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