ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewAppendix 1. Overview of proposed mitigation measures to reduce...

Appendix 1. Overview of proposed mitigation measures to reduce turbine-induced mortality in birds

Explanations of variables:

Mitigation measures:According to a list of categories of measures, see the text for presentation of each category

Description:Each mitigation measures described with few words. Including turbine sizes

SiteState: Wind Power Area

On/offshoreON/OFF

StatusPR - Proposed, but no testing carried outOB - Observations, but no testingES - Estimation but without experimentsEX - Experiments carried out

Effects on mortalityPer cent decrease in mortality in specific study

Species (groups)Birds or Bats. Other groups: taxonomically, or “flying birds”, “nocturnal/diurnal migrants”.

Cost estimationIf possible to estimate or proposed by the investigation

Mitigation measures Description, incl. turbine sizes

Site On/offshore

Status

Effects on mortality Species Cost estimation

References

TURBINE-BASEDWind-power plant design Install wind turbine

designs beneficial to the wind-power plant area. Raptors appear to avoid operating wind turbines as well as densely packed turbine fields. Increasing the busy appearance of a wind-power plant area might discourage many birds from flying there.

USA: California: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area

ON PR Suggested also rearranging the wind-power plant so that gaps are filled and isolated wind turbines are moved into groups of others. Another turbine design – one that appears busy – might be preferable. Busy turbine designs could be installed in between the larger turbines, thereby forming wind walls. Prediction that this could substantially reduce bird mortality. Not tested

Raptors [1]

Use of cluster and/or strings of towers to reduce gaps, because towers in groups or strings cause fewer mortalities than lone towers

Review ON/OFF PR Not tested (?) Birds [2]

Repowering/larger turbines Replaced 126 turbines (40-400 kW) with 31 larger turbines (660 kW)


ON EX Fatality rates between before to after repowering were not lower, but when comparing the new and concurrently operating old-generation turbines they were 54 % lower for raptors and 66 % lower for all birds. An increase in bat fatality

All bird species.Bats

[3, 4]

rates.Replaced 169 vertical axis turbines with 31 larger horizontal axis windturbines

USA: California: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Diablo Winds EnergyProject

ON OB Overall bird mortality was reduced 70%, andraptor mortality was reduced 62%. Burrowing owl mortality was reduced 85%, and most of thetotal bird mortality reduction appeared to be among song birds

Birds [5]

Larger turbines and with tubular towers reduce the eagle fatalities


ON OB The turbines that caused lower mortality had blades higher off the ground, tubular towers, and were spaced more widely.

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

[6]

1.65 MW turbines, rotor diameter 66 m, hub height 67-78 m, tip height 100-111 m

The Netherlands: 3 wind farms

ON ES Observed collision rate 19-68 (average 28) collision victims per turbine per year, compared with 18-37 at other much smaller turbines (Winkelman)

All bird species

[7]

Small tubular turbines with higher raptor activity than larger turbines

USA: California: Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area

ON OB Small tubular turbines with higher raptor and small birds perching than larger turbines, especially on turbines not operating. No experiments

Birds [8]

Repowering, replacing small turbine sizes with larger turbines


ON EX Fatality rates mostly decreased with increasing turbine size, for red-tailed hawk, American Kestrel, and burrowing owl, but not for golden eagle and bats. The largest turbines with between 64-100% reduction

Birds, bats [9]

compared with the smallest turbines

The effects of rotor size and tower heights

North America: Canada and USA: review

ON OB Diameter of the turbine rotor did not influence the rate of bird or bat fatality. The height of the turbine tower had no effect on bird fatalities per turbine, but bat fatalities increased exponentially with tower height. Minimizing tower height may help minimize bat fatalities.

BirdsBats

[10]

Removing selected turbines Removing selected, highly hazardous turbines


ON PR No removals – Nov 2007

[3, 4]

Removal of the problem turbines

Review ON PR May be the only suitable form of mitigation for certain turbines with unacceptable mortality

Birds [11]

Some turbines may be problem turbines


ON OB No significant differences in fatality rates between different types and placement of turbines, in this study plot. Other factors may be more important.

Birds [12]

Removing possibly hazardous l turbines


ON EX Fatality rates lower at turbine rows without turbines categorized as hazardous turbines, for one of two years

Raptors [9]

Remove broken and non-operating wind-

USA: California:

ON PR Not until 2007 Birds [1, 4]

turbines Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area

Closure of specific wind turbines causing substantial mortality

Spain: province of Castellón

ON PR Fecundity and survival were influenced predominantly by wind turbines

Vultures [13]

Relocating selected turbines Relocating hazardous turbines, supposed to have high effects


ON PR No relocations – Nov 2007

Raptors and owls

[1, 3, 4]

Adopting turbine-free buffers around essential breeding and flocking habitats

Australia: South-west Victoria

ON PR Avoiding impacts as much as possible. Not tested

Brolga (Australian crane, Grus rubicunda)

[14]

Keep the surrounding of the nest sites for vulnerable victims clear of wind turbines

Germany ON PR Recommended up to a distance of at least 1000 m

Red Kite (Milvus milvus)

[15]

Altering turbine speed/cut-in speed

Increasing the turbine “cut in speed” (the wind speed at which the turbine starts to deliver electricity) from 3–4 m/s to 4–6 m/s

Several studies, northwestern Europe and North America

ON ES The bat mortality rates were reduced considerably

Bats Curtailment occurred only in late summer and during restricted periods at low wind speeds

[16]

Raising wind-turbine cut-in speed (the lowest wind speed at which turbines generate power) – compared 5.0 and 6.5 m/s with fully operating turbines; 23 turbines, each 1.5 MW

USA: Pennsylvania: Casselman Wind Project

ON EX Fully operational turbines had 5.4 (2008) and 3.6 (2009) times greater mortality than mortality associated with curtailed (non-operating) turbines. There was no difference between the number of fatalities for

Bats Annual power loss ≤ 1 % of total annual output

[17, 18]

the 5.0 and 6.5 m/s cut-in speed.

