review of windfarms and their impact on biodiversity

Review of windfarms and their impact on biodiversity: Guidance fordevelopments in Northern Ireland

Ruddock, M., Reid, N., & Montgomery, W. (2010). Review of windfarms and their impact on biodiversity:Guidance for developments in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected].

Download date:05. Oct. 2021

https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/review-of-windfarms-and-their-impact-on-biodiversity-guidance-for-developments-in-northern-ireland(7750fdc1-21f9-47e7-a46a-ed7d2db7bf5b).html

Review of windfarms and their impact on biodiversity: Guidance for developments in Northern Ireland Quercus Project QU09-06

ii

Prepared for the

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

By

Marc Ruddock & Neil Reid

Natural Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus

This report should be cited as:

Ruddock, M. & Reid, N. (2010). Review of windfarms and their impact on

biodiversity: Guidance for developments in Northern Ireland. Report by the Natural

Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus for the Northern Ireland Environment

Agency, Northern Ireland, UK.

Quercus project QU09-06

Quercus hosts the Natural Heritage

Research Partnership between the

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

and Queen’s University Belfast

www.quercus.ac.uk

iii

Executive Summary 1. The UK Government is committed to the conservation of indigenous biodiversity as well

as renewable energy targets. Renewable energy currently represents 5% of

consumption with a target of 20% by 2020. Wind energy is the fastest growing sector of

the energy industry. There are a total of 38 existing windfarms in Northern Ireland

containing 345 turbines with a capacity of 585MW.

2. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry (DETI) is primarily

responsible for achieving renewable energy targets whilst the Natural Heritage

Directorate (NHD) of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is responsible for

habitat and species conservation targets. Consequently, there is a clear need to assess

synergy and conflict between Government objectives by evaluating the impact of

windfarm developments on biodiversity.

3. A total of 96 published papers were examined to describe, and were possible quantify,

the type and extent of impacts that windfarm developments have on biodiversity. These

included 9 reviews, 63 original papers and 24 mitigation studies.

4. There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that windfarm construction and

operation can have significant negative effects on local and regional biodiversity,

however, the occurrence and magnitude of these effects varies between taxa, species,

habitats and site. However, it must be acknowledged the publication of results is likely to

be biased towards those studies demonstrating a negative effect.

5. In general, the impact of windfarm can be summarised in 3 categories:

i. Displacement through disturbance,

ii. Direct mortality through direct collision with operational turbine blades or powerlines,

iii. Direct habitat loss through construction of windfarm infrastructure.

6. The majority of studies focused on birds (43 papers) with 74% showing an overall

negative effect, however, impacts varied within and between sites and were highly

species-specific. Birds of prey (particularly soaring species) were notably vulnerable to

collision with rotating blades and direct mortality whilst other aerial species may be

vulnerable to barrier effects and/or displacement.

iv

7. Negative effects were greatest on bats (100% of studies), which are emerging as more

vulnerable than previously thought, most notably to phenomenon of barotrauma.

Turbines act as attractants and migratory species are particularly vulnerable. Some

studies suggest that the negative effects on bats may be even greater than those

observed on birds but are more difficult to detect and quantify.

8. The successful implementation of mitigation measures is reliant on highly quality, robust

pre-construction surveys and post-construction monitoring to establish and report on site

specific impacts. For example, installation of ultrasonic deterrents may decrease bat

mortality significant whilst alteration of turbine parameters and siting can benefit some

birds species.

9. There has been relatively little work conducted on terrestrial mammals, marine

mammals, other vertebrates, invertebrates, flora, habitats or ecosystems so it is difficult

to generalise the wider impacts of windfarms on biodiversity per se.

10. A total of 11 windfarm Environmental Impact Assessments were also reviewed. The

quality and quantity of information contained in each varied markedly. Individual

developers employed highly variable scoping and survey studies.

11. The results of our review were used to create specific guidance for developers during

their pre-construction Environmental Impact Assessments with specific reference to

birds and bats, including appropriate selection of target species and habitats for

assessment, identification of site designation and development of before-and-after

surveys or experimental designs. Windfarm developers are strongly encouraged to liaise

with NIEA directly during an initial ‘scoping’ stage to help establish the issues relevant to

each site.

12. A total of 16 separate recommendations have been made to standardise methods

and/or Environmental Impact Assessment content. This includes due consideration to

potential mitigation measures pre-construction, during and post-construction.

v

Contents

Executive Summary …………………. iiiContents …………………. v

1.0 Introduction …………………. 1

2.0 Methods …………………. 22.1 Literature Review …………………. 22.2 Evaluation of guidelines for assessment of windfarm applications …………………. 3

3.0 Results …………………. 43.1 Published reviews …………………. 53.2 Birds …………………. 73.3 Mammals …………………. 19

3.3.1 Bats …………………. 193.3.2 Terrestrial mammals …………………. 243.3.3 Marine mammals …………………. 26

3.4 Other vertebrates …………………. 283.5 Invertebrates …………………. 393.6 Flora, habitats & ecosystems …………………. 303.7 Mitigation studies …………………. 33

4.0 Discussion …………………. 40

5.0 Guidance …………………. 425.1 Environmental Impact Assessments …………………. 43

5.1.2 Target species and habitats …………………. 44Birds …………………. 45Bats …………………. 46

5.1.3 Designated sites …………………. 475.1.4 Scoping and surveys …………………. 485.1.5 Before-and-after surveys and experimental assessment …………………. 495.1.6 Survey methods …………………. 50

Birds …………………. 51Bats …………………. 54

5.1.7 Assessment of associated infrastructure …………………. 565.1.8 Mitigation 56

6.0 Recommendations …………………. 62

7.0 Acknowledgements …………………. 67

8.0 References …………………. 68

Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus

1

1.0 Introduction The UK Government is committed to the conservation of indigenous biodiversity as

well as renewable energy targets. Renewable energy currently represents 5% of

consumption regionally with a target of 12% by 2012/13 increasing to 20% by 2020.

Wind energy is one of the fastest growing sectors of the energy industry (Pasqualetti

et al. 2004).

Windfarm development has complex social, economic, political, visual, auditory and

environmental issues (Hull, 1995; Lenzen & Munksgaard, 2002; Beddoe &

Chamberlin, 2003; Toke, 2003; Woods, 2003; Kammen & Pacca, 2004; Warren et

al., 2005; Hagget & Toke, 2006; Alberts, 2007; Elthem et al., 2008; Cowell, 2009;

Evans et al., 2009; Warren & McFadyen, 2009). It is required to balance these

effectively to minimise impacts during and after development. Whilst the effects of

global warming are considered urgent with the greatest threat to biodiversity (Huntley

et al., 2006; Kirby et al., 2008; Sutherland et al., 2008), the effects of development

and energy production should be critically reviewed to assess impacts on the

environment (Sovacool, 2009a; b; Willis et al., 2009).

In Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry (DETI) is

primarily responsible for achieving renewable energy targets whilst the Natural

Heritage Directorate (NHD) of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is

responsible for achieving habitat and species conservation targets, most notably

those outlined in the EU Habitats Directive, EU Birds Directives, EU Water

Framework Directive, UK Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) and regionally strategies

including Natural Heritage Biodiversity Implementation Plan 2008/09 and Wildlife

(Northern Ireland) Order (1985). NIEA are a statutory consultee for all proposed wind

turbine installations with respect to planning, mitigation and establishing a framework

for determining potential impacts on biodiversity through Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) reports.

In Northern Ireland, there are constraints on the infrastructure required to meet

development targets and frequently long delays to planning decisions. These can be


2

up to 150% greater in duration than elsewhere in the UK (BWEA, 2004). The EIA

guidelines for assessment of windfarm proposals are usually derived from other UK

guidelines, but their specific application to Northern Ireland is unclear. Consequently,

a clear need has been identified to assess the impact of windfarm developments on

biodiversity.

The present study incorporates a scientific review of peer-reviewed literature to

establish the type and extent of windfarm impacts on biodiversity. Liaison with

consultees was also used to provide evaluation of current planning applications and

EIAs. Recommendations on the application of current protocols with respect to the

processing of windfarm development planning applications are given.

2.0 Methods 2.1 Literature review

Firstly, an extensive review of published literature was conducted using articles

obtained from the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar (white literature). Initial

search terms included ‘wind farm’, ‘windfarm’ and ‘wind turbine’ with the results

restricted to the subject areas of ‘Environmental Sciences & Ecology’, ‘Biodiversity &

Conservation’, ‘Marine & Freshwater Biology’ and ‘Zoology’. Results were further

restricted using the secondary search terms ‘bird’, ‘mammal’, ‘invertebrate’,

‘biodiversity’ and ‘habitat’ or closely allied terms. Unpublished reports (grey literature)

were used to establish narrative background, however, where appropriate pertinent

results were included.

The white literature was used to review the quantifiable impacts of windfarms, their

construction and associated infrastructural development and anthropogenic

disturbance on biodiversity. For each study, the taxa and species were recorded as

well as country of origin, factors examined and whether a conclusion was reached as

to whether the effect of the wind farm was negative, positive or species-specific. To

evaluate the validity of the conclusions we have also included details on the number


3

of study sites, number of replicates and number of controls used. A brief description

of the findings of each study was listed.

2.2 Evaluation of guidelines for assessment of windfarm applications

The EU Habitats Directives, Birds Directive and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order

1985 provide a robust framework to allow the implementation of standardised

guidelines to establish the risks posed by each windfarm development to local

biodiversity and local conservation objectives. In order to provide regional policy and

priority relevant guidance for the environmental assessment, construction and

mitigation of windfarm developments; a suite of Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) submissions were reviewed covering the period 1993 to 2008. This review

encompassed a series of extant, proposed and withdrawn applications from within

Northern Ireland only. All correspondence, Further Environmental Information (FEI)

requests and issues associated with each application were critically assessed to

facilitate understanding of temporal changes in guidance recommendations,

emergent issues and to examine the quantity and quality of information provided by

applicants, developers and/or consultants which the Natural Heritage Directorate use

to assess the potential impacts on biodiversity.

Consultation meetings were also held with staff of Natural Heritage Directorate

functional units, namely, Conservation, Designation & Protection (CDP),

Conservation Science (CS), Biodiversity Unit (BU) and the over-arching

Development Management (DM) team to assess the relevance of issues to their own

remit as well as to evaluate the need for improved guidance and best practice advice

to the Northern Ireland Planning Service and developers.

Expert advice has been provided in the form of explicit recommendations drawn from

the primary literature review to standardise future EIA submissions.


4

3.0 Results

A total of 500 papers were returned for the terms ‘wind farm’, ‘windfarm’ and ‘wind

turbine’ between 1978 and 2010. There was an exponential increase in the number

of papers published in the subject areas of ‘environmental sciences and ecology’,

‘biodiversity and conservation’, ‘zoology’ and ‘behavioural sciences’ on wind farm

development during the study period (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Recent trends in peer-reviewed published literature (ISI-rated on the scientific search engine Web of Knowledge) including the search terms "Wind farm", "Windfarm" and "Wind turbine” restricted to the subject areas of environmental sciences and ecology, biodiversity and conservation, zoology and behavioural sciences.

Removing irrelevant and/or duplicate papers resulted in a total of 96 being included

in this study; 9 reviews, 63 original papers and 24 mitigation studies (Table 1). The

results have been split into biologically relevant taxa including birds, bats, terrestrial

mammals, and other groups including invertebrates plus habitats. Mitigation studies

have been treated separately.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

Publication Year

No.

of p

aper

s

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Cum

ulat

ive

no. o

f pap

ers

Cumulative total

Annual total

Search terms = "Wind farm" + "Windfarm" + "Wind turbine"

2010

2000

1980

1990


5

Table 1 Summary of studies published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports. Percentages are given in relation to the total of 96 papers.

Type Taxa/habitat No. of studies

reviewed

% explicitly stating % giving effect as

No. of sites

No. of replicates

No. of controls

Negative Positive/ Neutral

Species-specific

Review Birds 6 0.0 33.3 - 33.3 16.7 33.3 Bats 3 100.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-total 9

Original papers

Birds 43 97.7 55.8 20.9 74.4 14.0 9.3 Bats 6 100.0 100.0 16.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 Other mammals 6 100.0 100.0 33.3 33.3 66.6 0.0 Invertebrates 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Habitats & Ecosystems 4 100.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 25.0 0.0

Sub-total 63

Mitigation Birds 16 25.0 25.0 6.3 43.8 43.8 0.0 studies Bats 5 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0

Birds & Bats 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Mammals 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sub-total 24

3.1 Published reviews

A total of 9 review papers were found; 6 examined the impact on birds and 3

examined bats (Table 2). A total of 8 reviews (88%) concluded that wind farm

developments had a significant impact on the taxa examined, however, effects

varied according to species, wind farm location and wind farm design. Direct

mortality from collision with operational rotor blades and displacement due to turbine

activity or removal of habitat were the main effects described. There was a notable

absence of reviews investigating the wider effects of wind farm development on

biodiversity per se beyond specific taxonomic groups. There was also an absence of

studies on habitat or process such as carbon storage.


6

Table 2 Summary of published reviews that evaluated the impact of wind farm developments on birds or bats.

# Taxa Species Region Significant effect

Conclusion Reference

1 Birds Multiple spp. Global Species dependent

Main hazards identified were: disturbance (displacement/exclusion) and direct mortality. No significant effect found during meta-analysis on breeding species except for waders, but evidence of avoidance by geese, ducks and waders during winter of up to 800m

Hoetker et al., 2005

2 Birds Multiple spp. Global Location dependent

Main effects were collision and avoidance of windfarms and surrounding area. No significant effect in UK but recommended that each development considers and avoids i) high density raptor populations and ii) high densities of species vulnerable to additive mortality.

Percival, 2005

3 Birds Raptor spp. Global No Upland species are most at risk due to wind speeds and siting of developments due to reductions in conflict with human habitation. Insufficient long-term studies, but displacement in raptors appears negligible. Important to use modelling studies to reduce impact of turbine siting

Madders & Whitfield, 2006

4 Birds Multiple spp. Global Yes Meta-analysis of taxon, turbine number, power, location, latitude, habitat, windfarm area, operational time, species status and study design. Indicated that bird abundance was significantly affected by the number of turbines, power of turbines, and time since operational commencement

Stewart et al., 2007

5 Birds Multiple spp. USA N/A Review of methods and biases used for calculating and correcting mortality estimates. Searcher detection trials are biased by species and the placement and position of carcasses by trial participants. Scavenger trials can be affected by the number of carcasses, the species used, frozen/fresh carcasses, and the intactness of the carcass, season and distance from turbine. Models derived from other studies can increase rigour of future studies

Smallwood, 2007

6 Birds Lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)

USA Yes Wind farms threaten the conservation of the species through reduction in habitat connectivity (particularly in core areas) through powerline and turbine construction in prairie habitat

Pruett et al., 2009b

7 Bats Multiple spp. Germany Yes Review of collision statistics: 10 species killed, mortality increased during autumn in proximity to woodlands

Durr & Bach, 2004

8 Bats Unknown USA Yes Mortality increased significantly with turbine height and shortening of rotors

Barclay et al., 2007

9 Bats Unknown Global Yes Mortality may differ with bat mating system; differential mortality between sexes. Bats use turbines as lekking sites

Cryan, 2008

N/A = not applicable. Smallwood (2007) was a review of possible assessment measures rather than discerning a particular impact of the turbines per se.


7

3.2 Birds

Birds are by far the most well studied taxa in terms of the effects of windfarms (Table

1). A total of 43 original papers were found with the majority examining the effects of

collisions and direct mortality and alteration of behaviour including the barrier effects

of turbines on commuting routes. The majority of studies (69.8%) were European

(Table 3) and many concentrated on birds of prey (raptors).

In addition, several unpublished reports, reviews and meta-analyses have been

conducted (Crockford, 1992; Gill et al., 1996; Percival, 2000; 2005; Langston &

Pullan, 2003; Clotouche, 2006; Everaert, 2006; Hoetker et al., 2005; 2006; Kuvlesky

et al., 2007; Stewart et al., 2007; Jana & Pognacnik, 2008; Kikuchi, 2008;

Powlesland, 2009; Table 2). These generally conclude that site- and species-specific

differences are most important and that majority of observed negative effects were

on raptors, waders, geese/ducks and passerines (Hoetker et al., 2005; 2006; Stewart

et al., 2007). Stewart et al. (2007) emphasised the need for peer-reviewed

publications arising from decades of unpublished research. Historically, research

focussed on several large windfarm developments in North America, notably

Altamont Pass in California; and several sites in European including Tarifa in Spain

and numerous installations in Germany. Raptor mortality has been studied at a

greater frequency than other bird groups (Hoover & Morrison, 2005; Drewitt &

Langston, 2008) although this may be an artefact of their large body size and

occurrence in an environment were other bird carcasses may be present (de Lucas

et al., 2008).

Direct mortality is the main focus of research with mortality estimates ranging from 0

to 64 birds killed per turbine per annum. Birds can collide directly with blades,

towers, nacelles, meteorological masts/guys and associated power-lines (Bevanger

1998; van Rooyen & Ledger, 1999; Ferrer & Janss, 1999; Janss, 2000; Barrios &

Rodriguez, 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Lehman et al., 2007; Bevanger et al.,

2008). The trauma associated with collision ranges from concussion to partial or

complete dismemberment usually with the loss of one or both wings (Krone &

Scharnweber, 2003; K. Duffy, personal communication). In addition, birds can be

caught in turbulences around blades and forcibly thrown to the ground and killed or


8

fatally injured (Winkelman, 1992b). Since birds may be unable to see the blades at

close proximity at slow blade revolutions (Winkelman, 1992), painting and/or ultra-

violet marking of the blades has been proposed to increase visual recognition of the

imminent threat (McIsaac, 2001; Young et al., 2003). Older turbine towers with a

lattice structure increased the risk of direct collisions as these are used as perches;

newer turbines are less suitable for perching although birds continue to forage from,

and occasionally perch on blades and nacelle structures usually when they are not

rotating (Orloff & Flannery, 1992; Osborn et al., 1998; 2000; M. Ruddock; personal

observation).

Direct mortality may be exacerbated by seasonality, individual windfarm topography

(e.g. the location of turbines on ridges), rotor swept areas (i.e. proximity of blades to

the ground), turbine spacing (including differential mortality at outer and inner

turbines), localised weather (e.g. poor visibility) and/or wind conditions and can be

species-specific dependent on morphology and flight behaviour e.g. species with

high wing-loadings and low flight manoeuvrability or time spent flying at rotor swept

height (Winkelman, 1985; Osborn et al., 1996; Barrios & Rodriguez, 2004;

Smallwood & Thelander, 2004; Hoover & Morrison, 2005; Whitfield & Madders,

2005; Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Madders & Whitfield, 2006; Drewitt & Langston,

2008; Kikuchi, 2008; de Lucas et al., 2008; Smallwood et al., 2009b). Mortality rates

can be sex-biased (Stienen et al., 2008) and turbine specific e.g. seaward turbines at

coastal sites (Everaert, 2003) or end-of-row turbines (Smallwood & Karas, 2009;

Smallwood et al., 2009b) and appears unaffected over time indicating limited

habituation (Musters et al., 1996; Hötker et al., 2006; de Lucas et al., 2008;

Smallwood & Karas, 2009), but can also be increased where high quality foraging or

breeding habitat is present in close proximity to turbines (Hoover, 2002; de Lucas et

al., 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006; 2008; Smallwood et al., 2007; Smallwood et al.,

2009). There is an increased barrier effect of “wind-walls”, whereby turbines of

different heights are used to maximise available wind resource with a greater effect

on bird mortality (Smallwood & Thelander, 2004; Hoover & Morrison, 2005;

Smallwood et al., 2007).

There is conflicting evidence whether the abundance or density of birds (breeding

and/or foraging) around windfarm developments is a predictor of mortality rates


9

(Musters et al., 1996; Barrios & Rodriguez, 2004; Smallwood et al., 2009b contra

Whitfield & Madders, 2006; de Lucas et al., 2008; Madden & Porter, 2008). This

varies within-windfarms and between species (Smallwood et al., 2009b). Site-

specific differences may be of greater concern and thus the assessment and

monitoring of individual developments is of vital importance since published results

may not be transferable to other sites (e.g. de Lucas et al., 2004). Newer-rated or

taller turbines and/or re-powered windfarms may increase mortality (Stewart et al.,

2007; Drewitt & Langston, 2008) although conversely may have neutral (Smallwood

& Thelander, 2004; Barclay et al., 2007) or reduced effects on mortality rates

(Smallwood et al., 2009a; b); however increasing turbine physical parameters

appears of greater to concern to bat mortality (Barclay et al., 2007). Hence, the

continued monitoring of new turbines is required, since many of the published

estimates of mortality are for older, shorter turbines (Carrete et al., 2009; Smallwood

& Karas, 2009; Smallwood et al., 2009b).

Poor spatial planning and siting of turbines can result in high mortality rates at

specific installations, notably seabirds (at coastal sites), red kites, golden eagles,

griffon vultures and white-tailed eagles (Osborn et al., 1996; Acha, 1998; Hunt, 2002;

Everaert, 2003; Krone & Scharnweber, 2003; Hunt & Hunt, 2006; Everaert &

Stienen, 2007; Follestad et al., 2007; de Lucas et al., 2008; Krone et al., 2008; May

et al., 2008; Rasran et al., 2008; Hotker, 2008; Telleria, 2009a; b). Windfarm

mortality may be low in comparison to other causes of death (Erickson et al., 2001;

Drewitt & Langston, 2008; Sovacool, 2009a; Sovacool, 2009b; Willis et al., 2009).

However, species should be prioritised in accordance with their conservation

importance or vulnerability to mortality (Desholm, 2009) since additive mortality from

windfarms can critically alter demographics and drive population declines

(Smallwood & Neher, 2004; Carrete et al., 2009). Therefore, predictive and

theoretical tools including spatial and/or constraint mapping (Osborn et al., 1996b;

McGrady et al., 2002; McLeod et al., 2003a;b; Walker et al., 2005; Fielding et al.,

2006; Bright et al., 2008; Tapia, 2009; Telleria, 2009a; b; c), modelling cumulative

effects of regional or national developments on populations (particularly of

endangered or rare species; Kerlinger, 2003; Smales, 2005; Masden et al., 2009;

Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009), collision risk modelling (Tucker 1996a; b; Podolsky,

2003; 2005; Band et al., 2005; Chamberlain et al., 2005; 2006; Madders & Whitfield,


10

2006) and population modelling (using theoretical or empirically derived measures of

mortality; Dillingham & Fletcher, 2008; Rasran et al., 2008; Bekessy et al., 2009;

Carrete et al., 2009) are important tools in planning the location and effects of

developments on bird biodiversity to avoid undue conflict with avian interests.

The avoidance of windfarms by birds occurs through the “barrier effect” on both

localised and/or long-distance migration routes (Winkelman, 1985; Still et al., 1997;

Spaans et al., 1998; Dirksen et al., 1998; de Lucas et al., 2004). Displacement due

to avoidance of turbines and/or loss of habitat from foraging and/or breeding areas is

a major consequence (e.g. Larsen & Madsen, 2000; Madsen & Boertmann, 2008;

Pearce-Higgins et al., 2008). Some birds may not avoid flying through or close to

turbines and therefore remain at high risk of collision (Musters et al., 1996; Ahlen,

2002; Everaert, 2003; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009a). The effects of avoidance on the

distribution of a species in proximity to turbines can vary seasonally with 14

independent studies reporting no effects during the breeding season (Winkelman,

1992a (waders); Meek et al., 1993 (moorland birds); Still et al., 1997 (wetland birds &

raptors); Spaans et al., 1998 (waders & diving ducks; see also Dirksen et al., 1998);

van den Bergh et al., 2002 (seabirds); de Lucas et al., 2004 (soaring birds & raptors);

de Lucas et al., 2005 (passerines); Hötker et al., 2005 (all species except waders);

Farfan et al., 2009 (passerines)).

Madders & Whitfield (2006) conclude that displacement of raptors is negligible

despite the absence of long-term datasets. In some cases, abundance of birds may

actually be higher within windfarms than controls areas (de Lucas et al., 2004;

(kestrel); Winkelman, 1989; 1992b (gulls, passerines & ducks)). Still et al. (1997)

reported that one species (great cormorant) was temporarily displaced from a roost

during windfarm construction. Devereaux et al., (2008) suggested that the

distribution of raptors was unaffected during some seasons (winter). However,

another study (without statistical analysis), suggested that whilst relative abundance

of raptors was unaffected between years, there were no raptor nests within the

windfarm being studied despite the availability of suitable habitat (Usgaard et al.,

1997). There were 10 studies that reported neutral or negative effects on breeding

abundance and density of birds (Table 3).


11

The most robust study carried out to date implicates windfarms, tracks and

powerlines in the fragmentation of upland landscapes and causing avoidance in at

least seven upland bird species by up to 500m (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009a).

Windfarm metrics including size, power output, and operational time can all affect

bird abundance and species composition at windfarm developments (Stewart et al.,

2007; Santos et al., 2010). It is clear that there is variation in windfarm impacts

particularly between different sites and species but the greatest effects appear to be

on raptors, geese, ducks and passerines (Hotker et al 2006; Stewart, 2007).

Assessment of habituation requires analysis of long-term data. There were only

three studies that empirically examined the tolerance or effects of turbines over time

with all reporting significant effects (Stewart et al., 2007; de Lucas et al., 2008;

Madsen & Boertmann, 2008; see Table 3). There was no habituation in changes in

bird abundance or direct mortality over time i.e. numbers and deaths rates were

constant over a ten year period (Stewart et al., 2007; de Lucas et al., 2008),

however, behaviours did not appear to alter. For example, geese have been noted to

forage 40 - 50% closer to turbines eight years after their initial installation despite

avoidance still being evident within 50 - 100 m from operational turbines (Larsen &

Madsen, 2000; Madsen & Boertmann, 2008). Since modern turbines are larger and

more powerful than their predecessors, the results of these studies may not be

transferable.

Whilst not extensively reviewed here, there is a large amount of research on offshore

turbines. Similar to terrestrial developments marine turbines can affect foraging

habitat (Huppop et al., 2006), behaviour (Guillemette & Larsen, 2002; Larsen &

Guillemette, 2007) and cause direct mortality (Newton & Little, 2009), displacement

(Rothery et al., 2009) and act as barriers to flight (Desholm & Kahlert, 2005; Huppop

et al., 2006; Larsen & Guillemette, 2007; Masden et al., 2009) with associated

energetic consequences (Ballasus & Huppop, 2006; Masden et al., 2009),

particularly for migratory species. As with terrestrial windfarms, priority should be

given to the relative abundance and sensitivity of each species to mortality and the

effects of avoidance (Desholm, 2009). Since marine nutrient sources are usually

ephemeral, foraging displacement may not necessarily occur (Guillemette & Larsen,

2002), but some species can be impacted differentially where food sources are


12

relatively static or suitable habitat, for example, shallow substrates, are damaged or

selected for development (Kaiser et al., 2006). Given the practical difficulties

involved in surveying offshore, remote monitoring methods are usually deployed,

principally radio-telemetry, radar and/or thermal imagery (Thermal Animal Detection

System or TADS) to support visual and acoustic monitoring (Desholm & Kahlert,

2005; Desholm et al., 2006; Huppop et al., 2006; Perrow et al., 2006; Rothery et al.,

2009). These methods can produce highly accurate results (Figure 2) of individual

occurrence and/or avoidance which could be adapted for terrestrial sites, particularly

for the quantification of nocturnal bird movements (SNH, 2005, Drewitt & Langston,

2006). Figure 2 Migratory movements of common eider and geese (black lines) relative to offshore wind turbines (red dots) in Denmark using Bird Detecting Radar [extracted from Desholm & Kahlert, 2005].


13

Table 3 Summary of original research papers published examining the effect of wind energy developments on birds. # Species Country No. of

study sites

No. of replicates

No. of controls

Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference

1 Multiple spp. Netherlands 6 341 hours focal

observation

0 Behaviour Yes Yes Evasive manoeuvres in 97-100% of species and 7-19% of flocks. Barrier effect evident. No direct mortality.

Winkelman, 1985

2 Waterbirds Netherlands 1 - 0 Behaviour Yes Species dependent

Decreased occurrence of mallard, tufted duck, pochard and goldeneye up to 300m from turbines. No effect on great-crested grebe, coot and gulls. Increased numbers of black-headed gull and scaup on windfarm. Displacement of whooper swans.

Winkelman, 1989

3 Waders & waterbirds

Netherlands 1 - 0 Abundance & behaviour

Yes No No effect on distribution or breeding numbers of oystercatcher, lapwing, black-tailed godwit or redshank.

Winkelman, 1992a

4 Multiple spp. Netherlands 1 - 0 Behaviour Yes Species dependent

Mallard, common gull and oystercatcher avoided construction phase. Curlew avoided operational turbines up to 500m. Lesser effect on gulls, ducks or waders. No effect on starlings, corvids or black-headed gulls.

Winkelman, 1992b

5 Moorland spp. UK 1 6 1 Abundance Yes No No effect on population trends of ducks, waders, skuas, gulls, passerines or red grouse 8 years post-construction. Decline in red-throated diver but likely to be an artefact of disturbance rather than direct mortality

Meek et al., 1993

6 Estuarine spp. Netherlands 1 5 0 Mortality Yes Yes Direct mortality consistent throughout the year and correlated with number of birds present

Musters et al., 1996


14

# Species Country No. of study sites

No. of replicates

No. of controls


7 Raptor spp. USA 1 43 0 Behaviour No Yes Avoidance suggested as no nests were located within the windfarm site despite availability of suitable habitat.

Usgaard et al., 1997

8 Multiple (mainly wetland & raptor spp.)

UK 1 ‐ 0 Behaviour Yes No Birds avoided turbines including in bad visibility with low levels of mortality. Cormorants displaced during construction phase only.

Still et al., 1997

9 Multiple (mainly raptor, duck, geese & passerine spp.)

USA 1 414 focal observations

2 Abundance & mortality

Yes Yes Significant difference in species occurrence and relative abundance between operational windfarms and proposed windfarm sites. 85% avoidance of operational turbines. Raptors (notably kestrels) and waterfowl were at greatest risk of direct morality due to collision.

Osborn et al., 1998

10 Multiple (mainly wader & diving duck spp.)

Netherlands 1 - 0 Behaviour Yes Species dependent

Bird detecting radar showed that duck species avoided turbines with mortality linked to poor visibility. Foraging/roosting birds (e.g. curlew) avoided turbine up to 500m. Breeding birds unaffected.

Spaans et al., 1998; Dirksen et al., 1998

11 Multiple (mainly passerine spp.)

USA 1 3 1 Abundance Yes Yes Bird density 4 times lower in windfarm grasslands; linear relationship between density and distance from turbines. Trend for higher densities during non-operational phases.

Leddy et al., 1999

12 Pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus)

Denmark 2 - 0 Behaviour Yes Yes Geese avoided lines of turbines by 100m and clusters by 200m compounded by associated habitat loss.

Larsen & Madsen, 2000

13 Multiple spp. USA 1 10 6 Mortality Yes Yes Direct mortality (0.33 - 0.60 birds/turbine/year).

Osborn et al., 2000


15


No. of replicates

No. of controls


14 Multiple spp. Sweden 4 - 0 Mortality Yes Yes Direct mortality of 33 species of birds, most notably insectivores (e.g. swifts & swallows). Thermal imagery revealed birds flying close to turbine blades.

Ahlen, 2002

15 Multiple spp. USA 1 - 0 Mortality No Yes Direct mortality of migrants and to less extent residents and mostly passerines. Radar indicated 3.5 million birds migrating over the windfarm annually

Johnson et al., 2002

16 Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus)

Denmark 1 - 0 Mortality No Yes Swans prone to collision with small turbines in poor visibility; larger turbines probably avoided

Larsen & Clausen, 2002

17 Multiple (tern & gull spp.)

Netherlands 2 6 0 Behaviour Yes No Avoidance during winter but no effect on foraging or commuting in the breeding season

van den Bergh et al., 2002

18 Multiple (mainly gull & duck spp.)

Belgium 3 40 0 Behaviour Yes Yes Roosting or foraging waterbirds avoided turbines by 150-300m. Direct mortality greatest during breeding season between 0 - 125 birds/turbine/year with seaward turbines presenting greatest risk

Everaert, 2003

19 White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)

Germany 2 - - Mortality No Yes Direct mortality of eagles Krone & Scharnweber, 2003

20 Multiple spp. Spain 2 68 0 Mortality No Yes Direct mortality of storks, raptors & owls with griffon vulture and kestrel most vulnerable. Highest at turbines than powerlines. Mortality varied seasonally and with wind-topography interactions.

Barrios & Rodriguez, 2004


16


No. of replicates

No. of controls


21 Raptor & passerine spp.

Spain 1 5740m of transect; 435 hours of focal observation

2 Abundance & behaviour

Yes Species dependent

Abundance of passerines and kestrels higher in windfarms. No difference in abundance of raptors or storks. Lower number of passerine nests but greater productivity at windfarms. Greatest effect from operational turbines as barriers.

de Lucas et al., 2004

22 Multiple (mainly passerine spp.)

Spain 1 3 1 Abundance & behaviour

Yes No No effect on abundance or flying height except during construction.

De Lucas et al., 2005

23 Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

USA 1 15 0 Behaviour Yes Yes Species-specific flight behaviour increased perceived risk of direct mortality.

Hoover & Morrison, 2005

24 Multiple spp. USA 1 215 days focal

observation

3 Mortality No Yes Direct mortality. Carcasses found within 50m of turbines or met mast.

Nicholson et al., 2005 (unpublished)

25 Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

UK 1 1 0 Behaviour & ranging

Yes Yes Windfarm avoided in preference for mitigation area provided. No effect on range size.

Walker et al., 2005

26 Seabird spp. Belgium 1 - 0 Mortality No Yes Direct mortality of terns and gulls (19.1 birds/turbines/year). Greatest morality at seaward turbines.

Everaert & Stienen, 2006

27 Tern & gull spp. Belgium 1 - 0 Mortality No Yes High direct mortality when situated close to breeding colonies (6.7 - 19.1 birds/turbine/year). High level of avoidance. Greatest morality at seaward turbines (<27.6 birds/turbine/year).

Everaert & Stienen, 2007

28 Multiple spp. USA 22 - 0 Mortality Yes Yes Direct morality increased with tower height but unaffected by blade size or MWh output.

Barclay et al., 2007

29 Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Ireland 1 0 Behaviour & density

No Yes Limited evidence of displacement of harriers and continued to utilise windfarm area during and post-construction

Madden & Porter, 2007


17


No. of replicates

No. of controls


30 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

USA Multiple 28 (4074 turbines)

0 Mortality Yes Yes Direct mortality greatest in winter and associated with cattle grazing and ground squirrel abundance. 29% of turbines caused 71% of mortality.

Smallwood et al., 2007

31 Tern & gull spp. USA 1 - 0 Behaviour Yes Yes Breeding terns flew within 50m of turbines during chick rearing period but at low wind speeds and only infrequently

Vlietstra, 2007

32 Raptor spp. Spain 2 400 hours focal

observations

0 Mortality Yes Yes Direct mortality greatest in winter and pre-breeding season and not associated with abundance. No evidence of habituation.

de Lucas et al., 2008

33 Farmland spp. (mainly corvid, gamebird & passerine spp.)

UK 1 11 0 Abundance & behaviour

No No No effect on the abundance of 33 species, however, common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) avoided turbines. Skylark and corvids found significantly closer to turbines than expected but effect confounded by habitat.

Devereux et al., 2008

34 Pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus)

Denmark 2 - 2 Behaviour Yes Yes Geese habituate to turbine presence avoiding turbines by 40-100m.

Madsen & Boertmann, 2008

35 Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Northern Ireland

1 - - Mortality No Yes Report of hen harrier found dead adjacent to an operational windfarm

Scott & McHaffie, 2008

36 Multiple spp. USA 1 4074 turbines

0 Mortality No Yes Direct mortality (67 golden eagles, 349 kestrels, 440 burrowing owls, 1127 raptors and 2710 other birds per annum).

Smallwood & Thelander, 2008

37 Common tern (Sterna hirundo)

Belgium 1 - 0 Mortality No Yes Sex biased mortality; greater numbers of male terns killed. Possible risk of population decline.

Stienen et al., 2008


18


No. of replicates

No. of controls


38 Multiple spp. Spain 1 - 0 Abundance & behaviour

Yes Species dependent

No effect on passerine abundance or density. Raptor occurrence (most notably of kestrels) significantly reduced post-construction. Flight pattern of all birds affected. Low levels of direct mortality.

Farfan et al., 2009

39 Multiple spp. Netherlands 3 25 turbines 0 Mortality Yes Yes Mortality ranged from 0.05 - 0.19 birds/turbine/day, but mortality was three times lower for larger modern turbines

Krijgsveld et al., 2009

40 Multiple spp. UK 12 6 experimental & 3 controls

12 Abundance & behaviour

Yes Yes Avoidance up to 500m of turbines and reduced density (15-52%) in 7 of 12 species. Most notably buzzard, hen harrier, golden plover, snipe, curlew, meadow pipit & wheatear. Skylarks avoided powerlines.

Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009a

41 Prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.)

USA 2 463 T. pallidicinctus & 216 T. cupido

0 Behaviour Yes Yes Avoidance of powerlines and roads (up to 100m). Perceived fragmentation of suitable habitat.

Pruett et al., 2009a

42 Multiple spp. USA 1 28 0 Behaviour Yes Yes Before-after design. Species-specific morality rates. Non-operating turbines used regularly for perching

Smallwood et al., 2009b

43 Vertebrates including multiple bird spp.

Portugal 4 198 0 Species richness

Yes Yes Lower vertebrate species richness, including birds, associated with windfarms probably due to direct disturbance, structural habitat changes and induced behavioural segregation.

Santos et al., 2010


19

3.3 Mammals

3.3.1 Bats

A total of 6 original papers were found to examine the effects of i) collisions and

direct mortality; ii) loss of foraging habitat; iii) barrier effects of turbines on

commuting routes and iv) the emission of ultrasound on bats (Tables 2 & 5). All

primary studies were North American (Table 4) and most focused on migratory,

usually arboreal-roosting species which are generally deemed more sensitive to

barrier effects than resident species (Ahlen, 2002; Cryan & Brown, 2007; Curry,

2009). Bat mortality ranged from 0 to 187 bats killed per turbine per year. There were

three published reviews and guidance recommendation papers (Table 2) and nine

unpublished reports, reviews and guidance documents.

