november 2008 oregon tws meeting the dalles, oregon · wallace erickson western ecosystems...
TRANSCRIPT
November 2008Oregon TWS Meeting
The Dalles, Oregon
Wallace EricksonWestern EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Outline
• Fatality Impacts• Avoidance/Minimization• Collision Risk Modeling• Cumulative Impacts• Habitat
History of the Avian/Wind Turbine Issue
Result: New wind plants often heavily scrutinized
• Altamont Pass, CA– 7000+ turbines– high number of raptor fatalities discovered
• golden eagles (30-70 fatalities per year)• red-tailed hawks (300-500 fatalities per
year)• American kestrels (several hundred)• Burrowing owls (50-1000? per year)
100 kW turbine
660 KW turbine
Not exactly to scale
Illustration from APWRA of scale issues in Per turbine metric
Fatality monitoring studies covering all seasons of occupancy for a 12 month period adjusted for carcass detection and carcass removal biases
New Project since NWCC 2001 Summary
Data reported in NWCC 2001 SummaryAdditional data collected since NWCC 2001 Summary
Condon, OR Top of Iowa
Altamont, CA
Tehachapi Pass, CASan Gorgonio, CA
Montezuma Hills, CA
Algona IowaMeyersdale, PASomerset, PANWTC, CO
Searsburg, VTCombine Hills, OR
Hopkins Ridge, WA
NPPD Ainsworth, NE
High Winds, CA
Diablo Winds, CA
Maple Ridge, NY
Buffalo Gap
ALL REGIONS11%
3%
74%
1%1%
2%1%6%
1%
Doves/Pigeons
Gamebirds
Other Birds
Passerines
Rails/Coots
Raptors/Vultures
Shorebirds
Unidentified Birds
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Proportion of fatalities at sites reporting fatalities by species, summarized for All Regions Where studies have been conducted (Pacific North West Mid-West, Rocky Mountains, and East (sources in literature cited).
National Composition
East Region
81%
2%2%
2%2%
6%3%
2%Doves/Pigeons
Gamebirds
Other Birds
Passerines
Rails/Coots
Raptors/Vultures
Shorebirds
Unidentified Birds
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Midwest Region3% 2%
78%
2%
2%
1%1%
5% 6%
Doves/Pigeons
Gamebirds
Other Birds
Passerines
Rails/Coots
Raptors/Vultures
Shorebirds
Unidentified Birds
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Rocky Mountain
86%
1% 1% 1%4%
1%6%
Doves/Pigeons
Gamebirds
Other Birds
Passerines
Rails/Coots
Raptors/Vultures
Shorebirds
Unidentified Birds
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Pacific Northwest
18%
2%
69%
7%1%
1%1% 1%
Doves/Pigeons
Gamebirds
Other Birds
Passerines
Rails/Coots
Raptors/Vultures
Shorebirds
Unidentified Birds
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Pacific Northwest
• 636 records• 73 species• Horned lark• Golden-crowned
kinglet• American kestrel
and red-tailed hawk
Species Number ofFatalities
Percent Composition
horned lark 202 31.8 golden-crowned kinglet 41 6.4 ring-necked pheasant 35 5.5 gray partridge 34 5.3 chukar 22 3.5 western meadowlark 21 3.3 American kestrel 21 3.3 unidentified passerine 21 3.3 European starling 17 2.7 dark-eyed junco 15 2.4 mourning dove 15 2.4 white-crowned sparrow 13 2.0 red-tailed hawk 12 1.9 yellow-rumped warbler 10 1.6 rock pigeon 10 1.6 unidentified bird 9 1.4 winter wren 8 1.3 short-eared owl 8 1.3 ruby-crowned kinglet 8 1.3 black-billed magpie 5 0.8 northern flicker 5 0.8 unidentified sparrow 5 0.8 house wren 5 0.8 Townsend’s warbler 5 0.8 Brewer’s sparrow 5 0.8 red-breasted nuthatch 4 0.6 American robin 4 0.6 Canada goose 4 0.6 common nighthawk 4 0.6 unidentified kinglet 4 0.6
Fatality Monitoring Objectives
• Determine whether overall avian and bat fatality rates or raptor fatality rates are low, moderate, or high relative to other projects
• Determine whether predicted mortality is a reasonable estimate
• Determine whether a wind project has a fatality problem
Bird Fatality Estimates
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SG ALT SL VAN KLO NC FC1 FC2 WIS BR1 BR2 BR3 BM MO
# bi
rd fa
talit
ies/
MW
/yr
CA – old turbinesPacific NorthwestRocky MountainUpper MidwestEast
Bird Fatality Estimates
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SG ALT SL VAN KLO NC FC1 FC2 WIS BR1 BR2 BR3 BM MO
# bi
rd fa
talit
ies/
MW
/yr
CA – old turbinesPacific NorthwestRocky MountainUpper MidwestEast
CA – old turbinesPacific NorthwestRocky MountainUpper MidwestEast
Other Fatality Monitoring Objectives
• Compare rates to exposure or relative abundance
• Estimate the influence of weather on fatality levels
• Estimate the effect of lighting • Determine effectiveness of
minimization or mitigation measures
• Similar methods and metrics for across site comparisons
Progression of fatality metrics
• Altamont = ~0.1/turbine/year or 1/MW/yr (Orloff 1992)
• Per turbine estimates from a few studies– Assumes fatality rates the same for 600 kw to
1.8 MW• Per Nameplate MW or per RSA estimates• Would like actual power production
2.0
3.3 3.0
5.9
1.41.0
2.8 2.92.6
1.0
3.1
1.3
11.7
2.7
1.81.4
2.52.0
2.5
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
WI B1 B2 B3 TI VA NC SL CH K1 K2 HR BM MO DW HW F1 F2 AI
# B
ird F
atal
ities
/ M
WSummary of fatalities for all Birds displayed by landscape type for 19 sites.
Wind ProjectAgriculture Ag / Grass / CRP Forest Grass / Steppe
0
0.04
0 0 0.01 0
0.05
0.09
0 0
0.110.14
00.02
0.56
0.42
0.05 0.06 0.07
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
WI B1 B2 B3 TI VA NC SL CH K1 K2 HR BM MO DW HW F1 F2 AI
# R
apto
r Fat
aliti
es /
MW
Summary of fatalities for raptors displayed by landscape type for 19 sites.
Wind ProjectAgriculture Ag / Grass / CRP Forest Grass / Steppe
Fatality Rates (#/MW/yr)Project
RaptorsAll
birdsNocturnal Migrants Source
Combine Hills, OR 0 2.6 0.27 Young et al. 2005Klondike, I OR 0 0.9 0.35 Johnson et al. 2003a
Klondike II, OR 0.11 3.1 2.11 NWC and WEST, 2007Vansycle, OR 0 1 0.32 Erickson et al. 2000Stateline, WA/OR 0.09 2.9 0.73 Erickson et al. 2004Hopkins Ridge, WA 0.14 1.2 0.46 Young et al. 2007Nine Canyon, WA 0.05 2.8 0.45 Erickson et al. 2003Wild Horse, WA 0.09 1.6 0.88 Erickson et al. 2008Bighorn I, WA 0.15 2.6 0.57 Kronner et al. 2008Mean 0.07 2.2 0.68
Raptor Use Raptor Fatality
Facilities
High Winds
Diablo Winds
Hopkins Ridge
Klondike
Klondike II
Stateline
Nine Canyon
Foote Creek Rim
Vansycle
Buffalo Ridge
Combine Hills
Range: 0 – 0.15/MW/yr
Limitations and Supporting Studies
• All raptors treated equally• Migration vs. Resident• Need data to fill in gaps• Altamont (2008)
– Monthly use correlated with monthly fatality rates for red-tail hawks
– No correlation for American kestrels
Proportion of flights below and within the rotor swept area from studies conducted in the Pacific
NorthwestPacific Northwest StudiesFlight Height Characteristics
Species 0 - 25m 26 - 125 mAmerican kestrel 82 15Ferruginous hawk 42 50Red-tailed hawk 45 45Golden eagle 15 67Northern harrier 85 10Swainson's hawk 23 67
From select studies: not a full summary of all studies
• Offshore GE 3.6 MW 104 meter rotor diameter
Slide provided by Bob Thresher, NREL
Avian Strike Probability Versus Turbine Size
15 Meter Diameter and 100 kW
93 Meter Diameter and 2.5MW
Altamont ScaleNext Generation Scale
Large vs. Small Turbines• Diablo Winds – 660 kW turbines
in the Altamont• Other Turbines in the Altamont
(40-150 kW)– All raptors – 63% fewer raptors
killed per MW/yr– American kestrels - 84% fewer– Red-tailed hawks - 34% fewer– Golden eagles – none found– Burrowing owls - 34% fewer
• Reference (Altamont Monitoring Team 2008)
Lighting and Birds• Meta-analysis
suggests no large differences in fatality rates at lit and unlit turbines
• Gehring (2008) work in Michigan supports this result
Summary of Comparison of Fatality Rates for Lit and Unlit TFatility Comparison
Project lit minus unlit rate Stat. sign.Klondike - not sign.Stateline + not sign.Nine Canyon + not sign.High Winds + not sign.Wisconsin + not sign.Vansycle + not sign.Mountain + not sign.Big Horn - not sign.Wildhorse + not sign.
