Development by Design: Mitigating Wind Development's Impacts on Wildlife in Kansas

Wind energy, if improperly sited, can impact wildlife through direct mortality and habitat loss and fragmentation, in contrast to its environmental benefits in the areas of greenhouse gas, air quality, and water quality. Fortunately, risks to wildlife from wind energy may be alleviated through proper siting and mitigation offsets. Here we identify areas in Kansas where wind development is incompatible with conservation, areas where wind development may proceed but with compensatory mitigation for impacts, and areas where development could proceed without the need for compensatory mitigation. We demonstrate that approximately 10.3 million ha in Kansas (48 percent of the state) has the potential to provide 478 GW of installed capacity while still meeting conservation goals. Of this total, approximately 2.7 million ha would require no compensatory mitigation and could produce up to 125 GW of installed capacity. This is 1,648 percent higher than the level of wind development needed in Kansas by 2030 if the United States is to get 20 percent of its electricity from wind. Projects that avoid and offset impacts consistent with this analysis could be awarded “Green Certification.” Certification may help to expand and sustain the wind industry by facilitating the completion of individual projects sited to avoid sensitive areas and protecting the industry's reputation as an ecologically friendly source of electricity

Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services

AbstractDesigning landscapes that can meet human needs, while maintaining functioning ecosystems, is essential for long-term sustainability. To achieve this goal, we must better understand the trade-offs and thresholds in the provision of ecosystem services and economic returns. To this end, we integrate spatially explicit economic and biophysical models to jointly optimize agricultural profit (sugarcane production and cattle ranching), biodiversity (bird and mammal species), and freshwater quality (nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment retention) in the Brazilian Cerrado. We generate efficiency frontiers to evaluate the economic and environmental trade-offs and map efficient combinations of agricultural land and natural habitat under varying service importance. To assess the potential impact of the Brazilian Forest Code (FC), a federal policy that aims to promote biodiversity and ecosystem services on private lands, we compare the frontiers with optimizations that mimic the habitat requirements in the region. We find significant opportunities to improve both economic and environmental outcomes relative to the current landscape. Substantial trade-offs between biodiversity and water quality exist when land use planning targets a single service, but these trade-offs can be minimized through multi-objective planning. We also detect non-linear profit-ecosystem services relationships that result in land use thresholds that coincide with the FC requirements. Further, we demonstrate that landscape-level planning can greatly improve the performance of the FC relative to traditional farm-level planning. These findings suggest that through joint planning for economic and environmental goals at a landscape-scale, Brazil's agricultural sector can expand production and meet regulatory requirements, while maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem service provision

Land use and Europe’s renewable energy transition: identifying low-conflict areas for wind and solar development

Continued dependence on imported fossil fuels is rapidly becoming unsustainable in the face of the twin challenges of global climate change and energy security demands in Europe. Here we present scenarios in line with REPowerEU package to identify Renewables Acceleration Areas that support rapid renewable expansion, while ensuring minimal harm to places important for biodiversity and rural communities. We calculated the area needed to meet renewable energy objectives under Business-as-Usual (BAU) and Low-conflict (LCON) development scenarios within each country, providing a broad overview of the potential for renewable energy generation to reduce impacts when development is steered toward lower conflict lands. Our analysis shows that meeting renewable energy objectives would require a network of land-based wind turbines and solar arrays encompassing upwards of 164,789 km2 by 2030 and 445,654 km2 by 2050, the latter roughly equivalent to the land area of Sweden. Our results highlight that BAU development patterns disproportionately target high-conflict land cover types. By 2030, depending on the development pathway, solar and wind development are projected to impact approximately 4,386–20,996 km2 and 65,735–138,454 km2 of natural and agricultural lands, respectively. As renewable energy objectives increase from 2030 to 2050 impacts to natural and agricultural lands also increase, with upwards of 33,911 km2 from future solar development and 399,879 km2 from wind development. Despite this large footprint, low-conflict lands can generate substantial renewable energy: 6.6 million GWh of solar and 3.5 million GWh of wind, 8–31 times 2030 solar objectives and 3–5 times 2030 wind objectives. Given these patterns, we emphasize the need for careful planning in areas with greater impact potential, either due to a larger demand for land area or limited land availability. Top-emitting countries with large renewable energy objectives (Germany, Italy, Poland, France, Spain) and those with limited flexibility in meeting objectives on low-conflict land (Albania, Slovenia, Montenegro, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Finland, Greece, Portugal, and Norway) should be priorities for country-level customizations to guide low-conflict siting and avoid disproportionate impacts on high-value areas

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals.

Funder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE170100684) Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT140100516) The Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub Agence Française de Développement Fonds Français pour l'environnement Mondial Mava FoundationFunder: Science for Nature and People Partnership Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT140100516 National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery HubMany nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted

Data from: Optimizing regulatory requirements to aid in the implementation of compensatory mitigation

Governments, companies, and conservation organizations seek to minimize the impacts of development through application of the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize, restore, and offset (McKenney & Kiesecker 2010). Around the world, policies and performance standards for compensatory mitigation are being strengthened not just to reduce impacts to biodiversity, but to achieve goals for biodiversity that range from “no net loss” to “net gains” (IFC 2012). Although use of offsets is still in its infancy, offsets are gaining traction globally as a goal of public policy (Madsen et al. 2011; Villarroya, Barros & Kiesecker 2014), corporate practices (Rainey et al. 2014), and lending standards (IFC 2012; Equator Principles 2013). As such, these new policies and standards will be important drivers for companies to improve mitigation practices

JAPPL2015-0045_SOCHI

File geodatabase of inputs, including project area, planning units, conservation targets (including vector and raster) created in ArcGIS v10.1, for Marxan analysis on offset mitigation in the San Juan area of Colorado, USA

Road and turbine pads for a 150-MW facility in the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas.

<p>Over 30 km of new roads and 99 turbine pads were constructed in tallgrass prairie for this project.</p

Wind turbine mitigation areas and costs in Kansas.

<p>Wind turbine mitigation areas and costs in Kansas.</p

Avoidance areas for wind turbines in Kansas.

<p>Avoidance areas for wind turbines in Kansas.</p