Altering when turbines begin turning in low winds, blades were near motionless in low wind speed; 21 turbines, each 1.8 MW

Canada: southwestern Alberta

ON EX In the 2007 experiment, a significant reduction in bat fatalities: 60 % when changing the wind speed trigger (rotor start-up speed increased from 4 to 5.5 m/s), 57.5 % when the pitch angle of the turbine blades were manipulated, compared with the control turbines.

Bats [19]

100-180 kW turbines; suspend the operation of the turbines that cause most deaths under the wind speeds that lead to risk situations

Spain: Straits of Gibraltar, 2 wind farms

ON PR Based on recorded deaths, not tested

Birds – raptors [20]

Stops the turbine blades at critical periods, and when wind-speeds are below 6 m/s

USA: Kansas ON PR Identified areas where wind energy development should be avoided. In other areas, operational mitigation may be employed to reduce direct mortality impacts to some birds and bats. The system not tested

Grassland birds

[21]

Temporary stop of turbines during periods of high bat activity – modelling effects

France: 3 wind farms

ON EX In 3 sites in France: Most of bat activity recorded below 6.0 m/s; and between 8-24 °C. Strong effect of regulation. Mortality decrease 64-91 %.

Bats Calculated production loss <1%

[22]

Temporary shutdown Approaching birds might be detected with

OFF PR Not tested near wind turbines, but

Flying birds [23]

radar and deterred with audio stimuli before they reach the turbine area, to shut down the turbines

summarizing results of three studies of radar-activated bird deterrents, all with reductions in bird activity near the deterrents

Seasonal shutdown USA: California: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area

ON PR Partially tested Raptors and owls

[4]

200-600 kW turbines; Temporary shutdown of some turbines close to a breeding colony where most flights occur

Belgium: Zeebrugge: line of 25 turbines

ON PR No tests, One line of turbines close to a tern colony with more fatalities than the rest of the wind farm

Terns, Sterna spp

[24]

Compared owl activity at turbines while the turbines did not operate with operating turbines


ON OB Owls perched on turbines or their towers only when the turbines did not operate, indicating the owls’ awareness of turbine operations

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)

[25]

Ten wind farms (total of 244 turbines) were selectively stopped when vultures were seen near dangerous turbines and three wind farms (total of 52 turbines) were not, 0.8-2.2 MW turbines

Spain: Straits of Gibraltar, 13 wind farms, 296 wind turbines

ON EX Mortality rate was reduced by 50% by selectively stopping turbines in 10 wind farms, but no difference in the other three wind farms. 10 turbines showed to be most dangerous

Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus)

Reduction in total energy production of by the wind farms by only 0.07% per year

[26]

Temporarily stopping turbines, reducing the amount of turbine operating hours, during low-wind conditions

USA: Pennsylvania: Iberdola Renewables’ Casselman Wind Power

ON EX? The number being killed reduced 53-87% on any given night, averaging 73 % at partially curtailed turbines during low-

Bats Power loss 0.3-1% of the total annual for all turbines at the site

[27]

Project wind nights, compared to those that were fully operational

Selectively stopping the turbines when dangerous situations existed; 262 turbines in 20 wind farms

Spain: Strait of Gibraltar

ON EX? 2006-2007 No stopping Program2008-2009: 49% reduction2010: 41% reduction with respect to 2009

Raptors: Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) and Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)

[28]

A temporary shutdown with different lengths of periods

Review and modelling; UK

OFF PR Medium feasibility; Is likely to be highly effective; especially in vulnerable periods

Birds offshore Supposed high cost

[29, 30]

Power down turbines at the most used raptor soaring places


ON PR Proposed to power down turbines at the top of hazardeous slopes when they pose the greatest danger, and on valley plateaus or at the rim where the plateau meets the sloping hillsides

Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos)

[31, 32]

Shutdown in nights predicted to have adverse weather and high migration intensity

OFF PR Not tested, but the migration intensity varies between different nights and with season and weather conditions

Migrating birds

[33]

Using a radar-based mitigation system that integrates avian radar and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system

All wind farms

ON/OFF PR The technique minimizes both collision risk and turbine downtime

Birds [34]

Using a tight surveillance scheme using RADAR and a perimeter of observation points with trained observers, and turbine stoppage when

Southwest Portugal: The Barão de São João wind farm

ON OB The use of the RADAR allowed an early detection of approaching birds. Resulted in the absence of mortality, but not in neighbouring wind

Bird flocks, especially vultures, storks, and large eagles

[35]

certain criteria are met; 25 turbines, each 2 MW

farms without this system.

Winter shut down in periods with high mortality


ON EX Monthly fatality rates lower in December when old-generation turbines were shut down, but higher in the months with no shut down. Lower also in partial shut downs in November. Red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, burrowing owl. Not golden eagle.

All birds as a group, all raptors as a group

[9]

Installing accelerometers to improve turbine operation safety – to detect the precise time of each bird collision, when temporary shutdowns of certain wind turbines can substantially lessen bird mortality


ON PR Not tested All birds [1]

BIRD-BASEDVISUAL CUES

Visual factors in general Identifying the factors that may increase the risk of collision, 10 turbines, each 500 kW

Denmark, Kattegat, Tunø Knob

OFF EX Reacted strongly to the presence of turbines. The movement and noise of rotors had no effects. The avoidance behaviour observed was caused by the presence of the structures themselves, and the eiders use vision when avoiding human-made structures. Mitigation most

Common eiders (Somateria mollissima)

[36]

effective using visionCompared collisions in relation to weather and sight; 256 turbines, 100-180 kW.

Spain: Straits of Gibraltar, 2 wind farms

ON OB All deaths occurred on clear days at times with good visibility (29 vultures) except 1vulture during a misty day, suggesting that light condition is not a constraint.

Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus)

[20]

The importance of species-specificity in using bird vision as cues for mitigation

Review ON/OFF PR The results of measuring visual fields indicate that mitigation may need to vary substantially for different species, taking account of species specific behaviours, habitat and foraging preferences. Increasing visibility of turbines may not be effective if birds are searching for food or roosting sites.

Birds [37]

Marking/painting Painting for the aviation and transport

Proposals ON/OFF PR Different obstruction marking patterns discussed in relation to other structures. Not tested on birds

[38]

Signal on the ground (e.g. foraging patch, conspecific models, sounds)

ON PR to reduce collisions with known hazards, something placed upon the ground may be more important than something placed on the obstacle itself. Foraging patches, conspecific models or alerting sounds placed a suitable distance from the hazard may be an effective way of

Birds [39]

reducing collisions in certain locations.

Scarecrows, raptor models, corpses

Review ON/OFF PR Because of the lack of movement, habituation may occur

Birds [40]

Using scarecrows, corpses and kites as deterring systems. Visual bird deterrents are visual objects that are designed to represent a predator to surrounding birds as either a human or a larger bird.

Review ON PR Scarecrows may be short-term effective if life-like, highly visible and must constantly change location. Corpses may be effective when continually moved. Hawk kites are only effective for a short period of time and over a small area. Recommended that these devices are combined with actual human activity or audio deterrents.

Birds Low cost [41]

Visibility: Reducing motion smear

Minimization of motion smear; tried a variety of patterns including various staggered-stripe patterns on a 3-blade array, single black blade, use of single-coloured blades, colour contrast, etc,, increasing the visibility of the blades

Laboratory experiments

ON/OFF EX Above a critical retinal-image velocity, even these patterns lost their visibility advantage and became blurred. The distances at which patterns maintain their visibility for different turbine diameters and rotation rates, were modelled. The stimuli lose their visibility at greater distances for larger turbines. A single, solid black blade paired with two white blade is the most visible stimulus. See report for details. Not

American kestrel (Falco sparverius)

[42, 43]

tested in field settings, or other species, or moving backgrounds.

Painting blades of at least 3 turbines in the row either yellow or in a spiral pattern to increase blade visibility


ON PR Not tested until 2007 Birds, especially raptors

[44]

Increasing the conspicuity of wind turbine blades, reviewing the raptor visual acuity


ON PR The visual acuity of the American Kestrel, at different distances, including the spatial acuity, and effects of different patterns of blades may increase the blade conspicuity

Raptors [45]

Reducing motion smear – anti-motion-smear patterns


OFF PR High feasibility; Medium effectiveness; daytime use; deserve further investigation

Birds offshore Low cost [29, 30]

A combination of reducing motion smear, lower rotor speed and larger turbines


OFF PR Medium feasibility; Medium effectiveness

Birds offshore Medium cost

[30]

Reflection Mirrors, reflectors Review ON/OFF PR reported as being effective in deterring raptors, waterfowl, gulls and some herons; best in sunshine

Birds inexpensive [40]

UV-coating Using UV-reflective paint on turbine blades, to increase their visibility to birds. UV light available for vision: 320-400 nm. 105 turbines, 600-750 kW

USA: Wyoming: Carbon County: Foote Creek Rim Wind Plant

ON OB No statistically significant differences between fatality rates for the UV and non-UV turbines, raptor fatality rates were very similar, but for Horned Lark higher at UV turbines. A literature review about UV-painting with no clear conclusion.

Diurnal birds, including raptors

[46]

Painting turbine blades with high contrast and UV-paint

Review; USA: Altamont pass, Kenetech wind turbines

ON OB Contrast pattern presented to be birds across the full range of their vision. A special white paint was developed so that the contrast remained strong at the UV end of the spectrum. Flight behaviour around the turbine may be influenced, but more research is needed

Birds, raptors [47]

Using UV-reflective material to make birds aware of clear and reflective windows.

USA: Pennsylvania; experiments in field and flight cage

ON/OFF EX Used stripe and grid patterns of clear UV-reflecting and UV-absorbing window coverings. Presented an effective warning that birds avoided while offering little or no obstructed view for humans. Uniformly covering windows with decals or other objects separated by 5-10 cm was (near) completely effective in preventing strikes. Twice the number of window strikes occurred at non-reflective sheet glass compared to conventional clear panes.

Birds [48]

Increasing visibility – use of UV paint/material


OFF PR High feasibility; Low effectiveness; daytime use; deserve further investigation

Birds offshore Medium/low cost

[29, 30]

Minimal turbine lighting Compared bat activity with the presence of

USA: Minnesota:

ON OB There was no significant relationship

Bats [49]

light on turbines Buffalo Ridge

between bat activity or the number of fatalities and presence of lights on turbines

Use of lighting may affect the fatality rates

USA: Oregon: Stateline Wind Project

ON OB Observed nocturnal migrant and bat fatality rates for lit turbines, unlit turbines that are adjacentto lit turbines, and unlit turbines that are not adjacent to lit turbines were similar (p>0.10)

Bats, Nocturnal migrating birds

[50]

Use of lighting may affect the fatality rates

USA: Minnesota: Buffalo Ridge

ON OB The mean number of bat mortalities at lighted turbines was not significantly higher than the mean number of fatalities at unlit turbines.

