BIRD AND BAT MORTALITY MONITORING PLAN FOR THE HERMANVILLE/CLEARSPRING ... · BIRD AND BAT...

BIRD AND BAT MORTALITY MONITORING PLAN FOR THE

HERMANVILLE/CLEARSPRING 30 MW WIND FARM

Prepared for:

Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation 4th Floor, Jones Building,

11 Kent Street Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island

C0A 1E0

Prepared by:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure a Division of AMEC Americas Limited

495 Prospect Street, Suite 1 Fredericton, NB E3B 9M4

January 2013

TE121023

Prince Edward Island Energy Corporation

Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring Plan for the

Hermanville/Clearspring 30 MW Wind Farm

Hermanville/Clearspring, PE

January 2013

AppendixH_TE121023_EEM_28jan2013_cjy Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 Introduction to the Project ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Potential Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats ................................................. 2

1.2.1 Collisions .............................................................................................................. 2

1.2.2 Disturbance and Noise Impacts ............................................................................ 3

1.2.3 Habitat Loss and Modification ............................................................................... 4

1.2.4 Barotrauma ........................................................................................................... 5

2.0 Applicable Protocols ........................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Methdology of Searches .............................................................................................. 6

2.1.1 Bird and Bat Carcass Searches ............................................................................ 6

2.1.2 Scavenger Efficiency Trials ................................................................................... 7

2.1.3 Searcher Efficiency Trials ..................................................................................... 8

2.1.4 Bird and Bat Use Surveys (including SAR Species) .............................................. 9

2.2 Schedule of Searches .................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Handling of Mortalities .........................................................................................11

2.3 Schedule of Bird and Bat Use Surveys .......................................................................11

3.0 Reporting ........................................................................................................................12

4.0 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................................13 5.0 Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Summary Table ................................................................................................... 1 Table 2.1 Visibility Class ...................................................................................................... 9





January 2013

AppendixH_TE121023_EEM_28jan2013_cjy Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT

Table 1.1 provides an overview of key features of the Hermanville/Clearspring 30 MW Wind

Farm project.

Table 1.1 Summary Table

Project Name *(hereafter referred

to as ―the Project‖)


Proponent (hereafter referred to as

―the Proponent‖)


Number of wind turbines 10

Nameplate Capacity (MW) 30 MW

Project Location Hermanville/Clearspring, PEI

Project Size (small, medium, large

or very large)*

Small

Avian Site Sensitivity Ranking

(low, medium, high)

Low

Avian Level of Concern Category

(1,2,3,or 4)*

Category 1

Bat site Sensitivity Ranking (based

on information provided in the EIS)

Low to Moderate

Rationale for Avian Sensitivity and

Level of Concern rankings* ( as

per Table 1- site sensitive of EC‘s

guidelines)

During the breeding bird survey, no avian species at risk were observed and migration surveys did not show great numbers or a high diversity of bird species. The nearest important Bird Area is greater than 25 km away. The Project is located 22 km from the East Point migration route.

Rationale for Bat Site Sensitivity

Ranking (based on information

provided in the EIS)

Recorded a large number of resident bats (Myotis sp.) but very

few migratory bats (<0.5%). Bats were observed between 0

and 40 m from the ground.

Summary of Predicted Impacts (as

documented in the EA)

RESIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Construction Activities Birds:

None expected on birds in general Bats:

None expected Turbine Operations Birds:

Reduction in population density for birds disturbed by turbines;

Limited mortality of birds(birds can return to preconstruction levels when wind farm is decommissioned)

None expected for: Barrier effect, contaminant exposure, dust, water regime; fire

Bats:

Small number of mortality (little brown bats and potentially northern long-eared bats) potentially every year for the lifetime of the wind farm





January 2013


CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Bird populations:

Low Bat populations

Low Fauna at risk :

Minimal

Key Dates and Timelines in the

Follow-up Program (add any

additional dates as required)

Targeted Date of commercial operations: First Quarter 2014

Start date of follow-up program: June 1 2014

End date of follow-up program: Mid-October 2015

Follow-up reports to be submitted: November 30 2014,

November 30 2015

1.1 BACKGROUND

All migratory birds are protected under federal legislation (the Migratory Birds Convention Act

(MBCA)), while bats and non-migratory bird species are protected under provincial legislation

(PEI Wildlife Conservation Act).

Potential impacts on bat and bird species include both direct effects (such as death of

individuals related to project infrastructure and activities), and indirect effects (i.e., loss and/or

alteration of habitat). These are discussed in more detail in Section 1.2. The significance of an

impact depends on the degree of impact to individuals, the number of individuals impacted, and

the vulnerability of the species.

1.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES ON BIRDS AND BATS

Four main types of potential impacts to bats and birds are discussed in the following

subsections. While many of the impacts to birds can be extrapolated to bats, recent evidence

has suggested that bats may also be impacted via different mechanisms than birds.

1.2.1 Collisions

For both birds and bats, there is a potential risk from collisions with operating wind turbines. For

birds, collision effects are well documented, and overall, with the notable exception of poorly

sited wind farms in California and Spain, collision rates are low on a per-turbine basis,

particularly when compared with other man-made structures such as communications towers

(Kingsley and Whittam 2005, Council of Europe 2004). Collision mortality arises from collisions

with the turbines themselves (rotors, towers or nacelles), guy wires, meteorological masts, or

power lines (Drewitt and Langston 2006, Council of Europe 2004). There is also evidence that

birds may be forced to the ground by the vortex created by moving rotors (Drewitt and Langston

2006).





January 2013


Bats have been shown to be killed by the collision with the turning rotor blades of turbines (Horn

et al. 2004). As bats are thought to detect moving objects better than stationary ones (Jen and

McCarty, 1978), their relatively high fatality rate is poorly understood. While bats have been

shown to fly and feed in close proximity to the wind turbines (Ahlen 2003, Horn et al. 2008) via

radar, echolocation is relatively ineffective at distances greater than 10m for most bat species,

so bats foraging around turbines may fail to predict rotor velocity or to detect the large rapidly

moving turbine blades (Ahlen 2003). There is nothing in a bat‘s natural habitat which is

comparable to a turbine, so they may not recognize it as a threat.

It has been suggested that turbines may attract bats in some way, leading to increased risk of

collision. It has been postulated that land clearing for construction of access roads, turbine

foundations, and power transmission lines might attract bats by mimicking natural linear

landscape features, such as natural forest edges, along which foraging and commuting bats

may regularly travel (Kunz et al. 2007b). Several authors have suggested that tree-roosting bats

may mistake the turbine monopoles for roost trees and fly into the rotor blades (Ahlen 2003, von

Hensen 2004, cited in Baerwald et al. 2008). Cryan (2008) suggested that tree bats collide with

turbines while engaging in mating behaviors that center on the tallest ‗trees‘ in the landscape; in

this case, the turbines.

Many other hypotheses involve the attraction of insects. Turbines are often situated at the

highest points in the landscape, where some flying insects tend to gather (‗‗hilltopping‘‘, see

Thornhill and Alcock 1983), potentially attracting foraging bats. Published studies in North

America reveal a surprising lack of correlation between local landscape features and fatalities at

wind energy sites (Arnett et al. 2008). An example is the relatively high fatality rates of bats

reported from sites in open, treeless, relatively unmodified landscapes (e.g., Alberta, Canada—

Baerwald et al. 2008). Other authors have suggested that insects may be attracted to aviation

lights or the warmth (Ahlen 2003, von Hensen 2004 cited in Baerwald et al. 2008) or color of

turbines, in turn drawing in hungry bats (Kunz et al. 2007b). It has also been suggested that the

clearing of treed areas around turbine sites creates habitat conducive to the aerial insects which

most bats feed upon (Grindal and Brigham 1998, von Hensen 2004 cited in Baerwald et al.

2008), thereby indirectly attracting foraging bats (Limpens and Kaptyen 1991, Verboom and

Spoelstra 1999, Menzel et al. 2005).

1.2.2 Disturbance and Noise Impacts

During the construction and operational phases of wind projects, birds and bats may also be

impacted by a variety of disturbances, such as noise emitted by the turbines and increased

human presence. In particular, it is possible that turbine noise could affect bat foraging. As bats

use ultrasound (20 kHz and up) for echolocation of prey, there could potentially be interference

with foraging activities, if the sounds from the turbine cover the frequencies that bats use for

echolocation. The frequencies and volume of sound in the 20 – 60 kHz range are of particular

interest. Sounds emanating from wind farms could potentially result in bats avoiding the area,

or conversely, may attract bats to the turbines (Keeley et al., 2001, Schmidt and Joermann

1986), potentially increasing the risk of collisions. However, since bats were found to forage at

distances as close as 1 m from a moving turbine blade (Bach et al., 1999, in Keeley et al.,





January 2013


2001), it appears unlikely that bats would avoid a wind farm because of noise. They have been

shown via thermal imaging to fly and feed in close proximity to the wind turbines (Ahlen 2003,

Horn et al. 2004). Erickson et al. (2002) stated there is no impact of turbine noise on

echolocation of bats.

Increased human presence on a regular basis in a formerly undisturbed area could potentially

affect wildlife, including birds and bats. Since bats are nocturnal, it is not likely that foraging

would be negatively affected by the infrequent presence of humans during the day.

Construction, turbine inspections, maintenance and general visits to the wind farm would only

occur during the day. However, such daytime disturbance could affect breeding and foraging

birds (Drewitt and Langston 2006), and if near roosting sites could have an effect on roosting

bats (Garcia et al., 1995), possibly leading to abandonment of summer roosts. Disturbance of

bats from roosting areas is discussed further in the Habitat Loss and Modification section below.

1.2.3 Habitat Loss and Modification

Worldwide, habitat loss has been identified as a main cause of declines in bat populations

(Mickleburgh et al. 2002), and the greatest threat to Neotropical migrant songbirds (Kingsley

and Whittam 2005). Although collision impacts of wind turbines are a much more well-studied

phenomenon, it is thought that habitat loss and modification has an even greater effect on bird

populations (Kingsley and Whittam 2005).

Bats need several types of habitat to survive. These are 1) foraging areas, 2) summer roosting

areas, and 3) hibernation areas. Loss or alteration of any of these habitats types can have

impacts on bats. Wind power developments can potentially impact these crucial habitats in a

variety of ways.

Tree clearing activities remove or alter foraging and roosting sites, and are detrimental to local

bat populations (Waldien et al. 2000a, 2000b; Hayes 2003, Humphrey 1982). This can also

affect bat species which hibernate in hollow trees or on the ground. In particular, removal of

large diameter snags and/ or hollow trees can be detrimental to maternity colonies and local

populations (Bringham et al. 1997; Waldien et al. 2000a, 2000b). Alteration or degradation of

riparian areas could also affect foraging habitats. Replacement of mature forest areas with

younger regenerating forest can also affect bats. Broders and Forbes (2004) noted that in New

Brunswick, roost selection by male little brown bats appeared highly dependent on the number

of snags (dead trees) in the area.

For birds, effects of habitat loss due to landscape changes appear to be greater for grassland

species than for forest nesters; while forest birds have been found to breed close to towers,

grassland species will avoid a greater radius (hundreds of metres) around the base of a tower or

tall structure which may be used as a perch for raptors (Kingsley and Whittam 2005).

Landscape changes can also alter migration pathways, potentially harming birds as a result of

increased energy expenditure and by disrupting linkages between feeding, roosting, moulting

and breeding areas (Drewitt and Langston 2006).





January 2013


Other impacts to foraging areas are less direct. Pesticide use, intended to kill insects, results in

fewer insects for bats and insectivorous birds to feed on (Clark 1981, cited in Miller et al. 2005)

and some pesticides may have toxic effects on birds and bats (Henny et al. 1982, Cox 1991)

and cause declines in bat populations (Cockrum 1970, Geluso and Altenbach 1976, Clark and

Kroll 1977, Cox 1991). It is important to note that no pesticides will be used at the

Hermanville/Clearspring wind farm.

1.2.4 Barotrauma

Recent evidence has come to light which indicates an additional threat which is unique to bats.

It has long been recognized that spinning turbine blades create vortices at the turbine blade tips,

causing rapid changes in atmospheric pressure as the rotor blades rotate downward. The

decompression hypothesis suggests that bats are killed by lung injuries (barotrauma) due to the

rapid reductions in air pressure near the moving turbine blades (Kunz et al. 2007a; Dürr and

Bach 2004 and von Hensen (2004), both cited in Baerwald et al. 2008). This rapid change in air

pressure causes damage to bat lungs, resulting in death. Evidence for this effect comes from

the fact that some bats killed at wind turbines show no sign of external injury, but necropsies

have shown signs of internal organ damage consistent with decompression (Baerwald et al.

2008, Durr and Bach 2004, von Hensen 2004 cited in Baerwald et al. 2008). Baerwald et al.

(2009) provided the first evidence that barotrauma is the cause of death in a high proportion of

bat deaths around a wind turbine. Their study found that 90% of all bat fatalities (nearly half of

which showed no external injury) at a wind turbine in Alberta involved internal hemorrhaging

consistent with barotrauma, and that direct collision with turbine blades accounted for 50% of

fatalities. The faster a turbine blade is spinning, the greater the pressure drop in the vortex.

Modern turbine blades reach speeds of 55-80 m/s, resulting in pressure drops of 5-10 KPa,

sufficient to cause serious damage in small mammals (Dreyfuss et al.1985). It appears that

birds, with their unique respiratory systems of compact, rigid lungs, are less susceptible to

barotrauma than mammals, which have larger, more pliant lungs (Baerwald et al. 2009).





January 2013


2.0 APPLICABLE PROTOCOLS

This monitoring program has been developed using up to date information from the Canadian

Wildlife Service (CWS) for post construction bird surveys (Recommended Protocols for

Monitoring Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds, 2007) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources for post construction bat surveys (Bats And Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects, OMNR 2010). A provincial bat survey protocol for turbine installations has not yet been

established for PEI, so protocols from other jurisdictions have been consulted instead.

Each document recommends three types of related surveys to accurately estimate mortality

rates to birds and bats via wind turbines. These are:

Carcass Searches: to document mortalities due to turbines;

Scavenger Efficiency Trials: to document effects of scavengers on Carcass Search

results; and

Searcher Efficiency Trials: to determine the effects of individual searcher bias on

Carcass Search results.

2.1 METHDOLOGY OF SEARCHES

It is recommended that the same one or two individuals conduct the Carcass Searches through

the monitoring period, to minimize bias due to variability in searcher ability. The three required

search types are described in the following subsections.

2.1.1 Bird and Bat Carcass Searches

Bird and bat mortality surveys involve regular searches around the base of turbines for any dead or injured birds or bats. Such surveys identify the number of bats or birds killed per turbine over a known period of time (expressed as bats or birds/turbine/time). This value represents a minimum estimate of bat/bird mortality adjusted for bat/bird carcass removal rates, and searcher efficiency. Larger wind farms may also incorporate the percent area searched, however, the PEIEC wind farm is small enough (10 turbines) that the entire study area should be searched. Based on previous consultation with regulators and experience in the Province, the bare area around the base of a minimum of five (5) turbines should be researched. OMNR (2010) lists the following relevant points with regards to carcass (specifically bat, but equally applicable to bird) surveys:

Surveys should be initiated in the morning at first light, prior to sunrise, to minimize

losses due to scavengers.

Where possible, ground cover around turbines should be maintained at a low level in

order to facilitate more accurate bat mortality surveys (carcasses are much harder to find

in tall vegetation).

Additional survey requirements (e.g. increased trials, longer search times, etc.) may be

necessary in complex habitats where bat mortalities are likely to be undetected by

searchers (e.g. mortalities caught/lost in dense forest canopy, wetland areas, etc.).





January 2013


All carcasses found should be photographed and recorded/labeled with species, sex,

date, time, location (UTM coordinate), carcass condition, searcher name, injuries,

distance to nearest turbine, ground cover and distance to plot centre. A data sheet

sample should be provided in the mortality report.

The condition of each carcass collected should be recorded in one of the following

categories:

o intact – a carcass that is not badly decomposed and shows no sign of having

been fed upon by a predator or scavenger, although it may show signs of

traumatic injury such as amputation from a turbine collision.

o scavenged – an entire carcass that shows signs of having been fed upon by a

predator or scavenger or a partial carcass that has been scavenged, with

portions of it (for example, wings, skeletal remains, legs, pieces of skin) found in

more than one location.

2.1.2 Scavenger Efficiency Trials

Scavenger efficiency trials are required to determine the effects that local scavengers (wildlife and domestic pets) may have on the results of the carcass searches. In areas of high scavenging activity, scavengers can remove a large proportion of any carcasses before they can be found during carcass searches, leading to an underestimate of the mortality rates caused by turbines. Scavenger removal trials are conducted by scattering a known number (at least 10) of bird or bat carcasses around the study area, and checking them daily to see how long they remain before they scavenged. This provides an estimate of the removal rate which can be used to determine the effects of scavenging on the carcass search results. As scavenger populations can change seasonally, it is recommended that removal trials be conducted monthly during the carcass survey period. Levels of carcass scavenging should be determined through carcass removal trials. In these trials, carcasses are planted around the wind turbines and monitored until they disappear. The average carcass removal time is a factor in determining the estimated total bat mortality. OMNR (2010) lists the following relevant considerations for conducting carcass removal rate trials:

Carcass removal trials should be conducted at least once a month during the same

period as the bat mortality surveys;

A minimum of 10 carcasses should be used for each trial;

Carcasses removal trials should be conducted in a variety of weather conditions.

Weather conditions should be recorded;

Carcasses should be distributed across the range of different substrates/habitats and

turbines being searched;

Carcasses should be placed before daylight using gloves and boots to avoid imparting

human smell that might bias trial results (i.e. attract scavengers, etc.);





January 2013


Trials should continue until all the carcasses are removed or have sufficiently

decomposed (generally for 2 weeks);

To avoid confusion with turbine-related fatalities, trial carcasses should be discreetly

marked (e.g. clipping of ear, wing leg, fur; hole-punching ear; etc.) with a unique

identification, so they can be identified as a study carcass;

Carcasses used should be as fresh as possible since frozen or decomposed carcasses

are less attractive to scavengers. If frozen carcasses are used, they should be thawed

prior to beginning carcass removal trials;

Scavenging rates may change over time as scavengers become aware of and develop

search images for new sources of food beneath turbines;

Scavenging should be determined on a site-specific basis, and rates should not be

assumed to be similar between sites or used in calculations for other projects; and

Carcass removal trials should be conducted at least once a month during the same

period as the bat mortality surveys.

While OMNR (2010) states that bat carcasses should be used for at least one third of the scavanger efficiency trials, neither of the two most common bats species in PEI (little brown bat and northern long eared bat) should be used due to concerns about white-nose syndrome contamination risks. Trials may therefore be conducted using other small brown mammal or bird carcasses.

Scavenger Efficiency Correction Factor

The Scavenger Efficiency Correction Factor allows for incorporation of losses due to scavenging

into the carcass survey results. Proportions of carcasses remaining after each search interval

are pooled to calculate the overall scavenger correction (Sc) factors:

Sc = nvisit1 + nvisit2 + nvisit3 nvisit0 + nvisit1 + nvisit2

Sc is the proportion of carcasses not removed by scavengers over the search period nvisit0 is the total number of carcasses placed nvisit1 – nvisit3… are the numbers of carcasses remaining on visits 1 through 3

2.1.3 Searcher Efficiency Trials

Searcher efficiency trials are required to determine the effects of observer bias on the rate of carcass recovery. Different surveyors may have different rates of carcass recovery, depending on various individual factors. Searcher efficiency trials require a known number of discreetly marked carcasses to be placed around a wind turbine. Searchers examine the wind turbine area, and the number of carcasses that they find is compared to the number of carcasses placed. Searcher efficiency is another important factor in creating an estimate of total bat mortality. Searcher efficiency will vary considerably for each searcher and from one site to another, and should be conducted as part of post-construction monitoring at all sites.





January 2013


Below are some important considerations for conducting searcher efficiency trials (OMNR 2010):

Searcher efficiency trials should be conducted at least once a season during the same

period as the bat mortality surveys. More trials should be conducted if vegetation

changes during the season (i.e. crops grow, harvest). If changes are expected, searcher

efficiency trials should be conducted once per month;

A minimum of 10 carcasses per searcher per visibility class (see Table 2.1) are to be

used. These trial carcasses can be spread out over the trial period and conducted with

the bat mortality surveys. The average per searcher across all visibility classes will be

used for calculations. Raw data for all searchers will be required with the annual report;

Searcher efficiency trials are to be conducted for each individual searcher. The searcher

should not be notified when they are participating in an efficiency trial to avoid potential

search biases;

Trial carcasses should be discreetly marked (e.g. clipping of ear, wing leg, fur; hole-

punching ear; etc.) with a unique identification so that they can be identified as a study

carcass;

Trial carcasses should be randomly placed within the search area and location recorded

so that they can be retrieved if they are not found during the trial; and

If frozen carcasses are used, they should be thawed prior to beginning searcher

efficiency trials.

