Wind energy and species protection in Germany and the U.S.

M.Sc. Victoria GartmanIAIA 2015

http://www.evwind.es/

Outline

• Introduction▫Why is this good to know?▫Policies & wind and the concerns

• Materials & Methods▫Steps taken!▫Study Area – Case studies

• Results▫Comparative analysis

Case studies Laws, regulations

• Future research – How does this impact YOU?

2

Intro – Why is this good to know? • 3 main questions

▫Mitigation hierarchy differences?▫Policy comparison (state, national,

international)?▫Trans-Atlantic measures?

• State of research• Elements of Focus

▫Regulatory measures ▫Wind facility logistics ▫Species of concern ▫Avoidance and minimization measures ▫U.S. Wind facilities & Germany windparks

3

Intro – Policy & Wind in U.S. & Germany

4

The U.S.

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

• Bald & Gold Eagle Protection Act (1940)

• National Environmental Policy Act (1969/70)• EA, EIS, FONSI

• Endangered Species Act (1973)▫ Section 7, 9, 10▫ Habitat Conservation Plan

(HCP), Biological Opinion (BO) ≈ Incidental Take Permits (ITP)

Federal & NGO guidelines

Germany (EU)

• EU’s EIA Directive (amend. 2009)

• EU Habitats Directive (1992)▫ Annexes II, IV▫ Article 12: FCS, CEF measures

• EU Birds Directive (1979 amend. 2009)▫ Natura 2000

• Germany EIA Act (UVPG) (1990)

• BNatSchG (1976 revised 2009) • §15, 31-36, 44-45▫ Artenschutzprüfung (ASP)

German State guidelines

Guidelines for WEBLM, USFWS, USFS, NGOsGerman state guidelines

Species ProtectionEU’s Annex II, IVGermany’s BNatSchGUnited States’ ESA

ITP

Instruments & MeasuresHabitat Conservation Plans (HCP)

Biological Opinion = ITPArtenschutzprüfung (ASP) (endangered species impact assessment)

Review of area/regionContinued Ecological Functionality (CEF)

Measures to offset impacts within ASP

Avoidance and MinimizationWithin HCP and ASP

Materials & Methods –Steps taken!• Explanatory and

Comparative Case Study Analysis (Yin 2009)▫ Explanation Building▫ Multiple-cases study▫ Comparative Analysis

• Criteria and Conditions▫ Literature Research▫ Onshore wind facilities▫ Federally and

internationally endangered species of birds, mammals, insects

5Eurasian Kestrel. Photo by: Austin Teague

Materials & Methods –Study Area/Cases

6

Wind Facility

Alta East Wind Energy Project (CA)

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project (WV)

Buckeye Wind Power Project (OH)

Chokecherry & Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project (WY)

Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy Generation Facility (HI)

Monarch Warren County Wind Turbine Project (IL)

Ocotillo Express Wind Project (CA)

Searchlight Wind Energy Project (NV)

Tule Wind Project (CA)

Windpark Locations

Himmelsleiter (Aachen, NRW)

Bergkamp (Rosendahl, NRW)

Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl, NRW)

Midlich (Rosendahl, NRW)

Kapfenburg (Aalen, Bayern)

Pilsach W2, W3 (Bayern)

Riepsdorf (SH)

Unkel (Neuwied, NRW)

Weßling (Starnberg, Bayern)

Results

7

U.S. Wind facilities Approximate capacity & area Legal Take at WF

1,153 wind turbines at

nine facilities

Maximum 3,025.2 MW,

284,677 acres (115,204 ha)

6 bird species, 3 bat species, 1 mammal

species 1 reptile species, 1 insect

species

Germany windparks Approximate capacity & area

Identified at WP locations

Up to 42 wind turbines (no definite

number) at nine locations

Unknown in capacities, unknown

in land area

79 bird species, 16 bat species, 2

mammal species, 5 amphibian & reptile

species, 1 insect species

Measures The U.S. Germany

Micro-Siting (land optimizatio

n)

Roosting areas, hibernacula, linear, small grouping of WT

Breeding/ foraging areas, nesting, FFH, agricultural fields,

singular

Wind Turbine Logistics

Number of WT, monopoles, lighting measures

Replacement of old WT, few turbines,

monopoles, painting, gaps

Construction

Seasonal, speed limits, WEAP, cables

Seasonal, tree checking, existing roads, cables

SurveyingPre- & Post- Monitoring, Biological Monitors (Biologists), “Response

Team”

Pre-construction, monitoring, turn-off

periods

Attractiveness

Carcass removal, limiting on-site vegetation, native vegetation, dust

abatement

Food management for raptors, Luderplätzen

Additional Measures

Plans, Programs: Condor Monitoring & Avoidance Plan,

Eagle Conservation Plan, Bighorn Sheep Monitoring Program, Avian

& Bat Protection Plan

Vegetation: Seasonal mowing, hedges, “food-

poor” area, re-vegetation, re-

cultivation, fallow lands

Results, Discussion▫Strong federal (and international) laws

pertaining to species protection ▫Little regulation for wind facilities

Guidelines, land development plans

▫Cases Detail, documentation

▫Illegal/legal take U.S. Incidental Take Permit Germany / EU CEF measures

▫Availability Land – energy distribution Public information

8

U.S. Compensation Germany CEF

Beech Ridge: Complete an offsite conservation project within 1st two years of receiving ITP

Kaheawa: Construct a release facility, $200,000 hoary bat research

Ocotillo: $200,000 Bighorn sheep research, $500,000 Carrizo Marsh restoration

Himmelsleiter: Bat boxesHoltwicker Mark: Veg. strips, fallow lands Midlich: Veg. strips, fallow landsKapfenburg: Bird boxes (Baumfalken) Pilsach W2, W3: Bat boxes, fallow lands outside windparkRiepsdorf: Expand reed vegetationUnkel: Reforest. of damaged envir. Aid for GelbbauchunkeWeßling: Bat boxes Recreational areas

Future research- How does this impact YOU?

▫ Are current measures working? Large collaboration, data

collection over time▫ What measures can be

trans-Atlantic? Small-scale approach v.

regulatory national approach

Continued tax-breaks, subsidies, incentives

▫ Can private lands be comparable? Would they even be

comparable at all?

▫ Would conclusions be different if Germany made similar information more available? Public information,

development process

9

▫ Recommendations “Development by Design” Strategies to optimize low-

impact development▫ Current Research

Transdisciplinarity Optimize ways to implement

science into practice

10

Thank you for your attention!