WEST Survey Reports Appendix F -2 February 2011 Project No.

0092352

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc. 206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 459-4700

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEYS FOR THE CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Final Report
August – October, 2008

Prepared for: BP Wind Energy North America 700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor Houston, Texas Prepared by: David Tidhar, Jeff Gruver and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch, 26 North Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont

December 23, 2010

NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor wildlife resources within proposed project area to determine potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife. The following report contains results for acoustic bat surveys conducted during fall 2008. Acoustic bat surveys were conducted using four ground-based AnabatTM SD1 ultrasonic detectors from August 4 to October 15, 2008 to determine spatial and seasonal use of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CPWRA) by bats. A total of 678 bat passes were recorded on 182 detector-nights at the four stations; for a mean of 3.43±0.42 bat passes per detector-night. Calls were divided into high (> 40 kHz) and low frequency (<40 kHz), and the number of high-frequency calls recorded by far outnumbered the number of low-frequency calls recorded (86.4% compared to 13.7%, respectively). The number of calls of both high- and low-frequency bats was highest during the first week of the study, with a second peak during the first week of September before decreasing for the remainder of the study. Acoustic bat surveys were also conducted at the CVWRA during fall 2006 from August 13 to October 9. During this season Anabat II ultrasonic detectors were raised on pulleys systems to three heights on the project meteorological tower; ground level, 25 m, and 50 m above ground level. A total of 713 bat passes were recorded on 147 detector-nights at the three stations; for a mean of 4.94 bat passes per detectornight. Bat activity (bat passes per detector-night) was higher at the ground based unit (9.90) compared to either raised units (25 m=4.27; 50 m=0.65). Activity at the ground based unit in fall 2006 was much higher than at the four ground based units in 2008 (9.90 compared to 3.43 bat passes per detector-nights, respectively). Decrease in bat activity may have been related to declines in bat populations affected by white-nosed syndrome. Bat activity at the CVWRA was compared to data collected at wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S. where post-construction fatality monitoring has been conducted. Bat fatality estimates from eleven facilities in five states range from 1.40 bats/MW/study period at Stetson Mountain, ME to 39.7 bats/MW/study period at Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006); mean: 15.5 bats/MW/study period. Activity has been collected at only four of these facilities and ranged from 0.30 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-night. Fatality estimates at these four facilities ranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. In comparison, bat activity at ground based units at the CVWRA was 9.90 bat passes per detector-night in 2008 and 3.43 bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67). Based on this relationship, bat fatality rates at the CVWRA are likely to be higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) but lower than at Mountaineer, WV, Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and Mount Storm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2 bats/MW/study period).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

i

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
David Tidhar Kimberly Bay Saif Nomani JR Boehrs Jeff Gruver Lanie Garner-Warner Project Manager, Research Biologist II Data Analyst and Report Manager Biometrician GIS Technician Bat Biologist Field Technician

REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Bat surveys for the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

ii

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 1 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data ...................................................................................................... 5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. Data from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/). ....................... 2 Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 3 Table 3. Comparison of acoustic bat surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 13-October 9, 2006 and August 4-October 15, 2008................................................. 6 Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where postconstruction fatality monitoring has been conducted....................................................................... 8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Anabat™ detectors deployed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat™ detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................ 3 Figure 3. Weekly bat activity of high-frequency (HF), low-frequency (LF), and all bats within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. .................................................. 4 Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat™ station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors.............................. 5

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

iii

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

INTRODUCTION BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlife studies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife resources. The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat™; 2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from 2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007). The following report includes results from the 2008 acoustic bat surveys with a comparison with acoustic data collected in 2006 (Young et al. 2007). Study Area The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). 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 twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the study area are 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 CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered deciduous woodlots. METHODS Bat activity was determined using four Anabat™ SD1 bat detectors (Titley Scientific™, Brisbane, Australia) which were deployed to monitor nightly activity continually during the study period; August 4October 15, 2008 (Figure 1). The CVA station was located at the project meteorological tower, which was sampled during the spring-fall 2006 acoustic bat study (Young et al 2007). Acoustic bat detectors are a recommended method to index and compare habitat use by bats, and the use of acoustic detectors is a primary bat risk assessment tool for baseline wind development surveys (Arnett 2007; Kunz et al. 2007a).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

1

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

Figure 1. Location of Anabat™ detectors deployed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

1

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

Anabat™ detectors use a broadband high-frequency microphone to detect echolocation calls of foraging and commuting bats. Each series of echolocation calls recorded is saved to a file on a high-capacity compact flash card, which is subsequently transferred onto a computer for analysis. Other ultrasonic sounds, such as those made by insects, raindrops hitting vegetation, or other sources may be recorded; therefore, in order to reduce this type of interference, a sensitivity level of six was used on the detectors. The echolocation sounds are then translated into frequencies audible to humans by dividing the frequencies by a predetermined ratio; a division ratio of 16 was used in this study. The detection range of an Anabat™ detector depends on a number of factors, such as echolocation call characteristics, microphone sensitivity, habitat type, orientation of the bat to the microphone, and atmospheric conditions (Limpens and McCracken 2004). Generally, however, the range is less than 30 m (98 ft) due to atmospheric absorption of echolocation pulses (Fenton 1991). To ensure similar detection ranges among units, the microphone sensitivity of the detectors were calibrated using a BatChirp ultrasonic emitter (Tony Messina, Las Vegas, NV) as described in Larson and Hayes (2000). Each Anabat™ unit was placed inside a plastic weatherproof container with a piece of PVC tubing extending on one side to house the microphone. The PVC tubing was curved skyward at 45° to ensure maximum coverage and contained drain holes to minimize the potential for water damage due to rain. The container was positioned on top of a plastic crate approximately 0.30 m high, and held in place using bungee cords, tent pegs, and large rocks. Vegetation that could grow up and impede the microphone was cleared from the surrounding area to reduce interference. All units were programmed to turn on each night approximately one half-hour before sunset and turn off approximately one half-hour after sunrise. Statistical Analysis The unit of activity used for analysis was the number of bat passes per detector night (Hayes 1997). A bat pass is defined as a continuous series of two or more call notes produced by an individual bat with no pauses of more than one second between call notes (White and Gehrt 2001, Gannon et al. 2003). In this report, the terms bat pass and bat call are used interchangeably. Data files were analyzed using Analook W v3.5r (©2008, Chris Corben) and Analook DOS v4.9j (©2004, Chris Corben) software. The Analook software displays bat calls (and extraneous noise) as a series of pixels on a time over frequency display. Analook provides a framework to build filters that constrain the values that certain call parameters can take. Pixels that fall outside of the specified range of the filter parameters are ignored (e.g. pixels not following a smooth line, pixels below or above a specified frequency). In addition, a series of filters developed by WEST were used to quickly and effectively separate out files that contained only noise, and to sort remaining files containing bat calls into frequency groups. Filtered files were visually examined by an analyst to ensure accuracy. The total number of bat calls was then corrected for effort by dividing by the number of detector-nights. Depending on the species of bats that are expected to occur in an area, Anabat™ units can have limited use in identifying the bat species that produced the recorded call. Some bat species produce a call that has a very distinctive sonogram (shape on a frequency-time graph); however there is much overlap between some species. For this reason, a conservative approach to species identification was used during the analysis of seasonal bat use within the proposed site. Calls were divided into two groups based on the minimum frequency of the call: (1) high-frequency (HF): > 30 kHz and (2) low-frequency (LF): < 30 kHz. A list of bat species expected to occur within the CVWRA was compiled based on call frequency to

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

1

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report provide a reference to which species could have produced the calls in each category (Table 1). Since individual bats cannot be differentiated by their calls, the bat pass data represents relative levels of bat activity (or relative abundance) rather than the total number of individuals present. Thus, the mean of bat passes per detector-night determined from the Anabat™ data provides an index of bat activity within the CVWRA which can then be compared to similar data from existing wind-energy facilities. Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. Data from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/). Northern long-eared myotis2 Eastern small footed myotis2 Indiana bat2,3 Tri-colored bat2 Eastern red bat1,2 Little brown bat2 Big brown bat2 Silver-haired bat1,2 Hoary bat1,2 Myotis septentrionalis Myotis leibii Myotis sodalist Perimyotis subflavus Lasiurus borealis Myotis lucifugus Eptesicus fuscus Lasionycteris noctivagans Lasiurus cinereus

High-frequency (> 30 kHz)

Low-frequency (< 30 kHz)
1

=long-distance migrant; 2=known casualty at wind-energy facilities; 3=federally-endangered.

Bat use for this report is defined as the total number of bat passes per detector night, and was used as an index representing bat activity within the project area. Bat pass data represents levels of bat activity rather than the number of individuals present because individuals cannot be differentiated by their calls. To assess potential for bat mortality, the mean number of bat passes per detector night (averaged across monitoring stations) was compared to existing data from wind-energy facilities in eastern North America where both bat activity and mortality levels have been measured.
RESULTS Of the 288 detector-nights available from the four units over the duration of the study period (August 4October 15), units were operating for a total of 182 detector-nights (63.2%; Figure 2). Two detectors were not operating from August 5-26 (CVA and CVB), three units were not working between August 27September 14 (CVA, CVB, and CVD), and one unit was not operating from September 15-21 (CVD).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

2

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat™ detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. A total of 678 bat passes were recorded at the four detectors on 182 detector-nights (Table 2). The total number of bat passes recorded at each station ranged from 72 at CVB to 340 at CVC (mean: 169.5); and the number of detector nights ranged from 31 at CVA and CVB to 73 at CVC. High-frequency bat passes accounted for 86.4% of calls recorded; and at least 79.6% of calls recorded at each station. When adjusted for number of detector-nights operating, bat activity ranged from 2.32 to 4.66 across stations and mean activity within the CVWRA was 3.43±0.42 bat passes per detector-night. Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Anabat™ Number of HF Number of LF Total Bat DetectorBat Passes/ Station Bat Passes Bat Passes Passes Nights Detector-Night CVA 89 10 99 31 3.19±0.70 CVB 64 8 72 31 2.32±0.46 CVC 300 40 340 73 4.66±0.46 CVD 133 34 167 47 3.55±0.77 Total 586 92 678 182 3.43±0.42
HF=high-frequency (>30 kHz); LF=low-frequency (<30 kHz).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

3

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

Weekly bat activity was highest in the first week of the study period (9.43 bat passes per detector-night; Figure 3 and Appendix A); decreasing to a mean of 3.76 (range: 2.93-4.56) over the next three weeks. A second peak of activity occurred in the first week of September (7.57 bat passes per detector-night); decreasing to a mean of 4.76 (range: 3.29-5.46) over the next three weeks (September 8-28) before falling to a mean of 0.88 (range: 0.50-1.29) over the final three weeks of the study period (September 29-October 15). When considering frequency group, the temporal activity pattern of high-frequency bats mirrored that of all bats (likely due to 86.4% of calls being from high-frequency bats; Figure 3 and Appendix A). Activity by low frequency bats was also highest in the first week of the study (1.57 bat passes per detector-night). Activity was then relatively constant to the end of September (range: 0.14-1.07; mean: 0.61) before falling to an average of 0.13 bat passes per detector-night (range: 0-0.25) for the remainder of the study.

Figure 3. Weekly bat activity of high-frequency (HF), low-frequency (LF), and all bats within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

4

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report The number of detector-nights operating differed between stations (Table 2). When this was taken into account, activity ranged from 2.32 bat passes per detector-night at CVB to 4.66 at CVC (Figure 4). Again, high-frequency activity mirrored that of all bats; but low-frequency activity was highest at CVD (0.72 bat passes per detector-night).

Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat™ station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors.

DISCUSSION Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data Acoustic bat data were collected at the CVWRA during fall 2006 from August 13–October 9, 2006 using three Anabat II acoustic detectors (Young et al 2007). All detectors were located at the project meteorological tower (CVA; Figure 1); one ground based and two raised to 25 m and 50 m above ground level using pulley systems attached to the tower guy wires. A total of 713 bat passes were recorded on 147 detector-nights (Table 3). Two-thirds of calls were recorded at the ground based unit, with a further 28.8% recorded at the unit placed at 25 m. Less than 5% of calls (n=33) were recorded at 50 m. When

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

5

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report accounting for number of detector-nights, bat activity was 9.90 at the ground based unit, 4.27 at the 25 m unit, and 0.65 bat passes per detector-night at the 50 m unit. Averaged across stations bat activity was 4.94 bat passes per detector-night. Table 3. Summary of bat activity recorded at ground and elevated stations between August 13October 9, 2006 at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. Station Total Bat Passes Detector- Nights Bat Passes/ Detector-Night Ground 475 48 9.90 25 m 205 48 4.27 50 m 33 51 0.65 Total 713 147 4.94 Bat activity recorded at the ground based detector in 2006 was almost three times higher than was recorded at the CVWRA in 2008 at station CVA and for all stations combined. This difference may be due in part to the effect of white nose syndrome on cave-dwelling bats in the eastern U.S. White nose syndrome was first discovered at Howe Cave, near Albany, New York in 2006 and has since spread across the northeast and mid-Atlantic states and as far west as Oklahoma and Missouri. The disease has caused a decrease of between 30-99% (mean 73%) in some hibernacula counts within two years; has affected at least seven bat species, including the federally-endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); and has the potential to cause the regional extinction of the little brown bat (M. lucifugus; Frick et al. 2010). Assessing whether bat composition may have changed between 2006 and 2008 based on acoustic data is confounded by the evolution in analysis methods between study years. In 2006 bat calls were classified to species following methods developed by Britzke et al (2001, 2002 and 2003). In 2008, calls were classified using a more conservative method into frequency groups. Bat calls classified to species in 2006 accounted for only 36 % of recorded bat calls during the fall (August 13 – October 9, 2006) sampling period, whereas 100 % of bat calls were classified to frequency group in fall 2008.

