Applying risk management science to wind farm development

A synopsis of definitions, tools, and case studies pertinent to managing environmental risk

Arie T. Feltman-Frank

Office of Science, Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship

University of Denver, Denver, CO

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Golden, Colorado

August 26, 2017

Prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the Department of Energy, Office of

Science’s Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship Program under the direction of Elise
DeGeorge at the National Wind Technology Center.

1
!
ABSTRACT

Wind energy projects can have negative effects on wildlife. Managing risk to
wildlife is difficult, especially when the behavioral patterns of some species are
poorly characterized. As a result, there is growing interest in establishing better
practices to quantify and manage risk to wildlife in the face of industry
uncertainties. These practices will play an essential role in setting the balance
between clean energy development and conservation priorities. Managing
environmental risk is a critical function for wind farm developers and regulatory
bodies. However, the chosen risk management (RM) practice is not always
derived from the scientific foundation of the field of RM. Ideally, there should be
a strategic process that achieves a customized management approach that is most
fitting for a classified risk and based on the scientific principles of RM. Following
a comprehensive literature review related to RM practices, tools, and case studies
in the wind industry and other related industries, this narrative highlights where
RM has been applied, where it has been most effective, and how it can be
improved. We suggest a stepwise process for incorporating RM science into
decision making frameworks. Depending on the classification of a high priority
environmental risk at a proposed wind farm, some management practices are
more suitable than others. Understanding when to use each management practice
can significantly improve management results and achieve the desired goals of
accomplishing successful wind farm development while concurrently minimizing
deleterious environmental impacts.

I.! BACKGROUND

The International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 34 (also known as WREN – Working
Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy) is the leading international forum
for supporting the global deployment of wind energy technology through fostering a better
understanding of environmental issues, efficient monitoring programs, and effective mitigation
strategies. White papers, which focus and facilitate discussion on and advance the state of
understanding of global concerns within the wind community, are key work products of WREN.
As a part of this effort, the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) are leading
the development of an environmental risk-based management (RBM) white paper.
The primary goal of this narrative is to collect RBM definitions, approaches, tools, and
case studies related to the management of wildlife impacts during wind farm development.
Coherently synthesizing this information will provide the foundation for several key content
elements to support the drafting of this white paper.

II.!INTRODUCTION

Renewable energy systems (RES’s) provide local communities with clean energy, jobs,
and economic security. Integration of RES's also plays a vital role in reducing dependency on
and the deleterious impacts of fossil fuels. While RES's potential proportionate contribution is
growing [1, 2], their success is contingent upon research regarding technology efficiency, social

2
!
and environmental impacts, and best methods for large-scale implementation. The most recent
DOE Wind Vision Report (2015) details tremendous growth in the wind industry. In many cases,
wind energy progress exceeded expectations between 2008 and 2013. Cumulative installed wind
capacity in the United States increased from 25 to 61 GW, states with utility-scale wind
deployment increased from 29 to 39, and costs decreased from 71 to 45 $/MWh [1]. This growth
is also occurring on a global scale. For example, Europe’s project energy mix aims at achieving
20% of energy consumption from renewable energy by 2020 [2].
The growth of renewable energy with increasing market risk exposures, a more complex
financing environment, and changing regulations will lead to an increase in estimated annual
expenditures for risk management (RM) services (including insurance) of up to USD 3.7 billion
in 2020 [3]. Risk can manifest during all stages of project development and can include strategic
and business risks, operation and maintenance risks, market and sales risks, counterparty risks,
and political, policy, and regulatory risks. We will focus on potential environmental risks
associated with onshore and offshore wind farms.
As occurs with any large scale energy development initiative, wind energy projects can
have negative effects on wildlife. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Land-
Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012) describe the primary risks that land-based wind
development projects pose to species of concern including collisions with wind turbines and
associated infrastructure, loss and degradation of habitat from turbines and infrastructure,
fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller segments, displacement and behavioral
changes, and other indirect effects [4]. Offshore wind energy projects pose the highest risk levels
during construction due to noise levels and increased vehicle traffic [5]. Common species of
concern include birds, bats, marine life, and other site-specific federally or state protected species
[6].
Due to the expanding wind industry and global wildlife conservation priorities, there has
been substantial research on the site-specific effects of wind energy on wildlife. In addition,
significant brain power has been dedicated to creating tools and mitigation strategies to better
understand and minimize effects on wildlife. However, this field is at its infancy with many
knowledge gaps. Learning from other industries can help fill these gaps. For example, in 2000,
the total cost to the aviation industry resulting from wildlife strike was estimated at USD 1.2
billion per year. Over the last 20 years, air crafts have become more susceptible to strike
resulting in a series of domestic and international approaches to addressing this issue [7].
Compliance with environmental laws requires wind farm developers to dedicate
significant resources to successfully achieve environmental permits for their proposed project
sites. These processes differ around the world. However, they variably involve a combination of
analyzing and quantifying risks to species of concern, developing strategies to minimize and
mitigate risk, post-construction monitoring, modification, and post-modification monitoring.
Quantifying and managing risk is difficult, especially when the behavioral patterns of
some species are poorly understood. As a result, there is a growing interest in the establishment
of best practices to better quantify and manage risk to wildlife in the face of industry
uncertainties, and these will play an essential role in setting the balance between clean energy
development and conservation priorities. Establishing wildlife related RM best practices can be
useful in several ways:
•! Minimizing environmental permitting obstacles and expense
•! Enhancing community confidence in the environmental ethics of the industry

3
!
 •! Improving stakeholder confidence in the credibility of RM approaches, results,
designation of thresholds, etc.
•! Providing a vehicle for project-to-project information sharing and universal data
acquisition methods

There is widespread research regarding wind farm effects on wildlife [4, 6, 8]. Also, there
is a plethora of regulatory guidelines for wind farm development geared toward demonstrating
compliance with applicable laws [4, 9]. Exciting new technologies may improve siting efforts,
wildlife detection and deterring, and other relevant mitigation and data acquisition procedures
[10-18]. Each of these evolving disciplines represents some of the specific components of RM
science as it pertains to wind farm development. Through a RM science lens, we will review
where RM science has been employed, where it has been most effective, and how it can be better
integrated during key stages of wind farm development.

III.!PROCESS

Searches were performed on RM practices through the NREL library and publications
database, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Tethys, and the American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI)
online library database leading to selection of 35 relevant references including peer reviewed
journals, book chapters, webinars, and conference proceedings. Each reference was reviewed and
categorized based on content. The primary content categories include RM: 1) definitions and
applications, 2) tools, and 3) case studies. Each source was analyzed in detail and research
findings and experiences pertinent to RM were catalogued, noting applicability to the wind
industry.