Table 2.1 Visibility Class

Vegetation Cover Vegetation Height Visibility Class

≥90% bare ground ≤ 15cm tall Class 1 (Easy)

≥ 25% bare ground ≤ 15cm tall Class 2 (Moderate)

≤ 25% bare ground ≤ 25% > 30cm tall Class 3 (Difficult)

Little or no bare ground ≥ 25% > 30cm tall Class 4 (Very difficult)

OMNR, 2010

While OMNR (2010) states that bat carcasses should be used for at least one third of the searcher efficiency trials, neither of the two most common bat species in PEI should be used due to concerns about white-nose syndrome contamination risks. Trials may therefore be conducted using other small brown mammal or bird carcasses. Surveyors need not be bird or bat experts, but local technicians who can be trained to conduct the surveys and to identify bird and bats specimens to species level.

2.1.4 Bird and Bat Use Surveys (including SAR Species)

In order to determine if there are significant changes in breeding bird and bat use of the site following turbine construction, follow-up monitoring should be undertaken using the same techniques as those used during pre-construction assessment. These surveys will permit an evaluation of the predictions made during the EIA process, an evaluation of cumulative effects of the industry on bird/bat diversity and numbers, as well as detection of significant changes in numbers at single sites.





January 2013


Breeding Bird Survey At least two years of breeding season surveys would be needed to differentiate any possible effects of the turbines from natural year-to-year variation, and to separate short-term from long-term effects. If results appear to be significant, but vary substantially among years, then in some cases additional surveys may be requested to consider longer term effects (e.g., repeat surveys 5 or 10 years later). Follow-up breeding bird surveys should consist of two site visits spaced a week or more apart during the peak breeding season (early June to early July). Surveys should be conducted using the same techniques and at the same point count locations as in the pre-construction assessment. In addition, the areas on and near the project site where Canada Warblers were detected during the pre-construction surveys should be revisited to assess changes in their use of the site.

Bat Survey

Little is known about how the presence of wind turbines affects the occurrence of bats in an area. It has been recommended through consultation with regulators on previous projects to monitor post-construction bat activity for two years. As with the breeding bird survey mentioned above, at least two years of surveys would be needed to differentiate any possible effects of the turbines from natural year-to-year variation, and to separate short-term from long-term effects. If results appear to be significant, but vary substantially among years, then in some cases additional surveys may be requested to consider longer term effects (e.g., repeat surveys 5 or 10 years later).

Follow-up bat surveys should consist of two site visits: two weeks in July and two weeks in September. Monitoring is to be conducted at sites #1 and #2 at ground and 10 m levels. These locations will serve as a control. An additional survey site will be located at one of the post-construction turbine towers and will also monitor ground and 10 m levels.

2.2 SCHEDULE OF SEARCHES

The following schedule is recommended, based on current CWS recommendations for bird surveys (CWS 2007) and OMNR recommendations for bat surveys (OMNR 2010).

Spring Migration (April/ May to mid-June)

o Carcass searches twice per week

Breeding Season (Mid-June to mid-August)

o Carcass searches once per week

Fall Migration (mid-August to mid-October)

o Carcass searches twice per week

A standard carcass search form will be provided to maximize consistency of reporting. A report form for each fatality/injured bird/bat may also be provided.

Two years of post construction surveys for bird and bat mortality should be sufficient. These

requirements may be extended if substantial mortality is observed, particularly to evaluate any

mitigation measures that may have been introduced.





January 2013


2.2.1 Handling of Mortalities

When handling a dead bird or bat, leak proof rubber gloves should be worn, or leak-proof plastic

bags should be used as a glove. Large zip-lock freezer bags may be used for bats and smaller

birds and heavy duty garbage bags for larger birds. Bats and birds should be double bagged

using clear bags, and stored on ice in a cooler until the carcass search is complete. They should

then be placed in a freezer and kept frozen until delivery to the Atlantic Veterinary College.

Hands should be washed after handling bats and birds and the gloves treated as infectious

materials.

Bat mortalities should also be examined at the Veterinary College for the presence of the fungus

which causes White-Nose Syndrome, which is currently affecting resident bat populations

throughout northeastern North America.

The handling protocol is mainly intended to protect handlers from contracting common bacterial

infections like Salmonella, E. coli, and Chlamydia, as well as any parasites. It is noted that

OMNR recommends up to date rabies vaccinations for all carcass searchers/ handlers. This is

not considered to be necessary at the Hermanville/Clearspring Wind Farm site, as there have

been no reports of rabies ever occurring in any bat species in PEI.

PEIEC is unaware of any specific provincial, municipal, or federal regulations for handling bird

or bat carcasses.

2.3 SCHEDULE OF BIRD AND BAT USE SURVEYS

At least two years of breeding season surveys would be needed to differentiate any possible effects of the turbines from natural year-to-year variation, and to separate short-term from long-term effects. If results appear to be significant, but vary substantially among years, then in some cases additional surveys may be requested to consider longer term effects (e.g., repeat surveys 5 or 10 years later).

The following schedule is recommended, based on current CWS recommendations for bird surveys (CWS 2007), consultation with the Province and the professional experience of AMEC biologists:

Breeding Bird Survey (June)

o Point count surveys twice per month

Breeding Bat Survey (July)

o Passive acoustic survey for two weeks

Migratory Bay Survey (September)

o Passive acoustic survey for two weeks





January 2013


3.0 REPORTING

PEIEC will submit a detailed report to regulators outlining the results of the bird and bat carcass

searches, scavenger trials, searcher efficiency trials, and the bird and bat use surveys on an

annual basis. These reports will be submitted at the end of the November, after the fall carcass

search period which ends in mid-October. Any comments received from regulators will be

discussed with the relevant parties and addressed in the monitoring program for the following

year.





January 2013


4.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Upon submission of the detailed annual report, the proponent and the PEIDELJ will review the

information available to determine if adaptive management measures are necessary to address

any unexpectedly high impacts observed. It may be determined that further information is

needed for decision making or that mitigation measures are needed.

Further investigation to identify those facts that may be contributing to the high levels of

mortality (e.g. weather conditions, time of year when bird density is particularly high) may

include, but not be limited to:

Increasing survey frequency for decision support;

Increasing reporting frequency to speed decision-making; and

Adding behavioral or movement surveys (depending on the species involved).

Potential mitigation measures, if deemed necessary, will likely focus on sensitive time periods,

such as fall raptor migration, fall bat migration, or the summer swarming periods of local bat

populations. Mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to:

Blade feathering;

Shutdown of problematic wind turbines;

Retrofitting problematic wind turbines with ultrasonic deterrent devices or similar-

purpose devices ( specific to impacts on bats);

Increase rotor ‗cut-in‘ wind speed of specific turbines (specific to bats, as bats are more

active at lower wind speeds); and

Continuous remote monitoring.





January 2013


5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Ahlen, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats – a pilot study. Final Report. Dnr 5210P-2002-00473, P-nr P20272-1. December 11, 2003.

Arnett, E.B., K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Kolford, et al. (2008). Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:61–78.

Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D'Amours, B.J. Klug and R. M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18, R695-R696.

Baerwald E. F., J. Edworth, M. Holder, and R. M. R. Barclay 2009. A Large-Scale Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities Journal of Wildlife Management 73 (7):1077-1081.

Brigham, R. M., M. J. Vonhof, R. M. R. Barclay and J. C. G. William. 1997. Roosting behavior and roost-site preferences of forest-dwelling California bats (Myotis californicus). Journal of Mammalogy 78:1231–1239.

Broders, H.G., and G.J. Forbes. 2004. Interspecific and intersexual variation in roost site selection of Myotis septentrionalis and M. lucifugus. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:602-610.

Clark, D.R., Jr. and J.C. Kroll. 1977. Effects of DDE on experimentally poisoned free-tailed bats

(Tadarida brasiliensis): lethal brain concentrations. Journal of Toxicology and

Environmental Health 3: 893-901.

Cockrum, E.L. 1970. Insecticides and guano bats. Ecology 51(5): 761-762.

Council of Europe, 2004. Effects of Wind Farms on Birds. Nature & Environment, No. 139.

Council of Europe Publishing.

Cox, C. 1991. Pesticides and Birds: From DDT to Today‘s Poisons. Journal of Pesticide Reform,

11: 2 - 4.