Bat Activity and Fatality Patterns Assessing the potential impacts of the CVWRA on bats is complicated because the proximate and ultimate causes of bat mortality at turbines are poorly understood (Kunz et al. 2007b, Baerwald et al. 2008, Cryan and Barclay 2009) and because monitoring elusive, night-flying animals is inherently difficult (O’Shea et al. 2003). Although installed capacity of wind development has increased rapidly in recent years, the availability of well-designed studies from existing projects lags development of proposed projects (Kunz et al. 2007b). However, to date, monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities suggest that: 1. bat mortality shows a rough correlation with bat activity (Kunz et al. 2007b); 2. the majority of fatalities appear to occur during the post-breeding or fall migration season (roughly August and September); 3. long-distance migratory tree-roosting species (e.g. eastern red [Lasiurus borealis], hoary [L. cinereus], and silver-haired bats [Lasionycteris noctivagans) comprise almost 75% of casualties; and

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

6

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report 4. the highest reported fatalities occur at wind-energy facilities located along forested ridge tops in the eastern U.S. Although recent studies in agricultural regions of Iowa and Alberta, Canada, also report relatively high fatalities. Based on these patterns, current guidance for estimating potential impacts of proposed wind-energy facilities involves evaluating bat acoustic data to determine seasonal variation in activity levels and species composition with a comparison with regional patterns (Kunz et al. 2007b). There are few instances where both bat activity and bat mortality have been recorded at wind-energy facilities and where results are comparable. For this reason, a definitive relationship between preconstruction bat activity and post-construction bat mortality has not been established empirically. From the data available, there appears to be a positive correlation between the two variables and there is the expectation amongst the scientific and resource management communities that when more data become available this relationship will hold (Kunz et al. 2007a). Datasets such as that provided by the current study will further contribute to our understanding of this relationship. Table 4 summarizes the results of publically available activity and fatality data from wind-energy facilities in the eastern US. To our knowledge, activity data were collected using ground-based Anabat™ detectors such as those used in the current study. Fatality estimates from post-construction monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S. range from 1.40 to 39.7 bats/MW/year. Bat activity at ground based units at the CVWRA was 9.90 bat passes per detector-night in 2008 and 3.43 bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67); values that are lower than at three of the four facilities where activity has been recorded. Activity at these three facilities ranged from 23.7 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-night (activity at the fourth was 0.30). Fatality estimates at these four facilities ranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. Based on the relationship between activity and mortality at these sites, bat fatality rates at the CVWRA are likely to be higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) but lower than at Mountaineer, WV, Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and Mount Storm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2 bats/MW/study period).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

7

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where post-construction fatality monitoring has been conducted.
Wind-Energy Facility Cape Vincent 2008 Cape Vincent 2006 Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) Mountaineer, WV Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002) Meyersdale, PA Casselman, PA Maple Ridge, NY (2006) Noble Bliss, NY Mount Storm, WV (2008) Maple Ridge, NY (2007) Noble Ellenburg, NY Noble Clinton, NY Mars Hill, ME (2007) Stetson Mountain, ME
1

Bat Activity1 3.43 9.90 38.3 23.7

Fatality Estimate2

Number of Turbines

Total MW

35.2

0.30

39.7 31.7 31.5 18.0 15.7 15.0 14.7 12.1 9.42 5.45 3.63 2.91 1.40

18 44 3 20 23 120 67 82 195 54 67 28 38

29.0 66.0 2.00 30.0 34.5 198 100 164 321.75 80.0 100.5 42.0 57.0

bat passes per detector-night; 2bats/MW/year.

Data from the following sources: Activity Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) Mountaineer, WV Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2003) Meyersdale, PA Casselman, PA Maple Ridge, NY (2006) Noble Bliss, NY Mount Storm, WV (2008) Maple Ridge, NY (2007) Noble Ellensburg, NY Noble Clinton, NY Mars Hill, ME (2007) Kewaunee County, WI Stetson Mountain, ME Arnett et al. 2005 Fiedler 2004 Fatality Estimate Fiedler et al. 2007 Kerns and Kerlinger 2004 Nicholson 2005 Arnett et al. 2005 Arnett et al. 2009 Jain et al. 2007 Jain et. al 2009c Young et al. 2009 Jain et al. 2008 Jain et al. 2009a Jain et al. 2009b Stantec 2008 Howe et al. 2002 Stantec 2009

Young et al. 2009

Stantec 2009

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. 2007. Report from BWEC on Collaborative Work & Plans. Presentation at the NWCC Wildlife Workgroup Meeting, Boulder Colorado. November 14th, 2007. Conservation International. 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. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

8

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report Arnett, E.B., M.R. Schirmacher, M.M.P. Huso, and J.P. Hayes. 2009. Patterns of Bat Fatality at the Casselman Wind Project in South-Central Pennsylvania. Annual Report Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. June 2009. Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D'Amours, B.J. Klug, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16): R695-R696. 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 searchphase 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. 220224 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. Cryan, P.M. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Fatalities of bats at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1330-1340. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 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. Fenton, M.B. 1991. Seeing in the Dark. BATS (Bat Conservation International) 9(2): 9-13. Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee. M.S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. August, 2004. Fiedler, J.K., T.H. Henry, C.P. Nicholson, and R.D. Tankersley. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. Frick, W.F, J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and T.H. Kunz. 2010. An Emerging Disease Causes Regional Population Collapse of a Common North American Bat Species. Science 329:679-682. Gannon, W.L., R.E. Sherwin, and S. Haymond. 2003. On the Importance of Articulating Assumptions When Conducting Acoustic Studies of Habitat Use by Bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 45-61. Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas. Hayes, J.P. 1997. Temporal Variation in Activity of Bats and the Design of Echolocation-Monitoring Studies. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 514-524. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006. Final Report. Prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2008. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2007. Final report prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

9

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009a. Annual Report for the Noble Ellensburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009b. Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009c. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009. Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collisions at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Facility, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. February 14, 2004. Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC., for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 39 pp. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007a. Assessing Impacts of Wind-energy Development on Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71:2449-2486. Kunz, T. H., E.B Arnett, W P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Questions, Research Needs, and Hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:315324. Larson D.J. and J.P. Hayes 2000. Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II detectors and a method of calibration. Acta Chiropterologica 2:209-213. Limpens, H.J.G.A. and G.F. McCracken. 2004. Choosing a Bat Detector: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. In: Bat Echolocation Research: Tools, Techniques, and Analysis. Brigham, R.M., E.K.V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H.J.G.A. Limpens, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. Pp. 28-37. Nicholson, C.P., J. R.D. Tankersley, J.K. Fiedler, and N.S. Nicholas. 2005. Assessment and Prediction of Bird and Bat Mortality at Wind Energy Facilities in the Southeastern United States. Final Report. Tennesee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. O'Shea, T.J., M.A. Bogan, and L.E. Ellison. 2003. Monitoring Trends in Bat Populations of the United States and Territories: Status of the Science and Recommendations for the Future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:16-29. Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2008. 2007 Spring, Summer, and Fall Post-Construction Bird and Bat Mortality Study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC, Cumberland, Maine, by Stantec Consulting, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham, Maine. January, 2008. Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2009. Post-Construction Monitoring at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine – Year 2 2008. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC., Portland, Maine, by Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine. January, 2009. White, E.P. and S.D. Gehrt. 2001. Effects of Recording Media on Echolocation Data from Broadband Bat Detectors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:974-978.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

10

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009. Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July - October 2008. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, Texas, by Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc. for BP Alternative Energy North America.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

11

December 23, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report APPENDIX A: Weekly bat activity and percent contribution to total activity for high-frequency, low-frequency, and all bats within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. High-Frequency Low-frequency All Bat Cumulative Week Composition Activity % Activity % Activity % 08/04/08 to 08/10/08 7.86 20.2 1.57 25.3 9.43 20.9 20.9 08/11/08 to 08/17/08 3.21 8.24 0.57 9.18 3.79 8.38 29.2 08/18/08 to 08/24/08 1.86 4.77 1.07 17.2 2.93 6.48 35.7 08/25/08 to 08/31/08 3.89 9.98 0.67 10.8 4.56 10.1 45.8 09/01/08 to 09/07/08 6.86 17.6 0.71 11.4 7.57 16.8 62.6 09/08/08 to 09/14/08 3.14 8.06 0.14 2.25 3.29 7.28 69.8 09/15/08 to 09/21/08 5.14 13.2 0.38 6.12 5.52 12.2 82.1 09/22/08 to 09/28/08 4.75 12.2 0.71 11.4 5.46 12.1 94.2 09/29/08 to 10/05/08 1.29 3.31 0 0 1.29 2.85 97.0 10/06/08 to 10/12/08 0.71 1.82 0.14 2.25 0.86 1.90 98.9 10/13/08 to 10/15/08 0.25 0.64 0.25 4.03 0.50 1.11 100

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

12

December 23, 2010

RAPTOR MIGRATION SURVEYS FOR THE CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Prepared for: BP Wind Energy North America 700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor Houston, Texas Prepared by: David Tidhar, Wendy L. Tidhar PhD, and Kimberly Bay Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch, 26 North Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont

NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility, the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor wildlife resources in the proposed project area to determine potential impacts of project construction and operations on wildlife. The following report contains a comparative analysis of spring raptor migration studies conducted at the site in 2006, 2007, and 2008; as well as comparisons with data collected at established Hawk Watch sites and other proposed wind-energy facilities in the area. The objective of raptor migration surveys is to determine seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA by raptors and other birds. Diurnal point counts were conducted during the spring raptor migration period (March through May) in 2006, 2007, and 2008. In 2008, surveys were conducted at three survey points within the project area (the same points that were surveyed in 2006 and 2007). In addition, two reference points were established outside of the project area for comparison. A total of 21 surveys were conducted on seven days within the CVWRA, during which a 1,039 birds were recorded. Fourteen surveys were conducted at the reference points during which 5,273 birds were recorded (86.6% of which were Canada geese). A total of 137 raptors were recorded within the project area compared to 99 at reference points; when adjusted for number of surveys mean use in the two areas was very similar (3.38 compared to 3.36 raptors/survey, respectively). Similar raptor species were recorded in the project and reference areas. The only differences were that a golden eagle and a peregrine falcon were recorded in the project area and not at the reference points, and a bald eagle was recorded at the reference points and not within the project area. No federally-listed species were observed within CVWRA during the three years of study. Four statelisted species were recorded: one golden eagle (state-endangered; 2008), one peregrine falcon (stateendangered; 2008), one common tern (state-threatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened; all years). In addition, five state species of special concern were recorded: two Cooper’s hawks (2007), four sharp-shinned hawks (2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (2007), two red-shouldered hawks (2008), and five osprey (all years). One bald eagle (state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (statethreatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered hawks, and two osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area in 2008. Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed windenergy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. When data were adjusted for differences in number of survey hours, slightly more raptors were observed at the Clayton Wind Resource Area (12.1 raptors/observer hr) and the St Lawrence Wind Resource Area (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared to the CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

i

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
David Tidhar Wendy L. Tidhar, PhD Kimberly Bay Saif Nomani Christina Roderick Jared Studyvin JR Boehrs Zapata Courage Andrea Palochak Project Manager, Research Biologist II Research Biologist II Data Analyst and Report Manager Statistician Statistician Statistician GIS Technician Report Compiler Technical Editor

REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Raptor Migration Surveys for the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

ii

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Spring Raptor Migration Surveys ............................................................................................................. 6 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................ 7 Data Compilation and Storage .............................................................................................................. 7 Species Diversity and Richness ........................................................................................................ 9 Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ..................................................... 9 Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index............................................................................ 9 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence............................................................ 13 Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index.................................................................................. 18 Sensitive species ..................................................................................................................................... 19 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 20 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ........................................................................................................ 11 Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ....................................................... 14 Table 3. Flight height characteristics of bird types and raptor sub-types observed during surveys at raptor migration points within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008. .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008....... 19 Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008. ........................................... 22 Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within Jefferson County, New York State. ............................................................................................... 23

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

iii

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. .................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Location of raptor migration survey points: project area (1-3) and reference points (4-5) for the CVWRA. .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3a. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 3b. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg, Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory................................ 21

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

iv

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

INTRODUCTION BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlife studies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife resources. The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat™; 2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from 2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007). The following report includes results from the 2008 spring raptor migration surveys, along with a comparison of data from 2006 and 2007; results from 2006 and 2007 surveys are repeated from Young et al 2007 herein to facilitate inter-year data analysis. STUDY AREA The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York. The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). 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 twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the study area are 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 CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered deciduous woodlots.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

5

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

METHODS Spring Raptor Migration Surveys The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA by birds, particularly raptors (defined here as kites, accipiters, buteos, harriers, eagles, falcons, vultures, and owls). Fixed-point surveys (variable circular plots) were conducted using methods described by Reynolds et al. (1980). Three fixed survey points were established within the proposed project area in 2006 to provide good visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area (Figure 2). Point locations were designed to minimize the potential for double-counting individual birds. For the 2008 spring raptor migration study two reference points (labeled 4 and 5) were established outside the project area for a comparison of bird use. 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 east-west layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

6

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report vegetation and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360° around the point, and so that each point was surveying a 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.

Statistical Analysis Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures were implemented at all stages of the studies, including in the field, during data entry and analysis, and report writing. Following field surveys, field technicians were responsible for inspecting data forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. A sample of records from an electronic database was compared to the data forms and any errors detected were corrected. Irregular codes or data suspected as questionable were discussed with the field technician and project manager. Errors, omissions, or problems identified in later stages of analysis were traced back to the raw data forms, and appropriate changes in all steps were made. Data Compilation and Storage A Microsoft® ACCESS database was developed to store, organize, and retrieve survey data. Data were keyed into the electronic database using a pre-defined format to facilitate subsequent QA/QC and data analysis. All data forms, field notebooks, and electronic data files were retained for reference.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

7

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Figure 2. Location of raptor migration survey points: project area (1-3) and reference points (4-5) for the CVWRA.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

8

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Species Diversity and Richness Species diversity was presented as the total number of unique species observed. Species lists with the number of observations and the number of groups were generated by season. This list included all observations of birds detected, regardless of their distance from the field technician. Species richness was calculated as the mean number of species recorded per plot per survey time (i.e., number of species/plot/hour). Only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field technician were used to calculate species richness. Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence To calculate standardized bird use estimates, only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field technician were used. Estimates of mean bird use (i.e., number of birds/plot/hour survey) were used for comparisons between bird type, season, and use at other wind-energy facilities. The frequency of occurrence was calculated as the percentage of surveys in which a particular bird type or species was observed. Percent composition was calculated as the proportion of the overall mean use (birds/plot/hour survey) for a particular bird type or species. Frequency of occurrence and percent composition provide relative estimates of species exposure to a proposed wind-energy facility. For example, a given species may have a high use estimate, however this may be based on just a few observations of large flocks. In this case, the frequency of occurrence would indicate that its observations occurred only during a few surveys; therefore potentially making the species less likely to be affected by the wind-energy facility. Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index Observations of large birds detected within 800 m and small birds detected within 100 m of the field technician were used to calculate flight height and behavior. To calculate the potential risk of collision to a particular species, flight height at first observation was used to estimate the percentage of birds flying within the zone of risk (ZOR) for a wind turbine with blades of 25-125 m above ground level (AGL). A relative index of collision exposure (R) was calculated for bird species observed flying during the fixed-point bird use surveys using the following formula: R = A*Pf*Pt Where A equals mean relative use for species i (large bird observations within 800 m, small birds within 100 m of the field technician) averaged across all surveys, Pf equals the proportion of all observations of species i where activity was recorded as flying (an index to the approximate percentage of time species i spends flying during the daylight period), and Pt equals the proportion of all initial flight height observations of species i within the likely ZOR (25-125 m). RESULTS Diurnal point count surveys were conducted during the spring raptor migration period in 2006, 2007, and 2008. In 2006, a total of 12 surveys were conducted during which 777 individual birds recorded, including 79 raptors representing eight species (Table 1). In 2007, a total of 21 surveys were conducted,

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

9

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report during which 1,851 birds were recorded including 205 raptors representing eight species. In 2008, a total of 21 surveys were conducted at the three points within the project area, during which 1,039 birds were recorded including 137 raptors representing 11 species. In addition, 14 surveys were conducted at the two reference points established in 2008, during which 5,273 birds were recorded, of which 4.569 (86.6%) were Canada geese (Branta canadensis). A total of 99 raptors were recorded during surveys at the reference points, representing twelve species. Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was the raptor species with the highest number of observations within the project area in all three years; representing 36.7% of raptors recorded in 2006, 54.1% in 2007, and 48.2% in 2008. This was also true for the reference points (52.5%). Buteos tended to be the second highest sub-group observed, primarily red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicencis) which accounted for 13.9% of raptors observed in 2006, 12.7% in 2007, and 13.9% in 2008. A slightly higher proportion of red-tailed hawks were observed within the reference areas (17.2%). The number of northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) recorded within the project area varied across years. In 2006, only seven northern harriers were recorded, compared to 37 in 2007 and 20 in 2008.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

10

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2006 Type/Species Waterbirds Bonaparte's gull Caspian tern b Common tern Double-crested cormorant Great blue heron Herring gull Ring-billed gull Sandhill crane Unidentified gull Waterfowl American black duck Cackling goose Canada goose Bufflehead Common merganser Hooded merganser Mallard Ring-necked duck Snow goose Unidentified duck Unidentified goldeneye Raptors Accipiters c Cooper’s hawk c Northern goshawk c Sharp-shinned hawk Unidentified accipiter Buteos Broad-winged hawk c Red-shouldered hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unidentified buteo Scientific Name Obs 221 0 0 0 0 8 6 57 0 150 457 0 0 411 0 0 0 41 0 0 5 0 79 3 0 0 3 0 22 8 0 11 2 1 Grps 22 0 0 0 0 7 2 6 0 7 25 0 0 19 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 58 3 0 0 3 0 19 6 0 10 2 1 Obs 58 3 2 1 1 26 0 21 0 4 1,365 0 0 1,305 3 0 5 36 12 0 4 0 205 3 2 1 0 0 36 0 0 26 5 5 2007 Grps 43 1 1 1 1 23 0 15 0 1 48 0 0 28 1 0 2 15 1 0 1 0 128 2 1 1 0 0 29 0 0 22 4 3 2008 Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2) Obs Grps Obs Grps 101 70 42 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 43 4 3 8 1 0 0 40 24 38 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 652 22 5,079 47 4 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 619 14 4,569 39 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 154 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 347 3 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 137 96 99 72 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 30 22 24 20 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 19 14 17 14 5 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 Overall Obs 422 3 3 1 1 89 14 156 1 154 7,553 4 5 6,904 3 13 5 238 18 347 9 7 517 11 2 1 7 1 109 12 6 70 14 7 Grps 142 1 2 1 1 76 3 49 1 8 142 1 1 100 1 3 2 26 2 3 2 1 354 10 1 1 7 1 90 8 5 60 12 5

Larus Philadelphia Sterna caspia Sterna hirundo Phalacrocorax auritus Ardea herodias Larus argentatus Larus delawarensis Grus canadensis

Anas rubripes Branta hutchinsii Branta canadensis Bucephala albeola Mergus merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Anas platyrhynchos Aythya collaris Chen caerulescens

Accipiter cooperii Accipiter gentilis Accipter striatus

Buteo platypterus Buteo lineatus Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

11

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2006 Type/Species Eagles b Bald eagle a Golden eagle Falcons American kestrel Peregrine falcon Other Raptors b Northern harrier c Osprey Unidentified raptor Turkey vulture Other Birds American crow Belted kingfisher Common raven European starling Killdeer Pileated woodpecker Ring-necked pheasant Rose-breasted grosbeak b Upland sandpiper Wild turkey Wilson’s snipe Total
a

2007 Grps 0 0 0 5 5 0 31 7 1 4 19 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 Obs 0 0 0 17 17 0 149 37 1 0 111 218 68 0 5 110 5 0 11 7 0 17 0 1,851 Grps 0 0 0 14 14 0 83 31 1 0 51 56 35 0 3 3 1 0 10 1 0 4 0 276

Scientific Name

Obs 0 0 0 13 13 0 41 7 1 4 29 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 777

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Aquila chrysaetos Falco sparverius Falco peregrinus Circus cyaneus Pandion haliaetus Cathartes aura Corvus brachyrhynchos Ceryle alcyon Corvus corax Sturnus vulgaris Charadrius vociferus Dryocopus pileatus Phasianus colchicus Pheucticus ludovicianus Bartramia longicauda Meleagris gallopavo Gallinago delicata

2008 Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2) Obs Grps Obs Grps 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 15 13 8 6 14 12 8 6 1 1 0 0 89 58 63 42 20 19 9 9 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 66 36 52 31 149 58 53 35 72 38 48 30 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 2 2 0 0 1 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 56 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1,039 246 5,273 161

Overall Obs 2 1 1 53 52 1 342 73 7 4 258 445 208 1 5 110 21 1 17 7 1 73 1 8,937 Grps 2 1 1 38 37 1 214 66 7 4 137 158 111 1 3 3 10 1 14 1 1 12 1 796

State-Endangered; bState-Threatened; cState Species of Special Concern.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

12

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence Mean use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence are shown for 2008 surveys within the project area and at reference points (Table 2; Figures 3a and 3b). Mean use by Waterfowl was much higher at reference points compared to points within the project area (363 compared to 31.1 birds/hour survey, respectively). This difference was primarily due to use by Canada geese that accounted for 86.7% of overall use at the two reference points. All other bird type use was similar between the project area and reference points, although Upland Gamebirds were only recorded within the project area (2.95 birds/hour/survey). Raptor use (not including vultures) was 3.38 birds/hour/survey in the project area compared to 3.36 at the reference points. Raptors accounted for 6.83% of overall use within the project area but only 0.89% at the reference points (this was due to the large percent of use attributable to Canada geese). Raptors were observed in over 92% of surveys at all points in 2008. Use by raptor-subtypes were similar between the project area and reference points; although northern harrier use and falcon use were slightly higher in the project area (0.95 compared to 0.64 birds/hour survey and 0.71 compared to 0.57 birds/hour survey, respectively). Mean use was also compared across years at the three survey points within the project area (Table 2). Waterbird use was highest in 2006 (18.4 birds/hour survey), but similar in 2007 and 2008 (3.18 and 4.81, respectively). This was primarily due to higher use by ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) in 2006. In 2007, use by Waterfowl was higher than in 2006 and 2008 (73.1 compared to 38.1 and 31.1, respectively). Again, this was primarily due to use by one species – Canada goose. No Upland Gamebirds were recorded in 2006, though there was some use in 2007 and 2008 by ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) and wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) made up the highest Passerine use in 2006 and 2008, while in 2007 there was higher use by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Raptor use was similar in all three years, though slightly lower in 2008 compared to 2006 and 2007. Raptor use was 4.16 birds/hour survey in 2006, 4.67 in 2007, and 3.38 in 2008. Use by raptor sub-type was similar across years although use accipiters, buteos, and eagles were slightly higher in 2006, use by northern harrier was slightly higher in 2007, and use by osprey was slightly higher in 2008. Vulture use was higher in 2007 compared to other years (5.50 birds/hour survey compared to 2.42 in 2006 and 3.14 in 2008.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

13

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2008 Type/Species Waterbirds Bonaparte's gull Caspian tern b Common tern Double-crested cormorant great blue heron herring gull ring-billed gull sandhill crane Unidentified gull Waterfowl American black duck Bufflehead cackling goose Canada goose common merganser Hooded merganser mallard ring-necked duck snow goose Unidentified duck unidentified goldeneye Shorebirds killdeer b upland sandpiper Wilson's snipe Raptors Accipiters c Cooper’s hawk c Northern goshawk c sharp-shinned hawk unidentified accipiter Buteos broad-winged hawk c red-shouldered hawk red-tailed hawk rough-legged hawk unidentified buteo Northern Harrier b northern harrier Eagles 2006 Use 18.4 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.50 4.75 0 12.5 38.1 0 0 0 34.3 0 0 3.42 0 0 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 4.16 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 1.84 0.67 0 0.92 0.17 0.08 0.58 0.58 1.08 2007 Use 3.18 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.06 1.39 0 1.17 0 0.22 73.1 0 0.17 0 69.7 0 0.28 2 0.67 0 0.22 0 0.28 0.28 0 0 4.67 0.17 0.11 0.06 0 0 1.56 0 0 1.28 0.28 0 1.94 1.94 0.94 Project Area (n=3) Use 4.81 0 0.05 0 0 2.43 0.38 1.90 0.05 0 31.1 0 0 0 29.5 0.62 0 0.33 0.29 0 0 0.33 0.67 0.67 0 0 3.38 0.10 0 0 0.05 0.05 1.43 0.14 0.10 0.90 0.24 0.05 0.95 0.95 0.05 PC 9.72 0 0.10 0 0 4.91 0.77 3.85 0.10 0 62.8 0 0 0 59.6 1.25 0 0.67 0.58 0 0 0.67 1.35 1.35 0 0 6.83 0.19 0 0 0.10 0.10 2.89 0.29 0.19 1.83 0.48 0.10 1.92 1.92 0.10 FO 76.2 0 4.76 0 0 57.1 4.76 66.7 4.76 0 57.1 0 0 0 38.1 14.3 0 14.3 4.76 0 0 4.76 33.3 33.3 0 0 95.2 9.52 0 0 4.76 4.76 52.4 4.76 9.52 47.6 19.1 4.76 66.7 66.7 4.76 Use 3.00 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 2.71 0 0 363 0.29 0 0.36 326 0 0 11.0 0 24.8 0 0 0.29 0.14 0.07 0.07 3.36 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 1.71 0.07 0.29 1.21 0.14 0 0.64 0.64 0.07 Ref Points (n=2) PC 0.80 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.72 0 0 96.3 0.08 0 0.09 86.7 0 0 2.92 0 6.58 0 0 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0.46 0.02 0.08 0.32 0.04 0 0.17 0.17 0.02 FO 28.6 0 0 0 0 14.3 0 21.4 0 0 57.1 7.14 0 7.14 57.1 0 0 21.4 0 14.3 0 0 21.4 14.3 7.14 7.14 92.9 21.4 0 0 21.4 0 71.4 7.14 14.3 64.3 14.3 0 50.00 50.00 7.14

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

14

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2008 Type/Species
b

2006 Use 1.08 0 0 0 0 0.41 0.08 0.33 2.42 2.42 0 0 0 1.67 1.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.8
b c

2007 Use 0.94 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.06 0 5.50 5.50 1.55 0.61 0.94 10.6 3.78 0.28 6.11 0.39 0 0 0 97.0

Project Area (n=3) Use 0 0.05 0.71 0.67 0.05 0.14 0.14 0 3.14 3.14 2.95 0.29 2.67 3.43 3.43 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0 49.5 PC 0 0.10 1.44 1.35 0.10 0.29 0.29 0 6.35 6.35 5.97 0.58 5.39 6.93 6.93 0 0 0 0.10 0.10 0 100 FO 0 4.76 47.6 42.9 4.76 9.52 9.52 0 81.0 81.0 47.6 19.1 33.3 95.2 95.2 0 0 0 4.76 4.76 0 Use 0.07 0 0.57 0.57 0 0.14 0.14 0 3.71 3.71 0 0 0 3.43 3.43 0 0 0 0.07 0 0.07 377

Ref Points (n=2) PC 0.02 0 0.15 0.15 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.99 0.99 0 0 0 0.91 0.91 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 100 FO 7.14 0 35.71 35.71 0 14.3 14.3 0 92.9 92.9 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 7.14 0 7.14

bald eagle a golden eagle Falcons American kestrel peregrine falcon Other Raptors c osprey unidentified raptor Vultures turkey vulture Upland Gamebirds ring-necked pheasant wild turkey Passerines American crow Common raven European starling Rose-breasted grosbeak Other Birds belted kingfisher pileated woodpecker Overall
a

State-Endangered; State-Threatened; State Species of Special Concern.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

15

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 Point 4 5 70.4 21.1 56.9 262 491

10

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

All birds

8 6 4

7.86

Waterbirds

4.86

4.57

1.71 2 0 1 2 3 Point

1.43

4

5

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 52.7 4.14 2 3 Point 4 5 36.3 249 477

3

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Waterfowl

Shorebirds
2 1.14 1 0.86 0.57 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0

Point Blue bars are points located within the project area; Red bars are reference points located outside the project area.

Figure 3a. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

16

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report
6 6

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Raptors
5 4 2.71 3 2 1 0 1 2 2.86

4.57 3.71 3.00

Vultures
5 4 3 2 1 0 1.86 3.29 4.29

4.71

2.71

3 Point

4

5

1

2

3 Point

4

5

10

6

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

7.86 8 6 4 2 0.57 0 1 2 3 Point 0.43

Upland gamebirds

Passerines
5 4 3 2 1 0 2.43 3.29

4.57 3.71 3.14

0 4

0 5

1

2

3

4

5

Point Blue bars are points located within the project area; Red bars are reference points located outside the project area.

Figure 3b. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

17

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index The majority of individuals recorded during surveys at points within the project area were observed flying (96.5%; Table 3). Just over one third of raptors were observed flying below 25 m; including 70.0% of northern harriers and 91.7% of falcons. Similarly, one third of raptors were observed flying between 26125 m; including all accipiters and 43.3% of buteos. Raptors that were mainly recorded flying above 125 m included eagles (100%) and buteos (50%). Table 3. Flight height characteristics of bird types and raptor sub-types observed during surveys at raptor migration points within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008.
Bird Type/Subtype Waterbirds Waterfowl Shorebirds Raptors Accipiters Buteos Northern Harrier Eagles Falcons Other Raptors Vultures Upland Gamebirds Passerines Other Birds Overall # Obs Flying 101 648 14 68 2 30 20 1 12 3 66 38 67 1 1,003 # Groups Flying 70 20 7 58 2 22 19 1 11 3 36 3 35 1 230 Mean Flight Height 79.5 118 7.57 84.1 113 143 37.9 250 16.3 116.7 104.6 0 19.7 9.00 75.3 % Obs Flying 100 99.4 100 95.8 100 100 100 100 80.0 100 100 61.3 93.1 100 96.5 % within Flight Height Categories 0-25 m 18.8 4.3 100 39.7 0 6.7 70.0 0 91.7 0 0 100 86.6 100 18.4 26-125 m 60.4 2.2 0 32.4 100 43.3 20.0 0 8.3 66.7 75.8 0 13.4 0 15.6 > 125 m 20.8 93.5 0 27.9 0 50.0 10.0 100 0 33.3 24.2 0 0 0 66.0

Exposure index was calculated by species and based on the number of individuals recorded and flight height (Table 4). Turkey vulture was the species with the highest exposure index (2.38). Mean use by turkey vultures was 3.14 birds/hour survey and 92.4% of individuals were recorded in the zone of risk at some time during the observation. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) also had a relatively high exposure index (1.86). Mean use by this species was 2.43 and 80.4% of individuals were recorded in the zone of risk at some time during the observation. The raptor with the highest exposure index was red-tailed hawk (0.57); 84.2% of red-tailed hawks recorded were observed within the zone of risk at some time during the observation.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

18

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008.
Species/Type turkey vulture great blue heron ring-billed gull red-tailed hawk American crow herring gull common merganser Canada goose northern harrier Mallard Osprey American kestrel rough-legged hawk sharp-shinned hawk unidentified accipiter wild turkey Killdeer unidentified goldeneye ring-necked duck ring-necked pheasant broad-winged hawk red-shouldered hawk belted kingfisher Caspian tern golden eagle peregrine falcon sandhill crane unidentified buteo # Groups Flying 36 43 24 14 35 1 2 13 19 3 3 10 4 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Overall Mean Use 3.14 2.43 1.90 0.90 3.43 0.38 0.62 29.48 0.95 0.33 0.14 0.67 0.24 0.05 0.05 2.67 0.67 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 % Flying 100 100 100 100 93.1 100 76.9 99.8 100 100 100 78.6 100 100 100 66.1 100 100 100 16.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % Flying within ZORa 75.8 76.5 35.0 63.2 13.4 100 60.0 0.6 20.0 57.1 66.7 9.1 20.0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exposure Index 2.38 1.86 0.67 0.57 0.43 0.38 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Within ZOR at anytime 92.4 80.4 45.0 84.2 20.9 100 60.0 1.60 50.0 57.1 66.7 9.10 40.0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 0 0 0 0 100 0

ZOR=zone of risk (25-125 m AGL); abased on initial observation

Sensitive species No federally threatened or endangered species were observed within the project area during surveys. Four state-listed species were recorded: one golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; state-endangered, 2008), one peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; state-endangered, 2008) one common tern (Sterna hirundo, statethreatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened; 2006, 2007, and 2008). In addition, five state species of special concern were recorded: two Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii; 2007), four sharp-shinned hawks (A. striatus; 2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (A. gentilis; 2007), two redshouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus; 2008), and five osprey (Pandion haliaetus; 2006, 2007, and 2008) were observed during surveys (Table 1).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

19

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report One bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda, state-threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered hawks, and two osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area.

