EN14 Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity

This section describes ongoing actions and future plans for minimizing biodiversity impacts, including strategies for avoiding biodiversity impacts.  It also includes a description of the impacts (which are actually in section EN12) and mitigation measures conducted at new sites and existing sites to the following: landscapes (wind farms, transmission lines), and freshwater (downstream water quality, including turbidity, sedimentation, siltation and water quality of reservoir areas) and wetland ecosystems.  Examples include sustained forestry, ROW corridor management, wetland mitigation, and site assessments prior to construction.

Steam Electric Generation
Before any major construction project begins, AEP will conduct an environmental assessment of proposed construction sites and prepare an environmental impact statement.  These assessments consider all the possible impacts that the project could have on the ecological and cultural characteristics of the site.  During these assessments, efforts are made to identify unique areas of special biological value or diversity.  If these sites are ultimately selected for construction, all efforts are made to avoid these ecologically valuable areas.  If these areas cannot be avoided, mitigation projects are undertaken to replace the lost areas.

Once major facilities are constructed they are operated in a manner to minimize environmental impacts.  For example, as mentioned earlier, several AEP facilities have active wildlife stewardship programs that are documented under Wildlife Habitat Council Certifications.  These facilities sponsor one or more enhancement projects to improve wildlife or wildlife habitats in the area.

Hydroelectric Generation
AEP makes every effort to operate its hydroelectric projects in an environmentally benign manner.   All projects must be relicensed with the FERC on a periodic basis and during the relicensing process, all potential environmental impacts are considered.  If mitigation is necessary, such as a fish stocking program or the cessasation of operation, it is incorporated into the operation of the particular project.  For example, the alteration of river and stream flow regimes as a result of project operation can make otherwise suitable riverine habitat unfit for aquatic invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and other riparian-dependent species.  However, dam operation restrictions are put in place at AEP hydroelectric facilities, which require a facility to operate as run-of-river so that the volume of water leaving a reservoir equals the volume of water entering the reservoir.  Stream flow alterations, therefore, become a function of natural phenomenon, such as heavy rains or periods of drought. 

Migrating fish may be prevented from moving upstream if their passage is blocked at a hydroelectric project.  This could have a significant effect on anadramous fish populations, such as chinook salmon or steelhead trout, which are stocked in the St. Joseph River by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) downstream of the AEP Twin Branch hydroelectric facility.  Below this facility, AEP operates the Berrien Springs, and Buchanan hydroelectric projects, at which, fish ladders are maintained to facilitate the upstream passage of fish.  In addition, the turbines at the Buchanan project are shut down for 2 weeks during the salmonid spawning period to allow out-migrating chinook salmon and steelhead trout smolts, which have been stocked by the IDNR, to pass over the dam without harm. 

While hydroelectric operation is often associated with adverse environmental impacts, environmental benefits can be realized due to the formation of an aquatic ecosystem in place of a terrestrial ecosystem.  Dam construction and the development of reservoirs can increase public access to otherwise remote habitats.  There will typically be an increase in fishing, motorboat use and other similar recreation activities.  AEP has installed fishing platforms and has improved boat access at many St. Joseph River and other hydroelectric project locations. 

Wind Generation
It was during the second generation of wind turbine design in the mid-1990s that AEP built an experimental wind farm near Fort Davis, Texas.  At the time, regional experts thought birds migrated by “island hopping” through, rather than flying over, the area in large numbers, as was known to occur in the coastal and mid-continent flyways.  AEP’s pre-construction avian activity study revealed that millions of night flying small birds flew over the site in the fall migration.  This was confirmed through radar surveys conducted during the year prior to construction.  Night vision equipment was also used, but could not detect the flocks that were so readily evident on radar.

The post-construction study revealed the same activity, but no interaction occurred with the wind turbines.  Daytime observations indicated that the birds recognized and avoided the wind turbine air space, but otherwise carried on their normal activities whether it was above the turbines (hawks, vultures) within the turbine area (ravens, crows), or closer to the ground (sparrows, quail).

The turbines were mounted on un-guyed monopoles in contrast to earlier designs that used lattice towers or guyed monopoles.  A guyed meteorological tower was, however, located on the site to gather weather data during the pre-construction study period and at least for the first post-construction year.  The guy wires for this tower were the only obstacles on the site that were known to have been involved in bird collisions.  Approximately five collisions with the guy wires were discovered in the two-year period.

The AEP wind farm was one of the earliest projects that took avian activity into consideration for site selection and considered whether or not there was a post-construction impact.  Since then, avian activity has been an element of the wind farm site selection process.  The newest wind turbines, because of their larger size and increased visibility, have considerably reduced avian collisions.  In addition, new sites are selected with the goal of avoiding adverse avian interactions.

Wind farms, though they require large land areas, do limit the development of the land, leaving it in a more natural state.  Often the collision potential they present to birds is more than offset by the habitat protection they offer.  There are wind farms in Texas that compatibly share habitat with the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo.  Both are endangered species, however, there is no knowledge of either having been involved in collisions with these structures. 

Transmission and Distribution Facilities
When the location and routes of new transmission and distribution facilities are considered, a special effort is made to avoid potentially sensitive areas.  When these areas cannot be avoided, AEP strives to minimize the ecological impacts.  In other cases, AEP will work to enhance or protect the ecological value of affiliated properties.  For example, right-of-way corridors create a meadow or prairie community that, because of agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban development, etc., are habitats that have been greatly reduced elsewhere.  As with the wind farms, access to these areas is very limited, which allows the ecosystems that develop there to thrive.

Transmission towers and poles are used by many bird species for nesting.  For example, osprey populations, rebounding from their threatened status, frequently use such towers for nesting and roosting.  The osprey’s population decline has been attributed to the bioaccumulation of DDT and PCBs in the food chain.  Towers and poles have also extended the red-tailed hawks’ range in the western part of AEP’s service area.  New power line designs consider the possibility of bird interaction by trying to maximize their safety and minimize their attractiveness to birds.

Forest Management
AEP domestically has approximately 152,300 acres of forestland under Forest Management.  Forests occupy over 54% of the land AEP subsidiary companies own. AEP Land Management Department's mission is to implement a system-wide Forest Management Program following a philosophy of long-term sustained yield on all AEP forestlands.  This will be accomplished by providing guidance, direction, coordination and oversight of all Company Forest Management activities.

The primary focus is to maintain the long-term productivity of existing forest assets on property that will remain in forest cover for the foreseeable future. This philosophy maintains the forest resource in a steady state by balancing forest growth with timber harvests. Following this philosophy is not only compatible with AEP's Environmental Stewardship Policies, it is necessary for the credible reporting of active Forest Management activities under the Climate Challenge and under Section 1605(b) of the 1992 Environmental Policy Act. The AEP Forest Management Program emphasizes sound contributions to ecological and wildlife habitat, and its commitment to enhanced recreational use.

American Tree Farm Program
In addition to managing all of AEP’s forest ownerships under the long-term sustained yield guidelines, AEP is an active participant in the American Forest Foundation (AFF), American Tree Farm Program. This program is an AFF national effort to encourage and recognize excellent forestry practices on private lands that are committed to sustained production of renewable forest products under a multiple use management approach.

All AEP Forest Management Plans address the four elements of the Tree Farm Certification Program:  wood, water, wildlife and recreation use opportunities. Since 1983, AEP has had over 100,000 acres of its forestlands certified in the Tree Farm System.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
Although AEP is not an active member of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PF), its Forest Management Program adheres to the same Principles:

• sustainable forestry,
• responsible practices,
• forest health & productivity,
• protecting special (e.g. biologically, geologically, or historical significant) sites, and
• continuous improvement.

AEP forest management activities also follow the Implementation Guidelines for Sustainable Forestry. The Performance Measures that are required of AF&PF members are recognized as standards by which the quality of AEP’s activities can also be measured.

Since 1998, loggers delivering wood products harvested from AEP managed forestlands have been reviewed by various SFI Members (Mead, MeadWesvaco, Smurfit-Stone & Weyerhaeuser), as required in their procurement guidelines. Annually, at least one AEP operation is included in an SFI performance audit.