Post on 05-Oct-2021
transcript
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 openaccess@qub.ac.uk.
Download date:05. Oct. 2021
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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,
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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].
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
14
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
15
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
16
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
17
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
18
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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 &
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
23
Table 4 Summary of original research papers published examining the effect of wind energy developments on bats.
# Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
27
Table 5 Summary of characteristics of peer-reviewed publications that evaluated the impact of wind farms on terrestrial mammal species.
# Species Country No. of study sites
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
35
reducing the risk for windfarm developments from both an ecological and planning
perspective (Baban & Parry, 2001; Krewitt & Nitsch, 2003; Bright et al., 2008).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
37
# Taxa Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
9 Birds Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
38
# Taxa Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
21 Birds Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
39
# Taxa Species Country No. of study sites
No. of replicates
No. of controls
Factor Analysis Effect Conclusion Reference
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
• Schedule 5 of the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985
• Schedule 8 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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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,
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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).
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.
Review of windfarm impacts on biodiversity Quercus
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.