**USFWS Wind Power Workshop**

Rio Rancho Best Western, Rio Rancho, N.M.

2-3 February 2005

L:Dkrueper / Wind Power / Meeting Notes Wind Power Workshop 2-3 Feb 2005

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="5.834722222222222in"}

*DISCLAIMER NOTE: THESE ARE DJK'S NOTES FROM THE WORKSHOP, AND ARE NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES*

**WORKSHOP AGENDA**

**[OBJECTIVES:]{.underline}**

1.  Inform FWS personnel of the intent of the FWS's Interim Guidelines;
    latest science on impacts on birds, bats and other wildlife; what's
    happening at the national level.

2.  Discuss the roles of the various Service programs in windpower
    issues.

3.  Share information on workload and innovative approaches to
    addressing windpower issues.

4.  Develop a consistent approach for review of and comment on windpower
    proposals.

5.  Develop a strategy for communicating with the windpower industry and
    their consultants, other Federal and State agencies, stakeholders
    and the public, including a common message.

6.  Develop a strategy for sharing information and communicating among
    the FWS programs and among the Regions and the Washington Office.

7.  Identify additional tools needed for effective review of proposals,
    i.e. research, database collection and management, and peer review.

**February 2, 2005**

**8:00-8:15 Welcome and Introductions -- Nancy Gloman**

**8:15-8:45 The National Overview -- Al Manville**

Al will focus on the latest developments from the national perspective,
including guidance, interest within the Department of Interior and
Congress, the BLM Draft PEIS, ongoing FOIAs and litigation, etc.

**8:45-9:15 The Altamont Pass Case History: Where Are We? -- Al Manville
/ Keith Swindle / Scott Heard**

Discussion of the lessons learned from the development of one of the
oldest windfarms---Altamonte Pass in California.

**9:15-11:30 Regional Reports Regions 1, 2, and 6**

Each region will be provided 30 minutes to discuss: where the current
workload is, what is proposed; major issues and challenges; information
needs; examples of the good, the bad and the ugly; and anything else you
might want to share. Region 1 can report the outcomes from their
workshop held the previous week. (We will have a 15 minute break during
this session.)

**11:30-1:00 Lunch**

**1:00-2:15 FWS's Interim Guidelines/Others -- Rob Hazlewood / Al
Manville**

Al will briefly review his role on the National Wind Coordinating
Committee, actions that precipitated development of our guidelines,
steps taken in developing our voluntary guidance, and efforts so far at
outreach. He will also briefly review challenges we face in implementing
them. Rob will discuss the development, testing (by a team), and use of
the process for reviewing and ranking sites based on our recommendations
within the Interim Guidelines, the point behind the site index, PII
scores and what they mean, how we envision the process working, and
upcoming public workshops. Al will mention Washington State guidelines
and summarize the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) model.

**2:15-2:45 Scientific Issues -- Al Manville / Bill Howe / Dave
Krueper**

This session will include a quick summary of the current state of
knowledge involving avian and bat mortality and habitat fragmentation
and disturbance; specific discussion of the prairie grouse and grassland
songbird issues; where do you go for information; scientific tools (e.g.
radars, thermal imagery, acoustic monitoring, GIS) available to assess
bird and bat use, presence, migration, feeding and habitat fragmentation
(radar ornithology); what research and additional tools are needed;
where do you go for information; and what resources exist especially
including the National Wind Coordinating Committee. What research is
needed.

**2:45-3:00 Break**

**3:00-3:20 Mitigation -- Al Manville / Rob Hazlewood**

What type of mitigation is possible and realistic? Methods for reducing
take such as technological changes and timing restrictions. Successful
examples? Non-successes?

**3:20-3:40 Long-term Monitoring**

What post-construction monitoring is necessary and why it is important
including long-term monitoring (over 2 years) to assess the level of
take, impacts to the habitat and resources, and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures? Can we develop a robust, nationwide, consistent,
peer-reviewed scientific monitoring protocol so data and impacts can be
compared? What are the opportunities for adaptive management?

**3:40-4:00 Legal Issues -- Al Manville / Domenici**

What Federal nexuses exist? Transmission grids? What is the relevancy of
existing statutes Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act? Legal involvement with wind: what authority, state and
local processes (Public Utility Commissions, Energy Facility Siting
Boards)

**4:00-4:20 The Role of Law Enforcement -- Swindle / Domenici / Heard**

What is the role of Law Enforcement? Under what circumstances will Law
Enforcement step in? What kinds of information do we need to provide
them and how can we keep them informed? Can we/should we determine how
much take is too much? Strategies for dealing with companies that follow
the guidelines compared with those that do not.

**4:20-4:40 The Roles of ES / Migratory Birds / Refuges -- Jeff Haskins
/ Rod Krey**

What are the roles of Ecological Services, Migratory Birds and Refuges
in windpower issues? How can we work together to be more effective?

**4:40-5:00 Recap and Discuss Process for tomorrow -- Gloman /
Granillo**

**February 3**

**8:00-10:00 Consistent Approach for Review -- Granillo**

The following questions will help guide the discussion:

-   How can we be proactive?

-   Private vs. Federal. What development is occurring on Federal
    lands\--working with Federal agencies.

-   Wind development on National Wildlife Refuges and grassland
    easements(compatibility)

-   How do you deal with wind where there is no or a weak Federal nexus?

-   How do we engage, meet and work with proponents in a professional,
    non-threatening way?

-   How to deal with companies that have already decided where they are
    going to put the grid and have no alternatives to offer

-   How do we more effectively participate in the process?

-   What are effective strategies for dealing with reluctant proponents?
    How can we bring more proponents to the table?

Examples from Field Offices where proponents are happy we have guidance
and are working with us---some good news. What policy is needed?

As a product of this session, we would like to develop a strategy for
participating in the process.

**10:00-10:15 Break**

**10:45-11:30 Continue Discussion on Consistent Approach**

**11:30-1:00 Lunch**

**1:00-3:00 Communication/Outreach Strategy -- Granillo / All**

How do we get across a consistent Regional and national message? What
should that message be? How do we engage the industry and stakeholders?
What is the role of External Affairs? How do we better communicate in
house and among programs? Providing a "wind energy package"
(information/guidance) to project proponents. Is there one out there? If
not, should one be developed? What are the political issues and
challenges? With several programs and several regions involved in
windpower issues, how do we keep each other informed within the FWS?

**3:00-3:15 Break**

**3:15-4:00 Continue Developing Strategy**

As a product of this session, we would like to develop an outline for an
outreach strategy.

**4:00-4:30 Where Do We Go From Here? Close out**

\* \* \*

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEETING NOTES TAKEN DURING THE CONFERENCE
AND WITH ADDITIONS AFTER THE CONFERENCE.

**February 2, 2005**

**8:00-8:15 Welcome and Introductions Nancy Gloman**

LE, ES, External Affairs, Migratory Birds and Refuges are in attendance.

Two Goals of this meeting (specifically):

1\. Develop strategy and the tools to be proactive in this upcoming wind
power issue.

2\. What is the FWS message? (develop a clear and consistent message
throughout the West...)

\* \* \*

**8:15-8:30 The National Overview Al Manville**

Wind industry is not a new technology; around since the 1800s on the NE
Coast. Cape Cod at one time had over 1000 windmills in operation at
once.

Altamont Wind Resource Area (WRA) impacts Golden Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk
and American Kestrel, but also Burrowing Owl and Turkey Vulture. Several
hundred raptors killed annually.

National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC), Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee (APLIC), Communication Tower Working Group (CTWG)
and American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) are key organizations (all
are partnerships). Dispute resolution group working to pull all parties
together is RESOLVE. ***See websites for each of these organizations.***

Wind is the fastest growing energy initiative. Power expressed in
Megawatts (MW) rather than number of turbines. 6740 MW currently being
produced in 33 states. Industry likes to claim they are a "green
industry" which is true, if done in a responsible manner.

We face three major challenges (see below), but possibly the most
important point to remember is that ***cumulative impacts*** are our
shared concern. Concept of additive mortality. "What is the straw that
breaks the camel's back...?"

1.  Bird Strikes. Per turbine mortality about two birds per turbine per
    year. Based on 12 studies (soft estimate), but the mortalities are
    much lower than other industries.

2.  Bat Mortality. Very recent phenomenon. West Virginia in 2003.
    Mountaineer Project on Backbone Mountain -- between 1398 and 4031
    bats estimated killed during August and Sept at 44 tubines. Similar
    numbers in 2004. Very high mortality rate. No listed bat species
    have been found yet, but it is only a matter of time.

3.  Habitat fragmentation and disturbance issue. Probably a bigger issue
    than the direct mortality issues, particularly with the prairie
    grouse, and grassland sage-steppe bird species.

Additional issues take place on private land. When do we stop cutting
bait and start fishing? When is there enough monitoring (current
recommendation is two years of monitoring)? What about areas of impact
adjacent to world class resources...?

Tax credit issue: 1.8 cent tax credit per kilowatt hour will expire on
December 31, 2005. Tight time frame in private industry.

**Portfolio Standards** with the states. Renewable energy requirements
within the state sector (certain % of overall power generated within
each state is required to come from renewable sources). There are also
Public Utility Commission and County level (zoning boards) regulations.

**Interim Voluntary Guidance** issued by FWS in early 2002 (part of the
Secretary's 2002 Renewable Energy Public Lands Initiative). Fifty-two
page document issued in July 2002 with a two-year comment period
(handout provided at the meeting). Only 4 public record comments have
been received this year. Interim Draft will be published in the
***Federal Register*** with an additional 60 days public comment. Then
it will be approved as official "Voluntary Guidance" document.

Federal nexus issues. When projects exceed 50 Megawatts they need
Environmental Impact Statement, under 50 MW they need an Environmental
Assessment (confirmation and regional consistency is needed).

**[Action Item: Al will look into this and report back to us.]{.mark}**

Prairie grouse issues (no development within 5 miles of active leks).
White paper available (electronic publication available).

**Sensitivity Index** (methodology for determination of how "sensitive"
an area is to avian disturbance issues) is being developed by the
Europeans and the paper will be available shortly.

**[Action Item: Al will provide a Power Point copy of his presentation
for distribution to all workshop participants. This will probably also
be available on the FWS Intranet site to be established.]{.mark}**

\* \* \*

**8:30-8:45 The Altamont Pass Case History: Where Are We? -- Al Manville
/ Keith Swindle / Scott Heard**

First and the largest of the wind industry projects in the U.S. Overall,
this complex is comprised of a mish-mash of technologies and turbine
styles and sizes. Some lessons learned:

1\. **LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION**. Pre-construction monitoring is
critical.

2\. Grazing attracts rodents and insects which concentrates raptors. Do
not graze

3\. Cluster the turbines into

4\. Elevate rotors above a certain critical height

5\. Reduce vertical and lateral edge

National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) has contributed substantially to
the knowledge learned at Altamont. How not to do things.....

29% of California's emission-free energy generation comes from Altamont.
Currently there are between 6,000 -- 7,000 turbines in the overall grid.

1300 raptors killed annually at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. This
includes 116 GOEA, 300 RTHA, and 380 BUOW (just the species and numbers
that are collected but may be underestimated due to carcass removal by
scavengers).

Settlement Agreements may be completed, but right now we do not know
what the terms and conditions *should* be in those agreements. What will
work and what will not? Retrofit here or tear down? Fines only? Do not
want to set a precedent that will haunt us into the future. We want to
do this thing right. The behavioral data and mortality data have been
gathered, the empirical data needs to be worked on. Species-specific
deterrents may be the answer, *but* establishing a solution for one
species may exacerbate a problem by promoting higher mortality for
another species.

Example: \$5,000 fine per GOEA? This would be absorbed into the cost of
doing business. The customer would end up paying higher utility rates,
but this would NOT change the raptor mortality totals.

Possibly the best way is to work with the State, Counties and local
companies to establish *individual* settlement agreements. There is *no
silver bullet* to this issue.

\* \* \*

**8:45-10:45 Regional Reports Regions 1, 2, and 6**

**Region 1 -- Mike Green**

Altamont, San Gorgonio, Tehachapi, Solano, Pacheco are the largest wind
turbine farms in the Region. Many more are planned (or are near
completion). Some of the larger sites are placing turbines at 1.5 MW per
turbine. As with all of the Regions, there are many species-specific
issues (Marbled Murrelets, Western Snowy Plover, etc.).

BLM EIS (Draft). The public comment period has ended.

Seabird concerns in Hawaii as well as along the coastal areas of CA, OR
and WA (pelagic seabirds) are a huge issue. One example is that 29,000
Newell's Shearwaters have struck power lines in one year alone on
Hawaii. Construction of wind turbine fields would place greater pressure
on seabird populations if turbines were placed on the mountains near
where they nest.

Bird mortality is measured in either:

a\) number of mortalities per MW per year or,

b\) number of mortalities per turbine per year.

***Units of mortality must be consistent to be meaningful***.

Mortality rates for all birds combined in Oregon is estimated to be 0.6
birds per turbine per year (0.9 birds per MW per year).

In California at Altamont, the mortality estimate is 8 birds per MW per
year (\>100 Golden Eagles, 200 Burrowing Owls, and \>1600 raptors
total).

Meeting in Idaho was held last week. Local organizer was Sandy Arena
(also other contacts are Mike Green and Rob Hazlewood). Contact them for
more information and results.

Radar ornithology technology (NEXRAD) and analysis is a very promising
tool to be used to determine high use areas for migratory birds
(concentration areas) and for predicting future issues areas. This will
be coordinated with USGS.

**Region 2 -- Bill Howe, Stephanie Harmon**

Wind turbine farms in TX, NM and OK, but none in AZ. Roughly 1674
turbines and 1731 MW of power produced annually (total for Region 2).
Most on private land (crucial issue). TX and OK are ca. 96% private
land, and Federal nexus does not apply. Few pre-construction surveys are
being conducted (minimal).

Three turbine grids in NM on private land (some state). ES was not
involved in the discussions. Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPCH) populations
are of huge concern on eastern Plains of New Mexico. Eight hundred
turbines in west TX near Fort Stockton, more near Amarillo. Many
proposed sites along coastal TX. Texas General Land Office is actively
investigating the leasing of near-shore lands for wind turbine
facilities. OK has several sites near the Wichita Mtns. NWR.

Resident and local breeders (diurnal habitat use) are one potential
concern, but the nocturnal migration picture may also be of potential
concern.

Oklahoma -- LPCH is a candidate for listing. Completely dependent upon
native grasslands, primarily in western OK. Every known LPCH lek in the
state is adjacent to or within wind resource areas (areas with the
highest wind resource potential) that are on state lands. As with all
state lands in the Western U.S., they are set aside to generate revenues
for the public school systems. 53% of all known LPCH leks occur within
one mile of excellent wind power potential sites; over 90% of all LPCH
leks are within 5 miles of excellent wind power potential sites within
the state. Transmission lines are often the limiting element in the
development of wind turbine farms. Concern that native shortgrass
prairies are under tremendous threat from conversion and other
anthropogenic impacts.

150,000 acres of land leased for wind potential within OK. Industry
touts that it is green and environmentally friendly, but that was what
was said when the original hydroelectric industry got established in the
Pacific Northwest (pre-salmon issues). Often the carbon credit issue is
brought up as an example of a way to slow or decrease release of carbon
(traditionally generated under other methods of energy production), but
once on-line would decrease carbon release totals by only 0.3 percent
(one-third of one percent). There is also the potential for huge issues
with bat mortalities, which are now being regularly recorded.

Bat Conservation International (BCI) has the technology to show
individual bats/birds with digital thermal imagery and how they interact
with wind turbines, blades and post-blade wind turbulence after the
blade sweep.

**Region 6 -- Rob Hazlewood**

Many species issues in a wide variety of habitats. Have had some issues
with BLM on the enforcement of regulation. One thousand turbines
producing 1200 MW in all of the eight states combined. Some turbine
sites are now being placed off of the edge of the mesas and bluffs to
decrease chance of raptor strikes (new developments, but not a retrofit
after-the-fact mitigation measure). Construction schedules vary from 180
days to three years (from planning to being on-line and producing
energy). Industries do not typically move once a site has been chosen,
but pre-construction studies can be effective in determining concerns
(e.g., the one site which showed tens of millions of migrant birds using
the area resulted in not one company continuing with an interest in the
area). Two FTE in Region 6 (total) are working on turbine issues
(dedicated positions), and this will increase tremendously in the
future. This is not the case in the other Regions.

Transmission lines (locations and carrying capacity) will be the
limiting factor for many of the proposed wind turbine farms in the
region.

Consulting firms often tell the industry what they want to hear. Be
aware of the history and integrity of the consulting firms that you
contact. Some are much more reputable and trustworthy than others....
Lively discussion followed this observation.

Prairie potholes have wet depressions and ponds which number up to 83
per square mile. Wind industry is starting to show interest in
establishing turbine farms in or adjacent to these sites. Many wetlands
are being secured through conservation easements for the benefit of
migratory waterfowl. Over a million acres of wetlands are protected and
over another million acres of native grasslands are protected. Needed
are an additional 10 million acres of grasslands and one million acres
of wetlands to preserved duck populations at current levels. Buffer
zones are often employed between sensitive sites, but are not always the
best answer for conservation of lands and wildlife.

Conservation programs coincide with the exact locations that the wind
industry is targeting for developments. South Dakota has continued to
lose 40,000 -- 60,000 acres of native prairie per year. Over 1.8 million
acres have been destroyed in North and South Dakota within the last 10
years.

Production Tax Credits are giving landowners the incentive to turn
native prairie into farmland. If the landowners were given another
alternative to generate money, perhaps they could retain the native
prairies by generating enough monies through wind energy incentives. One
turbine per quarter section is the interim policy if certain guidelines
can be met. This density has been shown to not impact native wildlife
populations.

Easements are being made to retain native grasslands and allow wind
developments to be constructed. This works well for the landowners who
are running cattle operations. This issue is similar to the development
of the ranchettes vs. ranchlands issue. Once the prairie is turned over,
it is destroyed forever.

Level of appropriateness is a concept which needs to be addressed. Allow
appropriate uses, in appropriate areas, at appropriate use-levels at
appropriate times....

Conservation Easements vs. Fee Title Lands

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in their Grassland Reserve
Program have prohibited wind development on their lands

NIMBY -- Not In My Back Yard

**[Action Item: Note to all Regional leads. Send Al Manville a listing
of each state's *portfolio standards* so that he can compile all of them
in time for a workshop in Boston. Al will compile a listing for all
regions so that we are up-to-speed for future issues.]{.mark}**

\* \* \*

**12:00-1:15 Lunch on your own**

\* \* \*

**10:45-11:30 FWS's Interim Guidelines/Others -- Rob Hazlewood Al
Manville**

Service's Voluntary, Interim, Land-based Wind Guidance was initiated due
to the tremendous industry growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s as
well as the President's initiative. National Wind Coordinating Committee
(NWCC) was established in the mid-late 1990s to address issues
associated with wind industry development. Wildlife Working Group was
formed to address issues related to wildlife. Service reviewed domestic
and foreign scientific literature (and gray literature). Team pulled
together in 2002. Group was charged with drafting voluntary wind turbine
guidelines in 2002 (available on website -- address below). Document
addresses both birds and bats. Public briefing in July 2003 just after
the release of the draft Guidance document. November 2003 was the first
public meeting on the issues of wind power and the Guidance document.
AWEA had some concerns, but each concern was specifically addressed in a
public meeting in late 2003. Canada also showed and interest in the
Guidance. November 2004 -- Lansdowne VA meetings on the most current
state of the art knowledge.

**[Action Item: The NWCC
([www.nationalwind.org](http://www.nationalwind.org/)) is a tremendous
website which has great information. Several manuals and technical
papers are available for downloads (PDF).]{.mark}**

How to deal with the uncooperative companies...? Always an issue. The
guidelines are voluntary, not regulatory. Make sure that the Service's
message is honest and forthright, consistent and is not perceived as
"fast and loose."

White House Energy Task Force is a major player on the Washington level.

There is a self-created perception of the industry being "Green." The
industry is "Green" if it continues to show good intent to work with the
Service on addressing issues such as avian mortality. Thus far the rate
of mortality is lower than the other industries, but there much fewer
turbines out there. There will no doubt be many-fold increase in the
number of turbines, which will greatly elevate the total mortality. Rep.
Pombo (R - CA) wants the Guidance to be rescinded immediately, while
others want the Guidance to become law. Many other issues are on the
horizon.

Washington State Guidance -- not much known at this point, but believed
to be guidelines that were developed. The document is filled with
unqualified recommendations ("should, if xxx, then xxx, it is
recommended but not required that, etc....").

We need to continue to encourage the industry to come to us up-front so
that we can be proactive together, and so that we can influence pre-site
construction studies, site location, and turbine array and
configuration.

APP -- Avian Protection Plan. Voluntary initiative which acts as
replacement for individual MOUs with the industry. APLIC developed the
template, and can be tailored for use with the wind turbine industry.
Should be published and available in Spring 2005 (website based). One of
the key components is that it will involve a voluntary mortality
reporting database which will allow the companies to keep track of
problem areas, and will allow us to track mortalities. This should NOT
be viewed as self-incrimination, but a good faith effort to work with us
on this issue. APPs may give Law Enforcement the necessary ammunition to
prosecute companies who have NOT shown good faith or any effort to
cooperate with us. Can sign a Miranda Waiver (formal).

Rob Hazlewood - Ranking Potential Wind Resource Area Impacts on
Vertebrate Wildlife: A Strategy for Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife
Impacts, and Identification of Study and Monitoring Needs.

The two most important things to remember regarding the Guidelines are
that they are flexible and consistent. Wildlife-related recreation --
more than \$100 billion spent annually to fish, hunt and view wildlife.
Bird related activity is an important component of outdoor recreation.
One out of every four birds are in trouble within the United States.
Remember that birds are big business. Convey this message to the wind
industry... inform them and give them the facts so that they are aware
of the challenges and the potential conflicts.

**[The USFWS Guidelines:]{.smallcaps}**

-   are intended to assist the wind industry in avoiding or minimizing
    impacts to wildlife

-   assist with placement of turbines within development areas

-   provide guidance with pre- and post-construction studies, and
    monitoring to identify and/or assess impacts

-   the guidelines provide consistency and are voluntary!

Site evaluation is used to identify and evaluate referenced sites in
similar habitats within the general geographic area. The Potential
Impact Index is developed using three evaluations (physical attributes,
species occurrence and status, and ecological attractiveness).
Evaluations need to be conducted by qualified biologists. When the site
evaluation is complete, the scorecard is added up, and an index is
determined. Rob can provide an example for our use.

**Conclusions (points to take home):**

1\. Encourage the wind industry to work with us and follow the
guidelines.

2\. Look for opportunities to promote wildlife conservation when
planning wind turbine facilities, to include mitigation for impacts.

3\. Conduct scientific research to provide additional information. This
provides benefits to all participants.

