BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent

8/7/2019 BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent

1/84

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 459-4700

WEST Survey ReportsAppendix F-2

February 2011

Project No. 0092352


2/84

ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEYS FOR THE

CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Final Report

August October, 2008

Prepared for:

BP Wind Energy North America

700 Louisiana Street, 33rd

Floor

Houston, Texas

Prepared by:

David Tidhar, Jeff Gruver and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch,

26 North Main Street,

Waterbury, Vermont

December 23, 2010

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS


3/84

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. i December 23, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility in Jefferson

County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems

Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor wildlife resources within proposed project areato determine potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife. The following report

contains results for acoustic bat surveys conducted during fall 2008.

Acoustic bat surveys were conducted using four ground-based AnabatTM SD1 ultrasonic detectors from

August 4 to October 15, 2008 to determine spatial and seasonal use of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource

Area (CPWRA) by bats. A total of 678 bat passes were recorded on 182 detector-nights at the four

stations; for a mean of 3.430.42 bat passes per detector-night. Calls were divided into high (> 40 kHz)

and low frequency (


4/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii December 23, 2010

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.David Tidhar Project Manager, Research Biologist II

Kimberly Bay Data Analyst and Report Manager

Saif Nomani BiometricianJR Boehrs GIS Technician

Jeff Gruver Bat Biologist

Lanie Garner-Warner Field Technician

REPORT REFERENCE

Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Bat surveys for the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area,

Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Houston, Texas.

Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont.


5/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii December 23, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... iINTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 1RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data ...................................................................................................... 5DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 5REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. Data

from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/). ....................... 2Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;

August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 3Table 3. Comparison of acoustic bat surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource

Area; August 13-October 9, 2006 and August 4-October 15, 2008. ................................................ 6Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where post-

construction fatality monitoring has been conducted....................................................................... 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Anabat detectors deployed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;

August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 1Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the Cape

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

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. .................................................. 4Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource

Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors. ............................. 5


6/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 December 23, 2010

INTRODUCTION

BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA

contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlifestudies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and

operations on wildlife resources.

The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data

that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that

could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend

further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input

from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and

conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted

within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor

migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl

surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat;

2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from

2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007).

The following report includes results from the 2008 acoustic bat surveys with a comparison with acoustic

data collected in 2006 (Young et al. 2007).

Study Area

The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of

Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern

New York at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). The dominant vegetation type was

historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but

agricultural clearing has left the region approximately twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988).

Portions of the study area are characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and

sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al.

2002). The land within the CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within

scattered deciduous woodlots.

METHODS

Bat activity was determined using four Anabat SD1 bat detectors (Titley Scientific, Brisbane,

Australia) which were deployed to monitor nightly activity continually during the study period; August 4-

October 15, 2008 (Figure 1). The CVA station was located at the project meteorological tower, which was

sampled during the spring-fall 2006 acoustic bat study (Young et al 2007). Acoustic bat detectors are a

recommended method to index and compare habitat use by bats, and the use of acoustic detectors is a

primary bat risk assessment tool for baseline wind development surveys (Arnett 2007; Kunz et al. 2007a).


7/84



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


8/84



Anabat detectors use a broadband high-frequency microphone to detect echolocation calls of foraging

and commuting bats. Each series of echolocation calls recorded is saved to a file on a high-capacity

compact flash card, which is subsequently transferred onto a computer for analysis. Other ultrasonic

sounds, such as those made by insects, raindrops hitting vegetation, or other sources may be recorded;

therefore, in order to reduce this type of interference, a sensitivity level of six was used on the detectors.The echolocation sounds are then translated into frequencies audible to humans by dividing the

frequencies by a predetermined ratio; a division ratio of 16 was used in this study. The detection range of

an Anabat detector depends on a number of factors, such as echolocation call characteristics,

microphone sensitivity, habitat type, orientation of the bat to the microphone, and atmospheric conditions

(Limpens and McCracken 2004). Generally, however, the range is less than 30 m (98 ft) due to

atmospheric absorption of echolocation pulses (Fenton 1991). To ensure similar detection ranges among

units, the microphone sensitivity of the detectors were calibrated using a BatChirp ultrasonic emitter

(Tony Messina, Las Vegas, NV) as described in Larson and Hayes (2000). Each Anabat unit was

placed inside a plastic weatherproof container with a piece of PVC tubing extending on one side to house

the microphone. The PVC tubing was curved skyward at 45 to ensure maximum coverage and contained

drain holes to minimize the potential for water damage due to rain. The container was positioned on top

of a plastic crate approximately 0.30 m high, and held in place using bungee cords, tent pegs, and large

rocks. Vegetation that could grow up and impede the microphone was cleared from the surrounding area

to reduce interference. All units were programmed to turn on each night approximately one half-hour

before sunset and turn off approximately one half-hour after sunrise.

Statistical Analysis

The unit of activity used for analysis was the number of bat passes per detector night (Hayes 1997). A bat

pass is defined as a continuous series of two or more call notes produced by an individual bat with no

pauses of more than one second between call notes (White and Gehrt 2001, Gannon et al. 2003). In this

report, the terms bat pass and bat call are used interchangeably. Data files were analyzed using AnalookW v3.5r (2008, Chris Corben) and Analook DOS v4.9j (2004, Chris Corben) software. The Analook

software displays bat calls (and extraneous noise) as a series of pixels on a time over frequency display.

Analook provides a framework to build filters that constrain the values that certain call parameters can

take. Pixels that fall outside of the specified range of the filter parameters are ignored (e.g. pixels not

following a smooth line, pixels below or above a specified frequency). In addition, a series of filters

developed by WEST were used to quickly and effectively separate out files that contained only noise, and

to sort remaining files containing bat calls into frequency groups. Filtered files were visually examined by

an analyst to ensure accuracy. The total number of bat calls was then corrected for effort by dividing by

the number of detector-nights.

Depending on the species of bats that are expected to occur in an area, Anabat units can have limited

use in identifying the bat species that produced the recorded call. Some bat species produce a call that has

a very distinctive sonogram (shape on a frequency-time graph); however there is much overlap between

some species. For this reason, a conservative approach to species identification was used during the

analysis of seasonal bat use within the proposed site. Calls were divided into two groups based on the

minimum frequency of the call: (1) high-frequency (HF): > 30 kHz and (2) low-frequency (LF): < 30

kHz. A list of bat species expected to occur within the CVWRA was compiled based on call frequency to


9/84



provide a reference to which species could have produced the calls in each category (Table 1). Since

individual bats cannot be differentiated by their calls, the bat pass data represents relative levels of bat

activity (or relative abundance) rather than the total number of individuals present. Thus, the mean of bat

passes per detector-night determined from the Anabat data provides an index of bat activity within the

CVWRA which can then be compared to similar data from existing wind-energy facilities.

Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Data from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/).

High-frequency

(> 30 kHz)

Northern long-eared myotis2 Myotis septentrionalis

Eastern small footed myotis2 Myotis leibii

Indiana bat2,3 Myotis sodalist

Tri-colored bat2 Perimyotis subflavus

Eastern red bat1,2

Lasiurus borealis

Little brown bat2

Myotis lucifugus

Low-frequency(< 30 kHz)

Big brown bat2 Eptesicus fuscus

Silver-haired bat1,2 Lasionycteris noctivagans

Hoary bat1,2 Lasiurus cinereus

1=long-distance migrant;

2=known casualty at wind-energy facilities;

3=federally-endangered.

Bat use for this report is defined as the total number of bat passes per detector night, and wasused as an index representing bat activity within the project area. Bat pass data represents levels

of bat activity rather than the number of individuals present because individuals cannot be

differentiated by their calls. To assess potential for bat mortality, the mean number of bat passesper detector night (averaged across monitoring stations) was compared to existing data from

wind-energy facilities in eastern North America where both bat activity and mortality levels have

been measured.

RESULTS

Of the 288 detector-nights available from the four units over the duration of the study period (August 4-

October 15), units were operating for a total of 182 detector-nights (63.2%; Figure 2). Two detectors were

not operating from August 5-26 (CVA and CVB), three units were not working between August 27-

September 14 (CVA, CVB, and CVD), and one unit was not operating from September 15-21 (CVD).


10/84



Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

A total of 678 bat passes were recorded at the four detectors on 182 detector-nights (Table 2). The total

number of bat passes recorded at each station ranged from 72 at CVB to 340 at CVC (mean: 169.5); and

the number of detector nights ranged from 31 at CVA and CVB to 73 at CVC. High-frequency bat passes

accounted for 86.4% of calls recorded; and at least 79.6% of calls recorded at each station. When adjusted

for number of detector-nights operating, bat activity ranged from 2.32 to 4.66 across stations and mean

activity within the CVWRA was 3.430.42 bat passes per detector-night.

Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;

August 4-October 15, 2008.

AnabatStation

Number of HFBat Passes

Number of LFBat Passes

Total BatPasses

Detector-Nights

Bat Passes/Detector-Night

CVA 89 10 99 31 3.190.70

CVB 64 8 72 31 2.320.46

CVC 300 40 340 73 4.660.46

CVD 133 34 167 47 3.550.77

Total 586 92 678 182 3.430.42

HF=high-frequency (>30 kHz); LF=low-frequency (


11/84



Weekly bat activity was highest in the first week of the study period (9.43 bat passes per detector-night;

Figure 3 and Appendix A); decreasing to a mean of 3.76 (range: 2.93-4.56) over the next three weeks. A

second peak of activity occurred in the first week of September (7.57 bat passes per detector-night);

decreasing to a mean of 4.76 (range: 3.29-5.46) over the next three weeks (September 8-28) before falling

to a mean of 0.88 (range: 0.50-1.29) over the final three weeks of the study period (September 29-October15).

When considering frequency group, the temporal activity pattern of high-frequency bats mirrored that of

all bats (likely due to 86.4% of calls being from high-frequency bats; Figure 3 and Appendix A). Activity

by low frequency bats was also highest in the first week of the study (1.57 bat passes per detector-night).

Activity was then relatively constant to the end of September (range: 0.14-1.07; mean: 0.61) before

falling to an average of 0.13 bat passes per detector-night (range: 0-0.25) for the remainder of the study.

Figure 3. Weekly bat activity of high-frequency (HF), low-frequency (LF), and all bats within

the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.


12/84



The number of detector-nights operating differed between stations (Table 2). When this was taken into

account, activity ranged from 2.32 bat passes per detector-night at CVB to 4.66 at CVC (Figure 4). Again,

high-frequency activity mirrored that of all bats; but low-frequency activity was highest at CVD (0.72 bat

passes per detector-night).

Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource

Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors.

DISCUSSION

Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data

Acoustic bat data were collected at the CVWRA during fall 2006 from August 13October 9, 2006 using

three Anabat II acoustic detectors (Young et al 2007). All detectors were located at the project

meteorological tower (CVA; Figure 1); one ground based and two raised to 25 m and 50 m above ground

level using pulley systems attached to the tower guy wires. A total of 713 bat passes were recorded on

147 detector-nights (Table 3). Two-thirds of calls were recorded at the ground based unit, with a further

28.8% recorded at the unit placed at 25 m. Less than 5% of calls (n=33) were recorded at 50 m. When


13/84



accounting for number of detector-nights, bat activity was 9.90 at the ground based unit, 4.27 at the 25 m

unit, and 0.65 bat passes per detector-night at the 50 m unit. Averaged across stations bat activity was

4.94 bat passes per detector-night.

Table 3. Summary of bat activity recorded at ground and elevated stations between August 13-

October 9, 2006 at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.Station Total Bat Passes Detector- Nights Bat Passes/ Detector-Night

Ground 475 48 9.90

25 m 205 48 4.27

50 m 33 51 0.65

Total 713 147 4.94

Bat activity recorded at the ground based detector in 2006 was almost three times higher than was

recorded at the CVWRA in 2008 at station CVA and for all stations combined. This difference may be

due in part to the effect of white nose syndrome on cave-dwelling bats in the eastern U.S. White nose

syndrome was first discovered at Howe Cave, near Albany, New York in 2006 and has since spread

across the northeast and mid-Atlantic states and as far west as Oklahoma and Missouri. The disease hascaused a decrease of between 30-99% (mean 73%) in some hibernacula counts within two years; has

affected at least seven bat species, including the federally-endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); and

has the potential to cause the regional extinction of the little brown bat (M. lucifugus; Frick et al. 2010).

Assessing whether bat composition may have changed between 2006 and 2008 based on acoustic data is

confounded by the evolution in analysis methods between study years. In 2006 bat calls were classified

to species following methods developed by Britzke et al (2001, 2002 and 2003). In 2008, calls were

classified using a more conservative method into frequency groups. Bat calls classified to species in 2006

accounted for only 36 % of recorded bat calls during the fall (August 13 October 9, 2006) sampling

period, whereas 100 % of bat calls were classified to frequency group in fall 2008.