Cryan, P.M. 2008. Mating behavior as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Journal

of Wildlife Management 72(3): 845-849.

CWS and Environment Canada. 2007. Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Impacts of

Wind Turbines on Birds. Canadian Wildlife Service - Environment Canada

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston, 2006. Assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148 (1):19-42.

Dreyfuss,D., G. Basset, P. Soler, and G. Saumon. 1985. Intermittent positive pressurehyperventilation with high inflation pressures produces pulmonary microvascular injury in rats. American Review of Respiratory Disorders 132: 880–884.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2008-233#aff1





January 2013


Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, D. P. Young Jr., M. D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), Inc., Cheyenne, WY, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Garcia, P. F.J., Holroyd, S.L., Rasheed, S.A., 1995. British Columbia Environment, Status of the Spotted Bat in British Columbia. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria. B.C.

Geluso, K.N., J.S. Altenbach, and D.E. Wilson. 1976. Bat Mortality: pesticide poisoning and migratory stress. Science 194-184-186.

Grindal, S. D. and R. M. Brigham. 1998. Short-term effects of small-scale habitat disturbance on activity by insectivorous bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 996–1003.

Hayes, J.P. 2003. Habitat ecology and the conservation of bats in western coniferous forests. Pages 81-119 in C. J. Zabel and R. G. Anthony, editors. Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of Western North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Henny, C. J., C. Maser, J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and T. E. Kaiser. 1982. Organochloride residues in bats after a forest spraying with DDT. Northwest Science 56: 329-337.

Horn, J., Arnett, E. and R. Rodriguez. 2004. Bats and wind turbines: infrared analysis of abundance, flight patterns, and avoidance behaviour. Bat Research News 45(4): 227-228.

Horn J.W, Arnett E.B, and Kunz T.H. 2008 Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):123-132

Humphrey, S.R. 1982. Bats, Pages 52-70, in Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America. Biology, Management, and Economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 1147 p.

Jen, P.H.S., and McCarty, J.K. 1978. Bats avoid moving objects more successfully than stationary ones. Nature 275: 743–744.

Keeley, Brian, Steve Ugorez and Dale Strickland, 2001: Bat Ecology and Wind Turbine Considerations. Presentations and Panel Discussion. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Planning Meeting IV, Carmel, California, May 2000. Prepared for the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee by RESOLVE INC. Washington, DC, May 2001. Available at: www.nationalwind.org.

Kingsley, A. and B. Whittam. 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment. EC: CWS, Gatineau, QC

Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007a. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315-324.

http://www.bpa.gov/Power/pgc/wind/Avian_and_Bat_Study_12-2002.pdf









January 2013


Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett. B. M. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L. Morrison, M.D. Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007b. Assessing impacts of wind energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2449-2486.

Limpens, H J G A and Kapteyn, K. 1991 Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis 29: 63-71

Menzel, J. M., M. A. Menzel, J. C. Kilgo, W. M, Ford, J. W. Edwards, and G. F. McCracken. 2005. Effect of habitat and foraging height on bat activity in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 235-245.

Mickleburgh, S., A. Hutson, and P. Racey. 2002. A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx 36:18-34.

Miller, K. E.G., R. Dixon, C. E. Harris. 2005. Idaho Bat Conservation Plan. DRAFT. Idaho Bat Working Group. Boise, Idaho. 143 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) 2010. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. 25 pp. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@renewable/documents/document/289694.pdf

Schmidt, U. and G. Joermann. 1986. The influence of acoustical interferences on echolocation in bats. Mammalia 50: 379-389.

Thornhill, R., and J. Alcock. 1983. The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Verboom, B. and Spoelstra, K. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the occurrence of pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus and serotines Eptesicus serotinus near treelines. Canadian Journal of Zoology (77):1393

Waldien, D. L., J. P. Hayes, and E. B. Arnett. 2000a. Day roosts of female long-eared myotis in coniferous forests in western Oregon. Northwest Science 75:307-331.

Waldien, D. L., J. P. Hayes, and E. B. Arnett. 2000b. Day roosts of female long-eared Myotis in

western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 785-796

Date post:	21-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamxuyen
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

BIRD AND BAT MORTALITY MONITORING PLAN FOR THE HERMANVILLE/CLEARSPRING ... · BIRD AND BAT...

Documents