STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS, INTERESTS AND CONCERNS
During the summer of 1995, before the second Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting, Resolve interviewed 18 people to identify remaining questions about bird - wind power interactions that might be resolved through research. Based on those interviews, Resolve prepared a White Paper entitled Views on Research Questions Regarding Avian - Wind Power Interactions. This document was circulated to meeting participants in advance of the meeting. Abby Arnold of Resolve summarized the main points during the meeting. The following is the text of the White Paper, plus a summary of the discussion that followed Ms. Arnold's presentation.
Stakeholder Views on
Research Questions Regarding
Avian - Wind Power Interactions
by
Abby Arnold and Christopher Behr, Resolve
1. Introduction and Background
In preparation for the September 1995 workshop, Resolve interviewed representatives from state and local permitting agencies, environmental advocates, and the wind industry. The individuals to be interviewed were selected by the Avian Workgroup, and are identified in Attachment A. Interviewees were asked to identify remaining questions that they had about avian/wind power interactions, emphasizing questions that may be resolved through research. Each person commented on his or her involvement with avian/wind power issues, perspectives on issues, and ideas about questions that would benefit from research. Emphasis was placed on research that would reduce uncertainties about specific avian interactions at proposed or existing wind power developments.
Although the parties interviewed expressed a range of opinions about wind development, all raised common questions and research priorities. Most interviewees expressed support for wind power as long as there was low or no impact on birds. The primary differences among parties were their perspectives on how many data are needed on potential avian impacts before one can predict the actual mortality rate at a particular site. Environmentalists who were interviewed generally wanted more site-specific information, collected over a longer period, while others seemed more satisfied with the research that is presently being conducted to predict impacts.
Interestingly, almost all parties expressed interest in receiving better guidance on conducting pre-construction site evaluations and post-construction monitoring, with more emphasis on the former. Some interviewees suggested that more effort should be directed at investigating why birds are injured by turbines and what technological improvements could mitigate these effects. Others called for better avian population and behavior models that predict where and when avian mortality levels threaten the integrity of the species.
2. Interview Process
Avian Workgroup members who were organizing the second Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting directed Resolve to contact nearly 20 individuals about avian/wind power interactions. Contact was made through an initial letter followed by telephone calls to schedule interviews. Interviews were conducted from July 28 to August 7, 1995.
Interviewees consisted of technical and policy representatives from wind energy industries and associations, five state or local Audubon Society chapters, a renewable energy advocate organization, and national, state and county government planning officials involved with permitting wind developments. All interviewees were currently involved with evaluating wind power impacts on birds. Collectively these parties have been involved with proposed or constructed wind power developments in California, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
3. Research Questions
The interviews revealed that all parties independently faced similar difficulties in answering two distinct yet linked questions:
How to evaluate a proposed wind development site for risk to bird species?
How to ensure that the research adequately analyzes a site for its potential impact on avian species?
Leading off.In answering these questions, interviewees identified four major categories of research proposals that would help them in their work. The categories are research on (1) site evaluation protocols, (2) population modeling, (3) monitoring protocols, and (4) bird behavior and mitigation strategies. Note that, throughout this section, research questions are not presented in any priority order.
3.1 General Questions in Wind Development Siting.—Wind power developers pointed out that evaluating sites as potential energy sources combines studies on geophysical, geographic and climatic conditions with assessments of risk to birds and their habitats. Wind developers want to develop sites with a low impact on natural resources, especially birds. It is in the developer's own interest to examine impacts on natural resources, given the demands of the permitting process and public concerns about avian mortality.
Other interviewed parties agreed that background information on the habitat requirements, population dynamics, and potential mortalities of relevant species are critical information needs. However, the interviewees did not agree on how much information was enough, how long sites should be studied, and the appropriate methodology to gather accurate information. Some parties assumed that the "experts" knew, while others were skeptical that any one "best" approach could be defined at present, and felt that comparative studies conducted over a longer time would reveal the best approaches.