Bats were killed by direct impact with turbine structures (i.e. blades, towers and

nacelles; Osborn et al; 1996; Nicholson et al., 2005; Barclay et al., 2007; Horn et al.,

2008), meteorological masts (Nicholson et al., 2005) and ‘barotrauma’ (Baerwald et

al., 2008) caused by entering low pressure vortices created by rotating turbine

blades (Trapp et al., 2002; Baerwald et al., 2008). The latter causes internal

haemorrhaging following eruption of the lungs and appears to be a greater danger to

bats than direct collisions (Baerwald et al., 2008). Bats were killed infrequently at

meteorological masts on windfarms and must be able to avoid these more readily

than turbines and/or blades (Barclay et al., 2007; Sovacool, 2009a). Whilst bat-

turbine collisions have long been documented (Hall & Richards, 1972; Osborn et al.,

1996), most early studies recorded bats incidentally during bird-focused work

(Anderson et al., 1999; Johnson, 2005; see also Kunz et al., 2007). The

demonstration of negative effects on bats (Dürr & Bach, 2004; Brinkmann &

Bontadina, 2006) generated species-specific studies and a review of methods and

research priorities (Barclay et al., 2007; Kunz et al., 2008; Cryan & Barclay, 2009).

After initial underestimation (Kunz et al., 2007), bat-turbine collision rates have been

shown to be higher than bird-turbine collision rates (Anonymous, 2007; Barclay et

al., 2007; Marris & Fairless, 2007; Arnett et al., 2008; Cohn, 2008; Jana & Pogacnik,

2008; Sovacool, 2009b) and directly correlated with turbine size (i.e. larger turbines

result in a higher rate of bat mortality; Dürr & Bach, 2004; Barclay et al., 2007, Kunz


20

et al., 2007). The emergent pattern of the installation and/or replacement of

decommissioned turbines with larger, higher-rated turbines appears to increase the

frequency of bat kills (Barclay et al., 2006; 2007; Smallwood & Karas, 2009).

The negative effects of turbines appear to be greater on autumn migrating bats

species (Johnson et al., 2003; Dürr & Bach, 2004; Cryan & Brown, 2007; Kunz et al.,

2007) compared to locally resident populations (Dürr & Bach, 2004; Johnson, 2004).

Mortality can be temporally biased (Cryan & Brown, 2007; Kunz et al., 2007;

Baerwald & Barclay, 2007; 2008), with extrinsic factors (e.g. weather, timing of

migration) also affecting mortality rates (Kerns et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2006; Cryan &

Brown, 2007; Horn et al., 2008). Turbine lighting (i.e. aviation lights) does not appear

to affect bat mortality (Kunz et al., 2007; Horn et al., 2006). Individual windfarms may

have low mortality rates (Mistry & Hatfield, 2005; Barclay, 2006; Barclay et al., 2007;

Table 4), but inappropriate placement of a windfarm on migration routes or in high

density bat habitats, for example, afforested or riparian habitats (Arnett et al., 2007;

Horn et al., 2008; Telleria, 2009; Valdez & Cryan, 2009) and/or the cumulative

impacts of regional developments may have deleterious effects on bat population

trajectories (Kunz et al., 2007a; b). In Europe, bat kills have been recorded for over a

decade (Dürr & Bach, 1996), but few investigations, aside from those in Germany

(Dürr & Bach, 2004) and Sweden (Ahlen, 2002) have attempted to systematically

quantify bat mortality at windfarms. Anecdotal evidence of mortality exists from UK

installations (Natural Research Ltd, unpublished data; K. Duffy & J. O’Neill, personal

communications), but systematic monitoring and reporting, either pre-construction or

post-construction, appears limited throughout Europe, most notably in the UK and

Ireland. The detection of bat carcasses is difficult due to vegetation density and

height and compounded by rapid decay and scavenging rates of small carcasses,

but can be improved through the use of trained dogs (Arnett, 2006) and rigorous

search methods (Smallwood, 2007).

The ephemeral patterns of insect occurrence means loss of suitable bat habitat is

generally of less consequence compared to the loss of suitable bird habitat except

where key roosting, breeding or foraging areas are destroyed (Harbusch & Bach,

2005; Kunz et al., 2007a; b; Cathrine & Spray, 2009). Since bats often select linear

or riparian landscape features for foraging (Limpens & Kapteyn, 1991; Walsh &


21

Harris, 1996; Grindal & Brigham, 1999; Reynolds, 2006) the precautionary principle

dictates that developments should be sited away from such landscape features;

however the ‘linear corridor hypothesis’ has been poorly tested to date (Kunz et al.,

2007). This hypothesis may not be species-specific, since Dürr & Bach (2004)

examined the proximity of developments to wooded landscape features and found

specialist edge-foragers were killed up to 700m from woodland features. However,

the majority of kills (77%) where when turbines where sited within 50m of trees.

It is possible that bats are visually, thermally and acoustically attracted to turbines

and/or the disrupted landscape as foraging habitats, potential roost localities and/or

lekking sites (Ahlen, 2002; Dürr & Bach, 2004; Szewczak & Arnett, 2005; Kunz et al.,

2007; Cohn, 2008; Sterze & Pogacnik, 2008; Cryan, 2008; Cryan, 2009 Cryan &

Barclay, 2009) thereby creating population sinks or ecological traps (Cryan, 2009).

However, this had been questioned by at least one study (Reimer et al., 2008). The

high mortality rates observed occasionally at single turbine installations relative to

multiple turbine developments (Dürr & Bach, 2004; J. O’Neill, personal

communication) suggest that bat kills may be non-random events (Dürr & Bach,

2004; Barclay et al., 2007) compounded by poorly sited turbines (Telleria, 2009). The

installation of lowland and urban turbines and the felling of trees around turbine

bases in particular create habitat edges which may increase abundance of foraging

individuals (Limpens & Kapteyn, 1991; Grindal & Brigham, 1998; Erickson & West,

2002; Russ & Montgomery, 2002; Fiedler et al., 2007). Moreover, turbine towers and

nacelles may attract bats to investigate these features as potential roost locations

(Cohn, 2008; Horn et al., 2008). Mortality rates appear to be reduced at

developments in pastoral and open-landscapes (Vauk et al., 1990; Johnson et al.,

2004), but conversely other studies have found no difference between habitat

composition or proximity to wetlands and/or woodlands (Dürr & Bach, 2004; Johnson

et al., 2004). The emission of ultrasound by turbines (A. Rogers, personal

communication) may also induce exploratory behaviour of bats, but inconclusive

results have been found so far and this requires further investigation (see Szewczak

& Arnett, 2005; Nicholls & Racey, 2007; 2009). Studies using thermal imagery found

investigative behaviour by bats of turbine blades, including alighting on blade

surfaces, which will clearly result in increased mortality if bats are attracted to

turbines (Ahlen, 2002; Barclay et al., 2007; Curry, 2009). However, the reasons for


22

such exploratory behaviour and probable attraction to turbines require considerable

research in order to minimise mortality rates (Ahlen, 2002; Barclay et al., 2007;

Cryan, 2008; Curry, 2009).


23

Table 4 Summary of original research papers published examining the effect of wind energy developments on bats.


No. of replicates

No. of controls


1 Multiple spp. USA 2 77 16 Mortality Yes Yes Mortality greatest in migratory than resident species, notably greater in autumn.

Johnson et al., 2004

2 Unknown USA 1 19 (171 hours focal

observations)

0 Behaviour Yes Yes Insect activity greater at lighted turbines; bat activity influenced by rotor speed; no effect of turbine lighting

Horn et al. 2006

3 Lasiurus cinereus USA 1 295 days observations

over 38 years

0 Behaviour No Yes Attraction to tall landscape features including turbines; natural environmental parameters used to predict migration patterns in relation to wind farms

Cryan & Brown, 2007

4 Lasiurus cinereus & Lasionycteris noctivagans

USA 1 75 bats 0 Mortality Yes Yes Mortality due to direct impact of rotor (10%) and barotrauma (90%)

Baerwald et al., 2008

5 Unknown USA 1 19 (171 hours focal

observations)

0 Mortality Yes Yes Mortality due to direct collisions; 21 bats/wind farm/year correlated with blade vortices during low wind conditions

Horn et al., 2008b

6 Lasiurus cinereus & Lasionycteris noctivagans

USA 9 309 turbines 0 Mortality Yes Yes Mortality correlated with greater activity ≥30m; significantly greater at taller turbines

Baerwald & Barclay, 2009


24

3.3.2 Terrestrial mammals

Excluding bats there were few (n = 6) published studies on the effects of windfarm

developments on terrestrial mammals (Table 5). Terrestrial mammals obviously are

not subject to direct mortality due to turbine blade strikes; consequently most effects

are as a result of associated development causing habitat fragmentation and

deterioration which are the principal threats to ground-dwelling, semi-fossorial and

fossorial species (Walter et al., 2006; Mouton et al., 2007); however noise pollution

may also affect some species. Three of the six studies examined demonstrated no

effect of wind turbines (and in one case their construction) on ungulate ranging

behaviour, diet or vigilance or small mammal abundance (Table 5). A number of

authors suggest that disturbance is unlikely to cause major problems for highly

mobile mammals (Sauvajot et al., 2004; Ngoprasert et al., 2007 compared to Linnell

et al., 2000). Only one study suggests that terrestrial mammals were displaced by

windfarms and moved to alternate habitats (Walter et al., 2006).

Red deer (Cervus elaphus) have been shown to be unaffected by windfarm

development (pre-construction versus post-construction) by examining home range

size and foraging behaviour preferences (Walter et al., 2006), however, home range

centres did shifted away from turbines (± 700m), possibly due to limited loss of

habitat or direct avoidance of turbines. Hablinger (2004) cited in Kusstatscher et al.

(2005) also suggested that ungulate movement along habitat corridors may be

disrupted by avoidance of turbine structures within 150m. However, such studies are

confounded by seasonality and extrinsic factors (precipitation, temperature and the

selection of agricultural crops) making the quantification of avoidance difficult. Whilst

they found no significant effect on large ungulates, Walter et al. (2006) suggested

that the identification of key resources and important areas for deer, for example

foraging or calving sites, is necessary during pre-construction surveys. In an

experimental-control study of semi-domestic reindeer behaviour, foraging was found

to be unaffected by the presence of rotating wind turbines but further studies are

required (Flydal et al., 2003).

Only one study demonstrated a significant effect of acoustic noise from turbine

blades on a species of small mammal; the Californian ground squirrel (Spermophilus


25

beecheyi) increasing vigilance and anti-predator behaviour (Rabin et al., 2006;

Kikuchi, 2008). Turbine noise may have masked communication calls and may even

lead to auditory impairment (Rabin et al., 2006). Nevertheless, there was no

apparent effect on species abundance but the authors suggest that negative effects

on anti-predator behaviour may have longer term effects. Moreover, reduction in

vigilance may attract predators (for example, golden eagles predate ground

squirrels) which may themselves be killed by rotating turbine blades (Hoover &

Morrison, 2005; Smallwood et al., 2007). Other species dependent on burrows of

ground squirrels may also be impacted (Rabin et al., 2006; Smallwood & Thelander,

2004; Smallwood et al., 2001; 2009).

In a study of vertebrate community structure, Santos et al. (2010) examined 18

mammal species (although did not present individual species results) and concluded

that overall species richness was impoverished in close proximity to windfarms. De

Lucas et al., (2005) in an impact gradient (IG) study found no effect of windfarms on

the density and abundance of small mammal species, however this study was

confounded by small mammal population fluctuations over time and the results may

not be transferable to other regions or developments.

Grey literature reports indicate “slight or no significant disturbance” of small mammal

species or locally habituated mammal species, for example the red fox (Vulpes

vulpes), European hare (Lepus europaeus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in

close proximity to turbines (Kusstatscher et al., 2005). Conversely, other reports

indicate that some small mammal populations, particularly fossorial species including

prairie dogs, cottontail rabbit and prairie hare may increase due to habitat

perturbation during construction activity, whilst others for example pronghorn and

ground squirrel remain unaffected up to 800m from turbines (Johnson et al., 2000;

Hötker et al., 2006).

There were numerous studies on the effects of human sensitivity to windfarm noise

(Shepherd, 1985; Berglund et al., 1996; Pedersen & Waye, 2004; 2007; Warren et

al., 2005; Elthem et al., 2008; Harding et al., 2008; Pedersen et al., 2009) resulting in

national regulation including noise thresholds or minimum setback distances; ranging

from 350m to 2km; to minimise “annoyance”; however, these have been excluded


26

from Table 5. Setback distances have also been applied to wildlife protection and

conservation (Rodgers & Smith, 1995; 1997; Blumstein et al., 2005; Whitfield et al.,

2008) and it is conceivable that noise intolerable to humans will be similarly

intolerable to wildlife. Consequently, mitigation prescriptions can be used to protect

wildlife from anthropogenic disturbance including windfarm developments (Ruddock

& Whitfield, 2007).

3.3.3 Marine mammals

Numerous studies have examined the effect off-shore windfarm installations on

marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds; Koschinski et al., 2003; Koller et al.,

2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Lucke et al., 2007; Tougaard et al., 2009a) including sub-

surface tidal turbines (Fraenkel, 2006). Offshore construction including piling

operations and rotating turbine blades are likely to have greater acoustic impact in

the marine environment than conventional installations and turbines in the terrestrial

environment due to the conductivity of sound in water and the sensitivity of marine

mammals, most notably cetaceans (and their prey species) to ultra- and infra-sound

(Koschinski et al., 2003; Thomsen et al., 2006). Operational noise can affect

cetacean and pinniped behaviour up to “a few hundred metres” but the audibility of

such noise can extend up to 80km (Tougaard et al., 2009a; b; Thomsen et al., 2006).

Guidelines for the construction of offshore windfarms recommend a minimal

operational distance of 500m from any nearby cetaceans and pinnipeds (JNCC,

2009), however it has been suggested that porpoises may suffer acute hearing loss

at up to 1.8km (Thomsen et al., 2006).


27

Table 5 Summary of characteristics of peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the impact of wind farms on terrestrial mammal species.


No. of replicates

No. of controls

Factor Significant effect

Conclusion Reference

1 Reindeer Norway 1 4 3 Vigilance No Behaviour did not differ significantly between wind farm and control groups; rapid habituation.

Flydal et al. 2003

3 Small mammals

Spain 1 2511 trap nights; 4220 tubes nights

0 Abundance & density

No No effect on abundance or density

De Lucas et al. 2005

4 Red deer USA 1 10 0 Ranging behaviour & foraging

No Deer remained on site during construction and operation; no effect on diet or home ranging behaviour but centre of activity shifted away from turbines.

Walter et al. 2006

5 Ground squirrels

USA 1 24 21 Vigilance Yes Squirrels close to turbines had significantly higher levels of vigilance and shorter flight distances than control groups.

Rabin et al. 2006 reviewed by Kikuchi 2008

6 Vertebrates (including 18 mammals species)

Portugal 4 198 0 Species richness

Yes Species richness impoverished in close proximity to windfarms

Santos et al. 2010


28

3.4 Other vertebrate biodiversity

Santos et al. (2010) conducted an assessment of the effect of windfarm

developments on vertebrate biodiversity in general, including, birds, mammals and

herpetofauna with measures of species richness. The conclusion was an overall

negative impact of windfarms. There are no published studies of the effects of

windfarms on herpetofauna, but similar to other vertebrate species the direct loss of

habitats or specifically hibernacula may affect species occurrence.

Moreover, there are no published studies on the effect on aquatic ecosystems or

species although there is unpublished evidence of fish mortality during windfarm

construction, but these incidences are usually connected with the failure and

slippage of construction materials (i.e. over-burden) or peat slippage (Lindsay &

Bragg, 2005; G. Watson, personal communication) rather than direct effect of

turbines or operation per se. Sedimentation of rivers or lakes can detrimentally affect

adult fish, eggs and larvae by inhibiting growth, development and movement or

migration and also alter food resources (Birtwell, 1999). Aquatic invertebrates are

also affected by sedimentation, notably filter feeders, and lead to severe population

declines or local extinctions (see review in Newcombe & MacDonald, 1991). Careful

planning is required during windfarm construction to minimise sediment movements

and should include risk assessment (e.g. mapping peat depth) of likely sediment

movements through established protocols to minimise effects on biodiversity.

The effect of wind turbine noise (i.e. vibrations) on marine fish at offshore

development sites has been researched, during both construction and operational

phases. Effects include the reduction in abundance of some species, but increased

density for others around turbine structures (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006). No

comparable terrestrial studies exist although it is conceivable that noise may affect

fish (and other aquatic fauna) within nearby catchments, particularly during piling.

Noise disturbance on marine fish have been noted up to 4km (Nedwell et al., 2003;

Hastings & Popper, 2005; Thomsen et al., 2006) and similar effects may occur in

terrestrial aquatic ecosystems although there is currently no supporting evidence.

Any effects on fish may decrease prey availability for piscivorous predators locally


29

within terrestrial ecosystems (Glahn et al., 2002; Lanszki et al., 2007; Kirsch et al.,

2008; Lanszki & Kormendi, 2009).

3.5 Invertebrates

A minority of studies (n = 4) examined the impacts of wind turbines on invertebrates

and were usually incidental to bat research (Horn et al., 2008). A number of these

report multi-species mortality through direct collision (Corten & Veldkamp, 2001a;

Corten & Veldkamp 2001b; Shankar, 2001); however these studies were conducted

by engineers to optimise wind turbine aerodynamic performance and no

assessments of species-specific impacts was given. Insect fouling and debris

attached to turbine blades may reduce turbine power output (8 – 55%) due to

decreased aerodynamic performance (Corten & Veldkamp 2001a; b; Dalili et al.,

2009). This may result in increased investment in anti-foulant application and

cleaning of blades (Shankar, 2001; Dalili et al., 2009).

Insect congregations are usually ephemeral and weather related. Insects may be

attracted to aviation-lighted turbines (Frost, 1958; Horn et al., 2008). Insect

occurrence at turbines can attract insectivorous bat species (Arnett et al., 2005; Horn

et al., 2008; Reimer et al., 2008), and presumably birds, which may increase

mortality of those groups. This mortality cascade may be amplified by the habitat in

which windfarm developments are sited, particularly within forested areas, or clear-

felled turbine sites which can increase insects occurrence and thereby increase

insectivore occurrence (Horn et al., 2008). Since the use of thermal imagery at

windfarm developments has revealed considerable insect activity around turbines

further investigations on temporal and spatial trends of insect occurrence at

windfarms are important to understand the effects on both invertebrates and their

predators.

Marine invertebrate community species richness was shown to be negatively

associated with off-shore monopole turbine structures (Wilhelmsson & Malm, 2008),

however this is based on colonisation data post-construction and no comparative

terrestrial studies exist. Wilhelmsson & Malm (2008) also highlighted the risk that

turbine components and construction materials may act as conduits or reservoirs for


30

invasive species inoculation. Whilst the number of publications on direct or indirect

effects of windfarms developments on invertebrates is small; the effects of

development can result in the loss and/or fragmentation of important habitats. This

may displace species where particular foraging habitats or food plants are destroyed

(for example, the loss of larval food plants for the marsh fritillary butterfly; Warren,

1994; Nelson 2001). The grey literature included reference to two unpublished

studies which concluded that insect-turbine collisions were “negligible” after

assessment of dead insect on wind turbine blades and experimental release of

honeybees and blowflies, however, it was unclear exactly how and what was

assessed (see Kusstatscher et al. 2005).

