Stakeholder #2

When more than a billion dollars of government money is at stake, there's bound to be some outside investigation that occurs. Enter the National Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory, a key stakeholder int the Ivanpah investigation.

USFWS "Evidence Processing" 6/2/14 via wikimedia. Public Domain

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

From Ashland, Oregon comes the second stakeholder in the Ivanpah controversy. A neutral party, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory is the only forensics laboratory in the world focusing on wildlife law enforcement. The USFWS is a large bureaucratic organization within the federal government, housing around 9,000 employees at offices around the country. When looking at the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory, it is easy to be underwhelmed as it is merely a large concrete building surrounded by gardens, unlike other impressive government buildings. Itself housing about 200 staff, the lab is responsible for investigating crimes against wildlife and endangered species across the globe.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

1. "It appears that Ivanpah may act as a "mega-trap", attracting insects which in turn attract insect-eating birds, which are incapacitated by solar flux injury" (Source, Page 3)
2. "Solar flux injury was identified as the cause of death in 47/141 birds" (Source, Page 12)
3. "Indeed OLE staff observed birds entering the solar flux and igniting, consequently becoming a streamer" (Source, Page 23)

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

I believe that these claims are valid since the findings in the report given above were found by having the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory investigate claims of avian mortality at the plant. The findings are also backed by various reports by USFWS staff and USFWS Office of Law Enforcement officers.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

Since these claims are designed to present only the facts, these claims are not entirely similar to any party, however BrightSource Energy used the research presented here to prove their "innocence" in the controversy. Thus, the claims of the environmentalists are fundamentally different since their claims are based on much higher numbers.