Wildlife Workgroup Meeting May 4-5, 2005 …

    Wildlife Workgroup Meeting               May 4-5, 2005           Aurora, Colorado

                                    Meeting Summary

DAY 1:

Welcome and Purpose
Abby Arnold, RESOLVE, welcomed attendees to the National Wind Coordinating Committee
Wildlife Workgroup meeting and described the objectives of the NWCC. The meeting attendees
went around the room to introduce themselves and describe their interest in wildlife/wind power
interactions. Meeting participants and their contact information is at the end of this summary.

The group reviewed and approved the agenda and meeting objectives. The meeting agenda is
provided at the end of this document.
Meeting Objectives:
   - Review Wildlife Workgroup Subgroup Activities and Approve Next Steps
           o Grassland/Shrub Steppe Species
           o Nocturnal Methods and Metrics
           o Risk Assessment
           o Peer Review
           o Mitigation Toolbox
           o BWEC
   - Report On Sector Activities and Interests
   - Presentation of New Research

Grassland/Shrub Steppe Species Subgroup: Activities Update
John Bridges from Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) reported on the formation and
initial activities of the Wildlife Workgroup's Grassland/Shrub Steppe Species Subgroup. The
Subgroup's purpose is to develop a research plan to better understand the potential impacts of
wind projects on grassland and shrub steppe species. A first meeting was held March 29-30 in
Wichita, Kansas and included presentations on the wind power development process and on
factors influencing grassland birds, discussion of ideas for new research, and development of a
work plan. The short term work plan entails sponsoring a critical literature review, as well as
Spring/Summer 2005 research on small grassland birds and identifying prairie grouse lek
locations. In the long term, the Subgroup plans to conduct management experiments and engage
the participation of others including developers, academics, and government scientific
community. Next steps proposed consist of:
         § Creating and reviewing research plans, one for prairie grouse and one for other
             grassland and shrub steppe birds
         § Sponsoring a critical literature review
         § Securing research funding and determining a way to administer those funds



                                                                                              1
       §   Holding a Fall 2005 workshop to finalize research plans, inviting other interested
           technical experts to participate.

In response to member questions, John Bridges stated that:
       § Information on impacts of wind facilities on grassland and shrub steppe species is not
           considered readily available by Subgroup members.
       § Development is already happening in grassland species habitat such as the Flint Hills
           in Kansas and other parts of the Midwest.
       § The critical literature review will not be done by the Subgroup; rather, a request- for-
           proposals will be put out based on criteria developed by the Subgroup.
       § Cumulative impacts, while important to study, are not currently in the study plans.

Another Subgroup member related that numerous confounding variables like oil wells, tree
growth, and prescribed burning make isolating the effects of wind developments difficult.
Participants discussed which people might need to be involved in reviewing information
collected by the Subgroup, with state agencies suggested as one party to consult. Funding for the
literature review may be provided by the NWCC, but other funding sources will be needed to
carry out additional research. USGS has emergency research funds that the Subgroup is working
to obtain. The NWCC will develop a proposal on having RESOLVE serve as the research funds
administrator.

Nocturnal Survey Methods and Metrics for Birds and Bats
Steve Ugoretz from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources described the focus of the
Nocturnal Methods and Metrics Subgroup, which is to develop a companion document to the
NWCC publication Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document covering
nocturnal activity of birds and bats. The Nocturnal Methods and Metrics Subgroup drafted an
outline for the companion document and Steve led the group through the outline. Chapter 1
details what is known about nocturnal activity patterns. Chapter 2 separates birds from bats and
looks at issues and parameters relevant to wind interactions such as flight altitudes and activity
patterns, stopover areas, timing of movements, weather, large scale patterns like coastal vs.
continental, physiographic regions e.g. desert Southwest, and funneling features. Information
limitations are explored in chapter 3, including what researchers do not know and what they have
difficulty getting information on. Chapter 4 explores the strengths and weaknesses of various
methods for evaluating nocturnal use of sites such as observational studies, radar, acoustic, and
and others. Level 1 studies and experimental design are covered in chapter 5. Chapter 6
discusses real world application of data for site selection and evaluation, determination of
population effects, and developing and evaluating risk reduction methods.

In response to member questions, Steve Ugoretz stated that:
       § Chapter 5 could be expanded to include Level 2 studies.
       § This outline is only a draft and is open for revision.
       § The cost and availability of funds to do this kind of addendum have yet to be
           determined.

Consistency between the current Guidance Document and the proposed nocturnal update was
discussed. One participant pointed out that experimental design is already covered for Level 1



                                                                                                 2
and 2 studies in the current Guidance Document. It was also pointed out that nocturnal activity is
already addressed in the Guidance Document, but that the discussion warrants expansion. Others
stressed the methods and metrics should be simple yet consistent. Topics not currently in the
outline to consider adding include:
        § Validation of methods
        § Best management practices
        § Duration of studies
        § Effects of other similar developments
        § Thermal imaging

Risk Assessment: Applying an Ecological Risk Assessment Framework to Wind Power
Jim Newman from Pandion Systems began by providing the dictionary definition of risk, which
is the probability of some unwanted thing happening. The Risk Assessment Subgroup formed
after Wildlife Research Meeting V in November 2004. The Subgroup's charge is to:
        § Learn more about what ecological risk assessment (ERA) is
        § Look at applicability of ERA to assess potential impacts of wind power development
            on wildlife
        § Make recommendations on what, if any, next steps might be taken by the Wildlife
            Workgroup
Jim detailed challenges to estimating risk from wind energy projects, explained some of the
aspects of the EPA approach to risk assessment, and described what he though a risk assessment
approach similar to the EPA approach can provide. The Subgroup is preparing an informational
document on what risk assessment is and various methods for measuring risk.

Jim Newman provided the following comments in response to participant questions:
      § Impact is a general term, with risk a subset of the term impact. Quantifying the
        probability of an impact occurring falls into risk.
      § For wind power, one needed component is to identify wind farm characteristics that
        help in predicting risk.
      § The goal of risk assessment is to quantify the likelihood of a negative impact, though
        it is up to the individual analyst to determine how to interpret that number. I am not
        sure what this means?

Many attendees found value in pursuing a white paper on risk assessment, though some
wondered if the topic is not already covered by environmental impact statements conducted pre-
construction. The white paper would provide an opportunity to set out commonly accepted
procedures for assessing risk and recommendations on how to conduct risk assessment.

One participant felt that despite the abundance of wind projects, few metrics are consistently
studied. It has yet to be determined how useful common metrics like flight elevation and raptor
active nest density are for estimating risk. Another person addressed this issue by noting that
some of the measurements consistently done are useful for risk assessment, but without doing
risk analysis, there is not a way to relate data to a proper response. The quality of data collected
is another factor influencing the effectiveness of conducting risk assessment--poor data can lead
to incorrect conclusions regardless of what assessment method is used.




                                                                                                   3
Participants offered additional comments and asked clarification questions, summarized below:
        § The Risk Assessment Subgroup might consider looking at the different methods of
           risk assessment presented at the November 3-4, 2004 NWCC Wildlife Research
           Meeting in Lansdowne, Virginia and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each
           method.
        § It is unclear how uncertainty should be accounted for when measuring risk. Also,
           what level of uncertainty is acceptable?
        § Avoiding detrimental impacts is a key factor in siting wind facilities a.
        § Risk assessment at wind sites is about more than turbine effects; related habitat
           impacts such and direct and indirect habitat loss and habitat fragmentation are also an
           important consideration, though these impacts have not been well studied, and habitat
           fragmentation can be difficult to quantify.
        § A clear understanding of the effects wind developments have is needed before risk
           can be assessed.
        § Quantifying risk is challenging on a global scale, so a participant recommends
           looking at individual sites to validate risk assessment models and then try to
           extrapolate to other sites.

Peer Review in Wind Energy Studies
Ellen Paul, executive director of the Ornithological Council, led this discussion of peer review
and its applicability to wind energy studies. She noted that while wind power is portrayed as a
green energy option, scientific evidence is needed to support that claim. Peer review can serve
as a means to assure quality of research to funders, legal institutions, academics, the public, and
other interested parties. For peer review to have legitimacy, the reviewers should be experts in
their field and expertise, while also being free of or correcting for any biases. Currently most
reviewers are anonymous, though there is call for changing this practice among some members
of the scientific community.

Ellen covered factors typically taken into account by reviewers and how they might apply to
publications on wind. These include:
       § Is this an important research question?
       § Will it advance knowledge in the field?
       § Was the study properly designed and conducted? Did the researcher have adequate
           knowledge and skill to conduct the survey properly?
       § Are the results improbable? Do the findings support the conclusions?
       § Is there plagiarism, failure to acknowledge sources, or unnecessary duplication of
           previous research?

Ellen distributed a one-page handout on peer review which includes a proposal for a government
appropriation to create a fund used to conduct research on the impacts of wind power on wildlife.
The proposal would stipulate that developers drawing from the fund to conduct research would
re-pay the fund if a project is constructed (a revolving fund). However, federal funding means
all research findings must be made available to the public and developers generally want to
retain proprietary control over their findings.

Ellen responded to questions and comments with the following clarifications:



                                                                                                      4
       §   When reviews provided by reviewers are not consistent, a journal editor generally
           steps in to resolve the discrepancy.
       §   For peer review to work appropriately, the reviewers need to have no stake in the
           outcome of research and publication. Technical advisory committees may be flawed
           if the parties participating want a certain outcome.
       §   Peer review might be of interest to the wind industry because they can make stronger
           arguments about their building and operational practices.
       §   Undergoing peer review can be a lengthy process as generally there are not set
           deadlines (privately financed peer review sometimes has deadlines).

Participant responses to the presentation are summarized belo w:
        § The Green Building Council might serve as a model for the wind industry of a group
            that holds itself to a higher standard.
        § Considering the difficulties scientists can face in finding research funding, the
            revolving fund might be beneficial for developers and scientists alike.
        § Other industries seem to use government regulation to dictate their actions, not peer
            reviewed science. Therefore, the wind industry may want to consider developing its
            own design standards.

Meeting participants did not want to form a peer review subgroup at this time, but Ellen will
continue to work with the NWCC on ways to add validity to NWCC publications and Abby
Arnold agreed to explore how to improve review of all NWCC materials to ensure legitimacy of
these documents.

Mitigation Toolbox
Lynn Sharp from Tetra Tech EC described the Mitigation Toolbox Subgroup's aim to provide a
comprehensive reference on the types of mitigation that can be used by the wind industry to
compensate for adverse impacts to wildlife. The reference is intended to be a living document,
updated as new information comes available. Lynn described two types of mitigation,
minimization and compensation. Siting plays a key role in minimizing impacts, on both a large
scale and through micro-siting. Design and technology approaches are also minimization
techniques. Compensation can be used for direct or indirect impacts and is typically habitat
based. Developers may utilize on-site compensation (e.g. habitat restoration, grazing practices,
weed control, prescribed burning) or off-site, which may be funded by the developer but carried
out by other parties.

The mitigation toolbox could contain these descriptions of mitigation types, as well as case
histories that detail successes and failures. Attendees noted the following areas for care,
concern, and consideration:
        § Making sure quality information and proven strategies are utilized, focusing on
            documented methods that work and not technical folklore.
        § Clarify to the audience that mitigation methods must be adapted for individual
            projects and cannot be followed line- for- line.
        § Recognize that no matter what steps are taken, wildlife may be adversely impacted.
            While some impacts can be avoided, it is impossible to avoid all impacts.
Additional topics participants mentioned adding to the toolbox are:



                                                                                                   5
       §   Operational mitigation
       §   Risk capping
       §   Avoidance
       §   Case study of Colorado multi-party shortgrass prairie mitigation project successfully
           completed using off- site mitigation.

Sector/Participant Updates on Activities
Al Manville, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), represented by the Service and the
industry, has been working for the past two years on developing the template for voluntary
guidelines for an avia n protection plan. This is an opportunity for all members of the electric
utility industry to develop voluntary avian protection guidelines specific to their location and
industry needs dealing with strike and electrocution issues. More details are available on their
website, http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/TBLCONT.html.

USFWS voluntary guidelines on wind power/wildlife interactions were issued in July 2003.
After concerns with the voluntary guidelines were raised, USFWS held several public workshops
with representatives from AWEA, DOI, and others, most recently in March 2004. The USFWS
acknowledges that the guidelines need to be updated and a public comment period is open
through July 10, 2005. The NWCC will be advised of the next steps the USFWS will take to
address concerns received from the industry and other members of the public.

An RFP has been submitted for Neotropical Migratory Bird Act funding. Contact Doug Ryan at
Douglas_ryan@fws.gov for an application and more information. Deadline for receipt of grant
proposals is early December 2005.

Steve Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin's utility commission is conducting its first state-funded study including wildlife areas.
The final decision of the utility commission may be interesting because it also includes other
factors like renewable portfolio standards.

Russ Mason, International Fish and Wildlife Agency
Many states are developing wildlife plans due out in October, check the IAFWA website
http://www.iafwa.org/ for details. The IAFWA is trying to engage utilities on wildlife issues.
Also, BLM and the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies are developing a clearing house
on grassland/sage grouse habitats.

David Klute, Colorado Division of Wildlife
A ballot initiative last fall established a renewable portfolio standard of 10% renewables by 2015
for Colorado. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is looking for information on wind power and
to find better ways to interact with industries.

Mark Woythal, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York state has a renewable portfolio standard of 25% by 2012. To collect data on wildlife
impacts, radar trucks have been collecting data at sites around the state.




                                                                                                   6
John Bridges, Western Area Power Administration
New interconnections are coming in, with WAPA helping to facilitate that process.

Laura Miner-Nordstrom, U.S. DOE Wind Program
DOE wind program offers financial and logistical support to the NWCC and also works through
its Wind Powering America program. Wind and wildlife is a key topic, as well as offshore.
Future work depends on funding approved by Congress, though DOE anticipates being funded at
current levels or above.

Tim Cullinan, Washington State Audubon
Audubon has two proposals out now seeking funding to allow greater Audubon participation in
the NWCC. Another proposal is out to state fish and wildlife agencies requesting funds to
support more local field volunteers. The outcome of these funding proposals will be known by
the end of June.

Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy
TNC is working to identify areas of biological significance, as well as areas with the fewest
confounding aspects, in an effort to collaborate with industries on determining sensitive areas
where development might not be advisable. The federal National Heritage Program database is a
source TNC encourages be used in making siting decisions. Gary Kania is TNC's lead contact
on wind.

Ellen Paul, The Ornithological Council
The National Academy of Sciences is beginning a study in the mid-Atlantic on wind power and
its influence on the environment and viewshed aesthetics.

Karen Kronner, Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc.
Karen is beginning a project with TNC looking at biological diversity and would welcome the
participation of interested agency representatives.

Alex Hoar, US Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS is in the early stages of a study looking at a landscape view of the Allegheny front. The
goal is to develop criteria useful for many projects on how birds and bats fly over landscapes.

Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association
AWEA held several siting workshops this year, aiming to increase knowledge about what is
available and what information is still needed about siting wind facilities. More such meetings
will be held in the future.




                                                                                                  7
DAY 2:

Report out from Subgroups: Progress Made and Next Steps
Risk Assessment
Jim Newman from the Risk Assessme nt Subgroup reported back on the discussion last night over
dinner about risk assessment. The following topics were recommended for inclusion in a paper
or workshop from the NWCC on risk assessment:
           § Discuss the use of risk assessment
               The aim of risk assessment is to quantify risk, but interpretation of that number is
               the actual risk assessment.
           § Characteristics of risk assessment
               Determine what data are required, what level of uncertainty is acceptable, etc.
           § Component on exposure
               Make a list of issues relevant to risk assessment, i.e. metrics used to determine
               exposure to risk.
           § Review applicability of existing risk assessment models
               This would include models from Tucker, Podolsky, Kerlinger, WEST, and others
               who have developed methods for assessing risk.

One participant cautioned the Risk Assessment Subgroup against trying to address biological
significance rather than interpret risk.

Nocturnal Methods and Metrics
Dale Strickland from the Nocturnal Methods and Metrics Subgroup presented a revised version
of the outline Steve Ugoretz provided (described under Day 1) for a companion document to
Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document. The new outline focuses more
on methods and equipment available for studying nocturnal activity, suc h as radar, night vision
equipment, acoustic, ceilometers (bright lights), moonlight, and thermal imaging. The type of
data each method can collect and its strengths and weaknesses is to be included. Another section
will detail metrics available to employ such as passage rates, behavior, species richness, etc. The
companion document would conclude with information on assessing risk and impact to nocturnal
wildlife.

Based on participant responses, the following clarifications were offered:
          § The writers of the original Guidance Document were chosen by a committee.
               Several parties reviewed the document, including scientific experts not involved
               with wind issues, the USFWS regional offices, and the NWCC membership.
          § The nocturnal behavior of most nighttime active birds and bats will be considered
               in the companion document, not limited to passerines. Nor will the document be
               limited to migrants but will also include resident activity like owls.

Participants provided several comments and suggestions:
            § Add specific applications of the methods to the outline.
            § Provide examples of species that can be studied using each method.
            § Standardization of sampling is another methodological point to include in the
               outline.



                                                                                                  8
           §   Add information about how the Guidance and companion documents are written
               and reviewed to give them more credibility as resources.
           §   Consider integrating this effort with other methods and metrics being designed for
               similar structures like communication towers.

The updated outline still needs to be reviewed by the entire Nocturnal Methods and Metrics
Subgroup. Also, writers for each section have yet be determined. Comments or ideas on the
current outline can be sent to Katie Kalinowski, NWCC, at kkalinowski@resolv.org.

Prioritization of Tasks and Core Group
One member suggested that the NWCC does not have the resources for all four Subgroup
activities to proceed and therefore perhaps the activities should be prioritized. Another attendee
felt prioritization would be helpful because members from non-prioritized Subgroups could
assist with priority topics.

Another idea put forward was to form a core group of the Wildlife Workgroup, comprised of 2-3
representatives from each sector. The intent of the core group is to add continuity and structure
to the Wildlife Workgroup, which has fluctuating participation levels.

The group decided to conduct a vote at lunch on how to prioritize Subgroups and to discuss the
core group idea during the meeting wrap- up.

Report on USGS-USFWS Collaborative Research Efforts Using Radar and Other
Technologies for Wind and Other Tall Structure Development
Al Manville from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service explained new joint efforts between
USFWS and USGS to use radar, including NEXRAD and portable marine radars, for studying
bird and bat conservation, habitat use, migration, and management. He began by providing
background on the development of radar and its applications to studying birds and bats,
specifically looking at their:
            § Daily movement to and from nests and roosts.
            § Seasonal migration patterns.
            § Feeding ecology.
Other potential applications for NEXRAD radar include studying:
            § Effects of habitat restoration.
            § Effects of climate change on bird migration patterns.
Al described various types of radar available, what they can detect, and their limitations.

Goals of the USGS-USFWS collaboration in this field are:
            § To identify migratory pathways and stopover sites.
            § Simplify analysis of radar data to enable its use by a wider audience.
            § Convey information about importance of functional landscapes and unobstructed
                airspaces for migrating wildlife.
At least five different projects are underway to achieve these aims. Continued outreach is
planned to new partners like BLM, DOE, FAA, FCC, industry, and others, and new tools and
software are slated for development. Ultimately these items are intended to provide:
            § Ability to assess effectiveness of landscape-scale conservation practices.



                                                                                                     9
           §   Ability to evaluate wildlife responses to long-term trends like habitat loss, climate
               change, development, etc.
           §   Raise awareness and support for agency conservation efforts.

USFWS employees in attendance offered the following in responses to audience comments and
questions:
           § There is Canadian involvement in these new ventures and the possibility of
             coordinating efforts.
           § New information is needed on how birds use space over time and under certain
             weather conditions. Detection in the rain is a tremendous growth area, if the cost
             comes down. USFWS is planning a workshop on radar to discuss this and other
             related issues.
           § Comparing study results, be it at a state or regional level, will be easier if the
             studies use the same protocols. USGS is using standardized protocols but at the
             same time developing new protocols.
           § This collaborative effort is plugged in to National Park Service inventory and
             monitoring activities.

Report from Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) on Collaborative Work and
Plans
Ed Arnett from Bat Conservation International and facilitator of BWEC began by reviewing the
history of bat fatalities at wind facilities. Bat fatalities have been reported at all wind farms
investigated in the US across a wide range of habitats. Estimated mortality in the West appears
to be relatively low (