IV.!OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION

A. The foundational principles of RM

Risk is the possibility that human actions or events will lead to consequences that harm
things that humans value [19]. From a project perspective, risk is defined in PMBoK ! from! the
®

Project Management Institute as an uncertain event or condition that may effect a project’s
objectives [20]. RM is the process of reducing risks to a level deemed acceptable by society
through identifying, evaluating, minimizing, and continuously monitoring risk to reduce the
likelihood of occurrence and/or magnitude of its impacts. RM practices generally include risk-
based management (RBM), precaution-based management (PBM), or discourse-based
management (DBM) strategies. RBM relies on a numerical assessment of probabilities and
potential damages. On the other hand, PBM involves the prudent handling of uncertain or highly
vulnerable situations when insufficient information is available. DBM involves sorting out
ambiguity and disagreements by developing stakeholder consensus [19].
Successful application of RM science into a decision-making framework requires a
stepwise process that involves (Figure 1):
1.! Classifying risk
2.! Choosing a management practice
3.! Evaluating the chosen management practice

4
!
Classifying risk requires five analyses:
1.! Identifying the risks of concern
2.! Determining the probability of occurrence (PO)
3.! Assessing damage potential
4.! Identifying relevant stakeholders
5.! Assessing the presence of uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity [19]

Once these five analyses have been accomplished, the most appropriate RM practice can
be selected and customized. Each RM practice addresses decision processes uniquely. Therefore,
choosing a management practice involves exploring its applicability within the context of
common decision frameworks.
Finally, once a management practice is chosen, it should be re-evaluated to more fully
understand its coherence for the risks under consideration [19]. This should include considering
the:
•! role of social constructs in evaluating risk
•! role of public involvement in defining tolerable risk levels
•! methods of dealing with uncertainty
•! risk-based versus precaution-based management approaches
•! role of deliberation

The next three sections focus on the three specific steps for successful application of RM
science with a focus on the potential environmental risks of wind farm development.

Figure 1. A stepwise process for incorporating RM science into decision frameworks

B. Classifying risk

Classifying risk begins during the siting and planning stages of wind farm development
and is integrated into each subsequent stage (constructing, operating, decommissioning,
repowering). Different stages pose varying levels of risks that must be addressed uniquely.
Classifying risk during the siting and planning stage is particularly important. This is because

5
!
anticipating and planning around risks early in the project cycle can limit deployment obstacles
and expenses as a project comes into fruition.
One set of classification categories for risk are normal, intermediate, and intolerable [19].
Each risk level is associated with an appropriate regulatory decision on the environmental
assessment and approval requirements for a project to proceed [21]. Normal risks have low
complexity, associated science that is well understood, and have a regulatory approach derived
from general consensus. Intermediate and intolerable risks are associated with a low reliability of
assessment, high scientific uncertainty, high catastrophic potential, and lack of systematic
knowledge about the distribution of consequences. The ultimate goal of RM practices is to keep
risks in the normal area.
The first step of risk classification is identifying the risks of concern. This is often done
after the macro-siting process. A developer may have chosen various regions with potential sites
in mind that meet criteria for successful wind deployment. One criterion for choosing potential
sites involves finding land with low habitat quality, sensitivity and spatial resistance. After
macro-siting, a more comprehensive risk classification analysis is undergone. This analysis
involves reviewing existing biological information, capitalizing on local expertise, employing
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) platforms (e.g. the Landscape Assessment Tool),
selectively engaging biologists for site-visits, and considering other project related information
such as the location, size, associated infrastructure, and development schedule.
While risks will differ from project to project, common wildlife-related risks of concern
for land-based wind energy development include:
•! bird and bat collisions
•! displacement of habitat
•! habituation
•! changes in behavior (e.g. avoidance)
For offshore development, common risks include [22]:
•! alteration of benthic habitats
•! noise
•! interference with animal movements and migrations
•! collisions

Data gaps and inconsistencies can often be a major challenge when classifying risk. When
evaluating the environmental risks of wind farm development, it is difficult to predict the PO,
because some wildlife behavioral patterns are poorly understood. Therefore, assessing the
probability that a bird or bat, for example, will collide with wind turbine blades is a challenge.
PO estimates can only be made based on existing biological information (e.g. habitat
characteristics), on-site species surveys, and collision models based on project details and known
or acquired species information. Defining standardized bird survey methods and conducting
surveys over a season(s) at a proposed wind farm site is recommended as a way to reduce these
data gaps [23]. Similarly, information such as the feeding guilds of local bats can inform
planners about the height that particular species habitually forage [24]. This knowledge could
serve as a vehicle for estimating the amount of time a particular species flies within the rotor
swept zone, a critical consideration when evaluating the PO. Predicting PO’s can even become
more challenging for estimating other non-collision related risks such as avoidance, habituation,
and other changes in behavioral patterns. In some cases and on some spatial scales, the damage

6
!
potential is well known while in others it is uncertain (e.g. changes in behavioral patterns,
cumulative effects on populations, etc.).
Nonetheless, it is important that PO’s are formulated based on the best available
knowledge. PO’s can be quantitative or qualitative. For example, at a proposed wind farm site, it
can be determined that there is a “moderate” chance of habitat displacement for grassland birds
due to habitat modification. PO’s can also be temporal (e.g. there is a “high” probability of bat
collisions during autumn migration nights when wind speeds are low). With qualitative risk
analysis, the probability impact matrix is recommended. With this, each risk is classified with
probabilities for the PO and impact of the risk on project objectives. Then, the risks are rated as
low, medium, or high impact on the project [25].
Determining PO’s quantitatively often involves incorporating the project area, layout of
wind turbines, common migration corridors, known foraging and roosting sites, results from
species surveys, and other site and species characteristics to estimate the fatalities per turbine (or
wind farm) per year. In addition to determining PO, collision fatality thresholds should be
designated. There are a number of real life examples that can illustrate the usefulness of the
quantitative approach to PO's.
One group [16] created an adaptable model that takes into account pre-construction avian
exposure and wind farm characteristics to predict fatalities (birds year ). This model can be
-1

improved upon based on the actual fatalities recorded during scheduled post-construction carcass
searches exercising an adaptive management (AM) approach. In addition, Bayesian Belief
Networks (BN’s) are models that graphically and probabilistically represent correlative and
causal relationships among variables and that can account for uncertainty. GIS analysis and BN’s
can be combined to assess “what if” scenarios for different planning objectives and related
management interventions. This methodology was employed to determine how the vulnerability
of marketable plaice (a type of fish) would change after the development of offshore wind
energy and related displacement of fishing efforts [12]. A Markov model was developed to guide
managers in balancing wind energy development and conservation goals by providing qualitative
insights in cases of limited data, or serving as a quantitative tool when more extensive data is
available. Typically, 2 to 3 years of baseline studies are required for this model to capture
temporal and spatial variability [18]. Addressing the potential offshore risks of wind energy
(specifically construction activities) is often hindered by large knowledge gaps on marine
mammal hearing ability, sensitivity, and responses to noise. An analytical framework known as
SAFESIMM (Statistical Algorithms for Estimating the Sonar Influence on Marine Megafauna)
can estimate the number of species to be affected by noise using a simulation-based approach
[17]. Each of these methodologies represents an approach to quantify PO’s and in the case of
BN’s, estimate possible consequences of actions or management approaches. Quantitative
analyses such as these are recommended for the most important project risks [25].
Boothroyd & Barea illustrated a quantitative approach to assessing collision risk for the
threatened New Zealand falcon based on radio tracking data. At the proposed Hurunui wind
farm, the New Zealand falcon, a nationally threatened species, was discovered during early site
investigations. This preliminary discovery demanded more detailed studies focused on
understanding how the falcons used the landscape. A pair of resident falcons was tracked using a
combination of radio telemetry receivers and backpack harness-mounted radio transmitters
during the 2010 autumn/winter period. Combining this information with the amount of time
falcons spent flying within the rotor swept area helped planners predict the amount of time it
would take for adult male and female falcons to collide with a wind turbine. It was estimated that