Bats [51]

Avoid lighting that attracts birds and bats

Review ON/OFF PR How birds and bats respond to lighting is poorly understood. Night migrating songbirds attracted to steady burning light. Referring different studies with different results concerning use of colours. Light attracts insects (and feeding bats and birds)

BirdsBats

[2]

Lighted structures as hazards to birds

Review ON/OFF PR The most effective measure to reduce bird mortality from collisions is to turn out lights at night during migration seasons

Birds [52]

Lighted tall offshore constructions cause mortality by collisions

The Baltic and North Sea

OFF PR Proposed a four-stage tool to implement an on/off switching of

Nocturnally migrating birds

[53]

especially in nocturnally migrating passerines

lights at several wind-power plants

Minimal use of lighting Review and modelling; UK

OFF PR Low feasibility; Medium effectiveness


Light attracts birds and increases the danger of collision at nights

Review ON/OFF PR Birds attracted to the flashing red lights used for safety lighting, the intensity of light should be reduced to a minimum, and the intervals between each flash should be made as large as possible. Instead of red light a Strobo-light is recommended, which attract less birds. No studies at wind turbines so far with safe conclusions

BirdsBats

[54]

Turbine lighting regime Night time lighting may have consequences for nocturnally migrating birds. Artificial light affects the magnetic compass orientation, migratory birds require light from the blue-green part of the spectrum, but red light disrupts magnetic orientation.

The North Sea: Offshore platforms

OFF EX Nocturnally migrating birds were disoriented and attracted by red (54 %) and white (60-81 %) light (containing visible long-wavelength radiation). They were clearly less disoriented by blue (3-5 %) and green (12-27 %) light (containing less or no visible long-wavelength radiation). Especially the case on overcast nights.

Birds, nocturnally migrating

[55]

Comparing fatalities at towers with different lighting systems: white strobe lights only; red

Review ON/OFF OB The results suggest that avian fatalities can be reduced, perhaps by 50–71%, at guyed

Birds [56]

strobe-like lights only; red, flashing, incandescent lights only; and red, strobe-like lights combined with non-flashing, steadyburning, red lights.

communication towers by removing non-flashing/steady-burning red lights. Removing non-flashing lights from towers is one of the most effective and economically feasible means of achieving a significant reduction in avian fatalities at existing communication towers.

Visual deterrence Intermittent night time illumination

Review ON/OFF OB Not been adequately tested on man-made structures. Studies involving lighted towers or objects indicate that lights may attract or disorient birds rather than repel them. Mostly a problem during poor visibility conditions. Intermittent lights may reduce or eliminate mortality. The consensus is to avoid lighting turbines when and where possible.

Nocturnal migrants

[57]

Lighting for the aviation and transport

Proposals ON/OFF PR Different obstruction lighting discussed in relation to wind turbines. Not tested on birds

[38]

Increasing visibility through use of lighting


OFF PR Medium feasibility; Low effectiveness; solid and pulsating red lights seem to be more attractive to birds at night during inclement


weather conditions than are white strobe lights

Effects of light characteristics on mortality

Canada: Ontario: Lake Erie: Long Point

OFF/ON OB After automation of lighthouse, and a simultaneous change in beam characteristics – the new beam narrower and less powerful – a drastic reduction in avian mortality (90 % in spring and <95 % in autumn)

Birds [58]

Strobe lights Review ON/OFF PR May cause visual nuisance; habituation may be reduced through randomized selection of at least two strobe frequencies

Birds [40]

Flashing, rotating, strobe and searchlights

Review ON/OFF PR An avoidance response. Bright, flashing, revolving lights cause a blinding effect which causes confusion. Light systems are designed for deterring birds from roosting and feeding in specific areas and are most effective between dusk and dawn. Their ability to deter birds is species dependent.

Birds [41]

Laser Low-power laser (gun) Review ON/OFF PR most effective at dawn and dusk especially at feeding sites and roosts; ability to target individuals

Birds [40]

Use of lasers, particularly low-power lasers that work under low light conditions

Review ON/OFF PR The low power levels, distance, accuracy and silence make lasers an attractive choice. Their use in bird deterrence is

Birds [41]

only feasible from dusk tilldawn.

Laser deterrents Review and modelling; UK

OFF PR Medium feasibility; Medium effectiveness; most likely to be effective at night


[29, 30]

ACOUSTIC CUESAcoustic harassment Using AHD

(Sealscarer) at Wind Farms:• regularly used to deter seals from fish farms• show deterrence effect on harbour porpoises up to over 1km

Germany: FINO 3Denmark: Fyns Hoved

OFF OB Sighting rates were significantly lower when seal-scarer was active. Only two porpoisescould be detected during 28 hours of seal-scarer activity. Minimum approach distance: 800m

Harbour porpoises (Phocoenaphocoena)

[59]

Gas Cannons that produce loud banging noises by igniting flammable gases.

Review ON PR The scaring effect they create is similar to the effect that firing a shot gun has on birds. The unexpected bang causes a 'startle' reflex and promotes the bird to panic and fly away. Most gas cannons produce noise levels up to 130dB at regular intervals, with some having additional features such as a double detonation or a rotator to change the direction of sound. Effective means of bird deterrence if firing frequency and direction is varied

Birds [41]

Use of frightening devices to reduce bird

Review ON/OFF PR When used in an integrated system,

BirdsMammals

[60]

and mammal depredation and compiled results to determine the effectiveness of such devices

frightening devices may be more effective than when used alone. The total elimination of damage may be impossible, but frightening devices and/or combinations of devices are useful in reducing wildlife damage. Ultrasonic frightening devices are ineffective in repelling birds whereas other devices offer some protection. The timely use of a variety of frightening devices can be part of a cost-effectiveintegrated system to reduce wildlife damage to tolerable levels.

Gas canon, pyrotechnics, distress calls, ultrasonic

Review PR Auditory techniques (gas cannons, pyrotechnics and bioacoustics)are thought to be relatively effective, although subject to habituation andhence of short-term benefit. Artificial noises (sonic devices), ultrasonics and high intensity sound are either ineffective or unsafe. Distress calls, pyrotechnics and shooting appeared to be more effective than

Birds [40]

sonic devices, humming tapes or gas guns.

Using LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) to disperse birds away from high risk areas

Spain: Cadiz: El Pino Wind Park

ON OB Reactions to 16 different LRAD sounds: Developing and implementing LRAD harassment. No results so far.

