1 September 13, 2010 Marla Rae Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 3406 Cherry Avenue, NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Dear Chair Rae and Members of the Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments regarding the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (Draft Plan Revision). The members of the Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) share the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) concern for the health of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat, and hope to work with the Department to enhance species and habitat protection. Although we support efforts to enhance species protection and habitat restoration, we cannot support the Draft Plan Revision. In our view, the Draft Plan Revision was developed without broad stakeholder participation, reflects an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Department’s mandate, and fails to balance the positive role renewable energy development can play for habitat protection. Adopting the Draft Plan Revision would, in our opinion, only increase tension among the stakeholders who care about wildlife and habitat protection, decreasing the likelihood affected communities would use the Draft Plan Revision to guide their land use decisions. Increasing the regulatory burden associated with sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (SGSH) without supplying new revenue sources to pay for the programs would also decrease the likelihood local, state, or federal agencies would be capable of adopting these guidelines. And the failure to create an environment conducive to responsibly sited renewable energy projects will make it more difficult for federal land managers to accomplish the mandate from both Congress and the President to build renewable energy facilities on federal land, thereby robbing rural communities of the chance to secure badly needed economic investments. In lieu of adopting the Draft Plan Revision, we respectfully ask the Commissioners to instruct ODFW senior officials to work collaboratively with all interested stakeholders to redraft the proposal. By seeking more balanced input and exploring other conservation strategies to achieve the State’s conservation goals, we believe the Agency will earn critical stakeholder support, especially from the communities most directly affected by the proposed Draft Plan Revision. Working directly with renewable energy companies to find ways to enable renewable energy projects in certain areas will not only contribute to the State’s efforts to diversify its renewable energy mix, it will also create new revenue streams that both local communities and RNP Members 3Degrees 3TIER American Wind Energy Assoc. Blattner Energy Bonneville Environmental Foundation BP Wind Energy Calpine Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies CH2M Hill Citizens' Utility Board Climate Solutions Clipper Windpower Columbia Energy Partners Columbia Gorge Community College David Evans & Associates Element Power Environment Oregon Environment Washington enXco, Inc. E.ON Climate & Renewables North America Eurus Energy America EverPower Gamesa Energy USA GE Energy Geothermal Resources Council Green Mountain Energy Horizon Wind Energy Iberdrola Renewables Jones Stevedoring Lane Powell PC Montana Environmental Information Center MontPIRG Natural Resources Defense Council NextEra Energy Resources Northwest Environmental Business Council NW Energy Coalition Northwest Environmental Advocates OSPIRG Port of Vancouver, USA Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. REC Silicon REpower RES America Developments Ridgeline Energy Solar Oregon SolarCity Stoel Rives, LLP SunPower Corporation Tanner Creek Energy Tonkon Torp LLP Vestas Americas Warm Springs Power & Water Enterprises Washington Environmental Council WashPIRG Western Resource Advocates Western Wind Power 917 SW Oak St, Suite 303 • Portland, OR 97205 phone: 503-223-4544 • fax: 503-223-4554 • www.RNP.org
16
Embed
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy ... · Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon ... SolarCity Stoel Rives, LLP
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
September 13, 2010
Marla Rae
Chair, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
3406 Cherry Avenue, NE
Salem, Oregon 97303
Dear Chair Rae and Members of the Commission,
Thank you for the opportunity to share our comments regarding the
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon
(Draft Plan Revision). The members of the Renewable Northwest Project
(RNP) share the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) concern
for the health of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat, and hope to work with
the Department to enhance species and habitat protection.
Although we support efforts to enhance species protection and habitat
restoration, we cannot support the Draft Plan Revision. In our view, the Draft
Plan Revision was developed without broad stakeholder participation, reflects
an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the Department’s mandate, and fails
to balance the positive role renewable energy development can play for habitat
protection.
Adopting the Draft Plan Revision would, in our opinion, only increase
tension among the stakeholders who care about wildlife and habitat protection,
decreasing the likelihood affected communities would use the Draft Plan
Revision to guide their land use decisions. Increasing the regulatory burden
associated with sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat (SGSH) without
supplying new revenue sources to pay for the programs would also decrease
the likelihood local, state, or federal agencies would be capable of adopting
these guidelines. And the failure to create an environment conducive to
responsibly sited renewable energy projects will make it more difficult for
federal land managers to accomplish the mandate from both Congress and the
President to build renewable energy facilities on federal land, thereby robbing
rural communities of the chance to secure badly needed economic investments.
In lieu of adopting the Draft Plan Revision, we respectfully ask the
Commissioners to instruct ODFW senior officials to work collaboratively with
all interested stakeholders to redraft the proposal. By seeking more balanced
input and exploring other conservation strategies to achieve the State’s
conservation goals, we believe the Agency will earn critical stakeholder
support, especially from the communities most directly affected by the
proposed Draft Plan Revision. Working directly with renewable energy
companies to find ways to enable renewable energy projects in certain areas
will not only contribute to the State’s efforts to diversify its renewable energy
mix, it will also create new revenue streams that both local communities and
RNP Members
3Degrees
3TIER
American Wind Energy Assoc.
Blattner Energy
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
BP Wind Energy
Calpine
Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies
Characteristics of Sagebrush Habitats and Limitations to Long-Term Conservation. Section III:
Ecology of Sagebrush: Chapter 11. In: Marti, C.D., ed. Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage-
Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats. A Release of a scientific monograph with permission of
the authors, the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the University of California Press. Edited by
Studies in Avian Biology, Boise, Idaho. 3 National Wildlife Federation, 2006. Fueling the Fire: Global Warming, Fossil Fuels and the Fish and
Wildlife of the American West. Report prepared by Patty Glick, Global Warming Specialist, National
Wildlife Federation. Page ii. http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/files/FuelingtheFire.pdf 4 Baker, W.L. 2009. Pre-Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems. Section III: Ecology
of sagebrush: Chapter 12. In: Marti, C.D., ed. Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A
Landscape Species and Its Habitats. A Release of a scientific monograph with permission of the
authors, the Cooper Ornithological Society, and the University of California Press. Edited by Studies in
Avian Biology, Boise, Idaho.
RNP Members
3Degrees
3TIER
American Wind Energy Assoc.
Blattner Energy
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
BP Wind Energy
Calpine
Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies
CH2M Hill
Citizens' Utility Board
Climate Solutions
Clipper Windpower
Columbia Energy Partners
Columbia Gorge Community College
David Evans & Associates
Element Power
Environment Oregon
Environment Washington
enXco, Inc.
E.ON Climate & Renewables North America
Eurus Energy America
EverPower
Gamesa Energy USA
GE Energy
Geothermal Resources Council
Green Mountain Energy
Horizon Wind Energy
Iberdrola Renewables
Jones Stevedoring
Lane Powell PC
Montana Environmental Information Center
MontPIRG
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextEra Energy Resources
Northwest Environmental Business Council
NW Energy Coalition
Northwest Environmental Advocates
OSPIRG
Port of Vancouver, USA
Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
REC Silicon
REpower
RES America Developments
Ridgeline Energy
Solar Oregon
SolarCity
Stoel Rives, LLP
SunPower Corporation
Tanner Creek Energy
Tonkon Torp LLP
Vestas Americas
Warm Springs Power & Water Enterprises
Washington Environmental Council
WashPIRG
Western Resource Advocates
Western Wind Power
2
and wetter springs, resulting in a reduction in the survival chances of owl
fledglings during nesting season.5
By leaving climate change out of its analysis of SGSB threats, the
ODFW eliminates the positive role renewable energy can play in providing
Oregon and the rest of the region with clean, reliable, energy. Omission of the
potential contribution renewable energy can play in SGSB protection also
makes it easier to propose land use plans that greatly restricts or eliminates
renewable energy development potential.
b. Possible Tension with Federal Mandates:
The failure to include climate change into its comprehensive SGSH
sends conflicting signals to federal land use managers. The Energy Act of
2005 and Presidential Executive Order 13514, and Department of Interior
Order Number 3295, all direct federal land management agencies to promote
the responsible development of renewable energy on federal land.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar emphasized this mandate in the
Agency’s press release announcing the sage-grouse “warranted but precluded”
determination when he said:
“We must find common sense ways of protecting, restoring, and
reconnecting the Western lands that are most important to the species’
survival while responsibly developing much-needed energy resources.
