Janice Pease (315)328-5793 [email protected] 130 Beebe Rd, Potsdam, N.Y. 13676
August 16, 2018
Via Email
Honorable Kathleen H. Burgess, Secretary to the PSC Re: Case 16- F-0268, Application of Atlantic Wind LLC for a certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 for Construction of the North Ridge Wind Energy Project in the Towns of Parishville and Hopkinton, St. Lawrence County.
Dear Secretary Burgess: Industrial wind turbines are clearly a danger to all animal species, the most obvious being birds. From the beginning, of what we locals call “the wind battle”, those of us who vehemently opposed the project tried to explain the numerous negative impacts that these giant machines would have on both the local and migratory avian species. Many of us are environmentalist who spend much of our time outdoors observing these elegant creatures and want to protect them as well as their habitats and flyways. I live just down the road from 3 huge corn fields that become salt and peppered with Canadian and snow geese every year. I knew the turbines would negatively impact those beautiful birds. I had watched videos of birds being struck by blades, carcasses being picked up around the base of turbines, read testimonies by people who remove the corpses, and read studies about the effects turbines have on all bird species/habitats. You do not have to be a biologist to know that all creatures respond to stimuli and the turbines would definitely be an outside force/ stressor that would have caused the geese to alter their route or the reduced their flock due to collision. The flocks soar the skies for weeks in preparation for their long journey south, some young ones among elders are learning the ropes. Odds are against them when faced with repeated interaction with a moving obstacle of that dimension/height. The turbine companies choose the same farm fields as the geese and this collision would have affected the geese without question. This is the most obvious negative impact to the health of the geese population, but other aspects have been studied. Just being within proximity to a turbine causes physiological changes (weight, hormone levels, immune system, cardiovascular, etc.). I have attached a study that explains what effects were witnessed among 2 different gaggles. The results are not at all surprising if you have any understanding of the function of hormones within the body and how creatures react to their environments. I have also attached testimony from individuals who witnessed the slaughter of geese by turbines. Now, we know that hundreds of thousands of birds are killed a year by turbines, accepting these numbers is immoral. With so many avian species on the decline and that effect on the planet, it seems unconscionable to continue placing these turbines in migratory fly zones and habitats. I believe these creatures matter. I have observed them for years, they are amazing beings who carry out intense migration , their v formations are beautiful works of functional art. I am amazed. For locals, geese formations in the fall signify the seasonal shift as much as fiery red leaves. Like many creatures affected by industrialization and human encroachment, geese mate for life and create incredible bonds with their offspring. These relationships matter. If one is killed the other is affected. While apathy is the greatest plague among humans, empathy is the cure (which needs to be nurtured). Industrial wind is killing these beautiful, innocent, and graceful creatures… that blood is on the hands of any accomplice of this money scheme. One cannot turn a blind eye to this level of environmental carnage and not be guilty themselves. Industrial wind is contributing to climate change as well, further condemning us to environmental degradation resulting from greed. How can we, as a species, justify the sacrifice of so many innocent lives for greed? (rhetorical question)
The link below is of a human and his glider with geese flying in formation. You will see the flap of their perfect wings and hear the wind as they swim through it. video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYdPnuGXo78
Respectfully, Janice Pease Janice Pease
*electronically signed
Attached: Photos of geese on Beebe road and in the area Attachments:
Impacts of wind farms on swans and geese: a review EILEEN C. REES
Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines J. Mikołajczak1, S. Borowski2, J. Marć-Pieńkowska1, G. Odrowąż-Sypniewska3, Z. Bernacki4, J. Siódmiak3, P. Szterk1
Green Dilemma of Wind Farm on Avifauna: Future Ecological Considerations of Wind Energy Expansion in Ethiopia Getachew Mulualem
Wind farms: a slaughter kept hidden from the public World Council for Nature
Dead geese seen on roads near turbines Watertown Daily Times
Opinion: Wind farms will impact migratory route for birds, says Hopkinton man NCN
Witness observes Wolfe Island Turbine Canada Geese slaughter
37
Impacts of wind farms on swans and geese: a review
EILEEN C. REES
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Martin Mere, Burscough, near Ormskirk, Lancashire L40 0TA, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract This review considers data published on the effects of offshore and onshore windfarms on swans and geese and finds that the information available is patchy. Of 72 swans or geese reported as collision victims at 46 wind farms, most (39 birds) were reported at 23 wind farms in Germany where such data are collated. Post-construction monitoring was undertaken for ≤ 1 year at 67% of 33 sites, making it difficult to test for cumulative effects or annual variation in collision rates. Site use by the birds was measured at only nine of 46 wind farms where collisions by swans and geese were monitored or recorded. Displacement distances of feeding birds at wintering sites ranged from 100–600 m, but preliminary evidence suggested that large-scale displacement also occurs, with fewer swans and geese returning to areas after wind farms were installed. Eight studies of flight behaviour all reported changes in flight-lines for swans or geese initially seen heading towards the turbines, at distances ranging from a few hundred metres to 5 km; 50–100% of individuals/groups avoided entering the area between turbines, but in some cases the sample sizes were small. Key knowledge gaps remain, including whether wind farm installation has a consistently negative effect on the number of birds returning to a wintering area; whether flight avoidance behaviour varies with weather conditions, wind farm size, habituation and the alignment of the turbines; provision of robust avoidance rate measures; and the extent to which serial wind farm development has a cumulative impact on specific swan and goose populations. It is therefore recommended that: 1) post-construction monitoring and dissemination of results be undertaken routinely, 2) the extent to which wind farms cause larger-scale displacement of birds from traditional wintering areas be assessed more rigorously, 3) further detailed studies of flight-lines in the vicinity of wind farms should be undertaken, both during migration and for birds commuting between feeding areas and the roost, to provide a more rigorous assessment of collision and avoidance rates for inclusion in collision risk models, and 4) the combination of collision mortality and habitat loss at all wind farms in the species’ range be analysed in determining whether they have a significant effect on the population.
Key words: avoidance, collisions, displacement, offshore wind farms, terrestrial wind farms.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 38 Swans, geese and wind farms
Wind farms have been installed increasingly energy has been a challenge for across Europe during the late 20th and environmental conservation organisations. early 21st centuries, as governments seek Increasing evidence shows climate change to secure renewable energy supplies having deleterious effects on wildlife and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to (Parmesan & Yohe 2003; Root et al. 2003; combat climate change. The European Thomas et al. 2004) yet injudicious location Commission’s Renewable Energy Roadmap of wind farms may have detrimental effects (EU 2007) set a target of 20% of EU energy on some species, including birds (Langston to be generated from renewable sources by & Pullan 2003; Barrios & Rodriguez 2004; 2020 (EU 2008). Wind energy accounted for Garthe & Hüppop 2004; Hötker et al. 2006; 3.7% of EU electricity generation by early Sterner et al. 2007; Bright et al. 2008; 2008, and the European Commission’s goal EEA 2009). Adverse effects include direct of increasing that share to 12% by 2020 is collision mortality, habitat loss/degradation, regarded as achievable (European Wind displacement from feeding areas, barrier Energy Association; EWEA 2008). Annual effects (birds flying around wind farms installations of wind power have increased and thus potentially increasing energy steadily from 814 MW in 1995 to 93,957 expenditure), and disturbance (see reviews MW installed across Europe in 2011, with in Langston & Pullan 2003; Bright et al. the largest installed capacity in Germany, 2006; Drewitt & Langston 2006; Fox et al. followed by Spain, Italy, France and the UK 2006; Inger et al. 2009). The risk of turbine (EWEA 2012). Growth projections for collisions varies across species (perhaps wind-generated energy vary substantially dependent on visual acuity and depth depending on the analytical methods used perception at the time; Martin 2011), and and the scope for technological progress wind farm location, with potential for there (EWEA 2009), but current capacity is being population-level effects in some cases expected to treble by 2020 (EWEA 2008). (Bright et al. 2008), and raptors being Within the UK, 348 wind farms (332 particularly at risk of colliding with the onshore, 16 offshore) were operational by turbines (Sterner et al. 2007; Carrete et al. July 2012, generating > 7,000 MW of wind 2012). power, with a further 64 under construction, Within the European Union, the planning 270 consented and 335 at the planning application process for wind farm application stage (RenewableUK 2012). development requires wind farm companies Planning applications for the large Round 3 to undertake environmental impact offshore wind farms proposed for British assessments (EIAs) under the terms of the coastal waters, and for further Scottish EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment Territorial Water sites, will be forthcoming Directive 85/335/EEC (as amended by from late 2012 onwards, with the first Directive 97/11/EC) to determine whether Round 3 projects (if consented) operational the installation would have a significant after 2015. effect on wildlife or other environmental The rapid development of renewable features (Drewitt & Langston 2006). A
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 39
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) be fully resolved. Information on the total is required for large scale developments or number of wind farms along migration programmes under the SEA Directive 2001/ routes, and the cumulative effect of these on 42/EC, which integrates environmental birds migrating to or from key sites for the considerations in the development of plans population (i.e. SPAs and/or Ramsar sites), and programmes and builds on project-level is still rarely (if ever) incorporated into AAs EIAs by considering environmental issues undertaken for new wind farm sites. earlier in the planning process (Drewitt & Although many wind farms are now Langston 2006). Where proposals pose a operational or are currently under threat to the integrity of protected areas, construction across Europe, and many more such as those designated by governments as are proposed, available information on the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds effects of these developments is patchy. A under the EU Birds Directive, the legislation review of bird abundance data analysed requires that a Habitats Regulation to assess wind farm impacts at 19 sites Assessment (HRA) be undertaken. The found that although wind farms may HRA first assesses the impacts of the plan, have significant biological impacts, against the objectives for conserving sites particularly for Anseriformes (wildfowl) and protected under European legislation, by Charadriiformes (waders), the evidence- considering whether there is a “Likely base remains poor, largely because many Significant Effect” (LSE) of the plan, either studies are methodologically weak and of alone or in combination with other plans or short duration (Stewart et al. 2007). projects. If there is considered likely to be a Evidence is stronger for some avian species significant effect on the interests of the than for others; for instance, for wind SPA, then the “Competent Authority” (e.g. turbines increasing raptor mortality (e.g. the local council planning department for Thelander & Smallwood 2007; Dahl et al. UK onshore sites; Marine Scotland/Scottish 2012) and displacing upland birds (Pearce- Government and the Marine Management Higgins et al. 2008, 2009), with greater Organisation (MMO) for offshore sites in displacement during construction than Scottish territorial waters and in England) is subsequent operation for a number of required to undertake an “Appropriate upland species (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012). Assessment” (AA) of a proposal, which A spatially-explicit individual-based model should ascertain that there will be no of a population of Hen Harriers Circus adverse effects on the interests cyanea on Orkney, which assessed the of the SPA before development can be combined effects of collision rate, habitat consented. The question of how to assess loss and displacement from wind turbines, the cumulative impacts on migratory bird found that the larger spatial responses to populations of several wind farms being turbines were from those located close to installed along the migration routes has been nest sites (Masden 2010). Removal of considered (de Lucas et al. 2007; Norman et collision mortality from this model showed al. 2007; Masden et al. 2010a) but has yet to that the majority of population-level turbine
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 40 Swans, geese and wind farms impacts were associated with direct and migration routes or local flight-lines to avoid indirect habitat loss in this particular wind farms, potentially increasing energy circumstance, but few comparative studies expenditure and disrupting links between of this kind exist to gain insight into the sites), and 3) collision mortality (Desholm et relative impacts of turbines on avian al. 2006; Drewitt & Langston 2006) are all populations. At offshore wind farms, considered. Particular consideration is given assessments have focussed mainly on their to measures used to determine avoidance possible impacts on seabird populations (e.g. rates, which have been calculated as: 1) the Garthe & Hüppop 2004; Langston & number of birds changing their flight-lines to Boggio 2011; Cook et al. 2012; Furness & avoid a wind farm, and as 2) the number of Wade 2012; Langston & Teuten 2012), collisions recorded for birds entering a wind which is appropriate given that these birds farm (usually via carcass searches), as slight spend much of the year at sea, and tracking variations in avoidance rate measures result in studies have recently been undertaken to significant variation in the bird mortality provide detailed information on the predictions made by wind turbine collision potential for offshore wind farms to affect risk models (Chamberlain et al. 2006). goose and swan populations at different Additionally the review aims to identify gaps stages of their migration (Griffin et al. 2010, in knowledge and to outline priorities for 2011). But post-construction assessment of future assessment of the impacts of wind how wind farm development affects bird farm development on these species. numbers and distribution is still generally lacking, despite post-construction Methods monitoring being required at some sites, Detailed information on the responses of and such information being extremely geese and swans to wind farms was obtained useful for informing environmental impact by checking original sources for swan and assessments at new developments. goose data in published reviews (including This paper aims to collate and assess Bright et al. 2006, 2008; Drewitt & Langston published information on the observed 2006; Fernley et al. 2006; Hötker et al. 2006; effects of wind farms on swan and goose Pendlebury 2006; de Lucas et al. 2007), populations. As many of these populations and by internet searches for more recent breed at high latitudes, in areas currently not scientific papers and grey literature reports. subject to wind farm development, the study Of 16 constructed offshore wind farms in focuses on observations made in the the UK, five are potentially on the flyways of wintering range and during spring and migratory swans and geese (at Barrow, Lynn autumn migration. The three main hazards & Inner Dowsing, Robin Rigg, Scroby Sands that turbines pose to the birds (after Fox and Walney Island); websites for these five et al. 2006): 1) displacement/habitat loss sites were visited to check for information (e.g. reduced use of prime feeding areas on swan and goose passage movements in following construction of the turbines), 2) post-construction monitoring reports. Bird barrier effects (requiring a change in casualties attributable to wind farm collisions
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 41 in Germany have been collated by the State of radar) did not permit, or analyses did not Office for Environment, Health and include, an assessment of collision frequency Consumer Protection of Brandenburg (e.g. Petersen et al. 2006; Plonczkier & Simms (LUGV) since 2002, and data recorded up to 2012), were omitted from the collision rate July 2012 were provided for this review review (but included in the barrier effect (Staatlichen Vogelschutzwarte 2012 and T. review), as there was no evidence for Dürr pers. comm.). Observations reported collision rates being low or zero. For studies in the literature of cases where the turbines assessing barrier effects, the number of birds did or did not affect swans and geese were flying towards the wind farm, the number grouped into the three main categories that changed their flight-path and the established as potentially influencing bird distance at which they did so was recorded. populations (i.e. displacement/habitat loss, For those assessing displacement from barrier effects and collision mortality). Major feeding areas or roost sites, the distance to studies of the effects of wind farms on which the birds approached the wind farm waterbirds along the Baltic coast, such as footprint before and after construction was Pettersson (2005) and Petersen et al. (2006) assessed, and whether the study recorded covered a range of species, particularly any changes in the total number of swans or Common Eider Somateria mollissima; only geese staging or wintering in the vicinity (as a observations made of swans and geese broader measure of displacement from the included in these studies are cited here. site) was also considered. For each of the wind farm studies, the number and alignment (linear/cluster) of Collisions with turbines turbines in the wind farm, its construction The literature review and LUGV data found date, the swan/goose species potentially post-construction monitoring which affected and the duration of post- reported or aimed to report on collision rates construction monitoring was recorded. for swans and geese at 46 wind farm sites: Methods were inspected to determine which three in Belgium, one in Bulgaria, 23 in studies rigorously assessed collision rates, as Germany, six in the Netherlands, one in opposed to those where incidental collisions Norway, one in Poland, three in Spain, one in were recorded during observations of Sweden (Skåne being treated as a single site displacement and barrier effects. The former in the absence of information on individual included ground surveys made for any wind farms in the county), two in the UK turbine-related casualties (in the case of and five in the USA (Table 1, Appendix 1). onshore wind farms), or where video Forty of these included carcass searches, cameras using infrared sensing, or further and nine studies (at Sabinapolder, analysis of bird occurrences and flight Waterkaaptocht and Energy Research Centre trajectories were used to detect collisions (for (ECN) in the Netherlands, at Hellrigg and the offshore sites). Thus cases where swans Barrow Offshore in the UK, Saint Nikola in and geese were seen flying through a wind Bulgaria, Fehmarn in Germany and at farm, but methods (e.g. aerial surveys or use Buffalo Ridge (Minnesota) and Stateline
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 42 Swans, geese and wind farms
Table 1. Summary of monitoring undertaken to determine swan and goose collisions with turbines (carcass searches and observed collisions) at wind farm sites, and the total number of collisions recorded, based on data presented in Appendix 1. Carcass searches were undertaken at all sites except for Barrow Offshore Wind, UK (where birds were observed entering and leaving the wind farm) and four sites in Germany where swans and geese were reported as accidental recoveries.
Country No. wind No. where No. with No. with No. where Total no. farms with monitoring flight obs. > 1 year monitoring swan or post- duration (visual monitoring linked goose construction is known or radar) to bird collisions reports on presence recorded collisions
Belgium 3 3 0 3 0 4 Bulgaria 1 1 1 1 1 0 Germany 23 14 1 1 1 39 Netherlands 6 6 3 2 4 13* Norway 1 1 0 1 0 4 Poland 1 0 ? ? ? 5 Spain 3 ? ? ? ? 3 Sweden 1 1 0 0 0 1 UK 2 2 2 0 2 0 USA 5 5 2 3 1 3
TOTAL 46 33 9 11 9 72
*Two additional birds recovered near a wind farm are omitted, on the basis that they’re not considered to be collision casualties.
(Washington/Oregon) in the USA) used from an observation point 7–9.7 km from radar or visual observations to record bird the site. Whilst this may seem too far for flights within the wind farm sites (Table 1). accurate collision rate assessment, it is All were onshore sites except for Barrow included here as nine geese were seen both Offshore Wind, UK, where observations entering and leaving the wind farm at were made of Pink-footed Geese Anser rotor height in autumn 2007 (Barrow brachyrhynchus flying through the wind farm Offshore Wind 2008). The Staatlichen
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 43
Vogelschutzwarte (2012) data reported 39 with 22 (67%) being undertaken for ≤ 1 year swan and goose casualties associated with 23 or winter to date, including four sites in wind farms in Germany collated over a 12- Germany where collisions were reported year period (2002–July 2012) for an following an accidental discovery rather estimated 26 monitoring years (mostly ≤ 1 than through frequent and systematic year of post-construction surveys per wind surveys of the turbines (Table 1). Of the farm, including wind farms searched only eleven longer-term (≥ 2 year) surveys, swans once; see Appendix 1): 16 Mute Swans or geese were recovered at seven sites (3 in Cygnus olor, one Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus, Belgium, 2 in the Netherlands, 1 in Norway four swan sp., three goose sp., three Greylag and 1 in the USA), but only the Buffalo Geese Anser anser, three White-fronted Ridge (USA), St Nikola (Bulgaria), Geese Anser albifrons, three Bean Geese Anser Urk (Netherlands) and Sabinapolder fabalis, and six Barnacle Geese Branta leucopsis. (Netherlands) wind farms provided Two more geese (either Bean Geese or information on the number of swans or White-fronted Geese) were seen colliding geese in the study area. No swans or geese with a turbine at the Meyenburg wind farm, were found in carcass searches at St Nikola Germany, in October 2008 (in both cases the and Buffalo Ridge, but only a proportion of individuals were at the end of a flock of c. the turbines were checked in each case 100 geese passing through the site), but these (Table 1) and variation in mortality for were not included in the LNGV database different turbines within the same wind because only feathers were found the farm was found to be more than double the following day (Honig pers. comm. in variation among wind farms for raptors Langgemach & Dürr 2012). Overall, 34 (Ferrer et al. 2012). Only nine of the studies swans and 37 geese (including two domestic which reported or aimed to record swan or geese) were recovered in the surveys across goose collisions (by carcass searches and/or all countries. Two Bewick’s Swans found flight observations) assessed in any detail near the Waterkaaptocht & ECN wind farms whether the wind farm was in an area used were not included in these totals because post regularly by these species, either as a staging mortem examination found no evidence for or wintering site (Saint Nikola, Fehmarn, them being collision casualties (Fijn et al. Urk, Sabinapolder, Waterkaaptocht, ECN, 2012). Hellrigg and Buffalo Ridge) or on the birds’ Of the 46 wind farms considered, 32 flight-path during migration (Barrow were known to have been in place for ≥ 5 Offshore Wind, UK). Definite collisions (3 years. Exceptions were Schlalach, Germany Mute Swans at Urk, 6 Greylags and 1 (built in 2010), Hellrigg , UK (2011), Saint Canada Goose at Sabinapolder, and 6 Nikola, Bulgaria (2009) and 11 German Barnacle Geese at Fehmarn, Germany) were wind farm sites where the construction date recorded at just three of these sites though was not reported (T. Dürr pers. comm.). the extent to which Buffalo Ridge coincided The duration of post-construction surveys with goose habitat or flight-lines was for bird collisions was known for 33 sites, unclear, and it would be difficult to
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 44 Swans, geese and wind farms determine collision frequency at Barrow turbines in Scotland found that the using the methods reported there to date. proportion found during weekly searches Bird monitoring data at the five sites in ranged from 65% (assuming all missed geese the USA reviewed by Fernley et al. (2006) had been removed by foxes) to 96%, with and by Pendlebury (2006), led to Scottish the most likely figure being 83% of geese Natural Heritage (SNH) advising that 99% present being found (Gill & Smith 2001). avoidance rates be used in collision risk There was little post-construction data on models developed to determine the impact goose-use at the other wind farm sites of wind farms on goose species (SNH considered in the USA. Pre-construction 2010). An accurate assessment of bird-use bird counts made at the Klondike wind farm of these sites therefore is of particular (Oregon) found that the use of the study importance, because collisions would need area by waterbirds was low; the only species to be linked to the likelihood of birds flying observed was Canada Goose, with 43 flocks through the array for determining the rate of (4,845 individuals) seen flying over the study collision with or avoidance of the turbines. area in the year-long pre-construction At Buffalo Ridge, fortnightly bird counts survey in 2001 (Johnson et al. 2002b). Goose and carcass searches were conducted for flights in the vicinity were not recorded four years post-construction, during which post-construction when monitoring there were 909 observations of Canada focussed on carcass searches, during which Geese Branta canadensis, 278 observations of two Canada Goose carcasses were found Snow Geese Anser caerulescens and 92 (Johnson et al. 2003); Pendlebury (2006) observations of White-fronted Geese (the mentions a 1-year post-construction bird latter in 1997 only; Appendix 1) seen flying survey at Klondike, but the results of this within the 354-turbine wind farm area – are not evident in the Johnson et al. (2003) measured as being within 800 m of the array report. At Nine Canyon (Washington), bird- (Osborn et al. 2000; Johnson et al. 2000; use was likewise monitored only pre- Johnson et al. 2002a; Fernley et al. 2006). construction; goose-use of the area at the That no goose carcasses were found during time is unclear, use by waterbirds appeared the study is indicative of high avoidance by to be lower than at Buffalo Ridge, Klondike the birds using this site but, as noted by and Stateline (Erickson et al. 2002), and Fernley et al. (2006) corpse searches were post-construction carcass searches were not complete, with only 21–91 of the 354 again undertaken without any reference to Buffalo Ridge turbines searched each year the number of geese present in the area (Johnson et al. 2000, 2002a). In such cases, it during the survey years (Erickson et al. is important to ensure that the sample of 2003). At Top of Iowa, large numbers of searched turbines is not biased, particularly Canada Geese were reported to occur on as some turbines within a wind farm pose a managed habitat 1–5 km from the wind greater risk to the birds than others (Ferrer farm in autumn, but except for carcass et al. 2012). Moreover, a test of search searches there were no detailed bird-use efficiency for goose carcasses placed under observations recorded at the wind farm
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 45 4 3 3 6 3 3 Number of geese of and swans different species recorded as wind turbine casualties in countries. Bean GooseGreylag GooseWhite-fronted GooseCanada GooseBrent Goose 1Barnacle GooseDomestic GooseGoose sp. 3 3 3 3 8 6 1 3 3 1 3 18 3 4 1 Table 2. Table SpeciesMute SwanWhooper Swan sp.Swan Belgium Germany 39134531372 Netherlands Norway Poland Spain 16 1 Sweden USA TOTAL 4 3TOTAL4 1 5 1 25 2
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 46 Swans, geese and wind farms
(Fernley et al. 2006), and goose flight in the avoidance rates for birds flying across the collision-risk zone was said to be very rare sites. Carcass searches were made for only (Jain 2005). Lastly, at Stateline, 11 groups of 1–2 years at most sites (Table 1, Appendix Canada Geese (363 birds) were recorded 1), so these figures represent c. 1 season’s within the wind farm during bird counts, additional mortality at best, rather than an and one Canada Goose carcass was found in assessment of mortality rate since each of 6–7 searches made of the 454-turbine site the wind farms was constructed. post-construction in 2003 (Erickson et al. 2004). Fernley et al. (2006) and Pendlebury Observed barrier effects (2006) both noted the gaps in the data and The review by Hötker et al. (2006) found that Pendlebury (2006) went on to note that the seven of 127 wind farm studies (not all studies could not be used to provide reliable relating to swans or geese) assessed and estimates of avoidance rates (which were found evidence for turbines having a barrier put at 96% for one site and > 99% for the effect on goose movements during other sites), but several years later this has migration or whilst commuting more locally not been re-evaluated with the benefit of (e.g. between feeding and roosting sites), for: new studies and 99% avoidance of wind Bean Geese (1 study), White-fronted Geese farms by geese remains the recommended (3), Greylag Geese (2) and Barnacle Geese value for inclusion in collision risk models. (1). Single observations and extensive Despite there being only one wind farm investigations were combined, and a barrier in Germany where carcass searches are effect was assumed in quantitative studies if known to have continued for > 1 year, the at least 5% of the individuals or flocks number of swan and goose collisions with showed a measurable reaction by changing turbines in Germany (39 casualties) clearly their flight direction to go around or over a outnumber those from all other countries wind farm (Hötker et al. 2006). These considered (33 casualties; Tables 1, 2). observations were made during daylight as The most commonly reported species was there was insufficient information at the time the Mute Swan, with 16 recovered in (e.g. through radar studies) on the birds’ Germany, five in Poland, three in the flight-lines at night, when migration often Netherlands and one in Sweden occurs. (Winkelman 1989; Ahlén 2002; Hötker Eight published studies of swan or goose et al. 2006; Rodziewicz 2009; Staatlichen flight-lines in relation to wind farm location Vogelschutzwarte 2012), followed by the provided information on the birds’ Greylag Goose (18 birds from different avoidance behaviour (Table 3). Of these, parts of Europe) and the Barnacle Goose radar studies or a combination of radar and (six recovered in Germany; Staatlichen visual observations were undertaken for Vogelschutzwarte 2012; Table 2), but in Bewick’s Swans at Waterkaaptocht and at none of these cases was there any flight ECN, Netherlands (Fijn et al. 2007, 2012), observation data, for determining frequency Brent and Barnacle Geese at Olsäng, of bird-wind farm overlap, and thus Sweden (Pettersson 2005), Barnacle Geese
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 47 at Utgrunden, Sweden (Pettersson 2005), rotor height (c. 50–150 m for this particular Pink-footed Geese at Lynn & Inner wind farm), with 1% of birds flying at below Dowsing, UK (Plonczkier & Simms 2012), rotor height (0–49 m) and 36% above the and Greylag Geese at Horns Rev, Denmark turbines (Zehtindjiev & Whitfield 2011), but (Petersen et al. 2006), with visual it was unclear whether the birds adjusted observations made of Pink-footed Geese at their flight-lines to pass around or over the Barrow Offshore, UK (BOWind 2008) and wind farm, and thus exhibit avoidance at Hellrigg, UK (Ecology Consulting 2012) behaviour. (Table 3). All reported some changes in Flight-lines might also shift at longer flight-lines for swans or geese initially seen distances following wind farm construction; heading towards the turbines, with 50–100% for instance, Petterssen (2005) noted that, of individuals or groups avoiding entering once the turbines had been erected at Olsäng the wind farm site (Table 3). Avoidance and Utgrunden, geese generally flew closer distance varied from a few hundred metres to the mainland (inside the line of the (at Waterkaaptocht/ECN and at Hellrigg turbines), and Plonczkier & Simms (2012) wintering sites, where the birds were likewise found that migrating Pink-footed commuting daily between feeding areas and Geese were more likely to fly inland of the the roost) up to 5 km for birds observed Lynn & Inner Dowsing turbines in the third during migration (Table 3). winter of their post-construction surveys. Desholm & Kahlert (2005) additionally Earlier studies for other migratory found that the proportion of Common waterbirds have demonstrated that even Eider and goose flocks entering the Nysted quite dramatic shifts in migration routes may wind farm area decreased significantly from have only small effects on total migration 40.4% (n = 1,406 flocks) during pre- distance (Desholm 2003; Masden et al. 2009), construction (2000–2002) to 8.9% (n = 779) but where birds show diurnal movements, during the first year of operation (2003), but such as between breeding colonies and food whether there was a difference in the provisioning areas (Masden et al. 2010b) or proportion of geese compared with eiders night roosts and daytime feeding areas, the entering the wind farm was not reported. energetic consequences of avoidance could Jain (2005) observed Canada Geese flying in become significant. between, around and above wind turbines at The radar studies were unable to provide Top of Iowa, USA, but states that avian data on collision rates for birds flying within flight in the collision-risk zone was very rare the wind farms because of the difficulty of across seasons. A study of Red-breasted following individuals within flocks (and thus Geese Branta ruficollis, White-fronted Geese identifying those that fail to leave the wind and Greylag Geese at the Saint Nikola wind farm site) by radar. Visual observations of farm in Bulgaria reported on flight-lines and flight-lines made in conjunction with radar at altitude of flight, and noted from radar data Waterkaaptocht/ECN, Netherlands, and that 64% of the geese (n = 272,210 goose without radar at Barrow Offshore, UK and flights detected in winter 2010/11) were at at Hellrigg, UK did not record any collisions,
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 48 Swans, geese and wind farms linear 09.03.12) metres 2006/07) metres 2006/07) V 2–3 km 21 days 3 1 (80 m) 2012; 3 = BOWind 2008; 4 = Ecology Consulting 2012; 2012; 3 = BOWind et al. Nths 2006 (90 m) hundred (winter Nths (78 m) hundred (winter 2007; 2 = Fijn et al. towards wind farm location (hub (V = vertical; construction of turbines wind farm height m) H = horizontal) monitoring lines directly within avoidance name/ turbines method dimension distance of post- Records ofRecords and geese Observation wind farms. swans adjusting their flight-lines method: RAD = Radar; FL flight to avoid Species No. flight- No. flights % farm Wind Built No. Obs. Avoidance Avoidance Duration Ref. Pink-footed 503 birdsPink-footed 503 9 98 Barrow 2006 30*** FL Bewick’s SwanBewick’s 684 birds 308 birds 55 ECN test-park, 2003– 9 ** RAD & FL H Few 5 days 1, 2 Whooper Swan 0 groups 0 groups – Hellrigg, UK 2011 4*** FL H >200 m 4 5 = Plonczkier & Simms 2012; 6 = Christensen et al. 2004; 7 = Petersen et al. 2006; 8 = Pettersson 2005. Turbine alignment: * = 2005. Turbine et al. 2006; 8 = Pettersson 5 = Plonczkier & Simms 2012; 6 Christensen et al. 2004; 7 Petersen Observation method: RAD = Radar; FL flightalignment; ** = turbines in 2 lines; *** cluster. observations. Table 3. Table 1 = Fijn References: observations. SwanBewick’s 364 birds 167 birds 54 Waterkaaptocht, 2003 8* RAD & FL H Few 3 days 1, 2 GoosePink-footed Goose 1,022 birds 4 groups within 200 m Unclear Hellrigg, UK 2011 4*** FL UK Offshore, H (75 m) >200 m (80 m) 38 h 4 (2007) (22.12.11–
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 49 2003–2005) 398 h radar; 2 km 52 days 8 5 km 52 days 6. 7 500 m 8 c. c. c. ) of 93 flocks seen (from visual same flight-lines when passing over the same flight-lines when passing over & H Not 134 days 6 b (65 m) (2000–2002) Sweden (65 m) (2000–2002) Denmark (70 m) reported Denmark (70 m) reported (244 h visual; 94 Lynn & Inner 2006 54*** RAD V a (292 birds) (17 birds) (65 m) Initial flight height not reported, on their so unclear whether geese the turbines or continued gained height to clear (avoid) footprint. Numbers based on 167 of and 84 (94.46% the array actually crossing the array, radar) heading towards by the 292 flocks (tracked observations) crossing the footprint seen to gain height and fly above the turbines as they did so. observations) crossing the footprint seen to gain the turbines as they did so. height and fly above Brent Goose 3 flocks 1 flock 94 Olsäng, Sweden 2001 5* FL Not reported Barnacle Goose 2 flocks 0 flocks 100 Utgrunden, 2000 7* RAD Not reported Goose sp.Barnacle Goose 11 flocks 2 flocks 1 flock 1 flock 91 50 Horns Rev, Olsäng, Sweden 2003 2001 80*** 5* RAD & FL Not reported RAD Not Not reported 6, 7 GooseGreylag Goose 8 flocks 3 flocks 63 Horns Rev, 2003 80*** RAD & FL UK Dowsing, H & V (70–100 m) Not 69 days 6, 7 reported (2008–2010) Pink-footed 292 flocks 16 flocks a b
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 50 Swans, geese and wind farms but it seemed that the birds were flying in unidentified goose species; Table 3), but the good weather conditions: either conditions sample sizes are relatively small and the were said to be good (Fijn et al. 2012), or number of individual birds involved were good visibility was required for the not recorded. Accumulated knowledge of observations to be made (Barrow Offshore how a range of individuals from different Wind 2008), or conditions during vantage species react to turbines are however point (flight-line) observations were not helpful for populating models of avoidance recorded (Ecology Consulting 2012). behaviour, which can be insightful for None of the studies reported adverse predicting how geese and swans may weather conditions during observations. respond to different sizes of wind farms The effects of strong winds, heavy and specific turbine configurations (Masden precipitation or fog on the birds’ ability to et al. 2012). avoid the wind farm or to negotiate the turbines if flying within the wind farm Displacement from feeding areas and therefore remains unclear, albeit that the low roost sites number of casualties reported from carcass Displacement of birds from feeding areas searches to date indicates that adverse and roost sites is an important consideration weather may not increase the risk to swans because migratory swans and geese tend to and geese substantially at terrestrial sites. congregate at favoured (but frequently The six Barnacle Geese recorded as wind undesignated) feeding sites in winter, many turbine casualties in Germany were all of which are associated with roost sites that found under a single turbine the day after have been classified as Special Protection fog and a storm, but it is not known whether Areas (SPAs) under Article 4 of the Birds the weather contributed to these collisions Directive (EC Directive on the (T. Dürr, pers. comm.). Whether the size of Conservation of Wild Birds, 79/409/EEC) the wind farm affects avoidance behaviour, because of their importance for the species with swans and geese being more likely to fly (Bright et al. 2008). Habitat quality in the around smaller wind farms but to pass non-breeding season has been shown to between the turbines for wind farms influence the timing of bird migration covering a larger area should also be (Marra et al. 1998; Gill et al. 2001; considered, as this is relevant to the Stirnemann et al. 2012), body condition construction of larger wind farm sites over during spring migration (Bearhop et al. 2004) the next decade. The largest wind farm and breeding success (Ebbinge & Spaans included in this review of observed barrier 1995; Madsen 1995; Norris et al. 2004; Inger effects – the Horns Rev offshore wind et al. 2010). Loss of feeding or roosting farm in Denmark (80 turbines) – had a habitats through disturbance or relatively high proportion (21%) of geese displacement by the turbines therefore which were flying towards the wind farm could affect the birds’ use of protected areas continue through it (three of eight Greylag or result in them moving to suboptimal sites, Goose flocks and one of 11 flocks of with consequences for future survival and
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 51 productivity (Gill et al. 2001; Norris & studies of potential habituation to different Taylor 2006; Ratikainen et al. 2008). types of turbine are required to support Birds’ avoidance responses to wind farms these findings. vary within and between species, but swans In addition to assessing the extent to and geese are considered sensitive to these which birds approach turbines at a local developments because they frequent open level, whether the construction of wind landscapes (Hötker et al. 2006). The review farms influences the extent to which swans by Hötker et al. (2006) indicated that the and geese winter in an area should be minimal distances to wind farms reported considered. In her pioneering study of bird was 150 m (s.d. = 139 m, n = 8 studies) for use of fields around the Urk wind farm, swans and 373 m (s.d. = 226 m, n = 13) for which consisted of 25 turbines (hub height geese, with the minimal distances recorded = 30 m) positioned along a dyke bordering for geese during the non-breeding season Lake IJsselmeer on the Noordoostpolder, ranging from 50–850 m. Papers considered the Netherlands, Winkelman (1989) found in the current review likewise recorded that, at the local level, Bewick’s, Whooper displacement distances of 200–560 m for and Mute Swans were displaced to feeding swans and 30–600 m for geese at terrestrial areas 200–400 m from the wind farm site wind farms, and 2 km for one offshore site post-construction, with pooled data for (Table 4), the latter estimated from maps Bean Geese, White-fronted Geese and illustrating Mute Swan displacement (Figure Barnacle Geese similarly suggesting 51 in Petersen et al. 2006). For Pink-footed 200–400 m displacement, albeit that this was Geese, displacement was greater at wind a subjective assessment as the data did not farms where the turbines were arranged in permit a meaningful comparison of pre- clusters (200 m) than at linear or single and post-construction distances for the turbine sites (100 m) (Larsen & Madsen geese. Raw data indicated that more geese 2000). Long-term post-construction studies, were counted in the study area pre- than and thus information on whether birds post-construction; for the three swan adapt to the change in landscape, are rare. species (combined), mean numbers were An exception is that of Madsen & rather similar in comparison with the range Boertmann (2008), who found not only that of counts recorded (Table 4), but a Pink-footed Geese grazed closer to wind significant negative impact was found for turbines c. 20 years after construction than Whooper Swans in 1988/89, two years post- 10 years previously (Table 4), but that the construction (Winkelman 1989). Goose extent to which they habituate to the counts were presented in a different manner, turbines varied across sites. Observations but these too indicated that, whilst the made at two sites – the Klim Fjordholme number of Bean Geese in the area increased and Velling onshore wind farms in Denmark substantially post-construction (mean values – indicated that the geese remained at a = 5,615 and 11,842, n = 10 years and 2 years greater distance from the larger turbines pre- and post-construction, respectively; (Madsen & Boertmann 2008), but more 111% increase), there was also a drop in
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 52 Swans, geese and wind farms 1 1 3 3 et al. 2, 3 d a d d . 2,000 c 50–125 30–100 100–200 c c c 2004; 9 = Möckel & Wiesner 2007; 10 = Fijn 2004; 9 = Möckel et al. Not reported Not reported DD construction) construction) b (69 m) (31 m) (50 m) (hub height m) in vicinity (pre- in vicinity (post- method distance (m) Denmark (25–50 m) Denmark (21–31 m) Germany 2007; 12 = Winkelman 1989; 13 = Ecological Consulting 2012. * linear alignment; ** turbines in 2 lines; 2007; 12 = Winkelman et al. Displacement distances recorded for swans and geese, measured as an absence or reduction in the number or density of and geese, measured as an absence or reduction in the number Displacement distances recorded for swans birds White-front Goose Germany Pink-footed Goose Denmark Thorup, 5* Not reported Not reported DD Pink-foooted Geese Klim Fjordholme, 1–35 Pink-footed Goose Maersk, Velling Barnacle Goose 66***Greylag GooseGoose sp. In GermanyGreylag Goose Germany Fehmarn, Not reported In Brandenburg, Various Krummhörn, Germany Not reported ?? ?? Various DD ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? BC DD ?? > 200 ?? 350–600 6, 7 300–400 250 5, 6 6, 8 6, 9 White-fronted Goose Holtgaste, Germany 10*Bean Goose & Not reported Not reported In Brandenburg, BC Various 400–600 4 ?? ?? ?? 500 6, 9 2012; 11 = Fijn *** = cluster. = Petersen et al. 2006; 2 = Larsen & Madsen 2000; 3 = Madsen & Boertmann 2008; 4 = Kruckenberg & Jaene 1999; 5 = Kowallik et al. 2006; 2 = Larsen & Madsen 2000; 3 Boertmann 2008; 4 = Kruckenberg & Jaene = Petersen comm.; 7 = Bioconsult & Arsu 2010; 8 Handke Dürr pers. 2002; 6 = T. in habitat near the wind farm. Observation References: methods: AS = aerial survey; DD = dropping densities; BC bird counts. Table 4. Table SpeciesMute Swan farm Wind Nysted, Denmark No. turbines No. birds 72*** No. birds 8,662–10,604 Obs. 2,882–3,478 Displacement Refs AS
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 53 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 istances f f f e e e bject. t-construction g s. 5 tubines (including single turbines) except ≤ (30 m) (30 m) (30 m) (30 m)(30 m) (± 54.5; 81–246 ) (± 85.7; 16–292) (30 m) (± 123.8; 0–519)(80 m) (± 104.8; 0–395) (± 629.7; 0–2,312) (± 716.9; 0–2,402) (270–7,100) (max = 9,320) NthsNths (90 m) (90 m) Total ofTotal 61 mostly medium-sized wind turbines within the study area in recent years; all farms in 2008. recorded in 1998–2000, upper value Median displacement distances; upper value for one cluster of 35 turbines. Geese mostly 600–1,500 m from turbines, but one flock ofGeese mostly 600–1,500 m from turbines, 70 birds seen within the wind farm site during surveys made in the pos winter (2011/12). Avoidance distance = point at which dropping density reached 50% of dropping density reached distance = point at which Avoidance density along a transect perpendicular to the o the maximum a meaningful comparison of data for goose not possible to make species; estimated as it was Pooled pre- and post-construction d (Winkelman 1989). (Winkelman Displacement of near the offshore wind farm; on coastal waters Mute Swans all other displacement distances are for onshore site Pooled data for swan species. data for swan Pooled White-fronted Goose Urk, NthsBarnacle GooseMute Swan Urk, NthsWhooper Swan 25* Urk, Nths SwanBewick’s Urk, Nths 25*Pink-footed Goose Urk, Nths 8,570 Hellrigg, UK 25* 25* 887 7,697 4*** 25* 129.2 102.3 BC 197 3,950 677.2 200–400 123.2 93.3 BC 2,175 614.9 BC 200–400 BC BC & DD 200–400 BC >600 200–400 200–400 Bewick’s SwanBewick’s Bean Geese ECN test-park, Bean Goose ECN test-park, 9** Urk, Nths 9** 1,099 25* 5,840 530 5,615 1,885a b BCc 11,842 BCd 560e BCf 464 10, 11 g 200–400 11
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 54 Swans, geese and wind farms numbers of White-fronted Geese (8,570 vs. feeding closer to the turbines later in the 7,697; 10% decrease) and Barnacle Geese study, but with fewer birds present in the (887 vs. 197; 78% decrease) in the vicinity study area (Fijn et al. 2012). Thus, although (from Table 18 in Winkelman 1989). There swans may be displaced by up to 600 m was an increase in the number of Bean from field feeding areas, with larger-scale Geese, stable numbers of White-fronted displacement (c. 2 km) in one case where Geese and a decline in Barnacle Geese swans were feeding in coastal waters (Table across the Noordoostpolder over the same 4), whether the proportion of population years (mean annual totals =11,387 vs. 35,791 using areas where wind farm development for Bean Geese; 34,162 vs. 31,580 for White- has occurred diminishes post-construction, fronted Geese; 6,211 vs. 2,807 for Barnacle and the extent to which this is attributable to Geese; from Winkelman 1989), but the displacement by the turbines still needs to proportion of Noordoostpolder geese be addressed. This is also important for recorded in fields up to c. 3.5 km from wind determining whether any mitigation plans farm was lower after than before (e.g. habitat management) in conjunction construction for all three species (49% vs. with wind farm development are likely to be 33% for Bean Geese, 25% vs. 24% for successful. The potential for cumulative White-fronted Geese and 14% vs. 7% for displacement impacts attributable to the Barnacle Geese, pre- and post-construction arrangement of wind farms in the in each case). landscape, through possible non-linear Bird counts made at the Saint Nikola synergistic effects with other wind farms or wind farm in Bulgaria found that numbers other landscape elements, also needs to be of geese were much lower in winter explored (Larsen & Madsen 2000). 2010/11 (two years post-construction) than in 2008/09 (pre-construction) and Gaps in knowledge 2009/10 (Zehtindjiev & Whitfield 2011), In addition to needing better linkage of but winter 2010/11 was relatively severe so avoidance rates to the birds’ use of the site, longer-term monitoring is required to and a robust assessment of whether wind determine whether there is any large-scale farm installation results in fewer birds displacement of geese from the area. returning to a wintering area, outlined In the only study which specifically above, more specific information on how analysed the proportion of birds wintering the positioning and structure of wind farms in the vicinity of a wind farm site before and affect the birds would be useful to ensure after construction, Fijn et al. (2012) likewise that any impacts are kept to a minimum. For found a significant drop, post-construction, instance, turbines come in variable sizes, and in the proportion of wintering Bewick’s may be installed singly, linearly or as a Swans using the area where wind turbines cluster, but there are few detailed studies of had been installed in Polder Wieringermeer. the effects of turbine height and alignment Like Madsen & Boertman (2008), they on swans and geese. Larsen & Clausen found evidence for habituation, with swans (2002) initially suggested, from pre-
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 55 construction observations, that Whooper spacing allowed more birds to pass between Swans might be more at risk from a park of the turbines. The relative costs and benefits medium-sized turbines than large turbines of potentially lower collision rates but as typical flight heights (mostly at 5–35 m higher displacement distances for the larger when flying between feeding areas and the wind farms therefore should be assessed roost) would put them in the collision risk more rigorously for onshore sites. zone more often. On the other hand, birds The cumulative impact on migratory bird (including swans and geese) may be more populations of several wind farms being likely to be displaced over longer distances installed along the migration routes, or by larger turbines: Hötker et al. (2006) within a wintering area, is known to be an estimated from six studies included in their issue but has yet to be resolved. Written review that there was a 6.22 m increase in guidance has been produced to assist in the minimal distance between birds and a wind process of ornithological cumulative impact farm for every 1 m increase in tower height, assessment (CIA) for offshore wind farms though this change was not statistically (since Norman et al. 2007), and Fox et al. significant. The only studies which aimed to (2006) emphasised the importance of test the effects of turbine height on goose undertaking full Strategic Environmental distribution similarly found that geese are Assessments (SEAs) for offshore wind farm less tolerant of larger turbines, and may also sites, not least to comply with European be less likely to habituate to them (Larsen & legislation. Masden et al. (2010a) went on to Madsen 2000; Madsen & Boertmann 2008), argue for the benefits of elevating CIA to a but it should be noted that alignment is also strategic level, as a component of spatially relevant (with geese displaced further by a explicit planning. Yet although there is an cluster of turbines than single turbines or increasing tendency for developers of the those in a line; Larsen & Madsen 2000) and large offshore wind farms to take into the interactive effects of height and account other wind farms nationally, alignment has yet to be assessed. More collision risk assessments for all wind farms recently, Krijgsveld et al. (2009) used radar along international migration routes, and the and carcass searches to study the collision cumulative effect of these on birds migrating risk for birds with large modern turbines at to/from key sites for the population (i.e. three wind farms in the Netherlands Special Protection Areas and/or Ramsar (Waterkaaptocht, Groettocht and Jaap sites), are still rarely (if ever) incorporated Rodenburg), and found that the risk was c. into Appropriate Assessments undertaken threefold lower than for the smaller turbines for new wind farm sites. For most European for the species (not including swan and and North American goose and swan geese) passing through the wind farm sites. populations, there is sufficient information They suggested that one possible reason for about the precise migration routes, other this was that the increased height of the hazards encountered along these corridors turbine allowed more birds to fly under the and the demographics of these populations rotors, and also proposed that the wider to be able to make preliminary assessments
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 56 Swans, geese and wind farms of cumulative effects. Ultimately, this would serially reduce the attractiveness of a knowledge should be used to support the site for swans and geese. construction of robust models of their One drawback of undertaking post- population dynamics to establish the relative construction monitoring for only one year is costs of collision, barrier effects and habitat that this reduces the scope for determining loss from each new wind farm proposal, the effects of weather conditions and poor based on existing sources of mortality and visibility on the birds’ flight-lines and large- given current population trajectories. scale avoidance of wind farm sites. Because Moreover, there has been a general lack wind speeds and birds’ airspeeds are often of of post-construction monitoring work a similar magnitude, wind strength and undertaken, both for the early offshore sites direction has a major influence on the and for the numerous smaller terrestrial orientation and energy expenditure of wind farms. For those studies that have been migrating birds, but the extent to which birds undertaken, the collision rate and are susceptible to wind drift appears to vary displacement data are not collated centrally, (e.g. Thorup et al. 2003; Green et al. 2004). nor are they readily available in accessible Satellite-tracking and radar studies of swans reports for assessing existing impacts. A and geese on migration indicate that Scottish Wind Farm Bird Steering Group migration routes may shift between years (SWBSG) has recently been formed, with (Pettersson 2005; Griffin et al. 2011; the aim of bringing together the onshore Plonczkier & Simms 2012), and the extent to wind farm industry, government agencies which this varies with weather conditions and conservation organisations to collate (especially wind drift) has yet to be and analyse post-construction monitoring determined. Variation in wind conditions was data collected in Scotland, but this is not one explanation given for a lack of (yet) being extended across the UK. Even in correlation between raptor abundance and Germany, where collision data has been collision rates at wind farms in Spain (Ferrer collated since 2002, in most cases et al. 2012). Radar studies have demonstrated monitoring is undertaken and reported to that birds continue to fly over or around LUGV for only one year post-construction. wind farms after dark (Desholm & Kahlert Developers are reluctant to undertake post- 2005; Fijn et al. 2012), but one study also construction monitoring (particularly for noted that the proportion entering the wind > 1 year) because of the cost involved, and farm is higher at night (Desholm & Kahlert up to now it has not been an automatic 2005). Whether familiarity with the wind requirement of the planning process, farms will result in an increasing tendency for although longer-term monitoring is birds to pass through rather than over or recommended by SNH (SNH 2009). Data around a site, the extent to which this therefore are lacking for assessing increases their susceptibility to collisions with cumulative impacts of existing wind farms, the turbines, and the effects of poor visibility making it currently impossible to determine (including night-time flights and fog) on their the extent to which each new wind farm ability to avoid the rotors on flying within a
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 57 wind farm has yet to be determined. Poor displacement by the turbines could have a weather conditions, such as fog or low cloud, significant negative effect on birds, but the can affect visibility and studies of bird rate of wind farm development is still not collisions with other structures (e.g. power matched by publication of rigorous peer- lines) found that birds are much more reviewed reports or papers from studies susceptible to flying accidents under such observing, carefully analysing and accurately circumstances (Brown 1992; Drewitt & reporting these effects (Stewart et al. 2007; Langston 2008; Jenkins et al. 2010; Prinsen et Natural England 2010; this study). Before- al. 2011; Barrientos et al. 2012). Additionally, after-control-impact (BACI) studies of the strong winds (especially tail- or cross-winds) effects of wind farm development are blunt the fine motor control of flying birds not undertaken and reported routinely at and consequently raise their susceptibility to onshore sites in the UK, despite these collision (Bevanger 1994 and Crowder & being recommended by statutory nature Rhodes 2001 in Jenkins et al. 2010). Although conservation bodies (e.g. Natural England difficult to assess, the frequency with which 2010), yet such information would be swans and geese encounter adverse weather invaluable for informing future wind farm during migration, and the extent to which development, including the preparation of this puts them at risk of large-scale losses at EIAs and advising on height, alignment, and wind farms (through reduced ability to avoid the effectiveness of mitigation programmes the turbines), therefore should be considered such as (in the case of swans and geese) and included in collision risk models, perhaps habitat management to provide the birds with as a stochastic event in the modelling process. alternative feeding areas for the life-time Likewise, geese and swans migrate at high of the turbines. Where post-construction speeds and at night (Griffin et al. 2010, 2011), surveys have been undertaken to date, they so the ability of geese to avoid turbines under have usually been of short duration (1 year, these circumstances should be assessed at although SNH guidance is for longer periods; existing wind farm sites, for instance by SNH 2009) and treated as confidential developing techniques for detecting (therefore not readily available) by the collisions and measuring micro-avoidance developer who commissioned the study. rates within wind farms (Desholm et al. 2006; Moreover, except for the collation of Collier et al. 2011). collision data by LUGV in Germany and the new initiative (establishment of the Overview SWBSG) in Scotland, there is no central Development of renewable energy has national repository to assess whether post- substantial benefits, notably reducing carbon construction surveys are being undertaken dioxide emissions and the provision of a and reported appropriately, and to provide an secure local energy supply, with wind power information source to determine whether any becoming a major contributor to this field significant impacts on birds (at the over the past two decades. It has long been population or local level) are being addressed. recognised that collisions with and Yet centralised post-construction monitoring
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 58 Swans, geese and wind farms data is crucial for determining actual impacts socially interactive birds (e.g. swans and (as well as for validation and improvement of geese) are more susceptible to collision than modelled predictions) and is required for small, light and relatively large-winged birds cumulative impact assessments both for wind with acute vision (Jenkins et al. 2010), and farm development along migration routes, birds such as raptors which use and where turbines are installed in proximity predominantly downward (lateral) vision are to internationally important sites. Post- particularly susceptible to collisions with construction monitoring is undertaken more turbines (Thelander & Smallwood 2007; routinely for offshore wind farms, but again Martin 2011; Dahl et al. 2012). Given our tends to be of short duration and not readily relatively weak ability to predict post- accessible, and within the UK the surveys construction actual collision mortality (e.g. have focussed more on the potential Ferrer et al. 2012) existing empirical and displacement of seabirds from feeding areas mechanistic methods of predicting collision (which of course is an important issue) than risk at turbines should perhaps be on collision rates and barrier effects for birds augmented (Tucker 1996; Sugimoto & on migration. Matsuda 2011). One approach would be A species-specific approach is required in to gather more information about the assessing the potential impact of wind underlying visual and behavioural processes farms on birds because, as noted by Jenkins of collision risk in particular species, in et al. (2010) susceptibility to collision varies order to populate individual-based or agent- with morphology, as ocular structure and based simulation models that may provide acuity affect a bird’s ability to see structures more powerful predictive tools to and thus take evasive action (Bevanger 1994; supplement current approaches (e.g. Croft et Drewitt & Langston 2008), while size, mass al. 2012; Eichhorn et al. 2012). and wing structure influence the time This review found that 72 swans or geese required to make the necessary adjustments were reported as collision victims at 46 wind (Brown 1992; Bevanger 1994; Rubolini et al. farms, but most (39 birds) were reported at 2005). Reaction time is also affected by 23 German wind farms where such data are flight speed, which tends to be higher in collated, and even there only usually for c. 1 heavy-bodied species, and a higher wing year post-construction. Moreover, there was loading also reduces manoeuvrability a lack of linkage of collision rates with the (Bevanger 1994; Janss 2000). The highly birds’ use of a site; whether or not swans or social nature of swans and geese (where geese occurred in the immediate area of the parent-offspring bonds may persist for wind farm, or flew across/within the site, many years, e.g. Warren et al. 1993) are also was considered at only nine of 46 wind significant, since recent studies show that farms where collisions by swans and geese social interactions have a significant, non- were monitored or recorded. Likewise, linear and potentially large effects on avoidance of turbines should be related to collision risk (Croft et al. 2012). Hence, whether or not flights were initially in line theoretically, relatively large, heavy and with the wind farm, rather than in relation to
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 59 all bird movements in the area, as including This review has highlighted the relatively the latter artificially boosts sample sizes used little attention paid in other studies to the for calculating avoidance rates. Sample sizes potential for large-scale displacement of for birds or flocks actually seen to change swans and geese from non-breeding feeding their flight-lines to avoid wind farms were sites. Thus, although birds returning to an available for only eight studies (Table 3); area may approach on average to 100–600 m these gave a wide range for the proportion of from the turbines, closer (40–100 m) where birds that ultimately passed through the wind habituation occurs (Madsen & Boertmann farm (2– 46%, for sample sizes of <5 birds 2008), and were reported between turbines or flocks) rather than going over or around in two studies (Madsen & Boertmann 2008; the site, with interactive effects of wind farm Ecology Consulting 2012), count data size and visibility (day versus night-time flights provided in other studies suggest that fewer and weather conditions) on large-scale birds returned to study areas post- avoidance yet to be assessed for swans and construction. In the one study that analysed geese. Yet such information is important for this (Fijn et al. 2012), reductions in numbers collision risk models (Band et al. 2007; Band were significant. Swans and geese favour 2012), as minor changes in avoidance rates open landscapes, and topographical features can have a major influence on the outcome such as trees and hedge lines are known to of (and confidence in) the models have an adverse effect on site use (e.g. (Chamberlain et al. 2006). Swans and geese Madsen 1985). The combined effects of have good eyesight and the review indicates landscape (power lines, wind breaks, roads that high levels of avoidance do occur. But and settlements) caused an effective loss of avoidance rates of 98% for Whooper Swans 68% of the field feeding areas (40 km2) and 99% for geese currently advocated by available for Pink-footed Geese at Klim Scottish Natural Heritage for use for Fjordholme (Denmark), with the presence collision risk models (SNH 2010) should be of 61 turbines (one farm of 35 turbines; the revisited and based on better observational remainder of ≤5 turbines including single data than those available from the reviews turbines) resulting in the loss of 13% of the (Fernley et al. 2006; Pendlebury 2006) which remaining area (Larsen & Madsen 2000). set the avoidance levels in the mid 2000s. The potential for wind farm development Plans are underway to measure levels of to cause large-scale displacement of micro-avoidance and collision rates by geese and swans from internationally installing systems (using a variety of cameras important wintering sites through habitat and radar) within wind farms (Collier et al. fragmentation and displacement from 2011, 2012). Use of such technology would preferred feeding areas therefore should be provide a major advance for contributing to analysed more rigorously and addressed model development and validation, as well as more carefully in the planning process. This for determining whether wind farms are should include an assessment of small wind likely to have significant effects on survival turbines (SWT), which like larger turbines, rates for swan and goose populations. vary in size and scale. The only study to date
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 60 Swans, geese and wind farms aiming to quantify the effects of SWTs on large wind farms should help to provide bats and birds grouped three types of SWT much more accurate assessments of the (10 m high building-mounted, 6.5 m high consequences of wind farm development free-standing, and 18 m high free-standing; for swans, geese and other avian species. Minderman et al. 2012) and did not consider swans and geese. Acknowledgements Several recommendations emerge from This paper benefitted greatly by the the information gathered in this review. inclusion of collision data from Germany, Firstly, although several authors have and I am indebted to Tobias Dürr both for emphasised in recent years the need for kindly providing this information and for systematic post-construction monitoring, advising me of German reports. Useful and dissemination of the results of these information from Ruben Fijn, Robin Jones, studies (e.g. Fox et al. 2006; Drewitt & Karen Krijgsveld, Ian Simms, Tim Youngs Langston 2006; Natural England 2010) this and Johanna Winkelman, and discussions information still seems to be lacking. with Peter Cranswick, Anne Harrison and Such monitoring programmes should be Tim Mellings, helped to improve various undertaken routinely, collated centrally, and sections of the text. Sjoerd Dirksen, Larry adapted to quantify collision, barrier and Griffin, Geoff Hilton, Baz Hughes, Carl displacement effects. Secondly, better Mitchell, Mark Trinder, Rowena Langston information is required about the extent of and Christine Urquhart made helpful large-scale and local displacement of geese comments on a draft of the manuscript. I and swans from feeding/drinking/roosting thank Debbie Pain for the concept of sites, and the effects of turbine number, size summarising known effects of wind farms and alignment on such effective habitat loss. on swans and geese, which resulted in this Thirdly, further detailed studies of the birds’ review. Finally, I am particularly grateful to flight-lines in the vicinity of wind farms are Tony Fox for his numerous helpful ideas required, both during migration and for and edits in drafting and finalising the paper. birds commuting between feeding areas and the roost, to provide a more rigorous References assessment of collision and avoidance rates, Ahlén, I. 2002. Fladdermöss och fåglar dödade av and to quantify additional energy costs of vindkraftverk. Fauna och flora 97: 14–21. any avoidance behaviour during regular local Band, W. 2012. Using a collision risk model to flights. Finally, the combination of collision assess bird collision risks for offshore windfarms. Report to The Crown Estate (Strategic mortality and habitat loss attributable to Ornithological Support Services); Project wind farms across a species’ range should be SOSS-02. British Trust for Ornithology, analysed to determine whether the current Thetford, UK. sites and new developments will have a Band, W., Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2007. significant effect on the population. The Developing field and analytical methods to development of new technology to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In M. determine collision rates for birds entering de Lucas, G.F.E. Janss & M. Ferrer (eds.), Birds
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 61
and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation, Wilson, E. 2006. Bird Sensitivity Map to provide pp. 259–275. Quercus, Madrid, Spain. locational guidance for onshore wind farms in Barrientos, R., Ponce, C., Palacín, C., Martín, Scotland. RSPB report, Sandy. 20 pp. C.A., Martín, B. & Alonso, J.C. 2012. Wire Bright, J.A., Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R., marking results in a small but significant Evans, R.J., Gardner, S. & Pearce-Higgins, J. reduction in avian mortality at power lines: a 2008. Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms BACI designed study. PLoS ONE 7 (3): in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and e32569. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032569. conservation. Biological Conservation 141: Barrios, L. & Rodriguez, A. 2004. Behavioural 2342–2356. and environmental correlates of soaring-bird Brown, W.M. 1992. Avian collisions with utility mortality at on-shore turbines. Journal of structures: biological perspectives. In Proceedings Applied Ecology 41: 72–81. of the international workshop on avian Barrow Offshore Wind Ltd. 2008. Barrow Offshore interactions with utility structures, pp. 12–13. Wind Farm. Post-Construction Monitoring Report, APLIC/EPRI, Miami, USA. 15 January 2008. Barrow Offshore Wind Ltd., Carrete, M., Sánchez-Zapata, J.A., Benítez, J.R. c/o DONG Energy, Copenhagen, Denmark. Lobón, M., Montoya, F. & Donázar, J.A. Bearhop, S., Hilton, G.M., Votier, S.C. & 2012. Mortality at wind-farms is positively Waldron, S. 2004. Stable isotope ratios related to large-scale distribution and indicate that body condition in migrating aggregation in griffon vultures. Biological passerines is influenced by winter habitat. Conservation 145: 102–108. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Series Chamberlain, D.E., Rehfisch, M.R., Fox, A.D., B) 271: S215–S221. Desholm, M. & Anthony, S. 2006. The effect Bevanger, K.. 1994. Bird interactions with utility of avoidance rates on bird mortality structures: collision and electrocution, causes predictions made by wind turbine collision and mitigating measures. Ibis 136: 412–425. risk models. Ibis 148: 198–202. Bevanger, K., Berntsen, F., Clausen, S., Dahl, Christensen, T.K., Hounisen, J.P., Clausager, I. E.L., Flagstad, Ø. Follestad, A., Halley, D., and Petersen, I.K. (2004). Visual and radar Hanssen, F., Hoel, P.L., Johnsen, L., Kvaløy, observations of birds in relation to collision risk P., May, R., Nygård, T., Pedersen, H.C., at Horns Rev offshore wind farm, Annual status Reitan, O., Steinheim, Y. & Vang, R. 2009. report 2003. Report commissioned by Elsam Pre- and post-construction studies of conflicts between Engineering A/S 2003. NERI report, Rønde, birds and wind turbines in coastal Norway Denmark. 53pp. (BirdWind). Progress Report 2009. NINA Collier, M.P., Dirksen, S. & Krjgsveld, K.L. 2011. report 505. 70 pp. A review of methods to monitor collisions or micro- Bioconsult & Arsu. 2010. Zum Einfluss von avoidance of birds with offshore wind turbines. Part Windenergieanlagen auf den Vogelzug 1: review. Bureau Waardenburg bv Report No. auf der Insel Fehmarn. Gutachterliche 11-078 to The Crown Estate (Strategic Stellungnahme auf der Basis der Literatur Ornithological Support Services); Project und eigener Untersuchungen im Frühjahr SOSS-03a. British Trust for Ornithology, und Herbst 2009. BioConsult, Husum, Thetford, UK. Germany and ARSU, Oldenburg, Germany. Collier, M.P., Dirksen, S. & Krjgsveld, K.L. 2012. Bright, J.A., Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R., A review of methods to monitor collisions or micro- Evans, R.J., Gardner, S., Pearce-Higgins, J. & avoidance of birds with offshore wind turbines.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 62 Swans, geese and wind farms
Part 2: feasibility study of systems to monitor wind turbine collisions at sea: a review. Ibis collisions. Bureau Waardenburg bv Report No. 148: 76–89. 11-215 to The Crown Estate (Strategic Drewitt, A. & Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing Ornithological Support Services); Project the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: SOSS-03a. British Trust for Ornithology, 29–42. Thetford, UK. Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R.H.W. 2008. Cook, A.S.C.P., Johnston, A., Wright, L.J. & Collision effects of wind-power generators Burton, N.H.K. 2012. A review of flight heights and other obstacles on birds. Annals of the and avoidance rates of birds in relation to offshore New York Academy of Science 1134: 233–266. wind farms. BTO Research Report to The Ebbinge, B.S. & Spaans, B. 1995. The importance Crown Estate (Strategic Ornithological of body reserves accumulated in spring Support Services); Project SOSS-02. British staging areas in the temperate zone for Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK. breeding in dark-bellied brent geese in the Croft, S., Budgey, R., Pitchford, J.W. & Wood, A.J. high arctic. Journal of Avian Biology 26: 2012. The influence of group size and 105–113. social interactions on collision risk with Ecology Consulting 2012. Hellrigg Wind Farm: objects. Ecological Complexity 000: 000–000. Goose Refuge Monitoring Report. Winter 2011–12. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2012.06.002. Ecology Consulting Report to RWE Npower Crowder, M.R. & Rhodes, O.E. 2001. Avian Renewables, Ecology Consulting, Old collisions with power lines: a review. In Cassop, Durham. Proceedings of a workshop on avian Eichhorn, M., Johst, K., Seppelt, R. & Drechsler. interactions with utility and communications M. 2012. Model-based estimation of structures, pp. 139–167. EPRI Technical collision risks of predatory birds with wind Report No. 1006907, EPRI Charleston, USA. turbines. Ecology and Society 17(2): 1. Dahl, E. L., Bevanger, K., Nygård, T., Røskaft, E. Erickson, W., Johnson, G.D., Young, D.P.Jr., & Stokke, B.G. 2012. Reduced breeding Strickland, M.D., Good, R.E., Bourassa, M. success in white-tailed eagles at Smøla & Bay, K. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of windfarm, western Norway, is caused by baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality and displacement. Biological mortality information from proposed and existing Conservation 145: 79–85. wind developments. WEST, Inc. Technical de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. 2007. Report for Bonneville Power Administration. Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid, Spain. Erickson, W.P., Gritski, B. & Kronner, K. 2003. Desholm, M. 2003. How much do small-scaled Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat changes in flight direction increase overall Monitoring Report, September 2002–August 2003. migration distance? Journal of Avian Biology WEST, Inc. and Northwest Wildlife 34: 155–158. Consultants, Inc. Technical Report to Energy Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. 2005. Avian collision Northwest and the Nine Canyon Technical risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology Letters Advisory Committee. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, 1: 296–298. Wyoming, USA. Desholm, M., Fox, A.D., Beasley, P.D.L. & Erickson, W.P., Jeffrey, J., Kronner, K. & Bay, K. Kahlert, J. 2006. Remote techniques for 2004. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring counting and estimating the number of bird- Final Report, July 2001–December 2003.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 63
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. statistics/Stats_2011.pdf. (last accessed on and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. 31.08.2012). Technical Report to FPL Energy, the Everaert J. 2008. Effecten van windturbines op de Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, fauna in Vlaanderen. Onderzoeksresultaten, and the Stateline Technical Advisory discussie en aanbevelingen. Rapporten van het Committee. http://www.west-inc.com/ Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek reports/swp_final_dec04.pdf. 2008 (rapportnr. INBO.R.2008.44). Instituut European Union 2007. Renewable Energy voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussells, Road Map. Renewable energies in the 21st Belgium. century: building a more sustainable future. Fernley, J., Lowther, S. & Whitfield, P. 2006. A Communication from the Commission of review of goose collisions at operating wind farms and the European Communities to the Council estimation of the goose avoidance rate. Natural and the European Parliament. COM(2006) Research Ltd, West Coast Energy and Hyder 848 final. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ Consulting report. West Coast Energy, Mold, energy_policy/doc/03_renewable_energy_ UK. roadmap_en.pdf. (last accessed on Ferrer, M., de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Casado, 10.11.2009). C., Muñoz, A.R., Bechard, M.J. & Calabuig, European Union 2008. EU Renewable Energy C.P., 2012. Weak relationship between risk Directive 2008. Proposal for a Directive of the assessment studies and recorded mortality European Parliament and of the Council on in wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: the promotion and use of energy from 38–46. renewable resources. COM (2008) 30 final. Fijn R.C., Krijgsveld K.L., Prinsen H.A.M., http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/ Tijsen W. & Dirksen S. 2007. Effecten op doc/2008_res_directive_en.pdf. (last accessed zwanen en ganzen van het ECN windturbine on 10.11.2009). testpark in de Wieringermeer. Aanvaringsrisico’s en European Environment Agency 2009. Europe’s verstoring van foeragerende vogels. Report No. onshore and offshore wind energy potential. An 07-094, Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, assessment of environmental and economic the Netherlands. www.buwa.nl/fileadmin/ constraints. EEA Technical Report No. buwa_upload/Bureau_Waardenburg_ 6/2009, European Environment Agency, rapporten/2007_Fijn_BW_ganzen_zwanen_ Copenhagen, Denmark. ECN-testpark_klein.pdf. European Wind Energy Association 2008. Pure Fijn, R.C., Krijgsveld K.L., Tijsen W., Prinsen Power – Wind Energy Scenarios up to 2030. H.A.M. & Dirksen S. 2012. Habitat use, European Wind Energy Association, disturbance and collision risks for Bewick’s Brussels. Available at: http://www.ewea.org/ Swans Cygnus columbianus wintering near a fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/ wind farm in the Netherlands. Wildfowl 62: publications/reports/purepower.pdf. (last 97–116. accessed on 10.11.2009). Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, European Wind Energy Association 2012. Wind T.K. & Petersen, I.K. 2006. Information in power. 2011 European Statistics. European needs to support environmental impact Wind Energy Association, Brussels. Available assessments of the effects of European at: http://ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_ marine offshore wind farms on birds. Ibis documents/documents/publications/ 148: 129–144.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 64 Swans, geese and wind farms
Furness, B. & Wade, H. 2012. Vulnerability of Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & Jeromin, H. Scottish seabirds to offshore wind turbines. 2006. Impacts on Biodiversity of Exploitation of MacArthur Green Ltd. report to Marine Renewable Energy Sources: The Example of Birds Scotland, MacArthur Green, Glasgow, UK. and Bats – Facts, Gaps in Knowledge, Demands for Garthe, S. & Hüppop, O. 2004. Scaling possible Further Research, and Ornithological Guidelines adverse effects of marine wind farms for the Development of Renewable Energy on seabirds: developing and applying a Exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut imNABU, vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology Bergenhusen, Germany. 41: 724–734. Inger, R., Harrison, X.A., Ruxton, G.D. Newton, Gill, J.P. & Smith, T. 2001. Calibrated study of J., Colhoun, K., Gudmundsson, G.A., wintering Pink-footed Goose potential McElwaine, G., Pickford, M., Hodgson, D. & collision victims and scavenging activity by Bearhop, S. 2010. Carry-over effects reveal foxes at Dun Law wind farm 2000. reproductive costs in a long distance migrant. Environmentally Sustainable Systems report Journal Animal Ecology 79: 974–982. to CRE Energy Ltd. and Renewable Energy Jain, A.A. 2005. Bird and bat behavior and mortality Systems Ltd., Environmentally Sustainable at a northern Iowa windfarm. MSc thesis, Iowa Systems, Edinburgh, UK. State University, Iowa, USA. Gill, J.A., Norris, K., Potts, P.M., Gunnarsson, T. Janss, G.F.E. 2000. Avian mortality from power G., Atkinson, P.W. & Sutherland, W.J. 2001 lines: a morphologic approach of a species- The buffer effect and large-scale population specific mortality. Biological Conservation 95: regulation in migratory birds. Nature 412: 353–359. 436–438. Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Diamond, M. 2010. Green, M., Alerstam, T., Gudmundsson, G.A., Avian collisions with power lines: a global Hedenström, A. & Piersma, T. 2004. Do review of causes and mitigation with a Arctic waders use adaptive wind drift? Journal South African perspective. Bird Conservation of Avian Biology 35: 305–315. International 20: 263–278. Griffin, L., Rees, E. & Hughes, B. 2010. The Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P., Strickland, M.D., migration of Whooper Swans in relation to offshore Shepherd, M.F. & Shepherd, D.A. 2000. wind farms. WWT Final Report to COWRIE Avian monitoring at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Ltd., Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, wind resource area: results of a 4-year study. UK. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. report Griffin, L., Rees, E. & Hughes, B. 2011. Migration to Northern States Power Company, WEST routes of Whooper Swans and geese in relation to wind Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. farm footprints: Final report. WWT report to the Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P., Strickland, M.D., Department of Energy and Climate Change, Shepherd, M.F., Shepherd, D.A. & Sarappo, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, UK. S.A. 2002a. Collision mortality of local Handke, K.., Adena, J., Handke, P. & Sprötge, and migrant birds at a large scale M. 2004. Räumliche Verteilung ausgewählter wind-power development on Buffalo Ridge, Brut- und Rastvogelarten in Bezug auf Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: vorhandene Windenergieanlagen in einem 879–887. Bereich der küstennahen Krummhörn Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P. & Bay, K. 2002b. (Groothusen/Ostfriesland). Bremer Beitr. Baseline ecological studies for the Klondike wind Naturk. Naturschutz 7: 11-46 project, Sherman County, Oregon. Western
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 65
Ecosystems Technology (WEST) Inc., and for Energy and Climate Change, RSPB, Northwest Wildlife Consultants report to Sandy, UK. Northwestern Wind Power. WEST Inc., Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003. Windfarms Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P., White, J. & guidance on environmental assessment criteria and McKinney, R. 2003. Avian and bat mortality site selection issues. RSPB⁄BirdLife International during the first year of operation at the Klondike report to the Council of Europe (Bern Phase I wind project, Sherman County, Oregon. Convention). T-PVS⁄Inf (2003) 12. Western Ecosystems Technology (WEST) Langston, R.H.W. & Teuten, E. 2012. Foraging Inc. report to Northwestern Wind Power. ranges of Northern Gannets Morus bassanus in WEST Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. relation to proposed offshore wind farms in the UK: Kowallik, C. 2002. Auswirkungen von 2011. Royal Society for the Protection of Windenergieanlagen, Straßen und Gebäuden Birds report to the Department for Energy auf die Raumnutzung von Nonnengänsen and Climate Change. RSPB, Sandy, UK. und ein Prognose-Verfahren zur Larsen, J.K. & Clausen, P. 2002. Potential wind Konfliktbewertung. Dipl.-Arbeit Thesis, park impacts on whooper swans in winter: Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany. the risk of collision. Waterbirds 25 (Special Krijgsveld, K.L. & Beuker, D. 2009. Publication 1): 327–330. Vogelslachtoffers bij windpark Anna Vosdijk op Larsen, J.K. & Madsen, J. 2000. Effects of wind Tholen. Onderzoek naar aanvaringen onder turbines and other physical elements on trekkende steltlopers en overwinterende smienten. field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser Bureau Waardenburg report to Eneco New brachyrhynchus): a landscape perspective. Energy. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg, Landscape Ecology 15: 755–764. the Netherlands. Madsen, J. 1985. Impact of disturbance on field Krijgsveld, K.L., Akershoek, K., Schenk, F., Dijk, utilization of pink-footed geese in West F. & Dirksen, S. 2009. Collision risk of birds Jutland, Denmark. Biological Conservation 33: with modern large wind turbines. Ardea 97: 53–63. 357–366. Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on Kruckenberg, H. & Jaene, J. 1999. Zum einfluss migratory waterfowl. Ibis 137: 67–74. eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Madsen, J. & Boertmann, D. 2008. Animal Blässgänze im Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer, behavioural adaptation to changing landscapes: Niedersachsen). Natur und Landschaft 74: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. 420–427. Landscape Ecology 23: 1007–1011. Langgemach, T. & Dürr, T. 2012. Informationen Marra, P.P., Hobson, K.A. & Holmes, R.T. 1998. über Einflüsse der Windenergienutzung auf Linking winter and summer events in a Vögel. Stand 10.07.2012. Landesamt für migratory bird by using stable-carbon Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, isotopes. Science 282: 1884–1886. Nennhausen/Buckow, Germany. Martin, G.R. 2011. Understanding bird collisions Langston, R.H.W. & Boggio, S. 2011. Foraging with man-made objects: a sensory ecology ranges of Northern Gannets Morus bassanus in approach. Ibis 153: 239–254. relation to proposed offshore wind farms in the North Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., Furness, Sea. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds R.W., Bullman, R. & Desholm, M. 2009. report to Hartley Anderson & Department Barriers to movement: impacts of wind
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 66 Swans, geese and wind farms
farms on migrating birds. ICES Journal of Norman, T.B., Buisson, R.S.K. & Askew, N.P. Marine Science 66: 746–753. 2007. Report on the COWRIE workshop on the Masden, E.A. 2010. Assessing the cumulative cumulative impact of offshore windfarms on birds. impacts of wind farms on birds: an individual- RPS report for the Collaborative Offshore based model of hen harriers in Orkney. In Wind Research into the Environment E.A. Masden (Ph.D. thesis), Assessing the (COWRIE Ltd.), COWRIE – CIBIRD-01- cumulative impacts of wind farms on birds. Chapter 2007, UK. 6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Norris, D.R. & Taylor, C.M. 2006. Predicting Masden, E.A., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman, the consequences of carry-over effects in R. & Haydon, D.T. 2010a. Cumulative impact migratory animals. Biology Letters 2: 148–151. assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Norris, D.R., Marra, P.P., Kurt Kyser, T. & developing a conceptual framework. Sherry, T.W. 2004. Tropical winter habitat Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 1–7. limits reproductive success on the temperate Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D. & breeding grounds in a migratory bird. Furness, R.W. 2010b. Barriers to movement: Proceedings Royal Society B 271: 59–64. Modelling energetic costs of avoiding marine Osborn, R.G., Higgins, K.F., Usgaard, R.E. & wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Dieter, C.D. 2000. Bird mortality associated Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1085–1091. with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Masden, E.A., Reeve, R.E., Desholm, M., Fox, Resource Area, Minnesota. American Midland A.D., Furness, R.W. & Haydon, D.T. 2012. Naturalist 143: 41–52. Assessing the impact of marine wind farms Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. 2003. A globally on birds through movement modelling. coherent fingerprint of climate change Journal of the Royal Society Interface 9: impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 2120–2130. 37–42. Minderman, J., Pendlebury, C., Pearce-Higgins, Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, J.W. & Park, K.J. 2012. Experimental R.H.W. & Bright, J.A. 2008. Assessing the evidence for the effect of small wind turbine cumulative impacts of wind farms on proximity and operation on bird and bat peatland birds: a case study of golden plover activity. PLoS ONE 7 (7), e 41177. Doi: Pluvialis apricaria in Scotland. Mires and Peat 4: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041177. 1–13. Möckel, R. & Wiesner, T. 2007. Zur Wirkung von Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, Windkraftanlagen auf Brut- und Gastvögel R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. 2009. in der Niederlausitz (Land Brandenburg). The distribution of breeding birds around Arbeitsgemeinschaft Berlin-Brandenburgischer upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology Ornithologen 15 (Special Issue): 1–136. 46: 1323–1331. Musters, C.J.M., Noordervliet, M.A.W. & ter Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A. & Keurs, W.J. 1996. Bird casualties caused by a Langston R.H.W. 2012. Greater impacts of wind energy project in an estuary. Bird Study wind farms on bird populations during 43: 124–126. construction than subsequent operation: Natural England 2010. Assessing the effects of results of a multi-site and multi-species onshore wind farms on birds. Natural England analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 386–394. Technical Information Note TIN069, Pendlebury, C. 2006. An appraisal of “A review Natural England, Sheffield, UK. of goose collisions at operating windfarms and
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 67
estimation of the goose avoidance rate” by Fernley, J., Rubolini, D., Gustin, M., Bogliani, G. & Lowther, S. and Whitfield, P., BTO Research Garavaglia, R. 2005. Birds and powerlines in Report No. 455, BTO Scotland, University Italy: an assessment. Bird Conservation of Stirling. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/ International 15: 131–145. strategy/renewable/BTOResearch455.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage 2009. Guidance on Petersen, I.K., Christensen, T.K., Kahlert, J., methods for monitoring bird populations at Desholm, M. & Fox, A.D. 2006. Bird numbers onshore wind farms. SNH Guidance Note. and distributions in the Horns Rev offshore wind http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C205417.pdf farm area. National Environment Research (accessed on 25.10.2012). Institute report for DONG Energy and Scottish Natural Heritage 2010. Use of Avoidance Vattenfall A/S, NERI, Ministry of the Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Environment, Denmark. Model. SNH Avoidance Rate Information Pettersson, J. 2005. The impact of offshore wind farms & Guidance Note. http://www.snh.gov.uk/ on bird life in Southern Kalmar Sound, Sweden. docs/B721137.pdf (last accessed on A final report based on studies 1999–2003. Report 31.08.2012). from Lund University to the Swedish Energy Staatlichen Vogelschutzwarte 2012. Vogelverluste an Agency. Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Windenergieanlagen (Bird fatalities at wind turbines Plonczkier, P. & Simms, I.C. 2012. Radar in Europe). http://www.mugv.brandenburg. monitoring of migrating pink-footed geese: de/cmsdetail.php/bb2.c.451792.de. behavioural responses to offshore wind farm Sterner, D., Orloff, S. & Spiegel, L. 2007. Wind development. Journal Applied Ecology doi turbine collision research in the United 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02181.x. States. In M. de Lucas, G.F.E. Janss & Prinsen, H.A.M., Boere, G.C., Píres, N. & M. Ferrer (eds.), Birds and Wind Farms: Smallie, J.J. (Compilers) 2011. Review of the Risk Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 81–100. conflict between migratory birds and electricity power Quercus, Madrid, Spain. grids in the African-Eurasian region. AEWA/ Stirnemann, R.L., O’Halloran, J., Ridgeway, M. & CMS report, Bonn, Germany. Donnelly, A. 2012., Temperature-related Ratikainen, I.I., Gill, J.A., Gunnarsson, T.G., increases in grass growth and greater Sutherland, W.J. & Kokko, H. 2008. When competition for food drive earlier density-dependence is not instantaneous: migrational departure of wintering Whooper theoretical developments and management Swans. Ibis 154: 542–553. implications. Ecology Letters 11: 184–198. Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. 2007. Poor RenewableUK 2012. Statistics. http://www. evidence-base for assessment of windfarm bwea.com/statistics. (last accessed on impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 20.07.2012). 34: 1–11. Rodziewicz, M. 2009. Monitoring powykonawczy Sugimoto, H. & Matsuda, H. 2011. Collision risk ptaków na farmie wiatrowej Kisielice-Łodygowo. of White-fronted geese with wind turbines. Raport 2009, stycze – grudzie . Iberdrola Ornithological Science 10: 61–71. Renewables Polska Sp. zo.o., Jerzwałd, Poland. Thelander, C.G. & Smallwood, K.S. 2007. The Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area’s S.H., Rosenzweig, C. & Pounds, J.A. 2003. effects on birds: a case history. In M. de Fingerprints of global warming on wild Lucas, G.F.E. Janss & M. Ferrer (eds.), animals and plants. Nature 421: 57–60. Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 68 Swans, geese and wind farms
Mitigation, pp. 25–46. Quercus, Madrid, land White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons Spain. flavirostris). Auk 110: 145–148. Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Winkelman, J.E. 1989. Vogels en het windpark nabij Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Urk (NOP): aanvaringsslachtoffers en verstoring Y.C. & Erasmus, B.F.N. 2004. Extinction risk van pleisterende eenden ganzen en zwanen. [Birds from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148. and the wind park near Urk: collision victims Thorup, K., Alerstam, T., Hake, M. & Kjellén, N. and disturbance of ducks, geese and swans.] 2003. Bird orientation: compensation for RIN-report 89/15. Rijksinstituut voor wind drift in migrating raptors is age- Natuurbeheer, Arnhem, the Netherlands. [In dependent. Proceedings Royal Society London B Dutch with English summary.] (Suppl.) 270: S8–S11. Zehtindjiev, P. & Whitfield, D.P. 2010. Monitoring Tucker, V.A. 1996. A mathematical model of bird of wintering geese in the AES Geo Energy Wind collisions with wind turbine rotors Journal of Park “Sveti Nikola” territory and the Kaliakra Solar Energy Engineering 118: 253–262. region in winter 2009/2010. Bulgarian Veerbeek, R.G., Beuker, D., Hartman, J.C. & Academy of Sciences and Natural Research Krijgsveld, K.L. 2012. Monitoring vogels Ltd. report to AES Geo Energy OOD, Sofia, Windpark Sabinapolder. Onderzoek naar Bulgaria. aanvaringsslachtoffers. Bureau Waardenburg Zehtindjiev, P. & Whitfield, D.P. 2011. Monitoring report to RWE Innogy Windpower of wintering geese in the AES Geo Energy Wind Netherlands. Bureau Waardenburg, Park “Sveti Nikola” territory and the Kaliakra Culemborg, the Netherlands. region in winter 2010/2011. Bulgarian Warren, S.M., Fox, A.D., Walsh, A.J. & Academy of Sciences and Natural Research O’Sullivan, P. 1993. Extended parent- Ltd. report to AES Geo Energy OOD, Sofia, offspring relationships amongst the Green - Bulgaria.
Photograph: Bewick’s Swans at the ECN wind farm, the Netherlands, by Wim Tijsen.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 69 ers 2003; . 2012; 12 et al. et al . 50 days . 50 days in 2006) c searched in searched 2005–2007) 2001–2007) 2002–2006) per turbine, per turbine, in 2010/11) . 26 days/year . 26 days/year NO 1 . 26 days/year . 26 days/year NO 1 . 26 days/year . 26 days/year NO 1 c c c 2002b; 22 = Johnson 2002b; 22 = Johnson et al. 2004; 27 = Jain 2005. Countries: B = 2004; 27 = Jain CS, RAD CS, 78 days/winter YES 2, 3 et al. a monitoring monitoring 2002a; 21 = Johnson 2002a; 21 = Johnson et al. 2003; 26 = Erickson 2003; 26 = Erickson (125 m) (23–55 m) (fortnightly; 2012; 10 = Krijgsveld & Beuker 2009; 11 = Veerbeek 2009; 11 = Veerbeek & Beuker 2012; 10 = Krijgsveld (85–100 m) (6–12 visits et al. 2006; 15 = Ahlén 2002; 16 = BOWind 2008; 17 = Ecology Consulting 2006; 15 = Ahlén 2002; 16 BOWind et al. et al. 2000; 20 = Johnson 2000; 20 = Johnson 2007, 9 = Fijn et al. et al. Germany known Belgium (98 m) (fortnightly; Belgium 2001 (60 m) (fortnightly; a farm construction construction presence 70,450 in 2010/11 bird-flights Bulgaria (105 m) FL & BC (435 turbines in 2009/10; 2000; 19 = Johnson 2000; 19 = Johnson et al. 2006; 24 = Pendlebury 2006; 25 = Erickson 2006; 25 = Erickson 2006; 24 = Pendlebury 2009; 13 = Rodziewicz 2009; 14 = Hötker 2009; 14 = Hötker 2009; 13 = Rodziewicz collisions within wind name/location (hub height) of post- method of post- to bird Records ofRecords 1 = Everaert 2008; 2 = Zehtindjiev References: collided with wind turbines. and geese swans found to have et al. et al. 1996; 7 = Winkelman 1989; 8 = Fijn 1996; 7 = Winkelman = Bevanger = Bevanger 2012; 18 = Osborn Whooper SwanMute Swan 1Mute Swan Not recorded 1 Niebull-Fahrehoft, Not 1 Not recorded Germany Kossdorf, Not recorded 2004 ? Nauen-I, Germany 1999 15 ACC 22 1 ACC 1 1 CS Only 1 search CS NO NO 6 days 4 4 NO 4 23 = Fernley 23 = Fernley Greylag GooseGoose sp. 1 Not recorded Oostdam, Belgium 0 <2001 23** 296,420 Saint Nikola, 7 2009 52*** CS 2 et al. Domestic Goose 1 Not recorded Kluizendok, 2005 11** 3 CS Appendix 1. SpeciesDomestic Goose No. No. flights 2 farm Wind Not recorded Boudewijnkanaal, Built 2000– No. turbines Years/winters Obs. 14 * Duration CS linked Refs 5 CS & Whitfield 2010; 3 = Zehtindjiev & Whitfield 2011; 4 = Staatlichen Vogelschutzwarte 2012; 5 = Bioconsult & Arsu 2010; 6 Must & Whitfield Vogelschutzwarte 2010; 3 = Zehtindjiev & Whitfield 2011; 4 = Staatlichen Belgium; NL = Netherlands; N = Norway; POL = Poland; S = Sweden; UK = United Kingdom; USA States of S = Sweden; POL = Poland; Belgium; NL = Netherlands; N Norway; America. RAD = radar; FL flight = accidental finding; CS carcass search; observationsObservation through/across wind methods: ACC * = linear alignment; ** turbines in 2 lines; *** cluster. farm; BC = bird counts.
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 70 Swans, geese and wind farms 52 days 52 days NO 4 . 22 days NO 4 c c. Feb–Dec) Mar 2007) . 22 days/year NO 4 Dec, in 2011) Dec, c monitoring monitoring . 10 ? CS Only 1 single NO 4 c (149 m) (179 m) (fortnightly Feb– (<150 m) search/year (93–94 m) (85–145 m) farm (<100m) farm (<100m) Germany 1998 (55–85 m) search/year Germany)Germany Germany (<100) 2001) (weekly, GermanyGermanyGermany 2003 (112 m) (118 m) (149 m) (fortnightly GermanyGermany 1997 (63–85) (112 m) (2003–2004) 2003– (Nov farm construction construction presence ) collisions within wind name/location (hub height) of post- method of post- to bird continued ( Bean GooseGoose sp.Goose sp. 1Mute Swan Not recorded 1 Göllnitz, Germany 1 2001 Not recorded 1 Etzin-II, Germany Not recorded 2006 Zachow-II, Not recorded 6 Germany Stuthof, 3 1994– ? ACC 3 ACC 1 ? 1 CS Only 1 search CS NO NO Only 1 single 4 4 NO 4 Mute SwanMute Swan sp.Swan 4Greylag GooseMute Swan 2 Not recordedGreylag Goose 1 Dollart, Germany Not recorded 3Greylag Goose Germany Wybelsumer, 1 Not recorded ? 1 ? Germany Wybelsumer, Not recorded ? Not recorded 1 Germany Wybelsumer, Large wind Large wind Not recorded ? ? (in Niedersachsen, Riepster Hamrich, Not recorded ? Oevenum-Föhr, ?? ? ? ? ? <10 ? ? CS CS ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? CS CS CS ? ? NO NO ? 52 days ? 4 4 ? NO ? NO NO 4 4 ? 4 ? 4 ? 4 White-fronted Goose 2 sp.Swan Not recordedWhite-fronted Goose Zitz-Warchau, 1 1997– Not recorded 1 Heidehof-Jüterbog, 2007 Not recorded 20 Klein Mutz, 31 2003 4 8 ? CS CS ACC ACC NO 4 NO 4 Appendix 1 SpeciesMute Swan No. No. flights farm Wind 1 Not recorded Built Germany Schlalach, No. turbines Years/winters 2010 Obs. 16 Duration CS linked Refs 1 CS Mute Swan 1 Not recorded Germany Seelow, 1996 1 + 13 ACC ACC NO 4 Mute Swan 1 Not recorded Wittmannsdorf, 1994– 7 1 CS Mute Swan 1 Not recorded Zitz-Warchau, 2003 20 4 CS 61–150 days/year NO 4
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Swans, geese and wind farms 71 21 days YES 16 . 180 days Mar 2000 c winter and spring (22.12.11–09.03.12) b (80 m) & FL flight observations (30 m)(30 m) (28.04.90–29.04.91) NO in 1–2 times/week 6 (80 m) (48 m)(48 m)(70 m)(70 m) in 2-year study in 2-year study 2003–2009) (weekly; 2003–2009) (weekly; (<100 m) 2000) (weekly, (<100 m) (several sites) (several . 20 sites), <2002 51 1 CS 1 visit/site NO 14, 15 c Trattendorf-Zerre, Trattendorf-Zerre, Germany Germany (<100 m) UK (75 m) (2007) ECN test-park, Nths 2003–2006 9** 1 (90 m) Łodygowo, PolandŁodygowo, Spain (85 m) Sweden (varied) 2002) (Aug–Oct (101 groups) Nths (78 m) RAD (winter 2006/07) Bean Goose 1 Not recorded Belgern, Germany ? 1 1 CS Oct 1999– NO 4 Bean GooseMute Swan 1Goose sp.Mute Swan Not recorded 1Barnacle Goose Aschekippe 1 Not recorded 1 6 Germany Krevese, ? Not recorded Not recorded ? Westfehmarn, Germany Fehmarn, 1990 1 1? ? >75*** ? ? 1 1 CS & RAD 2009 Autumn CS CS ? YES 52 days 4, 5 ? CS per week 1 search NO NO NO 4 4 4 Pink-footed Goose 0 4 groups Hellrigg, UK 2011 4*** 1 BC CS, 38 h 12 search-days; YES 17 Brent GooseMute Swan 1 SwanBewick’s 3 Not recorded Kreerak, Nths 0–2 Not recorded Urk, Netherlands 1990 1,664+ 1987 Waterkaaptocht, 5 2003 25* 8* 1 2 1 CS CS Daily in autumn; CS & YES 31 search-days 7 YES 8, 9 Greylag Goose 2 Not recorded Nths Anna Vosdijk, 2007 5* 1 CS 1–2 times/week ? 10 Greylag GooseCanada Goose 6Whooper Swan 1 Not recordedGreylag Goose Nths Sabinapolder, 1Mute Swan Not recorded 1995 Nths Sabinapolder, 3 Not recordedGreylag Goose 1995 Smøla, NorwayGreylag Goose Not recorded 6*Greylag Goose 5 Smøla, Norway 1 2002 Mute Swan 6* 1 1 Not recorded Not recorded 2002Pink-footed Goose Kisielice- 68*** Not recorded Spain Elgea Alava, 2 0 Not recorded Elgea-Urkilla, Spain 1 <2003 68*** Guipúzcoa-Álava, 2003 2 <2009 CS & RAD Not recorded 138 search-days ??? 2007 7 40*** Skåne ( 9 CS & RAD ??? 138 search-days 7 YES 27*** 11 Barrow YES Offshore, CS ? ? 2006 11 CS 52 days/year ? ? 30 *** 52 days/year CS CS NO CS CS NO 12 1 12 ? ? ? ? FL ? ? ? ? 4 4 4, 13 4
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 72 Swans, geese and wind farms 21, 22, c . not necessarily through i.e 2004. in 2003 Mar 2003 Mar 2002– ,845 individuals) seen flying over the seen flying,845 individuals) over (1996–1999) 21–91 turbines under 26 of 89 of 454 turbines 2002–Aug 2003) 2002–Aug height. Groups of turbines stopped in checked each year each checked (15 Mar–15 Nov); (15 Mar–15 Nov); searches (monthly, (monthly, searches . 150 searches/year . 150 searches/year NO 23, 24, 2002; 6–7 searches 2002; 6–7 searches 2003 and Mar–Dec c turbines in Apr–Dec thin project area ( monitoring monitoring (65 m) construction; 13 23, 24 (72 m) every 2–3 days) (i.e. 27 . 2002b). et al USA (36–50 m) counts and searches 20 USA (36–50 m) 20 farm construction construction presence (in 1997) USA (36–50 m) 20 assessed) (363 birds) (50 m) 399 turbines in (proximity not (proximity (60 m) Sep each; days ) collisions within wind name/location (hub height) of post- method of post- to bird continued ( Observations made at a distance of 7–9 km. Use of only species of said to be low; waterbirds study area by Klondike with 43 flocks (4 observed Canada Geese, was waterfowl Carcass searches reported for one winter; flight-line data recorded in two winters. Number of reportedCarcass searches winters. for one winter; flight-line data recorded in two flights said to be for flights wi study area in the year-long pre-constructionstudy area in the year-long survey in 2001 (Johnson Canada Goose 0 Not recorded USA Nine Canyon, 2002 300*** 1 CS (4–5 19 searches NO 25 the wind farm), though flights through/across the wind farm illustrated on maps in the report, and 64% of flights at rotor were to reduce collision risk (Zehtindjiev & Whitfield 2011). January Appendix 1 SpeciesCanada Goose No. No. flights 0 farm Wind 909 observations Buffalo Ridge, Built 1994–1999 No. turbines 354*** Years/winters Obs. Duration 4 CS linked Refs CS & BC bird Fortnightly YES 18, 19, a b c Snow GooseSnow White-fronted Goose 0Canada Goose 0 92 observations Buffalo Ridge, 278 observations Buffalo Ridge, 2 1994–1999 1994–1999 354*** 354*** Not recorded USA Klondike, 4 2002 4 CS & BC 16* CS & BC 1 CS & BC YES BC mostly pre- YES 18, 19, 18, 19, NO Canada Goose 1Canada Goose 11 groups USA Stateline, 0 2001–2002 Not recorded 454*** of Top USA Iowa, 2001 2 89*** CS & BC of 5–6 searches 2 UNCLEAR 26 CS
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2012) 62: 37–72 Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences Vol. 16, No. 4 (2013), 679–686
DOI 10.2478/pjvs-2013-0096 Original article Preliminary studies on the reaction of growing geese (Anser anser f. domestica) to the proximity of wind turbines
J. Mikołajczak1, S. Borowski2, J. Marć-Pieńkowska1, G. Odrowąż-Sypniewska3, Z. Bernacki4, J. Siódmiak3, P. Szterk1
1 Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Management, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz 2 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Prof. Kaliskiego 7, 85-789 Bydgoszcz 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy, Nicolaus Copernicus University Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, M. Curie Skłodowskiej 9, 85-094 Bydgoszcz 4 Department of Poultry Breeding, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, University of Technology and Life Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Mazowiecka 28, 85-084 Bydgoszcz
Abstract
Wind farms produce electricity without causing air pollution and environmental degradation. Unfortunately, wind turbines are a source of infrasound, which may cause a number of physiological effects, such as an increase in cortisol and catecholamine secretion. The impact of infrasound noise, emitted by wind turbines, on the health of geese and other farm animals has not previously been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of noise, generated by wind turbines, on the stress parameters (cortisol) and the weight gain of geese kept in surrounding areas. The study consisted of 40 individuals of 5- week- old domestic geese Anser anser f domestica, divided into 2 equal groups. The first experimental gaggle (I) remained within 50 m from turbine and the second one (II) within 500 m. During the 12 weeks of the study, noise measurements were also taken. Weight gain and the concentration of cortisol in blood were assessed and significant differences in both cases were found. Geese from gaggle I gained less weight and had a higher concentration of cortisol in blood, compared to individuals from gaggle II. Lower activity and some disturbing changes in behavior of animals from group I were noted. Results of the study suggest a negative effect of the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine on the stress parameters of geese and their productivity.
Key words: wind turbine, domestic goose, anser anser, noise, cortisol
Correspondence to: J. Mikołajczak, e-mail: [email protected] 680 J. Mikołajczak et al.
Introduction may cause acceleration of breath, rapid heart rate, increased alertness and reduced grazing time (Ames Sound waves are divided into infrasound, audible and Arehart 1972). Increased cortisol secretion in sounds and ultrasounds (Pawlas 2009). Infrasound is sheep was observed as a response to stress caused by a sound or noise with a frequency spectrum ranging exposure to the noise emitted during the shearing from 1 to 20 Hz (Augustyńska 2009), and is perceived procedure (Hargreaves and Hutson 1990). However, not as a “normal” tone, but rather as a pounding and more research showing the impact of noise emitted by the feeling of “tightness” in the ears (Pawlas 2009). wind turbines on farm animals is needed. Continuous sounds (both audible and infrasound Glucocorticoids (GCs): cortisol and corticos- noise) may be produced by wind turbines. The level of terone, are the front-line hormones in overcoming noise emitted by wind turbines, ranges from 100-107 dB stressful situations (Palme et al. 2005). Although cor- and decreases as the distance from the turbine in- ticosterone is considered to be the dominant avian creases (Pawlas 2009). output increase as size increases glucocorticoid and is well known as a stress hormone Currently, there is no European and international in birds (Koren et al. 2012), there are some papers legislation concerning the exposure limit values for demonstrating that birds also produce cortisol (Walsh et al. 1985, Schmidt and Soma 2008, Sohail et al. 2010, infrasound (Augustyńska 2009). The results of animal Swathi et al. 2012, Jadhaw et al. 2013). We, therefore, studies suggest considerable nuisance and harmful- examined the changes of cortisol concentration in ness of infrasound, and therefore indicate the need to blood of geese as a response to the possible stress determine the safe level of noise. caused by infrasound generated by a wind turbine. The effect of infrasound on animals under labora- tory conditions, has often been studied (Nekhoroshev and Glinchikov 1992, Bohne and Harding 2000). Dur- Materials and methods ing such studies the adverse effects of infrasound were noted in animals such as mice, rats, guinea pigs, chin- The study included 40 individuals of 5-week-old chillas, dogs, monkeys and other mammals. Changes domestic geese Anser anser f. domestica, divided into may be observed in the cardiovascular system (nar- two groups of 20 individuals each. The first gaggle rowing of arteries and coronary vessels) (Alekseev (group I) remained within 50 m from the turbine 1985), in the brain (Nekhoroshev and Glinchikov (with a capacity of 2 MW) in Rapałki near Rypin 1992) and in the lungs (thickening of alveoli and fill- (Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland), the ing of the pulmonary acinus with erythrocytes, the second one (group II) within 500 m. Animals from partial destruction of the acinus and the disruption of both groups had continuous access to feed and water blood vessel walls) (Svidovyi and Glinchikov 1987). and were fed identically, with a commercial mixture of Infrasound with a very high intensity may cause seri- complete feed. The composition of the mixture is ous damage to ear structures (Johnson 1980). Con- presented in Table 1. The birds were kept on tinuous exposure may cause significant changes in a covered surface with paddock (1 m2 per individual). comparison to intermittent exposure. In chinchillas The study lasted for 12 weeks, and during that time, in constantly exposed to infrasound at a frequency of order to analyze the concentration of cortisol, blood 0.5 Hz and a level of 95 dB, damage to hearing may was collected between 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. from 20 ran- occur after 2 days up to 432 days of exposure (Bohne domly selected animals (10 individuals from and Harding 2000). In humans exposed to infrasound some psychological and physiological changes such as Table 1. Composition of commercial mixture of complete fatigue and wakefulness disorders, related to changes feed. in the central nervous system, have been reported (Landstro¨m et al. 1983). Component % Under natural conditions, infrasound generated Crude protein 19.00 by wind turbines reduces species diversity during nest- Crude fiber 4.50 ing (Francis et al. 2009) and may have negative effects Oils and fats 3.80 on the behavior, communication skills, health and sur- Crude ash 5.30 vival ability of birds (Barber et al. 2010), and also on squirrels’ ability to recognize predators (Rabin et al. Calcium 0.80 2006). In the case of animals living fenced in, held Organic phosphorus 0.56 without the possibility of free movement, noise can Sodium 0.17 lead to an increasing level of stress (Flydal et al. Lysine 0.93 2004). In domestic animals, such as sheep and horses, Methionine 0.38 the noise from wind turbines at a level of 60-75 dB Preliminary studies on the reaction... 681
3
60o
wind plant 200 m 1500 m a wind b 4 1
2
Fig. 1. Scheme of vibration, noise and infrasound measurements around the wind plant: 1, 2, 3, 4 – measuring directions; a – the diameter of the first circle resulting from PN-EN 61400-11; b – distance between following circles (100 m).
each group, 5 males and 5 females). The procedure Results was performed three times, in the 5th, 10th and 17th week of rearing. Venous blood was collected in order Noise measurements to obtain serum which, until assessment, was stored o deep-frozen (-80 C) in small aliquots. The cortisol Noise emission in the audible range concentration in the serum of birds from both gaggles was measured by using the ELISA method During the experiment, ten measurements of with the use of the R & D System diagnostic kit. noise generated by the Vestas wind turbine (2 MW) Reproducibility of the method for intra-assay preci- were performed. Declarations of the wind turbine sion was CV < 9.3%, and for inter-assay precision manufacturer, concerning acceptable noise emission, CV < 12%. are presented in Table 2. The measurements were The geese were weighed during the 5th, 10th and 17th weeks. The results were statistically analyzed Table 2. Declarations of the manufacturer concerning levels using Statistica 8.0 PL. of maximum noise emission. In the course of the experiment the measure- ments of noise were taken as follows: 10 times at Wind speed [m/s] Noise level [dB(A)] 4designatedmeasuringpointssituated140maway 494.4 from the turbine and 5 times within 50 m from the 599.4 turbine, at the place where the geese were kept. In 6102.5 addition, measurements (in four directions) at a dis- 7103.6 tance of 200 m from the plant and at every subse- quent 100 m, up to 1500 m, were made. Both audible >8104.0 sound and infrasound were measured using a class Isoundandvibrationanalyzer(SvantekSVAN912 performed at 4 measuring points, in accordance with AE). Measurements of noise generated by the wind PN- EN 61400-11 and at the location of geese turbine were assessed according to marker points gaggles (within a distance of 50 m from the turbine), designated in accordance with PN- EN 61400-11 at a distance of 200 m from the plant and at every (Fig. 1). A microphone located on a special plate was subsequent 100 m, up to 1500 m. During measure- used to measure noise. The results were adjusted ments the wind speed and its direction were ob- based on the reference wind speed and roughness of served. The speed was 5.9 m/s and the wind was the terrain. blowing in the direction of 12 degrees N-E. 682 J. Mikołajczak et al.
Table 3. Results for measuring site 1 [dB(A)].
Measure- 12345678910Average ment value Value 87.0 87.0 83.0 79.1 81.0 79.8 79.6 79.5 79.3 82.0 81.73
Table 4. Results for measuring site 2 [dB(A)].
Measure- 12345678910Average ment value Value 105.0 105.0 104.0 103.5 103.0 101.5 101.0 98.0 97.5 97.0 101.55
Table 5. Results for measuring site 3[dB(A)].
Measure- 12345678910Average ment value Value 99.0 99.0 98.5 98.0 92.0 87.0 90.0 89.0 91.0 85.0 92.85
Table 6. Results for measuring site 4 [dB(A)].
Measure- Average 12345678910 ment value Value 102.0 102.0 104.0 103.5 104.0 101.5 101.0 100.0 99.5 97.0 101.45
Measurements of noise emitted by the wind tur- at 500 m – 80 dB, while at 1000 m it was approxi- bine, which is audible for humans (A scale), gave the mately 40 dB. value of the sound intensity at the distance of 140 m from the turbine. At site 1 the average value was 81.73 dB, at site 2 – 101.55 dB, site 3 – 92.85 dB and Cortisol site 4 – 101.45 dB. Detailed results of measurements for each point are summarized in Tables 3-6. Steroid hormones function as mediators of essen- At the site where the geese of group I were kept tial metabolic and energy-allocation processes. GCs, (50 m from the turbine), the average sound intensity, cortisol and corticosterone, mobilize energy storage obtained from 5 measurements, was 56.3 dB, while at in response to a crisis (Koren et al. 2012). Although the place where the second gaggle was kept the mean corticosterone is considered to be the dominant avi- volume was 58.33 dB. an glucocorticoid and is well known as a stress hor- mone in birds (Koren et al. 2012), there are some papers demonstrating that birds may also produce Noise emission in the infrasound range cortisol (Walsh et al. 1985, Schmidt and Soma 2008, Sohail et al. 2010, Swathi et al. 2012, Jadhaw et al. Noise measurements in the infrasound range 2013). Cortisol is secreted by the adrenal cortex in (Lin scale) generated by the wind turbine in Rypałki response to the adrenocorticotrophic hormone pro- allowed determination of the intensity of sound at duced by the pituary gland (Kerr 2002) and has the point 50 meters from the turbine (the location of amultidirectionalmodeofaction.Thebestknownis geese), where the average value was 94.5 dB, while its effect on the metabolism and the immune system the average value in site 1 was 99 dB, site 2- 105 dB, (Lisurek and Bernhardt 2004) and is associated with site 3- 96.23 dB and site 4- 98.63 dB. When the dis- the stress response. During stress it acts as a neur- tance from the turbine was greater, the intensity of oendocrine mediator in organs and tissues such as recorded infrasound was significantly lower. At a dis- the brain, cardiovascular system, immune system, tance of 300 m the intensity was less than 100 dB, adipose tissue and muscle (De Kloet et al. 1998). 984.252 feet >100dB Keep in mind these turbines are smaller than the ones the are proposing in projects 1640.42 feet 80dB The tip height of the current turbines is between 600-700feet. 3,280.84 feet 40dB Preliminary studies on the reaction... 683
Table 7. Concentration of cortisol in blood of geese from both groups [ng /mL].
Age 5th week 10th week 17th week
Group I II I II I II
x–12.40 x–6.14 x–31.3 x–9.64 x–34.08 x–11.23 x–11.24 x–6.72 x–34.12 x–8.58 x–34.35 x–13.99
xforwholegroup 11.92* 6.43* 32.71* 9.11* 34.12* 12.61*
SDforwholegroup 1.63 2.13 6.3 1.65 8.9 9.10
*highlystatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenaveragevalues(p< 0.001)
Table 8. Body weight of geese from both groups [kg].
Age 5th week 10th week 17th week Group I II I II I II x–3.10 x–2.99 x–4.55 x–4.80 x–7.8 x–8.98 x–2.67 x–2.82 x–4.31 x–4.52 x–7.1 x–7.65 xforwholegroup 2.89 2.91 4.43 4.66 7.45* 8.31* SDforwholegroup 260.18 104.74 173.61 153.83 0.59 0.84 *statisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenaveragevalues(p< 0.05)
During the 5th, 10th and 17th week of rearing, in ments, obtained in the subsequent weeks, are pres- order to determine the concentration of cortisol in ented in Table 8. the serum of birds, blood samples were collected In the 5th week, the body weight of birds from from 10 geese selected randomly from each both gaggles were similar. In the 10th week, the aver- experimental group. The results are summarized in age body weight of animals in group I was approxi- Table 7. mately 230 g lower than the average weight of birds The first measurement of cortisol concentration from the second gaggle. In the 17th week, the differ- in blood was performed 48 hours after transport ence in average body weight between the two groups and placement of the birds at the sites located at was greater (860 g) and was statistically significant adistanceof50and500metersfromthewind (p < 0.05). Geese from gaggle I tended to eat less turbine. In the 5th week, the average concentration feed. The daily feed intakes are presented in Table 9. of cortisol in the geese blood from group I was 11.92 ng/mL, while in group II – 6.43 ng/mL. In the Table 9. Daily feed intake by geese of both groups [g]. 10th week the average cortisol concentrations for group I and II were 32.71 ng/mL and 9.11 ng/mL, Week of rearing Group I Group II respectively. In the 17th week, the cortisol concen- tration in group I was 34.12 ng/mL, and in group II 5 305 340 –12.61ng/mL. 10 730 780 The differences in the cortisol concentration in 17 800 1030 the blood of animals from both gaggles, in the 5th, 10th and 17th week of rearing, were found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). The results obtained in the 10th week of rearing showed sexual dimorphism. The body weights of males from both groups were higher by 280 g in group Body weight I and 240 g in group II, than the weight of females. Sexual dimorphism in 17-week-old birds was even In the 5th, 10th and 17th week of rearing geese more noticeable. The body weights of males were were weighed, each time 10 geese from both groups higher (by 700 g in group I and 1330 g in group II) were chosen. The result of body weight measure- than the body weight of females. 684 J. Mikołajczak et al.
Discussion higher than the concentration of cortisol in the blood from group II. In the 17th week, the cortisol concen- Noise measurements tration in the blood of birds from group I, compared to geese from the group II, was 2.7 times higher, so it The lowest level of noise in the audible range was is possible to assume that even though there are some recorded at measuring site 1 and the highest at site 2. significant differences in the cortisol concentration in Mean values of sound intensity at sites 2 and 4 are in the blood of animals from both groups, there is a ten- accordance with the noise intensity value specified by dency which suggests that geese may become accus- van den Berg (2004) for Dutch turbines, and was tomed to a stressor. 103 dB(A). According to Pawlas (2009), the level of In the 5th week, males from gaggle I had a higher noise around the turbine is within the range of 100 to cortisol concentration in blood than female geese; in 107 dB(A). This information is in accordance with gaggle II the result was opposite. In the 10th week, results obtained from sites 2 and 4. The noise levels a higher concentration of cortisol in the blood of fe- measured at sites 1 and 3, were lower than the noise males from group I was noted, but in group II the levels at 2 and 4; since these sites were located oppo- result was opposite. At the end of the study in both site each other, different levels of noise may be asso- gaggles females had a higher concentration of cortisol ciated with wind direction. Sites 1 and 3 were located in blood than males, however, the difference was not on the leeward side, which explains the lower average sufficiently significant to claim that gender influences noise value, while sites 2 and 4 were located on the sensitivity to infrasound. windward side, and therefore the mean values of Moreover, the concentration of cortisol in the sound intensity were higher. blood of geese increased with the time of exposure to Results of measurements of the noise level, the immediate vicinity of the wind plant. with an average wind speed of 5.9 m/s, ranged up to All three successive measurements of cortisol con- 103.6 dB(A), and therefore were within the accept- centration showed a higher concentration of “stress able range specified by the manufacturer. However, in hormones” in birds kept at a distance of 50 m from the case of measurements of infrasound, results were the turbine. The lower cortisol concentration in ani- higher than those reported by Golec et al. (2006). mals kept at a distance of 500 m may indicate that this distance is safer for animals but still not safe enough, as mentioned below. Cortisol In birds, due to their endocrine dissimilarity, the corticosterone concentration during the stress re- 48 hours after transportation and placement of sponse is commonly tested, and there are few publica- the birds at the sites, located at a distance of 50 and tions on the change in the cortisol concentration in 500 meters from the wind turbine, the cortisol concen- the blood of birds that are influenced by a stressor. tration in the blood of geese from group I was signifi- Sohail et al. (2010) examined the impact of cyclic heat cantly higher than the concentration of cortisol in ani- stress on serum cortisol concentration in broilers. To- mals from group II. In addition, the geese of gaggle karzewski et al. (2006) studied the impact of the stress I exhibited reduced adaptability and their behavior caused by transportation on the changes in the corti- (reduced physical activity and feed intake) indicated sol concentration in broiler blood. In the studies men- exposure to stress. tioned above, the results for control groups were as In the 10th week the average concentration of cor- follows: 1.04 ng/mL (mean) (Sohail et al. 2010) and tisol in the blood of birds from group I was significant- 1.55 ng/mL (mean) (Tokarzewski et al. 2006), whereas ly higher than the concentration of cortisol in geese in the experimental groups the results were: 1.91 from group II. Also in the 17th week of rearing the ng/mL (mean) and 9.26 ng/mL (mean), respectively. concentration of cortisol in the blood of birds kept in In the present study, all results of the cortisol concen- the immediate vicinity of the wind turbine was notice- tration were higher than the control values outlined ably higher than in the geese that lived at a distance of above. The concentration of cortisol, determined in 500 m from the turbine. The differences in cortisol both gaggles, in every week of rearing (except for the concentration recorded during all three measure- concentration of cortisol in geese from group II in the ments, between the two groups of birds, were found to 5th week), was also higher than concentrations of be highly statistically significant (p < 0.001). “stress hormones” obtained in the experimental After 48 hours, geese from group I had twice the groups by Tokarzewski et al. (2006) and Sohail et al. cortisol concentration in blood compared to group II. (2010). This information suggests that infrasound In the 10 week of the experiment, the concentration noise may be a very serious source of stress. In addi- of cortisol in the blood from group I was 3.5 times tion, it was noted that the cortisol concentration in the Preliminary studies on the reaction... 685 animals from group II was higher than the control found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Animals concentration, which may therefore suggest that the kept near the wind turbine had about 10 percent distance of 500 m from the turbine is still not a safe lower body weight than those kept at a distance of 500 distance. m from the turbine. The lower body weight of group The reaction of the birds confirmed that geese I was caused by reduced feed intake. Animals ate less have a sensitive sense of hearing and are responding willingly, which could have resulted from the stress to both audible sounds and infrasound. caused by infrasound noise emitted by the wind tur- Furthermore, a change in the animals’ behavior bine. was observed. Birds of group I, for the most part, To sum up, the results of measuring noise gener- remained in a compact group and showed less physi- ated by the wind turbine are in accordance with the cal activity, while individuals from gaggle II moved results obtained by other research (van der Berg freely. This change is likely to result from the expo- 2004). When the distance from the turbine increased, sure of the animals to chronic stress and may be asso- the intensity of infrasound decreased greatly, and at ciated with a higher concentration of cortisol, as was a distance of 1000 m the intensity was 40 dB. Geese shown for birds from group I. from the gaggle which was kept at a distance of 50 m The literature review indicates that any stress, par- from the turbine, grew slower, gained less body weight ticularly mental, is accompanied by an excessive secre- (by 10 %) and had a higher concentration of cortisol tion of the adrenocorticotropic hormone (De Jong et in blood, compared to birds reared 500 meters away al. 2001). The effect of the stress source on cortisol from the wind plant. It was also noted that even the secretion has been confirmed in other species, includ- distance of 500 meters cannot be considered a safe ing sheep (Hargreaves and Hutson 1990). The in- one; this was confirmed by the results of infrasound creased secretion of cortisol may be harmful to the measurement and cortisol concentration in blood, health of geese, as steroid hormones suppress the im- which exceeded the control values. mune system, resulting in increased susceptibility to In addition, cortisol concentration increased with infections with bacteria of endogenous origin (De the residence time in the vicinity of the wind turbine. Jong et al. 2001). Differences in both weight and cortisol concentration were proven to be statistically significant. The cortisol concentration in both groups, which was higher than the concentration in the control groups, could have Body weight resulted from stress caused by the noise generated by the wind plant. Stress may have caused the disturbing In the 5th week, the body weights of birds from changes in behavior. both groups were similar. In the 10th week, the aver- The results indicate the negative impact of the im- age body weight of animals in group I was lower than mediate vicinity of wind turbines on feed consump- the mean weight of individuals from gaggle II. Seven tion, weight gain and cortisol concentration in blood. weeks later, the difference was even greater and was Nevertheless, further studies, with a larger number of statistically significant (p 0.05). The mean body < animals and with a variety of distances, are needed, so weight of both groups of animals, in 10 weeks of rear- that the safe distance appropriate for keeping animals ing, was lower than in the studies of Biesiada- can be determined. -Drzazga et al. (2006). Depending on the experimen- tal group, the authors reported that the male’s body weight was from 5.29 to 5.61 kg and for females from References 4.88 to 5.11 kg. In the 17th week the body weight of geese from Alekseev SV (1985) Myocardial ischemia in rats exposed to group I was much lower, but achieved weights in both infrasound. Gigiena Truda i Prof. Zabolewania 8: 34-38. groups were satisfactory and higher than those found Ames DR, Arehart LA (1972) Physiological response of in the literature. During 17 weeks of rearing, Kłos et al. lambs to auditory stimuli. J Anim Sci 34: 994-998. (2010) obtained a weight of 5.74-6.00 kg for males and Augustyńska D (2009) Wartości graniczne ekspozycji na in- fradźwięki – przegląd piśmiennictwa. Podstawy i Metody from 5.18 kg to 5.38 kg for females. Similarly, Łukas- Oceny 1rodowiska Pracy 2: 5-15. zewicz et al. (2008) reported lower body weights – Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of 7.09 kg for males to 6.30 kg for females. Moreover, in chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends our experiment, sexual dimorphism was observed. The Ecol Evol 25: 180-189. greatest differences in body weight between the sexes Biesiada-Drzazga B, Górski J, Górska A (2006) Analysis of slaughter value and muscle fibre thickness of selected were found in the 17th week of rearing. muscles in geese broilers as related to feeding applied At the end of the study, the differences in the during the rearing period. Anim Sci Pap Rep 24 (S-2): body weights between birds from both groups were 37-44. 686 J. Mikołajczak et al.
Bohne BA, Harding GW (2000) Degeneration in the coch- Łukaszewicz E, Adamski M, Kowalczyk A (2008) Correla- lea after noise damage: primary versus secondary events. tions between body measurements and tissue composi- Am J Otol 21: 505-509. tion of oat-fattened White Kołuda geese at 17 weeks of Cited by Pawlas K (2009) Wpływ infradźwięków i hałasu age. Br Poult Sci 49: 21-27. o niskich częstotliwościach na człowieka- przegląd Nekhoroshev AS, Glinchikov VV (1992) Effect of in- piśmiennictwa. Podstawy i Metody Oceny 1rodowiska frasound on change in the auditory cortex. Gig Sanit Pracy 2: 27-64. 7-8: 62-64. De Jong IC, van Voorst AS, Erkens JH, Ehlhardt DA, Blok- Palme R, Rettenbacher S, Touma C, El- Bahr SM, Mostl huis HJ (2001) Determination of the circadian rhythm in E(2005) Stress Hormones in Mammals and Birds: Com- plasma corticosterone and catecholamine concentrations parative Aspects Regarding Metabolism, Excretion, and in growing broiler breeders using intravenous cannula- Noninvasive Measurement in Fecal Samples. Ann tion. Physiol Behav 74: 299-304. N Y Acad Sci 1040: 162-171. De Kloet ER, Vreugdenhil E, Oitzl MS, Jolls M (1998) Pawlas K (2009) Wpływ infradźwięków i hałasu o niskich Brain corticosteroid receptor balance in health and dis- częstotliwościach na człowieka- przegląd piśmiennictwa. ease. Endocr Rev 19: 269-301. Podstawy i Metody Oceny Środowiska Pracy 2: 27-64. Flydal K, Eftestol S, Reimers E, Colman JE (2004) Effects PN-EN 61400-11 (2001) Turbozespoły wiatrowe. Część 11: of wind turbines on area use and behaviour of semi-do- Procedury pomiaru hałasu. In: Normalizacyjna Komisja mestic reindeer in enclosures. Rangifer 24: 55-66. Problemowa nr 137 ds. UrządzeńCieplno-Mech- Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise Pollution anicznych w Energetyce. Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions. Rabin LA, Coss RG, Owings DH (2006) The effects of wind Curr Biol 19: 1415-1419. turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground Golec M, Golec Z, Cempel C (2006) Hałas turbiny wiat- squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Biol Conserv rowej VESTAS V80 podczas eksploatacji. Diagnostyka 131: 410-420. 1: 115-120. Schmidt KL, Soma KK (2008) Cortisol and corticosterone in Hargreaves AL, Hutson GD (1990) Changes in heart rate, the songbird immune and nervous systems: local vs. sys- plasma cortisol and haematocrit of sheep during a shear- temic levels during development. Am J Physiol Regul In- ing procedure. Appl Anim Behav Sci 26: 91-101. tegr Comp Physiol 295: 103-110. Jadhav NV, Awati B, Kulkarni S, Waghmare PG, Suranagi Sohail MU, Ijaz A, Yousaf MS, Ashraf K, Zaneb H, Aleem MD, Saxena MJ, Ravikanth K, Dandale M, Shivi Maini M, Rehman H (2010) Alleviation of cyclic heat stress in (2013) Performance of Layer Birds Supplemented with broilers by dietary supplementation of mannan-oligosac- Herbal Antistress Product Ayucee and Synthetic Vitamin charide and Lactobacillus-based probiotic: dynamics of C under Physiological Heat Stress. Mal J Anim Sci cortisol, thyroid hormones, cholesterol, C-reactive pro- 16: 67-78. tein, and humoral immunity. Poult Sci 89: 1934-1938. Johnson DL (1980) The effects of high level infrasound. Statistica (2008) StatSoft Poland (data analysis software sys- Porceed of Conference on Low Fre-quency Noise, Moller tem), Version 8.0 PL. Kraków, Poland. H, Rubak P Aaalbork: 1-14. Cited by Pawlas K (2009) Svidovyi VI, Glinchikov VV (1987) Action of infrasound on Wpływ infradźwięków i hałasu o niskich częstotliwościach the lung structure. Noise and Vibration Bulletin: 153-154. na człowieka- przegląd piśmiennictwa. Podstawy Cited by Pawlas K (2009) Wpływ infradźwięków i hałasu i Metody Oceny 1rodowiska Pracy 2: 27-64. o niskich częstotliwościach na człowieka- przegląd Kerr MG (2002) Veterinary Laboratory Medicine, 2nd ed., piśmiennictwa. Podstawy i Metody Oceny 1rodowiska Blackwell Science, Oxford. Pracy 2: 27-64. Kłos K, Sokołowicz Z, Badowski J, Bielińska H (2010) Swathi B, Gupta PS, Nagalakshmi D, Reddy AR (2012) Ef- Określenie możliwości szacowania umięśnienia nóg fect of Herbals Tulsi and Turmeric on Cortisol, Enzy- gęsi Białych Kołudzkich na podstawie pomiarów matic and Biochemical Constituents in Serum of Heat przyżyciowych. Roczniki Naukowe Zootechniki 37: 55-62. Stressed Broilers. Indian J Anim Nutr 29: 284-286. Koren L, Nakagawa S, Burke T, Soma KK, Wynne- Edwards Tokarzewski S, Wernicki A, Kankofer M, Urban- Chmiel R, KE, Geffen E (2012) Non-breeding feather concentra- Arciszewski M (2006) Transport jako czynnik tions of testosterone, corticosterone and cortisol are asso- wzmagający reakcje stresowe u brojlerów kurzych. An- ciated with subsequent survival in wild house sparrows. nales Universitatis Mariae Curie Skłodowska LXI: Proc Biol Sci 279: 1560-1566. 127-134. Landstro¨m U, Lundstro¨m R, Bystro¨m M (1983) Exposure to van den Berg GP (2004) Effects of the wind profile at night infrasound – Perception and changes in wakefulness. on wind turbine sound. J Sound Vib 277: 955-970. J Low Freq Noise Vib 2: 1-11. Walsh MT, Beldegreen RA, Clubb SL, Chen CL (1985) Ef- Lisurek M, Bernhardt R (2004) Modulation of aldosterone fect of exogenous ACTH on serum corticosterone and and cortisol synthesis on the molecular level. Mol Cell cortisol concentrations in the Moluccan cockatoo (Ca- Endocrinol 215: 149-159. catua moluccensis). Am J Vet Res 46: 1584-1588. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. World Council for Nature
wcfn.org/2015/06/04/covering-up-the-massacre
June 3, 2015
Unlike cats, cars and buildings, wind turbines kill cranes (as above), eagles, storks etc.
Wind farms: a slaughter kept hidden from the public
Many of our members have complained to us that mortality predictions being used to assess the impacts of wind turbines on birds and bats are minimised to a level that thoroughly misleads decision makers. To wit, in a widely used report prepared for the Australian Government by consultant Biosis Research Pty Ltd, we read: “the additional mortality predicted for the cumulative effects of turbine collisions for wind farms within the range of the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle (TWTE) is likely to result in the additional death of approximately one bird per annum” (1). Yet, actual eagle mortality at just one of the 7 wind farms considered by the study turned out to be 3.2 eagles per year, according to the operator of the Woolnorth wind farm (2). Dr Stephen Debus puts the number at 5 TWTE per year (3). As the 6 other wind farms have not been monitored, “there might be tens of eagle deaths per year in Tasmania” (from blade strikes), adds Dr. Debus. Of these, the vast majority concerns the TWTE: at the Woolnorth wind farm, from 20 eagles killed in 4 years, 17 were TWTEs and 3
1/16 were white-bellied sea eagles (2).
The Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, a (bigger) sub-species of the Wedge-tailed Eagle, numbered only 130 successful breeding pairs in 2010 according to the state’s National Parks and Wildlife Service (2) – and obviously less now, as the killings are allowed to continue. It is classified as “endangered”. The result of the misleading assessment of Biosis will be to condemn to extinction the largest of Australia’s eagles.
I analysed the Biosis TWTE study in 2010, and found disturbing “errors” in it, huge ones at that, totalling two orders of magnitude. So I wrote an open letter to the authors (4). They failed to reply. Australian ornithologists, who had been copied on it, also kept silent. The letter generated record levels of traffic on the Iberica 2000 website that had published it, but nobody responded, no one. Apparently, nobody wanted to hear the bad news, let alone acknowledge them, especially ornithologists, bird societies, and even the media, enthralled as they all are by the “goodness” of wind turbines. In fact, I realised that everyone had an interest in continuing business as usual. And business as usual it has been, in the five years that followed to this date. As we speak, mendacious mortality predictions from eager-to-please consultants continue to be used to promote wind farms across Australia, and indeed the across world.
The Tasmanian situation was resolved by making sure that no more news of eagles killed by wind farms on the island would be published by the media. This cover-up is now 5 years old, and has been quite effective: no news of eagle mortality has transpired from Woolnorth or any other Tasmanian wind farm.
I shall come back to the matter of unethical consultants and bird societies later, but I would like to cite two other examples briefly, to make my point. Before the Macarthur wind farm was built, in the State of Victoria, consultants had estimated that the level of bird activity was low in the area, and that the impact on birds would be insignificant. But after construction, a monitoring survey counted the carcasses and estimated the death toll at about 1500 birds in one year, including nearly 500 raptors among which 6 wedge-tailed eagles (5). So much for the negligible bird mortality… Much the same happened with the Wolfe Island windfarm, in the Province of Ontario.
This scenario is repeating itself at wind farms all over the world, wherever post-construction monitoring surveys are performed. My experience has been that predicted rates of mortality are often two orders of magnitude (100 times) lower than reality. The monitoring surveys
2/16 themselves play their part, by never reflecting the full extent of the death toll (for technical reasons – e.g. the insufficient size of the area searched under each turbine * – as well as conflicts of interest).
* search area: a 50-meter-radius circle around each mast, whereas a 150-meter-tall wind turbine can project the body of a small bird 200 meters away and beyond.
MANIPULATED MORTALITY STATISTICS
It is my duty, as President of the World Council for Nature, to blow the whistle about the true extent of the carnage which is taking place at wind farms everywhere. The deception being staged by consultants in order to fool people and their governments will have unfathomed consequences for wildlife, biodiversity, natural habitats, and the health of forests and agriculture. We are facing widespread corrupt behaviour, which is putting private interests ahead of the common good.
Consultants, hired as they are by promoters, have an obvious interest in misleading decision- makers by predicting insignificant mortality. It’s been the case for the above-mentioned Macarthur and Wolfe Island windfarms, but in Europe and the United States it is much the same, e.g. in France the official mortality estimate is about one bird/turbine/year (6). Everywhere, consultants willing to please the wind industry, their main employer, are the source of the deception.
In the US, the latest nationwide windfarm mortality estimates are Dr. Smallwood’s 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats per year, i.e. almost 15 birds and 23 bats per turbine (7). But there are also European estimates of interest: for instance, extrapolating to Germany the findings of renowned Dutch biologist J.E. Winkelman, ornithologist Bernd Koop had calculated that annual mortality would be 60,000 – 100,000 birds per Gigawatt of installed wind capacity (8). For today’s Germany, which has 39 Gigawatts, this would add up to 2,340,000 – 3,900,000 dead birds a year.
The Koop estimate is much closer to reality, which was revealed in 2012 by a comprehensive evaluation of wind farm mortality by the Spanish ornithological society SEO-BirdLife (Sociedad Española de Ornitología). In response to a request based on the right to information in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), SEO has obtained copies of 136 monitoring studies of wind farms, studies that the Spanish government had filed without publishing. Having analysed them, SEO researchers estimated the mortality as follows: Spain’s 18,000 3/16 wind turbines kill on average 6 – 18 million birds and bats a year. Considering that wind turbines kill roughly twice as many bats as birds, this comes to a death toll of 100 – 300 birds and 200 – 600 bats per turbine per year (9). Averaging these numbers, we can say that, on average, each wind turbine kills 200 birds and 400 bats a year. For the Macarthur wind farm: 200 birds x 140 turbines = 28,000 birds a year, as opposed to 1,500 estimated by monitoring consultants.
These figures are actually shy of the first estimates of two decades ago. In a study published by an agency of the California government, the California Energy Commission, we can read as follows: “In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al. (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden “(10). We are very far indeed from the 1 bird per turbine/year being routinely predicted by some remarkably mendacious consultants or government agencies.
THE COVER-UP
Something obviously happened between the high mortality found in the early days of wind farms by biologists such as Winkelman, Benner, Lekuona, Everaert etc. and present estimates as low as 1 bird per turbine/year being “predicted” in Australia, France, the UK etc. Could it be that actual mortality has come down to such a low level? – Not in the least: if you need convincing, see the mortality at Altamont Pass, Macarthur, Wolfe Island, Woolnorth, Smola, etc.
What actually happened is that powerful political and financial interests have worked together towards deceiving our perception of mortality from wind turbines – i.e. putting in place a cover-up. To succeed in this mystification, it was essental to obtain the cooperation of ornithological NGOs. This was generally done by way of donations, and a plethora of attractive contracts: impact studies for wind projects, monitoring avian mortality once the projects are built, modelling ornithological mortality etc… In countries with high penetration of “green” energy, the wind industry quickly became the main employer of ornithologists.
In Spain, Iberdrola and Banco Triodos (the renewable energies’ bank) used to make donations to SEO-Birdlife amounting to nearly 25% of its budget. After a number of years, this finally caused some dissension among members, eventually resulting in the departure of the General Manager, Alejandro Sánchez, in 2010 (11). Less than two years later, the ornithological society published its estimate of windfarm mortality in Spain, revealing the
4/16 enormity of the massacre (9). But their report was neither published nor mentioned by ornithological societies in other countries – what better proof of the collusion between wind interests and ornithology?
An average of 200 dead birds per turbine per year is not at all surprising: it is less than one bird per 24 hours. It could easily be more, considering that song birds migrate at night, to avoid overheating. On moonless nights, all they can see from the turbines are the position lights on the nacelles, while the blades are slashing through the air at up to 300 km/h, invisible.
Accidents also happen during the day, particularly in the case of those species that are attracted to wind turbines (12). This attraction puts their lives in danger, because the blades can reach speeds of 300 km/h at the tip (see further below). It is the case for swallows, swifts and other birds that catch insects on the wing; Professor Ahlén found that they are attracted to wind turbines because insects are themselves attracted to these machines (12).
[ UPDATE. The Audubon Society wrote in March 2016 :“white blades attract insects, and insects attract foraging birds” ]
THE CASE OF RAPTORS
It is also the case of raptors (12), which are attracted by dead or wounded birds or bats that lie under the turbines, or by the mice and rabbits that live there. Indeed, rodents find plenty of food in these open spaces covered in gramineae; also, it is easy to dig burrows where the soil has been softened up by foundation work – see picture below.
5/16 Rabbit in front of its burrow, Altamont Pass wind farm, California – (first generation turbines).
Perched on the still blades (picture further below), or on the nacelles, birds of prey have a commanding view of this exceptional hunting territory. Many will hunt successfully without getting struck by a blade. But their very success causes their brains to establish a connection between wind turbines and great hunting opportunities. Thus, when they spot a wind turbine, which may be seen from many miles away, they will be attracted to it. Young, unattached raptors will therefore visit many wind farms, and so will adults on migration. Breeding adults, on the other hand, will only visit wind turbines located within their own territories, but will do it over and over again. In either case, the more time they spend near the turbines, the greater the chances they will be struck by a blade, the speed of which it is only too easy to misjudge. This is why so many raptors get killed by wind farms.
For birds as for humans, the blades appear to be moving at a leisurely pace. Yet, theyt ravel at up to 300km/h at their tip. Here is the calculation for a 2.3 MW ENERCON Model E-70: 71m (diameter) x 3.14 = circumference of 223m x 21.5 revolutions per minute (in winds above 45 km/h) = 4.794m travelled by the tip of each blade in a minute x 60 minutes = 287,640m travelled in an hour, i.e. at a speed of 287km/h. In low winds, the speed is of 100 – 200 km/h. The difference between apparent slowness and actual high speed, plus the attraction they exert, are what turn wind turbines into deadly traps for birds and bats.
6/16 Raptors, experience has shown, are prone to be decimated by wind turbines (13). Yet these birds are very useful to us, as they control certain animal populations (rats, mice, rabbits, and nest plunderers such as magpies, crows etc.). They also eliminate sick or dead animals, thus preventing epidemics and contributing to the health of many species. Their role is important for the maintenance of natural balances, biodiversity and ecosystems. Yet, a new peer-reviewed study is alerting us that wind turbines are partly responsible for the coming extinction of some species of raptors (in southern Europe). One of them, the Egyptian Vulture, is seeing its population of breeding adults decline by 3-4% per year (14). This spectacular glider is already very rare in Europe, where millions of euros have been spent for its protection, including even its reintroduction (in France for instance).
Photo: Red-tailed hawk perched on a blade, Altamont Pass, California.
Perching opportunities make wind turbines attractive to raptors, so do the prey and carcasses to be found under them (as we commented above). Here are more pictures (15), and videos (25 and 26) proving the point. But consultants promote the fiction that raptors “avoid” wind turbines, and the ornithology profession turns a blind eye to that baseless assertion, all of which is helping their common employers: wind farm promoters. If raptors avoided wind 7/16 turbines, why would so many be killed by their blades? (13)
Consultants use a wide array of deceptive tricks, which they developed over the years. I listed some of them years ago in an article, “the Shame of Scotland” (16). One of these tricks has been pushed to unprecedented levels in Australia: the “core-range manipulation” (16). There, consultants have decided, based upon unscientific, biased and unpublished observations, that wind turbines can be safely erected as close as 300 meters from the nests of eagles or other raptors. For instance, in the Bulgana Windfarm Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 13051 (7.6), page 97, we read: “Previous studies on wind farms have shown that resident Wedge-tailed Eagles are able to successfully nest and raise young on wind farms, if turbines are located at least 300 metres away (BL&A unpublished data )”. ?? Years ago, I debunked an identical assertion which was based on 24 searches spread over two years at the Challicum Hills wind farm – hardly constituting solid scientific evidence, to say the least. Biosis even admitted: “the work does not discount the possibility of WT eagle collisions” (17). Yet the fiction perdures, and wind turbines continue to be erected in Australia as close as 300 meters from eagle and other raptors’ nests. Nowhere else in the world are wind turbines erected so close to large raptors’ nests. Australia’s eagles are being slaughtered, but the cover-up imposed in the last few years keeps Australians uninformed.
By contrast, Scottish raptor expert Michael J. McGrady recommends a 5 km buffer zone for the Golden Eagle, in the peer-reviewed study “A model of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ranging behavior”, J. Raptor Res. 36 (1 Supplement): 62-69 – by McGrady, M.J., Grant, J. R., Baingridge, I. P. & David R.A. McLeod D.R.A. (2002) (18). This study and its recommendation are mentioned in SEO-Birdlife’s guide for the assessment of windfarms as regards bird life, in which one can find the buffer zones recommended by scientists for various protected bird species (18). The shortest is 1 km, for the smallest of the kestrel species. For eagles, they vary from 5 to 10 km (18); for ospreys 2 km, peregrine falcons 2 – 4 km, cranes 10 km.
Hopkinton has kestrel nesting boxes on the edge of the very fields that Iberdrola and the leaseholders were scheming to put the turbines. One of the nests (at the end of my road) was smashed and thrown tot the ground on the other side of the road. I took pictures... There is a nesting pair that use it yearly. These birds were not considered in the PSS by Iberdrola/Atlantic Wind/Avangrid. PLUNDERING NATURE WITH PUBLIC FUNDS
Out of control windfarm development is hurting many protected species, riding as it does on the optimistic estimates put out by hired consultants, government agencies, bird societies, the wind industry and its agents, pro-wind activists etc. It is also facilitated by considerable flows of public money, in the form of subsidies, tax credits, special loans, carbon certificates, etc.
8/16 These millions of dollars (billions in those countries that have thousands of wind turbines) enable private interests to remove all obstacles to their greed, and this includes overriding nature protection legislation. Migration routes and stopover areas (e.g. Prince Edward County, Ontario; Escandorgue, France), shrinking habitat of threatened species (e.g. brolgas, Bonelli’s eagles, whooping cranes, California condors), designated Important Bird Areas (e.g. Sierras d’Alfaro y Almudaina, Spain, Lewis Island, Scotland), , nothing is sacred: the plunder has no limits.
Planning authorities which give the green light to wind projects rarely have other bird data at hand than what’s reported in impact studies prepared by unethical consultants. I read about a hundred of these reports over the past 12 years, and none concluded that the impact on the environment would be unacceptable, even when the project was to be located inside a protected nature reserve, or was threatening an endangered species with extinction. None of them was honest, without errors or omissions, and free of manipulations.
MITIGATION
To obtain approval for wind projects that will highly impact protected species, consultants usually suggest applying some techniques for avoiding, minimising, or attenuating the risks of collision. They call these “mitigation”. But we must be aware that none of these schemes, none of these formulas have proved effective. Wherever they have been implemented, they have failed (Altamont Pass, Woolnorth, Smola, Tarifa). The President of the French bird society LPO-Birdlife acknowledged the fact that mitigation does not work (19).
[ UPDATE. The Audubon Society concurred, in an article dated March 16, 2016 :“I would say it’s highly experimental; none of it has been proven to work” ]
In situations where opponents to a wind project have raised the issue of bat mortality, consultants often propose a mitigation which consists in increasing the cut-in wind speed to, say, 6 meters per second. This means not letting the blades rotate unless the speed of the wind exceeds 22 km/h. The idea is that, as few bats fly when the wind exceeds that speed, mortality will be reduced by about 90%. We comment on this particular mitigation as follows:
– First observation: the promised 90% reduction in mortality has not been verified. To our knowledge, no wind farm has put this measure into practice and published the results.
9/16 – Second observation: a 10% residual mortality is considered by consultants to be negligible, as if it were acceptable to kill 1.2 million bats per year instead of 12 million (supposing a country that has, or will have, 18,000 wind turbines as in Spain). Most bat species are endangered, all are extremely useful. Killing them in such numbers is irresponsible. Also consider that the figure of 1,2 million will be much higher, as A) the reduction to 10% is unproven, B) only few wind projects contemplate “bat mitigation”.
– Third observation: the practical application of such a measure is not verifiable. Indeed, who would make sure that, during 25 years, the computer program controlling the feathering of the blades… C) reflects that mitigation, D) is in good order and E) is being applied? The interest of the windfarm owner is to not apply it, as it reduces his income. Thus, inspectors would be needed, but who would pay them during 25 years? It would have to be the State. And who would ensure that the operators of the wind farms will not “convince” these civil servants to turn a blind eye? Indeed, wind farms are often associated with corruption (20).
BATS
Mitigation of bat mortality is therefore doubtful at best. Yet bats are killed in bigger numbers than birds – about twice as many, i.e. circa 400 per turbine/year, or one bat per turbine/night. According to a study published in France, bats “are the most valuable fauna group” (in French: «constituent le groupe faunistique ayant la plus forte valeur patrimoniale») (21). Indeed, bat species are very useful to humans, but they all are in decline. To make things worse, their populations cannot recover easily, most females only raising one pup a year.
Many of the chiropter species are classified as threatened with extinction. This is especially worrying because, without bats, farmers, the forest industry, and national forestry administrations would have to use more pesticides to control insects that attack trees and crops. This would lead to undesirable effects on prices and on the health of citizens. Services rendered by bats to US agriculture have been valued at $3.7 billion – $53 billion annually (22). That we know of, no evaluation has been made for services rendered by chiropters to forestry, but their usefulness in controlling some forest pests is recognised (23). Yet bats are being killed in their millions by wind turbines. This is causing considerable harm to the environment.
10/16 In this video (24), we see bats getting struck by turbine blades, and others falling to the ground due to “barotrauma” (fatal injuries in the lungs caused by large pressure differences created around the blades).
COMPENSATION
The ineffectiveness of mitigation resulted in wily consultants proposing yet another deceptive scheme: “compensation”. This stratagem is useful to businesses that are causing serious harm to nature as a result of their activities. So much so that “offset programs” (27) are being set up, fooling people into believing that destroying more nature can be compensated. “No net biodiversity loss” is the publicised goal, but it is yet another scam to facilitate more plundering of nature. It boggles the mind to see most ecologists and bird societies supporting this fraud. Here again, ethics vanish where there is money to be made…
Natural wetlands cannot be replaced by man-made reservoirs, any more than destroying primary tropical forests can be compensated by planting eucalyptus. Just as surely, installing long-lasting ecological traps in the habitat of protected species cannot be offset by donations to a bird society. This scheme of redeeming one’s ecological sins with money is not without parallel with the “indulgences” that were sold by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
Compensation is increasingly being used in the windfarm business. For instance, it is being alleged that, if new hunting areas for raptors are created nearby, it is acceptable to install wind turbines in their breeding territories. But this only works on paper. It hasn’t been successful anywhere in the world. The example of Beinn an Tuirc, Scotland, is sometimes quoted by some consultant as a reference. But this example is anything but conclusive. I exposed its false claim to success years ago (28).
The since-discovered fact that raptors are attracted to wind turbines further proves the ineffectiveness of this compensation. These machines act as giant bird and bat traps that attract their victims from many miles around, creating as many “population sinks” across whole continents. Nothing can compensate this ongoing massacre. Creating new hunting grounds next to wind farms is as absurd as “killing the children but building orphanages”. .
11/16 No government in the world has considered objectively the cumulative effects of so many wind turbines, each of them an ecological trap attracting and killing many protected species. Some residents report that, since wind turbines were built, there are no more bats where they live; others noted that they see fewer and fewer raptors. Swallows and swifts are becoming rarer too, according to others.
The situation is serious, if only because these species are of great benefit to humanity. Natural equilibriums are also at risk, and so is quality of life. Are we willing to replace our countryside with industrial landscapes, our birds and bats with crop dusters? Where are we headed, with this “green” ideology which destroys nature by calling for its invasion by more destructive industry, and misleads people into thinking it’s for the greater good of the planet?
What an awful mess are these ideologues making of our world, under the pretext of saving it… The wind industry has never been able to prove it can achieve its goal of significantly reducing harmful emissions. The wind’s intermittency stands in its way. The German experience is far from being conclusive in this regard, to say the least (29). A few years from now, when all the expensive tinkering will have failed (more power lines, international connections, smart meters, giant batteries, reservoirs and pumping stations, etc.), the Germans will have to face the harsh reality: wind intermittency has no economically viable solution.
Independent engineers keep repeating it (30), but stubborn governments are not listening. Through the famous “revolving door” of politics, wind power subsidies help finance political parties. It would be suicidal for any party to vote against their renewal (30). The wind industry clearly calls the shots, be it in Copenhagen, London, Ottawa, Canberra or Washington. The wind farm scam controls our energy policy, and the ministers of health and the environment must obey.
The renewable energy bubble has burst in Spain and other southern European countries. It occurred when the cost of subsidies became unaffordable, i.e. when these countries became technically bankrupt and HAD to cut down on government expenses. When this happened, the so-called “green jobs” vanished. The countries were left with households impoverished by the high cost of “renewable” electricity. Some companies had to relocate abroad due to this cost, and more are contemplating to do likewise. Tourists looking for nature, landscapes and relaxation choose other destinations. In the countryside, residents are poorer as their homes are worth a fraction of their normal value. Many suffer from the Wind Turbine Syndrome, and their lives may end sooner because of high levels of cortisol in their blood. As for the birds, they keep being chopped up year after year…
12/16 Mark Duchamp Chairman, World Council for Nature Tél: +34 693 643 736 [email protected]
References:
1) – http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2d42fcbd-31ea-4739-b109- b420571338a3/files/wind-farm-bird-risk.pdf page 32 of TWTE modelling study
2) – http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/deaths-of-rare-eagles-rise-20101116- 17vy7.html
3) – http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/eolica/BIRD_MORTALITY/Yaloak_South_Debus_comme nts.pdf
4) – http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=4382
5) – http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/wind-farm-turbines-take-toll-on-birds-of- prey/story-fnkfnspy-1227066199577
(6) – http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2007/03/19/01008-20070319ARTFIG90140- l_effet_des_eoliennes_sur_les_oiseaux.php
(7) – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.260/abstract
(8) – (Koop B., 1997. Vogelzug und Windenergieplanung. Beispiele für Auswirkungen aus dem Kreis Plön (Schleswig-Holstein). Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 29 (7): 202-207).
(9) – http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million- birds-bats-a-year.html
13/16 (10) –http://www.iberica2000.org/documents/EOLICA/REPORTS/Dave_Sterner_2002.pdf Page 12, 1er paragraphe.
(11) –http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_S%C3%A1nchez_P%C3%A9rez
(12) – https://wcfn.org/2013/07/24/biodiversity-alert/
(13) – Some of the eagles killed by wind turbines (tip of the iceberg) http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071 – Last updated in 2006
– Some of the ospreys killed by wind turbines (tip of the iceberg) http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/843-2.html
– Effects on red kites http://rapaces.lpo.fr/sites/default/files/milan-royal/63/actesmilan150.pdf (pages 96, 97).
(14) – Study “Action on multiple fronts, illegal poisoning and wind farm planning, is required to reverse the decline of the Egyptian vulture in southern Spain” Ana Sanz-Aguilar, José Antonio Sánchez-Zapata, Martina Carrete, José Ramón Benítez, Enrique Ávila, Rafael Arenas f, José Antonio Donázar (a). Study published on April 21 2015 by ELSEVIER, Biological Conservation, Volume 187, July 2015, pages 10–18 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320715001408
(15) – –https://savetheeagles.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/raptors-attracted-to-windfarms-2/
(16) – The Shame of Scotland: http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=3426 See –> ” 3 . THE CORE RANGE MANIPULATION ”
(17) – http://www.iberica2000.org/es/Articulo.asp?Id=4313 See –> ” 4 – The precedent of Challicum Hills ”
(18) – https://www.seo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MANUAL-MOLINOS-VERSION- 31_WEB.pdf
14/16 See –> Annex II, pages 106 and 107 Literature review of recommended buffer zones and sizes of home range for eagles and other raptors.
(19) – https://conseilmondialpourlanature.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/lpo-et-systemes-de- dissuasion-avienne/
(20) – https://wcfn.org/2015/04/22/huge-wind-farm-corruption-scandal-in-spain/
(21) – http://www.aude.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Etude_d_impacts_CVO_21-06- 2013_Partie2_cle55bcf8.pdf See –> page 89
(22) – http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2743#.VU4hv_ntmkp
(23) – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4186828/
(24) – VIDEO http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/bats-struck-by-wind-turbines.html
(25) – VIDEO http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/vulture-struck-by-wind-turbine.html
(26) – VIDEO http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/vultures-killed-videos.html
(27) – http://bbop.forest-trends.org/
(28) – http://www.iberica2000.org/Documents/eolica/BIRD_MORTALITY/Critique_Beinn_an_Tuirc_repo rt.rtf
(29) – http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602
15/16 Available upon request to [email protected]
(30) – http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&matter=backup
(31) – http://en.friends-against-wind.org/realities/windfarms-are-only-good-for-financing- political-parties
X X X
Note: if an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress, not from WCFN. WordPress is free of charge, but publicity is how they recoup their costs. We regret that our budget does not permit us to afford an ad-free webpage.
16/16 Dead geese seen on roads near turbines
watertowndailytimes.com/article/20111215/OPINION02/712159987
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2011 AT 4:30 AM
ABE On the night of Dec. 7, I drove through some very thick fog. As I traveled state Route 190 from Ellenburg to Brainardsville my fog lights illuminated one of the grizzliest scenes I have experienced. I counted 15 bloody, mutilated corpses of snow geese spread out over several miles.
I counted only those on the road because those were the only ones I could see due to the heavy fog. I do not know how many more were spread across the yards and crossroads.
Shortly after passing state Route 374, I noticed there were no more dead birds. I only saw the dead birds as I drove near the wind turbines.
The big corporation and landowners who stand to make large sums of money putting up wind towers of monstrous heights in the towns of Hopkinton and Parishville keep telling us that the towers are safe.
The wind industry propaganda says that windows kill more birds than wind turbines. How many geese have flown into your windows? I can’t say I have ever known that to happen.
But I do know that last night a whole flock of geese flying over the woods and farms their ancestors have always traveled were smashed, battered and thrown to their death.
I can only pray that no humans were injured when the falling dead geese struck them or their vehicles.
Kelly Johnson-Eilola
St. Regis falls
Commenting rules: 1. Stick to the topic of the article/letter/editorial. 2. When responding to issues raised by other commenters, do not engage in personal attacks or name-calling. 3. Comments that include profanity/obscenities or are libelous in nature will be removed without warning.
Violators' commenting privileges may be revoked indefinitely. By commenting you agree to our
1/2 Opinion: Wind farms will impact migratory route for birds, says Hopkinton man
northcountrynow.com/letters/opinion-wind-farms-will-impact-migratory-route-birds-says-hopkinton-man-0217482
To the Editor:
Having operated the store Greg & Molly's in Hopkinton for 30 years and sold in 2010, I had the golden opportunity to watch hundreds of thousands of Canadian geese over the years make there way both north and south by use of the Atlantic flyway - which is right where the proposed wind farms are to be located.
This is also a black duck flyway a species that avoids being seen as much. Here is a link to help explain. http://www.ducks.org/conservation/waterfowl-research- science/understandi...
As of yet I have heard not one person address the question of who is going to tell the migratory birds of the northeast that we are closing the road south.
Having used this flyway for 1000s of years and being a very important part of not only our eco- system but also playing a part in many areas economy's thru hunting a sight seeing I feel very strongly that they also need a voice in these rounds of talks.
Please stop and think -- for generations it has been the lonely sound of the honking goose that has truly been the sign in the north county that winter is near or spring is here.
Gregory S. Caron
Winthrop
1/1 See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312498265
Green Dilemma of Wind Farm on Avifauna: Future Ecological Considerations of Wind Energy Expansion in Ethiopia
Article in The Journal of Zoology Studies · July 2016
CITATIONS READS 0 54
1 author:
Getachew Mulualem Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Mekelle Center 52 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Conservation criminology View project
Road Ecology in Ethiopia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Getachew Mulualem on 18 January 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. The Journal of Zoology Studies 2016; 3(3): 46-57 The Journal of Zoology Studies The Journal of Zoology Studies W: Don't Lon/2 Animals, we Liv: For Them The Journal uflnulugv Studies The Jnumal uflnulugy Sludlas JOZS www.journalofzoology.com JOZS we mu. 9t {.9V: A»!M414, we Don. I Lo»-I! .4uJ'»wu'.c, wa Ling Far rhgm M’: Line For Tr‘.-em
ISSN 2348-5914 Green Dilemma of Wind Farm on Avifauna: Future Ecological JOZS 2016; 3(3): 46-57 Considerations of Wind Energy Expansion in Ethiopia
JOZS © 2016
Received: 19-05-2016
Accepted: 05-07-2016 Author: Getachew Mulualem
Abstract Getachew Mulualem Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Mekelle Center, Wildlife Studies, The potential effects and green dilemma of wind energy developments on Avifauna are explored P.O.Box, 30726, Tigray, Ethiopia using information from previous studies of existing wind farms. Besides, key ecological considerations of future wind energy development scenario of Ethiopia were also drawn.
Moreover, post-construction ecological impacts of the currently operating wind power plants on avifauna are not yet researched. Despite the fact that, various scientific literatures across the globe has revealed the effect of wind power plant on avifauna and other wild animals. The
effects of wind farms on avifauna are highly variable and depend on a wide range of factors
including the specification of the wind plants, the topography of adjacent land, the habitats and the number and species of birds present. As well, the impact of wind farms on avifauna includes
habitat loss, collisions with wind turbines, disturbance/displacement and barrier effects. Species
groups which are at risk of collision includes migratory soaring bird species such as storks and cranes, birds of prey such as eagles and hawks, and some species of sea birds. The Ethiopian electric power corporation recognizes the importance of diversification of energy resources to
ensure stable energy supply and is trying to develop various kinds’ of alternative power plants technologies. Thus, development of wind farms should be considered in the light of both energy and ecological significance to wild animals and the largest biodiversity. In order to avoid the
negative impacts of wind farms a strategic approach at the landscape scale early in the planning stage will both avoid impacts to biodiversity and reduce the risk to developers. Likewise, mitigation measures with a potential to minimize impacts are also summarized. Finally, wildlife
concerns of future wind energy development scenario and recent developments in the
monitoring are outlined and some areas for future work are described.
Keywords: Green Dilemma, Wind farm, Avifauna, Wind energy, Collision risk
1. Introduction
Wind power is an abundant, widely distributed energy resource that has zero fuel cost, zero [52] emissions and zero water use (Energy report, 2008 .The global capacity of renewable energy has doubled in the period from 2000 to 2013, with onshore wind accounting for 18% of the 1,682 GW of renewable electricity produced in 2013, with 0.4% provided by offshore wind. Wind turbines have significant positive environmental impacts because the cradle-to-grave Corresponding Author: pollution impacts of wind turbines are minimal compared to conventional generation (IRENA, Getachew Mulualem 2014) [20]. Fossil fuel supplies 85 % of the global human energy, yet many acknowledge the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, need to switch to renewable sources, especially given concern over nuclear power safety (Allan Mekelle Center, Wildlife Studies, [1] P.O.Box, 30726, Tigray, Ethiopia & Rowena, 2006) . Wind energy has increased in capacity faster than any other form of [45] renewable energy (REN21 report, 2013) . Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 46 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
However, it presents both challenges and opportunities intended target in green economy. Of the total wind for the industry to lead the way as an ecologically power plants Ashegoda are the largest of all and the sustainable source of energy. The risk of fauna first in sub- Saharan Africa producing 120 mw (Dereje, collisions with turbines is a principal consideration 2013) [57]. In an effort to make the strategy and policies amongst the potential environmental effects of wind more consistent, the Ethiopian electric power farms (Ian, 2015) [19]. Other possible effects of wind corporation formulates an integrated plan of power energy generation include disturbance of fauna during sector development of Ethiopia (2008-2018) construction and operation, and alienation of habitats (PASDEP, 2008) [37]. Ethiopia has one of the largest that may be caused by wind farms (Ian, 2015) [19].In wind resources in sub-Saharan Africa, with1, 350 GW Ethiopia the effect of operating and proposed wind of the total potential resource for wind-generated farm on fauna mortality is not yet studied. However, power supply. Currently there are two Wind power Ethiopia has developed its climate resilient green stations in Ethiopia namely Ashegoda and Adama I and economy strategy by 2025 with an annual per capita II, consisting of 273 turbines, which produce 929 greenhouse gas emission of 1.8 tones and zero net GWh/yr of generating capacity (Dereje, 2013) [7]. As carbon emission (TewoldeBerhan,2012) [51]. In an well, there are four candidate wind power projects for effort to attain the stipulated green economy strategy investment at GTP with energy production of 542 MW there is a plan to install 33 new wind farms stations in (Dereje, 2013) [7]. To my knowledge there is no Ethiopia. With the recent increase in utility-scale wind information in the scientific literature about the effect energy development, researchers have become of wind power facilities on avifauna at any of these increasingly concerned how this activity will affect Ethiopian wind farms to date. The recently constructed wildlife and their habitat (Mickey et al., 2015) [34]. wind farms at Northern Ethiopia, Ashegoda comprise Unfortunately, understanding of the potential impacts 120 turbines with each having a 2 MW output. These of wind energy developments on wildlife has not kept developments could have unknown ecological pace with the recent rise of green energy development implications on avifauna and other physiographic efforts in Ethiopia. Therefore, this paper reviews the wildlife biodiversity. Hence, the current situation of potential effects of wind energy developments on wind energy development of Ethiopia should be avifauna and outlines what mitigation measures should consistent with the representative network of be taken to minimize its impacts on avifauna. Finally, conserving biodiversity in protected areas. it describes some important ecological considerations of upcoming massive expansion of wind energy in 3. Potential effect of wind farm facilities on Ethiopia. Avifauna The relationship between wind power developments 2. Current situation of wind energy in Ethiopia and avifauna is variable and complex and depends on a Ethiopia is endowed with an enormous potential of number of factors including: the scope and type of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind development and associated physiographic, the type of power, solar energy and geothermal energy. The habitat and individual bird species present, and their energy situation of Ethiopia composes 90 % of distribution and abundance in the area (Drewitt & traditional biomass for cooking and 70 % kerosene for Langston 2006) [8]. In an effort to effectively reduce the lighting. As well, hydropower, wind and geothermal adverse effect of the developments, wind farms must and diesel stand by accounts 94%, 4% and 2% be sited in open, exposed areas where there are high respectively (Dereje, 2013) [7].The Plan for accelerated average wind speeds. This implies that, they are often and sustained development to end poverty sets its proposed in upland, coastal and offshore areas, thus target in the energy sector to increase the access rate potentially affecting important habitats for breeding, from 16% (2005/06) to 50% (2009/10) by the wintering and migrating birds (Allan & Rowena, 2006) intensification of energy generation from 791MW to [1]. The effects of a wind farm on birds are highly 2,218MW and the expansion of the grid to 13,054km variable and depend on a wide range of factors (PASDEP, 2008) [37]. The government of Ethiopia with including the specification of the wind plants, the the collaboration of Chinese government has also topography of the surrounding land, the habitats primed solar and wind energy master plan for the affected and the number and species of birds present whole country. In view of that, Ethiopia has a capacity (Allan & Rowena, 2006) [1]. The principal areas of of 1,350 GW wind energy potential resource (Dereje, concern with regard to effects of wind power plants on 2013) [7]. Moreover, based on the growth and avifauna are described below. transformation plan of Ethiopia, there is a plan to install 33 new wind power plant stations in different 4. Direct effect of wind farm facilities on Avifauna part of the country (Dereje, 2013) [7]. Besides, presently Direct mortality at wind farms results from birds there are around 7 wind farm stations to meet the striking revolving blades, towers, nacelles, and
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 47 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
associated power lines and meteorological masts. mortality takes place as a result of multiple There is also evidence of birds being violently forced installations of wind energy facilities. to the ground by turbulence behind the turbine created by the moving blades (Drewitt & Langston, 2008) [8]. Collision mortality, including strikes with As well, The direct impacts of turbines on wildlife can communication towers, power lines, buildings, fences, also happens when birds come in close proximity with and other structures, may represent the largest source moving turbine blades, towers, or transmission lines of unintended anthropogenic mortality to flying servicing wind farms and when habitat that could be vertebrates (Bispo et al., 2013) [4]. Recently, the used by wildlife is cleared (Michelle et al., 2015) [33]. attention has focused on collisions at wind energy Various studies shown that, the direct impacts of wind facilities (Bispo et al., 2013) [4], which are documented farm to wildlife may increase significantly when for many species of raptors, passerines, upland turbines are installed in or near major migration gamebirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl (Kuvlesky et al., corridors or natural features used during daily animal 2007[25]; Loesch et al., 2013) [30]. Direct mortality at travel (e.g., mountain passes, large river valleys, and wind energy facilities is typically considered as saddles or the edges of ridge-tops and bluffs) (Kunz et collision with a turbine, but associated structures such al., 2007[24], Drewitt and Langston, 2008) [8], or at as guy cables, power lines, and meteorological masts migration stopover sites or frequently visited areas may also cause avian mortality (Drewitt and Langston, such as wetlands and lakes. This is owing to the 2006) [8]. tendency of following or congregating of birds along these natural landscape features. Therefore, wind 4.2 Barrier Effects of wind farm facilities on turbines installed near these features may have the Avifauna potential for causing an increase in avian mortalities. Barrier effects can be caused by wind turbines For example a recent study by Smallwood in 2013 disrupting the links between feeding/roosting/nesting estimates direct fatalities at wind energy facilities in areas, or diverting flights, including migratory flights, the U.S. for one year when less than 52,000 megawatts around a wind farm stations. They have the potential of wind power were installed were 573,000 birds and to have fitness costs for individuals (with potential 880,000 bats were dead (Smallwood, 2013) [47]. knock-on effects on breeding productivity, mortality and population size) and affect how avian use the 4.1 Avian collision with wind farm facilities landscape, as demonstrated by radar studies (Gove et Collisions present the greatest threat to avifauna al., 2013) [16]. Barrier effects are only likely to be populations. Direct fatality or lethal injury of avifauna significant for very large projects, or clusters of can result not only from collisions with rotors, but also projects, or in situations where they cause disruption to with towers, nacelles and associated structures such as daily flights, e.g. for breeding birds with high energy guy cables, power lines and meteorological masts of demands that cannot be compensated for impacts the wind farm developments. There is also evidence of (Gove et al., 2013) [16]. avifauna being forced to the ground as a result of being drawn into the vortex created by moving rotors (Bispo 5. Indirect effect of wind farm facilities on Avifauna et al., 2013) [4]. The majority of studies of collisions Studies evaluating the indirect impacts of wind energy caused by wind turbines have recorded relatively low development on populations of avifauna have been levels of mortality (Erickson et al., 2001) [11]. This is limited (Johnson & Stephens 2011) [22]. However, possibly a reflection of the fact that many of the studied research on wind-wildlife impacts focused on risk of wind farms are located away from large concentrations collision mortality from turbines and transmission lines of avifauna. It is also important to note that many (Coppedge et al., 2001) [6]. surveys are based on exclusive searching of carcass, with no correction for corpses that are overlooked or The effects of wind power plant to wildlife are greatly removed by scavengers (Langston & Pullan, 2003) [27]. variable and site-specific; the four main indirect Accepting that many wind power plants result in only impacts to wildlife include: - habitat loss, avoidance, low levels of fatality, even these levels of additional and collision mortality (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005) mortality may be significant for long-lived species with [23]. Impacts of wind farms on avian fauna can include low productivity and slow maturation rates, especially habitat loss, collisions with wind turbines and when rarer species of conservation concern are infrastructure, disturbance/displacement, barrier effects affected. In such circumstances there could be and indirect impacts (Gove et al., 2013) [15]. As well, significant effects at the population level (locally, displacement by avoidance of otherwise suitable regionally or, in the case of rare and restricted species, habitat, or demographic impacts, such as reduced nationally), particularly in situations where cumulative survival or reproductive output is also the other indirect
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 48 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
effect of wind power on wildlife biodiversity (AWWI, 6.1 Wind Farm configuration 2014) [52]. The configuration of turbines at onshore facilities is most often dictated by the wind resource, and thus far 5.1 Displacement and disturbance of wind farm no one has examined how overall wind farm facilities on Avifauna configuration may affect birds (Percival (2001) [41]) Collision rates have been the primary focus of research considered that, in general, spacing between turbines and monitoring, the effects of disturbance may have a should be greater than 200 m in order to avoid greater impact on birds (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005) inhibiting bird movement (barrier effect).This [23], and yet this is the least studied aspect of wind farm recommended distance is also often the amount of impacts on avifauna. Behavioral research on spacing required by industry to reduce wake effects of disturbance impacts is lacking for some avian taxa. large turbines on neighboring turbines (Kingsley & However, the available information suggests that some Whittam, 2005) [23]. groups of birds (e.g. sea ducks) may be more sensitive to disturbance from wind farms than others (Percival 6.2 Wind turbine lighting 2005 [41]; Drewitt & Langston, 2006) [8]. There have been large mortality events at a variety of lit structures as a result of nocturnal-migrant songbirds Displacement and disturbance of avifauna can happen being disorientated by lights when forced to fly at low during construction, operation and decommissioning of altitude by rain and mist (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005) wind turbines, either due to the presence of the [23]. Erickson et al., (2001) [11] suggested that lighting structures themselves and/or associated infrastructure was the single most critical attractant for nocturnal or human activity associated with wind power plants migrants. The most plausible relates to a ‘trapping (Gove et al., 2013) [15]. The range of possible causes of effect’ of light rather than actual attraction on entering disturbances during the lifetime of a wind power plant an illuminated area, especially on a foggy night, may include the following points. Primarily, the passing migrants are reluctant to leave; on approaching construction phase may greatly contribute for the the edge of the illuminated area, they are hesitant to fly disturbance of birds at wind farm station. These may into the darkness beyond, and instead fly back towards include visual intrusion, noise, vibration, dust, the light. The trapping effect could be minimized by pollution and the physical presence and movement of reducing the intensity of the light to a minimum, and construction plant (equipment), and the presence of having the intervals between flashes as long as possible personnel associated with works and site security (Huppop et al., 2006) [18]. (Birdlife International, 2011) [3]. Similarly, the operational phase can be the possible causes of avian 6.3 Blade speed and motion smear disturbances. This can have the form of visual intrusion The rotor on a 1.5 MW capacity turbine turns at a of the turbines themselves; noise, movement and speed of about 19 rpm. In contrast, smaller machines, shadow flicker; the presence of personnel associated such as the 225 kW Brooklyn turbine, turn at 40–45 with maintenance and site security; improved access by rpm (Ashby, 2004). To avoid damage, turbines the public; edge effects of infrastructure (access tracks automatically shut off when the wind reaches a speed etc.); and turbines and other structures providing of about 25 m/s (c. 90 km/h) (Ralph, 2009) [43]. There vantage points or improved access for predatory are several reasons why avian may collide with wind species. Inline to this, the decommissioning phase can turbines during conditions of good visibility, with the have visual intrusion, noise, vibration, dust, pollution most noticeable being that they are unable to detect the and the physical presence and movement of rotating blades. Hypotheses, applying mainly to construction plant (equipment), and the presence of raptors, have been suggested to explain this. Motion personnel associated with construction and site security smear, or motion blur, which occurs when an object (Birdlife International, 2011) [3]. moves with increasing speed, becoming progressively more blurred. This phenomenon is apparent at the tips 6. Features of wind farm that may impacts avifauna of turbine blades because the speed at the tip is much A number of features of wind farms may contribute to greater than at the base of the blade, so that the eye is their impacts on birds and their populations. These unable to detect the individual revolutions (although it include the scale of wind farms, wind farm is not clear whether this perceived problem is based on configuration, construction and operation, turbine human vision or bird vision). design and dimensions, lighting, blade speed and motion smear, associated structures, and landscape To date, most studies of the effects of turbine blades on features (Ralph, 2009) [43]. avian mortality have been based on older, variable- speed turbines. These turbines, which have c. 3-m- long blades, can have very high blade speeds of over
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 49 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
60 rpm, making motion smear an important issue. (Sterejana and Poganik, 2008) [48]. Birds of prey are However, wind turbine technology has changed highly susceptible and direct victims of wind power significantly, such that the c. 11-m-long blades of large plant facilities. Although most collisions are songbirds, turbines (> 1 MW) now rotate at a much slower speed raptors may be the most vulnerable to collisions of 15–30 rpm. even though the tips of the 11-m blades (Strickland et al., 2011) [50]. For example the 100 raptor revolve faster than those of 3-m blades, the longer fatalities found at Columbia Plateau Eco-region of blades seem to be more visible to birds (Kingsley & Eastern Washington and Orego wind energy facilities Whittam, 2005) [23], lessening the potential risk of have composed 8.7% of the total identified bird collision. Nonetheless, no studies to date have mortality in the projected area. Most of the raptor examined the effect of slower blade revolution on birds fatalities were American kestrels (29 fatalities; 29.0%) (Kingsley & Whittam, 2005) [23]. All new wind energy and red-tailed hawks (Buteojamaicensis; 22 fatalities; developments should ensure that blade revolutions per 22.0%) (Gregory et al., 2011) [17]. Using raptor minute are minimized, to avoid motion smear and mortality estimates from existing wind energy facilities promote blade visibility during the day. Laboratory in the Columbia Plateau Eco-region, we estimate total research indicates that applying certain designs to raptor mortality in the Columbia Plateau Eco-region turbine blades will enhance the ability of birds to see would be 536 fatalities per year. American kestrels rotating blades, and thus potentially reduce fatalities account for 29.0%, red-tailed hawks account for (McIsaac, 2001) [32]. 22.0%, Swainson’s hawks account for 9.0%, and short eared owls account for 8.0% of the raptor fatalities 6.4 Landscape features recorded at the regional wind projects studied. Physical features on the landscape can strongly Assuming this trend holds true for all proposed wind influence bird movement and behavior. For example, energy facilities in the Columbia Plateau Eco-region, diurnal migrants tend to follow coasts, shorelines of and assuming there would be 536 raptor fatalities per lakes, rivers, ridges and other linear features year, it would be expected that on average 155 (Richardson, 2000) [46]. During the day, peninsulas and American kestrels, 118 red-tailed hawks, 48 islands can host concentrations of nocturnal migrants Swainson’s hawks, and 43 short-eared owls would be that have been migrating over large bodies of water, killed each year (Gregory et al., 2011) [17]. Risks of and coastal islands and headlands provide essential avian collision are dependent largely on location, resting and feeding habitat during layover times for topography and species present. Large soaring birds these birds. Islands of habitat (plantations) can act in a seem to be particularly vulnerable with research similar fashion, concentrating migrants in otherwise showing griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus), golden eagle hostile environments, such as in open agricultural (Aquila chrysaetos) and red kite (Milvusmilvus) to be at landscapes and in industrial areas. Thus, the placement considerable risk (Gove et al., 2013) [16]. Taller turbines of turbines close to prominent landscape features may have much larger rotor-swept areas, and it has been positively or negatively influence the number of birds hypothesized that collision fatalities will increase moving through a wind farm, particularly migrants and owing to the greater overlap with flight heights of wetland species (Ralph, 2009) [43]. nocturnal-migrating songbirds and bats (Johnson et al., 2002[21]. The vast majority (>80%) of avian nocturnal 7. Taxonomic group of birds vulnerable forwind migrants typically fly above the height of the rotor- farm mortality swept zone (<500 feet; <150 m) (AWWI, Wind power plants facilities have multifaceted 2014).Raptors’ fatalities are considered an important ecological effect on various taxonomic groups of issue owing to their small population of ecological Avifauna. The species groups which are vulnerable and significance and severe threat factor operating against at risk of collision includes migratory soaring bird their protected status. Besides, it may have highest species such as:- storks and cranes, birds of prey such possibility of changing trophic interactions (Lance et as eagles and hawks, and some species of sea birds al., 2013) [26]. (Ledec et al., 2011) [29]. However, habitat displacement is also a key threat for species in open country, such as 7.2 Passerines (songbirds) at wind farm plants breeding waders (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012) [38], Passerines are also the most commonly observed birds geese and swans (Rees, 2012) [44] and Prairie grouse during pre-construction fixed-point bird use surveys in (Ledec et al., 2011) [29]. many wind farm sites. Both migrant and resident passerine fatalities have been observed. Songbird 7.1 Raptors fatality at wind farm plants mortality at wind energy facilities in eastern Oregon The mortality rate for raptors is recorded separately in and Washington has been reasonably consistent among some studies. 51 studies recorded bird mortality rate sites (Gregory et al., 2011) [27]. Passerines that migrate and 34 out of them recorded collision rate for raptors nocturnally account for almost half of the species
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 50 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
reported as fatalities (Kunz et al., 2007) [24]. of diversification of energy resources to ensure stable Particularly during spring and fall migration periods energy supply and is trying to develop various kinds of (Drewitt and Langston 2008[8], Strickland et al., 2011) power plants alternatives. Therefore, wind energy [50]. could be an ideal complement to hydropower and economic growth and macro-economic stability of the Passerines (songbirds) have been the most abundant country. Considering the complementary bird fatality at modern wind energy facilities in western characteristics of wind power to hydropower there is a North America, comprising 59.3% of total bird plan to install 33 new wind farm sites in Ethiopia fatalities (Johnson and Stephens, 2011) [21]. Ninety- (Dereje, 2013) [71]. eight bird species have occurred as fatalities at existing wind energy facilities in the Columbia Plateau Eco- In light ofthe proposed wind energy development region of Eastern Washington and Orego wind energy. scenario majority of the wildlife conservation concerns Besides, Songbirds have composed 69.5% of the should be wisely addressed, to the level where they are identified bird mortality at Columbia Plateau Eco- of no significant concern. At the preliminary stages of a region wind energy facilities (Gregory et al., 2011) [17]. development it is clearly important to use existing information to determine the likelihood of wind power 7.3 Aquatic avifauna fatality at wind farm plants impacts on wildlife. Ideally this would be undertaken The mortality of these birds is low. The highest in a pre-emptive, strategic way, collating information mortality rates occur in the area with a lot of water to identify those areas where there are unlikely to be surfaces in the vicinity of turbines (Sterejana and significant impacts on birds (or other nature Poganik, 2008) [48]. Waterfowl, water birds and conservation interests) and prioritizing them for shorebirds have composed only 2.1% of the identified development (Allan and Drewitt, 2006) [1]. fatalities. However, mortality is very low compared to the relatively high use by these bird types (Gregory et 9. Pre- and Post-Construction wind farm al., 2011) [17]. Waterfowl, water birds and shorebirds assessment parameters represent a very small percentage (2.1%) of all 9.1 Pre-construction farm Assessments identified fatalities at existing wind energy projects in It is critical to establish the presence or absence of the Columbia Plateau Eco-region. Based on our total various species and important natural communities bird mortality estimate of 15, 276, approximately 321 well in prior to undertaking construction activities. fatalities could result on an annual basis (Gregory et The primary purposes of pre-construction assessments al., 2011) [17]. The impacts on these species have been are to: 1) collect information seemly for predicting the monitored in many wind farm areas, especially in potential impacts of the wind project on animal and Europe. Their interaction has been studied in fresh and plant species and their habitats and 2) design the seawater systems, in the vicinity of staging areas and project layout (e.g., turbine and road locations) so that along the migration corridors. Generally speaking, impacts on biodiversity are avoided and/or minimized. these species tend to avoid the turbines. Geese and The site-specific components and the extent of the swans rarely suffer fatalities due to collisions assessment should depend on the size of the project, (Sterejana and Poganik, 2008) [48]. It is generally the availability, quality, and extent of existing and known that birds avoid turbines. Problems mostly applicable information in the vicinity of the project, the occur with migrating and breeding birds, or in the habitats potentially impacted, the likelihood and timing feeding areas (Strickland and Erickson, 2003) [49]. of occurrence of endangered, threatened, and other special-status species at the site, the magnitude of impacts to species (e.g., bats, passerines, etc.), and 8. Future strategies to expand wind farm plants in other factors (Michelle et al., 2015) [33]. Critical areas Ethiopia should be avoided when planning wind farms (areas About 86% of electricity generation of Ethiopia is with highly sensitive species, important migration supplied by hydropower. This is due to the facts that, areas, resting, feeding and nesting areas (Sterejana and Ethiopia is rich in water resources and hydropower is Poganik, 2008) [48]. relatively cheap. However, the pattern of rainfall in Ethiopia varies considerably from year to year and 9.2 Post-construction farm Assessments therefore, over dependence on hydropower makes the Post-construction surveys and monitoring studies, energy supply very unstable (PASDEP, 2008) [37]. including monitoring for carcasses and conducting Needless to say, the unpredictability of the energy surveys (e.g., breeding bird, nesting raptor, prairie supply brings about negative impacts on industry and grouse, and bat acoustic surveys ) should be conducted the largest economy of the country. The Ethiopian to determine the estimated direct and indirect impacts electric power corporation recognizes the importance of the wind farm. These data are essential for both
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 51 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
identifying potential measures to mitigate the impact of level, where effects have the potential to be the greatest operations at existing sites as well as assessing likely (Strickland et al., 2011) [50]. risks accompanying with future developments of wind power plant. In general, post-construction surveys and 10.2 Siting of wind farm plants monitoring of avifauna (and other relevant species) Most threats can be minimized or reduced by avoiding should be conducted for a minimum of two years sites with sensitive habitats and key populations of following initiation of project operations (Michelle et vulnerable and endangered species and increasing our al., 2015) [33]. Field studies evaluating impacts of wind understanding of the effects of wind energy on energy development are needed to inform management avifauna (Langston, 2013) [28]. Siting wind energy actions and policy related to renewable energy facilities on previously altered landscapes, such as development and bird conservation (Lance et al., 2013) areas of cultivation, near towns, or urban and industrial [26]. areas is highly recommended in most circumstances. Avoid siting wind energy facilities in areas of 10. Key ecological considerations in expansion of contiguous intact native habitat and areas of wind farm in Ethiopia concentrated wildlife use (Michelle et al., 2015) [33]. 10.1 General ecological considerations Site turbines and other infrastructure away from Wind energy is a renewable energy source for which occurrences of rare plant communities (e.g., tall grass the potential environmental impacts of development prairie, oak woodland, saline wetlands) and avoid and operation need to be considered. No energy source siting turbines in a manner that will effectively has yet been found to be without some degree of fragment or split larger patches of native habitats environmental costs and wind energy is no exception. (Michelle et al., 2015) [33]. Place turbines outside of The aim of these considerations are to provide recognized bird and bat concentration areas or consistent guidance for the development and operation migration pathways, which may include such features of wind energy projects that avoid, minimize, and as: lakes, wetlands, forests, river valleys, ridge tops or mitigate impacts to wildlife and sensitive eco-regions bluff tops, native prairie, known roosting areas, and in Ethiopia. The planning guidance must consider areas with frequent incidence of fog, mist, or low sensitivity mapping and various site selection protocols clouds. Although there is no consistent data on the of the largest wildlife. As well, environmental amount of buffer needed between turbines and these assessment and integrated planning processes habitats, a separation distance of at least one mile is emphasizing on risk assessment, environmental impact recommended as a minimum distance. In some cases, assessment, cumulative impact assessment, mitigation a greater separation distance may be recommended measures and enhancement surveying and monitoring based on the species typically using specific lakes, activities should be done (Gove et al.,2013) [15]. rivers, wetlands, or other natural features (Michelle et Environmental impact assessment is the key process to al., 2015) 33]. enable informed and transparent decision-making in any kind of development efforts. Therefore, 10.3 Physiographic of wind farmplants preventative approach in decision-making is essential In order to magnificently avoid the negative impacts of when there is significant uncertainty. Developers wind farms, location is of critical importance should seek to apply an integrated planning approach (Langston and Pullan, 2003[27]; Gove et al., 2013) [15]. to project development. Mitigation measures such as Taking a strategic approach at the landscape scale early increased cut-in speeds and on-demand shut-down in the planning stage will both avoid impacts to systems should be investigated for inclusion where biodiversity and reduce the risk to developers appropriate. As well, efforts of cooperation on (Northrup and Wittemyer, 2013) [36]. Guidance in this migration routes to evaluate cumulative impacts and area should be based on developing databases and safeguard key corridors and stop-over sites is an mapping tools which allow developers to identify important ecological consideration in wind power plant vulnerable species and populations, important flight development programs (Gove, et al., 2013) [15]. As paths, and sensitive habitats (Bright et al., 2008) [5]. wind energy facilities continue to increase in size and This will allow the effective allocation of resources on abundance, the potential for cumulative impacts that assessing impacts on target species. Sensitivity maps affect populations must be considered (NRC, 2007) [35]. may be developed at the local, national or regional When wind power development are being used as a level depending on data, scale of impacts, and intended step to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the potential purpose (Gove et al., 2013) [16]. EIAs are therefore an benefits should be balanced with negative effects to essential part of impact avoidance and conflict wildlife, especially species which are sensitive to mitigation. They should be carried out at the human disturbance (Pruett et al., 2009) [42]. The focus appropriate geographic scale for the species being for concern will likely remain at a local population assessed to identify key species distributions and
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 52 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
habitat use, and outline potential impacts including aimed at reducing an impact specific to a particular displacement, barrier effects and collision risk. EIAs development. The best practice measures include: can also highlight the need for preconstruction surveys 1) Ensuring that key areas of conservation and post-construction monitoring (Gove et al., 2013) importance and sensitivity are avoided. [16]. 2) Implementing appropriate working practices to protect sensitive habitats. 10.4 Management approaches of eco- wind farm 3) Providing adequate briefing for site personnel There are a variety of mitigation measures that can be and, in particularly sensitive locations, implemented to avoid impacts. These include micro- employing an on-site ecologist during siting of individual turbines and infrastructure to avoid construction. areas occupied or used by sensitive species, orientation 4) Implementing an agreed post development of turbines in parallel to common flight lines, monitoring program through planning or undergrounding of associated power lines or marking license conditions. of overhead wires, modifying turbine type and 5) Siting turbines close together to minimize the operation (e.g. increasing cut-in speeds or shut-down- development footprint (subject to technical on-demand, taller or shorter towers), and avoiding the constraints such as the need for greater use of guy lines (Marques et al., 2014) [31]. Land separation between larger turbines). management (both on and off-site), can be important to 6) Grouping turbines to avoid alignment dissuade sensitive species from using areas or to perpendicular to main flight paths and to encourage continued/increased use by species which provide corridors between clusters, aligned are not vulnerable to collision. Buffer zones around with main flight trajectories, within large wind nests will also help to avoid disturbance and collision farms; with foraging birds, or juveniles. Construction, 7) Increasing the visibility of rotor blades – maintenance and movement of staff and vehicles/boats, research indicates that high contrast patterns can be timed to avoid disturbance during key periods, might help reduce collision risk (at least in such as breeding and roosting. Shut-down-on-demand conditions of good visibility (McIsaac, 2001) is increasingly being used as a method of avoiding [31], although this may not always be impacts during key migratory periods due to acceptable on landscape grounds. Another improvements in technology. Radar based systems suggested, but untested possibility is to paint such as merlin provide data on bird activity around blades with UV paint, which may enhance proposed wind farms that can be used for pre- their visibility to avifauna. construction collision risk assessments and for 8) Where possible, installing transmission cables operational monitoring and mitigation. The merlin underground (subject to habitat sensitivities system can also be used to provide advance detection and in accordance with existing best practice of bird activity, allowing the engagement of mitigation guidelines for underground cable installation) actions including idling of turbines. However, due to (Allan and Drewitt, 2006) [1]. the highly idiosyncratic nature of bird collisions there 9) Marking overhead cables using deflectors and are few generic mitigation prescriptions. Mitigation is avoiding use over areas of high bird an inherently risky course of action and should only be concentrations, especially for species pursued as a last resort (Genevieve, 2015) [14]. Co- vulnerable to collision. operation, collaboration, and agreed declarations 10) Timing construction to avoid sensitive between different stakeholders are necessary to ensure periods. successful development of wind energy while avoiding 11) Implementing habitat enhancement for species harm to biodiversity (Genevieve, 2015) [14]. using the site; and 12) Offshore, carefully timing and routing 11. Mitigation measures of potential wind farm maintenance trips to reduce disturbance from effects boats, helicopters and personnel. Turning to In wind power –wildlife problem areas, some more site-specific mitigation, it may be mitigation measures should be taken to protect animals necessary to prepare a site management plan of conservation significance. Mitigation measures designed to reduce or prevent harmful habitat include: changes following construction, and to provide habitat enhancement as appropriate. 11.1 Best-practice measures Other measures which may be suitable in Best-practice measures which could be adopted by any some circumstances include the relocation of wind farm development and should be adopted as a proposed or actual turbines responsible for sector standard, and additional measures which are particular problems, halting operation during
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 53 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
peak migration periods, or reducing rotor power projects are proposed individually, cumulative speed. Again, post-construction monitoring is impacts at regional scales need to be addressed. essential in order to test the effectiveness of Further, wind energy development should progress such mitigation measures and research is with science-based policy analysis to examine costs of needed to provide more information on biodiversity impacts. specific impacts and novel mitigation measures that might reduce impacts (Allan 14. Acknowledgments and Drewitt, 2006) [1]. I would like to provide my thanks to Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Mekelle center. My thanks also 12. Conclusions go to the anonymous reviewers who provide valuable The development of wind-energy is a vital component comments on the manuscript. of Ethiopian in an effort to achieve climate resilient green economy strategy by 2025 for increasing the 15. References proportion of energy derived from renewable sources, 1. Drewitt AL, Langston RHW. Assessing the thus helping to reduce the emission of greenhouse impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis. 2006; gases. Nevertheless, wind power developments are 148(supp1s): 29–42. themselves not without impacts on the environment, 2. American Wind Wildlife Institute. Wind and the current pace and scale of development projects, turbine interactions with wildlife and their combined with a poor understanding of their impacts, habitats: a summary of research results and is a cause for concern. One of the main areas of priority questions. Washington, DC. 2014; Pp concern is the potential impact of wind farms on 12-17. avifauna and other wild animals. Even though many of 3. Birdlife International. Meeting Europe’s the studies carried out on collision mortality, direct Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony with habitat loss caused by wind farms are either Nature. (Eds. Scrase, I. & Gove, B.) Birdlife inconclusive. Indeed, the relatively few studies that do Europe, RSPB (Royal Society for the indicate a significant impact are a clear warning that Protection of Birds), Sandy, UK. 2011; pp 20- the inappropriate location of wind farms can adversely 23. affect avian populations. Although existing information 4. Bispo R, Bernardino J, Marques TA, Pestana on avifauna may help to design these assessments, it D. Modeling carcass removal time and will, in almost every case, be necessary to collect data estimation of a scavenging correction factor on avifauna numbers, distribution and movements in for avian mortality assessment in wind farms order to predict impacts. As this outline has shown, using parametric survival analysis. further research is required in particular to develop Environmental and Ecological Statistics. spatial and demographic models which can help predict 2013; 20:147–165. the effects of individual wind farms and groups of 5. Bright J, Langston R, Bullman R, Evans R, developments which have cumulative effects across Gardner S, Pearce-Higgins J. Map of bird extensive areas. Increasing understanding of the sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool implications of wind farms for avifauna, in common to aid planning and conservation. Biological with other environmental impacts, will depend on the Conservation. 2008;141: 2342-2356. close collaboration of industry, governments and 6. Coppedge BR, Engle DM, Masters RE, researchers. A central element to this work is the Gregory MS. Avian response to landscape design and implementation of detailed post- change in fragmented southern great plains construction monitoring of the actual effects of existing grasslands. Ecological Applications. 2001; wind farms), which will not only help to assess the 11:47–59. effectiveness of mitigation of any harmful impacts 7. Dereje D. Ethiopia's Renewable Energy resulting from these developments but will also Power Potential and Development provide valuable information for future assessments. Opportunities. Ministry of Water and Energy. 2013; pp10-33. 13. Way forward 8. Drewitt AL, Langston RHW. Assessing the Based on the surveyed knowledge in the scientific impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis. 2006; literature we recommended the following points: 148:29–42. New wind power sites for development of renewable 9. Drewitt AL, Langston RHW. Collision effects energy may overlap with important habitats of of wind-power generators and other obstacles declining populations. Hence, pertinent ecological on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of considerations should be put forth both in post and pre- Science. 2008; 1134:233–266. construction developments. Likewise, since wind
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 54 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
10. Fox AD. Eco-energy and urbanization: Washington and Oregon. Natural Resources message from birds about wind turbine Scientific Solutions. 2010; pp 35-47. proliferation. Boreal Environment Research. 18. Huppop O, Dierschke J, Exo KM, Fredrich E, 2011; 16(Suppl.B):14-25. Hill R. Bird migration studies and potential 11. Erickson WP, Johnson GD, Strickland MD, collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Young DP, JrSernja KJ, Good RE. Avian Ibis. 2006; 148: 90–109. collisions with wind turbines: a summary of 19. Ian Smales. Fauna Collisions with Wind existing studies and comparisons to other Turbines: Effects and Impacts, Individuals sources of avian collision mortality in the and Populations. What Are We Trying to United States. Western Ecosystems Assess?Wind and Wildlife. 2015. DOI Technology Inc. National Wind Coordinating 10.1007/978-94-017-9490-9_2. Committee Resource Document. 2001; http:// 20. IRENA. 2014. www.nationalwind.org/publications/avian.htm http://resourceirena.irena.org/gateway/dashbo 12. Erickson WP, Johnson GD, Strickland MD. ard/ (last accessed 06/02/2015) Young DP, Sernka KJ, Good RE. Avian 21. Johnson GD, Stephens SE. Wind power and collisions with wind turbines: a summary of biofuels: a green dilemma for wildlife existing studies and comparisons to other conservation. Energy development and sources of avian collision mortality in the wildlife conservation in western North United States. National Wind Coordinating America. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Committee Resource document (unpublished). 2011; pp131-155. 2001; 62p. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822%2F9 www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife/ 78-1-61091-022-4_8 avian_collisions.pdf (viewed 5 September 22. Johnson GD, Stephens SE. Wind Power and 2015). Bio Fuels: A Green Dilemma for Wildlife 13. European Commission. EU Guidance Conservation. Energy Development and document: Wind energy developments and Wildlife Conservation in Western North Natura 2000. Wind energy development in America. Naugle DE ed. Island Press, accordance with the EU nature legislation. Washington, D.C. 2011; pp. 131-155. This document has been prepared with the http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822%2F9 assistance of Ecosystems Ltd. (part of the 78-1-61091-022-4_8 N2K Group EEIG) under contract to the 23. Kingsley A, Whittam B. Wind turbines and European Commission. 2010. birds. A background review for environmental 14. Genevieve H, Gove B, Whitaker S. Avoiding assessment. Environment Canada, Canadian ecological ‘constraints’ in wind energy. Wildlife Service, Quebec (unpublished). Conference Proceedings. 2015; pp 2-7. 2005; pp81. 15. Gove B, Langston RHW, McCluskie A, www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/Resourc Pullan JD, Scrase I. Wind farms and birds: An es/Wind_Turbines_and_Birds_a_Background updated analysis of the effects of wind farms _Review.pdf (viewed 19 September 2015). on birds, and best practice guidance on 24. Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, integrated planning and impact assessment. Johnson GD, Larkin RP, Strickland MD, Convention on the Conservation of European Thresher RW, Tuttle MD. Ecological impacts Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Report of wind energy development on bats: prepared by BirdLife International on behalf questions, research needs, and hypotheses. of the Bern Convention, Sandy, UK. 2013; Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. pp1-8. 2007; 5:315–324. 16. Gove B, Langston RHW, McCluskie A, 25. Kuvlesky Jr, W. P, L. A. Brennan, M. L. Pullan JD, Scrase I. Wind farms and birds: an Morrison, K. K. Boydstron, B. M. Ballard, & updated analysis of the effects of wind farms F. C. Bryant. (2007). Wind energy on birds, and best practice guidance on development and wildlife conservation: integrated planning and impact assessment. challenges and opportunities. Journal of 2013; pp 54-70. Wildlife Management.71:2487–2498. 17. Gregory D. Johnson, Wallace P, Erickson. 26. Mcnew LB, Hunt LYLAM, Gregory AJ, Avian, Bat and Habitat Cumulative Impacts Wisely SM, Brett KS. Effects of Wind Energy Associated with Wind Energy Development Development on Nesting Ecology of Greater in the Columbia Plateau Eco-region of Eastern Prairie-Chickens in Fragmented Grasslands. Conservation Biology. 2013; 28:1089–1099.
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 55 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
27. Langston RHW, Pullan JD. Wind farms and 36. Northrup JM. Wittemyer G. Characterizing birds: an analysis of the effects of wind farms the impacts of emerging energy development on birds, and guidance on environmental on wildlife, with an eye towards assessment criteria and site selection issues. mitigation.Ecology Letters. 2013; 16: 112- Report written by Birdlife International on 125. behalf of the Bern Convention. Council 37. PASDEP. Study on the Energy Sector in Europe Report T-PVS/Inf. 2003. Ethiopia. Embassy of Japan in Ethiopia. 2008; 28. Langston RHW. Birds and wind projects pp1-16. across the pond: A UK perspective. Wildlife 38. Pearce-Higgins JW, Stephen L, Douse A, Society Bulletin. 2013; 37(1):5-18. Langston RHW. Greater impacts of wind 29. Ledec GC, Rapp KW, Aiello RG. Greening farms on bird populations during construction the Wind: Environmental and Social than subsequent operation: results of a multi- considerations for wind power development. site and multi-species analysis. Journal of World Bank Studies. 2011; Applied Ecology. 2012; 49: 386-394. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.159 39. Pearce-Higgins JW, Stephen L, Langston, 6/978-0-8213-8926-3. RHW, Bainbridge IP, Bullman R. The 30. Loesch CR, Walker JA, Reynolds RE, distribution of breeding birds around upland Gleason JS, Niemuth ND, Stephens SE, wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. Erickson MA. Effect of wind energy 2009; 46: 1323-1331. development on breeding duck densities in the 40. Percival SM. Assessment of the effects of Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Wildlife offshore wind farms on birds. Unpublished Management. 2013; 77:587–598. report for the UK Department of Trade and 31. Marques AT, Batalha H, Rodrigues S, Costa Industry, eTSU W/13/00565/ReP, DTI/Pub H, Pereira MJR, Fonseca C, Mascarenhas M, URN 01/1434. 2001; 93p. Bernardino J. Understanding bird collisions at www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20258.pdf (viewed wind farms: An updated review on the causes 23 September 2015). and possible mitigation strategies. Biological 41. Perciva SM. Birds and wind farms-what are Conservation. 2014; 179:40-52. the real issues? British Birds. 2005; 98: 194– 32. McIsaac HP. Raptor acuity and wind turbine 204 blade conspicuity. 2001; Pp.59–87 in 42. Pruett CL, Patten MA, Wolfe DH. It’s not Schwartz, S.S. (ed.): Proceedings of the easy being green: wind energy and a declining National Avian-Wind Power Planning grassland bird. Bio Science. 2009; 59:257– Meeting IV, Carmel, California, 16–17 May 262. 2000. Unpublished report prepared for the 43. Powlesland RG. Impacts of wind farms on Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind birds: a review. Science for conservation. Coordinating Committee by Resolve Inc., 2009; 289:33-45. Washington, DC. 44. Rees EC. Impacts of wind farms on swans and www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/raptor_acuity_a geese: a review. Wildfowl. 2012; 62: 37-72. nd_wind_turbine_blade_conspicuity_mcissac. 45. REN21. Renewables 2013 Global Status pdf (viewed 3 September 2015). Report (Paris: REN21 Secretariat). 2013. 33. Koch M, Hines E, Jezierski C. Guidelines for 46. Richardson WJ. Bird migration and wind Avoiding, Minimizing, and Mitigating turbines: migration timing, flight behavior and Impacts of Wind Energy on Biodiversity in collision risk. Pp. 132–140 in: Proceedings of Nebraska. The Nebraska Wind and Wildlife National Avian-Wind Power Planning Working Group. 2015; pp 23-35. Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998. 34. Agha M, Lovich JE, Ennen JR, Augustine Unpublished report for the Avian B, Arundel TR, Murphy MO, Wilkins KM. Subcommittee of the National Wind et.al. Turbines and Terrestrial Vertebrates: Coordinating Committee by LGL Ltd, King Variation in Tortoise Survivorship Between a City, Ontario. 2000. www.nationalwind. Wind Energy Facility and an Adjacent org/publications/wildlife/avian98/20- Undisturbed Wildland Area in the Desert Richardson-Migration.pdf (viewed 23 Southwest (USA). Environmental September 2015). Management. 2015; 56:332–341. 47. Smallwood KS. Comparing bird and bat 35. National Research Council. Environmental fatality-rate estimates among North American impacts of wind energy projects. National wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Academies Press, Washington, D.C, USA. Bulletin. 2013; 37: 19-33.
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 56 Journalofzoology.com
The Journal of Zoology Studies
48. Sterze J, Pogacnik M. The Impacts of Wind 50. Strickland D, Arnett E, Erickson W, Johnson Farms on Animal Species. ActaVeterinaria D, Johnson G, Morrison M, Shaffer J, (Beograd). 2008; 58(5/6): 615-632. Warren-Hicks W. Comprehensive guide to 49. Strickland Dale. Session: Non-Fatality and studying wind energy/wildlife interactions. Habitat Impacts on Birds from Wind Energy National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Development. In United States: American Washington, D.C, USA. 2011. Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 51. Egziabher TBG. (2012). Renewable Energy Washington, D.C. 2004. Projects in Ethiopia. 2008; pp1-8. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/8369 52. Wind Energy. The Energy Report. 2008; pp1- 29. 11.
Mulualem G. Green dilemma of wind farm on avifauna: future ecological considerations of wind energy expansion in Ethiopia. Journal of Zoology Studies. 2016; 3(3):46-57.
*****************************************************************
Vol. 3 No. 3 2016 Page 57 Journalofzoology.com
View publication stats Ontario Wind Resistance
Witness observes Wolfe Island Turbine Canada Geese slaughter
Posted on 12/07/2011
Tibbetts Point observer says; On Friday morning September 30 at 9:30 am it was surprising to personally witness the destruction of a flight of Canadian Geese by one of the Wolfe Island turbines. Here is what happened; from a clear view second floor window at our home on Tibbetts Point Rd. I watched geese lift off and form up along the shore of Wolfe Island. At about a hundred feet of altitude they wheeled into the wind, headed in a west/southwesterly direction. As their climb into a headwind slowly took them over Wolfe the wind speed gauge at our house continued to read a strong and steady 22-25 mph. It was overcast. The river was rolling.
Crossing Wolfe they flew into the plane of spinning turbine blades. This one turbine is directly across from our home and closer to us at about a mile and a half. Through 8X binoculars the carnage was mesmerizing.
Imagine a scene of blade impacts repeatedly knocking dark puffs of feathers against a grey sky. With such a strong wind, limp bodies seemed to be blown backwards out of the turbine. Amazingly the rear of the flight followed into the blades. They seemed oblivious to the destruction of their leaders. With strong headwinds slowing their passage the period of danger and destruction was prolonged. After about two thirds entered this gauntlet the flight finally broke off, lost it’s V shape and scattered.
I called loudly to my wife to run upstairs but by then it was over. The time was ten maybe fifteen seconds. It was strange to sit and watch this happen in silence. I could hear none of their honking. It seemed so odd to witness movements that suddenly changed from the beauty of ordered flight to instant plunging death. It made such an impression that details were entered into my log that day.
Those log details and recalled impressions are now shared. Draw from them what you will.