DISCUSSION Data collected during raptor migration surveys within the CVWRA in 2008 were compared to data collected at the same points in 2006 and 2007, and also compared to data collected at reference points outside the project area in 2008. Mean use by raptors within the site varied little across years, ranging from 3.38 in 2008 to 4.67 raptors/survey in 2007. Similarly, raptor use was very similar within the site when compared to reference points outside of the project area (3.38 compared to 3.36, respectively). Overall bird use differed more over the three years of study; however this was primarily due to differences use by Waterfowl (Canada geese) and Waterbirds (gulls) across years. In 2007, 1,305 Canada geese were recorded compared to 411 in 2006 and 619 in 2008. In 2006, 213 gulls were recorded compared to 25 in 2007 and 49 in 2008. Overall bird use was also higher at the reference points outside of the project area, again due to large differences in numbers of Waterfowl (Canada geese; 4,569 compared to 619). Data collected at CVWRA from all three years were standardized to number of raptors recorded per observer hour and compared to data collected at established spring Hawk Watch sites in the area: Derby Hill Bird Observatory, Braddock Bay, Hamburg, and Ripley (Figure 4; Table 5). The number of raptors recorded per observer hour was lower at the proposed project area compared to the numbers recorded at the established Hawk Watch sites on the same days. No data were collected at Braddock Bay in 2006. In 2006, the mean number of raptors recorded per observer hour at CVWRA was 6.5, compared to 22.5 at Ripley, 26.9 at Hamburg, and 106 at Derby Hill. In 2007, mean raptor activity at CVWRA was 9.8 raptors per observer hour compared to an average of 58.3 at the four established Hawk Watch sites (range: 37.0 to 78.3 raptors per observer hour). Finally, in 2008 raptor activity was 9.0 raptors per observer hour at CVWRA compared to an average of 70.1 at the four Hawk Watch sites (range: 14.7 to 116.6 raptors per observer hour). The highest number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given day at CVWRA was 18.0 in March 2007. In comparison, at Ripley it was 96.0 in April 2007, at Hamburg it was 85.2 in April 2008, at Braddock Bay it was 208 in April 2008, and at Derby Hill the highest number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given day was 353 in April 2006.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

20

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg, Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

21

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008.
Date CVWRA Ripley Hamburg Braddock Bay Derby Hill 4/14/06 6.7 31.4 83.8 ns 21.5 4/21/06 10.3 35.9 17.9 ns 353 5/02/06 3.3 17.3 0.8 ns 6.0 2006 5/12/06 6.0 5.6 5.2 ns 44.8 Average 6.5 22.5 26.9 106 3/21/07 3.0 23.8 7.1 25.2 77.9 3/31/07 18.0 27.9 124 53.5 74.1 4/11/07 11.3 31.0 19.2 38.4 71.7 4/14/07 1.0 31.4 83.8 95.1 81.1 4/17/07 6.0 2.0 1.09 ns ns 2007 4/20/07 8.7 44.2 26.2 102 43.0 4/22/07 11.0 96.0 82.1 156 112 5/01/07 12.3 39.3 0 ns 66.4 Average 9.8 37.0 42.9 78.3 75.1 3/22/08 9.5 35.7 16.4 27.8 12.9 4/3/08 17.2 83.7 36.2 69.4 114 4/6/08 10.8 75.5 85.2 90.3 159 4/16/08 12.4 115 30.8 188 228 2008 4/22/08 7.2 54.5 4.0 208 90.7 5/14/08 7.2 46.7 9.6 ns 40.7 5/28/08 8.4 ns ns ns 8.6 Average 9.0 56.6 14.7 116.6 92.3 Hawk watch site data obtained from Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) website; ns=no survey Year

Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed windenergy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. There are two other wind-energy facilities that have been proposed in Jefferson County, New York (St. Lawrence Wind and Clayton Wind Resource Areas) where raptor migration surveys have been conducted and the results of those surveys are publically available (Table 6). Raptor migration surveys were conducted from March 30-May 7, 2005 at the Clayton WRA and from April 14-May 12, 2006 and March 21-May1, 2007 at the St Lawrence WRA. The number of survey hours completed during 2005 surveys at the Clayton WRA was greater than the number completed per year at the St Lawrence WRA or CVWRA (58 compared to 16.5 and 18.0, respectively). The number of raptors recorded at Clayton WRA was greater than at the other two sites in a given year (700 compared to a mean of 162 and 140, respectively). When data were adjusted for differences in number of survey hours, the number of raptors recorded per observer hour at each site was more similar. Slightly more raptors were observed at Clayton WRA (12.1 raptors/observer hr) and St Lawrence WRA (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared to CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

22

December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report

Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within Jefferson County, New York State.
WRA Clayton Mean St. Lawrence St. Lawrence Mean Cape Vincent Cape Vincent Cape Vincent Mean Year 2005 2006 2007 2006 2007 2008 Survey Period March 30-May 7 April 14- May 12 March 21-May 1 April 14- May 12 March 21- May 1 March 22-May 28 Survey Days 10 10 4 7 5.5 4 7 7 6 Survey Hours 58 58 12 21 16.5 12 21 21 18 Raptors Recorded 700 700 91 232 162 79 205 137 140 Raptors/hr 12.1 12.1 7.58 11.0 9.29 6.58 9.76 6.52 7.62 Species Recorded 14 14 8 8 8 8 8 11 9

Publically available data obtained from: [www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/raptorwinsum.pdf].

REFERENCES Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 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. 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. Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc. for BP Alternative Energy North America.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

23

December 15, 2010

GRASSLAND BREEDING BIRD TRANSECT SURVEYS, CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Final Report May-July, 2010

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

Prepared by: David Tidhar, Saif Nomani and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch, 26 North Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont

NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility, the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor wildlife resources in proposed project area to determine potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife. The following report contains results of the grassland breeding bird transect surveys conducted in May-July 2010, along with incidental wildlife observations recorded within the project area outside of standardized surveys. The study design facilitates multiple analyses of bird species composition, density and the effects of wind energy development on bird displacement. The study approach involves a combination of a gradient analysis study design and the Before After Control Impact study design. The 2010 study represented the Before (pre-construction) component of the study design. Grassland breeding bird transect surveys were conducted four times between May and July for a total of 189 transect surveys. Surveys were completed on 300-meter long transects arrayed at 37 proposed turbine locations and 12 reference areas. A total of 94 species were recorded; 67 species in Round 1 and 2, 73 species in Round 3, and 62 species in Round 4. Overall, a total of 6,738 birds were recorded in 4,396 groups; of which 30.2% of observations were of red-winged blackbird and bobolink (2.1% of all species). Mean use ranged from 12.0 to 15.1 birds/transect across rounds; averaging 13.4 birds/transect overall. Mean use was highest by passerines in all four rounds, ranging from 11.1 to 12.1 birds/transect. Passerines accounted for 80.3-95.3% of overall use and were recorded in all surveys. Blackbirds/Orioles had the highest mean use of any passerine sub-group; ranging from 4.93-6.83 birds/transect over rounds. Seven species of raptors were recorded during surveys; although mean use by this bird type was relatively low. Mean use by raptors ranged from 0.04 to 0.07 birds/transect and this bird type was only recorded in 11.6% of surveys. When mean use of major bird types was compared between transects within the CVWRA (n=37) and reference transects (n=12), there was no significant difference in mean use of any bird type (P>0.05). Mean use by waterfowl and vultures was slightly higher at reference transects; however, neither difference was statistically significant. Within CVWRA, mean use was highest at Transects 28, 17, and 2. The majority of use at Transect 28 was by waterfowl; while at Transects 17 and 2 it was primarily due to use by passerines. No federal threatened or endangered species were observed during grassland breeding bird transect surveys. Four state-threatened species were recorded at CVWRA transects: one Henslow's sparrow, four northern harriers, 18 sedge wrens, and two upland sandpipers. In addition, five state species of concern were recorded: six American bitterns, one Cooper’s hawk, 64 grasshopper sparrows, one osprey, and 12 vesper sparrows. Four northern harriers, two sedge wrens, four upland sandpipers, one grasshopper sparrow, and one sharp-shinned hawk (state species of concern) were recorded within the CVWRA as incidental observations outside of standardized surveys.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

i

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
David Tidhar Kimberly Bay Saif Nomani Christopher P. Nations JR Boehrs Wendy L. Tidhar Lanie Garner-Warner Karen Hondrick Jennifer Tait Jeremy Histed Project Manager, Research Biologist II Data Analyst, Report Manager Biometrician I Research Biometrician GIS Technician Research Biologist II Field Technician II Field Technician II Field Technician II Field Technician I

REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Grassland Breeding Bird Transect Surveys, Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

ii

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 2 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Study Design ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................... 4 Observation Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 7 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7 Species Diversity and Richness ........................................................................................................ 7 Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ..................................................... 7 Spatial Use ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Gradient Analysis and Line-Distance Analysis ................................................................................ 8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................ 8 Data Compilation and Storage .............................................................................................................. 8 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Species Diversity and Richness ............................................................................................................ 8 Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ....................................................... 14 Spatial Use .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Incidental Observations ...................................................................................................................... 21 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Observations ................................................................... 21 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Indirect Effects of Wind Energy on Birds .......................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 26

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

iii

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of mean bird use, species richness, and sample size recorded during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; MayJuly, 2010. ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010. ............................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010. ................................................................................................... 15 Table 4. Comparison of mean use (± SEM) of bird types and passerine sub-groups at transects within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects. ................................................... 19 Table 5. Incidental wildlife observed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area outside of standardized surveys; May–July, 2010. ......................................................................................... 21 Table 6. Sensitive species observed during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys and as incidental wildlife observations at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20–July 9, 2010. .............................................................................................................................................. 22

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. .................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Location of grassland breeding bird survey transects within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. ................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Summary of transects (n, %) within each dominant habitat type for grassland breeding bird surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010...................... 7 Figure 4. Percent composition of bird types recorded within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects during grassland breeding bird transect surveys; May-July, 2010. .......... 20 Figure 5. Number of sensitive species recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010................................ 23

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

iv

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

INTRODUCTION BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlife studies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife resources. The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat™; 2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from 2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007). The following report only includes results from the 2010 grassland breeding bird transect surveys. The study design was developed in partnership between WEST and USGS (Schaffer and Erickson 2007) and has been implemented on several wind-energy studies in the Mid-west and Northwestern US (e.g. Schaffer and Johnson 2008). The study design facilitates multiple analyses of bird species composition, density and the effects of wind energy development on bird displacement. The study approach involves a combination of a gradient analysis study design and the Before After Control Impact (BACI) study design (Morrison et al. 2001). Songbird density data and vegetation data are collected along a continuum (transect) from the turbines out to 300 m, as well as at reference transects that do not include turbines. The before and after periods are incorporated by conducting an analysis of the changes in relative abundance (densities) from the pre- to post-construction periods. For example, differences between grassland bird densities during the post-construction period and the pre-construction period for each 50-m segment can be calculated. The averages of these differences by distance category can be compared against the null hypothesis value of zero using t-tests and confidence intervals to test whether a change in density is statistically significant and to identify the distance from the turbines at which it occurred. The 2010 study represented the Before (pre-construction) component of the BACI study design. Two annual After surveys identical in scope to the 2010 study will be completed following construction and implementation of turbine operations. Timing of After grassland bird transect surveys will coincide with fatality monitoring studies completed at the CVWRA.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

1

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report STUDY AREA The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York. The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). 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 twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the study area are 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 CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered deciduous woodlots.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

2

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

3

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

METHODS The grassland breeding bird transect survey conducted in 2010 was the first component of a BeforeAfter/Control-Impact (BACI) study to determine potential indirect impacts of the wind-energy facility on grassland bird species. Indirect impacts of wind-energy projects on grassland birds may include displacement due to habitat loss or degredation. The objective of the survey was to provide baseline information on the species composition and relative abundance of grassland birds at varying distances from proposed turbine locations and reference areas. This information would be used for comparison purposes in the future in order to understand potential displacement effects that may result from construction and operation of the wind-energy facility. In particular, rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species were targeted through the sampling design by selection of transects within potential breeding habitats. RTE species targeted through the surveys included northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis). Study Design A total of 49 transects were established in appropriate grassland habitats within the CVWRA either at proposed turbine (n=37) or reference locations (n=12; Figure 2). Transects located at proposed turbine locations were situated to the extent possible in undisturbed grassland areas while avoiding active agricultural fields. All turbines located in native grassland were included in the study. The remaining treatment group sample was systematically selected from turbines located in hay or pasture. Reference transects were established in similar grassland habitats as close to the project area as possible in the Ashland Flats and French Creek Wildlife Management Areas. Each transect was 300 m long leading away from the proposed turbine location, when applicable, and divided into six 50-m sub-segments. Transects were oriented approximately perpendicular to proposed turbine strings and placed in representative habitats and topography of the project area while also providing even spatial coverage of the CVWRA. The start and end points of each transect were recorded on a handheld GPS unit (Garmin GPS 76 CSx) for subsequent mapping. Survey Methods Surveys were conducted by experienced field biologists with knowledge of New York bird species identification by sight and sound. Surveyors walked slowly along each transect, using the GPS waypoints as a guide, and recorded all visual or auditory bird detections within 50-m on either side of the transect. All observations of RTE species were recorded to an unlimited viewshed. Each observation was assigned a unique identification number and all observations within 50-m of the transect were plotted on the transect map provided on the data sheet. The following data were collected for each observation: date, time, species (or best possible identification), sex and age class (when possible), number of individuals, distance of observation along the transect (m), perpendicular distance of observation from the transect (m), behavior, flight height and direction when first observed, and any other comments. Behavior categories were designed to measure whether observations indicated likely breeding or resident activity and included: nesting activity, courtship activity, alarm call, singing, other call, perched, flight, or other.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

