final thesis 8.4
TRANSCRIPT
Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture
Policies and measures for
protected species in wind energy:
An assessment between the U.S. & Germany
Master’s Thesis
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE:
Victoria Gartman
Major: Arid Land Studies
Supervisory Committee:
Professor Dr. Johann Köppel
Professor Dr. Ulrich Zeller
Dr. Gad Perry
Berlin, April 2014
I
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1. CHAPTER 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 ........................................................................ 4
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. CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS & METHODS ............................................................................. 12
2.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1 Country Selection ....................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Case Studies ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 United States .............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Germany ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Literature Research ............................................................................................................ 13
2.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 13
3. CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 14
3.1 United States ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines ............................................................................... 14
3.1.2 U.S. Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion ............................................................................ 35
3.2 Germany ............................................................................................................................. 38
3.2.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines ............................................................................... 38
3.2.2 German Case Studies ................................................................................................. 44
3.2.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion ............................................................................ 55
3.3 Comparative analysis between U.S. & Germany ............................................................... 58
3.3.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines comparison ........................................................... 58
3.3.2 Comparison of Cases .................................................................................................. 60
II
4. CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 62
4.1 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 62
4.1.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 63
4.2 Future Research .................................................................................................................. 64
5. CHAPTER 5: AWKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... 65
6. CHAPTER 6: LITERATURE CITATIONS .............................................................................. 67
7. CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX ......................................................................................................... 74
TABLE 7.1 U.S. Endangered species allowed to be legally taken at the wind facilities ........... 74
FIGURE 7.2 U.S. geographical map of all nine wind facility locations ................................. 75
TABLE 7.3 Germany species of concern at the wind facilities ................................................. 76
FIGURE 7.4 Germany geographical map of all nine wind facility locations .......................... 81
TABLE 7.5 U.S. avoidance, minimization, & compensatory measures at each of the nine wind
facilities ................................................................................................................................ 82
TABLE 7.6 Germany avoidance, minimization, & compensatory (CEF) measures at each of
the nine wind facilities ................................................................................................................... 83
TABLE 7.7 U.S. and Germany combination of all measures taken at all 18 wind facilities ..... 84
FIGURE 7.9 U.S. EIA and EA Processes with relevant steps highlighted, Source: (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2012) ............................................................................................................ 85
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 Sa-
fety 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.)
III
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)
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)
1
ABSTRACT 1
Political frameworks and guidelines concerning endangered species and species of 2
concern affect the development of wind energy in many countries such as the United 3
States and Germany. Renewable energies, with a focus on wind development, are rapid-4
ly growing worldwide and the necessity to ensure environmental and species protection 5
during this development is essential. Concerns in wind energy development include di-6
rect and indirect effects on endangered species or species of concern. Through such pol-7
icies as the Endangered Species Act in the U.S. and the Habitats Directive in Europe, 8
mitigation measures have been taken to lower possible negative impacts on species 9
around wind facilities and wind turbines. 10
This paper shows a multiple-case study analysis of eighteen locations, nine in the 11
U.S. and nine in Germany, with a thorough analysis of literature, political reports, and 12
policies, comparing trans-Atlantic commonalities and differences at or around onshore 13
wind facilities. The biggest differences between U.S. and German policy in terms of 14
species protection is the legal and illegal taking of endangered species, along with 15
avoidance and minimization measures, CEF and compensatory mitigation, and the dif-16
ferent levels of accessibility of information for wind development. With this collection 17
of research, this paper not only aims to show the different mitigation strategies for wild-18
life management around wind facilities, but to also aid policymakers, regulators, and the 19
wind industry in developing the most beneficial cost effective guidelines and/or policies 20
for species protection and wind energy development. 21
22
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 23
1.1 Context & Background 24
1.1.1 Policy & Wind Energy 25
Interest in wind energy and the exploitation of renewable energy sources, arose in 26
the 1970’s after a world-wide oil crisis and a global realization of dependence on fossil 27
fuels. For the last two and a half decades, momentum has picked up with the growing 28
concern about environmental problems and the world’s dwindling non-renewable ener-29
gy sources. Through policies, regulations, and investment, renewable wind energy pro-30
duction has grown exponentially and has led to Germany becoming a leader in the Eu-31
ropean Union and the U.S. being the second highest in installed wind power capacity in 32
2
the world behind China (American Wind Energy Association 2013, Bundersverband 33
WindEnergie 2013). 34
During the past two decades a significant number of countries have created renewa-35
ble energy policy frameworks that have played a major role in the expansion of wind 36
energy. Wind policy in the U.S. has few federal regulations for wind development and 37
operations, leaving mainly states to decide on mandates and regulations, location of 38
wind facilities, and the type of land owners (Geißler, Köppel et al. 2013). For example, 39
California has had a feed-in tariff with aggressive tax incentives since the 1980’s which 40
has spurred other states to do the same in creating state renewable portfolio standards 41
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2012) (p.559). These renewable portfolio 42
standards have been used as well as similar feed-in tariffs in European countries since 43
the 1990s. 44
In 1969 the U.S. passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was 45
the first policy of its kind in terms of environment and species protection. Fifteen years 46
later the European Union created an Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and 47
five years after in 1990, Germany implemented its own Environmental Impact Assess-48
ment Act (EIAA) (Köppel, Geißler et al. 2012). With the creation of necessary impact 49
assessments (IA) on construction and operation of activities like wind energy develop-50
ment, environmental factors such as species protection became a decision-making factor 51
in primary planning stages. 52
In 2012, Germany produced more than 23, 000 wind turbines with an installed ca-53
pacity of approximately 31,300 MW (megawatts) of clean electricity for businesses and 54
households. 55
3
56
Figure 1: Installed wind power capacity in Germany up to 2012, Source: http://www.wind-57 energie.de/en/infocenter/statistics 58
59
In October 2012, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced it had reached the 60
President’s goal of authorizing 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects on public land. 61
U.S. wind installations in 2012 stood at just over 60,000 MW, the highest installed wind 62
capacity of any other country that year (American Wind Energy Association 2013). 63
64
Figure 2: Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2012, Source: 65 http://awea.rd.net/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059&navItemNumber=742 66
67
Statistics from December 2013 show Germany’s total wind energy capacity reached 68
33,729 MW with only 2,998 MW installed over the year. The U.S. installed 1,084 MW, 69
reaching its capacity of 61,108 MW. With the extension of the Production Tax Credit in 70
2013 in the U.S., 12,000 MW are currently under construction and should be completed 71
4
in 2014 (American Wind Energy Association 2013, Bundersverband WindEnergie 72
2013). 73
1.1.2 U.S. & Germany in wind energy goals 74
After Japan’s Fukushima nuclear incident, Germany passed an “Energiewende” or 75
“Energy Transformation” in 2011 stating the country was closing all nuclear facilities 76
and the nine existing plants by 2022. Their goal has become to hugely expand the use 77
and production of renewables, and in particular, wind power (The Economist 2012). 78
“Energiewende” includes a 55 percent reduction of Greenhouse gases by 2030, achiev-79
ing a 60 percent share of renewable energy targets, giving producers a fixed feed-in tar-80
iff for 20 years guaranteeing a stable income, and having electricity efficiency up by 50 81
percent by 2050. The EU’s binding “20 percent by 2020” target for renewable energy in 82
Member States is a major reason Germany has set such high targets (European 83
Commission 2014). 84
In the U.S., President Obama has given a goal to reach 20 GW from renewable en-85
ergies by 2020 and the Department of Energy hopes to reach its goal of wind energy at 86
20 percent by 2030 (U.S. Department of Energy 2008). Unlike Germany, the U.S. does 87
not have a nationwide federal policy in renewable energy targets or a federal mandate 88
aiming for reductions of Greenhouse gases. The federal government leaves these up to 89
state governments, with many states creating their own mandates and goals in terms of 90
renewable energies. One of the biggest drivers the U.S. government is using for invest-91
ment of renewable energies is the Federal Production Tax Credit combined with state 92
Renewable Portfolio Targets. The NRC Committee estimates by 2020 that the U.S. 93
wind energy development will contribute approximately 4.5 percent electricity genera-94
tion offsetting CO2 emissions (National Research Council 2007). 95
1.2 Concerns in Wind Energy 96
Quite a bit of research has been done about the concerns of endangered species 97
around wind facilities. Katzner (2013) writes; “wind energy is unusual in that it has both 98
direct and indirect effects that are demographically relevant […]. Wind energy devel-99
opment is habitat intensive, as each turbine requires a maintained ground clearing and a 100
service road, as well as installation of electric lines to transport power to the grid” 101
(Katzner, Johnson et al. 2013 p.367). Katzner goes on further to explain that these direct 102
and indirect consequences will affect wildlife populations and community dynamics. 103
Jakle, Drewitt, and the National Research Council (NRC) all discuss similar points that 104
5
turbine characteristics such as size and capacity, siting, abundance of turbines, and hu-105
man activity all determine the risk to wildlife directly through habitat loss and turbine 106
collisions or indirectly though habitat displacement or avoidance (also called barrier 107
effects) (Drewitt and Langston 2006, National Research Council 2007, Jakle 2012). 108
The NRC further details habitat displacement should be considered the biggest con-109
cern rather than direct collision. In Europe, “impacts of wind-energy facilities on habitat 110
are considered to be greater than collision-related fatalities on birds[…]” (National 111
Research Council 2007 p.107-108). It is considered habitat disturbance when bird spe-112
cies such as waterfowl, shorebirds, waders, and passerines avoid the turbines from 75 to 113
800 meters. Additionally, the NRC goes on to say bird displacement associated with 114
wind-energy development has received little attention in the U.S. (National Research 115
Council 2007). 116
Bird vulnerability and mortalities around wind facilities are a combination of site 117
specific, “wind-relief interaction” that is also species specific and can depend on sea-118
sonal factors (Barrios and Rodriguez 2004). Fatalities occurring most at wind facilities 119
are mainly nocturnal, migrating passerines but it has been noted that raptors are most 120
vulnerable. These migrating passerines are in abundance so the higher numbers of colli-121
sions is predicable, but raptors due to their small abundance and higher flight altitudes 122
have become a concern. Migratory tree-roosting bird and bat species also appear to be 123
susceptible to collision (National Research Council 2007 p.7). Birds are known to col-124
lide with a number of manmade structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, 125
power and communication lines, and wind turbines. Buildings kill 500 million birds 126
annually or 58.2% out of total bird mortalities while wind turbines kill <.01% 127
(Erickson, Johnson et al. 2005). 128
Bat mortality around wind facilities has recently become a worldwide concern and 129
there is some research to see how wind turbines are affecting bats directly and indirect-130
ly. After reported bat fatalities in the thousands in U.S. states like West Virginia and 131
Pennsylvania, research began focusing on mitigation measures such as curtailment1 to 132
minimize these already declining bat populations (Arnett, Huso et al. 2010). With higher 133
bat activity and mortalities coinciding at low wind speeds, the option of curtailment or 134
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.
6
changing the turbine cut-in speed and reducing the operational hours during low wind 135
periods at wind facilities as forms of avoidance and minimization mitigation measures 136
has led to a reductions of bat fatalities by at least 50% without causing major revenue 137
losses (Arnett, Huso et al. 2010, Voigt, Popa-Lisseanu et al. 2012). Yet there are still 138
concerns about the size and form of catchment areas from which these bats originate and 139
biologists such as Voigt feel there needs to be an international agreement to develop and 140
implement bat species conservation and monitoring in the EU (Voigt, Popa-Lisseanu et 141
al. 2012). 142
Besides birds and bats, very little research has been conducted on other species. In 143
terms of mammalian effects from habitat disturbance, the destruction of wooded areas 144
could threaten preferred locations, but overall populations would not be affected by 145
wind-energy development (National Research Council 2007 p.120). Amphibians are 146
often more sensitive to habitat alteration than birds and mammals but no studies around 147
wind-energy developments have been created (as of 2006) (National Research Council 148
2007 p.121). 149
There is a noticeably vast amount of literature and research involving the impacts of 150
wind energy on wildlife as well as other related impacts such as noise pollution, human 151
participation, land development, and visual impacts. The investigation of wind energy 152
impacts on wildlife is in the process of being consolidated through international cooper-153
ation of researchers, agency officials, conservationists, planners, project managers, de-154
velopers, and representatives of the energy industry. Conferences such as the 155
CWW2015 (“Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts 2015”) in Berlin next 156
year are events which are designed to discuss and introduce methods used to properly 157
assess and mitigate impacts. Additionally, they address the adequate planning and per-158
mission processes and policy-making in the wind energy industry, covering cumulative 159
wind energy effects, wind energy in forested areas, and the efficiency of avoidance and 160
mitigation measures (Technische Universität Berlin 2014). 161
1.3 Best Management Practices: Avoidance & Minimization Measures 162
1.3.1 Definition 163
Mitigation is generally defined as (1) avoiding impacts when possible, (2) minimiz-164
ing remaining impacts, and (3) compensating for unavoidable impacts (Jakle 2012). The 165
two main focuses within this paper regarding species protection around wind facilities 166
are mitigation by avoidance and mitigation by reduction/minimization. Mitigation by 167
7
avoidance covers the siting, design, process, technology, alternative routes, and adaptive 168
options to avoid impacts. This form of impact mitigation is often the cheapest and most 169
effective option with the best approaches and the greatest benefit in avoiding impacts 170
early on in the planning stages (Rajvanshi 2008). These minimization measures closely 171
follow avoidance measures, can be grouped together, and are applicable in all phases of 172
a development project. 173
174
Figure 3: Direct (red) and indirect (blue) impacts on wildlife from wind energy, Source: (Drewitt and Langston 175 2006) 176
Best management practices to reduce bird and bat fatalities have been through such 177
measures of avoiding construction and development of wind facilities in environmental-178
ly sensitive areas, using technological and physical changes such as the use of mono-179
poles and burying cable lines, and changing surrounding vegetation types to remove 180
attractiveness for raptors to feed and bats to roost (Baerwald, Edworthy et al. 2009). 181
Mitigation measures can be found detailed in state and federal guidelines and can be 182
observed at wind facilities/sites with HCPs or land development plans. 183
Direct collision/ Mortality
Habitat fragmentation
Altered behavior &
displacement
Decreased fecundity
Decreased breeding success
Acoustic masking
Altered species
competition
8
184
Figure 4: Mitigation Pathway, Source: (Jakle 2012) 185
1.3.2 State of Research 186
Wind energy is known to have direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. The identified 187
direct impacts are habitat displacement and direct collisions with the wind turbines. In-188
directly, wind energy can alter species behavior, decrease fecundity, decrease breeding 189
success, and create barrier effects. The causes of bird fatalities may be attributable to 190
factors such as bird behavior, high prey abundance, turbine design, special arrangement 191
of turbines, and topography (Sterner 2002). However, through appropriate planning and 192
siting, wind facilities can create environmental and social effects which might outweigh 193
some negative impacts on wildlife species and the surrounding environments 194
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2012 p.576). These negative impacts can 195
be predicted and mitigated through avoidance and minimization measures in the siting 196
and development phase. These measures are determined through careful planning by the 197
developer, but are guided and enforced through local and regional regulations, state 198
mandates and goals, and federal and/or international acts and policies. 199
There is no in-depth analysis of trans-Atlantic commonalities and differences be-200
tween the procedures and policies set up for protecting endangered species at or around 201
onshore wind facilities. The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) writes: 202
“expanding the amount of research focused on mitigation strategies will not only im-203
prove our knowledge of wildlife management, but it will also help guide policymakers, 204
regulators, industry, and the public in developing guidelines or policies that are benefi-205
cial for wildlife and cost-effective for development,” (National Wind Coordinating 206
Committee 2007 p.84). Few studies have examined the strategies currently in use for 207
reducing the potential impacts of wind power on wildlife species (Government 208
Avoidance
Avoiding siting turbines in sensitive habitats i.e. nesting, foraging, soaring for large birds, locations heavily utilized by migratory birds and bats
Curtailment during sensitive seasons,
feathering, increase cut-in speeds
Minimization Restrict construction around seasonal activities
Minimize lighting to avoid attracting insects and thus, birds & bats
CompensationConstructing bird & bat boxes, protecting or enhancing existing habitat on or away from project site
Funding towards recovery programs , aid, and/or conservation project
Mo
nito
ring
9
Accountability Office 2005). While there have been European studies that cover multi-209
ple EU Member States, no studies have been conducted on the comparison of policies 210
between the U.S. and Germany in terms of species protection and wind energy devel-211
opment. This comparison between the U.S. and Germany can be used in determining 212
better management practices (BMPs) and what policymakers, either nationally, region-213
ally, or locally, can benefit from in knowing the political commonalities and differences 214
and which measures have been particularly beneficial or unsuccessful. 215
1.3.3 Research Questions & Hypothesis 216
Based on what is known about wind energy development and species protection, 217
questions have been posed in areas for further research. The main question of interest in 218
wind energy development is: How do executions of avoidance and minimization mitiga-219
tion measures for species of concern overlap and differ between the United States and 220
Germany? Through thorough review of literature, policy analysis, and case comparison, 221
this main question can be answered. The second question of interest is: How does the 222
U.S.’s habitat conservation plans (HCPs), the E.U.’s continued ecological functions 223
(CEFs), and Germany’s endangered species impact assessment (Artenschutzprüfung, 224
ASP) compare and differs? This question can be answered by a review of literature and 225
policy analysis between Germany’s and the EU’s environmental and species acts with 226
the U.S’s federal policies regarding species protection. The third question is: To what 227
extent can the measures discussed above have the possibility of becoming trans-228
Atlantic? Through a continuation of literature review and case comparison analysis, the 229
aim is to see which adaptations and measures each country can take into consideration 230
with regards to the development of future policies. 231
These questions were chosen to understand whether protection methods in the U.S. 232
and in Germany initiate similar environmental assessments and mitigation approaches. I 233
aim to identify whether policies in both countries use similar practices in terms of 234
avoidance and minimization measures, as well as compensatory and CEF measures for 235
species around wind turbines. Many environmental policies tend to converge at different 236
points in wind energy development and in species protection which will be discussed in 237
a later chapter. 238
Before any work was completed, I formed hypothetical results and what I expected 239
would be conclusive of my compilation of literature review, policy analysis, and case 240
comparison based on the above questions. My main hypothesis is that U.S. policies and 241
10
Germany’s policies will vary in some aspects, yet the comparison will show that their 242
outcomes will be very similar. The U.S. does not have any federal wind energy devel-243
opment regulations, but rather guidelines from federal agencies and NGOs suggesting 244
the best management practices to avoid litigation from such acts as the Migratory Bird 245
Treaty Act, the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, and NEPA. Germany has more 246
regulations and policy requirements from both the EU and its federal laws with some 247
states providing wind facility guidelines but in conclusion, both the U.S. and Germany’s 248
outcomes are very similar. There are a few differences though, such as the U.S.’s inci-249
dental take permit and Germany’s offsite measures. Both countries could benefit in 250
looking at one another’s policies and measures for species protection. Another expected 251
result is that Germany’s continued ecological functions (CEFs) will be similar to some 252
measures within U.S. habitat conservation plans (HCPs) with only slight differences. 253
In addition, the availability of information I was able to access for the U.S. and 254
Germany is important to note and crucial to the understanding of this study. Germany’s 255
lack of transparency included in this research adds difficulty and constraints to public 256
access and my ability to properly analyze cases. The availability of information, such as 257
HCPs and Biological Opinions are easier to access than Germany’s information on pro-258
tected species impact assessments and what CEF measures will be adapted in detail. 259
1.3.4 Criteria & Conditions 260
Criteria and conditions have been created in order to further define my research and 261
explain the boundaries, risks, and issues that have arisen. Within my criteria, I limited 262
my collection of literature and data through online databases from the Texas Tech Uni-263
versity Library to include journals, books, and articles officially published regarding 264
species protection, wind energy development, and a combination of both. I also went to 265
official government websites to collect reports and policies regarding wind facilities and 266
species protection. Such websites include the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 267
(blm.gov), Germany’s BMU (BMU.de), and the European Commission for the Envi-268
ronment (ec.europa.eu/environment). I also collected news articles regarding recent 269
events surrounding wind energy and species protection. Since private land owners do 270
not have to make all information public in regards to development on their lands, the 271
focus lies in wind energy developments on majority federal lands in the U.S. Due to 272
lack of transparency in Germany, I am limited on access to information regarding the 273
11
German cases. Thus, my criteria are broader in case selection and are based on public 274
availability. 275
The focus on research of onshore wind facilities and not offshore facilities is to en-276
sure balance among my cases in the U.S. and Germany. Currently, the U.S. has no oper-277
ational offshore wind energy production unlike Germany, which has 116 offshore wind 278
turbines (Bundersverband WindEnergie 2013). However, there are seven federally 279
funded projects under development off the East and West coasts, the Great Lakes area, 280
and the Gulf of Mexico currently undergoing environmental assessment and planning 281
(three of the seven projects will be selected to complete development and become op-282
erational by 2017) (American Wind Energy Association 2013). Additionally, there are 283
different species of concern, different policies and regulations, and different avoidance 284
and minimization mitigation measures at off-shore wind facilities that would be hard to 285
combine and analyze with onshore wind facilities. 286
In terms of species of concern, I am focusing on federally and internationally endan-287
gered species of birds, mammals, and/or insects. There are many different species of 288
concern, particularly within each country and many factors influence how and why spe-289
cies are protected. Species protection is determined by populations, various regions 290
where particular species nest and breed, migration paths which are used, and particular 291
environment and habitats in which species thrive. In Germany, all birds and bats are 292
protected under European (Habitats and Birds Directives), and federal (BNatSchG) laws 293
(along with a number of other legal foundations for bat and bird conservations not per-294
taining to this paper). In the U.S., the focus will be regarding species which are covered 295
by wind facilities’ Incidental Take Permit (ITP). 296
Regulatory measures heavily influence the development and construction of wind 297
facilities. The measures of research interest cover avoidance and minimization mitiga-298
tion measures with compensatory measures briefly discussed. In the documents found 299
for each case lies a description of which avoidance and minimization measures will 300
work best depending on the site. Avoidance and minimization measures vary slightly in 301
wind facility development for species protection in each country. Compensatory 302
measures can be more difficult to analyze due to the fact that most wind facilities cases 303
selected have neither completed nor thoroughly written up proper measures after the 304
wind site is in operation. 305
12
There are some risks involved in the validity of this research, mainly due to my pre-306
liminary German language skills. I relied on undergraduate translation abstracts and 307
help from fellow colleagues in summarizing my cases and translation websites to help in 308
understanding the information. Additionally, there has been difficulty in finding infor-309
mation as most content is in German. Secondly, in all comparative case analyses there is 310
a certain degree of bias and the selected sample may not reflect the situation as a whole. 311
Lastly, since a majority of the cases have not been completely constructed, not all in-312
formation is available. For example, in Germany not all of the cases have completed an 313
ASP (Artenschutzprüfung) but only baseline surveys with possible CEF measures. In 314
other words, some cases do have concrete measures which will be put into place when 315
wind development sites are constructed, while other cases are still in the planning stag-316
es. 317
318
2. CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS & METHODS 319
2.1 Study Area 320
2.1.1 Country Selection 321
Germany is a top leader in wind energy development in Europe and one of the high-322
est installed-capacity wind energy countries in the world. The U.S. is also one of the 323
highest installed-capacity wind energy countries in the world, second behind China. 324
Both of these nations lead in wind energy development and have strong federal policies 325
for the protection of species. Germany and the U.S. have similar policies and regulations 326
for species of concern but research has not been done comparing the two on this topic 327
with respect to wind energy development. Lastly, both countries have rigorous goals to 328
meet in terms of wind energy and renewable energies in general. It is important that 329
wind facility planning methods are created in detail so as to continue the protection of 330
species while reducing greenhouse emissions. 331
2.2 Case Studies 332
2.2.1 United States 333
I have selected nine cases located throughout the U.S.: Three are located in Califor-334
nia (CA), one in Nevada (NV), one in Wyoming (WY), one in Illinois (IL), one in Ohio 335
(OH), one in West Virginia (WV), and one in Hawaii (HI). Species of concern in these 336
cases are located in Appendix Table 7.1. A geographical map showing the locations of 337
13
these wind facilities are in Appendix Figure 7.2. A description of each case is found in 338
the “Results” chapter with an analysis and comparison of each along with the German 339
cases. 340
2.2.2 Germany 341
I selected nine cases located in Germany within the states of Bayern, Nordrhein-342
Westfalen, and Schleswig-Holstein. Species of concern in these cases are located within 343
Appendix Table 7.3. A geographical map showing the possible locations of these wind 344
turbines are in Appendix Figure 7.4. A description of each case is found in the “Results” 345
section with an analysis and comparison of each along with comparison with the U.S. 346
cases. 347
2.3 Literature Research 348
The research for this thesis is based on a review of relevant laws and regulations 349
within the U.S., the EU’s policies that affect Member States such as Germany, and 350
Germany’s own laws and regulations. The focus is on policy, siting, and permitting 351
documents provided by government agencies such as the U.S.’s BLM, Germany’s 352
BMJV & BMU, and the EU’s EC (European Commission). The research is also based 353
on collection of academic literature regarding species protection, mitigation efforts, and 354
wind energy development. 355
2.4 Methodology 356
The analysis of Germany’s and the U.S.’s procedures of species protection in wind 357
energy development is based mainly on the review of literature on endangered species 358
or species of concern, wind energy development, federal and international policies, and 359
18 wind facility sites. Each case is selected based on the availability of information pro-360
vided for public observation. They consist of possible locations with a specified number 361
of wind turbines for development and written up measures for avoidance and minimiza-362
tion techniques. In the U.S., each case has either a Biological Opinion and/or Habitat 363
Conservation Plan which contains an Incidental Take Statement. The U.S. cases have 364
been approved an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). In Germany, the cases have a possible 365
location for the wind turbines based around a land development plan and consists of 366
either an ASP (Artenschutzprüfung) with CEF (continued ecological function) measures 367
or reviews containing CEF measures with additional avoidance and minimization 368
measures. 369
14
The selected cases in Germany, with the exception of one, pertain to the last three 370
years and in turn some have not been completed. Certain information is unavailable for 371
some of these cases which will be further explained in the “Results” chapter. These new 372
cases are chosen as recent policies within the EU and Germany as they changed and 373
were modified in 2009. The same year, the U.S. modified the Bald and Gold Eagle Pro-374
tection Act to include the taking of potential eagles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 375
2013 ). The application process for the approval of a wind facility can take up to several 376
years and studies are needed in the potential area for surveying species populations, 377
landscapes, and micro-siting in order to properly follow the new and modified regula-378
tions. 379
Through a comparative case study method I will explain U.S. and EU/Germany situ-380
ations in terms of species protection. Using a multiple-cases approach I will explain 381
commonalities and differences between each case. I will also compare the U.S.’s and 382
Germany’s policies and measures respectively to explain why particular processes are 383
carried out in each country. This explanation-building technique, best explained by Yin, 384
is a case study method which “stipulate[s] a presumed set of causal links about it, or 385
‘how’ or ‘why’ something happened” (Yin 2009). I will further explain the similarities 386
and dissimilarities between the U.S. process of creating HCPs, BOs, and approvals for 387
ITPs and Germany’s use of ASPs and similar documents. In the conclusion of the analy-388
sis I will discuss options and adaptations each country can consider in terms of mitiga-389
tion in wind energy development and how these policies and measures could become 390
trans-Atlantic. 391
392
3. CHAPTER 3: RESULTS 393
3.1 United States 394
3.1.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines 395
The United States became one of the first countries to create federal policies to not 396
only protect different environments from human development but also to protect threat-397
ened or endangered species and their environments. Major acts include the Migratory 398
Bird Treaty Act in 1918 (MBTA), the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act in 1940 399
(BGEPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969/1970 (NEPA), and the En-400
dangered Species Act in 1973 (ESA). These policies are, for the majority, overseen by 401
15
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management in the Depart-402
ment of the Interior. 403
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transporta-404
tion, and importation of over 860 migratory bird species (including their eggs, nests, and 405
parts), unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Bald and 406
Gold Eagle Protection Act is similar in that it prohibits the taking and sale of bald and 407
golden eagles (including their eggs, nests, and parts), unless authorized by the USFWS 408
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). 409
Under these two acts, USFWS regulations broadly define the word “taking” to mean 410
“pursue, hunt, kill, would, trap, capture, or collect” or attempt the taking of these spe-411
cies” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The 412
USFWS does allow permits for scientific collecting, depredation, propagation, and fal-413
conry but there are no provisions for “incidental take” within the MBTA. The USFWS 414
may allow permits for scientific collecting as well under the BGEPA which also in-415
cludes exhibition purposes and religious matters. No permit provisions for “incidental 416
take” under MGEPA were created until 2009, requiring project developers to create an 417
Eagle Conservation plan detailing avoidance and minimization measures to protect bald 418
and golden eagles if the developer were to request eagle takes. 419
The U.S. environmental review process at both state and federal levels have been in 420
effect for over 40 years while the European Union’s environmental processes are just 421
over 25 years (Köppel, Geißler et al. 2012). The National Environmental Policy Act 422
(NEPA) is a federal law stating that developers who wish to carry out any action on fed-423
eral lands with significant environmental consequences must submit an environmental 424
impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA). For example, if a wind de-425
velopment project is sited on federal lands or is going to connect to a federal transmis-426
sion line, the developer must create and, through the NEPA EA/EIS process, identify 427
potential measures to mitigate identified impacts (Jakle 2012). Two flow charts of the 428
EA and EIA process can be found in Appendix Figure 7.9. 429
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) passed in 1973 is to “provide a means whereby 430
the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 431
conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and 432
threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes 433
16
of [certain] treaties and conventions[…]” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Sec-434
tions 7, 9, 10 are most important regarding the taking of protected species and the coop-435
eration of federal agencies to ensure survival of these species on federal lands. Section 436
7(a)(2) requires the USFWS to “consider one-time and cumulative effects of federal 437
agency actions on threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and authorizes 438
the imposition of requirements to minimize the impacts of authorized takes” (U.S. Fish 439
and Wildlife Service 2013). It provides that, if a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the 440
FWS determines that the proposed federal agency action complies with Section 7(a)(2) 441
jeopardy and critical habitat standards, the USFWS will issue an incidental take state-442
ment to the appropriate agency. Section 9 of the ESA details take violation regulations, 443
specifically Sec. 9(a)(2) stating “it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction 444
of the United States to take any such species within the US or the territorial sea of the 445
United States [and] violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threated 446
species of fish or wildlife” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Section 9’s take 447
standard, unlike Section 7(a)(2)’s jeopardy standard, considers injuries to an individual 448
member of a listed species and only to listed wildlife species while Section 7(a)(2) ap-449
plies to all listed species and plants. In addition, Section 9 applies to any habitat of listed 450
wildlife species unlike the Section 7(a)(2) critical habitat standard which is only desig-451
nated to the critical habitats of listed species (Department of the Interior Wind Turbine 452
Guidelines Advisory Committee 2008). 453
Lastly, Section 10 of the ESA authorizes the taking of threatened or endangered spe-454
cies if a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed and will minimize and mitigate 455
impacts of the taking. Section 10 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue an ITP 456
from the FWS Endangered Species program, which will result in the taking of a listed 457
wildlife species by a non-federal landowner engaged in an otherwise unlawful activity 458
covered by the HCP. In order for wind developers to apply for an ITP, the application 459
must accompany an HCP to show that the effects of the approved ITP are minimized 460
and mitigated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). An HCP is a tool used to resolve 461
endangered species conflicts in allowing some loss of endangered species in exchange 462
for compensatory activities which minimize and mitigate for the loss (Bonnie 1999). 463
17
464
For proposed projects such as the construction of a wind facility, both the Bureau of 465
Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must follow 466
the ESA requirements to ensure that any action they authorize or fund will not jeopard-467
ize endangered or threatened species or destroy their designated critical habitat (U.S. 468
Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). One objective of an EIS is to evaluate potential im-469
pacts resulting from the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) supported by a 470
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The purpose of 471
the HCP process associated with this permit is to guarantee that there will be adequate 472
minimization and mitigation of the effects for the authorized incidental take. Developers 473
with an authorized ITP are allowed to continue activities, such as constructing and oper-474
ating a wind facility. In order to obtain an ITP, the developer must complete the permit 475
application with the components of a standard application, a HCP with an incidental 476
take statement, and a drafted NEPA EIS or EA. While the permit is processing, the 477
USFWS will prepare the ITP, write a Biological Opinion (BO) under section 7 of the 478
ESA, and finalize the NEPA analysis documents. For 60 days, there will also be a public 479
comment process during this application process and are considered in the permit deci-480
sion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Since 481
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) [1918]
Prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, &
importation of 860+ migratory birds, their
eggs, parts, nests (except authorized by
FWS)
Authorizes some activities (i.e.
scientific collection, depredation, propagation,
falconry)
NO PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR
“INCIDENTAL TAKE”
Bald & Gold Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA) [1940]
Prohibits the taking and sale of bald &
gold eagles and their nests, parts, nests
(except authorized by FWS)
Authorizes permits for scientific or
exhibition purposes, religious purposes for
Indian tribes.
NO PERMIT PROVISIONS FOR “INCIDENTAL TAK
Endangered Species Act (ESA) [1973]
Protects 1,265+ species at risk for extinction,
(threatened / endangered); prohibits the taking of protected
animal species, incl. actions that “harm” or
“harass”; federal actions may not jeopardize listed
species or adversely modify critical habitats
Authorizes permits for the “taking” of
protected species for scientific purposes, est.
experimental populations, or is incidental to an
otherwise legal activity
Figure 5: Federal Wildlife Protection Laws, Source: (Government Accountability Office 2005)
18
the HCP is done by the developer, the USWFS and BLM have created guidelines to help 482
in creating these documents and, if followed correctly, to help avoid litigation in the 483
future. In terms of wind development on a federal policy level, there are no acts or poli-484
cies in which the U.S. is only playing a minimal role in approving wind power facilities. 485
The government can regulate wind facilities that are only on federal lands or have some 486
form of federal involvement such as receiving funds (Government Accountability Office 487
2005 p.31). Most of these regulations vary from state to state and in local agencies, with 488
the regulation of wind power facilities on nonfederal land largely the responsibility of 489
state and local governments. For instance, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 490
states in its Federal Land Policy & Management Act (Sec. 103(c)) that public lands are 491
to be managed for multiple uses that take into account the long-term needs of future 492
generations for renewable and non-renewable resources (Bureau of Land Management 493
2001). In terms of wind development on federal lands, the BLM discourages any siting 494
on or near “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern,” including Wilderness Study Are-495
as, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails (Jakle 2012). 496
However, there are U.S. federal agencies and organizations that have created guide-497
lines to help in wind energy development and species protection. In 2003, the USFWS 498
created voluntary “Land-Based Guidelines in Wind Energy” that focus on avoidance, 499
minimization, and monitoring for all commercial wind energy projects (Jakle 2012, U.S. 500
Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). These official guidelines help developers create wind 501
facilities that fall within acceptable measures for species protection. Included in the 502
FWS Guidelines is a Habitat Conservation Plan Handbook Addendum, or the “Five 503
Point Policy,” which provides techniques and guidance in biological goals and objec-504
tives, adaptive management, monitoring, permit duration, and public participation (U.S. 505
Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 506
Other directives include the “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement in 507
Wind Energy Development on BLM Lands in the Western U.S.” Published in 2005, this 508
PEIS provides analysis of mitigation measures, including consideration of avoidance 509
and minimization measures (Bureau of Land Management 2005) . The National Wind 510
Coordinating Council (NWCC) in 2007 created a “Toolbox” compiling mitigation poli-511
cies, guidelines, and research for direct and indirect impacts on wildlife caused by wind 512
power facilities (National Wind Coordinating Committee 2007). Other wind facility 513
guidelines such as the Federal Aviation Chapter 13, Marking and Lighting (2007), De-514
19
partment of the Interior (DOI) Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Memo-515
randum (2008), and the U.S. Forest Service Final Directives (2011) are recommenda-516
tions helpful in wind power development but are not crucial to this study (Department of 517
the Interior Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee 2008, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 518
Service 2013). 519
3.1.2 U.S. Case Studies 520
The following nine cases are the Alta East Wind Energy Project, the Beech Ridge 521
Wind Energy Project, the Buckeye Wind Power Project, the Chokecherry & Sierra Ma-522
dre Wind Energy Project, the Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility, the 523
Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project, the Ocotillo Express Wind Project, the 524
Searchlight Wind Energy Project, and the Tule Wind Project. Four of the nine have al-525
ready been constructed or are currently under construction. The five others are still in 526
the planning process but will be soon constructed and aim for operation in 2014. Focus 527
lies on the wind project’s HCPs, BOs, ITPs, and in one case, the Record of Decision for 528
descriptions and information pertaining to this research. At each site there is an examin-529
ing the logistics, the species which are allowed to be legally taken and the dealings with-530
in the ITP, avoidance and minimization measures, and, in some cases, what compensa-531
tory measures are discussed. While some plant species are protected under the ESA, I 532
will only cover birds, mammals and bats, reptiles and amphibians, and in one case, in-533
sects. Appendix Table 7.1 shows which species is allowed to be legally taken and how 534
many at each wind facility. 535
Alta East Wind Energy Project: The Alta East Project is about 3 miles (4.8 km) 536
away from the town of Mojave and was approved for construction on May 24, 2013 537
located in Kern County, California. The project footprint would encompass 59 acres (23 538
ha) of public land within the 1,999 acre (808 ha) BLM right-of-way. A Right-of-Way 539
(ROW) is the formal authorization from the BLM for public lands to be used for pro-540
jects, such as wind facilities, roads, and transmission lines, for a specific amount of 541
time. Alta Windpower Development, LLC has been allowed to construct 51 turbines, 542
with 42 turbines on BLM lands and 9 on surrounding private lands. Total installed wind 543
capacity for the project maximum would be 153 MW. The BLM has approved all as-544
pects of the project, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Rec-545
ord of Decision (ROD), and ROW for the 30-year life of the project. Included in the 546
Final Environmental Impact Assessment (FEIS) are the USFWS’s BO and ITP which 547
20
incorporates all mitigation measures to be taken and the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 548
(Bureau of Land Management 2013). A Habitat Conservation Plan was not created be-549
cause the USFWS considered the FEIS and ROD covered all mitigation measures need-550
ed for the ITP. 551
The Alta East Wind Energy Project is the first wind project to authorize for the “tak-552
ing” of the federally endangered California condor (Gymnogyps califorianus). 399 Cali-553
fornia condors compromised the total world population as of February 28,2013 and are 554
continuing to breed successfully with the help of captive breeding programs and reintro-555
duction of condors in the early 1990s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor 556
of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2013). While lead poisoning is the main cause of 557
death for this species, collision risk is a large concern as these birds have not evolved to 558
look directly ahead while flying. The Alta East Wind Energy Project is not located with-559
in and will not affect the critical habitat of the California condor (they have not been 560
documented within 12 miles of the project site recently or historically). However, with 561
its growing population and large home range, this could be a concern in the future. 562
The incidental take of a condor is authorized within the BO which includes 563
measures to avoid, reduce, and offset potential adverse effects on the California condor. 564
In accordance with the FEIS, Alta Windpower, LLC is to create a number of detailed 565
plans, protective measures, and surveying measures to avoid litigation. In addition to the 566
California condor, the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is federally endangered and 567
the Alta East wind facility has thus created measures to ensure potential adverse effects 568
are reduced and avoided. 569
General protective measures include siting turbines away or immediately adjacent 570
to the upwind sides of ridge crests, burying cable lines, and regular monitoring of 571
above-ground cables, and wires. Measures taken for the California condor include im-572
plementing a Condor Monitoring Avoidance Plan in which a VHF-detection system will 573
be installed to scan a 16 mile perimeter of the project and send alerts to qualified biolo-574
gists who will be fully employed at the wind facility. The Condor Monitoring Avoid-575
ance Plan will be in effect 30 minutes prior to sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset, dur-576
ing which the fulltime biologists will be observing the whole project site. Hazardous 577
waste, microtrash, and carcasses which may attract condors to the wind facility, will be 578
immediately cleared. The developer and BLM have also created in-depth protocols 579
should a condor be seen, as well as adaptive management strategies, but these will not 580
21
need to be discussed in this paper. If a California condor is struck by a turbine blade, the 581
project will be immediately confined to nighttime-only operations in which the USFWS 582
and BLM will re-initiate formal consultation for future measures. 583
Even though federally protected, the desert tortoise does not have an ITP as the wind 584
facility will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species. However, 585
measures are still taken to minimize impacts of the wind facility such as the presence of 586
an authorized biologist onsite as well as biological monitors to survey and clear them 587
from harm’s way (i.e. under parked vehicles, burrowed under turbines, and inside 588
pipes). One concern of the desert tortoise is the abundance of invasive weeds across its 589
range. Measures like limiting human access can help minimize those impacts to increase 590
tortoise population. Since there is heavy sheep grazing, unauthorized off-road vehicle 591
use, and trash dumbing in the vicinity, the desert tortoise has low numbers within the 592
project site, and thus relatively few will live within this highly active area. 593
During construction, the facility will create a worker environmental awareness pro-594
gram (WEAP) which will be given to all employees within the project. The project de-595
scribes different protocols for environmental awareness safety and steps to be taken if or 596
when a condor or desert tortoise is seen. A 15 mph speed limit will be in effect through-597
out the construction and operations period and temporary fencing will be built to ex-598
clude desert tortoises from construction areas. 599
Overall, the ITS estimates that one California condor is likely to be killed at this fa-600
cility and the extent of take resulting from the construction of this wind facility will be a 601
subset of the number of desert tortoises and eggs estimated within the project site. After 602
the review of avoidance and minimization measures and an adaptive management out-603
line, the ITP has allowed this facility to take one California condor. As a compensatory 604
measure, Alta Windpower LLC, will contribute $100,000 to the California Condor Re-605
covery and to outreach educational programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field 606
Supervisor of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2013). 607
Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project: The Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project is locat-608
ed in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (WV) and is broken down into 609
two phases. Beech Ridge Energy LLC originally planned 124 wind turbines to be in 610
operation by the end of 2010, the first phase with 67 wind turbines, and the second 611
phase with 57 wind turbines. However, in 2009, a lawsuit was filed against them alleg-612
22
ing that the project had violated section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, for its poten-613
tial in the taking of the federally endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and its failure 614
to properly apply for an ITP. After a detailed settlement agreement, the second phase of 615
the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project would contain a HCP with an ITP covering both 616
phase I and II and cutting out 24 of the original 124 turbines built on the site. Addition-617
ally, phase I has to follow a strict turbine operation timetable with specified times of day 618
and seasons during which bats are not flying and monthly and annual reports on any 619
taking of the Indiana bat has to be submitted (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013). 620
Beech Ridge Energy (BRE) fulfilled those obligations and on December 5, 2013 621
was approved for phase II for the construction of 33 wind turbines. The project is locat-622
ed on 63,000 acre (25,495 ha) tract in West Virginia (BRE leased 27,000 acres [10,926 623
ha] of this tract) and will total 100 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 186 MW 624
(Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of 625
West Virginia Field Office 2013). Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project’s HCP gives de-626
tailed information on the project and its covered activities, including measures taken for 627
avoidance and minimization mitigation for the Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-eared Bat 628
(Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). 629
The Indiana Bat lives primarily in the Eastern and Midwest U.S. states. During win-630
ters, the Indiana bat hibernates in only a few cave-like locations (i.e. abandoned mines, 631
railroad tunnels) known as hibernacula and roost in forested areas or fragmented forests 632
in the summer. There are only 88 known Indiana bat hibernacula (37 in West Virginia) 633
which are considered Critical Habitat and cannot be destroyed or disturbed. The 634
USFWS has created a recovery plan to protect these areas and to help monitor popula-635
tion trends. There are no known detections of Indiana bats in the surrounding Beech 636
Ridge site during the summer breeding season and no roost trees have been identified, 637
however the possibility of roosts could occur in the future. A Priority One hibernacu-638
lum, Hellhole, is located approximately 75 miles away from the Beech Ridge Wind En-639
ergy facility and houses both the Indiana Bat and Virginia big-eared bat (Beech Ridge 640
Energy LLC 2013). 641
The Virginia big-eared bat has five caves that are listed as Critical Habitat by the 642
USFWS, all of which are in West Virginia. The species has seen only a slight increase 643
in population in the last 27 years of monitoring. Similar to the Indiana Bat, there are no 644
23
detections of this species at or around Beech Ridge and there have been no reported col-645
lisions at any wind facility of either species (Beech Ridge Energy LLC 2013). 646
While there have been no reports of these species in pre-surveying and monitoring at 647
Beech Ridge, both bat species are included in the HCP and BO. The project is on the 648
edges of the species’ range and there may be potential for these species to either pass 649
through this area or hibernate in one of the surrounding unoccupied caves in the future. 650
Thus, mitigation measures will be implemented to avoid the taking of these species. 651
Conservation measures include reducing the number of turbines from 124 to 100, mov-652
ing the proposed phase II expansion area away from known caves, and working with 653
federal agencies in micro-siting turbine locations to minimize impacts. Tree clearing 654
will be limited when bats are in hibernation, a 25 mph speed limit to be enacted, and 655
lastly, testing and implementing a turbine operation curtailment plan. This curtailment 656
plan specifies feathering all turbines at less than 2rpm below the 4.8 m/s cut-in speed 657
beginning at sunset for a period of five hours from July 15 through October 15, during 658
which the largest peak in bat mortality occurs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field 659
Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office 2013). In terms of compensatory measures, the 660
BRE will complete off-site projects, proposing to fund specific off-site conservation 661
projects which meet USFWS criteria in order to receive an ITP. 662
The incidental take statement within the BO, after review of the HCP, allows BRE 663
to take up to 14 Virginia big-eared bats and up to 53 Indiana Bats over the course of the 664
25-year project. The incidental take is either from collision of the blades or from ba-665
rotrauma during project operations but will not affect the population of either species of 666
bat over the course of time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West 667
Virginia Field Office 2013). 668
Buckeye Wind Power Project: On July 18, 2013, the USFWS approved the Buckeye 669
Wind Power Project’s HCP and issued an ITP to Buckeye Wind LLC. The construction 670
of 100 wind turbines with a maximum capacity of 250 MW is taking place in Cham-671
pagne County, Ohio (OH) and has been issued the legal taking of 130 Indiana Bats. Un-672
der the Incidental Take Statement, “no more than 26 Indiana bats may be taken over any 673
consecutive 5-year period, starting in any one year in which take of more than 5.2 Indi-674
ana bats is estimated to have occurred” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological 675
Services Field Office 2012). Additionally, no more than 14.2 Indiana bats may be taken 676
in any 1 year. Buckeye Wind Power Project is situated within 80,051 acres (32,395 ha) 677
24
with a permanent footprint of 129.8 acres (52.5 ha) (Buckeye Wind LLC 2013). Pre-678
construction surveys showed that Indiana bats fly through the project area during sum-679
mer maternity season for migration, so extra steps have been taken to avoid adverse ef-680
fects on this species. Other species of concern are the Rayed bean mussel (Villosa faba-681
lis), which is federally endangered, and the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus 682
catenatus catenatus), which is a federal candidate species. While mitigation measures 683
will be taken to avoid the taking of these species, they are not listed in the ITP, as their 684
environmental preferences and suitable habitat are not located within the project area. 685
Steps taken to avoid and minimize impacts to Indiana bats as well as the Rayed bean 686
mussel and Eastern massasauga rattlesnake are detailed in the HCP and in the BO. 687
Avoidance measures include the movement of the project site upon discovery of Indiana 688
bats in the area, siting turbines so that none will be closer than 1.8 miles (2.9 km) away 689
from known maternity roost trees, and situating the turbines to avoid disrupting large 690
stretches of contiguous forest habitat and protected areas. Prior to any tree removal, 691
trees will be carefully selected and removed outside seasonal bat activity from 1 No-692
vember and 31 March with a designated Biologist monitoring the removal of trees. Dur-693
ing construction, a speed limit of 10 mph will be required and construction workers will 694
be thoroughly informed and educated about the eastern massasauga rattlesnake in possi-695
ble habitats around the action area. Outside of these areas, a speed limit of 25 mph dur-696
ing construction and operation of the wind facility, FAA lighting will be applied and 697
controlled by motion detectors or infrared sensors, and scheduled tree trimming during 698
operation will be conducted outside the active period of Indiana bats. Lastly, between 1 699
April and 30 October of each year, turbines will be feathered from 30 minutes before 700
sunset and 30 min after sunrise until a designated cut-in speed is reached to reduce colli-701
sion mortality of Indiana bats. Compensatory mitigation that Buckeye Wind LLC in-702
cluded in the BO involve preservation of 217 acres (87.8 ha) of habitat within 7 miles 703
(11.2 km) of an Indiana bat hibernaculum in Ohio, or use an approved mitigation bank 704
within Ohio for the Indiana bat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological 705
Services Field Office 2012, Buckeye Wind LLC 2013). 706
In conclusion, the Incidental Take Statement within the BO allows the take of 130 707
Indiana bats over the 25 year lifetime of the project as long as avoidance and minimiza-708
tion measures are met and compensatory mitigation is enacted within two years of the 709
25
permit being issued. If the taking of Indiana bats is exceeded, adaptive management and 710
re-initiation of federal consultation is required. 711
Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project: The largest project in Wyo-712
ming (WY), the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (CCSM) covers 713
two wind farm sites totaling 1,000 turbines with a total capacity of 2,000 to 3,000 MW 714
and an anticipated 30-year project life. The project covers more than 227,638 acres 715
(112,000 ha) of mixed public and private land located about ten miles (16 km) south of 716
Rawlins, WY, in Carbon County, with a disturbance footprint approximately 1,500 717
acres (607 ha). Phase I of II is located in the westernmost part of the Chokecherry and 718
Sierra Madre Wind Development Area with the first 500 wind turbines being construct-719
ed, designed to provide 1,500 MW of wind energy (Power Company of Wyoming LLC 720
2012). 721
The wind facility would avoid a critical Sage-Grouse habitat and follow the BLM’s 722
and USWFS’s Avian Protection Plan to minimize impacts to Bald and Golden eagles 723
and other raptor species. CCSM is located within the Upper Colorado River Basin and 724
must follow the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species (also 725
known as the Recovery Program) and the Platte River Recovery Implementation Pro-726
gram (PRRIP). The BLM has determined that the project’s water depletions from the 727
Colorado River and Platte River system are “likely to adversely affect” fish species and 728
the Recovery Program addresses the conservation measures needed to reduce impacts 729
from the project. A programmatic biological opinion (PBO) for the PRRIP was created 730
for the region for a number of species but for the project development area, the whoop-731
ing crane (Grus americana) was of particular concern. 732
The whooping crane is the rarest of the world’s 15 crane species and has been feder-733
ally listed as endangered since 1967. The whooping crane has five areas within their 734
2,500 mile (4,023 km) migrational path federally designated as critical habitat; Aransas 735
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Texas), Salt Plains NWR (Oklahoma), Quivirea 736
NRW (Kansas), Cheyenne Bottoms State Wildlife Area (Kansas), and the Platte River 737
valley (Wyoming and Nebraska). The population nests almost exclusively in Wood Buf-738
falo National Park (Canada) where nesting territories occupy poorly drained areas and 739
wetlands. The muskeg and boreal forests intermix and the cranes are able to nest in shal-740
low portions of ponds, small lakes, and wet meadows. Due to loss of wetlands from ur-741
banization, stress during migration, and nesting site specificity, the species nearly be-742
26
came extinct. However, many Recovery Programs, Federal Acts, and NWRs have 743
helped re-establish populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of 744
Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office 2006). 745
The PBO for the Platte River Recovery Program allow the legal taking of six indi-746
viduals in the form of “harassment” in the region and one legal taking during the first 13 747
years of the PRRIP (which began in 2006). The incidental take of whooping cranes may 748
occur during habitat restoration or other land management activities, such as a wind 749
energy facility, which will require plans containing site specific measures to minimize 750
the effects of land management on federally listed species. The PBO has created “Rea-751
sonable and Prudent Measures” to minimize take, the first being to survey areas where 752
the whooping cranes migrate through in the Platte River valley and to schedule all activ-753
ities such as construction, operations, and maintenance, during times when the whoop-754
ing crane will not be disturbed or harassed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field 755
Supervisor of Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office 2006). 756
Due to the complexity of the PBO and nature of the Recovery Program, the PBO 757
serves several functions including consultation on future projects, implementation of 758
projects without exceeding the ITP of species, defining water-related activities and its 759
consultation process, and determining which aspects of the Program are and are not 760
within the PBO. The PBO Water Action Conservation Plan covers Colorado, Wyoming, 761
and Nebraska projects separately, but all aims to adopt water-saving measures to reduce 762
irrigation needs and over-consumptive use. CCSM has contained a summary of BLM 763
environmental constraints, best management practices, and proposed mitigation 764
measures within the project’s FEIS and thus, does not need to complete an HCP in order 765
to receive an ITP. Measures in addition to an Avian Protection Plan, a Bat Protection 766
Plan, and an Eagle Conservation Strategy include lek2 monitoring for the Greater Sage-767
Grouse and fencing strategies to avoid collision risk with the species and minimize habi-768
tat fragmentation. During construction, dust abatement measures will be applied, 25 769
mph speed limits in the project area will be implemented, and pets will be prohibited to 770
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.
27
avoid disturbance and harassment of wildlife (Power Company of Wyoming LLC 2012, 771
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office 2012). 772
The CCSM Biological Opinion also covers the endangered bonytail chub (Gila ele-773
gans), Colorado pikeminnow (ptychocheilus Lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), ra-774
zorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), the least tern (Sernula [Sterna] antillarum), pallid 775
sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodi-776
us). However, the USFWS determined that all of the above species including the 777
whooping crane and the bald eagle were not likely to be jeopardized by the construction 778
of this wind facility and that construction would not destroy the critical habitat of the 779
whooping crane. Within this BO, there are no additional conservation measures to re-780
duce impacts from the proposed wind facility (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field 781
Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office 2012). 782
Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility: Kaheawa Pastures was the first 783
wind facility to create a Habitat Conservation Plan to protect Hawaii’s local bird and bat 784
species: the Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandvicensis), the Hawaiian goose or Nene 785
(Branta sandvicensis), Newell’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularies newelli), and the 786
Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, 787
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife 788
Office 2006). Created in 2006, Kaheawa Wind Power LLC constructed phase I (KWP I) 789
of the generation facility with 20 wind turbines and completed phase II (KWP II) in 790
2012 with 14 wind turbines with total maximum capacity installed of 51 MW on the 791
island of Maui (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish 792
and Wildlife Office 2006). 793
The four species of concern have the potential to fly within the vicinity of the pro-794
ject site and thus could be injured or killed from a turbine collision. Based on pre-795
construction surveys, species populations were collected and detailed in the HCP to 796
show the necessity for an ITP. Each year the ITP allows the taking of up to two Hawai-797
ian petrels, two Newells’ shearwaters, three Nene, and one Hawaiian hoary bat for the 798
20 year duration of the project. The Newell’s shearwater is a tropical offshore bird, 799
breeding at heights of 528-3,960 ft. (160-1,200 m), and nesting in densely matted uluhe 800
ferns and open canopy forests, commonly burrowing underneath the base of trees. With 801
the loss of these forested areas to agriculture and human population, along with invasive 802
species, their populations plummeted in the early 1980s. The Hawaiian petrel is one of 803
28
the larger petrel species with 3 foot wing spans with a longer life span than most (about 804
30 years) (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006). These strictly nocturnal land based spe-805
cies have been pushed to the limits of their habitat with the introduction of cats, mon-806
gooses, and human development. In addition to the ESA, these two species are protected 807
and in recovery through the USFWS’ “Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Dark-rumped 808
Petrel and Newell’s Townsend’s Shearwater” (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, U.S. 809
Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 810
2006). 811
The third species of concern, the Nene, is a medium-sized goose with a non-812
migratory and terrestrial lifestyle, nesting on the ground and thus vulnerable to cats, 813
dogs, and mongooses. Distribution of these species is heavily dependent on location of 814
release sites for captive-bred Nene, as the species has been endangered since 1967 (they 815
too has a USFWS Recovery Plan). Lastly, the Hawaiian hoary bat is an insectivorous, 816
nocturnal bat, endemic to Hawaii that roosts solitarily in trees. Today, the Hawaiian 817
hoary bat is the only existing native terrestrial mammal from the Hawaiian archipelago. 818
The hoary bat’s long life-span and slow reproduction rates, low overall population num-819
bers and restricted breeding distributions have put them on the endangered species list 820
since 1970. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and 821
Wildlife Office 2006). 822
Even though these species are federally endangered and two are endemic to Hawaii, 823
the necessity for energy in Hawaii has been an ongoing concern. To compromise be-824
tween species protection and increased energy to power homes in Hawaii, the ITP with 825
the HCP’s avoidance and minimization mitigation measures became the best option, and 826
one that many other wind facilities are completing today. Minimization and avoidance 827
of impacts are detailed in the BO and HCP but only briefly discussed in the 1999 FEIS 828
and not mentioned in the 2006 FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). Measures 829
include situating few turbines in single rows, rather than a large number of turbines in 830
multiple rows, siting in proximity to existing electrical transmission lines to eliminate 831
more overhead transmission lines, and using a monopole towers that are smaller than 832
typically used (55m) with slower rotational speed rotors (11-20 rpm). New power lines 833
will be buried underground, guy wires will be marked on meteorological towers, and a 834
FAA lighting plan will be adopted to reduce the attraction or disorientating of seabirds. 835
Construction activity will occur during the daytime to avoid nighttime lighting attraction 836
29
of seabirds, and following an approved avoidance protocol should Nene and/or nest be 837
discovered. Proposed compensatory mitigation includes the establishment of contingen-838
cy funds for all four species, with an up-front contribution of $20,000 to a research ef-839
fort of the Hoary bat, and searches for management/protection of colonies of the 840
abovementioned bird species (Kaheawa Wind Power LLC 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 841
Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2006). 842
The ITP permit was approved to take forty Hawaiian petrels, forty Newell’s shear-843
waters, sixty Nene, and twenty Hawaiian hoary bats over the course of the 20-year per-844
mit term (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and 845
Wildlife Office 2006). In 2011 Kaheawa Wind requested an amendment to reduce the 846
permitted level of take for the Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater. Over the first 847
six years of operation of Kaheawa Wind Power I facility, three Hawaiian petrels, nine 848
Hawaiian geese, and two Hawaiian hoary bats were killed with no Newell’s Shearwater 849
were killed (Foote and Greenlee 2011). At this time, there is no additional information 850
as to whether the ITP has been reduced. 851
Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project: The Monarch Warren County Wind 852
Turbine Project in Illinois (IL) differs from other cases in that it completed NEPA’s EA 853
approach and was written up a “Finding of No Significant Impact” or FONSI in order to 854
receive a BO and ITP from the USFWS. The FONSI, written from the Department of 855
Energy, states that based on the EA, the project does “not constitute a major Federal 856
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human or natural environmental 857
within the meaning of NEPA” (U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 2011). 858
For this method, no HCP was created for the development of this 12 wind turbine 859
facility with a maximum installed capacity of 19.2 MW. On 600 acres (242.8 ha) of ag-860
ricultural land, this facility was approved in 2011 and received an ITP for the legal 861
“take” of six Indiana bats over the lifetime of the project. The site is more than 2.5 862
miles (4 km) away from all suitable Indiana bat maternity habitats and the site is consid-863
ered not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify critical habi-864
tats of the Indian Bat, but has still created avoidance and minimization measures for the 865
fall migration period (1 August to 30 September) (U.S. Department of Energy 2011, 866
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). 867
30
A known effective way to reduce bat fatalities around wind facilities is through op-868
erational curtailment. All wind turbines located at this facility will operate using a raised 869
cut-in speed of 5.0 m/s and will be feathered at wind speeds below 5.0 m/s during fall 870
migration periods for the 25-year life of the project. Additionally, raised cut-in speeds 871
and blade feathering will be used during this period from 30 minutes before sunset until 872
30 minutes after sunrise. During operation, spring fatality monitoring will occur for the 873
first three years to determine if additional measures of curtailment need to be extended 874
to year round, and fall mortality monitoring will occur during years 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, and 23 875
of the project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Other measures are briefly listed in 876
the EA such as use of a previously developed site, a smooth monopole tower, absence of 877
guy wires in turbine design, choice of lighting equipment and operation procedures, 878
placement of turbines in group configuration, installment of all electrical collection 879
equipment underground, soil erosion/run-off prevention measures, proper recycling and 880
waste management procedures, minimization of construction areas, and contractual ob-881
ligation of contractors and subcontractors to all above procedures (U.S. Department of 882
Energy 2011). While briefly paraphrased in the EA, measures are not discussed in the 883
Biological Opinion, with only the “conservation methods” of curtailment and feathering 884
detailed. 885
Ocotillo Express Wind Project: The Ocotillo Express Project is being constructed on 886
approximately 10,151 acres (4,108 ha) of BLM federal land in Imperial County, Cali-887
fornia (CA). The site is divided into two sections with a total of 155 wind turbines with 888
a maximum installed capacity of 356.5 MW. The species of concern in the area are the 889
Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and the Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pu-890
sillus). Ocotillo Energy LLC created an FEIS and ROD (Record of Decision) which 891
allowed for the approval of the USFSW’s Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Per-892
mit (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 893
Office 2012). 894
The Peninsular bighorn sheep has been federally listed as endangered since 1998 at 895
only 296 individuals remaining. Their range extends in to the desert southwest from the 896
San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County, CA south to the Mexican border. They live 897
on lower elevation slopes but are for the most part wide-ranging and can survive in a 898
variety of habitats. From surveys conducted around the project area, it can be shown the 899
Peninsular bighorn sheep are increasing in abundance. The Least Bell’s vireo was listed 900
31
endangered in 1986 but it has since increased 10-fold in population, breeding through-901
out southern California. Vireos prefer diverse, early successional riparian habitats such 902
as cottonwood-willow woodlands, oak woodlands, and mule fat scrub. With both spe-903
cies increasing in abundance and human activity increasing in the area, direct and indi-904
rect effects like habitat alteration and displacement could alter population dynamics. 905
Even though there is no suitable habitat on the project site and the taking of any bighorn 906
sheep is not anticipated, Ocotillo Energy LLC has taken specific avoidance, minimiza-907
tion, and compensation measures to reduce and offset potential adverse effects of these 908
species, which is discussed in the ROD and BO (Bureau of Land Management 2012, 909
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 910
2012). 911
For measures during construction, a speed limit of 15 mph along with minimized 912
night lighting has been implemented during this period. The construction of wind tur-913
bines will occur outside the lambing season (1 January to 30 June), with a Bighorn 914
Sheep Monitor (a biological consultant) to observe nearby lambing sites and focus on 915
suitable habitat during and after construction. After construction, all disturbed areas will 916
be re-vegetated according to a habitat restoration plan approved by the BLM. Addition-917
ally, a worker education awareness program (WEAP) will be presented to all workers 918
throughout the life of the project covering information about the Peninsular bighorn 919
sheep and explaining designated work areas and procedures should a sheep be encoun-920
tered. A designated Biologist and Biological Monitor(s) will be on staff for conducting 921
preconstruction surveys and monitoring construction, operations & maintenance 922
(O&M), decommissioning, and restoration projects. In addition to following a Bighorn 923
Sheep Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Ocotillo Express LLC will provide $200,000 in 924
funding towards a Peninsular bighorn sheep study or research program (i.e. the possibil-925
ity for a land bridge or reconnecting populations within Mexico) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 926
Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 927
As partial compensation for the project, Ocotillo Express LLC will remove 171 928
acres (69 ha) of saltcedar (Tamarix sp.) with a prescribed burn and another 128 acres 929
(51.8 ha) by stump cutting and herbicide application or ripping the plants out by the 930
roots as part of the restoration of 318 acre (128.7 ha) Carrizo Marsh. The Biologist 931
and/or Biological Monitor(s) will supervise the Carrizo Marsh restoration plan for the 932
Vireo to monitor and maintain the re-vegetated site, with Ocotillo Express LLC provid-933
32
ing $500,000 to ensure perpetual future management of the 318 acres (128.7 ha) (U.S. 934
Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 935
The USFWS permitted the legal taking of five adult ewes (females), five lambs, and 936
three Vireo pairs. The Service feels the incidental take of Vireos would result from the 937
destruction of saltcedar in order to re-vegetate the area with stands of tall, dense, and 938
structurally diverse native vegetation to better support Vireo breeding. The legal taking 939
of ewes and lambs would be due to the behavioral avoidance from human disturbance 940
and likely impair essential behavioral patterns pertaining to breeding, feeding, or shel-941
tering. With lack of research on the relation of associated human activities to bighorn 942
sheep, there is no sure understanding of how the wind facility will affect their range and 943
behavioral patterns of the species. While there are concerns about other species such as 944
the Flat-tailed Horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicu-945
laria), there are few mitigation measures and no legal taking of such species. Reparation 946
measures for these species include re-vegetation for the disturbance to Flat-tailed 947
Horned lizard habitat at a 1:1 ratio and compensation for the loss of Burrowing owl for-948
aging habitat at a 1:1 ratio (Bureau of Land Management 2012). 949
Searchlight Wind Energy Project: The Searchlight Wind Project is the second wind 950
facility approved for construction in Clark County, Nevada (NV). Located 60 miles 951
(96.6 km) southeast of Las Vegas, this 87 wind turbine project has the electricity pro-952
duction capacity of 200 MW and is located on approximately 9,300 acres (3763.6 ha) 953
managed by the BLM. Only 388.5 acres (157.2 ha) of habitat would be disturbed. Clark 954
County, NV has three regional HCPs, one of which overlaps the action area of the wind 955
facility called “The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (TE-034927) and EIS 956
(RECON 2000).” This HCP serves as the wind facility’s in order to receive the BO and 957
ITP for the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 958
Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 959
The Mojave Desert tortoise is restricted only to the Sonoran and Mojave deserts and 960
lives approximately 50 to 80 years, but they have a slow reproductive rate. The Desert 961
tortoise spends most of their lives underground or concealed under shrubs to avoid heat 962
and reduce water loss but become active after seasonal rains. The Mojave Desert tor-963
toise was listed as "threatened" under the California Endangered Species Act in 1989 964
and under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1990 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 965
State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 966
33
Death or injury could result from activities such as the clearing of vegetation, 967
trenching, and collisions with vehicles or heavy equipment. Desert tortoises may be-968
come attracted to the project site if water is available and could be crushed by moving 969
vehicles. Studies currently being conducted are seeing desert tortoises avoiding these 970
areas altogether due to high turbine density and human activity, disrupting their habitat 971
and range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife 972
Office 2012). Due to these possibilities of death, the USFSW allowed the Searchlight 973
Wind Energy facility legal take of the desert tortoise. However, with the difficulty in 974
calculating densities and abundance, the USFWS did not limit the number of individu-975
als. Based on preconstruction surveys, estimates that up to 50 tortoises could be in 976
harm’s way, captured, or moved during construction of the wind facility, but only three 977
tortoises per year during O&M. Based on this, the USFWS allowed no more than one 978
sub-adult or adult desert tortoise and two hatchlings or juvenile tortoises be killed dur-979
ing construction and no more than one sub-adult or adult desert tortoise and two hatch-980
lings or juvenile tortoise be killed every year during O&M (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 981
Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 982
983
Figure 6: Amount and extend of legal taking of Peninsular bighorn sheep during Construction and O&M, 984 Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2012) 985
Measures taken to reduce potential adverse effects on the desert tortoise include 986
