CFE agenda 091117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3. Provide mechanisms to encourage the adoption and use of the guidelines by all federal agencies, as well as the wind energy industry, while recogniz- ing the primary role of the lead agency in coordi- nating specific project assessments. 4. Complement state and tribal efforts to address wind /wildlife interactions and provide a voluntary means for these entities to coordinate and stan- dardize review of wind projects with the USFWS. 5. Provide a clear and consistent approach that increases predictability and reduces the risk of liability exposure under federal wildlife laws. 6. Provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the diverse geographic and habitat features of different wind development sites. 7. Present mechanisms for determining compensa- tory mitigation, when appropriate, in the event of unforeseen impacts to wildlife during construc- tion or operation of a wind energy project. 8. Define scientifically rigorous and cost - effective study designs that improve the ability to predict direct and indirect wildlife impacts locally and regionally. 9. Include a formal mechanism for revision in order to incorporate experience, technological improve- ments, and scientific advances that reduce uncer- tainty in the interactions between wind energy and wildlife. These voluntary guidelines for land -based turbines, coupled with the recent recommendations for moni- toring the impacts of marine mammals and seabirds (Thaxter and Burton 2009), offer a comprehensive approach to appropriate siting for wind energy development. 4o23 lyl il;�el Devel(,'IIci rie ,t Biofuels are combustible materials that are derived from biomass (e.g. plants, micro - organisms, or organic waste) and potentially offer an alternative energy source that is economically efficient, social- ly equitable, and environmentally sound (Bringezu et al. 2009). There are a number of different types of biofuels that are often categorized into `genera- tions' based on the number of steps it takes to generate usable fuel from the source (Bringezu et al. 2009, Table 4 -8). Each of these types of biofuels is created from different feedstocks, ranging from sunflower and sugarcane to wood and algae, and thus requires different processing techniques and technol- ogy. The potential impact of biofuel production on biodiversity conservation will depend on the source of feedstock and the technology required for process- ing, as well as indirect changes in land use that result from use of the feedstock for fuel. Ethanol, the most common first generation biofuel, is widely used as a gasoline additive in the United States and is growing in demand as renewable fuel stan- dards have increased (RFA 2010). In 2006, the U.S. became the leading fuel ethanol producer (Bringezu et al. 2009) and since that time the number of biore- fineries has tripled (RFA 2010). Most of the ethanol produced in the U.S. is produced from corn (RFA 2010), although interest in alternative sources such as switchgrass and other woody biomass is increas- ing (Bringezu et al. 2009). Because growing corn requires large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuel inputs for distillation, the environmental benefits of corn ethanol may not outweigh the costs. North Carolinas long growing season is conducive the production of a wide range of biomass resources for alternative energy production, an initiative which the agricultural leadership generally supports (BCNC 2010). The North Carolina Grows Biofuels proj- ect is a statewide effort to determine the extent and potential of biomass for biofuels production in the state (BCNC 2010). Energy crops and fast - growing