Scenarios for Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts from Wind Energy Development

Transcription

1 Scenarios for Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts from Wind Energy Development Adam Davis, Solano Partners, Inc

2 Background Introduction SPI does environmental economics and conservation finance Mitigation and conservation banking, environmental investment and Ecosystem Marketplace Building on key points from previous webinar Wilkinson, ELI Johnson-Hughes, USFWS Hueckel, WA DFW

3 Mitigation experience CWA 404 ESA Sec. 7 & 10 SOX/NOX and CO2 Water quality (TMDL) Other Forest banking, grassland banking Agland banking Tradable development rights

4 Key learning Mitigation hierarchy: Avoid, Minimize, Compensate Mitigation issues: In-kind v out-of-kind Service area (geographic distance from impact site) Preservation v restoration Unit of measure (acres, linear feet, other?)

5 More difficult issues Formally regulated v unregulated impacts Direct v indirect impacts Immediate v cumulative impacts Type of impacts Habitat fragmentation v strikes Construction v ongoing operation And: How much avoidance is enough avoidance?

6 Principles Mitigation can t work in every situation Compensatory mitigation cost provides incentive for avoidance Quantitative assessment of impacts and mitigation sites provides a basis for fairness

7 Building Blocks Guidance on avoidance and minimization in site design and operation USFWS FACA (draft) recommendations Maps of sensitive habitat overlain with wind resource potential Western Governor s Association AWWI mapping project Kansas and Oklahoma statewide efforts

8 Building Blocks (2) Clear direction on priority habitat ie Washington State guidance Oregon Columbia Plateau Guidelines 6 categories of habitat Framework for biodiversity offsets The Nature Conservancy

9 Building Blocks (3) Detailed mitigation approaches for impacts to habitat of specific species Oklahoma Lesser Prairie Chicken initiative OK DFW and USFWS OK Field Office Comprehensive project-based mitigation examples Horizon Wind in Kansas Oklahoma Gas and Electric in Oklahoma

10 AWWI Mitigation Report AWWI Board comprised of equal NGO and Industry representation Membership open to both NGO and industry Commissioned Solano Partners Inc. to produce a detailed report on existing compensatory mitigation Situations where compensatory mitigation is allowed by law and overview of common goals/standards Analysis of extent of use within wind industry and resultant findings Discussion of the economics of compensatory mitigation 49 individuals from industry, NGO s and Agencies participated in focus groups and interviews For more info on this report, contact: Stu Webster, Vice President, Corporate Relations and Program Development, AWWI, swebster@awwi.org

11 Summary of Current Approach Spectrum from uniform to case by case approach, but vast majority of wind projects under the latter. Guidance in WA, OR and OK that provides levels of required compensatory mitigation based on habitat value classification Experimentation

12 Three Approaches Species-specific approaches Prescribed levels of compensation corresponding to tiered classifications of habitat value Functional assessment based measure of impact and mitigation sites

13 Species-specific: Unlisted species of concern Oklahoma Lesser Prairie Chicken OK Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy divides state in 8 categories Each mapping unit compared to criteria that address habitat requirements 13-16% of state has Category 3 and no significant impact to LEPC Habitat Conservation Fund calculates fee option based on ranking of impact and mix of land purchase, easement purchase and management contracts

14 Species-specific: Conservation Banking Analogous to wetland banking under 404 Permanent easement required Financial assurance required Ecological success criteria required In advance of any impact In return, clear credits (based on acres) that can provide clear transfer of legal liability from project to bank

15 Prescribed ratios Quick recap of Washington State guidance Class 1 individual consultation Class 2 2:1 Class 3 1:1 Class 4 no mitigation required Incentive for already disturbed lands Does include in lieu fee option 8 of 9 wind projects in WA have chosen to utilize guidelines

16 Functional Assessment A subset of the great range of assessment and accounting tools Designed to measure both impacts and benefits Reasonably efficient in the field Provide a clear metric Measure change from a baseline (before and after) Quality, quantity, distribution and concentration Field data and look-up tables for scores of each function

17 Functional Assessment (2) Balance between adequate sensitivity and too much complexity What is actually present objective measures that fall into ranges provide score Baseline and measured change includes: Physical conditions at site Location of site in landscape Same unit of measure for both impact site and required mitigation site Often at a ratio

18 Strengths and Weaknesses Species-specific Limited focus = better science, less application Prescribed ratios Relatively simple, relatively arbitrary Functional assessment The more data intensive, more accurate reflection of actual impact and benefit

19 Conclusions Fundamental and simple principles within the complexity: Clear requirements for compensatory mitigation provide incentive for avoidance Clear requirements for compensatory mitigation benefit wildlife Clear requirements for compensatory mitigation provide predictability for project finance

20 Contact Solano Partners, Inc.