III. Wind Energy Guidelines: Fish and Wildlife Service
Before any wind energy project can be developed in an area, its development must agree with the guidelines set forth by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service has provided a set of federally regulated policies that are intended to minimize the impacts on any species in the area. Such regulations borrow policies from a variety of similar federal organizations, and laws.
The language of the guidelines is mostly general, as they are meant to be applied in a variety of different circumstances and cover a variety of different scenarios. In addition, the guidelines are meant to incorporate considerations for all fish, wildlife, and habitats. This requires the guidelines to be flexible. Furthermore, the guidelines acknowledge that future revisions and adaptations will have to be made for unique circumstances. They also admit that not all circumstances and scenarios can be addressed in the published guidelines.
These regulations are especially important in protecting the integrity of any threatened and endangered species. Not only are these guidelines intended to protect the individual fish and wildlife species, they are also used to protect habitat for the species as well. After all protecting the health of a habitat is just as important as protecting the species themselves. How a company chooses to develop its project will have to conform to these regulations. When the guidelines are unclear on how to address specific issues, the company or organization in charge of the operation is responsible assessing an action’s impact. The organization is charged with what is known as the “burden of proof”, which requires sufficient evidence to prove that an action will not create significant impacts to the species and/or environment.
The document we used to research such guidelines is titled the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines”, and was published with the work of the Wind Turbines Advisory Committee. The Fish and Wildlife Service established the committee in March 2007. The guidelines follow a tiered organization, with each tier addressing a particular issue concerning the risks to fish and wildlife. Risks are defined as being both (1) direct and indirect impacts to fish, wildlife and habitat, and (2) the extent to which these impacts will occur. These risks are complicated by differing species and habitat composition, the technology used in the wind project, weather conditions, and a variety of other factors.
Below is a paraphrased list of the risk tiers:
1. Tier 1 – Evaluation of the landscape in where the proposed project is to be developed. These evaluations are based on the overall sensitivity of the area.
2. Tier 2 – A general outline of the site(s) in broad characterizations.
3. Tier 3 – The pre-construction assessments, which would include any before and after scenarios and/or impacts. Projected impacts on
4. Tier 4 – Post-construction assessments of any manifest impacts. Any direct influences that the wind project had on mortality rates are addressed in this tier.
5. Tier 5 – Any further research that can help mitigate the impacts of the wind project. This tier is integral to preserving the Service’s goal of avoiding impacts. Results from this research may require specific actions on part of the developer to minimize or eradicate specific impacts.
Special considerations for projected mortality rates are outlined within Tier 3. Impacts on mortality rates are described as Low, Moderate, and High. These impacts include those for both individual bat and bird species. If the impacts are expected to be low, two years of monitoring and assessment is required to verify the impacts. For moderate impacts, there is a three-year requirement for monitoring. Finally, the high impacts require a minimum of five years of observation. Once these requirements are met, the observations can be used to determine whether or not the wind turbines will produce an increase in mortality rates. If it is shown that impacts will in fact cause an increase in mortality rates, continued research is required, as well as the implementation of any adaptive technologies that will decrease fatalities. In addition, increased involvement and cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to ensure the avoidance of impacts.
Tier 4 focuses its attention on the post-construction impacts that are felt by species and their respective habitats. Direct impacts on habitats can be categorized as follows: habitat loss, modification and fragmentation, barriers, displacement, and noise. This includes considering the overall size of the project, amount of turbines, placement of turbines and any access roads.
Tier 5 is a continuous process, which allows the private company, as well as federal and independent organizations to continue evaluating impacts and ways to mitigate them.
Chapter 6 describes the mitigation process involved in wind power projects. Mitigation is defined by the Service as “avoiding and minimizing adverse effects, and when appropriate, compensating for adverse effects” (Fish and Wildlife, 62). Most of these mitigation methods are outlined in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mitigation Policy. The first goal is to avoid effects, because compensation implies that impacts have already manifested themselves, and that there is a need for change. Furthermore, compensation is more often appropriate for impacts on habitat than impacts on wildlife. Compensation for wildlife is often sought after when wildlife loss is significant. In addition, if compensation is required, it is often far more expensive than early avoidance methods. However it must be noted that not all mitigation policies can be agreed upon during the pre-construction stage. The inability to concretely forecast all the possible outcomes means that some impacts can only be observed in the post-construction stage.
The Service emphasizes that early cooperation with the Service is integral in avoidance tactics. Early avoidance methods involve cooperation with the development company, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as any other relevant agencies. Factors such as species of special concern and the overall stability of the habitat are addressed during these early discussions. The necessity for avoidance is often reinforced by any conservation plans, regulations, and/or permits that are associated with that area. Different organizations and policies will require considerations for differing species and/or habitat. For instance, the Fish and Wildlife Service may call for avoidance measure for a specific species, while another local agency may argue for another species, and vice versa. This calls for a total assessment of concerns and the ways that a developer can appease those concerns.
A number of mitigation methods are described in the Guidelines report, and a few a listed below:
1. Reduction of cut-in speeds (the speed at which the blades spin) have shown to reduce fatalities.
2. Blade idling decreases the overall risk factor by decreasing the amount of time the blades spend revolving.
3. Minimal lighting on turbines, due to the fact that many migrating birds are attracted to lights, especially during inclement weather.
4. Keeping turbines from cliffs where raptors are known to nest and soar.
5. Painting wind turbines alternate colors
6. Use of ultrasonic devices that deter bats through the use of broadcasted frequencies. Furthermore, devices referred to as “laser bird-alerting warning devices” are similar to those used at airports and show a promise of deterring birds.
For further information regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines, feel free to access the document at the following URL:
No comments:
Post a Comment