Wind and Wildlife: Guidance and Regulations From Neighboring States

1
Wind and WildlifeGuidance and RegulationsFrom
Neighboring States
Delaware Maryland New Jersey New
York Ohio West Virginia
Avatar Environmental, LLC 107 South Church
Street West Chester, PA 19382 Presentation by Tod
DeLong and Eva Snyder
2
Delaware

• Wind farm interests Delaware Bay and Atlantic
  Ocean
• Land-based wind farms were explored but dropped
  from further consideration
• No policies, regulations, or guidelines for wind
  energy development
• Would like to develop guidelines in the future

3
Delaware

• Off-shore permits issued by US Army Corps of
  Engineers
• DNREC can get involved in the approval process in
  issuing statement of consistency with state and
  federal policies
• Contact Karen Bennett, DNREC [phone]
  Karen.Bennett_at_state.De.Us

4
Maryland

• Permit to construct a power plant is a
  Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
  (CPCN)
• CPCN is issued by the Public Service Commission
• Maryland is proposing changes to state
  regulations concerning applications for a CPCN
  for Wind-Powered Electric Generating Facilities
• Regulations are in the process of approval
• (www.psc.state.md.us under administrative
  docket, wind energy regulations are RM24
  docket)

5
Maryland

• Proposed regulations
• Include recommendations by the Technical Advisory
  Group (TAG) on avian and bat issues
• Require an evaluation of the impact of avian
  species from fragmentation and loss of forest and
  other affected habitat (Renewable Energy
  Portfolio legislation)
• Restrict discovery of site-specific locations of
  endangered and threatened species (Maryland
  Public Information Act)

6
Maryland

• Siting Guidelines to Mitigate Avian and Bat Risks
  from Windpower Projects, Final Recommendations of
  the Wind Energy Technical Advisory Group (June
  2006)
  (available at
  www.psc.state.md.us under RM24 docket)
• Standards that will avoid or minimize impacts on
  birds and bats from construction and operation of
  wind facilities
• A tiered system of standards that vary with size
  of the facility

7
Maryland

• Tag Recommendations (Cont.)
• Assessments of avian and bat populations before
  issuance of permit
• 1 year pre-construction monitoring of birds/bats
• Assessment of potential bat habitat
• Phase I avian risk assessment
• Breeding bird survey
• Evaluation of rare, threatened, and endangered
  species

8
Maryland

• TAG recommendations (Cont.)
• Additional monitoring studies of avian and bat
  populations and behavior during and after
  construction of facility
• Establishment of peer review group external to
  state agencies to assess monitoring plans and
  data
• Three year post-construction study of bird and
  bat mortality rates
• Any additional research-related studies
  identified by the State are not the
  responsibility of the applicant

9
Maryland

• TAG recommendations (Cont.)
• Mitigation appropriate to address any impact on
  avian and bat populations above a threshold level
• Efforts to avoid or minimize impacts should be
  made
• Actions in each mitigation plan should be graded
  to reflect level of observed impact and
  probability of successful mitigation
• Plan should define and bound operation
  limitations or costs of mitigation action

10
Maryland

• Mitigation (Cont.)
• May involve on- or off-site activity
• Nesting/maternity areas disturbed in construction
  should be reestablished as feasible
• Mitigation plans may be identified during both
  the licensing and operational phases of the
  project
• Contact Michael Dean, Maryland Public Service
  Commission [phone] mdean_at_psc.state.md.us

11
New Jersey

• Primary wind farm interests Atlantic Ocean and
  coastal areas
• Permitting of new energy production facilities in
  coastal areas
• Board of Public Utilities license
• NJDEP coastal zone permit
• US Army Corps of Engineers - 3 miles off-shore
  (with state as part of review process)

12
New Jersey

• No regulations or guidance for wind energy
  development
• NJ Audubon Society calling for regulatory
  agencies to adopt clear and uniform policies to
  assess impacts to natural resources from wind
  facilities
• Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Turbine
  Facilities in Coastal Waters report submitted
  to Governor Jon Corzine (April 2006)
• http//www.njwindpanel.org/docs/finalwindpanel
  report.pdf

13
New Jersey

• Blue Ribbon Panel (Cont.)
• Contains section on Risk Evaluation and
  Assessment for Living Natural Resources
• Outlines methods to evaluate and assess risk to
  birds, marine mammals, and marine turtles
• Suitability Index determined for each species
• Used to compare ecological impacts for several
  sites
• Uncertain whether recommendations will be adopted
  as rules, guidance, or whether modifications will
  be made
• Contacts Kevin Hassell, NJDEP [phone]
• Eric Stiles, New Jersey Audubon Society
  [phone] eric.stiles_at_njaudubon.org

14
New York

• Local governments have the power in wind facility
  siting, not the state
• State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
• Requires an Environmental Impact Statement if
  Positive Declaration is made (projects that may
  result in a significant adverse impact)
• Does not require an Environmental Impact
  Statement if Negative Declaration is made

15
New York

• SEQRA (Cont.)
• Process is outlined in The SEQR Cookbook, a
  Step-by-Step Discussion of the SEQR Process
  (2004)
• http//www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/seqr/cookbo
  ok1.PDF

16
New York

• Local governments defer to the state on issues of
  wind and wildlife
• NYSDEC Draft Guidance New York State
  Department of Environmental Conservation
  Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at
  Commercial Wind Energy Projects (work in
  progress)
• Contacts Jack Nasca, NYSDEC [phone]
  janasca_at_gw.dec.state.ny.us and Brianna Gary,
  NYSDEC [phone] bmgary_at_gw.dec.state.ny.us

17
Ohio

• Wind power developments under 50 MW are
  unregulated (other than local zoning etc.) and
  compliance with guidance is voluntary.
• Wind power developments at or above 50 MW are
  regulated by the Ohio Power Siting Board, which
  requires coordination with Ohio Department of
  Natural Resources (ODNR) and US Fish and Wildlife
  Service (FWS)
• Ohio Siting Board Guidance Document Siting New
  Energy Infrastructure in Ohio (February 2005)
  www.puco.ohio.gov/emplibrary/files/mediaOPSB/OhioS
  itingManual.pdf

18
Ohio

• ODNR Draft Guidelines Assessing the Impacts of
  Wind Power Development on Ohios Wildlife
• Information Review
• Habitat Mapping
• Raptor Nest Surveys
• General Avian Use Surveys (3 seasons in concern
  zones and 1 season elsewhere)
• Surveys of Threatened, Endangered, and Other
  Sensitive Species

19
Ohio

• ODNR has identified Avian Concern Zones
• Three-mile buffer zone along the Lake Erie Coast
• Five-mile buffer on existing bald eagle nests
• One-mile buffer on major Ohio rivers
• Open waters of Lake Erie
• ODNR has no regulatory authority in siting wind
  facilities, unless the property is along Lake
  Erie shoreline and would require a submerged
  lands lease
• ODNR does have regulatory authority to address
  bird kills once wind turbines are in place

20
Ohio

• Siting wind turbines in Lake Erie
• Impacts to US waters (including Great Lakes) are
  regulated by US Army Corps of Engineers
• Triggers review under National Environmental
  Policy Act (NEPA)
• Process outlined in the following paper Federal
  and State Agencies and Applicable Regulations
  Relative to Offshore Wind Turbine Siting in the
  Great Lakes (Megan Seymour, FWS, December 2006)

21
Ohio

• Ohio Wind Working Group
• Comprised of agencies, local governments,
  environmental groups, and industry
• Environmental committee has mapped areas of
  concern relative to birds and bats
• 5-mile buffer around Federally-listed avian
  species
• Audubon Important Bird Areas
• 1 mile buffer around major river corridors
• 3-mile buffer along Lake Erie shoreline.
• www.fws.gov/midwest/eco_serv/wind/wind_maps/OHWi
  ldlifeMap10-06.pdf

22
Ohio Wildlife Data Map
KEY Blue5-mile buffer around Federally-listed
avian species Green OutlineAudubon Ohio
Important Bird Areas Pink1 mile buffer around
major river corridors Aqua3-mile buffer along
Lake Erie shoreline Source US FWS, Oct. 2006
23
Ohio

• Ohio Wind Working Group (Cont.)
• Additional studies are strongly recommended prior
  to wind development in these concern areas
• Bird use studies
• Risk assessments
• On-site habitat delineations
• Implementation of bird conservation measures
• Post-construction studies

24
Ohio

• Ohio Wind Working Group (Cont.)
• If significant post-construction bird kills are
  documented, remedial actions may be recommended
  and enforcement action could be taken by state or
  Federal agencies
• For monitoring protocols, FWS recommends
  following the FWS National guidance
• Contacts Megan Seymour, FWS [phone]
  ext.16 Megan_Seymour_at_fws.gov and Mindy Bankey,
  ODNR Mindy.Bankey_at_dnr.state.oh.us

25
West Virginia

• Permit is issued by the Public Service Commission
• West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR)
  and FWS can get involved in the approval process
• DNR does not have regulations or guidance for
  wind energy facilities
• DNR would like to develop guidance over the next
  12 months
• Contact Roger Anderson, West Virginia DNR (304)
  637-0245 ext.2002 rogeranderson_at_wvdnr.gov

26
Thats all folks