Birds; Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus)

[61]

Acoustic deterrence A review of knowledge about basic hearing capabilities in birds in relation to wind turbine generated noise


ON PR Birds on average hear less well than humans. Birds hear best between 1-5 kHz. Acoustic deterrents are not generally effective because birds habituate to them, and eventually ignore them completely. Different types of noises are untested. Dooling 2002 mentioned a possible mitigation (noise of “damaged” blade)

Birds [62, 63]

Video-based recording and warning/dissuasion system

Spain, Italy, Portugal, Norway

ON/OFF OB Birds approaching a turbine are warned/dissuated by an audible sound. Optionally also the turbine can be stopped automatically. Implemented but not tested

Birds [64]

Install sound devices to disorient raptors with intermittent emissions


ON PR Not tested until 2007 Raptors [44]

Scare or warning devices that emit

Review ON/OFF OB Most studies of these devices have found that

Birds [57]

sounds or visual cues have been used at airports, towers, etc.

birds become habituated to the devices, with reduction in the long-term effectiveness of the techniques.

Using an ultrasonic acoustic deterrent for reducing bat fatalities

USA: Pennsylvania: Columbia & Schuykill counties: Locust Ridge I & II Wind Farms

ON EX? Turbines with deterrents had 20-53 % fewer bat kills in 2009 and 18-62 % in 2010, compared with those without deterrents. Project will continue in 2011.

Bats [65]

Auditory deterrents Review and modelling; UK

OFF PR Medium feasibility; Low effectiveness


Making turbines more noticeable by acoustic signals

Review ON/OFF PR For example using a high-pitched whine or warning signals. However, such measures could be very dangerous for bats, which might get attracted to such signals

BirdsBats

[54]

Using bio-acoustic deterrents, devices that transmit biological significant sounds such as bird alarm and distress calls

Review ON PR Bio-acoustics are seen as the most effective and cheapest ways of dispersing birds from airfields, once the equipment has been bought and staff trained. In deterring birds from airports, the distress call is emitted for 90 seconds from a distanceof 100 m from the target flock to keep reactions predictable. They lose their

Birds Low cost [41]

effectiveness if they are not moved regularly and have their best results in combination with a variety of techniques..

Bio-acoustic deterrents: distress calls, high-intensity sonic sounds

Review PR very effective according to literature; may cause hearing damage and noise nuisance to humans

Birds [40]

Ultrasonic systems which emit frequencies 21-26kHz to deter birds from areas

Review ON PR No evidence that ultrasonic devices deter birds, with studies showing that most species of birds do not hear frequencies above 20kHz giving no biological reason to use ultrasonics. Therefore ultrasonic systems are ineffective in deterring birds and use should be avoided.

Birds [41]

Using noise to impact wildlife behaviour

Review ON/OFF PR Important are temporal scales of both stimulus and response. Response durations may range from brief, immediate behavioural responses, such as alerting and flushing, to long-term responses that affect reproductive success. Sound-level changes of only a few decibels can result in substantial changes in animal responses.

BirdsMammals

[66]

OTHER SENSORY CUESElectromagnetism Electromagnetic fields UK, ON/OFF OB Bat activity was Bats [67, 68]

may have aversive effects

experiment significantly reduced in habitats exposed to an electromagnetic strength of greater than 2 volts/metre, tested the use of a small portable radar. Bat activity and foraging effort per unit time significantly reduced but not insect abundance.

Use of magnets or electromagnetic waves

Review ON/OFF PR The ability of introduced artificial magnetic fieldsto repel birds has not been tested extensively. However, it seems more likely that magneticfields may disorient but not repel birds; unlesspower levels of electromagnetic waves are high enough to pose a potential hazard to humans and perhaps the birdsthemselves.

Birds [69]

Use of microwave signals to warn birds of the presence of hazardous obstacles

Review ON PR Both benefits (the signal travels at the speed of light, works in day and night, can penetrate fog and clouds, and a bird detect the signal without seeing the object) and problems (the birds have to perceive the obstacle as dangerous in the first place, or learn to avoid

Birds [70]

the obstacle). Not developed or tested.

Olfaction Behavioural repellents. Toxicants in sublethal doses cause disorientation and erratic behaviour and birds often emit distress calls. This behaviour alarms other birds and causes them to fly away.

Review ON PR Found to be effective at air bases for gulls, starlings, crows pigeons, house sparrows. Habituation may occur.

Birds [40, 69]

HABITAT ALTERATIONSON-SITE

Habitat quality An area of plantation forestry was felled, with the aim of mitigating potential loss of foraging habitat

Scotland: Argyll

ON OB Eagles were seen in the tree cleared area 3 times more often after felling than before felling, and a shift in ranging away from the wind farm

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

[71]

The distance to trees and forest may have effects on fatalities for some species

USA: Minnesota: Buffalo Ridge

ON OB The bat activity decreased with distance from forest, but not fatalities

Bats [49]

Keep the vegetation around wind turbines as unattractive as possible

Germany ON PR 1) Keep the fallow vegetation small and not mowing. Not tested.2) Restrict the agricultural management activities, e.g. no mowing before Mid-July. Not tested.

Red Kite (Milvus milvus)

[15]

Establish vegetation not increasing victim birds or their prey species

Review ON PR Not tested any place (?) Birds [2]

Food availability Avoiding birds feeding at rubbish dumpGoal: reduce mortality.

Northern Spain: 89 wind farms

ON OB Closured rubbish dump (RD): a decrease in vultures from 4.0 at RD

Vultures [72]

Measure: Closure of rubbish dump.

to 3.3 vultures at closure, statistically significant.

Relocating supplementalfeeding stations

Spain: province of Castellón

ON PR Feeding sites should be located away from problematic wind turbines and scattered

Vultures [73]

Alter habitat to reduce raptor foraging near wind turbines


ON PR Alter habitat conditions within 50 m of turbines in order to reduce prey vulnerability to raptor predation near turbines - untested

Raptors [1]

Cease rodent control activities on all sites, because the program actually increased the mortality among some species


ON OB Rodent control has not changed bird behaviour. Some control efforts continued, not described effects

Birds, raptors [1, 3, 4]

Compared the collisions between areas of different rodent control


ON ES Owls collided nearly twice as often as expected in areas with intermittent rodent control, owl mortality greater at wind turbines with higher densities of burrow systems

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)

[25]

Remove all artificially created rock piles away from turbines, because they attract raptors expecting to find potential prey in the rocks


ON PR Rock piles were not removed

[1, 3, 4]

Dead cattle or other large sources of carrion be removed from the wind plant

Review; USA: Oregon: proposed wind site

ON PR Will reduce the food availability for species largely scavenging. Not tested

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

[74]

Relocating of carcasses away from wind

Review ON PR Can be implemented and effectiveness of the

Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos &

[75]

turbines mitigation action compared to prior years. Needs to be modelled.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Exclude cattle from an area around turbines to discourage near-turbine habituation by ground squirrels, which may attract raptors



[1, 44]

Search 200 of the turbines immediately following storms or fog inundation to determine if weather contributes to fatalities



[44]

OFF-SITEHabitat quality Create a habitat

enhancement area adjacent to the wind farm

UK: western Scotland: Argyll

ON OB The habitat enhancement area had an increase in use by hen harrier, compared to before construction, from 32% to 42 %. But there was no difference within wind farm, may be because the prey availability was not significantly different.

Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

[76]

Construction of mitigation wetlands is proposed as a mitigation measure outside wind-power plants

USA: West Virginia

ON OB Avian species richness, diversity, and abundance were similar between mitigation and reference wetlands. Not tested near wind-power plants

Birds; wetland birds

[77]

Creating attractive foraging habitats by mowing fodder plants for prey.

Germany ON PR Not tested Red Kite (Milvus milvus)

[15]

Food availability Increasing prey availability outside the

Northern Portugal: 2

ON OB After habitat management wild

Golden eagle (Aquila

[78]

potential impact area, to minimize andcompensate negative impacts on raptors; restoring wild rabbit populations

study areas (power lines/wind farms)

rabbit presence & abundance was higher in Managed areas in relation to Control areas (p< 0.001); Presence & abundance in Managed areas was also significantly higher in the end of the project (p< 0.001).Golden eagles:* used managed areas* low use in the vicinity of the power line* high productivity

chrysaetos)

Provide vultures with food.Goal: “Remove” vultures from rubbish dump near turbines.Measure: Build 2 vulture restaurants

Northern Spain: 89 wind farms

ON OB Rubbish dump use vs. Food at vulture restaurants:A statistically significant decrease in vultures at rubbish dump, 3.17 when no food at vulture restaurants, 2,67 when food at vulture restaurants.

Vultures [72]

If WPPA surrounded by only arable land, the food availability may higher inside the WPPA

Germany: many WPPAs

ON OB A higher fatality rate observed in WPPAs surrounded by arable fields, supposing that tower bases form the only places where many raptors can access their principal prey (small rodents)

Raptors [79]

Breeding habitat Protecting of nest sites, involve habitat management that enhances productivity and/or survival

Review ON PR Managing prey habitat in parts of the range could effectively offset increased mortality. The carrying capacity

Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos & Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

[75]

need to be reflected in sustained increase. Not tested

Creation of artificial nesting platforms

Review ON PR Several species readily use artificial platforms. Not tested

Osprey (Pandion haliaeetus), Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), etc

[57]

Roosting/perches Use of decoy towers, placed round the perimeter of a WPPA to deter birds from entering


OFF PR Medium feasibility; Low effectiveness; has shown promise, but only effective for seaducks, divers, auks


[29, 30]

OTHER MEASURESFunding wildlife research Studies of

displacement, population impacts, wildlife movement and behaviour; and offsite conservation, protection of essential habitats, habitat restoration, and habitat enhancement

Review ON/OFF OB These are mitigation options known to protect and enhance bat and bird populations at biologically appropriate locations when properly designed and implemented. With long-term benefits.

BirdsBats

[2]

Monitoring Remote sensing and monitoring


OFF PR Medium feasibility; High effectiveness


[29, 30]

Install video cameras to record collisions


ON PR Tried, but no results until 2007

Birds, especially raptors

[44]

Replace earlier monitoring and reporting systems with a more scientifically defensible monitoring method


ON PR Not implemented until 2007

Birds, especially raptors

[1, 4]

Implement the means to effectively monitor each turbine’s operation


ON PR Supposed that the proportion of time the turbine operates also relates to the number of bird fatalities occurring at that turbine. Not implemented

Birds/bats More cost-effective decisions

[1]

Fatality searches: the search regime affects the possibility to record the effects of mitigation

USA: California: Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area

ON PR Recommend much higher search frequency (e.g. twice monthly at a minimum) – to get larger sample sizes of fatalities. No data from later years

Birds [8]

