Evaluate potential wildlife concerns
– Find as many red flags as possible
– No “boots on the ground”
• Analysis Overview:– The tiered process directs the developer to:
• Avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts
• Mitigate unavoidable significant adverse impacts
• Decision Overview:– Risks are considered unacceptable: Abandon
– Risks are low: discontinue Tiered approach and proceed toward construction
– Risks are unknown: continue tiered process (either by continued analysis in present tier or in next tier)
8
Tiered Approach: Tier 2
9
Tiered Approach: Tier 3
– Use findings of prior Tiers to comprehensively Evaluate site for presence, use, seasonality, potential for impacts
– Design site to avoid or minimize impacts– Evaluate need for post‐construction studies– Provide pre‐construction component of Tier
5 studies
Field studies to document site wildlife conditions and predict project impacts
• Quantitative, scientifically rigorous studies to:
Tier 3, Continued• Analysis Overview:
– Who’s there? When? Why? In what numbers?
– Are they likely to be adversely impacted by a wind farm?
– If so, can adverse impacts be avoided? Minimized?
– If impacts can’t be avoided/minimized are they significant?
• ESA T&E or candidate; species of concern?
• Significant on population level? (even local?)
• Other?– Can significant adverse impacts be
Mitigated?
• Methods/Metrics• AWWI
10
Construction BMPsConstruction BMPS (Part D) inserted between Tier 3 and 4 because that’s when construction occurs
12
13
Tiered Approach: Tier 4
• Generally recommended for finding of “Due Care” regardless of Tiered analysis indications
• Estimation and study of:– Species composition of fatalities
– Relationships of fatalities w/ site characteristics
– Comparison among facilities
– Comparison of actual & predicted fatalities
• Are corrective management or mitigation measures warranted?
Post‐construction fatality studies
14
Tiered Approach: Tier 5Other post‐construction studies
• Direct and indirect effects
– Displacement due to habitat alteration, loss, and/or fragmentation
– Factors associated with effects
• Effectiveness of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
• Local population demographic effects
NWCC Wind/Wildlife Sage Grouse CommitteeNational Wind Coordinating Collaborative Sage Grouse Research CollaborationSTEERING COMMITTEE
Industry– Lin Alder, Wasatch Wind– Christina Calabrese, Horizon Wind Energy – Matt Grant, Rocky Mountain Power– Nichole Hughes, RES Americas– Rich Rayhill, Ridgeline Energy, LLC
State Agencies– John Emmerich, Wyoming Game & Fish– Scott Gardner, California Fish and Game – Tom Hemker, Idaho Fish and Game– Holly Michael, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
NGOs– Kevin Doherty, Audubon Wyoming – Joe Kiesecker, The Nature Conservancy
Federal Agencies– Zachary Bowen, U.S. Geological Survey – Robin Sell, Bureau of Land Management – Christy Johnson‐Hughes, USFWS
Scientific/Academic– Dave Naugle, University of Montana– Jim SedingerUniversity of Nevada
Technical Monitor– Karin Sinclair, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
• Facilitation Team– Abby Arnold, Kearns & West– Jennifer Bies, Kearns & West
Recommended