Bat Activity and Fatality Patterns

Assessing the potential impacts of the CVWRA on bats is complicated because the proximate and

ultimate causes of bat mortality at turbines are poorly understood (Kunz et al. 2007b, Baerwald et al.

2008, Cryan and Barclay 2009) and because monitoring elusive, night-flying animals is inherently

difficult (OShea et al. 2003). Although installed capacity of wind development has increased rapidly in

recent years, the availability of well-designed studies from existing projects lags development of proposed

projects (Kunz et al. 2007b). However, to date, monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities suggest that:

1.bat mortality shows a rough correlation with bat activity (Kunz et al. 2007b);2.the majority of fatalities appear to occur during the post-breeding or fall migration season

(roughly August and September);

3.long-distance migratory tree-roosting species (e.g. eastern red [Lasiurus borealis], hoary [L.cinereus], and silver-haired bats [Lasionycteris noctivagans) comprise almost 75% of casualties;

and


14/84



4.the highest reported fatalities occur at wind-energy facilities located along forested ridge tops inthe eastern U.S. Although recent studies in agricultural regions of Iowa and Alberta, Canada, also

report relatively high fatalities.

Based on these patterns, current guidance for estimating potential impacts of proposed wind-energy

facilities involves evaluating bat acoustic data to determine seasonal variation in activity levels andspecies composition with a comparison with regional patterns (Kunz et al. 2007b).

There are few instances where both bat activity and bat mortality have been recorded at wind-energy

facilities and where results are comparable. For this reason, a definitive relationship between pre-

construction bat activity and post-construction bat mortality has not been established empirically. From

the data available, there appears to be a positive correlation between the two variables and there is the

expectation amongst the scientific and resource management communities that when more data become

available this relationship will hold (Kunz et al. 2007a). Datasets such as that provided by the current

study will further contribute to our understanding of this relationship. Table 4 summarizes the results of

publically available activity and fatality data from wind-energy facilities in the eastern US. To our

knowledge, activity data were collected using ground-based Anabat detectors such as those used in the

current study.

Fatality estimates from post-construction monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S.

range from 1.40 to 39.7 bats/MW/year. Bat activity at ground based units at the CVWRA was 9.90 bat

passes per detector-night in 2008 and 3.43 bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67); values that

are lower than at three of the four facilities where activity has been recorded. Activity at these three

facilities ranged from 23.7 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-night (activity at the fourth was 0.30). Fatality

estimates at these four facilities ranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. Based on the

relationship between activity and mortality at these sites, bat fatality rates at the CVWRA are likely to be

higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) but lower than at Mountaineer, WV,Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and Mount Storm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2 bats/MW/study period).


15/84



Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where

post-construction fatality monitoring has been conducted.

Wind-Energy FacilityBat

Activity1

Fatality

Estimate2

Number of

Turbines

Total

MW

Cape Vincent 2008 3.43

Cape Vincent 2006 9.90

Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) 39.7 18 29.0

Mountaineer, WV 38.3 31.7 44 66.0

Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002) 23.7 31.5 3 2.00

Meyersdale, PA 18.0 20 30.0

Casselman, PA 15.7 23 34.5

Maple Ridge, NY (2006) 15.0 120 198

Noble Bliss, NY 14.7 67 100

Mount Storm, WV (2008) 35.2 12.1 82 164

Maple Ridge, NY (2007) 9.42 195 321.75

Noble Ellenburg, NY 5.45 54 80.0

Noble Clinton, NY 3.63 67 100.5

Mars Hill, ME (2007) 2.91 28 42.0

Stetson Mountain, ME 0.30 1.40 38 57.01bat passes per detector-night; 2bats/MW/year.

Data from the following sources:

Activity Fatality Estimate

Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) Fiedler et al. 2007

Mountaineer, WV Arnett et al. 2005 Kerns and Kerlinger 2004

Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2003) Fiedler 2004 Nicholson 2005

Meyersdale, PA Arnett et al. 2005

Casselman, PA Arnett et al. 2009

Maple Ridge, NY (2006) Jain et al. 2007

Noble Bliss, NY Jain et. al 2009c

Mount Storm, WV (2008) Young et al. 2009 Young et al. 2009

Maple Ridge, NY (2007) Jain et al. 2008Noble Ellensburg, NY Jain et al. 2009a

Noble Clinton, NY Jain et al. 2009b

Mars Hill, ME (2007) Stantec 2008

Kewaunee County, WI Howe et al. 2002

Stetson Mountain, ME Stantec 2009 Stantec 2009

REFERENCES

Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, New York.

Arnett, E. 2007. Report from BWEC on Collaborative Work & Plans. Presentation at the NWCC WildlifeWorkgroup Meeting, Boulder Colorado. November 14th, 2007. Conservation International.

Arnett, E.B., W.P. Erickson, J. Kerns, and J. Horn. 2005. Relationships Between Bats and Wind Turbines

in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of

Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy


16/84



Arnett, E.B., M.R. Schirmacher, M.M.P. Huso, and J.P. Hayes. 2009. Patterns of Bat Fatality at theCasselman Wind Project in South-Central Pennsylvania. Annual Report Prepared for the Bats and

Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. June 2009.

Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D'Amours, B.J. Klug, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause

of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16): R695-R696.

Britzke, E.R. 2003. Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in theeastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, unpublished.

Britzke, E.R. and K.L. Murray. 2001. A quantitative method for the selection of identifiable search-

phase calls using the AnaBat system. Bat Research News 41:33-36.

Britzke, E.R., K.L. Murray, J.S. Heywood, and L.W. Robbins. 2002. Acoustic identification. Pp. 220-224 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J.

Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX.

Cryan, P.M. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Fatalities of bats at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions.

Journal of Mammalogy 90:1330-1340.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological

Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of CarolReschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York NaturalHeritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Fenton, M.B. 1991. Seeing in the Dark. BATS (Bat Conservation International) 9(2): 9-13.

Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern

Tennessee. M.S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. August, 2004.

Fiedler, J.K., T.H. Henry, C.P. Nicholson, and R.D. Tankersley. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality

Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority,

Knoxville, Tennessee.

Frick, W.F, J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and

T.H. Kunz. 2010. An Emerging Disease Causes Regional Population Collapse of a CommonNorth American Bat Species. Science 329:679-682.

Gannon, W.L., R.E. Sherwin, and S. Haymond. 2003. On the Importance of Articulating AssumptionsWhen Conducting Acoustic Studies of Habitat Use by Bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 45-61.

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish

Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas.

Hayes, J.P. 1997. Temporal Variation in Activity of Bats and the Design of Echolocation-Monitoring

Studies. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 514-524.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power

Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006. Final Report. Prepared for PPM

Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge

Project Study.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2008. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power

Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2007. Final report prepared for PPM

Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge

Project Study.


17/84



Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009a. Annual Report for theNoble Ellensburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared

for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009b. Annual Report for the

Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for

Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009c. Annual Report for the

Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared forNoble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collisions at the Mountaineer Wind Energy

Facility, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and

the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. February 14, 2004.

Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC., for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind

Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 39 pp.

Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D.Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007a. Assessing Impacts of Wind-energy Development on

Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document. Journal of Wildlife Management,71:2449-2486.

Kunz, T. H., E.B Arnett, W P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W.

Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats:

Questions, Research Needs, and Hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:315-

324.

Larson D.J. and J.P. Hayes 2000. Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II detectors and a method of

calibration. Acta Chiropterologica 2:209-213.

Limpens, H.J.G.A. and G.F. McCracken. 2004. Choosing a Bat Detector: Theoretical and Practical

Aspects. In: Bat Echolocation Research: Tools, Techniques, and Analysis. Brigham, R.M.,

E.K.V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H.J.G.A. Limpens, eds. Bat Conservation International,

Austin, Texas. Pp. 28-37.

Nicholson, C.P., J. R.D. Tankersley, J.K. Fiedler, and N.S. Nicholas. 2005. Assessment and Prediction of

Bird and Bat Mortality at Wind Energy Facilities in the Southeastern United States. Final Report.

Tennesee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

O'Shea, T.J., M.A. Bogan, and L.E. Ellison. 2003. Monitoring Trends in Bat Populations of the United

States and Territories: Status of the Science and Recommendations for the Future. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 31:16-29.

Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2008. 2007 Spring, Summer, and Fall Post-Construction Bird and Bat

Mortality Study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC,

Cumberland, Maine, by Stantec Consulting, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham,

Maine. January, 2008.Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2009. Post-Construction Monitoring at the Mars Hill Wind Farm,

Maine Year 2 2008. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC., Portland, Maine, by Stantec

Consulting, Topsham, Maine. January, 2009.

White, E.P. and S.D. Gehrt. 2001. Effects of Recording Media on Echolocation Data from Broadband Bat

Detectors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:974-978.


18/84



Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009. Mount Storm Wind EnergyFacility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July - October 2008. Prepared for

NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, Texas, by Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST),

Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed

Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc.for BP Alternative Energy North America.


19/84



APPENDIX A:

Weekly bat activity and percent contribution to total activity for high-frequency, low-frequency,

and all bats within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

WeekHigh-Frequency Low-frequency All Bat Cumulative

CompositionActivity % Activity % Activity %

08/04/08 to 08/10/08 7.86 20.2 1.57 25.3 9.43 20.9 20.908/11/08 to 08/17/08 3.21 8.24 0.57 9.18 3.79 8.38 29.2

08/18/08 to 08/24/08 1.86 4.77 1.07 17.2 2.93 6.48 35.7

08/25/08 to 08/31/08 3.89 9.98 0.67 10.8 4.56 10.1 45.8

09/01/08 to 09/07/08 6.86 17.6 0.71 11.4 7.57 16.8 62.6

09/08/08 to 09/14/08 3.14 8.06 0.14 2.25 3.29 7.28 69.8

09/15/08 to 09/21/08 5.14 13.2 0.38 6.12 5.52 12.2 82.1

09/22/08 to 09/28/08 4.75 12.2 0.71 11.4 5.46 12.1 94.2

09/29/08 to 10/05/08 1.29 3.31 0 0 1.29 2.85 97.0

10/06/08 to 10/12/08 0.71 1.82 0.14 2.25 0.86 1.90 98.9

10/13/08 to 10/15/08 0.25 0.64 0.25 4.03 0.50 1.11 100


20/84

RAPTOR MIGRATION SURVEYS FOR THE

CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA,


Prepared for:


700 Louisiana Street, 33rd

Floor

Houston, Texas

Prepared by:

David Tidhar, Wendy L. Tidhar PhD, and Kimberly Bay



26 North Main Street,

Waterbury, Vermont

December 15, 2010



21/84

Cape Vincent Final Report


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility, the Cape

Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent.

BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitorwildlife resources in the proposed project area to determine potential impacts of project construction and

operations on wildlife. The following report contains a comparative analysis of spring raptor migration

studies conducted at the site in 2006, 2007, and 2008; as well as comparisons with data collected at

established Hawk Watch sites and other proposed wind-energy facilities in the area.

The objective of raptor migration surveys is to determine seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA by

raptors and other birds. Diurnal point counts were conducted during the spring raptor migration period

(March through May) in 2006, 2007, and 2008. In 2008, surveys were conducted at three survey points

within the project area (the same points that were surveyed in 2006 and 2007). In addition, two reference

points were established outside of the project area for comparison. A total of 21 surveys were conducted

on seven days within the CVWRA, during which a 1,039 birds were recorded. Fourteen surveys were

conducted at the reference points during which 5,273 birds were recorded (86.6% of which were Canada

geese). A total of 137 raptors were recorded within the project area compared to 99 at reference points;

when adjusted for number of surveys mean use in the two areas was very similar (3.38 compared to 3.36

raptors/survey, respectively). Similar raptor species were recorded in the project and reference areas. The

only differences were that a golden eagle and a peregrine falconwere recorded in the project area and not

at the reference points, and a bald eagle was recorded at the reference points and not within the project

area.

No federally-listed species were observed within CVWRA during the three years of study. Four state-

listed species were recorded: one golden eagle (state-endangered; 2008), one peregrine falcon (state-endangered; 2008), one common tern (state-threatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened;

all years). In addition, five state species of special concern were recorded: two Coopers hawks (2007),

four sharp-shinned hawks (2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (2007), two red-shouldered hawks

(2008), and five osprey (all years). One bald eagle (state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (state-

threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered hawks, and two

osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area in 2008.

Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed wind-

energy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration

relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. When data were adjusted for differences in

number of survey hours, slightly more raptors were observed at the Clayton Wind Resource Area (12.1

raptors/observer hr) and the St Lawrence Wind Resource Area (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared

to the CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).


22/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii December 15, 2010

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.David Tidhar Project Manager, Research Biologist II

Wendy L. Tidhar, PhD Research Biologist II

Kimberly Bay Data Analyst and Report ManagerSaif Nomani Statistician

Christina Roderick Statistician

Jared Studyvin Statistician

JR Boehrs GIS Technician

Zapata Courage Report Compiler

Andrea Palochak Technical Editor

REPORT REFERENCE

Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Raptor Migration Surveys for the Cape Vincent

Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy

North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury,

Vermont.


23/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii December 15, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... iINTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Spring Raptor Migration Surveys ............................................................................................................. 6Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 7

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................ 7Data Compilation and Storage .............................................................................................................. 7

Species Diversity and Richness ........................................................................................................ 9Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ..................................................... 9Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index............................................................................ 9

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence............................................................ 13Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index .................................................................................. 18Sensitive species ..................................................................................................................................... 19

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 20REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, andspecies observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;

Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ........................................................................................................ 11Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird

type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape

Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ....................................................... 14Table 3. Flight height characteristics of bird types and raptor sub-types observed during surveys at

raptor migration points within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; March 22May 28,

2008. .............................................................................................................................................. 18Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor

migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22May 28, 2008....... 19Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and

at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008. ........................................... 22Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within

Jefferson County, New York State. ............................................................................................... 23


24/84


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iv December 15, 2010

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. .................................................................... 6Figure 2. Location of raptor migration survey points: project area (1-3) and reference points (4-5) for

the CVWRA. .................................................................................................................................... 8Figure 3a. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape

Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 16Figure 3b. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape

Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 17Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk

Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg, Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory. ............................... 21


25/84



INTRODUCTION

BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the

Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA

contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlifestudies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and

operations on wildlife resources.

The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data

that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that

could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend

further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input

from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and

conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted

within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor

migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl

surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat;

2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from

2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007).

The following report includes results from the 2008 spring raptor migration surveys, along with a

comparison of data from 2006 and 2007; results from 2006 and 2007 surveys are repeated from Young et

al 2007 herein to facilitate inter-year data analysis.

STUDY AREA

The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of

Cape Vincent, New York. The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York

at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). The dominant vegetation type was historically

northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing

has left the region approximately twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the

study area are characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely

vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).

The land within the CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered

deciduous woodlots.


26/84



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

METHODS

Spring Raptor Migration Surveys

The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA

by birds, particularly raptors (defined here as kites, accipiters, buteos, harriers, eagles, falcons, vultures,

and owls). Fixed-point surveys (variable circular plots) were conducted using methods described by

Reynolds et al. (1980).

Three fixed survey points were established within the proposed project area in 2006 to provide good

visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area (Figure 2). Point locations

were designed to minimize the potential for double-counting individual birds. For the 2008 spring raptor

migration study two reference points (labeled 4 and 5) were established outside the project area for a

comparison of bird use. Survey stations were established to maximize visibility over long distances in an

effort to locate and identify migrating raptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while

maintaining the integrity of the east-west layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the


27/84



vegetation and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360 around the point, and so that each

point was surveying a unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the

observation point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within

an approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birds beyond the

800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot.

Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (09001700) to cover the peak

period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60 minutes long. All raptors and

other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned a unique observation number and

plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each survey included date; start and end time of

the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed,

wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and

age class (if possible), distance from plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above

ground, activity (behavior), and habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight

direction or movement paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each

raptor/large bird and habitat in which or over which the bird was first observed were recorded. Behavior

categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted in comments).

Habitats included agriculture, old (fallow) field, deciduous woods/forest, developed (e.g., farms), and

other (noted in comments). Approximate flight height at first observation and the approximate lowest and

highest flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meter interval. Any comments or unusual

observations were noted in the comments section.

Statistical Analysis

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures were implemented at all stages of the studies,including in the field, during data entry and analysis, and report writing. Following field surveys, field

technicians were responsible for inspecting data forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. A

sample of records from an electronic database was compared to the data forms and any errors detected

were corrected. Irregular codes or data suspected as questionable were discussed with the field technician

and project manager. Errors, omissions, or problems identified in later stages of analysis were traced back

to the raw data forms, and appropriate changes in all steps were made.

Data Compilation and Storage

A Microsoft ACCESS database was developed to store, organize, and retrieve survey data. Data were

keyed into the electronic database using a pre-defined format to facilitate subsequent QA/QC and data

analysis. All data forms, field notebooks, and electronic data files were retained for reference.


28/84



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


29/84



Species Diversity and Richness

Species diversity was presented as the total number of unique species observed. Species lists with the

number of observations and the number of groups were generated by season. This list included all

observations of birds detected, regardless of their distance from the field technician. Species richness was

calculated as the mean number of species recorded per plot per survey time (i.e., number ofspecies/plot/hour). Only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field technician were used to

calculate species richness.

Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence

To calculate standardized bird use estimates, only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field

technician were used. Estimates of mean bird use (i.e., number of birds/plot/hour survey) were used for

comparisons between bird type, season, and use at other wind-energy facilities.

The frequency of occurrence was calculated as the percentage of surveys in which a particular bird type

or species was observed. Percent composition was calculated as the proportion of the overall mean use

(birds/plot/hour survey) for a particular bird type or species. Frequency of occurrence and percent

composition provide relative estimates of species exposure to a proposed wind-energy facility. For

example, a given species may have a high use estimate, however this may be based on just a few

observations of large flocks. In this case, the frequency of occurrence would indicate that its observations

occurred only during a few surveys; therefore potentially making the species less likely to be affected by

the wind-energy facility.

Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index

Observations of large birds detected within 800 m and small birds detected within 100 m of the field

technician were used to calculate flight height and behavior. To calculate the potential risk of collision to

a particular species, flight height at first observation was used to estimate the percentage of birds flyingwithin the zone of risk (ZOR) for a wind turbine with blades of 25-125 m above ground level (AGL).

A relative index of collision exposure (R) was calculated for bird species observed flying during the

fixed-point bird use surveys using the following formula:

R = A*Pf*Pt

Where A equals mean relative use for species i (large bird observations within 800 m, small birds within

100 m of the field technician) averaged across all surveys, P fequals the proportion of all observations of

species i where activity was recorded as flying (an index to the approximate percentage of time species i

spends flying during the daylight period), and Pt equals the proportion of all initial flight height

observations of species i within the likely ZOR (25-125 m).

RESULTS

Diurnal point count surveys were conducted during the spring raptor migration period in 2006, 2007, and

2008. In 2006, a total of 12 surveys were conducted during which 777 individual birds recorded,

including 79 raptors representing eight species (Table 1). In 2007, a total of 21 surveys were conducted,


30/84



during which 1,851 birds were recorded including 205 raptors representing eight species. In 2008, a total

of 21 surveys were conducted at the three points within the project area, during which 1,039 birds were

recorded including 137 raptors representing 11 species. In addition, 14 surveys were conducted at the two

reference points established in 2008, during which 5,273 birds were recorded, of which 4.569 (86.6%)

were Canada geese (Branta canadensis). A total of 99 raptors were recorded during surveys at the

reference points, representing twelve species.

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was the raptor species with the highest number of observations within

the project area in all three years; representing 36.7% of raptors recorded in 2006, 54.1% in 2007, and

48.2% in 2008. This was also true for the reference points (52.5%). Buteos tended to be the second

highest sub-group observed, primarily red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicencis) which accounted for 13.9%

of raptors observed in 2006, 12.7% in 2007, and 13.9% in 2008. A slightly higher proportion of red-tailed

hawks were observed within the reference areas (17.2%). The number of northern harriers (Circus

cyaneus) recorded within the project area varied across years. In 2006, only seven northern harriers were

recorded, compared to 37 in 2007 and 20 in 2008.


31/84



Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration

surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Type/Species Scientific Name

2006 2007 2008 Overall

Obs

Grps

Obs Grps Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)

Obs Grps

Obs Grps

Obs Grps

Waterbirds 221 22 58 43 101 70 42 7 422 142Bonaparte's gull Larus Philadelphia 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1

Caspian tern Sterna caspia 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 2bCommon tern Sterna hirundo 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Great blue heron Ardea herodias 8 7 26 23 51 43 4 3 89 76

Herring gull Larus argentatus 6 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 14 3

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 57 6 21 15 40 24 38 4 156 49

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Unidentified gull 150 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 154 8

Waterfowl 457 25 1,365 48 652 22 5,079 47 7,553 142American black duck Anas rubripes 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 1

Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 1

Canada goose Branta canadensis 411 19 1,305 28 619 14 4,569 39 6,904 100

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1

Common merganser Mergus merganser 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 13 3

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 5 2

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 41 5 36 15 7 3 154 3 238 26

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 0 0 12 1 6 1 0 0 18 2

Snow goose Chen caerulescens 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 3 347 3

Unidentified duck 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 9 2

Unidentified goldeneye 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 7 1

Raptors 79 58 205 128 137 96 99 72 517 354Accipiters 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 11 10cCoopers hawk Accipiter cooperii 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1cNorthern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1cSharp-shinned hawk Accipter striatus 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 7 7

Unidentified accipiter 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Buteos 22 19 36 29 30 22 24 20 109 90

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 8 6 0 0 3 1 1 1 12 8cRed-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 3 6 5

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 11 10 26 22 19 14 17 14 70 60

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 2 2 5 4 5 4 2 2 14 12

Unidentified buteo 1 1 5 3 1 1 0 0 7 5


32/84



Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration

surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Type/Species Scientific Name

2006 2007 2008 Overall

Obs

Grps

Obs Grps Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)

Obs Grps

Obs Grps

Obs Grps

Eagles 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2bBald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1aGolden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Falcons 13 5 17 14 15 13 8 6 53 38

American kestrel Falco sparverius 13 5 17 14 14 12 8 6 52 37

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Other Raptors 41 31 149 83 89 58 63 42 342 214bNorthern harrier Circus cyaneus 7 7 37 31 20 19 9 9 73 66cOsprey Pandion haliaetus 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 7 7

Unidentified raptor 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 29 19 111 51 66 36 52 31 258 137

Other Birds 20 8 218 56 149 58 53 35 445 158American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 20 8 68 35 72 38 48 30 208 111

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Common raven Corvus corax 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 3

European starling Sturnus vulgaris 0 0 110 3 0 0 0 0 110 3

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 0 0 5 1 14 7 2 2 21 10

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 0 0 11 10 6 4 0 0 17 14

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 7 1bUpland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 0 0 17 4 56 8 0 0 73 12

Wilsons snipe Gallinago delicata 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Total 777 113 1,851 276 1,039 246 5,273 161 8,937 796aState-Endangered;bState-Threatened; cState Species of Special Concern.


33/84



Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence

Mean use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence are shown for 2008 surveys within the

project area and at reference points (Table 2; Figures 3a and 3b). Mean use by Waterfowl was much

higher at reference points compared to points within the project area (363 compared to 31.1 birds/hour

survey, respectively). This difference was primarily due to use by Canada geese that accounted for 86.7%of overall use at the two reference points. All other bird type use was similar between the project area and

reference points, although Upland Gamebirds were only recorded within the project area (2.95

birds/hour/survey). Raptor use (not including vultures) was 3.38 birds/hour/survey in the project area

compared to 3.36 at the reference points. Raptors accounted for 6.83% of overall use within the project

area but only 0.89% at the reference points (this was due to the large percent of use attributable to Canada

geese). Raptors were observed in over 92% of surveys at all points in 2008. Use by raptor-subtypes were

similar between the project area and reference points; although northern harrier use and falcon use were

slightly higher in the project area (0.95 compared to 0.64 birds/hour survey and 0.71 compared to 0.57

birds/hour survey, respectively).

Mean use was also compared across years at the three survey points within the project area (Table 2).

Waterbird use was highest in 2006 (18.4 birds/hour survey), but similar in 2007 and 2008 (3.18 and 4.81,

respectively). This was primarily due to higher use by ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) in 2006. In

2007, use by Waterfowl was higher than in 2006 and 2008 (73.1 compared to 38.1 and 31.1,

respectively). Again, this was primarily due to use by one species Canada goose. No Upland Gamebirds

were recorded in 2006, though there was some use in 2007 and 2008 by ring-necked pheasants

(Phasianus colchicus) and wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). American crows (Corvus

brachyrhynchos) made up the highest Passerine use in 2006 and 2008, while in 2007 there was higher use

by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris).

Raptor use was similar in all three years, though slightly lower in 2008 compared to 2006 and 2007.Raptor use was 4.16 birds/hour survey in 2006, 4.67 in 2007, and 3.38 in 2008. Use by raptor sub-type

was similar across years although use accipiters, buteos, and eagles were slightly higher in 2006, use by

northern harrier was slightly higher in 2007, and use by osprey was slightly higher in 2008. Vulture use

was higher in 2007 compared to other years (5.50 birds/hour survey compared to 2.42 in 2006 and 3.14 in

2008.


34/84



Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird

type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent

Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Type/Species2006 2007

2008

Project Area (n=3)

Ref Points (n=2)

Use

Use

Use PC FO Use PC FO

Waterbirds 18.4 3.18 4.81 9.72 76.2 3.00 0.80 28.6

Bonaparte's gull 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caspian tern 0 0.11 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0bCommon tern 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0

Double-crested cormorant 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0

great blue heron 0.67 1.39 2.43 4.91 57.1 0.29 0.08 14.3

herring gull 0.50 0 0.38 0.77 4.76 0 0 0

ring-billed gull 4.75 1.17 1.90 3.85 66.7 2.71 0.72 21.4

sandhill crane 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

Unidentified gull 12.5 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0

Waterfowl 38.1 73.1 31.1 62.8 57.1 363 96.3 57.1

American black duck 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.08 7.14

Bufflehead 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0

cackling goose 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.09 7.14

Canada goose 34.3 69.7 29.5 59.6 38.1 326 86.7 57.1

common merganser 0 0 0.62 1.25 14.3 0 0 0

Hooded merganser 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0

mallard 3.42 2 0.33 0.67 14.3 11.0 2.92 21.4

ring-necked duck 0 0.67 0.29 0.58 4.76 0 0 0

snow goose 0 0 0 0 0 24.8 6.58 14.3

Unidentified duck 0.42 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0

unidentified goldeneye 0 0 0.33 0.67 4.76 0 0 0Shorebirds 0 0.28 0.67 1.35 33.3 0.29 0.08 21.4

killdeer 0 0.28 0.67 1.35 33.3 0.14 0.04 14.3bupland sandpiper 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14

Wilson's snipe 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14

Raptors 4.16 4.67 3.38 6.83 95.2 3.36 0.89 92.9

Accipiters 0.25 0.17 0.10 0.19 9.52 0.21 0.06 21.4cCoopers hawk 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0

cNorthern goshawk 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0

csharp-shinned hawk 0.25 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.21 0.06 21.4

unidentified accipiter 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

Buteos 1.84 1.56 1.43 2.89 52.4 1.71 0.46 71.4

broad-winged hawk 0.67 0 0.14 0.29 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14cred-shouldered hawk 0 0 0.10 0.19 9.52 0.29 0.08 14.3

red-tailed hawk 0.92 1.28 0.90 1.83 47.6 1.21 0.32 64.3

rough-legged hawk 0.17 0.28 0.24 0.48 19.1 0.14 0.04 14.3

unidentified buteo 0.08 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

Northern Harrier 0.58 1.94 0.95 1.92 66.7 0.64 0.17 50.00bnorthern harrier 0.58 1.94 0.95 1.92 66.7 0.64 0.17 50.00

Eagles 1.08 0.94 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14


35/84



Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird

type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent

Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Type/Species2006 2007

2008

Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)

Use

Use

Use PC FO Use PC FObbald eagle 1.08 0.94 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14

agolden eagle 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

Falcons 0 0 0.71 1.44 47.6 0.57 0.15 35.71

American kestrel 0 0 0.67 1.35 42.9 0.57 0.15 35.71

peregrine falcon 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

Other Raptors 0.41 0.06 0.14 0.29 9.52 0.14 0.04 14.3cosprey 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.29 9.52 0.14 0.04 14.3

unidentified raptor 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vultures 2.42 5.50 3.14 6.35 81.0 3.71 0.99 92.9

turkey vulture 2.42 5.50 3.14 6.35 81.0 3.71 0.99 92.9

Upland Gamebirds 0 1.55 2.95 5.97 47.6 0 0 0

ring-necked pheasant 0 0.61 0.29 0.58 19.1 0 0 0

wild turkey 0 0.94 2.67 5.39 33.3 0 0 0

Passerines 1.67 10.6 3.43 6.93 95.2 3.43 0.91 100

American crow 1.67 3.78 3.43 6.93 95.2 3.43 0.91 100

Common raven 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0

European starling 0 6.11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Birds 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14

belted kingfisher 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0

pileated woodpecker 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14

Overall 64.8 97.0 49.5 100 377 100

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


36/84



70.4

21.1

56.9

262

491

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2 3 4 5

MeanU

se(birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

All birds

7.86

4.86

1.711.43

4.57

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5

MeanU

se(birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

Waterbirds

52.7

4.14

36.3

249

477

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 2 3 4 5

MeanUse

(birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

Waterfowl

0.86

1.14

0 0

0.57

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5

MeanUse

(birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

Shorebirds

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

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


37/84



2.712.86

4.57

3.71

3.00

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5

MeanUse(birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

Raptors

3.29

4.29

1.86

4.71

2.71

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5


Point

Vultures

0.57 0.43

7.86

0 0

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5

MeanUse(

birds/20-minsurvey)

Point

Upland gamebirds

2.43

3.29

4.57

3.14

3.71

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5


Point

Passerines

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

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


38/84


39/84



Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor

migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22May 28, 2008.

Species/Type# Groups

Flying

Overall

Mean Use% Flying

% Flying

within ZORa

Exposure

Index

% Within

ZOR at

anytime

turkey vulture 36 3.14 100 75.8 2.38 92.4

great blue heron 43 2.43 100 76.5 1.86 80.4

ring-billed gull 24 1.90 100 35.0 0.67 45.0

red-tailed hawk 14 0.90 100 63.2 0.57 84.2

American crow 35 3.43 93.1 13.4 0.43 20.9

herring gull 1 0.38 100 100 0.38 100

common merganser 2 0.62 76.9 60.0 0.29 60.0

Canada goose 13 29.48 99.8 0.6 0.19 1.60

northern harrier 19 0.95 100 20.0 0.19 50.0

Mallard 3 0.33 100 57.1 0.19 57.1

Osprey 3 0.14 100 66.7 0.10 66.7

American kestrel 10 0.67 78.6 9.1 0.05 9.10

rough-legged hawk 4 0.24 100 20.0 0.05 40.0

sharp-shinned hawk 1 0.05 100 100 0.05 100

unidentified accipiter 1 0.05 100 100 0.05 100

wild turkey 2 2.67 66.1 0 0 0

Killdeer 7 0.67 100 0 0 0

unidentified goldeneye 1 0.33 100 0 0 0

ring-necked duck 1 0.29 100 0 0 0

ring-necked pheasant 1 0.29 16.7 0 0 0

broad-winged hawk 1 0.14 100 0 0 0

red-shouldered hawk 2 0.10 100 0 0 50.0

belted kingfisher 1 0.05 100 0 0 0

Caspian tern 1 0.05 100 0 0 0

golden eagle 1 0.05 100 0 0 0

peregrine falcon 1 0.05 100 0 0 0sandhill crane 1 0.05 100 0 0 100

unidentified buteo 1 0.05 100 0 0 0

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

Sensitive species

No federally threatened or endangered species were observed within the project area during surveys. Four

state-listed species were recorded: one golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; state-endangered, 2008), one

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; state-endangered, 2008) one common tern (Sterna hirundo, state-

threatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened; 2006, 2007, and 2008). In addition, five

state species of special concern were recorded: two Coopers hawks (Accipiter cooperii; 2007), foursharp-shinned hawks (A. striatus; 2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (A. gentilis; 2007), two red-

shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus; 2008), and five osprey (Pandion haliaetus; 2006, 2007, and 2008)

were observed during surveys (Table 1).


40/84



One bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (Bartramia

longicauda, state-threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered

hawks, and two osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area.

DISCUSSION

Data collected during raptor migration surveys within the CVWRA in 2008 were compared to data

collected at the same points in 2006 and 2007, and also compared to data collected at reference points

outside the project area in 2008. Mean use by raptors within the site varied little across years, ranging

from 3.38 in 2008 to 4.67 raptors/survey in 2007. Similarly, raptor use was very similar within the site

when compared to reference points outside of the project area (3.38 compared to 3.36, respectively).

Overall bird use differed more over the three years of study; however this was primarily due to

differences use by Waterfowl (Canada geese) and Waterbirds (gulls) across years. In 2007, 1,305 Canada

geese were recorded compared to 411 in 2006 and 619 in 2008. In 2006, 213 gulls were recorded

compared to 25 in 2007 and 49 in 2008. Overall bird use was also higher at the reference points outside of

the project area, again due to large differences in numbers of Waterfowl (Canada geese; 4,569 compared

to 619).

Data collected at CVWRA from all three years were standardized to number of raptors recorded per

observer hour and compared to data collected at established spring Hawk Watch sites in the area: Derby

Hill Bird Observatory, Braddock Bay, Hamburg, and Ripley (Figure 4; Table 5). The number of raptors

recorded per observer hour was lower at the proposed project area compared to the numbers recorded at

the established Hawk Watch sites on the same days. No data were collected at Braddock Bay in 2006. In

2006, the mean number of raptors recorded per observer hour at CVWRA was 6.5, compared to 22.5 at

Ripley, 26.9 at Hamburg, and 106 at Derby Hill. In 2007, mean raptor activity at CVWRA was 9.8

raptors per observer hour compared to an average of 58.3 at the four established Hawk Watch sites(range: 37.0 to 78.3 raptors per observer hour). Finally, in 2008 raptor activity was 9.0 raptors per

observer hour at CVWRA compared to an average of 70.1 at the four Hawk Watch sites (range: 14.7 to

116.6 raptors per observer hour). The highest number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given

day at CVWRA was 18.0 in March 2007. In comparison, at Ripley it was 96.0 in April 2007, at Hamburg

it was 85.2 in April 2008, at Braddock Bay it was 208 in April 2008, and at Derby Hill the highest

number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given day was 353 in April 2006.


41/84



Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg,

Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory.


42/84



Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area

and at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008.

Year Date CVWRA Ripley Hamburg Braddock Bay Derby Hill

2006

4/14/06 6.7 31.4 83.8 ns 21.54/21/06 10.3 35.9 17.9 ns 353

5/02/06 3.3 17.3 0.8 ns 6.0

5/12/06 6.0 5.6 5.2 ns 44.8

Average 6.5 22.5 26.9 - 106

2007

3/21/07 3.0 23.8 7.1 25.2 77.9

3/31/07 18.0 27.9 124 53.5 74.1

4/11/07 11.3 31.0 19.2 38.4 71.7

4/14/07 1.0 31.4 83.8 95.1 81.1

4/17/07 6.0 2.0 1.09 ns ns

4/20/07 8.7 44.2 26.2 102 43.0

4/22/07 11.0 96.0 82.1 156 112

5/01/07 12.3 39.3 0 ns 66.4

Average 9.8 37.0 42.9 78.3 75.1

2008

3/22/08 9.5 35.7 16.4 27.8 12.9

4/3/08 17.2 83.7 36.2 69.4 114

4/6/08 10.8 75.5 85.2 90.3 159

4/16/08 12.4 115 30.8 188 228

4/22/08 7.2 54.5 4.0 208 90.7

5/14/08 7.2 46.7 9.6 ns 40.7

5/28/08 8.4 ns ns ns 8.6

Average 9.0 56.6 14.7 116.6 92.3

Hawk watch site data obtained from Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) website; ns=no

survey

Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed wind-

energy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration

relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. There are two other wind-energy facilities

that have been proposed in Jefferson County, New York (St. Lawrence Wind and Clayton Wind Resource

Areas) where raptor migration surveys have been conducted and the results of those surveys are

publically available (Table 6). Raptor migration surveys were conducted from March 30-May 7, 2005 at

the Clayton WRA and from April 14-May 12, 2006 and March 21-May1, 2007 at the St Lawrence WRA.

The number of survey hours completed during 2005 surveys at the Clayton WRA was greater than the

number completed per year at the St Lawrence WRA or CVWRA (58 compared to 16.5 and 18.0,

respectively). The number of raptors recorded at Clayton WRA was greater than at the other two sites in agiven year (700 compared to a mean of 162 and 140, respectively). When data were adjusted for

differences in number of survey hours, the number of raptors recorded per observer hour at each site was

more similar. Slightly more raptors were observed at Clayton WRA (12.1 raptors/observer hr) and St

Lawrence WRA (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared to CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).


43/84



Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within

Jefferson County, New York State.

WRA Year Survey PeriodSurvey

Days

Survey

Hours

Raptors

RecordedRaptors/hr

Species

Recorded

Clayton 2005 March 30-May 7 10 58 700 12.1 14

Mean 10 58 700 12.1 14

St. Lawrence 2006 April 14- May 12 4 12 91 7.58 8

St. Lawrence 2007 March 21-May 1 7 21 232 11.0 8

Mean 5.5 16.5 162 9.29 8

Cape Vincent 2006 April 14- May 12 4 12 79 6.58 8

Cape Vincent 2007 March 21- May 1 7 21 205 9.76 8

Cape Vincent 2008 March 22-May 28 7 21 137 6.52 11

Mean 6 18 140 7.62 9

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

REFERENCES

Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, New York.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological

Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol

Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural

Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating

bird numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313.

Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed

Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc.for BP Alternative Energy North America.


44/84

GRASSLAND BREEDING BIRD TRANSECT SURVEYS,

CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA,


Final Report

May-July, 2010

Prepared for:


700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor

Houston, Texas

Prepared by:

David Tidhar, Saif Nomani and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD



26 North Main Street,Waterbury, Vermont

December 17, 2010



45/84

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Documents

BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent