Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
losses for no material benefi t. More importantly the review found the correlation
between wind speed and direction and the proxy for collision risk (swept area fl ights
and incursions), was not signifi cant in the full data set.
The targeted management intervention trialled, a noise deterrent system (as part
of a “detect and deter” system, which have been used to manage birds at overseas
sites, see
http://www.detect-inc.com/bird_control_radar.html
for some examples)
found that none of the systems trialled demonstrably altered the behaviour or move-
ments of eagles in a manner that might reduce collision risk. In addition, the review
highlighted numerous technical challenges, including how to monitor the entire site
reliably. Given these fi ndings, it was concluded that such a system was not a viable
eagle collision mitigation option at these sites at this time.
The review panel agreed that, ideally, management measures should be demon-
strably effective at mitigating an identifi ed causal factor. However, actions might be
justifi ed when evidence of their effectiveness is not available, but when there are
logical and sound reasons why the measure may be of value. This is the basis of the
precautionary principle (fi rst coined by Holling
1978
with its implications are dis-
cussed in Stein
1999
). By defi nition, the precautionary principle is applied when
there is little or no evidence derived from traditional targeted studies and there are
indications that there might be signifi cant impacts.
Implementing measures when there are no indications of their effectiveness may
provide comfort to managers or regulators that actions can be instituted rapidly and
that time delays in acquiring the evidence involved in a targeted study are avoided
(see Stein
1999
). However, as demonstrated at these sites, there are cases when
applying management interventions which lack evidentiary support or logic can
result in the aim of the intervention not being achieved, and is therefore in contra-
vention of the precautionary principle.
That said, what has been successful at these sites was an adaptive management
process to identify management interventions and monitoring that were ineffective
(per Pullin and Knight
2001
). The protocols of any adaptive management program
need to be SMART (Specifi c, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely). As a
result of this review process the working group was able to agree on new manage-
ment techniques and surveys that are far more focused, relevant and achievable. The
detail of each decision and recommendation was documented and these were used
to develop a new suite of EMPs which were subsequently approved by the EPA. The
approval process was more streamlined and (relative to previous EMP reviews) and
reduced the approval time for each plan.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thanks the participants in this process, members of
DPIPWE and the Tasmanian EPA. Much of the monitoring was conducted by Wildspot Consulting,
for which we thank them. Finally we thank two referees for their comments.
