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

Wind energy and species
protection in Germany and the
U.S.
M.Sc. Victoria Gartman
IAIA 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
•
•
•
•
Germany (EU)
The U.S.
Guidelines
for WE
BLM, USFWS, USFS,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)
• EU’s EIA Directive (amend. 2009)
NGOs
Bald & Gold
Eagle
German
stateProtection
guidelines Act • EU Habitats Directive (1992)
(1940)
▫ Annexes II, IV
Species Protection
Instruments
& Measures
National
Environmental
▫ Article 12: FCS, CEF measures
EU’s
Annex II, IV Policy
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP)
Act (1969/70)
Germany’s BNatSchG
•Biological
EU BirdsOpinion
Directive
(1979 amend. 2009)
= ITP
United
States’ ESA
• EA, EIS,
FONSI
▫ Natura 2000(ASP) (endangered
Artenschutzprüfung
EndangeredITP
Species Act (1973)
• Germany
EIA Act (UVPG) (1990)
species
impact assessment)
of area/region
•Review
BNatSchG
(1976 revised 2009)
▫ Section 7, 9, 10
▫ Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Continued Ecological Functionality
• §15, 31-36, 44-45
Biological Opinion (BO) ≈ Incidental
(CEF) ▫ Artenschutzprüfung (ASP)
Take Permits (ITP)
 Federal & NGO guidelines
offsetguidelines
impacts within
Measures
GermantoState
ASP
Avoidance and Minimization
Within HCP and ASP
4
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
Eurasian Kestrel. Photo by: Austin Teague
5
Materials & Methods –Study Area/Cases
Wind Facility
Alta East Wind Energy Project (CA)
Windpark Locations
Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project
Himmelsleiter
(Aachen, NRW)
(WV)
Buckeye Wind
Power Project (OH)
Bergkamp (Rosendahl,
NRW)
Chokecherry & Sierra Madre Wind
Holtwicker Mark (Rosendahl,
Energy Project (WY)
NRW)
Kaheawa Pastures Wind Energy
Midlich (Rosendahl, NRW)
Generation Facility (HI)
Monarch
Warren County Wind
Kapfenburg (Aalen,
Bayern)
Turbine Project (IL)
Pilsach W2, W3 (Bayern)
Ocotillo Express Wind Project (CA)
Riepsdorf (SH)
Searchlight Wind Energy Project
(NV)
Unkel (Neuwied, NRW)
Tule Wind Project (CA)
Weßling (Starnberg, Bayern)
6
Results
Measures
The U.S.
Micro-Siting
Approximate
U.S.
Wind facilities
(land
Roosting areas, hibernacula, linear, small
capacity & area
optimization
grouping of WT
1,153
Maximum 3,025.2
) wind turbines at
nine facilities
MW,
Wind
Number of WT,
monopoles,
lighting
284,677
acres (115,204
Turbine
measures
ha)
Logistics
Constructio
n
Seasonal, speed limits, WEAP, cables
Germany
Breeding/ foraging areas,
Legal
Take at WF
nesting, FFH, agricultural
fields, singular
6 bird species, 3 bat
species, 1 mammal
Replacement
of old WT, few
species 1monopoles,
reptile
turbines,
species,painting,
1 insectgaps
species
Seasonal, tree checking,
existing roads, cables
Approximate
Germany windparks
Pre- & Post- Monitoring, Biological
Surveying
capacity & area
Identified
at WP
Pre-construction,
monitoring,
turn-off
locations
Up to 42 wind turbines Unknown in capacities,
Carcass
limiting
on-site
(no definite number)
at removal,
unknown
in land
area
Attractivene
vegetation, native vegetation, dust
ssnine locations
79 bird species, 16 bat
species,
2 mammalfor
Food management
species,
5 amphibian
&
raptors,
Luderplätzen
reptile species, 1 insect
Vegetation:
speciesSeasonal
Monitors (Biologists), “Response Team”
abatement
Additional
Measures
Plans, Programs: Condor Monitoring
& Avoidance Plan, Eagle Conservation
Plan, Bighorn Sheep Monitoring
Program, Avian & Bat Protection Plan
periods
mowing, hedges, “foodpoor” area, re-vegetation,
re-cultivation, fallow lands 7
Results, Discussion
U.S. Compensation
Germany CEF
▫ Strong federal
(and international)
laws pertaining
Beech Ridge:
Himmelsleiter:
to species protection
Complete an offsite
Bat boxes
st
conservation project within 1
Holtwicker Mark:
▫ Little regulation
for
wind
facilities
two years of receiving ITP
Veg. strips, fallow lands
 Guidelines, land development plans
▫ Cases
Kaheawa:
Construct a release facility,
 Detail, documentation
$200,000 hoary bat research
▫ Illegal/legal take
 U.S. IncidentalOcotillo:
Take Permit
$200,000 Bighorn sheep
 Germany / EU CEF measures
▫ Availability
research, $500,000 Carrizo
Marsh restoration
 Land – energy distribution
 Public information
Midlich:
Veg. strips, fallow lands
Kapfenburg:
Bird boxes (Baumfalken)
Pilsach W2, W3:
Bat boxes, fallow lands
outside windpark
Riepsdorf:
Expand reed vegetation
Unkel:
Reforest. of damaged envir.
Aid for Gelbbauchunke
Weßling:
Bat boxes
Recreational areas
8
9
Future researchHow does this impact YOU?
▫ Are current measures
working?
 Large collaboration, data
collection over time
▫ What measures can be transAtlantic?
 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
▫ Recommendations
 “Development by Design”
 Strategies to optimize low-impact
development
▫ Current Research
 Transdisciplinarity
 Optimize ways to implement
science into practice
10