The wind turbine facilities within Altamont Pass has been the catalyst for 
much discussion and are brought up at every wind related conference, 
symposium, and hearing. Fortunately, it seems to be a unique situation, at 
least within the United States. This was one of the first facilities 
built, and is unfortunately sited along a major migratory corridor for 
several species of raptor. This coupled with older style turbines that 
allowed raptors to use them as perches, and an abundant prey base combined 
to create the highest raptor mortality rates within the US. Even with 
modern turbines, which are specifically designed to minimize perching 
opportunities for birds, this site still continues to strike large numbers 
of raptors (Smallwood and Karas 2009). For a comparison of raptor activity 
within Altamont and other proposed wind sites see: Page 15 of Hardin Wind 
LLC. application to the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) (link below).
 
Barclay et al. (2007) includes a nice table for a comparing regional bird 
and bat morality rates throughout the US and Canada see (or Kuvlesky Jr. 
et al. 2007). This study compiles information from various projects. Most 
are recent studies adjusted for search efficiency and savaging rates, two 
important factors in calculating an estimated mortality rate.  

Though Perry’s monument, high-rises in Cleveland, and wind turbines are 
all tall structures, the major difference is the lighting scheme. The 
monument and the buildings are constantly lit, while wind turbines 
generally have the minimum lighting allowed by the FAA. This is important 
since most migratory song birds do so at night, using the stars for 
navigational aids. Particularly during periods of bad weather bird may 
mistake lights for stars and become disoriented. Lights that are lit 
continually have been shown to be one of the major factors contributing to 
the large numbers of birds found a communication towers (Gehring et al. 
2009). No significant difference has been found between those turbines lit 
with FAA lighting and unlit turbines (as an example here are 3 post-
construction studies that investigated this: Johnson et al. 2000, Kerns 
and Kerlinger 2004, Young et al. 2009). As far as I am aware there has 
been only 1 mortality event caused by lighten at a wind energy facility, 
and that was during an extremely foggy night and the lights were at the 
substation, the place where all the power is consolidated prior to being 
put onto the grid (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). 

The Division of Wildlife (DOW) has developed monitoring protocols to 
assess potential impacts of proposed wind energy facilities (website 
listed below). While these protocols are “voluntary” the OPSB, which is 
responsible for permitting all wind facilities greater than 5 MW, looks to 
the DOW for input regarding environmental studies. To date all facilities 
proposed for Ohio have undertaken the survey recommendations suggested by 
the DOW. A federal advisory committee is in the process of drafting a 
similar document to be used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

Those interested in comparing the impacts of wind energy to other sources 
of energy production should see the report produced by Pandion systems 
(link below). 

As Jim McCormac mentioned the DOW is also conducting aerial pelagic bird 
surveys in an effort to collect baseline information on how migratory 
waterfowl use Ohio’s portion of Lake Erie related to potential offshore 
wind energy facilities. This information will be used to encourage the 
development within regions of the lake that would have a minimal impact to 
these species.
  
As for bats, I guess that’s a topic for a different list-serve. 

Keith Lott
Wind Energy Wildlife Biologist
Ohio Deparment of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife

Barclay, R.M.R., E.F. Baerwald, and J.C. Gruver. 2007. Variation in bat 
and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of 
rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 85: 381-387. 

Division of Wildlife Wind Energy site: 
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/ResearchandSurvey
s/WildlifeWind/tabid/21467/Default.aspx 

Erickson et al. 2005 
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_1029-
1042_erickson.pdf 

Hardin Wind LLC. 
http://dis.puc.state.oh.us/TiffToPDf/A1001001A09G10B25034E60288.pdf

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. 
Shepherd. 2000. Avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota 
Wind Resource Area: Results of a 4-year study. 

Kerns, J.J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision 
fatalities at the Mountaineer wind energy center, Tucker County, West 
Virginia. 

Kuvlesky Jr. W.P., L.A. Brennan, M.L. Morrison, K.K. Boydston, B.M. 
Ballard, and F.C. Bryant. 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife 
conservation: Challenges and Opportunities. The Journal of Wildlife 
Management. 71: 2487-2498.
 
Pandion Systems: http://www.nyserda.org/publications/Report%2009-02%
20Wildlife%20report%20-%20web.pdf 

Smallwood, K.S., and B. Karas. 2009 Avian and bat fatality rates at old-
generation and repowered wind turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife 
Management. 73: 1062-1071.

Young, D.P., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009. Mount 
Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat 
Monitoring

______________________________________________________________________

Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
Additional discussions can be found in our forums, at www.ohiobirds.org/forum/.

You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]