burying collection lines, reducing night lighting, checking underneath parked vehicles, 987
and avoiding the pooling of water with light dust control. For desert tortoises, fencing 988
and caution signs will be installed on access and main roads, and with speed limits of 15 989
mph during high activity periods (1 April to 31 May and 1 September to 31 October) 990
and 20 mph during low activity periods (1 November to 28/29 February) will be imple-991
mented. Compliance Inspection Managers or Biological Monitors will be employed at 992
Construction
Adults/ Subadults: 1
Juveniles/ Hatchlings: 2
Operation & Maintenance
Adults/ Subadults: 1
Juveniles/ Hatchlings: 2
(per year)
Anticipated habitat loss
(Acres)
Construction: Critical- 7
Non-critical- 382
Operation & Maintenance: 0
34
the facility to conduct routine inspection and monitoring activities for pre-construction 993
surveys, construction, O&M, and decommissioning. If a desert tortoise needs to be relo-994
cated out of harm’s way, the designated biologist will be place the tortoise away from 995
the path of activity and record activity. Other conservation measures for the Searchlight 996
Wind Project include a Waste Management Plan, a Weed Management Plan, a Site Re-997
habilitation and Facility Decommissioning Plan, a Transportation Plan, a worker educa-998
tion awareness program (WEAP), an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (U.S. Fish and 999
Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 2012). 1000
The regional HCP that overlaps the project area includes an incidental take permit 1001
allowing incidental take of tortoises for a period of 30 years on 145,000 acres (58,679 1002
ha) of non-Federal land. Included in the HCP are a Multiple Species Habitat Conserva-1003
tion Plan (MSHCP) and EIS which detail the measures to minimize, mitigate, and moni-1004
tor the effects of covered activities (with wind facilities being one of the activities al-1005
lowed) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California/Nevada Operations Office 2001). 1006
Tule Wind Project: The Tule Wind Project is 70 miles away from San Diego, Cali-1007
fornia (CA), consisting of 128 wind turbines with the maximum capacity to produce 201 1008
MW of electricity. The project footprint covers 725.3 acres (293.5 ha) split between 1009
BLM land, Indian Reservations, and California State public lands (U.S. Fish and 1010
Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). Tule 1011
Wind LLC did not complete an HCP as the FEIS was sufficient in providing adequate 1012
information and environmental measures taken for this project. 1013
The Biological Opinion for this project addresses the Federally Endangered Quino 1014
Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). The Quino was listed as endangered 1015
in 1997 and was historically abundant throughout the coastal slope of southern Califor-1016
nia but with 75 percent of its historical habitat destroyed by urbanization, few locations 1017
have been federally set aside for its recovery plan. Primary host plants for the Quino are 1018
the dot-seed plantain, thread-leaved bird’s beak, and white snapdragon. Food sources in 1019
the area include nectar from the lomatium, goldfields, popcorn flowers, and a number of 1020
other native plant species found in open areas and ecotone zones occurring in grass-1021
lands, coastal sage scrub, and native open canopy cover woodlands. Densely vegetated 1022
areas and areas with invasive, nonnative vegetation cannot support the Quino (U.S. Fish 1023
and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2011). In 1024
general, Quino are threatened by urban and agricultural development, invasion of 1025
35
nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, grazing, fire management practices, and habitat 1026
fragmentation. 1027
Conservation measures for the Quino habitat during construction, operations, and 1028
maintenance include offsetting a 2:1 ratio of all disturbed habitat permanently impacted 1029
by habitat acquisition as well as perpetual management through a conservation easement 1030
and endowment (as explained in a “conservation plan” created before construction) 1031
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 1032
2012). A speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads in Quino habitat (during flight season) 1033
will be applied, with access roads to be gated to reduce vehicle activity, and to be main-1034
tained regularly and monitored to ensure no Quino host or nectar plants grow along the 1035
highway. Dust abatement and suppression measures will be taken to avoid dust clouds 1036
and reduce visibility with orange snow fencing to be applied to identify exclusion areas 1037
of human activity during construction. WEAP will be developed and distributed to eve-1038
ry employee during construction, operations, and maintenance and a Biological Monitor 1039
will be on site during all phases to implement WEAP, monitor construction activities, 1040
and ensure compliance with conservation and regulatory measures. Lastly, a Weed 1041
Management Plan will be implemented at the facility to restore native vegetation 1042
through such means as planting or seeding any native plants which were present before 1043
construction and adding seeds of host plants within areas of Quino habitat. 1044
The BO for the Tule Wind Project allows the legal taking of the Quino Checkerspot 1045
butterfly but does not quantify the precise number due to its small body size, quick life 1046
stage, and fluctuation of population numbers based on seasonal and annual basis. Thus, 1047
the incidental take is based on the amount of occupied Quino habitat allowed to be de-1048
stroyed during construction; “death or injury of eggs, larvae, and pupae from crushing, 1049
trampling, or removal of host plants during construction within up to 31.9 acres (12.9 1050
ha) of occupied Quino habitat, defined as any suitable habitat within .6 mile (1 km) of a 1051
Quino sighting” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and 1052
Wildlife Office 2011). The incidental take permit would be violated if more than 31.9 1053
acres (12.9 ha) of occupied Quino habitat are disturbed during construction. 1054
3.1.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion 1055
The nine U.S. cases selected have many similar characteristics in terms of the logis-1056
tics and capacities of the wind facilities, avoidance and minimization measures taken 1057
during construction and operation, and the protection and legal taking of endangered 1058
36
species. All nine wind facilities in the U.S. contribute to a total of 1,153 wind turbines 1059
with an approximate maximum capacity of 3,025.2MW, covering 284,677 acres 1060
(115,204 ha). A chart of the U.S. cases and the measures taken at each facility are found 1061
in Appendix Table 7.5. A list of endangered species allowed to be legally taken and its 1062
extent are located at each facility is located in Appendix Table 7.1. 1063
In terms of avoidance and minimization measures at U.S. wind facilities, the main 1064
points of concerns are micro-siting, wind turbine specifics, and constructional minimiza-1065
tion measures. All information presented in the cases was collected from pre-1066
construction surveys of the area, guidelines from Federal Bureaus and NGOs, and pub-1067
lished documents pertaining to each location. In terms of micro-siting or land optimiza-1068
tion for the wind turbines and the placement of the facilities in general, many factors 1069
were taken in to consideration. For instance, Alta East made sure to avoid siting turbines 1070
on the upwind sites of ridge crests since birds of prey tend to hunt in those areas. Beech 1071
Ridge located their turbines away from important hibernacula and essentially reduced 1072
the number of turbines at the site to ensure this precaution. Buckeye followed a similar 1073
strategy to that of Beech ridge in placing the turbines and facility away from known 1074
roosting trees and the forest area where bats hibernate and feed. Kaheawa placed the 1075
turbines in single rows and near existing power lines to avoid further construction and to 1076
lower the possibility of birds and bats to fly into the turbines. Monarch Warren County 1077
wind facility clustered the turbines and placed them on previously used land. 1078
For wind turbine specifics, all cases preferred the use of monopoles, established 1079
lighting measures, and discussed specific feathering and cut-in speeds based on the fa-1080
cility’s topography, seasonality, and the species in the area. Additionally, some sites 1081
detailed measures regarding the attraction of species to the wind facilities, such as Alta 1082
East’s implementation of carcass removal to deter birds of prey, Kaheawa and Tule fa-1083
cilities’ re-vegetation of native environment to the site and deterring invasive species, 1084
and Ocotillo’s destruction of saltcedar and replacement of native vegetation for a partic-1085
ular endangered bird species. On top of a wind facility’s HCP and FEIS, some addition-1086
al plans were created such as a Condor Monitoring & Avoidance Plan (Alta East), Eagle 1087
Conservation Plan (Alta East), Sage-Grouse Implementation Program (Chokecherry & 1088
Sierra Madre), Bighorn Sheep Monitoring Program (Ocotillo Express), a Weed Man-1089
agement Plan (Tule), and importantly an Avian & Bat Protection Plan (Alta East, 1090
Chokecherry & Sierra Madre, and Searchlight). Most interestingly, four wind facilities 1091
37
(Alta East, Ocotillo, Searchlight, and Tule) require a full-time Biologist(s) and/or Moni-1092
tors to help in supervising the area, prepared for any sort of particular species issue that 1093
may arise. Alta East is including a “Condor Initial Response Team” if a condor is spot-1094
ted in the area or collides with a turbine. These additional plans were added based on the 1095
surrounding species of each location and in order to avoid litigation. Monitoring is brief-1096
ly discussed in all cases, but Monarch Warren County in particular has listed specific 1097
years in which monitoring will occur throughout the lifetime of the project. 1098
Construction measures were discussed in detail in all of the cases, each with differ-1099
ent focuses based on topography and seasonality. Some cases discuss motion detectors 1100
and minimized night lighting during construction, along with the implementation 1101
WEAP (Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program) at Alta East, Ocotillo Express, 1102
and Tule. Ocotillo has stated that construction will not occur during lambing season of 1103
the Bighorn sheep. 1104
Lastly, compensatory measures are only briefly discussed in less than half of the 1105
cases. Beech Ridge will complete an offsite conservation project within the first two 1106
years of receiving the ITP. Kaheawa will construct a release facility within the first year 1107
of the issuance of the ITP and $20,000 towards bat research in Hawaii. Ocotillo will 1108
give $200,000 towards bighorn sheep research and $500,000 to the Carrizo Marsh resto-1109
ration plan in the area. 1110
Overall, the nine U.S. cases give detailed descriptions of how, when, and why a 1111
wind facility is constructed, operated, and maintained, along with detailed reasons per-1112
taining to why an ITP was permitted and measures taken to ensure the safety of particu-1113
lar species. Some concern has arisen though that the HCPs and Biological Opinions are 1114
too vague and broad in particular subjects. For instance, the Ocotillo wind facility lists 1115
potential threats to the bighorn sheep and its habitat, but the reasons to go forward with 1116
the facility are insubstantial and hard to support in order to continue development. The 1117
enforceability of what the companies plan to do at the facility within the provided doc-1118
uments seem minimal. Until recently, no wind facility had been penalized for exceeding 1119
ITP take numbers and not following appropriate guidelines and recommendations to 1120
avoid litigation. In November 2013, Duke Energy Renewables wind facilities in Casper, 1121
Wyoming (WY) took 14 golden eagles over a three year period, violating the Migratory 1122
Bird Treaty Act. The company was required to pay $1 million dollars to the North 1123
American Wetlands Conservation Fund, WY Game & Fish Department, the National 1124
38
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and The Conservation Fund. They were to also enact 1125
more aggressive measures to avoid the continued take of golden eagles (McGee 2013). 1126
Most interestingly, Germany has had no such similar events like this in terms of legality 1127
and fines. 1128
3.2 Germany 1129
3.2.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines 1130
As a member of the European Union, Germany must follow all international policies 1131
and directives, as well as its own federal policies. Two major policies the EU enforces 1132
in terms of species protection are the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Ger-1133
many has its own Federal Nature Conservation Act, “Bundesnaturschutzgesetz 1134
(BNatSchG)” created in 1976, but its most recent revisions in 2009 better reflect EU’s 1135
requirements (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). In terms of 1136
environmental impact, EU nations follow the EIA Directive and the SEA Directive with 1137
Germany additionally following its own EIA Act “Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung 1138
(UVPG)” and the National Strategy on Biological Diversity. As stated in the introduc-1139
tion of this paper, Germany’s renewable energy goals stated in its Erneuerbare-1140
Energien-Gesetz (EEG), or “German Renewable Energy Sources Act,” in 2000, was the 1141
first key policy for the development of renewable energies in Germany 1142
(Bundesministerium fur Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit 2012). This act 1143
has allowed this industry to become the fastest growing sector in Germany and with its 1144
revisions in 2009 and 2012, has given companies incentives for system services, re-1145
search and development, and investment protection in the renewable energies industry 1146
sector, mainly wind energy (The Economist 2012). The U.S. does not have a renewable 1147
energy act, but passed the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, giving re-1148
newable energies industry tax credits for clean energy and direct spending for energy 1149
conservation initiatives. 1150
The EU’s EIA Directive, amended in 2009, requires that an impact assessment be 1151
documented and approved as an application for development for certain types of pro-1152
jects including “installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production” 1153
(Drewitt and Langston 2006 p.34). The SEA differs in that it aims to integrate environ-1154
mental considerations into projects and ensuring that environmental impacts and issues 1155
are taken into account during early development decision-making processes (Drewitt 1156
and Langston 2006, Rajvanshi 2008, European Commission 2011). Germany’s EIA Act 1157
39
are environmental impact assessment regulations for projects with significant effect on 1158
the environment, be it landscape, nature, location, and/or size (Köppel, Geißler et al. 1159
2012). I will not go further into detail about the EU’s and Germany’s EIA acts as they 1160
are, while important, not relevant to species protection like the Habitats Directive, the 1161
Bird Directive, and BNatSchG. 1162
The EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC was created in 1992 and is the cornerstone if 1163
Europe’s nature conservation policy. This Directive is formally called the Council Di-1164
rective 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 1165
with Germany terming it as the “Fauna-Flora-Habitat Richtlinie,” or FFH, which can be 1166
somewhat unclear. There are two pillars within the Habitats Directive; the first refers to 1167
the conservation of natural habitats and the habitats of specific species and the second 1168
referring to the protection of species. The first pillar is broken down into bio-1169
geographical regions known as the Natura 2000 network which, combined with the 1170
Birds Directive, attempts to ensure long-term survival of specific habitats (European 1171
Commission 2011). However, a main focus of this paper surrounds the second pillar 1172
where further discussion will be about the Annexes, favorable conservation statuses 1173
(FCSs), Article 12, and continued ecological function (CEF) measures within Article 12. 1174
The Habitats Directive contains five Annexes, but the attention lies in Annex II and 1175
Annex IV in terms of plant and animal species protection. Annex II lists 297 animal 1176
species of “Community Interest” and the designation of areas of conservation. These 1177
areas known as Natura 2000 sites overlaps with the Birds Directive and will be dis-1178
cussed later. Annex IV lists species of Community interest in need of strict protection, 1179
covering 922 species, of which 323 are animal species. Combining species from Annex 1180
II and IV, 45 percent of the total 447 animal species are covered within this Habitats 1181
Directive with currently 5,267 reported FFH areas and bird sanctuaries through the Eu-1182
ropean Union (European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity 2014). 1183
“Favorable conservation status” is the highest environmental condition of all 1184
measures taken under the Directive and all areas must aim to reach or maintain a FCS. 1185
This overall objective to restore and maintain the long-term distribution and abundance 1186
of species which fall under community interest within Natura 2000 and Annexes II, IV, 1187
and V. “[These] measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain 1188
or restore, at favorable conservation status, natural habitats and species of the wild fauna 1189
and flora of Community interest […]. [FCS is] described as a situation where a habitat 1190
40
type or species is doing sufficiently well in terms of quality and quantity and has good 1191
prospects of continuing to do so in the future” (European Commission 2011). The main 1192
parameters for defining the FCS of a species are listed in Article 1(i) of the Directive. 1193
EU member states have created a framework for evaluating conservation status in Arti-1194
cle 17 of the Directive (green = favorable, amber = unfavorable/inadequate, and red = 1195
unfavorable/bad) (European Commission 2011). 1196
Article 12 within the EU Habitats Directive is concerned with protecting the indi-1197
viduals of the listed species as well as their breeding sites and resting places, contrib-1198
uting to the goal of favorable conservation status for these natural habitats and species 1199
of community interest (European Commission 2011). The portion of text within the Di-1200
rective requires all Member States to take the appropriate measures to “establish a sys-1201
tem of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV in their natural range 1202
prohibiting: (a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in 1203
the wild: (b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of 1204
breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration: (c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs 1205
from the wild: and (d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places” 1206
(Official Journal of the European Communities 1992 p.6). In addition, member states 1207
must also establish a monitoring system for the collision or incidental taking of any an-1208
imal species listed in Annex IV. Thereafter, Member States must also conduct further 1209
research or conservation measures to ensure collision or incidental taking does not have 1210
a significant negative impact on the species concerned. Article 12 ensures that all EU 1211
member states, including Germany, adopt and implement preventative measures in any 1212
sort of development, including wind energy. This Article also aims to safeguard specific 1213
species during times of resting and breeding, guaranteeing the continued ecological 1214
functionality of these sites and places (European Commission 2011 p.45). If a breeding 1215
or resting site placed under the protection of Article 12 is threatened with destruction or 1216
deterioration, Article 16 may be applied regarding exclusion privileges for developers. 1217
But to avoid Article 16, CEF measures may be put into place to allow activities, such as 1218
wind development, to be conducted on or around these FFH areas. “Mitigation measures 1219
aim at minimizing or even cancelling out the negative impact of an activity through a 1220
range of preventative actions […] including actions which improve or manage these 1221
certain sites to the CEF is not suffered or lost” (European Commission 2011 p.47). 1222
Kleeman explains that these protected areas within the Habitats (and Birds) Directive(s) 1223
ensure the ecological diversity and the different habitats be “identified, protected and 1224
41
maintained, and that appropriate forms of planning and management are put into place 1225
to guarantee that such habitats and species are safeguarded” (Stoll-Kleeman 2001 1226
p.109). 1227
The Birds Directive, created in 1979 but recently amended in 2009, shares the com-1228
mon objectives and provisions with the Habitats Directive in relation to the network of 1229
protected sites within Natura 2000. As one of the EU’s oldest pieces of environmental 1230
legislation, it bans activities directly threatening birds, such as the intentional killing or 1231
taking of birds, along with the destruction of their nests and taking of their eggs. Arti-1232
cles 5-9 of the Birds Directive contain similar provisions regarding species protection 1233
such as the illegal killing and taking of bird species, and provisions regarding Annex II 1234
and IV of birds (European Commission 2011, European Commision Environment 1235
Nature and Biodiversity 2014). 1236
Within Germany’s legislation is the Federal Natural Conservation Act (BNatSchG), 1237
a national framework law responsible for the implementation and financing of nature 1238
conservation under scientific authorities of the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 1239
(Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN), the Federal Environmental Protection Agency 1240
(Umweltbundesamt, UBA), and Länder offices (Stoll-Kleeman 2001). Created in 1976 1241
and recently revised in 2009, this nationwide regulation was the first of its kind in Ger-1242
many pertaining to the conservation of wild animal and plant species along with regula-1243
tions regarding the monitoring, prevention, and elimination of invasive species. Im-1244
portant pieces of this legislation are paragraphs §15, 31-36, and 44-45 of BNatSchG, 1245
which refer to the protection of species, minimization measures and mitigation, and ex-1246
ceptions. Paragraph §15 states: (1) the developer or relevant authorities are obliged to 1247
refrain from preventable impairments of nature and landscape. Injuries are avoidable if 1248
reasonable alternatives are given, with aims to complete the project with less adverse 1249
effects on the nature and landscape. Justifications must be made if impairments to nature 1250
and landscape cannot be avoided. Part two refers to compensation, saying: (2) the de-1251
veloper is obliged to avoid damage through measures of nature conservation and land-1252
scape management (via compensatory measures) or replacement (alternative measures). 1253
Balance is repaired if and when the functions of the ecosystem and the landscape is re-1254
stored or redesigned. (3) Compensatory measures must be maintained in a secure and 1255
legally necessary time. This period is fixed by the competent authority in the approval 1256
process (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). 1257
42
Paragraphs §31- 36 discuss the “Natura 2000” network with Paragraph §32(3) defin-1258
ing the purpose of protection in accordance with relevant conservation objectives and 1259
the necessary territorial boundaries. Developers and relevant authorities must show 1260
whether priority natural habitat types or priority areas are protected. Paragraph §33(1) 1261
states all changes and disorders that can lead to substantial impairment of a Natura 2000 1262
site and its relevance to conservation and protection are not permitted. According to 1263
Paragraph §34(1), all project leaders must complete an FFH compatibility assessment to 1264
see if the project will fall in line with the conservation objectives and protection of 1265
Natura 2000 sites. Paragraph §34(2) states that if the examination of the compatibility 1266
that the project may cause significant damage to the site with regard to the conservation 1267
objectives or the purpose of protection components, it is inadmissible and the project 1268
terminates. One crucial content of the law that allows for activities such as wind energy 1269
is within §34 (3.1-2). Section 2 may only be authorized or carried out to the extent it is, 1270
for imperative reasons of public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, 1271
necessary and contains reasonable alternatives (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur 1272
Verbraucherschutz 2009). The competent authority for nature conservation and land-1273
scape management may permit these exemptions under the provisions of §34(3-5). 1274
(Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). Paragraphs §35 and §36 1275
refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and plans for the Federal Highway and 1276
Waterways Acts for Natura 2000 which are not relevant to this paper. 1277
Lastly, Paragraphs §44 and §45 discuss requirements for special protection and ex-1278
ceptions under this law. §44 BNatSchG states that it is prohibited to catch, injure, kill, 1279
or take wild animals of protected species or damage and destroy their natural habitats. 1280
Section (2) states that significantly disturbing wild animals of strictly protected species 1281
as well as European bird species during breeding, rearing, moulting, hibernation, and 1282
migration or any considerable disorder is significant by the failure of the conservation 1283
status of the local population of a species (Bundesministerium der Justiz fur 1284
Verbraucherschutz 2009). Paragraph §45 describes the exceptions to the taking of pro-1285
tected species. Section 7.5 under state law states that from the nature protection and 1286
landscape conservation authorities, specifically the Federal Agency for Nature Conser-1287
vation, may grant other exceptions from the prohibitions of §44 in the individual case 1288
for other imperative reasons overriding public interest including those of a social or 1289
economic nature. An exception may only be approved if reasonable alternatives are not 1290
43
given and the conservation status of populations of a species is not degraded 1291
(Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz 2009). 1292
When BNatSchG was revised in 2009, it triggered the implementation of an ASP 1293
(Artenschutzprüfung) which examines if a project or activity meets the standards of par-1294
agraph §44 and the limitations of paragraph §45 for the special protection of species. All 1295
species under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, all birds under the Birds Directive, 1296
and all “strictly protected” species are disclosed in an ASP when any development may 1297
affect their breeding and/or nesting sites. This species protection impact assessment (Ar-1298
tenschutzprüfung [ASP]) can be divided into three stages. Stage I is the preliminary 1299
stage to see if the planned area and its species composition and impact factors will con-1300
flict with the Habitats and Birds Directive. During this time all information is collected 1301
regarding species in the area and which planning measures will be taken in order to see 1302
if local populations would be disrupted or if breeding sites and resting places would be 1303
deteriorated. Stage II is in regard to access restrictions, seeing if general life risks of 1304
species of interest will be significantly increased and which mitigation measures will be 1305
taken, including pre-determined compensatory measures. Stage III is the exception pro-1306
cess to check whether, after compelling reasons, there are no other alternatives and dete-1307
rioration of the conserved areas are insignificant and thus, the ASP for that area would 1308
be approved3 (Ministerium für Klimaschutz 2013). 1309
In Germany, while there are international and federal policies for species protection, 1310
the local and regional governments are in charge of creating landscape and development 1311
plans determining areas of nature conservation and areas which can be put forth for oth-1312
er activities such as energy development and, in particular, the location of wind turbines. 1313
Rajvanshi explains that “in Germany, local landscape plans are prepared in an area wide 1314
manner for the entire country. These identify a range of rules for future land use. Fur-1315
thermore, objectives for the development of nature and landscapes are identified […]. 1316
These can be used, for example, in later project EIA for identifying suitable mitigation 1317
and compensation measures” (Rajvanshi 2008 p.6). The Germany Wind Energy Associ-1318
ation (Der Bundesverband WindEnergie, BWE) coincides with Rajwanshi’s statement 1319
in saying “negative environmental influences can be largely avoided through careful site 1320
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
believe 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.
44
planning.[…]The intervention in nature and landscape are assessed and, where appro-1321
priate, compensated” (Bundesverband WindEnergie 2014). These approaches are main-1322
ly found at the regional level of the planning and approval process. While a majority of 1323
German states have particular guidelines such as “Umsetzung des Arten- und Habi-1324
tatschutzes bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen in Nordrhein-1325
Westfalen,” which help local and regional planners with species protection around wind 1326
turbines, there is no specific federal legislation that give formal regulations as to protect 1327
specific species around wind turbines (Ministerium für Klimaschutz 2013). Organiza-1328
tions such as Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) (Nature & Biodiversity Conserva-1329
tion Union), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) (Association for 1330
the Environment & Nature Conservation), Greenpeace, and Deutscher Naturschutzring 1331
(DNR) (Germany for Nature & Environment) all aim to find compromises between na-1332
ture and wind energy development. These means include different control instruments 1333
for the state and regional planning for off-limit zones and/ or criteria for better site se-1334
lection to specific protection measures for species. Furthermore, the Bund-Länder-1335
Initiative WindEnergie (BLWE) is a Federal-state initiative working group which helps 1336
in supporting and advising appropriate wind energy siting in Germany 1337
(Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit 2013). 1338
3.2.2 German Case Studies 1339
Germany’s construction of “windparks” differs from those in the U.S. Unlike the 1340
U.S., Germany does not have the acreage to construct massive windparks. Germany 1341
must also coordinate projects around FFH areas, nature reserves, and parks. Only a 1342
small collection of wind turbines are built after local and regional pre-planning pro-1343
posals are created. Germany does not have an incidental take permit but does discuss the 1344
allowance for projects such as windparks and the legal taking of species of concern. Due 1345
to this, the number of bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species are taken into ac-1346
count. This scale of avoiding and minimizing adverse effects from wind turbines is 1347
broader and there is a significantly higher number of species to take into account. In 1348
each of the cases, I discuss the logistics of the project area, the species of concern in the 1349
surrounding area, and avoidance and CEF measures taken to lower the risk of harm to a 1350
number of species. Not all information is available as most of the projects are neither 1351
completed nor is this information shared at all. One important aspect in Germany is their 1352
strong protection and security of birds of prey in the region. While many are not endan-1353
gered, birds of prey such as the Habicht and Sperber (Hawks), Wespenbussard (Buz-1354
45
zard), and Rot- and Schwarzmilan (Red and Black Kites) are federally protected and 1355
extra precautions are thus made to ensure their safety. A large concern in Germany in-1356
volves the strong protection of the Schwarz- and Weißstorch (Black and White Storks). 1357
Bat species are additionally a large concern with all being taken into account within 1358
construction of wind turbines. 1359
Himmelsleiter, Aachen: In the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, south of the town of 1360
Aachen, there is a ten wind turbine windpark located in a “young” spruce forest (less 1361
than 120 years) termed Aachener Münsterwald for a maximum capacity of 30 MW (pro 1362
terra 2011). The city of Aachen’s environmental department created an opinion in 2011 1363
regarding species protection around the planned wind farm and discussing observation 1364
of bird and bat species in the area along with the Haselmaus (Dormouse) (Muscardinus 1365
avellanarius) and Wildkatze (Wildcat) (Felis silvestris). While no dormouse or wildcat 1366
were observed in the project area, all birds and bats listed in the area are considered to 1367
be strictly protected and thus, listed within tables with avoidance and CEF measures. 1368
There are 24 bird and bat species listed in the text, but the main species of concern are 1369
the Großer Abendsegler (Noctule) (Nyctalus noctula), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ 1370
Pipistrelle) (Pipistrellus nathusii), Gartenrotschwanz (Redstart) (Phoenicurus phoe-1371
nicurus), Grünspecht (Green Woodpecker) (Picus picus), Kranich (Crane) (Grus grus), 1372
Mäusebussard (Buzzard) (Buteo buteo), Schwarzspecht (Black Woodpecker) (Dryoco-1373
pus martius), and the Waldkauz (Brown Owl) (Strix aluco) (pro terra 2011). 1374
Avoidance measures briefly discussed in this opinion include location optimization 1375
for the turbines and allowing construction to occur only at a certain time periods to 1376
avoid breeding and nesting times. For instance, the Baumpieper (Tree Pipit) (Anthus 1377
trivialis), and the Kuckuck (Cuckoo) (Cuculus canorus) breed from March to Septem-1378
ber, so mowing and land clearing must only occur between October and February. Older 1379
trees with cavities will be checked and bat roosts outside of the wind facility will be 1380
created to deter nesting within the project area. Additionally, wind turbine gondolas will 1381
be sealed. Interestingly, there are no CEF or avoidance measures required at this wind 1382
facility. 1383
Bergkamp, Rosendahl: Within the municipality of Rosendahl in the state of Nord-1384
rhein-Westfalen on intensively farmed fields, the construction of two wind turbines has 1385
been proposed called Bergkamp. There are older turbines in the area and two other 1386
windpark projects are currently in development within Rosendahl, which will be dis-1387
46
cussed later. With the possibility of destroying nests, risking the abandonment of bird 1388
and bat species from their habitat within the area, and disrupting species’ populations 1389
and migrational patterns, Bergkamp created measures to help avoid and minimize these 1390
impacts. After micro-siting, construction will occur outside breeding times, which are 1391
from mid-March until the end of June. Acoustic oversight will take place for the first 1392
two years from March to November to monitor hit victims. As an avoidance measure, a 1393
radius of 100m around each turbine will be designated as intensive land use or “food-1394
poor” surfaces, permanently unattractive for small mammals, insects, and small birds to 1395
avoid attracting foraging birds of prey. 1396
The Großer Abendsegler (Noctule) is the most abundant bat species found dead un-1397
derneath wind turbines in Germany. However, there are no significant signs of migra-1398
tion through the planned area and thus the species is not a concern at Bergkamp. While 1399
not described in the opinion, measures will still be taken to avoid collision and ba-1400
rotrauma for the Großer Abensegler as well as the Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipi-1401
strelle) (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipistrelle) (Pipistrel-1402
lus nathusii), Kleinabendsegler (Leisler) (Nyctalus leisleri) and Breitflügelfledermaus 1403
(Serotine) (Eptesicus serotinus) (Echolot GbR 2013). 1404
In the area, 66 bird species were detected but the ones of concern are the Feldlerche 1405
(Skylark) (Alauda arensis), Habicht (Hawk) (Accipiter gentilis), Kiebitz (Lapwing) 1406
(Vanellus vanellus), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier) (Circus cyaneus), Mäusebussard (Buz-1407
zard), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) (Circus aeruginosus), 1408
Rotmilan (Red Kite) (Milvus milvus), Sperber (Hawk) (Accipiter misus), and Turmfalke 1409
(Kestrel) (Falco tinnunculus) (öKon GmbH 2013). The wind turbines are located in ag-1410
ricultural fields but are surrounded by forest, so there is a mix between forest birds and 1411
semi-open field and meadow birds. The preservation of breeding grounds for the Lap-1412
wings is the highest priority for the project and therefore the turbines will be situated as 1413
far away as possible from the nearest breeding colony. These measures in the opinion 1414
written April 2013 are considered specific continued ecological functionality (CEF) 1415
measures, which are used to avoid conflicts with the bird and bat protection laws by 1416
Germany and the EU. 1417
Holwicker Mark, Rosendahl: Also located in Rosendahl, this project area is located 1418
in an agricultural and forested area and requests for the construction of four wind tur-1419
bines. During pre-construction surveys, the study showed two nature reserves within the 1420
47
project area and two FHH-directive areas 2-4 km away with a total collection of 67 bird 1421
species detected in the area. Relevant forest bird species include the Habicht (Hawk), 1422
Sperber (Hawk), Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Waldohreule (Long-eared Owl) (Asio otus) 1423
and Waldschnepfe (Woodcock) (Scolopax rusticola). Relevant field and meadow birds 1424
are the Feldsperling (Tree Sparrow) (Passer montanus), Turmfalke (Kestrel), Feldlerche 1425
(Skylark), and Kiebitz (Lapwing) (öKon GmbH 2013). Located near Holtwicker Lake 1426
and adjacent to pools and ponds, water birds in the area are also considered: the Grau-1427
reiher (Grey Heron) (Ardea cinerea), Kormoran (Cormorant) (Phalacrocorax carbo), 1428
Lachmöwe (Black-headed Gull) (Larus ridibundus), Nachtigall (Nightingale) (Luscinia 1429
megarhynchos), Schnatterente (Gadwall) (Anas strepera), Silbermöwe (Herring gull) 1430
(Larus argentatus), Siberreiher (Egrets) (Casmerodius albus), and the Tafelente (Po-1431
chard) (Aythya ferina) (öKon GmbH 2013). The birds listed above are main species of 1432
concern in the area that could be impacted by the wind turbines through construction 1433
and operations, with a list of measures to avoid, mitigate, and compensate for offenses 1434
under the species conservation law compiled. 1435
Holtwicker Mark will create a food surface management for raptors which include 1436
creating “food-poor” surfaces 100m around each turbine to avoid the attraction of forag-1437
ing birds of prey, as well as creating offsite external vegetation or hedge strips and 1438
planting trees to direct birds of prey away from the site. Construction will occur outside 1439
of breeding season and the turbines will be built 200m away from Holtwicker lake 1440
(öKon GmbH 2013). 1441
CEF and avoidance measures have been written up for birds at Holtwicker Mark but 1442
information on bats in the area and what measures will be taken to avoid adverse effects 1443
on them have not been made available yet. 1444
Midlich, Rosendahl: Similar to Bergkamp and Holtwicker Mark, this windpark is 1445
located in Rosendahl near the town of Midlich with the construction of six wind turbines 1446
and a written opinion on birds and bats via pre-construction survey information for the 1447
area. Nine species of bats were detected in the area: The Zwergfledermaus (Common 1448
Pipistrelle), which was the most common in the project area, next to the Rauhautfleder-1449
maus (Nathusius' Pipistrelle), Breitflügelfledermaus (Serotine), Großer Abendsegler 1450
(Noctule), Kleinabendsegler (Leisler), Großes Mausohr Fledermaus (Greater mouse-1451
eared bat) (Myotis myotis), Wasserfledermaus (Daubenton's bat) (Myotis daubentonii), 1452
Fransenfledermaus (Natterer's bat) (Myotis nattereri) and the Bartfledermaus sp. 1453
48
(Whiskered bat sp.) (Myotis brandtii / M. mystacinus) (Echolot GbR 2013). The report 1454
goes into detail about the impacts wind turbines have on bat species but also gives CEF 1455
measures to avoid adverse effects on these species. Acoustic monitoring will occur for 1456
the first two years from March to November to help establish the best cut-in speed and 1457
adjustment of times for operation. 1458
Bird species in the area were also surveyed, and while 63 species were observed, the 1459
ones of main concern are the Feldlerche (Skylark), Fischadler (Osprey) (Pandion 1460
haliaetus), Graureiher (Grey Heron), Habicht (Hawk), Kanadagans (Canada goose) 1461
(Branta Canadensis), Kiebitz (Lapwing), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier), Kranich (Crane), 1462
Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Silberreiher 1463
(Egrets), Sperber (Hawk), and the Turmfalke (Kestrel) (öKon GmbH 2013). During the 1464
construction period with the potential for destruction of nests, habitat loss, and loss of 1465
population, construction will only occur outside of breeding and nesting times which is 1466
mid-March till the end of June. During operations, impacts such as increased risk of 1467
collision, noise pollution, habitat loss, population avoidance behavior, and habitat frag-1468
mentation from roads could affect these species. Micro-siting is done in order to correct-1469
ly place turbines away from FFH areas, nature reserves, and water bodies. For example, 1470
the Kiebitz (Lapwing) is known to avoid vertical structures, so the windpark is placed 1471
where the turbines are more than 150m away from the breeding sites. As was written in 1472
previous cases, Midlich will create a 100m “food-poor” landscape buffer around the 1473
wind turbines, and fallow strips and hedges will be created offsite to deter bird species 1474
from the windpark. Lastly, to avoid an increased risk for Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) in 1475
search of food outside one of the nearby nature reserves, the locations of planned wind 1476
turbines shall be at least 300m from the boundaries of such reserves. 1477
Kapfenburg, Aalen: Near the town of Aalen in Hülen, Baden Wuerttemberg, a con-1478
centration zone for wind turbines has been planned by the local government and water 1479
supply association of Kapfenburg (Gemeindeverwaltungs- und Wasserver-1480
sorgungsverband Kapfenburg). While no specific number of turbines has been con-1481
firmed, the planning includes wind turbines with rotors 115m in diameter, hub heights 1482
of 140m, and total turbine heights of 200m with energy production of 2.5 MW. Birds of 1483
concern in the area are the Baumfalke (Hobby) (Falco subbuteo), Rotmilan (Red Kite), 1484
Schwarzmilan (Black Kite) (Milvus migrans), Uhu (Eagle owl) (Bubo bubo), Raub-1485
würger (Great Grey Shrike) (Lanius excubitor), Wanderfalke (Peregrine Falcon) (Falco 1486
49
peregrinus), and the Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) (Pernis apivorus) 1487
(Regionalverband Ostwürttemberg Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts 2013). Pre-1488
construction surveys for the area show a tree pair of brooding falcons in the area and a 1489
Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) near the site. 1490
To avoid collision and disturbance for the species, conservation measures have been 1491
presented to minimize adverse effects on birds. Creating exclusion areas and artificial 1492
nesting boxes in nearby locations could lure these species away from the turbines. Con-1493
servation measures listed for the project area include shut-down periods for the turbines 1494
during daytime hours from May to August, curtailment for slow wind days, and moni-1495
toring of the Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard) for the first two years. 1496
In regards to bats, there are nine species possibly located in the study area, with the 1497
Mopsfledermaus (Barbastelle) (Barbastella barbastellus) being of particular im-1498
portance. The forest area for the project is located near younger coniferous and decidu-1499
ous stands with the possible presence of older trees with tree holes and crevices for bats 1500
to roost, along with old bunkers and a town in the area for bats to find additional food 1501
and shelter. Furthermore, as an avoidance measure of attracting insects to the wind tur-1502
bines thus attracting bats, the project may paint the turbines violet4. 1503
The main concern for this project is its location near FFH and nature reserve areas. 1504
The case concludes that more surveys need to be completed in order to better understand 1505
the surrounding environment and species that could be of concern in the area. 1506
Pilsach W2, W3: An ASP was completed for special areas W2 and W3 for the con-1507
struction of three wind turbines within the community of Pilsach, in the district of Neu-1508
markt of Bayern (Bavaria). Two turbines would be installed in the W3 area and one tur-1509
bine would be installed in the W2 area. While there are no nature reserves nearby, there 1510
is a FFH directive area located 2.2 km south of the projected wind turbines. Both sites 1511
are near forested areas but are located in crop fields consisting of corn and wheat, so no 1512
trees will be lost. 1513
4 Important to note that evidence-based research is lacking on whether painting the turbines this color will
actually deter insects from them.