Voluntary conservation agreements, federal financial and technical
assistance and other partnership incentives can play a key role in this
effort.”6
By designating nearly three quarters of federal land in southeastern
Oregon category 1 or 2 habitat for sage-grouse, ODWF places the Bureau of
Land Management in a potentially awkward position of removing nearly all of
Oregon’s renewable energy development potential from the region.
Designation of federal land with state categories also raises questions
regarding the BLM’s compliance with National Environmental Protection Act
processes, especially when the federal agency defers to ODFW for land use
decisions.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) officials also argue
for the incorporation of climate change into their land use and wildlife
protection plans. According to their draft climate change strategy,
cooperation to address the threat to wildlife and habitat posed by climate
change is critical to any successful effort:
“The crisis of climate change is, in the final analysis, an unparalleled
opportunity to bring people together, nationally and internationally, to
solve a world problem, not through conflict but through collaboration
. . . Mission success in fish and wildlife conservation over the coming
decades will require unprecedented cooperation and partnership
5 http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/11326/1/EGlennDisseration2009.pdf. For more information
regarding sage grouse and climate change, see pages 7-9 in the attached literature review of sage grouse and renewable
energy, prepared for RNP by Greg Johnson 6 “Western Bird Found ‘Warranted but Precluded’ from Endangered Species Act Protection”, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, News
Release, March 5, 2010.!
3
among governments, private sector and non-government
organizations, and individual citizens.”7
2. Narrow interpretation of ODFW’s Wildlife Policy Increases the Chances for
Constituent Disagreement:
We support the ODFW’s attempt to propose SGSB strategy plan revisions
designed “to prevent serious depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the
optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the
citizens of this state.”8 However, by not factoring the other seven co-equal objectives
of the Oregon Wildlife Policy, in our view Department staff is proposing a
conservation plan without regard to the serious repercussions for landowners, the
communities in which they live, and the economic development opportunities they
need to sustain rural lifestyles. As we have seen in other parts of Oregon, responsible
development of renewable energy projects generates new revenue streams that help
landowners avoid parceling their property – or abandoning rural lifestyles.9
We respectfully ask the Commissioners to consider these co-equal goals, most
especially “to regulate wildlife populations and the public enjoyment of wildlife in a
manner that is compatible with primary uses of the lands and waters of the state,” and
“to make decisions that affect wildlife resources of the state for the benefit of the
wildlife resources and to make decisions that allow for the best social, economic, and
recreational utilization of wildlife resources by all user groups.”10
We would like to
see policy recommendations made that are both practical and effective, and we worry
a conservation plan that fails to consider its impact on communities will not be
successfully implemented.
3. Unbalanced input into the Draft Plan Revision Process:
ODFW staff told us that the Draft Plan Revisions contributors and editors
were selected based largely on the group responsible for developing the 2005 Oregon
Sage Grouse Conservation Plan. While we respect their contributions, in our view
the list leaves important perspectives out of SGSB protection plan development. The
failure to include a wider representation of interests in the Draft Plan Revision’s
drafting results in a number of serious flaws, including the following:
a. Mischaracterize Wind Energy Development:
While the Draft Plan Revision acknowledges “… there is a lack of
specific information about the effects of renewable energy development on
sage-grouse ecology,” the authors justify the development and implementation
of the “core area habitat and conservation” approach using studies of
subsurface mining activities. This analogy is inappropriate for a number of
reasons. First, there is no justification for extrapolating from studies of
subsurface mining activities to renewable energy development. As the
accompanying Google satellite images demonstrate, the footprint of an oil and
gas field is dramatically different from that of a wind farm.
7 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Rising to the Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.
September 21, 2009 Draft. Pages 6 and 17. http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCDraftStratPlan92209.pdf 8 Oregon Wildlife Policy, 496.012.
9 Renewable Energy & Economic Development: Real Examples from the Pacific Northwest. RNP Factsheet. August 2010.
Visit "##$%&&'''()*$(+),&-.#/-&0/1234#&1.4/-&$01-&56!78+*!9/:!;28#-"//#!<=>3,?@)/:($01 to download the factsheet. 10
Oregon Wildlife Policy, 496.012(5) and (7)
4
Gas field (left) and wind facility (right) near Evanston, WY.
Traffic, noise, and service requirements between wind and oil and gas
facilities are quite different. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s
report 20% Wind Energy by 2030, the land used for wind is very different
from coal mining or drilling for natural gas. The actual footprint for wind
development is immensely smaller (100,000-250,000 hectares of disturbed
land for wind, as opposed to 1,700,000 hectares permitted or covered and
about 425,000 hectares of land disturbed for coal mining). “An important
factor to note is that wind energy projects use the same land each year; coal
and uranium must be mined from successive areas, with total disturbed land
increasing each year.”11
Second, the Draft Plan Revision fails to report the
growing body of anecdotal evidence that suggests wind farms and sage-grouse
can co-exist. Groups of 5 and 8 individual sage-grouse were documented at
the Elkhorn wind farm in Oregon.12
Studies of prairie chicken leks in Kansas,
Minnesota, and sage-grouse leks in Wyoming show continued activity among
leks located from 0.38 to 0.85 miles from the nearest wind turbine.13
We are not arguing that scientists know enough about the relationship
between sage-grouse viability and renewable energy development; indeed,
there is a great deal more to learn. What we object to is the
mischaracterization of the current state of knowledge, and the apparent
unwillingness of the Draft Plan Revision authors to consider and report this
information. We would prefer a more thoughtful approach to learning about
the relationship between sage-grouse and renewable energy development,
such as the decision by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Agency (WDFW) to
permit the construction and operation of a 28 turbine wind farm in Douglas
County, Washington, adjacent to one of the last two remaining sage-grouse
11
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf 12
Jeffrey, J.D. and W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, M. Sonneberg, J. Baker, J. boehrs, and A. Palochak. 2009. Horizon Wind
Energy, Elkhorn Valley Wind Project, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, fist annual report, January-December
2008. Technical report prepared for Horizon Wind Energy, Portland, Oregon. Report prepared by Western EcoSystems
Technology, Inc. 13
See G. Johnson, Greater Sage-Grouse & Wind Energy Development: A Review of the Issues. 2010. Western
EcoSystems Technology, Inc. A report commissioned by the Renewable Northwest Project. Page 12. Please note; ODFW
biologist and Draft Plan Report principal author Christian Hagen was one of the report reviewers.
Gas field
development area.
Wind facility
turbine strings.
5
populations in the state.14
In this example, agency officials worked with wind
developers and the Douglas County Public Utility District to reduce the
number of wind turbines, enlarge their nameplate capacity, and locate them to
minimize possible negative implications to SGSH.
b. Failure to Consider ODFW’s Role in Oregon’s Renewable Energy Siting
Process:
During a public presentation in Portland of the Draft Revision Plan,
ODFW officials suggested wind energy developers lack knowledge of the
biological issues affected by wind (or other forms of renewable energy)
development. This is simply not true. To secure a permit from the Oregon
Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) to build and operate a renewable
energy facility, companies must submit detailed biological information to
ODFW.15
Historically, the data has been used to determine land
categorization and develop appropriate mitigation programs. Oregon
voluntary wind energy guidelines call for a minimum of one year of biological
studies – two years if the proposed site is relatively new to renewable energy
development.16
To minimize the negative implications of turbine placement,
the process of “micro-siting” of a wind project – the specific placement of
each turbine within the proposed parcel – involves integrating detailed
biological information, wind data, and other factors (such as Department of
Defense and Federal Aviation Administration input). Renewable energy
companies work hard to earn their credentials as both “green” and “clean”
energy companies.
