Report on Indiana Bat (Myotis soda/is) Sampling at Eleven Sites on the Proposed Location of the Saint Lawrence Wind

Farm Jefferson County, New York June, 2008

Sampling by:

Sanders Environmental Inc. 322 Borealis Way Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823 _Sanders(a)batgate.com 814-364-8776
Undertaken for:

WEST, Inc.
2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyonlli1g,82001
&

st.

Lawrence Windpower, LLC
Cape Vincent, NY

Table of Contents Section Section Section

1.0: Executive Summary
2.0: Methods

2.1: Site Selection 3.0: Results 3.1: Capture Summary
List of Tables

Table

3~1: Summer 2008 Bat Capture Summary List of Appendices

Appendix A: Appendix B.:

Mist Net Site Location Maps Completed Field Datasheets

Section 1.0: Executive Summary In June of 2008, eleven mist net sites were sampled on the proposed location of the Saint Lawrence Wind Farm. These sites were run in an effort to assess the presence or absence of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodaNs). At the eleven mist net sites (Appendix A), one hundred and eighty-five bats of four species were captured. No Indiana bats were captured during this sampling. The total consisted of 119 little brown (Myotis lucifugus), 22 northern long-eared (Myotis septentrionalis), 43 big brown (Eptesicus fuscus), and 1 red (Lasiurus borealis) bat. The capture rate averaged 16.8 bats per mist net site. No banded bats were captured at any of these sites. Section 2.0: Methods Bats were captured using mist nets; a minimum of two separate net sets were run per site. Each site was run for two nights over a period of five hours starting at dusk. Nets were checked for bats every fifteen minutes. Net set heights ranged from single high (2.6M) to triple high (7.8M). The sampling techniques followed USFWS sampling protocol as set by the Indiana bat recovery team in the agency draft Indiana bat recovery plan. 2.1: Mist Net Site Selection Mist net sites were selected by Sanders Environmental, focusing on the wooded habitat and ecotones associated with the larger forest areas. Sites were selected based on suitability for netting, nearby habitat, distribution across the project area in relation to disturbance, the overall topography/geography/habitat, and its ability to funnel or direct bats to the netting locations. Site selection was also influenced by capture data obtained during the summer of 2007. Individual net sets were placed in three basic configurations: blocking trails, roads, or flyways, over water, or jutting from the edge of a block of forest into an open area. Many mist net sites allowed for the placement of individual net sets in at least two of these basic configurations. Trail and flyway net sets were placed to give optimum coverage in the selected flyway. The ends of the nets were set back into the woods, making it difficult for bats to fly around the nets. A net of appropriate height was used to reach as high into the canopy as possible. Net sets over water were set to catch bats either coming in for a drink, using a stream as a flyway, or foraging over the water. Still pools were selected on streams and nets were strategically placed against vegetation to prevent bats from evading them. Nets over water were sometimes placed in V, N or even W shapes to obstruct bats' access to the water.
J

Section 3.0 Results On average, 16.8 bats were captured per mist net site. Capture rates in June 2008 were good, yet markedly lower than July and August 2007 capture rates. 3.1: Capture summary Capture results for the project are summarized in Table 3-1, which provides a complete breakdown of captures by species and sex. No previously banded bats were captured at any of these sites.

Table 3·1: Bat Capture Summary
Little Brown M. lucifugus Northern Myotis M. se[!tentrionali~ Big Brown E. .Fuscus

L. borealis

Red

119 47
Project Averages [!er Site
Total

I

72

loll
II

22 3

I

19

loll
II

43 18

I

25

loll
II

a
0.1 0 0

101

I

16.8
9

II

10.8 7

2.0

3.9

Site 1
Total
MaJe/F emete

I I I I I I I I I I I

3

I I I

6

loll
10:11 17

I I

6

loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll
a
a a
0 0 3

0

loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll
a
0

0

loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll

I

0

101

Site 2
Tot.1
MalefFema!e

43 19

38 24 21

I

2

0

0 0 0

101

Site 3
Total
MalelFemale

32 7 25

loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll loll

30 7

I

2

23

I

2

I

0

I

0

101

Site 4
Tolal
MalefFemale

6 2

Site 5
Tolal
Malel'F'emaJe

I

2 2

4

I

a

a
0

3

I I I I I

3

a a
0

1

a
0

a a

Ia I I
0

101

a
1

4

Site 6
Tolal
MalelFemale

I I I I

4

a
0 7 1

Ia I
6

4

4

I I I

0

101

7

6

a

0

a
6

a
10

a

a
10

0 0 0 101

Site 7
Total MalelFemaie

37 21

10 10

16
24

Site 8
Tolal MaI.IF.maIe

Ia I I
12

7

20

0

a
0

I

a

101

32 8

18 6

1

13 2

Site 9
Tolal
Maje!F~niale

I

11

a a
a
0

Ia
a

101

5

Site 10
Total
MalefFemale

I

3 2

4

a
0

I

0

a
0

2

I

2

a a

I

101

2 2

Site 11
Total Mal.IF.male

I I

a
4

2 2

I I

0

I

0

0

I I

0

Ia Ia
101

8 4

a

2 2

5 4

a

Key
Tolal MalpfFema!e

The Tables and Appendices of this report contain sensitive site location information considered to be confidential and not for public distribution; therefore, they are not included here. The full report has been reviewed by the Cape Vincent Planning Board, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful