Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Discussion
The process used to review actions at the BPWF and SBWF was very successful,
and we believe there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it was important that
all relevant stakeholders were included on the review team and that a consensus
approach was used throughout. Secondly, it was important that the approach was
agreed to prior to its commencement. A top-down approach was valuable, as this
allowed identifi cation of the key issues prior to debate on the details, and provided
a benchmark against which the actions could be evaluated.
The approach facilitated an agreed priority list of species/communities and issues
occurring at the wind farms, allowing the development of risk matrix (shown in
Fig.
1
). Using this as the benchmark made it clear that a number of actions were not
well-focussed on the risks and priorities and needed to either cease, be modifi ed or
new ones developed. For example, the review resulted in two new eagle studies, one
examining eagle genetics, and the other documenting seasonal changes in behav-
iour, replacing other poorly-focused monitoring.
The review process used an evidence-based approach and logic, where all data
collected and assumptions behind actions were evaluated. It was clear that a num-
ber of assumptions embedded in some actions were either illogical or lacking
evidentiary support. For example, the off-site OBP crop, which was designed to
attract OBPs from the wind farm area, was predicated on OBPs being food limited
in this region. However, logic suggests this would not be the case given that they
are “catholic” feeders (Higgins
1999
; Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team
2006
) and there is an abundance of some of their food (particularly weed) species
in the larger landscape. Observational evidence also indicated that the crop was
rarely used by OBPs.
Some surveys had been completed and it was clear that once a survey achieved
its objectives, nothing further could be gained from continuing the same monitor-
ing. Other surveys were found to lack clear, achievable objectives or robust survey
designs. The breeding success surveys were unable to achieve their objectives due
to the inability to design a robust survey. The equivocal data generated from this
survey reinforces that nothing is gained from conducting surveys that lack scientifi c
rigour, and that extending the duration of such surveys will not resolve underlying
design problems.
The working group agreed post-collision and display period observations had not
provided any direct insights into why eagles collided with turbines, or information
about seasonal changes in behaviour, which was part of their intended purpose. It
became apparent that there were three key reasons for these surveys being unable to
achieve these purposes - the type of monitoring (unfocussed surveillance), a meth-
odology that evolved over time, and a requirement to undertake management actions
simultaneously.
Surveillance monitoring involves no stated objectives and collects a broad
suite of untargeted information. In some circumstances, surveillance monitoring
may be a suitable tool for adaptive management (for example, it was found to be
