Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
premises. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife selected a site
owned by a local rancher as the preserve site for this lease because of its
high-quality Oregon white oak and other habitat values. The lease obligates
Cannon to pay $10,000 per year to the site landowner as rent—a total of
$240,000 over the lease's 20-year term.
In connection with permitting for a later project phase, Cannon executed
a second habitat conservation lease that preserves an additional 30 acres of
land selected by Klickitat County. This second lease, which covers certain
high-quality, spring-fed riparian habitat, also obligates Cannon to pay
upwards of $200,000 in total rent over 20 years.
In addition to these commitments, Cannon's project permits require the
company to engage in specific ongoing efforts to monitor and help prevent
harms to wildlife throughout the life of its project. For instance, Cannon
was obligated to conduct “post-construction fatality monitoring”—the
counting of bird kills within the project area—for one to two years
after the project was up and running to help ensure that its anticipated
impacts on birds were consistent with actual impacts. The company also
must implement a Wildlife Incident Reporting and Handling System that
requires it to report bird and bat fatality numbers annually to government
agencies. Cannon must notify those agencies within 24 hours of discovering
the fatality of any threatened or endangered species on the project site.
Fortunately, as of late 2013, there had been no known fatalities to such
species at the wind farm.
A legal challenge over avian impacts
Even Cannon's long list of actions to protect wildlife were not enough to
convince some conservation groups that wildlife preservation concerns
were adequately addressed in connection with the company's project. In
particular, a collection of local bird conservationists did not believe that
county and state permitting requirements would adequately protect raptors
and other species in and around the project site. This group had actively
opposed the Klickitat County's adoption of its EOZ ordinance years
earlier. Despite reports by leading avian experts predicting that Cannon's
wind farm would have minimal impacts on the region's bird populations,
these activists were bent on opposing the project. When the county issued
Cannon its first EOZ permit in 2006, the group quickly filed an adminis-
trative appeal.
A hearing officer who heard the group's appeal ruled in Cannon's favor,
but Cannon could tell that this group of opponents was not going to go away
lightly. Cannon was legitimately concerned that the group's further appeals
could impede progress on the wind farm. Recognizing that lengthy delays
resulting from such appeals could prove extremely costly, Cannon decided
to focus on trying to swiftly reach a compromise with the group so that
development could proceed. Ultimately, Cannon negotiated a settlement
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search