Each party interviewed wants to understand the potential impacts of wind development and make decisions accordingly, yet many are frustrated by the lack of guidelines for conducting this kind of evaluation. In several states, interviewees stated that environmental impact assessment guidelines for examining wildlife impacts are inadequate for birds that travel over large areas. However, an interviewee in California suggested that, even though specific procedures for studying avian impacts have not been drafted in legislation, "unwritten" standardized procedures are currently in use by county permitting officials and industry representatives.
Another concern expressed during the interviews was whether research conducted at one site was applicable to other sites. Parties disagreed about the types and amounts of information that is transferable from one site to another. In particular, although numerous studies in the Altamont area have contributed to the collective understanding of injuries to raptors, interviewees from the mid-west and east coast were uncertain about applying this research to their specific circumstances. Sites in their regions have different species and geographical features than those at Altamont, and they were unsure how to compare their research with that at Altamont or how to evaluate whether enough had been done at specific sites proposed for development. Moreover, raptor research at Altamont provided no guidance on evaluating the risks to passerines in other areas. Some interviewees noted that wind park and technological designs have improved because of research at Altamont, and that these improvements should be generally applicable.
3.2 Site Evaluation Research Protocols.—The parties consistently called for nationally recognized research standards that incorporate state-of-the-art methods for site evaluation. Most interviewees agreed that such protocols, supported by environmentalists, industry, and selected representatives of relevant federal and state permitting authorities, would improve the ability of all parties to analyze wind development proposals critically. A protocol could include a list of research topics to consider and methods for addressing uncertainties. A protocol could be revised to incorporate new research developments. The protocol could also include suggestions for adjusting some of the variables to be measured in order to accommodate site-specific considerations.
Interviewees suggested that the following questions should be incorporated into a set of protocols that could be applied to different stages of wind power development:
How to estimate species diversity, including the species present and their age and sex composition?
Which species should be studied specifically?
How to estimate the local and regional populations of potentially impacted species?
What is the local and regional significance, for each species, of the habitats present in the proposed development area?
How geographically large should the study area be?
How long should studies be conducted?
What are the implications of assumptions made about unknowns?
How does the potential impact from wind development compare to impacts associated with other sources of energy?
Several interviewees suggested that these questions be formalized into an avian risk assessment structure. One interviewee described how data may be used in the development of a generalized risk assessment model that is based on resource selection functions (e.g. probability of use as a function of distance to an active nest, distance to active territory center, wind characteristics, topography, etc.). The generalized model could be based on the collection of utilization data for the same species in several areas. For individual species, the model would combine nesting data and expert opinion to refine site ranking in future site selection processes. Broad application of the general model would depend on the performance of the model throughout the range of the species and across habitats. For example, the model may only transfer from one site to another in its simplest form, using a small number of variables such as utilization versus distance to an active nest, topography, and wind characteristics.
3.3 Research on Population Dynamics of Priority Species.—In addition to site-specific research guidelines, other interviewees, especially the advocates on behalf of birds, stressed the need for more information on the population dynamics of priority species such as raptors and neotropical migratory species. Priority species were defined as bird species with special value to other species and to people, plus species with populations that are at risk or at potential risk if additional losses were incurred. These interviewees believed that population models for priority species should include estimated population size and distribution by age, sex and breeding status, and should cover all regionally significant points in the flyway.
The interviewees who wanted more research into population modeling felt that it was necessary to determine a critical threshold for mortality in priority species. Results from modeling would be useful in evaluating the direct impact from a proposed turbine site and its cumulative impact on species through their area of migration. Interviewees stated that these models will help all parties understand whether there is a significant effect on the population if the turbine kill rate increases from 1% to 2%, for example. Also, such a model may help better understand whether impacts are additive or compensatory. Some interviewees stated that impacts on birds are difficult to analyze statistically because there are few actual deaths within a wind plant per species or in total. Models would, therefore, aid in determining if there would ever be significant cumulative impacts on bird species if the number of turbines increased.
