Avian & Bat Study Lawrence Wind 2006 Final Report

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED ST.
LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
DRAFT FINAL REPORT

April 2006 May 2007
Prepared For:
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC 1915 Kalorama Road #511 Washington, DC 20009
Prepared By:
Jessica J. Kerns, David P. Young, Jr., Christopher S. Nations, and Victoria K. Poulton Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
August 2007
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report
August 2007
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Study Components .................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ........................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Methods.......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Results............................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Raptor Migration Surveys................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 22 3.2.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Breeding Bird Survey ......................................................................................................... 31 3.3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 31 3.3.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 33 3.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ................................................................................................. 35 3.4.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 35 3.4.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 37 3.5 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys............................................................................... 40 3.5.1 Methods........................................................................................................................ 40 3.5.2 Results.......................................................................................................................... 42 4.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 44 4.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey ......................................................................................... 44 4.2 Raptor Migration Surveys................................................................................................... 46 4.3 Breeding Bird Survey ......................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ................................................................................................. 49 4.5 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys............................................................................... 51 5.0 References............................................................................................................................... 51
List of Tables
Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. ..................................... 25 Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal migrant survey efforts at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. .............................. 27 Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.................................................................................................... 33 Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded by each AnaBat unit for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods..................................... 38 Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling periods of each season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area............................... 39 Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling. ............. 39 Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter driving surveys at the St. Lawrence project area. ...................................................................................................... 42 Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point ................ 43 Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S. ........... 45 i WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at seven established New York spring/fall hawk watch sites in 2006. ........................................... 47
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project location. .................................................... 2 Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the St. Lawrence Windpower project area............................... 4 Figure 3. Radar sampling and raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence Windpower project area e. .................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Observed fall and spring flight directions in the project area........................................ 9 Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode............................................... 11 Figure 6. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.................................... 12 Figure 7. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode.................................. 13 Figure 8. Mean 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode...................................... 14 Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km range. Height class 1 represents altitudes 0-100 m, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200 m, etc............ 16 Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5 km range.................................. 17 Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. .................................. 18 Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions......................................................................... 19 Figure 13. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed. ....................................................................... 21 Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for survey point by season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.................................................................................................... 29 Figure 15. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the project area................................ 32 Figure 16. AnaBat survey locations for the project area............................................................. 36 Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species locations recorded for the project area........................................................................................................................ 41
ii
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
1.0 Introduction and Background

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy development in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, St. Lawrence Windpower Project, is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The exact location and size of the development will be based on a number of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmission constraints, permitting, and results of site surveys. Through the early project evaluation process, SLW contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to introduce the project and determine biological resources of concern for the project. Issues that were raised included potential impacts from the project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors, migrant bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. In response to comments from the NYSDEC, SLW requested that Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) develop an avian and bat survey protocol for a one-year study that would address the agency concerns and provide site-specific data for the resources of concern. The principal goals of the study, initiated in April 2006, were to: 1) Provide baseline information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area that is useful in evaluating potential impacts from wind power development; 2) Provide baseline information on avian and bat migration over the proposed development area that is useful in evaluating the relative risk of the proposed wind project location; 3) Provide information on avian, bat, and sensitive species use of the study area that will help in designing a wind plant that is less likely to expose species to potential collisions with turbines, and; 4) Provide recommendations for further monitoring studies and potential mitigation measures, if appropriate. Specific objectives of the study were to: (1) describe and quantify nocturnal migration over the proposed project area; (2) describe and quantify spring and fall (diurnal) raptor migration through the proposed project; (3) describe and quantify breeding bird use in the proposed development area (turbine locations); (4) describe and quantify migrant bat use over the proposed project; (5) identify resident bat species in the project area; (6) describe and quantify waterfowl migration through the project area; (7) and identify the presence of any federal and state-listed species that may occur within in the project area, as well as potential habitat for these species. The protocol was developed based on input from NYSDEC and the USFWS, as well as the expertise and experience of WEST implementing and conducting similar studies for wind energy development throughout the U.S.
1
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 1. Proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project location.
August 2007
2
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
2.0 Study Area

The proposed project area is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Elevation of the ecozone varies from about 100-500 feet. The dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20% wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Some of the ecozone on the Cape Vincent peninsula is characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002). The land within the project area is privately owned and the primary land use is agriculture and dairy farming (Figure 2). There are scattered farms and houses throughout the project and adjacent to the roads. Vegetation of the project is a mosaic of open grass/hay fields, cultivated agriculture, and scattered deciduous tree wood lots. The deciduous forest type tends to be variable in size with some small woodlots intermixed with agriculture fields and some larger blocks of forest, particularly in low-lying areas unsuitable for farming. Several inlets, creeks, and wetland forests occur within the project area. Most of the project development will occur in agricultural fields.
3
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
August 2007
4
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.0 Study Components

The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar sampling during the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed point locations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts; AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various study components took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrence in the project area. 3.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey was to characterize avian migration over the project area and provide data that could be used to determine the relative magnitude of nocturnal migration over the proposed development area when compared to other sites. The primary objective of the radar study was to collect baseline information on flight direction, passage rates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for the proposed development area. A single radar unit was used for the migration seasons defined as 15 August 15 October for the fall and 15 April 15 1 June for the spring. The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar, transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radar labs have been successfully used to monitor nocturnal avian migration and are described in Cooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al. (1999). The fall sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of ground interference), property ownership, access, and comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS (Figure 3). Based on comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS, the ideal radar sampling point to allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline, as well as over inland areas, was restricted to those areas approximately 1.5-km from the shoreline. To decrease ground clutter, the unit was positioned in a small hollow so that surrounding topography reflected the lower portion of the main beam, producing a clear picture of sky beyond. Due to land management changes at the fall radar sampling location, the site was inaccessible in the spring. A second sampling location was chosen with similar characteristics as the fall site and also situated as close to the original site as possible (Figure 3).
5
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 3. Radar sampling and raptor survey locations for the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
August 2007
6
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.1.1 Methods The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall migration season and 50 days during the spring migration. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling during some nights was compromised or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled nights was less than the total study period. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from approximately sunset each night until sunrise the following morning. Each night was broken down into 60-min sampling periods that consisted of: 1) one 5-min session to collect weather data and adjust the radar to surveillance (i.e., horizontal) mode, 2) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance mode collecting information on migration traffic (passage) rates; 3) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance mode collecting information on flight direction and speed of targets, as well as general location of migrants; 4) one 5-min break to adjust radar to vertical mode; 5) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on migration traffic (passage) rate; 6) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on flight altitudes below 1500 m; 7) one 5-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on the spatial distribution and altitudes of birds along an east-west transect axis; and, 8) one 5-min long-range session (3.0 km range) in the vertical mode to collect information on flight altitudes below 3000 m. The following weather data was collected at the beginning of each hour session: wind speed, wind direction; cloud cover (%); approximate ceiling height (m); approximate visibility (m); precipitation; barometric pressure; air temperature (oC). Noticeable changes in weather conditions, if any, were recorded when the radar unit was adjusted to vertical mode. The Furuno FAR2117BB radar used in this study has several controls which affect detection and tracking of targets. In order to detect and track small targets, the radar operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. Initially, the anti-clutter controls on the radar were turned down to the lowest setting. The anti-sea clutter control was then slowly turned up to about the point where background noise cleared from the screen enough to see small targets. The anti-rain clutter control was kept at the lowest setting. While in the vertical mode, to eliminate ground clutter around the radar generated from second echoes of radar energy bouncing off the van and ground, a blind sector was set so that the radar did not transmit energy when the antennae was pointing towards the ground (from 90o to 270o). The radar trails function was generally set at 30 seconds so that targets could be tracked for long enough to determine direction and speed. Target flight direction was determined by placing the cursor on a target echo within a trail and aligning the offset electronic bearing line (EBL) along the line of target echoes pointing in the direction of travel. Speed was recorded as the distance a 7
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
target traveled in 5 seconds (two sweeps of the radar antennae). With the target trails turned on, each sweep of the radar plots a new echo for any given target with each echo persisting on the screen for a set amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds). Speed was determined with the offset variable range marker (VRM) by placing the cursor on a target echo and measuring the distance between that echo and the third echo in line (i.e., the distance traveled in 2 sweeps of the antennae or 5 seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the VRM) on the monitor relative to a horizontal line running through the radar point of origin. All data were exported from Microsoft Access and imported into SAS V.8 for further data processing, quality assurance, and analysis. Additional analyses were performed using Matlab V6.5. To determine passage rates in horizontal mode, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image was treated as a 1-dimensional front perpendicular to the direction of migration, with length equal to 3 km (the diameter of the surveyed area); all targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Based on that assumption, passage rate was calculated as number of targets per kilometer per hour. Mean flight direction was estimated as
n
= tan 1 ( y x )
where
y = i =1 cos (i ) n ,
n
x = i =1 sin (i ) n , and i was the flight direction for the ith observation (Batschelet, 1981).
Dispersion in the data was calculated as r = x 2 + y 2
12
such that 0 r 1. If all observations
had exactly the same direction, r = 1; conversely, r = 0 would indicate uniform distribution of directions around the circle. Mean flight altitude was not adjusted for unequal sampling intensity at different heights or unequal detection probability as a function of distance from the radar unit. Air speed of targets, Va, was calculated as Va = Vg2 + Vw2 2VgVw cos ( ) , where Vg = target ground speed, Vw = wind speed, and was the difference between the target flight direction and wind direction. Hourly weather observations made at ground level were used for estimates of wind speed and direction. Wind direction categorized by field observers as N, NE, E, SE, etc.; were transformed to bearings (0, 45, 90, 135, etc.) for the calculation of . Targets with air speeds less than 6 m/s or greater than 35 m/s were judged not to be migrating birds or bats and were excluded from further analysis.
3.1.2 Results
Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August 15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. During fall, radar sampling was conducted most nights for a total of approximately 508 hours of radar sampling during the study period. Very wet weather in mid-April and again in late-May compromised many survey nights during the spring study period. Radar sampling was conducted for a total of approximately 300 hours during the spring study period. 8
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Flight Direction Observed flight directions were typically towards the southwest in the fall and towards the northeast in the spring (Figure 4). Fall mean and dispersion of flight direction were = 209.2 and r = 0.34 (n = 12378 targets). As an indication of the southerly direction of the migration, 71.8% of observations were between 90 and 270, while 34.5% of observations were between 135 and 225. Spring mean and dispersion of flight direction were = 34.0 and r = 0.52 (n = 5003 targets).1). As an indication of the northerly direction of the migration, 77.6% of observations were between 270 and 90, and 48.4% of observations were between 315 and 45. Figure 4. Observed fall and spring flight directions in the project area. Fall
0 330 600 300 400 200 60 800 30
Spring
270
90
240
120
210 180
150
Passage Rates
Fall The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 345.8 13.3 targets/km/hr (mean SE) (n = 506 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 346.2 17.2 targets/km/hr (mean SE) (n = 503 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in late September and early October. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening,
9
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively declining rates throughout the night (Figures 7 and 8).
Spring The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 8.8 targets/km/hr (mean SE) (n = 310 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 191 9.4 targets/km/hr (mean SE) (n = 308 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in both horizontal mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates occurred in early and mid May. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in the evening, with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed by progressively declining rates throughout the night with a second small increase early in the morning (Figures 7 and 8).
10
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode.

1500
NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)
Fall
1000
500
0 08/14
08/24
09/03
09/13
09/23
10/03
10/13
DATE
Spring
11
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 6. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.

2000
NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 08/14
Fall
08/24
09/03
09/13
09/23
10/03
10/13
DATE
Spring
12
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 7. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode.

600
HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
13
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 8. Mean 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.
600
August 2007
HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)
Fall
500
400
300
200
100
0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
Spring
14
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Flight Altitudes
Fall For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 1.7 m (mean SE) (n = 30749 targets) above radar level (arl)1. Approximately 7.7% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m (the approximate zone of risk posed by modern turbines) at the site. Most targets were observed at altitudes below 500 m (Figure 9). The highest percentage of targets occurred between 201 and 300 m arl. Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and ranged from approximately 275 m to 685 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 450500 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 3.1% of targets (558 of 18059) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and the middle 50% of all observations were greater than 125 m arl (Figure 12). Spring For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 441.3 2.5 m (mean SE) (n = 16151 targets) arl. Approximately14.0% of targets had flight altitudes less than 125 m. The highest percentage of targets (19.2%) occurred between 101 and 200 m arl (Figure 9). Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and ranged from approximately 170 m to 650 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 440470 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 2.6% of targets (253 of 9061 targets) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and above 125 m arl; however, on two nights the median value was below 125 m arl and on seven nights the middle 50% of all observations overlapped the zone of risk (Figure 12).
Target altitude was measured in relation to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the radar and thus termed above radar level. Height above ground level (agl) is highly variable depending on the topography directly below any given target and not measurable with the radar.
15
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km range. Height class 1 represents altitudes 0-100 m, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200 m, etc.
15
Fall
PERCENT OF TARGETS
10
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 HEIGHT CLASS
20 18 16 PERCENT OF TARGETS 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Spring
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 HEIGHT CLASS
16
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5 km range.

700
Fall
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0 08/14
08/24
09/03
09/13
09/23
10/03
10/13
DATE
700
Spring
600
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0 04/26 05/01 05/06 05/11 05/16 05/21 05/26 05/31 06/05 06/10
DATE
17
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range.

600
Fall
500
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
400
300
200
100
0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600
TIME
500
Spring
450 400
FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0000 0200 0400 2000 2200
TIME
18
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions2. Fall
August 2007
Spring
The boxes within the chart represent the 1st and 3rd quartile (50%) of the nightly observations, the horizontal lines within boxes represent nightly median value of flight heights, and solid circles represent the nightly mean flight height.
19
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Target Speed
Fall Air speed of targets was calculated by adjusting for wind speed and direction (see Methods above). Of 12190 targets, approximately 1% (120 targets) were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and one target was moving at high speed (> 35m/s). After excluding very slow and very fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 12.95 0.03 m/s (mean SE) (n = 12069 targets). Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 10 to 17 m/s (Figure 13). Because the percentage of targets moving slow was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was warranted. Spring Of 5003 targets, approximately 1% (56 targets) were excluded because they were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) or due to high speed (> 35m/s) and 47 targets were excluded due to missing wind speed and/or direction to allow for air speed adjustments. After excluding very slow and very fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 13.65 0.06 m/s (mean SE) (n = 4900 targets). Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 11 to 18 m/s (Figure 13). Because the percentage of targets moving slow was so small, no further adjustment to the data set was warranted.
20
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 13. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed.

18 16 14
Fall
AIR SPEED (m/s)
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 08/14
08/24
09/03
09/13
09/23
10/03
10/13
DATE
Spring
21
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.2 Raptor Migration Surveys The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the site by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g., waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds. Point counts using variable circular plots (Reynolds et al. 1980, Bibby et al. 1992) were conducted within the project area according to methods used by the Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) with observers continuously scanning the sky and surrounding areas for raptors in the survey area. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting raptors migrating through the area. The timing of surveys was determined in consultation with the NYSDEC and based on available information from migrant raptor watch stations in northern and western New York (e.g., Derby Hill, see below).
3.2.1 Methods
Three fixed survey stations were established within the proposed project area to provide good visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area, and also attempting to minimize the potential for double-counting of individual birds (Figure 3). Survey stations were established to maximize visibility over long distances in an effort to locate and identify migrating raptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while maintaining the integrity of the east-west point layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the vegetation and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360o around the point, and so that each point was surveying unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birds beyond the 800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot. Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900 1700) to cover the peak period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60 minutes long. All raptors and other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned a unique observation number and plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each survey included date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance from plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above ground, activity (behavior), and habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight direction or movement paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each raptor/large bird and the 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 also noted.
22
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration through the project area. In New York, spring hawk watch locations are concentrated along the Great Lakes shorelines and are more inland in eastern portions of the state during fall migration. According to spring count data from the Derby Hill Bird Observatory, located in Mexico, New York, approximately 50 miles south of Cape Vincent along Lake Ontario, peak numbers of sharp-shinned hawks migrate through the area during April, with large pulses of broad-winged hawks during the last two weeks of the month. Fall migration counts from Franklin Mountain in Oneonta, New York (150 miles southeast of Cape Vincent) report peak periods for migrant broad-winged and sharpshinned hawks during September and October, respectively. Concern for migrant golden eagles potentially using the St. Lawrence Windpower project area was expressed during talks with the NYSDEC. Golden eagles are earlier and later migrants with peaks reported from the end of March during spring migration and the end of October through November during fall migration. Spring raptor surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area began later in the 2006 season (April 14, 2006) and likely did not capture early raptor migrants, such as golden eagles. In fall, surveys were conducted from September 23 November 11. Spring surveys were repeated again in 2007 from March 21 to May 1.
3.2.2 Results
During the spring 2006 season, each point was surveyed 4 times, for a total of 12 surveys. A total of 1581 individual birds were recorded; 91 raptors of 9 species were observed (Table 1). During the fall 2006 season, each fixed point was surveyed 10 times during the survey window, for a total of 30 surveys. A total of 8521 individual birds were recorded; 288 raptors of 9 species were observed. During the spring 2007 season, each point was surveyed 7 times for a total of 21 surveys. A total of 2666 individual birds were recorded; 232 raptors of 8 species were observed. A total of 12,768 individual large birds were recorded during the surveys; 611 individual raptors of 13 species were observed (Table 1). Canada goose and unidentified gull species were the most commonly seen bird during all surveys. During spring 2006 migration, turkey vulture was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 51, freq = 83.3%), followed by red-tailed hawk (n = 8, freq = 50.0). In the fall, northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 87, freq = 90.0%); redtailed hawk and turkey vulture were also commonly seen species during surveys. Turkey vulture was the most common recorded raptor species (n = 105, freq = 94.4%) again during spring 2007 migration surveys, followed by both the red-tailed hawk (n = 36, freq = 72.2%) and roughlegged hawk (n = 38, freq = 72.2%). Other raptor species seen included: broad-winged hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, Coopers hawk, osprey, northern harrier, American kestrel, merlin, bald eagle, and turkey vulture (Table 1). Exposure indices were calculated as the mean use estimates (number of birds/60-minute survey) multiplied by the proportion of birds observed flying and the proportion of birds flying within the zone of risk (defined as the approximate rotor-swept area). During the migratory seasons, gull species had the highest exposure index due to high numbers of individuals occurring in the project area (Table 2). For raptors, turkey vulture had the highest exposure index also due primarily to the higher use estimates. 23
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Avian and raptor use varied among survey stations (Figure 14). Avian use was higher at Station 3 during the spring and fall seasons of 2006, however Station 2 was the highest during the spring 2007 season. High numbers of waterfowl and gulls foraging in nearby fields or flying close to the shoreline may account for higher avian use of Station 3. Mean avian use was lower at Station 1 and 2. Raptor use was generally similar between seasons and survey points. Station 1 had higher raptor use in fall 2006 and spring 2007 but the differences were not significant.
24
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Species/Group # ind # groups mean use3 % freq4 # ind # groups mean use # ind # groups mean use % freq Waterbirds Double-crested cormorant 2 1 0.17 8.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 Great black-backed gull 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.06 Great blue herron 4 4 0.33 25.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 55 44 3.06 Herring gull 19 3 1.58 16.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 Ring-billed gull 317 9 26.42 50.00 660 34 22.00 36.67 47 17 2.50 Unidentified gull 879 15 73.25 66.67 6421 38 214.03 50.00 130 7 1.11 Waterfowl Canada goose 198 6 16.50 50.00 927 51 30.90 60.00 2014 40 111.89 Mallard 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 6 3 0.33 Tundra swan 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 Unidentified duck 40 2 3.33 16.67 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.11 Unidentified goose 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 48 1 2.67 Unidentified scaup 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 Raptors Accipiters Coopers hawkSC 0 0 0.00 0.00 4 4 0.13 13.33 0 0 0.00 SC Sharp-shinned hawk 5 3 0.42 25.00 3 3 0.10 10.00 5 5 0.28 Unidentified accipiter 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 Buteos Broad-winged hawk 7 7 0.58 33.33 6 3 0.20 6.67 0 0 0.00 Red-tailed hawk 8 7 0.67 50.00 43 37 1.43 63.33 36 31 1.72 Rough-legged hawk 2 2 0.17 16.67 12 8 0.40 23.33 38 34 2.11 Unidentified buteo 4 3 0.33 25.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 15 7 0.83
3 4
Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 60-min survey Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed
25
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Spring 2006 # groups mean use3 % freq4 0 1 0 6 2 51 5 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1581 0 1 0 6 2 31 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.50 0.17 4.25 0.42 2.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 41.67 16.67 83.33 33.33 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fall 2006 # groups mean use 1 11 2 87 0 119 0 204 3 0 1 1 0 0 42 9 8558 1 9 2 65 0 53 0 89 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 410 0.03 0.37 0.07 2.90 0.00 3.97 0.00 6.80 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.30
August 2007 Spring 2007 # groups mean use % freq 0 14 1 17 0 105 0 64 3 30 1 0 3 4 26 0 2666 0 12 1 16 0 53 0 33 2 1 1 0 1 2 6 0 320 0.00 0.78 0.06 0.94 0.00 5.50 0.00 3.56 0.17 1.67 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.22 1.44 0.00
Species/Group Eagles Bald eagleFT Falcons American kestrel Merlin Other Raptors Northern harrierST OspreySC Turkey vulture Unidentified raptor Other Birds American crow Common raven European starling Pileated woodpecker Ring-necked pheasant Rose-breasted grosbeak Unidentified yellowlegs Wild turkey Wilson's snipe Total
# ind
# ind
# ind 3.33 26.67 6.67 90.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 80.00 10.00 0.00 3.33 3.33 0.00 0.00 6.67 13.33
FT = Federal threatened (former) ST = State threatened SC = State listed species of special concern
26
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Relation to rotor-swept area5 Species Waterbirds Double-crested cormorant Great black-backed gull Great blue heron Herring gull Ring-billed gull Unidentified gull Waterfowl Canada goose Mallard Tundra swan Unidentified duck Unidentified goose Unidentified scaup Raptors Accipiters Cooper's hawk Sharp-shinned hawk Unidentified accipiter Buteos Broad-winged hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unidentified buteo
5 6
Mean Use
% birds flying 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 69.26 56.32 94.96 96.77 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
% below 100.00 0.00 18.33 100.00 56.32 54.94 8.03 6.67 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00
% within 0.00 100.00 71.67 0.00 42.28 44.09 43.88 90.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 23.66
% above 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1.40 0.97 48.09 3.33 0.00 0.00 100.00 76.34
Exposure Index6 0.00 0.01 0.53 0.00 3.71 23.21 16.74 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.38
0.02 0.01 0.74 0.23 12.67 93.46 40.17 0.38 0.04 0.52 0.59 1.62
0.05 0.16 NA 0.16 1.20 1.42 0.31
100.00 92.31 100.00 100.00 87.25 82.61 100.00
0.00 16.67 0.00 7.69 13.48 38.95 0.00
100.00 58.33 100.00 38.46 52.81 47.37 40.00
0.00 25.00 0.00 53.85 33.71 13.68 60.00
0.05 0.09 NA 0.06 0.55 0.56 0.12
Defined as the area between approximately 25 and 125 m above ground level Exposure index = (mean use) * (% individuals flying) * (% flying within rotor-swept area)
27
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Eagles Bald Eagle Falcons American kestrel Merlin Other Raptors Northern harrier Osprey Turkey vulture Unidentified raptor Other Birds American crow Common raven European starling Pileated woodpecker Ring-necked pheasant Rose-breasted grosbeak Unidentified yellowlegs Wild turkey Wilson's snipe
0.01 0.33 0.04 1.59 0.02 3.42 0.06 5.28 0.09 0.37 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.05 1.10 0.11
100.00 77.78 100.00 94.57 100.00 99.29 100.00 90.89 57.14 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00
0.00 95.24 66.67 76.23 50.00 9.61 0.00 61.44 50.00 100.00 100.00 NA 0.00 100.00 NA 100.00
0.00 4.76 33.33 20.49 50.00 72.60 60.00 38.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 NA 100.00 0.00 NA 0.00
100.00 0.00 0.00 3.28 0.00 17.79 40.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 NA 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.01 2.47 0.04 1.84 0.02 0.00 0.00 NA 0.04 0.00 NA 0.00
28
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for survey point by season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area.
All Birds for Spring 2006
800 700 Mean use
Mean use 20 15 10 5 0
Raptors for Spring 2006
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 Station 3
2 Station
All Birds for Fall 2006

800 700 600 Mean use 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 Station 3
20 16 Mean use 12 8 4 0 1
Raptors for Fall 2006
2 Station
29
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 14. continued.
All Birds for Spring 2007

800 700 600 Mean use 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 Station 3
Mean use 20 15 10 5 0 1
Raptors for Spring 2007
2 Station
30
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.3 Breeding Bird Survey The objective of the breeding bird surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of the proposed development area by breeding resident birds. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and counting breeding resident birds within the area proposed for development. The surveys were conducted based on the regional timing recommended for USGS BBS in central New York (USGS 2001).
3.3.1 Methods
Twenty survey points were established within the project area. The survey points were selected to cover as much of the proposed development area and habitat types as possible. GPS coordinates were recorded for each station for subsequent mapping (Figure 15). The habitat at each survey point was described to examine the applicability of the site to represent other areas within the proposed development area. U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2001) methods were used for the surveys. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birds observed were recorded; however, the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 400 m (0.25 mi) radius circle centered on the observation point. All points were surveyed twice during the recommended survey period (June - July) and seven days were skipped between the surveys to spread the effort over the breeding season. Survey periods at each point were 3 minutes long, similar to the BBS method. The date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover were recorded for each survey. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals of each species, how observed (visual or auditory), and behavior (flying, perching, singing, etc.) were recorded for each observation during the 3-minute count at each survey point.
31
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Figure 15. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the project area.
32
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.3.2 Results
Point count surveys were conducted on June 30 and July 7, 2006. Each point was surveyed twice, for a total of 40 surveys. A total of 1080 individual birds were observed in 425 groups (Table 3). Fifty-nine species were observed during the surveys. European starling, red-winged blackbird, and bobolink were the most common passerines observed based on mean use estimates (number observed within 400 m per 3-minute survey). The majority of the species recorded during breeding bird surveys are species commonly associated with agriculture, grasslands, and/or edge habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during the breeding bird surveys including northern harrier, a New York state threatened species; horned lark and grasshopper sparrow, two New York state species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush, two species on the USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region.
Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Mean Use
Waterbirds Great blue heron Green heron Ring-billed gull Unidentified gull Waterfowl Canada goose Mallard Shorebirds Killdeer Raptors/Vultures American kestrel Northern harrierT Red-tailed hawk Turkey vulture Passerines American crow American goldfinch American robin Baltimore oriole Barn swallow Black-capped chickadee Blue jay BobolinkBCC Brown-headed cowbird Cedar waxwing Chestnut-sided warbler
WEST, Inc.
4 1 47 38 27 2 16 2 4 4 9 53 23 30 6 23 5 2 76 11 4 1
4 1 6 2 4 1 10 2 3 3 7 11 15 25 3 6 3 2 32 4 1 1
0.1 0.025 1.175 0.95 0.675 0.05 0.4 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.225 1.325 0.575 0.75 0.15 0.575 0.125 0.05 1.9 0.275 0.1 0.025
33
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Species/Group
Common grackle Common yellowthroat Eastern bluebird Eastern kingbird Eastern meadowlark Eastern towhee Eastern tufted titmouse Eastern wood pewee Empidonax spp. European starling Grasshopper sparrowSC Gray catbird Horned larkSC House wren Indigo bunting Northern cardinal Ovenbird Red-eyed vireo Red-winged blackbird Rose-breasted grosbeak Savannah sparrow Scarlet tanager Song sparrow Tree swallow Unidentified passerine Unidentified sparrow Veery Willow flycatcher Wood thrushBCC Yellow warbler Upland Gamebirds Ruffed grouse Wild turkey Doves Mourning dove Rock pigeon Other Birds Hairy woodpecker Northern flicker Unidentified woodpecker All Birds
T = State listed threatened SC = State listed species of special concern
August 2007 # of individuals

29 29 2 4 32 1 1 5 1 235 1 6 6 3 1 2 11 7 136 1 37 2 48 13 1 1 1 4 6 31 1 4 10 14 1 2 3 1080
# of groups
3 20 2 3 28 1 1 5 1 19 1 5 2 3 1 1 11 7 49 1 26 2 35 3 1 1 1 4 5 18 1 1 6 5 1 2 3 425
Mean Use
0.725 0.725 0.05 0.1 0.8 0.025 0.025 0.125 0.025 5.875 0.025 0.15 0.15 0.075 0.025 0.05 0.275 0.175 3.4 0.025 0.925 0.05 1.2 0.325 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.1 0.15 0.775 0.025 0.1 0.25 0.35 0.025 0.05 0.075
34
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report 3.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys
August 2007
The objective of the nocturnal AnaBat surveys was to record the relative abundance of echolocating bats flying through the sampling area during summer breeding season and the spring and fall migration seasons.
3.4.1 Methods
Bat activity at the project area was recorded using an AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detector attached to a zero-crossing analysis interface module (ZCAIM) which houses a compact flash memory card for temporary download of ultrasonic activity files. To sample continuously on remote mode (automatic data collection), the detector and ZCAIM were powered by an external 12V battery. Each AnaBat unit (detector, ZCAIM, and 12V battery) was enclosed inside a plastic box or dry bag with the detector microphone positioned against a PVC tube protruding from the box/bag. This design prevented water from damaging the AnaBat units without compromising the ability of the unit to detect ultrasonic noise in the environment. To limit variation among AnaBats, sensitivity settings were calibrated for each unit prior to data collection. Most AnaBat units were set at or near setting 7 on the sensitivity dial. Each passive AnaBat unit was positioned so that the microphone faced the same cardinal direction, east, for each sampling period. Calls were recorded for passive sampling from approximately sunset to sunrise (1900 0700). AnaBat units were removed from the field approximately once per week to download files, recharge batteries, and troubleshoot technical problems. Data gathered from the passive AnaBat units at the met tower were used to calculate bat activity (designated as number of calls/night) present at the site during the sampling periods. Nights that experienced any number of technical difficulties were not included in the final analyses. During the spring sampling season (April 13 May 29), two AnaBat sampling locations were established. One unit was placed at ground level in the open grassy field at the base of the project met tower and another unit was deployed near a wooded edge (non-met 1) to increase likelihood of detecting additional species (Figure 16). Access issues and technical difficulties with the AnaBat unit at the non-met 1 location caused the unit to be relocated to a small farm pond near a wooded edge (non-met 2) within the project boundary after a week of sampling. Acoustic sampling at these two locations (met tower and non-met 2) continued through spring and these locations were maintained through the summer sampling season (June 28 August 8). During the fall season (August 13 October 9), AnaBat sampling continued at ground level at the met tower. A second AnaBat unit was deployed from August 15 October 16 in a tree approximately 10 m above ground near the radar survey station (radar; Figure 16).
35
WEST, Inc.
August 2007 Figure 16. AnaBat survey locations for the project area.
36
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
In addition to the stationary passive units, a roaming or mobile AnaBat unit was deployed during the summer to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the project area. Roaming sampling was conducted using a handheld AnaBat unit for 9 nights (3 sampling periods of 3 consecutive nights each) at habitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. To select locations for active sampling, reconnaissance visits were made to the project area during the day time to select sampling locations based on the presence of travel corridors (trails and roads), linear landscape features (forest edges), and access to water; habitat features known to be important for bats. Active sampling was conducted from sunset until approximately 4-5 hours after sunset (2100 0100). Analysis of bat calls was conducted using Analook software (DOS version). Analook displays ultrasonic activity in a format similar to a sonogram used for analysis of bird vocalizations (e.g., frequency versus time). Species identification was aided by the Preliminary Key to the Qualitative Identification of Calls within the AnaBat System (Amelon 2005, unpublished data) where characteristics such as slope, frequency, minimum frequency, consistency of minimum frequency, and shape of pulse assist in the identification of bat vocalizations. Due to similarity of call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into one species category. All Myotis-like calls were identified to genus only and submitted to NYSDECrecommended biologist, Eric Britzke, for identification to species. To obtain species identifications, an ID filter (Britzke and Murray 2001) was loaded into Analook to determine calls sequences of sufficient quality and length for species identification to be attempted. Once separated, echolocation calls of sufficient quality and length were categorized using quantitative techniques (Britzke 2003). Quantitative analyses are conducted by a cross-validated classification model based on 10 extracted call parameters [duration (Dur), maximum frequency (Fmax), minimum frequency (Fmin), mean frequency (Fmean), duration to the knee (Tk), frequency of the knee (Fk), duration of the body (Tc), frequency of the body (Fc), initial slope (S1), and slope of the body (Sc)] collected from 1,846 sequences (35,979 calls) of 12 eastern U.S. bat species (Britzke 2003). Average accuracy rates for species identification using this statistical method ranges from 56.9% (eastern red bat) to 98.5 % (gray bat), with accuracy rates for Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) ranging from 81.4% to 88.6%.
3.4.2 Results
Passage Rates The total number of calls and number of calls per night, recorded by each AnaBat unit varied by location and season (Table 4). The met tower AnaBat unit detected 769 bat calls total (19.72 calls/night) during the 39 days of spring sampling. Sampling at the two non-met locations during spring resulted in higher bat activity (29-33 calls/night) than at the met tower, despite changing in sampling location for the non-met unit. Summer sampling occurred at the met tower on 9 nights and recorded a total of 198 calls (22.0 calls/night). Approximately 2.5 times as many calls (55.56 calls/night) were recorded at the non-met 2 location during summer, possibly indicating a nearby roosting colony and/or better habitat for foraging bats. During fall, the AnaBat unit positioned at ground level at the met tower recorded the lowest number of bat vocalizations per night (9.26 calls/night). Despite a similar number of sampling days, the AnaBat unit located at the radar sampling station recorded more bat calls/night (32.58). Approximately 93% of calls 37
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
(n=1519) at the radar location were recorded between August 15 and August 21. Only 25% of the calls recorded at the met tower (n=117) were recorded during the same sampling period.
Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded by each AnaBat unit for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods. # of sampling days used in Total # of Season Location analysis calls # calls/night Spring Met tower low 39 769 19.72 Non-met 1 11 320 29.09 Non-met 2 24 782 32.58 Summer Met tower low Non-met 2 Met tower low Radar 9 9 50 50 198 500 463 1629 22.0 55.56 9.26 32.58
Fall
Species Identification Based on the qualitative analysis of calls, 5 species groups of bats were positively identified at the met tower location (Table 5). As is typical with AnaBat sampling, the majority of vocalizations were unable to be identified due to the few number of pulses per call (<5 pulses/call sequence). Relative call frequency was calculated by dividing the number of calls recorded for each species by the total number of calls recorded at the met tower for each season. Of those calls that were able to be identified to species, eastern red bat calls accounted for the majority of the vocalizations during all seasons at the met tower. Summer sampling with the mobile AnaBat unit occurred on nine nights and recorded 464 bat calls (Table 6). The objective of the mobile sampling was to identify to the extent possible the species of bats using the St. Lawrence Windpower project area during the summer breeding season. As with the fixed station sampling, many calls could not be identified to species. One individual of an additional species, eastern pipistrelle, was recorded during the roaming surveys and not recorded during sampling at the passive monitoring stations. The highest number of recorded calls was of hoary bat (Table 6); however, 95% of those calls occurred on one night at one location and may have been from only one or a few individuals echolocating repeatedly near the AnaBat microphone. Following the qualitative screening, 208 call files with characteristics resembling Myotis species were submitted to Eric Britzke for further analysis. Of those files, 76 calls (36.5%) did not contain sufficient enough information to be processed quantitatively. The remaining calls were analyzed quantitatively on a nightly basis by site (Britzke 2003). Calls meeting the quantitative criteria for the following species were identified: eastern red bat (22 calls), little brown bat (50 calls), northern myotis (44 calls), and Indiana bat (16 calls). 38 WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the sampling periods of each season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Species Relative Call Frequency Common Name Scientific Name Spring Summer Fall
Big brown bat/ Silver-haired bat Eastern red bat Hoary bat Myotis spp. No identification Eptescus fuscus/ Lasionycteris noctivagans Lasiurus borealis Lasiurus cinereus 0.0897 (69) 0.3914 (301) 0.0260 (20) 0.0117 (9) 0.4811 (370) 0.1414 (28) 0.4141 (82) 0.0404 (8) 0 0.4040 (80) 0.0605 (28) 0.2203 (102) 0.0043 (2) 0.0130 (6) 0.7019 (325)
Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling.

Common Name
Big brown bat Eastern red bat Hoary bat Myotis spp. Eastern Pipistrellus pipistrelle subflavus No Species ID Total Detections/night
Species Scientific Name

Eptescus fuscus Lasiurus borealis Lasiurus cinereus
6/28
19 14 0 0 0 25 58
6/29
12 20 4 6 1 31 74
6/30
0 0 0 7 0 16 23
Date Sampled 7/24 7/25 7/26

13 5 1 0 0 25 44 0 13 117 0 0 62 192 0 4 0 0 0 6 10
8/06
4 0 0 0 0 16 20
8/07
1 7 0 0 0 29 37
8/08 0
0 0 0 0 4 4
39
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.5 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys The objective of the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys was to estimate spatial and temporal use of the site by migrant and wintering waterfowl and raptor species. During initial project scoping, the agencies raised concerns over the potential for the proposed wind project to impact wintering waterfowl and raptors.
3.5.1 Methods
Driving transect surveys were conducted along most roads through the proposed area that allowed nearly complete coverage of the project area (Figure 17). Surveys consisted of driving transects to locate and count winter waterfowl in the project area. In addition, nine 30-minute point count surveys were conducted at each of the fixed point count stations that were used during the migrant raptor surveys (see above). All waterfowl and raptor observations were plotted on maps of the survey points or coordinates (UTMs) were recorded along the road for each group observed during driving surveys. Surveys were generally conducted in the early morning or late evening hours when waterfowl were most active. In addition to waterfowl, all raptors and other waterbirds were also recorded during the surveys.
40
WEST, Inc.
St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species locations recorded for the project area.
August 2007
41
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
3.5.2 Results
Driving surveys in the St. Lawrence project area were conducted on nine days between November 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent during the driving transects over the winter seasons and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were conducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 795 individuals in 159 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl and raptors were recorded during the winter driving surveys (Table 7) and 790 individuals in 146 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts (Table 8). Four (4) species of waterfowl were observed either during the fixed point count surveys or the driving surveys across the study area. Two waterbirds species, seven raptor species, and one upland gamebird species were also recorded during the surveys. Based on use estimates derived from the fixed point surveys, unidentified scaup and Canada goose were the most common waterfowl species observed during the winter surveys (Table 7 and 8). Red-tailed hawk and rough legged hawk were the most common raptor species (Table 7 and 8).
Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at the St. Lawrence project area. Winter 2007 Species/Group # of individuals # of groups
Waterbirds Great blue heron Ring-billed gull Waterfowl Canada goose Mallard Raptors/Vultures American kestrel Bald eagle Merlin Northern harrierT Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Turkey vulture Other Birds American crow Wild Turkey Total
2 2 473 8 7 2 1 17 27 57 6 135 58 795
2 2 12 2 7 2 1 12 24 54 2 34 5 159
42
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point surveys at the St. Lawrence project area. Winter 2007 Species/Group # ind # groups mean use7 % freq8
Waterbirds Ring-billed gull Unidentified gull Waterfowl Canada goose Mallard Tundra swan Unidentified scaup Raptors Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Unidentified buteo Northern harrier American kestrel Turkey vulture Other Birds American crow Common raven Wild turkey Total
4 250 115 24 3 131 15 63 6 19 1 8 129 1 21 2 1 4 1 1 2 11 56 4 16 1 3 40 1 3 0.19 11.90 5.48 1.14 0.14 6.24 0.71 3.00 0.29 0.90 0.05 0.38 6.14 0.05 1.00 9.52 4.76 19.05 4.76 4.76 9.52 80.95 47.62 9.52 42.86 4.76 4.76 85.71 4.76 14.29
790
146
37.62
7 8
Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 30-min survey Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed
43
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
4.0 Discussion
4.1 Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey The nocturnal radar study was designed to collect data that could be used to characterize nocturnal migration over the project area and also be used in a larger statewide comparison of results from numerous sites (M. Woythal, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). In the analysis, the radar data were not corrected for differences in detectability with distance from the radar unit or due to ground clutter on the radar screen. Also, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image was treated as a 1-dimensional 3-km front perpendicular to the direction of migration, and all targets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Thus, passage rate estimates should be considered a sample or index of the actual number of targets passing through the area. Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of factors including observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection. To minimize these biases, efforts were made to standardize data collection and radar settings as much as possible. For example, the radar was operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. While short wave-length and high gain insure detection of small targets, these settings also have the effect of producing atmospheric or background noise on the screen which consequently can obscure small targets. To clean up the screen, the antisea clutter [which minimizes clutter and noise close to the radar] was slowly turned up to the point where background noise was dispersed and limited primarily to the outer edge of the screen. The anti-rain clutter [which reduces interference from small targets throughout the survey area (e.g., rain drops)] was kept at the lowest setting so that no small targets would be eliminated. These settings insure that small targets such as individual passerines can be detected by the radar. Also during sampling, specific functions or capabilities of the radar were used to determine data values to minimize observer bias. For example, the electronic bearing line and variable range marker used in offset mode allowed the compass bearing of a target trail and the speed at which the target was moving to be measured by the radar as opposed to estimated by the observer or measured with a hand held scale. Results from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area were similar to other sites studied in New York and the eastern U.S. (Table 9). Mean passage rate for fall 2006 was higher (346 t/km/hr) than the average for NY and the eastern U.S. (259 t/km/hr); however, it fell within the overall range of passage rates reported at other New York sites. Conversely, spring passage rate was on the lower end of the range of other studies. Mean fall flight direction for the St. Lawrence Windpower study was 209 and for the spring was 34, slightly more southwesterly and northeasterly than most other New York studies but again within the range of directions reported at other New York sites. Mean flight height of targets was approximately 490 m in the fall and 441 m in the spring, which is similar to other studies in NY and near the means for all reported studies in the eastern U.S. (Table 9). The percent of targets (~8% fall and ~14% spring) which flew through the zone of risk, defined as the air space below 44
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
125 m, were also very near the mean for all other studies where flight height was recorded with vertical mode radar.
Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the eastern U.S.
Site Passage Rates (t/km/hr) Fall Spr Mean Flight Height (m) Fall Spr % Targets below 125 m Fall Spr Mean Flight Direction Fall Spr
St. Lawrence Windpower, NY 346 166 490 441 8 14 209 34 (this report) Dairy Hills, Wyoming Co., NY 170 234 466 397 10 15 180 14 (Young et al. 2006) Alabama Ledge, Genessee Co., NY 165 200 487 413 11 14 219 35 (Young et al. 2007) Flat Rock, NY 158 415 8 184 (Mabee et al. 2005) Chautauqua, NY 238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29 (Cooper et al. 2004a,b) 200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18 Prattsburgh (1), NY (Mabee et al. 2004, 2005) Clinton County, NY 197 110 333 338 12 20 162 30 (Mabee et al. 2006) Marble River, NY 152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40 (Woodlot Alternatives 2006a,b) Jordanville, NY 380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005a, b) Prattsburgh (2), NY 193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22 (B. Roy, pers. comm. 2006) West Hill, NY 732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005) High Sheldon, NY 197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29 (Woodlot Alternatives 2005) Fairfield Top Notch, NY 691 509 516 419 4 20 198 44 (B. Gary, NYDEC, pers. comm.) Searsburg, VT 178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69 (Roy and Pelletier 2005a, 2005b) Sheffield, VT 109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40 (Roy et al. 2005) Martindale, PA 187 436 8 188 (Plissner et al. 2005) Casselman, PA 174 448 7 219 (Plissner et al. 2005) Mount Storm, WV 199 410 16 184 (Young et al. 2004) Mean 259 259 472 412 7 14 197 34 Note: Some values are approximations based on the limited information provided in the report or averaged over more than one sampling location (e.g., Flat Rock, Mount Storm).
45
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
While the overall patterns of nocturnal migration in New York and along the Great Lakes shorelines are generally unknown, passage rates could be expected to be higher for coastal sites if birds and bats tend to move around the great lakes as opposed to flying directly over them. Diurnal migrants such as raptors are known to concentrate along and move parallel to the shorelines of large water bodies. If nocturnal migrants behave in a similar manner, then it would be expected that greater passage rates would be recorded for coastal sites than interior sites. For the studies conducted in New York, while results have been variable, the highest fall passage rates have been recorded at interior sites. For spring migration results again were variable with the highest passages rates coming from a coastal site as well as two interior sites (see Table 9). The results from the St. Lawrence study do not appear to support the hypothesis that nocturnal migrants may concentrate along the shoreline. The passage rates in the study area may have been influenced locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline (<1.5 km), though this distance was recommended by the NYSDEC and USFWS to investigate this question, or by weather patterns influenced by the coastal environment. During the fall the distribution of targets flying over the site was generally higher and relatively few targets were recorded within the zone of risk (see Figure 12). During the spring season the results were much more variable. While the mean flight height was greater than 125 m on all nights, the median flight height value fell within the zone of risk on two nights indicating that half the targets recorded on those nights were within the zone of risk. Weather variables recorded during the nights in the Spring when target altitude was relatively lower suggest that weather events may have influenced migrant flight altitudes. Both nights when the median value fell below 125 m had intermittent precipitation with substantial cloud cover and lower passage rates (see Figure 5 and 6). While the results indicate some elevated risk on some nights, based on the overall radar survey results, collision risk to migrants within the project area is not expected to be greater than other sites studied in New York. 4.2 Raptor Migration Surveys Typical raptor species for central New York were observed during the surveys (Table 1). One bald eagle, a former federally threatened species, was observed during the fall surveys. This individual was recorded flying above 125 m and outside of the zone of risk from turbine blades. Several northern harrier, a state threatened species, were recorded within the project area during spring and fall migration. Northern harriers are, in general, low-level fliers and most (76.23%) individuals recorded during the surveys were flying below the zone of risk; however 20.49% were flying within the rotor swept area. Two New York species of special concern, Coopers hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, were also observed during surveys. Cooper's hawks were only observed during the fall surveys (4 individuals); however all of the individuals were flying within the zone of risk. Sharp-shinned hawks were observed during all survey seasons and 58.33% were recorded in the zone of risk. Based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour, the St. Lawrence Windpower project area has less traffic during spring migration than the known hawk watch sites in New York. The nearest spring hawk watch site to the project area, Derby Hill Bird Observatory, was somewhat variable over the same survey days; however, the overall mean number of raptors 46
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
observed per surveyor hour was greater (Table 10). Large numbers of broad-winged hawks were observed at Derby Hill on 4/21/06; however, surveys within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area on the same day failed to record high numbers of this species passing over the site. Spring raptor migration surveys were repeated in 2007 and started earlier in the season to look for potential eagle migrants. Overall migrant passage rate in 2007 was higher than 2006 however, it was still substantially lower than the established hawk watch sites (Table 10).
Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at seven established spring/fall hawk watch sites. Spring 2006 4/14/06 4/21/06 5/02/06 5/12/06 Average Spring 2007 3/21/07 3/31/07 4/11/07 4/14/07 4/20/07 4/22/07 5/01/07 Average Fall 2006 9/23/06 9/30/06 10/07/06 10/13/06 10/20/06 10/27/06 10/30/06 11/05/06 11/07/06 11/11/06 Average St. Lawrence Windpower 10.7 13.3 2.3 3.7 7.5 St. Lawrence Windpower 15.7 14.0 16.7 11.7 7.7 18.7 23.3 15.4 Ripley Hawk 31.4 35.9 17.3 5.6 22.55 Ripley Hawk 23.8 27.9 31.0 31.4 44.2 96.0 39.3 41.9 Franklin Mt. 1 3 10 3 no survey 20 15 1 0 2 9 Hamburg 83.8 17.9 0.8 5.2 26.9 Hamburg 7.1 123.5 19.2 83.8 26.2 82.1 0.0 48.85 Braddock Bay no survey no survey no survey no survey -Braddock Bay 25.2 53.5 38.4 95.1 101.6 156.1 no survey 78.3 Derby Hill 21.5 353.1 6.0 44.8 106.3 Derby Hill 77.9 74.1 71.7 81.1 43.0 111.5 66.4 75.1
St. Lawrence Windpower 15 20 17 10 3 7 6 6 8 4 9.6
Mohonk Preserve no survey 2 no survey 11 no survey 11 16 no survey no survey no survey 10
Mount Peter 1 5 3 7 no survey 5 10 1 2 no survey 3.4 47
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
There are no fall hawk watch sites along the lake shoreline in central New York. The nearest fall site, Kestrel Haven located in south central New York, was generally lower than the St. Lawrence Windpower project area in terms of raptors counted per surveyor hour; however, count data for this site is only available for 2005 so a direct comparison of actual survey days could not be made. Fall hawk watch sites further south and east, such as Franklin Mountain, record similar numbers of migrant raptors, which are likely taking advantage of ridgelines of the western Appalachian Mountains; however timing is different among the sites. Higher numbers of raptors per surveyor hour were seen earlier in the fall season at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area than at more southern sites. This may be a reflection of the more northern latitude of the study area or summer residents, such as red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, and northern harrier, still in the area. Exposure indices are a method for estimating relative risk to individual species from wind turbines based on the observed flight characteristics. During both migratory seasons, non-raptor species had the highest exposure index due to high use of the area by waterfowl and waterbirds, such as Canada goose and gull species (Table 2). At the St. Lawrence Windpower project area, raptors in general did not have high exposure indices due to either low numbers recorded or flight heights outside of the zone of risk. Turkey vulture had the highest exposure index; they were commonly observed and were most often observed flying in the zone of risk. While these species have been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind plants, the number of fatalities are relatively small (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). Cooper's hawk and osprey were seen less frequently, but were seen primarily flying in the zone of risk. In contrast, northern harrier were often recorded, particularly during fall migration, but rarely (20.49%) observed flying into the zone of risk and has rarely been recorded as fatalities at other monitored wind facilities (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). 4.3 Breeding Bird Survey The results of the breeding bird surveys were typical of agricultural settings in central New York. Frequently recorded species included European starling, bobolink, and red-winged blackbird. A few woodland species, such as wood thrush and ovenbird, were observed in small wooded areas and wetlands scattered throughout the project area. Several species of gulls and waterfowl are also present in the area due to proximity to the shoreline. The closest breeding bird survey (Watertown; Sauer et al. 2005) reported similar species occurrences and abundances. Four species listed by the NYSDEC were observed within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area: northern harrier, horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier is listed as NY state threatened. The remaining three species are listed as Special Concern species for New York (NYSDEC 2003). Bobolink, a commonly occurring species within the project area (Table 3) and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern list for Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region (USFWS 2002) in which the project area occurs. Henslows sparrow, a NY state threatened species, has been recorded during breeding bird surveys in the region (Sauer et al. 2005); however, this species was not seen during counts within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area though habitat for this species exists. 48
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Based on the breeding bird survey data collected in 2006, the St. Lawrence Windpower project area does not appear to have any large or unusual populations of breeding resident birds. Mortality results from two other eastern wind plants studied indicate that turbines on eastern mountain ridgelines result in between 4 and 8 bird fatalities per turbine per year (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004 and Nicholson 2002, 2003). In both these studies it was estimated that approximately two-thirds of the avian fatalities were migrants. Provided impacts at the St. Lawrence Windpower project area are similar, it is not expected that breeding resident birds are at great risk from the wind project. Due to the diversity of birds recorded in the mixed farmland habitat, impacts are expected to be spread over several commonly observed species. 4.4 Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys Passage Rates To date monitoring studies of wind projects have shown a few common trends in bat mortality. Risk to bats from turbines appears to be unequal across species and seasons where increased mortality occurs during the post breeding or fall migration season (roughly mid-July through September) among migrant bats species (see Johnson 2005). Some studies have shown apparent low risk from turbines to resident bat populations (Johnson et al. 2003) while others have shown that mortality is not correlated with AnaBat call rates (Nicholson 2002, 2003). The postconstruction mortality data collected at existing regional projects appears to be the best available predictor of mortality levels and species composition for proposed wind projects. The number of bats detected per night at the project met tower was highest in the spring (19.7 calls/night) and summer (22.0 calls/night). These results contrast with results of mortality studies of bats at wind projects in the U.S., which have shown a peak in mortality in August and September (see Johnson 2005). While the survey efforts varied among the different studies, the studies that included AnaBat surveys and fatality surveys showed a general association between the timing of bat calls and timing of mortality, with both peak call rates and peak mortality occurring during the fall. Lower bat activity was recorded at the project met tower during fall migration (9.26 calls/night) than other times during the year. Bat activity collected at the project met tower suggests that bat activity declined in the fall and thus fewer bats would be exposed to risk of collision at the St. Lawrence Windpower project. Bat activity captured at non-met locations during migration seasons and summer was significantly higher than that recorded at the met tower. Activity at the non-met sampling locations range from 2933 calls/night during migration seasons to 56 calls/night during summer breeding season. Consistent differences in bat activity between met and non-met locations is likely due largely to habitat at the sampling locations. Acoustic sampling at the met tower, located in an open pasture and a location recommended by agency personnel, should be more reflective of bat activity in areas where turbines will be constructed. The differences between the met tower station and non-met stations are likely due to the relative abundance of bats occurring in pastures versus more diverse habitat such as edge or woodlots. Ultimately, however, predicted risk to migratory and breeding bats using acoustic monitoring appears to be limited based on previous studies at other wind sites where there have been conflicting results. 49
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Species Identification While interspecific variation in echolocation call structure exists among the Myotis species, significant variation can exist intraspecifically among individuals and populations (Broders et al. 2004). Plasticity among calls of an individual based on a number of factors (e.g., habitat, presence of conspecifics, etc.) can further confound species identification (Barclay and Brigham 2004). Given the similarity of Myotis species, both morphologically and acoustically, these species are generally acknowledged as being among the more difficult to identify. To determine presence of a federally endangered Myotis species, Indiana bat, within the St. Lawrence Windpower project area, all call files with signatures resembling Myotis species were submitted for quantitative analysis to NYSDEC-recommended bat biologist, Eric Britzke. A total of 208 call files were analyzed using a classification model based on discriminate function analysis (DFA) that utilizes 10 quantitative measures of individual call sequences (Britzke 2003, Britzke and Murray 2001). As is typical of AnaBat call analysis, the majority of the calls (n=76) were still unable to be categorized to species using the procedure. Of those calls with adequate signatures, 22 had call parameters similar to eastern red bat, 50 to little brown bat, 44 to northern myotis, and 16 to Indiana bat. Calls with characteristics of Indiana bat were recorded at several locations within the project area from May 9 September 21, with about half of the calls occurring at one sampling location between May 23 29, 2006. No sampled nights at any site had >2 call files with characteristics of Indiana bat. Due to the probabilistic nature and opportunity for misidentification and inaccuracy in species identification, multiple calls of a species must be detected in a single night to definitively determine species presence (Britzke et al. 2002). This is a conservative approach, but serves to ensure that variation caused by inaccurate identification is not included in the species identification results. Based on this approach, there are insufficient files to statistically support the presence of Indiana bats at any of the sites or nights examined (E. Britzke, pers. communication), however, there is some possibility that Indiana bat occurs on the site. Though statistical analysis of Myotis species calls recorded by the AnaBats failed to conclusively document Indiana bat, the St. Lawrence Windpower project area is within the recognized range of the species. Indiana bat are known to winter in a hibernaculum near Watertown. Movement of females dispersing from hibernacula to breeding areas has been tracked by NYSDEC from 2002 2006 (NYSDEC 2006). Individuals have been recorded traveling up to 40 miles from wintering caves and several dispersing females were reported in Clayton, New York, located within approximately 6 miles northeast of the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Suitable roosting habitat, characterized by trees or snags >5 inches in diameter with exfoliating bark and cracks/crevices (USFWS 1999), is present within the project area. Additionally, several riparian areas and wetlands, such as forested wetland and floodplain forests, occur within the project area provide foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bat and other bat species. The results of the AnaBat surveys along with available information suggest that Indiana bats may occupy the site in low density. Because of the status of this species, further investigations including habitat mapping and potentially mist-netting surveys are warranted. Additional study scope, methods, and objectives will be discussed with the NYSDEC and USFWS and implemented in 2007. Detailed habitat mapping for the species, with a focus on suitable trees/woodlots for maternal colonies, is recommended. The utility of mist-netting to confirm 50
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
presence/absence of the species and likelihood of impacts based on relative density within the project area will be further evaluated in consultation with the agencies. 4.5 Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys Due to the coastal nature of the project area, potential impacts to waterfowl and raptors that frequent the area during migration and winter season was raised as a concern. Four species of waterfowl, three species of waterbirds and eight species of raptors were recorded on the St. Lawrence Windpower project area during the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys. The vast majority of the waterfowl use of the site was of Canada goose. Generally, geese were observed in large flocks foraging in agricultural fields and flying over the St. Lawrence Windpower project area. Canada goose has been recorded fatalities at other monitored wind projects primarily in the western U.S., however, they are not a common fatality. In general, waterfowl fatalities at wind projects are rare (see Erickson et al 2001, 2002, Koford et al. 2005). While the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project would increase risk of collision related mortality to Canada goose, impacts are not expected to be significant due to the large numbers of this species in the region and the low occurrence of collision fatalities at wind projects. The most common raptor species recorded during the driving and fixed point surveys were red-tailed and roughlegged hawk. These raptor species have a relatively low exposure index (Table 2), although redtailed hawk is one of the most common raptor fatalities associated with wind turbines (see Erickson et al. 2001, 2002). Although, the proposed St. Lawrence Windpower project would increase exposure to collision risk for red-tailed and rough-legged hawks, impacts are not expected to be greater than other eastern wind projects where raptor mortality has been relatively low (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Nicholson 2002, 2003, Koford et al. 2005, Arnett et al. 2005).
5.0 References
Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Barclay, R.M. and R.M. Brigham. 2004. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of bats: a complication for identifying species by their calls in Bat Echolocation Research: Tools, techniques, and analysis. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. Academic Press, London. Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, and D.A. Hill. 1992. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, New York. 257 pp. Britzke, E.R. 2003. Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in the eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, unpublished. Britzke, E.R. and K.L. Murray. 2001. A quantitative method for the selection of identifiable search-phase calls using the AnaBat system. Bat Research News 41:33-36.
51
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Britzke, E.R., K.L. Murray, J.S. Heywood, and L.W. Robbins. 2002. Acoustic identification. Pp. 220-224 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. Broders, H.G., C.S. Findlay, and L. Zheng. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammology 85:273-281. Cooper, B.A., A.A. Stickney and T.J. Mabee. 2004a. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York, Fall 2003. Technical report prepared for Chautaqua Windpower LLC. Cooper, B.A., T.J. Mabee, A.A. Stickney and J.E. Shook. 2004b. A visual and radar study of 2003 spring bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York. Technical report prepared for Chautaqua Windpower LLC. Cooper, B. A. and T. J. Mabee. 2000. Bird Migration Near Proposed Wind Turbine Sites at Wethersfield and Harrisburg, New York. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Cooper, B. A., C. B. Johnson, and R. J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird Migration Near Existing and Proposed Wind Turbine Sites in the Eastern Lake Ontario Region. Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Cooper, B.A., R.H. Day, R.J. Ritchie, and C.L. Cranor. 1991. An improved marine radar system for studies of bird migration. J. Field Ornithol. 62:367-377. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, R.E. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Resource Document. August 2001. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Technical Report prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, December 2002. Harmata, A.R., K.M. Podruzny, J.R. Zelenak and M.L. Morrison. 1999. Using marine surveillance radar to study bird movements and impact assessment. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(1):44-52. Hawk Migration Association of North America. 2006. HawkCount Monthly Summaries. Association of North America, Raptors Online. http://www.hawkcount.org/ Hawk Migration
Hawrot, R.Y. and J. M. Hanowski. 1997. Avian assessment document: avian population analysis for wind power generation regions-012. NRRI/TR-97-23. Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Technical Report prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 39 pp.
52
WEST, Inc.
August 2007
Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner. 2005. Avian Mortality Associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm, Calender Year 2004. Iowa State University and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. February 2005. Mabee, T. J., and B. A. Cooper. 2000. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Fall 2000. Final Report. Prepared for Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. and Energy Northwest. Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2001. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project, Spring 2001. Final Report. Prepared for Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. and Energy Northwest. Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2002. Nocturnal Bird Migration at the Stateline and Vansycle Wind Energy Projects, 2000-2001. Final Report. Prepared for CH2M Hill and FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC. Mabee, T.J., J.H. Plissner, and B.A. Cooper. 2005. A Radar and Visual Study of Nocturnal Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project, New York, Fall 2004. Final Report. Prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation. NYSDEC. 2003. Endangered Species Program, Species Fact Sheets. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/ NYSDEC. 2006. Indiana Bat Fact Sheet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit, Albany, New York. 3pp. Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313. Roy, R. D. and S. K. Pelletier. 2005. Fall 2004 Migration Surveys at the Proposed Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont. Prepared for Vermont Environmental Research Associates and enXco, Inc. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Young, Jr., D. P., D. Strickland, W. P Erickson, K. J. Bay, R. Canterbury and R. Mabee, B. Cooper and J. Plissner. 2003. Baseline Avian Studies Mount Storm Wind Power Project, Grant County, West Virginia, May 2003March 2004. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
53
WEST, Inc.

Avian &amp; Bat Study Lawrence Wind 2006 Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Avian &amp; Bat Study Lawrence Wind 2006 Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSED ST.

LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

1.0 Introduction and Background

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

2.0 Study Area

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

3.0 Study Components

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

such that 0 r 1. If all observations

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

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

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 6. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.

NIGHTLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 7. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode.

HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

HOURLY PASSAGE RATE (targets/km/hr)

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5 km range.

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

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

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

0 1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 0600

FLIGHT ALTITUDE (m)

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

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

AIR SPEED (m/s)

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

0.05 0.16 NA 0.16 1.20 1.42 0.31

100.00 92.31 100.00 100.00 87.25 82.61 100.00

0.00 16.67 0.00 7.69 13.48 38.95 0.00

100.00 58.33 100.00 38.46 52.81 47.37 40.00

0.00 25.00 0.00 53.85 33.71 13.68 60.00

0.05 0.09 NA 0.06 0.55 0.56 0.12

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Raptors for Spring 2006

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 Station 3

All Birds for Fall 2006

Raptors for Fall 2006

St. Lawrence Windpower Project Avian and Bat Studies Report

Figure 14. continued.

All Birds for Spring 2007

Raptors for Spring 2007

Avian & Bat Study Lawrence Wind 2006 Final Report

Avian & Bat Study Lawrence Wind 2006 Final Report