4\. These are adaptive guidelines which are open to public comment, and
which can change as new information becomes available.

\* \* \*

**1:15-3:00 Scientific Issues -- Al Manville / Bill Howe**

**Current state of knowledge**. Bird and Bat Fact Sheet is a good
information sheet for the lay-person. Two birds are killed on average
per turbine per year (varies from 6-8/turbine/yr to less than
one/turbine/year). Raptors are killed on average at 0.3/turbine/year.
Issues exist with biases on mortality counts, searcher efficiency and
predator removal rates. Lighting on towers, siting, configuration and
arrays.

**Peer review.** Must always be evaluated to remain credible. Will
continue within and without the Service.

**Avian and bat mortality, habitat fragmentation and disturbance.** Bad
weather events and lighting evidence. Lighting is a concern. What is the
flash sequence that is best (for pilots, birds and bats)? Simultaneous
flash (all lights on the tower flashing at the same time) with three
seconds between flashes appears to have the least impact. Red strobe
lights may be less attractive than other types of lighting (not
scientifically and conclusively proven). Knowledge on bats is probably
1/1000 of what we know on birds. Not a single bird mortality/impact
study has been conducted within Texas or Oklahoma.

**Prairie grouse and grassland / sage-steppe songbirds.** Potentially a
HUGE issue. These species are already in trouble. The guidelines may
actually be too limited (5 miles may still impact the active leks for
these species).

**Where do we go for information?** National Wind Coordinating
Committee, American Wind Energy Association, the Canadian Wind Energy
Association (CanWEA), gray literature, and a Service website dedicated
to wind issues. Al Manville also has a tremendous amount of literature
which he can make available.

**Scientific tools.** Doppler radar (NEXRAD), reflectivity and velocity
studies, locations of concentration areas, Marine radar high-resolution
(BIRDRAD), thermal imaging for behavioral studies, acoustic monitoring
(Bill Evans from Cornell), ANABAT (vocal tool for detecting bat
echolocations), GPS and GIS mapping, moon watching. Must always be
ground-truthed. Proceedings from the NWCC will be available soon. Kathy
Granillo noted that a cookbook methodology to help with ANABAT will be
distributed soon (developed by refuge biologists from the Lower Colorado
River).

**Additional tools needed.** Gulf of Mexico information is needed (oil
platforms) for determining use and pathways used by migratory birds.
Nationwide database on mortality is needed. Integrated weather-based use
of areas of the Texas Coast to determine height of flight (good weather
versus bad), pathways used, how to turn off turbines in short order.
Sensitivity Index and site ranking index (based on work developed in
Germany). Nationwide GIS overlay. We need pre-construction and
post-construction monitoring protocols (robust and peer-reviewed) that
we can distribute to all industry partners and all stakeholders.

**NWCC.** Key players in the wind issue. Industry is well represented,
but there are a significant number of scientists and agency personnel
who are gathering information and are attending the meetings.

**Is there an acceptable level of mortality that we can tolerate?**
Under MBTA, the only legal level is 0 mortality. Since this is
unrealistic, we need to think about "how much is acceptable, and how
much is too much...?"

\* \* \*

**3:00-3:15 Mitigation -- Al Manville / Rob Hazlewood**

**Methods for reducing take include:**

1\. Behavioral analysis (migration, habitat use, etc.) and mortality
monitoring is critical. These protocols MUST be peer-reviewed by the
Service to be considered credible. WEST Inc., and EDM International are
two highly credible consulting firms and are recommended.

2\. Temporary turbine shutdown. Logistic challenges due to individual
styles. All turbines are engineered to feather their blades for safety
under high winds. Shutting them down completely often damages the
bearings because they must be moving almost at all times (even at very
slow speeds). Free turning turbine blades are important. Technology is
there to immediately shut down an entire turbine field. Doesn't
completely obviate the problem, but can help under certain weather
events which may increase avian mortality.

3\. Wind smear (blur of the turbine blades). The larger blades may be
easier to see, but still may be rotating at 160-180 mph and have a
larger surface for a potential strike. These blades' height (rotor swept
height) are approaching 525' (nearly the height of the Eiffel Tower and
much higher than the Statue of Liberty). Rotor swept height on off-shore
turbines may be 600' or more....

**Successes:**

Bat / Wind Collaborative is working well and funding for this initiative
is coming along. More studies are needed however.

**Failures:**

Chitaqua (NY) site is an example of a failure. This is best considered a
"reference site" (i.e. This is the worst possible site for a turbine
development) and yet they are moving forward with the construction.
Another is at Horicon Marsh.

**Mitigation Discussion:**

No take allowed under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act without a permit
or other authorization. The only mitigation is under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).

General Question: What authority do we have to ask for mitigation?

Conservation Easements have been shown to work successfully in many
cases. Imminent Domain and Condemnation have not been used to our
knowledge. Usually has been addressed under the Federal nexus (NEPA
compliance). Public Utility Commission does have Imminent Domain
authority in Texas.

Most industry reps want to blast past "Avoid", past the concept of
"Minimize," and then get to the term "Mitigate." Would rather pay
mitigation monies rather than deal with avoidance (sites or
configurations) or minimization of impacts. The price tag will just be
passed on to the customer anyway.

3:1 Land Swap (Mike Green will provide some more information on the
Washington State example). Issues of footprints, 1:1 for buffer,
permanent disturbance.

Buy the wind rights from a landowner once the highest priority sites
have been identified. We buy out the primary sites, but then allow the
secondary and tertiary sites to be developed.

