USFWS Comments on New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project_Grant and Mineral Counties_West Virginia

8/3/2019 USFWS Comments on New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project_Grant and Mineral Counties_West Virginia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/usfws-comments-on-new-creek-mountain-wind-energy-projectgrant-and-mineral 1/19

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIq&-

J:f'*#d;lr*,

r/dff tr#pyJun.e 5, 2008

Ms. Samantha HardTRC Solutions650 Suffolk StreetLowell, Massachusetts 01 854

Comments on the Ploposed New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project, Grant and

Mineral Counties, West Virginia

Dear Ms. Hard:

This responds to your leller dated April 10, 2008, regarding the proposal by AES Wind LLC(AES) to construct and operate the New Creek Mountain wind power facility in Grant andMineral Counties, West Virginia. The proposed facility consists of approximately 48 turbiuesthat would produce a cornbined output of approximately 120 megawatts (MW). In your letter,you requested information on ecologically significant habitats, endangered or threatened species,

and species of concetn.

The proposed project is located within the Allegheny Flont, a known major bird and batrnigration corridor. Based on the infonnation provideci, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) is concerned about the possible effects ofconstruction and operation ofthis project to

the endangered Indianabat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinusfownsendii virginianus), ullisted migratory bats, nesting bald eagles (Halia.eetus leucocephalus),and migratory birds, including songbirds, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and other raptors.

Therefore, in response to your letter requesting technical assistance, we are providinginformation on fiderally-protected species, risks associated with wind power facilities to bats

ald birds, and initial information about surveys and measures to reduce bird and bat rnortality.

Our comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended;

16 U.S.C. 1531 et sea

),theBild and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and the

Migratoly Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712)'

With regard to "species of concern", the Service mairrtains a list of candidate species for which it

has suffrcielt information to support issuance of a proposed rule to list a species as threatened ot

endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. There are no candidate species that

wouldle adversely affected by the New Creek Mountain project. Because the Service no longer

Re:



Ms. Samantha HardJune 5,2008

maintains an official o'species of concern" list (64 Federal Register 6448I) other than candidatespecies, we recommend that you contact the West Virginia Division of Natural Resowces (DNR)for a list of species considered by the DNR to be sensitive, rare, or declining in West Virginia.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, a project proponent is responsible for ensuringthat its actions do not result in rinauthorized take oi a federally-tisted speciesl. The Service isavailable to assist your client in regard to avoiding and minimizing take of listed species, or insecuring authorizations if take of listed species can not be avoided. If a federally-listedthreatened or endangered species may be taken as a result of the construction or operation of theproject, a project proponent may apply to the Service to obtain an incidental take permit pursuantto section (10Xa)(1XB) of the Endangered Species Act. The Service may issue such a permitupon completion of a satisfactory habitat conservation plan for the listed species that would betaken by the project,

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Two federally-listed bat species could occur in the project area, the endangered Indiana bat andVirginia big-eared bat. During the winter Q.{ovember 16 to March 31), the Indiana bathibernates in caves or mine shafts in West Virginia. There is one known Indiana bathibernaculum (Smoke Hole Cave) located within approximately 25 miles of the proposed windpower facility. Surveys of Smoke Hole Cave during 1998 to 1999 indicate that a transientpopulation of Indiana bats may use the cave in the winter.

During the spring, Indiana bats emerge from winter hibernacula and move to traditional breeding

and roosting a.reas. Migration distance between winterand

summer habitatranges

fromless than

30 miles to over 300 miles. Females dispersing from a Kentucky hibernacuium in the springmoved 4 to10 miles within 10 days of emergence, eventually traveling more than 300 miles fromthe hibernaculum to the maternity area (Gardner etal.1996; Gardner and Cook 2002). However,maternity colonies also have been located within I0lo 25 miles of the hibernaculum (Butchkoskiand Hassin ger 2002; Britzke ef al. 2004). Data collected during a two-year study tracking springemerging females to their sulnmer roost sites in the Lake Champlain valley of New York, and ina separate Vermont study, suggest that females do not remain in the area surrounding thehibernacula after emerging from hibernation, but leave for summer habitat soon after emergence

from hibemation (Britzke et al. 20Aq.

t Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in

such conduct (ESA $3(19). Harm is further defined by Service regulation to include significant habitat modificationor degradation that results in death or x1jury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as

breeding,feeding,orsheltering(50CFR$17.3). HarassisdefinedbyServiceregulationasactionsthatcreatethelikelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns whichinclude, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR $17.3)'



Ms. Samantha Hard 3June 5, 2008

After a:riving at their summer range, reproductive female Indiana bats form maternity coloniesin trees with appropriate microhabitat. The closest known Indiana bat maternity colony is 320miles from the project site.

During sulnmer, non-reproductive female Indiana bats also roost in trees. Less is known aboutthe

male migration pattern, but many males summer near the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack2002). Some males disperse throughout the range and roost individualiy or in small numbers inthe same types of trees and in the sarne areas as females.

The Indiana bat may use the project area for foraging and roosting between April 1 andNovember 15. Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying insects, and forage in riparian,bottomland, or upland forests (including ridge-tops), preferring a mosaic of open and forestedareas (USFWS 1999). Such habitat conditions are likely to result from forest clearing associatedwith construction of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind power project. While clearingsmay appear to benefit bats, they may also attract bats after the turbines have been constructed,increasing the potential for bat mortality (Verboom and Spoelstra 1999, Diin'and Bach 2004).

