United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIq&-

r/dff

J:f'*#d;lr*,
Jun.e 5, 2008

tr# py

Ms. Samantha Hard TRC Solutions 650 Suffolk Street Lowell, Massachusetts
Re:

01 854

Comments on the Ploposed New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia

Dear Ms. Hard:

This responds to your leller dated April 10, 2008, regarding the proposal by AES Wind LLC (AES) to construct and operate the New Creek Mountain wind power facility in Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia. The proposed facility consists of approximately 48 turbiues that would produce a cornbined output of approximately 120 megawatts (MW). In your letter, you requested information on ecologically significant habitats, endangered or threatened species, and species of concetn.
The proposed project is located within the Allegheny Flont, a known major bird and bat rnigration corridor. Based on the infonnation provideci, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is concerned about the possible effects ofconstruction and operation ofthis project to the endangered Indianabat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus fownsendii virginianus), ullisted migratory bats, nesting bald eagles (Halia.eetus leucocephalus), and migratory birds, including songbirds, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and other raptors. Therefore, in response to your letter requesting technical assistance, we are providing information on fiderally-protected species, risks associated with wind power facilities to bats ald birds, and initial information about surveys and measures to reduce bird and bat rnortality. Our comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; Bild and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and the 16 U.S.C. 1531 et sea

),the

Migratoly Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712)' With regard to "species of concern", the Service mairrtains a list of candidate species for which it has suffrcielt information to support issuance of a proposed rule to list a species as threatened ot endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. There are no candidate species that wouldle adversely affected by the New Creek Mountain project. Because the Service no longer

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

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

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

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

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Two federally-listed bat species could occur in the project area, the endangered Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. During the winter Q.{ovember 16 to March 31), the Indiana bat hibernates in caves or mine shafts in West Virginia. There is one known Indiana bat hibernaculum (Smoke Hole Cave) located within approximately 25 miles of the proposed wind power facility. Surveys of Smoke Hole Cave during 1998 to 1999 indicate that a transient population of Indiana bats may use the cave in the winter.
During the spring, Indiana bats emerge from winter hibernacula and move to traditional breeding and roosting a.reas. Migration distance between winter and summer habitat ranges from less than 30 miles to over 300 miles. Females dispersing from a Kentucky hibernacuium in the spring moved 4 to10 miles within 10 days of emergence, eventually traveling more than 300 miles from the hibernaculum to the maternity area (Gardner etal.1996; Gardner and Cook 2002). However, maternity colonies also have been located within I0lo 25 miles of the hibernaculum (Butchkoski and Hassin ger 2002; Britzke ef al. 2004). Data collected during a two-year study tracking spring emerging females to their sulnmer roost sites in the Lake Champlain valley of New York, and in a separate Vermont study, suggest that females do not remain in the area surrounding the hibernacula after emerging from hibernation, but leave for summer habitat soon after emergence from hibemation (Britzke et al. 20Aq.

Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct (ESA $3(19). Harm is further defined by Service regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or x1jury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as

breeding,feeding,orsheltering(50CFR$17.3). HarassisdefinedbyServiceregulationasactionsthatcreatethe
likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent

as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR $17.3)' include, but are not limited to, breeding,

Ms. Samantha June 5, 2008

Hard

After a:riving at their summer range, reproductive female Indiana bats form maternity colonies in trees with appropriate microhabitat. The closest known Indiana bat maternity colony is 320 miles from the project site.
During sulnmer, non-reproductive female Indiana bats also roost in trees. Less is known about the male migration pattern, but many males summer near the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Some males disperse throughout the range and roost individualiy or in small numbers in the same types of trees and in the sarne areas as females.
The Indiana bat may use the project area for foraging and roosting between April 1 and November 15. Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying insects, and forage in riparian, bottomland, or upland forests (including ridge-tops), preferring a mosaic of open and forested areas (USFWS 1999). Such habitat conditions are likely to result from forest clearing associated with construction of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind power project. While clearings may appear to benefit bats, they may also attract bats after the turbines have been constructed, increasing the potential for bat mortality (Verboom and Spoelstra 1999, Diin'and Bach 2004). Indiana bat roosting/matemity habitat consists primarily of live or dead hardwood tree species 5inches in diameter, or greater, which have exfoliating bark that provides space for bats to roost between the bark and the bole of the tree (JSFWS 1999). Tree cavities, crevices, splits, or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs also provide roost sites. The Indiana bat could be impacted by project construction activities that involve removing potential foraging habitat, roost trees, or maternity habitat.

It has been suggested that bats orient in response to landscape features during migration (Humphrey 1976). The mountain ridges of West Virginia may serve as cor:ridors for bats migrating between their summer and winter habitats. Several bat species, including lndiana bats are known to follow linear features in the landscape when traveling between roosting and foraging sites (Verboom & Huitema 1997; Verboom & Spoelstralggg; Munay & Kurta 2A0q. However, Indiana bats are also known to cross high Appalachian ridges as demonstrated in an electronic tracking study (Chenger 2003). Thus Indiana bats may be at risk of collision with the
proposed project.

Virginia Big-eared Bat

(C orynorhin us towns endii virginianus)

The federally-listed endangered Virginia big-eared bat lives in caves year round, and moves between winter hibernation sites and summer matemity sites. These movements may be within the same cave, but are more commonly between caves. Migration distances are usually less than 40 miles. There are two known Virginia big-eared bat caves approximately 18.6 miles and24.2 miles, respectively, from the project site (Peacock Cave and Mill Run Cave). Both caves serye as summer habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat. During the 2006 to 2007 survey conducted by the State, Peacock Cave had 985 individuais and Mill Run Cave had 178 individuals.

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

Ms. Samantha June 5,2008

Hard

eared bats may forage more than six miles from their cave, and will cross ridges to reach foraging areas. Preferred foraging areas for Virginia big-eared bats consist of a mosaic of open

and forested habitat. Such habitat conditions are likely to result from the construction of the proposed Laurel Mountain project.

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

OTHER SPECIES
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is afforded special protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. $$ 668-668d, June 8,1940, as amended 1959,1962,7972, and 1978). This Act prohibits the take of bald and goiden eagles unless pursuant to regulations. The definition of take includes actions that ki1l, wound, or disturb eagles. ln the case ofthe bald eagle, take can only be authorized under a permit.

Nesting baid eagies are known to be present within 4.7 miles of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind power facility, based on yearly surveys performed by the West Virginia Division of Nafiral Resources. It is currently unknown whether bald eagles forage within, or fly over, the footprint of the project area. However, given the close proximity of the project to a known nest, it is possible that these eagles may fly across the location of the proposed turbine strings to reach their primary foraging area. Crossing the strings on a regular basis would inuease the risk of collision, and thus mortality, of foraging bald eagles. Immature eagles may also have an increased risk of collision due to their lack of flying experience.

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

Golden Eagle Similar to the bald eagle, the golden eagle also is afforded special protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The eastern population of the golden eagle migrates long distances between northern Quebec and a few states in the Allegheny Mountain rcnge such as West Virginia. The golden eagle is a species of concern, generally, because it is one of the raptors most frequently killed by wind turbines in the westem United States, specifically at

Ms. Samantha June 5, 2008

Hard

Altamont Pass. Golden eagles are known to fly at lower altitudes during migration, potentially increasing their likelihood of encountering a rotating turbine blade.
The National Aviary has been tracking golden eagles during their winter stay in West Virginia,

migration cycle. Maps available on the internet identify their routes in funneled along the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania and the Allegheny Quebec, Canada, Front of West Virginia. During 2007-2008, Golden eagle#4l wintered in the generai vicinity of of the New Creek Mountain project site. The widely dispersed movements of this immature bird can be tracked as an animation at: www.aviary. org/csrv/track_map.php?tel:4 1 &season=win&yr:7.
and throughout their

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

Migratory Birds and Unlisted Migratory Bats

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

Migratory bats that may move along the Allegheny Front during migration may include bats found in Peacock Cave and Mill Run Cave. In addition to Virginia big-eared bats, other bat species found at Peacock Cave include little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) (8 individuals), smallfooted bat(Myotis leibii) (1 individual), eastem pipistrelle (Perimyotis subflavus) (221, individuals), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) (84 individuals). Mill Run Cave also supports little brown bats (111 individuals), northern long-eared bat (2 individuals), and eastern pipistreile (495).

Recommendations. This existing information should be analyzed in a bat risk assessment and an avian risk assessment. We recom.mend a rigorous risk assessment using the best available scientific techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of various techniques are described in Kunz etal. Q007) and the American Wind Energy Association's siting handbook (2008).

Ms, Samantha Hard June 5,2008

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WIND POWER FACILITIES

Bats

It is now well known that large numbers of bats are being killed by wind turbines (Arnett et al. 2008; Jain et aL.2007; Kunz et aL.2007; Fielder et aL.2007; Arnett 20A5a, b; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Johnson et al. 2003). Assuming that these trends hold true, and using the regional range of reported mortality in the literature (Kunz et al.2007, Fiedler et al.2007), we estimate that the New Creek Mountain wind power facility could result in roughly 3,130 to 4,485 bats/year kiiled at the 120 MW level, or using these numbers to calculate the number of potential bat fatalities over the anticipated average life of the project (25 years), 78,250 to 772,125 bats killed cumulatively for this project. If left unchecked, such mortality could cumulatively lead to
population-level impacts, especially when considering that bats generally have low reproductive rates (Barclay and Harder 2003, Kunz et aL 2007).
Eleven of the 45 species of bats known to occur north of Mexico have been found killed by turbines (Johnson 2005, Kunz et aL.2007). Arnett et al. (2007) reported that bat fatalities have been recorded either anecdotally or quantitatively at every wind facility where post-construction surveys have been conducted, worldwide, across a wide range of habitats. Fourteen of the seventeen studies reporting bat fatality were conducted in open prairie, grassland, or cropland where data suggest the lowest fatality (Arnett et aI.2007). However, large numbers of migratory tree-roosting bats have been killed at commercial wind power facilities, especially at facilities along forested ridge tops in the eastern United States (Kunz 2006, Kunz et aI.2007).

An estimated1,}92 bats, representing at least six species, were reported killed between August 186 andNovember 9ft of 2003 at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, located on Backbone Monntain in Tucker County, West Virginia (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). A field study conducted during 2004by the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) (Bat Conservation International, Inc. 2004) at the Mountaineer, West Virginia and Meyersdale, Pennsylvania wind energy centers found similar results (Arnett 2005). Both projects are located along ridges of the Appalachian plateau. These studies are relevant to the proposed New Creek Mountain project due to geographic proximity, location on forested ridges with comparable forest composition, bat species, and perhaps other factors. Relevant information from these studies includes:

. e . r .

Most bat activity was observed within 2-hours after sunset. Six species were found kitled at Mountaineer and 7 atMeyersdale: hoary bats, eastern red bats, eastem pipistrelles, little brown bats, silver-haired bats, big brown bats, and northern long-eared bats (only found at Meyersdale) (from highest to lowest number found). Bat fatalities were highly variable and periodic throughout the study. Fatality was distributed across all turbines, although higher than average numbers of bats generally were found at twbines located near an end or center of the string on both sites. At both locations, the majority of bats were killed on low wind nights when power production appeared insubstantial, but turbine blades were still spinning and often at or close to full operational speed (17 rpm).

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

. o

Of the 64 turbines studied, one turbine was non-operational throughout the study period and this was the only turbine where no fatalities were found. Timing of bat fatalities at Mountaineer and Meyersdale was highly correlated, providing evidence that broader landscape patterns, perhaps regional in scope, dictated by weather and prey abundance/availability or other factors influenced mortality events.

Recent research has focused on describing the pattems and causes of bat fatalities. Results of a pilot study designed to investigatebat mortality associated with wind turbines in Sweden indicated that migratory and non-migratory aerially-hunting bats will forage on insects that concentrate near wind turbines (Ahldn 20Ar. This behavior was observed at facilities sited within flight conidors of migrating bats and/or foraging habitat of non-migrating bats. The New Creek Mountain project site may be within the migration path or serve as a foraging area for several bat species, including Indiana bats. Ahl6n (2003) also reported finding dead migratory and non-migratory species of bats near the turbine structures.

Using thermal imaging cameras at the Mountaineer wind facility in West Virginia, Arnett (2005a) documented bats foraging near and in the rotor-swept zone of the turbine blades and being struck by the blades. Thermal images taken between August 2 and27,2004, indicated that bats appeared to be attracted to and investigating both moving and non-moving blades. The majority of bats were killed when wind speeds were at or below six meters per second (Arnett
2005a).

Bat activity at turbines is likely inJluenced by broad landscape or perhaps regional patterns dictated by weather, prey abundance andlor availability, and/or other factors. For example, Corton and Veldkamp (2001) reported that insects prefer to fly in conditions of low wind and temperatures above about 50oF (10' C). This means that bats may be out foraging during low wind speed nights and increase their risk of collision. More recently, Arnett et al. (2008) noted that bat fatalities appear to follow certain pattems, such as: turbine collision fatalities seem to peak in mid-summer through fall; fatalities are not concentrated at any particular turbine; habitat variables may not influence fatatities; and bat fatalities are highest dwing periods of low wind speed and related to weather events, Information from other operating wind power facilities indicates that bats may be affracted to wind turbines, and/or the cleared right-of-ways, increasing the risk of a bat colliding with a moving blade or being caught in the turbulence (Verboom and Spoelstra 1999; Diin and Bach 240q.

Conclusion. As previously noted, Amett et aI. (2007) reported that large bat fatalities have been recorded either anecdotally or quantitatively at every wind facility where post-construction surveys have been conducted, and that reported fatalities are highest at wind facilities located on ridges in eastern deciduous forests in the United States. Thus, the Service is concemed that wind power facilities, such as New Creek Mountain, will have direct impacts on individual migrating bats, as well as cumulative impacts on unlisted bat populations.

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

Ms. Samantha June 5,2008

Hard

Both migrating birds and resident birds collide with wind turbines. The majority of bird fatalities reported at wind farms are songbirds (Erickson et a1. 2001).
Raptors also are susceptible to collisions with wind turbines . The raptor problem was first noted at Altamont Pass in Califomia in the late 1980s/early 1990s when an estimated several hundred raptors were killed each year due to turbine collisions, guy wire strikes, and electrocutions (Manville 2A0r. As part of a re-powering effort, the original smaller, faster-moving latticesupported towers at Altamont Pass are being replaced with slower moving tubular-supported turbines.
These larger and slower moving turbines still ki1l raptors, passerines, waterbirds, and other birds

(Manville 2005). Low wind speed turbine technology requires much larger rotots, with blade tips often extending more than 420 feetabove ground, and blade tips can reach in excess of 200 mph under windy conditions. When birds approach spinning blades, 'omotion smear" - the inability of the bird's retina to process high speed motion stimulation---occurs primarily at the tip of the blades, making the blades deceptively transparent at high velocities. This increases the likelihood that a bird will fly through the arc, be struck by a blade, and be killed (Manville 2005). Birds also may become disoriented in poor weather, and may be forced to fly at lower altitudes during migration due to overcast weather, increasing the number of birds potentially flying through wind turbine fields.

Howell and Noone (lggz)estimated U.S. avian mortalities at 0 to 0.117 birds/turbi nelyear, whereas in Europe, Winkelman (1992) estimated mortality at 0.1 to 37 birds/turbine/year. Erickson et al. (2001) reassessed U.S. turbine impact, based on more than 15,000 turbines, and estimated mortality in the range of 10,000 to 40,000 (mean : 33,000), with an average of 2.I9 avian fatalities/turbinelyear,which may be a considerable underestimate given the difficulty of extrapolating the number of fatalities with estimates corrected for observer detection, scavenging, and other sampling biases. The cumulative impact of wind turbine collisions on bird populations may result over time in population declines when taken into account with mortality asJociated with collisions from buildings, moving vehicles, power lines, cell towers, or bird kills associated with contaminant exposure.
In addition, wind farms can also distwb and fragment habitats. Habitat fragmentation in particular is an issue for birds that use deep forest interiors. Habitat fragmentation can result as a consequence of clearing forests for roads or corridors to accommodate vehicular access and transmission lines and site clearing to accommodate wind turbines. These could include direct loss ofdeep forest habitat; an increase in edge habitat; increased nest parasitism and predation; a decrease in abundance and diversity of area-sensitive species with a concurrent increase in habitat suitability for edge and generalist species; and intemrption of travel corridors, displacement, and other behavioral effects.

Conclusion. The Service continues to be concerned about potential impacts of wind power fa.itities otr migratory birds, a Federal trust resource the Service is mandated to protect. Birds have been killed by rotating turbine blades and/or by striking turbines structures at the Moyntaineer Wind Energy Center (Arnett 2005a,b) and other projects. Wind energy generation facilities may also affect bird movements, breeding, and habitat use (JSFWS 2003).

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

(MBTA) prohibits the taking or killing of migratory birds except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. While the MBTA has no provisions for allowing unauthorized take, we recognize that some birds may be killed at structures such as wind turbines even if all reasonable measures to avoid take are implemented. The Service's Offrce of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. Although it is not possible under the MBTA to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liability (even if they implement avian mortality avoidance or similar
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. $$ 703-712)

conservation measures), the Office of Law Enforcement focuses on those individuals, companies, or agencies that take migratory birds with disregard for their actions and the law, especially when conservation measures have been developed but are not properly implemented.

SIIRVEYS AND MEASURES TO REDUCE MORTALITY OF BATS AND BIRDS

To avoid and minimize impacts to birds and bats from the New Creek Mountain wind power project, we encourage you to determine the temporal and spatial use of the project area by bats and birds so that such use can be reported to us and others prior to construction, as well as during operation. We understand that bird and bat surveys for the project were initiated during faII2007 and wiil continue tlrough spring 2008; however, study plans were not submitted to our office for review. Study plans and results for pre-construction studies, avoidance and minimization measures, and post-construction studies should be provided to the Service and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources for review and comment.
The Service recofilmends conducting fulI season (April-November) multi-year pre- and postconstruction studies to assess species composition, species abundance, local population variability, and temporal and spatial pattems of bat and bird activity during all weather conditions and times of day and night. The spatial areas of greatest concern include the ridgelines, side slopes, and valley sections. We are interested in the seasonal and annual variability of bat and bird use of these areas, which occurs for a variety of reasons, including weather. The Service is available to discuss specific details associated with the surveys once additional information about the site and operating conditions is provided, including habitat cover, current land use, transmission line location, and turbine operational features. The Service recommends that pre-construction surveys for wind power projects generally include: spring, surnmer, and fall mist-netting of bats; spring and fall avian migration surveys; breeding bird and raptor surveys; surveys for caves and/or abandoned mine portals; acoustic swveys to provide an index of bat and bird activity in the project area; and radar surveys to determine direction of bird and bat flight and activity times. We also strongly recommend that avoidance and minimizationmeasures be incorporated into the operation of the New Creek Mountain wind power facility. Measures that have been recommended recently include :

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

Ms. Samantha June 5,2008

Hard

10

. . . .

Feathering biades or shutting the turbines down during spring and fall bat migration periods for a minimum of 2 hours after sunset; Feathering blades or shutting the turbines down during weather events such as cold fronts or foggy conditions; Allowing the turbine blades to begin rotation at a higher cut-in speed (i.e. 6 m/s); and, Implementation of an adaptive management plan to alter operation based on information from post-construction studies.

We recommend that post-construction mortality assessments be developed in conjunction with an adaptive management plan to further minimize mortalify. Post-construction mortality assessments should include: carcass searches, scavenger activity, and searcher efficiency studies. Carcass searches should include not only identification of species harmed or killed by collisions with twbines, but also location of the carcass in relation to the turbine, time of day found, and weather conditions. Carcass searches should be perfonned over the life of the project with an emphasis on the first 3 years after construction. Searches should be performed every day from spring to fall at30% of the turbines and once a week at the remaining turbines. Scavenger activity canxot be assumed to be the same from one facility to the next. Also, scavenger activity is not constant, so methods used to extrapolate actual activity should be different from the multipliers used initially and for calculating impacts (Arnett et al. 2008). Searcher efficiency can be enhanced by planting low growing grass species around turbines. Efficiency trials should include the use of bats instead of birds whenever possible. All of these studies should be combined with weather data, topographical information, position of turbines on the landscape and other factors to perform an assessment of why coliisions are occurring and suggestions for reducing collisions. Extensive research is needed to answer key questions about where, when, how, and why bats and birds are kiiled at wind turbines, and ultimately to develop effective methods for avoiding and minimizing impacts to populations (see encloswe). In view of that, there may be opportunity to address specific questions and concerns through inclusion of applicable recommendations from enclosure 1 in the New Creek Mountain project. Also, to answer questions specific to the Central Appalachians, this research should be conducted cooperatively and in a coordinated fashion among wind power companies, and among a variety of researchers, agencies, and other interested organizations. Resources and technical expertise should be shared as no one group can do it alone. This type of effort may best be coordinated through existing coalitions such as the National Wind Coordinating Coliaborative and its technical subcommittees.

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

Ms. Samantha
June 5,2008

Hard

ii

critical in assessing possible impacts to these species as well as designing means to avoid and minimize any impacts. This information also will be helpful in designing the scope of postconstruction monitoring efforts, which the Service believes should be phased over the life of the project.

If a federaily-listed threatened or endangered species may be taken

as a

result of the construction

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

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

omas R. Chapman

Fieid Supervisor
Enclosure

Ms. Samantha Hard Jrure 5,2008

References
Ah16n,

T2

I. 2003. Wind turbines

and bats - a pilot study. Final report submitted to Swedish

National Energy Administration, 1 1 December 2003. Translated from Swedish 5 March 2004. American Wind Energy Association. 2008. AWEA Siting handbook. Prepared for AWEA of Washington, D.C. by TehaTech EC, Inc., and Nixon Peabody LLP, with contributions from Comsearch and Aviation Systems, Inc. 183 pp. Amett, E.B., technical editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Perrnsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind twbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation lntemational. Austin, Texas, USA. 187 pp. (www.batcon.org) Arnett, E.B. 2005b. Summary of findings from the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative's2004 Field Season. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 6 pp. (Available for downloading at : www. b atcon. org/wind/B WEC20 04Reportsummary.pdfl Arnett, E.B, D.B. Inkley, D.H. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, S. Manes, A.M. Manville, J.R. Mason, M.L. Monison, M.D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007.Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2.The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ametl, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, B.L. Hamiiton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T. O'Conneil, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersley. 2008. Patters of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife ManagementT2: in press.
Barclay, R.M.R. and L.D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: iife in the slow lane. Pp. 209-253 inT.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds)., Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press; Chicago,

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

Bell. R.K. and J.B. Pattison. 2007. Allegheny Front Migration Observatory. Fall2007 Report. Brooks Bird Club. Wheeling, WV. 5 pp Britzke, E.R., A.C.Hicks, S.L. von Oettingen, and S.R. Darling. 2004. Description of spring roosting ecology of female Indiana bats in the Lake Champlain Valley of Vermont and New York. In review.

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

Butchkoski, C. M. and J.D. Hassinger. 20A2. Ecology of a matemity colony roosting in a building. In Kurta A., and J. Keruredy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

13

of

Chenger, J.2003. One sodalis from the Hartman mine: summary results of an electronic tracking study of a single Indiana bat, Unpublished report prepared by Bat Conservation

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

Dtin T.

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

Erikson W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 20A1. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a sunmary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. National wind Coordinating Committee Resource Document, August. Cheyenne, WY: Westem Ecosystems Technology,Inc. 62pp.
Erickson, W., G.Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Semka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind deveiopments. West, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 124 pp, Fiedler, J.K., T.H Henry, R.D. Tankersley, and C.P. Nicolson. 2007. Results of bat and bird mortality monitoring at the expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Prepared for the Tennessee Valley Authority. 38 pp. Gardner, J.E., and E.A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution and quantification of potential srunmer habitat. In Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 253p. Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofrnann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 89: 187-196.

Howell, J.D. and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at a U.S. windpower, wind energy development site. Montezuma Hills, Solano County, CA. Humphrey, S.R and J.B. Cope. 1976. Population ecology of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in Indiana and North-Central Kentucky. Special Publication No. 4. The American Society of Mammalogists. 81pp.

Ms. Samantha June 5,2008

Hard

74

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual report for the Mapie Ridge wind power project post-construction bird and bat fataliry study-2006. Report prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Center, Cape May Point, NJ.
Johnson, G. D. 2003. What is known and not known about bat collision mortality at windplants? In R.L. Carlton, editor. Avian interactions with wind power structures. Proceedings of a workshop held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA, October 16-17,2002. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. In Press. Johnson, G.D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the Research News 46:45-49.

U.S. Bat

Kems, J. and P. Kerlinger.2A04. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: arurual report for 2003. Cuny and Kerlinger, LLC 2-14-04, 39 pp. Kunz, T.H. 2006. Bats at risk: why should we care. Toward Wildlife Friendly Wind Power Conference, June 27-29. Toledo, OH. (www.fws.gov/modwest/greatlakes/windpowerconference.htm. Viewed 1/15/08) Kunz, T.H., E.B. Amett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy developrnent on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6):3 15-324.

Manville, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at powff lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science-next steps toward mitigation. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-19l: 1051-1066.
Mizrahi, D., D. Dawson, and T. Jones. ln Preparation. Assessing Bird and Bat Migration Over Appalachian Ridges.(www.state.sd.us lpuclenergylvind%20factYo20sheet.pdf). Murray, S,W. and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis s o dalis). Journal of Zoolo gy. 262:197 -206.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency draft. lndiana bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan.U.S. Fish and \Mildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Service interim guidance on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines. Washington, D.C. 55 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Washington, D.C. 23 pp. Verboom, B. and H. Huitema. 1997. The importance of linear landscape elements for the pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. Landscape Ecoiogy. I2(2):ll7 -125.

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

Verboom, B. and K. Spoelstra. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of tree lines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 7:1393-1401. Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr.2002, Distribution and surnmer ecology in Indiana. In Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

15

Winkelman, J.E. 1992. The impact of the SEP wind park near Oosterbierum (Fr.), the Netherlands, on birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks (Dutch, English summary). RlN-report 9213. Arnhem, Netherlands: DlO-Institute for Forestry and Nature Research.

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

16

cc: FWS-RO

- Alex Hoar, Scott Johason WVDNR - Roger Anderson PSC - Sandra Squire

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

Ms. Samantha Hard June 5,2008

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

l7

Summary of Next Steps for the Central Appalachian Region

Extensive research is needed to answer key questions about where, when, how, and why bats and birds are killed at wind turbines, and ultimately to develop effective methods for avoiding and minimizing impacts to populations. To advance these studies, the Service recommends that an existing coalition (such as the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative and its technical subcommittees) provide a forum for the wind industry in the Central Appalachians to cooperatively work with state and federal resottrce agencies, researchers, and other organizations to answer the following key research questions and concerns.

Bird and Bat Mortality Assessment Key questions and concems for assessing mortality of birds and bats:

2.

1.

3. 4.

Assessment of bird and bat mortality will require more than carcass counts. A successful assessment of mortalify will not only document the search for dead birds and bats on the ground, but will also investigate the circumstances that may have influenced the event, and provide insights and direction for next steps. Desired outcomes of assessments include identification of, a) factors that effect or cause mortality, b) prudent means and measures to avoid take of birds and bats. With regard to the spatial pattems of nocturnal migrating birds, it is important to determine what proportion is flying low enough to collide with wind turbines. Perhaps

5.

low ceiling or other atmospheric conditions cause birds to fly iow to the ground. Perhaps prevailing winds cause birds channeling tlrough valleys to rise up and mergs with birds already at elevation to pass over the ridge. This would temporarily increase the number of birds in the rotor sweptzone. Do these phenomena happen at a project site and how often? What avoidance behavior, if any, do birds exhibit under these circumstances? With regard to bat mortality, there is mounting evidence that bat activity and mortality occurs primarily at wind speeds up to 6.5 meters per second. Operational mitigation measures show promise in minimizing bat mortality and greatly reducing cumulative impacts to bats due to turbine mortality. So this may advance, it is critical to determine the level of bat activity at rotor height and mortality at wind speeds from zero to at least 6.5 meters per second and higher, and the percent of power value generated at key low wind speeds.

Recommendations:

1.

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

Ms. Samantha June 5, 2008

Hard

18

2.

3. 4.
Raptors

flight trajectory to eompletely avoid the wind turbines. These studies should be conducted during all local climatic conditions and all pertinent daily periods. Changes in behavior, mortality, and how to predict this situation should be reported. In an effort to develop means and measures that show promise of eliminating a significant amount of bat mortality, replicate Dr. Oliver Behr's acoustic monitoring studies and curtailment experiments conducted in Germany and reported in 2008 at the Bat and Wind Energy Cooperative meeting in Austin, Texas (Behr 20081. In this relatively simple study design, bat activity in the rotor swept zone was measured using acoustical detectors placed magnetically on the nacelle, wind speed was recorded in small blocks of time using standard equipment. Bat mortality was determined using standard search methods. Percent value of generation up to 5.5 and 6.5 meters per second was determined by the owner of the wind project and reported. Include in any bat mortality study, a statistically significant sample of turbines that are not spinning in order to evaluate bat mortality under that condition. This will complement replication of Behr 2008. Investigate if there are additional caves within a several miles distance of the project and if those caves are used by bats.

Key questions and concerns for assessing project impacts on raptors:

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.
6.

7.

What species and number of raptors have been found dead or injwed near wind turbines, transmission lines, substation, or other facilities? What was the cause of death or injury; i.e., electrocution, physical strike, internal injwy? What behavior was involved; i.e., perching, hunting, and migrating? How could these be avoided in the future? Are there particular turbines that cause more problems than others? Are project transmission lines constructed to protect raptors from electrocution in accordance with Avian Protection Plan Guidelines? Are wind industry companies members of the Avian Protection Plan lnteraction Committee? To what extent do raptors alter their line of flight to avoid individual turbines and/or the entire turbine field during the fall migration - and dwing March of spring migration for golden eagles? Do any raptors (such as golden eagles, red-tail hawks, harriers, and kestrels) hunt in open (non-forested) habitats of the project area during migration, winter, or other seasons? What is the frequency with which each open habitat is hunted? What is the prey? What are the spatial and temporal patterns of use of migrating raptors over the turbine fields and escarpments of the Central Appalachians, particularly when the prevailing winds are from the east, southeast, and south, creating updrafts along the mountains? How does the timing and magnitude of observations of migrating raptors correlate with observations at hawk watch stations nearest to the project? What is the frequency distribution of elevations of migrating raptors, by species?
studies and curtailment experiments in Germany. Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BEWC) Workshop, Austin, Texas, January 8-10. Available via clickable link at: www.energetics.com/BWECWorkshop2008/agenda.html - viewed 3 / 2 5 / 0 B

'B.ht, O. 2008. Acoustic monitoring

Ms. Samantha Hard

June

5,2008 '
along the fronts in the Central Appalachians generally, what is the variation in timing and magnitude of their fall migration over the last several decades? Examination of raptor migration data from fully-manned. hawk watch locations is advised, such as the Alleghany Hawk Watch3 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania (7039 and 12,866 raptors observed in 2003 and,20A4,respectively); Hanging Rock Raptor Migration Observatorya in Monroe County, West Virginia (3i55 and2687 raptors observed in 2003 and2007, respectively); and itarvey's fnloUs in Virginia (7831 and 12039 raptors observed in 2003 and,2007 ,respectively). Since raptor migration is episodic, what environmental conditions best ptldi.t spikes in raptor migration along the Central Appalachian fronts and ad.jacent ridges? The timing, duration, and magnitude of these events are of interest.

19

8. For raptor species known to migrate

9.

Recommendations:

i.
2.

Contract with experts in raptor migration in the Central Appalachian Mountains to

-t.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

goup led by the National Aviary. Contract for modeling raptor migration pathways along the major routes such as the Alleghany Front and nearby ridges, using FlightPath - a terrain-based model for simulating raptor migration pathways, and field test in the project areas. Perform a simultaneous radar and mortality study designed to measure the proportion of targets flying over the escarpment and plateau in zones of height above the ground including the rotor swept zone, risk exposure, avoidance indei, and mortality. Cause of death or injury should be determined by a wildlife veterinarian basla on autopsy and examination. Use experienced observers during radar study to monitor and verify raptor flight and behavior. During the radar/mortality study obtain wind (speed and direction at least every 15 to 30 minutes), temperature, weather, and ceiling information on site. Monitor daily using radar from 6-8 hours per day starting at 9:00 AM, except on rainy days. Monitor in March and during migratory peaks of each species in the fall, including golden eagles. The schedule for mortality searches should include, but not be limited to; all towers immediately fotlowing spikes in migratory flights. Monitor for three years in order to measure and assess natural variations between and. among years. Correlate observations to the north with events on site. Enter into an agreement among the wind industry, the National Aviary, Service, and state wildlife agencies to: a) Provide funding over a ten yeax period to the National Aviary for tracking the annual migratory cycle of the golden eagles that are known to winter in the Central Appalachians, b) post on the web site the flight paths and current locations of all golden eagles, and other raptors, tracked by the National Aviary, and c) post cunent

address and report on these questions, such as the interdisciplinary Golden Eagle research

ont.htm www.han gin grocktower. org t http://buame.eooglep ges.com/home; on the Botetourt-Bedford County line near Roanoke, virginia between mile markers 95 and 96 onthe Blue Ridge parkway.

'

http ://people. delphiforums.com/MCCONAUGHY/birding/alfronValfr