As key members of the EFSC process, ODFW officials have
tremendous influence over how land is used. ODFW officials work directly
with renewable energy developers to agree on parcel categorization, and the
appropriate mitigation to address temporary and permanent impacts. An
application to EFSC is not complete until ODFW and the developer reach an
agreement on the category and mitigation (or agree to contest category
designation and mitigation). Should the Commission adopt the plan and its
core area strategy, Agency staff will undoubtedly bring these predetermined
parcel categorizations into their deliberations with landowners and renewable
energy developers, without the benefit of the detailed biological information
that site-specific studies can provide. This approach to land categorization
represents a sea change in renewable energy siting practices.
c. Failure to Propose Habitat Categorization Review:
While the Draft Plan Revision provides detail regarding the criteria for
classifying habitat as Category 1 and 2,17
we could not find the criteria used
14
Douglas County Public Utility District has secured permission to build and operate a 28, 2.5MW turbine wind farm.
Working with state biologists, project developers adjusted the footprint and size of the proposed energy facility to address
concerns raised by biologists and community residents. See
http://www.douglaspud.org/Environment/WithrowWindProject.aspx for more information. 15
See OAR Chapter 469 and OAR Chapter 345. 16
Oregon Columbia Plateau Ecoregion Wind Energy Siting and Permitting Guidelines, September 29, 2008,
2 The FAC guidelines were signed by all members of the committee, including the National Audubon
Society, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, Bat Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy,
and Defenders of Wildlife. RNP members Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra, Ridgeline Energy, and
Iberdrola Renewables participated and endorsed the guidelines. For more information regarding the
Federal Advisory Committee’s recommendations for renewable energy development on federal land, see http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2010_03_05_releaseA.cfm
RNP Members
3Degrees
3TIER
American Wind Energy Assoc.
Blattner Energy
Bonneville Environmental Foundation
BP Wind Energy
Calpine
Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies
CH2M Hill
Citizens' Utility Board
Climate Solutions
Clipper Windpower
Columbia Energy Partners
Columbia Gorge Community College
David Evans & Associates
Element Power
Environment Oregon
Environment Washington
enXco, Inc.
E.ON Climate & Renewables North America
Eurus Energy America
EverPower
Gamesa Energy USA
GE Energy
Geothermal Resources Council
Green Mountain Energy
Horizon Wind Energy
Iberdrola Renewables
Jones Stevedoring
Lane Powell PC
Montana Environmental Information Center
MontPIRG
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextEra Energy Resources
Northwest Environmental Business Council
NW Energy Coalition
Northwest Environmental Advocates
OSPIRG
Port of Vancouver, USA
Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
REC Silicon
REpower
RES America Developments
Ridgeline Energy
Solar Oregon
SolarCity
Stoel Rives, LLP
SunPower Corporation
Tanner Creek Energy
Tonkon Torp LLP
Vestas Americas
Warm Springs Power & Water Enterprises
Washington Environmental Council
WashPIRG
Western Resource Advocates
Western Wind Power
2
3. Candidate Conservation Agreements: As the sage-grouse is not yet listed under the
ESA, legal entities have the option of negotiating Candidate Conservation
Agreements with Assurances (CCAA’s). Done properly, CCAA’s develop
comprehensive land management plans, generate the resources necessary to
implement them, and give private landowners incentives to modify their own land use
practices to enhance habitat quality. While designed primarily for use by private
landowners, we understand it is possible for CCAA’s to be drafted to cover
neighboring property, regardless of the landowner. Should Oregon counties consider
negotiating CCAA, it would enable federal and state fish and wildlife officials to
tailor landscape-scale approaches to responsible management of all threats to SGSB –
not solely singling out renewable energy projects.
4. Direct Dialogue with ODFW: RNP and its members have enjoyed good working
relations with ODFW officials. Working together, we believe we can find better
solutions to SGSB habitat protection efforts than proposed in the Draft Plan Revision.
To make such a discussion successful, we recommend ODFW add representatives
from the Oregon Association of Counties, members of Oregon’s environment and
conservation community, and renewable energy companies, their biologists, and
associations. We would welcome oversight in this process by members of the Fish