Jeff Koenings, Ph.D.
Director

Jerry Gutzwiler
Chairman
Washington Fish &
Wildlife Commission
 

Wind power and wildlife
A discussion of WDFW's guidelines
for tapping an alternative energy source
Posted September 2004

In August 2003, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued guidelines for siting, building and operating wind-power facilities in the Evergreen State - the first such guidelines ever produced by a state natural resource agency. Since then, those guidelines have become a model for a variety of other states and wildlife organizations seeking to balance the demand for alternative energy sources with their stewardship responsibilities for birds, other wildlife and their natural habitat.

In this interview, Greg Hueckel, Assistant Director for the WDFW Habitat Program, discusses the guidelines he helped develop in consultation with natural-resource scientists, the state's burgeoning wind-power industry, environmental organizations and a wide variety of other interested parties. The guidelines are posted on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/windpower/index.htm

Does WDFW support expansion of wind power facilities in Washington state?

Our responsibility, under state law, is to protect the fish and wildlife of Washington state. But we also recognize broader social values, and we try to accommodate them. In that sense, we support wind power like we support agriculture. We recognize that society needs food and energy, so it comes down to a question of trade-offs.

We recognize that wind power is a renewable resource. It's still in its infancy in this state, but hopefully it can help offset some of the impacts on fish and wildlife caused by our reliance on hydroelectricity in other types of energy production. But power comes at a cost to fish and wildlife, whether it is produced by a hydroelectric dam or by a wind-power facility. Our job is to find every possible way to minimize that cost to fish, wildlife and their natural habitat. When it comes to wind power, that's what these guidelines are all about.

What role does WDFW have in regulating wind-power facilities?

As with any energy project, whether it's a hydroelectric dam or a coal plant, the law provides WDFW an opportunity to comment on any wind-power project that may affect fish, wildlife or habitat in Washington state. Those seeking approval for a wind-power project have the option of doing so at the local level through county planning ordinances and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), or through the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC). Either way, the regulatory agency involved must afford WDFW an opportunity to comment on projects that affect fish and wildlife.

How many wind-power facilities are there in Washington?

Two facilities are in operation right now and permits have been issued for three more, counting expansion of existing projects. The largest facility currently operating in the state is the Stateline Wind Project, with about 240 turbines in Walla Walla County. The other project now operating is in Nine Mile Canyon near Kennewick in Benton County, which has 37 turbines.

What risks do wind-power facilities pose for wildlife?

The obvious risk is to birds and bats that fly into the turbines. That risk is considerably lower with newer facilities than with those built 10 or 20 years ago. Over the past 20 years, an estimated 20,000 bird fatalities have been attributed to the Altamont facility in northern California, the nation's first major wind-power facility. Fatality rates at the newer facilities are much lower. At the Stateline Project in Walla Walla County, for example, the average is between one to two birds per turbine each year.

People have learned a lot during that time about siting and designing projects in ways that minimize direct bird and bat fatalities. We know, for example, that a lot of small turbines spinning very fast pose a much bigger risk than a smaller number of large turbines turning at a slower speed. And, of course, we don't want to see any facility sited on a major flyway.

The other major concern besides turbine fatalities is the footprint of the facility on the landscape and its impact on the natural environment. The turbines are built on a solid concrete block, which can have a significant impact on wildlife habitat. Then there is the impact of the roads - whether permanent or built for construction access or laydown areas - and the trenching needed to run power lines and utilities. We have to look at all these things, not just how many birds are likely to fly into the turbines.

What prompted WDFW to develop guidelines for wind-power facilities?

Until the late 1990s, the energy industry didn't demonstrate any serious interest in developing a wind-power facility here in Washington. Then local jurisdictions started sending us wind-power applications, which led to SEPA reviews. Any time we start seeing a large number of applications in a certain area, we want to make sure we provide a consistent response.

That's the approach we take with the 5,000-plus Hydraulic Permit Applications we process every year, and wind-power projects are no different. As with hydraulics projects such as docks and bulkheads, we wanted to develop a set of guidelines for wind-power facilities that would establish common criteria for assessing these proposals. That's only fair, and it gives developers - and the environmental community - a clear idea of what our goals and standards are in this area. This way, everyone knows how the department will respond to any given proposal and can plan accordingly.

Were WDFW's guidelines modeled on other states' guidelines?

No. WDFW was the first fish and wildlife agency in the nation to develop specific guidelines for wind-power facilities. We did, however, draw on expertise from out of state, most predominantly the National Wind Coordinating Committee and West, Inc., a biological consulting firm based in Wyoming that had researched wind-power facilities in various states throughout the United States. They played an integral role in the development of the biological portion of our guidelines, as did the various WDFW habitat biologists who served on committees that helped put together our guidelines.

Which specific groups were involved?

We worked with several environmental groups, including various Audubon chapters, on the first draft of the guidelines. Then we worked with a larger group called the Renewable Northwest Project, which is a consortium of industry and environmental groups. As the name implies, the Renewable Northwest Project is made up of people looking for ways to provide renewable energy, and wind is certainly is one of them. The whole process took about two years.

The first section of the guidelines calls for resource surveys and studies to be completed by potential developers as part of their permit application. Who reviews those studies?

The bird and habitat studies recommended in the guidelines are reviewed by WDFW, along with other parties involved in the permitting process. If, for example, a study reveals the presence of species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will become involved.

We view those studies as a baseline for assessing a proposed project. If a developer can cite an existing study of a comparable geographical area that's scientifically valid, that may be acceptable. Our goal isn't to make companies jump through hoops unnecessarily. We're just looking for the baseline information we need to conduct a thorough assessment of the project.

The guidelines then go on to make a series of recommendations for actual construction of a wind-power facility. How did you arrive at those recommendations?

All of the recommendations are based on experience with facilities in other states and nations around the world. All are designed to reduce the likelihood that birds and bats will fly into the turbines, or to minimize the impact of wind-power facilities on the area habitat. For example, the guidelines discourage siting facilities in areas with high concentrations of birds or bats, and encourage the use of tubular towers so birds won't perch on them. Turbine construction that requires guy wires is discouraged for the same reason. Basically, the guidelines incorporate the lessons learned about constructing wind-power facilities over the past 20 years and apply them here in Washington.

Initially, there was discussion of assessing a mitigation fee for each bird or bat killed in the turbines, but we ultimately rejected that idea. We decided it made more sense to encourage developers to invest in ongoing monitoring efforts and design improvements that make their facilities safer for wildlife than to collect mitigation fees. You can't revive a dead bird, but you can minimize additional fatalities through technological improvements.

But the guidelines do prescribe mitigation measures for environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of wind-power facilities, right?

Yes, the guidelines outline measures consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's overall mitigation policy, which has a goal of no net loss of habitat function for any type of project under our jurisdiction or review. That's our goal for hydroelectric dams, bulkheads, highway projects or anything else.

The mitigation guidelines for wind-power facilities reflect the relative values of various types of habitat to birds and other wildlife in our state. For example, if a developer proposes building a facility in grassland habitat, the guidelines call for one acre of mitigation for every acre permanently impacted by the facility. Shrub-steppe, on the other hand, has a higher value to wildlife in our state, so the recommended level of mitigation is at least two acres for every acre affected.

Note that the guidelines also include mitigation values for temporary impacts, including those caused by temporary construction roads and trenching for underground cables. While those impacts are temporary, they do have a real effect on wildlife habitat. So, for projects proposed in shrub-steppe areas, the guidelines call for half an acre of mitigation for every acre of habitat temporarily affected by construction activities. That comes on top of any mitigation needed for permanent impacts.

But no mitigation is recommended for projects on agricultural lands, right?

That's right. We looked at that for a long time, because croplands do provide some value for birds and other wildlife. But ultimately we weren't going to require mitigation for impacts to agricultural lands, because we really wanted to provide an incentive for the wind-power industry to look at developed lands first, rather than disturb undeveloped areas. The native shrub-steppe and grasslands of Eastern Washington are disappearing at a rapid rate, and we're trying to hold on to what we've got left and restore what we can.

That's an important point, by the way: When we talk about mitigation, we're not just talking about a developer buying some land and preserving it from future development. We're talking about restoring and enhancing that land as wildlife habitat. We want to make sure that the habitat values of that land are at least comparable to what has been lost.

What about the alternative mitigation program discussed in the guidelines?

The basic concept is that developers can pay into a "mitigation bank" for restoration of lands purchased by WDFW rather than buying and restoring lands in the vicinity of their proposed wind-power project. The advantage of this approach, in terms of wildlife habitat, is that it will allow us to restore large tracts of high-value habitat rather than fragmenting restoration efforts.

This is a pilot program, but it's not a new concept. The department has employed this approach in other areas - most recently on a state highway project in Pierce County. As noted in the guidelines, fees generated through the program would be used to restore lands in the same ecological region as the project that generated them.

So, once a wind-power facility is built, what compels the owner to follow through with mitigation and other elements of the guidelines?

Remember that the guidelines are just that - guidelines. The actual terms of building and operating a wind-power facility are contained in the permits granted by a regulatory agency, whether it's the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council or a local county permit. Our goal is to ensure that those permits reflect the basic precepts contained in the guidelines. Then, if a developer violates the terms of the permit, they could be closed down.

WDFW also has an oversight role in the construction and operation of a facility. Under the guidelines, prospective developers are encouraged to set up a technical advisory committee to oversee construction and monitor the performance of a project once it's built. WDFW plays an active role on those committees, along with the developer's consultants, environmental groups, landowners and other members.