Indiana bat roosting/matemity habitat consists primarily of live or dead hardwood tree species 5-inches in diameter, or greater, which have exfoliating bark that provides space for bats to roostbetween the bark and the bole of the tree (JSFWS 1999). Tree cavities, crevices, splits, orhollow portions of tree boles and limbs also provide roost sites. The Indiana bat could beimpacted by project construction activities that involve removing potential foraging habitat, roosttrees, or maternity habitat.

It has been suggested that bats orient in response to landscape features during migration(Humphrey 1976). The mountain ridges of West Virginia may serve as cor:ridors for batsmigrating between their summer and winter habitats. Several bat species, including lndiana batsare

known to follow linear features in the landscape when traveling between roosting andforaging sites (Verboom & Huitema 1997; Verboom & Spoelstralggg; Munay & Kurta 2A0q.However, Indiana bats are also known to cross high Appalachian ridges as demonstrated in anelectronic tracking study (Chenger 2003). Thus Indiana bats may be at risk of collision with theproposed project.

Virginia Big-eared Bat (C orynorhin us towns endii virginianus)

The federally-listed endangered Virginia big-eared bat lives in caves year round, and movesbetween winter hibernation sites and summer matemity sites. These movements may be withinthe same cave, but are more commonly between caves. Migration distances are usually less than

40 miles. There are two known Virginia big-eared bat caves approximately 18.6 miles and24.2miles, respectively, from the project site (Peacock Cave and MillRun Cave). Both caves seryeas summer habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat. During the 2006 to 2007 survey conducted bythe State, Peacock Cave had 985 individuais and Mill Run Cave had 178 individuals.

Virginia big-eared bats may use the area for foraging between April 1 and November 15. Theyfeed exclusively on flying insects, with the majority of their diet consisting of moths. Foraginghabitat includes woodlands, old fields and hay fields (USFWS 1995). ln summer, Virginia big-



Ms. Samantha Hard 4June 5,2008

eared bats may forage more than six miles from their cave, and will cross ridges to reachforaging areas. Preferred foraging areas for Virginia big-eared bats consist of a mosaic of openand forested habitat. Such habitat conditions are likely to result from the construction of theproposed Laurel Mountain project.

Recommendations. To better evaluate the risk of take of Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats,the Service recommends a habitat analysis of the project area; spring, suminer, and fall mist-netsurveys; surveys for caves and abandoned mine portals; and radar and acoustic surveys todetermine bat activity in the project area (for fillher details, see section on surveys and measuresto reduce mortality of bats and birds).

OTHER SPECIES

Bald Eagle

The bald eagle is afforded special protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection

Act (16 U.S.C. $$ 668-668d, June 8,1940, as amended 1959,1962,7972, and 1978). This Actprohibits the take of bald and goiden eagles unless pursuant to regulations. The definition of takeincludes actions that ki1l, wound, or disturb eagles. ln the case ofthe bald eagle, take can onlybe authorized under a permit.

Nesting baid eagies are known to be present within 4.7 miles of the proposed New CreekMountain wind power facility, based on yearly surveys performed by the West Virginia Divisionof Nafiral Resources. It is currently unknown whether bald eagles forage within, or fly over, thefootprint of the project area. However, given the close proximity of the project to a known nest,it is possible that these eagles may fly across the location of the proposed turbine strings to reachtheir primary foraging area. Crossing the strings on a regular basis would inuease the risk of

collision, and thus mortality, of foraging bald eagles. Immature eagles may also have anincreased risk of collision due to their lack of flying experience.

Recommendations. We recommend additional observations of bald eagle use in the area. Wealso recommend the use of the Service's National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) toassess the risk of construction and operation activities on bald eagles. The ManagementGuidelines include recommendations (such as nest buffers) designed to avoid and minimizedisturbance of bald eagles, particularly nesting eagles. The Service may provide additionalmanagement recommendations if it is found that the eagles must cross the turbine string toaccess their foraging area or if another eagle nest is established closer to, or within, the projectsite.

Golden Eagle

Similar to the bald eagle, the golden eagle also is afforded special protection under the federalBald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The eastern population of the golden eagle migrates longdistances between northern Quebec and a few states in the Allegheny Mountain rcnge such as

West Virginia. The golden eagle is a species of concern, generally, because it is one of theraptors most frequently killed by wind turbines in the westem United States, specifically at




Altamont Pass. Golden eagles are known to fly at lower altitudes during migration, potentiallyincreasing their likelihood of encountering a rotating turbine blade.

The National Aviary has been tracking golden eagles during their winter stay in West Virginia,and throughout their migration cycle. Maps available on the internet identify their routes in

Quebec, Canada, funneled along the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania and the AlleghenyFront of West Virginia. During 2007-2008, Golden eagle#4l wintered in the generai vicinity ofof the New Creek Mountain project site. The widely dispersed movements of this immature birdcan be tracked as an animation at:www.aviary. org/csrv/track_map.php?tel:4 1 &season=win&yr:7.

Recommendations. The Service recommends that AES support the continued tracking ofgolden eagle use in the project vicinity by the National Aviary. The Service may provideadditional recommendations should new information indicate that golden eagles are using theproject area.

Migratory Birds and Unlisted Migratory Bats

The Allegheny Front is a known major migration route for birds and bats, including raptors.There are over 50 years of migration records from the Allegheny Front Bird observatory stationat Bear Rocks, located on the next ridge to the east within roughly 12 miles of the proposedproject. Observations have been made at Bear Rocks nearly every fall since 1948 by members ofthe Brooks Bird Club and reported in their quarterly journal, the Redstarf. Recent observationsby the Allegheny Front Migration Observatory (Bell and Pattison2007), as well as a studyconducted by U.S. Geological Survey, The Nature Conservancy, and the Service (Mizrahi et al.in preparation), fi.rther confirm that the Allegheny Front acts as a migratory route for thousandsof birds and bats.

Migratory bats that may move along the Allegheny Front during migration may include batsfound in Peacock Cave and Mill Run Cave. In addition to Virginia big-eared bats, other batspecies found at Peacock Cave include little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) (8 individuals), small-footed bat(Myotis leibii) (1 individual), eastem pipistrelle (Perimyotis subflavus) (221,

individuals), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) (84 individuals). MillRun Cave alsosupports little brown bats (111 individuals), northern long-eared bat (2 individuals), and easternpipistreile (495).

Recommendations. This existing information should be analyzed in a bat risk assessment andan avian risk assessment. We recom.mend a rigorous risk assessment using the best available

scientific techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of various techniques are described inKunz etal. Q007) and the American Wind Energy Association's siting handbook (2008).



Ms, Samantha HardJune 5,2008

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WIND POWER FACILITIES

Bats

It is now well known that large numbers of bats are being killed by wind turbines (Arnett et al.2008; Jain et aL.2007; Kunz et aL.2007; Fielder et aL.2007; Arnett 20A5a, b; Kerns and Kerlinger2004; Johnson et al. 2003). Assuming that these trends hold true, and using the regional range ofreported mortality in the literature (Kunz et al.2007, Fiedler et al.2007), we estimate that theNew Creek Mountain wind power facility could result in roughly 3,130 to 4,485 bats/year kiiledat the 120 MW level, or using these numbers to calculate the number of potential bat fatalitiesover the anticipated average life of the project (25 years), 78,250 to 772,125 bats killedcumulatively for this project. If left unchecked, such mortality could cumulatively lead topopulation-level impacts, especially when considering that bats generally have low reproductiverates (Barclay and Harder 2003, Kunz et aL 2007).

Eleven of the 45 species of bats known to occur northof Mexico have been found

killedby

turbines (Johnson 2005, Kunz et aL.2007). Arnett et al. (2007) reported that bat fatalities havebeen recorded either anecdotally or quantitatively at every wind facility where post-constructionsurveys have been conducted, worldwide, across a wide range of habitats. Fourteen of theseventeen studies reporting bat fatality were conducted in open prairie, grassland, or croplandwhere data suggest the lowest fatality (Arnett et aI.2007). However, large numbers of migratorytree-roosting bats have been killed at commercial wind power facilities, especially at facilitiesalong forested ridge tops in the eastern United States (Kunz 2006, Kunz et aI.2007).

An estimated1,}92 bats, representing at least six species, were reported killed between August186 andNovember 9ft of 2003 at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, located on Backbone

Monntain in Tucker County,West

Virginia(Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). A field study conducted

during 2004by the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) (Bat ConservationInternational, Inc. 2004) at the Mountaineer, West Virginia and Meyersdale, Pennsylvania windenergy centers found similar results (Arnett 2005). Both projects are located along ridges of theAppalachian plateau. These studies are relevant to the proposed New Creek Mountain projectdue to geographic proximity, location on forested ridges with comparable forest composition, batspecies, and perhaps other factors. Relevant information from these studies includes:

. Most bat activity was observed within 2-hours after sunset.e Six species were found kitled at Mountaineer and 7 atMeyersdale: hoary bats, eastern red

bats, eastem pipistrelles, little brown bats, silver-haired bats, big brown bats, and northern

long-eared bats (only found at Meyersdale) (from highest to lowest number found).. Bat fatalities were highly variable and periodic throughout the study.r Fatality was distributed across all turbines, although higher than average numbers of bats

generally were found at twbines located near an end or center of the string on both sites.

. At both locations, the majority of bats were killed on low wind nights when powerproduction appeared insubstantial, but turbine blades were still spinning and often at or closeto full operational speed (17 rpm).




. Of the 64 turbines studied, one turbine was non-operational throughout the study period andthis was the only turbine where no fatalities were found.

o Timing of bat fatalities at Mountaineer and Meyersdale was highly correlated, providingevidence that broader landscape patterns, perhaps regional in scope, dictated by weather andprey abundance/availability or other factors influenced mortality events.

Recent research has focused on describing the pattems and causes of bat fatalities. Results of a

pilot study designed to investigatebat mortality associated with wind turbines in Swedenindicated that migratory and non-migratory aerially-hunting bats will forage on insects thatconcentrate near wind turbines (Ahldn 20Ar. This behavior was observed at facilities sitedwithin flight conidors of migrating bats and/or foraging habitat of non-migrating bats. The NewCreek Mountain project site may be within the migration path or serve as a foraging area forseveral bat species, including Indiana bats. Ahl6n (2003) also reported finding dead migratoryand non-migratory species of bats near the turbine structures.

Using thermal imaging cameras at the Mountaineer wind facility in West Virginia, Arnett

(2005a) documented bats foraging nearand

inthe rotor-swept zone

ofthe turbine blades and

being struck by the blades. Thermal images taken between August 2 and27,2004, indicated thatbats appeared to be attracted to and investigating both moving and non-moving blades. Themajority of bats were killed when wind speeds were at or below six meters per second (Arnett2005a).

Bat activity at turbines is likely inJluenced by broad landscape or perhaps regional patternsdictated by weather, prey abundance andlor availability, and/or other factors. For example,Corton and Veldkamp (2001) reported that insects prefer to fly in conditions of low wind andtemperatures above about 50oF (10' C). This means that bats may be out foraging during lowwind speed nights and increase their risk of collision. More recently, Arnett et al. (2008) noted

that bat fatalitiesappear to

followcertain pattems, such as: turbine collision fatalities seem to

peak in mid-summer through fall; fatalities are not concentrated at any particular turbine; habitatvariables may not influence fatatities; and bat fatalities are highest dwing periods of low windspeed and related to weather events, Information from other operating wind power facilitiesindicates that bats may be affracted to wind turbines, and/or the cleared right-of-ways, increasingthe risk of a bat colliding with a moving blade or being caught in the turbulence (Verboom andSpoelstra 1999; Diin and Bach 240q.

Conclusion. As previously noted, Amett et aI. (2007) reported that large bat fatalities have been

recorded either anecdotally or quantitatively at every wind facility where post-constructionsurveys have been conducted, and that reported fatalities are highest at wind facilities located on

ridges in eastern deciduous forests inthe United States. Thus, the Service is concemed that wind

power facilities, such as New Creek Mountain, will have direct impacts on individual migratingbats, as well as cumulative impacts on unlisted bat populations.

Migratory Birds

Two types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: 1) directmortality from collisions, and 2) indirect impacts from habitat disruption and displacement.



Ms. Samantha Hard 8

June 5,2008

Both migrating birds and resident birds collide with wind turbines. The majority of bird fatalitiesreported at wind farms are songbirds (Erickson et a1. 2001).

Raptors also are susceptible to collisions with wind turbines . The raptor problem was first notedat Altamont Pass in Califomia in the late 1980s/early 1990s when an estimated several hundred

raptors were killed each year due to turbine collisions, guy wire strikes, and electrocutions(Manville 2A0r. As part of a re-powering effort, the original smaller, faster-moving lattice-supported towers at Altamont Pass are being replaced with slower moving tubular-supportedturbines.

These larger and slower moving turbines still ki1l raptors, passerines, waterbirds, and other birds(Manville 2005). Low wind speed turbine technology requires much larger rotots, with bladetips often extending more than 420 feetabove ground, and blade tips can reach in excess of 200mph under windy conditions. When birds approach spinning blades, 'omotion smear" - theinability of the bird's retina to process high speed motion stimulation---occurs primarily at the tipof the blades, making the blades deceptively transparent at high velocities. This increases the

likelihood that a bird will fly through thearc, be struck by a blade, and be

killed(Manville

2005). Birds also may become disoriented in poor weather, and may be forced to fly at loweraltitudes during migration due to overcast weather, increasing the number of birds potentiallyflying through wind turbine fields.

Howell and Noone (lggz)estimated U.S. avian mortalities at 0 to 0.117 birds/turbi nelyear,whereas in Europe, Winkelman (1992) estimated mortality at 0.1 to 37 birds/turbine/year.Erickson et al. (2001) reassessed U.S. turbine impact, based on more than 15,000 turbines, andestimated mortality in the range of 10,000 to 40,000 (mean : 33,000), with an average of 2.I9avian fatalities/turbinelyear,which may be a considerable underestimate given the difficulty ofextrapolating the number of fatalities with estimates corrected for observer detection,

scavenging, and other samplingbiases. The cumulative impact of wind turbine collisions on bird

populations may result over time in population declines when taken into account with mortalityasJociated with collisions from buildings, moving vehicles, power lines, cell towers, or bird killsassociated with contaminant exposure.

In addition, wind farms can also distwb and fragment habitats. Habitat fragmentation inparticular is an issue for birds that use deep forest interiors. Habitat fragmentation can result as a

consequence of clearing forests for roads or corridors to accommodate vehicular access and

transmission lines and site clearing to accommodate wind turbines. These could include directloss ofdeep forest habitat; an increase in edge habitat; increased nest parasitism and predation; a

decrease in abundance and diversity of area-sensitive species with a concurrent increase in

habitat suitability for edge and generalist species; and intemrptionof travel corridors,

displacement, and other behavioral effects.

Conclusion. The Service continues to be concerned about potential impacts of wind powerfa.itities otr migratory birds, a Federal trust resource the Service is mandated to protect. Birdshave been killed by rotating turbine blades and/or by striking turbines structures at the

Moyntaineer Wind Energy Center (Arnett 2005a,b) and other projects. Wind energy generation

facilities may also affect bird movements, breeding, and habitat use (JSFWS 2003).