3.6 Flora, habitats & ecosystems

Habitats and ecosystems have been poorly investigated; in particular the effects on

vegetation have received scant research. Only two papers examining the effects of

windfarms on botanical diversity and habitats were found (Fagundez, 2008; Fraga et

al., 2009; Table 6). Two papers examined ecosystem processes (Baidya Roy &

Pacala, 2004; Waldron et al., 2009; Table 6). Construction can disrupt and destroy

contiguous habitat structure. This will be of greater consequence where priority

habitats (e.g. those designated under EU Habitats Directive) are removed or

damaged. However, the actual loss of habitat is restricted to the physical siting of

roads, turbine bases, buildings and masts, which usually occupy a relatively small

area of the development site (Powlesland, 2009). Drainage and/or alteration of water

levels can alter hydrology, and therefore biodiversity indirectly. Windfarm

developments negatively affect plant diversity on blanket bogs and can facilitate

invasive species inoculations (Fraga et al., 2008; see also Wilhelmsson & Malm,

2008). Conversely mire and wet heath habitats appear to remain stable through

construction and operational phases (Fagundez, 2008). Waldron et al. (2009)

examined carbon and nutrient processes within upland catchments and found large

carbon and nutrient (primarily nitrogen and phosphorous) effluxes within receiving

waters at 3-5 km from windfarm sites. In addition, deforestation often associated with

windfarm development and/or mitigation measures can alter hydrology and

ecosystem processes in addition to the effects of damaging terrestrial carbon stores

within peatland habitats (Walker et al., 2006).


31

The development of windfarms in upland areas may impact soil carbon stocks (e.g.

blanket bog peat catchments) as these habitats act as carbon reservoirs and actively

sequester carbon (Worrall et al, 2003; Tomlinson, 2005; Clark et al., 2007;

Tomlinson, 2009; Worrall et al., 2009; Yallop & Clutterbuck, 2009). Soil disturbance,

drain blocking and drainage or other land management may release carbon on peat-

dominated sites (Lindsay & Bragg, 2005; Worrall et al., 2007; Clay et al., 2009).

However, this can be appropriately mitigated, calculated and/or estimated to inform

the windfarm development process (Waldron et al., 2009) and also assessed within

the context of windfarm carbon off-setting (Dawson & Smith, 2007; Waldron et al.,

2009).


32

Table 6 Summary of the published studies assessing the impacts of windfarms on habitats and ecosystem processes

# Species/Parameter Country No. of study sites

No. of replicates

No. of controls


1 Mire & wet heath Spain 1 16 0 Species-area metrics, species diversity, physiognomic and phytosociologic characterisation

Yes No Development within a Natura 2000 site monitoring showed low species diversity and plant communities remained stable after windfarm development provided low intensity grazing and low human pressure was maintained

Fagundez, 2008

2 Blanket bogs Spain 55 100 (1m2

plots) 45 Species diversity,

qualitative floristic composition

Yes Yes Monitoring of a blanket bog SAC revealed lower α diversity and higher β diversity in windfarm areas versus control indicating a link between invasive species and greater community heterogeneity in impacted areas

Fraga et al., 2009

3 Peatland landscapes

Scotland 1 9 (sampling points)

1 Carbon and nutrient balance within catchment

Yes Yes Nutrient export does not increase in a stoichiometric manner, supporting aquatic respiration and therefore greater CO2 efflux. Disturbance of terrestrial carbon stores may impact both aquatic and gaseous carbon stores therefore requiring estimates prior to construction

Waldron et al., 2009

4 Meteorology USA 2 (theoretical)

- 1 Atmospheric dynamics

Yes Yes Windfarms significantly slow down wind at hub height and turbulence in the rotor wake altering atmospheric dynamics vertically within 500m - 1km of the turbines and varies during the day, being greatest in the early morning. This effect has consequences for turbine efficiency and localised meteorology although the effects are likely to be small and require further analysis and testing

Baidya Roy & Pacala, 2004


33

3.7 Mitigation studies

A total of 24 primary papers examined mitigation measures to reduce or predict the

effect of windfarm developments but primarily focused on birds (n = 16) and bats (n

= 5), two papers examined both birds and bats and only a single paper referred to

terrestrial mammals (Table 7).

For birds, 10 papers modelled data on resource availability, habitat, seasonal spatial

occurrence/preferences, flight behaviour and terrain (e.g. Madders & Walker, 2002;

Krewitt & Nitsch, 2003; Smallwood et al, 2009a; b; Table 7). Mitigation measures

have concentrated on habitat manipulation, for example, clear-felling or alterations of

grazing regimes, to influence species’ habitat choices so as to encourage individuals

to move away from windfarm sites thus reducing mortality risk (Walker et al., 2005;

Smallwood & Karas, 2009). However, some studies (Walker et al. 2005) suggested

that species specific behaviour made individuals vulnerable to collision risk, for

example, eagle flight patterns and topographical preferences, and mitigation was

unlikely to wholly succeed. In addition, further reducing the suitability of the windfarm

area and/or turbines through the removal of rock piles, which act as hibernacula for

prey species (Thelander & Smallwood, 2004), reducing the availability of prey and

carrion within the windfarm area (Hunt, 2002; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004;

Smallwood & Karas, 2009). The alteration of tower types and perches available to

discourage perching (Nelson & Curry, 1995; Curry & Kerlinger, 2001; Smallwood &

Thelander, 2004) are appropriate methods for the mitigation and/or reduction of

mortality risk at individual developments.

The modification of turbines and windfarm infrastructure to minimise predicted or

known risk are also important mitigation measures, including the painting of blades

(Howell et al., 1992; Young et al., 2003; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004) underground

installation and/or flagging of powerlines and guy lines (Morkill & Anderson, 1991;

Alonso et al., 1994; Ferrer & Janss, 1999; Janss, 2000; Bevanger et al., 2008) and

the barricading of the rotor blades (Thelander & Smallwood, 2004). The repowering

and restructuring of windfarms can further reduce fatalities, including the removal of

high risk turbines (e.g. end-of-row turbines and the installation of flight diverters);

removal of derelict turbines or seasonal shutdowns to reduce fatalities further


34

(Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood et al., 2009b; Smallwood & Karas,

2009). These decisions can only be made with the acquisition of post-construction

monitoring data and known mortality rates.

For bats, 3 papers including two experimental papers examined possible mitigation

measures and two papers examined spatial occurrence of species. Recent studies

and research notes have examined deterrents and proposed mitigation methods for

bats at windfarm developments (Szeweczak et al., 2006; 2007; 2008; Nicholls &

Racey, 2007a; b; Horn et al., 2008; Baerwald et al., 2009; Nicholls & Racey, 2009).

These include electromagnetic devices, radar deterrents, “feathering” of turbines

during high risk periods and increasing “cut in” speeds (i.e. the lowest economically

viable operating wind speed) since highest mortality usually occurs at low wind

speeds (Arnett, 2005; Horn et al., 2006; Reynolds, 2006; Arnett et al., 2008).

Electromagnetic deterrents may deter bats, although not entirely, up to 400 m from

radar installations and up to 30 m from fixed position radar units (Nicholls & Racey,

2007; 2009) and turbines with ultrasonic devices reduce occurrence (Horn et al.,

2008). The occurrence of bats in the latter study was confounded by weather

variables (wind speed and barometric pressure) and temporal fluctuations in the

occurrence of migrating species reducing the applicability of the results. From initial

trials of mitigation through feathering/stopping some turbines and changing turbine

“cut-in” speeds has shown a reduction in bat fatalities by 50 – 80% and minimal loss

of energy production annually (typically <1%; Arnett et al., 2009; Baerwald et al,

2009).

Pre-development survey and data acquisition (Langston & Pullan, 2002; Madders &

Walker, 2002, Percival, 2005; SNH, 2005; Drewitt et al., 2006; Reynolds, 2006) and

strategic predictive modelling of population density and distribution to identify high

sensitivity areas and/or species to development are essential in reducing risk and

informing pre-construction decisions for both developers and wildlife managers

(Fielding et al., 2006; Bright et al., 2008; Carrete et al., 2009; Pearce-Higgins et al.,

2009; Tapia, 2009, Telleria, 2009b; c) but is highly dependent on the quality and

quantity of species-specific and site-specific data that is available. Research and

Geographical Information System (GIS) approaches to strategic assessment at

national, regional and local scales are essential in improving the efficacy and


35

reducing the risk for windfarm developments from both an ecological and planning

perspective (Baban & Parry, 2001; Krewitt & Nitsch, 2003; Bright et al., 2008).


36

Table 7 Summary of mitigation studies looking at off setting the known effects of wind farm developments.

# Taxa Species Country No. of study sites

No. of replicates

No. of controls


1 Birds Multiple spp. USA - 10 - Mitigation Yes Yes Painting blades with red/white stripes reduced mortality by 90%

Howell et al., 1992

2 Birds Multiple spp. USA - - - Mitigation No Yes Installation of beneficial turbine designs decreased raptor/bird mortality by 4%

Orloff & Flannery, 1992; see also Thelander & Smallwood, 2004

3 Birds Multiple spp. USA - - - Mitigation No Yes 90% decrease in mortality by the installation of newer turbines (i.e. replacement of lattice-style towers)

Hunt, 2002

4 Birds Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

UK 1 - 0 Mitigation No - Pre-construction research allowed development of site-specific mitigation to reduce habitat suitability for eagles

Madders & Walker, 2002; see also Walker et al., 2005

5 Birds Multiple spp. Germany - - - Spatial analysis

No - GIS models used to trade-off windfarm development and bird conservation areas

Krewitt & Nitsch, 2003

6 Birds & Bats

Multiple spp. USA - - - Mitigation Yes Yes 52% increase in mortality at UV painted blades

Young et al., 2003

7 Mammals Ground squirrel & pocket gopher

USA - - - Mitigation No Yes Reduction and minimisation of lateral edge i.e. reduce cutting into hillsides for turbine foundations or roads attracted gophers, but caused avoidance in ground squirrels

Thelander & Smallwood, 2004

8 Birds Multiple spp. USA - - - Mitigation - Yes Painting blades with red/white stripes (increased mortality by 2-3%), removal of rock piles to reduce risk to predators where prey aggregate, exclusion of livestock from turbine bases (18-22% reduction), rodent control, installation of flight diverters, use of tubular towers/repowering (6-35%

Thelander & Smallwood, 2004


37


No. of replicates

No. of controls


increase in mortality), alternative perches, perch guards (0-54% decrease in perching, 2% increase in hawk mortality), barricading rotor plane, relocation of selected and derelict turbines and installation of high rotor planes (>29m) all proposed to reduce mortality in birds


UK - - - Spatial analysis

No - No perceived threat as <4% of territories overlapped windfarm sites.

Fielding et al., 2006

10 Bats Multiple spp. USA 1 - - Mitigation Yes Bat activity monitored pre-construction to plan mitigation measures

Reynolds, 2006

11 Bats Multiple spp. UK 10 9 0 Mitigation Yes Yes Successful mitigation; decreased activity and avoidance behaviour at experimental sites exposed to electromagnetic deterrents

Nicholls & Racey, 2007

12 Birds Multiple spp. UK - - - Spatial analysis

No NA Priority species distributions and SPAs mapped to identify risk areas and aid planning of windfarms and conservation. Bean goose, hen harrier and red kite were outlined as the highest risk species .

Bright et al., 2008

13 Bats Unknown USA 1 - - Mitigation Yes Yes Inconsistent results but general decrease in activity at turbines fitted with ultrasonic bat deterrents.

Horn et al., 2008a

14 Birds Multiple spp. UK (Review)

- - - Mitigation No - Buffer zones can minimise the effects of development/disturbance on wildlife

Whitfield et al., 2008


38


No. of replicates

No. of controls


15 Bats Unknown USA 1 - - Mitigation Yes Yes Bat mortality significantly (53-87%) reduced by reducing start-up speed of rotors

Arnett et al., 2009

16 Birds Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus)

Spain 27 - - Spatial analysis

Yes Yes 33% of species restricted range within windfarm risk zones. Perceived risk of direct mortality leading to population decline and/or expiration.

Carrete et al., 2009

17 Bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Myotis daubentonii,

UK ‐ - - Mitigation Yes Yes Decreased bat activity (15-40%) within 30m of EM radiation bat deterrent devices; insect abundance unaffected

Nicholls & Racey, 2009

18 Birds Golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria)

UK 11 6 11 Spatial analysis

No - No data on mortality but large spatial overlap in golden plover range with existing and proposed windfarms.

Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009b

19 Birds Multiple (mainly raptor spp.)

USA 2 ‐ 0 Mitigation Yes Yes Mitigation measure successful in reducing mortality by 54% for raptors and 66% for all birds.

Smallwood & Karas, 2009

20 Birds Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) & other spp.

USA Multiple 571 turbines 0 Spatial analysis

No - Perceived risk from direct morality from spatial hazard mapping identifying re-organisation of windfarm design and re-powering as mitigation measures

Smallwood et al., 2009a


Spain - - - Spatial analysis

No - Perceived risk from direct mortality due to spatial hazard mapping

Tapia et al., 2009

22 Bats Multiple spp. Spain 269 5443 x 10km

squares

0 Spatial analysis

Yes Yes Poor spatial planning resulted in large overlap between windfarms and priority bat species range

Telleria, 2009a


39


No. of replicates

No. of controls


23 Birds Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus)

Spain - 165 ringing recoveries

0 Spatial analysis

No - Migration corridors had little overlap with windfarms. Perceived as low risk.

Telleria, 2009b

24 Birds Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus)

Spain Multiple - - Spatial analysis

Yes Yes Breeding ranges overlapped with windfarms. Perceived as high risk.

Telleria, 2009c


40

4.0 Discussion

This review suggests strongly that wind farm construction and operation can have

significant effects on local and regional biodiversity, however, the occurrence and

magnitude of negative effects varies between taxa, species, windfarms and habitats

and is therefore highly site specific.

Whilst wind farms may affect a large range of species, birds of prey (particularly

soaring species) and bats are notably vulnerable to collision with rotating blades and

direct mortality whilst other aerial species may be vulnerable to barrier and/or

displacement effects. The results presented here highlight an emerging trend of

studies focusing on the negative impact on bats, specifically migratory species

through barotraumas or the potential for turbines to act as attractants. Terrestrial

mammals, other vertebrates, invertebrates and plants are much less likely to be

negatively impacted by windfarm developments whilst appropriate siting and

planning can mitigate the worst of the effects on habitats, ecosystems and processes

such as carbon storage, robust baseline information is essential to inform these

planning decisions. Consequently, guidance and recommendations made here

(Sections 5.0 and 6.0) will concentrate predominately on birds and bats.

With all species and habitats, but particularly bats, it is a requirement that the

precautionary principle (Myers, 1993) be adopted. As such development

assessments, at pre- and post-construction stages, must adopt a scientific approach

to inform independent assessment and monitoring conclusions to inform best

practice and management decisions. In particular the monitoring of mortality rates at

UK windfarm installations rarely occurs (K. Duffy, personal communication) and the

absence of such data to make on-going decisions on the actual effects of windfarms

difficult (Smallwood, 2007).

Predictive modelling and mapping are particularly useful tools for informing the

development of windfarms and there remains a need, particularly within a Northern

Ireland context, to make strategic assessments to inform developers of suitable and

non-suitable sites for development from a biodiversity perspective. Therefore, as


41

recommendations within Northern Ireland, we propose that standardised

assessments during pre- and post-construction stages are implemented (see page

49) and also that strategic (and where possible scientifically prescriptive)

environmental mapping, assessments and measures of species-specific or

assemblage scale analyses are prioritised for future work in order to inform

development decisions in the future (see Bright et al., 2006; Fielding et al., 2006;

Whitfield et al., 2008; Carrete et al., 2009; Tapia et al., 2009; Telleria, 2009a; b; c).

Further to this strategic approach we recommend the on-going implementation of

population-scale research into population dynamics and demography of priority bat

and bird species to establish the effect, if any, of predicted or known collisions on

populations and their ability to sustain extrinsic and potentially additive mortality from

windfarms. This includes the requirement to understand the regional trends in

productivity, survival, migration and dispersal movements of bats and birds (notably

eagles and harriers; Hobson, 1999; Sendor & Simon, 2003; Rivers et al., 2005; Bat

Conservation Trust & Westway, 2007; Ruddock et al., 2008; Whitfield et al., 2008b;

Fielding et al., 2009; Centre for Irish Bat Research (CIBR), personal communication)

and to obtain estimates of effective population sizes, population stability and the

connectivity of populations with other parts of the UK and Europe. At individual sites

further research into the ranging behaviour and habitat preferences of extant species

through modelling field data (McGrady et al., 2002) or remote monitoring of site

specific usage (e.g. radio and/or satellite tracking (Brandes et al., 2009) are valuable

tools for the assessment of impacts of windfarms and warrant wider applicability.

Whilst windfarm developments are constrained by numerous factors including

topography, wind-speeds, visual, archaeology, noise, landownership, finance and

sociology; biodiversity and ecological factors are of equivalent sociological and

legislative importance and therefore require consideration through a rigorous

scientific approach. However, the integration of biodiversity, sociological, political

and financial aspects of development, through inclusive planning, development and

mitigation approaches is essential to increase the implementation of windfarm

construction, without undue adverse environmental effects. Ultimately windfarms

should be encouraged to develop community level programmes of development

integrated with an understanding of environmental impact (Hull, 1995; Warren et al.,

2005; Bowyer et al., 2009; Sims et al., 2009).


42

5.0 General Guidance In relation to birds, thorough guidelines and general principles have been outlined by

Anderson et al. (1999) but were specifically written for development planning

procedures in the USA. Now that the EU has become a world leader in the

development and installation of wind farms (European Wind Energy Association,

1999), some member states have produced standard development guidelines and

assessment protocols, for example, Scottish Natural Heritage (Anonymous, 2005). In

specific reference to Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) and best practice

guidance documents for Europe (European Wind Energy Association undated, 1999)

and the UK (British Wind Energy Association, 1994) but few contain specific

information regarding the methodologies to be employed by developers or

stakeholders.

An exemplar of the standard of work required elsewhere, are the guidance

documents published by Scottish Natural Heritage and the British Wind Energy

Association (Anon 2000a; 2005), Percival, (2000; 2005); Langston & Pullan (2002)

and Drewitt & Langston, (2006) on assessing the effects of wind farms on birds and

these are supported by specific methodological recommendations for the survey and

an assessment of turbine collision risk (Anonymous, 2000b; Band et al., 2005).

However, more recent attempts have been made in the USA and Europe to develop

similarly detailed guidelines for bats (Brinkmann, 2006; Kunz et al., 2007). Little or no

guidance is available for assessing potential impacts of developments on terrestrial

mammals, invertebrates, habitats or ecological processes, such as CO2

sequestration, reflecting the paucity of scientific studies published to date.

Agreement on standardised methods is urgently required to assist in the

maintenance of consistency across assessments, facilitate comparisons between

sites and assist in predicting potential effects of future developments. Here we have

drafted guidance specifically for ecological consultants and NIEA staff dealing with

wind farm development applications and consents.


43

5.1 Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)

EIAs must match field surveys to the information needed by NIEA to assess whether

a proposed development is acceptable in terms of its likely effects on Northern

Ireland’s Natural Heritage.

The aim of any pre-construction survey of local wildlife and habitat is to provide

information which will be sufficient to enable an assessment of the impacts arising

from three principal risks:

i. Displacement - Indirect habitat loss though direct disturbance and

avoidance of operational turbines creating a ‘barrier effect’ altering

normal feeding, commuting or migration routes.

ii. Direct mortality – Death through direct collision with operational turbine

blades and, to a lesser extent, collision with powerlines; usually restricted

to birds, bats and aerial invertebrates.

iii. Habitat loss - Direct habitat loss through construction of wind farm

infrastructure.

In addition, pre-construction surveys can inform the processes required during and

post-construction for mitigation, where appropriate.

To rank the risk for any target species or habitat, its distribution and, in the case of

animals, a measure of activity, is necessary. Species inventories and local surveys

provide data on species type, richness and abundance only. For aerial species,

surveys of activity are also necessary to assess flight levels, trajectories and

behaviour. However, EIAs must integrate this knowledge with an understanding of

the expected impact of wind farms on the target species. Such judgements will

depend not only on the sensitivity of the species but also the designation of a site

and the scale of the development proposal.


44

In the case of adjacent extant wind farms or multiple wind farm proposals the

potential cumulative effect must be considered. If the EIA is based on information

from 1 – 2 years only, it is important that between-year impacts are identified so that

any underlying trends in the likely impact of a site can be assessed in the longer-

term; in line with SNH Guidance (Anonymous, 2005) we propose a period of 25

years.

EIA assessments are contingent on the quality, experience and skills of the

surveyors to ensure reliable data are collected and suitably analysed.

5.1.2 Target species and habitats

Target species and habitats suitable for field survey and assessment should be

prioritised to those of a) greatest significance to Northern Ireland’s Natural Heritage

i.e. Priority Species, Species of Conservation Concern, Species Action Plan (SAP)

and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Species and all those of international importance,

for example, those listed on the EU Habitats Directive and b) those judged most

vulnerable to potential adverse effects.

Principal species and habitats lists to be consulted during EIA appraisals include, but

are not limited to:

• Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive

• Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive

• Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive

• EU Water Framework Directive

• Annex I of the EU Birds Directive

• Schedule 1 of the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985



• UK Red-list of Birds of Conservation Concern

• Ireland Red and Amber-lists of Birds of Conservation Concern

• Northern Ireland Priority Species list


45

• Northern Ireland SAPs, BAPs and HAPs

• The Conservation (Nature Habitats etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland)

1995 & 2007

Of the vulnerable species groups identified in our review, we recommend prioritising

the following bird and bat species for EIAs:

Birds Birds of Prey

• Hen harrier Circus cyaneus

• Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

• White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla

• Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

• Barn owl Tyto alba

• Red kite Milvus milvus

• Kestrel Falco tinunnculus

• Peregrine Falco peregrinus

• Marsh harrier Circus pygargus

• Merlin Falco columbarius

• Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Other bird species

• Pale-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla hrota

• Greenland white-fronted goose Anser albifrons flavirostris

• Bewick's swan Cygnus columbianus

• Whooper swan Cygnus Cygnus

• Corncrake Crex crex

• Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

• Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria

• Curlew Numenius arquata

• Redshank Tringa tetanus

• Dunlin Calidris alpine

• Snipe Gallinago gallinago


46

• Knot Calidrus canutus

• Red grouse Lagopus lagopus

• Roseate tern Sterna dougallii

• Little tern Sterna albifrons

• Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Bats All species, but particularly

• Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii

• Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus

• Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus

SNH Guidance suggests that ‘secondary species’ be considered including those of

regional and local significance. However, the recording of secondary species should

be subsidiary to the recording of key target species. Secondary species should be

determined at the initial site scoping stage by comparing species occurrence at any

particular site with the Northern Ireland Priority Species lists (see Section 5.1.2, page

45). Furthermore, this premise is applicable to other vertebrate taxa which should be

assessed as part of surveys for other species for which specific surveys are required

including for example, many upland sites harbouring populations of listed

vertebrates, for example, the Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) or the common

lizard (Zootoca vivpara) or many priority moths, of which there are 66 species listed.

Each should be assessed on a site-by-site basis.

Resident and migratory species are likely to exhibit seasonal and daily (diurnal and

nocturnal) variation in their abundance and use of a site and it is necessary for any

assessment to account for this and biologically relevant temporal survey periods

should be comprehensively covered. Some species can vary their activity between

years and therefore some consideration should be given to multi-year assessments

particularly for high priority species.


47

5.1.3 Designated sites

The requirement that a proposed wind farm should not adversely affect species or

habitats becomes explicit when considering those that are listed as ‘site features’ on

designated sites such as Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) and Special

Areas of Conservation (SACs).

The European Wind Energy Association, supported by the Bern Convention

(Anonymous, 1976), recommends that wind farms should not be located in Important

Bird Areas, including Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites (European

Wind Energy Association, 1999).

It is critical to avoid locating wind farms in areas of importance to priority species and

habitats; most notably birds and bats. This is paramount if they include areas with

high concentrations of birds (e.g. near estuaries), swarming sites (for bats) or

migration routes or stop-over feeding sites for either birds or bats (for example caves

for bats or water bodies for waterfowl). Evidence to date suggests that locations with

high bird or bat use, especially protected species, are not suitable for wind farm

development. However, development will be assessed without prejudice where

proposals are received, however it falls to the applicant being required to show that

no detrimental effects on the site features will occur or that these effects can be

appropriately and successfully mitigated.

There are stringent requirements on European Directives placed on Natura 2000

sites under UK Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations (1994) and

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 which

require the formal assessment of the impact of any development; with exceptions

made only where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Due to

their strategic European significance, Natura 2000 sites should be accorded the

highest sensitivity to wind farm development in NIEA’s strategic locational guidance

for onshore wind farms.

Assessments of development impacts should also include nearby designated sites

and designated site features that are not within the main proposed development but


48

sufficiently close that the development or presence of a wind farm may affect the site

or features. The distance to such additional assessment areas will be contingent on

the species in question and their potential foraging or movement distances.

5.1.4 Scoping and surveys

Wind farm developers are strongly encouraged to liaise with NIEA directly during an

initial ‘scoping’ stage to help establish the issues relevant to any EIA. The aim is to

identify those issues which are potentially of significant environmental impact, and

which therefore warrant full assessment within the resultant EIA, and if necessary,

any potential mitigation measures. It is also useful to avoid wasting resources on

issues which are unlikely to be vulnerable to the development.

There are three key stages in any scoping study:

1. ‘Dry’ desk-based research to collate existing information.

2. Assessment of key species and habitats likely to be present at the site.

3. EIA ‘wet’ field-based surveys.

The combined objective is to provide a holistic assessment of the level of interest on

the site, to allow sufficient planning in terms of the scale and type of observations

needed (survey effort). A ‘scoping report’ should prepared and submitted to NIEA

presenting the results of any analysis and conclusions about which species or

habitats may be vulnerable to loss, displacement or collision. The scoping report

should also contain detailed descriptions of all proposed survey methods and how

issues of mitigation are to be assessed.

It is recommended that developers liaise with NIEA and NGOs at an early stage with

a view to gathering preliminary ‘expert judgements’ (Whitfield et al., 2008) and data,

where available, on the likely sensitivities at the proposed site. An indicative list of

potential collaborators at this stage is given below:

• CEDaR


49

• RSPB

• BTO

• Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group

• Northern Ireland Bat Group(s)

• Bat Conservation Ireland

• National Biodiversity Data Centre, Waterford

• NBN Gateway

The habitat of any proposed site can be assessed using the Land Cover Map 2006

and the Countryside Survey 2007 (or most recent relevant survey).

Field surveys are probably the most important method in any scoping in order to

provide empirical data on species presence and activity. For many areas there may

often be no existing data on target species or habitat interests; especially for

seasonably variable species (e.g. during winter or migration periods).

‘Walkover’ methods provide a general idea of the resident species at a site.

However, formally designed survey methods are warranted when target species are

known to occur. Walkover methods are generally short and provide a focal sample

(e.g. 1 hour) designed for maximum coverage. Potentially important landscape

features including ponds can be noted at this stage. For upland birds, the survey

methods of Brown & Shepherd (1993) should be followed, whereas lowland sites can

be monitored using Common Bird Census (CBC) or Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)

methods (see Section 5.1.6, page 51). For example, where wintering wildfowl are

present or suspected, survey visits once a month can be appropriate in winter to

establish data for the initial scoping report.

5.1.5 Before-and-after surveys and experimental assessment

Where the potential risk to any species is a critical issue we recommend that, as a

condition of consent for the proposal, a post-construction monitoring phase is

implemented. As an ongoing requirement, post-construction, we recommend an

‘experimental’ design to assessing potential impacts of operations using appropriate


50

non-wind farm controls (Anderson et al., 1999). In the case of displacement effects it

is recommended that assessments be carried out at suitable intervals of 1, 2, 3, 5,

10 and 15 years during the operational life of the wind farm and the results collated

into two reports; 3 years and 15 years after operational commencement. Monitoring

for collision mortality may require a different protocol (see Smallwood, 2007) and

where it reveals that the impact is in fact significant a close-down condition may be

required during specified temporal periods.

In the event of post-construction monitoring it is important to have pre-construction

baseline data for effective comparisons to be made.

5.1.6 Survey methods

Survey methods will vary depending upon the target species. Careful consideration

should be given to selection of the most appropriate methods for the species likely to

be present on each site. Any proposed site should be regarded as the area enclosed

by a minimum convex polygon drawn around the outermost turbine locations, masts,

substations, cables, grid connections and access roads and buffered by 500m for the

assessment of all species and habitats. If a precise boundary is unknown all

potential areas should be included and buffered by 500m.

Displacement effects should be evaluated to a distance of several hundred metres

beyond the wind farm site (hence the inclusion of the minimum recommendation of a

500m survey buffer), dependent on how vulnerable the target species is to

disturbance. For example, for priority bird species (see Section 5.1.2, page 45) it is

recommended that a minimum distance of 2 – 3km around the windfarm footprint are

investigated to identify breeding, wintering and/or roosting locations. Habitat loss

should also consider adjacent areas, most notably those through which access roads

pass. Collision risk should be assessed within the boundaries of the proposed site

only.

A range of methods are likely to be needed for each site, dependent on species and

habitats present, and guidance should be sought from NIEA as to the most

appropriate methods.


51

Birds

Gilbert et al., (1998), Bibby et al., (2000) and Brown & Shepherd (1993), Hardey et

al., (2006 & 2009) are key references for bird survey methodologies. Bird surveys at

windfarms must minimally include the following assessment in addition to any other

specific surveys requested by NIEA:

1. Vantage point surveys

2. Breeding bird surveys

3. Priority species surveys

4. Wintering bird surveys

Of the Northern Ireland Priority Species, we recommend focusing on the following

key groups (in descending order of perceived importance):

1. Raptors

2. Breeding upland waders

3. Breeding waterfowl

4. Wintering and migratory waterfowl, notably geese and swans

5. Owls

6. Lowland/farmland species

7. Woodland species

8. Coastal species

The collection of data covering a standardised temporal period is essential i.e. one

year minimum for the collection of bird survey data and where priority species are

identified it may be necessary to implement a second year of targeted species-

specific monitoring.

• Vantage Point (VP) methodology - These is particularly useful for

assessing target species, notably bird of prey, activity, flight height and

foraging routes. Temporal periods over which a development site should

be assessed are divided into four distinct time-periods i) breeding

season; ii) wintering season iii) spring migration and iv) autumn migration


52

and all temporal periods should be all assessed, except where exclusion

is agreed in advance with NIEA. The minimum recommendation for each

temporal period is 36 hours from each vantage point (Anonymous, 2005).

The number of vantage points required for each site will vary, but should

provide comprehensive visual coverage of the minimum convex polygon

and associated 500m buffer for the development site. Digital Elevation

Models (DEM) can be used to produce view-sheds of the visible areas

from each vantage point and should be used to assess coverage of the

development area. The visual detection rates and distances to detections

will vary between species, particularly according to size of the bird (e.g.

lower detection of merlin compared to golden eagle) and topographical

constraints. Therefore vantage points should be located to maximise

detection of all species and therefore the location of vantage points

within 2km of the development site is recommended (M. Madders,

personal communication). Preferably, vantage points should not be

located within the development boundary, where possible, to minimise

observer effects of disturbance on bird activity and/or behaviour. Vantage

points should be temporally maximised to cover varying weather

conditions and times of day (and also include crepuscular periods),

where possible, nocturnal assessments should be made (see Bats

below) to quantify the nocturnal passage of birds, notably of migrant

species. It is necessary to record survey effort through recording, times,

dates and weather conditions throughout the survey period. The aim of

vantage point watches is to quantify flight activity over the proposed

development site and identify areas of critical importance to birds and

estimate collision risk. Therefore it is necessary to collect data on travel

trajectories, flying height (i.e. the duration of time spent flying at rotor

height), duration and abundance of passing birds to quantify estimated

collision rates. Predicted collision mortality can be estimated using a

model such as that developed by SNH (Anoymous, 2000b; Band et al.,

2005). Collision risk models should be submitted with all EIA reports

wherever high priority/target species are identified utilising the

development site (notably for hen harrier, geese, swans and eagles or


53

where requested by NIEA for other species detected during the field

surveys).

• Breeding bird surveys - These are a required element for EIA submission

and should include appropriate methods for the habitat in which the

development is located, notable reference for these survey include

Brown & Shepherd (1993), Gilbert et al., 1998 and Bibby et al., (2000)

are key references for these surveys. All areas within the development

and buffer should be systematically surveyed at appropriate temporal

times of the breeding for the detection of all species and breeding status.

Where extensive blocks of woodland occur within the development site,

various methods may be required e.g. moorland walkover surveys and

woodland point counts and should be analysed appropriately.

• Priority species searches – These should include specific assessments

of the nesting distribution and breeding status for species of high

conservation concern (see Section 5.1.2) notably for Annex I [EU Birds

Directive] and Schedule 1 [Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985] and

Birds of Conservation Concern Ireland (BoCCI) species within the

development area and within 2 - 3 km of the proposed development. For

larger species (e.g. eagles) a search area of up to 5 km is

recommended. Targeted surveys may be required to include different

methods where the detection of other surveys is low, e.g. dedicated red

grouse surveys. Details of search effort, weather conditions and locations

of breeding attempts and/or territories should all be reported and suitable

habitats for these species should all be included and be treated

confidentially where required (see 5.1.6). Hardey et al., (2006; 2009)

provides detailed specific recommendations for the survey techniques for

raptors.

• Wintering bird surveys - Designed to systematically cover the

development site throughout the winter period to identify distribution

and/or occurrence of over-wintering species and should also identify


54

important wintering areas and/or habitats for extant species particularly

for waders, geese, swans and raptors for which targeted surveys may be

required e.g. hen harrier roost watches.

Bats Kunz et al. (2008) is a key reference for the development of bat survey

methodologies with specific reference to wind farms, further specific guidance can be

obtained from Parsons et al., (2007); Cook et al., (2008) and Catherine & Spray

(2009). There are a number of relevant survey techniques:

• Moon watches – Visual counts in dim light enumerating number of bat

passes as a measure of activity.

• Ceilometry – Using a fixed location stop lamp with binoculars or a

spotting scope to provide information about relative traffic rates.

However, visible light may attract birds and insects thus biasing results.

• Night-vision imaging - Visual observations that employ night-vision

goggles and reflective infrared cameras. Video recordings of flight

behaviour and metrics include proportions of bats observed flying at low

altitudes (150m above ground level), flight direction, and relative

numbers observed per hour.

• Thermal infrared imaging - In contrast to night-vision technology, thermal

infrared imaging cameras are designed to detect heat emitted from

objects in a field of view without the need for artificial illumination.

Automated detection can be useful for assessing bat behaviour in the

vicinity of wind turbines (Desholm et al., 2006, Betke et al., 2008).

• Tracking radar –Provides information on flight paths of individual bats

(including altitude, speed, and direction). This has proved a highly useful


55

method in describing high resolution passage rates around operational

turbines.

• Acoustic Monitoring – Use of bat detectors and directional microphones

to quantify the number of bat passes as an index of abundance providing

guidance as an index of bat occurrence (Parsons & Swezaczk, 2008).

This is most likely to be of greatest use in Northern Ireland were other

techniques may fail. Projects should consider pre- and post-construction

surveys (Arnett et al., 2006).

Similar to bird survey methodologies bat field surveys should encompass the

following surveys within the site boundary (see Section 5.1.6, page 54):

1. Location of active and/or inactive hibernacula, breeding and swarming

sites within 200 – 500m (dependent of the level of risk identified – see

Catherine & Spray, 2009) of development locations.

2. Identification of potentially suitable habitat and potential foraging,

commuting and roosting sites within 200 – 500m of development

locations.

3. Manual and automated activity surveys to quantify the usage of the

development site including assessment of flying height, activity and

abundance through walked transect and automated monitoring as

outlined above. Notably an assessment of vertical abundance and

activity through surveys at height (e.g. met mast installations) are

recommended.

Post-construction monitoring carcass searches may be effective in assessing

ongoing collision risk for birds (and bats); particular in early years following

construction i.e. monitoring years one to five (see Section 5.1.6, page 51). Protocols

include repeated searches of areas around at least 30% of installed turbines in

gridded or circular plots around turbine bases extending to at least 50 – 75m or a

specified distance away from turbines relative to the size of the rotor blades (e.g.


56

twice length of rotor), most carcasses are usually found within 50m (K. Duffy,

personal communication; Brinkmann, 2006; Baerwald et al., 2008). Mortality

searches should include an assessment of search efficiency trials and scavenger

removal rates (Smallwood, 2007). Mortality rates should be correlated with the on-

going collection of distributional data on bird (and bat) abundances.

Bat mortality searches in particular should account for temporal periods of i) spring

emergence, ii) maternity roosting (early summer), iii) mother suckling (mid-late

summer) and iv) autumn emergence/fledging/swarming (Catherine & Spray, 2009).

5.1.7 Assessment of associated infrastructure

The effects of associated wind farm infrastructure should also be considered, for

example, the effect of access roads or tracks. If the National Grid connection is

overhead, surveys of bird or bat species should be conducted at various distances

appropriate to the target species. If the National Grid connection is underground,

surveys of ground-nesting bird species may be necessary during construction or if

the original habitat is not to be restored. Collision risk of target species with overhead

cables should be quantified and where there are power pylons their design should

mitigate any risk of electrocution to perching birds.

5.1.8 Mitigation Mitigation measure should be assessed within the EIA and discussed and are

contingent on the data collected during pre-construction survey works. Mitigation

options for windfarm development can be undertaken at pre-construction, during

construction, post-construction and at a strategic level and can be grouped within 31

primary measures (Section 3.7; Table 7; see also NWCC, 2007); namely:

• Sensitive wind farm design - involves the micro-siting of turbines in locations

to minimise negative impacts on wildlife e.g. away from ridges, away from

flyways and creation of “wind-walls” or lines rather than clusters. (Orloff &

Flannery, 1992; Larsen & Madsen, 2000; Krewitt & Nitsch, 2003; Thelander &

Smallwood, 2004, Madders & Walker, 2005).


57

• Avoidance of areas heavily used by extant species - involves the micro-siting

of turbines away from breeding locations, migratory pathways or preferred

foraging routes (Fielding et al., 2006; Reynolds, 2006; Bright et al., 2008;

Whitfield et al., 2008; Carrete et al., 2009; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009b; Tapia

et al., 2009; Telleria, 2009a; b; c).

• Location of turbines within altered or degraded habitats, by siting turbines in,

for example, agricultural areas avoiding sensitive or high quality priority

habitats (see Leddy et al., 1999).

• Reduce and minimise lateral edges, by siting of roads, turbines bases and

infrastructure into cut-away habitat e.g. on hillsides thereby decreasing the

surface area of disturbed habitats.

• Establish buffer zones by the creating spatial and temporal protected areas.

Prescriptive biologically relevant protective buffers applied to preferred areas

of usage, species or habitats will reduce risk of disturbance (Whitfield et al.,

2008).

• Alter tower types by changing towers to reduce usage by birds, e.g. avoid

high risk turbine designs which attract species (Curry & Nelson, 1995;

Thelander & Smallwood, 2004).

• Alteration of blade colours has been investigated including black/white blades,

red/white stripes and UV gel. This alteration can increase visibility (and

delectability) of rotors to reduce risk to aerial species, but has species

dependent effects and may attract nocturnal species (Howell, 1992; Young et

al., 2003; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004).

• Rodent and/or prey species control, the live-trapping and/or licenced

poisoning of rodents/prey species will reduce the availability to predators and

have a concomitant reduction in occurrence of (aerial) predators at risk from


58

turbines (Hunt, 2002). However, the precise effects of this are unclear, and

also may be problematic with bioaccumulation/bio-magnification or

direct/indirect effects on non-target species (Ratcliffe, 2002; Thelander &

Smallwood, 2004; Berny & Gaillet, 2008)

• Fencing of turbines to exclude livestock, since livestock often aggregate

around turbines increasing insect abundance due to increased faeces

deposits, this may attract species vulnerable to collision. Exclusion therefore

reduces this problem but as a caveat to this fencing may increase perching

opportunities (Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood & Karas, 2009;

Smallwood et al., 2009).

• Removal of rock piles, by reducing occurrence of hibernacula for rodent/prey

species which may attract vulnerable predators. Reduction in the availability

of habitat for prey species will potentially reduce occurrence of predators,

probably small scale effect and requires further testing (Thelander &

Smallwood, 2004)

• Installation of perch guards, these are designed to discourage perching birds

(particularly raptors), notably at lattice-style towers. By reducing suitability of

windfarm for perching may reduce occurrence of extant species (Curry &

Kerlinger, 2001; Hunt, 2002; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood et al.,

2009b).

• Repowering turbines, replacing older turbines with fewer larger/greater output

turbines. Reduction in mortality rates for birds and bats, although variable

effects depending on species (Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Arnett et al.,

2009; Smallwood et al., 2009a; b).

• Marking and/or flagging of powerlines and guy lines, by increasing visibility of

wires or lines within the windfarm area this will reduce collision occurrence

(Bevanger 1998; van Rooyen & Ledger, 1999; Ferrer & Janss, 1999; Janss,


59

2000; Barrios & Rodriguez, 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Lehman et al.,

2007; Bevanger et al., 2008).

• Installation of bird flight diverters including pole structures that are placed

beyond the ends of strings and/or clusters of turbines can reduce the

suitability and access for extant species and alter foraging and/or usage of

high risk areas. This method is probably most useful for low-flying species and

acts as a diversionary technique to reduce risk to species within turbine areas

(; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood & Karas, 2009).

• Provision of alternative perches; these can be used to attract birds away from

turbines, but there is a requirement for further testing on effectiveness of this

strategy (Thelander & Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood et al., 2009a).

• Barricading the rotor plane; barriers encasing the rotors will prevent collision

of aerial species with turbine rotors; however this method is highly impractical,

may reduce the efficacy of the turbine and prohibitively costly (Thelander &

Smallwood, 2004).

• Installation of acoustic deterrents to modify the acoustic signatures of turbines

to increase audibility to birds and bats this can be an effective deterrent for

bats in particular, but is less likely to be effective for birds (Nicholls & Racey,

2007; 2009; Arnett et al., 2009).

• Reducing the availability of carrion by removal or exclusion of carrion from

turbine areas (e.g. fallen livestock or turbine casualties) to reduce the

attraction of the area to scavengers (notably eagles), but this requires further

testing on effectiveness and availability of carrion.

• Minimising the number of lighted turbines - lights on or around turbines may

attract invertebrates and therefore insectivores; alteration of lighting may be

ineffective for birds and bats and can cause disorientation but can be an

invertebrate attractant (Horn et al., 2008).


60

• Avoidance of sodium vapour lights - the installation of these lights of this type

may be a major cause of mortality increases there was a 48% decrease noted

in mortality after lights were turned off (Kerlinger & Kerns, 2004).

• Synchronisation of lighting - lighting on turbines should flash simultaneously

since this is known to affect pilots (Larwood, 2005), but the effects on wildlife

are largely unknown.

• Relocation of selected turbines - the relocation or removal of high risk

turbines, or those for which mortality estimates are disproportionately higher.

There is a 2 – 5% reduction in mortality by removal of selected turbines at

some sites and is recorded as a 100% effective reduction in mortality for

golden eagles at one site (Hoover, 2002; Thelander & Smallwood, 2004;

Hoover & Morrison, 2005).

• Co-ordination of operational turbine timings and cut-in speeds - alteration of

the timings and operational start-up speeds of turbines to minimise impacts on

wildlife during high risk periods, recent testing has revealed a significant

reduction in mortality rates for bats (and birds) by reducing risk at low wind-

speeds when increased mortality occurs (Arnett et al., 2009).

• Removal of derelict and non-operating turbines - there are disproportionate

fatalities of raptors at turbines in close proximity to non-operational or broken

turbines - therefore removal of these may reduce risk as one study notes a 5

– 9% increases in mortality at turbines adjacent to derelict turbines (Thelander

& Smallwood, 2004; Smallwood et al., 2009b).

• Suspension of operation during high risk periods - seasonal or spatial

temporary shut-downs of turbines during high risk periods e.g. migratory

periods, specific wind conditions, topography and weather. This method

requires further testing on efficacy; however results from bats indicate


61

successful reduction in mortality through alteration of cut in speeds during

high risk periods (Arnett et al., 2009).

• Repowering turbines with high rotor planes - increasing the tower height of

turbines to reduce risk to low-flying species and reduce mortality rates,

however this method may affect species differently (Thelander & Smallwood,

2004; Stewart et al., 2007; Barclay et al., 2007).

• Acquisition of conservation easements or mitigation habitats - through

improving and managing off-site habitats to reduce occurrence and/or usage

of site by species of concern or compensating for loss of habitats caused by

development risks can effectively be reduced. There are legislative protocols

for undertaking works of this nature and considerable potential long-term

community benefits from the inclusion of areas outwith the development area

(Madders & Walker, 2002; Walker et al., 2005;).

• Re-establishment of disturbed areas or degraded habitats, improving, re-

instating and/or managing habitats that are damaged, destroyed or degraded

as a result of the development should be undertaken to minimise the long-

term effects of the developments (Leddy et al., 1999).

• Acquisition and management of habitat within high risk areas - the

management of preferred habitats within the development area to reduce

suitability for high risk species, e.g. alteration of grazing regimes to dissuade

species from using areas of greatest risk (Madders & Walker, 2002; Walker et

al., 2005; Bowyer et al., 2009).

• Modelling and predictive mapping - increase strategic work to inform planning

decisions and individual development sites (see Bright et al., 2006; Fielding et

al., 2006; Whitfield et al., 2008; Carrete et al., 2009; Tapia et al., 2009;

Telleria, 2009a; b; c).


62

6.0 Recommendations for Environmental Impact Assessments in NI

At the time of review, there were a total of 38 existing or extant wind farms

containing 345 turbines operating in Northern Ireland representing a capacity of

585MW. A total of 6 development applications had been refused and 7 applications

had been withdrawn. There are currently a total of 44 proposed wind farm

developments, which if installed, will generate a further 728MW.

A total of 11 wind farm EIAs were reviewed. The quality and quantity of information

contained in each varied markedly. Individual developers employed highly variable

scoping and survey studies. It was clear that individual sites presented unique issues

which often required specific responses from NIEA. Standardisation of methods

and/or EIA content was inconsistent.

EIA results should be reported in detail to avoid further recourse for additional

requests for information by NIEA resulting in unnecessary delays. Full presentation

of results also facilitates their use by other parties, for example, within the context of

cumulative assessments.

Data and a formal assessment of impacts should be presented for each target

species identified during the scoping and survey stages. Negligible effect should be

reported.

Collision risk assessment must be presented for each aerial species during a) the

breeding and b) non-breeding season for residents and c) migration period for non-

residents.

Raw data should be provided for independent assessment by NIEA. Data should be

in tabular form and where appropriate accompanied with GIS-compatible maps of

locations and/or activity centres or movement paths.

A measure of survey effort and temporal distribution of visits must be included.


63

Site-specific data should be accompanied with ‘contextual information’ to allow

comparisons with trends in abundance elsewhere, preferably at a regional and

national level.

EIAs should be accompanied with an evaluation of the survey skills and experience

of staff employed on the field survey team as a demonstration of the quality and

reliability of the data provided.

EIAs should be prepared with it in mind that NIEA, the Northern Ireland Assembly

and local authorities are subject to Freedom of Information requests and

Environmental Information Regulations which requires the release of any information

requested by a member of the public (except under certain circumstances).

However, certain data contained therein, such as the location of individuals of

species of conservation concern may be deemed sensitive. In this case, the EIA

should be accompanied by confidential annexes providing the raw data to NIEA

whilst any sensitive information within the main body of the EIA should be redacted.

Key issues identified included:

• Absence of designated site identification

Recommendation: Standardised search and inclusion of maps from

protected area databases: ASSIs, SACs, SPAs, Natura 2000 sites etc.

• General absence of detailed habitat maps

Recommendation: Initially, use Land Cover Map 2006 and the Countryside

Survey 2007 (or more recent maps) to quantify available habitats within the

boundaries of each proposed development. Should a priority habitat be

identified a ground-truthed survey is necessary to accurately delineate its

boundary. Ground-truthed habitat survey should follow a standard Phase 1

habitat methodology.


64

• Limited or absent distributional historical data on species and habitats within

proposed development.

Recommendation: Undertake screening of sites utilising all available data

(for example, CEDAR), consultation with data holders, including but not

limited to governmental, private and NGOs at an early stage – compile data

prior to submission]

• Absence of distribution of breeding species, notably birds

Recommendation: Include maps explicitly identifying the extent of breeding

bird distribution using standardised survey techniques

• For birds, a general absence of flight trajectories (i.e. activity), flight height

and flight duration of target species

Recommendation: Spatial data, preferably GIS-compatible, must be provide

on flying, foraging or migrating routes through each site for all priority bird

species where an assessment is possible.

• Mammal lists not provided or apparently not surveyed

Recommendation: Mammals should be comprehensively surveyed and

mammals identified as present should be accompanied with their prioritisation

listing, for example, Schedule 5.

• No bat work present in previous EIAs

Recommendation: An emerging issue. Implement detailed bat monitoring

programs to assess risks pre-construction and post-construction. Monitoring

to assess mortality, include usage of the site and location of. Appropriate

proposed methods and guidance are outlined in this report.

• Lack of other vertebrate data

Recommendation: In upland sites, in particular an assessment of common

lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) should be

made and appropriate methods utilised e.g. tin-bathing stations and lamping

surveys.


65

• Identification of aquatic site features

Recommendation: Identify aquatic features (for example, ponds), there is a

requirement to assess risk, particularly during construction phases and

minimise or mitigate appropriately.

• No assessment of peat depth/peat slide risk

Recommendation: Establishing peat slide risk is a corollary of both slope

and peat depth. Trial pits should be dug throughout the proposed site (or core

samples taken) to establish types of soil type and groundwater characteristics

(using a pesometer). A kriged map should be provided for each site and buffer

area.

• Lack of aquatic species data

Recommendation: Identify species within water-bodies on site including

invertebrates particularly with respect to sedimentation; identify protected

species where possible e.g. white-clawed crayfish, pearl mussel.

• Lack of seasonality (no winter or migration work)

Recommendation: For resident, breeding and migrating species, both birds

and bats, locational data must be provided from multiple seasons, not only the

breeding season before any assessment will be accepted.

• Absence of collision risk assessments

Recommendation: This is a priority for birds of prey in particular. Predicted

collision mortality can be estimated using a model such as that developed by

SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage 2000b; Band et al., 2005) wherever and

whenever priority species are identified utilising the development area.

• Lack of standardisation of species and habitat search areas i.e. no specified

buffer around proposed development areas.

Recommendation: Implement a standard buffer around turbine locations

and/or ownership area(s). For example, 500m directly surrounding turbines or

landownership for all species/habitats and 2-3km for priority bird species. The


66

latter should include searches for all priority and conservation concern

species (see Section 5.1.6) e.g. Schedule 1 (Wildlife (NI) Order 1985) bird

species.

• Little or no identification of the relationship between priority species and

specific habitats or features (for example, wet grassland, Devil’s-bit Scabious

and the Marsh fritillary habitat)

Recommendation: Maps must be included of key areas within the site with

multiple features listed were they are related.

• No consideration of cumulative impacts

Recommendation: All assessments must be put in a regional context listing

multiple windfarm proposals or adjacent sites with an assessment of the

possible cumulative impacts on a regional rather than local scale.


67

7.0 Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Natural Heritage Research Partnership (NHRP)

between the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and Quercus, Queen’s

university Belfast (QUB) under research code QU09-06. Many thanks to Client

Officer, Ian Enlander, for providing comments on a draft of this report.


68

8.0 References Acha, A. (1998). Negative impact of wind generators on Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus in Tarifa, Spain.

Vulture News 38: 10-18. Ahlen, I. (2002). Bats and birds killed by wind power turbines. Fauna och Flora (Stockholm) 97: 14-21. Alberts, D.J. (2007). Stakeholders or subject matter experts, who should be consulted? Energy Policy

35: 2336-2346. Allison, T.D., Jedrey, E., Perkins, S. (2008). Avian issues for-offshore wind development. Marine

Technology Society Journal 42: 28-38. Alonso, J.C., Alonso, J.A. & Munoz-Pulido, R. (1994). Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission

lines through ground-wire marking. Biological Conservation 67: 129-134. Anderson, R., Morrison, M., Sinclair, K. & Strickland, D. (1999). Studying wind energy/bird

interactions: a guidance document. Metrics and methods for determining or monitoring potential impacts on birds at existing and proposed wind energy sites. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC. 94 p

Arnett, E.B. (2006). A preliminary evaluation on the use of dogs to recover bat fatalities at wind

energy facilities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1440-1445. Arnett, E.B. & Tuttle, M.D. (2004). Cooperative efforts to assess the impacts of wind turbines on bats.

Bat Research News 45: 201-202. Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain, A.,

Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O'Connell, T.J., Piorkowski, M.D. & Tankersley, R.D. (2008). Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61-78.

Arnett, E.B., Redell, D., Hayes, J.P. & Huso, M. (2006). Patterns of pre-construction bat activity at

proposed wind energy facilities. Bat Research News 47:83. Arnett, E.B., Schirmacher, M., Huso, M.M.P & Hayes, J.P. (2009). Effectiveness of changing wind

turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. USA.

Baban, S.M.J. & Parry, T. (2001). Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to locating

windfarms in the UK. Renewable Energy 24: 59-71. Bach, L., Johnson, G. & Keeley, B.W. (2004). Bat interactions with wind turbines. Bat Research News

45: 99. Baerwald, E.F. (2006). Bat migration and mortality variation at wind farms. Bat Research News 47:

84. Baerwald, E.F., Barclay, R.M.R. (2007). Migratory bats and wind turbines in Alberta: Temporal and

spatial variation in bat activity and fatality. Bat Research News 48: 176. Baerwald, E.F., Barclay, R.M.R. (2008). Patterns of activity and fatality of migratory bats at a wind

energy facility in Southwestern Alberta. Bat Research News 49: 98-99. Baerwald, E.F., D'Amours, G.H., Klug, B.J. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2008). Barotrauma is a significant

cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18:R695-R696.


69

Baerwald, E.F., Edworthy, J., Holder, M. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2009). A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1077-1081.

Baidya Roy, S. & Pacala, S.W. (2004). Can large windfarms affect local meteorology? Journal of

Geophysical Research 109: 1-6. Ballasus, H. & Hüppop, O. (2006). Estimating the condition and flight range of short- and long-

distance passerine migrants: Are additional flight costs caused by barrier-effects from offshore windfarms a problem? Journal of Ornithology 147: 130-131.

Band, W., Madders, M. &Whitfield, D.P. (2005). Developing field and analytical methods to assess

avian collision risk at wind farms. Pp. 259–275 in De Lucas, M.; Janss, G.F.E.; Ferrer, M. (Eds): Birds and wind farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

Barclay, R.M.R., Baerwald, E.F. & Gruver, J.C. (2006). The influence of turbine size on mortality of

bats and birds at North American wind farms. Bat Research News 47: 87 Barclay, R.M.R., Baerwald, E.F. & Gruver, J.C. (2007). 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 85: 382-387.

Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. (2004). Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality

at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 72-81. Beddoe, M. & Chamberlin, A. (2003). Avoiding confrontation: securing planning permission for

onshore wind energy developments in England: comments from a wind energy developer. Planning Practice & Research 18: 3-17.

Bekessy, S.A., Wintle, B.A., Gordon, A., Fox, J.C., Chisholm, R., Brown, B., Regan, T., Mooney, N.,

Read, S.M. & Burgman M.A. (2009). Modelling human impacts on the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi). Biological Conservation 142: 2438-2448.

Berglund, B., Hassmen, P. & Job, R.F.S. (1996). Sources and effects of low-frequency noise. Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America 99: 2985-3002. Berny, P. & Gaillet, J.R. (2008). Acute poisoning of red kites in France: data from the SAGIR network.

Journal of Wildlife Disease 44: 417-426. Bevanger, K. (1998). Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power

lines: a review. Biological Conservation 86: 67-76. Bevanger, K., Follestad, A., Gjershaug, J.O., Halley, D., Hanssen, F., Johnsen, L., May, R., Nygård,

T., Pedersen, H.C., Reitan, O. & Steinheim, Y. (2008). Pre- and post-construction studies of conflicts between birds and wind turbines in coastal Norway, Status Report 1st January 2008. NINA Report 355, 33p.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques. 2nd Ed.

Academic Press, London. Birtwell I.K. (1999). Effects of sediment on fish and their habitat. Pacific Scientific Advice Review

Committee (PSARC) Research Document HAB 99-1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Ottawa 34 p

Blumstein, D., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Zollner, P. & Garity, S. (2005). Inter-specific variation in wildlife

responses to human disturbance: a review and synthesis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 943-953. Bowter, C., Baldock, D., Tucker, G., Valsecchi, C., Lewis, M., Hjerp, P. & Gantolier, S. (2009).

Positive planning or onshore wind - expanding onshore wind energy capacity while conserving


70

nature. A report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy commissioned by the RSPB. pp 57.

Brandes, D., Katzner, T., Miller, T. & Lanzone, M. (2009). Simulation of golden eagle (Aquila

chrysaetos) migration pathways through the Central Appalachians. Presentation at the Raptor Research Foundation Conference 2009, Pitlochry, Scotland.

Bright, J. Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S., Pearce-Higgins, J. (2008). Map of bird

sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356.

Brinkmann R. & Bontadina F. (2006). Survey of possible operational impacts on bats by wind facilities

in Southern Germany. Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993). A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study

40: 89-95. Brown, W. M. & Drewien, R.C. (1995). Evaluation of two power line markers to reduce crane and

waterfowl collision mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 217-217. BWEA (2004). Wind energy and planning: an overview August 2004. Unpublished report from the

British Wind Energy Association pp 1-8. Carrete, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A., Benitez, J.R., Lobon, M. & Donazar, J.A. (2009). Large scale risk-

assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biological Conservation 142: 2954-2961.

Cathrine, C. & Spray, S. (2009). Bats and onshore wind farms: site-by-site assessment and post-

construction monitoring protocols. In Practice 2009: 14-17 Chamberlain, D., Freeman, S., Rehfish, M., Fox, T. & Desholm, M. (2005). Appraisal of Scottish

Natural Heritage’s Wind Farm Collision Risk Model and its Application. BTO Research Report 401. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford

Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. & Anthony, S.J. (2006). The effect of

avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 148: 198-202.

Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfische, M.R., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. & Anthony, S. (2006). The importance of

determining avoidance rates in relation to the use of wind turbine collision risk models to predict bird mortality Ibis 148: 198-202.

Clark, J.M., Lane, S.N., Chapman, P.J. & Adamson, J.K. (2007). Export of dissolved organic carbon

from an upland peatland during storm events: implications for flux estimates. Journal of Hydrology 347: 438-447.

Clay, G.D., Worrall, F., Clark, E. & Fraser, E.D.G. (2009). Hydrological responses to managed burning

and grazing in an upland blanket bog. Journal of Hydrology 376: 486-495. Clotouche, E. (2006). Wind turbines and birds: Is it possible to live together? Aves 43:83-101. Cohn, J.P. (2008). How eco-friendly are windfarms? Bioscience 58: 576-578. Coleby, A.M., Miller, D.R. & Aspinall, P.A. (2009). Public attitudes and participation in wind turbine

development. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 11: 69-95. Corten, G.P. & Veldkamp, H.F. (2001). Aerodynamics - Insects can halve wind-turbine power. Nature

412: 41-42.


71

Cowell, R. (2009). Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning - the construction of 'acceptable' locations in Wales. Land Use Policy doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.01.006

Crockford, N. (1992). A review of possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other wildlife. JNCC

Report 27. Peterborough. Cryan, P.M. (2008) Mating behaviour as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Journal of

Wildlife Management 72:845-849. Cryan, P.M. (2008). Why did the tree bat cross the turbine? Bat Research News 49: 112. Cryan, P.M. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2009). Causes of bat fatalities at windfarms: hypotheses and

predictions. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 1330-1340. Cryan, P.M. & Brown, A.C. (2007). Migration of bats past a remote island offers clues toward the

problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation 139: 1-11. Curry, A. (2009). Deadly flights. Science 325: 386-387. Daemon, E. & Fairless, D. (2007). Wind farms' deadly reputation hard to shift. Nature 447: 365-365. Dalili, N., Edrisy, A. & Carriveau, R. (2009). A review of surface engineering issues critical to wind

turbine performance. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 428-438. Davy, C., Blasko, J., Fraser, E. & van Stam, E. (2004). Assessment of bat activity at a proposed wind

farm site in Prince Edward County, Ontario. Bat Research News 45: 215. Dawson, J.J.C. & Smith, P. (2007). Carbon losses from soil and it's consequences for land-use

management. Science of the Total Environment 382: 165-190. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (2005). A bird and small mammal BACI and IG design

studies in a wind farm in Malpica (Spain). Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 3289-3303. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (2004). The effects of a wind farm on birds in a migration

point: the Strait of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:395-407. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M. (2008). Collision fatality of raptors in wind

farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1695-1703. Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. (2005) Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology Letters 1: 296–

298. Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensitivity to mortality: prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at

proposed wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2672-2679. Desholm, M., Fox, A.D., Beasley, P.D.L. & Kahlert, J. (2006). Remote techniques for counting and

estimating the number of bird-wind turbine collisions at sea: a review. Ibis 148: 76-89. Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. & Whittingham, M.J. (2008). Minimal effects of wind turbines on the

distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1689-1694. Dillingham, P.W. & Fletcher, D. (2008). Estimating the ability of birds to sustain additional human-

caused mortalities using a simple decision rule and allometric relationships. Biological Conservation 141: 1783-1792.

Dirksen, S., Spaans, A.L., van der Winden, J. & van den Bergh, L.M.J. (1998). Nocturnal flight

patterns and altitudes of diving ducks in the Ijsselmeer area. Limosa 71: 57-68. Dirksen, S., van der Winden, J. Spaans, Alratto, C.F. & Solari, G. (1998). Nocturnal collision risks of

birds with wind turbines in tidal and semi-offshore areas. Wind Energy and Landscape 99-108.


72

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-

42. Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. (2008). Collision effects of wind-power generators and other

obstacles on birds. Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2008 1134: 233-266. Durr, T. & Bach, L. (2004). Bat deaths and wind turbines - a review of current knowledge and the

information available in the database for Germany. Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz 7: 253-264.

Elphick, C. (2008). New research on wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1840-1840. Elthem, D.C., Harrison, G.P. & Allen, S.J. (2008). Change in public attitude towards a Cornish wind

farm: implications for planning. Energy Policy 36: 23-33. Erickson, J.L., & West, S.D. (2002). The influence of regional climate and nightly weather conditions

on activity patterns of insectivorous bats. Acta Chiropterologica 4: 17-24. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, et al. (2002). Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat

use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration: 1-129

Evans, A., Strezov, V. Evans, T.J. (2009). Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable

energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 1082-1088. Everaert, J. (2003). Wind turbines and birds in Flanders: preliminary study results and

recommendations. Natuur Oriolus 69: 145–155. Everaert, J. (2006). Impact van windturbines in Nieuwkapelle op vogels. Intern Rapport Instituut voor

Natuur en Bosonderzoek, INBO.IR.2006.22. Brussel Everaert, J. & Stienen, E.W.M. (2007). Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium).

Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 3345-3359. Exo, K.M. & Hueppop, O. (2003). Birds and offshore wind farms: Conflict potential and perspectives.

Vogelwarte 42: 16. Fagundez, J. (2008). Effects of windfarm construction and operation on mire and wet heath

vegetation in the Monte Maior SCI, north west Spain. Mires and Peat 2008/09 4: 1-12. Farfan, M.A., Vargas, J.M. & Duarte, J. (2009). What is the impact of windfarms on birds: a case study

in southern Spain. Biodiversity Conservation 18: 3743-3758. Ferrer, M. & Janss, G.F.E. (1999). Birds and Power Lines. Quercus, Madrid, Spain. Fiedler, J.K., Henry, T.H., Tankersley, R.D. & Nicholson C.P. (2007). Results of bat and bird mortality

monitoring at the expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Fiedler, J.K., Nicholson, C.P., Nicholas, N.S., Buehler, D.A., McCracken, G. & Braden, K.H. (2002).

Bat activity and mortality at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. Bat Research News 43: 147-148.

Fielding, A.H., Whitfield, D.P. & McLeod, D.R.A. (2006). Spatial association as an indicator of the

potential for future interactions between wind energy developments and golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos in Scotland. Biological Conservation 131: 359-369.

Flinn, J.R. & Robbins, L.W. (2008). A predictive bat activity index used for wind turbine constraint

mapping. Bat Research News 49: 122-123.


73

Flydal, K., Eftestol, S., Reimers, E. & Colman, J.E. (2004). Effects of wind turbines on area use and behaviour of semi-domestic reindeer in enclosures. Rangifer 24: 55-66.

Follestad, A., Reitan, O. and Nygård, T. (2007). Vindkraft og fugl pa Smola 2003-2006. 248.

Trondheim: NINA Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Petersen, I.K. (2006). Information needs to

support environmental impact assessment of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 129-144.

Fraenkel, P.L. (2006). Tidal current energy technology. Ibis 148: 145-151. Fraga, M.I., Romero-Pedreira, D., Souto, M., Castro, D. & Sahuquillo, E. (2009). Assessing the impact

of wind farms on the plant diversity of blanket bogs in the Xistral Mountains (NM Spain). Mire and Peat 2008/09 4: 1-10.

Frost, S.W. (1958). Insects attracted to light traps placed at different heights. Journal of Ecological

Entomology 51: 550-551. Gabriel, K. (2002). Demands on expert's opinions from the point of view of local and district authorities

regarding intervention in habitats of Montagu's Harrier. Ornithologischer Anzeiger 41: 210-211. Gauthreaux, S.A. & Livingston, J.W. (2006). Monitoring bird migration with a fixed-beam radar and a

thermal-imaging camera. Journal of Field Ornithology 77: 319-328. Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & Evans J. (1998). Bird monitoring methods, a manual of techniques for

key UK species. - RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire UK. Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. (1996). Review of the impacts of windfarms and other aerial

structures on birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review 21, SNH, Edinburgh, UK. Glahn, J.F., Dorr, B., Harrell, J.B. & Khoo, L. (2002). Foraging ecology and depredation management

of great blue herons at Mississippi catfish farms. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 194-201. Grindal, S.D. & Brigham, R.M. (1998). Short-term effects of small-scale habitat disturbance on activity

by insectivorous bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 996-1003. Guillemette, M. & Larsen, J.K. (2002). Post-development experiments to detect anthropogenic

disturbances: the case of sea ducks and wind parks. Ecological Applications 12: 868-877. Haggett, C. & Toke, D. (2006). Crossing the great divide - using multi-method analysis to understand

opposition to windfarms. Public Administration 84: 103-120. Hall, L.S. & Richards, G.C. (1972). Notes on Tadarida australis (Chiroptera: Molossidae). - Australian

Mammalogy 1: 46. Harbusch, C. & Bach, L. (2005). Environmental assessment studies on wind turbines and bat

populations - a step towards best practice guidelines. Bat News pp 1-5. Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2006). Raptors- a field

guide to survey and monitoring. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh. Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2009). Raptors- a field

guide to survey and monitoring. Second Edition. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh. Harding, G., Harding, P. & Wilkins, A. (2008). Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy:

characterising the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimising guidelines to prevent them. Epilepsia 49: 1095-1098.


74

Harmata, A.R. (2003). Radar monitoring of vernal bird migration in Central Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 9: 66-77.

Hastings, M.C. & Popper, A.N. (2005): Effects of sound on fish. - California Department of

Transportation Contract No 43A0139, Task Order 1, 28.1.2005. 82 pp. Hill, R; Dierschke, J; Exo, KM; Fredrich, E; Huppop, O. (2006). Offshore wind farms: A new threat to

migrants? Journal of Ornithology 147 181-182, Hobson, K. A. (1999). Tracing origins and migration of wildlife using stable isotopes: a review.

Oecologia 120: 314–326. Hodos, W. (2003). Minimization of motion smear: reducing avian collisions with wind turbines. Report

prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 1-43 Hoover, S. (2002). 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. Report prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: 1-64

Hoover, S.L. & Morrison, M.L. (2005). Behaviour of red-tailed hawks in a wind turbine development.

Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 150-159. Horn, J.W., Arnett, E.B. & Kunz, T.H. (2008). Behavioural responses of bats to operating wind

turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 123-132. Hotker, H., Thomsen, K. & Jeromin, H. (2005). Exploitation of wind energy - A problem for larger

birds? Ornithologischer Anzeiger 44:185-192. Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & Jeromin, H. (2006): 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. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen

Howell, J. A., Noone, J. et al. (1991). Visual experiment to reduce avian mortality related to wind

turbine operations. Report prepared for Altamont U.S. Windpower, Inc.: 1-25 Hueppop, O. & Garthe, S. (2003). Offshore wind farms and marine birds: Where are the hot spots in

German waters? Vogelwarte 42: 16-17. Hueppop, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K-M., Fredrich, E. & Hill, R. (2006). Bird migration studies and

potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Ibis 148: 90-109 Hull, A. (1995). New models for implementation theory: striking a consensus on windfarms. Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management 38: 285-305. Hunt, W.G. (2002). Golden eagles in a perilous landscape: predicting the effects of mitigation for wind

turbine blade-strike mortality. Report prepared for the California Energy Commission: 1-72. Hunt, W.G. & Hunt, T.L. (2006). The Trend of Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy in the Vicinity of the

Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: 2005 Survey. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2006-256.

Huntley, B., Collingham, Y.C., Green, R.E., Hilton, G.M., Rahbeck, C. & Willis, S.G. (2006). Potential

impacts of climatic change upon geographical distribution of birds. Ibis 148: 8-28. Jana, S. & Pogacnik, M. (2008). The impacts of wind farms on animal species. Acta Veterinaria-

Beograd 58: 615-632. Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (1998). Rate of bird collision with power lines: effects of conductor-marking

and static wire-marking. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 8-17.


75

Janss, G.F.E. (2000). Avian mortality from power lines: a morphologic approach of a species-specific

mortality. Biological Conservation 95: 353-359. JNCC (2009). Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of disturbance

and injury to marine mammals from piling noise. JNCC, Marine Advice. Johnson, G.D. (2005). A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States.

Bat Research News 46: 45-49. Johnson, G.D. & Strickland M.D. (2004). An assessment of potential collision mortality of migrating

Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats traversing between caves. Unpublished report. Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P., Strickland, M.D., Shepherd, M.F., Shepherd, D.A. & Sarappo, S.A.

(2003). Mortality of bats at a large scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 150: 332-342.

Johnson, G.D., Perlik, M.K., Erickson, W.I.P. & Strickland, J.D. (2004). Bat activity, composition, and

collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1278-1288. Kaiser, M.J., Galandini, M., Showler, D.A., Elliott, A.J., Caldow, R.W.G., Rees, E.I.S., Stillman, R.A. &

Sutherland, W.J. (2006). Distribution and behaviour of common scoter Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental parameters. Ibis 148: 110-128.

Kammen, D.M. & Pacca, S. (2004). Assessing the costs of electricity. Annual Review of

Environmental Resources 29: 301-344. Kerlinger, P. &. Kerns, J. (2004). A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind

Energy Centre, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Centre Technical Review Committee: 1-39

Kerns, J., Erickson, W.P. & Arnett E.B. (2005). Bat and bird fatality at wind energy facilities in

Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24–95 in E. B. Arnett, editor. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioural interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA

Kikuchi, R. (2008). Adverse impacts of wind power generation on collision behaviour of birds and anti-

predator behaviour of squirrels. Journal for Nature Conservation 16: 44-55. Koller, J., Koppel, J. & Peters, W. (2006). Offshore wind energy: research on environmental impacts.

Springer, pp371. Koschinski, S., Culik, B.M., Henriksen, O.D., Tregenza, N., Ellis, G., Jansen, C. & Kathe, C. (2003).

Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the noise of a simulated 2MW windpower generator. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265: 263-273.

Krewitt, W. & Nitsch, J. (2003). The potential for electricity generation from on-shore wind energy

under the constraints of nature conservation: a case study for two regions in Germany. Renewable Energy 28: 1645-1655.

Krijgsveld K.L., Akershoek K., Schenk F., Dijk F. & Dirksen S. (2009). Collision risk of birds with

modern large wind turbines. Ardea 97: 357–366. Krone, O. & Scharnweber, C. (2003). Two white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) collide with

wind generators in northern Germany. Journal of Raptor Research 37: 174-176. Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, M.D.,

Thresher, R.W. & Tuttle, M.D. (2007a). Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315–324.


76

Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Cooper, B.A., Erickson, W.I.P., Larkin, R.P., Mabee, T., Morrison, M.L.,

Strickland, J.D. & Szewczak, J.M. (2007b). Assessing impacts of wind energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2449-2486.

Kunz, T.H., Betke M, et al. (2008). Assessing the abundance of bats. In: Kunz TH, Parsons S, editors.

Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. Baltimore, in press. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.

Kusstatscher, K., Kofler, K. & Ackerl, M.H. (2005). Alpine Windharvest: an Interreg III B Alpine Space

Programme: Impact on wildlife and plant life Kuvlesky, W.P., Brennan, L.A., Morrison, M.L., Boydston, K.K., Ballard, B.M. & Bryant, F.C. (2007).

Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2487-2498.

Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003) Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and

guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Royal Society for Protection of Birds/Report by BirdLife International to the Council of Europe (Bern Convention), Council of Europe Report T-PVS/Inf (2003) 12.

Lanszki, J., Pallos, Z. S., Nagy, D. & Yoxon, G. (2007). Diet and fish choice of Eurasian otters (Lutra

lutra L.) in fish wintering ponds in Hungary. Aquaculture International 15: 393-402. Lanszki, K. & Kormendi, S. (2009). Otter diet in relation to fish availability in a fish pond in Hungary.

Acta Theriologica 41: 127-136. Larsen, J.K. & Guillemette, M. (2007). Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering

common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 516-522.

Larsen, J.K. & Madsen. J. (2000). Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field

utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): a landscape perspective. Landscape Ecology 15: 755-764.

Leddy, K.L., Higgins, K.F. & Naugle, D.E. (1999). Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in

Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111: 100-104. Lehman, R.N., Kennedy, P.L., Savidge, J.A. (2007). The state of the art in raptor electrocution

research: A global review. Biological Conservation 136: 159-174. Lenzen, M. & Munksgaard, J. (2002). Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines - review

and applications. Renewable Energy 26: 339-362. Limpens, H.J.G.A. & Kapteyn, K. (1991). Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis

29: 39-48. Lindsay, R. & Bragg, O. (2005). Windfarms and blanket peat: the bog slide of 16th October 2003 at

Derrybrien, Co. Galway, Ireland. Unpublished report by the Derrybrien Development Cooperative Ltd.

Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J., Andersen, R. & Barnes, B. (2000). How vulnerable are denning bears to

disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 400-413. Lucke, K., Lepper, P.A., Hoeve, B., Everaerts, E., van Elk, N. & Siebert, U. (2007). Perception of low-

frequency acoustic signals by a harbour porpoise in the presence of simulated offshore wind turbine noise. Aquatic Mammals 33: 55-68.


77

Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2006). Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56.

Madsen, J. & Boertmann, D. (2008). Animal behavioural adaptation to changing landscapes: spring-

staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landscape Ecology 23: 1007-1011. Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J., Lucke, K. & Tyack, P. (2006). Wind turbine underwater

noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology progress Series 309: 279-295.

Marris, E. & Fairless, D. (2007). Windfarms deadly reputation hard to shift. Nature 447: 126. Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman, R. & Desholm, M. (2009). Barriers to

movement: impacts of wind farms on migrating birds. Ices Journal of Marine Science 66: 746-753. McGrady, M., Grant, J.R., Bainbridge, I. & McLeod, D. (2002). A model of golden eagle ranging

behaviour. Journal of Raptor Research 36: 62-69. McIsaac, H.P. (2001). Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. Pp. 59–87 in Schwartz, S.S.

(Ed.): Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, California, 16–17 May 2000. Unpublished report prepared for the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee by RESOLVE Inc., Washington, DC

McLeod, D.R.A., Whitfield, D.P., McGrady, M.J. (2003a). Improving prediction of golden eagle (Aquila

chrysaetos) ranging in western Scotland using GIS and terrain modelling. Journal of Raptor Research 36: 70-77.

McLeod, D.R.A., Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., Haworth, P., McGrady, M.J. (2003b). Predicting home

range use by golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos in western Scotland. Avian Science 2: 183-198. Meek, E.R., Ribbands, J.B., Christer, W.G., Davey, P.R. & Higginson, I. (1993). The effects of

aerogenerators on moorland bird populations in the Orkney Islands, Scotland. Bird Study 40: 140–143.

Mistry, S. & Hatfield, C.A. (2004). Wind energy and bats. Using predictive modelling to enhance

conservation efforts. Bat Research News 45: 244-245. Mistry, S. & Hatfield, C.A. (2005). Bat mortality and wind power: Is the mountaineer site in West

Virginia Unique? Bat Research News 46: 198-199. Morkill, A.E. & Anderson, S.H. (1991). Effectiveness of marking power lines to reduce sandhill crane

collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 1-8. Mouton, P.F.N., Meyer, A. & Hayward, J. (2007). Proposed wind energy facility and associated

infrastructure: terrestrial fauna scoping report. Report to Savannah Environmental Ltd. Musters, C.J.M., Noordervliet, M.A.W. & Tekeurs, W.J. (1996). Bird casualties caused by a wind

energy project in an estuary. Bird Study 43: 124-126. Myers, N. (1993). Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. Ambio 22: 74-79. Nedwell, J.R., Langworthy, J., Howell, D. (2003). Assessment of sub-sea acoustic noise and vibration

from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms, and comparison with background noise. Subacoustech Report Reference: 544R0424. COWRIE.

Nelson, B. (2001). The distribution, status, habitat of the Marsh Fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia

(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Northern Ireland Irish Naturalists’ Journal 27: 129-139.


78

Nelson, H.K. & Curry, R.C. (1995). Assessing avian interactions with windplant development and operation. In: Translations 60th North American Wildlife and Nature Resource Conferences.

Newcombe, C.P. & MacDonald, D.D. (1991). Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82 Newton, I & Little, B. (2009). Assessment of wind-farm and other bird casualties from carcasses found

on a Northumbrian beach over an 11-year period. Bird Study 56: 158-167. Ngoprasert, D., Lynam, A. J. & Gale, G. A. (2007). Human disturbance affects habitat use and

behaviour of Asiatic Leopard in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. Oryx. 41: 343-351. Nicholls, B. & Racey, P.A. (2009). The aversive effect of electromagnetic radiation on foraging bats: a

possible means of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbines. PLoS One 4: e6246. Nicholls, B. & Racey, P.A. (2007). Bats avoid radar installations: could electromagnetic fields deter

bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLoS One 2: e297. Nicholson, C.P., Tankersley, R.D. Jr., Fiedler, J.K. & Nicholas, N.S. (2005). Assessment and

prediction of bird and bat mortality at wind energy facilities in the southeastern United States NWCC (2007). Mitigation toolbox, National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. Unpublished report. Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. (1992). Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in

Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas Tiburon, the Planning Departments of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties and the California Energy Commission. Report prepared for the California Energy Commission

Osborn, J.G. & Shillinger, G.L. (1996). Wind turbines and raptor mortality: risk reduction through the

application of GIS and remote sensing technologies. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 77: 336.

Osborn, R.G., Dieter, C.D., Higgins, K.F. & Usgaard, R.E. (1998). Bird flight characteristics near wind

turbines in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 139: 29-38. Osborn, R.G., Higgins, K.F., Dieter, C.D. & Usgaard, R.E. (1996). Bat collisions with wind turbines in

southern Minnesota. Bat Research News 37: 105-108. Osborn, R.G., Higgins, K.F., Usgaard, R.E., Dieter, D.C.D. & Nieger, R.D. (2000). Bird mortality

associated with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge wind resource area, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 143: 41-52.

Pasqualetti, M. J., Gipe, P & Righter R.W (2004). Wind power in view: energy landscapes in a

crowded world, Academic Press, San Diego (2002). Pavokovic, G. & Mendusic, E. (2006). Risks for wildlife by wind turbines. Energy and the Environment

1: 1305-314. Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W. & Bright, J.A. (2008): Assessing the cumulative

impacts of wind farms on peatland birds: a case study of golden plover Pluvialis apricaria in Scotland. Mires and Peat 4: Art. 1. (Online: http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map04/map_04_01.htm)

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009a). The

distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1323-1331. Pedersen, E. & Waye, K.P. (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose-

response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3460-3470. Pedersen, E. & Waye, K.P. (2007). Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self reported health and well-

being in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64: 480-486.


79

Pedersen, E., van den Berg, F. & Bakker, R. (2009). Response to noise from modern wind farms in

the Netherlands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 634-643. Percival, S.M. & Powles, S. (1998). Birds and wind turbines - managing potential planning issues.

Wind Energy 1998: 345-350. Percival, S.M. (2000). Birds and wind turbines in Britain. British Wildlife 12: 8-15. Percival, S.M. (2003). Birds and wind farms in Ireland: a review of potential issues and impact

assessment: Unpublished report 1-25. Percival, S.M. (2005). Birds and windfarms: what are the real issues? British Birds 98: 194-204. Perrow, M.R., Skeate, E.R., Lines, P., Brown, D. & Tomlinson, M.L. (2006). Radio telemetry as a tool

for impact assessment of wind farms: the case of Little Terns Sterna albifrons at Scroby Sands, Norfolk, UK. Ibis 148: 57-75.

Powlesland, R.G. (2009). Impacts of windfarms on birds - a review. Science for Conservation 289.

Publishing Team, Department of Conservation New Zealand. 53 pp Pruett, C.L., Patten, M.A. & Wolfe, D.H. (2009a). Avoidance behaviour by Prairie Grouse: implications

for development of wind energy. Conservation Biology 23: 1253-1259. Pruett, C.L., Patten, M.A. & Wolfe, D.H. (2009b). It's not easy being green: wind energy and a

declining grassland bird. Bioscience 59: 257-262. Rabin, L.A., Coss, R.G. & Owings, D.H. (2006). The effects of wind turbines on anti-predator

behaviour in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Biological Conservation 131:410-420.

Racey, P.A. & Nicholls, B. (2007). Bat collisions with wind turbines: can radar provide a means of

mitigation? Bat Research News 48: 285. Rasran, L., Mammen, U. & Hotker, H. (2009). Effects of wind farms on population trend and breeding

success of red kites and other birds of prey. IN: Birds of prey and wind farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions, Documentation of an international workshop in Berlin, 21st an 22nd October 2008.

Reimer, J., Baerwald, E.F. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2008).Feeding by migrating Hoary Lasiurus cinereus

and Silver-haired Bats Lasionycteris noctivagans: are they attracted to insects at wind turbines? Bat Research News 49: 162-163.

Reynolds, D.S. (2006). Monitoring the potential impact of a wind development site on bats in the

northeast. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1219-1227. Rivers, N.M., Butlin, R.K. & Altringham, J.D. (2005). Genetic population structure of Natterer's bats

explained by mating at swarming sites and philopatry. Molecular Ecology 14: 4299-4312. Rodgers, J.A. & Smith, H.T. (1995). Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human

disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology, 9, 89–99. Rodgers, J.A. & Smith, H.T. (1997). Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds

from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25, 139–145. Rothery, P., Newton, I. & Little, B. (2009). Observations of seabirds at offshore wind turbines near

Blyth in northeast England. Bird Study 56: 1-14


80

Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species. Report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. Natural Research, Banchory, UK.

Russ J.M. & Montgomery, W.I. (2002). Habitat associations of bats in Northern Ireland: implications

for conservation. Biological Conservation 108: 49-58. Santos, M., Bastos, R., Travassos, P., Bessa, R., Repas, M. & Cabral, J.A. (2010). Predicting the

trends of vertebrate species richness as a response to wind farms installation in mountain ecosystems of northwest Portugal. Ecological Indicators 10: 192-205.

Sauvajot, R.M., Buechner, M., Kamradt, D. & Schonewald, C. (2004). Patterns of human disturbance

and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development. Urban Ecosystems 2: 279-297.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2000). Guidance note series. Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a

theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action Scottish Natural Heritage (2005). Guidance note series. Survey methods for use in assessing the

impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities. Sendor, T. & Simon, M. (2003). Population dynamics of the pipistrelle bat: effects of sex, age and

winter weather on seasonal survival. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 308-320. Shankar, P.N. (2001). Can insects seriously affect the power output of wind turbines? Current Science

81:747-748 Sheperd, K.P. (1985). Community response to low-frequency noise from large wind turbine

generators. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78: 31. Smales, I. (2005). Modelled cumulative impacts on the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle of windfarms

across the species range. Unpublished report for the Department of Environment and Heritage. Smallwood, K.S. (2007). Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife

Management 71: 2781-2791. Smallwood, K.S. & Karas, B. (2009). Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and repowered

wind turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1062-1071. Smallwood, K.S. & Neher, L. (2004). Repowering the APWRA: forecasting and minimising avian

mortality without significant loss of power generation. Report to California Energy Commission. Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C.G. (2004). Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the

Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Prepared for the California Energy Commission: 1-363 Smallwood, K.S. & Thelander, C.G. (2008). Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 215-223. Smallwood, K.S., Rugge, L. & Morrison, M.L. (2009). Influence of behaviour on bird mortality in wind

energy developments. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1082-1098. Smallwood, K.S., Thelander, C.G., Morrison, M.L. & Rugge, L.M. (2007). Burrowing owl mortality in

the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1513-1524. Sovacool, B.K. (2009a). Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat

fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity. Energy Policy 37: 2241-2248. Sovacool, B. (2009b). Megawatts are not megawatt-hours and other responses to Willis et al. Energy

Policy 38: 2070-2073.


81

Spaans, A., Van Den Bergh, L., Dirksen, S. & Van Der Winden, J. (1998). Wind turbines and birds can they co-exist? Levende Natuur 99: 115-121.

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S., & Coles, C.F. (2007). Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm

impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 34: 1-11. Stienen, E.W.M., Courtens, W., Everaert, J. & Van de Walle, M. (2008). Sex-biased mortality of

common terns in wind farm collisions. Condor 110: 154-157. Still, D., Painter, S., Lawrence, E.S., Little, B., Thomas, M. & Anderson, M. (1997). Birds, wind farms,

and Blyth Harbour. Wind Energy Conversion 1996: 175-183. Sutherland, W.J., Bailey, M.J., Bainbridge, I.P., Brereton, T.; Dick, J.T.A., Drewitt, J., Dulvy, N.K.,

Dusic, N.R., Freckleton, R.P., Gaston, K.J., Gilder, P.M., Green, R.E., Heathwaite, A.L., Johnson, S.M., Macdonald, D.W., Mitchell, R., Osborn, D., Owen, R.P., Pretty, J., Prior, S.V., Prosser, H., Pullin, A.S., Rose, P., Stott, A., Tew, T., Thomas, C.D., Thompson, D.B.A., Vickery, J.A., Walker, M., Walmsley, C., Warrington, S., Watkinson, A.R., Williams, R.J., Woodroffe, R. & Woodroof, H.J. (2008). Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 821-833.

Szewczak, J.M. & Arnett, E.B. (2006). An acoustic deterrent with the potential to reduce bat mortality

from wind turbines. Bat Research News 47: 151-152. Szewczak, J.M. & Arnett, E.B. (2008). The potential for acoustic broadcasts to deter bats from

approaching wind turbines. Bat Research News 49: 178-179. Szewczak, J.M. & Arnett, E.B. (2007). Training bats to avoid wind turbines using an acoustic

deterrent. Bat Research News 48: 305-306. Tapia, L., Dominguez, J. & Rodriguez, L. (2009). Using probability of occurrence to assess potential

interaction between wind farms and a residual population of golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos in NW Spain. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 2033-2041.

Telleria, J.L. (2009a). Wind power plants and the conservation of birds and bats in Spain: a

geographical assessment. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 1781-1791. Tellería, J.L. (2009b). Overlap between wind power plants and Griffon Vultures Gyps fulvus in Spain.

Bird Study 56: 268-271. Telleria, J.L. (2009c). Potential impacts of wind farms on migratory birds crossing Spain. Bird

Conservation International 19: 131-136. Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. & Piper, W. (2006). Effects of offshore wind farm noise on

marine mammals and fish biota. Hamburg, Germany. Unpublished report on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. Toke, D. (2003). Windpower in the UK: how planning conditions and financial arrangements affect

outcomes. International Journal of Sustainable Energy 23: 207-216. Tomlinson, R.W. (2005). Soil carbon stocks and changes in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of

Environmental Management 76: 77-93. Tomlinson, R.W. (2009). Changes in the extent of peat extraction in Northern Ireland 1990-2008 and

associated changes in carbon loss. Applied Geography 1-8. Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Teilmann, J., Skov, H. & Rasmussen, P. (2009b). Pile driving zone of

responsiveness extends beyond 20km for harbour porpoises. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 11-14.

Tougaard, J., Henriksen, O.D. & Miller, L.A. (2009a). Underwater noise from three types of offshore

wind turbines: estimation of impact zones for harbour porpoises and harbour seals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 3766-3773.


82

Trapp, H., Fabian, D., Forster, F & Zinke, O. (2002). Fledermausverluste in einem Windpark der

Oberlausitz. – Naturschutzarbeit in Sachsen 44: 53-56. Tucker, V.A. (1996a). A mathematical model of bird collisions with wind turbine rotors. Journal of

Solar Energy Engineering - Transactions of the ASME 118: 253-262. Tucker, V.A. (1996b). Using a collision model to design safer wind turbine rotors for birds. Journal of

Solar Energy Engineering - Transactions of the ASME 118: 263-269. Van Rooyen, C.S & Ledger, J.A. (1999). Birds and utility structures: Developments in southern Africa.

In: Ferrer, M and Janss, G.F.E. (eds.) Birds and Power Lines. Quercus, Madrid, Spain Vauk, G., Bottger, M., Clemens, T., Grote, G., Hartmann, G., Hartwig, E., Lammen, C. & Vauk-

Hentzelt, E. (1990). Biolog.-ökol. Begleituntersuchung zum Bau und Betrieb von WEA. Endbericht. NNA-Ber. (3) Sonderheft: 3-124.

Vlietstra, L.S. (2007). Potential impact of the Massachusetts maritime academy wind turbine on

common (Sterna hirundo) and roseate (S-dougallii) terns. Oceans 2007 - Europe 1-3: 879-884. Waldron, S., Flowers, H., Arlaud, C., Bryant, C. & McFarlane, S. (2009). The significance of organic

carbon and nutrient export from peatland-dominated landscapes subject to disturbance, a stoichiometric perspective. Biogeosciences 6: 363-374.

Walker, D., McGrady, M.J., McCluskie, A., Madders, M. & McLeod, D.R.A. (2005). Resident golden

eagle ranging behaviour before and after the construction of a windfarm in Argyll. Scottish Birds 25: 25-40.

Walsh, A.L. & Harris, S. (1996). Factors determining the abundance of vesptertillionid bats in Britain:

geographical, land class, and local habitat relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 519-529. Walter, W.D., Leslie, D.M. & Jenks, J.A. (2006) Response of Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) to

wind-power development. American Midland Naturalist. 156: 363-375. Warren, C.R. & McFadyen, M. (2009). Does community ownership affect public attitude to wind

energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.010

Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O'Dowd, S. & Birnie, R.V. (2005). Green on green: public perception of

wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48: 853-875

Warren, M.S (1994). The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European butterfly, the marsh fritillary Eurodryas aurinia. Biological Conservation 67: 239-249.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. (2005). Flight height in the hen harrier Circus cyaneus and its

incorporation in wind turbine collision risk modelling. Natural Research Information Note 2. Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. (2006). A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus

cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

Whitfield, D.P., Ruddock, M. & Bullman, R. (2008). Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying bird

tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation 141: 2708-2717. Wilhelmsson, D. & Malm, T. (2008). Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power plants and adjacent

substrata. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 79: 459–466.


83

Willis, C.K.R., Barclay, R.M.R., Boyles, J.G., Brigham, R.M., Brack, V., Waldien, D.L. & Reichard, J. (2009). Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's (2009) analysis of animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Energy Policy in press

Winkelman J.E. (1985). Bird impact by middle size wing turbines on flight behaviour victims and

disturbance. Limosa 58: 117-121. Winkelman, J. (1989). Birds and the wind park near Urk: collision victims and disturbance of ducks,

geese, and swans. 89. Arnhem. Winkelman, J.E. (1985). Impact of medium-sized wind turbines on birds - a survey on flight behaviour,

victims and disturbance. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 33: 75-78. Winkelman, J.E. (1992a). The impact of the Sep wind park near Oosterbierum, The Netherlands, on

birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks. Unpublished RIN report 92/3. DLO-Instituut voor Bos-en Natuuronderzoek, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Winkelman, J.E. (1992b). The impact of the Sep wind park near Oosterbierum, The Netherlands, on

birds, 3: flight behaviour during daylight. Unpublished RIN report 92/4. DLO-Instituut voor Bos-en Natuuronderzoek, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Woods, M. (2003). Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in mid Wales.

Sociologia Ruralis 43: 271-288. Worrall, F., Burt, T.P., Rowson, J.G., Warburton, J. & Adamson, J.K. (2009). The multi-annual carbon

budget of a peat-covered catchment. Science of the Total Environment 407: 4084-4094. Worrall, F., Evans, M.G., Bonn, A., Reed, M.S., Chapman, D. & Holden, J. (2009). Can carbon

offsetting pay for upland ecological restoration? Science of the Total Environment 408: 26-36. Worrall, F., Reed, M., Warburton, J. & Burt, T. (2003). Carbon budget for a British upland peat

catchment. Science of the Total Environment 312: 133-146. Worrall, F., Gibson, H.S. & Burt, T.P. (2007). Modelling the impact of drainage and drain-blocking on

dissolved organic carbon release from peatlands. Journal of Hydrology 338: 15-27. Yallop, A.R. & Clutterbuck, B. (2009). Land management as a factor controlling dissolved organic

carbon release from upland peat soils 1: spatial variation in DOC productivity. Science of the Total Environment 407: 3803-3813.

Young, D.P., Erickson, W.P., Good, R.E., Strickland, M.D. & Johnson, G.D. (2003). Avian and bat

mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim windpower project, Carbon County, Wyoming. November 1998 – June 2002. Final report by WEST Inc. prepared for Pacificorp Inc., Portland, Oregon & SeaWest Windpower Inc., San Diego, California.

Young, D.P., Erickson, W.P., Strickland, M.D., Good, R.E. & Sernka, K.J. (2003). Comparison of

avian responses to UV-light-reflective paint on wind turbines. Subcontract report July 1999 – December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.

review of windfarms and their impact on biodiversity

Documents