**Ideas from the flip charts:**

1\. Conservation Easements

2\. 3 to 1 land swap for footprint, 1 to 1 for buffer zone

3\. Power lines associated with wind developments

4\. Eminent Domain re: electricity security

5\. 1982 Mitigation Policy

\- Class 1 says "in-kind habitat"

6\. Need research to help determine adequate mitigation

7\. Habitat restoration on-site and in the buffer (OK example using red
cedar)

8\. Mitigation Banking

9\. Scientific studies -- the Idaho example of long-term radio tracking
of Greater Sage Grouse

10\. Money for developing species conservation plans

11\. Money for GIS products

12\. Buy rights on top priority sites and not develop them

\* \* \*

**3:15-3:30 Long-term Monitoring**

*What post-construction monitoring is necessary and why it is important
including long-term monitoring (over 2 years) to assess the level of
take, impacts to the habitat and resources, and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures? Can we develop a robust, nationwide, consistent,
peer-reviewed scientific monitoring protocol so data and impacts can be
compared? What are the opportunities for adaptive management?*

\* \* \*

**3:30-4:00 Legal Issues Manville/Domenici**

When a consultant comes to the ES office, an HCP is the first
recommendation usually given. Not a strong hook, but it is a start on
the public record. Not threatening.

MBTA -- no formal consultation process under the Act. No incidental or
accidental take permits issued. Strict liability act. If proponent does
not address this, then they are not working in good faith with the
Service. Culpability issue comes up.

Bald and Golden Eagle Act. No consultation and not a strict liability
act. Bald Eagle will probably be de-listed soon. No takings.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act -- only works for caves on Federal
lands

\* \* \*

**4:00-4:30 The Role of Law Enforcement Swindle/Domenici/Heard**

Sometimes LE can be used as an effective tool to prevent avian
mortality, sometimes possibly not so clear cut. Congress intended to
make killing of even one bird an unlawful offense. The MBTA allows for
the prosecution of the killing of one bird. The Service will document
known deaths and consult. The prosecutors will bring charges after
reviewing the totality of the circumstances. The company should consult
their attorneys for these answers.

We are approaching the first court case involving wind turbine and avian
mortality issues. We (the Service) MUST have an iron-clad case and we
must win the first case so that there is a precedent set. Altamont will
probably be the first test case. No criminal charges, but probably a
settlement will come out of the case. The power companies are providing
the carcasses to the Service... they are showing some good faith, but
there are some bad apples in the mixed ownership area of concern.

Corporate attorney, owner of the company, and FWS law enforcement are
critical participants in any meetings so that everyone will be presented
the same information and the "lights will come on." People must
understand that the Act is a strict liability Act, and all parties must
fully understand this. With legal advice from the corporate attorney,
the owner may be coerced into understanding this. Treat them as
defendants, but also as a partner. Give them a way out, but also be
truthful and rattle the sabers. We didn't create the Act, but we are
charged with enforcing the Act. We cannot provide them with a number of
mortalities that are "acceptable", but that is what the company wants to
hear. Send a consistent message throughout the Regions.

Self-reporting does NOT absolve the company of responsibility for avian
mortalities. Self-reporting does not lift the burden of responsibility,
but certainly the good faith working clause is important....

\* \* \*

**4:30-4:50 The Roles of ES, Migratory Birds, and Refuges -- Jeff
Haskins / Rod Krey**

Jeff Haskins -- MBO Region 2. MBO plays an advisory role, but we depend
upon ES offices to provide the strength of regulations, primarily with
advice on the terms, conditions and the clauses of the MBTA. We counsel
industry representatives to follow the Guidelines. Perhaps we are overly
optimistic or underly pessimistic... possibly "***actively realistic***"
is the correct definition. A more active approach is required.

The ***Jeff Haskins Axioms*** which apply:

1\. The wind industry will always place their turbines in areas with
advantageous winds

2\. Birds will always migrate through areas with advantageous winds

3\. Birds that challenge turbine blade always lose (atomized)

4\. Birds will stubbornly resist changing their migratory pathways and
daily activity patterns

5\. Industry will stubbornly resist changing their preferred
construction site locations

Consultation letters have been written by ES to help provide industry
with conservation measures, but they were ignored. Now it becomes an LE
issue since ES has provided input but the information was ignored. ES
was acting like a consultation agency since they were providing so much
information. Now they provide the basic species lists and information on
the MBTA, and then step back. Must set up the big case... the one case
that the Service will win

\* \* \*

**4:30-5:00 Recap and Discuss Process for tomorrow -- Gloman /
Granillo**

\* \* \*

**February 3**

**8:00-8:15 BLM EIS on Wind Energy -- Kevin Kritz**

Draft document now review phase). Available on the web at the following
web address (http://windeis.anl.gov). This is a link through BLM
national page (energy link). Covers 11 western states (excludes Alaska).
Comment period ended in December. Al Manville has a copy of the
Service's comments which we will make available.

ROD due by July 2005. 120 applications currently on file (50% are in
California and Nevada). 20 million acres affected (overall), but after
boiling down inappropriate sites (such as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, and Wilderness Areas), and looking at
construction costs and access, etc., the figure is now estimated at
160,000 acres (affected environment). Transmission lines est. to cost 1
million per mile for construction. Each pad directly impacts 80 acres,
but for grouse it has been shown that each turbine can impact a one
square mile area. BMPs will be developed. Draft consultation agreement
has been put together for the agencies to comment on.

\* \* \*

**8:00-10:00 Consistent Approach for Review -- Granillo / All**

**Open Discussion on what the participants would like to walk away with
from this workshop:**

List of resources available (publications and websites for example)

Strategy to genuinely coordinate with partners as well as within the
Service. How to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.

Coordination among the different programs

Strategy to promote research and funding monies from the companies

Checklist when a industry company contacts us, established protocol so
that we are consistent

Commitment or plan to get peer-reviewed information assembled and
distributed to the field offices

A clear definition of need from the field offices as to what they need
to address these issues

Leadership in WO and RO to be made aware of the ramifications of the
wind industry if left unchecked. Follow up: to look into the cost :
benefit ratio versus the risks and make that information available to
field offices, congressionals, leadership, etc.

Establish a grassland easement system in the southern Plains, establish
a consistent policy on how to address fragmentation issues (roads,
turbines, urbanization, etc -- all cumulative and associative issues).

Is it possible to get a national wind power coordinator for the Service?

Study the impacts of fragmentation on other passerine species (in
addition to the grouse)

Proactive educational outreach component on the impacts of wind power
(have the Service educate and spread the word) to the public and our
sister agencies. Service has failed miserably in spreading the word to
our constituencies outside of the agency (and actually we have not done
a great job within the Service). Campaign to teach responsibility and
accountability to the public. Urban Treaty Program should incorporate
these elements. We need to move beyond preaching to the choir.
California has been pretty successful. How did they do it...?

Legal language that should be used in the coordination letters from ES
to the industry. WO has developed a draft of a similar type of letter
which can be made available to the field offices. Standard template
letter will be distributed.

How we can make these projects environmentally responsible rather than
just saying "no, don't do this." What can they do rather than just
saying they can't do this or that? Suggestions as to how to make a
project work.

Encourage an engineering solution to be developed by the industry. Put
that into stips which will then develop into a industry standard -- a
protective device that is routinely applied on the turbine structure.

Prioritize these above suggestions to come up with our target
priorities...?

Summary with prioritized recommendations, and with a commitment by the
ARDs to take these to the respective Regional Directors. Educate the
leaders so that they can support the troops. Make the strong
recommendations to the leadership.

Discussion as to how we can work with the states and the local
governments to get them involved (Game and Fish Departments, county,
industry, etc.)

The Service needs to come up with guidelines for off-shore wind
facilities ASAP. Do we have enough science to provide those
recommendations? If we do not have the science, we need to get those
answers.

International work group to address the issues. Mexico and Canada (and
other treaty parties) would be involved, but also would draw on the
knowledge that other countries in Europe and elsewhere have gathered.
What are the siting guidelines, regulations and recommendations that
have worked in Europe? They have even stricter environmental regs than
we do... what can we learn from what they have developed so that we
don't repeat the mistakes that they might have experienced?

Treaty with Mexico on bat conservation

Policy book to be developed by the Service for distribution to the field
offices. A packet of policies, information, bibliographies, and other
references that we can use immediately. Condense this stuff.

Protocol for how to respond. Understanding the process and how LE,
Refuges, MBO and Public Affairs share responsibilities and who are the
leads

**The above suggestions were boiled down into 6 categories to flesh out
ideas and information. Six groups were formed:**

1\. Outline for Handbook

-   guidance on how to respond to proponents

-   checklist

-   talking points

-   bibliography

-   list of resources

2\. Preliminary Research Needs

3\. Strategy for coordinating among program areas

4\. Outreach (messages)

5\. Habitat Fragmentation

6\. Long-term Strategies and Management Priorities

**Compilation, Presentation and Discussion from the Breakout Groups:**

**Group #1 Outline for Windpower Handbook**

The following points each have several to many elements for each, and
can be found in the flipchart notes. These are the major headings that
were identified:

-   Checklist & references materials for project proponents

-   Department policies and guidance

-   Transmission lines

-   LE guidance

-   Correspondence guidance

-   Service's guidance

-   Media of guidance

-   Other (see list for more detail). This pile was the remainder of the
    items that were not covered in the previous topics. Tools to keep us
    all up-to-date on the issues and the technologies that are
    available. Some examples of this category include a step-by-step
    example of how a wind facility is planned and constructed.
    International issues and updates, dictionary of terminology, acronym
    list....

This guidance handbook should be composed of common sense
recommendations, etc., and the enclosed information should already have
been reviewed and approved. These are tools that are assembled and
placed in a three-ring notebook to help us identify and address our
needs. This may eventually be developed and adapted into a general
manual for Service approval. Some of this material can be posted on a
list-serve. Do not call the handbook "Guidance" or "Policy." Make it a
"handbook" or a "reference book."

**[Action Item: See attachment entitled Wind Power Handbook
Outline]{.mark}**

**#2 Preliminary Research Needs**

Three major issues: bird strikes, populations, and fragmentation

**Bird Strikes**. Difficult due to individual situations and
site-specific issues. Information about use of migratory pathways and
daily use needed. Height of use, timing of migration, use of area,
weather (large and small scale), global climate change, local weather
events, tubular vs. lattice design, lighting issues (frequency, rate,
color, etc.), spacing of tubines, clustering, blade speed, smear effect,
bird strike indicator, shut-down capabilities, turbine height and
spacing, height of rotor sweep, avoidance, NEXRAD information, thermal
imagery, setbacks from cliffs (recommendation), effects of turbulence on
passerines and bats, risk involved with the rotor swept area, risk to
other taxa, issue of sound (deterrent or attraction to birds and
bats)....

**Fragmentation and Populations**. Is 5-mile buffer valid for prairie
grouse (?), species-specific differences, buffer distances for other
grassland species, dynamics of turbines and other tall structures on
leks, impact of predation and parasitism and disease on the native
species, behavior effects on ecology and life history, impacts on
disturbed and non-disturbed sites, infrastructure and siting near
transmission grids, effects on terrestrial wildlife, do windfarms affect
local ppt and weather patterns, strategies to fund studies (NWCC, etc.),
state and Federal involvement, mitigation fees for research needs,
....scientifically sound, robust, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies are
critical. Gray literature may identify gaps....

*Note: Off-shore issues are also very applicable here. Guidance needs to
be developed for off-shore developments... and fast!! This is a train
that has already left the station.*

**[Action Item: See attachment entitled
USFWS_wind_research_needs-final]{.mark}**

**#3 Strategies for coordinating among program areas (within the
Service)**

Five programs involved with the wind turbine issue are: Migratory Birds,
Refuges, Realty, Law Enforcement, and Ecological Services. Within
divisions there are coordination needs. Primary contacts differ within
the regions (refuges are contacted first in the Dakotas, while in
another state it might be Migratory Birds). How to coordinate within all
of the programs?