eer
Siting
• Micro-Siting Examples–Updrafts–Habitat–Saddles–Nests
EAGLES
Eagle Observation
Project Area Boundary
Section Boundary
0 ½ 1 2
A
Count LocationApproximate Raptor Point
T20N
T19N
25 30
20
19 20
30
31 33
8
1
12
13
21
Arlington
4
B
C
D
E
F
A
Rim Edge
1999
EAGLES
Eagle Observation
Project Area Boundary
Section Boundary
0 ½ 1 2
A
Count LocationApproximate Raptor Point
T20N
T19N
25 30
20
19 20
30
31 33
8
1
12
13
21
Arlington
4
B
C
D
E
F
A
Rim Edge
1999
Eagles
off rim rim edge on rim0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Use w/i rsa Us
FOOTE CREEK RIM WYOMING
Avoid Saddles
Avoid Windward Side of Ridges
STATELINE WIND PROJECT
Collision Risk Modeling• Approach used
when:– No empirical
fatality data– Sensitive species– To try to estimate
avoidanceRotor Zone
Strike Zone
Over-flight
Fly-thruFatality Risk
Collision Model• Individual-based model to determine bird/turbine collision
probability• Model features
– Turbine design: static & dynamic characteristics– Wind farm layout: number & spatial arrangement of turbines– Bird characteristicso Body sizeo Flight altitude, speed, & directiono Avoidance behavior– Local wind conditions: speed & direction– Incorporates Tucker (1996) model for collision with blades– Accounts for collision with tower & nacelle
Collision Model
• Simulates individual flights through the wind farm
• Collision probability = proportion of flights that end in collision
Rotor Zone
Strike Zone
Over-flight
Fly-thru
Fatality Risk
Wind Park Avoidance
Model InputsBird Flight Characteristics
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
5
10
15
20
25
Per
cent
age
of O
bser
vatio
ns
Height (m)
2
4
6
8
1030
210
60
240
90270
120
300
150
330
180
0
Turbine Characteristics
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Wind Speed (m/s)
Rot
or R
PM
Tucker Model – Collision Probability
Example OutputInputs Results
Avoidance Probability of Collision FatalitiesTower, Nacelle Tucker Flight
Height Total Rotor Tower Nacelle Year 20 Years
0.75N
Low 0.0001571 0.0001303 0.0000142 0.0000127 0.122 2.447High 0.0000259 0.0000230 0.0000015 0.0000014 0.020 0.409
YLow 0.0000545 0.0000273 0.0000140 0.0000132 0.044 0.871High 0.0000079 0.0000052 0.0000013 0.0000014 0.006 0.128
0.90N
Low 0.0001423 0.0001306 0.0000062 0.0000056 0.112 2.249High 0.0000244 0.0000233 0.0000006 0.0000006 0.019 0.384
YLow 0.0000393 0.0000286 0.0000055 0.0000052 0.032 0.636High 0.0000063 0.0000051 0.0000006 0.0000006 0.005 0.103
0.99N
Low 0.0001300 0.0001292 0.0000003 0.0000005 0.103 2.067High 0.0000244 0.0000243 0.0000000 0.0000001 0.019 0.383
YLow 0.0000270 0.0000260 0.0000005 0.0000005 0.022 0.445High 0.0000053 0.0000052 0.0000000 0.0000001 0.004 0.085
Relative Risk of Collision
Among Structure
Types
Major Assumptions: (1) Equal Avoidance Of Turbine And Guyed Structure, (2)Flight Perpendicular To Swept Area And 2 Directions Of Wires
TURBINE 65 M RD92 M MAX HEIGHT
COMM TOWER105 M HEIGHT1.25 MILES OF WIRE
BIRD WITH A 1-FT WINGSPAN HAS 3 TIMES THE LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISION WITH THE GUYED STRUCTURE THAN THETURBINE
Met Towers
• No fatalities observed at the permanent met tower at Nine Canyon
3 TIMES HIGHER MORTALITY AT GUYED TOWER COMPARED TO TURBINE AT FOOTE CREEK RIMONLY 5 GUYED TOWERS
Gehring 2004 – guyed comm. Tower 10 times higher mortality than unguyed towers
Illustration of accumulation of fatalities under future wind development scenario in the
Columbia Basin
• Fatality estimates from 7 studies in the region• Population size from BBS data and PIF modeling• Background mortality from literature• Population effect?
Raptor Nesting Impacts
• Short-comings – low sample size for
individual projects– Conditioned on
distribution of nests at a particular site
– Short-term vs long-term
Raptor Nesting Impacts• No suggestion of an effect
– Montezuma Hills, CA (Howell and Noone 1992)– Foote Creek Rim, WY (Johnson et al. 2000)– Altamont, CA (Hunt and Hunt 2006)– Nine Canyon, OR (Johnson et al. 2003)– Stateline, OR/WA
• Possible Effect– Buffalo Ridge, MI (Usgaard et al. 1997)– 261 Km2 surrounding facility density of 5.94/100 Km2
– No nests present in the 32 Km2 facility, 2 predicted• Caution: all studies relatively short-term
Radio/GPS-telemetryJ. Watson, WDFW
Habitat ImpactsHabitat Impacts
Strickland and Morrison
Potential Sources of Habitat Impact
• Direct loss of habitat• Indirect loss of habitat from
behavioral response to wind plant facilities
• Long-term impacts• Short-term impacts
Predicted Impacts Due to Habitat Disturbance from planning documents (e.g. EIS)
• Temporary (construction) impacts from roads, pads, substation, etc. (estimated)– 0.4 to 3 acres/turbine
• Permanent (operations) impacts (estimated)– 0.7 to 1 acres/turbine
• Permanent footprint 5-10% of site (BLM 2005)
• Mitigation – can be clearly defined
• Game species (e.g., elk pronghorn, mule deer, sage grouse, prairie chickens)
• State and Federal T&E (e.g., Washington ground squirrel)
• Other Protected species (e.g., golden eagle nesting, prey habitat)
Habitat Loss (direct and indirect)
• Grassland Songbird Displacement Studies– Buffalo Ridge, MN (Leddy 1999, Johnson et al. 2000):
Small scale displacement (~80-100m)– South Dakota: 1 of 3 species (grasshopper sparrow)
showed reduced density within 150m – (Schaffer and Johnson 2008) – Stateline: Grasshopper sparrow showed displacement
effect within 50m– Oklahoma: No displacement for grassland species as a
group (O’Connell and Piorkowski 2006) – Minnesota – no apparent impact to Greater Prairie
Chickens• Ongoing and potential studies of bird displacement
(e.g., Stateline, N & S Dakota, and prairie chicken in Kansas)
Completed and Ongoing Displacement Studies
Habitat/Displacement Impacts for other bird species
• Mountain Plover – Foote Creek Rim, WY declined at wind plant, a reference area, and regionally
• Canada geese – Top of Iowa no displacement in corn fields• Migrating raptors – Canada study suggests no avoidance
by raptors during migration with one possible exception (NWCC 2008) – low power.
• Europe– Some species unaffected while certain waterfowl, shorebirds, and
songbirds avoid turbines (e.g., European golden plover, northernlapwing, Eurasian curlews)
– Pink-footed goose displaced up to 600m
Radar Tracks of Migrating Birds through Nysted Offshore Windfarm for Operation in 2003
Response distance:day = c. 3000mnight = c. 1000m
Avoidance Behavior can be Significant
WEST, Inc.
Summary• No big surprises in cases where mortality data
collected in the area/region• We know a great deal about rates in some
landscapes (e.g., Ag) and some regions (e.g., PNW)
• Lack of replication of fatality studies, particularly in the northeast and south-central (ongoing studies will be valuable additions)
• Limited studies with pre-construction diurnal avian use data and post-construction fatality limit predictive ability– Raptor use and mortality appear to be related
Summary
• With the possible exception of Altamont, avian risk from individual wind projects appears to be a risk to individual birds and not populations
• Wind turbine lights not currently documented as a significant attractant for birds
• Micro and macro siting best ways at reducing mortality
• Unguyed met towers• Indirect habitat loss and cumulative
Impacts of most concern
WEST, Inc.
Priority Research NeedsPriority Research Needs• Better synthesis of existing information• Fatalities and habitat-related impacts in
unstudied and new locations and unstudied species are needed
• Raptor nest impacts, sensitive species impact understanding (e.g., ferruginous hawk)
• Cumulative impacts• Models for prediction of impacts and risk• Determine mitigation effectiveness
Questions?