4

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report In addition, dominant (> 50%) and secondary habitat were recorded for the length of each transect (Figure 3, Appendix A). Detailed habitat information was collected at each 50-m point of the transect for use in the BACI analysis. Incidental wildlife observations were recorded on a separate data sheet and are tabulated in the results section.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

5

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Figure 2. Location of grassland breeding bird survey transects within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

6

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Grassland

Crop

Scrub

Pasture

Fallow

3, 6% 1, 2% 5, 10%

9, 19%

31, 63%

Figure 3. Summary of transects (n, %) within each dominant habitat type for grassland breeding bird surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010

Observation Schedule All transects was surveyed four times during the breeding season, once in the following periods: May 2021, June 9-10, June 25-26 and July 7-8. Surveys were conducted between sunrise and no later than 10:30 am. Statistical Analysis Species Diversity and Richness Species diversity is presented as the total number of species observed. A species list, including the number of observations and groups, was generated, including all observations of birds detected regardless of their distance from the transect. Species richness was calculated as the mean number of species recorded per survey. Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence To calculate the standardized bird use estimates, only observations of birds detected within 50-m of the transect were used. Estimates of mean bird use (i.e., number of birds/transect) were used to compare differences between bird types. The frequency of occurrence was calculated as the percent of surveys in which a particular bird type or species was observed. Percent composition was calculated as the proportion of the overall mean use for a particular bird type or species. Frequency of occurrence and percent composition provide relative estimates of species exposure to the proposed wind-energy facility. For example, a given species may have a high use estimate based on just a few observations of large groups. In this case, the frequency of occurrence would indicate that its observations occurred during only a few of the surveys and therefore potentially making the species less likely to be affected by the windenergy facility.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

7

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Spatial Use Bird use by transect was calculated. Comparison between treatment and reference area species composition and bird use was made using two-sample T-tests. Gradient Analysis and Line-Distance Analysis A gradient analysis (Morrison et al. 2001) will be used to determine the relationship between density of grassland avian species and distance from turbines. A “gradient analysis” assesses whether a significant or a biologically substantial relationship exists between distance from project structures and abundance or use of the area. The differences between grassland bird use during the post-construction period and preconstruction period will be calculated for each 50-m segment away from the turbines. The averages of these differences for each 50-m segment will be compared using t-tests and 95% confidence intervals. Line-distance analysis (Buckland et al 2001 and Thomas et al 2003) will also be conducted to provide additional comparative analysis of Before/After abundance estimates. Results of the gradient and linedistance analyses will be provided in the BACI report prepared following completion of the postconstruction field surveys. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures were implemented at all stages of the studies, including in the field, during data entry and analysis, and report writing. Following field surveys, field technicians were responsible for inspecting data forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. A sample of records from an electronic database was compared to the data forms and any errors detected were corrected. Irregular codes or data suspected as questionable were discussed with the field technician and project manager. Errors, omissions, or problems identified in later stages of analysis were traced back to the raw data forms, and appropriate changes in all steps were made. Data Compilation and Storage

A Microsoft® ACCESS database was developed to store, organize, and retrieve survey data. Data were keyed into the electronic database using a pre-defined format to facilitate subsequent QA/QC and data analysis. All data forms, field notebooks, and electronic data files were retained for reference.
RESULTS Species Diversity and Richness A total of 189 grassland transect surveys were conducted within the CVWRA in four rounds. Overall, a total of 94 species were identified (Table 1). Mean use varied between 12.0 and 15.1 birds/transect during rounds; though the number of species recorded per survey was similar between rounds (mean 11.4; range 10.5-11.9). Mean use and species richness were highest during Round 2 (June 9-10) and Round 3 (June 25-26), respectively.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

8

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 1. Summary of mean bird use, species richness, and sample size recorded during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010.
Round 1 2 3 4 Overall Mean Use (birds/transect) 14.1 15.1 12.0 12.4 13.4 Species Richness (species/survey) 11.9 11.5 11.9 10.5 11.4 Number of Species 67 67 73 62 94 Number of Surveys Conducted 46 47 48 48 189

Overall, a total of 6,738 birds within 4,396 groups were recorded over the course of the four survey rounds (Table 2). The number of individuals recorded during each round ranged from 1,535 in Round 3 to 1,886 individuals in Round 2. Passerines accounted for over 80 % of observations in all rounds (mean: 87.3 %; range: 80.3-95.3 %); and overall red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) accounted for 30.2 % of observations. Four additional species comprised a further 20.7 % of observations; yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In Rounds 2-4, red-winged blackbird was the most commonly observed species with the number of individuals recorded ranging from 283 to 391 (mean: 324). Bobolink was the most commonly recorded species in Round 1 (n=406), and was the second most commonly recorded species in Rounds 2 and 3 (mean: 203). Large groups of geese were observed in Rounds 1 and 2; one group of 200 unidentified geese was recorded in Round 1 and two groups comprising a total of 220 Canada geese (Branta Canadensis) were recorded in Round 2. Song sparrow (range: 85-104), common yellowthroat (70-108), yellow warbler (42-98), and savannah sparrow (73-92) had relatively consistent numbers recorded across rounds.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

9

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Type/Species Waterbirds American bittern great blue heron herring gull pied-billed grebe ring-billed gull unidentified gull Waterfowl Canada goose common goldeneye hooded merganser Mallard unidentified duck unidentified goose wood duck Shorebirds American woodcock Killdeer upland sandpiper Wilson's snipe Raptors American kestrel broad-winged hawk Cooper's hawk Merlin northern harrier Osprey red-tailed hawk Vultures turkey vulture Upland Game Birds ring-necked pheasant ruffed grouse wild turkey Doves/Pigeons Scientific Name Botaurus lentiginosus Ardea herodias Larus argentatus Podilymbus podiceps Larus delawarensis Round 1 gps obs 33 36 2 2 18 18 2 2 0 0 11 14 0 0 16 229 9 19 1 2 0 0 4 7 1 1 1 200 0 0 6 6 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 7 7 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 8 10 3 3 0 0 5 7 6 7 Round 2 Gps obs 77 108 10 10 19 21 5 14 0 0 43 63 0 0 5 224 2 220 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 7 0 0 5 5 2 2 0 0 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 11 19 Round 3 gps obs 34 51 3 3 13 13 1 1 1 1 16 33 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 16 1 1 6 13 0 0 2 2 8 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 5 0 0 1 1 2 4 9 14 Round 4 gps obs 21 23 1 1 12 12 0 0 0 0 6 8 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 29 1 1 0 0 6 28 6 7 Total gps 165 16 62 8 1 76 2 28 11 1 1 9 3 1 2 26 3 16 2 5 24 7 1 1 1 7 1 6 6 6 22 8 1 13 32 obs 218 16 64 17 1 118 2 463 239 2 1 15 3 200 3 33 3 23 2 5 27 7 2 1 1 7 1 8 6 6 48 8 1 39 47

Branta canadensis Bucephala clangula Lophodytes cucullatus Anas platyrhynchos

Aix sponsa Scolopax minor Charadrius vociferus Bartramia longicauda Gallinago delicata Falco sparverius Buteo platypterus Accipiter cooperii Falco columbarius Circus cyaneus Pandion haliaetus Buteo jamaicensis Cathartes aura Phasianus colchicus Bonasa umbellus Meleagris gallopavo

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

10

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Type/Species mourning dove rock pigeon Passerines Passerines unidentified passerine Blackbirds/Orioles Baltimore oriole brown-headed cowbird Bobolink common grackle eastern meadowlark European starling red-winged blackbird unidentified blackbird Creepers/Nuthatches white-breasted nuthatch Finches American goldfinch Flycatchers Acadian flycatcher alder flycatcher eastern kingbird eastern phoebe eastern wood-pewee great crested flycatcher willow flycatcher Grassland/Sparrows chipping sparrow dark-eyed junco eastern towhee field sparrow grasshopper sparrow Henslow's sparrow house sparrow indigo bunting Scientific Name Zenaida macroura Columba livia Round 1 gps obs 4 4 2 3 1,099 1,430 1 1 1 1 449 685 2 2 4 9 231 406 18 22 33 35 5 5 156 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 50 27 50 32 35 6 6 0 0 12 13 13 15 0 0 1 1 0 0 222 225 9 9 0 0 5 5 3 3 12 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 Round 2 Gps obs 9 14 2 5 1,049 1,515 0 0 0 0 448 856 4 4 1 1 171 221 10 32 44 45 14 70 201 298 3 185 1 2 1 2 19 31 19 31 42 42 0 0 1 1 8 8 12 12 2 2 1 1 18 18 235 251 4 4 1 1 18 18 0 0 20 20 1 1 1 6 1 1 Round 3 gps obs 5 7 4 7 1,074 1,425 0 0 0 0 378 631 2 2 4 11 117 185 8 20 33 33 11 77 201 283 2 20 0 0 0 0 36 56 36 56 34 36 1 1 0 0 21 23 7 7 0 0 1 1 4 4 232 243 4 5 0 0 11 11 4 4 21 22 0 0 1 3 10 10 Round 4 gps obs 5 6 1 1 857 1,512 0 0 0 0 206 680 2 2 4 6 31 45 7 15 38 39 12 60 109 391 3 122 1 2 1 2 47 71 47 71 24 27 0 0 0 0 16 19 4 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 257 270 4 4 0 0 10 10 7 7 32 36 0 0 3 9 2 2 Total gps obs 23 31 9 16 4,079 5,882 1 1 1 1 1,481 2,852 10 10 13 27 550 857 43 89 148 152 42 212 667 1,178 8 327 2 4 2 4 129 208 129 208 132 140 7 7 1 1 57 63 36 38 3 3 5 5 23 23 946 989 21 22 1 1 44 44 14 14 85 90 1 1 6 19 13 13

Icterus galbula Molothrus ater Dolichonyx oryzivorus Quiscalus quiscula Sturnella magna Sturnus vulgaris Agelaius phoeniceus

Sitta carolinensis Carduelis tristis Empidonax virescens Empidonax alnorum Tyrannus tyrannus Sayornis phoebe Contopus virens Myiarchus crinitus Empidonax traillii Spizella passerina Junco hyemalis Pipilo erythrophthalmus Spizella pusilla Ammodramus savannarum Ammodramus henslowii Passer domesticus Passerina cyanea

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

11

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Type/Species northern cardinal savannah sparrow song sparrow swamp sparrow unidentified sparrow vesper sparrow Mimids brown thrasher gray catbird northern mockingbird Swallows barn swallow purple martin tree swallow Tanagers/Grosbeaks/Crossbills rose-breasted grosbeak scarlet tanager Thrushes American robin eastern bluebird unidentified bluebird Veery wood thrush Titmice/Chickadees black-capped chickadee tufted titmouse Vireos red-eyed vireo warbling vireo Warblers American redstart black-and-white warbler bay-breasted warbler blue-winged warbler common yellowthroat Scientific Name Cardinalis cardinalis Passerculus sandwichensis Melospiza melodia Melospiza georgiana Pooecetes gramineus Toxostoma rufum Dumetella carolinensis Mimus polyglottos Hirundo rustica Progne subis Tachycineta bicolor Pheucticus ludovicianus Piranga olivacea Turdus migratorius Sialia sialis Catharus fuscescens Hylocichla mustelina Poecile atricapillus Baeolophus bicolor Vireo olivaceus Vireo gilvus Setophaga ruticilla Mniotilta varia Dendroica castanea Vermivora pinus Geothlypis trichas Round 1 gps obs 5 6 73 73 102 103 6 6 2 3 4 4 28 29 2 3 25 25 1 1 23 41 19 37 0 0 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 72 107 64 99 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 3 9 11 9 11 0 0 6 6 5 5 1 1 204 210 9 9 2 2 2 2 0 0 89 89 Round 2 Gps obs 1 1 75 84 102 104 3 3 0 0 8 8 21 21 2 2 19 19 0 0 31 45 28 42 0 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 40 45 37 42 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 6 8 5 7 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 165 167 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 70 70 Round 3 gps obs 2 2 85 90 83 85 5 5 0 0 6 6 34 35 1 1 31 32 2 2 33 45 28 40 0 0 5 5 5 6 3 4 2 2 48 68 43 59 1 5 0 0 3 3 1 1 13 20 13 20 0 0 6 6 5 5 1 1 194 194 0 0 3 3 2 2 2 2 108 108 Round 4 gps obs 2 2 91 92 86 87 11 11 9 10 0 0 17 17 1 1 16 16 0 0 38 125 30 105 1 1 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 55 46 48 0 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 6 3 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 149 150 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 105 106 Total gps 10 324 373 25 11 18 100 6 91 3 125 105 1 19 10 7 3 209 190 1 1 11 6 32 30 2 16 13 3 712 11 5 6 3 372 obs 11 339 379 25 13 18 102 7 92 3 256 224 1 31 11 8 3 275 248 5 5 11 6 45 43 2 16 13 3 721 11 5 6 3 373

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

12

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Type/Species chestnut-sided warbler magnolia warbler Ovenbird yellow-rumped warbler yellow warbler Waxwings cedar waxwing Wrens house wren marsh wren sedge wren Corvids American crow blue jay Cuckoos black-billed cuckoo Swifts/Hummingbirds chimney swift Woodpeckers downy woodpecker northern flicker pileated woodpecker unidentified woodpecker Kingfishers belted kingfisher Overall Scientific Name Dendroica pensylvanica Dendroica magnolia Seiurus aurocapilla Dendroica coronata Dendroica petechia Bombycilla cedrorum Troglodytes aedon Cistothorus palustris Cistothorus platensis Corvus brachyrhynchos Cyanocitta cristata Coccyzus erythropthalmus Chaetura pelagica Picoides pubescens Colaptes auratus Dryocopus pileatus Round 1 gps obs 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 92 98 1 2 1 2 14 14 13 13 1 1 0 0 8 11 2 2 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1,180 1,730 Round 2 Gps obs 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 88 90 14 20 14 20 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 11 11 7 7 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1,161 1,886 Round 3 gps obs 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 76 76 23 44 23 44 26 26 16 16 2 2 8 8 12 15 9 12 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1,150 1,535 Round 4 gps obs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 21 45 21 45 34 34 14 14 5 5 15 15 8 28 6 24 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 905 1,587 Total gps obs 6 6 2 2 8 8 1 1 298 306 59 111 59 111 86 86 55 55 8 8 23 23 39 65 24 45 15 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 2 2 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 4,396 6,738

