Compensating white‐tailed eagle mortality at the Smøla wind‐power plant using electrocution prevention measures1. (19th March 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cole, Scott G.; Dahl, Espen Lie
• Is Part Of: Wildlife Society bulletin. Volume 37:Number 1(2013:Mar.)
• Page Start: 84
• Page End: 93
• Publication Date: 2013-03-19
• Subjects: Wildlife management -- Periodicals; Wildlife conservation -- Periodicals; 333.9540973
• DOI: 10.1002/wsb.263
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0091-7648

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>Environmental impact assessment allows for compensation of environmental injuries in the form of resource‐based restoration projects. Given that compensation is a desired policy at a given site, this study suggests an interdisciplinary scaling method (Resource Equivalency Analysis) that relies on a non‐monetary bird‐year metric to quantify and value the impact on human welfare from ecosystem service loss. The lost value associated with white‐tailed eagle (<italic>Haliaeetus albicilla</italic>) turbine collisions at the Smøla wind‐power plant (debit) in central Norway is compensated through white‐tailed eagle electrocution‐prevention measures at nearby power lines (credit), scaled using the same bird‐year metric. We found that 172 actual and projected white‐tailed eagle turbine collisions (2005–2027) led to a debit of 3, 454 discounted bird‐years, which captures lost life expectancy discounted to present value. Field searches indicated that annual white‐tailed eagle electrocution mortality per electric distribution pole (or pylon) at Smøla ranges from 0.002 to 0.014 (2009–2011). We suggest that retrofitting between 348 and 2, 209 pylons at a present‐value cost of US$1.2–7.9 million (2011 at 3%) will provide equivalent value and thus compensate the public for their welfare losses. Improved electrocution probability models will improve cost‐effectiveness of retrofitting as a compensatory measure. Although Resource Equivalency Analysis may provide an approach for scaling a biodiversity offset, it cannot address the inevitable environmental trade‐offs required in assessing the social profitability of choosing to compensate at a particular site. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.</p> </abstract>