Birds & Bats

Birds that may be encountered in offshore wind project areas include both marine birds (e.g., seabirds, shorebirds, and other marine-associated coastal and waterbirds) and non-marine migratory birds. Marine birds spend all or most of the year in the marine environment, with seabirds spending much of their life offshore. Other birds travel through offshore areas only during migration. The U.S. Atlantic Coast and adjacent offshore waters are part of a major bird migration route known as the Atlantic Flyway. Over 200 species of waterbirds and terrestrial birds use this route to move between their breeding and wintering grounds. Birds from high-latitude regions of North America and Europe funnel into the Atlantic Flyway during migratory seasons. Many birds migrate close to shore; for example, waterbirds typically fly somewhere between the shoreline and several kilometers offshore. Terrestrial songbirds usually migrate along the shoreline or several kilometers inland, but may also be found flying over offshore waters. (Robinson Willmott et al., 2023).

Off the Northeast coast of the U.S., four federally listed bird species may be present in offshore wind project areas: the Black-capped Petrel, Piping Plover, Red Knot, and Roseate Tern. The Black-capped Petrel breeds in the Caribbean and occurs year-round in the western North Atlantic, particularly along the outer continental shelf and within the Gulf Stream (Satgé et al., 2024). Piping Plovers and Red Knots are shorebirds that may be encountered offshore during their spring and fall migrations. Piping Plovers nest on beaches from North Carolina to eastern Canada during the summer and migrate through the region in spring and fall to and from their breeding sites (Elliott-Smith & Haig, 2020).

Red Knots also migrate through the region, which provides important stopover habitat recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as they travel between their Arctic breeding grounds and South American wintering areas. Roseate Terns may be found offshore while feeding on forage fish such as sand lance, and during their migration through the western North Atlantic to breeding sites in New York and New England (Elliott-Smith & Haig, 2020).

Bat use of the offshore environment is not well understood. While offshore bat encounters are rare, there is evidence that bats travel over water during spring and fall migrations. In North America, bats are generally classified into two groups: cave-hibernating bats and migratory tree bats. Cave-hibernating bats migrate short distances to caves or other hibernation sites for the winter, while migratory tree bats travel longer distances and roost in trees year-round. Although cave-hibernating bats are generally not expected to make long offshore flights, migratory tree bats have been observed crossing offshore waters, with surveys detecting individuals as far as 169 kilometers from shore (Goodale et al., 2025). Silver-haired bats, eastern red bats, and hoary bats are among the migratory tree bat species in the Northeast U.S. that may use offshore migration routes (Solick & Newman, 2021).

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the survival of endangered or threatened species or harm critical habitat (Section 7 of the ESA). The ESA also prohibits unauthorized “take”, including harming, capturing, or killing of these species (Section 9 of the ESA). Following consultation, if take is anticipated, USFWS issues a Biological Opinion, which determines whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize a listed species or adversely affect its habitat. If necessary, the opinion includes measures to minimize or mitigate potential impacts.

In addition to the ESA, birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The MBTA provides protections for a wide range of migratory bird species, with the most recent list of covered species updated in 2023 (88 FR 49310). The BGEPA specifically protects Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles. Bald Eagles are widespread across North America, including along the entire U.S. Atlantic coast, but are generally not found in offshore waters. Golden Eagles are far less common in the Northeastern U.S., with most residing in inland and in coastal areas of the Southeast. These birds typically follow inland migration routes to reach their breeding grounds in eastern Canada.

The risk of birds and bats colliding with wind turbine blades is a primary concern for wildlife managers. While collision mortality has been observed at land-based wind farms (Allison et al., 2019), the rate of bird collisions with wind turbines offshore is expected to be lower (Fox & Petersen, 2019). State and federal planning processes in the U.S. have prioritized the siting of offshore wind turbines in areas with relatively low densities of birds. Regarding bat interaction, there have been no documented fatalities at offshore wind energy areas (Solick & Newman, 2021). Ongoing research aims to improve understanding of potential impacts to bat species.

While the presence of offshore wind structures represents a change in the habitat of marine birds, species respond to these structures in different ways, and these responses influence collision risk. In Europe, studies have shown that marine bird species may be attracted to offshore wind structures, avoid them, or show variable responses depending on behavior (Thaxter et al., 2024). Those attracted to offshore wind turbines may be drawn by increased prey availability around turbine foundations or, in the case of cormorants and gulls, by the structures themselves as potential roosting or resting sites (Kelsey et al., 2018). In contrast sea ducks, loons, auks, and gannets are known to be displaced by offshore wind structures (Dierschke et al., 2016; Peschko et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2021; Lamb et al., 2024).

Attraction to offshore wind structures does not necessarily lead to higher collision risk, as other factors, such as flight patterns and avoidance behaviors, play a key role in determining risk. Species avoidance of structures occurs at different spatial scales: birds may avoid the entire wind energy area (macro-avoidance), avoid individual wind turbines (meso-avoidance), or avoid just the moving rotor blades (micro-avoidance) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Birds may avoid offshore wind turbines at three scales: 1) macro-avoidance: flying around the entire set of turbines; (2) meso- avoidance: using flight maneuvers to dodge individual turbines within the farm; or (3) micro-avoidance: making last minute flight adjustments to avoid the turbine rotor blades (KeyFactsEnergy, 2023).

In addition to avoidance behaviors, a species’ average flight height is a key factor in determining its risk of collision with offshore wind turbines. Birds that typically fly within the rotor-swept zone height, the area where the turbine blades spin, are at greater risk. For example, gulls are more prone to collisions than other species because of their flight height (Robinson Willmott et al., 2013; Kelsey et al., 2018). Other factors influencing collision risk include the amount of time spent flying over water and the extent of nocturnal flight activity (Bradarić et al., 2024; Furness et al., 2013; Robinson Willmott et al., 2013).

An important caveat in the discussion of bird and bat collisions with offshore wind turbines is the difficulty of documenting and measuring fatalities at sea (Molis et al., 2019). Nevertheless, recent studies show indications of low collision rates. For example, a study by the European energy company Vattenfall found that most marine birds exhibit avoidance behavior within 100- to 120-meters of turbine rotors. Of the birds that came within 10 meters of the blades, more than 96% adjusted their flight paths to avoid collision. Over two years and 10,000 radar camera videos, no collisions were recorded. These findings suggest that daytime collision risk is low, as birds can make effective micro-avoidance maneuvers (Tjørnløv et al., 2023). Similarly, a study of UK offshore wind farms recorded only six collisions over two years (Skov et al., 2018). Collision risks may be further reduced through mitigation measures, discussed further in the sections that follow.

Bat collisions and fatalities are more common at land-based wind farms, where tree-roosting bats are attracted to the structures for foraging and roosting (Solick et al., 2020). Although few studies have examined the effects of offshore wind facilities on bats, some bats have shown attraction to offshore wind structures (Solick et al., 2020). Migratory tree bats are the most likely to encounter offshore wind farms while following autumn migratory routes (Solick & Newman, 2021; True et al., 2021). The primary risk to migrating bats is collision with spinning rotor blades; however offshore structures are generally located far enough away from major bat populations that overall collision risk is considered low.

Collision risk models (CRMs) are tools used by wildlife managers to assess the potential risk of collision for ESA-listed avian species. These models estimate collision rates based on several input parameters, including bird abundance, rotor speed, bird flight speed and height, and avoidance rates. Accurate data on the movements and migratory pathways of marine birds are gathered primarily through tracking studies (Adams et al., 2022). Results from CRMs help inform potential take estimates for listed avian species through the Section 7 process of the ESA and are used to develop measures to offset those impacts (see Mitigation Innovations section for more information). CRMs have not yet been developed for bats due to a lack of baseline data on their presence in the offshore environment.

Climate change is a major threat to both bird and bat populations. The National Audubon Society has identified 389 bird species at risk of extinction under a 3°C warming scenario (Wilsey et al., 2019). Waterbirds are particularly vulnerable, with 78% of species at risk of climate-related extinction. Rising temperatures are already driving shifts in bird ranges as current habitats become unsuitable. Arctic birds, waterbirds, and boreal forest birds occupy ecosystems especially sensitive to temperature changes and climate-driven effects. Sea-level rise and climate-induced collapse of local vegetation threaten to leave these species without livable habitat (Bateman et al., 2020).

Seabirds, defined as species that spend most of their lives at sea, such as shearwaters, petrels, and auks—are particularly imperiled. Nearly 30% of seabird species are already threatened, and continued pressures from habitat loss, overfishing, and invasive species are expected to accelerate population declines (Wilsey et al., 2019). Additional climate-related stressors, including ocean warming and acidification, will further challenge seabird survival.

Studies also indicate that bats are highly sensitive to climate change. Bats are prone to dehydration, making changes in precipitation and extreme heat events major drivers of population decline. Moreover, their slow reproductive rates hinder rapid adaptation to environmental changes (Festa et al., 2022). In eastern North America, bat populations are already declining, most notably due to white-nose syndrome, a deadly fungal disease that spreads among hibernating colonies and causes high winter mortality (Hoyt et al., 2021). Climate change poses an additional layer of risk to these already vulnerable populations.

Air Pollutants

Air pollutants may be produced during both the offshore wind farm construction and operation phases, primarily from construction or crew transport vessels. Air emissions are measured according to guidelines from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Common pollutants measured include carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and particulate matter. While exposure to such pollutants can lead to adverse health effects in birds (Sanderfoot et al., 2017), air emissions related to offshore wind development are not expected to have direct impacts on bird or bat species. This is due to the fact that emissions generated during construction are intermittent, localized, and typically dispersed across a large project area. As such, the risk of harm to birds or bats from offshore wind air emissions is minimal.

In fact, it is expected that emissions produced by vessel traffic during offshore wind construction are likely to be offset by reductions in fossil fuel use in the markets where the offshore wind energy is delivered. Since fossil fuel power plants generate significantly more air pollution over their operational lifecycle, a shift from fossil fuel dependency to offshore wind energy would result in improved regional air quality. Such improvements, particularly those that reduce ozone levels, have been found to benefit U.S. bird populations (Liang, 2020). Federal reviews of offshore wind projects have concluded that this expected decrease in air pollutants would have a minor to moderate beneficial impact on populations of small land birds (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM], 2024) and may also improve the health of other bird and bat populations.

Displacement

While some birds may be at risk of collisions with offshore turbines, birds exhibiting macro-avoidance behavior, which involves flying around the entire offshore wind farm, are at risk of being displaced from their habitat. Displaced birds may need to expend more energy, such as flying further to find alternate foraging locations (Fox & Peterson, 2019). Studies have found that marine bird species that rely on very particular habitat features for feeding, such as shallow banks, water mass frontal systems, or bivalve beds, are more prone to displacement as a result of offshore wind development (Furness et al., 2013). Loons, auks, and sea ducks have been identified as the groups with greater vulnerability to displacement (Lamb et al., 2024).

Artificial Light

Offshore wind turbines and other offshore platforms use artificial light to aid vessels and aircraft in their navigation around these structures. Hazard and navigation lights are installed on all offshore wind turbines and offshore platforms and have the potential to attract some species of birds (Deakin et al., 2022). Many seabirds exhibit nocturnal activity, in part to avoid other avian predators or to prey upon bioluminescent organisms that rise to the ocean surface at night. Nocturnally active seabirds may mistake these lights for bioluminescent prey or star patterns used for navigation (Gaston et al., 2021).

Seabirds are not the only birds using the offshore environment at night, as several other marine and terrestrial bird species fly over water as part of nighttime migrations. Studies suggest that artificial light may cause disorientation, particularly during migration and poor visibility conditions, such as rain or fog; this can lead to death via collisions or exhaustion, as birds may circle the light source for long periods instead of continuing their migratory routes (Burt et al., 2023; Walsh, et al., 2025). It is unclear whether light color has an impact on bird behavior. Some studies have found that red-colored lights, which are commonly used on land-based turbines, are less impactful than lights of other wavelengths (Walsh et al., 2025). However, other studies observed nocturnally migrating birds to be disoriented by red and white lights because these may interfere with the birds’ magnetic compass, while blue and green lights caused the least disorientation (Poot et al., 2008).

Bats also have the potential to be impacted by artificial light. Like many migratory birds, bats use magnetic senses for navigation, which could also be impacted by artificial light (Rowse et al., 2016). On land, bats have been found to use artificial light sources, where their insect prey congregate, as foraging areas (Rowse et al., 2016). There is evidence to suggest that bats may similarly be attracted to the lights of offshore wind structures to feed (Solick et al., 2020). If bats are attracted to turbines lights, the potential risk of collisions with rotor blades could increase.

Sound

Birds within an offshore wind farm area may be exposed to sound both above and below water. Sound sources include vessels traveling to and from the offshore wind farm, construction activities, and the operation of offshore wind turbines. In general, vessel activity during offshore wind development does not produce enough above- or underwater noise to significantly alter baseline levels in the offshore environment. The most significant source of sound is underwater construction noise that occurs during the installation of monopile foundations into the seabed, also known as pile driving.

Certain marine bird groups, such as sea ducks, auks, and loons, have been found to possess soft tissue structures that conduct underwater sound. These structures suggest that marine birds may have underwater hearing abilities comparable to seals and toothed whales (Courbis et al., 2022; McGrew et al., 2022). Additionally, field studies assessing hearing in auks found that their hearing range overlaps with frequencies of many sound sources, making them potentially susceptible to underwater noise disturbance (Smith et al., 2023). Furthermore, auks and penguin species have been found to avoid areas with high levels of underwater sound (Pichegru et al., 2017; Anderson et al., 2020).

Although bats will not encounter the underwater sound produced by impact pile driving, they may still be affected by noise during the construction and operation phases of offshore wind development. Bats have sensitive hearing, and while no temporary or permanent hearing loss is expected from the sound levels generated during offshore wind farm construction or operation (Simmons et al., 2016), excessive noise could disrupt migration routes, as migrating tree bats have demonstrated behavioral avoidance responses (Schaub et al., 2008). However, sound from the operation of offshore wind farms is not expected to significantly impact bats, as they have not been shown to be disturbed by other anthropogenic (human-induced) sound at similar intensity levels (Brack et al., 2004).

Traffic

Both marine vessels and aircraft (including helicopters and specialized cargo planes) will increase sea and air traffic during the construction, operation, and maintenance of offshore wind farms. While there is concern that this increased traffic could raise the risk of collisions with birds and bats, the overall increase is not expected to be significant compared to baseline conditions. For example, general aviation experiences approximately two bird strikes per 100,000 flights (Dolbeer et al., 2019). Similarly, collisions involving offshore wind vessels and aircraft are considered unlikely and not expected to pose a significant threat to bird or bat populations.

While some effects may be unavoidable, all potential impacts of an offshore wind project are assessed within a mitigation framework designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the greatest extent feasible.

Offshore Wind Farm Siting

The most effective way to reduce the impacts of offshore wind development on birds and bats is through the optimal siting of offshore wind farm locations. Marine spatial planning uses ocean data sets and bird habitat usage data to identify areas suitable for construction. Suitable areas are those that have minimal overlap with marine habitats used by birds and other protected species (Best & Halpin, 2019). For example, along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S., bird habitat usage is highest near the shoreline and along the continental shelf edge. By siting offshore wind farms in waters near the middle of the continental shelf, where the bathymetry is gentle and sloping, bird abundance hotspots can be avoided, minimizing the number of birds that encounter offshore wind farm structures (Virtanen et al., 2022). Proper siting also reduces the risk of displacing marine birds from productive habitats.

Artificial Light

Lighting reduction commitments are required as part of the offshore wind permitting process, and mitigation measures have been developed to lessen the impact of structure lighting on birds and bats. Many offshore wind farms use Aircraft Detection Lighting Systems (ADLS), which activate lights only when an aircraft enters a predefined airspace. These systems significantly reduce lighting duration, as the lights flash briefly in short, synchronized patterns. Offshore wind projects are also typically required to shield marine navigation lights to minimize upward illumination.

Additionally, wind farm structures are generally sited in areas with lower bird abundance. Federal regulators use existing avian data to identify offshore wind energy areas outside high-use zones whenever possible. This siting strategy further reduces the number of birds and bats exposed to offshore lighting. While bats benefit from ADLS and other lighting mitigation measures that limit light exposure, their likelihood of encountering offshore wind farms is already low, due to the typical siting of these projects far from shore.

Sound

Sound generated during the installation of monopile foundations, also known as pile driving, has the potential to disturb marine birds and bats. However, several mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce these effects. One such measure is the use of soft starts, which begin with lower impact speeds and produce sounds at non-harmful levels to flush birds from the area before sound levels escalate. To further reduce the intensity and spread of underwater sound, noise attenuation devices, such as bubble curtains, may be deployed. These devices lessen the impact of sound on marine life and limit how far it travels from the source.

In addition, areas around active pile driving may be monitored for large flocks of birds, similar to monitoring already required for marine mammals and sea turtles. If flocks enter a designated safety zone, shutdowns or low-power operations can be initiated. Seasonal restrictions also help minimize impacts on seabirds. For instance, during the winter months, when large numbers of diving birds are present in Atlantic offshore regions, construction activities can be limited or halted.

For bats, sound from offshore wind construction is not expected to significantly disrupt migration, as wind farms are typically located farther offshore than most bats travel. However, any bats present in the area during construction would benefit from soft start mitigation measures, which give them time to avoid the site before sound levels increase.

Compensatory Mitigation

Compensatory mitigation is defined as “compensation or offsets for remaining unavoidable impacts after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been applied, by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments through the restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation of resources and their values, services, and functions.” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2023). It has become standard practice for BOEM to require offshore wind developers to implement compensatory mitigation actions to offset any anticipated take of avian species resulting from offshore turbine collisions.

The offshore wind energy industry has several compensatory mitigation mechanisms available, including:

• Proponent-responsible Compensatory Mitigation: These are conservation measures implemented directly by the project proponent (i.e., developer) to offset projected levels of impact by the proponent’s actions. The proponent retains full responsibility for ensuring the mitigation actions are completed and successful, and that they provide the intended ecological functions and services.
• Conservation Banks: A conservation bank is a site, or group of sites, that is permanently conserved and managed by public or private sponsors. These banks provide ecological functions and services expressed as “credits” for specified species that are later used to compensate for adverse impacts occurring elsewhere to the same species (i.e., a project site). In this case the sponsor assumes the responsibility for completed and successful mitigation from the proponent, typically through the transfer of credits.
• In-lieu Fee Program: An in-lieu fee program may be sponsored by a government agency or a conservation-focused, environmental nonprofit organization with a mission aligned with species or habitat protection. Under this model, the sponsor collects fees from approved project proponents to support the establishment of a conservation site or program that fulfills mitigation requirements associated with the proponent’s project impacts.

Regardless of the mechanism selected, compensatory mitigation programs for offshore wind development should meet the standards established by the USFWS. Mitigation strategies must support conservation objectives and deliver long-term benefits to at-risk species. Actions should be implemented in-kind, meaning the mitigation must directly benefit the same species affected by the proposed offshore wind project. Metrics used to evaluate ecological services at mitigation sites should be science-based, consistent, and reliable. Additionally, compensatory mitigation measures must be additional to existing efforts, providing ecological benefits that improve upon baseline conditions, and should be designed to achieve conservation outcomes for at least the duration of the project’s impacts.

• Adams, E. M., Gilbert, A., Loring, P., & Williams, K. A. (2022). Transparent modeling of collision risk for three federally listed bird species in relation to offshore wind energy development: Final report (Report No. OCS Study BOEM 2022-071, Contract No. M19PG00023). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
• Allison, T. D., Diffendorfer, J. E., Baerwald, E. F., Beston, J. A., Drake, D., Hale, A. M., Hein, C. D., Huso, M. M., Loss, S. R., Lovich, J. E., Strickland, M. D., Williams, K. A., & Winder, V. L. (2019). Impacts to wildlife of wind energy siting and operation in the United States. Issues in Ecology.
• Anderson, H. K., Hernandez, A., Mooney, T. A., Rasmussen, M. H., Sørensen, K., & Wahlberg, M. (2020). The common murre (Uria aalge), an auk seabird, reacts to underwater sound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(6), 4069–4074.
• Bateman, B. L., Wilsey, C., Taylor, L., Wu, J., LeBaron, G. S., & Langham, G. (2020). North American birds require mitigation and adaptation to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(7), e242.
• Best, B. D., & Halpin, P. N. (2019). Minimizing wildlife impacts for offshore wind energy development: Winning tradeoffs for seabirds in space and cetaceans in time. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0215722.
• Brack, V., Whitaker, J. O., & Pruitt, S. E. (2004). Bats of Hoosier National Forest. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 113, 76–86.
• Bradarić, M., Kranstauber, B., Bouten, W., & Shamoun-Baranes, J. (2024). Forecasting nocturnal bird migration for dynamic aeroconservation: The value of short-term datasets. Journal of Applied Ecology, 61, 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14651
• Satgé, Y., Brown, A., Wheeler, J. A., & Sutherland, K. E. (2024). Black-capped Petrel (Pterodroma hasitata), version 3.1. In S. M. Billerman (Ed.), Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.bkcpet.03.1
• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2024). New York Bight final programmatic environmental impact statement. https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/new-york-bight-final-programmatic-environmental-impact-statement
• Burt, C. S., J. F. Kelly, G. E. Trankina, C. L. Silva, A. Khalighifar, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, A. S. Fox, K. M. Fristrup, & K. G. Horton. (2023). The effects of light pollution on migratory animal behavior. 1191 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38:355–368.
• Courbis, S., Williams, K., Pacini, A., Dodgin, S., & Jenkins, E. (2022). Offshore wind priority conflict topics for marine mammals and birds. National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium. https://nationaloffshorewind.org/wp-content/uploads/Worley-and-BRI-Offshore-Wind-Priority-Conflict-Topics-for-Marine-Mammals-and-Birds_Final_1-3-24.pdf
• Deakin, Z., Cook, A., Daunt, F., McCluskie, A., Morley, N., Witcutt, E., Wright, L., & Bolton, M. (2022). A review to inform the assessment of the risk of collision and displacement in petrels and shearwaters from offshore wind developments in Scotland.
• Dierschke, V., Furness, R. W., & Garthe, S. (2016). Seabirds and offshore wind farms in European waters: Avoidance and attraction. Biological Conservation, 202, 59–68.
• Dolbeer, R. A., Begier, M. J., Miller, P. R., Weller, J. R., & Anderson, A. L. (2019). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990–2018 (Serial Report No. 25). Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Strike Database.
• Elliott-Smith, E., & Haig, S. M. (2020). Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), version 1.0. In A. F. Poole (Ed.), Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.pipplo.01
• Festa, F., Ancillotto, L., Santini, L., Pacifici, M., Rocha, R., Toshkova, N., Amorim, F., Benítez-López, A., Domer, A., Hamidović, D., Kramer-Schadt, S., Mathews, F., Radchuk, V., Rebelo, H., Ruczynski, I., Solem, E., Tsoar, A., Russo, D., & Razgour, O. (2022). Bat responses to climate change: A systematic review. Biological Reviews, 98, 19–33.
• Fox, A. D., & Petersen, I. K. (2019). Offshore wind farms and their effects on birds. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift, 113, 86–101.
• Furness, R. W., Wade, H. M., & Masden, E. A. (2013). Assessing vulnerability of marine bird populations to offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 56–66.
• Gaston, K. J., Ackermann, S., Bennie, J., Cox, D. T., Phillips, B. B., Sánchez de Miguel, A., & Sanders, D. (2021). Pervasiveness of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 61(3), 1098–1110. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab083
• Goodale, M. W., Knaga, P., Dodgin, S., Gilardi, E., Guilbert, J. M., Howe, M., Frankina, B., & Stearns, C. (2025). Opportunistic vessel-based detections of migratory bats in the Gulf of Maine.
• Hoyt, J. R., Kilpatrick, A. M., & Langwig, K. E. (2021). Ecology and impacts of white-nose syndrome on bats. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 19(3), 196–210.
• Kelsey, E. C., Felis, J. J., Czapanskiy, M., Pereksta, D. M., & Adams, J. (2018). Collision and displacement vulnerability to offshore wind energy infrastructure among marine birds of the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. Journal of Environmental Management, 227, 229–247.
• Keyfacts Energy (2023). Bird behavior study is changing how we think about offshore wind development. https://www.keyfactsenergy.com/news/21342/view/
• Lamb, J., Gulka, J., Adams, E., Cook, A., & Williams, K. A. (2024). A synthetic analysis of post-construction displacement and attraction of marine birds at offshore wind energy installations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 108, 107611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107611
• Liang, Y., Rudik, I., Zou, E. Y., Johnston, A., Rodewald, A. D., & Cardinale, B. J. (2020). Conservation cobenefits from air pollution regulation: Evidence from birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 30900–30906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013568117
• Marques, A. T., Batalha, H., & Bernardino, J. (2021). Bird displacement by wind turbines: Assessing current knowledge and recommendations for future studies. Birds, 2(3), 460–475.
• McGrew, K. A., Crowell, S. E., Fiely, J. L., Berlin, A. M., Olsen, G. H., James, J., Hopkins, H., & Williams, C. K. (2022). Underwater hearing in sea ducks with applications for reducing gillnet bycatch through acoustic deterrence. Journal of Experimental Biology.
• Molis, M., Reinhold, R., Hüppop, O., Bach, L., Coppack, T., Pelletier, S., Dittmann, T., & Shulz, A. (2019). Measuring bird and bat collision and avoidance. In M. Perrow (Ed.), Wildlife and wind farms, conflicts and solutions. Volume 4 Offshore: Monitoring and Mitigation (pp. 167–206).
• Peschko, V., Mendel, B., Mercker, M., Dierschke, J., & Garthe, S. (2021). Northern gannets (Morus bassanus) are strongly affected by operating offshore wind farms during the breeding season. Journal of Environmental Management, 279, 111509.
• Pichegru, L., Nyengera, R., McInnes, A. M., & Pistorius, P. (2017). Avoidance of seismic survey activities by penguins. Scientific Reports, 7, 16305.
• Poot, H., Ens, B. J., de Vries, H., Donners, M. A., Wernand, M. R., & Marquenie, J. M. (2008). Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society, 13(2).
• Robinson Willmott, J. C., Forcey, G., & Kent, A. (2013). The relative vulnerability of migratory bird species to offshore wind energy projects on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf: An assessment method and database (OCS Study BOEM 2013-207, pp. 1–275). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs.
• Robinson Willmott, J. C., Forcey, G., & Vukovich, M. (2023). New insights into the influence of turbines on the behaviour of migrant birds: Implications for predicting impacts of offshore wind developments on wildlife. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2507(1), 012006.
• Rowse, E. G., Lewanzik, D., Stone, E. L., Harris, S., & Jones, G. (2016). Dark matters: The effects of artificial lighting on bats. In C. C. Voigt & T. Kingston (Eds.), Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of bats in a changing world (pp. 187–213). Springer.
• Sanderfoot, O. V., & Holloway, T. (2017). Air pollution impacts on avian species via inhalation exposure and associated outcomes. Environmental Research Letters, 12(8), 083002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa805
• Schaub, A., Ostwald, J., & Siemers, B. M. (2008). Foraging bats avoid noise. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 3147–3180.
• Simmons, A. M., Horn, K. N., Warnecke, M., & Simmons, J. A. (2016). Broadband noise exposure does not affect hearing sensitivity in big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Journal of Experimental Biology, 219, 1031–1040.
• Skov, H., Heinänen, S., Norman, T., Ward, R. M., Méndez-Roldán, S., & Ellis, I. (2018). ORJIP bird collision and avoidance study: Final report – April 2018 (pp. 1–247). The Carbon Trust.
• Smith, A. B., Kissling, M., Rasmussen, M., Kolbeinsson, Y., Capuano, A., Fischer McMorrow, I., Lewis, S., Shero, M. R., & Mooney, A. T. (2023). Acoustic sensory ecology of diving alcid seabirds and potential noise impacts. In A. N. Popper, J. A. Sisneros, A. D. Hawkins, & F. Thomsen (Eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life (pp. 1263–1276). Springer Cham.
• Solick, D. I., & Newman, C. M. (2021). Oceanic records of North American bats and implications for offshore wind energy development in the United States. Ecology and Evolution, 11(21), 14433–14447. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8175
• Solick, D., Pham, D., Nasman, K., & Bay, K. (2020). Bat activity rates do not predict bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities. Acta Chiropterologica, 22(1), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.3161/15081109ACC2020.22.1.012
• Thaxter, C. B., Green, R. M. W., Collier, M. P., Taylor, R. C., Middelveld, R. P., Scragg, E. S., Wright, L. J., Cook, A. S. C. P., & Fijn, R. C. (2024). Behavioural responses of Sandwich terns following the construction of offshore wind farms. Marine Biology, 171(2), Article 58.
• Tjørnløv, R., Skov, H., Armitage, M., Barker, M., Jorgensen, J., Mortensen, L., Thomas, K., & Uhrenholdt, T. (2023). Resolving key uncertainties of seabird flight and avoidance behaviours at offshore wind farms: Final report for the study period 2020–2021.
• True, M. C., Reynolds, R. J., & Ford, W. M. (2021). Monitoring and modeling tree bat (Genera: Lasiurus, Lasionycteris) occurrence using acoustics on structures off the mid-Atlantic coast—Implications for offshore wind development. Animals, 11(11), 3146. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113146
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2023, May). Endangered Species Act compensatory mitigation policy: Appendix 1, 501 FW 3. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.fws.gov/policy/501fw3.html
• Virtanen, E. A., Lappalainen, J., Nurmi, M., Viitasalo, M., Tikanmäki, M., Heinonen, J., Atlaskin, E., Kallasvuo, M., Tikkanen, H., & Moilanen, A. (2022). Balancing profitability of energy production, societal impacts and biodiversity in offshore wind far
• Walsh, C., Hüppop, O., Karwinkel, T., Liedvogel, M., Lindecke, O., McLaren, J. D., Schmalijohann, H., & Siebenhüner, B. (2025). Marine artificial light at night: Implications and potential hazards for offshore songbird and bat movements in the Greater North Sea. Conservation Science and Practice, 7, e70008. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70008
• Wilsey, C., Bateman, B., Taylor, L., Wu, J. X., LeBaron, G., Shepherd, R., Koseff, C., Friedman, S., & Stone, R. (2019). Survival by degrees: 389 bird species on the brink. National Audubon Society.