P. 1
AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED Cape Wind

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED Cape Wind

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by pandorasboxofrocks
Avian and Bat Studies Cape Wind Project Cape Vincent NY
Avian and Bat Studies Cape Wind Project Cape Vincent NY

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: pandorasboxofrocks on Sep 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2011

pdf

text

original

Sections

Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Appendix F December 7, 2007

Project No. 0057356

Environmental Resources Management 15810 Park Ten Place, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77084-5140 (281) 600-1000

G:\2007\0057356\11027H(rpt(rev3).doc

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
Final Report April 2006 – May 2007

Prepared for: BP Alternative Energy North America 700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor Houston, Texas

Prepared by: David P. Young, Jr., Jessica J. Kerns, Christopher S. Nations, and Victoria K. Poulton Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

November 28, 2007

1

g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BPAE) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy development in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York. The exact location and size of the development will be based on a number of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmission constraints, permitting, and results of site surveys. Early project evaluation identified issues concerning potential impacts from the project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors, migrant bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. BPAE developed and implemented a one year avian and bat survey protocol to address the agency concerns and provide site-specific data for the resources of concern. The study plan was reviewed and approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary objectives of the study were to: provide information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts from the wind power development, provide information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that would help in designing a wind project that is less likely to expose species to risk of collisions with turbines, and provide recommendations for further studies and potential mitigation measures, if appropriate. The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar sampling during the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed point locations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts; AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various study components took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrence in the project area. Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August 15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. A total of 508 and 300 hours of radar sampling were conducted in the fall and spring respectively. Fall mean and dispersion of flight direction were μ = 209.2° and r = 0.34 and spring mean and dispersion of flight direction were μ = 34.0° and r = 0.52. The overall mean fall passage rate in the horizontal mode was 345.8 ± 13.3 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE) and the overall mean spring passage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 ± 8.8 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE). For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 ± 1.7 m (mean ± SE) above radar level in the fall and 441.3 ± 2.5 m arl in the spring. Approximately 7.7% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m in the fall and approximately 14.0% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m in the spring. Clutter from non-avian or bat targets was considered minimal; during the fall and spring only 1% of targets were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and not likely bird or bat targets. Diurnal point count surveys were conducted during the raptor migration periods in the spring and fall 2006 and again in the spring 2007. During spring 2006, a total of 12 point count surveys
WEST, Inc.
2

i

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

were conducted resulting in 777 individual birds recorded including 79 raptors of 10 species. During the fall season, a total of 30 surveys were conducted resulting in a total of 3,050 individual birds recorded including 165 individual raptors of 10 species. During the spring 2007 season, a total of 21 surveys were conducted and 1,851 individual birds were recorded including 205 individual raptors of 9 species. Canada goose was the most commonly seen bird during spring and fall surveys. During both spring seasons, turkey vulture was the mostly commonly recorded raptor species (n = 29, 66.7% of surveys; n = 111, 94.4% of surveys, respectively) followed by American kestrel (n = 13, 41.7% of surveys) in 2006 and northern harrier (n = 37, 88.9% of surveys) in 2007. In the fall, northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 69, 76.7% of surveys), followed by turkey vulture (n = 50, 33.3% of surveys). Other raptor species seen included: broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, and Cooper’s hawk. There were no spatial differences in raptor use across the survey points. Point count surveys were conducted for breeding birds on June 29 and July 6, 2006. Each point was surveyed twice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 812 individual birds were observed in 462 groups of 63 species. Red-winged blackbird, bobolink, and song sparrow were the most common passerines observed based on mean use estimates (number observed within 400 m per 3-minute survey). Several species of interest were recorded during the breeding bird surveys including New York state species of concern northern harrier, Henslow’s sparrow, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow, and two species on the USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region, bobolink and wood thrush. Spring AnaBat sampling occurred between April 13 and June 2, 2006 at the project met tower and resulted in a total of 241 bat calls recorded (4.92 calls/night) during the 49 days of sampling. Summer sampling occurred on 15 nights between June 28 and August 8 at the met tower and recorded a total of 431 calls (28.7 calls/night). During fall, August 13 to October 9, sampling occurred at three different heights at the met tower. The AnaBat unit positioned at ground level recorded the highest number of bat vocalizations per night (9.90 calls/night) over the 58 day sampling period. At least four different species of bat, eastern red bat, hoary bat, big brown bats, and Myotis sp. were recorded during the sampling. 208 calls that were of sufficient length to attempt species identification were submitted for quantitative analysis. Of these eastern red bat, little brown bat, northern myotis, and Indiana bat were identified. Winter driving surveys in the project area were conducted on nine days between November 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent during the driving surveys and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were conducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 395 individuals in 96 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors and other birds were recorded during the winter driving surveys and 255 individuals in 87 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts. Two species of waterfowl, two species of waterbird, and six raptor species were observed either during the surveys. Canada goose was the most common waterfowl species observed during the winter surveys based on use estimates. Rough legged hawk and red-tailed hawk were the most common raptor species.

WEST, Inc.
3

ii

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

The results of the nocturnal radar survey were very similar to other radar studies conducted in New York and the northeast U.S. Based on the characteristics of migration, there does not appear to be greater risk to nocturnal migrants than other wind sites studied. The diurnal raptor migration surveys do not indicate that a significant flight of migrant raptors pass through the study area when compared to established hawk watch sites in New York for either spring or fall. Based on the topography and landform of the Jefferson County area, there is little to concentrate raptor movement though the study area. The study results appear to indicate that migrant raptors are more dispersed when they pass through the proposed project area region. Results of the breeding bird were typical of mixed agricultural settings with a variety of common species recorded indicating a diversity of habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during the surveys, however, potential risk to any of these species is not considered high. Potential impacts are expected to be spread over several commonly observed species. Some waterfowl, waterbirds, and raptors winter in the Cape Vincent project area. The project would result in increased exposure to wintering birds, however, most of the species observed were common species with large populations and potential impacts would not be considered significant. Based on the AnaBat surveys, bat abundance was greatest during the summer season. It is, however, likely that fall migrant species may be at risk from the project based on results from other monitoring studies and a relatively high level of bat calls recorded during the fall season. Species identification from the AnaBat data and existing information from the NYSDEC suggests that Indiana bat, a federal endangered species, may be present on the site. Further studies recommended for the project include additional bat surveys including mist-netting surveys to determine presence-absence and spatial distribution of Indiana bats in the project area.

WEST, Inc.
4

iii

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Components .......................................................................................................................... 3 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ................................................................................................. 5 Methods................................................................................................................................... 7 Results..................................................................................................................................... 8 Raptor Migration Surveys......................................................................................................... 22 Methods................................................................................................................................. 22 Results................................................................................................................................... 23 Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................... 31 Methods................................................................................................................................. 31 Results................................................................................................................................... 33 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ....................................................................................................... 35 Methods................................................................................................................................. 35 Results................................................................................................................................... 37 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys..................................................................................... 39 Methods................................................................................................................................. 39 Results................................................................................................................................... 40 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ............................................................................................... 43 Raptor Migration Surveys......................................................................................................... 45 Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................... 47 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ....................................................................................................... 48 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys..................................................................................... 50 References..................................................................................................................................... 50 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area............................25 Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. ..............27 Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the Cape Vincent wind power project area.....................................................................................................33 Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded by each AnaBat unit at the met tower for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods. ...............................................................................................................38 Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling periods of each season. ......................................................................................................38 Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling................39 Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. ...................................................................42 Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point..................42
WEST, Inc.
5

iv

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S..............44 Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at six established New York spring/fall hawk watch sites. .........................................................46 Table 11. Wind projects in the U.S. with both AnaBat sampling data and mortality data for bat species. ...................................................................................................................48

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed Cape Vincent wind power project location. ....................................................2 Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the Cape Vincent project area....................................................4 Figure 3. Radar sampling locations and raptor survey locations for the Cape Vincent project area...........................................................................................................................6 Figure 4. Observed flight directions at Cape Vincent project area.................................................9 Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode. ...............................................11 Figure 6. Mean + SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.........................................12 Figure 7. Mean + SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode. ....................................13 Figure 8. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.......................................14 Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km. Height class 1 represents altitudes 0-100om, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200om, etc. No targets were observed in classes 10-12, 14, or 15........................................................16 Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. ..................................17 Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. ...................................18 Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions..........................................................................19 Figure 13. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed. .........................................................................21 Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. ......................................................................................29 Figure 15. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area.........................................................................................................................32 Figure 16. AnaBat survey locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area....................36 Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species location recorded for the project area. ............................................................................................................41

WEST, Inc.
6

v

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BPAE) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy development in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The city of Watertown is located approximately 12 miles southeast of the project. The exact location and size of the development will be based on a number of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmission constraints, permitting, and results of site surveys. Through the early project evaluation process, BPAE contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine biological resources of concern for the project. Issues that were raised included potential impacts from the project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors, migrant bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. In response to comments from the agencies, BPAE requested that Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) develop an avian and bat survey protocol for a one-year study that would address the agency concerns and provide site-specific data for the resources of concern. The principal goals of the study, initiated in April 2006, were to: 1) Provide baseline information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts from the wind power development; 2) Provide baseline information on avian and bat migration over the proposed development area that is useful in evaluating the relative risk of the proposed wind project; 3) Provide information on avian, bat, and sensitive species use of the study area that will help in designing a wind project that is less likely to expose species to risk of collisions with turbines, and; 4) Provide recommendations for further monitoring studies and potential mitigation measures, if appropriate. Specific objectives of the study were to: (1) describe and quantify nocturnal migration over the proposed project area; (2) describe and quantify spring and fall (diurnal) raptor migration through the proposed project; (3) describe and quantify breeding bird use in the proposed development area (turbine locations); (4) describe and quantify migrant bat use over the proposed project; (5) identify resident bat species in the project area; (6) describe and quantify waterfowl migration through the project area; (7) and identify the presence of any federal and state-listed species that may occur within in the project area, as well as potential habitat for these species. The protocol was developed based on input from NYSDEC and the USFWS, as well as the expertise and experience of WEST implementing and conducting similar studies for wind energy development throughout the U.S.

WEST, Inc.

1

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

7

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 1. Proposed Cape Vincent wind power project location.

WEST, Inc.

2

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

8

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

STUDY AREA The proposed project area is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Elevation of the ecozone varies from about 100-500 feet. The dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20% wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Some of the overall project area is characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002). The land within the project area is privately owned and the primary land use is agriculture and dairy farming (Figure 2). Most of the project development area is in agricultural fields. There are scattered farms and houses throughout the project and adjacent to the roads. Vegetation of the project is a mosaic of open grass/hay fields, cultivated agriculture, and scattered deciduous tree wood lots. The deciduous forest type tends to be variable in size with some small woodlots intermixed with agriculture fields and some larger blocks of forest, particularly in low-lying areas and along stream corridors. Several inlets, creeks, and wetland forests occur within the project area.

STUDY COMPONENTS The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar sampling during the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed point locations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts; AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various study components took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrence in the project area.

WEST, Inc.

3

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

9

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the Cape Vincent project area.
WEST, Inc.

4

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

10

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey is to characterize avian migration over the project area and provide data that can be used to determine the relative magnitude of nocturnal migration over the proposed development area when compared to other sites. The primary objective of the radar study is to collect baseline information on flight direction, passage rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for the proposed development area. A single radar unit was used for the migration seasons defined as 15 August – 15 October for the fall and 15 April 15 – 1 June for the spring. The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar, transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar labs have been successfully used to monitor nocturnal avian migration and are described in Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999). The fall sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of ground interference), property ownership, access, and comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS (Figure 3). Based on comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS, the ideal radar sampling point to allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline, as well as over inland areas, was restricted to those areas approximately 1.5 km from the shoreline. To decrease ground clutter, the unit was positioned in a small hollow so that surrounding topography reflected the lower portion of the main beam, producing a clear picture of sky beyond. Due to land management changes at the fall radar sampling location, the site was inaccessible in the spring. A second sampling location was chosen with similar characteristics as the fall site and also situated approximately 1.5 km from the shoreline (Figure 3).

WEST, Inc.

5

November 28, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

11

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 3. Radar sampling locations and raptor survey locations for the Cape Vincent project area.
WEST, Inc.

6

November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

12

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Methods The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall season and 50 days during the spring. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling during some nights was compromised or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled nights was less than the total study period. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from approximately sunset each night until sunrise the following morning. Each night was broken down into 60-min sampling periods that consisted of: 1) one 5-min session to collect weather data and adjust the radar to surveillance (i.e., horizontal) mode, 2) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance mode collecting information on migration traffic (passage) rates; 3) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance mode collecting information on flight direction and speed of targets, as well as general location of migrants; 4) one 5-min break to adjust radar to vertical mode; 5) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on migration traffic (passage) rate; 6) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on flight altitudes below 1500 m; 7) one 5-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on the spatial distribution and altitudes of birds along an east-west transect axis; and, 8) one 5-min long-range session (3.0 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on flight altitudes below 3000 m. The following weather data was collected at the beginning of each hour session: wind speed, wind direction; cloud cover (%); approximate ceiling height (m); approximate visibility (m); precipitation; barometric pressure; air temperature (oC). Noticeable changes in weather conditions, if any, were recorded when the radar unit was adjusted to vertical mode. The Furuno FAR2117BB radar used in this study has several controls which affect detection and tracking of targets. In order to detect and track small targets, the radar operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. Initially, the anti-clutter controls on the radar were turned down to the lowest settings. The anti-sea clutter control was then slowly turned up to about the point where background noise cleared from the screen enough to see small targets. The anti-rain clutter control was kept at the lowest setting. While in the vertical mode, to eliminate ground clutter around the radar generated from second echoes of radar energy bouncing off the van and ground, a blind sector was set so that the radar did not transmit energy when the antennae was pointing towards the ground (from 90o to 270o). The radar trails function was generally set at 30 seconds so that targets could be tracked for long enough to determine direction and speed. Target flight direction was determined by placing the cursor on a target echo within a trail and aligning the offset electronic bearing line (EBL) along the line of target echoes pointing in the direction of travel. Speed was recorded as the distance a
WEST, Inc.

7

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

13

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

target traveled in 5 seconds (two sweeps of the radar antennae). With the target trails turned on, each sweep of the radar plots a new echo for any given target with each echo persisting on the screen for a set amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds). Speed was determined with the offset variable range marker (VRM) by placing the cursor on a target echo and measuring the distance between that echo and the third echo in line (i.e., the distance traveled in 2 sweeps of the antennae or 5 seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the VRM) on the monitor relative to a horizontal line running through the radar point of origin. All data were exported from Microsoft Access and imported into SAS V.8 for further data processing, quality assurance, and analysis. Additional analyses were performed using Matlab V6.5. To determine passage rates in horizontal mode, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image was treated as a 1-dimensional “front” perpendicular to the direction of migration, with length equal to 3 km (the diameter of the surveyed area); all targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Based on that assumption, passage rate was calculated as number of targets per kilometer per hour. Mean flight direction was estimated as
n

μ = tan −1 ( y x )

where

y = ∑ i =1 cos (θi ) n ,
n

x = ∑ i =1 sin (θi ) n , and θi was the flight direction for the ith observation (Batschelet, 1981).
Dispersion in the data was calculated as r = x 2 + y 2

(

)

12

such that 0 ≤ r ≤1. If all observations

had exactly the same direction, r = 1; conversely, r = 0 would indicate uniform distribution of directions around the circle. Mean flight altitude was not adjusted for unequal sampling intensity at different heights or unequal detection probability as a function of distance from the radar unit. Air speed of targets, Va, was calculated as Va = ⎡Vg2 + Vw2 − 2VgVw cos ( Δθ ) ⎤ , where Vg = target ⎣ ⎦ ground speed, Vw = wind speed, and Δθ was the difference between the target flight direction and wind direction. Hourly weather observations made at ground level were used for estimates of wind speed and direction. Wind direction categorized by field observers as ‘N’, ‘NE’, ‘E’, ‘SE’, etc.; were transformed to bearings (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, etc.) for the calculation of Δθ . Targets with air speeds less than 6 m/s or greater than 35 m/s were judged not to be migrating birds and were excluded from further analysis.

Results Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August 15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. During fall, radar sampling was conducted most nights for a total of approximately 508 hours of radar sampling during the study period. Very wet weather in mid-April and again in late-May compromised many survey nights during the spring study period. Radar sampling was conducted for a total of approximately 300 hours during the spring study period.

WEST, Inc.

8

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

14

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Flight Direction Observed flight directions were towards the southwest in the fall and towards the northeast in the spring (Figure 4). Fall mean and dispersion of flight direction were μ = 209.2° and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the southerly direction of the migration, 71.8% of observations were between 90° and 270°, while 34.5% of observations were between 135° and 225°. Spring mean and dispersion of flight direction were μ = 34.0° and r = 0.52 (n = 5003 targets). As an indication of the northerly direction of the migration, 77.6% of observations were between 270° and 90°, and 48.4% of observations were between 315° and 45°.

0 330

800 30 600

300

400 200

60

270

90

240

120

210 180

150

Figure 4. Observed flight directions at Cape Vincent project area.

Passage Rates Fall -The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 345.8 ± 13.3 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE) (n = 506 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 346.2 ± 17.2 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE) (n = 503 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in late September and early October. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening, with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively declining rates throughout the night (Figures 7 and 8).

WEST, Inc.

9

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

15

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Spring -The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 ± 8.8 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE) (n = 310 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 191 ± 9.4 targets/km/hr (mean ± SE) (n = 308 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in early and mid May. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening, with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively declining rates throughout the night with a second small increase early in the morning (Figures 7 and 8).

WEST, Inc.

10

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

16

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

1500

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

Fall

1000

500

0 08/14

08/24

09/03

09/13

09/23

10/03

10/13

DATE

Spring

Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode.
WEST, Inc.

11

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

17

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

2000

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 08/14

Fall

08/24

09/03

09/13

09/23

10/03

10/13

DATE

Spring

Figure 6. Mean + SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.
WEST, Inc.

12

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

18

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

600

HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

Fall
500

400

300

200

100

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

TIME

Spring

Figure 7. Mean + SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode.
WEST, Inc.

13

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

19

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

600

HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

Fall
500

400

300

200

100

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

TIME

Spring

Figure 8. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.
WEST, Inc.

14

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

20

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Flight Altitudes Fall - For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 ± 1.7 m (mean ± SE) (n = 30,749 targets) above radar level (arl)1. Approximately 7.7% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m (the approximate zone of risk posed by modern turbines) at the site. Most targets were observed at altitudes below 500 m (Figure 9). The highest percentage of targets occurred between 201 and 300 m arl. Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and ranged from approximately 275 m to 685 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 450−500 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 3.1% of targets (558 of 18,059) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and the middle 50% of all observations were greater than 125 m arl (Figure 12). Spring - For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 441.3 ± 2.5 m (mean ± SE) (n = 16,151 targets) arl. Approximately14.0% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m. The highest percentage of targets (19.2%) occurred between 101 and 200 m arl (Figure 9). Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and ranged from approximately 170 m to 650 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 440–470 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 2.6% of targets (253 of 9061 targets) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and above 125 m arl; however, on two nights the median value was below 125 m arl and on seven nights the middle 50% of all observations overlapped the zone of risk (Figure 12).

1

Target altitude was measured in relation to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the radar and thus termed above radar level. Height above ground level (agl) is highly variable depending on the topography directly below any given target and not measurable with the radar.

WEST, Inc.

15

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

21

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

15

Fall

PERCENT OF TARGETS

10

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 HEIGHT CLASS

20 18 16 PERCENT OF TARGETS 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Spring

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 HEIGHT CLASS

Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km. Height class 1 represents altitudes 0-100om, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200om, etc.

WEST, Inc.

16

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

22

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

400

Fall
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 08/14

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

08/24

09/03

09/13

09/23

10/03

10/13

DATE

700

Spring
600

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

500

400

300

200

100

0 04/26 05/01 05/06 05/11 05/16 05/21 05/26 05/31 06/05 06/10

DATE

Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range.
WEST, Inc.

17

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

23

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

300

Fall
250

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

200

150

100

50

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

TIME

500 450 400

Spring

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0000 0200 0400 2000 2200

TIME

Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range.

WEST, Inc.

18

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

24

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Fall

Spring

Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions2.

The boxes within the chart represent the 1st and 3rd quartile (50%) of the nightly observations, the horizontal lines within boxes represent nightly median value of flight heights, and solid circles represent the nightly mean flight height.

2

WEST, Inc.

19

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

25

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Target Speed Fall - Air speed of targets was calculated by adjusting for wind speed and direction (see Methods above). Of 12,190 targets, approximately 1% (120 targets) were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and one target was moving at high speed (> 35m/s). After excluding very slow and very fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 12.95 ± 0.03 m/s (mean ± SE) (n = 12069 targets). Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 10 to 17 m/s (Figure 13). Because the percentage of targets moving slowly was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was warranted. Spring - Of 5,003 targets, approximately 1% (56 targets) was excluded because they were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) or due to high speed (> 35m/s) and 47 targets were excluded due to missing wind speed and/or direction to allow for air speed adjustments. After excluding very slow and very fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 13.65 ± 0.06 m/s (mean ± SE) (n = 4900 targets). Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 11 to 18 m/s (Figure 13). Because the percentage of targets moving slowly was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was warranted.

WEST, Inc.

20

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

26

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

18 16

Fall
14

AIR SPEED (m/s)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 08/14

08/24

09/03

09/13

09/23

10/03

10/13

DATE

Spring

Figure 13. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed.

WEST, Inc.

21

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

27

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Raptor Migration Surveys

The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the sites by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g., waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds. Point counts using variable circular plots (Reynolds et al. 1980, Bibby et al. 1992) were conducted within the project area according to methods used by the Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) with observers continuously scanning the sky and surrounding areas for raptors in the survey area. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting raptors migrating through the area. The timing of surveys was determined in consultation with the NYSDEC and based on available information from migrant raptor watch stations in northern and western New York (e.g., Derby Hill, see below). Methods Three fixed survey points were established within the proposed project area to provide good visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area, and also attempting to minimize the potential for double-counting individual birds (Figure 3). Survey stations were established to maximize visibility over long distances in an effort to locate and identify migrating raptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while maintaining the integrity of the eastwest layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the vegetation and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360o around the point, and so that each point was surveying unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birds beyond the 800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot. Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900 – 1700) to cover the peak period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60 minutes long. All raptors and other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned a unique observation number and plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each survey included date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance from plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above ground, activity (behavior), and habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight direction or movement paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each raptor/large bird and habitat in which or over which the bird was first observed were recorded. Behavior categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted in comments). Habitats included agriculture, old (fallow) field, deciduous woods/forest, developed (e.g., farms), and other (noted in comments). Approximate flight height at first observation and the approximate lowest and highest flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meter interval. Any comments or unusual observations were noted in the comments section. Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration through the project area. In New York, spring hawk watch locations are concentrated along the Great Lakes shorelines and are
WEST, Inc.

22

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

28

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

more inland in eastern portions of the state during fall migration. According to spring count data from the Derby Hill Bird Observatory (Mexico, New York) approximately 50 miles south of Cape Vincent along Lake Ontario, peak numbers of sharp-shinned hawks migrate through the area during April, with large pulses of broad-winged hawks during the last two weeks of April. Fall migration counts from Franklin Mountain in Oneonta, New York (150 miles southeast of Cape Vincent) report peak periods for migrant broad-winged and sharp-shinned hawks during September and October, respectively. Concern for migrant golden eagles potentially using the Cape Vincent project area was expressed during talks with the NYSDEC. Golden eagles are earlier and later migrants with peaks reported from the end of March through April during spring migration and the end of October through November during fall migration. Spring raptor surveys at the Cape Vincent project area began later in the 2006 season (April 14, 2006) and likely did not capture early raptor migrants, such as golden eagles; however, spring surveys were conducted again in 2007 and began at an earlier date, March 21, and ran until May 1. In fall, surveys were conducted from September 23 – November 11. Results During the spring 2006 season, each point was surveyed 4 times, for a total of 12 surveys. A total of 777 individual birds were recorded; 79 raptors of 10 species were observed (Table 1). During the fall season, each fixed point was surveyed 10 times during the survey window, for a total of 30 surveys. A total of 3,050 individual birds were recorded during the surveys; 165 individual raptors of 10 species were observed. During the spring 2007 season, each point was surveyed 7 times, for a total of 21 surveys. A total of 1,851 individual birds were recorded during the surveys; 205 individual raptors of 9 species were observed. (Table 1) Canada goose was the most commonly seen bird during spring and fall surveys. During both spring migration surveys (2006 and 2007), turkey vulture was the mostly commonly recorded raptor species (n = 29, freq = 66.7% and n = 111, freq = 94.4%, respectively). American kestrel (n = 13, freq = 41.7%) followed turkey vulture in numbers during the spring 2006 surveys, whereas northern harrier (n = 37, freq = 88.9%) followed turkey vulture in the 2007 spring surveys. In the fall, northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 69, freq = 76.7%), followed by turkey vulture (n = 50, freq = 33.3%). Other raptor species seen included: broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, and Cooper’s hawk. Exposure indices were calculated as the mean use estimates (number of birds/60-minute survey) multiplied by the proportion of birds observed flying and the proportion of birds flying within the zone of risk (defined as the approximate rotor-swept area). During the migratory seasons, gull species had the highest exposure index due to high numbers of individuals occurring in the project area (Table 2). For raptors, turkey vulture had the highest exposure index also due primarily to the higher use estimates. Avian and raptor use varied among survey stations (Figure 14). Avian use was highest at Station 1 during the fall 2006 season; however Station 2 was the highest during both spring seasons. Large flocks of Canada geese and other duck species recorded at this survey point contributed to
WEST, Inc.

23

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

29

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

this high use estimate. Station 2 is located on the western edge of the project area and closest to Lake Ontario. High numbers of Canada geese and gull species accounted for higher avian use at this survey station. Raptor use was generally similar between seasons and survey points. Station 2 had higher use in the spring seasons but the differences were not significant.

WEST, Inc.

24

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

30

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Species/Group mean mean mean # ind # groups % freq4 # ind # groups % freq # ind # groups % freq use3 use use Waterbirds 221 22 34 18 58 43 Bonaparte's gull 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 1 0.17 5.56 Caspian tern 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.11 5.56 Common loon 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 Common tern 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.06 5.56 Double-crested cormorant 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.06 5.56 Great blue heron 8 7 0.67 50.00 3 3 0.10 10.00 26 23 1.39 55.56 Herring gull 6 2 0.50 16.67 6 2 0.20 6.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 Ring-billed gull 57 6 4.75 33.33 8 7 0.27 20.00 21 15 1.17 44.44 Unidentified gull 150 7 12.50 41.67 16 5 0.50 13.33 4 1 0.22 5.56 Waterfowl 457 25 2677 92 1365 48 Canada goose 411 19 34.25 75.00 2337 64 77.90 50.00 1305 28 69.72 72.22 Bufflehead 0 0 0.00 0.00 9 1 0.30 3.33 3 1 0.17 5.56 Common merganser 0 0 0.00 0.00 9 2 0.30 6.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 Gadwall 0 0 0.00 0.00 14 1 0.47 3.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 Green-winged teal 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.07 3.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 Hooded merganser 0 0 0.00 0.00 26 3 0.87 6.67 5 2 0.28 11.11 Mallard 41 5 3.42 25.00 91 16 3.03 40.00 36 15 2.00 55.56 Ring-necked duck 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 12 1 0.67 5.56 Tundra swan 0 0 0.00 0.00 20 1 0.67 3.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 Unidentified duck 5 1 0.42 8.33 168 2 5.60 6.67 4 1 0.22 5.56 Raptors 79 58 165 129 205 128 Accipiters
3 4

Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 60-min survey Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed

WEST, Inc.

25

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

31

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Species/Group

# ind

Cooper’s hawkSC Northern goshawk Sharp-shinned hawkSC Buteos Broad-winged hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unidentified buteo Falcons American kestrel Peregrine falcon Other Raptors Northern harrierST OspreySC Turkey vulture Unidentified raptor Other Birds American crow Common raven European starling Killdeer Ring-necked pheasant Rose-breasted grosbeak Wild turkey
Total

0 0 3 8 11 2 1 13 0 7 1 29 4 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
777

Spring 2006 mean # groups % freq4 use3 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 3 0.25 25.00

# ind

3 0 1 0 29 2 2 5 2 69 0 50 2 170 146 1 0 4 8 0 15
3050

Fall 2006 mean # groups use 3 0.10 0 0.00 1 0.03

% freq

# ind

10.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 33.33 3.33 3.33 16.67 6.67 76.67 0.00 30.00 6.67 70.00 3.33 0.00 6.67 16.67 0.00 6.67

2 1 0 0 26 5 5 17 0 37 1 111 0 218 68 5 110 5 11 7 17
1851

Spring 2007 mean # groups use 1 0.11 1 0.06 0 0.00

% freq

5.56 5.56 0.00 0.00 72.22 22.22 0.00 55.56 0.00 88.89 5.56 94.44 0.00 94.44 16.67 16.67 5.56 55.56 5.56 22.22

6 10 2 1 5 0 7 1 19 4 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
113

0.67 0.92 0.17 0.08 1.08 0.00 0.58 0.08 2.42 0.33 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33.33 50.00 16.67 8.33 41.67 0.00 33.33 8.33 66.67 25.00 41.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 23 1 1 5 2 63 0 28 2 65 56 1 0 2 6 0 2
306

0.00 0.97 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.07 2.30 0.00 1.67 0.07 4.83 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.50

0 22 4 3 14 0 31 1 51 0 56 35 3 3 1 10 1 4
276

0.00 1.28 0.28 0.00 0.94 0.00 1.94 0.06 5.50 0.00 3.78 0.28 6.11 0.28 0.61 0.39 0.94

ST = State listed threatened; SC = State listed species of special concern

WEST, Inc.

26

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

32

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. Relation to rotor-swept area5 Mean Use % birds Exposure Species % below % within % above flying Index6 Waterbirds 97.47 28.10 29.32 42.59 Bonaparte's gull 0.04 0.00 NA NA NA NA Caspian tern 0.02 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.02 Common loon 0.01 0.00 NA NA NA NA Common tern 0.01 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.01 Double-crested cormorant 0.01 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 Great blue heron 0.44 97.30 27.78 61.11 11.11 0.26 Herring gull 0.15 100.00 41.67 58.33 0.00 0.09 Ring-billed gull 1.06 98.84 81.18 17.65 1.18 0.19 Unidentified gull 2.10 100.00 42.69 56.73 0.58 1.19 Waterfowl 98.09 50.97 46.75 2.27 Canada goose 51.00 98.64 28.78 29.87 41.34 15.03 Bufflehead 0.15 75.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common merganser 0.11 100.00 22.22 0.00 77.78 0.00 Gadwall 0.17 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.17 Green-winged teal 0.02 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.02 Hooded merganser 0.38 54.84 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mallard 2.11 84.80 36.55 48.28 15.17 0.86 Ring-necked duck 0.16 0.00 NA NA NA NA Tundra swan 0.25 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 Unidentified duck 2.19 97.74 0.00 2.89 97.11 0.06 Raptors 95.05 30.63 41.46 27.92 Accipiters 100.00 10.00 50.00 40.00 Cooper's hawk 0.06 100.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 0.04
5 6

Defined as the area between approximately 25 and 125 m above ground level Exposure index = (mean use) * (% individuals flying) * (% flying within rotor-swept area)

WEST, Inc.

27

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

33

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Relation to rotor-swept area5 Species Mean Use % birds flying 100.00 100.00 88.97 100.00 90.00 81.58 100.00 76.92 75.68 100.00 % below % within % above Exposure Index6

Northern goshawk Sharp-shinned hawk Buteo Broad-winged hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unidentified buteo Falcon American kestrel Peregrine falcon Owls Short-eared owl Other raptors Northern harrier Osprey Turkey vulture Unidentified raptor Other Birds American crow Common raven European starling Killdeer Ring-necked pheasant Rose-breasted grosbeak Wild turkey

0.01 0.05 0.10 0.94 0.47 0.06 0.46 0.02 0.02 1.46 0.02 2.20 0.07 3.56 0.07 1.36 0.11 0.26 0.09 0.52

0.00 0.00 21.49 0.00 18.06 41.94 0.00 93.33 100.00 0.00 100.00 66.67 0.00 4.76 16.67 51.59 66.67 100.00 44.44 100.00 0.00 100.00

0.00 50.00 42.98 62.50 50.00 35.48 0.00 6.67 0.00 100.00 0.00 24.17 50.00 57.14 33.33 38.10 33.33 0.00 55.56 0.00 100.00 0.00

100.00 50.00 35.54 37.50 31.94 22.58 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 50.00 38.10 50.00 10.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.35 0.01 1.25 0.02 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00

100.00 100.00 100.00 99.47 100.00 87.20 100.00 68.18 100.00 19.05 100.00 4.76

WEST, Inc.

28

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

34

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

All Birds for Spring 2006
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 Station 3
15 12 Mean use 9 6 3 0 1

Raptors for Spring 2006

Mean use

2 Station

3

All Birds for Fall 2006
300 250 Mean use

Raptors for Fall 2006
15 12 Mean use 9 6 3 0

200 150 100 50 0 1 2 Station 3

1

2 Station

3

Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape Vincent wind power project area.

WEST, Inc.

29

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

35

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

All Birds for Spring 2007
160 140 120 Mean use 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 Station 3
Mean use 15 12 9 6 3 0 1

Raptors for Spring 2007

2 Station

3

Figure 15 (continued). Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape Vincent wind power project area.

WEST, Inc.

30

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

36

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Breeding Bird Survey

The objective of the breeding bird surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the proposed development area by breeding resident birds. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting breeding resident birds within the area proposed for development. The surveys were conducted based on the regional timing recommended for USGS BBS in central New York (USGS 2001). Methods Twenty survey points were established within the project area. The survey points were selected to cover as much of the proposed development area and habitat types as possible. Each survey station was marked on a map and GPS coordinates were recorded for mapping (Figure 15). The habitat at each survey point was described to examine the applicability of the site to represent other areas within the proposed development area. U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2001) methods were used for the surveys. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds observed were recorded; however, the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 400 m (0.25 mi) radius circle centered on the observation point. All points were surveyed twice during the recommended survey period (June - July) and seven days were skipped between the surveys to spread the effort over the breeding season. Survey periods at each point were 3 minutes long, similar to the BBS method. The date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover were recorded for each survey. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals of each species, how observed (visual or auditory), and behavior (flying, perching, singing, etc.) were recorded for each observation during the 3-minute count at each survey point.

WEST, Inc.

31

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

37

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 16. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area.
WEST, Inc.

32

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

38

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Results Point count surveys were conducted on June 29 and July 6, 2006. Each point was surveyed twice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 812 individual birds were observed in 462 groups (Table 3). Sixty-three species were observed during the surveys. Red-winged blackbird, bobolink, and song sparrow were the most common passerines observed based on mean use estimates (number observed within 400 m per 3-minute survey). The majority of the species recorded during breeding bird surveys are species commonly associated with agriculture, grasslands, and/or edge habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during the breeding bird surveys including northern harrier and Henslow’s sparrow, two New York state threatened species; horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow, three New York state species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush, two species on the USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region.

Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the Cape Vincent wind power project area. Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Mean Use
Waterbirds Double-crested cormorant Great blue heron Ring-billed gull Waterfowl Canada goose Mallard Unidentified duck Shorebirds Killdeer Unidentified shorebird Raptors/Vultures American kestrel Northern harrierST Red-tailed hawk Turkey vulture Passerines American crow American goldfinch American redstart American robin Baltimore oriole Barn swallow Black-and-white warbler Black-capped chickadee Blue jay BobolinkBCC Brown-headed cowbird
WEST, Inc.

46 2 6 38 55 12 8 35 22 7 15 41 9 8 6 18 612 41 27 2 31 1 19 3 8 6 65 8 33

10 1 5 4 3 1 1 1 8 7 1 30 8 6 5 11 394 16 17 2 26 1 6 2 4 6 38 5

1.15 0.05 0.15 0.95 1.375 0.3 0.2 0.875 0.55 0.175 0.375 1.025 0.225 0.2 0.15 0.45 15.095 1.025 0.675 0.05 0.775 0.025 0.475 0.075 0.02 0.15 1.625 0.2 Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

39

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Species/Group
Carolina wren Cedar waxwing Chestnut-sided warbler Chipping sparrow Common grackle Common yellowthroat Eastern bluebird Eastern kingbird Eastern meadowlark Eastern towhee Eastern tufted titmouse Empidonax sp. European starling Field sparrow Grasshopper sparrowSC Gray catbird Henslow’s sparrowST, BCC House finch Horned larkSC Indigo bunting Northern cardinal Ovenbird Red-eyed vireo Red-winged blackbird Savannah sparrow Scarlet tanager Song sparrow Tree swallow Unidentified passerine Unidentified sparrow Vesper sparrowSC Wood thrushBCC Yellow warbler Upland Gamebirds Ring-necked pheasant Ruffed grouse Doves Mourning dove Rock pigeon Other Birds Downy woodpecker Northern flicker Red-bellied woodpecker Unidentified woodpecker All Birds

# of individuals
1 27 10 2 22 21 1 20 26 19 2 1 13 2 2 6 1 1 3 1 3 4 6 75 19 2 55 4 7 5 1 3 38 3 2 1 24 5 19 6 1 3 1 1 812

# of groups
1 8 10 2 9 16 1 13 24 16 1 1 4 2 2 6 1 1 2 1 2 3 6 38 15 2 44 2 1 3 1 3 32 3 2 1 6 3 3 6 1 3 1 1 462

Mean Use
0.025 0.675 0.25 0.05 0.55 0.525 0.025 0.5 0.65 0.475 0.05 0.025 0.325 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.075 0.1 0.15 1.875 0.475 0.05 1.375 0.1 0.175 0.125 0.025 0.075 0.95 0.075 0.05 0.025 0.6 0.125 0.475 0.15 0.025 0.075 0.025 0.025 20.02

ST = State listed threatened; SC = State listed species of special concern; BBC = Birds of Conservation Concern

WEST, Inc.

34

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

40

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys

The objective of the nocturnal AnaBat surveys was to record the relative abundance of echolocating bats flying through the sampling area during summer breeding season and the spring and fall migration seasons. Methods Bat activity at the project area was recorded using an AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detector attached to a zero-crossing analysis interface module (ZCAIM) which houses a compact flash memory card for temporary download of ultrasonic activity files. To sample continuously on remote mode (automatic data collection), the detector and ZCAIM were powered by an external 12V battery. Each AnaBat unit (detector, ZCAIM, and 12V battery) was enclosed inside a plastic box or dry bag with the detector microphone positioned against a PVC tube protruding from the box/bag. This design prevented water from damaging the AnaBat units without compromising the ability of the unit to detect ultrasonic noise in the environment. To minimize variation among AnaBats, sensitivity settings were calibrated for each unit prior to data collection. Most AnaBat units were set at or near setting 7 on the sensitivity dial. Each AnaBat unit was positioned so that the microphone faced the same cardinal direction, east, for each sampling period. Calls were recorded from approximately sunset to sunrise (1900 – 0700). AnaBat units were removed from the field approximately once per week to download files, recharge batteries, and troubleshoot technical problems. Data gathered from the passive AnaBat units at the met tower were used to calculate bat activity (designated as number of calls/detector-night) present at the site during the sampling periods. Nights that experienced any number of technical difficulties were not included in the final analyses. During the spring sampling season (April 13 – June 2), three AnaBat sampling locations were established (Figure 16). One unit was placed in the open grassy field at the project met tower and two other units were deployed near wooded riparian areas within the project to increase likelihood of detecting additional species. One of these riparian units, centrally located in the project area, was stolen in late spring and never recovered. The remaining two sampling locations (Met tower and Riparian 1) were maintained through the summer sampling season (June 28 – August 8). During fall (August 13 – October 9), two pulley systems were attached to the met tower guy wires which allowed AnaBat units to be deployed at three different levels: ground level (1 m above ground), approximately 25m high (half way up the met tower), and approximately 50m high (near the top of the met tower).

WEST, Inc.

35

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

41

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 16. AnaBat survey locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area.
WEST, Inc.

36

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

42

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

In addition to the stationary passive units, a “roaming” or mobile AnaBat unit was deployed during the summer to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the project area (Figure 16). Roaming sampling was conducted using a handheld AnaBat unit for 9 nights (3 sampling periods of 3 consecutive nights each) at habitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. To select locations for active sampling, reconnaissance visits were made to the project area during the day time to select sampling locations based on the presence of travel corridors (trails and roads), linear landscape features (forest edges), and access to water; habitat features known to be important for bats. Active sampling was conducted from sunset until 4 hours after sunset (approximately 2100 – 0100). Analysis of bat calls was conducted using Analook software (DOS version). Analook displays ultrasonic activity in a format similar to a sonogram used for analysis of bird vocalizations (e.g., frequency versus time). Species identification was aided by the Preliminary Key to the Qualitative Identification of Calls within the AnaBat System (Amelon 2005, unpublished data) where characteristics such as slope, frequency, minimum frequency, consistency of minimum frequency, and shape of pulse assist in the identification of bat vocalizations. Due to similarity of call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into one species category. All Myotis-like calls were identified to genus only and submitted to NYSDEC-recommended biologist, Eric Britzke, for identification to species. To obtain species identifications, an ID filter (Britzke and Murray 2001) was loaded into Analook to determine calls sequences of sufficient quality and length for possible species identification. Once separated, echolocation calls of sufficient quality and length were categorized using quantitative techniques (Britzke 2003). Quantitative analyses are conducted by a cross-validated classification model based on 10 extracted call parameters [duration (Dur), maximum frequency (Fmax), minimum frequency (Fmin), mean frequency (Fmean), duration to the knee (Tk), frequency of the knee (Fk), duration of the body (Tc), frequency of the body (Fc), initial slope (S1), and slope of the body (Sc)] collected from 1,846 sequences (35,979 calls) of 12 eastern U.S. bat species (Britzke 2003). Average accuracy rates for species identification using this statistical method ranges from 56.9% (eastern red bat) to 98.5 % (gray bat), with accuracy rates for Indiana bat ranging from 81.4% to 88.6%. Results The total number of calls and number of calls per night, recorded by each AnaBat unit at the met tower varied by season (Table 4). Spring sampling began on April 13, 2006 and recorded continuously until June 2, 2006. The AnaBat unit detected 241 bat calls total (4.92 calls/night) during the 49 days of spring sampling. Summer sampling occurred at the met tower on 15 nights and recorded a total of 431 calls (28.73 calls/night). During fall, sampling occurred at 3 different heights at the met tower. The AnaBat unit positioned at ground level recorded the highest number of bat vocalizations per night (9.90 calls/night). Despite a similar number of sampling days, the low position AnaBat unit recorded significantly more bat calls/night than either the mid- or high-level units.

WEST, Inc.

37

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

43

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded by each AnaBat unit at the met tower for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods. # of sampling days used in Total # of Season Location analysis calls # calls/night Spring Met tower low 49 241 4.92

Summer Fall

Met tower low Met tower low mid high

15 48 48 51

431 475 205 33

28.73 9.90 4.27 0.65

At least four species of bats were recorded at the met tower location (Table 5). Due to similarity of call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into one species category. As is typical with AnaBat sampling, the majority of vocalizations were unable to be identified due to the few number of pulses per call (<5 pulses/call sequence). Relative call frequency was calculated by dividing the number of calls recorded for each species by the total number of calls for each season. Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, Myotis calls accounted for most of the vocalizations recorded in the spring and summer, while eastern red bat accounted for most vocalizations in the fall.

Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling periods of each season. Species Relative Call Frequency Common Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall

Big brown bat/ Silver-haired bat Eastern red bat Hoary bat Myotis species No identification

Eptescus fuscus/ Lasionycteris noctivagans Lasiurus borealis Lasiurus cinereus Myotis spp.

0.062

0.130

0.105

0.154 0.004 0.237 0.544

0.160 0.046 0.204 0.459

0.180 0.036 0.039 0.640

WEST, Inc.

38

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

44

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Summer sampling with the mobile AnaBat unit occurred on nine nights and recorded 316 bat calls. The objective of the mobile sampling was to identify, to the extent possible, species and relative abundance of each species using the Cape Vincent project area. No additional species were recorded during the roaming surveys that were not recorded at the met tower station. As with the fixed station sampling, the majority of the calls could not be identified to species. The highest number of recorded calls was of big brown bat (Table 6); however, >50% of those calls occurred on one night at one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals echo-locating repeatedly near the AnaBat microphone.

Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling.
Common Name Species Scientific Name
Eptescus fuscus Lasiurus borealis Lasiurus cinereus Myotis spp.

6/28
4 hrs 8 0 0 0 42 50

6/29
4 hrs 3 1 0 0 17 22

6/30
4 hrs 0 0 0 0 15 15

Date Sampled 7/24 7/25 7/26
4 hrs 33 0 3 0 48 84 4 hrs 7 0 0 0 8 15 4 hrs 0 7 0 2 10 19

8/06
4 hrs 8 2 0 0 41 51

8/07
4 hrs 2 0 0 0 53 55

8/08
4 hrs

Big brown bat Eastern red bat Hoary bat Myotis species

0
2 0 0 3 5

No Species ID Total Detections/night

Following the qualitative screening, 203 call files with characteristics resembling Myotis species were submitted to Eric Britzke for further analysis. Of those files, 83 calls (40.9%) did not contain sufficient enough information to be processed quantitatively. The remaining calls were analyzed quantitatively on a nightly basis by site (Britzke 2003). Calls meeting the quantitative criteria for the following species were identified: eastern red bat (36 calls), little brown bat (44 calls), Indiana bat (25 calls), and northern myotis (15 calls).

Winter Waterfowl and Raptor Surveys

The objective of the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys was to estimate spatial and temporal use of the site by migrant and wintering waterfowl and raptor species. During initial project scoping, the agencies raised concerns over the potential for the proposed wind project to impact wintering waterfowl and raptors. Methods Driving transect surveys were conducted along most roads through the proposed project area that allowed nearly complete coverage of the project area (Figure 17). Surveys consisted of driving transects to locate and count winter waterfowl in the project area. In addition, nine 30-minute point count surveys were conducted at each of the fixed point count stations that were used
WEST, Inc.

39

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

45

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

during the migrant raptor surveys (see above). All waterfowl and raptor observations were plotted on maps of the survey points or coordinates (UTMs) were recorded along the road for each group observed during driving surveys. Surveys were generally conducted in the early morning or late evening hours when waterfowl were most active. In addition to waterfowl, all raptors and other waterbirds were recorded during the surveys. Results Driving surveys in the Cape Vincent project area were conducted on nine days between November 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent during the driving transects over the winter seasons and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were conducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 395 individuals in 96 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors and other birds were recorded during the winter driving surveys (Table 7) and 255 individuals in 87 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts (Table 8). Two (2) species of waterfowl were observed either during the fixed point count surveys or the driving surveys across the study area. Two waterbirds species, six raptor species, and four other bird species were also recorded during the surveys. Based on use estimates derived from the fixed point surveys, Canada goose was the most common waterfowl species observed during the winter surveys (Table 7 and 8). Rough legged hawk and red-tailed hawk were the most common raptor species (Table 7 and 8).

WEST, Inc.

40

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

46

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species location recorded for the project area.
WEST, Inc.

41

November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

47

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. Winter 2007 Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Waterbirds Ring-billed gull 48 1 Waterfowl Canada goose 41 3 Raptors/Vultures American kestrel 4 4 Northern harrier 7 6 Red-tailed hawk 19 18 Rough-legged hawk 36 30 Other Birds American crow 13 9 Ring-necked pheasant 9 5 Wild turkey 218 20 Total 395 96

Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. Winter 2007 Species/Group # ind # groups Mean use7 % freq8 Waterbirds Unidentified gull 1 1 0.05 4.76 Waterfowl Canada goose 128 3 6.10 4.76 Mallard 3 1 0.14 4.76 Raptors American kestrel 2 2 0.10 9.52 Northern harrier 7 6 0.33 28.57 Red-tailed hawk 14 13 0.62 47.62 Rough-legged hawk 29 25 1.38 80.95 Short-eared owl 2 1 0.10 4.76 Unidentified buteo 2 1 0.10 4.76 Other Birds American crow 55 30 2.62 80.95 Ring-necked pheasant 2 2 0.10 9.52 Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0 0.00 0.00 Wild turkey 10 2 0.48 9.52 Total 255 87 12.10
7 8

Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 30-min survey Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed

WEST, Inc.

42

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

48

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

DISCUSSION Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey

The nocturnal radar study was designed to collect data that could be used to characterize nocturnal migration over the site and also be used in a larger statewide comparison of results from numerous sites (M. Woythal, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). In the analysis, the radar data were not corrected for differences in detectability with distance from the radar unit or due to ground clutter on the radar screen. Also, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image was treated as a 1-dimensional 3-km “front” perpendicular to the direction of migration, and all targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Thus, passage rate estimates should be considered a sample or index of the actual number of targets passing through the area. Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of factors including observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection. To minimize these biases, efforts were made to standardize data collection and radar settings as much as possible. For example, the radar was operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. While short wave-length and high gain insure detection of small targets, these settings also have the effect of producing atmospheric or background noise on the screen which consequently can obscure small targets. To “clean up” the screen the antisea clutter [which minimizes clutter and noise close to the radar] was slowly turned up to the point where background noise was dispersed and limited primarily to the outer edge of the screen. The anti-rain clutter [which reduces interference from small targets throughout the survey area (e.g., rain drops)] was kept at the lowest setting so that no small targets would be eliminated. These settings insure that small targets such as individual passerines can be detected by the radar. Also during sampling, specific functions or capabilities of the radar were used to determine data values to minimize observer bias. For example, the electronic bearing line and variable range marker used in offset mode allowed the compass bearing of a target trail and the speed at which the target was moving to be measured by the radar as opposed to estimated by the observer or measured with a hand held scale. Results from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the Cape Vincent project area were similar to other radar studies in New York and the eastern U.S. (Table 9). Mean fall flight direction for the Cape Vincent project area was 209º and for the spring was 34º, slightly more southwesterly and northeasterly than most other New York studies but within the range of directions reported at other New York sites. Mean passage rate for fall 2006 was higher (346 t/km/hr) than the average for NY and the eastern U.S. (259 t/km/hr); however, it fell within the overall range of passage rates reported at other New York sites. Conversely, spring passage rate was on the lower end of the range of other studies. Mean flight height of targets was approximately 490 m in the fall and 441 m in the spring, which is similar to other studies in NY and near the means for all reported studies in the eastern U.S. (Table 9). The percent of targets (~8% fall and ~14% spring) which flew through the zone of risk, defined as the air space below 125 m, were also very near the mean for all other studies where flight height was recorded with vertical mode radar.
WEST, Inc.

43

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

49

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S.
Site Passage Rates (t/km/hr) Fall Spr Mean Flight Height (m) Fall Spr % Targets below 125 m Fall Spr Mean Flight Direction Fall Spr

Cape Vincent Wind Power, NY 346 166 490 441 8 14 209 34 (this report) Dairy Hills, Wyoming Co., NY 170 234 466 397 10 15 180 14 (Young et al. 2006) Alabama Ledge, Genessee Co., NY 165 200 487 413 11 14 219 35 (Young et al. 2007) Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184 (Mabee et al. 2005) Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29 (Cooper et al. 2004a,b) Prattsburgh (1), NY 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18 (Mabee et al. 2004, 2005) Clinton County, NY 197 110 333 338 12 20 162 30 (Mabee et al. 2006) Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40 (Woodlot Alternatives 2006a,b) Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005a, b) Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22 (B. Roy, pers. comm. 2006) West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005) High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005) Fairfield Top Notch, NY 691 509 516 419 4 20 198 44 (B. Gary, NYDEC, pers. comm.) Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69 (Roy and Pelletier 2005a, 2005b) Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40 (Roy et al. 2005) Martindale, PA 187 436 8 188 (Plissner et al. 2005) Casselman, PA 174 448 7 219 (Plissner et al. 2005) Mount Storm, WV 199 410 16 184 (Young et al. 2004) Mean 259 259 472 412 7 14 197 34 Note: Some values are approximations based on the limited information provided in the report or averaged over more than one sampling location (e.g., Flat Rock, Mount Storm).

While the overall patterns of nocturnal migration in New York and along the Great Lakes shorelines are generally unknown, passage rates could be expected to be higher for coastal sites if birds and bats tend to move around the lakes as opposed to flying directly over them. Diurnal migrants such as raptors are known to concentrate along and move parallel to the shorelines of large water bodies. If nocturnal migrants behave in a similar manner, then it would be expected that greater passage rates would be recorded for coastal sites than interior sites. For the studies
WEST, Inc.

44

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

50

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

conducted in New York, while results have been variable, the highest fall passage rates have been recorded at interior sites. For spring migration results again were variable with the highest passages rates coming from a coastal site as well as two interior sites (see Table 9). The results from the Cape Vincent study do not appear to support the hypothesis that nocturnal migrants concentrate along the shoreline. The passage rates in the study area may have been influenced locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline (<1.5 km), though this distance was recommended by the NYSDEC and USFWS to investigate this question, or by weather patterns influenced by the coastal environment. During the fall the distribution of targets flying over the site was generally higher and relatively few targets were recorded within the zone of risk (see Figure 12). During the spring season the results were more variable. While the mean flight height was greater than 125 m on all nights, the median flight height value fell within the zone of risk on two nights indicating that half the targets recorded on those nights were within the zone of risk. Weather variables recorded during the nights in the spring when target altitude was relatively lower suggest that weather events may have influenced migrant flight altitudes. Both nights when the median value fell below 125 m had intermittent precipitation with substantial cloud cover and lower passage rates (see Figure 5 and 6). While the results indicate some elevated risk on some nights, based on the overall radar survey results, collision risk to migrants within the project area is not expected to be greater than other sites studied in New York.
Raptor Migration Surveys

Typical raptor species for central New York were observed during the surveys (Table 1). No federally-listed species were observed; however, peregrine falcon (state endangered) and northern harrier (state threatened) were recorded. Two individual peregrines were observed during the fall survey season. The exposure index calculated for this species is very low (0.07). Northern harrier were much more common and were the most common raptor observed in the fall. Despite their abundance in the project area, the exposure risk to this species is generally low (0.08 in spring, 0.67 in fall). Harriers are in general low-level fliers and were often observed flying below the zone of risk (86% in spring, 64% in fall). Three New York species of special concern, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and common loon, were also observed during surveys. Based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour, the Cape Vincent project area has less traffic than the known hawk watch sites in New York. The nearest spring hawk watch site to the project area, Derby Hill Bird Observatory, was somewhat variable over the same survey days; however, the overall mean number of raptors observed per surveyor hour was far greater (Table 10). Large numbers of broad-winged hawks were observed at Derby Hill on 4/21/06; however, surveys within the Cape Vincent project area failed to record high numbers of this species passing over the site. Spring raptor migration surveys were repeated in 2007 and started earlier in the season to look for potential eagle migrants. Overall migrant passage rate in 2007 was higher than 2006 however, it was still substantially lower than the established hawk watch sites (Table 10). Many of the hawk watch sites are located in areas where the coastal plain along the lake shore is narrow creating a funneling effect concentrating migrant raptors in space.
WEST, Inc.

45

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

51

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Based on the topography in the Cape Vincent peninsula area and Jefferson County there is little to concentrate migrant raptors moving north and the study results appear to indicate that raptor migration is more dispersed in the project region.
Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at six established New York spring/fall hawk watch sites. Spring 2006 Cape Vincent Wind Project 6.7 10.3 3.3 6.0 6.5 Cape Vincent Wind Project 3.0 18.0 11.3 1.0 6.0 8.7 11.0 12.3 9.8 Ripley Hawk Hamburg Braddock Bay no survey no survey no survey no survey -Braddock Bay 25.2 53.5 38.4 95.1 no survey 101.6 156.1 no survey 78.3 Derby Hill 21.5 353.1 6.0 44.8 106.3 Derby Hill 77.9 74.1 71.7 81.1 no survey 43.0 111.5 66.4 75.1

4/14/06 4/21/06 5/02/06 5/12/06 Average
Spring 2007

31.4 35.9 17.3 5.6 22.5
Ripley Hawk

83.8 17.9 0.8 5.2 26.9
Hamburg

3/21/07 3/31/07 4/11/07 4/14/07 4/17/07 4/20/07 4/22/07 5/01/07 Average

23.8 27.9 31.0 31.4 2.0 44.2 96.0 39.3 37.0
Franklin Mt. 1 3 10 3 no survey 20 15 1 0 2 9

7.1 123.5 19.2 83.8 1.09 26.2 82.1 0.0 42.9

Fall 2006 9/23/06 9/30/06 10/07/06 10/13/06 10/20/06 10/27/06 10/30/06 11/05/06 11/07/06 11/11/06 Average

Cape Vincent 3 7 12 9 2 9 5 4 2 2 5.5

Mohonk Preserve no survey 2 no survey 11 no survey 11 16 no survey no survey no survey 10

Mount Peter 1 5 3 7 no survey 5 10 1 2 no survey 3.4

Daily count data acquired from HMANA 2006.

There are no fall hawk watch sites along the lake shoreline in central New York. The nearest fall site, Kestrel Haven located in south central New York, was lower than the Cape Vincent project area in terms of raptors counted per surveyor hour; however, count data for this site is only
WEST, Inc.

46

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

52

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

available for 2005 so a direct comparison of actual survey days could not be made. Fall hawk watch sites further south and east, such as Franklin Mountain, record similar numbers of migrant raptors which are likely taking advantage of ridgelines of the western Appalachian Mountains; however, timing is different among sites. Higher numbers of raptors per surveyor hour were seen earlier in the fall season at the Cape Vincent project area than at more southern sites. This may be a reflection of the more northern latitude of the study area or summer residents, such as red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and northern harrier, still in the area. Exposure indices are a common method for estimating risk to individual species from wind turbines. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor species had the highest exposure index due to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds, such as Canada goose and gull species (Table 2). At the Cape Vincent project area, raptors in general did not have high exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or flight heights outside of the zone of risk. Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they were commonly observed and were most often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these species have been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities are relatively small (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). Red-tailed hawk was seen less frequently but was often seen flying in the zone of risk. In contrast, northern harrier were often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but rarely observed flying into the zone of risk and is rarely recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind facilities (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002).
Breeding Bird Survey

The results of the breeding bird surveys were typical of agricultural settings in central New York. Frequently recorded species included bobolink, red-winged blackbird, and song sparrow. A few woodland species, such as wood thrush and ovenbird, were observed in small wooded areas and wetlands scattered throughout the project area. Several species of gulls and waterfowl are also present in the area due to the proximity to the shoreline. The closest breeding bird survey (Watertown; Sauer 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Five species listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the Cape Vincent project area: northern harrier, Henslow’s sparrow, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier and Henslow’s sparrow are listed as state threatened species. The remaining three species are listed as Special Concern species for New York (NYSDEC 2003). Bobolink, Henslow’s sparrow, and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region (USFWS 2002) in which the Cape Vincent project area occurs. Based on the breeding bird survey data collected in 2006, the Cape Vincent project area does not appear to have any large or unusual populations of breeding resident birds. Mortality results from two other eastern wind plants studied indicate that turbines on eastern mountain ridgelines result in between 4 and 8 bird fatalities per turbine per year (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004 and Nicholson 2002, 2003). In both these studies it was estimated that approximately two-thirds of the avian fatalities were migrants. Provided impacts at the Cape Vincent project area are similar, it is not expected that breeding resident birds are at great risk from the wind project. Due to the diversity of birds recorded in the mixed farmland habitat, impacts are expected to be spread over

WEST, Inc.

47

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

53

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

several commonly observed species (see Table 3). Currently, turbine layout is unknown; therefore, potential impacts to breeding habitat of sensitive species are difficult to predict.
Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys

To date monitoring studies of wind projects have shown a few common trends in bat mortality. Risk to bats from turbines appears to be unequal across species and seasons where increased mortality occurs during the post-breeding or fall migration season (roughly mid-July through September) among migrant bats species (see Johnson 2005). Some studies have shown apparent low risk from turbines to resident bat populations (Johnson et al. 2003) while others have shown that mortality is not correlated with AnaBat call rates (Nicholson 2002, 2003). The postconstruction mortality data collected at existing regional projects appears to be the best available predictor of mortality levels and species composition for proposed wind projects. Some studies of wind projects have recorded both AnaBat detections per night and bat mortality (Table 11). The number of bat calls per night as determined from AnaBat detectors shows a rough correlation with bat mortality but may be misleading because effort, timing of sampling, species recorded, and detector settings (equipment and locations) varied among studies.

Table 11. Wind projects in the U.S. with both AnaBat sampling data and mortality data for bat species.
Project Area Mountaineer, WV Top of Iowa, IA Foote Creek Rim, WY Buffalo Ridge, MN Buffalo Mountain, TN Study Period Aug 1-Sep 14, 2004 Sep 4-Oct 9, 2003; May 26-Sep 24, 2004 Jun 15-Sep 1, 2000-01 Jun 15-Sep 1, 2001 Apr 1-Sep 30, 2001-02 Detector nights 33 42 39 216 149 Bat activity (#/detector/night) 38.3 34.9 2.2 2.1 23.7 Mortality (bats/turbine/yr) 38.0 10.2 1.3 2.2 20.8 Reference Arnett 2005 Koford et al. 2005 Gruver 2002 Johnson et al. 2003 Fieldler 2004

The number of bats detected per night at the Cape Vincent met tower was highest in the summer. Mortality studies of bats at wind projects in the U.S. have shown a peak in mortality in August and September and generally lower mortality earlier in the summer (see Johnson 2005). While the survey efforts varied among the different studies, the studies that included AnaBat surveys and fatality surveys showed a general association between the timing of bat calls and timing of mortality, with both peak call rates and peak mortality occurring during the fall (Table 11). Bat activity expressed as the average number of calls per detector-night recorded in the study area (~0.65 to 28.7 bats per detector night) was not as high as the projects recording the highest bat mortality (Table 11) and the highest call rate (~28.7 bats per detector-night) occurred in the summer when bat mortality has typically been lower at other studies in the U.S. (Johnson 2005). The nearest monitoring study of a wind project to the Cape Vincent site was the recent study at the Maple Ridge project (Jain et al. 2007). Estimates of bat mortality at the Maple Ridge site varied from 9.2 to 14.8 fatalities per MW (15.2 to 24.5 fatalities per turbine) (Jain et al. 2007). Pre-project summer bat activity recorded at the Maple Ridge site (20.6 calls per detector-hour; Reynolds 2004) was higher than Cape Vincent (~3.2 calls per detector-hour for summer passive
WEST, Inc.

48

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

54

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

sampling). This may indicate that bat mortality at Cape Vincent would be lower than Maple Ridge, but summer bat mortality is generally lower at all wind projects studied including Maple Ridge (Jain et al 2007, Johnson 2005). No AnaBat surveys were conducted in the fall at Maple Ridge (Reynolds 2004) for comparison when bats are most at risk. Based on the AnaBat data passage rates, it is not expected that bat mortality at Cape Vincent would be greater than that reported at Maple Ridge. It is expected that bat mortality at the Cape Vincent project area will be similar to the other studies in the U.S. with the peak of mortality likely occurring near late August or early September. Spring and summer mortality levels for bats are expected to be low. Species Identification - While interspecific variation in echolocation call structure exists among the Myotis species, significant variation can exist intraspecifically among individuals and populations (Broders et al. 2004). Plasticity among calls of an individual based on a number of factors (e.g., habitat, presence of conspecifics, foraging, etc.) can further confound species identification (Barclay and Brigham 2004). Given the similarity of Myotis species, both morphologically and acoustically, these species are generally acknowledged as being among the more difficult to identify. To determine presence of a federally endangered Myotis species, Indiana bat, within the Cape Vincent project area, all call files with signatures resembling Myotis species were submitted for quantitative analysis to Eric Britzke, a bat biologist recommended by NYSDEC. A total of 208 call files were analyzed using a classification model based on discriminate function analysis (DFA) that utilizes 10 quantitative measures of individual call sequences (Britzke 2003, Britzke and Murray 2001). As is typical of AnaBat call analysis, the majority of the calls were still unable to be categorized to species using the procedure. Of those calls with adequate signatures, 25 had call parameters similar to Indiana bat. Calls with characteristics of Indiana bat were recorded at several locations within the project area from May – September. No sampled nights at any site had >2 call files with characteristics of Indiana bat. Due to the probabilistic nature and opportunity for misidentification and inaccuracy in species identification, multiple calls of a species must be detected in a single night to definitively determine species presence (Britzke et al. 2002). This is a conservative approach, but serves to ensure that variation caused by inaccurate identification is not included in the species identification results. Based on this approach, there are insufficient files to statistically support the presence of Indiana bats at any of the sites or nights examined (E. Britzke, pers. communication), however, there is some probability that Indiana bat occurs on the site. The Cape Vincent project area is within the recognized range of Indiana bat in New York. There is a known Indiana bat winter hibernaculum near Watertown and movement of females dispersing from that cave to breeding areas has been tracked by NYSDEC to areas approximately 6 miles east of the project (NYSDEC 2006). Suitable roosting habitat, characterized by trees or snags >5 inches in diameter with exfoliating bark and cracks/crevices (USFWS 1999), is present within the project area. Additionally, several riparian areas and wetlands, such as forested wetland and floodplain forests, occur within the project area and provide foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bat and other bat species. The results of the AnaBat surveys along with available information suggest that Indiana bats may occupy the site in low density. Because of the status of this species, further investigations including habitat mapping and potentially mist-netting surveys are warranted. Additional study
WEST, Inc.

49

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

55

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

scope, methods, and objectives will be discussed with the NYSDEC and USFWS and implemented in 2007 and 2008. Detailed habitat mapping for the species, with a focus on suitable trees/woodlots for maternal colonies, is recommended. The utility of mist-netting to confirm presence/absence of the species and likelihood of impacts based on relative density within the project area will be further evaluated in consultation with the agencies.
Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys

Due to the coastal nature of the project area, potential impacts to waterfowl and raptors that frequent the area during migration and winter was raised as a concern. Two species of waterbird, two species of waterfowl and six species of raptors were recorded in the project area during the winter surveys. The vast majority of the waterfowl use of the site was of Canada goose. Generally, geese were observed in large flocks foraging in agricultural fields and flying over the Cape Vincent wind power project area. In general, waterfowl fatalities, including Canada goose, at wind projects are rare (see Erickson et al 2001, 2002, Koford et al. 2005). While the proposed Cape Vincent wind power project would increase risk of collision related mortality to Canada goose, impacts are not expected to be significant due to the large numbers of this species in the region and the low occurrence of collision fatalities at wind projects. The most common raptor species recorded during the driving and fixed point surveys were rough-legged and red-tailed hawk. These raptor species have a relatively low exposure index (Table 2), although red-tailed hawk is one of the most common raptor fatalities associated with wind turbines (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). The proposed Cape Vincent wind power project would increase exposure to collision risk for rough-legged and red-tailed hawks, however impacts are not expected to be greater than other eastern wind projects where raptor mortality has been relatively low (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Nicholson 2002, 2003, Koford et al. 2005, Arnett et al. 2005).

REFERENCES
Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Arnett, E.B., W.P. Erickson, J. Kerns, and J. Horn. 2005. Relationships Between Bats and Wind Turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines. Final Report. Prepared for Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, by Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. June 2005. Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. Academic Press, London. Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, and D.A. Hill. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, New York. 257 pp. Britzke, E.R. 2003. Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in the eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, unpublished. Britzke, E.R. and K.L. Murray. 2001. A quantitative method for the selection of identifiable search-phase calls using the AnaBat system. Bat Research News 41:33-36. Britzke, E.R., K.L. Murray, J.S. Heywood, and L.W. Robbins. 2002. Acoustic identification. Pp. 220-224 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat WEST, Inc.

50

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

56

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Conservation International, Austin, TX. Broders, H.G., C.S. Findlay, and L. Zheng. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammology 85:273-281. Cooper, B.A., A.A. Stickney and T.J. Mabee. 2004a. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York, Fall 2003. Technical report prepared for Chautaqua Windpower LLC. Cooper, B.A., T.J. Mabee, A.A. Stickney and J.E. Shook. 2004b. A visual and radar study of 2003 spring bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York. Technical report prepared for Chautaqua Windpower LLC. Cooper, B. A. and T. J. Mabee. 2000. Bird Migration Near Proposed Wind Turbine Sites at Wethersfield and Harrisburg, New York. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Cooper, B. A., C. B. Johnson, and R. J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird Migration Near Existing and Proposed Wind Turbine Sites in the Eastern Lake Ontario Region. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Cooper, B.A., R.H. Day, R.J. Ritchie, and C.L. Cranor. 1991. An improved marine radar system for studies of bird migration. J. Field Ornithol. 62:367-377. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document. August 2001. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Technical Report prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, December 2002. Fiedler, J. K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, eastern Tennessee. M.S. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. Harmata, A.R., K.M. Podruzny, J.R. Zelenak and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Using marine surveillance radar to study bird movements and impact assessment. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(1):44-52. Hawk Migration Association of North America. 2005. HawkCount Monthly Summaries: Ripley Hawk Watch, Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill hawk count sites. Hawk Migration Association of North America, Raptors Online. http://www.hawkcount.org/ Hawrot, R.Y. and J. M. Hanowski. 1997. Avian assessment document: avian population analysis for wind power generation regions-012. NRRI/TR-97-23. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2006, May 31, 2007. Technical report prepared for: PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Prepared by: Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Syracuse, New York. WEST, Inc.

51

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

57

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 39 pp. Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner. 2005. Avian Mortality Associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm, Calender Year 2004. Iowa State University and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. February 2005. Mabee, T. J., and B. A. Cooper. 2000. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Fall 2000. Final Report. Prepared for Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. and Energy Northwest. Mabee, T. J., B. A. Cooper. 2001. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Spring 2001. Final Report. Prepared for Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. and Energy Northwest. Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Stateline and Vansycle Wind Energy Projects, 2000-2001. Final Report. Prepared for CH2M Hill and FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC. Mabee, T.J., J.H. Plissner, and B.A. Cooper. 2005. A Radar and Visual Study of Nocturnal Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project, New York, Fall 2004. Final Report. Prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation. Nicholson, C.P. 2002. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird and bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000September 2001. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird and bat mortality monitoring report: October 2001September 2002. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. NYSDEC. 2003. Endangered Species Program, Species Fact Sheets. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/ NYSDEC. 2006. Indiana Bat Fact Sheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. 3pp. Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313. Reynolds, D.S. 2004. Draft Report for Bat Activity and Population Survey Summer 2004. Prepared for: Flat Rock Wind Power, LLC. Lowville, New York. North East Ecological Services, Concord, New Hampshire. December 2, 2004. 16pp. Roy, R. D. and S. K. Pelletier. 2005. Fall 2004 Migration Surveys at the Proposed Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont. Prepared for Vermont Environmental Research Associates and enXco, Inc. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Young, Jr., D. P., D. Strickland, W. P Erickson, K. J. Bay, R. Canterbury and R. Mabee, B. Cooper and J. Plissner. 2003. Baseline Avian Studies Mount Storm Wind Power Project, Grant County, West Virginia, May 2003March 2004. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.

WEST, Inc.

52

Draft - November 1, 2007
g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf

58

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->