3.4 Site Monitoring Protocols.—Site-evaluation includes estimating the potential impact on avian populations. Many interviewees suggested the need to develop better data on avian mortality. Interviewees said that nationally recognized monitoring protocols would help local planners, developers and environmental advocates evaluate proposed sites and currently operating wind plants. Suggestions for standardized protocols for mortality monitoring included
data collection methods (including carcass searches, scavenging rate trials, and observer efficiency),
mortality analysis (cause of death),
ancillary and environmental variables (e.g. turbine type, location of turbine within turbine string, distance to active nest, distance to active territory center, wind characteristics, and topography),
control site selection and evaluation, and
how to apply findings from one site to another.
Some interviewees mentioned that, whaWever protocols are developed, they should be flexible to allow for the best allocation of research efforts and funds. For example, it may be clear that some sites require extensive monitoring whereas others appear to have virtually no potential avian impacts.
3.5 Avian Behavior, Mortality Modeling and Technological Mitigation.—Planners, wind power developers, and advocates for both birds and renewable energy all mentioned that a better understanding of avian/wind power interactions and the cause of mortality would help focus technological efforts to reduce avian mortality.
One component of bird behavior mentioned frequently was migration. Some interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their current knowledge of bird migration. These parties wanted migratory path research conducted for relevant species and geographical areas. Other individuals noted that significant amounts of information on the migration routes, patterns of flight, seasonal patterns and nesting areas already exist, and suggested that effort should be focused on collecting, evaluating and disseminating this information. Some suggested that lessons may be learned by examining research on bird behavior with respect to other structures such as power lines.
Other research areas mentioned by interviewees focused on developing surrogate or proxy measures for understanding the cause of bird mortality. Because deaths occur infrequently in existing U.S. wind developments, it is difficult to evaluate the statistical relationships between risk and variables such as turbine type, turbine location, etc., and thus to understand when birds are most likely to be killed. One interviewee suggested that a measure of risk based on avian behavior, acting as a surrogate variable for mortality, would help in predicting avian impacts if the data could be modeled analytically. This surrogate variable should be based on observations that are, in comparison with mortality data, more easily and more commonly collected, e.g. how birds adjust flight patterns and nesting strategies with respect to wind developments and various types of structures.
Several interviewees wanted more information on how to adjust on-site and off-site mitigation strategies for particular species and areas of concern based on avian behavioral research. Several people had questions about the locations of turbines with respect to recognizable avian habitats such as wetlands. Others wanted to know more about design features such as audio or visual deterrents such as blade painting. Interviewees also wanted better comparisons of the impacts of lattice-tower and tubular-tower turbines on bird species, including designs that inhibit perching. Several people strongly suggested that research should examine whether turbines with slower blade rotation speeds reduce avian injuries.
4. Additional Comments
4.1 Consultation Models.—Almost all interviewees specifically mentioned that they were in favor of furthering wind development, but only in the most appropriate places. However, the fear of setting a precedent at the wrong site was mentioned several times by planners and environmentalists. Many advocates for birds have been dissatisfied with the pattern of siting wind development in the past and would like to have a more open process for evaluating alternatives. Others have suggested that the competitive nature of wind development creates constraints to disclosing proprietary research. These concerns are indicative of problems in communication between industry representatives and environmental advocates. When told of processes for including the public in siting decisions being developed in California and Minnesota, parties asked for more information.
4.2 National Repository of Avian/Wind Power Research.—Many people suggested the need to establish a public, national repository for studies on birds, wind power, and their interactions. Interviewees suggested that a central source of information would "level the playing field" and help all parties agree on what is known and what needs to be known on a site-specific basis. Several people mentioned a concern about managing the repository and suggested that the data should be catalogued in a standard format for quality control and quality assurance, and managed independent of vested interests. Data on migration patterns, resident species and potential wind energy sources could be incorporated together in a GIS system to identify areas of low impact and high energy yield. Data from Christmas Bird Counts and NEXRAD radar were discussed as largely untapped resources that might be included in the repository. Interviewees also wanted to incorporate findings on bird collision mortality from the U.S. and abroad. A report by Colson and Associates, Avian Interactions with Wind Energy Facilities: A Summary, was mentioned as a starting point for collecting these data. There should be a regular process for updating this information.
During the year since the first National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting, held in July 1994, communication has improved among those interested in bird - wind power interactions. However, more discussion will be needed among the interested parties to better understand one another's questions and then to develop means to answer the questions. The second National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting in September 1995 offers an opportunity for those who have been immersed in these issues to sit back and reflect on the suggestions about research priorities offered by the various parties with their many differing but overlapping perspectives.
Attachment A: Interviewee List
| Don Arnosti National Audubon Society Minnesota State Office 26 E. Exchange Street, Suite 207 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 225-1830 Mike Azeka Jan Beyea Hap Boyd Gina Campoli Ed Colson Chuck Davis Kurt Dryer John Dunlop |
Bill Fannucchi Environmental Planning Analyst Public Service of Wisconsin 610 North Whitney Way PO Box 7854 Madison, WI 53705-2729 (608) 267-3594 Art Feinstein Cathy Fisher Paul Kerlinger Shiela McEntee Don Nelson Rachel Shimshak Joseph Spaulding Dale Strickland |
This section summarizes the discussion that followed Ms. Arnold's oral summary of the preceding White Paper. As the first opportunity for meeting participants to share their perspectives, this discussion session was quite fruitful. A number of important issues were raised that participants returned to over the next 2½ days. Some of the comments reiterated and supported the paper's summary and a few others introduced further complexities that will arise in development of policy. In some respects, this was an important opportunity for regulators to express some fundamental concerns about the current state of knowledge and what will be expected of them in permitting a wind power facility.
Several of the comments discussed the complexity of the permitting process. One person mentioned that regulators should be involved earlier in the design phase. After significant resources have been invested in site evaluation and design, industry representatives may expect to receive a permit and regulators may find it difficult to require additional abatement measures or to deny a permit.
One way in which regulators could be involved earlier is through participation in the design of the site evaluation process. One regulator suggested that the process for evaluating a single site should be consistent with the processes at other existing and potential sites within a larger wind resource area. To do this, research should be expanded from the single wind development site to provide data for assessing comparative and cumulative impacts over a broader wind resource area. Regulators would be instrumental in overseeing this process by ensuring that consistent and comparable data were collected.
The question, "Who would pay for non-site-specific studies", remained open. One person commented that requiring the first applicant for a permit in a given area to cover the costs of the broad survey would be a disincentive to the first developer. To reduce this problem, one participant suggested that government should contribute to the cost of area-wide studies of comparative and cumulative impacts, and that individual wind developers pay a research fee that would help defray these costs.
Discussion proceeded from this suggestion to the feasibility of comparative and cumulative assessments. The main difficulty would be comparing studies conducted by different people, in different areas, at different times. On this topic meeting participants echoed the suggestion from the White Paper: develop a standard, but flexible, set of guidelines for evaluating a site. Participants stated the need for common definitions on the type and scope of studies; research processes that can produce statistically consistent data; and procedures for transforming data to keep them comparable when research procedures are modified.
Another issue that participants raised was the importance of forming a central repository for studies and data. This suggestion reemphasizes comments summarized in the White Paper. One person thought that the repository would help clarify a lot of the misinformation that exists when a site is evaluated. It would also be a source that all people can look to in order to answer some basic questions about potential avian impacts. The repository would be the first step in consolidating the best professional judgment on research and analytical methods. As some people pointed out, in this era when many stakeholders are looking to the courts to resolve differences, scientific expertise is being raised to a new level of importance, and standards for admissibility of expert opinion and evidence are increasing.
