INTRODUCTION
Government regulators, scientists and other stakeholders met in September 1995 to share ideas about research that could be helpful in predicting and reducing avian mortality resulting from wind turbines. This meeting was the second that the Avian Workgroup of the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) has hosted in the Workgroup's attempt to address and build consensus on issues of public policy, scientific research, and stakeholder/public involvement related to avian/wind power interactions. The Proceedings of the first meeting are available, while the supply lasts, from Resolve; they are also available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
The purpose of the present meeting was to
provide information on avian/wind power interactions that will help meet the needs of regulators, researchers, and other stakeholders concerned with responsible development and permitting of wind plants;
create dialogue among regulators, researchers and other stakeholders to help all parties understand the role that research can play in responsible development and permitting of wind plants, and allow researchers to understand the relevance of their research to the process; and
propose research projects and the appropriate sponsorship.
By design, fewer people were invited to this meeting than to the meeting held during July 1994; this change was intended to enhance individual participation. Attendees are listed in Table 1. Appendix 1 provides their full mailing addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, and (when available) e-mail addresses.
Organizers made a special attempt to foster dialogue between regulators and scientists. Regulators involved in planning the workshop were seeking reliable methods for assessing potential harm to birds. They were looking to avian scientists and statisticians
to help refine the research questions that need to be answered in light of what was already known, and
to help construct feasible short- and long-term research goals.
The Avian Workgroup attempted to include a full range of perspectives at the meeting. In developing the list of invitees, Workgroup members identified specific people who could represent different regions and different areas of expertise. They also asked Resolve to interview a variety of people, the majority of whom would not attend the meeting, about their research interests. Resolve drafted the interview results into a White Paper and discussed the findings during the meeting's first session.
Table 1. List of Attendees, National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting II. See Appendix 1 for addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses.
| Attendee | Affiliation |
| Anderson, Dick Arnold, Abby Azeka, Mike Bain, Don Behr, Chris Beyea, Jan Bortner, Brad Colson, Ed Cooper, Brian Curry, Dick Davis, Earl Davis, Holly DeMeo, Ed Eames, Michelle Gauthreaux, Sid George, Walt Gray, Tom Hunt, Grainger Jamison, Van Johanson, Car Kendall, Bill Kerlinger, Paul Loose, Ron Mayer, Larry McIsaac, Hugh Morrison, Mike Orloff, Sue Penning, Bill Pollock, Ken Richardson, John Shenk, Tanya Strickland, Dale Thresher, Bob Ugoretz, Steve Wilson, Kenneth |
California Energy Commission Resolve SeaWest Energy Corp. Oregon Dep. Energy Resolve National Audubon Society USFWS, Portland Consultant ABR Inc. Kenetech Windpower EPRI NREL EPRI USFWS, Washington Clemson University BLM AWEA Univ. of Calif. Santa Cruz—PBRC Montana Natural Resources Dep. Montana State Univ. USFWS, Laurel, MD Consultant Wind Energy Prog., DoE/HQ Good Samaritan Regional Medical Cent. Raptor Res. Cent., Boise State Univ. University of Arizona Ibis Environmental Services Minnesota DNR North Carolina State University LGL Ltd. (for EPRI) Colorado State University Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. NREL Wisconsin DNR Colorado State University |
In addition, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and/or the meeting organizers asked eight additional individuals or groups to prepare White Papers on various relevant methodological topics. Most of the draft White Papers were circulated to prospective meeting attendees in advance of the meeting, and the White Paper authors were invited to summarize those eight topics during the meeting.
Although organizers did not expect to reach consensus on a research agenda at this meeting, they hoped that participants could agree on common definitions of the problems, and that they would discuss suggestions for next steps. Full consensus requires a longer process that involves identifying research questions about avian/wind power interactions, debating studies that should be conducted, and deciding on available and feasible approaches and methodologies for conducting studies. Nonetheless, this meeting, the one before it (see footnote [1] ), and the ongoing research have helped to raise the level of technical discussions. As a result, the thinking of most people at the table has coalesced regarding the next steps that should be taken in gathering information needed to reduce avian mortality at wind plants.
The meeting was structured in two parts. The first day and a half consisted of technical presentations and discussion on the theory and methods for understanding avian impacts. The authors of the nine White Papers mentioned above summarized their topics. Following each presentation there was an opportunity for open discussion of that topic. The information exchanged during these sessions provided ground work for the second part of the meeting, when participants divided into Workgroups to discuss research priorities and proposals within four general topic areas. The detailed agenda can be found in Appendix 2.
The second part of the meeting consisted of two concurrent Workgroup sessions followed by another pair of concurrent workgroup sessions. Thus, each participant attended two sequential workgroup sessions. Members of each workgroup drafted a set of research questions and proposed research methodologies or activities that address these questions. The workgroups focused on the following areas:
Site evaluation and pre-permit research and planning: What types of avian research ought to be conducted before deciding whether a site should be developed? What methodologies ought to be used?
Operational monitoring: Once a site is developed, what types of research can help estimate and predict the number of birds killed by wind turbines? What methodologies ought to be used?
Modeling and forecasting, including population dynamics models: What research studies will help model or forecast where wind energy developments may conflict with priority species or with large numbers of species or individuals? Are population models helpful? What models ought to be developed and used?
Avian behavior and mortality reduction: What research should be conducted to better understand why birds are killed and whether and what technology can mitigate this impact?
