This study observed the flight behavior of birds near two wind turbines in Rhode Island over multiple dates in early 2015. By counting birds and observing their behavior, the researcher found no evidence that the turbines posed an unavoidable danger to the local bird populations. Most resident bird species appeared to have adapted to the turbines' presence and learned to avoid potential dangers. However, the study only examined native Rhode Island birds and did not assess impacts on migratory species.

1. Effect of Terrestrial Wind Turbines on Avian Flight Behavior
MITCHELL N. WEINTRAUB, Department of Natural ResourcesScience,University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI 02881,USA
ABSTRACT There is an ongoing debate about the potential impacts of wind turbines on avian
populations. With the rapid expansion of terrestrial wind facilities in Rhode Island, there is
interest in the gathering of local information on bird’s responses to existing turbines in Rhode
Island. This observational study was designed to gather data specific to Southern Rhode Island
and the effects of two turbines in this portion of the state on avian life. I observed the areas
surrounding the Fisherman’s Memorial turbine (Point Judith Road, 100 kW, 47.85m height) and
the North Kingstown Green turbine (Ten Rod Road, 1.5 MW, 122.53m height) on ten different
occasions (five per location) between February and April 2015. Using analysis on population
abundance and flight path observation, I found no evidence of unavoidable danger from these
turbines to surrounding bird populations. It appears that most resident birds in the area have
adapted to and have learned to avoid the possible dangers stemming from the presence of the
turbines. This study is specific to native Rhode Island birds, and may not reflect the same impact
on migratory bird flight.
KEYWORDS: Avian, avoidance/collision risk, Narragansett,North Kingstown, Rhode Island,
turbine, wind energy
The popularity of wind energy through turbines is increasing in Rhode Island. In addition to the
severalturbine generators already located in Southern RI, the state is planning the construction of a large-
scale wind farm off the coast of Block Island, and the state intends to have 16 percent of its power
generated by wind sources by 2019 (RI Office of Energy Resources 2013.) The addition of these large

2. fixtures can be met with resistance from the public, but rarely due to ecological concerns. During a wind
energy boom in the 1980’s, many projects were planned and constructed with little consideration or
research regarding wildlife impacts (Anderson et al. 1999.) As awareness has recently grown,
environmentalists and ecologists suggest that some research and meta-analysis may point to an immediate
impact on species abundance, particularly in wildfowl and waders (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012,) the
central focus of my study, through area avoidance and/or mortality. With little tangible evidence to this
end, the claim that these structures are of significant impact to surrounding ecology is not particularly
powerful. Currently, wind energy construction projects are most heavily contested by those concerned
with aesthetics and public welfare. In fact,very few construction planners request ecological surveys prior
to erection of a fixture (Park et al. 2012.)
In recent research,it has been concluded that the most common side-effects of wind turbine
placement are avoidance behaviors by avian species in the immediate area. (Furness et al. 2013) separates
avoidance behaviors into two groups, macro and micro avoidance. Macro-avoidance is defined as a
complete avoidance of the entire area in which the turbine/ wind farm is located, while micro-avoidance
is an evasion of an individual turbine while flying through the area. On a larger scale,these behaviors,
specifically macro-avoidance, could cause displacement and fragmentation of certain species in an
attempt to avoid wind farm areas. Because this experiment is limited to two finite areas,the above
definition of macro and micro-avoidance will be used in the study, as I try to establish a correlation
between the presence of a turbine and avian abundance in the immediate area.
STUDYAREA

3. Figure 1.: Map of focal areas; FM turbine (A) and NK Green turbine (B.) During the study
(February-April 2015,)I conducted point-count abundance surveys and behavioral analysis to determine the
degree of avoidance in the respective areas.
Fisherman Memorial park, now owned by the state of Rhode Island, was originally a military post
during WWII named Fort Greene. After the war,the area was bought out by the state and was home of
many fishing tournaments, adopting its name from the memory of Narragansett fishermen (State of Rhode
Island Division of Parks and Recreation.) In 2011, the state of Rhode Island, in cooperation with RI
DEM, began a $688,000 project to construct the wind energy turbine. RI DEM estimates that the turbine
generates half of the electricity required to power the park and surrounding areas.
There is a substantial inflow of public in and out of the area,as there are many amenities and
entertainment options available for visitors, including tennis courts, ball fields and commerce. The turbine
itself can be seen from a great distance down Point Judith Road, towering over everything in the area.
While the area inside the campground is difficult to access for study without acquiring a camping space
during the open season (usually early April through October,) there is a large wooded area surrounding
the turbine that was accessible for research.
The second focal area,North Kingstown Green (Location B,) rests in a newly constructed
residential area off of Ten Rod Road in North Kingstown, RI. The dominant fauna in the area are

4. consistent with those in Location A. The turbine, the focal point of this portion of the study, was approved
for construction in 2011 and erected by Wind Energy Development LLC. The project was met with
outcry by many residents, resulting in several legal battles and lawsuits against the company (McNamara
2013.)
The protest against the construction of the turbine seems reasonable upon viewing the structure.
Standing underneath the turbine is at first a nerve racking experience, as the enormous blades turn rather
rapidly and the shadow flickers from the rotations can be disorienting. Many local residents, however,
have grown used to the enormous fixture. I was able to speak with a North Kingstown local, living a few
streets over from the turbine. She informed me that she and many other residents have almost forgotten
about the initial furor over the structure, and that the turbine has become “part of the horizon.”
METHODS
The main objective of this study was to determine, through observation, the direct impact of the
presence of a wind turbine on the avian populations in their respective environments. To do so, on five
occasions per location, 1) I obtained species richness data through point-count surveys in Fisherman’s
Memorial Park,Turbine A, and the residential area off of Ten Rod Road surrounding North Kingstown
Green, Turbine B, and 2) used behavioral observation to determine the general effect of wind turbine
presence on avian activity in the subject areas. The observed avian population included songbirds
(Oscines,) Canada geese (Branta canadensis,) pigeons and doves (Columbidae,)gulls (Laridae,) and
American crow (Corvus brachyrynchos.)
Data from the two locations were recorded on five different dates: 14th
February 2015, 28th
February 2015, 15th
March 2015, 4th
April 2015 and 18th
April 2015. Each study, lasting approximately 30
minutes per location, occurred between 12:00 and 15:00 to establish consistency in results. The sites, as
mentioned above, were the wooded inclusions behind/surrounding Fisherman’s Memorial Park (Point
Judith Rd, Narragansett RI) and the residential area (Rodman Ln, North Kingstown RI) in which the

5. turbines are located. Each survey area was roughly 0.4-0.8 hectares,and observations were recorded
while searching the areas on foot. Abundance data, following macro-avoidance theory definitions of
(Furness et al. 2013,) were recorded through point-count survey tallies based on 1) visual contact with
avian species and estimating group counts and 2) by hearing the calls/sounds of avian species in the area.
In addition to abundance data collection, I conducted qualitative behavioral analysis of avian species in
the area by observation. These activity budgets were designed to observe the generalbehaviors of the
species in the two areas,and to determine whether there is a noticeable impact from the turbines upon
said behaviors. Examples of behavioral impacts include flying toward turbines and tactically avoiding
contact (<20m,we will call this Behavior A), altering flight path noticeably to avoid immediate area (
>20m, Behavior B,) or other avoidance behaviors or noticeable change in behavior with increasing
proximity to turbines (Behavior O.) Any instances of mortality or injury would be assessed by viewing an
impact with a turbine first hand, or observing evidence of impact death (i.e. avian carrion in the
immediate area.)
RESULTS
Birds were generally abundant in both focal locations. Songbirds were most abundant in both
areas,with 54 and 74 recorded sight/sound observations for Fisherman’s Memorial and North Kingstown
Green, respectively. Songbirds accounted for 53.5% of all observations in Fisherman’s Memorial, and
67.0% of all observations at N.Kingstown Green. Micro-avoidance behaviors seldom occurred, with only
5.0% of sightings resulting in one of these behaviors. I did not witness any micro-avoidance behaviors
from songbirds despite their dominance of the areas. Canada geese were present in both areas,but did not
enter flight in either area and spent most of their time foraging in the grasses near the turbines. Pigeons
and gulls exhibited most micro-avoidance behaviors (72.7% of total recorded avoidance behaviors.)
American crow and doves did enter flight frequently, but did not approach the turbines.
Figure 2: Abundance data collected, arranged by species and dates, during observational study. Values in
table indicate point-count observation of listed species taken on each listed date in order to assess degree of
macro-avoidance.

6. Fisherman's Memorial N.Kin
Date
Observed Feb.
14th
Feb.
28th
Mar.
15th
Apr.
4th
Apr.
18th
Total Observed Feb.
14th
F
2
Songbirds 5 5 13 10 21 54 Songbirds 3
Canada Geese 0 4 6 0 0 10 Canada
Geese
0
Pigeons 0 2 0 4 3 9 Pigeons 2
Doves 0 1 0 0 2 3 Doves 2
Gulls 2 3 6 8 2 21 Gulls 2
Am.Crow 1 0 2 0 1 4 Am.Crow 3
Figure 3: Number of avoidance behaviors seen per species, per date. Micro-avoidance behaviors categorized
by type; A- Any flight toward turbine, followed by tactical avoidance in immediate proximity (occurring
<20m from turbine) B- Altering flight path to completely avoid vicinity of turbine (occurring >20m from
turbine) or O-Other abnormal behavior.
Fisherman's Memorial
Date
Avoidance Behaviors Feb.
14th
Feb.
28th
Mar.
15th
Apr.
4th
Apr.
18th
Total Type Avoidance
Behaviors
Songbirds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Songbirds
Canada Geese 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Geese
Pigeons 0 1 0 0 1 2 A(1)
O(1)
Pigeons
Doves 0 1 0 0 0 1 A(1) Doves
Gulls 1 0 0 1 0 2 A(2) Gulls
Am.Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Am.Crow
Figure 4: Chi-Test results suggestthat there is a significant lack of avoidance behaviors in the turbine areas
when compared to perceived indifference (p<<a of 0.05.)
Observed
Species Songbirds Canada
geese
Pigeons Doves Gulls Am.
crow
Total
Avoidance Behavior 0 0 4 3 4 0 11
No Observable
Avoidance
128 13 24 10 25 12 212
Total 128 13 28 13 29 12 223
Expected
Species Songbirds Canada
geese
Pigeons Doves Gulls Am.Crow Total
Avoidance Behavior 6.31 0.64 1.38 0.64 1.43 0.59 11.00
No Observable 121.69 12.36 26.62 12.36 27.57 11.41 212.00

