1. Hello
my
name
is
Krystle
Keese
and
my
thesis
explored
a
mul4func4onal
approach
to
reconciling
renewable
energy
and
crucial
habitat
needs
in
Washington
States.
1
2. As
the
human
popula4on
con4nues
to
grow,
more
and
more
of
the
landscape
will
be
required
to
meet
the
needs
and
wants
of
society.
However,
the
history
of
anthropogenic
land
use
has
resulted
in
serious,
large,
nega4ve
impacts
to
Earth
including
a
reduc4on
in
biodiversity
and
a
general
decline
in
ecological
health
as
well
as
being
a
contribu4ng
factor
to
climate
change.
As
Natural
lands
have
become
scarce
from
the
pressures
of
popula4on
growth
and
economic
development,
it
has
never
been
more
important
to
balance
the
needs
of
society
and
the
environment
as
it
is
today.
Two
ini4a4ves
that
work
toward
improving
the
human
interac4on
with
the
environment
are
renewable
energy
development
and
habitat
conserva4on.
2
3. Renewable
energy
is
an
important
climate
mi4ga4on
strategy
that
reduces
the
amount
of
Green
House
Gas
emissions
from
the
burning
of
fossil
fuels.
Over
the
past
decade,
Energy
produc4on
from
renewable
resources
has
increased
both
globally
and
na4onally
with
the
most
growth
in
wind
and
solar
energy
technologies.
Despite
contribu4ng
to
climate
mi4ga4on,
wind
and
solar
energy
produc4on
can
incur
nega4ve
environmental
impacts
on
the
landscape.
In
short,
this
can
include
habitat
loss,
habitat
fragmenta4on,
animal
mortality,
the
spread
of
invasive
species,
and
animal
avoidance
of
facili4es.
In
contrast,
habitat
conserva4on
restores
and
protects
important
habitats,
ecological
services,
and
maintains
local
biodiversity
that
have
been
nega4vely
impacted
by
human
development
and
land
change.
However,
conserva4on
management
has
been
mainly
species
specific
and
within
a
local
context.
To
achieve
the
high
level
goals
of
conserva4on
biology
a
broader
landscape-‐level
perspec4ve
spanning
mul4ple
landscapes,
ecosystems,
and
including
mul4ple
species
would
be
more
effec4ve.
3
4. Both
of
these
ini4a4ves
have
clear
environmental
benefits
and
are
important
to
improving
the
rela4onship
between
humans
and
the
environment.
However,
a
problem
surfaces
when
there
is
a
conflict
in
land
use
priority
between
habitat
conserva4on
and
renewable
energy
development
across
the
landscape.
Historically,
land
use
has
been
managed
from
a
single-‐func4on
perspec4ve
giving
land
management
priority
to
a
single
land
use.
However,
to
reduce
the
landscape
conflict
between
these
two
ini4a4ves,
a
more
inclusive
approach
to
land
management
is
required.
4
5. Mul4func4onal
landscapes
and
energyscapes
are
designs
iden4fied
in
the
literature
that
could
be
applied
in
an
aTempt
to
reduce
this
landscape
conflict.
Under
this
landscape
design
the
priori4es
of
both
renewable
energy
development
and
habitat
conserva4on
will
be
considered
from
a
more
expansive
landscape-‐level
perspec4ve.
This
process
will
iden4fy
opportuni4es
and
tradeoffs,
engage
the
various
land
use
stakeholders,
and
op4mize
to
the
priori4es
of
both
in
the
resul4ng
landscape
design.
While
this
seems
promising,
to
date
it
is
only
theore4cal
and
has
yet
to
be
put
into
prac4ce
within
this
context.
However,
the
first
steps
to
moving
toward
this
type
of
land
management,
is
to
gain
an
understanding
of
the
landscape-‐level
interac4ons
between
habitat
conserva4on
and
renewable
energy
development.
5
6. This
led
me
to
my
main
research
ques4on
to
beTer
understand
“how
do
wind
and
solar
energy
development
and
habitat
conserva4on
conflict
upon
the
landscape
in
Washington
State?”
I
approached
this
research
within
a
pragma4c
worldview
perspec4ve
with
the
goal
to
simply
explore
and
beTer
understand
this
environmental
problem.
The
findings
of
this
research
represent
new
and
much
needed
informa4on
for
land
managers
as
they
aTempt
to
iden4fy
and
respond
to
conflicts
between
these
beneficial
land
uses.
6
7. To
conduct
this
research
Geographical
Informa4on
Systems
(GIS)
was
used
as
the
method
of
analysis
including
basic
spa4al
analyses
and
an
analysis
of
local
autocorrela4on
using
the
Local
Moran’s
I
sta4s4c.
A
total
of
10
different
data
sources
were
applied
in
this
study,
however,
the
primary
sources
include
the
wind
and
solar
energy
resource
datasets
from
the
Na4onal
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory,
the
Crucial
Habitat
Assessment
data
recently
published
by
the
western
governors’
associa4on,
and
the
Washington
Wildlife
Habitats
data
from
the
Northwest
Habitat
Ins4tute.
7
8. Of
par4cular
importance
is
the
crucial
habitat
assessment
data.
Crucial
habitat
is
a
first
ever
landscape-‐level
environmental
indicator
that
quan4fies
the
conserva4on
value
of
the
land.
This
indicator
was
derived
by
priori4zing
and
aggrega4ng
mul4ple
Washington
conserva4on
objec4ves
according
to
3
primary
themes
across
the
state.
These
are
habitat
for
species
of
concern,
habitat
for
species
of
economic
and
recrea4onal
importance,
and
na4ve
unfragmented
habitat.
In
general
it
is
understood
that
lands
with
the
highest
crucial
habitat
ranking
of
1
are
considered
most
crucial
habitat
with
the
highest
conserva4on
value.
Lands
with
the
lowest
crucial
habitat
ranking
of
6
are
considered
the
least
crucial
habitats
with
the
lowest
conserva4on
value.
8
9. To
address
the
main
research
ques4on,
the
landscape
conflict
between
renewable
energy
development
and
habitat
conserva4on
was
explored
within
3
contexts:
Exis4ng
Washington
Wind
farms,
suitable
wind
and
solar
energy
lands,
and
Washington
habitats.
9
10. Within
the
context
of
exis4ng
Washington
wind
farms,
I
specifically
wanted
to
understand
how
crucial
habitat
in
these
lands
compared
to
crucial
habitat
statewide.
This
would
inform
of
how
well
or
poorly
exis4ng
wind
farms
had
been
sited
according
to
landscape
level
habitat
conserva4on
priori4es.
Overall,
I
found
that
the
crucial
habitat
distribu4ons
in
these
two
landscapes
were
fairly
similar.
10
11. However,
there
was
much
less
most
crucial
habitat
lands
in
exis4ng
wind
farm
landscapes
than
what
is
observed
statewide.
This
means
that
in
general
exi4ng
Washington
wind
farms
were
developed
in
areas
having
lower
priority
habitat
conserva4on
concerns.
11
12. Within
the
context
of
suitable
wind
or
solar
development
lands,
two
subsidiary
research
ques4ons
were
explored.
First,
I
again
wanted
to
understand
how
crucial
habitat
in
these
landscapes
compared
to
crucial
habitat
statewide.
This
would
inform
of
the
risk
of
landscape
conflict
for
future
wind
or
solar
energy
development.
Second,
I
wanted
to
understand
at
what
levels
of
crucial
habitat
could
renewable
energy
development
be
restricted,
to
both
protect
habitat
quality
and
contribute
substan4ally
to
future
energy
produc4on.
This
would
inform
of
the
opportunity
or
challenge
of
op4mizing
the
land
use
between
these
two
ini4a4ves
in
the
future.
12
13. To
begin
this
analysis,
I
first
had
to
iden4fy
suitable
wind
and
solar
energy
development
lands
in
Washington.
Suitable
wind
energy
development
lands
are
dispersed
in
small
patches
across
most
of
the
state
with
the
larger
con4guous
landscapes
in
the
southeastern
part
of
Washington.
13
14. In
contrast,
suitable
solar
development
lands
are
located
in
the
Eastern
part
of
the
State,
and
encompass
a
larger
area
of
landscape
that
what
is
observed
for
wind
energy.
14
15. In
comparing
crucial
habitat
on
these
landscapes
and
statewide,
the
crucial
habitat
distribu4ons
are
again
similar
in
that
a
majority
of
the
lands
have
a
conserva4on
value
of
2
or
3.
15
16. However,
both
suitable
wind
and
solar
lands
have
much
less
most
crucial
habitat
that
what
is
observed
statewide.
This
indicates
that
both
wind
and
solar
development
pose
a
slightly
lower
risk
of
conflict
with
the
most
crucial
habitats
than
what
might
be
expected.
16
17. Addi4onally,
suitable
solar
development
lands
have
more,
less
crucial
habitat
than
what
is
observed
statewide.
This
indicates
that
solar
development
also
presents
a
greater
opportunity
to
develop
in
areas
of
low
conflict
with
crucial
habitat
than
what
might
be
expected.
17
18. To
understand
the
levels
of
crucial
habitat
that
future
energy
development
could
be
restricted,
to
both
protect
habitat
quality
and
contribute
to
future
energy
genera4on,
an
annual
average
energy
produc4on
from
suitable
energy
lands
was
calculated
according
to
various
crucial
habitat
levels.
This
analysis
shows
that
future
wind
energy
development
could
be
limited
to
crucial
habitat
levels
3
and
lower
and
s4ll
enable
the
exis4ng
annual
wind
energy
produc4on
in
Washington
to
quadruple
in
size
as
indicated
by
the
blue
box
in
the
table
above.
This
means
the
more
crucial
habitats
of
values
1
and
2
could
be
conserved
while
s4ll
enabling
a
healthy
growth
of
the
wind
energy
industry.
In
contrast,
solar
energy
could
be
limited
to
low
crucial
habitat
areas
of
level
5
and
provide
enough
energy
to
supply
over
half
the
total
annual
energy
genera4on
for
the
en4re
state
of
Washington
as
indicated
by
the
yellow
box
in
the
table
above.
This
means
there
is
an
opportunity
for
solar
energy
to
provide
large
amounts
of
energy
having
minimal
conflict
with
conserva4on
objec4ves.
18
19. Finally,
within
the
context
of
Washington
Habitats,
I
again
iden4fied
two
subsidiary
ques4ons.
First,
I
wanted
to
understand
which
habitat
types
are
more
suitable
for
future
wind
and
solar
energy
development
in
Washington?
And
second,
what
is
the
risk
of
significant
landscape
conflict
between
crucial
habitat
and
energy
resources
within
those
habitats?
This
would
inform
of
the
risk
or
opportunity
of
future
energy
development
within
specific
habitat
types.
19
20. In
the
analysis
of
Washington
habitats
and
wind
energy,
the
results
indicate
a
rela4vely
low
impact
to
habitats
overall.
The
grassland
and
shrubland
habitat
was
iden4fied
as
having
the
highest
por4on
of
high
wind
resources
indicated
by
the
blue
areas.
However,
this
only
represented
4.8%
of
the
total
habitat
area
and
there
were
no
notable
high
or
low
conflict
areas
in
any
of
the
habitats.
20
21. In
the
analysis
of
Washington
habitats
and
solar
energy,
the
results
were
much
more
informa4ve.
The
Agriculture,
Pasture,
&
Mixed-‐Environment
habitat
was
iden4fied
as
having
the
most
high-‐solar
resources
indicated
by
the
pink
areas
as
well
as
the
most
low
conflict
areas
indicated
by
the
green
areas.
Together
this
accounted
for
nearly
half
the
total
habitat
area
meaning
there
is
a
great
opportunity
for
solar
development
in
this
habitat
that
would
have
minimal
conflict
with
crucial
habitat
lands.
21
22. The
Grassland
&
Shrubland
Habitat
was
also
iden4fied
as
having
large
areas
of
high
solar
resources
indicated
by
the
pink
areas
as
well
as
the
most
high
conflict
landscapes
indicated
by
the
red
areas.
Together,
this
accounted
for
nearly
40%
of
the
total
habitat
area.
This
means
that
there
is
also
a
great
opportunity
for
solar
energy
development
in
this
habitat
type,
but
that
there
is
also
a
rela4vely
high
risk
of
conflict
with
most
crucial
habitat
lands.
22
23. In
conclusion,
this
research
shows
that
there
is
a
moderate
to
low
landscape
conflict
between
renewable
energy
development
and
habitat
conserva4on
in
Washington,
but
that
with
this
knowledge,
planning
and
landscape
design
can
begin
to
op4mize
the
priori4es
of
both
ini4a4ves.
This
study
presents
a
model
for
comple4ng
the
first
steps
in
designing
mul4func4onal
landscapes
and
will
be
useful
to
land
managers
and
planners.
While
the
implementa4on
of
mul4func4onal
landscapes
is
likely
to
be
difficult,
costly,
and
4me
consuming,
having
the
tools
to
begin
thinking
about
landscapes
from
a
mul4func4onal
perspec4ve
will
encourage
beTer
land
use
and
management
in
the
future.
There
are
opportuni4es
for
future
studies.
First,
the
iden4fica4on
of
suitable
energy
landscape
can
be
refined
to
reflect
a
more
honed
assessment
of
what
is
considered
suitable
development
lands.
This
could
include
addi4onal
economic,
technical,
and
social
factors
than
what
was
included
in
this
model.
Second,
this
study
could
be
completed
in
other
states
and
at
difference
scales.
This
would
enable
an
even
beTer
understanding
of
the
opportuni4es
and
risks
of
this
landscape
conflict
and
take
us
even
closer
to
being
able
to
think
about
landscapes
from
a
mul4func4onal
perspec4ve.
23
28. Best
and
worst
sited
Washington
wind
farms
according
to
crucial
habitat.
Palouse
wind
farm
is
the
best
sited
wind
farm
with
100%
of
the
landscape
having
a
crucial
habitat
rank
of
5.
Vantage
Wind
and
the
Wild
Horse
wind
farms
were
the
worst
sited
with
a
majority
of
the
landscapes
having
a
crucial
habitat
rank
of
1
or
2.
28
29. Further
defini4on
of
what
cons4tutes
suitable
wind
and
solar
energy
development
lands
as
applied
in
research
ques4ons
2
and
3.
29
30. Graphical
iden4fica4on
of
the
general
Washington
habitats
as
they
are
present
across
the
State
and
breakdown
of
total
coverage.
30
33. Visual
graph
created
by
the
western
governor’s
associa4on
to
show
the
state
conserva4on
priori4es
that
were
used
to
derive
the
crucial
habitat
indicator.
33
