MEETING SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS TO BE TAKEN
This meeting was organized to foster productive, problem-solving discussions on how to better understand the impact of wind development on birds. The meeting commenced with a summary of interviews with a variety of people from around the country, in which many had expressed frustration about the lack of any specific guidance regarding how to assess the potential impacts of a proposed wind plant on birds. The remainder of the 2½-day meeting consisted of presentations and discussions about how to approach this problem.
Following the initial summary of interview results, the meeting was structured around four presentations on statistical design and modeling approaches, another four presentations on site assessment protocols and techniques, and two pairs of concurrent workgroup sessions. There was extensive discussion during or following most of the nine formal presentations as well as in the workgroups. The Workgroups were particularly effective in helping meeting participants focus on the questions that most needed answers. When participants reconvened at the end of the workgroup sessions, it was clear that they had independently and together identified similar questions and similar recommended approaches.
Major Recommendations from the Meeting
1. Framework/Conceptual ModelThe first priority is to develop a conceptual model or framework of the principal causes of avian mortality at wind plants. The initial framework would include assumptions about the factors affecting collision mortality, such as day or night, weather and visibility, prey base and habitat characteristics, resident vs. migratory species, species susceptibility, etc. In formulating the initial framework, the critical tasks would include identifying the principal elements to be considered, and hypothesizing the nature of the linkages among those elements. The initial framework would incorporate many untested hypotheses, but it would represent the state-of-the-art and best professional judgment. The process of deriving this initial model would, in itself, be instructive in identifying key technical issues, assumptions, and data gaps.
The group proposed that several people should begin the process by writing a paper describing this initial framework and then distribute it for comments. Eventually, the group hoped that a consensus could be reached on the components and linkages of the initial framework. This framework would be refined as new data become available, and might ultimately evolve into a more quantitative model.
2. MetricsOver the course of the meeting many people discussed the need to know how to assess a site and how to compare it with other sites. One key requirement, they said, was a common set of metrics, or statistics, that researchers could use to characterize the potential or existing impact from a wind development. For example, participants suggested the need to obtain various measures of utilization and mortality, and the need to derive ratios of the basic measures, e.g. mortality per unit utilization, or perhaps mortality per kilowatt hour generated. Participants suggested that, once the conceptual framework is established, a paper should be developed on the advantages and disadvantages of using various statistics to assess the principal impacts. Regulators, in particular, expressed interest in knowing the implications of relying on one statistic as opposed to another.
3. Data Collection Guidelines/ProtocolsThe third major recommendation concerned the need to further develop the research protocols and data collection guidelines discussed at the meeting. The guidelines should take account of the conceptual model (see 1, above) and should provide the needed metrics (see 2). The guidelines should discuss both general sampling design and specific data collection methods.
Several presenters at the meeting discussed their work in developing guidelines. Although there were few areas of major disagreement, the various proposed protocols emphasize different types of data. Thus, more work needs to be done to draw together the strong points of the various proposals and resolve differences. There is also a need to further address the extent to which data collection procedures should be adaptable to different circumstances, as opposed to rigidly standardized across all studies. When different procedures are adopted in different studies, procedures should be developed to ensure that the results can be compared and combined even though the data collection methods differed.
4. Statistical Analysis TechniquesParticipants recommended that attention also be given to identifying and recommending appropriate statistical techniques for the kinds of questions, metrics and sampling techniques commonly encountered in this field. For example, statistical methods appropriate for ratios, rare events, and BACI designs are needed. Initial recommendations should be included with the protocols discussed in recommendation (3), above.
5. Updating the Framework and ProtocolsParticipants suggested that the preceding four recommended efforts should work together in an iterative process to adapt to new developments. The framework would help focus data collection efforts to address specific questions. The resulting new information would be analyzed by the recommended statistical methods to confirm or reject hypotheses about avian impacts. These results would be used to refine the framework. By this process, the framework would gradually become more quantitative and potentially useful as a predictive tool. As experience is gained, desirable refinements in metrics, protocols, and analysis methods would also be identified.
Additional Recommendations
In addition to recommending the above primary agenda, participants suggested undertaking several other activities:
An ongoing collaboration between scientists and regulators was recommended by several participants.
A Technical Review Committee, including regulators, biologists and statisticians, was suggested. This group could provide peer review for studies at specific sites, and facilitate coordination among projects, including meta-analysis approaches when appropriate.
New technologies: The participants recommended seeking out relevant technologies or research methods not previously considered or used in this field. This could be done by arranging for White Paper(s) and/or a "Technology Workshop"; invite people with backgrounds in solving similar types of problems in other fields (e.g. aerospace engineers, physiologists, and bird scaring specialists).
Radar technologies and coordinated radar, visual, and electro-optic methods: There is a need to develop consistent and validated procedures and sampling strategies for migratory and local movements of birds. White Paper(s) and/or a workshop were suggested.
Cumulative effects: We need to develop an approach to measure cumulative effects in large wind resource areas over the long term, including consideration of data consistency and funding.
This meeting was also important for another reason: communication. In addition to wanting guidance on site assessments, many people interviewed by Resolve have been uncomfortable about the site evaluation process and associated communication links. This meeting improved links between researchers and scientists and helped them form common definitions of the problem. Through a series of dialogues between regulators and scientists, regulators' most important questions were articulated and scientists discussed feasible approaches to finding solutions. Many participants commented that relationships formed at the meeting may help to enhance collaborative working relationships among stakeholders.