The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. $$ 703-712) (MBTA) prohibits the taking or killing ofmigratory birds except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. While theMBTA has no provisions for allowing unauthorized take, we recognize that some birds may bekilled at structures such as wind turbines even if all reasonable measures to avoid take are

implemented. The Service's Offrce of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protectmigratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement, but also through fosteringrelationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts onmigratory birds. Although it is not possible under the MBTA to absolve individuals, companies,or agencies from liability (even if they implement avian mortality avoidance or similarconservation measures), the Office of Law Enforcement focuses on those individuals,companies, or agencies that take migratory birds with disregard for their actions and the law,especially when conservation measures have been developed but are not properly implemented.

SIIRVEYS AND MEASURES TO REDUCE MORTALITY OF BATS AND BIRDS

To avoid and minimize impacts to birds and bats from the New Creek Mountain wind powerproject, we encourage you to determine the temporal and spatial use of the project area by batsand birds so that such use can be reported to us and others prior to construction, as well as duringoperation. We understand that bird and bat surveys for the project were initiated during faII2007and wiil continue tlrough spring 2008; however, study plans were not submitted to our office forreview. Study plans and results for pre-construction studies, avoidance and minimizationmeasures, and post-construction studies should be provided to the Service and the West VirginiaDivision of Natural Resources for review and comment.

The Service recofilmends conducting fulI season (April-November) multi-year pre- and post-construction studies to assess species composition, species abundance, local population

variability, and temporal and spatialpattems

of bat and bird activity during all weatherconditions and times of day and night. The spatial areas of greatest concern include theridgelines, side slopes, and valley sections. We are interested in the seasonal and annualvariability of bat and bird use of these areas, which occurs for a variety of reasons, includingweather. The Service is available to discuss specific details associated with the surveys onceadditional information about the site and operating conditions is provided, including habitatcover, current land use, transmission line location, and turbine operational features.

The Service recommends that pre-construction surveys for wind power projects generallyinclude: spring, surnmer, and fall mist-netting of bats; spring and fall avian migration surveys;breeding bird and raptor surveys; surveys for caves and/or abandoned mine portals; acoustic

swveys to provide an index of bat and bird activity in the project area; and radar surveys todetermine direction of bird and bat flight and activity times.

We also strongly recommend that avoidance and minimizationmeasures be incorporated into theoperation of the New Creek Mountain wind power facility. Measures that have beenrecommended recently include :

o Placing turbines to avoid raptor nesting and/or foraging areas;




. Feathering biades or shutting the turbines down during spring and fall bat migrationperiods for a minimum of 2 hours after sunset;

. Feathering blades or shutting the turbines down during weather events such as cold frontsor foggy conditions;

. Allowing the turbine blades to begin rotation at a higher cut-in speed (i.e. 6 m/s); and,

. Implementation of an adaptive management plan to alter operation based on informationfrom post-construction studies.

We recommend that post-construction mortality assessments be developed in conjunction withan adaptive management plan to further minimize mortalify. Post-construction mortalityassessments should include: carcass searches, scavenger activity, and searcher efficiency studies.Carcass searches should include not only identification of species harmed or killed by collisionswith twbines, but also location of the carcass in relation to the turbine, time of day found, andweather conditions. Carcass searches should be perfonned over the life of the project with anemphasis on the first 3 years after construction. Searches should be performed every day fromspring to fall at30% of the turbines and once a week at the remaining turbines. Scavenger

activity canxot be assumed to be the same from one facility to the next. Also, scavenger activityis not constant, so methods used to extrapolate actual activity should be different from themultipliers used initially and for calculating impacts (Arnett et al. 2008). Searcher efficiency canbe enhanced by planting low growing grass species around turbines. Efficiency trials shouldinclude the use of bats instead of birds whenever possible. All of these studies should becombined with weather data, topographical information, position of turbines on the landscapeand other factors to perform an assessment of why coliisions are occurring and suggestions forreducing collisions.

Extensive research is needed to answer key questions about where, when, how, and why bats andbirds are kiiled at wind turbines, and ultimately to develop effective methods for avoiding and

minimizing impacts to populations (see encloswe). In view of that, there may be opportunity toaddress specific questions and concerns through inclusion of applicable recommendations fromenclosure 1 in the New Creek Mountain project. Also, to answer questions specific to theCentral Appalachians, this research should be conducted cooperatively and in a coordinatedfashion among wind power companies, and among a variety of researchers, agencies, and otherinterested organizations. Resources and technical expertise should be shared as no one groupcan do it alone. This type of effort may best be coordinated through existing coalitions such asthe National Wind Coordinating Coliaborative and its technical subcommittees.

SUMMARY

In summary, the Service is supportive of electricity generation from renewable sources andencourages efficient wind energy projects that are sited and operated to be bird-and-bat friendly.With that in mind, we are concerned about the potential risk that construction and operation ofthe proposed New Creek Mountain wind power facility may pose to bat and bird species residingand migrating through the area, and the resultant cumulative impacts of wind power facilities onridge tops throughout the eastem United States. We encourage you to perform the recommendedpre-construction studies and assessments for the proposed project in order to identify risks tothreatened and endangered species, and migratory birds and bats. This information will be



Ms. Samantha Hard i iJune 5,2008

critical in assessing possible impacts to these species as well as designing means to avoid andminimize any impacts. This information also will be helpful in designing the scope of post-construction monitoring efforts, which the Service believes should be phased over the life of theproject.

Ifa federaily-listed threatened or endangered species may be taken as a result of the construction

or operation of the project, a project proponent may apply to the Service to obtain an incidentaltake permit pursuant to section (10)(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. We are availableto assist yoru client in further analysis of the risk of take of listed species, and in preparation of a

habitat conservation, should your client opt to pursue an incidental take permit.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide information reiative to wildlife issues, and thank youfor your interest in these resources. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. ChristyJohnson-Hughes of my office at (304) 636-6586.

omas R. ChapmanFieid Supervisor

Enclosure

Sincerely,



Ms. Samantha HardJrure 5,2008

References

Ah16n, I. 2003. Wind turbines and bats - a pilot study. Final report submitted to SwedishNational Energy Administration, 1 1 December 2003. Translated from Swedish 5 March

2004.

American Wind Energy Association. 2008. AWEA Siting handbook. Prepared for AWEA ofWashington, D.C. by TehaTech EC, Inc., and Nixon Peabody LLP, with contributionsfrom Comsearch and Aviation Systems, Inc. 183 pp.

Amett, E.B., technical editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines inPerrnsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patternsof fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind twbines. A final report submitted to theBats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation lntemational. Austin, Texas,USA. 187 pp. (www.batcon.org)

Arnett, E.B. 2005b. Summary of findings from the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative's2004Field Season. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 6 pp. (Available fordownloading at : www. b atcon. org/wind/B WEC20 04Reportsummary.pdfl

Arnett, E.B, D.B. Inkley, D.H. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, S. Manes, A.M. Manville, J.R. Mason,M.L. Monison, M.D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007.Impacts of wind energyfacilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2.TheWildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ametl, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, B.L. Hamiiton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D.Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T. O'Conneil, M. Piorkowski, and R.Tankersley. 2008. Patters of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America.Journal of Wildlife ManagementT2: in press.

Barclay, R.M.R. and L.D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: iife in the slow lane. Pp. 209-253inT.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds)., Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press; Chicago,IL.

Bat Conservation Intemational, [nc.2004. Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative.(www.batcon.org)

Bell. R.K.and J.B. Pattison. 2007. Allegheny Front Migration Observatory. Fall2007 Report.

Brooks Bird Club. Wheeling, WV. 5 pp

Britzke, E.R., A.C.Hicks, S.L. von Oettingen, and S.R. Darling. 2004. Description of springroosting ecology of female Indiana bats in the Lake Champlain Valley of Vermont andNew York. In review.

T2




Butchkoski, C. M. and J.D. Hassinger. 20A2. Ecology of a matemity colony roosting in a

building. In Kurta A., and J. Keruredy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management ofan endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Chenger, J.2003. One sodalis from the Hartman mine: summary results of an electronictracking study of a single Indiana bat, Unpublished report prepared by Bat ConservationManagement, Mechanicsburg, Perursylvania.

Corten, G.P. and H.F. Veldkamp. 2001. Insects can halve wind-turbine power. Nature 412:42-43.

Dtin T. and L. Bach. 20A4. Bat deaths and wind turbines - A review of current knowiedge, andof information available in the database for Germany. Bremer Beitrdge fiir Naturkundeand Naturschutz 7 :253 -264.

Erikson W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 20A1. Avian

collisions with wind turbines:a

sunmary ofexisting studies and comparisons to other

sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National wind CoordinatingCommittee Resource Document, August. Cheyenne, WY: Westem EcosystemsTechnology,Inc. 62pp.

Erickson, W., G.Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K.Semka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting andmortality information from proposed and existing wind deveiopments. West, Inc.,Cheyenne, WY. 124 pp,

Fiedler, J.K., T.H Henry, R.D. Tankersley, and C.P. Nicolson. 2007. Results of bat and bird

mortality monitoringat the expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Prepared for

the Tennessee Valley Authority. 38 pp.

Gardner, J.E., and E.A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution and quantification ofpotential srunmer habitat. In Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology andmanagement of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.253p.

Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofrnann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution of the federallyendangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State

Academy of Science. 89: 187-196.

Howell, J.D. and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a U.S. windpower,wind energy development site. Montezuma Hills, Solano County, CA.

Humphrey, S.R and J.B. Cope. 1976. Population ecology of the little brown bat, Myotislucifugus, in Indiana and North-Central Kentucky. Special Publication No. 4. TheAmerican Society of Mammalogists. 81pp.

13




Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual report for the Mapie Ridgewind power project post-construction bird and bat fataliry study-2006. Report preparedfor PPM Energy and Horizon Center, Cape May Point, NJ.

Johnson, G. D. 2003. What is known and not known about bat collision mortality at windplants?

In R.L. Carlton, editor. Avianinteractions

withwind power structures. Proceedings of a

workshop held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA, October 16-17,2002. Electric PowerResearch Institute, Palo Alto, California. In Press.

Johnson, G.D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the U.S. BatResearch News 46:45-49.

Kems, J. and P. Kerlinger.2A04. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the MountaineerWind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: arurual report for 2003. Cuny andKerlinger, LLC 2-14-04, 39 pp.

Kunz, T.H. 2006. Bats at risk: why should we care. Toward Wildlife Friendly Wind PowerConference, June 27-29. Toledo, OH.(www.fws.gov/modwest/greatlakes/windpowerconference.htm. Viewed 1/15/08)

Kunz, T.H., E.B. Amett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland,R.W. Thresher, M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy developrnent onbats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 5(6):3 15-324.

Manville, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at powff lines, communication towers, andwind turbines: state of the art and state of the science-next steps toward mitigation.USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-19l: 1051-1066.

Mizrahi, D., D. Dawson, and T. Jones. ln Preparation. Assessing Bird and Bat Migration OverAppalachian Ridges.(www.state.sd.us lpuclenergylvind%20factYo20sheet.pdf).

Murray, S,W. and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotiss o dalis). Journal of Zoolo gy. 262:197 -206.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency draft. lndiana bat (Myotis sodalis) revisedrecovery plan.U.S. Fish and \Mildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Service interim guidance on avoiding and minimizingwildlife impacts from wind turbines. Washington, D.C. 55 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.Washington, D.C. 23 pp.

Verboom, B. and H. Huitema. 1997. The importance of linear landscape elements for thepipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. LandscapeEcoiogy. I2(2):ll7 -125.




Verboom, B. and K. Spoelstra. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of treelines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Canadian Journal of Zoology.7:1393-1401.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr.2002, Distribution and surnmer ecology in Indiana. InKurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of anendangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Winkelman, J.E. 1992. The impact of the SEP wind park near Oosterbierum (Fr.), theNetherlands, on birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks (Dutch, English summary). RlN-report9213. Arnhem, Netherlands: DlO-Institute for Forestry and Nature Research.

15




cc:FWS-RO - Alex Hoar, Scott JohasonWVDNR - Roger AndersonPSC

-Sandra Squire

Project FileReader FileES :WVFO:CJohnson-Hughes :skd :6 I 5 12008Filename: P:\Finalized Correspondence\WindPower\1.{ew Creek\I.lew Creek Initiat ltr.doc

16



Ms. Samantha Hard l7June 5,2008

Enclosure 1 to Comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wildlife Studies for theNew Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia

Summary of Next Steps for the Central Appalachian Region

Extensive research is neededto

answer key questions about where,when, how, and why bats andbirds are killed at wind turbines, and ultimately to develop effective methods for avoiding and

minimizing impacts to populations. To advance these studies, the Service recommends that anexisting coalition (such as the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative and its technicalsubcommittees) provide a forum for the wind industry in the Central Appalachians tocooperatively work with state and federal resottrce agencies, researchers, and other organizationsto answer the following key research questions and concerns.

Bird and Bat Mortality Assessment

Key questions and concems for assessing mortality of birds and bats:

1. Assessment of bird and bat mortality will require more than carcass counts.2. A successful assessment of mortalify will not only document the search for dead birds

and bats on the ground, but will also investigate the circumstances that may haveinfluenced the event, and provide insights and direction for next steps.

3. Desired outcomes of assessments include identification of, a) factors that effect or causemortality, b) prudent means and measures to avoid take of birds and bats.

4. With regard to the spatial pattems of nocturnal migrating birds, it is important todetermine what proportion is flying low enough to collide with wind turbines. Perhapslow ceiling or other atmospheric conditions cause birds to fly iow to the ground. Perhapsprevailing winds cause birds channeling tlrough valleys to rise up and mergs with birdsalready at elevation to pass over the ridge. This would temporarily increase the numberof birds in the rotor sweptzone. Do these phenomena happen at a project site and howoften? What avoidance behavior, if any, do birds exhibit under these circumstances?

5. With regard to bat mortality, there is mounting evidence that bat activity and mortalityoccurs primarily at wind speeds up to 6.5 meters per second. Operational mitigationmeasures show promise in minimizing bat mortality and greatly reducing cumulativeimpacts to bats due to turbine mortality. So this may advance, it is critical to determinethe level of bat activity at rotor height and mortality at wind speeds from zero to at least6.5 meters per second and higher, and the percent of power value generated at key lowwind speeds.

Recommendations:

1. Investigate the circumstances that could cause a iarge proportion of noctumal migratingbirds (and/or bats) to fly near or through the rotor swept zone, the frequency ofoccurrence of those circumstances, and behavior of migrants to avoid turbines. Use radarand other monitoring techniques to assess the numbers of birds and bats that are actuallyflying low enough to be exposed to risk of colliding with wind turbines, and determinewhat proportion are successful in passing through the turbine's rotors or change their




flight trajectory to eompletely avoid the wind turbines. These studies should beconducted during all local climatic conditions and all pertinent daily periods. Changes inbehavior, mortality, and how to predict this situation should be reported.

2. In an effort to develop means and measures that show promise of eliminating asignificant amount of bat mortality, replicate Dr. Oliver Behr's acoustic monitoring

studies and curtailment experiments conducted in Germany and reported in 2008 at theBat and Wind Energy Cooperative meeting in Austin, Texas (Behr 20081. In thisrelatively simple study design, bat activity in the rotor swept zone was measured usingacoustical detectors placed magnetically on the nacelle, wind speed was recorded in smallblocks of time using standard equipment. Bat mortality was determined using standardsearch methods. Percent value of generation up to 5.5 and 6.5 meters per second wasdetermined by the owner of the wind project and reported.

3. Include in any bat mortality study, a statistically significant sample of turbines that arenot spinning in order to evaluate bat mortality under that condition. This willcomplement replication of Behr 2008.

4. Investigate if there are additional caves within a several miles distance of the project and

if those caves are used by bats.

Raptors

Key questions and concerns for assessing project impacts on raptors:

1. What species and number of raptors have been found dead or injwed near wind turbines,transmission lines, substation, or other facilities? What was the cause of death or injury;i.e., electrocution, physical strike, internal injwy? What behavior was involved; i.e.,perching, hunting, and migrating? How could these be avoided in the future? Are thereparticular turbines that cause more problems than others?

2. Are project transmission linesconstructed

toprotect

raptors from electrocution inaccordance with Avian Protection Plan Guidelines? Are wind industry companiesmembers of the Avian Protection Plan lnteraction Committee?

3. To what extent do raptors alter their line of flight to avoid individual turbines and/or theentire turbine field during the fall migration - and dwing March of spring migration forgolden eagles?

4. Do any raptors (such as golden eagles, red-tail hawks, harriers, and kestrels) hunt in open(non-forested) habitats of the project area during migration, winter, or other seasons?What is the frequency with which each open habitat is hunted? What is the prey?

5. What are the spatial and temporal patterns of use of migrating raptors over the turbinefields and escarpments of the Central Appalachians, particularly when the prevailing

winds are from the east, southeast, and south, creating updrafts along the mountains?6. How does the timing and magnitude of observations of migrating raptors correlate withobservations at hawk watch stations nearest to the project?

7. What is the frequency distribution of elevations of migrating raptors, by species?

'B.ht, O. 2008. Acoustic monitoring studies and curtailment experiments in Germany. Bats and Wind EnergyCooperative (BEWC) Workshop, Austin, Texas, January 8-10. Available via clickable link at:www.energetics.com/BWECWorkshop2008/agenda.html - viewed 3 / 2 5 / 0 B



Ms. Samantha HardJune 5,2008 ' 19

8. For raptor species known to migrate along the fronts in the Central Appalachiansgenerally, what is the variation in timing and magnitude of their fall migration over thelast several decades? Examination of raptor migration data from fully-manned. hawkwatch locations is advised, such as the Alleghany Hawk Watch3 in Somerset County,Pennsylvania (7039 and 12,866 raptors observed in 2003 and,20A4,respectively);Hanging Rock Raptor Migration Observatorya

in Monroe County, West Virginia (3i55and2687 raptors observed in 2003 and2007, respectively); and itarvey's fnloUs inVirginia (7831 and 12039 raptors observed in 2003 and,2007 ,respectively).9. Since raptor migration is episodic, what environmental conditions best ptldi.t spikes inraptor migration along the Central Appalachian fronts and ad.jacent ridges? The timing,duration, and magnitude of these events are of interest.

Recommendations:

i. Contract with experts in raptor migration in the Central Appalachian Mountains toaddress and report on these questions, such as the interdisciplinary Golden Eagle researchgoup led by the National Aviary.Contract for modeling raptor migration pathways along the major routes such as theAlleghany Front and nearby ridges, using FlightPath - a terrain-based model forsimulating raptor migration pathways, and field test in the project areas.Perform a simultaneous radar and mortality study designed to measure the proportion oftargets flying over the escarpment and plateau in zones of height above the groundincluding the rotor swept zone, risk exposure, avoidance indei, and mortality.Cause of death or injury should be determined by a wildlife veterinarian basla on autopsyand examination.Use experienced observers during radar study to monitor and verify raptor flight andbehavior.During the radar/mortality study obtain wind (speed

and direction at least every 15 to 30minutes), temperature, weather, and ceiling information on site.Monitor daily using radar from 6-8 hours per day starting at 9:00 AM, except on rainydays. Monitor in March and during migratory peaks of each species in the fall, includinggolden eagles. The schedule for mortality searches should include, but not be limited to;all towers immediately fotlowing spikes in migratory flights. Monitor for three years inorder to measure and assess natural variations between and. among years. Correlateobservations to the north with events on site.Enter into an agreement among the wind industry, the National Aviary, Service, and statewildlife agencies to: a) Provide funding over a ten yeax period to the National Aviary fortracking the annual migratory cycle of the golden eagles that are known to winter in theCentral Appalachians, b) post on the web site

the flight paths and current locations of allgolden eagles, and other raptors, tracked by the National Aviary, and c) post cunent

3 http ://people. delphiforums.com/MCCONAUGHY/birding/alfronValfr ont.htm' www.han gin grocktower. orgt

http://buame.eooglep ges.com/home; on the Botetourt-Bedford County line near Roanoke,virginia between mile markers 95 and 96 onthe Blue Ridge parkway.

2.

-t.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

USFWS Comments on New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project_Grant and Mineral Counties_West Virginia

Documents

Transcript of USFWS Comments on New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project_Grant and Mineral Counties_West Virginia