Joint Fact Finding and Stakeholder Consensus Building at the Altamont Wind Resource Area in California

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides a brief overview of conflict in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and an in-depth description of the joint fact-finding process designed to improve stakeholder consensus on the complex scientific issues associated with avian fatality and wind power. High political and economic stakes and contentious, uncertain science has created a highly complex environment for crafting policy. The chapter provides a brief history of research and avian mortality issues, the policy and political environment, and key stakeholders and interests. The joint fact-finding process and the consensus-building structure and collaborative outcomes are illustrated. The author concludes that the Scientific Review Committee has successfully fulfilled its charge, yet the larger policy question associated with minimizing avian fatalities and maximizing wind energy has remained largely unresolved. As the wind companies and other interested parties move toward replacing outdated turbines, a different consensus-seeking approach will likely be necessary to grapple with the scientific, political, economic and policy issues necessary to affect change and realize consensus.

References

  1. D’Estree TP, Colby BG (2004) Braving the Currents: Evaluating Environmental Conflict Resolution in the River Basins of the American West. Boston: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler PS, Barrett RC, Bean MC, Birkhoff JE, Ozawa CP, Rudin EB (2000) Managing Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental Cases: Principles and Practices for mediators and Facilitators. Published by RESOLVE, Inc. US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and Western Justice Center FoundationGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, G (2006) Center for Collaborative Policy, Issue Assessment: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and Avian Mortality. Available via AltamontSRC.org. Accessed 31 Mar 2010Google Scholar
  4. Bingham G (1986) Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience, Washington: Conservation FoundationGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown L (2006) Wind Energy Demand Booming. March 27, 2006. Available via http://www.RenewableEnergyWorld.Com. Accessed 15 Mar 2010
  6. Buckle LG, Thomas-Buckle SR (1986) Placing Environmental Mediation in Context: Lessons from “failed” mediations in Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6(1):55-60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. California Energy Commission 2008 Net System Power Report – Staff Report, Publication number CEC-200-2009-010, to be considered for adoption 15 Jul 2009Google Scholar
  8. Center for Collaborative Policy Five States of Collaboration in Decision Making. Available via. http://www.csus.edu/ccp/collaborative/stages.stm, Accessed 31 Mar 2010
  9. County of Alameda Board of Supervisors, Board Resolution, Adopted September 22, 2005, Number R-2005-453Google Scholar
  10. Daulton M (2007) Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Congressional Testimony of Mike Daulton, Director of Conservation Policy, National Audubon Society, Before the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. Accessed 19 Mar 2010Google Scholar
  11. Dukes EF (2004) What We Know about Environmental Conflict Resolution: An Analysis Based on Research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(1-2):191-221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrman JR, Stinson BL (1999) Joint Fact-Finding and the Use of Technical Experts. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook, Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson K, Orr P, Keyes D, McKnight K (2009) Environmental Conflict Resolution: Evaluating Performance Outcomes and Contributing Factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 27(1):27-65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton MS (1991) Environmental Mediation: Requirements for Successful Institutionalization. In: Mills MK (ed.) Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Public Sector, Nelson-Hall, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones ICF, Stokes (2009) Draft Monitoring Report (M21) Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study. Available via http://www.altamontsrc.org. Accessed 1 April 2010
  16. Innes JE (1998) Information on communicative planning. J Am Plan 64:52-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J Am Plan, 65:412-422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Innes JE and Booher DE (1999) Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century, Planning Theory and Practice 5(4):419-436Google Scholar
  19. Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH (2007) A Dialogue, not a Diatribe: Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding. Environment 49(1):20-34Google Scholar
  20. Kloppenburg LA (2002) Implementation of Court-Annexed Environmental Mediation: The District of Oregon Pilot Project. Ohio State J Disput Resolution 17(3):559-596Google Scholar
  21. Orloff S, Flannery A (1992) Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Area. California Energy Commission: CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds.) (2007) Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Accessed 19 Mar 2010Google Scholar
  23. Orr P, Emerson K, Keyes D (2008) Environmental Conflict Resolution Practice and Performance: An Evaluation Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 25(3):283-302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sipe N, Stiftel B (1995) Mediation Environmental Enforcement Disputes: How Well Does it Work? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:139-156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smallwood, Neher (2004) Repowering the APWRA: forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation, California Energy Commission, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Smallwood, Thelander (2004) Developing Methods to Reduce Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California Energy Commission, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Smallwood, Spiegel (2005) Combining Biology-Based and Policy Based Tiers of Priority for Determining Wind Turbine Relocation/Shutdown to Reduce Bird Fatalities in the APWRA, California Energy Commission, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. Susskind L, Cruikshank J (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes, New York, Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  29. Susskind LM, Van der Wansem, Ciccarelli A (2000) Mediating Land Use Disputes, Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land PolicyGoogle Scholar
  30. Todd S (2001) Measuring the Effectiveness of Environmental Dispute Settlement Efforts in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(11):97-110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Collaborative PolicyCalifornia State University, SacramentoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations