Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines
FAC & Sage Grouse Coalition
IDAHO Wind Working Group
Boise, Idaho April 1, 2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ridgeline started in 2000
Developed 65 MW Wolverine Creek Wind Farm E of Idaho Falls
Signed a power purchase agreement with Southern California Edison in April, awaiting Cal PUC approval, plan to build 90‐130 MW in 2010. 50% joint venture with BP
200 MW project South of Laramie –
likely next project to see construction
Now Ridgeline is wholly owned by Veolia Environmental
Headquartered in Seattle with Offices in Boise, Portland, Idaho Falls, Spokane,
FACA, NWCC, Sage Grouse Collaborative, Governor Otter’s Wind task Force, 2007 Governor’s Renewable Energy Award,
2
WIND SITE PROSPECTING CONCERNS
Post‐Altamont
Higher Scrutiny
Archaeological/Cultural
T&E, Candidate, Species of Interest
• Large Intact Habitat
• Pristine Sensitive Habitat
•
•
•
•
• Habitat for Species of Habitat Fragmentation Concern
Junction of I‐15 & 1‐86 in Pocatello
4
EASE OF PERMITTING and LIKELIHOOD OF OPPOSITION
Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee
Federal Caucus
Mr. David J. Stout Chairman, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Steve Lindenberg U.S. Department of Energy Dr. Robert Robel Kansas State University
State/Tribal Caucus
Ms. Kathy Boydston TX Parks & Wildlife Department
Mr. Scott Darling VT Fish & Wildlife Department
Chairman Karen Douglas CA Energy Commission
Mr. Greg Hueckel WA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Ms. Jeri Lawrence Blackfeet Nation
Mr. Mark Sinclair Clean Energy States Alliance
Mr. Keith Sexson Assn. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
NGO Caucus
Dr. Taber Allison Massachusetts Audubon
Dr. Ed Arnett Bat Conservation International
Mr. Mike Daulton National Audubon Society
Ms. Aimee Delach Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Robert Manes The Nature Conservancy, KS
Industry Caucus
Mr. Michael Azeka AES Wind Generation
Ms. René Braud Horizon Wind Energy
Mr. Andrew O. Linehan Iberdrola Renewables
Ms. Winifred Perkins NextEra Energy Resources
Mr. Steven Quarles Crowell & Moring LLP
Mr. Rich Rayhill Ridgeline Energy, LLC
Mr. Patrick D. Traylor Hogan & Hartson, LLP
6
Tiered Approach: Tier 1
Preliminary desktop evaluation or screening of potential sites
• Internal company process to:
– Conduct landscape‐level review
– Identify high risk/value habitats
• Especially for ESA T&E, candidates, species of concern
– Evaluate potential wildlife concerns
– Find as many red flags as possible
– No “boots on the ground”
7
Tiered Approach: Tier 2
• Analysis Overview:
– The tiered process directs the developer to:
• Avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts
• Mitigate unavoidable significant adverse impacts • Decision Overview:
– Risks are considered unacceptable: Abandon
– Risks are low: discontinue Tiered approach and proceed toward construction
– Risks are unknown: continue tiered process (either by continued analysis in present tier or in next tier)
8
Tiered Approach: Tier 3
Field studies to document site wildlife conditions and predict project impacts
• Quantitative, scientifically rigorous studies to:
– Use findings of prior Tiers to comprehensively Evaluate site for presence, use, seasonality, potential for impacts
– Design site to avoid or minimize impacts
– Evaluate need for post‐construction studies
– Provide pre‐construction component of Tier 5 studies 9
Tier 3, Continued
•
Analysis Overview:
– Who’s there? When? Why? In what numbers?
– Are they likely to be adversely impacted by a wind farm?
– If so, can adverse impacts be avoided? Minimized?
– If impacts can’t be avoided/minimized are they significant?
• ESA T&E or candidate; species of concern?
• Significant on population level? (even local?)
• Other?
– Can significant adverse impacts be Mitigated?
• Methods/Metrics
• AWWI
10
Complex analytical Model
11
Construction BMPs
Construction BMPS (Part D) inserted between Tier 3 and 4 because that’s when construction occurs 12
Tiered Approach: Tier 4
Post‐construction fatality studies
• Generally recommended for finding of “Due Care” regardless of Tiered analysis indications
• Estimation and study of:
– Species composition of fatalities
– Relationships of fatalities w/ site characteristics
– Comparison among facilities
– Comparison of actual & predicted fatalities
• Are corrective management or mitigation measures warranted?
13
Tiered Approach: Tier 5
Other post‐construction studies
• Direct and indirect effects
– Displacement due to habitat alteration, loss, and/or fragmentation
– Factors associated with effects
• Effectiveness of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
• Local population demographic effects
14
NWCC Wind/Wildlife Sage Grouse Committee
National Wind Coordinating Collaborative Sage Grouse Research Collaboration
STEERING COMMITTEE
¾
Industry
–
–
–
–
–
¾
State Agencies
–
–
–
–
¾
Dave Naugle, University of Montana
Jim SedingerUniversity of Nevada
Technical Monitor
–
•
Zachary Bowen, U.S. Geological Survey Robin Sell, Bureau of Land Management Christy Johnson‐Hughes, USFWS Scientific/Academic
–
–
¾
Kevin Doherty, Audubon Wyoming Joe Kiesecker, The Nature Conservancy
Federal Agencies
–
–
–
¾
John Emmerich, Wyoming Game & Fish
Scott Gardner, California Fish and Game Tom Hemker, Idaho Fish and Game
Holly Michael, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
NGOs
–
–
¾
Lin Alder, Wasatch Wind
Christina Calabrese, Horizon Wind Energy Matt Grant, Rocky Mountain Power
Nichole Hughes, RES Americas
Rich Rayhill, Ridgeline Energy, LLC
Karin Sinclair, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Facilitation Team
–
–
Abby Arnold, Kearns & West
Jennifer Bies, Kearns & West
Rich Rayhill, Vice President
Ridgeline Energy, LLC
720 W Idaho #36
Boise, ID 83702
(208) 841‐5037
rrayhill@rl‐en.com