7. Avoidance
Chi-Test
P-Value
5.35E-05
DISCUSSION
I extrapolate from this study that most resident birds in this area have,in some sense,learned to
stay clear of the turbine, and appear to be generally indifferent regarding its presence. A grand total of 11
micro-avoidance behaviors were noted out of 223 total observations (5.0%) suggesting that most birds in
the area are unaware/ indifferent to the presence of the turbines. My results seem to back those of the
(Masden et al. 2009) study regarding common eider populations, stating that there may be very little
energetic cost to birds entering the vicinity of a wind turbine.
As previously stated, pigeons, doves and gulls were the only three observed groups that entered
the 20m range to be classified for a micro-avoidance assessment. Macro-avoidance, assessed by
conducting abundance counts in these areas,is difficult to for me to determine. According to the Breeding
Bird Atlas of Rhode Island, all groups observed in this study are notably common in both focal areas.
North Kingstown green, specifically, contained a much larger songbird population than expected. Starting
in March, birdhouses began to line the streets,anticipating the arrival of hundreds of these small birds.
The human population in these areas may have a larger impact, positively and/or negatively, than the
turbines themselves. As research (Pimm et al. 2006) suggests, the recent urbanization of these locations
may have contributed to a large decline in the abundance of some birds before the turbines were erected.
There were no signs of mortality/ injury in the surrounding areas. No carrion was found, although
according to (Barrios and Rodriguez 2004,) corpses of birds killed by turbines are generally hard to find
due to quick removal by routine checks. Mortality rates in these situations are usually biased low due to
not only the removal of carcasses by humans in the area,but by scavengers and mesopredators
(Smallwood 2007.) Because my studies took place in relatively clear weather conditions with little

8. precipitation other than a few snow flurries in February, I may have unintentionally allowed for some
bias. (Drewitt and Langston 2006) explain that mortality rates can be exponentially higher in inclement
weather conditions due to lower visibility and stronger wind suction being generated by turbines, pulling
birds into the blades from larger distances.
While the results of my study were not indicative of a negative impact in southern Rhode Island,
more data needs to be collected in order to determine the relationship between avian life and wind energy.
There is some evidence that the initial introduction and construction of wind energy fixtures may be a
large cause of avian death/displacement (Desholm and Kahlert 2005.) As the State of Rhode Island plans
to have an offshore wind farm erected by 2016-2017 off the coast of Block Island, we may be able to
gather pertinent information first-hand in the very near future.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, R., M. Morrison, K. Sinclair, D. Strickland, H. Davis, and W. Kendall. Studying wind
energy/bird interactions: A guidance document. National Wind Coordinating Committee (1999): 1-87.
Barrios, L. and A. Rodriguez. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring bird mortality at
on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 72-81
Desholm, M. and J. Kahlert. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology letters 1.3 (2005):
296-298.
Drewitt, A.L, and R.H.W. Langston. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148.Supplement
S1 (2006): 29-42. 27 Mar. 2006.
Enser, R. W. (1992). The atlas of breeding birds in Rhode Island (1982-1987). Rhode Island. Department
of Environmental Management.
Masden, E. A., D. T. Haydon, A. D. Fox, R. W. Furness, R. Bullman, and M. Desholm. Barriers to
movement: Impacts of wind farms on migrating birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66.4 (2009): 746-
53.
McNamara,E. "For Closest Neighbors, Wind Turbine "Isn't There"" North Kingstown, Rhode Island
Patch. N.p., 18 Aug. 2013.

9. Park K,A. Turner and J. Minderman. 2013 Integrating applied ecology and planning policy: The case of
micro-turbines and wildlife conservation, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 199-204.
Pearce-Higgins, J. W., L. Stephen, A. Douse and R.H. W. Langston. 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 Ecology, 49: 386-394.
Pimm, S., P. Raven, A.Peterson, Ç. H Şekercioğlu, and P.R. Ehrlich (2006). Human impacts on the rates
of recent,present, and future bird extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(29),
10941-10946
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality . The Journal of Wildlife
Management, V. 71, Issue :8: 2781–2791
State of Rhode Island. Department of Environmental Management. “Wind turbine to be installed at
Fisherman’s Memorial State Park and Campground in Narragansett next Monday and Tuesday”. N.p.,
n.d.
State of Rhode Island. Office of Energy Resources. Renewable energy programs & incentives. N.p., n.d.
.