Femp-Wallops Final Report (Curry Kerlinger

Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the James Madison University-NASA Wind Power Project, Wallops Island, Accomack
County, Virginia
September 2004
DRAFT DRAFT -- DRAFT
Report Prepared for:
Report Prepared by: Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.
Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 email: pkerlinger@aol.com www.currykerlinger.com
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger
Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the James Madison University-NASA Wind Power Project, Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia
Executive Summary One or two, utility scale wind turbines are proposed for the Wallops Island NASA facility in Accomack County, Virginia. The project is a joint effort between James Madison University and NASA, hereafter referred to as the JMU-NASA Wind Power Project. Each wind turbine would generate about 1.0 or slightly greater power, totaling at least 1.0+ to 2.0+ megawatts of generating capacity. Tower (tubular) heights would be about 60 meters (197 feet) range, with rotor lengths of 26 m (85 feet). Minimum and maximum heights of the rotor tip when the rotor is in the 12 oclock position would be about 86 m (282 feet) AGL. The turbines would be located at two potential sites (Figure 1), separated by about 3.7 miles (5.9 km), with one on Wallops Island and the other on the mainland. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development. It includes a literature review, interviews with local and regional experts (agency staff, environmental organizations, and local birders), and a site visit (August 10-11, 2004) during which habitat and birds present were examined. Together, these sources of information provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use a project site and the area surrounding that site. This information is then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at a particular site. In addition, the concerns of regulators and environmental organizations were determined (PENDING) and incorporated into the risk assessment. Two turbine sites, each with 1 turbine are proposed. Site #1 on Wallops Island is a grassy field surrounded by small forest patches, small buildings, an observation tower, and a radar station. It is immediately adjacent to extensive salt marshes and about 1/3 of a mile (0.5 km) from the barrier beach. Although the immediate site is not sensitive habitat, the turbine would be surrounded by prime avian habitat. Site #2 is on the mainland, at the Wallops Island Flight Center. Although it is adjacent to extensive salt marshes, it is on a more developed site and is also adjacent to farm land. The site itself is not sensitive habitat, although the marshes to the east of the site and small forests nearby are excellent bird habitat. A letter from U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service is pending, as is a letter from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Natural Heritage program. The literature and database review and interviews with experts (PENDING) indicated that during the nesting season there are two federally listed species may be nest near one of the two turbine sites (Bald Eagle and Piping Plover). Risk to these species is probably minimal because neither will likely use either site to forage or roost. No state or federally listed endangered species is likely to nest on or near the site. Peregrine Falcon, a Virginia threatened species, nests within a few hundred
Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger meters of Site #1 at a tower in the marsh. Several state species of concern were found to nest near or in the vicinity of Site #1 and to a lesser extent Site #2. The habitat at the two turbine sites is disturbed and does not support a wide variety of species. The birds that nest, migrate and make stopovers in the adjacent habitats, and wintering birds are very diverse and numerous, indicating that the general area is a very important area for birds. Extraordinarily large numbers of migrating raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, other waterbirds, and songbirds migrate through the general, as well as winter in the area. Nearby there is a globally significant flightlines for fall migrating Peregrine Falcons, Merlins, and some other species. The area is known for its waterfowl and shorebird migrations, which classify as world class. The migrations of these species are the reason so many national and state wildlife management areas, wildlife refuges, and even a national seashore are present nearby acting as ecological magnets for these species. Together these facts strongly suggest that the two project sites will have significant bird use. Site #2 is likely to have less bird use because it is located away from the barrier island and marsh, as well as the ocean. The following recommendations are made: Electrical lines from the turbines to nearby transmission/distribution lines should be underground to the degree possible and all new above ground wires leading from the site and substations, should have specifications that follow APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee) guidelines. Permanent meteorology towers, if needed, should be free-standing and unguyed to prevent the potential for avian collisions. Turbine pads and roads to those pads should be minimal in size to minimize habitat impact, and after construction disturbed habitats should be restored to the extent possible. Lighting should be minimal at the turbines and nearby infrastructure to minimize or eliminate attraction of night migrating songbirds and similar species. Sodium vapor lamps and spotlights should not be used near turbines. FAA lighting for night use should only be flashing lights (L-864 red or white) with the longest possible off cycle permissible and no steady burning (L-810) FAA lights should be used. A post-construction study of collision fatalities would be helpful to potential site expansion and future wind power development in coastal areas of the Eastern Shore. Because federal and Virginia listed species occur in the general area, especially the eastern site (Site #1), a detailed nesting bird survey and use study should be conducted to determine whether such species might be at risk and estimate the potential risk to those species in terms of biological significance. Meet with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and perhaps Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) to determine what they will be requesting/requiring with respect to studies and their new interim and voluntary guidelines for wind power
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger development. Such a meeting would involve potential Section 7 ESA consultation and a discussion of the expected scope of work. Based on what is known about risks to birds at wind power plants in North America and Europe, and what was learned from the literature search, site visits, and interviews, it is likely that the JPU-NASA project will have a greater collision impact to birds on a per turbine per year basis than has been found at most other wind power projects. It is also relevant that a federally threatened species, the Piping Plover, nests near Site #1 and there are various Virginia endangered, threatened, and species of concerned that use the general area around the Project site on a regular basis, suggesting possible impacts to these species. The eastern turbine site is likely to have greater impacts on birds than the western turbine because it is located in an area where there is likely to be far more waterbird and other avian traffic. The issue of biological significance should be addressed more closely, especially in light of the prevalence of various waterbirds, night migrating songbirds, and raptors that use the site and nearby habitats.
Introduction
A one or two unit wind power project has been proposed for two sites in on the Wallops Island Flight Center and NASA center on Accomack Island, Virginia (Figure 1). The project has been named the JMU NASA Wind Power Project. Although wind power is considered the most environmentally benign source of electrical power generation, birds and some other wildlife have been impacted at wind power projects in the United States and Europe. These impacts have raised concern regarding newly proposed wind power facilities. Reported impacts to birds include collision fatalities and habitat modification/fragmentation resulting from construction activities and new infrastructure that causes birds to avoid or be displaced from a site. This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment that determines the potential risks to birds at a proposed wind power project. Thus, the Phase I Assessment is designed to guide developers, regulators, environmentalists, and other stakeholders through the process of determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how impacts or potential impacts, if any are perceived, need to be studied in more detail. The initial assessment includes: (i) a site visit, (ii) a literature search, and (iii) interviews with avian experts, environmentalists, and regulators. In addition, the risk assessment report includes an appendix that addresses compliance issues and recommendations now being made by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service via their interim and voluntary guidelines for wind power projects (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The site visit is made by a trained avian technician with experience in identification of birds and their habitats. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile. During the visit, habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is observed. The site visit is not meant to be an inventory of birds on the project site. Instead, the purpose of the site visit is to evaluate habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds assessed. The literature and database search includes examination of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service records (Pending) and New Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Heritage Program databases, Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, hawk migration literature/newsletters (Hawk Migration Association of North America), USGS Breeding Bird Surveys, Important Bird Areas projects, and other information on birds that might nest, migrate, forage, winter, or concentrate at the site. Interviews vary depending on who is being interviewed. Most interviews consist of a series of questions (Appendix I) asked of regulators (US Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation nongame/game biologists), avian experts (university professors, amateur and professional ornithologists who observe hawk migration, nesting songbirds, waterfowl, etc.), and environmentalists (local Audubon chapters, etc.) and Important Bird Areas programs). Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a report like the one that follows, summarizing habitat and birds likely to be present at a site, potential
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger risk of wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison the project site with other sites where risk has been determined, and recommendations for further studies and mitigation, if indicated. In addition to the avian risk assessment, this report includes information on sensitive habitats, wetlands, and some listed species other than birds. Project Description. The JMU NASA wind power energy project would consist of one or two wind turbine generators that would produce a total of about 1+ to 2+ megawatts of generating capacity. The turbines would be located at 2 separate sites (Figure 1), although the site could accommodate more turbines. The tubular tower for the turbines would be about 60 meters (197 feet) in height, with rotor lengths of about 26 m (85 feet). Maximum height of the rotor tip when the rotor is in the 12 oclock position would be about 86 m (282 feet) AGL. Other turbines with similar or larger dimensions are being considered. The turbines would likely be lighted according to the Federal Aviation Administration regulations. It is likely that the lighting would be red strobes (L-864) on top of the nacelle at about 61-62 m (~200 foot) AGL. The electrical collection system lines within the project area might be underground, although the interconnect may be above ground to existing transmission lines.
Topographic/Physiographic and Habitat Description of Atlantic Coastal Accomack County, Virginia, and the JMU-NASA Project Site Information regarding topography, physiography, and habitat of the site was first gathered using a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map, and later from ground truthing via a site visit during summer 2004. In addition, several texts were examined to determine the type of habitat known to be present in the general vicinity of the proposed wind turbines and, therefore, the bird communities and species that are likely to be present. Accomack County is in the coastal plain of Virginia, near the Atlantic Ocean and back bays. The two turbine sites are situated in eastern Accomack County (Figure 1). The eastern site is on a barrier island that is only a few miles wide and less than about mile (<1 km) from the Atlantic Ocean. Site #2 is on the mainland, about the same distance from the marshes behind the barrier islands. The topography at and near the two potential turbine sites is relatively flat. Sites #1 and #2 are only a few feet above sea level. The area surrounding Site #1is virtually flat, although there are small sand dunes nearby. Site #2 is also nearly flat, with only a few feet of relief nearby. The habitat at the two sites is part of the coastal habitats of the eastern shore of Virginia. These habitats include beach, dune, dune forest, salt marsh, some freshwater marsh in places, pine barrens, mixed forest, and some other habitats. The habitats at both Site #1 and #2 have been modified greatly and neither now resembles a natural habitat. Both have been planted in grasses and there are numerous buildings and other structures located very close to where the turbines would be located. On the barrier island and mainland roads form a network that has dissected many habitats. Farmland has encroached on native forest and even low-lying areas to the west of the back bays. The original forests no longer exist, although in places remnant forests continue to thrive. Tilled agriculture commences just inland from the back bays.
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger The habitat at Site #1 is a lawn-like field with several buildings and an observation tower. Surrounding the lawn is a mixed pine-deciduous forest and associated thickets. The forest is typical coastal forest of the mid-Atlantic, with a mixture of northern and more southern trees. Trees present were loblolly, red maple, black cherry, sassafras, black tupelo, sweet gum, and a few stands of black willow, bigtooth aspen, southern red oak, and eastern red cedar. These forests are not large, but they are dense. Greenbrier, wild grape, Virginia creeper, and some poison ivy make for a dense understory and climb to more than 10-15 feet high (3-5 m). There are also dense thickets of southern bayberry, marsh elder, and some winged sumac. These latter patches are behind the dunes to the east of the turbine site. Nearby there are some large, marshy areas with Phragmites (indicating it is not salt marsh) and lesser amounts of cattail. A few ponds exist with this non saltmarsh vegetation around the edges. West of the turbine site there are vast salt marshes with tidal mudflats and creeks scattered throughout. Site #2 is located west of the back bays and extensive salt marshes. The site consisted of a lawn, buildings, a radar installation, and other infrastructure. The proposed turbine area is bordered on the west and south by large farm fields (probably soybeans or some other legume). The site is bordered to the east by extensive salt marshes. There were also some large ponds and shrubby thickets, bordering the salt marsh and buildings. The trees and shrubs were black cherry, sassafras, marsh elder, southern bayberry, winged sumac, hackberry, black willow, eastern red cedar and loblolly pine. There was a more substantial forest on the southwest side of Site #2. The trees there were loblolly pine, red maple, black cherry, sassafras, tulip tree (yellow poplar), sweet bay magnolia, black tupelo, sweet gum, ash, black willow and eastern red cedar. There were also several islands of trees to the northeast of the site, out in the salt marsh. These were dominated by loblolly pine and some deciduous trees. The habitat is severely fragmented at and around the project site, with the exception of the salt marsh, for which the habitat quality appeared to be excellent. In the Atlantic coastal zone, such forests, despite being fragmented are considered good quality habitat for migrating song and other birds. It is likely that these forests are important to migrating songbirds because they are portions of a previously much larger and unfragmented forest, thereby concentrating migrants into very small areas where they are observed by birders. It is likely that all such habitat along the eastern shore of Virginia is used by migrants and considered high quality habitat for such species.
Site Visit to the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Site, Accomack County, Virginia The JMU NASA Wind Power Project site was visited August 10 and 11, 2004. In addition to driving, and walking, around the project site during the site visit, the area surrounding the site was toured by automobile. The weather during the site visit was warm and relatively clear. Observing habitat and birds was unimpeded by weather. The area is mostly wide, permitting observations of all of the project site. In addition, there were observation towers from which the area around Sites #1 and #2 could be examined from above. The flat terrain permitted excellent views of the surrounding habitat and the two turbine sites. During the visit, an effort was made to observe the bird life and habitat on and adjacent to the site, and determine what birds or ornithological phenomena might be present on site or nearby.
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger A total of 108 bird species were observed during the site visit on August 10-11, 2004. These include species that nest locally and migrants. The site visit coincides with the shorebird migration season, but was slightly early in the post-breeding season for autumn migrations of songbirds, hawks, and waterfowl. The following species were seen on the project site at Sites 1 and 2. The first number is the number seen for species of greater interest and the second number(s) denotes Site 1 and, or Site 2. US-T = federally threatened, T = Virginia threatened, SC = Virginia Species of Concern. Northern Gannet (1), Double-crested Cormorant (1), Brown Pelican (SC - 50+ 1), Great Blue Heron (1 & 2), Great Egret (SC - 1&2), Snowy Egret (1&2), Little Blue Heron (SC - 1&2), Tri-colored Heron (SC - 1), Cattle Egret (1), Green Heron (1), Black-crowned Night-heron (1), Glossy Ibis (SC - 1), Black Vulture(1&2) , Turkey Vulture(1&2) , Canada Goose (1&2), American Black Duck (1&2), Mallard (1), Osprey (1&2), Northern Harrier (SC - 3 birds, Site 1), Red-tailed Hawk (1&2), Peregrine Falcon (SC - 1 adult, 1 juvenal, Site 1), Clapper Rail (1&2), Black-bellied Plover (1), Semi-palmated Sandpiper (400 birds, Site 1), Piping Plover (US T, 4 birds, Site 1), Killdeer(1&2) , American Oystercatcher (1), Greater Yellowlegs (1&2), Lesser Yellowlegs (1), Willet (1), Spotted Sandpiper (1), Whimbrel (10 birds, Sites 1&2), Ruddy Turnstone (1), Sanderling (1), Semipalmated Sandpiper (1), Western Sandpiper (1), Stilt Sandpiper (130 birds, Sites 1&2), Short-billed Dowitcher (1), Laughing Gull (1&2), Ring-billed Gull (1), Herring Gull (1&2), Great Black-backed Gull (1), Royal Tern (125 birds, Site 1), Sandwich Tern (SC - 1), Common Tern (1), Forsters Tern (SC 1&2), Least Tern (SC - 1&2), Black Skimmer (1), Rock Dove (1&2), Mourning Dove (1&2), Yellow-billed Cuckoo (1&2), Chimney Swift (2), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (1), Belted Kingfisher (1), Downy Woodpecker (1&2), Northern Flicker (1&2), Eastern Wood-Pewee (1), Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (SC - 1), Least Flycatcher (1), Great-crested Flycatcher (1&2), Eastern Kingbird (20 birds, Sites 1&2), White-eyed Vireo (1&2), Red-eyed Vireo (1), Blue Jay (2), American Crow (1&2) , Fish Crow (1&2), Purple Martin (1&2), Tree Swallow (400 birds, Sites 1&2), Northern Rough-winged Swallow (1), Bank Swallow (1), Barn Swallow (1&2), Carolina Chickadee (1&2), Carolina Wren (1&2 , House Wren (1&2), Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (8 birds, Site 1), Eastern Bluebird (2), American Robin (2), Gray Catbird (1&2), Northern Mockingbird (1&2), European Starling (1&2), Cedar Waxwing (1), Blue-winged Warbler (1), Yellow Warbler (1&2), Pine Warbler (1&2), Prairie Warbler (1), Black-and-white Warbler (4 birds, Site 1), American Redstart (6 birds, Site 1), Prothonotary Warbler (1), Worm-eating Warbler (1), Northern Waterthrush (1), Common Yellowthroat (1&2), Eastern Towhee (1&2), Chipping Sparrow (1&2), Seaside Sparrow (1), Song Sparrow (1), Northern Cardinal (1&2), Blue Grosbeak (1&2), Indigo Bunting (1&2), Red-winged Blackbird (1&2), Eastern Meadowlark (1&2), Common Grackle (1&2), Boat-tailed Grackle (1&2), Brown-headed Cowbird (1), Orchard Oriole (5 birds, Site 1), House Finch (1&2), American Goldfinch (1&2). A Peregrine Falcon (Virginia threatened) hack site/nest platform was located in the marsh to the northwest of the proposed turbine site at Site #1. There were also several Osprey nests within view. The birds listed in the above paragraph are a combination of species that nest locally, as well as a fairly large number of migrants. For example, Northern Waterthrush, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Least Flycatcher, Worm-eating Warbler, dowitcher, Sanderling, other shorebirds, and many other species do not nest nearby. At the time of the site visit, southbound migration had commenced among most shorebirds, many songbirds, and some other species. Thus, the list provided above includes species that nested near the two turbine sites, as well as
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger birds coming in from as far away as the tundra of northern Canada and the Canadian boreal forest.
Avian Overview (Literature Review, Interviews, Habitat Assessment) Nesting Birds The state of Virginia has a list of endangered and threatened bird species, as well as a list of species of special concern (Table 1). In addition, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a list of federally endangered and threatened species that are known to occur in the state of Virginia (also see Table 1). The habitat where the two turbines would be located is not suitable for federally endangered or threatened species, although Site #1 is within about mile (~1 km) of suitable habitat for Piping Plover, a federally threatened species (also Virginia threatened) that nests on barrier beaches and adjacent dunes. Four individuals of this species were observed on the beaches adjacent to turbine Site #1 and likely nest nearby. The habits of Piping Plovers generally keep them right on the beaches where they forage, roost, and nest. This species is not likely to be within 100 m of turbine Site #1 and is unlikely to be within a mile of turbine Site #2. However, plovers could on rare occasions, perhaps during migration or dispersal, fly over Site #1. In addition, it is also possible that Bald Eagles could fly over either turbine site, with Site #2 being more likely to have overflights. Several Virginia listed species (threatened and species of special concern) were observed during the site visit (see list in previous section). No Virginia endangered species were observered. Peregrine Falcon (VA threatened) nests very close to turbine Site #1. A nest box was visible in the salt marsh behind the barrier island. Eight Virginia species of concern were also found. Seven of these species (Brown Pelican, Little Blue Heron, Tricolored Heron, and Glossy Ibis, Sandwich Tern, Forsters Tern, Least Tern) are colonial nesters. According to the Virginia Natural Heritage program, all of these species, except Sandwich Tern and Forsters Tern nest in Accomack County. This would suggest they are present regularly. All of these species are associated with wetlands and water, and could be present at either of the turbine sites. Pelicans would not likely be seen flying over Site #2. It is likely that despite not nesting in Accomack County, Sandwich Tern and Forsters Tern are present in this county regularly. All of the terns are likely to fly over Site #1 regularly, but less often (perhaps rarely) will they fly over Site #2. Three Northern Harriers were observed and may be present at either of the turbine sites. They also nest within Accomack County and could easily nest near the project sites. They would be unlikely to forage frequently on the two project sites because of the infrastructure present, although they probably fly over or around these two sites regularly. It should be noted that Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, a Virginia species of concern was observed during the site visit but that bird was undoubtedly a migrant from much farther north. The species is known to nest at either higher elevations or higher latitudes in northern temperate to boreal forests rather than coastal lowlands. Therefore, the bird observed was probably a migrant. Other data bases examined for this risk assessment were the USGS Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Natural Heritage. Letters from the latter two agencies are
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger pending. Because federal and, or permits to erect the turbines are likely to be required. A meeting with these agencies is recommended. Their letters should be one of the topics covered at that meeting. Four Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes were used to evaluate risk to nesting birds at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project (Table 2). These BBS routes were located in Accomack County in Virginia, and Worcester and Somerset Counties in adjacent Maryland. These were the closest BBS routes to the Project site, with the Chincoteague BBS being the closest. Some survey routes crossed county borders. Together these four routes, when combined with data from the site visit and other databases provide robust information regarding the birds likely to nest within the project boundaries and potentially impacted by the Project. Data from a ten-year period was examined, commencing in 1993. The 4 BBS routes included 5 to 9 years of data each from the 10 year period examined. The Breeding Bird Survey is sponsored by the United States Geological Survey and is conducted each year. A BBS is a 24.5 mile (39.4 km) road survey of nesting birds. Fifty, three minute stops are made at 0.5 mile (0.8 km) intervals during which all birds seen or heard within 0.25 miles (0.4 km) are recorded. The survey is repeated several times each spring during the nesting season. The years surveys were done, numbers of species found, as well as presence of endangered and threatened species found on the four Breeding Bird Surveys used in this analysis are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The BBSs revealed a broad diversity of species including colonial nesting waterbirds, raptors, songbirds, and others. The surveys, unfortunately, were limited to mostly terrestrial habitats and did not include the barrier islands or back bay areas to any great degree. This biased those surveys toward terrestrial habitats away from back bays and open water. No federally or Virginia endangered species were found (Table 3) on any of the BBS routes. Bald Eagle, a federally threatened species, was found nesting on two of the BBS routes, but only in one year on each. No state threatened species were found on the BBS routes, although several 7 species of special concern were found. Four of these were colonial waterbirds (Great Egret, Little Blue Heron, Glossy Ibis, and Forsters Tern). Two of the other species are marsh (Northern Harrier, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow) or grassland (Northern Harrier) dwelling species. Any and all of these species could be found nesting and foraging near Site #1, and to a lesser extent Site #2. The last species, Swainsons Warbler requires freshwater forested wetlands/swamp forest, so it would not likely be found at or immediately adjacent to either of the turbine sites. It is important to note that there are numerous tern (species of concern and not listed species), gull, skimmer, Piping Plover, colonies along the barrier islands of Maryland and Virginia. There are also likely to be large numbers of rails (mostly clappers, although some Black Rails Virginia species of concern) nesting in nearby marshes. Also present are likely to be several colonies of egrets of various species and ibis (some are species of concern) nesting nearby. This means that there are tens of thousands of these birds feeding, traversing, and
10
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger roosting in these areas. All of these birds wander in the general area of the JMU NASA project site and, at times, will cross the areas where the two turbines are proposed to be constructed.
Table 1. List of federal and Virginia endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. SC = Species of Concern in Virgina; T & E = threatened or endangered in Virginia; US = federal designation. Species noted with an asterisk are Virginia Watch List Species that are also listed by the state as of special concern. The remaining Watch Listed species for Virginia can be found on their Natural Heritage pages of the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation website. Species in bold face are listed by the state of Virginia as nesting in Accomack County.
Endangered/Threatened Species Brown Pelican SC Great Egret SC Little Blue Heron SC Tricolored Heron - SC Yellow-crowned Night-heron SC Glossy Ibis - SC Common Moorhen SC Bald Eagle US-T, T Northern Harrier SC Peregrine Falcon - T Piping Plover US-T, T Wilsons Plover - E Upland Sandpiper T Least Tern SC Caspian Tern SC Forsters Tern* - SC Roseate Tern US-E, E Gull-billed Tern T Sandwich Tern - SC Barn Owl* - SC Northern Saw-whet Owl SC Red-cockaded Woodpecker US-E, E Yellow-bellied Flycatcher SC Alder Flycatcher - SC Golden-crowned Kinglet SC Brown Creeper* - SC Red-breasted Nuthatch - SC Hermit Thrush SC Loggerhead Shrike T Appalachian Bewicks Wren E Sedge Wren - SC Winter Wren - SC
11
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Swainsons Warbler SC Golden-winged Warbler* - SC Kirtlands Warber US-E Magnolia Warbler - SC Mourning Warbler - SC Bachmans Sparrow T Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow SC Henslows Sparrow T Purple Finch SC Dickcissel* - SC Red Crossbill SC
Table 2. USGS Breeding Bird Surveys examined for the JMU NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia (1994-2003) to determine the likelihood of presence of Virginia and federally listed species and species of concern.
Breeding Bird Survey (Years) #46149 Berlin (7 years) Worcester County, MD 35 miles (56 km) north-northeast of project #46150 Indiantown (9 years) Worcester/Somerset Counties, MD 23 miles (37 km) north of project #88032 Quinby (5 years) Accomack County, VA 27 miles (43 km) south-southwest of project #88916 Chincoteague (9 years) Accomack County, VA 3 miles (4.8 km) northeast of project
Number of Species (Min-Max) 76 83 Species
64 87 Species
41 62 Species
59 72 Species
12
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Table 3. Virginia and federally listed species found on USGS Breeding Bird Surveys nearest the JMU NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia. US-T = federally threatened, VA-T = Virginia Threatened, VA-E = Virginia Endangered, and VA-SC = Virginia Species of Special Concern. Also listed is the number of probable territories on a specific Breeding Bird Survey.
Species
Breeding Bird Survey Name / Maximum Number of Pairs (Number of Years Found) Berlin / 1 (2 years) Chincoteague / 18 (8 years) Quinby / 4 (3 years) Indiantown / 1 (1 year) Chincoteague / 2 (3 years0 Quinby / 2 (1 year) Indiantown / 2 (3 years) Berlin / 7 (3 years) Chincoteague / 130 (9 years) Indiantown / 1 (3 years) Chincoteague / 1 (1 year) Indiantown / 1 (1 year) Chincoteague / 3 (2 years) Chincoteague / 2 (4 years) Chincoteague / 4 (8 years) Indiantown / 1 (4 years)
Great Egret VA-SC
Little Blue Heron VA-SC
Glossy Ibis VA-SC
Bald Eagle US-T
Northern Harrier VA-SC Forsters Tern - VA-SC Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow VA-SC Swainsons Warbler VA-SC
13
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Migrating Birds The eastern shore of Virginia and parts of Accomack County are known to host enormous migrations of a diversity of bird species. It is well known that waterfowl, other waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors stopover in or migrate through portions of this peninsula in numbers that are globally significant. The reason for the concentrations of migrating birds is related to: Geography midway along the Altantic Coast between nesting and wintering areas; Excellent habitat; Some habitats like forests are isolated making them the only habitat for many miles around for some species of birds, and; The fact that the peninsula acts as a funnel, especially for southbound migrants during the post-nesting season. The return migration does not seem to be as large, but there are still significant migrations of birds through or past the peninsula in spring.
The following sections address the different migrations that are known to occur in the eastern Shore Peninsula. Nocturnal Songbird Migration. Although there are few references in the literature that pertain specifically to night migrating songbirds through the eastern shore of Virginia, birders know that the peninsula is an important stopover area for these birds. Studies in many coastal locations, including the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts have shown that the habitats immediately adjacent to these large bodies of water are critical stopover locations for night migrating songbirds (Wiedner et al. 1992, Moore et al. 1990, and McCann et al. 1993). For habitats within the first few miles of the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern shore of Virginia and Maryland, this has been demonstrated via large scale studies (McCann et al. 1993, Mabey et al. 1993). For birds to get to these habitats, they must fly in from overland or from over the ocean. This means that very large numbers of birds almost certainly make fly over the coastal habitats of the eastern shore of Virginia and make stopovers in those habitats. The McCann et al. (1993) and Mabey et al. (1993) studies are almost site specific and there is no doubt that they are applicable to both turbine Site #1 and #2 at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project. While searching the literature and researching the JMU NASA site, it became known to Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, that radar studies were now being done in the Wallops Island area to examine stopover habitat of night migrating songbirds. That information came from Dr. Sidney A. Gauthreaux of Clemson University, who mentioned that several people were apparently collaborating on coastal migration studies using NEXRAD radar. Information from that study would be very useful for examining Hawk Migration in Accomack County and the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Site. Hawk migration in the eastern shore of Virginia peninsula and adjacent coastal Maryland is rather well known and has been studied to some extent for many years. Most of the formal studies, and therefore, the best data, have been done have been at Cape Charles/Kiptopeke State Park at the southern terminus of the eastern shore peninsula and on Assateague Island/Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
14
An examination of the Hawks Aloft Worldwide (Zalles and Bildstein 2000), Heintzelmans volumes (1975, 1986), and journals of the Hawk Migration Association revealed significant hawk migration sites at the bottom of the peninsula at Kiptopeke and Cape Charles, as well as along the barrier islands of Assateague and Chincoteague. At the former site a hawk watch is conducted each year. This site is a good distance south of the project site, but it is likely that large numbers of raptors of various species migrate through or near those sites on their way to the Kiptopeke area. An average of about 20,000 hawks is counted per year at this hawk watch. This includes a wide diversity of hawks, including falcons, accipiters, harriers, ospreys, and to a lesser extent buteos. The migration of falcons and other hawks along Assateague Island has been known for more than 50 years, especially to falconers. Heintzelman (1975) chronicles the history of hawkwatching and falcon trapping on Assateague, citing various experts who have reported on this topic. Peregrine Falcons and Merlins especially fly along the outer beaches and dunes in search of prey as they migrate along the east coast. It is likely that several hundred Peregrine Falcons, flying from the arctic to the tropics use this corridor each year. Other species are also involved, although counts have been difficult to locate. Ironically, Zalles and Bildstein (2000) do not list Assateague Island as a significant migration area for hawks. It is likely that several thousand hawks per year migrate along this barrier island, hopping to other islands as they move southward. The return migration in spring is less visible and in all likelihood mostly precedes farther inland. Because Assateague Island is only a very short distance to the east of Site #1, it is likely that some or many of these migrating birds will fly over this portion of the project area. These hawks and falcons may also hunt in the general area, making stopovers that could last from a few minutes to several days. The plethora of other migrating birds is what attracts these birds to this area as a stopover site. The rationale for this is that raptors migrate all along the coast in some numbers with some locations experiencing heavier migration than others. The fact that the two turbine sites are immediately adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and back bay marshes suggests that a potentially significant number of hawks could migrate over either or both turbine sites. Such topography has been shown to concentrate migrants along lakeshores and large marshes/back bays (Heintzelman 1975, 1986; Kerlinger 1989). Waterfowl, Waterbirds, and Shorebirds. The barrier islands, marshes, and nearshore waters of the Atlantic appear to be globally significant migration areas for waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. Johnston (1997) lists the Chincoteague, Assateague, coastal reserve islands, and the Saxis area as excellent birding sites for waterbirds and shorebirds, making the entire area surrounding the JMU NASA project site a very birdy area. Johnston notes that large numbers of shorebirds arrive in mid-late summer and use the saltmarshes and barrier islands. These areas serve as feeding and resting areas for these birds. Bellrose (1976) also lists the eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia as one of the most important waterfowl migration/wintering areas in North America. Ducks, geese, and swans migrate through the coastal marshes in very large numbers, probably many millions during an autumn migration
15
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger season. The migration of herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, and other colonial birds, including terns, gulls, and other species undoubtedly proceed along the coastline of Assateague and Wallops Island. It is likely many thousands of these birds pass each fall and again in spring. There are also likely to be various state and federal studies showing where waterfowl and other waterbirds are likely to gather in the general area surrounding the JMU NASA project site. However, these will not likely provide specific information on use (abundance and behavior) of the turbine sites and will not add to this risk assessment.
Wintering Birds The winter climate along the coast of Virginia and in most of Accomack County is moderate, although in some years it can be harsh for short periods of time. Also, the wind can be strong, making the area functionally less suitable for habitation during that season. However, the ocean and nearby Chesapeake Bay make the climate on the peninsula warmer and more suitable for birds than inland Virginia. This means that moderate to large numbers of birds, more so than in the northeastern United States, can winter successfully in coastal Virginia. The primary sources of information on birds wintering in and adjacent to Accomack County and the project site were National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs). CBCs provide an excellent overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winter within about 10 days of Christmas, dozens of birders comb their local CBC area counting all birds encountered. These birders search during the day and to a lesser extent at night, in the entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition, they scout for birds during that season, especially during the "count week" period, to prepare for the actual count day. Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs, they are usually proficient or highly skilled observers. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes including population tracking and determining geographic range and abundance of species by various environmental groups and government wildlife agencies. In the analyses that follow, all birds seen on the counts and during count weeks were included. The most recent ten year period for these counts was examined. Two CBCs were close enough to the two turbine sites and contained habitat similar to the sites (Table 4). The years examined included the winters of 1993-1994 through 2002-2003 (Table 4). The closest of these to the project site was the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge CBC, which included turbine Site #1 and came within 1.5-2 miles (3.2 km) of Site #2. The Chincoteague CBC extended northward into Maryland. The other CBC was located about 12 miles to the south-southwest of the project site in Accomack County. Each of these Christmas Counts included the area within a 15-mile (24 km) diameter circle, an area of about 177 square miles (453 square km). Thus, the two CBCs covered a total area of 354 square miles (906 square km). In most years, at least 40 people participated on the CBCs in a given year, although the numbers varied greatly during the ten year period examined.
16
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Table 4. Summary of Audubon Christmas Bird Count data sets used to assess avian risk at the JMU-NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia. Data included ten years of CBC data from 1993/4 to 2002/2003.
Christmas Bird Count (County)
Number of Years
Number of Observers/ Species Counted (min-max)
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Accomack County, VA and Worcester County, MD Wachapreague Accomack and Northampton Counties
10
17 31 / 139 158 species
10
15 31 / 107 129 species
The diversity and number of birds varied between years and sites. The fact that both sites regularly recorded more than 100 species and in some years reported 120 to more than 150 species shows that these coastal areas support a much larger number of species than inland areas during the winter. It is also important to note that large numbers of waterfowl, other waterbirds, raptors, and songbirds, as well as some long-legged waders (herons and egrets), shorebirds, owls, and other species were present. The birds found on the two CBCs examined are very likely representative of the number and types of birds found on the JMU NASA project sites. Overall, these CBCs suggest that the general area at and around the project site is an important wintering area for many species of birds. It is also important to note that the reason for the large number of species and individuals found on these CBCs is related to the diversity of habitats and the presence of excellent winter forage and cover for these species. During the ten year count period, no federally or Virginia state endangered species were found on any of the 4 CBCs examined. Two federally threatened species, Bald Eagle and Piping Plover were found in small numbers (Table 5). Bald Eagles are rather unlikely to be visitors at Site #1, because it does not appear to be suitable habitat for these birds for either roosting or hunting. Site #2 may have some visitation by this species, but because it is not suitable habitat, those visits are likely to be limited to overflights at relatively high altitudes. With respect to Piping Plover, neither Site #1 nor Site #2 is suitable habitat for these birds. These birds could fly over Site #1 at times, but this will be rare because it is nearly one-half mile (~1 km) back from the barrier beaches where these birds roost and forage. It is highly unlikely that these birds will be near Site #2 because it is so far from suitable habitat and these birds rarely fly in the back bays and it is even more rare for them to fly inland from the back bays. Virginia threatened species found on the CBCs included very small numbers of Peregrine Falcons and they were found in most years. Because these birds forage on the outer beaches and marshes, they will probably traverse Site #1 and the habitats nearby on a regular basis. They will
17
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger be present less often inland from the back bays, so their presence at Site #2 is far less likely to occur, although these birds may forage over farm fields inland from the back bays. They will quite likely hunt over the grassy fields at Site #1 during the winter. Several species of concern were found on the CBCs. Of these, the habitat on turbine Sites #1 and #2 are not suitable for foraging or roosting by most of the species listed in Table 5, with the exception of a few species. It is possible that several of these species will pass through the areas where turbines would be located, but they are not likely to spend much time near either of the turbine sites. By winter time, the landbirds on this list will likely have settled into habitats and will not likely move through either of the two sites very often. The presence of vast numbers of non-listed waterfowl, waterbirds of other kinds, longlegged waders, raptors, owls, and songbirds on the 2 CBCs indicates that the general area experiences a major bird use. Waterbirds will likely traverse Site #1 while moving between foraging areas along the coast. Some will move from the back bays to the ocean or vice versa. Birds that will actually forage on or roost on Site #1 will include songbirds that use the grassy fields, nearby dunes, and forest patches. A much smaller subset of species is likely to be found at Site #2 because it is slightly inland from the back bays and because it is within an infrastructural area for NASA. In summary, it is unlikely that any federally endangered bird species are present during winter at or near the two turbine sites. However, small numbers of two federally threatened species (Bald Eagle and Piping Plover) were found to be present during winter in the general areas. No Virginia endangered species are likely to be present at or near the project site during winter, although state threatened species including Peregrine Falcon is likely present in small numbers in some years. Several Virginia species of concern are also likely to be present during winter, some of which will forage or roost at the turbine sites or within several hundred meters of those sites. Overall, very large numbers of wintering birds are found in the area including raptors, waterfowl, other waterbirds, shorebirds, long-legged waders, owls, and songbirds. Many of these birds are likely to use or pass through the two turbine sites during this season.
Table 5. United States and Virginia listed species and species of special concern found on the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) and Wachapreague (W) Christmas Bird Counts in the JMU NASA Wind Power Project and Accomack County (1994 - 2003 counts. Suitability of habitat for feeding or roosting in winter at the turbine sites is provided (S = Suitable, MS = Marginally Suitable, NS = Not Suitable). US-T = U.S. Threatened, E & T = Virginia Endangered and Threatened. A question mark (?) indicates that there were uncertainties in the determination. For some of these species the forests near the turbine site are likely to be somewhat suitable for roosting or foraging by these species.
Species Brown Pelican - SC
Count CNWR W
Number of Birds/Years Found 1-5 birds in 2 years 1 birds in 1 year
Habitat Suitability NS
18
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Great Egret SC CNWR W Yellow-cr. Night-heron - SC CNWR W Bald Eagle US-T, T CNWR W Northern Harrier SC CNWR W Peregrine Falcon T CNWR W Piping Plover US-T, T CNWR Forsters Tern SC CNWR W Barn Owl SC CNWR No. Saw-whet Owl SC CNWR Red-breasted Nuthatch SC CNWR W Brown Creeper SC CNWR W Winter Wren SC CNWR W Golden-cr. Kinglet-SC CNWR Hermit Thrush SC Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow - SC Purple Finch SC Red Crossbill SC CNWR W CNWR W CNWR W CNWR 50 to 95 birds 10 years 1 to 5 birds in 7 years 1 in 1 year 1 in 1 year 1 to 21 birds in 10 years 4 to 26 birds in 10 years 10 to 47 birds in 10 years 15 to 39 birds in 10 years 1-3 birds in 10 years 1 to 6 birds in 8 years 1 bird in 2 years 103 to 456 birds in 5 years 1 to 157 birds in 5 years 1 birds in 2 years 2 birds in 1 year 2 to 12 birds in 6 years 1 to 44 birds in 6 years 3 to 17 birds in 10 years 1 to 4 birds in 9 years 13 to 41 birds in 10 years 1 to 8 birds in 10 years 26 to 276 birds in 10 years 6 to 58 birds in 9 years 24 to 151 birds in 10 years 1 to 23 birds in 10 years 1 to 10 birds in 7 years 1 to 15 birds in 7 years 1 to 31 birds in 8 years 2 to 10 birds in 7 years 2 birds in 2 years MS? Site #1 S? Site #1 NS S S NS NS NS NS-MS? MS? NS-MS? NS-MS? MS? MS?
NS MS? MS?
19
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Important Bird Areas, Parks, Nature Preserves, Sanctuaries, and Sensitive Habitats near the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Sites, Accomack County, Virginia. Important Bird Areas. The Saxis Wildlife Management Area is on the western side of the eastern shore of Virginia, about 8-10 miles west of the project site on Pocomoke Sound. It hosts large numbers of waterfowl and other birds (shorebirds, hawks, etc.) each fall, winter, and spring. There are also significant numbers of nesting birds in these areas. Nature Conservancy Properties. The Nature Conservancys Virginia Coastal Reserve includes 14 of 18 islands along the entire Virginia coast. Some of those islands are only a few miles from the JMU NASA site. They provide excellent habitat for many nesting and migrating birds, not to mention foraging birds in all seasons. National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Forests. Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is about 2-3 miles (4.2-4.8 km) east of turbine Site #1 of the project site and about 5 miles (8 km) east of turbine Site #2. Assateague National Seashore (National Park Service) is located less than 2 miles (3.2 km) east of turbine Site #1 and about 3-4 miles (4.8-6.4 km) east of Site #2. This refuge and national is internationally renowned as a migration focal point for hundreds of species of birds. In addition, various threatened species and species of concern nest within these two areas or forage or winter within them. They are considered some of the best quality habitat for migrating birds along the east coast of North America and host some of the largest concentrations of migrations. Virginia State Parks and State Game/Wildlife Management Areas. See above for Saxis Wildlife Management Area. Also adjacent to this site is the Saxis Waterfowl Management Area and Refuge. The Pocomoke State forest in nearby Maryland is about 11 miles (17.6 km) northwest of the project site. Audubon Society Sanctuaries. There do not appear to be any Audubon Sanctuaries near the project site.
20
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Interviews with Local Avian and Environmental Experts (PENDING) The following people with specialized knowledge of avian or related environmental issues were consulted. They were asked about the birds of the JMU NASA Wind Power Project and Accomack County, Virginia (Appendix I for interview procedure and questions). They were also informed that a wind power facility was being planned and that this author was conducting a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a project. Specifically, they were asked if they had knowledge (1) regarding rare, threatened, or endangered birds (or other species) at the project site or the Accomack County area, (2) sensitive or important bird habitat, (3) bird concentration (migration, foraging, wintering, and nesting) sites, and (4) other people who would have knowledge about the area. In addition, they were asked to express their concerns regarding the construction of a small wind power facility in the project area with respect to bird impacts. Summaries of interviews are in Appendix III.
21
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia, With Existing Wind Power Facilities The most powerful and, perhaps, only means of assessing risk to birds at proposed wind power project sites is to compare the avifauna, geographic and topographic settings, and habitat, as well as the potential risk factors associated with each of these variables, at the proposed site, with sites where risk is known and has been documented empirically. By comparing the species likely to be present, numbers of individuals of those species, seasonal presence, and behavior of birds that are likely to nest, forage, migrate through, or winter at or adjacent to the two JMU NASA sites with wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, a probabilistic assessment of potential risk can be made. Two classes of impacts have been documented at wind power projects: (i) habitat alteration/disturbance from construction and presence of new infrastructure resulting in avoidance or displacement and (i) fatalities of birds that collide with infrastructure including turbine rotors and towers. The relative importance of the two has been debated. With respect to legal implications, the federal laws regarding disturbance and displacement apply strictly to federally endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Permitting of wind power facilities on federal lands such as the NASA facility must work through the NEPA process, potentially necessitating Section 7 Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Collision fatalities apply to both federally listed and non-listed species, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That Review focuses primarily on biologically significant impacts to both state listed (endangered and threatened species) and non-listed species, although determination of biologically significant impacts to a particular species can be problematic. For the purpose of this report, biologically significant impacts refer to impacts that would likely result in the decline of the local, regional, or global level. These two types of impacts are detailed below. Habitat Disturbance and Avoidance. Habitat alteration and disturbance resulting from construction and the addition of wind turbines to the landscape can render an area unsuitable for foraging, resting, or use in the same way as prior to construction. The impacts of these activities and infrastructural presence on birds are not well known or documented, although recent studies are providing more information. The actual footprint of a wind power project is usually small. Following construction, land use at most sites continues as before construction. The actual amount of wildlife habitat altered by a wind power project, however, can be larger than the project footprint by virtue of the presence of tall structures and increased human activity. The presence of new infrastructure primarily turbines has been studied to determine whether birds are displaced from a developed area. Most studies have focused on disturbance to birds in treeless or open habitats, such as grasslands and farm fields. In southwestern Minnesota at a large wind power plant, reduced nesting activity was detected in grassland birds in fields close to wind turbines as opposed to farther from those turbines (Leddy et al. 1999). Leddy et al. found that the activities of birds
22
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger such as meadowlarks and other ground nesting birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands were inhibited within about 80-100 m of turbines. Few nested or foraged close beneath or close to the turbines. The area affected was greater than the actual project footprint. At the Foot Creek Rim Wind Plant, use of an area by nesting Mountain Plovers (a grassland nesting species) declined after construction of turbines and plover productivity was reduced (Johnson et al. 2000). Successful nesting of Mountain Plovers was noted within 200 m of operating turbines in a very few instances, showing that the footprint of each turbine extended outward to 100-200 m or more. In Europe similar results have been found among some waterfowl, shorebirds, and songbirds. Some species simply avoid the area immediately under wind turbines. For example, some shorebird species avoided the area within 250-500 m of wind turbines (Winkelman 1990). In Denmark, some shorebirds were displaced up to 800 m by the presence of turbines (Pederson and Poulsen 1991). Other studies have shown that birds, including other species of shorebirds, habituate to the turbines or are not disturbed or displaced by them (Ihde and Vauk-Henzelt 1999, Winkelman 1990). The studies listed above have not examined habituation or long-term behavioral changes. It is not known if these species habituate to wind turbines or if they are permanently displaced. From the activities of birds at some United States wind farms, it would seem that some species do habituate. Unfortunately, studies have not been done 5 or 10 years after wind turbines have been erected, so habituation has not been examined. The APWRA has extraordinary raptor and grassland nesting songbird use, seemingly without disturbance or displacement after nearly 20 years of turbine presence. In a study in the APWRA of California, Red-tailed Hawks that were trained for falconry were brought to the turbines to study raptor flight and avoidance, as well as how they flew in close proximity to the turbines. Nave Red-tailed Hawks exposed to wind turbines for the first time at only about 100+ feet (32 m) would not fly. These birds did habituate and their behavior appeared comparable to resident Red-tailed Hawks (R. Curry, personal communication) within a few days of exposure to turbines. Today raptors and grassland nesting songbirds perch on the lattice towers of turbines and feed amongst the turbines in the APWRA. A study of migrating hawks in Vermont during autumn showed that the numbers of hawks that flew close to a hill with newly constructed turbines was much smaller than in the year prior to turbine construction and operation (Kerlinger 2000a). These migrants may have been avoiding these new structures. Prior to that study, there were virtually no wind turbines in the range of these birds, so they had not been previously exposed to these structures. At the same Searsburg, Vermont, wind power project (11 turbines), a post-construction study of birds was conducted at what was then the only situation where turbines had been erected in a mountaintop forest (Kerlinger 2000a, 2002a). Some species of forest nesting birds including Blackpoll Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, and Dark-eyed Junco appeared to habituate to the turbines within a year of construction, while Swainsons Thrush and some other species moved farther into the forest (away from the turbines). Surveys were done before and after the turbines were erected. Although it was not known if the species that seemed
23
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger to habituate nested near the turbines, they certainly were observed foraging and heard singing within forest edges 60-100 feet (20-30 m) of the turbine bases. The study was not the ideal design to study displacement/avoidance, but the results are suggestive. There appears to be a fundamental difference in the responses of woodland birds and grassland/open country birds to wind turbines. Birds that nest in forests are used to having trees over their heads, whereas grassland birds are not. This difference may explain why the studies summarized above are so consistent. However, to date there have not been enough studies, especially of habituation, to make generalized conclusions. Long-term studies are needed to determine the degree of impact, whether or not there is habituation, and whether impacts are likely to be significant. Disturbance Risk at JMU NASA Wind Power Facility. With respect to most species, neither of the two turbine sites is likely to have a major or biologically significant displacement or disturbance impacts. Both sites are in grassy fields adjacent to dunes, small forests, and near wetlands and beaches. Each turbine site is far enough from critical habitats of listed species so that impacts are likely to be only minor, impacting only a very few individuals of a few species. It is important that there are already tall and short structures present at the two sites, including an observation tower, radar facilities, buildings, fences, and other It is likely that low flying migrants will simply fly around these turbines, diverting short distances that will not increase significantly the distance they need to fly during migration.
Collision Fatalities. Avian fatalities are the second type of impact noted at wind power facilities. They result from collisions with rotors and, to a lesser extent, with guy wires of meteorology towers. Electrocutions were common in the APWRA because electrical lines there were above ground and constructed pre-APLIC (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee) standards. Retrofitting those lines with wildlife guards and insulation has virtually eliminated electrocutions in the APWRA. At modern facilities collection lines and some transmission is below ground. Collision impacts have been studied systematically at about 20 different wind project sites across the United States (Erickson et al. 2001; also see reference list and Appendix IV) and at a similar number in Europe. The number of fatalities involved at project sites has, generally, been small and population impacts have not been documented. Such fatalities are orders of magnitude smaller in number than collision fatalities at transmission lines, with windows, on highways, and at communication towers (Erickson et al. 2001), as well as non-collision fatalities related to cat predation, hay mowing, oil pits, fishery long lines, acid rain, etc (www.currykerlinger.com, Hames et al. 2002). To give perspective, turbine collision fatalities are orders of magnitude smaller than hunting harvests permitted by professional wildlife managers (data from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and are much lower than depredation permits allowed in the U. S. A summary of fatalities documented at wind plants in the United States is presented in Appendix IV. Erickson et al. (2001) projected that in 2001, approximately 33,000 birds were killed at about 15,000 wind turbines in the United States averaging about 2.1 birds per turbine per year.
24
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger These fatalities were spread among dozens of bird species. This fact reduces the probability of population impacts by distributing fatalities over a number of species at a site and within a region. Furthermore, the geographic origin of the birds killed extended across North America, with many migrants originating 100s to 1,000+ miles from project sites. In Europe, avian mortality has been shown to be minimal at most wind power plants. At a few localities small to moderate numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastal Netherlands at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, dozens of songbirds and shorebirds of a variety of species were reported to be involved in collisions with wind turbines (Winkelman 1995). At another wind plant in the Netherlands, where turbines were in the water, several dozen waterfowl fatalities were noted (Winkelman 1995). These sites are adjacent to the North Sea, where migration and wintering birds are densely concentrated into a relatively small area. Those fatalities were spread among species, reducing the potential for population impacts. Reports from Tarifa, in southernmost Spain, suggest greater risk to large vultures, including local Griffon Vultures. A study from Tarifa suggested that several dozen of these birds were killed in the early years of plant operation there (Montes Marti and Barrios Jaque 1995), although a later report included reference to only a few of these birds and very few raptors (Janss 2000). Tarifa also hosts more than 100,000 migrating raptors per year as well as tens of thousands of other soaring birds and millions of other migrants. However, large numbers of fatalities of migrants have not been found by researchers or plant operations personnel. Recent reports from the Navarre region of central northern Spain suggest that relatively large numbers of fatalities have been occurring at newer wind power facilities. Those reports are not yet available, but should be considered as the information is available. The only wind power site in the United States where risk to birds has been suspected to be significant is the APWRA of California, where raptor fatalities have occurred for two decades. Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and some other species collide with turbines in varying numbers. Raptors are believed to be the most collision-susceptible group of birds (Anderson et al. 2000), although nowhere, including the APWRA have such fatalities had negative impacts on populations of raptors species. A long-term study of the Altamont Golden Eagle population by Hunt (2002) concluded that although fatalities of this species continue to occur at a high rate, the regional and local population remains stable. It is interesting that large numbers of gulls, ravens, vultures, grassland songbirds, and other species fly amongst the APWRA turbines and rarely collide with the turbines. The situation with respect to raptor impact in the APWRA seems to be an anomaly, because it has not been documented at other wind plants. Studies at all other U.S. wind power facilities report few raptor fatalities. This suggests indicates that the APWRA is an anomaly and that raptor fatalities are rare events at wind plants. Several factors (Table 6) are now believed to contribute to raptor risk in the APWRA. These factors have been hypothesized to act alone or in concert (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996), to produce mortality in the APWRA. They are: The worlds largest concentration of operating turbines (N=5,400, reduced from about 7,000 several years ago);
25
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Closely spaced turbines (<10 m [<30 feet] rotor to rotor distance) that may not permit birds to fly between them safely; Extremely large numbers and a high density of foraging raptors year-round - a result of a superabundant population of California ground squirrels; Steep topography with turbines placed in valleys and along steep valley/canyon edges where risk is greater; Turbines mounted on lattice type towers and tubular towers with external work platforms and ladders that encourage perching and by providing shade and cover from the sun and rain; and Turbine rotors that revolve at high rotation rates (>40-72 rpm).
Table 6. Comparison of known and suspected risk factors for raptors at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California, with the JMU NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia.
Known or Suspected Risk Factors APWRA 1. Large concentrations of turbines 5,400 (in 2002) 2. Lattice towers - perching raptors 3. Fast Rotating Turbine Blades - 50-72 rpm 4. Closely Spaced Turbines - 80-100 feet (<30 m) (Side to Side Turbine Spacing) 5. Turbines in Steep Valleys/Canyons 6. Large Prey Base - Attracting Raptors 7. Raptor and Susceptible Species Use of Area High
JMU - NASA, VA 1 or 2 turbines Tubular towers - no perching Slow Rotating Blades ~12-24 rpm Widely Spaced Not in Rows Turbines on Flat Ground Mammal Prey Base Minimal, Avian Prey Base Large Raptor Use of Area High to Moderate/Seasonally Dependent
In the far western United States (Appendix IV), avian mortality resulting from collisions with wind turbines has been studied at more eight wind power sites. Only in the APWRA have numbers been considered high. The number of fatalities reported from the San Gorgonio Pass involved fewer than 40 birds (one raptor) at 120 turbines in two years of study (Anderson et al. 2000), although carcass removal and searcher efficiency studies revealed more birds were actually killed. More recently, a Golden Eagle was found dead at that wind plant. In the Tehachapi Mountains, 84 birds were found (not including carcasses removed and carcasses missed by searchers) at 180 turbines (Anderson et al. 2000) in two years of searches. Small numbers of raptors were involved at this site. At wind projects in Oregon and nearby Washington, wind turbines in tilled farmland and rangeland killed small numbers of birds of a variety of species including grassland nesting birds, a few gamebirds, almost no waterbirds, very
26
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger few raptors, and some night migrants (Erickson et al. 2000). These projects include slightly more than a dozen turbines to about 3 dozen turbines, some of which extend to more than 350 feet in height. There has been no suggestion of population impacts at any of these facilities, nor have fatalities involved federally endangered or threatened species. At one of the worlds largest wind power facilities, the State Line project in Washington and Oregon, the fatality rate per turbine per year has recently been found to be slightly less than 2 birds per turbine per year (Erickson et al. 2002, 2003). That project has 399 turbines. Among the fatalities were a variety of species, with Horned Larks (locally nesting birds) accounting for more than one-half of all birds found. Six raptors of 3 species were killed and about 24% of fatalities were night migrating songbirds. A recent report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the High Winds project in Solano County, California, reported the fatalities of relatively small numbers of birds although one Golden Eagle, 10 Red-tailed Hawks, and 23 American Kestrels were found dead at that site in a period of about 1 year. The turbines there are modern turbines that extended to more than 350 feet AGL (unpublished report to the High Winds Technical Advisory Committee). Farther east, studies of avian fatality have been conducted at the wind plants in grasslands in Colorado, Wyoming, and at a small site in Kansas. After five years of systematic searches at 29 new turbines (expanded to 45 in the third year) in a short-mixed grass prairie-type habitat in northern Colorado, fewer than 50 fatalities have been documented. The fatalities include Horned Lark, McCown's Longspur, White-throated Swifts, 1 teal, Lark Bunting, 1 American Kestrel, and some other songbirds (Dr. Ronald Ryder, Colorado State University, unpublished data). Curry & Kerlinger LLC believe that the prevalence of Horned Larks in avian fatality lists is a result of their aerial courtship flight during which they circle at the elevation of the rotors. At the Foote Creek Rim project, also in a short-mixed grass prairie habitat, 90 fatalities were identified, 75 of which were at wind turbines and 15 of which were at meteorology towers with guy wires. Thus about 17% of the fatalities resulted from collisions with guy wires at the meteorology towers and likely would have been avoided by using unguyed towers. A total of four raptors were found dead at the Foote Creek Rim project (3 American Kestrels and 1 Northern Harrier) and 48% of the fatalities were night migrating birds. Of the migrants, no species accounted for more than 57 (Chipping and Vesper sparrows) individuals. Finally, no fatalities were noted by Young (2000) at the two turbine, Jeffrey Energy Center in Pottawatomie County, Kansas. In the Midwest, studies have been done in Minnesota and Wisconsin. At the Buffalo Ridge wind power facility near Lake Benton, Minnesota, 53 carcasses were found (Johnson et al. 2002) in an area encompassing more than 200 wind turbines that was searched over several years. The fatality rates per turbine ranged between about 1 bird per turbine per year to nearly 4.5 birds per turbine per year at turbines of different dimensions. The most modern and tallest turbines accounted for the larger number of fatalities. The species composition included a variety of birds, including one raptor (Red-tailed Hawk), a very few waterbirds, and some migrating songbirds (about 70% of the 53 documented fatalities). A two-year study in the Kewaunee County peninsula of Wisconsin revealed about two-dozen songbird (mostly migrants) fatalities under 31 turbines situated in farm fields (Howe et al. 2002). A study of two modern wind turbines at Shirley, WI, revealed 1 night migrating songbird fatality during a year-long
27
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger study (Howe and Atwater 1999). A study at a small wind plant in Iowa reported no fatalities (Demastes and Trainor 2000). In the eastern United States, fatalities have been examined at more than a half dozen wind power facilities, some of which are older turbines. In southeastern Vermont, searches done in June through October 1997 (nesting through migration) revealed no fatalities at 11 new turbines (192 feet [58 m] tall without FAA lights) situated on a forested hilltop (Kerlinger 2000a and 2002). In upstate New York, several months of daily searches during spring and autumn migration beneath two wind turbines (168 feet [~51 m] tall, no FAA lights) located in open fields revealed no carcasses (Cooper et al. 1995). At an older wind power facility with 8 small turbines (~100 feet [32 m] tall; no FAA lights) in a forested setting in Massachusetts, no fatalities were found (Jacobs 1993). Surprisingly, the wind power facility in Massachusetts is on Mount Wachusett, the site of one of the largest inland hawk watches in New England. At a facility with 8 modern turbines (~280 feet [85 m] tall; FAA red blinking lights) located in farmland in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, 17 rounds of fatality searches conducted in June 2000 through May 2001 revealed no avian fatalities (Kerlinger 2001). During a year of study at a wind plant consisting of 7 modern turbines (390 feet [120 m], FAA red blinking lights) in central New York, 4 wind turbine and 1 guyed-meteorology tower fatalities were identified (Kerlinger2002). A two-year study of 3 turbines in a forested setting on a mountain in western Tennessee revealed several dozen fatalities, mostly night migrating songbirds (Nicholson 2001, 2002). An average of about ~8 birds per turbine per year was estimated to have been killed, although fewer birds were found. These turbines were about 250 feet in height and had white flashing FAA lights. A study by biologists working at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia was conducted in 2003 (Kearns and Kerlinger 2004) at 44 turbines that were about 340 feet tall and had red blinking FAA lights on about every third turbine. The overall numbers of bird fatalities at the Mountaineer site was slightly greater than 4 birds per turbine per year, including carcasses that were removed by scavengers and those missed by searchers. The fatalities of night migrating birds was about 3 birds per turbine per year, and there was no difference found between turbines lit with FAA red blinking lights and those that were not lit. It is important to note that the Mountaineer project site is situated on a long, linear ridge where there is hawk migration and where environmentalists suspected that there was a large migration of songbirds. One raptor was killed, a Red-tailed Hawk. Despite these suspicions, the numbers of birds found dead at the Mountaineer site does not appear to be biologically significant. Collision Risk at the JMU NASA Project site. The turbine specifications, height, and FAA lighting likely to be used at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project have not been implicated in biologically significant fatality events or numbers of avian fatalities at wind plants in the United States. However, it should be noted that the two turbine locations proposed for the JMU NASA sites are different from the sites listed in Appendix IV and discussed in the above section. The other sites are inland sites; well away from the Atlantic Ocean and most certainly do not have large scale bird use like Site #1 and to a lesser extent for Site #2. It should be stated, however, that many of the same species are found migrating over turbines inland, although the numbers of birds are likely to be lower inland and the dynamics of migration and other flight are
28
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger likely to be different between inland and coastal sites. Finally, risk to birds is generally presented as a per turbine per year (or per megawatt, or per rotor swept area) metric so with only a single turbine at each of the two sites, absolute numbers of fatalities at the turbines are likely to involve relatively few birds. If the per turbine fatality rate were 10 times that of all other turbines in the United States, this would amount to maxima of 20 to 70 birds per turbine per year, spread over a number of species. At this rate if the numbers of species involved amounted to 5 or 10 species, the number killed per species per turbine per year would amount to 4 to 14. The following risk assessments pertain to specific groups of birds including raptors, waterbirds, shorebirds, and night migrating songbirds. Risk to Raptors. Risk to raptors at the JMU NASA project could occur in greater than average numbers (per turbine per year), especially at Site #1 than has been reported for most wind power studies in the United States. The information presented above shows that raptors are present at the project site (mostly Site #1) in moderate to large numbers. Peregrine Falcons and Northern Harriers, along with Ospreys nest on the marshes and a few other species nest in the forests and farmlands adjacent to Site #2. These nesting birds likely would forage near or at the turbine sites, thereby incurring some risk. The fact that Assateague/Chincoteague Island supports one of the largest migrations of Peregrine Falcons in the world suggests greater than normal risk to these birds. In addition, the barrier islands of Maryland and Virginia are the scene of large-scale migrations of other raptors including Merlins, Ospreys, Northern Harriers and a few other raptor species, which may put some of these birds at risk as well. The fact that these migrants are likely to forage while migrating through the vicinity of Site #1 suggests that they may not be attentive to objects in their way. It is hypothesized that the raptors killed most often in the APWRA are actively hunting (as opposed to migrating) as opposed to migrating (the APWRA is not known as a migration corridor for raptors). The issue of risk to migrating raptors may not be entirely relevant however, because migrating raptors generally do not seem to be at risk of colliding with structures. Collisions of migrating raptors with turbines, communication towers, and other vertical, tall structures are almost unheard of. For example, in Tarifa, Spain, more than 100,000 raptors pass through a large array of turbines each spring and fall, yet very few raptors are killed. Their behavior is almost invariably to fly around the strings of turbines (Kerlinger, personal observations) and large numbers of migrant fatalities have not been demonstrated (Marti Montes and Jaque 1995, Janss 2000). Risk to raptors at turbine Site #2 appears to be lower than at Site #1 because that site is well away from the barrier islands where the above listed raptors migrate in large numbers. However, Site #2 will also probably experience some migration, albeit of a different set of species (Sharp-shinned Hawks, Coopers Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, etc.). The risk to these birds is not likely to be great or biologically significant at this turbine. Risk to Shorebirds, Waterfowl, and Other Waterbirds. The abundance of very large numbers of wintering and migrating waterbirds (waterfowl, long-legged waders, shorebirds, rails, etc.), as well as many nesting waterbirds, at the project site, suggests that risk to these species is likely to be greater than at other locations that have been studied. The degree of risk probably varies by species group such that species like waterfowl and shorebirds are less likely to collide with
29
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger turbines than will species such as terns, gulls, coots, rails, and some others. For other species such as egrets, herons, and ibis, risk is not well known or documented. There is strong evidence that waterfowl and shorebirds rarely collide with tall structures, including wind turbines (Erickson et al. 2001) either during migration or at other times of the year. Most notably, the Buffalo Ridge project in southwestern Minnesota is in a heavy migration area for ducks and geese, yet the numbers of fatalities found at that site are minimal. In California in the Montezuma Hills, waterfowl fatalities are very low, despite the wind farms location immediately adjacent to the Suisun Marsh (an important waterfowl area according to Bellrose 1976) and the Sacramento River. The literature on communication towers also shows that shorebirds and waterfowl rarely collide with communication towers, although rails are known to be impacted by tall communication towers (Shire et al. 2000). It is likely that most shorebirds and waterfowl either fly higher than turbines and, or they see them and avoid them. Small numbers of these birds could collide with the turbines at JMU NASA site, especially at Site #1. The numbers of fatalities are not likely to be biologically significant, especially in light of the fact that about 150,000 to 225,000 ducks and geese are shot legally in Virginia annually without significant impact. Other waterbirds, including coot, grebes, and rails seem to be somewhat more susceptible to colliding with tall structures (Shire et al. 2000; Erickson et al. 2001). The literature on tall communication towers shows that these species collide with turbines at disproportionately greater numbers than do waterfowl, although in much smaller numbers than songbirds. It is possible that some of these birds could collide with the turbines at the JMU NASA site. The numbers killed are not likely to be biologically significant. Colonial nesting waterbirds including herons, egrets, and ibis have not been killed in large numbers at turbine locations. However, there have been few turbines placed where there are thousands of these birds nesting within a few miles. This risk remains an unknown. With respect to terns and gulls, these species have been shown to be susceptible to colliding with turbines. A study in Belgium revealed that a turbine array near a tern colony killed Gulls were killed in numbers that are not likely to be construed as biologically significant. Risk to these birds at Site #1 is likely to be greater than at Site #2 because the former site is closer to colonies and feeding areas. If the numbers of fatalities are similar on a per turbine basis to those found for similar sized terns at turbines in Belgium, the numbers will be relatively small and not likely to be biologically significant. At a site with 25 turbines in Flanders, Belgium, by the port city of Zeebrugge, 28 terns were killed by 23 turbines during slightly less than one year. This translates to slightly more than 1 tern killed per turbine per year. Collision rates varied with Common Terns having a higher collision rate than Little Terns, based on their behavior as they passed through the turbine field. Risk to On-Site Nesting Birds. Overall, it is unlikely that birds that nest within 100-200 m of the turbine will be significantly impacted. The reason is that there are few birds that nest in this area because of the infrastructure present.
30
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Risk to Night Migrating Birds. The issue of night migrating song and other birds colliding with turbines should also be considered when assessing risk. The studies summarized in Appendix IV have not reported large or significant numbers of night migrants colliding with wind turbines. The incidents reported involve mostly single birds, unlike the large-scale events that occur at communication towers greater than 500-600 feet (152-183 m) in height. The reason few nocturnal migrants collide with wind turbines as opposed to tall communication towers is probably related to the shorter height of wind turbines, their lack of guy wires (Kerlinger 2000b), and the absence of steady-burning FAA red lights (L-810 obstruction lights) on wind turbines. A majority of migrants fly between 300 and 2,500 feet (91-915 m) AGL (Kerlinger 1995, Kerlinger and Moore 1989), with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet (1,524 m) AGL. Except for landing and taking off, few migrants are below about 500-600 feet (152-183 m) AGL. Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet (366-457 m) AGL. Because the rotors of most modern turbines extend to only about 300-390 feet (91-119 m) AGL, small numbers of migrants passing over the site will fly within the altitude range of the turbine rotors. The communication towers that are responsible for a vast majority of avian fatalities, including virtually all of those where large numbers were killed in a single night, are greater than 500-600 feet (152-183 m; from literature and recent unpublished studies) in height, much taller than wind turbines. The most recent literature surveys conducted by U. S. Fish and Wildlife and the U. S. Department of Energy (Shire et al. 2000, Trapp 1998, Kerlinger 2002, Kerlinger 2000b) reveal virtually no large scale mortality events at communication towers less than 500-600 feet in height and often no fatalities at towers shorter than this height. The fact that there are no guy wires on turbines is of critical importance, because it is the guy wires of tall communication towers that account for almost all of the collisions. The literature reveals that fewer than about 1 fatality per year occurs at unguyed communication towers that are as tall as 475 feet (Gehring 2004, personal communication and memo to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). In a recent study, not a single bird was found at some towers up to 475 feet (152 m) in height and not a single fatality has been registered at unguyed meteorology towers at wind power sites in the 40-60 m (~120-190 feet) height range (same references as in Appendix IV). The last risk factor that has been implicated in collisions of night migrating birds with tall structures is lighting (Kerlinger 2000b). The lights of communication towers and some other structures have been demonstrated to attract migrants that then collide with the structure. The lighting on wind turbines is very different from the lighting on communication towers. Wind turbines never have the steady-burning red lights (FAA L-810 obstruction lights) that are present on communication towers. Note that on the 1,000 foot tall communication towers where large fatality events have occurred, all have been equipped with up to 12 steady burning red L810 obstruction lights. Kerlinger and Kearns and Kerlinger (paper presented at the November 18, 2003, National Wind Coordinating Committee-Wildlife Working Group meeting in Washington, DC and American Bird Conservancy American Wind Energy Association Meeting, May 18-19, 2004, Washington, DC) demonstrated that there were no large-scale fatality events at wind turbines and that there was no difference in numbers of fatalities at lit vs. unlit turbines. The fact that no large scale mortality events have occurred at wind turbines suggests FAA obstruction lighting for wind turbines does not have the same attractive effect as
31
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger do the lights of communication towers. This was illustrated nicely at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia when 30 migrants were killed at a substation and three adjacent wind turbines on a foggy night. The substation was lit with several bright sodium vapor lamps, which apparently attracted the birds to that substation and a wind turbine that was only 50 m away. About 90% of the 30 songbirds found dead were at the substation and nearest turbine. Despite the fact that there were 11 turbines lit at the other 41 turbines farther from the substation, there were almost no fatalities at the latter turbines and there was no difference during the year of study in numbers of dead birds at the lit vs. unlit turbines. Numerous fog and rain events occurred, so the appropriate weather for multiple collision events occurred. Fatalities of night migrants have been greater in the eastern and Midwestern United States than in the west. For example, the rates at western sites are less than one migrant per turbine per year, whereas in the eastern United States at tall turbines the rates range from less than one per turbine per year to about 7 or 8 per turbine per year. The latter rate was from Tennessee. Rates in West Virginia, to the north of the Tennessee site, were slightly greater than 3 per turbine per year. At turbines in Pennsylvania and New York, there were fewer fatalities of night migrants. The reasons for these patterns are likely to be the greater densities of night migrants in the eastern one-half of the United States and greater densities of migrants farther south in the eastern United States. The source area for migrants is much greater in the southeastern United States than in the northeastern portion of the country. The fact that there are likely to be more migrants passing through the coastal areas and making stopovers there as opposed to inland turbine sites, suggests that the rate of collisions for night migrating birds at both Site #1 and Site #2 are likely to be greater than at inland turbines. Large-scale fatality events are not likely, if flashing lights are used on the turbines. Thus, collision risk to night migrating songbirds is likely to be greater than at turbines in inland situations, although the numbers of birds killed are not likely to be biologically significant because only 1 or 2 turbines are involved.
32
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Findings From what was observed of the habitat and topography at the JMU NASA Wind Power site on the eastern Shore of Virginia, and from results of the literature search and interviews (Pending), the following conclusions were made: 1. The two JMU NASA turbine sites are on federal land that is not sensitive habitat. Both are greatly modified by human activity and there are buildings, towers, and other infrastructure present 2. The two turbines would not change land use on the sites if the turbines are erected. 3. The JMU - NASA sites and lands around them support a very diverse array and large number of nesting, migrating, and wintering birds, indicating the habitat is excellent for these species. 4. The habitat immediately adjacent to Site #1 is suitable for federally threatened Piping Plovers. Four of those birds were observed. Based on their behavior and habitat preference, risk to these species is not likely to be great. 5. Site #1 and to a lesser extent Site #2 are suitable for several Virginia listed species and species of concern. Individuals of several of those species were observed during the site visit. 6. Significant migration by hawks, songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, or other species occurs adjacent to and over the project site. The site is located at a major ecological magnets that attracts large numbers of migrants. 7. The habitat on and adjacent to the site and the literature document large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and other birds at and around the project site. 8. The site is close to important wildlife habitat and protected lands indicating the general area is important for large numbers of birds. 9. Risk factors, both known and suspected, indicate that the JMU NASA turbine sites, especially Site #1, present relatively high risk to various types of birds. 10. Recommendations are made to prevent and minimize potential impacts. 11. Although the numbers of collision fatalities at the turbines are likely to be greater on a per turbine basis than other wind power sites, the fact that there would only be one or two turbines suggests the absolute number of fatalities would not be high and that the impacts would not be biologically significant. 12. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now recommending more studies be done than have been done at new wind power project sites. It is likely that they will request more study for the JMU - NASA project sites.
33
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Recommendations Based on what is known about the potential risks of wind power development in the United States and Europe on birds, site reconnaissance, a literature and database review regarding birds that inhabit or use the JMU NASA Wind Power Project site, and interviews (PENDING) with experts and regulators, the following recommendations are made. Electrical lines from the turbines to nearby transmission/distribution lines should be underground to the degree possible and all new above ground wires leading from the site and substations, should have specifications that follow APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee) guidelines. Permanent meteorology towers, if needed, should be free-standing and unguyed to prevent the potential for avian collisions. Turbine pads and roads to those pads should be minimal in size to minimize habitat impact, and after construction disturbed habitats should be restored to the extent possible. Lighting should be minimal at the turbines and nearby infrastructure to minimize or eliminate attraction of night migrating songbirds and similar species. Sodium vapor lamps and spotlights should not be used near turbines. FAA lighting for night use should only be flashing lights (L-864 red or white) with the longest possible off cycle permissible and no steady burning (L-810) FAA lights should be used. If construction goes forward, a post-construction study of collision fatalities would be helpful to potential site expansion and future wind power development in coastal areas of the Eastern Shore. Because risk at Site #2 is assessed to be much lower than Site #1, a comparison of collision impacts at these two sites would provide a means of testing the methodology used herein for assessing risk. Because federal and Virginia listed species occur in the general area, especially the eastern site (Site #1), a detailed nesting bird survey and use study should be conducted to determine whether such species might be at risk and estimate the potential risk to those species in terms of biological significance. Meet with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and perhaps Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) to determine what they will be requesting/requiring with respect to studies and their new interim and voluntary guidelines for wind power development. Such a meeting would involve potential Section 7 ESA consultation and a discussion of the expected scope of work.
34
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger References* Able, K.P. 1973. The role of weather variables in determining the magnitude of nocturnal bird migration. Ecology 54:1031-1041. Alerstam, T. 1990. Bird migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Anderson, R., et al. 2000. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at Tehachapi and San Gorgonio, WRAS. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. Avery, M.L., P.F. Springer, and N.S. Dailey. 1980. Avian mortality at man-made structures: an annotated bibliography. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-80/54. Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute Publication. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. Berthold, 2001. Bird migration, a general survey. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Christmas Bird Count 1994-2003. National Audubon Society. 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. Report to Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse, NY. Cooper, B.A., and T.J. Mabee. 1999. Bird migration near proposed wind turbine site at Wethersfield and Harrisburg, New York. Draft Report to Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse, NY. Cooper, B.A., T.J. Mabee, and J.H. Plissner. 2004. Radar studies of nocturnal migration at wind sites in the eastern U. S. Paper presented at the American Bird Conservancy-American Wind Energy Association Meeting, May 18-19, 2004, Washington, DC. Cooper, B.A., T.J. Mabee, and J.H. Plissner. 2004. A visual and radar study of spring bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York. Final Report. Prepared for Chautauqua Windpower, LLC, Lancaster, NY. Cooper, B.A., A.A. Stickney, and T.J. Mabee. 2004. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed Chautauqua Wind Energy Facility, New York, Fall 2003. Final Report. Chautauqua Windpower, LLC, Lancaster, NY. Curry, R., and P. Kerlinger. 2000. The Altamont Avian Plan. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc.
35
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Diehl, R.H., R.P. Larkin, and J.E. Black. 2003. Radar observations of bird migration over the Great Lakes. Auk 120:278-290. Demastes, J.W., and J. M. Trainer. 2000. Avian risk, fatality, and disturbance at the IDWGA Wind Farm, Algona, IA. Report to Univ. N. Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA. Duffy, K., and P. Kerlinger. 1992. Autumn owl migration at Cape May Point, New Jersey. Wilson Bull. 104:312-320. Gauthreaux, S.A. 1980. Direct visual and radar methods for the detection, quantification, and prediction of bird migration. Dept. of Zoology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook, a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Shuster, New York. Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 study year. Tech. Report to Umatilla County Dept. of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, OR. Erickson, W., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R. Good. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of collision mortality in the United States. White paper prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Avian Subcommittee, Washington, DC. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting, and mortality information from proposed and existing wind power developments. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Erickson, W., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2003. Stateline wind project wildlife monitoring annual report, results for the period July 2001 December 2002. Tech. Rpt. to FPL Energy, Oregon Office of Energy, and Stateline Technical Advisory Committee. Erickson, W., K. Kronner, and B. Gritski. 2003. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project avian and bat monitoring report. September 2002-August 2003. Prepared for Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee and Energy Northwest. Evans, W.R., and K.V. Rosenberg. 1999. Acoustic monitoring of night-migrating birds: A progress report. Partners in Flight. Gauthreaux, S.A., Jr. 1980. Direct visual and radar methods for detection, quantification, and prediction of bird migration. Dept. of Zoology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. HMANA, Hawk Migration Studies (The Journal of the Hawk Migration Association of North America). 1996-2002 and other volumes.
36
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Heintzelman, D.S. 1975. Autumn hawk flights, the migrations in eastern North America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 398. Heintzelman, D.S. 1986. The migrations of hawks. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. 369 pp. Howell, J.A., and J.E. DiDonato. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations, Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California, Sept. 1988 through August 1989. Final Rept. for Kenetech Windpower, San Francisco, CA. Howe, R., and R. Atwater. 1999. The potential effects of wind power facilities on resident and migratory birds in eastern Wisconsin. Report to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Howe, R.W., W. Evans, and A.T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of wind turbines on birds and bats in northeastern Wisconsin. Report to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company. Howell, J. A. 1997. Avian mortality at rotor swept area equivalents, Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills, CA. Report to Kenetech Windpower, Livermore, CA. Howell, J.A., and J.E. DiDonato. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations, Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California, Sept. 1988 through August 1989. Final Rept. for Kenetech Windpower, San Francisco, CA. Hunt, G. 2002. Golden Eagles in a perilous landscape: predicting the effects of mitigation for wind turbine blade-strike mortality. Report to California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. PierP500-02-043F Ihde, S., and E. Vauk-Henzelt. 1999. Vogelschutz und Windenergie. Bundesverband WindEnergie e.V., Osnabruck, Germany. Jacobs, M. 1995. Paper presented to the Windpower 1994 Annual meeting. Janss, G. 2000. Bird behavior in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: management considerations. Proc. National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, CA, May 1998. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC. Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, Jr., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, and P. Becker. 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming: November 3, 1998-October 31, 1999. Report to SeaWest Energy Corp. and Bureau of Land Management. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo. 2002. Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at the large-scale wind power development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:879-887.
37
Johnson, G., W. Erickson, J. White, and R. McKinney. 2003. Avian and bat mortality during the first year of operation at the Klondike Phase I Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Draft report to Northwestern Wind Power. Johnston, D.W. 1997. A birders guide to Virginia. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Kearns, 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. Report to FPL Energy and the MWEC Technical Review Committee. Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight strategies of migrating hawks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp. 389. Kerlinger, P. 1995. How birds migrate. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. pp. 228. Kerlinger, P. 2000a. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporations Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. Proceedings of the National Wind/Avian Planning Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 1998. Kerlinger, P. 2000c. Avian mortality at communications towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. www.fws.gov/r9mbmo Kerlinger, P. 2001. Avian mortality study at the Green Mountain Wind Farm, Garrett, Somerset County, Pennsylvania - 2000-2001. Kerlinger, P. 2002. Avian fatality study at the Madison Wind Power Project, Madison, New York. Report to PG&E Generating. Kerlinger, P. 2002. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporations Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Dept. of Energy, Golden, CO. Kerlinger, P. 2004. Wind turbines and avian risk: lessons from communication towers. Presented at the American Bird Conservancy-American Wind Energy Association Meeting, May 18-19, 2004, Washington, DC. Kerlinger, P., and J. Kearns. 2003. FAA lighting of wind turbines and bird collisions. Proceedings of the National Wind Coordinating Committee Meeting, November 18, 2003, Washington, DC. Kerlinger, P. and R. Curry. 1997. Analysis of Golden Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk fatalities on Altamont Ownership Consortium property within the Altamont Wind Resource Area (AWRA).
38
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Report from Altamont Avian Plan for the Ownership Consortium and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Kerlinger, P., and F. R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In Current Ornithology, vol. 6:109-142. Plenum Press, NY. Larsen, J.K., and J. Madsen. 2000. Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecology 15:755-764. Leddy, K., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Lowther, S. 2000. The European perspective: some lessons from case studies. Proc. National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, CA, May 1998. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC. Marti Montes, R., and L. Barrios Jaque. 1995. Effects of wind turbine power plants on the Avifauna in the Campo de Gibraltar Region. Spanish Ornithological Society. Martin, E.M., and P.I. Padding. 2002. Preliminary estimates of waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during the 2001 hunting season. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, MD. McCann, J.M., S.E. Mabey, L.J. Niles, C. Bartlett, and P. Kerlinger. 1993. Trans. 58th N.A. Wild. & Natur. Resour. Conf. 398-407. Moore, F.R., P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1990. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by spring trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bull. 102:487-500. Nicholson, C. P. 2001, 2002. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm bird and bat mortality monitoring report: October 2000 September 2002. Preliminary report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989-1991. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1996. A continued examination of avian mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Pedersen, M.B., and E. Poulsen. 1991. Impact of a 90 m/2MW wind turbine on birds avian responses to the implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Dansek Vildundersogelser, Haefte 47. Miljoministeriet & Danmarks Miljoundersogelser. Shire, G.G., K. Brown, and G. Winegrad. 2000. American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC.
39
Thelander, C.G., and L. Rugge. 2000. Avian risk behavior and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area. US DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory SR-500-27545, Golden, CO. Trapp, J. L. 1998. Bird kills at towers and other man-made structures: an annotated partial bibliography (1960-1998). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service web report: www.fws.gov/r9mbmo. Wiedner, D.S., P. Kerlinger, D.A. Sibley, P. Holt, J. Hough, and R. Crossley. 1992. Visible morning flight of neotropical landbird migrants at Cape May, New Jersey. Auk 109:500-510. Winkelman, J. E. 1990. Disturbance of birds by the experimental wind park near Oosterbierum (Fr.) during building and partly operative situations (1984-1989). RINreport 90/9, DLO. Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Arnhem. Winkelman, J. E. 1995. Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Planning Meeting, Denver, CO, July 1994. Pp. 110-119. (see other references and summaries within this Proceedings volume). Young, E.A., G. Wiens, and M. Harding. 2000. Avian surveys for the wind turbine site and the Jeffrey Energy Center, Western Resources, Pottawatomie County, Kansas, October 1998October 1999. Project #KRD-9814. Prepared for Western Resources, Inc. and Kansas Electric Utilities Research Program. Young, D.P., W.P. Erickson, R.E. good, M.D. Strickland, and G.D. Johnson. 2003. Avian and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. Report to Pacificorp, Inc., Sea West Windpower, Inc., and Bureau of Land Management. Zalles, J.I., and K.L. Bildstein. 2000. Raptor Watch: A Global Directory of Raptor Migration Sites. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association.
40
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Figure 1. Map showing location of two potential wind turbine sites at the James Madison University - NASA project site, Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia.
41
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Figure 2. Photographs showing representative habitat at Site 1 of the James Madison UniversityNASA Wind Power site at Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia (10-11 August, 2004).
42
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Figure 2. Photographs showing representative habitat at Site 2 of the James Madison UniversityNASA Wind Power site at Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia (10-11 August, 2004).
43
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Appendix I. Procedures for interviews of agency staff, environmental organization staff, and knowledgeable parties/avian experts. Interviewer identifies himself and identifies client. Interviewer states purposes of phone call: a) That they are doing a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment of a wind power project b) What a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment is (site visits, literature search, and interviews with experts - resulting in a report for developer and others to use to evaluate overall risk at a given site if it is developed as a wind power facility c) Location of the project - county, township, mountain or other distinguishing feature d) Brief description of project - megawatts of power, approximate number of turbines, characteristics of turbines (tubular towers, height, rotation speed of blades) Ask the following: a) What is the policy of the agency or organization on wind power - if there is one. b) Knowledge of bird life of a site/area at or near the project. c) Ask specifics about nesting species, migration concentrations, wintering concentrations, migratory stopover concentrations, rare, threatened or endangered species, species of special concern. d) Knowledge of significant habitats on project site or nearby. e) Their concerns about wind power and risk to birds. f) Other experts who should be contacted - names, phone numbers/organizations/agencies, etc. Ask if they wish to know anything about wind power or wind power in relation to birds. Inform them that they can call in the future to supply information or ask questions about wind power, the specific project, or risk to birds.
Interviews are not always conducted the same way. In some cases the order of the questions and information supplied changes as a result of the person being interviewed having questions or taking the lead. Overall, however, all of the above questions are asked and information supplied.
44
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Appendix II. Letters from Virginia and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response to inquiry for information regarding endangered, threatened, and species of special concern and wetlands at or near the JMU NASA Wind Power sites, Accomack County, Virginia.
45
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Appendix III. Summaries of interviews with avian experts, environmental organization representatives, and state and federal wildlife agency staffers. PENDING
Important Bird Areas - National Audubon Society U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Other Knowledgeable Birders from the Eastern Shore Area of Virginia
46
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Appendix IV. Review of avian studies in the United States. The numbers provided below have, in most cases, are numbers of observed fatalities. The actual numbers of fatalities, when observer efficiency and carcass removal by scavengers are included, are greater than the numbers provided. Vermont Searsburg near Green Mountain National Forest, 11 modern turbines in forested mountain top, nesting and migration season, 0 fatalities, Kerlinger 2002 New York - Tug Hill Plateau, 2 modern turbines in farmland, 2 migration seasons, 0 fatalities, Cooper et al. 1995 New York Madison, 7 modern turbines on farmland, 1 year, 4 fatalities (2 songbird migrants, 1 owl, 1 woodpecker), Kerlinger 2002 Pennsylvania Garrett (Somerset County), 8 modern turbines, farm fields, 12 months, 0 fatalities, Kerlinger 2001 West Virginia Mountaineer WEC, 44 modern turbines on forested ridge, 1 year study (22 searches of all turbines), 69 fatalities found, 200+ fatalities (4+ fatalities per turbine per year; mostly night migrating songbirds, 1 Red-tailed Hawk), Kerns and Kerlinger 2004 Tennessee Buffalo Mountain, 3 turbines on forested/strip mined mountain, 2 years, ~7-9 fatalities per turbine per year (night migrating song and other birds), Nicholson 2001, 2002 Massachusetts - Hull, 1 modern turbine, open grassy fields adjacent to school and ferry terminal on island in Boston Harbor, informal searches for at least 1 year on dozens of occasions revealed no fatalities Malcolm Brown, personal communication, 2002 Minnesota Buffalo Ridge near Lake Benton, 200+ of modern turbines in farm and grassland, 4 years (1996-1999), 53 fatalities found, 2-4 fatalities per turbine per year (mostly songbirds and 1 hawk); displacement found among grassland nesting songbirds; Johnson et al. 2002 Kansas St. Marys, 2 modern turbines in grassland prairie, 2 migration seasons; 33 surveys, 0 fatalities, Young 1999 Wisconsin Kewaunee County Peninsula, 31 modern turbines in farmland, 2 years (4 migration seasons), 25 fatalities, ~1.3 fatalities per turbine per year, (3 waterfowl, 14 songbirds, some night migrants), Howe et al. 2002 Wisconsin Shirley, 2 modern turbines in farmland, 54 surveys, 1 fatality (night migrating songbird), report to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Integrated Science Services and Richter Museum of Natural History Special Report, Howe and Atwater 1999
47
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Iowa Algona, 3 modern turbines in farmland, three seasons, 0 fatalities, Demastes & Trainer 2000 Colorado Ponnequin, 29 (44 in 2001) modern turbines in rangeland, 5 years - 1999-2003, ~ 2 dozen birds per year, 1 duck, 1 American Kestrel fatality, Curry & Kerlinger unpublished data Wyoming Foote Creek Rim, 69 modern turbines in rangeland, 2 years, 75 turbine fatalities (songbirds 48% night migrants - and 4 raptors), 1.8 fatalities per turbine per year, Young et al. 2003 (15 additional fatalities were at guyed meteorology towers) Oregon Klondike, 16 modern turbines in rangeland and shrub-steppe, 1 year, 8 fatalities found (songbirds night migrants, 2 Canada Geese), 1.3 fatalities per turbine per year, Johnson et al. 2003 Oregon Vansycle, 38 modern turbines in farm and rangeland, 1 year, 11 birds (7 songbirds [~ 4 night migrants], 4 gamebirds, Erickson et al. 2000 Oregon-Washington Stateline Project, 1.5 years, 106 fatalities including 7 raptors (28+ bird species total) at 124 or 399 modern turbines in farmland, 1.7 fatalities per turbine per year, 1.0 fatalities per turbine per year, Erickson et al. 2003 Washington Nine Canyons 37 modern turbines, 1 year, prairie and farmland, 36 bird fatalities found (mostly songbirds, 1 kestrel, 1 Short-eared Owl), 3.6 fatalities per turbine per year, Erickson 2003 California - Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA), 5,400 older turbines mostly on lattice towers in grazing and tilled land, many years, large numbers of raptor fatalities (>400 reported) and some other birds, Howell and DiDonato,1991, Howell 1997, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996, Kerlinger and Curry 1997, Thelander and Rugge 2000 California Montezuma Hills, 237 older turbines, 11 modern turbines in tilled farmland, 2+ years, 30+ fatalities found (10 raptors, 2 songbirds, 1 duck), Howell 1997 California - San Gorgonio Pass Wind Resource Area, thousands of older turbines, 120 studied in desert, 2 years, 30 fatalities (9 waterfowl, 2 raptors, 4 songbirds, etc.), Anderson et al. 2000 California - Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area, thousands of turbines, 100s of mostly older turbines studied, in Mojave Desert mountains (grazing grassland and scrub), 2+ years, 84 fatalities (raptors, songbirds), Orloff 1992, Anderson et al. 2000
48
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Appendix V. Conformance with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim and Voluntary Guidelines and Recommendations for Wind Power Development Document (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). This addendum is written as a response to the recent issuance of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services interim and voluntary guidelines and recommendations for siting and development of wind power projects. The guidelines appeared in the Federal Register in early July 2003, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave a briefing on the new guidelines to the National Wind Coordinating Committee on July 29, 2003. The guidelines are interim and that the Federal Register has opened the comment period, which will last for 2 years. The guideline document has yet to be reviewed, nor has the Service made changes based on public comment during the past year. The risk assessment conducted for the JMU NASA project relied procedures similar to those presented in the Services guidelines, as well as others that exceed what is usually requested by the Service. The standard Phase I Avian Risk Assessment process incorporates a large number of the guidelines and recommendations made by the Service, particularly those that are scientifically valid. Therefore, the risk assessment presented above fulfills the Guidelines intent to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife, specifically birds, and their habitats. Conformance to Guidelines Specifics Teaming With Agencies. Letters were sent to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) offices requesting information on listed species and species of special concern, as well as concern regarding other bird species. In addition, meetings with those agencies will be requested to discuss potential risk to birds at the site and whether further research is needed. Approaching these agencies meets the recommendation by the Service that developers should attempt to team or involve such agencies in the process. There is likely to be a federal nexus for the JMU NASA Project, because the Wallops Island site is a federal facility. This means that compliance with NEPA is likely, which will likely increase the amount of preconstruction study requested by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reference Site. The JMU - NASA Wind Power Project site was compared to other wind power facilities in the United States, including many existing wind power projects in the Midwest and east, as well as projects in the western United States and Europe. Selecting a worst-case scenario site for comparison with the project site was not possible because choosing such sites would necessitate tenuous assumptions about high risk at wind power projects that have not been demonstrated. Selection of a worst-case scenario site at this time would not be based on biologically documented impacts. None of the other wind power projects in the United States, with the possible exception of the APWRA of California have resulted in biologically significant impacts to birds. In this respect, comparisons were made and they suggest that risk at JMU NASA site is greater with respect to a per turbine per year collision rate than at other wind power facilities in the United States.
49
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger Although it is not possible to directly compare the JMU - NASA project with a site that could be construed as a worst case scenario site, comparisons to the APWRA and sites where risk has been documented to be negligible were made. Clearly, the JMU - NASA project site has a greater risk of collisions than is present at most previously constructed wind power facilities in the United States. Further comparisons were made to the impacts of communication towers of various sizes, lighting specifications, and construction types (guyed vs. unguyed). This type of comparison is particularly important because there is a large body of research on communication towers, including towers in the eastern and Midwestern United States. Determination of potential biological significance of documented fatalities at wind power facilities (including the probable number of fatalities at the JMU - NASA site) with the numbers of fatalities permitted by the USFWS via depredation and hunting permits does not suggest that impacts of wind turbines are likely to be biologically significant, despitethe likelihood of those fatalities being greater on a per turbine basis. The same is true for falconry permits, where birds such as hawks and falcons are removed from the wild. Those comparisons are relevant because they provide actual numbers of takings that the USFWS deems to be biologically not significant. However, the Service may not interpret turbine fatalities as being comparable to hunting or depredation fatalities or falconry permits. With respect to habitat disturbance and displacement of nesting birds, comparisons were made with various sites where such disturbance has been determined to occur. Because the habitats immediately beneath where turbines would be erected, such impacts are likely to be minimal and not biologically significant. Alternate Sites. An analysis of alternative sites is problematic because site selection started before Service guidelines were released. It should also be noted that because federal permits (NEPA) are likely to be necessary for this project, an alternative sites analysis may be requested by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the USFWSs PII ranking protocol for alternate sites may need to be undertaken. Checklists. Instead of using the PII and checklists supplied in the Services guidelines, the Phase I assessment included detailed descriptions of the habitat and topography of the site and surrounding areas. For example, the risk assessment included determination of actual or potential migration pathways, ecological magnets, or other attractive habitats are located within or adjacent to the project boundary. This included detailed descriptions of the habitats present (salt marsh, dune, dune forest, coastal forest, etc.) and the degree of current disturbance and fragmentation, that could influence avian impacts potentially resulting from the proposed development. Conformance to Service Recommendations o Site Development The Phase I Avian Risk Assessment covers the following concerns voiced in the USFWSs guideline document. Letters of inquiry were sent to the USFWS and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreations Heritage Program soliciting records of listed species. Also, habitat was examined to determine whether listed avian species are likely to nest or use the site.
50
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger The JMU NASA project site is on a known migration pathway and stopover area for hawks, songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl and other migrants. However, it should be noted that only 1 or 2 turbines are proposed suggesting that biologically significant impacts on birds are not likely. This was explained in detail in the report. Raptor use, especially Peregrine Falcon and Northern Harrier (both Virginia listed species) and migrants, of the area appears to be high, so raptor fatalities can be expected, most likely in small numbers. Configuring turbines in ways that would avoid potential mortality has not been demonstrated empirically to reduce or prevent impact, a result of fatality numbers being small. With only 1 turbine at each of the two sites, such configuring is not necessary. Habitat fragmentation issues have been addressed in the risk assessment. There are no prairie grouse or similar species present. Other grassland nesting species that may be disturbed or displaced were addressed in the Phase I assessment. Road areas and habitat restoration are addressed in the risk assessment. Carrion availability is not applicable at the project site. o Wind Turbine Design and Operation Many of the Services recommendations were either made in the risk assessment or are routinely done at modern wind plants. Some Service recommendations are incorrect or not applicable. Tubular (unguyed) towers would be used to prevent perching. Unguyed (permanent) meteorology towers have been recommended in the risk assessment. The Services recommendation that only white strobes should be used at night to avoid attracting night migrants is incorrect. There is no evidence that red strobe-like FAA lights attract birds to wind turbines, towers, or other tall structures. Red strobe-like lights (L-864) are likely to be recommended by FAA. This has been addressed in detail in the text of this risk assessment. Adjustment of tower/rotor height is problematic and beyond the scope of this report. Underground electric lines and APLIC guidelines have been recommended in the risk assessment. Seasonal concentrations of birds are addressed in the risk assessment. The appropriateness of shutting down turbines or other mitigation is dependent on the level of demonstrated impacts, which cannot be determined preconstruction. The Services guidelines stipulate that radar or other remote sensing methodologies should be used if large concentrations of migrants are suspected. This is addressed in this report. Post-construction fatality monitoring would provide a means of determining the impact the project has to birds. The need for such monitoring is to be determined during the permitting process and is
51
JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger beyond the scope of this report. Such a study is recommended in this risk assessment. Overall, the USFWSs interim and voluntary guidelines promise to provide a means of evaluating wind power sites for wildlife impacts. Some of the guidelines and recommendations are integral to adequately assessing risk, although some have not been substantiated. The guidelines and recommendations are in need of a thorough review from the scientific community, industry, and environmental organizations prior to them being required for wind power projects. Most importantly, there is need for validation of the recommendations and the protocols for ranking a site as to potential risk. Until such validation of the guidelines has been done, it is difficult to determine how valuable the guidelines and recommendations are. (The American Wind Energy Association [AWEA] has reviewed the USFWS guidelines and recommendations and in December 2003, detailed that review in a letter to Interior Secretary Norton. The USFWS has stated they will not address comments or revise their guidelines and recommendations until mid-2005.)
52

Femp-Wallops Final Report (Curry Kerlinger

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Femp-Wallops Final Report (Curry Kerlinger

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the James Madison University-NASA Wind Power Project, Wallops Island, Accomack

DRAFT DRAFT -- DRAFT

Report Prepared for:

Report Prepared by: Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Number of Species (Min-Max) 76 83 Species

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Great Egret VA-SC

Little Blue Heron VA-SC

Glossy Ibis VA-SC

Bald Eagle US-T

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Christmas Bird Count (County)

Number of Observers/ Species Counted (min-max)

17 31 / 139 158 species

15 31 / 107 129 species

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Species Brown Pelican - SC

Number of Birds/Years Found 1-5 birds in 2 years 1 birds in 1 year

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04