References

[1] Smallwood KS, Thelander CG. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California, USA: Final Report by BioResource Consultants to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research-Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Linda Spiegel, Program Manager.; 2004. p. 363 pp. + appendices.[2] Arizona Game and Fish Department. Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Wildlife from Wind Energy Development in Arizona. Revised November 23, 2009.: Arizona Game and Fish Department; 2009. p. 68 pp.[3] Smallwood KS, Karas B. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. J Wildlife Manage. 2009;73:1062-71.[4] Smallwood KS. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal. 2008;2:229-85.[5] Smallwood KS. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. 2006. p. 34 pp.[6] Hunt G. Golden Eagles In a perilous landscape: Predicting the effects of mitigation for wind turbine blade- strike mortality. PIER Consultant report. Santa Cruz: California Energy Commission; 2002. p. 52.[7] Krijgsveld KL, Akershoek K, Schenk F, Dijk F, Dirksen S. Collision risk of birds with modern large wind turbines. Ardea. 2009;97:357-66.[8] Anderson R, Neumann N, Tom J, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Bourassa M, et al. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at the Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: October 2, 1996 - May 27, 1998. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2004. p. 102 pp.[9] Smallwood KS. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. 1998-2009. 2010. p. 55 pp.[10] Barclay RMR, Baerwald EF, Gruver JC. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie. 2007;85:381-7.[11] Gray LD. State-of-the-art permitting and environmental review process for wind repowering projects: New avoidance and mitigation strategies. In: Schwartz SSe, editor. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. Carmel, California: Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee; 2001. p. 128-33.[12] Thelander CG, Rugge L. Avian risk behavior and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area. March 1998 to February 1999.: Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Work performed by Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz, California; 2000.[13] Martínez-Abraín A, Tavecchia G, Regan HM, Jiménez J, Surroca M, Oro D. Effects of wind farms and food scarcity on a large scavenging bird species following an epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012;49:109-17.[14] Hill R, du Gueschlin P, Herring M, McCarthy M, Smales I. Managing cumulative wind farm impacts on the Brolga Grus rubicunda in Victoria, Australia. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[15] Mammen U, Mammen K, Heinrichs N, Resetaritz A. Red Kite (Milvus milvus) fatalities at wind turbines - why do they occur and how they are to prevent? In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 108.[16] Rydell J, Bach L, Dubourg-Savage MJ, Green M, Rodrigues L, Hedenstrom A. Bat mortality at wind turbines in northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterol. 2010;12:261-74.[17] Arnett EB, Huso MMP, Schirmacher MR, Hayes JP. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Front Ecol Environ. 2011;9:209-14.

[18] Arnett EB, Schirmacher M, Huso MMP, Hayes JP. Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Facilities. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Austin, Texas, USA: Bat Conservation International; 2010.[19] Baerwald EF, Edworthy J, Holder M, Barclay RMR. A large-Scale Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities. J Wildlife Manage. 2009;73:1077-81.[20] Barrios L, Rodriguez A. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J Appl Ecol. 2004;41:72-81.[21] Obermeyer B, Manes R, Kiesecker J, Fargione J, Sochi K. Development by Design: Mitigating Wind Development's Impacts on Wildlife in Kansas. Plos One. 2011;6.[22] Lagrange H, Roussel E, Ughetto A-L, Melki F, Kerbiriou C. Chirotech - Assessment of research programm 2006-2011. Vilnius 2011, Jerez 2012, Bourges 20122011.[23] Ronconi RA, St Clair CC, O'Hara PD, Burger AE. Waterbird deterrence at oil spills and other hazardous sites: Potential applications of a radar-activated on-demand deterrence system. Marine Ornithology. 2004;32:25-33.[24] Everaert J, Stienen EWM. Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium). Biodiversity and Conservation. 2007;16:3345-59.[25] Smallwood KS, Thelander CG, Morrison ML, Rugge LM. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. J Wildlife Manage. 2007;71:1513-24.[26] de Lucas M, Ferrer M, Bechard MJ, Munoz AR. Griffon vulture mortality at wind farms in southern Spain: Distribution of fatalities and active mitigation measures. Biol Conserv. 2012;147:184-9.[27] AWEA. With wind industry, conservation groups collaborating, study shows how to reduce bat fatalities. Wind Energy Weekly. 2009;27.[28] Muñoz A-R, Ferrer M, de Lucas M, Casado E. Raptor mortality in wind farms of southern Spain: mitigation measures on a major migration bottleneck area. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[29] Burton N, Cook A, Roos S, Ross-Smith V, Beale N, Coleman C, et al. Identifying a range of options to prevent or reduce avian collisions with offshore wind farms. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[30] Cook ASCP, Ross-Smith VH, Roos S, Burton NHK, Beale N, Coleman C, et al. Identifying a Range of Options to Prevent or Reduce Avian Collision with Offshore Wind Farms using a UK-Based Case Study. BTO Research Report. Thetford, Norfolk, UK: British Trust for Ornithology; 2011. p. 199 pp.[31] Hoover SL, Morrison ML. Behavior of red-tailed hawks in a wind turbine development. J Wildlife Manage. 2005;69:150-9.[32] Hoover S. The response of Red-tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles to topographical features, weather, and abundance of a dominant prey species at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. April 1999 - December 2000. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2002. p. 64 pp.[33] Hüppop O, Dierschke J, Exo KM, Fredrich E, Hill R. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Ibis. 2006;148:90-109.[34] Davenport J, Smith A, Kelly TA, Lewis J, Vidao J, Villar S. Implementation of avian radar-SCADA interface to mitigate avian mortality at windfarms. In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 81.[35] Tomé R, Canário F, Leitão A, Pires N, Teixeira I, Cardoso P, et al. Radar detection and turbine stoppage: reducing soaring bird mortality at wind farms. In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 131.[36] Larsen JK, Guillemette M. Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. J Appl Ecol. 2007;44:516-22.

[37] Martin GR, Shaw JM. Bird collisions with power lines: Failing to see the way ahead? Biological Conservation. 2010;143:2695-702.[38] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Obstruction Marking and Lighting.: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration; 2007. p. iii + 34 pp. + 2 app.[39] Martin GR. Understanding bird collisions with man-made objects: a sensory ecology approach. Ibis. 2011;153:239-54.[40] Bishop J, McKay H, Parrott D, Allan J. Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. 2003.[41] Clarke TL. An Autonomous Bird Deterrent System. [Dissertation]: University of Southern Queensland; 2004.[42] Hodos W. Minimization of motion smear: Reducing avian collisions with wind turbines. Period of performance: July 12, 1999 - August 31, 2002. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2003. p. 35 pp.[43] Hodos W, Potocki A, Storm T, Gaffney M. Reduction of motion smear to reduce avian collisions with wind turbines. In: Schwartz SSe, editor. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. Carmel, California: Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee; 2001. p. 88-105.[44] Orloff S, Flannery A. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas. Tiburon, California1992.[45] McIsaac HP. Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. In: Schwartz SSe, editor. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. Carmel, California: Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee; 2001. p. 59-87.[46] Young DPj, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Good RE, Sernka KJ. Comparison of avian responses to UV-light-reflective paint on wind turbines. Subcontract report July 1999 - December 2000. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2003. p. 61 pp.[47] Curry RC, Kerlinger P. Avian mitigation plan: Kenetech model wind turbines, Altamont Pass WRA, California. In: Richardson WJ, Harris RE, editors. Proceedings of National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting III. San Diego, California: Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee; 2000. p. 18-28.[48] Klem D. Preventing Bird-Window Collisions. Wilson J Ornithol. 2009;121:314-21.[49] Johnson GD, Perlik MK, Erickson WIP, Strickland JD. Bat activity, composition, and collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2004;32:1278-86.[50] Erickson WP, Jeffrey J, Kronner K, Bay K. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring Final Report, July 2001 – December 2003. . 2004. p. 105 pp.[51] Johnson GD, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Shepherd MF, Shepherd DA, Sarappo SA. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist. 2003;150:332-42.[52] Ogden LJE. Collision course: The hazards of lighted structures and windows to migrating birds. Toronto, Canada: World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWF) & Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP); 1996. p. 46 pp.[53] Kube J. Options for mitigation of bird collisions at offshore wind farms: A European perspective. In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 33.[54] Hötker H, Thomsen K-M, Jeromin H. Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats - facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Bergenhusen: Michael-Otto-Institut in NABU; 2006. p. 65 pp.[55] Poot H, Ens BJ, de Vries H, Donners MAH, Wernand MR, Marquenie JM. Green Light for Nocturnally Migrating Birds. Ecol Soc. 2008;13:47 (online).

[56] Gehring J, Kerlinger P, Manville AM. Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:505-14.[57] Johnson GD, Strickland MD, Erickson WP, Young DPj. Use of data to develop mitigation measures for wind power development impacts to birds. In: de Lucas M, Janss GFE, Ferrer M, editors. Birds and Wind Farms Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Madrid: Servicios Informativos Ambientales/Quercus; 2007. p. 241-57.[58] Jones J, Francis CM. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. Journal of Avian Biology. 2003;34:328-33.[59] Diederichs A, Brandt MJ, Höschle C, Betke K, Nehls G. Testing the effects of an acoustic harassment device on the behaviour of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[60] Gilsdorf JM, Hygnstrom SE, VerCauteren KC. Use of frightening devices in wildlife damage management. Integrated Pest Management Reviews. 2002;7:29-45.[61] Smith A, Vidao J, Villar S, Quillen J, Davenport J. Evaluation of a long-range acoustic device (LRAD) for bird dispersal at El Pino Wind Park, Spain. In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 127.[62] Dooling R. Avian hearing and the avoidance of wind turbines. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2002. p. 79 pp.[63] Dooling RJ, Lohr B. The role of hearing in avian avoidance of wind turbines. In: Schwartz SSe, editor. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. Carmel, California: Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee; 2001. p. 115-27.[64] Liquen. DTBird. A self-working system to reduce bird mortality at wind farms.Brochure June 2012. www.dtbird.com. In: Liquen, editor. Madrid, Spain2012.[65] Arnett EB, Baker M, Hein C, Schirmacher M, Huso MMP, Szewczak JM. Effectiveness of deterrents to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy fatalities. In: May RB, K. (eds.), editor. Proceedings Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway NINA Report 693. Trondheim: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011. p. P. 57.[66] Pater LL, Grubb TG, Delaney DK. Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on Wildlife. J Wildlife Manage. 2009;73:788-95.[67] Nicholls B, Racey PA. The Aversive Effect of Electromagnetic Radiation on Foraging Bats-A Possible Means of Discouraging Bats from Approaching Wind Turbines. Plos One. 2009;4:-.[68] Nicholls B, Racey PA. Bats Avoid Radar Installations: Could Electromagnetic Fields Deter Bats from Colliding with Wind Turbines? Plos One. 2007;2:-.[69] Harris RE, Davis RA. Evaluation of the efficacy of products and techniques for airport bird control. King City, Ontario, Canada: LGL Limited; 1998.[70] Kreithen ML. Development of a pulsed microwave warning system to reduce avian collisions with obstacles. Second International Conference on Raptors. Urbino, Italy1996.[71] Walker D, McGrady M, McCluskie A, Madders M, McLeod DRA. Resident Golden Eagle ranging behaviour before and after construction of a windfarm in Argyll. Scottish Birds. 2005;25:24-40.[72] Camina A. The effect of wind farms on vultures in Northern Spain: fatalities, behaviour and correction measures. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[73] Martínez-Abraín A, Tavecchia G, Regan HM, Jiménez J, Surroca M, Oro D. Effects of wind farms and food scarcity on a large scavenging bird species following an epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012;49:109-17.[74] BPA. Condon Blanco Wind Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, Oregon: Bonneville Power Administration; 2001.[75] Allison TD. Eagles and Wind Energy: Identifying Research Priorities. Washington, D.C., USA: American Wind Wildlife Institute; 2012. p. 35 pp.

http://www.dtbird.com/

[76] Robson P. Review of Hen Harrier breeding and flight activity near a windfarm in Argyll. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[77] Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS. Wildlife use of mitigation and reference wetlands in West Virginia. Ecol Eng. 2005;25:85-99.[78] Paula A, Santos J, Cordeiro A, Costa H, Mascarenhas M, Reis C. Habitat management for prey recovery - an off-site mitigation tool for wind farms’ impacts on top avian predators. CWW2011. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; 2011.[79] Rasran L, Dürr T, Hötker H. Analysis of collision victims in Germany. In: Hötker H, editor. Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible Solutions. Berlin2008. p. 26-30.

ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewAppendix 1. Overview of proposed mitigation measures to reduce...

Documents

Transcript of ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewAppendix 1. Overview of proposed mitigation measures to reduce...