7
!
an adult male or female falcon would collide with a turbine within 4 to 5 years after the project
became operational [26].
The damage potential should be evaluated on an individual/local level and on a species
population level. Based on the best state-of-the-art knowledge, it should be determined whether
the predicted fatalities or other effects will have cumulative impact when accounting for multiple
wind projects. For example, it has been determined that for small passerines (which make up a
majority of bird-related collisions), fatality rates compared to population size are very low. For
eagles and other raptors, fatality rates are of greater concern due to their low reproduction
potentials. In addition, studies have shown substantial declines in grassland birds due to habitat
modification, a particular concern as wind farms continue to expand in grassland bird habitats.
While over 200 species of bird casualties have been observed, only 22 species of bats have,
making them of particular concern with regards to individual-population level effects. Migratory
tree-roosting bats account for 78% of reported bat fatalities [8].
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) brought together developers, conservation
organizations, and government representatives to produce a Cumulative Effects Assessment
(CEA) – the first of its kind in the Eastern European, Middle East, and North African regions.
Five wind farm developers shared and pooled their pre-construction environmental survey data.
When identifying species populations potentially at risk, the sensitivity of several on-site species
was evaluated along with the likelihood of cumulative effects. Priority species were then
identified and mitigation and monitoring programs were developed [23]. Further criteria and
indicators for evaluating damage potential could include spatial extent, significance, duration,
and reversibility [21]. A common practice of environmental impact assessments involves
evaluating the extent and magnitude of impact, nature, and duration of each risk [27].
Identifying relevant stakeholders becomes increasingly important the more complex,
multidisciplinary, and uncertain a phenomenon appears. Homogeneous and consistent definitions
and explanations of the phenomenon in question should be sought. Also, differing views should
be clarified [19]. This involves organized communicative exchanges between experts and
relevant stakeholders. Relevant stakeholders include state and federal agencies, local
conservation groups, biologists, consultants, and the general public to be affected by a proposed
wind farm site. Identifying the proper stakeholders early on in the development process is
necessary for picking the right RM practice. One study compared the permit and environmental
impact assessment policies and regulations pertaining to wind energy projects in the United
States and Germany. Transparent access to information and public involvement was an important
consideration for judging policy and regulation effectiveness [28]. Energy Management Inc.
(EMI), a Massachusetts-based energy company, proposed the 420 MW Cape Wind Project, an
offshore wind farm that would be located on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. From the
beginning, EMI staff members conducted an extensive public outreach program giving over 400
project presentations to a variety of public stakeholders and launched a project-specific website
[29].
A large component of RM involves acknowledging and incorporating uncertainty into
RM decision frameworks, or as Klinke, et al. put it: “co-existing with uncertainties” [19].
Uncertainty can appear in many forms throughout wind development projects. Various forms of
uncertainty regarding risk can include variability, systematic and random measurement errors,
indeterminacy, and lack of knowledge. For example, natural variability in species behaviors
unrelated to wind farm development can be mistaken for development-related impacts. Human
errors such as in post-construction carcass searches can lead to uncertainties in fatality

8
!
calculations. Lack of knowledge in bird and bat visual and auditory perceptions can lead to
uncertainties when creating deterring mechanisms as mitigation measures. Sorting uncertainty
into its proper category can be helpful when classifying a risk.
While uncertainty can play a substantial role in RM planning, distinguishing between
uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity is critical. Complexity is the difficulty of identifying and
quantifying causal links between a multitude of potential candidates and specific adverse effects.
Complexity can be witnessed by examining disputes over permitting agency jurisdictions for
offshore renewable energy projects. For example, at the infancy of this industry, there was a
dispute over whether projects located on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would be
regulated under the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Minerals
Management Service (MMS). Further complicating matters, these agencies had separate policies
for applying preliminary authorization to collect environmental data or deploy offshore
renewable energy technology demonstration projects [22].
Ambiguity is the variability of interpretations based on identical observations or data
assessments. Ambiguity is especially important when relevant stakeholders come into the
picture. Ambiguity conflicts occur when there is disagreement on how scientific application
should address human health and environmental protection. For example, if it is determined that
a site of interest has a significant amount of tree-roosting bats and none of these are lawfully
protected species, a developer may need to develop a mitigation measure but will still be able to
move forward with the project process. A developer may decide to raise the cut-in speed during
times of peak bat activity. From a regulatory perspective, the presence of tree-roosting bats may
be important to note and monitor – but not high priority relative to other more urgent matters. A
developer may interpret this information in the same manner. Local conservation groups,
however, may consider this of high importance and urgency. The effort to make permitting
processes more efficient should focus on, in part, improving the negotiation and compromise
necessary to reconcile ambiguity [29]. An algorithm for classifying each risk into its proper
category is illustrated in Figure 2.

9
!
Low*complexity,*
uncertainty,*and*
ambiguity?*

General*
consensus*
regarding*the* Normal!!
If*YES*
regulatory*
approach?**
Can!complexity!be!managed!via!technical!
Low*PO*and*
experts,!stakeholders,!and!best!available!
damage*
High* knowledge?!!
potential?**
complexity,*
uncertainty,* Can!uncertainty!be!reduced!through!
If*ALL*YES*
and/or* further!studies!and!information!gathering?!!
ambiguity?** Can!ambiguity!be!resolved!via!structural!
deliberation!with!involved!parties?!!!
If*NO*or*if* Consensus* &*
an*answer* lacking*
cannot*be* regarding*the*
Can!collaborative!governance!catalyze! If*YES* Intermediate*
determined* regulatory*
consensus?!!
approach?**

&*
PO*high?**
Can!the!PO!and!damage!potential!be!
Damage* If*YES*
reduced!to!tolerable!levels?!!!
potential*high?***

If*not*ALL*YES* Intolerable**

Figure 2. An algorithm for classifying risk into its proper category

Once site-specific environmental risks have been identified, PO’s have been assigned
(qualitatively and/or quantitatively), damage potentials have been assessed (individual to
population level/cumulative impacts), relevant stakeholders have been pinpointed, and the
presence of uncertainty (sorted into its proper category), complexity, and ambiguity in the risk
analysis have been explored, the risk should be categorized as normal, intermediate, or
intolerable. Then, a rational management approach can be designed.

C. Exploring the general decision process

Once a risk has been assessed and classified, developers should take into consideration
turbine arrangement and placement and other facility characteristics such as design and size,
visibility, and sources of attraction to determine the optimal layout not only for efficient energy
production – but also for reducing environmental risk. At Mahinerangi wind farm in the Otago
region of New Zealand, constraint mapping was utilized to create a turbine envelope for layout
design. This technique helped identify the site’s environmental values early on and gave planners
a framework for avoiding areas of high environmental value while retaining flexibility in turbine
specifications and positioning to optimize the wind farm site [26]. It is important to note that in
the final decision, Environmental Court required an even narrower development envelope than
what was proposed. Designing strategies such as this one don’t guarantee successful permitting;
however, they facilitate a pathway through the regulatory environment.
The results from classifying risk (step 1) help determine which management approach is
best-fitting for a particular project. A management approach consists of various measures to

10
!
minimize, mitigate, and, in some cases, retire a classified environmental risk. On the other hand,
a RM practice presents a methodology for choosing what the optimal RM approach will be.
If a risk falls in the normal category, risk-risk comparisons and risk-benefit analyses are
adequate. This may happen in cases where preliminary studies demonstrate low risk of potential
adverse environmental impacts. In these cases, projects can often move forward without
unwanted turbulence. If a risk falls into the intermediate category, further studies may be
required and adequate mitigation strategies employed to receive environmental permits. If a risk
falls into the intolerable category, developers may have to look for sites with less adverse
environmental impacts or make necessary adjustments to lower the risk.
Depending on if a risk is riddled with complexity, uncertainty, or ambiguity (or
combinations of these), different management practices must be utilized. To confront risks
associated with complexity, the best expertise should be brought together and management
should be determined on the basis of state-of-the-art knowledge. To confront risks with
uncertainty, resilience should be utilized as a primary management tool. Additional knowledge
may help, or if the action is demanded before the necessary knowledge can be obtained, such as
with wind energy, resilient measures should be designed that allow for flexible responses to
unexpected events through AM. Combating uncertainty often involves gaining further
knowledge or perspective about an unknown risk potential which may require developing
analogies and comparisons and conducting further investigations. To confront risks with
ambiguity, deliberation must be utilized in a way that brings relevant peoples together in an
inclusive consensus-driven AM environment [19].
Before reviewing common RM practices, it is necessary to explore the general decision
process. After all, the primary goal of RM is to provide a vehicle for making important decisions
to reduce, mitigate, and monitor risks. Elements of decision processes often include defining
problems, generating alternatives, formulating criteria by which to judge alternatives, gathering
value judgments on the relative importance of criteria, and ranking/selecting final alternatives
[30]. Each management practice addresses these elements distinctly. For example, when
ranking/selecting final alternatives, for Ad hoc decision making, alternatives are often chosen
based on implicit weights in an opaque manner. For Comparative Risk Assessments (CRA's), an
alternative is chosen by the aggregation of criteria scores through weight of evidence discussions
or qualitative considerations. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) involves an alternative
being chosen by systematic well-defined algorithms using criteria scores and weights [30].
Also, within each RM practice, tools are employed to successfully fulfill elements of the
decision process. For example, decision trees are often used for evaluating risk and setting risk
reduction priorities [19]. Similarly, Pathways of Effects (PoE) are conceptual representations of
predicted relationships between human activities, their associated pressures or stressors, and the
environmental effects that they may have on specific ecological components or receptors [21].
The general decision process includes the steps delineated below.

a. Defining problems

A problem should be structured in terms of a small set of relevant issues and interests. It is
helpful to first specify the objectives related to the activity creating the risk. Then, sub-objectives
should be explored followed by performance measures. Objectives of wind energy development
often include:
•! Power generation

11
!
 •! Providing economic and social gains for local communities
•! Maintaining ecological health
•! Maintaining aesthetics

Sub-objectives that could be listed under ecological health include fish and wildlife. Fish
and wildlife could include bats, birds, and marine animals each with their own subcategories. For
example, birds can be sub-categorized into small passerines, eagles, and other raptors. Bats can
be sub-categorized into migratory tree-roosting bats and non-migratory tree roosting bats.
Migratory tree roosting bats can be split up into hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired
bats. Similarly, marine animals could be sub-categorized along with other associated
environmental effects. Lastly, establishing performance measures for each impact (e.g. how can
the degree of impacts be measured?) is recommended. From the risk classification phase (step 1),
the identified environmental risk can be classified into its associated objective. This process
clearly defines how a risk is related to a company’s objective and can provide the necessary
framework for developing potential alternatives.
Isaacman et al. outlined a science-based and decision-making framework for the
developing in-stream tidal industry, specifically related to the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia,
Canada, one of the most promising areas [21]. Defining the scope of review was specified as an
important step when defining the problem. This includes examining aspects such as the size of
the project, ecosystem components (the whole biological community), spatial scale (localized
effects vs. system scale), cumulative effects, timescale, and staged development (keeping in
mind intentions of expansion).

b. Generating alternatives

Based on objectives, participants then identify alternatives or potential management

approaches [26]. A major limitation of environmental impact statements often includes a paucity
of robust information and a poor understanding of plausible scenarios [31]. For a particular
environmental risk, there often exists several potential management approaches or scenarios.
Each management approach will have different implications on several identified criteria.
Management approaches generally fall into these two categories:
1.! Pre-, intra-, and post-construction monitoring studies
2.! Mitigation strategies

Pre-construction monitoring studies during early tier development stages provide insights
about potential management actions required to move forward with project development. In
addition, these studies help classify the risk and provide a reference point for calculating post-
construction and operational impacts. Post-construction and operational studies assess the
accuracy of the risk classification and help clarify wind-wildlife interactions. Often, post-
construction studies involve human (and in some cases, canine) carcass searches during different
times of the year. These pre- and post-construction studies can foster a better understanding of
information such as:
•! Movements and day-to-day activities of sensitive species
•! Major bird feeding, roosting, and resting areas
•! Animal populations, their preferred habitats and flight paths, and sensitive topographic
locations

12
!
 •! Flight corridors
•! Evidence of habituation, avoidance, attraction, etc.
•! The number and types of fatalities

Monitoring studies can be done during construction as well, specifically for offshore
wind farms where construction activities are expected to have the highest impact on marine life.
There is general consensus that a minimum of 1 year of preliminary baseline pre-
construction monitoring is necessary to evaluate the ideal duration of further pre-construction
monitoring. Post-construction monitoring can span from several to multiple years depending on
the established risk level. The USFWS created a guiding document for determining monitoring
protocols based on sensitivity levels and facility size [2]. Similarly, an adaptive framework was
created for selecting environmental monitoring protocols to support ocean renewable energy
development [15]. This framework consists of decision trees which determine which ecosystem
component monitoring protocols are recommended for various development types (energy,
foundation, scale).
In the United Kingdom, post-consent monitoring is required for offshore wind farms. At
the offshore wind farm, Scroby Sands, aerial survey haul-out counts were conducted during the
summer months before, during, and after the construction phases to monitor a mixed haul of
harbor and gray seals situated less than 2 km away from the wind farm. Robin Rigg, another
offshore wind farm conducted boat-based surveys. Significant declines in harbor porpoises were
witnessed during construction, but there was only 1 year of pre-construction studies. So, natural
variation could have been responsible for the observed difference. In Belgium, Denmark,
Germany, and the Netherlands, impact studies focus on harbor porpoises. Static passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) is the most commonly used methodology to investigate potential changes in
porpoise presence as a result of offshore wind-related impacts. This methodology involves
cetacean detectors which are data loggers that detect and log sound, storing certain parameters of
echolocation clicks [5].
Mitigation strategies can be employed during the planning, siting, construction, operation,
decommissioning, and repowering phases of wind farm development. For example, to reduce
risks from noise and increased vehicle traffic, the decommissioning of the SeaGen tidal turbine
in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland was conducted between January and March when there
was less abundance of marine animals [27]. Common mitigation strategies that have been
exercised for offshore wind development include soft or delayed starts to pile driving when
marine mammals are sited close, the use of acoustic deterrent and monitoring devices,
monitoring an exclusion zone with designated marine mammal observers, and the use of gravity-
based foundations (e.g. Danish offshore wind farms Sprogo and Nysted) [5]. Other common
mitigation strategies for both land-based and offshore wind farms include [12]:
•! Establishing large migration corridors between wind facilities for migrating waterfowl
and passerines
•! Noise reduction by establishing sound barriers during pile driving activities – particularly
offshore
•! Avoiding wildlife attraction by altering nearby habitat conditions (within 50 meters of a
wind turbine)

13
!
 •! Avoiding lighting on wind turbines as much as possible
•! Habitat enhancement and replacement
•! Acoustic, visual, and electromagnetic deterrence mechanisms
•! Curtailment and cut-in speeds
•! Operation and maintenance response protocols for wildlife and carcass detection
•! Communication strategies to prevent local hunters from leaving carcasses on or near
wind farm property

Choosing the correct mitigation strategies is often very difficult because all species are
different. One mitigation strategy may work effectively for reducing risk to one species while
increasing risk for another. Therefore, based on the particular on-site species of concern,
mitigation strategies should be chosen in a way that gives priority to the highest risks. In
addition, there are existing technologies that are being employed to detect, deter, and curtail
wind turbines during high stakes scenarios. While the wind-wildlife technology industry is
relatively new, its existence presents another consideration that must be taken into account when
generating alternatives.
In summary, when generating alternatives or potential management actions, a developer
must consider site-specific and species-specific characteristics. Then various potential
management actions or scenarios should be chosen. Each scenario may involve a different
combination or parameters of pre-, intra-, and post-construction monitoring techniques,
mitigation strategies, and technologies.
It is often difficult to identify a scenario which clearly fulfills all evaluation aspects [32].
However, the goal of RM is to select the approach that best minimizes effects to wildlife while
fitting most coherently with a company’s objectives and goals, adapting to changes in
knowledge, known impacts, policy, and industry needs.

c. Formulating criteria

Managing risks often includes identifying certain criteria on which to base concerns and
establishing appropriate thresholds of acceptance. While the criteria for evaluating risk should be
developed from social discourse, the objective measurement of identified criteria should be
performed by experts. Criteria can be developed by identifying important considerations when
picking between specific management approaches. Examples of criteria for each potential
management approach might include:
•! Added cost to a developer
•! Reduction of high priority environmental risk
•! Public perception
•! Practicality
•! Proven accuracy
•! Regulatory acceptance

At this stage, thresholds should be established based on the acceptability of certain

magnitudes. Questions should be internally evaluated with public opinion taken into
consideration such as:
•! What is the maximal acceptable cost?
•! What amount of risk reduction is acceptable to regulatory bodies?

14
!
 •! To what extent should differing public perception influence company actions?
•! What level of practicality is acceptable?
•! How accurate and precise must a practice or technology be for adoption?
•! Where is the line drawn between regulatory acceptance and rejection?

Each management alternative must be judged on the chosen criteria. The measurement
scale for each criterion should be either measured on a qualitative scale (e.g. from 1-10) or a
quantitative scale (a calculated value). Scores can then be assigned to each potential management
approach as a whole [32].

d. Gathering value judgments

The relative importance of the selected criteria is often not equally perceived by all
parties. Therefore, there must be methods based on the involved stakeholders to assign weights
to criteria based on their priority. First, though, it should be determined whether stakeholders
should play an essential role in assigning criteria weights. Weights should be determined by
stakeholders if it is anticipated that there will be significant disagreement on the qualitative
weighting of criteria. For example, regulatory agencies may consider regulatory acceptance as
the highest priority followed by proven accuracy and reduction of risk. Developers may consider
added cost and practicality of the highest importance. Landowners and local community
members may consider public acceptance of the highest importance. Also, it should be
considered which stakeholders hold the final decision making power. In most situations,
regulatory agencies hold the highest power. Often, regulatory agencies must play the most
important role in developing weights. However, the way they do so should rely on input from
other stakeholders.
Weights can be calculated directly or indirectly. Georegpoulou, et al. presented a Decision
Support System (DSS) for assisting decision makers in the promotion of renewable energy
systems [32]. When assigning weights to various identified criteria, a hierarchical approach was
utilized. Various decision makers or stakeholders created weights for each of the criteria by
ranking them from most important to least important. Some criteria fell into the same ranking
category. For example, criteria 2 (fraction of investment cost paid in foreign currency) and
criteria 6 (air pollution) were ranked at the top of the list (most important). Criterion 2 was
assigned an arbitrary weight of 10 and criterion 6 was assigned an arbitrary weight of 11. The
average weight was then calculated to be 10.5. The relative weight for criteria 2 and 6 was
calculated to be 22.8%. Out of all existing 9 criteria, criteria 2 and 6 were valued to be of the
highest importance. Each involved stakeholder went through this process resulting in a table with
the average weight values calculated for each criterion. At the end of this process, final and
inclusive value weights were averaged for each criterion. In contrast, Isaacman, et al. suggests
that each criterion should be considered of equal weight [21]. Nonetheless, it should be
determined if criteria weights are necessary for a particular project when identifying a best RM
approach. If some criteria seem to be more important than others, weights should be assigned
through a direct or indirect process.

e. Ranking and selecting final alternatives

!!
! When ranking and selecting final alternatives, several aspects should be kept in mind.
Exceeding pre-specified thresholds of one or more criteria should be noted. In addition, the

15
!
overall damage potential for each management approach should be identified and quantified. The
damage potentials should be compared to their effects on the company’s objectives (specified in
the "defining problems" section). Lastly, a dissonance between damage potential and various
social criteria or perceptions should be taken into consideration. This may demand more
deliberation in a chosen management practice. Consequence tables can be employed when
identifying and comparing alternatives. Consequence tables would include each objective
followed by its performance measure and then calculated values for each alternative management
strategy. The elements of decision processes are summarized in Figure 3. Independent of the
chosen alternative, there should be an emphasis on fostering on-going learning through AM. !

Key
MA – Management approach
C1..6 – Criteria
CW1..6 – Criteria weights Adaptive*Management**

C1* CW1*

C2* CW2*
Calculate* Compare*
MA1*
C3* CW3* criteria* amongst* A*chosen*MA*
Define*risk* MA2* values*for* alternatives*
C4* CW4*
each*MA*
MA3*
C5* CW5*

C6* CW6*

Figure 3. The general decision framework for choosing a best management approach

D. Choosing a management practice

When risks are intermediate or intolerable (high uncertainty), a precaution-based strategy

is often implemented. A precaution-based strategy implies that during all elements of the
decision process, if there is significant uncertainty, the risk-taker will lean on the side of caution.
Rather than moving forwards with an uncertain risk, the project may be abandoned, altered, or
significantly stalled until more information is available. On the other hand, a risk-based strategy
can be implemented for projects that have less uncertainty associated with the risk (fall into or
close to the normal area). In this case, there is more confidence in the risk quantification
mechanisms allowing for the project to move forward prepared for the unexpected.
For example, if a developer is planning a wind farm in an area believed to be near habitat
frequented by the Indiana bat, a federally endangered species, the developer may decide to utilize
the new technology DT BAT, a self-working system that detects bat presence in real time and
takes automatic actions linked to bat detection. For the developer, this is one element of a
potential management approach (Figure 3). It may be determined that due to the complexity and
uncertainty of bat behaviors (e.g. attraction), the uncertainty of the complete accuracy and
capabilities of the new technology, and the fact that damage potential and PO, although reduced
to a tolerable level, will still be high, a management practice should lean on the side of caution.
Similarly, if after several public hearings regarding environmental permitting processes and due

16
!
diligence, it is determined that there is still a level of distrust or disagreement between public
stakeholders in what the correct management approach should be going forward, a developer
should exercise DBM.
DBM is necessary to initiate meaningful and effective deliberation during decision
frameworks. Klinke, et al. describes three types of discourse. Epistemological discourse occurs
when experts argue over a factual assessment. Reflective discourse occurs when scientists,
affected stakeholders and public interest groups strive to find the right balance between too little
or too much precaution. Participatory discourse is often practiced to resolve ambiguities and
differences about values [19].
DBM involves structured decision making. Structured decision making is an organized
process for engaging multiple parties in a productive decision-oriented dialogue that considers
both facts and values. Failing, et al. reviewed processes to integrate science and knowledge in
core decision-making tasks [31]. An important dimension of this involves incorporating local
knowledge. While doing so, it is best to distinguish between fact-based and value-based
knowledge while also incorporating both into deliberation processes. An overemphasis on fact-
based knowledge at the expense of value-based knowledge can lead to future project problems.
Water use planning (WUP) is a multi-site, multi-stakeholder process that was established
in British Columbia, Canada to re-examine water allocation at hydroelectric sites, in light of
changing public values and new information about the social and environmental impacts of
dams. WUP processes include DBM by initiating site-specific consultations with involved
parties that consider both the values and concerns of participating public, aboriginal, and
regulatory agency stakeholders, and the technical input of experts about the anticipated
consequences of different water use options under consideration [31]. Other energy development
projects undergo similar DBM endeavors. Common themes of these decision processes include
clarifying what matters (decision trees), exploring competing hypotheses (influence diagrams),
clarifying uncertainties, identifying and evaluating options (consequence tables), making value-
based choices, and fostering on-going learning.
Collaborative governance, a facet of DBM, should be utilized throughout the
environmental permitting process. This requires structuring incentives so that all parties feel that
it is in their best interests to attend and discuss the permit openly. In Washington, developers
faced numerous challenges to permitting projects in the early 2000’s. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) initial wind power guidelines (2002) were
developed without substantive input from the wind industry. They contained siting and habitat
mitigation recommendations that did not appear to be based on accepted scientific analysis and
that the wind industry considered out of proportion to impacts. As a result, the Renewable
Northwest Project (RNP), along with industry members and their permitting consultants,
successfully engaged the agency in a discussion to reach fair and consistent wind power
guidelines [33]. It is also important to note that risk assessments are a basis for judgments about
impacts themselves, but not for the judgments on the acceptability of impacts [2]. Determining
acceptability often requires exercising DBM, as well.
AM can be incorporated into each of these specific practices. According to an AM white
paper created by IEA Wind Task 34 [34], the most widely accepted definition of AM comes
from the US National Research Council (NRC 2004) and has been adopted and further described
in the Department of the Interior (DOI) Technical Guide:

17
!
“Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible decision making that can be
adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events
become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific
understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process…”
[30].

In the CEA produced by the IFC, AM was employed to respond to a variety of scenarios such as
exceeded thresholds, near-miss incidents, elevated-risk situations, pastoral or livestock
movements, and deficiencies found in monitoring protocols [23].
The four described RM practices (RBM, PBM, DBM, AM) represent broad methodologies
that should be incorporated when choosing optimal RM approaches. Managers should consider
these RM practices when making decisions. There also exist more specific RM practices. Within
a management context, it is critical to understand and acknowledge the existence of these when
decisions are more complex and when choosing optimal management approaches is not
straightforward.
Linkov, et al. conducted a multidisciplinary review of existing decision-making
approaches at regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe [30]. The main focus was on
moving risk management from a Comparative Risk Analysis (CRA) to a Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis (MCDA) coupled with AM. Both CRA’s and MCDA’s assign numerical scores to
quantify the merit of multiple approaches on a single scale. CRA’s determine project
alternatives’ scores based on various criteria scores. In most real world situations, finding an
optimal management approach isn’t as simple as a baseline comparison of criteria scores
amongst several approaches. The CRA method lacks a structured approach for combining
performance on criteria to identify an optimal project alternative [30]. On the other hand, MCDA
coupled with AM includes a higher level of integration across multiple criteria and multiple
alternatives. This is helpful when making high stakes decisions. Three types of MCDA’s include
1)! multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), 2) analytical hierarchical process (AHP), and 3)
outranking. Each of these are important, but they are beyond the scope of this narrative. The
specified RM practices are summarized in Table 1. !

18
!
Table 1. A summary of the specified RM practices
RBM •!Numerical assessment of probabilities and potential damages, a risk-
based strategy
•!When risks are closer to the normal area
PBM •!The prudent handing of uncertain or highly vulnerable situations!
•!When risks are intermediate or intolerable, associated with high
uncertainty !
DBM •!Structured decision making
•!Sorting out ambiguity and disagreements !
•!Diverse stakeholders !
•!An informative, consensus driven environment !
•!Epistemological, reflective, and participatory discourse !
•!Local knowledge - incorporating fact-based and value-based !
CRA •!Numerical scores to quantify merit of diverse options on a single scale
•!Two dimensional matrix containing project alternatives' scores on
various criteria
•!Lacks structured approach for combining performance on criteria to
identify an optimal project alternative
MCDA •!Numerical scores to quantify merit of diverse options on a single scale!
•!Determines project alternatives' scores on various criteria!
•!Higher level of integration across multiple criteria and alternatives !
o!MAUP
o!AHP
o!Outranking!!
AM •!Fostering on-going learning !

Understanding the aforementioned RM practices doesn’t directly inform a manager how

to manage environmental risks that can arise during different stages of development. Rather, it
creates a frame of mind that can guide high stakes decisions such as determining whether to
move forward with project development, alter project design and layout, conduct further
monitoring studies, or employ certain mitigation strategies.

E) Evaluating the chosen management practice

After a management practice has been chosen, it should be continuously evaluated based
on five considerations [19].

a. Role of social constructs in evaluating risk

19
!
 Constructivists believe that technical estimates of risk are flawed because they constitute
mental constructions, while realists believe that technical estimates of risk are true
representations of observable hazards regardless of the beliefs of the analysts involved.
Therefore, it is necessary that a management practice acknowledges and takes into account the
influences that social constructions can have on the authenticity of technical estimates.

b. Role of public involvement in defining tolerable risk levels

The role of public involvement in defining tolerable risk levels is highly debated. On one
end, the “public” are those affected by risks so it is argued that they should have a say in defining
these risk levels. Others argue that due to ignorance and misperceptions in the public, experts
should establish the priorities of RM. For example, following public discourse on local
conservation concerns for a wind power plant in Kittias County, Washington, it was determined
that citizens seemed unable to play the conservation advocacy role without consideration to
personal capital interests [35]. A management practice should take this into account when
including public participation in the process.

c. Methods of dealing with uncertainty

A management approach should properly confront uncertainty. Questions should be

raised such as:
•! Is an AM framework in place?
•! Have there been consultations with technical experts and diverse stakeholders with
regards to identifying and reducing uncertainties?
•! How do the chosen risk classification mechanisms and management strategies
incorporate the presence of uncertainty into final decisions?

d. Risk-based versus precaution-based management approaches

A management practice should use either risk-based or precaution-based strategies

depending on the risk(s) at hand. It is important that the proper management strategy is utilized.
A management practice must not use, for example, a risk-based approach if there is an uncertain
PO and damage potential. Similarly, if there is an uncertain PO and known-high damage
potential (or the reverse), a course of action must reflect the level of uncertainty and be based on
the decision maker’s best inclusive judgment.

e. Role of deliberation

Finally, the role of deliberation (or discourse processes) between relevant stakeholders
throughout RM approaches should be assessed.

V. CONCLUSION

We have reviewed the science of RM as it can apply to managing environmental risks of

wind farm development. A stepwise process was illustrated for incorporating RM science into
decision frameworks (Figure 1). Classifying risk was explored taking into consideration five risk

20
!
analyses leading to the creation of an algorithm to classify risk into its proper category: normal,
intermediate, intolerable (Figure 2). The five elements of general decision processes (Figure 3)
were discussed in detail as they can relate to risk-based decision making during the
environmental permitting processes of wind farm development. Four general RM practices were
reviewed (RBM, PBM, DBM, AM) followed by two more specific RM practices (CRA, MCDA)
as to how they address the general decision process uniquely (Table 1). Finally, five
considerations for evaluating chosen RM practices were presented.
The RM processes discussed do not directly translate to most real-world scenarios.
Projects are complex and fast-paced, and managers often do not have the time or resources to
review alternatives in a scientifically rigorous manner. For example, EDP Distribution, the
biggest electric energy organization responsible for electricity distribution in Portugal, defined
and implemented a risk management methodology in a pilot project [25]. Incorporating RM in
companies comes with many challenges as was seen in this pilot study such as time constraints,
difficulty obtaining input estimates and assessing risk probabilities, human/organizational
resistance to change, and difficulty in understanding and interpreting outcomes of the RM
process and finding suitable RM methods. We raise important considerations for managers and
regulatory agents charged with managing risk, focusing on bridging together facets of RM
science and associated energy development expertise.
Due to the extensive amount of research related to wind-wildlife issues and management
strategies, we only covered a snapshot of definitions, tools, case studies, and other relevant
information. This is in no way a step-by-step guide for developers looking to adopt effective RM
approaches. Rather, we summarized and reviewed the science of RM and how it can be applied
to the wind industry. This involved presenting critical considerations for developers regarding
regulatory guidelines and environmental permitting and reviewing the status of various tools and
technologies that can facilitate more effective RM. While these considerations are important to
keep in mind, early communication with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies is
critical for choosing a management approach that is fitting for both parties.
Using RM science to make important decisions when developing commercial wind farms
can help industry in several ways. It can help balance company goals and priorities with
regulatory expectations. It can provide a pathway for demonstrating compliance and due
diligence. Also, it can provide a rational framework for achieving environmental permits from
regulatory agencies while also taking into consideration expense, practicality, and public
acceptance. RM science can assist with government concerns, as well. It can be employed by
governmental agencies to determine and promote best practices for given risks.
The ultimate goal of research in this area is to create a more sustainable future. Achieving
this future requires improving efficiency of environmental permitting processes, reducing costs
and burdens to developers, and enhancing RM protocols, always adapting to new information
and techniques to make high stakes decisions with an increasing level of confidence.
The wind industry is maturing. Land-based and offshore wind farms are developing
across the world. Now is a critical time for collaborative learning on an international level. There
should be intense focus on transforming environmental RM during the project life cycle from
haphazard to organized and strategic. The purpose of this narrative was to review the science of
RM related to managing the environmental risk of wind farm development. Reviewing RM
definitions, tools, and case studies has been done so in a way to demonstrate where RM has been
effective thus far in the industry and how it can improve. This research was conducted so that as

21
!
an international community, we can be poised for this strategic approach to RM and move
forward with wind farm development while simultaneously protecting our world.

VI.!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory’s Wind Technology Center for providing this opportunity to conduct research
through the Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship Program. More specifically, I would
like to thank Elise DeGeorge for her support, mentorship, and guidance.

VII.!APPENIDCES

Appendix A: Nomenclature

IEA International Energy Agency

WREN Working Together to Resolve Environmental
Effects of Wind Energy
DOE United States Department of Energy
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
RBM Risk-based Management
RES Renewable Energy System
RM Risk Management
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
AWWI American Wind Wildlife Institute
PBM Precaution-Based Management
DBM Discourse-Based Management
PO Probability of Occurrence
GIS Geographic Information Systems
AM Adaptive Management
BN Bayesian Belief Network
SAFESIMM Statistical Algorithms for Estimating the Sonar
Influence on Marine Megafauna
IFC International Finance Corporation
CEA Cumulative Effects Analysis
EMI Energy Management Inc.
OCS U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
FERC U.S. Federal Regulatory Commission
MMS Minerals Management Service
CRA Comparative Risk Assessment
MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
PoE Pathways of Effects

22
!
PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring
DSS Decision Support System
WUP Water Use Planning
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
RNP Renewable Northwest Project
NRC U.S. National Research Council
DOI Department of the Interior
MAUT Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
AHP Analytical Hierarchical Process

VIII.!REFERENCES

[1] Wiser, R., Lantz, E., Mai, T., Zayas, J., DeMeo, E., Eugeni, E., ... & Tusing, R. (2015). Wind
vision: A new era for wind power in the United States. The Electricity Journal, 28(9), 120-132.
[2] European Marine Energy Centre (2015). Consenting Guidance for Developers at the EMEC
Fall of Warness Test Site. Report by European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC). pp 17.
[3] Gatzert, N., Kosub, T. (2016). Risks and risk management of renewable energy projects: The
case on onshore and offshore wind projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60,
982-998.
[4] United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-based Wind
Energy Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012. Print.
[5] Verfuss, U.; Sparling, C.; Arnot, C.; Judd, A.; Coyle, M. (2016). Review of Offshore Wind
Farm Impact Monitoring and Mitigation with Regard to Marine Mammals. The Effects of Noise
on Aquatic Life II (pp. 1175-1182). New York, USA: Springer.
[6] Schuster, E., Bulling, L., & Köppel, J. (2015). Consolidating the state of knowledge: a
synoptical review of wind energy’s wildlife effects. Environmental management, 56(2), 300-331.
[7] McKee, J., Shaw, P., Dekker, A., & Patrick, K. (2016). Approaches to wildlife management
in aviation. In Problematic Wildlife (pp. 465-488). Springer International Publishing.
[8] Allison, T. (2017, March 1). Interactions Between Wind Turbines and Wildlife, Part 1.
Northeast Wind Resource Center. Retrieved from
http://www.cleanegroup.org/webinar/interactions-wind-turbines-wildlife/
[9] US Fish and Wildlife Service (2011). Examples of State and International Guidance for
Duration and Intensity of Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Monitoring. Report by US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). pp 32.
[10] Willmott, J. R., Forcey, G. M., & Hooton, L. A. (2015). Developing an automated risk
management tool to minimize bird and bat mortality at wind facilities. Ambio, 44(4), 557-571.
[11] Paula J., Leal, M.C., Silva, M.J., Mascarenhas, R., Costa, H. & Mascarenhas, M. (2011).
Dogs as tools to improve bird-strike mortality estimates at wind farms. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 19(4), 202-208.

23
!
[12] Stelzenmuller, V., Schulze, T., Fock, H.O. & Berkenhagen, J. (2011). Integrated modeling
tools to support risk-based decision-making in marine spatial management. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 144, 197-212.
[13] Gartman, V., Bulling, L. Dahmen, M., GeiBler, G., & Koppel, J. (2016). Mitigation
measures for wildlife in wind energy development, consolidating the state of knowledge - Part 1:
Planning and Siting, Construction. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Managment, 18(3).
[14] Gartman, V., Bulling, L. Dahmen, M., GeiBler, G., & Koppel, J. (2016). Mitigation
measures for wildlife in wind energy development, consolidating the state of knowledge - Part
2:Operaton and decommissioning. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 18(3).
[15] Emily J. Shumchenia, Sarah L. Smith, Jennifer McCann, et al., “An Adaptive Framework
for Selecting Environmental Monitoring Protocols to Support Ocean Renewable Energy
Development,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 450685, 23 pages, 2012.
[16] New L, Bjerre E, Millsap B, Otto MC, Runge MC (2015) A Collision Risk Model to Predict
Avian Fatalities at Wind Facilities: An Example Using Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos. PLoS
ONE 10(7): e0130978.
[17] Donovan, C.; Harris, C.; Marshall, L.; Harwood, J.; Milazzo, L.; Williams, R. (2014). An
Overview of a Simulation Approach to Assessing Environmental Risk of Sound Exposure to
Marine Mammals [Presentation]. Presented at the Environmental Impact of Marine Renewables
2014, Stornoway, Scotland, UK.
[18] Cranmer, A., Smetzer, J.R., Welch, L. & Baker, E. (2017). A Markov model for planning
and permitting offshore wind energy: A case study of radio-tracked terns in the gulf of Maine,
USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 193, 400-409.
[19] Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk!
based, precaution!based, and discourse!based strategies. Risk analysis, 22(6), 1071-1094.
[20] PMI, A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBoK Guide. Fifth Edition
ed. Pensylvania - USA: Project Management Institute, Inc; 2013.
[21] Isaacman, L.; Daborn, G.; Redden, A. (2014). A Framework for Environmental Risk
Assessment and Decision-Making for Tidal Energy Development in Canada [Presentation].
Presented at the Environmental Impact of Marine Renewables 2014, Stornoway, Scotland, UK.
[22] Daughdrill WH. Assessing the Role of Environmental and Regulatory Issues on Offshore
Renewable Energy Projects in the United States. ASME. International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume 4: Ocean Engineering; Ocean Renewable Energy;
Ocean Space Utilization, Parts A and B: 771-777.
[23] International Finance Corporation (2017). Tafila Region Wind Power Projects: Cumulative
Effects Assessment. pp 200.
[24] Alvarez-Castaneda, T.; Lidicker, W. (2015). Managing coexistence for bats and wind
turbines. THERYA, 6(2), 505-513.
[25] Peixoto, J., Tereso, A., Fernandes, G., & Almeida, R. (2014). Project Risk Management
Methodology: A Case Study of an Electric Energy Organization. Procedia technology, 16, 1096-
1105.

24
!
[26] Boothroyd, I.; Barea, L. (2015). Wind Farms and Biodiversity: Improving Environmental
Risk Assessments. (pp. 41-58). Springer.
[27] MarineSpace Ltd (2016). Decommissioning of the SeaGen Tidal Turbine in Strangford
Lough, Northern Ireland: Environmental Statement. pp 514.
[28] GeiBler, G., Koppel, J. & Gunther, P. (2013). Wind Energy and energy and environmental
assessments - A hard look at two forerunners' approaches: Germany and the United States.
Renewable Energy, 51, 71-78. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.083
[29] Rodgers, M. & Olmsted, C. (2008). The Cape Wind Project in Context. Leadership and
Manegement in Engineering, 8(3). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:3(102)
[30] Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T., & Ferguson, E. (2006).
From comparative risk assessment to multicriteria decision analysis and adaptive management:
Recent developments and applications. Environment International, 32(8), 1072-1093.
[31] Failing, L., Gregory, R. & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in
environmental risk management: a decision-focused process. Ecological Economics, 64(1), 47-
60.
[32] Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y. & Diakoulaki, D. (1998). Design and implementation of a
group of DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European Journal of Operational
Research, 109 (2), 483-500.
[33] Long, S. & Linehan, A. (2003). Guidelines for Wind Power and Wildlife in Washington
State, USA. Wind Engineering, 27(4), 273-284.
[34] Hanna, L.; Copping, A.; Geerlofs, S.; Feinberg, L.; Brown-Saracino, J.; Gilman, P.; Bennet,
F.; May, R.; Köppel, J.; Bulling, L.; Gartman, V. (2016). Assessing Environmental Effects
(WREN): Adaptive Management White Paper. Report by Berlin Institute of Technology, Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Marine Scotland Science, Norwegian Institute for
Nature Research (NINA), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and US Department
of Energy (DOE). pp 46.
[35] Abbott, J.A. (2010). The localized and scaled discourse of conservation for wind power
Kittitas County, Washington. Society and Natural Resources, 23(10), 969-985.

25
!