Is the sample size in their data collection methods. I'm left feeling that we need to spend more money to develop monitoring systems that give us far more data without penalizing the developers unduly in time. The radar based systems work well for some environments, but I don't know how well they would work when you are trying to determine the habits of relatively small regional population groups.
Also, when you string together short quotes, for clarity it is standard practice to indicate what you are doing and provide a specific citation to pinpoint where those quotes fit into the paper. For example you quoted the underlined part but neglected the next sentence, which is rather important; especially considering the final conclusion.
The development of this project does pose an unavoidable risk to eagles and is as yet unpermitted for that take. Thus, our purpose is to evaluate the environmental impacts of the permitting action—including implementation of the applicant's proposed Eagle Conservation Plan and Avian Protection Plan—and the alternatives presented. p.7
Since it is a government report there are no copyright problems:
Conclusion for Appendix 3
The fatality prediction for the West Butte Wind Power Project using the FWS exposure-based model is 0.4 golden eagles per year, with a 95% upper credible limit of 1.48. Thus, over the five-year term of the permit, the expected total number of golden eagle fatalities is 2, with a plausible range of between 0 and a 95% upper credible limit of 8 fatalities. p.52
Chapter 5: Results 5.1 Conclusion
Before the Service may issue a programmatic eagle take permit under 50 CFR 22.26, we must determine that: (1) the direct, indirect effects of the take and required mitigation, with the cumulative effects of other permitted take, are compatible with the preservation of bald eagles and golden eagles; (2) the taking is associated with, but not the purpose of, the activity; (3) the take is unavoidable and will occur despite application of advanced conservation practices; and (4) any unavoidable take in excess of regional take thresholds is balanced by an equivalent reduction in take achieved by compensatory mitigation. In our review of the WBWP application for programmatic take of Golden Eagles, we determined that the application appears to be consistent with these issuing criteria.
In our analysis we considered four alternatives to issuing a permit, including Alternative One, the No Action alternative of not issuing a permit. Under Alternative Two, the Service would issue the permit essentially as it was applied for so long as the application complies with the requirements of the Eagle Act and 50 CFR 22.26, without requiring additional conditions, ACPs, mitigations, or other commitments to conservation that the applicant did not itself propose. Alternative Three would require additional conservation commitments from the developer. A fourth alternative, issue a 30-year permit, was discarded because the Service is not yet able to issue permits for more than 5 years.
In our evaluation of the risk of the project to eagles, we considered the available information on number and status of Golden Eagle territories within 10 miles of the project footprint, and on numbers of eagles statewide and population trends within BCRs 9 and 10. We evaluated the eagle-use data collected by the developer during pre-construction surveys and predicted annual eagle fatalities based on those data. This number constitutes a conservative (over-) estimate of risk, but provides the Service and the developer with a precautionary approach to regulatory compliance. The fatality estimate was evaluated against the commitment of the developer to offset mortalities through mitigation.
We have determined that both Alternatives two and three will likely meet our permitting criteria and potentially deliver a conservation benefit to Golden Eagles, and would support our purpose and need described in Section 1.2. Alternative two adequately meets our purpose and need, was proposed by the applicant, and thus is our preferred alternative. p.40
From my perspective this is too speculative (even with the confidence intervals they've noted). I'd far rather see much more emphasis on developing automated and affordable data collection methods in this early stage. Even if means a slowdown for the projects today it would have payoffs for both the wildlife, the public and the developers as the pace of development mushrooms.
= new reply since forum marked as read