50
1514
Figure 7: Wind turbine W2, W3 locations in Pilsach, Source: (Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011) 1515
There are roosting possibilities in the area (via buildings in the surrounding villages 1516
and possible tree hollows) but no bats were detected near the project sites. Potentially 1517
occurring bats in the area are the Große Mausohr- Fledermaus (Greater Big-eared bat), 1518
Bechsteinfledermaus (Bechstein’s bat), and Mopsfledermaus (Barbastelle bat) (Dipl. 1519
Geökol. Christian Strätz 2011). 1520
Measures of avoidance within the ASP include construction of wind turbines outside 1521
the breeding season of birds (1 October to 28 February), marking the rotor blades red 1522
and white to avoid bird collisions, and securing any gaps or openings between parts of 1523
the turbines with mist-netting or brushes to prevent roosting colonization. CEF and mit-1524
igation measures during operation of the wind turbines include temporary shutdown of 1525
the turbines at low wind speeds (<5m/ second) and the creation of five maintenance-free 1526
flat boxes on the forest edges and away from roads and the turbines. 1527
Other species besides birds and bats are listed, including the Haselmaus (Dor-1528
mouse), Zauneidechse (fence lizard) (Lacerta agilis), and Schlingnatter (smooth snake) 1529
(Coronella austriaca), but are not found to be a concern in the projected area. Butter-1530
flies, beetles, and dragonflies were surveyed but not found within the survey area due to 1531
unsuitable habitats for these insects. 1532
In terms of birds of concern, the potentially affected species around the wind tur-1533
bines are ground nesting species. The Feldlerche (Skylark) are of the biggest concern in 1534
the area. Adverse effects on the nests as well as the killing of eggs and fledglings can be 1535
51
avoided by mowing outside of seasonal breeding (1 October to 28 February). Other 1536
birds found in the area include the Amsel (Blackbird) (Turdus merula), Buchfink (Chaf-1537
finch) (Fringilla coelebs), Baumpieper (Tree Pipit), Dorngrasmücke (Whitethroat), 1538
Eichelhäher (Jay) (Garrulus glandarius), Goldammer (Yellowhammer) (Emberiza cit-1539
ronella), Gartengrasmücke (Garden Warbler), Heckenbraunelle (Dunnock) (Prunella 1540
miodularis), Rotkehlchen (Robin) (Erithacus rubecula), Ringeltaube (Ringdove) (Co-1541
lumba palumbus), Singdrossel (Song Thrush) (Turdus philomenos), Wintergold-1542
hähnchen (Goldcrest) (Regulus regulus), Zilpzalp (Chiffchaff) (Phylloscopus collybita), 1543
Sperber (Hawk), Rabenkrähe (Carrion Crow) (Corvus corone), Mäusebussard (Buz-1544
zard), Turmfalke (Kestrel), and the Graureiher (Grey Heron) (Dipl. Geökol. Christian 1545
Strätz 2011). Besides those for the Feldlerche, no other measures will be taken, as most 1546
birds will not be heavily affected by the construction and operation of the turbines. 1547
As compensation for the construction of these wind turbines, a development of a 10-1548
15m wide strip of fallow land will be planned along the extensively landscaped meadow 1549
as an “eco-route” for species. Additionally, the development of a deciduous forest by 1550
initial offsite planting is planned. 1551
Riepsdorf: The community of Riepsdorf is located near the city Lübeck in the state 1552
of Schleswig Holstein. An endangered species impact assessment (Artenschutzprüfung, 1553
ASP) was conducted in the area for three sites, including the construction and operation 1554
of four Enercon E-101 wind turbines at the Großenholz GmbH & Co.KG windpark 1555
(named “Windpark Gosdorf”), where six turbines are already in operation. These six 1556
operational turbines would be replaced by the four new turbines. The entire region cur-1557
rently has twelve turbines in operation: replacing six turbines with four newer ones in 1558
Gosdorf, and another four will be added at the other two sites which the ASP covers. 1559
Bats detected in the area and considered a concern are the Großer Abendsegler 1560
(Noctule), Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipistrelle), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ 1561
Pipistrelle), and Mückenfledermaus (Soprano Pipistrelle) (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) 1562
(Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz 2012). 1563
Other species of concern which were detected within the geographical area are the 1564
Fischotter (Otter) (Lutra lutra), Haselmaus (Dormouse), and Birkenmaus (Birch mouse) 1565
(Scista betulina), Zauneidechse (Fence lizard), Schlingnatter (Smooth snake), 1566
Kammmolches (Crested newt) ((Triturus cristatus), Moorfrosches (Moor Frog) (Rana 1567
52
arvalis), and insects including a number of dragonflies (six to be exact), two species of 1568
beetle, and the Nachtkerzenschwärmer (Evening Primose Moth) (Proserpinus proserpi-1569
na). The wind turbines do not affect these species and are thus not included in any 1570
avoidance or CEF measures. 1571
Birds in the area were broken down into three categories; Large birds and raptors, 1572
open land species, and woody plant breeders. Large birds and raptors include the Mäu-1573
sebussard (Buzzard), Kornweihe (Hen Harrier), Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier), Sperber 1574
(Hawk), Turmfalke (Kestrel), Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard), Seeadler (Eagle) 1575
(Haliaeetus albicilla), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Schwarzstorch (Black Stork), Weißstorch 1576
(White Stork) (Ciconia ciconia), Kolkrabe (Raven) (Corvus corvax), Kranich (Crane), 1577
and Graureiher (Grey Heron). Open land species include the Kiebitz (Lapwing), 1578
Rebhuhn (Partridge) (Perdix perdix), Wachtel (Quail) (Coturnix cortunix), Feldlerche 1579
(Skylark), and Schafstelze (Yellow Wagtail) (Motacilla flava). Lastly the woody plant 1580
breeders detected in the area are the Buchfink (Chaffinch), Goldammer (Yellowham-1581
mer), Amsel (Blackbird), Dorngasmücke (Whitethroat), Kohlmeise (Great Tit) (Parus 1582
major), and in particular, the Neuntöter (Red-backed Shrike) (Lanius collurio) 1583
(Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz 2012). 1584
The ASP explains that during the dismantling of the six turbines and the installation 1585
and operation of four new turbines, the risk of collision for all three groups of bird spe-1586
cies would not increase and there would only be a slight disturbance of habitat. For in-1587
stance, there is a breeding pair of Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) on the edge of the WP 1588
Gosdorf within reed vegetation. As a CEF measure, the developers will extend the reed 1589
area (shallow water zones with small water bodies) away from the turbines to help move 1590
the existing breeding site. A 300m buffer between the nest site and wind turbines will be 1591
put into place, but if the Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) are spotted in the vicinity, tempo-1592
rary cut-off times will be enacted on an individual basis during breeding seasons. 1593
Construction would be outside of breeding season beginning in October and lasting 1594
until the end of February. No temporary buildings will be erected during construction in 1595
order to avoid settlements of breeding birds and the setting up of “flutter bands” (con-1596
struction tape) will be used. With low bat activity in the area, there are no CEF require-1597
ments or measures, such as temporary shutdowns. The Planning Office for Landscape 1598
Architecture, Open Space Planning, and Conservation (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsar-1599
chitektur, Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz) for the region called for more avoidance 1600
53
and mitigation measures for the area including repowering of existing plants, using ex-1601
isting access routes, and using three-bladed rotors with the off-white colored turbines. 1602
This additional information was found in the approval procedures for the community’s 1603
land development plan (Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und 1604
Naturschutz 2012). 1605
Unkel, Neuwied: The possibility for a windpark located on 829 acres (336 ha) of 1606
land in Unkel near Rheinbreitbach, Rhineland-Palatinate is under review. The project 1607
may include the construction of up to 16 wind turbines to produce enough energy for the 1608
town and local area. It is located in a FFH area but all natural legal constraints and con-1609
ditions will be met and protection of species will be adequately addressed. This FFH 1610
area is to protect the Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-bellied toad) (Bombina variegata), and 1611
although wind turbines do not affect this species, conservation efforts will still be put 1612
forth for birds and bats in the area as well as those migrating through the area. During 1613
construction, forest area will be cleared but the project administrators will complete 1614
compensatory measures such as re-forestation, aid for the Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-1615
bellied toad), and other unspecified maintenance or refurbishment of environmental pro-1616
jects. 1617
Bird species recognized in the area are the Bachstelze (Wagtail) (Motacilla alba), 1618
Baumpieper (Tree Pipit), Dorngrasmücke (Whitethroat) (Sylvia communis), Garten-1619
grasmücke (Garden Warbler) (Sylvia borin), Girlitz (Serin) (Serinus serinus), Grünfink 1620
(Greenfinch) (Carduelis chloris), Hausrotschwanz (Black Redstart) (Phoenicurus 1621
ochruros), Rotmilan (Red Kite), Schwarzstorch (Black Stork) (Ciconia nigra), Uhu 1622
(Eagle owl), Waldlaubsänger (Wood Warbler) (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), and Wasseram-1623
sel (Dipper) (Cinclus cinclus) (Planungsbüro Valerius 2012). Of particular concern are 1624
the Rotmilan (Red Kite) and Schwarzmilan (Black Kite) but the project area has set up a 1625
number of avoidance and CEF measures to minimize adverse effects on the local popu-1626
lation: Land optimization to comply with distance recommendations and create space 1627
barriers between the turbine locations and the breeding sites, mowing in late winter, and 1628
setting offsite Luderplätzen, or hunting devices for diverting birds of prey from the pro-1629
ject site to avoid collision. In addition to these measures, other such CEF measures will 1630
be created for the Uhu (Eagle owl), such as a 1000m buffer distance from its nearby 1631
breeding sites, underground cabling, and reducing the risk of electrocution by disman-1632
tling catenary masts (hanging railway cables). Lastly, additional CEF and avoidance 1633
54
measures will be taken for the Schwarzstorch (Black Stork), with a 3000m buffer dis-1634
tance between the turbines and breeding sites, securing and maintaining permanent loca-1635
tions, reassurance of familiar and potential breeding sites, conditioning and improve-1636
ment of local feeding habitats, and keeping open wet meadows in stream valleys. 1637
Interestingly, the ASP for the project discusses bats but does not go into detail about 1638
the impacts this windpark would have on them and what measures could be taken to 1639
offset collisions and barotrauma with the wind turbines. While it may be discussed later 1640
on in the planning and development process of this windpark, no such public documents 1641
are available at this time. 1642
Weßling, Starnberg: In Appendix I of the Environmental Report for the community 1643
of Weßling, located in Starnberg, Bayern (Bavaria), is an Artenschutzprüfung (ASP) for 1644
nature conservation in wind energy. No exact number of turbines has been chosen for 1645
the project, but concentration zones have been established and surveyed for the con-1646
struction of wind turbines. Approximately 540m south of Konzentrationfläche 1 (KF1) 1647
is a Natura 2000 site and KF3 is approximately 150m away from an FFH directive area. 1648
Avoidance and minimization measures briefly discussed in the environmental report 1649
include setting measured distances of the wind turbines away from settlement areas and 1650
arranging the turbines so as to not visually impair the surrounding environment and pro-1651
duce glare from the rotor blades. More detailed measures are listed in the ASP such as 1652
avoiding construction during breeding, nesting, and hibernation periods, keeping flight 1653
paths open, relocating spawning amphibians and tadpoles found in the construction area, 1654
reducing the attractiveness of the area around the turbines. avoiding damage to beech 1655
and old growth trees with the possibility of having tree holes or crevices, and minimiz-1656
ing construction traffic and working space to avoid disruption of the surrounding habi-1657
tats. CEF measures for the area before construction include constructing alternative 1658
roosts and hunting habitat for bats, nesting boxes, and ponds for amphibians at offsite 1659
locations to deter them away from the wind turbines. 1660
55
Figure 8: The concentration zones (red) around the town of Weßling, Source: (NarrRistTürk 2012) 1661
Each of the four locations was surveyed for bird and bat species, with 29 bird spe-1662
cies and nine bat species listed. Regularly occurring birds of prey were the Turmfalke 1663
(Kestrel), Mäusebussard (Buzzard), Wespenbussard (Honey Buzzard), Sperber (Hawk), 1664
Mauersegler (Common Swift) (Apus apus), Neuntöter (Red-backed Shrike), Wal-1665
dohreule (Long-eared Owl), Uhu (Eagle Owl), Saatkrähe (Rook) (Corvus frugilegus), 1666
Bluthänfling (Linnet) (Carduelis cannabina) and Rauchschwalbe (Barn Swallow) (Hi-1667
rundo rustica). Semi-open land and forest edge species include the Goldammer (Yel-1668
lowhammer), Feldschwirl (Grasshopper Warbler) (Locustella naevia) and Kuckuck 1669
(Cuckoo). Open field species were the Schwarz- und Grünspecht (Black and Green 1670
Woodpeckers), Grauspecht (Grey-headed Woodpecker) (Picus canus) Habicht (Hawk), 1671
Kolkrabe (Raven) and Baumpieper (Tree Pipit). Bat species detected in the area are the 1672
Abendsegler (Noctule), Breitflügelfledermaus (Serotine Bat), Fransenfledermaus 1673
(Fringe bat), Mückenfledermaus (Mosquito bat), Nordfledemaus (Eptesicus nilssonii), 1674
Bartfledermaus species (Whiskered bat species) and Zwergfledermaus (Common Pipi-1675
strelle), Rauhautfledermaus (Nathusius’ Pipistrelle), and Weißrandfledermaus (White 1676
border bat) (Pipistrellus kuhlii) (NarrRistTürk 2012). 1677
3.2.3 Interim Evaluation and Conclusion 1678
The nine German cases selected have similar characteristics in terms of avoidance 1679
and minimization measures taken during construction and operation, and the protection 1680
of endangered species. Unlike the U.S., the majority of windparks have ten or less tur-1681
bines. In one case old turbines were replaced, and in another there is no definite number 1682
of turbines but the possibility that there can be up to 16. All nine facilities combined 1683
contribute to approximately 42 wind turbines in three different states of Germany. A 1684
56
chart of the German cases and the measures taken at each facility are found in Appendix 1685
Table 7.6. A list showing the species of concern discussed in the cases is located in Ap-1686
pendix Table 7.3. 1687
The regions and/or communities of these areas completed pre-planned regional de-1688
velopment proposals which show possible locations for wind turbines. With these wind-1689
parks developed at smaller regional scales, the number of turbines is limited and thus, 1690
there is no possibility for a large area with a large number of wind turbines. Additional-1691
ly, due to the smaller scale of development for a windpark, there is more regional and 1692
community involvement in the development of these areas, with more compensatory 1693
measures and offsite plans put into place to decrease adverse effects on species in the 1694
area. 1695
The ASPs from each of the cases are more general, with heavy emphasis on discus-1696
sion of impacts wind turbines have on species and the surrounding environment during 1697
construction and operation. In terms of avoidance and minimization, land optimization 1698
is the most important aspect in all nine cases. For instance Bergkamp is ensuring the 1699
safety of nearby Kiebitz (Lapwings) by placing the turbines 100m away from a known 1700
breeding area as well as in agricultural fields so as to not destroy nearby forested habi-1701
tat. Midlich was similar in that it placed the turbines 150m from nearby Kiebitz (Lap-1702
wings) breeding grounds and 300m away from a nature reserve. Holtwicker Mark posi-1703
tioned the windpark so that it is 200m away from the nearby lake, Pilsach W2 & W3 1704
placed the three turbines in corn and wheat fields so there is no additional tree removal, 1705
and Unkel created a 1000m distance buffer between the turbines and nearby FFH sites, 1706
3000m away from Schwarzstorch breeding site and open meadow area where they for-1707
age. Lastly, Riepsdorf will replace the old turbines with fewer newer ones and locate 1708
them 300m away from Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) nesting grounds. 1709
Every case also discusses seasonal construction of the windparks. Each case states 1710
that construction will occur outside migration times and breeding and nesting periods, 1711
dependent on species of concern in the area. In Himmelsleiter and Weßling, tree check-1712
ing before tree removal will be completed to see if roosting of birds and bats are there 1713
and to avoid accidental taking during construction. 1714
In terms of wind specifics, Kapfenburg will paint their turbines violet, Pilsach W2, 1715
W3 will design red and white markings on the rotor blades to improve visibility, and 1716
57
Riepsdorf will paint the turbines off-white to avoid attracting insects and thus, birds and 1717
bats. Himmelsleiter will seal the gondolas to avoid nesting possibilities for bats, and 1718
Pilsach W2, W3 will do the same by securing any gaps or openings with netting to do 1719
the same. Unkel will bury cables and dismantle nearby catenary masts (overhead train 1720
cables) to avoid bird electrocutions. Lastly, as Riepsdorf is replacing old turbines with 1721
new ones, the existing roads shall be used avoid further environmental disruption. 1722
After construction, vegetation of the surrounding area, such as hedges, re-vegetation, 1723
re-cultivation, and “food-poor” sections underneath the turbines are mentioned in most 1724
of the cases. The creation of hedges surrounding the windpark area can be crucial to the 1725
deterrence of woody species from entering the windparks at Holtwicker Mark, Midlich, 1726
and Pilsach W2, W3. Re-vegetation and re-cultivation of the area after construction are 1727
discussed at Kapfenburg and Unkel, and a creation of 100m area underneath the turbines 1728
that is “food-poor” or un-habitable for small animals such as squirrels or mice, which 1729
attract birds of prey and thus possibly colliding with the turbines, are noted at all three 1730
Rosendahl locations. 1731
Monitoring during operation is discussed in over half of the cases (Bergkamp, Holt-1732
wicker Mark, Midlich, Kapfenburg, and Weßling) with three ensuring monitoring the 1733
first two years of operation (Bergkamp, Midlich, and Kapfenburg) and the possibility of 1734
turn-off times based on information given during that time. Midlich briefly discusses 1735
turn-off periods but no specific measures are described as to when it will occur. Pilsach 1736
W2, W3 and Weßling will have nighttime shutdowns to avoid collisions with bats. At 1737
Kapfenburg, turbines will be shut down on slow wind days (> 5m/s) and if 1738
Wespenbussard are spotted in the vicinity. Weßling will also shut down their turbines if 1739
the nearby brooding Rohrweihe (Marsh Harrier) are spotted nearby the windpark. 1740
More Compensatory or CEF measures are given in the German cases than in the 1741
U.S. ones with more off-site measures and precautions to lower adverse effects on spe-1742
cies. Unkel is creating off-site “Luderplätzen” or hunting devices to attract birds of prey 1743
away from the turbines, while reforesting the area damaged by construction and con-1744
tributing aid for the recovering Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-bellied toad). Himmelsleiter, 1745
Kapfenburg, Pilsach W2, W3, and Weßling are creating bird and bat boxes in nearby 1746
fields and forested areas for birds and bats to breed and nest away from the windparks. 1747
Riepsdorf will extend reed vegetation away from the turbines to expand the habitat for 1748
the Graureiher (Grey Heron). Lastly, Holtwicker Mark, Midlich, and Pilsach W2, W3 1749
58
will create off-site strips of fallow land outside the areas to replace to land lost to the 1750
windparks. 1751
Overall, the nine German cases are only brief descriptions of the windparks and their 1752
overall impacts to the surrounding areas. German cases only focused on bird and bat 1753
species with even more brief discussion on reptiles, amphibians, other mammals, and 1754
insects, unlike the U.S. (for example, the Federally Protected Quino butterfly). Due to 1755
the availability of information, these cases are analyzed based only on the provided 1756
ASPs. Public access to information regarding these impacts and development of these 1757
windparks need to be better accessible, especially for local citizens who may feel the 1758
impacts of windpark developments. 1759
3.3 Comparative analysis between U.S. & Germany 1760
3.3.1 Laws, Regulations, & Guidelines comparison 1761
One of the main questions of this paper is: How are the U.S.’s habitat conservation 1762
plans (HCPs), the EU’s continued ecological functions (CEF) and Germany’s endan-1763
gered species impact assessment (ASP) similar and differ? Through a literature review 1764
and collection of policies in the U.S., Germany, and the EU, it can be explained why 1765
these measures are chosen in wind energy development. It is important to note that an 1766
HCP is an entire document for the purpose of receiving an Incidental Take Permit, while 1767
CEF measures are lists of measures to offset impacts to the environment and to species 1768
of concern. The ASP is a review of a particular area or region that notes potential im-1769
pacts to the area’s species and their surrounding habitats. CEF measures are found with-1770
in the ASP and there are many avoidance and minimization measures in both the HCP 1771
and ASP. 1772
Both the U.S. and Germany have recently created guidelines to help develop wind 1773
facilities while minimizing impacts to the environment and species. The U.S. has guide-1774
lines from the BLM, USFWS, The U.S. Forest Service, and NGOs such as the American 1775
Wind Energy Association and the National Wind Coordinating Committee. Some Ger-1776
man federal states have created guidelines such as “Umsetzung des Arten- und Habitat-1777
schutzes bei der Planung und Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen” (Implementation 1778
of species and habitat protection in the planning and approval of wind turbines) in Nord-1779
rhein-Westfalen. The guidelines in the U.S. such as the NWCC’s “Mitigation Toolbox” 1780
and USFWS’s “Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines” help in preparing preliminary 1781
site evaluations and field studies, post-construction studies, best management practices, 1782
59
and mitigation in planning a wind facility nationwide. The guideline for Nordrhein-1783
Westfalen, which is similar to those in most other German states, discusses the endan-1784
gered species impact assessment for regional and land use planning, methods of species 1785
inventory for preliminary site evaluations, FFH compatibility assessment, and require-1786
ments for risk management and monitoring. In Nordrhein-Westfalen, the guidelines also 1787
provide recommendations for species-specific CEF measures, and information neces-1788
sary to risk management for sensitive species around wind turbines. Both the U.S.’s and 1789
Germany’s guidelines review existing policies and summaries to help in understanding 1790
why particular measures are necessary to avoid impacts and litigation. Neither country 1791
has any direct federal regulation for wind energy but both have laws affecting the con-1792
struction and operation of wind facilities. In the U.S. the laws are the Migratory Bird 1793
Treaty Act, the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act, and environmentally, the National 1794
Environmental Protection Act. Germany is part of the EU’s Birds Directive, Habitats 1795
Directive, and EIA Directive with its own German Federal Nature Conservation Act and 1796
EIA Act. In the U.S., each state has its own list of endangered species in addition to 1797
federally protected species. Both EU and German policies protects many species under 1798
these different policies and can be difficult to determine which birds and bats are most 1799
threatened by wind development. 1800
Germany has an incredible list of species, as many species become a concern around 1801
the development of windparks. Between the EU’s protection of species via Annex II and 1802
Annex IV, EUArtSchV, and Germany’s BNatSchG and BNatSchV, illegal taking of 1803
species becomes difficult for wind energy developers. Unlike the U.S., Germany does 1804
not formally permit the legal taking species of concern as far as windparks are con-1805
cerned. The U.S.’s Incidental Take Permit allows for a specific number of federally pro-1806
tected species to be taken on federal lands, while Germany does not apply such permits 1807
to wind energy siting and operations. However, due to the magnitude of wind facilities 1808
in the U.S., the ITP is a reasonable measure, providing appropriate measures are taken 1809
to avoid negative impacts on species. In Germany, with smaller capacity wind parks, it 1810
can be difficult for appropriate authorities to allow that many permits for one turbine 1811
here or one turbine there. But one concern is the cumulative impacts of these widely 1812
spread turbines throughout German states. For instance, migrational species in the U.S. 1813
has the possibility to fly around a wind facility, but in Germany, the risk of collision and 1814
displacement is higher in birds navigating away from one turbine to another. Compensa-1815
tory measures listed in German state guidelines and conducted at wind facilities can 1816
60
assist in lowering these kinds of impacts but they cannot account for all bird and bat 1817
species. 1818
3.3.2 Comparison of Cases 1819
I have combined both U.S.’s and Germany’s avoidance, minimization, and compen-1820
satory measures to give a better visual comparison between the two and can be found in 1821
Appendix Table 7.7. One of the biggest differences between the U.S. and Germany for 1822
species protection in wind energy development is the amount of detail put into the de-1823
velopment of wind facilities and windparks. Based on the information available to the 1824
public, wind facilities on federal lands in the U.S. provide all documentation throughout 1825
the development process, while Germany has few documents available for the public to 1826
be informed about the windparks and the construction of the turbines. 1827
However, development of wind facilities on private lands in the U.S. differs from 1828
that on federal lands. Landowners do not have to provide public documentation and 1829
permitting depends on state procedures, which vary widely. For instance, Texas and six 1830
other states do not require any permitting, such as an environmental impact assessment, 1831
to be completed (Geißler, Köppel et al. 2013), and thus information about species pro-1832
tection and research on impacts from wind farms becomes difficult to analyze. If wind 1833
parks in Germany have less than 20 turbines, they do not have to undergo as many per-1834
mitting and development measures. This is a possible reason why the number of wind 1835
turbines per windpark is significantly lower than the number of turbines on U.S. facili-1836
ties. Additionally, Germany does not have the land capacity to develop large windparks 1837
such as the ones the U.S. is capable of having. The U.S. creates larger facilities to gen-1838
erate larger energy capacities for a greater number of people in cities such as Los Ange-1839
les. Germany has established smaller windparks to generate electricity for the nearby 1840
towns and municipalities. These windparks in Germany are also pre-designed in spatial 1841
and comprehensive plans created by the region or county and community, while U.S. 1842
wind facilities on federal public land are created by developers and then federally ap-1843
proved. In one U.S. case, there is a Programmatic Biological Opinion which covers the 1844
whole region, not just the wind facility. Currently, there are only a couple in the U.S. 1845
which cover large portions of land (such as the Great Plains Wind Energy Habitat Con-1846
servation Plan covering eight states (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy 1847
Whooping Crane Action Group 2013) and the Clark County, NV Regional HCP), while 1848
61
Germany does not have any spatial programmatic approval documents regarding species 1849
protection. 1850
Interestingly, detailed documentation that the U.S. provides show compensatory 1851
measures being barely discussed. Compensatory measures will only be completed after 1852
the ITP is issued, and the description of what measures will be taken is brief and incon-1853
clusive. For instance, only three out of the nine U.S. cases discuss compensatory 1854
measures and will “come up with a plan” within two years once the ITP is granted. 1855
These three cases will either briefly discuss an offsite conservation plan, or a release 1856
facility, and/or donate money towards particular research of an endangered species. It is 1857
possible that smaller compensatory measures nearby and off-site would not be signifi-1858
cant enough for the massive wind facilities developed. In Germany, with fewer turbines 1859
in one area, compensatory measures are more feasible to offset the turbines with CEF 1860
measures such as bat and bird boxes and vegetation strips. Germany has more general 1861
plans in wind development stages, with a heavier focus on the impacts wind turbines 1862
have on species. Some are more descriptive on particular species than others. While the 1863
focus is heavier on impacts during construction and operation, the cases provide better 1864
CEF measures. Along with micro-siting to ensure the best distances away from bird and 1865
bat breeding and nesting areas, almost all cases ensure CEF measures such as bird and 1866
bat boxes, vegetation strips for ground breeding birds, and re-forestation or re-1867
vegetation at areas offsite to counter the construction of wind turbines. As stated previ-1868
ously, due to the planning on a more regional scale, German sites are more capable of 1869
preparing these off-site measures, but it should be noted how surprisingly poor the 1870
amount of avoidance and minimization measures is descripted. Through the analysis of 1871
all eighteen cases, the main question of this paper has been answered: In wind energy 1872
development, how do avoidance and minimization measures for protected species over-1873
lap and differ between the U.S. and Germany? One last point of comparison between 1874
these two countries is the seriousness and dedication both have with the regards to the 1875
protection of species and environmental factors in wind energy development. The U.S. 1876
and Germany are forerunners in this industry, mitigating the negative impacts on the 1877
environment all while ensuring cleaner energy to societies. 1878
The last question of this paper asks: To what extent can the measures discussed 1879
above have the possibility of becoming Trans-Atlantic? Wind energy is rapidly expand-1880
ing in the world, due to government subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives at various lev-1881
62
els with the eagerness to promote cleaner alternative energy sources. Many projects are 1882
ongoing in the U.S. as it is still a young and booming industry, with few guidelines and 1883
little regulation to help in this growth. While some incentives, subsidies, and regulations 1884
at a national-level can help wind development, a smaller scale approach through state 1885
and regional governments may be best in minimizing the negative impacts during plan-1886
ning and regulation. The NRC writes that: “A country as large and as geographically 1887
diverse as the US and as wedded to political plurality and private enterprise is unlikely 1888
to plan for wind energy at a national scale in the same way as some European countries 1889
are doing” (National Research Council 2007 p.11). As a regulatory national approach is 1890
unlikely, a comprehensive approach used in other countries such as Germany could be 1891
adopted in the U.S., leaving different laws and policies regarding the regulation of wind-1892
energy projects up to the states. Currently this comprehensive approach is occurring in 1893
many U.S. states and should be continued in more states. 1894
1895
4. CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION 1896
4.1 Discussion 1897
Based on the interim evaluations and case comparison between the U.S. and Germa-1898
ny, I have created a few theoretical perspectives on the information presented. First, the 1899
U.S. has a few but strong federal laws protecting endangered species, and no policies on 1900
wind energy development. Instead of federal policies, guidelines from federal environ-1901
mental agencies, wind energy organizations, and environmental NGO’s have recently 1902
provided detailed recommendations on avoiding federal litigation and proper wind facil-1903
ity development in avoiding and minimizing impacts on endangered and protected spe-1904
cies. Germany has intricate and complex EU and nationwide policies which state the 1905
protection of species, but only recently have some states, such as Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1906
prepared guidelines on how to avoid and minimize threats to species of concern around 1907
wind turbines. 1908
Second, due to land availability the U.S. federal government is able to implement 1909
large wind energy developments. Germany’s land availability becomes more difficult 1910
due to the different levels of land conservation, population, forested habitats, and re-1911
gional decisions. With the construction of pre-planned development areas/plans, wind 1912
energy can only develop wind energy in smaller capacities. For this reason, it is difficult 1913
63
to measure the cumulative impacts of these wind turbines on species. But it should be 1914
noted that U.S. wind projects on federal lands differ greatly from those on private lands. 1915
Germany and the U.S. have similar avoidance and minimization measures such as 1916
seasonal construction and turbine specifics for all 18 cases but vary in aspects of re-1917
vegetation, location optimization, species and collision monitoring, curtailment and 1918
turn-off times, and other factors surrounding migration routes and seasons that affect the 1919
generation of energy from wind turbines. The U.S. has detailed construction measures 1920
such as lighting and speed limits, wind turbine specifics such as feathering and cut-in 1921
speeds, and importantly, monitoring before and during construction and during opera-1922
tions and maintenance. Germany focuses on micro-siting in terms of avoidance and 1923
minimization mitigation techniques, ensuring seasonal construction periods and even 1924
more curtailments as well. 1925
The biggest difference between the U.S. and Germany is the illegal and legal taking 1926
of species of concern. The U.S. allows a specific number of endangered species to be 1927
taken by wind turbines, if enough information and mitigation measures are presented 1928
and thus permitted by the appropriate bureaus. Germany only discusses the illegal tak-1929
ing of species, creating more upfront compensatory (i.e. CEF) measures to lessen ad-1930
verse effects from wind turbines. The number of endangered and threatened species is 1931
much higher than the number in the U.S., due to heavier European and federal policies 1932
protecting all bird and bat species. Additional information needs to be presented on the 1933
number of hit victims by turbines in both Germany and the U.S. to fully comprehend the 1934
differences in avoidance and minimization measures and whether both can be truly 1935
comparable. 1936
4.1.1 Conclusions 1937
Wind is one of the most environmentally friendly and “green energy” resources with 1938
no direct carbon dioxide emissions, minimal use of water, and fewest potential impacts 1939
to habitats and wildlife populations (Saidur, Rahim et al. 2011). But there are still some 1940
impacts such as habitat fragmentation and destruction, displacement, and direct collision 1941
on animal species. In wind energy development and nature conservation, Kleeman 1942
writes three strategies to optimize low-impact development: As the cases above show, 1943
(1) spatial and comprehensive local planning is the most important step before further 1944
progress. (2) Integration of planning from other sectors and projects requiring licensing 1945
via regulatory intervention (causation-oriented) and EIA (pre-caution oriented), is also 1946
64
discussed above in policy and development cooperation within the U.S. and Germany; 1947
and (3) protected area policy, with the U.S. discussing critical habitats for endangered 1948
species, and Germany’s FFH Directive areas and nature reserves (Stoll-Kleeman 2001). 1949
Kiesecker agrees that: “Wind subsidies targeted at favoring low-impact development 1950
and creating avoidance and mitigation requirements that raise the costs for projects im-1951
pacting sensitive lands could improve public value for both wind energy and biodiversi-1952
ty conservation” (Kiesecker, Evans et al. 2011 p.1). In Germany, the basic position of 1953
nature conservation requirements, the expansions of renewable energies, and the threat 1954
to species of concern must all be respected (Bundesverband WindEnergie 2014) and 1955
coordinated in order to satisfy all conditions. This ideal should be brought into U.S. 1956
wind energy development and conservation. In order to generate higher productions of 1957
electricity from wind, the future of renewable policy needs to be more aggressive in 1958
development, with improved technology of wind-energy generation and transmission, 1959
all while increasing energy conservation (National Research Council 2007 p.6) and en-1960
suring the conservation of the environment and animal species. 1961
4.2 Future Research 1962
Current research in wind energy impacts on wildlife will to some degree always re-1963
main inadequate, with more and more upcoming recommendations about offsetting im-1964
pacts, compensatory mitigation, and monitoring. The biggest question researchers, biol-1965
ogists, and politicians want to know is if current avoidance, minimization, and compen-1966
satory measures truly offsetting adverse effects on animal species. However, this large 1967
project would require a collaboration of biologists in many different fields, land owners 1968
and developers, and politicians along with those in long-term research to get the full 1969
perspective on how these measures are or are not affecting endangered species, or even 1970
all species, around wind energy facilities. 1971
Another question for future research is: How would the U.S. and Germany be com-1972
parable if private lands in the U.S. were studied instead of federal lands, and would they 1973
be comparable at all? A further question could be: If Germany made the planning and 1974
environmental documents more accessible, would the conclusions of comparison be the 1975
same? More time needs to be put into these questions, and the ability to contact appro-1976
priate authorities, both in English and German, is necessary. Additionally, to gain the 1977
cooperation of private landowners and companies is difficult as this is a competitive 1978
field in the energy industry. 1979
65
Jakle discusses a futuristic approach to compensatory mitigation for wind energy 1980
called “Development by Design.” This landscape-scale approach, created by The Nature 1981
Conservancy, maps the state’s energy resources against high-quality habitat and deter-1982
mines what areas developers may choose to avoid and minimize impacts. By calculating 1983
offsets and putting them into a model, this establishes priority sites for compensatory 1984
mitigation and the ecological footprint when developing a wind facility (Jakle 2012). 1985
This modeling can also be used for species specific conservation. With models such as 1986
this in the U.S. and Germany, species protection, along with the continued expansion of 1987
wind energy, can be utilized to the greatest extent. 1988
Lastly, with the continuation of international cooperation through conferences, con-1989
ventions, and open dialog on issues surrounding wind energy impacts, such as the 1990
CWW2015 in Berlin, renewable energies will continue to effectively grow and prosper 1991
while maintaining the protection of the environment and wildlife. 1992
1993
5. CHAPTER 5: AWKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1994
I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to Prof. Dr. Zeller in the 1995
continued support of my Master’s thesis and research, for his patience, and assistance in 1996
Germany and this great experience I have had while studying in Berlin. I would also like 1997
to thank Dr. Perry for his assistance, support, and motivation in continuing my educa-1998
tion and encouraging me to become a better person, student, and research scientist. After 1999
all of these years we have known each other, you have been my biggest mentor and 2000
leader and I am beyond thankful for everything you have done for me. I want to give 2001
my sincerest appreciation to Prof. Dr. Köppel who was able to take me on as a master’s 2002
candidate with only six months to create a completely new thesis topic. Your advice, 2003
comments, and suggestions have been greatly appreciated and I want to thank you for 2004
encouraging me to be passionate about my work and research as you are. 2005
I would also like to thank my undergraduate aid, Denise Schneite, for taking the 2006
time out of her schedule and helping me in translating case documents and Patrick Mol-2007
ligo for being the master proofreader. It is greatly appreciated! Secondly, I want to 2008
thank the beautiful Lea Bulling, my “partner in crime” who has been so helpful and 2009
supportive of my work and research. Your assistance in my thesis and motivation kept 2010
me going and I am beyond grateful for it. 2011
66
Furthermore, I want to thank Krystina Parker, for taking this incredible journey with 2012
me to Berlin and completing our Masters. Without you, I would have not made it this 2013
past year and I am so happy it was you who I cried, laughed, smiled, learned and made 2014
these wonderful unforgettable experiences. Lastly, I could not have done this without 2015
the support of my mother, father, and sister. Their endless love and encouragement kept 2016
me motivated and words cannot express how grateful I am to have them in my life. 2017
Thank you to Texas Tech University, the University of Sheffield, and Humboldt 2018
University of Berlin for the creation of FIPSE Arid Lands Studies Program and the op-2019
portunity for me to live in two different countries and experience worlds I would have 2020
never gotten the chance to do any other way. Thank you to all the administration, fellow 2021
students, and professors who contributed to making this an unforgettable experience. 2022
_____________________________________________________________________________ 2023
Declaration of independent work on Master’s Thesis: 2024
With this statement, I declare that this Master’s thesis was prepared by me, using only the 2025
given references in this paper. The connections with companies, governmental organiza-2026
tions, and/or governmental institutions were only made with the agreement of the Master’s 2027
thesis advisor. Berlin, Germany 4 April 2014. 2028
67
2029
6. CHAPTER 6: LITERATURE CITATIONS 2030
American Wind Energy Association (2013). "Get the Facts: 2012 U.S. Wind Industry Market 2031
Update." Retrieved February 12, 2014, from 2032
http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=4629. 2033
2034
Arnett, E. B., et al. (2010). Effectiveness of changing wind turbines cut-in speed to reduce bat 2035
fatalities at wind facilities. A final report submitted to the Bats & Wind Energy Cooperative. 2036
2037
Baerwald, E. F., et al. (2009). "A Large-Scale Mitigation Experiment To Reduce Bat Fatalities 2038
At Wind Energy Facilities." Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1077-1081. 2039
2040
Barrios, L. and A. Rodriguez (2004). "Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird 2041
mortality at on-shore wind turbines." Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81. 2042
2043
Beech Ridge Energy LLC (2013). Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan, 2044
Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV. Chicago, IL, Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Beech 2045
Ridge Energy II LLC. 2046
2047
Bonnie, R. (1999). "Endangered Species Mitigation Banking: Promoting Recovery Through 2048
Habitat Conservation Planning Under The Endangered Species Act." The Science of the Total 2049
Environment 240(1-3): 11-19. 2050
2051
Buckeye Wind LLC (2013). Final Buckeye Wind Power Project Habitat Conservation Plan. 2052
Topsham, ME, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. . 2053
2054
Bundersverband WindEnergie (2013). "Statistics of Wind Energy in Germany 2012, 2013." 2055
Policy Director. Retrieved 12.2, 2014, from http://www.wind-energie.de/en/infocenter/statistics. 2056
2057
Bundesministerium der Justiz fur Verbraucherschutz (2009). Bundesnaturschutzgesetz 2058
(BNatSchG) - Gesetz uber Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. B. d. Justiz. Deutschland. 2059
2060
Bundesministerium fur Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (2012). Gesetz fur den 2061
Vorrang Enereuerbarer Energien, EEG. N. Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Bau und 2062
Reaktorsicherheit,. Deutschland. 2063
2064
Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (2013). "Bund-Länder-2065
Initiative Windenergie 2066
Federal-state initiative Wind Energy." Retrieved 24.3, 2014, from http://www.erneuerbare-2067
energien.de/die-themen/windenergie/bund-laender-initiative-windenergie/. 2068
2069
Bundesverband WindEnergie (2014). "Onshore Policy, German Wind Energy Association." 2070
Retrieved 13.2, 2014, from http://www.wind-energie.de/en/policy. 2071
68
2072
Bureau of Land Management (2001). The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 2073
As Amended. U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management and Office of 2074
the Solicitors. Washington, D.C.: 69. 2075
2076
Bureau of Land Management (2005). Final Programmatic Environnmental Impact Statement on 2077
Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. U.S. 2078
Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 2079
2080
Bureau of Land Management (2012). Record of Decision Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility & 2081
Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan APPENDIX C, Adopted Mitigation 2082
Measures. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of the Interior. El Centro, CA. 2083
2084
Bureau of Land Management (2013). "Alta East Wind Project, Authorization Documents." 2085
Retrieved February 17, 2014, from 2086
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/ridgecrest/alta_east_wind_project.html. 2087
2088
Department of the Interior Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (2008). Wind Turbine 2089
Guidelines Memorandum. U.S. Department of Interior. Washington, D.C. 2090
2091
Dipl. Geökol. Christian Strätz (2011). Spezielle Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung (SAP) 2092
Sondergebiete Windkraft W2 und W3, Gemeinde Pilsach (Lkr. Neumarkt). W. GmbH. 2093
Regensburg, Deutschland. 2094
2095
Drewitt, A. L. and R. H. W. Langston (2006). "Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds." 2096
Ibis 148: 29-42. 2097
2098
Echolot GbR (2013). Untersuchung zur Fledermausfauna und artenschutzrechtliche Bewertung. 2099
B. GbR. Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen, Deutschland. 2100
2101
Echolot GbR (2013). Untersuchung zur Fledermausfauna und artenschutzrechtliche Bewertung. 2102
W. M. GbR. Münster, Deutschland. 2103
2104
Erickson, W. P., et al. (2005). A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortalitiy from 2105
Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. U. F. S. G. T. R. PSWGTR-191: 1029-2106
1042. 2107
2108
European Commision Environment Nature and Biodiversity (2014). "Natura 2000 network." 2109
Retrieved 11.2, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm. 2110
2111
European Commission (2011). EU Guidance on wind energy development in accordance with 2112
the EU nature legislation Ecosystems LTD and Publications Office of the European Union. 2113
Luxembourg. 2114
2115
European Commission (2014). "The 2020 climate and energy package." Retrieved 29.3, 2014, 2116
from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm. 2117
69
2118
Fiske, P., et al. (1998). "Mating success in lekking males: a meta-analysis." Behavioral Ecology 2119
9(4): 328-338. 2120
2121
Foote, K. and D. Greenlee (2011). Kaheawa Wind Power I- Proposed Permit Amendment to 2122
Reduce the Take of Federally Protected Species Available for Public Comment. USFWS Pacific 2123
Island Fish and Wildlife Office. Honolulu, HI. 2124
2125
Geißler, G., et al. (2013). "Wind energy and environmental assessments e A hard look at two 2126
forerunners’ approaches: Germany and the United States." Renewable Energy 51: 71-78. 2127
2128
Government Accountability Office (2005). Impacts on Wildlife and Government 2129
Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife. GAO Report. U.S. 2130
Government Accountability Office. Washington, D.C., Nazarro, R. (Director, Natural Resources 2131
and the Environment). GAO-05-906. 2132
2133
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate 2134
Change Mitigation: Special Report. New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press. 2135
2136
Jakle, A. (2012). Wind Development and Wildlife Mitigation in Wyoming: A Primer. Laramie, 2137
Wyoming, Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. 2138
2139
Kaheawa Wind Power LLC (2006). Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility Habitat 2140
Conservation Plan. Ukumehame, Maui, Hawaii. 2141
2142
Katzner, T., et al. (2013). "Challenges and opportunities for animal conservation from 2143
renewable energy development." Animal Conservation 16: 367-369. 2144
2145
Kiesecker, J. M., et al. (2011). "Win-win for wind and wildlife: A vision to facilitate sustainable 2146
development " PLoS ONE 6(4): 1-8. 2147
2148
Köppel, J., et al. (2012). "A snapshot of Germany's EIA approach in light of the United States 2149
Archetype." Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14(4): 21. 2150
2151
McGee, T. (2013). Duke Energy Renewable reaches agreement with Department of Justice 2152
regarding bird mortalities at two wind facilities. Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, Duke Energy 2153
Renewables. 2154
2155
Ministerium für Klimaschutz, U., Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes 2156
Nordrhein-Westfalen, (2013). Umsetzung des Arten- und Habitatschutzes bei der Planung und 2157
Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Landesamt für Natur Umwelt 2158
und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen: 51. 2159
2160
NarrRistTürk (2012). Windkraft, Gemeinde Weßling, Landkreis Starnberg Naturschutzfachliche 2161
Angaben zur speziellen artenschutzrechtlichen Prüfung (saP). D. I. F. R. K. Dipl. Ing. (FH) D. 2162
Narr, Dipl. Ing. (FH) T. Ehnes, Dipl. Ing. (FH) E. Schraml. Marzling, Deutschland. 2163
70
2164
National Research Council (2007). Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects. B. o. E. S. 2165
a. T. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, Division on Earth and 2166
Life Studies. Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences,. 2167
2168
National Wind Coordinating Committee (2007). Mitigation Toolbox. NWCC Mitigation 2169
Subgroup & Jennie Rechtenwald (Consultant). 2170
2171
Official Journal of the European Communities (1992). Council Directive of 21 May 1992 on the 2172
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Commision Environment 2173
Nature and Biodiversity. No L 206/9. 2174
2175
öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark "Midlich"; Artenschutzrechlitche Prüfung. W. M. GbR. 2176
Münster, Deutschland. 2177
2178
öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark „Bergkamp,“ Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung „Vögel“. B. GbR. 2179
Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen. 2180
2181
öKon GmbH (2013). Windpark „Holtwicker Mark,“ Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung „Vögel“. W. 2182
H. M. GbR. Rosendahl, Nordrhein-Westhafen. 2183
2184
Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz (2012). Gemeinde 2185
Riepsdorf B-Plan Nr. 7 und B-Plan Nr. 5 - 1. Änderung Antrag auf Bau und Betrieb von je 4 2186
Windenergieanlagen E 101. Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung gemäß § 44 BNatSchG. Dipl.-Ing. 2187
Eike Jürgen Brandes. Lübeck, Deutschland. 2188
2189
Planungsbüro für Landschaftsarchitektur Freiraumplanung und Naturschutz (2012). Kreis 2190
Ostholstein, Gemeinde Riepsdorf, Windpark Grossenholz, B-Plan Nr. 5 – 1. Änderung und 2191
Genehmigungsverfahren nach dem BimSchG Bilanzierung der Eingriffe in Natur und 2192
Landschaft. D.-I. E. J. Brandes. Lübeck, Deutschland. 2193
2194
Planungsbüro Valerius (2012). Kreis Neuwied: Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung gemäß §§ 44, 45 2195
BNatSchG zur Ausweisung von Flächen für Windenergieanlagen im Rahmen der 2196
Fortschreibung des Flächennutzungsplans Teilbereich Windkraft, der Stadt Unkel Teil 1: 2197
Avifauna. M. Valerius. Dorsel, Deutschland. 2198
2199
Power Company of Wyoming LLC (2012). Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project 2200
Final Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 2. U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau 2201
of Land Management. High Desert District - Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming. Appendix C, 2202
Summary of BLM Environmental Constraints, Applicant Committed Measures, Applicant 2203 Best Management Practices, and Proposed Mitigation Measures. 2204
2205
pro terra (2011). Gutachten bezüglich Artenschutz für den geplanten Windpark Aachener 2206
Münsterwald. Stadt Aachen. Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland, Fachbereich Umwelt. 2207
2208
Rajvanshi, A. (2008). Mitigation and compensation in environmental assessment. TEAM EA 2209
Lecturer's Handbook. TwoEA-M. 5. 2210
71
2211
Regionalverband Ostwürttemberg Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (2013). Spezielle 2212
Artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung (saP). Konzentrationszone Windenergie, Kreis: Aalen G.-u. W. 2213
Kapfenburg. Schwäbisch Gmünd, Deutschland. 2214
2215
Saidur, R., et al. (2011). "Environmental impact of wind energy." Renewable and Sustainable 2216
Energy Reviews 15: 2423-2430. 2217
2218
Sterner, D. (2002). A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in 2219
California. California Energy Commission Energy Related Environmental Research. California, 2220
USA. 2221
2222
Stoll-Kleeman, S. (2001). "Opposition to the designation of protected areas in Germany." 2223
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(1): 109-128. 2224
2225
Technische Universität Berlin (2014). "Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts 10-12 2226
März 2015 in Berlin ". Retrieved 06.2, 2014, from https://www.cww2015.tu-berlin.de/. 2227
2228
The Economist (2012). Energiewende, Germany's energy transformation. The Economist Print 2229
Edition. Europe, The Economist Group. 2230
2231
U.S. Department of Energy (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's 2232
Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. U.S. Department of Energy- Energy Efficiency & 2233
Renewable Energy, Energetics, Inc. (Washington, D.C.) and 2234
Renewable Energy Consulting Services Inc. (Palo Alto, CA). 2235
2236
U.S. Department of Energy (2011). Final Environmental Assessment: Monarch Warren County 2237
Wind Turbine Project, Lenox Township, Warren County, IL. Office of Energy Efficiency and 2238
Renewable Energy. Washington, D.C. 2239
2240
U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office (2011). Finding of No Significant Impact 2241
(FONSI): Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project, Lenox Township, Warren County, 2242
IL. U. S. D. o. Energy. Golden, CO. 2243
2244
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011). Biological Opinion on the effects of the Monarch Warren 2245
County Wind Turbine Project. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2246
Service. Moline, IL. 2247
2248
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. U.S. 2249
Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chapter 1: The Endangered 2250
Species Act and Incidental Take Permits. 2251
2252
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy 2253
Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA. 2254
2255
72
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of the Interior 2256
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prohibited Acts: Section 9. 2257
2258
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. U.S. 2259
Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The HCP Handbook 2260
Addendum or “Five Point Policy”. 2261
2262
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013, January 25, 2013). "Renewable Energy Development in 2263
Region 8 (California, Nevada, & Klamath Basin)." Retrieved February 11, 2014, from 2264
http://www.fws.gov/cno/energy.html. 2265
2266
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013, 13 December 2013). "Wildlife Concerns Associated with 2267
Wind Energy Development." Wind Energy Development. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from 2268
http://www.fws.gov/midwest///////wind/wildlifeconcerns.html. 2269
2270
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013 ). Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. U.S. Division of 2271
Migratory Bird Management. Volume 2: Module 1 - Land-based Wind Energy. 2272
2273
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wind Energy Whooping Crane Action Group (2013). "Great 2274
Plains Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan." Retrieved 26.3, 2014, from 2275
http://www.greatplainswindhcp.org/. 2276
2277
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California/Nevada Operations Office (2001). Clark County 2278
Desert Conservation Plan Permit PRT 801045. U.S. Deparment of the Interior and U.S. Fish and 2279
Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California. 2280
2281
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (2011). 2282
Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Proposed Tule Wind Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2283
Service. Carlsbad, CA. 2284
2285
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (2012). 2286
Formal Section 7 Opinion on the Proposed Ocotillo Express Wind Project, Imperial County, 2287
CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Carlsbad, CA. 2288
2289
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office 2290
(2006). Biological Opinion on the Platte River Recovery Implementation. U.S. Department of 2291
the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grand Island, Nebraska. 2292
2293
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office 2294
(2006). Section 7 Consultation for the Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility 2295
Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take Permit Application. U.S. Department of the 2296
interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Honolulu, Hawaii. 2297
2298
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (2013). 2299
Biological Opinion for the Alta East Wind Project, Kern County, California. U.S. Fish and 2300
Wildlife Service. Ventura California. 2301
73
2302
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of West Virginia Field Office (2013). 2303
Biological Opinion on an Application for an Incidental Take Permit Submitted by Beech Ridge 2304
Energy LLC and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Progject, in 2305
Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV. U. S. F. a. W. Service. Elkins, WV, USA. 2306
2307
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Supervisor of Wyoming Field Office (2012). Biologicial 2308
Opinion for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project. U.S. Department of the 2309
Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Appendix F of the Final 2310
Environmental Impact Statement. 2311
2312
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ohio Ecological Services Field Office (2012). Biological 2313
Opinion on the Application for an Incidental Take Permit for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 2314
for the Buckeye Wind Power Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Columbus, OH. 2315
2316
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor of Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (2012). 2317
Biological Opinion for the Searchlight Wind Energy Project, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. 2318
Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office. Reno, NV. 2319
2320
Voigt, C., et al. (2012). ""The catchment area of wind farms for European bats: a plea for 2321
international regulations." Biological Conservation 153: 80-86. 2322
2323
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (Applied Social Research 2324
Methods Series). Thousand Oaks, California, USA, SAGE Publications. 2325
2326
2327
74
7. CHAPTER 7: APPENDIX 2328
TABLE 7.1 U.S. Endangered species allowed to be legally taken at the wind facilities 2329
2330
2331
2332
Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii
pusillus)
California Condor
(Gymnogyps
californianus)
Hawaiian Goose
[NeNe] (Branta
sandvicensis)
Hawaiian Petrel (Lasiurus
cinereus semotus)
Newell's shearwater
(Puffinus auricularis
newelli)
Whooping Crane (Grus
americana)
Indiana Bat (Myotis
sodalis)
Hawaiian Hoary Bat
(Lasiurus cinereus)
Virginia big-eared Bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii virginianus)
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
(Ovis canadensis)
Mojave Desert tortoise
(Gopherus agasizii)
Quino checker spot
butterfly (Euphydryas
editha quino)
Alta East 1 condor
Beech Ridge 53 IN bats 14 VA bats
Buckeye 130 IN bats
Chokecherry & Sierra
Madre
6 individuals for
harrassment (1st 13 yrs
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
Searchlight
1 adult, 2 hatchlings during
construction. 1 adult, 2
hatchlings per year during
operation
Tule 1:1 ratio re-vegetation
75
FIGURE 7.2 U.S. geographical map of all nine wind facility locations 2333
2334
76
TABLE 7.3 Germany species of concern at the wind facilities 2335
2336
2337
2338
KEY:
RL- NRW: Red Listed
North Rhine-
Westphalia
(Regional)
RL-D :Red Listed
Deutschland (State)
RL-SH: Red Listed
Schleswig- Holstein
RL R-P: Red Listed
Rhine-Palatine
RL B: Red Listed
Bayern
RL B-W: Red Listed
Baden- WürttembergVS-RL: Bird Directive
1: endangered
species
2: highly risked
species3: risked species
BArtSchV: Germany
species protection
regulation
FFH-RL: Red Listed
FFH Directive
(Annexes II, IV)
EUArtSchV: EU
species protection
regulation
X: species of concern
at WP
S: species protection
dependent upon
nature conservation
V: Vulnerable species W: endangered
migratory species
R: area of risked
species protected
G: Gefährdet
(Endangered)
SG: Streng
geschützte Art
(Strictly Protected
Species)
BirdsMäusebussard (Buteo
buteo )
Wespenbussard
(Pernis apivorus )
Kornweihe (Circus
cyaneus )
Rohrweihe (Circus
aeruginosus )
Habicht (Accipiter
gentilis )
Sperber (Accipiter
misus )
Merlin (Falco
columbarius )
Wanderfalke (Falco
peregrinus )
Baumfalke (Falco
subbuteo )
Turmfalke (Falco
tinnunculus )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)EUArtSchV
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)EUArtSchV RL NRW: 0 RL NRW: 3S RL NRW: V X X RL NRW: VS
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)EUArtSchV X X RL NRW: VS
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
BirdsRotmilan (Milvus
milvus )
Schwarzmilan (Milvus
migrans )
Seeadler (Haliaeetus
albicilla )
Fischadler (Pandion
haliaetus )Uhu (Bubo bubo )
Waldkauz (Strix
aluco )
Waldohreule (Asio
otus )Kranich (Grus grus )
Kanadagans (Branta
Canadensis )
Graureiher (Ardea
cinerea )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)EUArtSchV EUArtSchV, VS-RL
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3 X
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
ENGLISH: Red Kite Black Kite Eagle Osprey Eagle Owl Tawny or Brown Owl Long-eared OwlCommon Crane or
Eurasian CraneCanada Goose Grey Heron
77
2339
2340
BirdsSchwarzstorch
(Ciconia nigra )
Weißstorch (Ciconia
ciconia )
Siberreiher
(Casmerodius albus )
Kormoran
(Phalacrocorax
carbo )
Kolkrabe (Corvus
corvax )
Rabenkrähe(Corvus
corone )
Lachmöwe (Larus
ridibundus )
Silbermöwe (Larus
argentatus )
Schnatterente (Anas
strepera )
Tafelente (Aythya
ferina)
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)X X X RL NRW: R X
Midlich (Rosendahl) X
Kapfenburg (Aalen)
Pilsach W2, W3 X
Riepsdorf RLSH: 1, RL D: SGRL SH: 2, RLD: SG, EU
VRLX
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
BirdsGrünspecht (Picus
picus )
Schwarzspecht
(Dryocopus martius )
Grauspecht (Picus
canus )
Nachtigall (Luscinia
megarhynchos )
Gartenrotschwanz
(Phoenicurus
phoenicurus )
Kuckuck (Cuculus
canorus )
Raubwürger (Lanius
excubitor )
Kiebitz (Vanellus
vanellus )
Rebhuhn (Perdix
perdix )
Wachtel (Coturnix
cortunix )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)BArtSchV BArtSchV
RL NRW: 2/1(Eifel and
Siebengebirge)
RL NRW/E: 3/2, RL-D:
V
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3S
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3 RL NRW: 3S
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
ENGLISH:European Green
WoodpeckerBlack Woodpecker
Grey-headed
WoodpeckerNightingale Common Redstart Cuckoo
Northern Shrike or
Great Grey ShrikeNorthern Lapwing Partridge Quail
78
2341
2342
Birds
Hausrotschwanz
(Phoenicurus
ochruros )
Baumpieper (Anthus
trivialis )
Amsel (Turdus
merula )
Buchfink (Fringilla
coelebs )
Eichelhäher (Garrulus
glandarius )
Goldammer
(Emberiza citronella )
Heckenbraunelle
(Prunella miodularis )
Rotkehlchen
(Erithacus rubecula )
Ringeltaube
(Columba palumbus )
Singdrossel (Turdus
philomenos )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)
RL NRW/E: 3/3, RL-D:
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
BirdsWintergoldhähnchen
(Regulus regulus )
Zilpzalp
(Phylloscopus
collybita )
Bachstelze (Motacilla
alba )
Dorngrasmücke
(Sylvia communis )
Gartengrasmücke
(Sylvia borin )
Girlitz (Serinus
serinus )
Grünfink (Carduelis
chloris )
Waldlaubsänger
(Phylloscopus
sibilatrix )
Feldschwirl
(Locustella naevia )
Wasseramsel (Cinclus
cinclus )
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
79
2343
2344
2345
Birds
Zilpzalp
(Phylloscopus
collybita )
Bachstelze (Motacilla
alba )
Dorngrasmücke
(Sylvia communis )
Gartengrasmücke
(Sylvia borin )
Girlitz (Serinus
serinus )
Grünfink (Carduelis
chloris )
Waldlaubsänger
(Phylloscopus
sibilatrix )
Feldschwirl
(Locustella naevia )
Wasseramsel (Cinclus
cinclus )
Waldschnepfe
(Scolopax rusticola )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3
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
BirdsFeldsperling (Passer
montanus )
Schafstelze
(Motacilla flava )
Feldlerche (Alauda
arvensis )
Neuntöter (Lanius
collurio)
Kohlmeise (Parus
major )
Mauersegler (Apus
apus )
Saatkrähe (Corvus
frugilegus )
Bluthänfling
(Carduelis
cannabina )
Rauchschwalbe
(Hirundo rustica )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3S
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3 RL NRW: 3S
Midlich (Rosendahl)
Kapfenburg (Aalen)
Pilsach W2, W3 RL B: 3, RL D: V
Riepsdorf X RL SH: 2RL SH: 2, RL D SG, EU
VRLX
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
80
2346
2347
2348
2349
Mammals, Reptiles,
Amphibian, Insects
Großer Abendsegler
(Nyctalus noctula )
Kleinabendsegler
(Nyctalus leisleri )
Rauhautfledermaus
(Pipistrellus nathusii )
Zwergfledermaus
(Pipistrellus
pipistrellus )
Weißrandfledermaus
(Pipistrellus kuhlii )
Mückenfledermaus
(Pipistrellus
pygmaeus )
Breitflügelfledermaus
(Eptesicus serotinus )
Nordfledemaus
(Eptesicus nilssonii )
Bechsteinfledermaus
(Myotis bechsteinii )
Großes Mausohr
Fledermaus (Myotis
myotis )
Wasserfledermaus
(Myotis daubentonii )
Fransenfledermaus
(Myotis nattereri )
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)
RL NRW: 1, RL D: V FFH-
RL: Annex IV
RL NRW: 1, FFH-RL:
Annex IV
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)
RL NRW: 1, RL D: V,
FFH-RL: IVRL NRW: V, FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: I, FFH-RL: IV FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: 2, FFH-RL: IV
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)
Midlich (Rosendahl)RL NRW: R/V, RL BRD:
V, FFH-RL: IVRL NRW: V, FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: R, FFH-RL: IV FFH-RL: IV RL NRW: 2, FFH-RL: IV
RL NRW: 2, RL BRD: V,
FFH-RL: II + IVRL NRW: G, FFH-RL: IV FFhH-RL: 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
ENGLISH: Common noctuleLeisler/Hairy armed
batNathusius's pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Kuhl's pipistrelle Mosquito bat Serotine bat Northern bat Bechstein's Bat
Greater Mouse-eared
batDaubenton's bat Natterer's bat
Mammals, Reptiles,
Amphibian, Insects
Bartfledermaus sp.
(Myotis brandtii / M.
mystacinus ).
Mopsfledermaus
(Barbastella
barbastellus )
Haselmaus
(Muscardinus
avellanarius )
Birkenmaus (Scista
betulina )
Wildkatze (Felis
silvestris )
Fischotter (Lutra
lutra )
Gelbbauchunke
(Bombina variegata )
Moorfrosches (Rana
arvalis )
Zauneidechse
(Lacerta agilis )
Schlingnatter
(Coronella austriaca )
Kammmolche
(Triturus cristatus )
Nachtkerzenschwärm
er (Proserpinus
proserpina)
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)FFH -RL Annex IV EUArtSchV
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)
Midlich (Rosendahl)RL NRW: 3/2, RL BRD:
V, FFH-RL: IV
Kapfenburg (Aalen)RL B-W: 1, RL D: 2, FFH-
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
ENGLISH: Whiskered bat sp. Barbastelle Dormouse Birch Mouse Wildcat Otter Yellow-bellied toad Moor Frog Fence/ Sand lizard Smooth snake Crested NewtEvening Primrose
Moth
81
FIGURE 7.4 Germany geographical map of all nine wind facility locations 2350
2351
82
TABLE 7.5 U.S. avoidance, minimization, & compensatory measures at each of the nine wind facilities 2352
2353
2354
2355
CasePre- & Post-
Construction Surveys
Monitoring,
Avoidance, Mgmt.
Plans
full-time biologists
&/or monitorsMicro-siting Attractiveness
WT Specifics:
Monopole
WT Specifics:
feathering & cut-
in speeds
WT Specifics:
buried cables
Construction: lighting
measures
Construction: speed
limits
Construction: WEAP
(Workers Envir.
Awareness Program)
Construction: seasonal Compensatory
Alta East X
X- Condor Monitoring
& Avoidance Plan,
Eagle Conservation
Plan, Avian & Bat
Protection Plan
X - Including Condor
Initial Response Team
X- no siting on
upwind sides of
ridgecrests
X- Carcass
removalX X X X X X
Beech Ridge X
X- away from
hibernacula,
reduced number of
WT
X X X X
X- w/in 2 yrs of ITP,
will complete offsite
conservation project
Buckeye X
X- away from known
roosting
trees/forested area
X X X X
Chokecherry & Sierra
MadreX
X- Avian & Bat
Protection Plans, Sage-
Grouse
X X X
Kaheawa Pastures X
X- single row WT
siting, near existing
power lines
X- limiting on-site
vegetationX X X X
X- construction of
release facility w/in 1
yr of ITP, $20,000
towards bat research
Monarch Warren Co.X - specific years for
fatality monitoring
X- grouping,
previously used
lands
X X X
Ocotillo Express XX- Bighorn Sheep
Monitoring Program,X
X- destroying
saltcaedar,
replacing with
native vegetation
X X X X X X- lambing season
$200K toward bighorn
sheep research, $500k
to Carrizo Marsh
restoration plan
Searchlight XX- Avian & Bat
Protection PlanX X X X
Tule X X- Weed Mgmt. plan XX- native
vegetationX X X X
83
TABLE 7.6 Germany avoidance, minimization, & compensatory (CEF) measures at each of the nine wind facilities 2356
2357
2358
2359
Micro-siting (Land
Optimization)
Construction: Seasonal
(each dependent on
migration, breeding,
nesting)
Construction: Tree
checking before tree
removal
Vegetation: avoiding
loss-leader effects
around stem base
(100m)
Vegetation: re-
cultivation, re-
vegetation after
disturbance
Vegetation:
seasonal mowing
Vegetation:
Hedges
Collision
Monitoring (with
possibility of turn-
off times)
Switch-off
periods
Food habitat
management for
raptors
WT Specifics:
markingWind Turbines: other Compensatory
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)X X X X- sealing gondola
X- construction of bat
boxes,
Bergkamp (Rosendahl)
X - 100m away from
Kiebitz (Lapwings)
breeding grounds, ag.
Fields
X X X- 1st two years
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)
X - 200m away from
Holtwicker lakeX X X X X
X- vegetation strips,
fallow lands outside
WP area
Midlich (Rosendahl)
X - 150m away from
Kiebitz (Lapwing)
breeding grounds,
300m away from
nature reserve
X X X X- 1st two years X
X- vegetation strips,
fallow lands outside
WP area
Kapfenburg (Aalen) X X X X- 1st two years
X- for
Wespenbussard
& bats, slow wind
days
X - painting violetX- construction of bird
boxes (Baufalken)
Pilsach W2, W3X- corn & wheat fields
(no tree removal0X
X - for Feldlerche
(Skyark)X X
X- nighttime
shutdown
X - red and white
markings on rotors
X- securing any gaps/
openings with mist-
netting
X- construction of bat
boxes, vegetation
strips, fallow lands
outside WP area
Riepsdorf
X- replacing old
turbine locations,
300m away from
Rohrweihe (Marsh
Harrier) nesting
grounds
X
X- if Rohrweihe
(Marsh Harrier)
are spotted in
vicinity
X - off-white color X- use existing roads
X- expand reed
vegetation away from
turbines
Unkel (Neuwied)
X - 1000m distance to
nearby breeding sites
(FFH areas), 3000m
from Schwarzstorch
breeding site and
open wet meadows
X X X
X- Luderplätzen
(hunting devices for
birds of prey)
X- buried cables,
dismantling catenary
masts
X- reforestation,
refurbishmernt of
environ., aid for
Gelbbauchunke
(Yellow-bellied toad)
Weßling (Starnberg) X X X XX- nighttime
shutdown
X- construction of bat
boxes, building of
recreational areas
84
TABLE 7.7 U.S. and Germany combination of all measures taken at all 18 wind facilities 2360
2361
Dark Grey: DE
measures
Pre- & Post-
Construction
Surveys
Micro-siting Attractiveness
Monitoring,
Avoidance, Mgmt.
Plans
full-time
biologists &/or
monitors
Construction:
lighting measures
Construction:
speed limits
Construction:
WEAP (Workers
Envir. Awareness
Program)
Construction:
seasonal
Construction:
Tree Checking
before tree
removal
WT Specifics:
Monopole
WT Specifics:
feathering & cut-
in speeds
WT Specifics:
marking
WT Specifics:
buried cables
Vegetation:
avoiding loss-
leader effect
around stem base
Vegetation:
seasonal mowing
Vegetation:
HedgesCompensatory
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen)Pre-construction X X X
X - sealing
gondola
X- construction of bat
boxes,
Bergkamp
(Rosendahl)Pre-construction
X - 100m away from
Kiebitz (Lapwings)
breeding grounds, ag.
Fields
X X X
Holtwicker Mark
(Rosendahl)Pre-construction
X - 200m away from
Holtwicker lake
X- food management
for raptorsX X X X
X- vegetation strips,
fallow lands outside WP
area
Midlich
(Rosendahl)Pre-construction
X - 150m away from
Kiebitz (Lapwing)
breeding grounds, 300m
away from nature reserve
X X X X X
X- vegetation strips,
fallow lands outside WP
area
Kapfenburg
(Aalen)Pre-construction X X X
X- for
Wespenbussard &
bats, slow wind
days
X - painting violet XX- construction of bird
boxes (Baufalken)
Pilsach W2, W3 Pre-constructionX- corn & wheat fields (no
tree removal0X X
X- nighttime
shutdownX
X- construction of bat
boxes, vegetation strips,
fallow lands outside WP
area
Riepsdorf Pre-construction
X- replacing old turbine
locations, 300m away
from Rohrweihe (Marsh
Harrier) nesting grounds
X- use existing
roads X X
X- if Rohrweihe
(Marsh Harrier)
are spotted in
vicinity
X - red and white
markings on rotors
X- expand reed
vegetation away from
turbines
Unkel (Neuwied) Pre-construction
X - 1000m distance to
nearby breeding sites
(FFH areas), 3000m from
Schwarzstorch breeding
site and open wet
meadows
X- Luderplätzen
(hunting devices for
birds of prey)
X
X- securing any
gaps/ openings
with mist-netting
X - off-white colorX - & dismantling
caternary mastsX X
X- reforestation,
refurbishmernt of
environ., aid for
Gelbbauchunke (Yellow-
bellied toad)
Weßling
(Starnberg)Pre-construction X X X X
X- nighttime
shutdown
X- construction of bat
boxes, building of
recreational areas
Alta East XX- no siting on upwind
sides of ridgecrestsX- Carcass removal
X- Condor
Monitoring &
Avoidance Plan,
Eagle
Conservation
Plan, Avian & Bat
Protection Plan
X - Including
Condor Initial
Response Team
X X X X X
Beech Ridge XX- away from hibernacula,
reduced number of WTX X X X
X- w/in 2 yrs of ITP, will
complete offsite
conservation project
Buckeye X
X- away from known
roosting trees/forested
area
X X X X
Chokecherry &
Sierra MadreX X X X
Kaheawa Pastures XX- single row WT siting,
near existing power lines
X- limiting on-site
vegetationX X X
X- construction of release
facility w/in 1 yr of ITP,
$20,000 towards bat
research
Monarch Warren
Co.
X - specific years
for fatality
monitoring
X- grouping, previously
used landsX X X
Ocotillo Express X
X- Bighorn Sheep
Monitoring
Program
X X X X X- lambing season X X
Searchlight XX- Avian & Bat
Protection PlanX X X X
Tule XX- native vegetation,
dust abatement
X- Weed Mgmt.
planX X X X
X- conservation plan 2:!
Ratio
85
FIGURE 7.9 U.S. EIA and EA Processes with relevant steps highlighted, Source: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012) 2362
2363