Summary of Wind-Wildlife Interactions

Wind Turbine Interactions with Wildlife and their Habitats:
A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions

Last Updated with Latest Publicly Available Information: May 2015

This page summarizes publicly available information about the adverse impacts of land-based wind power on wildlife in North America and the status of our knowledge regarding how to avoid or minimize these impacts. To download a printable PDF of this information, click here.

Suggested Citation for this Page: American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI). 2015. Wind turbine interactions with wildlife and their habitats: a summary of research results and priority questions. Viewed [DATE] at <[HYPERLINK]>.


Organization

Individual birds and bats may die as a result of collisions with wind turbines. Some species also experience additional adverse impacts, including direct and indirect habitat loss from the construction and operation of wind energy facilities. Indirect effects include displacement by avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat and demographic impacts such as reduced survival or reproductive output (e.g., Arnett et al. 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007; Strickland et al. 2011). This page organizes statements about what is known and what remains uncertain regarding the adverse impacts of wind energy on wildlife in the categories listed below.

Within each section, statements are ordered in decreasing level of certainty. Our level of certainty reflects the “weight of the evidence” from multiple studies on a question of interest. A single published study, although informative, is usually insufficient for drawing broad conclusions. For example, fatality monitoring for birds and bats has been conducted for many years and has become a routine procedure at new facilities.1 Although more information is available on direct impacts to individuals, substantial uncertainty remains about our understanding of the population-level consequences of collision mortality and our ability to predict collision risk.
1 To demonstrate adherence to the 2012 USFWS Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines, project operators are requested to conduct a minimum of two years of post-construction fatality monitoring.

Recognizing the active work in this field of research, this page will be updated on an annual basis to incorporate new results as they become publicly available. For a summary of substantial changes made for the May 2015 version, please click here. To download the 2014 version, click here.

The information on this page has undergone, and all future updates will undergo, expert review before being posted on the web. Literature citations supporting the information presented are denoted in parentheses; full citations can be found below.

 

Introduction

Direct Mortality

Cumulative Impacts of Mortality

Avoidance and Minimization of Collision Fatalities

Direct and Indirect Habitat-Based Impacts

Introduction

A Blue Winged Teal Wind energy’s ability to generate electricity without carbon emissions will reduce the risk of potentially catastrophic effects to wildlife from unmitigated climate change. Wind energy also provides several other environmental benefits including substantially reduced water withdrawals and consumption and decreased emissions of mercury and other sources of air and water pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels (NRC 2010). However, adverse impacts of wind energy facilities to wildlife have been documented, particularly to individual birds and bats (Arnett et al. 2008; Strickland et al. 2011). Impacts to wildlife populations have not been documented (NAS 2007), but the potential for biologically significant impacts continues to be a source of concern as populations of many species overlapping with proposed wind energy development are experiencing long-term declines as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, disease, non-native invasive species, and increased mortality from numerous other anthropogenic activities (e.g., NABCI 2009; Arnett and Baerwald 2013).

This fact sheet summarizes publicly available information about the adverse impacts of land-based wind power on wildlife in North America and the status of our knowledge regarding how to avoid or minimize these impacts. A precursor of this fact sheet, “Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions,” was first produced by the Wildlife Workgroup of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) in 2004 and then updated in 2010. In January 2012 the American Wind Wildlife Institute began facilitating the NWCC, and this updated fact sheet continues the tradition of previous fact sheets in reflecting the latest assessment of wind energy impacts on wildlife based on a review of the available literature.

Dillon Wind Power Project The amount of research in the peer-reviewed literature continues to grow, reflecting the continued interest in understanding wind-wildlife interactions. In order to maintain the highest level of scientific rigor for this fact sheet, we have emphasized research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals as well as un-published, publicly available reports that have undergone expert, technical review.

Installed wind energy capacity in the United States continues to grow and was estimated at approximately 66,000 megawatts (MW) at the end of Q1 in 2015. Land-based wind turbines have grown substantially in power output over the years; the power rating of turbines installed at new projects ranges from 1.5-3.0 MW. Modern turbine towers range in height from 200–260 feet (60-80 m) and turbine blades create a rotor swept area of 75-130 m (250–425 feet) in diameter, resulting in blade tips that can reach over 140 m (460 feet) above ground level. Rotor swept areas now exceed 0.4 ha (one acre) and are expected to reach nearly 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) within the next several years. The speed of rotor revolution has significantly decreased from 60-80 revolutions per minute (rpm) to 11–28 rpm, but blade tip speeds have remained about the same; ranging from 220-290 km/hr (140-180 mph) under normal operating conditions. Most modern wind energy facilities have fewer machines and larger turbines producing the same or more electricity than early facilities; current projects have wide spacing between turbines and cover thousands of acres. The most current wind market information can be found at the American Wind Energy Association’s website.

Direct MortalityBlack Throated Blue Warbler_square_Credit-Kelly Colgan Azar, Flickr

The number of studies reporting results of collision fatality monitoring at operating land-based wind energy facilities has increased substantially over the years, and more than 100 studies conducted at over 70 projects are publicly available (e.g., Strickland et al. 2011; Arnett and Baerwald 2013; Loss et al. 2013a; Erickson et al. 2014). Protocols for carcass searching have become more standardized, facilitating comparisons of results from separate studies. Much uncertainty remains as to the distribution, timing, and magnitude of collision fatalities in both birds and bats. Some of this uncertainty reflects the lack of data from particular regions of the country. For example, we are aware of only one publicly available fatality report from the southwestern U.S., and the northern and eastern regions of the country are underrepresented relative to the Midwest/prairie, the Pacific Northwest, and California. We also do not know whether publicly available reports are representative of what is occurring at the facilities from which data are not currently available.

This first section briefly outlines what is known and where there is remaining uncertainty about the patterns of collision fatalities focusing in the continental U.S. We first examine patterns that apply to both birds and bats and then describe patterns for birds and bats separately.


Birds and Bats

Fatalities of birds and bats have been recorded at all wind energy facilities for which results are publicly available.

Golden Eagle We assume that most bird and bat collisions are with the rotating turbine blades (Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Kunz et al. 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007; Arnett et al. 2008; Strickland et al. 2011), although collisions with turbine towers are also possible. Fatality rates from most studies range from three to five birds per MW per year1 for all species combined and adjusted for detection biases (e.g., Strickland et al. 2011, Loss et al. 2013a, Erickson et al. 2014); no study has reported more than 14 bird fatalities per MW per year (e.g., Strickland et al. 2011). There is little variation in bird fatalities across regions for all species combined, although fatalities at sites in the Great Plains appear to be lower than sites in the rest of the U.S., and fatalities in the Pacific region may be significantly higher (Loss et al. 2013a). It is unknown to what extent these differences reflect the sample bias discussed earlier.

1 Fatality rates are typically reported on a per turbine basis or on the basis of nameplate capacity (MW). We report fatality rates on the basis of nameplate capacity to account for differences in turbine capacity, which range from 100 kw to 2.5 MW or more, but we acknowledge that this reporting format also has difficulties.

Bat fatality rates can be substantially higher than bird fatality rates, especially at facilities in the upper Midwest and eastern forests: two facilities within the Appalachian region reported fatality levels of greater than 30 bats/MW per year, but there are also reports as low as one to two bats/MW per year at other facilities in the eastern U.S. (Hein et al. 2013). Studies have not found a consistent pattern of fatalities across landscape types: fatality rates can be equally high in agricultural or forested landscapes, or in a matrix of those landscape types (e.g. Jain et al. 2011). Fatality rates average substantially lower at facilities in the western U.S., but, in general, there appears to be greater variation in bat fatalities within regions than among regions (Arnett et al. 2013a; Hein et al. 2013).

The lighting currently recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for installation on commercial wind turbines does not increase collision risk to bats and migrating songbirds.

Wind turbines at the Peetz wind farm in northern Colorado; The 29.7 MW Peetz Table Wind Farm in Colorado features 33 NEG Micon turbines The number of bat and songbird fatalities at turbines using FAA-approved lighting is not greater than that recorded at unlit turbines (Avery et al. 1976; Arnett et al. 2008; Longcore et al. 2008; Gehring et al. 2009; Kerlinger et al. 2010). One study recorded higher red bat fatalities at unlit turbines compared to those using red aviation lights; no differences were observed for other bat species between lit and unlit turbines (Bennett and Hale 2014). The FAA regulates the lighting required on structures taller than 199 feet in height above ground level to ensure air traffic safety. For wind turbines, the FAA currently recommends strobe or strobe-like lights that produce momentary flashes interspersed with dark periods up to three seconds in duration, and they allow commercial wind facilities to light a proportion of the turbines in a facility (e.g., one in five), firing all lights synchronously (FAA 2007). Red strobe or strobe-like lights are frequently used.

The effect of turbine height and rotor swept area on bird and bat collision fatalities remains uncertain.

There are conflicting reports on whether bird and bat collisions increase with tower height and/or rotor swept area on a per MW basis (Baerwald and Barclay 2009; Barclay et al. 2007; Strickland et al. 2011; Arnett and Baerwald 2013; Loss et al. 2013a). Taller turbines often have much larger rotor-swept areas, and it has been hypothesized that collision fatalities will increase owing to the greater overlap with flight heights of nocturnal-migrating songbirds and bats (Johnson et al. 2002; Barclay et al. 2007). The vast majority (>80%) of avian nocturnal migrants typically fly above the height of the most common rotor-swept zone (<500 feet; <150 m) (Mabee and Cooper 2004; Mabee et al. 2006).

It is unknown whether collision risk at single towers is comparable to risk at individual towers within large wind energy facilities.

Construction of single utility-scale turbines (1.5-2 MW) is growing rapidly in some regions of the country, especially where opportunities for large utility-scale projects are limited or municipalities often supply their own electricity (e.g., Massachusetts). There are no published data of fatality monitoring at single turbine facilities, and monitoring at these projects is often not required.

Birds

A substantial majority of bird fatalities at wind energy facilities are small passerines.

Eastern Meadowlark_square_Credit-Photomatt28, Flickr Collisions of small passerines (<31 cm in length) account for approximately 60% of fatalities at U.S. wind facilities (Loss et al. 2013a; Erickson et al. 2014); small passerines comprise more than 90% of all landbirds (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2013). Most small passerine species are migratory, resulting in spring and fall peaks of bird casualty rates at most wind facilities (Strickland et al. 2011).

Diurnal raptors and pheasants are also relatively frequent fatalities, particularly in the western U.S. where these species are more common. These groups are far less abundant than passerines, and the relatively high fatality rates for raptors and pheasants suggest a higher vulnerability to collision. The vulnerability to collision of native game birds (e.g., sage grouse and prairie chickens) is unknown. Fatalities of waterbirds and waterfowl, and other species characteristic of freshwater, shorelines, open water and coastal areas (e.g., ducks, gulls and terns, shorebirds, loons and grebes) are recorded infrequently at land-based wind facilities (e.g., Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Gue et al. 2013). The infrequent rate of fatalities of coastal birds is somewhat different than that reported at coastal facilities in the Netherlands (e.g., Winkelman 1992; Stienen et al. 2008; Everaert 2014), but this could be owing to the limited information from coastal wind facilities, particularly in the U.S. (Kingsley and Whittam 2007; NAS 2007).

Newer, larger (≥500 kW) turbines may reduce raptor collision rates at wind facilities compared to older, smaller (40 - 330kW) turbines.

Grasshopper Sparrow_square_Credit-Sheila Gregoire, Flickr Numbers of raptor fatalities on a per MWh basis appear to be declining substantially (67 – 96% depending on the species) at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area as a result of repowering; smaller, low-capacity turbines are being replaced with taller, higher-capacity turbines (Smallwood and Karas 2009). Larger turbines have fewer rotations per minute, which may be partly responsible for lower raptor collision rates (NAS 2007). In addition, smaller turbines that use lattice support towers offer more perching sites for raptors, encouraging higher raptor occupancy in the immediate vicinity of the rotor swept area (NAS 2007) than large, modern turbines on tubular support towers.


Bats

Migratory tree-roosting bat species are vulnerable to colliding with wind turbines.

Hoary Bat_square_Credit-Daniel Neal, Flickr At least 21 species of bats have been recorded as collision fatalities, but the majority of fatalities reported to date are from three migratory tree-roosting species (the hoary bat, the Eastern red bat, and the silver-haired bat) which collectively constitute almost 80% of the reported fatalities at wind facilities for all North American regions combined (NAS 2007; Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008; Arnett and Baerwald 2013; Hein et al. 2013).

It is unclear to what extent this conclusion reflects sample bias as there are few reports available from the southwestern U.S. (especially Texas and Oklahoma where there is high installed wind capacity) where a very different bat fauna is present than at most other facilities in the U.S. Higher percentages of cave dwelling bats have been recorded at wind energy facilities in the Midwest compared to other facilities in the U.S. (e.g., Jain et al. 2011), and the few available studies indicate that Brazilian free-tailed bats can constitute a substantial proportion (41–86%) of the bats killed at facilities within this species’ range (Arnett et al. 2008; Miller 2008; Piorkowski and O’Connell 2010). However, it is uncertain whether this species is at greater risk than other species because the Brazilian free-tailed bat is a very abundant species where it occurs.

Bat fatalities peak at wind facilities during the late summer and early fall migration.

Several studies have shown a peak in bat fatalities in late summer and early fall, coinciding with the migration season of tree bats (Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008; Baerwald and Barclay 2011; Jain et al. 2011), although a minor peak in fatalities during spring migration have been observed for some species at some facilities (Arnett et al. 2008).

Some bat species may be attracted to wind turbines.

Eastern Red Bat_square_Credit-Matthew O'Donnell, Flickr It has been hypothesized that the relatively high number of recorded fatalities of migratory tree bats may be explained by the possibility that they are attracted to turbines (e.g., Horn et al. 2008); several factors that might attract these bats have been proposed, including sounds produced by turbines, a concentration of insects near turbines, and bat mating behavior (Kunz et al. 2007; Cryan 2008; Cryan and Barclay 2009). Infrared imagery has shown bats exploring the nacelles of wind turbines from the leeward direction, especially at low wind speeds (Cryan et al. 2014). Analysis of bat carcasses beneath turbines found large percentages of mating readiness in male hoary, eastern red, and silver-haired bats, indicating that sexual readiness coincides with the period of high levels of fatalities in these species (Cryan et al. 2012).

Barotrauma does not appear to be an important source of bat mortality at wind energy facilities.

While direct collision with turbine blades is thought to be responsible for most of the bat fatalities observed at wind facilities (Horn et al. 2008), Baerwald et al. (2008) suggested that a large percentage of observed bat fatality may be due to barotrauma, i.e., injury resulting from rapidly altered air pressure. Fast-moving wind turbine blades create vortices and turbulence in their wakes, and it has been hypothesized that bats experience rapid pressure changes as they pass through this disturbed air, potentially causing internal injuries leading to death. Forensic examination of bat carcasses found at wind energy facilities suggests that the importance of barotrauma as a proportion of bat mortality, is substantially less than originally suggested (Rollins et al. 2012; see also Grodsky et al. 2011).

Weather patterns may influence bat fatalities.

Hoary Bat_square_Credit-J.N. Stuart, FlickrBat activity is influenced by nightly wind speed and temperature (Weller and Baldwin 2012), and some studies indicate that bat fatalities occur primarily on nights with low wind speed and typically increase immediately before and after the passage of storm fronts. Weather patterns could be a predictor of bat activity and fatalities, and mitigation efforts that focus on these high-risk periods may reduce bat fatalities substantially (Arnett et al. 2008; Baerwald and Barclay 2011; Weller and Baldwin 2012; Arnett and Baerwald 2013).

It is uncertain whether bat fatalities in migratory tree bats are male-biased.

Examination of external characteristics of bat carcasses collected at wind energy facilities indicated that the sex ratio of migratory tree bats was skewed towards males (e.g., Arnett et al. 2008), although other studies had shown female-bias or no bias (e.g., Baerwald and Barclay 2011). Bats can be a challenge to age and sex from external characteristics, especially when carcasses have decomposed or have been partially scavenged. Molecular methods used to sex bat carcasses indicate that sex ratios in fatalities of tree bats are not male-biased, although male bias in fatalities may persist in other species (e.g., evening bat, Korstian et al. 2013).

Cumulative Impact of Bird and Bat Collisions

The estimated total number of bird collision fatalities at wind energy facilities is several orders of magnitude lower than other leading anthropogenic sources of avian mortality.

Whooping Cranes_square_Credit-GillianChicago, FlickrSeveral recent estimates indicate that the number of birds killed at wind energy facilities is a very small fraction of the total, annual human-related bird mortality and two to four orders of magnitude lower than mortality from other factors, including feral and domestic cats, power transmission lines, buildings and windows, and communication towers, (NAS 2007; Longcore et al. 2012; Calvert et al. 2013; Loss et al. 2014a,b,c; Loss et al. 2013a,b; Erickson et al. 2014).

Fatality rates at currently estimated values do not appear likely to lead to population declines in most bird species.


For small passerine species, current turbine-related fatalities constitute a very small percentage of their total population size, even for those species that are killed most frequently (typically <0.02%; Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007; Erickson et al. 2014). As wind energy development expands, the potential for biologically significant impacts to some populations of species, such as raptors, may increase (NAS 2007; Johnson and Erickson 2010).

The status of bat populations is poorly known and the ecological impact of bat fatality levels is not known.


Bats are long-lived and some species have low reproductive rates, making populations susceptible to localized extinction (Barclay and Harder 2003; Jones et al. 2003). Population sizes for migratory tree bat species are unknown, and we don’t know whether current or future collision fatality levels represent a significant threat to these species (NAS 2007; Kunz et al. 2007; Arnett et al. 2008; Arnett and Baerwald 2013).

The ecological implications of White-Nose Syndrome and collision fatalities for bats are not well understood.


Autumn KingletWhite-Nose Syndrome (WNS) is a fungus-caused disease that is estimated to have killed more than six million bats in North America (Frick et al. 2010; Turner et al. 2011; Hayes 2012). Cave-dwelling bats are most at risk, and it is unknown whether WNS will be a significant source of mortality in migratory tree bats that appear to be most vulnerable at wind energy facilities. Migratory tree bats rarely occur in caves and their solitary nature may not facilitate the spread of fungal spores (e.g., Foley et al. 2011). Because cave-dwelling bats represent a higher percentage of fatalities at Midwestern wind energy facilities, there is concern about the added mortality of wind turbine collisions to WNS-vulnerable bat species in this region. Fatality rates in these species actually could decline, because population sizes are being reduced by WNS, although the relationship between bat abundance and collision risk has not been established.

Avoiding and Minimizing Bird and Bat Fatalities

Silver-Haired Bat_square_Credit-LassenNPS, Flickr

Substantial effort is made to estimate collision risk of birds and bats prior to the siting and construction of wind energy facilities under the premise that high-activity sites will pose an unacceptable risk to these species and should be avoided. There is interest in relating differences in bat fatality rates among wind facilities to landscape characteristics (e.g., topography, landscape types, proximity to landscape features such as mountain ridges or riparian systems). Relating fatality rates to features within the immediate area of a turbine could be useful in siting wind energy facilities and locating turbines within a site to avoid higher-risk areas (Kunz et al. 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007; Arnett et al. 2008).

Wind energy companies are also employing a variety of technologies and operational techniques to minimize fatalities of vulnerable species at operating wind energy facilities.

Curtailing blade rotation at low wind speeds results in substantial reductions in fatality of bats.


Little Brown Bats_square_Credit-USFWS, FlickrAn examination of ten separate studies (Baerwald et al. 2009; Arnett et al. 2011; Arnett et al. 2013b) showed reductions in bat fatalities ranging from 50 to 87% when compared to normally operating turbines. These studies indicate that reductions in bat fatalities were achieved with modest reductions in power production under the conditions at the facilities where experiments were conducted. Further study to identify times when bat collision risk is high could optimize timing of curtailment and minimize power loss (e.g., Weller and Baldwin 2012).

The use of ultrasonic transmitters may deter bats away from rotor swept area and reduce bat fatalities, but further testing and enhancement of the technology is needed.


Experimental trials have shown that ultrasonic devices can reduce bat activity and foraging success, and similar devices operating at wind turbines have shown some reduction in bat fatalities over control turbines (Arnett et al. 2013a). The signal from ultrasonic devices attenuated rapidly with distance and was sensitive to humidity levels. Development of bat deterrents using both acoustic and visual stimuli remains an active area of research.

Siting individual turbines away from topographic features that attract concentrations of large raptors may reduce raptor collision fatalities at wind energy facilities.


Smoky Hills Wind Farm_square_Credit-Drenaline, WikipediaSome analyses have indicated a relationship between raptor fatalities and raptor abundance (e.g., Strickland et al. 2011; Carrete et al. 2012; Dahl et al. 2012), although studies also suggest that standard activity surveys for raptors may not correlate with fatality rates (Ferrer et al. 2012). Large raptors are known to take advantage of wind currents created by ridge tops, upwind sides of slopes, and canyons that are favorable for local and migratory movements (Bednarz et al. 1990; Barrios and Rodriguez 2004; Hoover and Morrison 2005; de Lucas et al. 2012; Katzner et al. 2012).

Selective shutdown of high-fatality turbines may be an effective strategy for reducing fatalities of some raptor species.


Some of the highest raptor fatality rates have been observed in southern Spain where raptors congregate to cross the Strait of Gibraltar to Africa during migration (Ferrer et al. 2012). Mortality of griffon vultures at a facility in that area was reduced substantially (mean of 50.8%) by selective shutdown of turbines where the greatest number of fatalities was observed (de Lucas et al. 2012).

The relationship between bird collision risk and bird behavior, especially in the vicinity of the rotor swept area, is complex and not well understood.


Red-Tailed-Hawk_square_Credit-Kelly-Colgan-Azar-Flickr.jpgCertain species that forage for prey in close proximity to turbines (e.g., red-tailed hawk and golden eagle) appear to have higher fatality rates, while other species that actively fly around wind turbines such as common raven appear to avoid collisions with turbines (Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007). High prey density (e.g., small mammals) is presumed to be a principal factor responsible for high raptor use and high raptor collision rates at the Altamont Pass wind resource area (Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007; NAS 2007; Smallwood and Thelander 2008).

The ability to predict collision risk for birds and bats from activity recorded by radar and acoustic detectors, respectively, remains elusive.


The use of radar and bat acoustic detectors is a common feature of pre-construction risk assessments for siting wind energy facilities (Strickland et al. 2011). To date, studies have not been able to develop a quantitative model enabling reasonably accurate prediction of collision risk from these surveys (e.g., Hein et al. 2013). Predicting bat collision risk using pre-construction activity measures would be further complicated if bats are attracted to wind turbines (see above).

Can wind turbines be designed so that they are easier for birds to see and avoid?


Horned Lark_square_Credit-Kenneth Cole Schneider, FlickrMitigation methods based on avian vision have been proposed to reduce bird collisions with wind turbines. It has been hypothesized that towers and blades coated with ultraviolet (UV) paint may be more visible to birds, making them easier to avoid. In the only known test, Young et al. (2003) compared fatality rates at turbines with UV coatings to turbines coated with standard paint and found no difference. Few data are available on the effectiveness of these and other potential methods for making turbines more visible to birds.

Direct and Indirect Habitat-Based Effects of Wind Energy Development on Birds

Operating wind energy facilities can reduce abundance of some grassland bird species near turbines, but the effect is not consistently observed in all studies.

Wind turbines of the Pecos Wind I&IIStudies have shown that the displacement of grassland bird species in response to wind energy development is species-specific and the displacement response of individual species is observed inconsistently (Hatchett et al. 2013; Loesch et al. 2013; Stevens et al. 2013).

It has been suggested that high site fidelity in bird species may reduce displacement effects in the short-term and displacement would become more pronounced over time, but this has yet to be demonstrated (Strickland et al. 2011). It is also unknown whether bird species will habituate to wind energy facilities and whether disturbance effects diminish over time. In one study, abundance of some species declined during construction of the wind energy facility, but the effect disappeared after the facility became operational (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012).

There is concern that prairie chickens and greater sage grouse will avoid wind energy facilities because of disturbance or because they perceive turbine towers as perches for avian predators.


Greater Prairie-Chicken_square_Credit-Wildreturn, FlickrResearch indicates that close proximity to roads, utility poles or lines, trees, oil and gas platforms, and/or human habitations causes displacement in prairie grouse species (Robel et al. 2004; Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Kuvlesky et al. 2007). It is hypothesized that similar effects would result from wind energy development, but few published studies have tested this hypothesis (Walters et al. 2014). An extensive and comprehensive multi-year study of greater prairie-chicken in a fragmented Kansas landscape showed neutral, positive, and negative responses to wind energy development as measured by a variety of demographic parameters. There was little or no response in nesting females (Winder et al. 2013; Winder et al. 2014): lek persistence appeared to be lower in proximity to turbines, but there was no detectable effect of turbine proximity on male body mass (Winder et al. 2015). A recently published study found that nest survival and nest success in greater sage grouse decreased as proximity to turbines increase, but female survival did not differ with distance from turbines (Le Beau et al. 2014).

It is unknown whether wind energy facilities act as barriers to landscape-level movements by big game and other large terrestrial vertebrates.


There is very little information to evaluate the hypothesis that wind energy facilities act as barriers to wildlife. Studies of desert tortoise indicate that wind energy has no negative effect on site use (Lovich et al. 2011; Ennen et al. 2012). Other species for which barrier effects are a concern but for which published research specific to wind energy is not available include pronghorn, mule deer, black bear, and elk (Lovich and Ennen 2013).

Literature Cited

Click here to download a PDF of all sources.

(AWEA) American Wind energy Association. 2015. AWEA US Wind Industry First Quarter 2015 Market Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC. Accessed online 5/14/15 at http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/1Q2015%20AWEA%20Market%20Report%20Public%20Version.pdf

Arnett EB and Baerwald EF. 2013. Impacts of wind energy development on bats: implications for conservation. In: Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer New York: 435-456.

Arnett EB, Hein CD, Schirmacher MR, Huso MMP, and Szewczak JM. 2013a. Evaluating the effectiveness of an ultrasonic acoustic deterrent for reducing bat fatalities at wind turbines. PloS One 8(6): e65794.

Arnett EB, Johnson GD, Erickson WP, and Hein CD. 2013b. A synthesis of operational mitigation studies to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. A report for National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, CO.

Arnett EB, Huso MMP, Schirmacher MR, and Hayes JP. 2011. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(4): 209-214.

Arnett EB, Brown WK, Erickson WP, Fiedler JK, Hamilton BI, Henry TH, Jain A, Johnson GD, Kerns J, Koford RR, Nicholson CP, O’Connell TJ, Piorkowski MD, and Tankersley Jr. RD. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 61-78.

Arnett EB, Inkley DB, Larkin RP, Manes S, Manville AM, Mason JR, Morrison ML, Strickland MD, and Thresher R. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 7: 1-50.

Avery ML, Springer PF, and Cassel JF. 1976. The effects of a tall tower on nocturnal bird migration: a portable ceilometers study. The Auk 93(2): 281-291.

Baerwald EF and Barclay RMR. 2011. Patterns of activity and fatality of migratory bats at a wind energy facility in Alberta, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(5): 1103–1114.

Baerwald EF and Barclay RMR. 2009. Geographic variations in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy 90(6): 1341-1349.

Baerwald EF, Edworthy J, Holder M, and Barclay RMR. 2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1077-1081.

Baerwald EF, Edworthy J, Holder M, and Barclay RMR. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat mortalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16): 695–696.

Barclay RMR, Baerwald EF, and Gruver JC. 2007. Variation in bat and bird mortalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85(3): 381–387.

Barclay RMR and Harder LM. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in the slow lane. In Bat Ecology, University of Chicago Press: 209-253.

Barrios L and Rodríguez A. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology 41(1): 72-81.

Bednarz JC, Klem D, Goodrich LJ, and Senner SE. 1990. Migration counts of raptors at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, as indicators of population trends, 1934-1986. The Auk 107: 96-109.

Bennett V and Hale A. 2014. Red aviation lights on wind turbines do not increase bat-turbine collisions. Animal Conservation 17(4): 354–358.

Calvert AM, Bishop CA, Elliot RD, Krebs EA, Kydd TM, Machtans CS, and Robertson GJ. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11.

Carrete M, Sanchez-Zapata J, Benitez J, et al. 2012. Mortality at wind-farms is positively related to large-scale distribution and aggregation in griffon vultures. Biological Conservation 145(1): 102-108.

Cryan P, Gorresen P, Hein C, Schirmacher M, Diehl R, Huso M, Hayman D, Fricker P, Bonaccorso F, Johnson D, Heist K, and Dalton D. 2014. Behavior of bats at wind turbines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(42): 15126-15131.

Cryan PM. 2008. Mating behavior as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. The Journal of Wildlife Management72(3): 845-849.

Cryan PM, Jameson JW, Baerwald EF, Willis CKR, Barclay RMR, Snider EA, and Chrichton EG. 2012. Evidence of late-summer mating readiness and early sexual maturation in migratory tree-roosting bats found dead at wind turbines. PLoS One 7(10): e47586.

Cryan P and Barclay R. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy90(6): 1330-1340.

Dahl E, Bevanger K, Nygard T, Roskaft E, and Stokke BG. 2012. Reduced breeding success in white-tailed eagles at Smøla windfarm, western Norway, is caused by mortality and displacement. Biological Conservation 145(1): 79-85.

de Lucas M, Ferrer M, Bechard M, and Muñoz MJ. 2012. Griffon vulture mortality at wind farms in southern Spain: Distribution of fatalities and active mitigation measures. Biological Conservation 147(1): 184-189.

Erickson W, Wolfe M, Bay K, Johnson D, and Gehring JL. 2014. A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. PLoS ONE 9(9): e107491.

Ennen J, Lovich J, Meyer K, Bjurlin C, and Arundel TR. 2012. Nesting ecology of a population of Gopherus agassizii at a utility-scale wind energy facility in southern California. Copeia 2: 222-228.

Everaert J. 2014. Collision risk and micro-avoidance rates of birds with wind turbines in Flanders. Bird Study 61(2): 220–230.

(FAA) Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K, US Department of Transportation: 55.

Ferrer M, de Lucas M, Janss GFE, Casado E, Muñoz AR, Bechard MJ, and Calabuig CP. 2012. Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(1): 38-46.

Foley J, Clifford D, Castle K, Cryan P, and Ostfeld RS. 2011. Investigating and managing the rapid emergence of white-nose syndrome, a novel, fatal, infectious disease of hibernating bats. Conservation Biology 25(2): 223-231.

Frick WF, Pollock JF, Hicks A, Langwig K, Reynolds DS, Turner G, Buthowski C, and Kunz TH. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329(5992): 679-682.

Gehring J, Kerlinger P, and Manville AM. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19(2): 505-514.

Grodsky S, Behr M, Gendler A, Drake D, Dieterle BD, Rudd RJ, and Walrath NL. 2011. Investigating the causes of death for wind turbine-associated bat fatalities. Journal of Mammalogy 92(5): 917-925.

Gue CT, Walker J, Mehl K, Gleason JS, Stephens SE, Loesch CR, Reynolds RE, and Goodwin BJ. 2013. The effects of a large-scale wind farm on breeding season survival of female mallards and blue-winged teal in the Prairie Pothole Region. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(7): 1360-1371.

Hatchett E, Hale A, Bennett V, and Karsten K. 2013. Wind turbines do not negatively affect nest success in the Dickcissel (Spiza americana). The Auk 130(3): 520-528.

Hayes, M. 2012. The Geomyces fungi: ecology and distribution. BioScience 62(9): 819-823.

Hein CD, Gruver J, and Arnett EB. 2013. Relating pre-construction bat activity and post-construction bat fatality to predict risk at wind energy facilities: a synthesis. A report for National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX, USA.

Hoover SL and Morrison ML. 2005. Behavior of red-tailed hawks in a wind turbine development. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 150-159.

Horn JW, Arnett EB, and Kunz TH. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 123–132.

Jain A, Koford R, Hancock A, and Zenner GG. 2011. Bat mortality at a northern Iowa wind resource area.The American Midland Naturalist 165: 185-200.

Johnson GD and Erickson WP. 2010. Avian, bat, and habitat cumulative impacts associated with wind energy development in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion of eastern Washington and Oregon. Prepared for Klickitat County Planning Department, 40 pages.

Johnson GD, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Shepherd MF, Shepherd DA, and Sarappo SA. 2002. Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at a large-scale wind-power development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 879-887.

Jones K, Purvis A, and Gittleman J. 2003. Biological correlates of extinction risks in bats. The American Naturalist 161(4): 601-614.

Katzner T, Brandes D, Miller T, Lanzone M, Maisonneuve C, Tremblay JA, Hulvihill R, and Merovich GT. 2012. Topography drives migratory flight altitude of golden eagles: implications for on-shore wind energy development. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(5): 1178-1186.

Kerlinger P, Gehring JL, Erickson WP, Curry R, Jain A, and Guarnaccia J. 2010. Night migrant fatalities and obstruction lighting at wind turbines in North America. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(4): 744–754.

Kingsley A and Whittam B. 2007. Wind turbines and birds: a background review for environmental assessment. Prepared for Environment Canada /Canadian Wildlife Service. Bird Studies Canada.

Korstian JM, Hale AM, Bennett VJ, and Williams DA. 2013. Advances in sex determination in bats and its utility in wind-wildlife studies. Molecular Ecology Resources 13: 776-780.

Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, Johnson GD, Larkin RP, Strickland MD, Thresher RW, and Tuttle MD. 2007a. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): 315–324.

Kuvlesky WP, Brennan LA, Morrison ML, Boydston KK, Ballard BM, and Bryant FC. 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: Challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2487-2498.

Le Beau CW, Beck JL, Johnson GD, and Holloran MJ. 2014. Short-term impacts of wind energy development on greater sage-grouse fitness. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(3): 522-530.

Loesch C, Walker J, Reynolds R, Gleason JS, Niemuth ND, Stephens SE, and Erickson MA. 2013. Effect of wind energy development on breeding duck densities in the Prairie Pothole region. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(3): 587-598.

Longcore T, Rich C, and Gauthreaux Jr. SA. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and meta-analysis. The Auk 125(2): 485-492.

Longcore T, Rich C, Mineau P, MacDonald B, Bert DG, Sullivan LM, and Drake D. 2012. An estimate of avian mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada. PLoS One 7(4): e34025.

Loss SR, Will T, Loss SS, and Marra PP. 2014a. Bird-building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor, 116(1): 8-23.

Loss SR, Will T, and Marra PP. 2014b. Estimation of bird‐vehicle collision mortality on US roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(5): 763-771.

Loss SR, Will T, and Marra PP. 2014c. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PloS one, 9(7): e101565.

Loss SR, Will T, and Marra PP. 2013a. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States.Biological Conservation 168: 201-209.

Loss SR, Will T, and Marra, PP. 2013b. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4: 1396.

Lovich J and Ennen J. 2013. Assessing the state of knowledge of utility-scale wind energy development and operation on non-volant terrestrial and marine wildlife. Applied Energy 103: 52-60.

Lovich J, Ennen J, Mandrak S, Meyer K, Loughran C, Bjurlin C, Arundel T, Turner W, Jones C, and Groenendaal AM. 2011. Effects of wind energy production on growth, demography, and survivorship of a desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) population in southern California with comparisons to natural populations. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(2): 161-174.

Mabee TJ, Cooper BA, Plissner JH, and Young D. 2006. Nocturnal bird migration over an Appalachian ridge at a proposed wind power project. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3): 682-690.

Mabee TJ and Cooper BA. 2004. Nocturnal bird migration in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.Northwestern Naturalist 85(2): 39-47.

Miller A. 2008. Patterns of avian and bat mortality at a utility-scaled wind farm on the southern high plains. Thesis for Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.

(NABCI) North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2009. The state of the birds, United States of America, 2009. US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

(NAS) National Academy of Sciences. 2007. Environmental impacts of wind-energy projects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

(NRC) National Research Council. 2010. Hidden costs of energy: unpriced consequences of energy production and use. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

(PIF) Partners in Flight Science Committee 2013. Population Estimates Database, version 2013. Accessed online 12/18/2013 at http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates.

Pearce-Higgins JW, Stephen L, Douse A, and Langston RHW. 2012. Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology49: 386-94.

Piorkowski M and O’Connell T. 2010. Spatial pattern of summer bat mortality from collisions with wind turbines in mixed-grass prairie. The American Midland Naturalist 164(2): 260-269.

Robel RJ, Harrington Jr JA, Hagen CA, Pitman JC, and Reker RR. 2004. Effect of energy development and human activity on the use of sand sagebrush habitat by lesser prairie-chickens in southwestern Kansas. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69: 251-266.

Rollins K, Meyerholz D, Johnson G,Capparella AP, and Loew S. 2012. A forensic investigation into the etiology of bat mortality at a wind farm: barotrauma or traumatic injury?. Veterinary Pathology 49(2): 362-371.

Smallwood S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(1): 19-33.

Smallwood KS and Karas B. 2009. Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and repowered wind turbines in California.The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1062–1071.

Smallwood KS and Thelander CG. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 215–223.

Stevens T, Hale A, Karsten K, and Bennet VJ. 2013. An analysis of displacement from wind turbines in a wintering grassland bird community. Biodiversity and Conservation 22(8): 1755-1767.

Stienen EWM, Courtens W, Everaert J, and Van De Walle M. 2008. Sex-biased mortality of common terns in wind farm collisions. The Condor 110(1): 154–157.

Strickland MD, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Johnson DH, Johnson GD, Morrison ML, Shaffer JA, and Warren-Hicks W. 2011. Comprehensive guide to studying wind energy/wildlife interactions. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, DC.

Turner G, Reeder D, and Coleman J. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nosed syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Research News 52: 13-27.

Walters K, Kosciuch K, and Jones J. 2014. Can the effect of tall structures on birds be isolated from other aspects of development? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(2): 250-256.

Weller T and Baldwin J. 2012. Using echolocation monitoring to model bat occupancy and inform mitigations at wind energy facilities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(3): 619-631.

Winder V, Gregory A, McNew L, and Sandercock B. 2015. Responses of male Greater Prairie-Chickens to wind energy development. The Condor 117: 284-296.

Winder VL, McNew LB, Gregory AJ, Hunt LM, Wisely SM, and Sandercock BK. 2013. Space use by female greater prairie-chickens in response to wind energy development. Ecosphere 5(1): 1-17.

Winder V, Mcnew L, Gregory A, Hunt L, Wisely S, and Sandercock B. 2014. Effects of wind energy development on the survival of female greater prairie-chickens. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2): 395-405.

Winkelman JE. 1992. De invloed van de Sep-proefwindcentrale te Oosterbierum (Fr) op vogels, 1: aanvaringsslachtof ers, 2: nachtelijke aanvaringskansen, 3: aanvlieggedrag overdag, 4: verstoring. RIN-rapport 92/2-5. Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek (IBN-DLO), Arnhem.

Young Jr. DP, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Good RE, and Sernka KJ. 2003. Comparison of avian responses to UV-light-reflective paint on wind turbines: July 1999-December 2000. Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), Inc.

Get Involved

AWWI’s success is based on wide collaboration with all who hold a stake in the success of wind energy and the protection of wildlife and habitat. By working together, we can move toward a common goal. Here is how you can help:

gi-icon1

Engage With Us

Offer your input and ideas to build the AWWI collaboration or support AWWI as a partner organization. To learn more about opportunities to engage with AWWI, contact us.

gi-icon2

Support our Work

Wind Energy and Wildlife. We need both for a healthy, sustainable planet. Your donation will support AWWI’s work which generates technological innovation, policy-relevant science, and outreach and education.

gi-icon3

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive email updates and spread the word about AWWI to others engaged and interested in wind-wildlife research, resources, and education.