Ceryle alcyon

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

13

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence Mean use ranged from 12.0 to 15.1 birds/transect across rounds; averaging 13.4 birds/transect overall (Table 3). Mean use was highest by Passerines in all four rounds, ranging from 11.1 to 12.1 birds/transect. Passerines accounted for between 80.3% and 95.3% of overall use and this bird type was recorded in 100% of all surveys. Blackbirds/Orioles had the highest mean use of Passerine sub-groups, ranging from 4.93 to 6.83 birds/transect over rounds. This sub-group included red-winged blackbird and bobolink which were the most commonly observed species and which were recorded in 87.3% and 61.2% of surveys respectively, overall. Mean use by the Grassland/Sparrows sub-group was next highest, ranging from 1.83 to 2.11 birds/transect across rounds. Grassland/Sparrows accounted for 14.7% of overall use and this sub-group was recorded in 97.4% of all surveys. Grasshopper sparrow, a state species of concern, had a mean use of between 0.10 and 0.28 birds/transect across rounds and was observed in 21.7% of surveys overall. Warbler was the Passerine subgroup with the next highest mean use, ranging from 1.17 to 1.52 birds/transect. Warblers accounted for 10.7% of overall use and were recorded in 87.9% of surveys. Six species of Waterbird were recorded during grassland transect surveys. Mean use by Waterbirds ranged from 0.18 to 0.86 birds/transect across rounds. Waterbirds accounted for 3.2% of overall use and were observed in 49.9% of all surveys. Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) were recorded in all four rounds and had the highest mean use of any Waterbird species observed (mean: 0.23; range 0.06 to 0.50 birds/transect across rounds). Ring-billed gulls accounted for 1.8% of overall use and were recorded in 22.8% of surveys. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) were also recorded in all rounds (mean 0.13 birds/transect; range: 0.09-0.17). This species accounted for 1.0% of overall use and was observed in 27.6% of surveys. Mean use by Waterfowl was 0.93 birds/transect across rounds, although much of the use was concentrated in Rounds 1 and 2; 1.87 and 1.79 birds/transect, respectively. Waterfowl accounted for 13.2% and 11.9% of overall use in Rounds 1 and 2; however individuals tended to be in large groups such that they were recorded in only 30.4% and 10.6% of surveys, respectively. Seven species of Raptor were observed during grassland transect surveys, although mean use by this bird type was relatively low. Mean use by Raptors ranged from 0.04 to 0.07 birds/transect and this group was observed in only 11.6% of surveys overall. Northern harrier, a state-threatened species, had a mean use of 0.03 birds/transect in Round 1, and was observed in 8.7% of surveys in this round. Mean use was <0.01 in all three other rounds. Similarly, mean use by red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis) was higher in Round 3 compared to other rounds (0.04 compared to a mean of 0.01 birds/transect). Red-tailed hawks were observed in 8.3% of surveys in Round 3.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

14

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Species/Type Waterbirds b American bittern great blue heron herring gull a pied-billed grebe ring-billed gull unidentified gull Waterfowl Canada goose common goldeneye hooded merganser Mallard unidentified duck unidentified goose wood duck Shorebirds American woodcock Killdeer a upland sandpiper Wilson's snipe Raptors American kestrel broad-winged hawk b Cooper's hawk Merlin a northern harrier b osprey red-tailed hawk Vultures turkey vulture Upland Game Birds ring-necked pheasant ruffed grouse wild turkey Doves/Pigeons R1 0.29 0.02 0.15 0.02 0 0.11 0 1.87 0.15 0.02 0 0.06 <0.01 1.63 0 0.05 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.06 0.02 0 <0.01 0 0.03 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.02 0 0.06 0.06 Mean Use (birds/transect) R2 R3 R4 0.86 0.40 0.18 0.08 0.02 <0.01 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.11 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 0.50 0.26 0.06 0 0 0.02 1.79 0.05 0.02 1.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.06 0.12 0.03 0 <0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.05 0.07 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0.02 0.04 0 <0.01 0.02 0 <0.01 0.02 0 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.03 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 0.03 0.22 0.15 0.11 0.05 All 0.43 0.03 0.13 0.03 <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.93 0.48 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.41 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.02 <0.01 0.08 0.09 R1 2.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0 0.8 0 13.2 1.1 0.1 0 0.4 <0.1 11.6 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0 <0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0 0.4 0.4 Percent Composition (%) R2 R3 R4 5.7 3.3 1.4 0.5 0.2 <0.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 3.3 2.1 0.5 0 0 0.1 11.9 0.5 0.2 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 1.0 0.3 0 <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.6 0.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 <0.1 0.1 0 <0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.2 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.4 All 3.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 <0.1 1.8 <0.1 7.0 3.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 3 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.7 R1 52.2 4.3 32.6 4.3 0 19.6 0 30.4 17.4 2.2 0 6.5 2.2 2.2 0 10.9 0 6.5 0 4.3 13.0 4.3 0 2.2 0 8.7 0 0 6.5 6.5 15.2 6.5 0 8.7 13 Frequency of Occurrence (%) R2 R3 R4 All 70.2 37.5 39.6 49.9 10.6 6.2 2.1 5.8 29.8 22.9 25.0 27.6 8.5 2.1 0 3.7 0 2.1 0 0.5 46.8 14.6 10.4 22.8 0 0 4.2 1.0 10.6 6.2 4.2 12.9 4.3 0 0 5.4 0 0 0 0.5 0 2.1 0 0.5 2.1 4.2 2.1 3.7 0 2.1 2.1 1.6 0 0 0 0.5 4.3 0 0 1.1 12.8 14.6 6.2 11.1 0 2.1 2.1 1 10.6 10.4 4.2 7.9 2.1 0 0 0.5 0 2.1 0 1.6 8.5 16.7 8.3 11.6 2.1 4.2 4.2 3.7 0 0 2.1 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 2.1 0 0.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.7 2.1 0 0 0.5 4.3 8.3 0 3.1 2.1 2.1 0 2.7 2.1 2.1 0 2.7 6.4 6.2 14.6 10.6 6.4 0 2.1 3.7 0 2.1 0 0.5 0 4.2 12.5 6.3 19.1 16.7 10.4 14.8

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

15

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Species/Type mourning dove rock pigeon Passerines unidentified passerine Blackbirds/Orioles Baltimore oriole brown-headed cowbird Bobolink common grackle eastern meadowlark European starling red-winged blackbird unidentified blackbird Creepers/Nuthatches white-breasted nuthatch Finches American goldfinch Flycatchers Acadian flycatcher alder flycatcher eastern kingbird eastern phoebe eastern wood-pewee great crested flycatcher willow flycatcher Grassland/Sparrows chipping sparrow dark-eyed junco eastern towhee field sparrow b grasshopper sparrow a Henslow's sparrow house sparrow indigo bunting northern cardinal R1 0.03 0.02 11.7 <0.01 5.58 0.02 0.07 3.31 0.18 0.29 0.04 1.68 0 0 0 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.05 0 0.11 0.12 0 <0.01 0 1.83 0.07 0 0.04 0.02 0.10 0 <0.01 0 0.05 Mean Use (birds/transect) R2 R3 R4 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 <0.01 12.1 11.1 11.8 0 0 0 6.83 4.93 5.31 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.09 0.05 1.76 1.45 0.35 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.56 0.60 0.47 2.38 2.21 3.05 1.48 0.16 0.95 0.02 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0.25 0.44 0.55 0.25 0.44 0.55 0.34 0.28 0.21 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 0.06 0.18 0.15 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.14 0.03 0 2.00 1.90 2.11 0.03 0.04 0.03 <0.01 0 0 0.14 0.09 0.08 0 0.03 0.05 0.16 0.17 0.28 <0.01 0 0 0.05 0.02 0.07 <0.01 0.08 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 All 0.06 0.03 11.7 <0.01 5.66 0.02 1.72 0.05 0.18 0.30 0.42 2.33 0.65 <0.01 <0.01 0.41 0.41 0.28 0.01 <0.01 0.12 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 1.96 0.04 <0.01 0.09 0.03 0.18 <0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 R1 0.2 0.2 82.7 <0.1 39.6 0.1 0.5 23.5 1.3 2.0 0.3 11.9 0 0 0 2.9 2.9 2.0 0.3 0 0.8 0.9 0 <0.1 0 13.0 0.5 0 0.3 0.2 0.7 0 <0.1 0 0.3 Percent Composition (%) R2 R3 R4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 <0.1 80.3 92.8 95.3 0 0 0 45.4 41.1 42.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.4 11.7 12.1 2.8 1.7 1.3 0.9 2.4 2.1 2.5 3.7 5.0 3.8 15.8 18.4 24.6 9.8 1.3 7.7 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 1.6 3.6 4.5 1.6 3.6 4.5 2.2 2.3 1.7 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 0.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 0 13.3 15.8 17.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0 0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.4 2.3 <0.1 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.6 <0.1 0.7 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 All 0.5 0.2 87.2 <0.1 42.3 0.1 12.8 0.4 1.3 2.3 3.1 17.4 4.8 <0.1 <0.1 3.1 3.1 2.1 0.1 <0.1 0.9 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 14.7 0.3 <0.1 0.7 0.2 1.3 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 R1 8.7 4.3 100 2.2 100 2.2 8.7 89.1 30.4 47.8 10.9 91.3 0 0 0 45.7 45.7 37.0 4.3 0 19.6 23.9 0 2.2 0 97.8 13 0 10.9 6.5 21.7 0 2.2 0 8.7 Frequency of Occurrence (%) R2 R3 R4 All 17.0 10.4 10.4 11.6 4.3 6.2 2.1 4.2 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0.5 97.9 100 89.6 96.9 8.5 4.2 4.2 4.8 2.1 8.3 6.2 61.2 74.5 58.3 22.9 6.4 14.9 16.7 14.6 19.1 53.2 45.8 47.9 48.7 23.4 20.8 20.8 19.0 83.0 91.7 83.3 87.3 4.3 4.2 6.2 3.7 2.1 0 2.1 1.1 2.1 0 2.1 1.1 29.8 43.8 58.3 44.4 29.8 43.8 58.3 44.4 46.8 52.1 35.4 42.8 0 2.1 0 1.6 2.1 0 0 0.5 17.0 37.5 22.9 24.3 23.4 10.4 8.3 16.5 4.3 0 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.1 4.2 2.6 17.0 8.3 0 6.9 95.7 97.9 97.9 97.4 8.5 6.2 6.2 8.5 2.1 0 0 0.5 21.3 16.7 18.8 16.9 0 4.2 14.6 6.3 17.0 25.0 22.9 21.7 2.1 0 0 0.5 2.1 2.1 6.2 3.2 2.1 16.7 4.2 5.7 2.1 4.2 4.2 4.8

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

16

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Species/Type savannah sparrow song sparrow swamp sparrow unidentified sparrow b vesper sparrow Mimids brown thrasher gray catbird northern mockingbird Swallows barn swallow purple martin tree swallow Tanagers/Grosbeaks/ Crossbills rose-breasted grosbeak scarlet tanager Thrushes American robin eastern bluebird unidentified bluebird Veery wood thrush Titmice/Chickadees black-capped chickadee tufted titmouse Vireos red-eyed vireo warbling vireo Warblers American redstart black-and-white warbler bay-breasted warbler blue-winged warbler common yellowthroat R1 0.60 0.84 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.24 0.02 0.20 <0.01 0.33 0.30 0 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.87 0.81 0 0 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.09 0 0.05 0.04 <0.01 1.71 0.07 0.02 0.02 0 0.73 Mean Use (birds/transect) R2 R3 R4 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.83 0.66 0.68 0.02 0.04 0.09 0 0 0.08 0.06 0.05 0 0.17 0.27 0.13 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.15 0.25 0.12 0 0.02 0 0.36 0.35 0.98 0.34 0.31 0.82 0 0 <0.01 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.02 0 0.36 0.34 0 0 0.02 <0.01 0.06 0.06 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0 1.33 <0.01 0 0.02 0 0.56 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.53 0.46 0.04 0 0.02 <0.01 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.05 0.04 <0.01 1.52 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.84 0 0 0 0.43 0.38 0 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.04 0 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 1.17 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0.83 All 0.67 0.75 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.2 0.01 0.18 <0.01 0.51 0.44 <0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.55 0.49 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.09 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 1.43 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 R1 4.2 6 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.4 <0.1 2.4 2.1 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 6.2 5.7 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.6 0 0.3 0.3 <0.1 12.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0 5.1 Percent Composition (%) R2 R3 R4 All 4.5 5.9 5.8 5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 0 0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 0.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 1 2.1 1 1.4 0 0.1 0 <0.1 2.4 2.9 7.9 3.8 2.2 2.6 6.6 3.3 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0 2.4 2.2 0 0 0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.4 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0 8.9 <0.1 0 0.1 0 3.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 4.4 3.8 0.3 0 0.2 <0.1 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 <0.1 12.6 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 7 0 0 0 3.5 3 0 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.5 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 6.7 0.2 0.1 <0.1 4.1 3.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.7 0.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 10.7 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 R1 60.9 80.4 8.7 4.3 6.5 41.3 4.3 39.1 2.2 43.5 37.0 0 8.7 6.5 4.3 2.2 65.2 63.0 0 0 6.5 6.5 19.6 19.6 0 10.9 8.7 2.2 89.1 15.2 2.2 4.3 0 65.2 Frequency of Occurrence (%) R2 R3 R4 All 70.2 72.9 64.6 67.1 78.7 89.6 79.2 82.0 6.4 6.2 10.4 7.9 0 0 12.5 4.2 14.9 6.2 0 6.9 38.3 43.8 27.1 37.6 4.3 2.1 2.1 3.2 36.2 41.7 27.1 36.0 0 4.2 0 1.6 46.8 45.8 56.2 48.1 42.6 43.8 54.2 44.4 0 0 2.1 0.5 6.4 2.1 10.4 6.9 4.3 4.3 0 55.3 55.3 0 0 4.3 2.1 10.6 8.5 2.1 4.3 4.3 0 89.4 2.1 0 4.3 0 76.6 10.4 6.2 4.2 47.9 45.8 2.1 0 2.1 2.1 22.9 22.9 8.3 10.4 8.3 2.1 89.6 0 4.2 2.1 4.2 81.2 0 0 0 54.2 52.1 0 2.1 2.1 2.1 8.3 6.2 0 4.2 2.1 2.1 83.3 2.1 0 0 2.1 81.2 5.3 3.7 1.6 55.7 54.1 0.5 0.5 3.7 3.2 15.4 14.3 1.1 7.4 5.8 1.6 87.9 4.9 2.7 1.6 1.6 2.7

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

17

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Mean Use (birds/transect) Species/Type R1 R2 R3 R4 chestnut-sided warbler 0.04 <0.01 0 0 magnolia warbler 0.02 0 0 0 Ovenbird 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 yellow-rumped warbler <0.01 0 0 0 yellow warbler 0.80 0.72 0.59 0.33 Waxwings 0.02 0.16 0.34 0.35 cedar waxwing 0.02 0.16 0.34 0.35 Wrens 0.11 0.1 0.20 0.27 house wren 0.11 0.1 0.12 0.11 marsh wren <0.01 0 0.02 0.04 a sedge wren 0 0 0.06 0.12 Corvids 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.22 American crow 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.19 blue jay 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 Cuckoos 0 0 0 <0.01 black-billed cuckoo 0 0 0 <0.01 Swifts/Hummingbirds 0 <0.01 0 0 chimney swift 0 <0.01 0 0 Woodpeckers 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 downy woodpecker 0 0 <0.01 <0.01 northern flicker <0.01 0 0.02 0 pileated woodpecker 0 0 <0.01 0 unidentified woodpecker <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 Kingfishers 0 0 <0.01 0 belted kingfisher 0 0 <0.01 0 Overall 14.1 15.1 12.0 12.4 a =State-threatened; b=State species of concern. All 0.74 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.61 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13.4 R1 0.3 0.1 0.1 <0.1 5.7 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 <0.1 0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 100 Percent Composition (%) R2 R3 R4 <0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 4.8 5.0 2.6 1.1 2.9 2.8 1.1 2.9 2.8 0.6 1.7 2.1 0.6 1.0 0.9 0 0.1 0.3 0 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.8 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0.2 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 100 100 100 All 5.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 4.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100 R1 8.7 4.3 2.2 2.2 82.6 2.2 2.2 23.9 21.7 2.2 0 13.0 4.3 8.7 0 0 0 0 4.3 0 2.2 0 2.2 0 0 Frequency of Occurrence (%) R2 R3 R4 All 2.1 0 0 76.1 0 0 0 1.1 4.3 4.2 0 2.6 0 0 0 0.5 74.5 75 52.1 71.0 21.3 41.7 39.6 26.2 21.3 41.7 39.6 26.2 17.0 27.1 45.8 28.5 17.0 20.8 25.0 21.1 0 2.1 2.1 1.6 0 8.3 20.8 7.3 17.0 22.9 16.7 17.4 10.6 16.7 12.5 11.0 8.5 6.2 4.2 6.9 0 0 2.1 0.5 0 0 2.1 0.5 2.1 0 0 0.5 2.1 0 0 0.5 2.1 10.4 4.2 5.3 0 2.1 2.1 1.0 0 6.2 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 0.5 2.1 0 4.2 2.1 0 2.1 0 0.5 0 2.1 0 0.5

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

18

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Spatial Use There was no significant difference between mean use of major bird types recorded at transects within the CVWRA and at reference transects outside of the project area (two-sample t-tests; p>0.05; Table 4). Waterfowl use was slightly highest at reference points, however this was not significant (p=0.515). Table 4. Comparison of mean use (± SEM) of bird types and passerine sub-groups at transects within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects.
Bird Type/Sub-Group Waterbirds Waterfowl Shorebirds Raptors Vultures Upland Game Birds Doves/Pigeons Passerines Overall CVWRA Transects 0.43 ± 0.79 0.62 ± 0.07 0.07 ± 0.51 0.05 ± 0.01 0.005 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.003 0.10 ± 0.04 11.0 ± 0.03 12.4 ± 0.01 Reference Transects 0.41 ± 2.19 1.72 ± 0.12 0.05 ± 1.56 0.06 ± 0.03 0.03 ± 0.02 0.05 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.02 13.8 ± 0.04 16.2 ± 0.01 P 0.878 0.515 0.495 0.647 0.175 0.236 0.679 0.158

Within the CVWRA, mean use was highest at Transects 28, 17, and 2 (29.5, 26.9, and 20.5 birds/transect, respectively; Appendix B and D). The majority of bird use at transect 28 was due to Waterfowl (18.8 birds/survey), while use at transects 17 and 2 was mainly due to Passerines (26.3 and 19.8 birds/survey, respectively; Figure 4). Transect order along the x-axis of Figure 4 is approximately aligned west-east within the project area. For example, Transect 28, with the highest Waterfowl use is located in the center of the project. Use by Waterbirds was relatively evenly spread across the project area, as was use by Passerines. Use by Raptors, however, was greater to the east and center of the site (Transects 64, 55, 52, 71, 40, 47, 50, 39, 26, 24, 22, and 17).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

19

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

100% 90% 80%

Percent Composition

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

2

1

68

70

17

4

5

21

14

12

15

32

27

67

22

24

28

26

36

38

37

44

45

46

39

50

47

40

51

71

52

66

54

55

58

60

64

Transect

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area Transects
Passerines
100%
90%

Waterbirds

Waterfowl

Shorebirds

Raptors

Vultures

UGB

Dove/P

80%

Percent Composition

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

R8

R9

R10

R6

R7

R4

R11

R3

R1

R13

R12

R14

Transect

Reference Transects

Figure 4. Percent composition of bird types recorded within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects during grassland breeding bird transect surveys; May-July, 2010.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

20

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Incidental Observations A total of 26 birds within 20 groups were recorded as incidental observations within the CVWRA during grassland breeding bird transect surveys; representing twelve species (Table 5). Only one of these species, sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), was not observed during standardized surveys. One mammal species, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), was also observed. Table 5. Incidental wildlife observed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area outside of standardized surveys; May–July, 2010.
Species American kestrel barn swallow grasshopper sparrow Merlin northern harrier red-tailed hawk ruffed grouse savannah sparrow sedge wren sharp-shinned hawk upland sandpiper Wilson's snipe Bird Subtotal white-tailed deer Mammal Subtotal Scientific Name Falco sparverius Hirundo rustica Ammodramus savannarum Falco columbarius Circus cyaneus Buteo jamaicensis Bonasa umbellus Passerculus sandwichensis Cistothorus platensis Accipiter striatus Bartramia longicauda Gallinago delicate 12 Species Odocoileus virginianus 1 species # grps 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 20 1 1 # obs 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 4 3 26 2 2

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Observations No federal threatened or endangered species were observed during grassland breeding bird transect surveys or observed incidentally at the CVWRA. Four state-listed threatened species were recorded during transect surveys: one Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), four northern harriers, 18 sedge wrens, and two upland sandpipers (Table 6). In addition, five state species of concern were observed: six American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), one Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), 64 grasshopper sparrows, one osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and 12 vesper sparrows (Pooecetes gramineus). Four northern harriers, two sedge wrens, four upland sandpipers, one grasshopper sparrow, and one sharpshinned hawk (state species of concern) were recorded within the CVWRA as incidental observations outside of standardized transect surveys. RTE species recorded along reference transects included three northern harriers, one pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), five sedge wrens, 10 American bitterns, 26 grasshopper sparrows, and six vesper sparrows.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

21

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Table 6. Sensitive species observed during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys and as incidental wildlife observations at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20–July 9, 2010.
Species Henslow's sparrow northern harrier pied-billed grebe sedge wren upland sandpiper American bittern Cooper's hawk grasshopper sparrow Osprey vesper sparrow sharp-shinned hawk Total Scientific Name Ammodramus henslowii Circus cyaneus Podilymbus podiceps Cistothorus platensis Bartramia longicauda Botaurus lentiginosus Accipiter cooperii Ammodramus savannarum Pandion haliaetus Pooecetes gramineus Accipiter striatus Status ST ST ST ST ST SSC SSC SSC SSC SSC SSC Project Area 1 4 0 18 2 6 1 64 1 12 0 109 Incidental 0 4 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 12 Total in CVWRA 1 8 0 20 6 6 1 65 1 12 1 121 Reference 0 3 1 5 0 10 0 26 0 6 0 51

Project Area=recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys within CVWRA; incidental=Incidental wildlife observations within CVWRA; Reference=recorded on reference transects; ST = State-threatened; SSC = State Special Concern

Grasshopper sparrows were observed along 45.9% of transects within the CVWRA and 66.7% of reference transects (Figure 5; Appendix E). Transect 37 in the center of the project area had the greatest number of RTE observations recorded (n=15) and the greatest diversity of sensitive species (n=4). One American bittern, nine grasshopper sparrows, two sedge wrens, and three vesper sparrow observations were recorded along this transect. Transects 60 and 64 to the east of the project area also had higher numbers of RTE observations recorded (12 and nine, respectively), primarily due to grasshopper sparrow observations. The highest number of RTE observations recorded at a reference transect was 12, at R8; all grasshopper sparrows. The reference transect with the greatest species diversity was R4 where four species (four American bitterns, one pied-billed grebe, two grasshopper sparrows, and two sedge wrens).

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

22

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

16

14
Number of Individuals

12
10 8 6

4
2 0 2 1 68 70 17 4 5 21 14 12 15 32 27 67 22 24 28 26 36 38 37 44 45 46 39 50 47 40 51 71 52 66 54 55 58 60 64 Transect

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area Transects
American bitten Osprey Pied-billed grebe Grasshopper sparrow Upland sandpiper Henslow's sparrow Cooper's hawk Sedge wren Northern harrier Vesper sparrow

14
Number of Individuals
12

10
8

6
4

2
0 R8 R9 R10 R6 R7 R4 Transect R11 R3 R1 R13 R12 R14

Reference Transects

Figure 5. Number of sensitive species recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

23

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

DISCUSSION The primary objectives of 2010 grassland breeding bird transect surveys was to provide baseline data for a BACI study designed to assess indirect impacts of the CVWRA on grassland birds and collect additional pre-construction data on bird species composition and use of the project area. Two annual studies will be completed using identical methods and metrics during operation of the CVWRA to provide comparable data to assess if operation of the CVWRA is resulting in indirect impacts to the grassland bird community. BACI data will be analyzed using a gradient analysis and line-distance analysis methods. In addition, detailed habitat data collected along survey transects during the 2010 study will be compared with post-construction habitat data to assess whether any changes in species composition or relative abundance were related to changes in habitat. Results of the 2010 study indicate that reference transects are similar to treatment transects included in the study in terms of bird type and passerine subtype. As expected, there was a dominance of open grassland species such as the savannah sparrow, song sparrow, eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and bobolink. Generalist species which occupy mixed habitat types in the region (Andrle and Carroll 1988 and McGowan and Corwin 2008) were also abundant, including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and yellowrumped warbler (Dendroica coronate). Woodland and forest bird species were also detected, though in smaller numbers, such as the American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) and American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) which prefer early successional forest as well as those that prefer more mature forest like the eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla; McGowan and Corwin 2008). No federal-listed threatened or endangered species were observed during surveys or incidentally. No New York state endangered species were observed. New York state-threatened bird species associated with grasslands were observed within the CVWRA and included one Henslow’s sparrow, 20 sedge wrens, eight northern harriers and six upland sandpipers. The most abundant RTE species observed was the grasshopper sparrow, with 64 individual observations. No nests of RTE species were observed, however, behavior (singing, territorial displays) and seasonal timing of observations corresponded with the breeding season. Indirect Effects of Wind Energy on Birds Wind energy development has the potential to cause direct loss of habitat where infrastructure is located and indirect loss of habitat through behavioral avoidance and habitat fragmentation. Direct loss of habitat associated with wind energy development is relatively minor for most species compared to most other forms of energy development. Behavioral avoidance, however, may render much larger areas unsuitable or less suitable for some species of wildlife, depending on how far the species are displaced from wind energy facilities. Based on some studies in Europe, displacement effects associated with wind energy were thought to have a greater impact on birds than collision mortality (Gill et al. 1996). The greatest concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in North America has been where these facilities have been constructed in native habitats such as grasslands or shrublands (Leddy et al. 1999, Mabey and Paul 2007). Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for wind turbines

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

24

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report to cause displacement to migrating and wintering birds that may utilize cropland as feeding or stopover habitat. The greatest concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in the U.S. has been where these facilities have been constructed in grassland or other native habitats where tall structures such as turbines do not normally occur (Leddy et al. 1999, Mabey and Paul 2007). Results from studies at the Stateline wind energy facility in Washington and Oregon (Erickson et al. 2004a) and the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota (Johnson et al. 2000a) suggest that breeding birds may be affected by wind facility operations. Studies concerning displacement of non-raptor species have largely concentrated on grassland passerines and waterfowl/waterbirds (Larsen and Madsen 2000, Mabey and Paul 2007, Winkelman 1990). Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small scale local displacement of grassland passerines and is likely due to the birds avoiding habitat disturbed by construction, turbine noise, and/or maintenance activities. Most studies of displacement of non-raptor species have concentrated on grassland passerines and waterfowl. Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small-scale local displacement of some grassland passerines; however, displacement at larger scales has not been reported. Leddy et al. (1999) surveyed bird densities in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands at the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota, and found that mean densities of 10 grassland bird species were four times higher in areas located 180 m (591 ft) from turbines than they were in grasslands nearer turbines; however, the study did not account for differences in habitat type at varying distances from turbines. The CVWRA BACI study will account for habitat differences. Johnson et al. (2000) found reduced use of habitat within 100 m of turbines by seven of 22 grassland-breeding birds following construction of the Buffalo Ridge facility. At the Stateline wind-energy facility in Oregon and Washington, use of areas <50 m from turbines by grasshopper sparrow was reduced by approximately 60%, with no reduction in use >50 m from turbines (Erickson et al. 2004). At the Combine Hills facility in Oregon, use of areas within 150 m of turbines by western meadowlark was reduced by 86%, compared to a 12.6% reduction in use of reference areas over the same time period (Young et al. 2005). Horned larks, however, showed significant increases in use of areas near turbines at both of these facilities, likely because this species prefers areas of bare ground such as those created by turbine pads and access roads (Beason 1995). At the Buffalo Ridge facility in Minnesota, the abundance of several bird types, including shorebirds and waterfowl, was found to be significantly lower at survey plots with turbines than at reference plots without turbines (Johnson et al. 2000a). The report concluded that the area of reduced use was limited primarily to those areas within 100 m of the turbines. These results are similar to those described by Osborn et al. (1998), who reported that birds at Buffalo Ridge avoided flying in areas with turbines. Devreaux et al. (2008) found no effects of turbines on the distribution or relative abundance of farmland birds, including granivores, at distances of >250 m. Pearce-Higgins (2009) found golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) avoided turbines out to 200 m, whereas avoidance by snipe (Gallinago gallinago) extended to 400 m in a study conducted in British uplands. Populations of mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus) at the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in Wyoming initially declined during construction but have partially recovered to pre-construction levels based on operational monitoring data (Young et al 2005). It is not known whether population changes were responses to the wind energy facility or regional changes in mountain plover populations. Nonetheless,

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

25

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report during post-construction nest surveys 11 of 28 nests found (39%) were located within 75 m (246 ft) of turbines, suggesting displacement effects to breeding mountain plovers may be minimal and the birds habituated to the turbines post-construction. Most studies on raptor displacement at wind energy facilities indicate effects appear to be restricted to small spatial scales. A BACI study of avian use at the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota found evidence of northern harriers avoiding turbines on both a small scale (less than 100 m from turbines) and a larger scale (range of 105 - 5,364 m) in the year following construction (Johnson et al. 2000a). Two years following construction, however, no large-scale displacement of northern harriers was detected. In North America, the only published report of avoidance of wind turbines by nesting raptors occurred at the Buffalo Ridge facility, where raptor nest density on 261.6 km2 of land surrounding the facility was 5.94 nests/101.0 km2; yet no nests were present in the 31.1 km2 facility itself, even though habitat was similar (Usgaard et al. 1997). A recent study from the United Kingdom suggests a reduction of 52.5% in apparent density of hen harriers within 800 m of wind turbines; however, the study did not measure breeding success proximate to turbines (Pearce-Higgins 2009). This study also demonstrated avoidance of turbines by harriers up to distances of 250 m; however, flight behavior of harriers and other raptors measured in the vicinity of turbines did not differ with control groups. Data on the effects of wind energy on raptor nesting productivity is sparse, though encouraging. At a wind energy facility in eastern Washington, based on extensive monitoring using helicopter flights and ground observations, raptors still nested in the study area at approximately the same levels after construction, and several nests were located within 0.8 km of turbines (Erickson et al. 2004). Howell and Noone (1992) found similar numbers of raptor nests before and after construction of Phase 1 at the Montezuma Hills wind energy facility in California, and anecdotal evidence indicates that raptor use of the Altamont Pass wind energy facility in California may have increased since installation of wind turbines (Orloff and Flannery 1992, AWEA 1995). At the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in southern Wyoming, one pair of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) nested within 0.3 miles (0.5 km) of the turbine strings, and seven red-tailed hawk nests, one great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest, and one golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nest located within one mile (1.6 km) of the facility successfully fledged young (Johnson et al. 2000b, WEST unpublished data). The golden eagle pair successfully nested 0.8 km from the facility for three years after the project became operational.

REFERENCES Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 1995. Avian Interactions with Wind Energy Facilities: a Summary. Prepared by Colson & Associates for AWEA, Washington, D.C. Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris). In: The Birds of North America, No. 195. Poole, A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia. Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

26

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Burger, Michael, Mitschka Hartley, Jan Beyea, Graham Cox, 2001. Logging impacts on birds in New York: for private forest stewardship in bird conservation. New York State Biodiversit Institute Park Foundation, United States Forest Service. Available online http://ny.audubon.org/PDFs/AMNHForestryBirdsPoster-27Apr2006.pdf. Accessed October 19, 2010. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 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. Devereux, C.L., M.J.H. Denny, and M.J. Whittingham. 2008. Minimal Effects of Wind Turbines on the Distribution of Wintering Farmland Birds. Journal of Applied Ecology Windfarms and Farmland Birds: 1365-2664. Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004a. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring Final Report: July 2001 - December 2003. Technical report for and peer-reviewed by FPL Energy, Stateline Technical Advisory Committee, and the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Walla Walla, Washington, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. December 2004. http://www.west-inc.com Gill, J.P., M. Townsley, and G.P. Mudge. 1996. Review of the Impacts of Wind Farms and Other Aerial Structures Upon Birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 21. Scottish Natural Heritage. Battleby, United Kingdom. Herkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeier, T.L. Esker, and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response of Northern Harriers and Short-Eared Owls to Grassland Management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 517-523. Howell, J.A. and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of Avian Use and Mortality at a U.S. Windpower Wind Energy Development Site, Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California. Final Report to Solano County Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, California. 41pp. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. Shepherd. 2000a. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-Year Study. Final report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 22, 2000. 212 pp. http://www.west-inc.com Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, W.P. Erickson, C.E. Derby, M.D. Strickland, and R.E. Good. 2000b. Wildlife Monitoring Studies, SeaWest Windpower Plant, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999. Final report prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation, San Diego, California, and the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 9, 2000. http://www.west-inc.com and http://www.westinc.com/reports/fcr_final_baseline.pdf Larsen, J.K. and J. Madsen. 2000. Effects of Wind Turbines and Other Physical Elements on Field Utilization by Pink-Footed Geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A Landscape Perspective. Landscape Ecology 15: 755-764. Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Nesting Birds in Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111(1): 100-104.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

27

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Mabey, S. and E. Paul. 2007. Impact of Wind Energy and Related Human Activities on Grassland and Shrub-Steppe Birds. A Critical Literature Review Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) and The Ornithological Council. 183 pp. McGowan, K.J. and K. Corwin, eds. 2008. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State: 2000-2005. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 688 pp. Morgan, M. and M. Burger. 2008. Monitoring the Effectiveness of Grassland Bird Conservation: Efforts and Perspectives from New York on Developing a Grassland Bird Monitoring Program. Audubon New York. Morrison, M.L., W.M. Block, M.D. Strickland, and W.L. Kendall. 2001. Wildlife Study Design. Springer-Verlag NewYork, Inc., New York. National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu Orloff, S. and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989-1991. Final Report P700-92-001 to Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, and the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, by Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Tiburon, California. March 1992. Pearce-Higgins, J.W., L. Stephen, R.H.W. Langston, I.P. Bainbridge, and R. Bullman. 2009. The Distribution of Breeding Birds around Upland Wind Farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6): 1323 - 1331. Thomas, L., J. L. Laake, S. Strindberg, F. F. C. Marques, S. T. Buckland, D. L. Borchers, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, S. L. Hedley, J. H. Pollard, and J. R. B. Bishop. 2003. DISTANCE. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Estimation. University of St. Andrews, U.K. Usgaard, R.E., D.E. Naugle, R.G. Osborn, and K.F. Higgins. 1997. Effects of Wind Turbines on Nesting Raptors at Buffalo Ridge in Southwestern Minnesota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 76: 113-117. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2006. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Chautauqua County, New York. USDA-NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas. US Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Database. 2001. National Land Cover Database Land Cover Layer. USGS, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Winkelman, E. 1990. Impact of the Wind Park near Urk, Netherlands, on Birds: Bird Collision Victims and Disturbance of Wintering Fowl. International Ornithological Congress 20: 402-403. Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, and M. Bourassa. 2005. Eurus Combine Hills Turbine Ranch. Phase 1 Post Construction Wildlife Monitoring Final Report February 2004 February 2005. Technical report for Eurus Energy America Corporation and the Combine Hills Technical Advisory Committee, Umatilla County, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc. for BP Alternative Energy North America.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

28

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Appendix A: Habitat summary by line transect for the 2010 grassland breeding bird transect surveys within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20-July 9, 2010.
Transect 1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Dominant Habitat Crop Fallow Crop Pasture Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Crop Grassland Crop Grassland Pasture Crop Grassland Grassland Crop Grassland Pasture Scrub Scrub Grassland Grassland Grassland Crop Crop Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Pasture Scrub Crop Grassland Pasture Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Secondary Habitat Deciduous Scrub Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Brush/Deciduous Grassland Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Brush/Deciduous Brush Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Crop-Clover Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Scrub Deciduous Scrub Scrub Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Scrub Mixed forest Deciduous Deciduous

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

29

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Appendix B: Mean use of major bird types recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010.
35

All Birds
30 26.9
29.5

29.2

30.2

Mean use (birds/survey)

25 20.5 20
15 14.6 13.7

20.8 17.1 14.3 9.56 11.0 9.66 8.62 13.4
13.1

21.7

11.5 10 5 0 1 2 4

10.0 8.91 8.34

12.3 12.9

16.3 16.2 13.8 12.7 13.1 12.3 9.19 12.0 12.2 10.9 10.3 10.3 11.1 9.84 8.44 8.25 8.91 8.25 9.56 8.25 7.88 7.41

12.9 12.5 11.8 10.1

5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14

Transect

3 Waterbirds
2.34

Mean use (birds/survey)

2
1.50 1.22 1.41 0.75 0.56 0.66 0.66 0.47 0.38 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.09
0.66 0.47 0.47

1
0.47 0.25 0.19

0.28

0.19 0

0.28 0

0
1 2 4

0

0.47 0.28 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

0.56 0.56

0.75 0.75 0.19 0.19 0

0.28 0

0.09

5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14

Transect

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

30

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

3 Raptors

Mean use (birds/survey)

2

1 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09

0.09 0
1 2 4

0.28 0.09 0.09

0.19 0.09

0.28

5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14

Transect

30
26.3

28.4

Passerines

25

Mean use (birds/survey)

20 15

19.8 15.8 13.1 9.94 8.53 7.69 13.2 12.8 11.9 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.9 8.91 13.1 11.5 9.66 11.2 8.53 8.25 8.53 7.59 6.38 11.6 7.22 12.3 11.5

21.0 19.5

14.1 12.1 10.7

14.8 10.2 10.1 7.03 11.3 11.2 11.1 11.2 9.56

10 5 0
1 2 4

9.66

8.91 8.72 8.25

9.47

6.28

5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14

Transect

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

31

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

21
18.8 Waterfowl 18.8

18
Mean use (birds/survey)

15 12 9 6 3
0.09 2.06 0.94

0.28

0.28

0.09

0.38 0.19 0.19

0.09

0
1 2 4

0.19 0.19 0.09

0.28 0.38

0.09 0.09

5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14

Transect

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

32

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Appendix C: Mean use of bird types recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird transects at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Total WB 0.56 0.25 0.19 0.66 0.47 0.09 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.09 2.34 0.28 1.50 0.19 0.28 0.75 0.66 0.47 0.47 1.22 0.47 0.28 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.38 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.75 0.75 1.41 0.19 0.19 0.09 20.7 WF 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 18.8 2.06 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.94 0.28 0.38 0.09 0.09 18.8 43.5 SB 0.12 0.19 0.56 0.09 0.56 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 3.10 RA 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.38 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.28 2.50 VU 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.55 GB 0.84 0.28 0.09 0.38 0.94 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.66 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 4.50 DP 0.28 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.66 0.28 0.19 0.25 0.47 0.09 0.09 0.38 0.28 0.19 0.09 4.55 PA 10.7 19.8 14.1 12.1 9.66 7.69 8.53 26.3 13.1 9.94 8.72 8.91 8.25 10.4 10.6 12.8 10.5 11.9 13.2 8.91 10.9 13.1 11.5 9.66 11.2 7.59 6.38 8.25 8.53 8.53 15.8 7.22 11.6 9.47 12.3 11.5 6.28 10.1 10.2 14.8 7.03 28.4 19.5 11.3 11.2 21.0 11.1 9.56 11.2 571 Total 11.5 20.5 14.6 13.7 10.0 8.34 8.91 26.9 14.3 11.0 9.66 9.56 8.62 29.5 13.1 13.4 12.9 12.3 17.1 9.56 10.9 13.8 13.1 11.1 12.3 8.44 7.88 8.25 9.19 8.91 16.2 8.25 12.0 9.84 12.7 12.2 7.41 10.3 10.3 16.3 8.25 29.2 20.8 12.5 12.9 21.7 11.8 10.1 30.2 652

WB=Waterbirds; WF=Waterfowl; SB=Shorebirds; RA=Raptors; VU=Vultures; GB=Gamebirds; DP=Dove/Pigeons; PA=Passerines

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

33

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report Appendix D: Mean use by passerine sub-groups recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird transects at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Total B/O 3.94 13.4 11.1 5.62 4.69 3.09 4.12 20.4 5.34 4.59 4.12 3.28 4.31 5.62 2.44 5.44 4.41 7.22 2.53 1.69 1.12 0.75 3.00 7.03 2.81 1.78 1.97 3.56 5.81 5.34 12.9 2.16 4.69 4.78 6.47 6.94 2.72 2.91 3.56 9.09 5.06 24.0 8.53 6.00 4.69 8.25 5.16 1.88 3.75 274 FI 1.12 0.25 0.75 0.84 0.56 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.28 0.56 0.19 0.09 0.66 0.56 0.09 0.38 0.66 0.75 0.38 0.62 0.19 0.94 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.38 1.03 0.75 1.22 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.56 0.28 0.09 0.47 0.66 0.75 0.56 1.22 20.4 FL 0.28 0.75 0.19 0.19 0.47 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.09 0.56 0.56 0.47 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 1.12 0.88 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.56 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.84 0.47 0.47 0.56 0.28 0.38 13.8 G/S 1.31 2 1.59 3.38 0.84 1.12 0.84 3.47 1.88 1.22 1.78 1.88 0.94 2.25 2.34 3.09 2.62 1.31 2.34 2.81 3.75 2.72 2.38 1.22 1.69 1.50 1.69 1.69 1.03 1.03 2.16 1.59 2.34 2.16 1.03 2.16 2.16 3.29 2.25 1.50 0.26 1.5 4.22 1.59 1.59 2.72 2.72 2.44 2.06 97.5 MI 0.28 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.38 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.28 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.28 0.47 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.94 0.50 0.56 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.47 0.09 0.38 9.79 SW 0.47 1.00 0.75 0.56 0.66 0.19 0.75 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.19 0.47 0.47 1.12 0.75 0.47 0.38 0.09 0.12 0.84 0.47 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.38 0.75 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.66 1.41 0.28 0.19 0 0.09 5.81 0.94 0.09 0.19 24.7
TGC

0.09 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00

TH 0.56 0.38 0.09 0.84 0.09 0.19 0.56 0.75 1.31 0 0.38 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.66 0.09 0.56 3.94 0.47 0.38 0.66 0.75 0.66 0.56 0.56 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.66 0.19 0.28 1.03 0.84 0.66 0.38 0.09 0.19 1.50 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.19 1.50 26.4

T/C 0.19 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.09 0.28 0.09 4.19

VI 0.12 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.28 1.51

WA 1.78 1.25 0.28 0.28 1.69 1.12 0.47 0.66 1.88 1.59 1.31 1.41 1.50 1.31 2.62 1.03 1.88 0.66 1.59 1.97 3.00 3.00 2.12 0.28 2.72 1.59 0.94 1.50 0.75 0.84 0.09 0.94 1.50 0.84 1.22 0.75 0.66 2.44 2.81 1.31 0.75 1.12 1.78 1.41 2.62 1.88 1.03 2.53 2.72 71.4

WX 0.47 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.66 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.09 0.38 0.28 0.38 0.47 0.09 0.75 0.66 0.62 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.84 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.19 11.4

WR 0.47 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.09 0.75 1.31 0.5 0.19 0.09 0.38 0.09 0.28 0.84 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.09 0.09 8.79

CV 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.47 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.31 0.28 0.19 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.19 0.09 6.07

B/O=Blackbirds/Orioles; FI=Finches; FL=Flycatchers; G/S=Grassland/Sparrows; MI=Mimids; SW=Swallows; TGC=Tanagers/Grosbeaks/Crossbills; TH=Thrushes; T/C=Titmice/Chickadees; VI=Vireos; WA=Warblers; WX=Waxwings; WR=Wrens; CV=Corvids

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

34

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

APPENDIX E: Sensitive species recorded on each transect during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010;
Transect 1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 TOTAL AMBI 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 16 COHA 1 1 GRSP 5 3 1 5 1 1 2 9 1 4 1 2 11 8 2 3 5 1 1 2 3 12 1 1 5 90 HESP 1 1 NOHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 OSPR 1 1 PBGR 1 1 SEWR 3 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 23 UPSA 2 2 VESP 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 18 Total 3 6 0 1 0 3 1 6 2 7 2 2 0 2 0 1 15 2 6 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 0 0 1 12 9 4 3 1 0 8 3 3 9 6 6 12 1 3 2 6 0 0 160

AMBI=American bittern; COHA=Cooper’s hawk; GRSP=Grasshopper sparrow; HESP=Henslow’s sparrow; NOHA=Northern harrier; OSPR=Osprey; PBGR=Pied-billed grebe; SEWR=Sedge wren; UPSA=Upland sandpiper; VESP=Vesper sparrow.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

35

December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

36

December 17, 2010

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful