The Wildlife Society Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07–2 September 2007 LThe Wildlife Society, Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Technical Review 07-2 September 2007 The Wildlife Society Technical Review Committee on Wind Energy Facilities and Wildlife Edward B. Arnett, Ph.D. (Chair) Albert M. Manville, Ph.D. Bat Conservation International U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. O. Box 162603 Division of Migratory Bird Management Austin, TX 78716-2603 4401 N. Fairfax Drive – MBSP-4107 Arlington, VA 22203 Douglas B. Inkley, Ph.D. National Wildlife Federation Russ Mason, Ph.D. 11100 Wildlife Center Drive Nevada Department of Wildlife Reston, VA 20190-5362 1100 Valley Rd. Reno, NV 89512 Douglas H. Johnson, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey Michael Morrison, Ph.D. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Department of Wildlife and Fisheries University of Minnesota Sciences 1980 Folwell Ave. Texas A&M University St. Paul, MN 55108 College Station, TX 77843-2258 Ronald P. Larkin, Ph.D. M. Dale Strickland, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 607 E. Peabody Drive 2003 Central Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Stephanie Manes Robert Thresher, Ph.D. North American Grouse Partnership National Renewable Energy Laboratory 222 S. Houston #A 1617 Cole Blvd. Tulsa, OK 74127 Golden, CO 80401 The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 COVER: Wind turbines at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville, New York (center): Ed Arnett, Bat Conservation International; Silver-haired bat (left): Merlin D. Tuttle, Bat Conservation International; Bluetit in spring (upper right); Greater prairie chicken (lower right): U.S. Geological Survey. Copyediting by Kathryn Sonant and Divya Abhat Design by Lynn Riley Design Cover photos courtesy of USDA NRCS Foreword Acknowledgments Presidents of The Wildlife Society occasionally We wish to thank past-President Richard Lancia appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on and The Wildlife Society Council for appointing select conservation issues. The reports ordinarily the Technical Review Committee on the Impacts appear as either a Technical Review or a Position of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Statement. Review papers present technical infor- Habitat and addressing this important and grow- mation, and position statements are based on these ing issue. Tom Franklin, Jim Mosher, and Paul reviews. Preliminary versions of position state- Racey reviewed a previous draft of this document. ments are published for review and comment by We also thank Laura Bies, Associate Director of Society members. Following the comment period, Government Affairs for TWS, and TWS Council revision, and Council’s approval, the statements Technical Review Subcommittee Chair Gary Potts are published as official positions of The Wildlife and Subcommittee members Tom Decker, Marti Society. Kie, and Tom Ryder for their guidance and review Both types of reports are copyrighted by the of previous drafts. Bat Conservation International Society, but individuals are granted permission to and TWS provided financial assistance and logisti- make single copies for noncommercial purposes. cal support for the review, committee meetings, Otherwise, copies may be requested from: and publication. The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 897-9770 Fax: (301) 530-2471 Citation: Arnett, E. B., D. B. Inkley, D. H. John- son, R. P. Larkin, S. Manes, A. M. Manville, J. R. Mason, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Soci- ety Technical Review 07-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Table of Contents FOREWORD iii OFFSHORE WILDLIFE—WIND ISSUES 27 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii Offshore bird movements and behavior 27 SYNOPSIS 7 Offshore impacts on habitat and animal movements 29 INTRODUCTION 8 European studies 29 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS ISSUES REGARDING STUDIES ON AND PERMITTING 10 WIND AND WILDLIFE 31 Federal regulatory approaches 10 Peer review and publication 31 State regulatory approaches 11 Study design and duration 31 Metrics and methods guidance SIDEBAR FEATURE 13 document Washington Department of Fish and Inconsistent methodology Wildlife Wind Power Guidelines and implementation 33 Technological tools for studying WILDLIFE COLLISION FATALITY AT WIND wildlife-wind interactions 33x FACILITIES 14 Factors influencing the estimation RESEARCH NEEDS 35 of collision fatality rates 14 Birds and bats 35 Raptors 15 Habitat loss, fragmentation, and Older generation turbines disturbance 36 Newer generation wind facilities Habitat and prey density management 36 Resident and migratory passerines 17 Curtailment experiments 36 Other avian species 19 Alerting and deterring mechanisms 37 Bats 20 Offshore 37 Cumulative effects 37 WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPACTS AND DISTURBANCE AT WIND FACILITIES 21 RECOMMENDATIONS 38 Habitat loss and fragmentation 22 LITERATURE CITED 40 Habitat-related impacts on birds 23 TABLES 1 – 3 47 Grassland birds Raptors Prairie grouse Other avian species Habitat-related impacts on bats 26 Habitat-related impacts on large mammals 26 Habitat-related impacts on other wildlife 27 7 SYNOPSIS Given the projected growth of wind power genera- tion, it is essential that future analysis of the impacts Development of wind power offers promise of con- of wind energy development consider population tributing to renewable energy portfolios to reduce effects for some species of bats and birds. greenhouse gas emissions from carbon-based sourc- Often overlooked are impacts resulting from loss es, which contribute to accelerating climate change. of habitat for wildlife due to construction, the foot- This report summarizes information on the impacts print of the facility, and increased human access. of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife Future development of transmission lines to facili- habitat, including state and federal permitting pro- tate wind generation will exacerbate the impacts of cesses, wildlife fatality, habitat loss and modification, wind energy development on wildlife. Ultimately, the animal displacement and fragmentation, offshore greatest impact to wildlife from habitat modification development, and issues surrounding monitoring and may be due to disturbance and avoidance of habitats research methodology, including the use of techno- in proximity to turbines and fragmentation of habi- logical tools. tat for wide-ranging species. For example, habitat Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife can for many species of grassland birds in the Northern be direct (e.g., fatality, reduced reproduction) or Great Plains has been dramatically reduced by land indirect (e.g., habitat loss, behavioral displacement). use changes, primarily agriculture, and further de- Although fatalities of many bird species have been velopment of wind energy in undisturbed native and documented at wind facilities, raptors have received restored grasslands may result in further declines of the most attention. Turbine characteristics, turbine these species. siting, and bird abundance appear to be important Offshore wind facilities have been established factors determining risk of raptor fatalities at wind throughout Europe, but few studies have been con- energy facilities. In comparison with other sources ducted to determine direct impacts on animals. A of fatality (e.g., collision with buildings and commu- major concern with offshore developments in Europe nication towers, predation by domestic cats), wind has been loss of habitat from avoidance of turbines turbines, at the current rate of development, appear and the impact that boat and helicopter traffic to and to be a relatively minor source of passerine fatalities, from the wind development sites may cause with but these fatalities are cumulative with other sources regard to animal behavior and movements, although and their impact may become more pronounced over little is known about such effects. Resident seabirds time. As turbine size increases and development and rafting (resting) waterbirds appear to be less at expands into new areas with higher densities of birds, risk than migrating birds, as they may adapt better to risk to birds could increase. Bat fatalities have been offshore wind facilities. The effects on marine mam- recorded either anecdotally or quantified at every mals and bats are currently unknown. Although wind wind facility where post-construction surveys have turbine/bird collision studies seem to indicate that been conducted, worldwide, and reported fatalities onshore wind-generating facilities in those locations are highest at wind facilities located on ridges in east- of the United States studied to date result in few ern deciduous forests in the United States. However, fatalities compared with other sources of collision recent reports of high numbers of bats killed in open mortality, we cannot assume that similar impacts prairie in southern Alberta, Canada, and in mixed would occur among birds (or bats) using wind-gen- agriculture and forest land in New York raise concern erating sites established in unstudied areas such as about impacts to bats in other landscapes. Because coastal and offshore areas. bats are long-lived and have exceptionally low repro- There is a dearth of information upon which to ductive rates, population growth is relatively slow base decisions regarding siting of wind