ES should be the lead (primary contact), with recommendations and points
of contact given to the proponent after that. Points of contact for each
region within each of the divisions so that no one is left out of the
loop.

Contact lists (one from each division). There needs to be a
determination of whether this will be a Regional or a field-level
coordination.

Recommendation (Chain of Command):

1\. Have the ARD designate a RO Point of Contact for each division and
distribute this information to the FO supervisors. This should assure
communication and coordination among the divisions.

2\. RO contact has the responsibility to notify the other RO contacts
and the corresponding FO contact. Communication and coordination is the
goal here.

3\. Each of the divisions discuss concerns and coordinate with the field
to determine issues and other concerns. Is it a RO issue or a field
office level issue? ES may be involved at both the RO and FO level
coordination. A determination is made as to whether this will be at the
regional level or passed down to the field office level (particularly
for ES and for LE).

4\. Maintain the communication process, and cc discussions and
coordination to the respective lead contacts.

5\. Status update from field (closure of the communication loop) as
needed.

\*inter-regional contact list should be shared

\* long-term need: National and Regional wind/energy coordinators

\*annual meeting with the RO contact leads to continue the C&C
(Coordination and Communication)

\* this information will be included in the Handbook (the suggested
protocol)

**#4 Outreach (messages)**

**Goal**: Communicate with target audience in a manner that supports
wind energy, stresses the importance of wildlife conservation, and
results in the adoption of FWS Guidelines and promotes partnership
opportunities.

Target Audiences: Industry, Public, Elected Officials, NGOs, Department
of the Interior, and Federal/State agencies

**Industry**: desired outcome is to change their behavior and their
attitude to result in implementation of FWS Guidelines.

Tasks to achieve the Desired Outcome: presentations at conferences,
discussions with manufacturers, product development (handouts,
brochures, fact sheets, web site information on both the manufacturers,
utilities and the FWS sites), scheduling joint events, sponsor wind
conferences, establish contacts early and often.

What is the key message(s) from FWS?

Who are the contacts?

What and where are the resources?

Funding and monies needed?

How do we cultivate our partners?

Focus on industry and elected officials as the priorities (target
audience).

**[Action Item: Jose Viramontes will compile notes for the
group]{.mark}**

**#5 Habitat Fragmentation**

Easements were discussed the most. FWS investments at risk? (FWS
purchased the easements, but the integrity of those areas are at risk
due to fragmentation).

What is left which is in need of protection?

Research needs. What are the impacts (direct and indirect) on all taxa
which live in the area of the wind farm? What is the development
threshold? Linkage of the functional loss of habitat with mitigation is
a novel concept, (eg. loss of 30% of functional habitat would result in
an additional 30% in mitigation elsewhere?).

Mitigation: Have a consistent mitigation ratio based on research.

Treat all sources of fragmentation the same (cumulative impacts). Expand
the grassland easement program. Compact the configuration of the wind
turbine arrays rather than spread out (would help decrease overall
fragmentation, but may impact other species and taxa of animals). Make a
map of habitat and wind potential (overlays) for the industry so they
know of the threats, connectivity issues in a fragmented habitat,
Conservation Service Awards to progressive utilities, create a habitat
fragmentation brochure (outreach) for the public (on a regional or
landscape scale for perspective).

**[Action Item: John Hughes (?) will compile notes for the
group]{.mark}**

**#6 Long-term Strategies and Management Priorities**

International: Propose adoption of engineering safeguards by the MB, MW,
LE, and ES work tables at the April 2005 Trilateral Meetings. Create
awareness at the top levels of government.

Fund a Senior Staff FTE within the Service's Science Advisor to
coordinate windpower affairs

Search for Best Management Practices on an international scale

Work with Congress (esp. if the tax credits are extended) to require
coordination with the Service

USFWS: Cost:benefit analysis. Request a study be conducted to show
economic impacts on industry and the government if compliance is not
enforced.

Bird Friendly Certification Program to be developed.

AMBS to request a benefit : cost analysis of a bird friendly
certification program and a benefit : cost analysis of bird protection
devices.

\* \* \*

**4:00-4:30 Where Do We Go From Here? Close out**

**ACTION ITEMS:**

1\. Handbook Outline and Table of Contents (Catherine Yeargan, Dom
Dominici, Chris O'Meilia) are due to Dave Krueper by 18 February 2005.
This will be emailed out to all workshop participants with the meeting
notes once compiled.

2\. Dave Krueper will get the meeting notes out to all by 4 March 2005.
Make sure that we have the correct email addresses and contact
information for all participants.

3\. Web site information to be hosted by Region 2. Nancy Gloman will
check into the particulars.

4\. Establishment of Points of Contact (and secondary POC) for each of
the Regions. ARDs will make the suggestions. Wendy Brown will write up a
briefing for the ARDs, and that will provide info for the ARD decision
as to the lead contact for the respective regions. These POC will be
placed into the Handbook.

5\. Outreach messages -- ask Jose

6\. Fragmentation working group -- Rob and Sandy

7\. Trilateral tasks -- Jeff Haskins

8\. Portfolio standards information to Al by 18 February 2005

9\. County permit statistics

10\. Database availability

11\. Conference call after the notes get sent out. Nancy will set up the
conference call if needed -- sometime in early April after everyone has
had an opportunity to review the notes. **5 APRIL 2005 AT 10:00 MOUNTAIN
TIME**

12\. Off-shore guidance is needed, but we are not moving on this yet. We
need to address this soon, especially with the challenges and issues in
coastal and southern Texas.

13\. Stephanie Harmon will draft a briefing paper on IAFWA guidance on 1
turbine per quarter section (the FWS position).

14\. Al Manville will develop "template letter" to this group ASAP

\* \* \*

*DISCLAIMER NOTE: THESE ARE DJK'S NOTES FROM THE WORKSHOP, AND ARE NOT
TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES*