1 / 28

RECOMMENDATION FOR GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE INTO OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDATION FOR GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE INTO OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT. Ib Krag Petersen, Tony Fox, Mark Desholm, Johnny Kahlert and Thomas Kjær Christensen Dept. of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity National Environmental Research Institute University of Aarhus, Denmark ikp@dmu.dk.

cruz
Download Presentation

RECOMMENDATION FOR GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE INTO OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RECOMMENDATION FOR GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE INTO OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT Ib Krag Petersen, Tony Fox, Mark Desholm, Johnny Kahlert and Thomas Kjær ChristensenDept. of Wildlife Ecology and BiodiversityNational Environmental Research Institute University of Aarhus, Denmarkikp@dmu.dk

  2. Shorebird Flyways

  3. Defining the problem • Which are the key species? • What are the hazards? • How can we assess the local effects?

  4. Which are the key species? • Those for which the area is important at some stage in the annual life cycle • Those which enjoy special protection measures • Those that are for some reason vulnerable to development • Those showing characteristics that make them vulnerable to windfarms • Those that exhibit high annual adult survival and low reproductive output • Most emphasis therefore on long-lived waterbirds

  5. What are the hazards? • Avoidance response: • - Displacement to movement • (lateral)

  6. What are the hazards? • Avoidance response: • - Displacement to movement • (altitudinal)

  7. What are the hazards? • Avoidance response: • - Effective habitat loss

  8. What are the hazards? • Avoidance response: • - Effective habitat loss

  9. What are the hazards? • Habitat loss/gain • - less than 1% • of the total area

  10. What are the hazards? • Collision rate

  11. What are the hazards? • Avoidance response: • - Displacement to movement • - Effective habitat loss • Habitat loss/gain • Collision rate

  12. Displacement of movement • measure flight trajectories in 3 dimension space • compared pre- and post- construction flight trajectories

  13. Displacement of movement • autumn migration of land birds • autumn migration of waterbirds • spring migration of waterbirds

  14. Displacement of movement

  15. Habitat loss/gain • Behavioural response (effective habitat loss) • Physical habitat loss (under foundations and anti-scour) • Physical habitat gain (foundations and anti-scour)

  16. Habitat loss/gain

  17. Habitat loss/gain • Wind farm area • 2 km strip outside • Area 2-4 km outside

  18. Density surface (example Common Scoter at Horns Rev • Encounter Map (example Common Scoter at Horns Rev) • Displacment effect (example Common Scoter at Horns Rev) Habitat loss/gain

  19. Collision rate • Pre-construction modelling • Post construction monitoring (“validation”)

  20. Collision rate • Pre-construction modelling

  21. Migration volume Transition rates Wind direction Flight altitude By chance passing rate Collision rate • Pre-construction • modelling

  22. Collision rate • Pre-construction modelling

  23. Collision rate • Thermal • Animal • Detection • System • (TADS)

  24. Collision rate Post construction monitoring

  25. C1. Destruction of feeding habitat under foundations/ anti-scour structures D1. Creation of novel habitats on foundations anti-scour structures A1. Barriers to movement (migration, feeding flights, etc.) B1. Displacement from ideal feeding distribution E1. Birds collide with rotors or other structures, or mortally injured by air turbulence A2. Increased flight distances B2. “Effective” habitat loss C2. “Physical” habitat loss D2. “Physical” habitat gain B3. Reduced energy intake rates and/or increased energy expenditure D3. Enhanced energy intake rates and/or decreased energy expenditure A3. Enhanced energy consumption A4. Changes to annual breeding output and survival E4. Reduced survival VISUAL STIMULUS – AVOIDANCE RESPONSE COLLISION MORTALITY PHYSICAL HABITAT LOSS/MODIFICATION Hazard factor Physical effects Ecological effects Energetic costs Fitness consequences Changes to overall population size Population impacts

  26. Strategic overview that facilitate overall site selection for offshore wind farm development The EIA process address the situation for a specific site Post-construction monitoring will quantify predictions from EIA’s and generate generic results for the general public Cumulative effects need to be managed by a more general body than the individual EIA process. BEST PRACTICE?

  27. Thank you for your attention

More Related