DOI: 10.5061/dryad.59zw3r2kf
title: Wind-bat habitat conservation plans (up through 2022) and cost analysis

description: The wind industry’s expansion in North America due to the need to provide
 clean energy is leading to increased regulatory concern for bats,
 particularly those that are endangered due to white-nose syndrome. The
 projected growth of installed wind capacity overlaps extensively with the
 ranges of several endangered and potentially regulated bat species. Wind
 energy operators in the US can comply with the Endangered Species Act
 (ESA) by submitting a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Incidental Take
 Permit (ITP) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HCP documents include
 wind project overviews, estimates for incidental take (e.g., unavoidable
 fatalities), outline minimization and compensatory mitigation measures to
 avoid take, and often include estimated cost information for actions to
 implement the HCP/ITP. However, the lack of insight into specific
 cost data, combined with the lengthy ITP application process, has
 potentially led to the perception that ESA compliance imposes a
 costly regulatory burden on the private sector, deterring motivation for
 voluntary compliance. Resulting from the absence of routine
 reporting practices, it is not known how much it costs for companies to
 comply with ESA listings, nor is there a standardized database of
 compliance costs or a method for estimating
 them. This analysis of 25 publicly available
 project-specific HCPs published through 2022 establishes one approach to
 conceptualizing these costs and determined the median total cost for an
 HCP to be approximately $4.68 million, with notable discrepancy between
 the median costs for compensatory mitigation cost ($1.64 million) and
 fatality monitoring ($3.15 million). This analysis also created a general
 linear model that can be used to estimate potential project-specific
 costs, and overall provides better insight into the costs of complying
 with the ESA by identifying variables that might affect compliance costs,
 and estimating future costs for the wind industry.
description: # Wind-bat habitat conservation plans (up through 2022) and cost analysis
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.59zw3r2kf](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.59zw3r2kf) ## Description of the data and file structure This analysis of 25 publicly available project-specific HCPs published through 2022 establishes one approach to conceptualizing costs. This analysis created a general linear model that can be used to estimate potential project-specific costs and provides insight into the costs of complying with the ESA by identifying variables that might affect compliance costs and estimating future costs for the wind industry. ### Files and variables **PDF files with HCPs used in this study.** File: Beechridge.pdf File: Bitter_Ridge_Wind_HCP.pdf File: California_Ridge_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Blue_Creek_Wind_Farm_Van_Wert_and_Paulding_Counties__Ohio.pdf File: Criterion_Wind_HCP.pdf File: BLUFF_POINT_WIND_ENERGY_CENTER_JAY_AND_RANDOLPH_COUNTIES__INDIANA_.pdf File: Copenhagen_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Fowler_Ridge_Wind_Farm__Benton_County__Indiana.pdf File: Draft_Crescent_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Ford_Ridge_Wind_HCP_Draft.pdf File: Headwaters_Wind_Farm.pdf File: Headwaters_II_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Green_River_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Hog_Creek_Wind_Project__Hardin_County__Ohio.pdf File: High_Prairie_Wind_Energy_Facility.pdf File: Hoopeston_Wind__LLC.pdf File: Indiana_Crossroads_Wind_HCP.pdf File: Meadow_Lake_Wind_Resource_Area_White_and_Benton_Counties__Indiana.pdf File: Jordan_Creek_Wind_HCP_Draft.pdf File: PIONEER_TRAIL_WIND_FARM_IROQUOIS_AND_FORD_COUNTIES__ILLINO.pdf File: MidAmerican.pdf File: Rosewater_Wind_Farm_HCP.pdf File: Sugar_Creek_Wind_HCP_Draft.pdf File: North_Allegheny_Wind_Facility.pdf File: Timber_Road_II__III__and_IV_Wind_Farms__Paulding_County__Ohio.pdf File: Wildhorse_Mountain_Wind_Facility_HCP.pdf File: Wildcat_Wind_Farm.pdf **Summarized data in .csv format:** **File:** HCP_Analysis_Spreadsheet_02092024.csv **Description:** Summary of relevant metrics of all examined HCPs **Variables** * HCP_Num: HCP Identifier * Name: Full name of project * HCP_Year: Year HCP was made * Project_or_Large: Differentiates between single project (P) or multi-project (L) HCPs * FWS_Region: Fish and Wildlife Service Region HCP belongs * State: US State HCP falls into * Bat_Only: Does the HCP deal only with bats, or other species as well? '1' indicates only bats were examined. * IBAT: Does the HCP deal with the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*? '1' indicates yes. * NLEB: Does the HCP deal with the Northern Long-eared bat, *Myotis septentrionalis*? '1' indicates yes. * VBEB: Does the HCP deal with the Virginia Big-eared bat, *Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus*? '1' indicates yes. * LBB: Does the HCP deal with the Little Brown bat, *Myotis lucifugus*? '1' indicates yes. * TCB: Does the HCP deal with the Tricolored bat, *Perimyotis subflavus*? '1' indicates yes. * Num_Covered_Bats: Number of bat species in the HCP. * Num_Covered_Species: Number of species, including non-bat species, in the HCP * Total_Bat_Take: Total number of bat fatalities allowed by the HCP. * MW: Megawatt value of the wind project. * Number_of_Turbines: Number of turbines in the wind project. * Permit_Duration_Years: Length of the HCP in years. * Admin_Costs: Costs allocated by the HCP for administration. * Mitigation_Costs: Costs allocated by the HCP for mitigation measures. * Monitoring_Costs: Costs allocated by the HCP for species monitoring. * Total_HCP_Costs: Total costs of the HCP. * Admin_Costs_%: Percent of total costs for administration costs. * Mitigation_Costs_%: Percent of total costs for mitigation costs. * Monitoring_Costs_%: Percent of total costs for monitoring costs. * Mit-Mon_Costs: Difference between the costs allocated for mitigation and monitoring. * MW__Num_Turb: Megawatt of project divided by the number of turbines for the project. * After_2019: Is the HCP for years after 2019? '1' indicates yes. "NA" indicates that sample size is not large enough to generate value estimates.  ## Code/software Analysis was done primarily with R. The R script 'HCP_Analysis_Script.r' takes 'HCP Analysis Spreadsheet 02092024.csv' as input and must be run in the same directory. Packages included: psych, car, caret, reshape2, glmnet, lme4, dplyr, knitr, kableExtra, jtools, RcppAlgos, flexplot, dplyr, rstatix, corrplot, GGally, pals, and DescTools ## Access information [https://osf.io/2a4vb/files/c87444fb-72d7-4248-b7e9-900e47aa635e?view_only=](https://osf.io/2a4vb/files/c87444fb-72d7-4248-b7e9-900e47aa635e?view_only=) (Click to access databased of all downloadable HCP-relevant files hosted by Defenders of Wildlife, public access)