FWS Comments on Silver State South Solar

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office

4701 North Torrey Pines Drive

Las Vegas, Nevada 89130

Ph: (702) 515-5230 ~ Fax: (702) 515-5231

November 16, 2012

File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

Memorandum

To: Renewable Energy Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas

Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada

From: State Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno

Subject: Review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver

State South Solar Energy Project (First Solar LLC), Clark County, Nevada

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Silver State South Solar Energy Project. We prepared this letter

under the authority of and in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852], as amended, the Endangered Species Act of

1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884], as amended (Act), and other authorities mandating

the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) concern for environmental values. Based on these

authorities, we offer the following comments for your consideration.

We understand the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would grant a right-of-way (ROW)

authorizing the applicant to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 350-megawatt

solar photovoltaic power plant on BLM-administered lands in the Ivanpah Valley along the

California/Nevada state line 2 miles east of Primm in Clark County, Nevada.

The draft SEIS analyzes three action alternatives with ROWs ranging from 2,515 to 3,855 acres

and designation of a 40,180-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). As discussed

in the draft SEIS, the proposed project would negatively impact the federally listed as threatened,

Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and its habitat.

Demographic and genetic connectivity for the Mojave desert tortoise

We are concerned about habitat fragmentation and demographic and genetic isolation of desert

tortoise populations within the Ivanpah Valley and recommend that BLM select the ‘No Action’

alternative. Maintaining a robust population of desert tortoises within the Ivanpah Valley area is

of particular importance because the habitat is already highly fragmented. Currently, the desert

tortoise population within the Ivanpah Valley is only tenuously connected to the Ivanpah Critical

Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119

2

Habitat Unit. This valley is a critical link between desert tortoise conservation areas in

California and Nevada (Hagerty et al. 2011; Service 2012). Only four potential linkages remain

in Ivanpah Valley (Service 2011). The linkage between the Silver State North project and the

Lucy Gray Mountains is the widest of these linkages and likely the most reliable for continued

population connectivity (Service 2011).

Habitat linkages need to be wide enough to support a diverse age structure and sex ratio within

the linkage (Barrows et al. 2011). Desert tortoises can occupy narrow canyon passes, and such

linkages may provide connectivity for long-term gene flow. However, the effects on population

demographics by constricting a linkage to a narrow corridor with a lower number of desert

tortoises remain a concern. A single desert tortoise uses a lifetime utilization area of

approximately 1.4 miles wide (Service 1994). Multiple lifetime utilization areas are necessary

for desert tortoises to find mates, reproduce (demographics), and maintain populations during

years of low habitat quality, periodic fire, and disease outbreak (stochastic events) (Beier et al.

2008). For example, the diameter of two multiple lifetime utilization areas would be 2.8 miles

wide; three would be 4.2 miles wide; and so on.

In the biological opinion for the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generation Station issued to BLM on

June 10, 2011 (Service 2011), the maintenance of a suitable linkage between the Silver State

Project and the Lucy Gray Mountains was a key reason why we concluded that connectivity

would still be maintained after construction of that project. As proposed, the project could

disturb up to an additional 3,855 acres (6 square miles) in this linkage, thus reducing this linkage

to the following approximate widths (see attached maps):

Alternative New Disturbance (acres) Linkage width (miles)a

A – No action 0 2.0

B – Proposed action 3,855 0.02 (100 feet)

C – Alternative layoutb 2,515 1.0

D – Modification to proposed action

layout

3,102 0.3

c

a Measured from the Silver State North project east to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains. b Originally analyzed in the 2010 EIS (BLM 2010) and 2010 biological opinion (Service 2010). c Measured from the detention basin on the eastern edge of the proposed site to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the

Lucy Gray Mountains.

We recommend BLM select the ‘No Action’ alternative to avoid reducing the width of the

existing corridor. If this is not possible, we ask BLM to minimize impacts to the linkage by

creating and selecting a new alternative that would protect a corridor of undisturbed desert

tortoise habitat between the Silver State North project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. This

corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tortoise ranges, spanning up to

several times the desert tortoise lifetime utilization area. Attached is a map showing the footprint

of the Silver State South combined alternatives, along with a 1.4-mile distance from the suitable

habitat.


3

If this new alternative is selected, we ask BLM and the applicant commit to specific mitigation

actions that would help offset a reduction in this linkage. These actions may include: (1)

funding genetic and disease testing and removing the fence at the long-term translocation site to

increase connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley; (2) funding culvert construction under roads in

Ivanpah Valley to connect populations on either side of Interstate 15; and (3) funding recovery

actions identified by the desert tortoise recovery 5-year action plan.

Additionally, we ask that BLM and the applicant commit to specific monitoring studies to help

us understand the impacts to population demographics (age and sex ratios) and genetic stability

of the desert tortoise population as a result of the project and for other projects in the Ivanpah

Valley, such as funding a genomic study that looks at fine-grained genetic relationships to reveal

patterns of movement and connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley.

Desert tortoise translocation

The Service does not support translocation as a proven minimization measure for development

projects. While loss of individuals would be reduced, translocation of desert tortoises could

result in considerable effects to both translocated individuals and individuals that are resident to

any identified translocation site.

Based on pre-project surveys in the project area and large acreage associated with the proposed

project, complete avoidance of the need to translocate desert tortoises is unlikely. Therefore, we

recommend the project be sited in the area with lowest desert tortoise density within the analysis

area to minimize the impacts to desert tortoises from translocation.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern nomination

We recommend BLM adopt the ACEC component of Alternative D and the management

prescriptions listed in Table 2-2 of the draft SEIS. Further, we ask that BLM include the acreage

between the Silver State North project, or the new boundary of the Silver State South project,

and the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains in the ACEC (roughly

the acreage described as the project site layout for Alternative D).

Although we cannot predict if future development in the Ivanpah Valley would result in loss of a

viable genetic link, reduction of the remaining desert tortoise habitat and development within

undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in the Ivanpah Valley may exacerbate existing fragmentation

of desert tortoise habitat. These smaller, fragmented populations may be more susceptible to

stochastic population declines, thereby reducing the viability of the greater population. Further,

the developed area would likely be uninhabitable to desert tortoises for several desert tortoise

generations because natural recovery of vegetation in the desert can take 50 to 300 years (Lovich

and Bainbridge 1999; Abella 2010).


4

Migratory birds and eagles

The Service encourages energy development that is wildlife and habitat-friendly. Although little

is known about how utility-scale solar energy facilities affect birds and bats, we anticipate that

bird and bat mortality could occur from collisions with transmission lines and solar panels.

Additionally, extensive terrestrial habitat loss would indirectly affect wildlife.

The Service recommends that utility-scale solar energy facilities develop a Bird and Bat

Conservation Strategy (BBCS). A BBCS is a project-specific document that delineates a

program designed to reduce the operational risks that result from bird and bat interactions with a

specific solar energy facility.

Further, we recommend development of an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP). As discussed in the

draft SEIS, ground surveys observed a pair of golden eagles soaring over the ROW.

Additionally, four possible golden eagle nests were detected within 10 miles of the ROW with

the nearest territory located approximately 5 miles away. An ECP is a project-specific document

that delineates a program designed to reduce the operational risks specifically to bald and golden

eagles.

Attached are several documents that provide guidelines for development of a BBCS and ECP.

The BBCS and ECP should contain a risk assessment to evaluate potential take and a

scientifically rigorous post-construction monitoring scheme. They also should contain adaptive

management strategies to implement appropriate corrective actions should birds, bats, and eagles

be impacted. Although each project’s plan will be different, the overall goal of the BBCS and

ECP should be to reduce, and ultimately eliminate bird and bat mortality to the extent

practicable. For more information, contact our regional migratory bird biologist at

[email protected].

Endangered species consultation

As a reminder, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act each Federal agency shall insure, in consultation

with the Service, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of its habitat. Therefore, we ask that BLM initiate formal consultation under the

Act and provide a biological assessment (BA) with a determination of "may affect, likely to

adversely affect." The BA should provide details of the proposed action including, construction,

operation, and maintenance, and their effects to the desert tortoise. The action area must include

all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate area of

direct disturbance. Based on the proposed action and local topography, the action area should

include the Ivanpah and Roach Lake valleys between the Clark and Lucy Gray mountains.

mailto:[email protected]


Conclusion

As discussed above, the Ivanpah Valley is critically important to deseli tortoise population connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley Critical Habitat Unit. We recommend BLM select the 'No Action' alternative to avoid impacting the nanow linkage that currently exists between the Silver State NOlih project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. Ifthis is not possible, we ask BLM to create and select a new alternative that will minimize impacts by preserving a protected corridor of undisturbed desert tortoise habitat between the Silver State NOlih project and the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains. This corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tOlioise ranges, spanning up to several times the deseli tOlioise lifetime utilization area at the nan'owest point. Additionally, we ask BLM and the applicant identify and commit to specific mitigation actions and monitoring studies that would help address potential project impacts to the demographic and genetic stability ofthe deseli tOlioise population within the Ivanpah Valley.

We appreciate the oppOliunity to review and comment on the project. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Brian A. Novosak in the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas at (702) 515-5230. Please reference the file number above in future correspondence concerning this project.

Edward D. Koch

Attachments (7)

cc: Adaptive Management Coordinator, Deseli Conservation Program, Las Vegas, Nevada Chief, Saint George Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Saint George, Utah District Biologist, California Desert District Office, Bureau of Land Management,

Needles, California Environnlental Scientist, Communities and Ecosystem Division, Region 9 Environmental

Review Office, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ventura, California Supervisory Biologist-Habitat, Nevada Depmiment of Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada Assistant Field Manager, Division of Renewable Resources, Las Vegas Field Office,

Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada

5


6

Literature Cited

Abella, S.R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts of the

American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7:

1248-1284.

Barrows, C.W., K.D. Fleming, and M.F. Allen. 2011. Identifying habitat linkages to maintain

connectivity for corridor dwellers in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife

Management 75:682-691.

Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for

designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836-851. Available on the Internet

at: http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/Beier.Majka.Spencer.2008.ConsBiol.

LinkageDesigns.pdf

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Final environmental impact statement for the Silver

State Solar Energy Project (DOI No. FES 10-50). Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas

Field Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 2010. 1,019 pp. Available on the Internet at:

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/nextlight_renewable0.html

Hagerty, B.E., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, and C.R. Tracy. 2011. Making molehills out of

mountains: landscape genetics of the Mojave desert tortoise. Landscape Ecology 26:267-

280. Available on the Internet at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/qu18806111q644t3/

fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

Latch E.K., W.I. Boarman, A. Walde, R.C. Fleischer. 2011. Fine-scale analysis reveals cryptic

landscape genetic structure in desert tortoises. PLOS ONE 6(11):e27794.doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0027794. November 2011. 10 pp. Available on the Internet at:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027794

Lovich, J.E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California

desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental

Management 249: 309-326. Available on the internet at: http://www.dmg.gov/documents/

STDY_Anthro_Degrdtn_of_S_CA_Dsrt_Ecsystm_and_Prspcts_for_Nat_Rec_and_Rest_

LovichJ_090399.pdf

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery

plan. Portland, Oregon. 73 pp, plus appendices. Available on the Internet at:

http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_reports.html

http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/Beier.Majka.Spencer.2008.ConsBiol.%20LinkageDesigns.pdf

http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/Beier.Majka.Spencer.2008.ConsBiol.%20LinkageDesigns.pdf

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/nextlight_renewable0.html

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qu18806111q644t3/%20fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qu18806111q644t3/%20fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027794

http://www.dmg.gov/documents/%20STDY_Anthro_Degrdtn_of_S_CA_Dsrt_Ecsystm_and_Prspcts_for_Nat_Rec_and_Rest_%20LovichJ_090399.pdf



http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_reports.html


7

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Formal consultation for the Silver State Solar

Project (NextLight Renewable Power, LLC). Service File No. 84320-2010-F-0208. Nevada

Fish and Wildlife Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 16, 2010. 73 pp. Available on the

Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/

nextlight_renewable0.html

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Reinitiated biological opinion on BrightSource

Energy's Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project. Service File No. 8-8-10-F-24R.

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, California. June 2011. 108 pp. Available on the

Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack/ ivanpahsolar/fedstatus.html

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise

populations. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office. Reno, Nevada. March 2012. 18 pp.

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/%20nextlight_renewable0.html

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/%20nextlight_renewable0.html

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack/%20ivanpahsolar/fedstatus.html

U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceNEVADAIvanpah Valley

Silver State South - No Action

UTM ZONE 11NAD 83

0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers

PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICELAS VEGAS, NEVADALAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010MAP DATE: BASEMAP: MERIDIAN: N/AFILE:

LegendSilver State NorthOther Alternatives1.4 mile distance from suitable habitatE edge of DT habitat4200 foot line

Highly Suitable:Very gravelly sandy loam

Creosote-Bursage

Semi-suitable:Extremely gravellyCreosote-Bursage

Unsuitable:Cobbles and BouldersBlackbrush and Yucca

Primm, Nevada

0 21Miles


Silver State South - Alternative B

UTM ZONE 11NAD 83

0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers


LegendAlternative BSilver State NorthOther Alternatives1.4 mile distance from suitable habitatE edge of DT habitat4200 foot line


Creosote-Bursage



Primm, Nevada

0 10.5Miles


Silver State South - Alternative C

UTM ZONE 11NAD 83

0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers


LegendAlternative CSilver State NorthOther Alternatives1.4 mile distance from suitable habitatE edge of DT habitat4200 foot line


Creosote-Bursage



Primm, Nevada

0 10.5Miles


Silver State South - Alternative D

UTM ZONE 11NAD 83

0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers


LegendAlternative DSilver State NorthOther Alternatives1.4 mile distance from suitable habitatE edge of DT habitat4200 foot line


Creosote-Bursage



Primm, Nevada

0 10.5Miles

Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle Management and Permit

Issuance

Joel E. Pagel, Ph.D.1,

Diana M. Whittington2,

George T. Allen, Ph.D.2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

February, 2010

1 Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California 2 Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia

1

Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations Table of Contents:

I Purpose 1

II Background 1

III Management Need 5

IV Basic Golden Eagle Ecology 6

V Golden Eagle Responses to Disturbance 9

VI Overall Objectives of the Golden Eagle Survey Protocol 10

VII Inventory Techniques 10

VIIa Procedures for Aerial and Ground Monitoring Surveys 11

VIIb Aerial Surveys 13

VIIc Ground Surveys 16

VIII Observer qualifications 18

IX Documentation and Accepted Notation of Territory/Nest Site 19 and Area Surveyed X Additional Considerations 20 XI Acknowledgements 21 XII Literature Cited 21 XIII Glossary 26 Recommended citation: Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim Golden Eagle technical guidance: inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations in support of eagle management and permit issuance. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1

I. Purpose

This document identifies the inventory and monitoring effort recommended for determining and evaluating potential `Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos canadensis) use of habitat including nest sites, roosts, and territories, as well as the rationale for identifying and evaluating foraging locations during breeding and non‐breeding periods. It also outlines recommended monitoring techniques to ascertain occupancy and reproductive success at territories. These field efforts can be used by agencies authorizing activities and their permittees (i.e. action agency; see Glossary). They provide guidance for avoiding and minimizing disturbance and other kinds of take, including lethal take, and are a necessary component of short and long‐term site specific monitoring and management of local Golden Eagles and regional Golden Eagle populations. The data gathered will provide information on the baseline circumstances for evaluation of permit applications and foundation for permit conditions, as well as assist planners so they may conduct informed impact analyses and mitigation during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Data collected via this effort will also help:

1. Determine the fate and reproductive trends of regional nesting populations via collating information from observed territories;

2. Document and list historical and unsurveyed habitat for future analysis to assist in determining local and regional population trajectories;

3. Provide information to document whether local Golden Eagle conservation efforts are meeting goals for improvements in the status of the species; and

4. Provide a foundation for evaluation of whether and which activities or conditions may be affecting Golden Eagles.

Additional protocols will be developed to support Golden Eagle management. We will prioritize development of a statistically rigorous, cost‐effective sampling strategy to facilitate a landscape‐scale approach to Golden Eagle conservation and reduce the burden on individual proponents as well as land‐management agencies.

For purposes of this document, we define 1) Inventory as: the systematic observations of the numbers, locations, and distribution of Golden Eagles and eagle resources such as suitable habitat and prey in an area; 2). Monitoring as: inventories over intervals of time (repeated observations), using comparable methods so that changes can be identified, and including analysis of inventory data or measurements to evaluate change within or to defined metrics; and 3) Survey is used when referring to inventory and monitoring combined.

II. Background

Golden Eagles are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act), both of which prohibit take. Take means pursue, shoot, shoot at,

2

poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb. Disturb means “to agitate or bother a Bald Eagle or a Golden Eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”

Needs for Golden Eagle information and evaluation.

The Service’s overall management objective for golden eagle and bald eagle populations is to ensure no declines in breeding populations of either species. As part of an adaptive management approach to eagle permits and eagle management, the Service will assess, at least every five years, overall population trends, along with annual report data from permittees and other information to assess how likely future activities are to result in the loss of one or more eagles, a decrease in productivity of Golden Eagles, and/or the permanent loss of a nest site, territory, or important foraging area. Therefore, implementation of eagle permit regulations will entail requirements for cumulative effects analyses and identifying the impacts of an activity. We include them here to provide the context and framework for the protocols and recommendations in this document.

Cumulative effect considerations.

Whether the take is compatible with eagle preservation includes consideration of the cumulative effects of other permitted take and additional factors affecting eagle populations. Cumulative effects are defined as: “the incremental environmental impact or effect of the proposed action, together with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (50 CFR 22.3). Numerous relatively minor disruptions to eagle behaviors from multiple activities, even if spatially or temporally distributed, may lead to disturbance that would not have resulted from fewer or more carefully sited activities. The accumulation of multiple land development projects or siting of multiple infrastructures that may be hazardous to eagles can cumulatively reduce the availability of alternative sites suitable for breeding, feeding, or sheltering, resulting in a greater than additive risk of take to eagles.

To ensure that impacts are not concentrated in particular localities to the detriment of locally‐important eagle populations, cumulative effects need to be considered at the population management level—roughly, Service Regions for Bald Eagles and Bird Conservation Regions for Golden Eagles—and, especially for project‐specific analyses, at local area population levels (the population within the average natal dispersal distance of the nest or nests under consideration). Eagle take that is concentrated in particular areas can lead to effects on the larger management population because 1) disproportionate take in local populations where

3

breeding pairs are 'high' producers may reduce the overall productivity of the larger population; and 2) when portions of the management population become isolated from each other the productivity of the overall management population may decrease.

Identifying the Impacts of the Activity

The applicant for an Eagle Act permit (who can be a project proponent or the agency preparing the NEPA), has four subtasks to determine the likely effects of a project or activity on eagles:

a. Collection and synthesis of biological data. If applying for an Eagle Act permit, an applicant may need to provide up‐to‐date biological information about eagles that breed, feed, shelter, and/or migrate in the vicinity of the activity and may potentially be affected by the proposed activity. Biological information can include locations and distribution of nests, delineation of territories, prey base, general composition and relative abundance, and productivity data.

b. Identifying activities that are likely to result in take. As part of the permit application, the applicant will be asked to include a complete description of the actions that: (1) are likely to result in eagle take, and (2) for which the applicant or landowner has some form of control. For most applications, the activity will be specific and well‐defined (e.g., home construction; water use development) or land use activity (e.g., forestry). For larger‐scale permits, each applicant will need to determine the extent of impacts to include in the permit authorization and, if necessary, which ones to exclude.

c. Avoidance and minimization measures. An application for a § 22.26 permit will need to document the measures to which the applicant will commit to avoid and minimize the impacts to eagles to the maximum degree practicable.

d. Quantifying the anticipated take. The take authorized under a permit will depend on a variety of factors, including: (1) the number of eagles that breed, feed, shelter, and or migrate within the activity area, (2) the degree to which the eagles depend on that area for breeding, feeding, or sheltering, or migration, and thus are more likely to be present and affected, (3) the potential of that type of activity in general to take eagles, (4) the scale of the activity, and (5) the measures the applicant will undertake to avoid and minimize the take.

Federal agencies have additional responsibilities to Golden Eagles under Executive Order 13186 (66 FR 3853, January 17, 2001), which reinstated the responsibilities of Federal Agencies to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The Executive Order establishes a process for Federal Agencies to conserve migratory birds by avoiding or minimizing unintentional take and taking actions that benefit species to the extent practicable. Agencies are expected to take

4

reasonable steps that may include restoring and enhancing habitat. Environmental analyses of Federal actions required by NEPA or other environmental review processes must evaluate the effects of actions and Federal agency plans on migratory birds, including Golden Eagles.

Golden Eagle populations are believed to be declining throughout their range in the contiguous United States (Harlow and Bloom 1989, Kochert and Steenhof 2002, Kochert et al. 2002, Good et al. 2007, Farmer et al. 2008, Smith et al. 2008, 74 FR 46836‐46879). The Service has modeled current data (USFWS 2009, Appendix C), employing Moffat’s equilibrium (Hunt 1998) and Millsap and Allen’s (2006) analysis of anthropogenic demographic removal, and estimated that the floating (non‐breeding and surplus) component of the Golden Eagle population in some areas may be limited at this time. Data from the Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. surveys from 2006 through 2009 suggest a decline since 2006 in the total Golden Eagle population within the area covered by the surveys (Neilson et al. 2010, USFWS 2009, Appendix C). Significant Golden Eagle breeding failures have been reported in some areas of the southwestern United States (WRI 2009), and declines in counts of migrating Golden Eagles have been reported in most areas in the western United States (Farmer et al. 2008, Smith et al. 2008), although it is unclear if the latter is linked to the general decrease in the number of eagles.

III. Management Need

Prior to initiating inventory and monitoring efforts, land management agencies and/or proponents of land use activities should first assess all existing recent and historical data available on eagles. These data include information on nests, reproductive activity and chronologies, natal dispersal, pertinent data from VHF and satellite telemetry, winter roosts, migration corridors, and foraging habitats contained within 4 ‐ 10 miles of areas slated for development or authorizations for increased human activity. This background search of available information may yield few data, but will alert project proponents and regulatory staff about data gaps, and existing knowledge of Golden Eagles for that area. Inventory, monitoring, and research activities may then be identified and funded to fill in site specific information gaps to avoid take of Golden Eagles. Specific recommendations for the number of years needed for baseline data and measures to avoid take should be developed in coordination with the Service, and, to reduce redundancy between management and permitting requirements, consistent with permit requirements outlined in the Draft Implementation Guidelines for the new rules (expected fall 2010).

Projects in Golden Eagle breeding home ranges on federal, state, and private land possibly will have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with or exacerbated by, factors such as: recreation disturbance, electrocution, urbanization, illegal shooting, invasive species altering prey densities, lead poisoning, other contaminants, climate change, and prolonged drought

5

adversely affecting Golden Eagle prey abundance and distribution. In many cases, existing data may not be adequate for NEPA, planning, or permitting purposes. Therefore, inventory and subsequent monitoring of Golden Eagles and components of their habitats are important to 1) develop a baseline prior to project planning and prior to project development in Golden Eagle habitat, 2) analyze impacts to the species, 3) continue to evaluate and report on the effects of the action and mitigation on Golden Eagles, 4) support adaptive management approaches, and 5) provide information that may be required for permits.

Project design, type, and siting of project footprint and infrastructure are critical to avoid disturbance and other take of Golden Eagles. The Service recommends that when planning locations of infrastructure and project boundaries, action agencies and project proponents consider life‐history components such as productivity, age‐class survival, dispersal, migration, winter‐concentration behavior, and foraging behavior during breeding and non‐breeding seasons to avoid lethal take. The Service recommends use of the best available or gathered information applicable to the location of the project or plan, but also encourages efforts to conduct further research. For permitting purposes however, and to determine the likelihood and magnitude of take, as well as effectiveness of mitigation, monitoring will need to yield productivity information.

Note: This document does not address site specific observations for transitory or wintering eagles; these protocols will be forthcoming. Although the life history for transitory and wintering eagles is not discussed at length here, that does not imply a lack importance for site‐specific observations from the Service’s perspective. The document provides general recommendations for factors to consider outside nesting, until more specific protocols are developed.

IV. Basic Golden Eagle Ecology

This account is not intended as a compendium of Golden Eagle natural history, biology, ethology, or ecology; please refer to Watson (1997), Palmer (1988) and Kochert et al. (2002) for more detailed information.

Where they exist, Golden Eagles are an upper‐trophic aerial predator, and eat small to mid‐sized reptiles, birds, and mammals up to the size of mule deer fawns and coyote pups (Bloom and Hawks 1982). They also are known to scavenge and utilize carrion (Kochert et al. 2002).

Golden Eagles nest in high densities in open and semi‐open habitat, but also may nest at lower densities in coniferous habitat when open space is available, (e. g. fire breaks, clear‐cuts, burned areas, pasture‐land, etc.). They can be found from the tundra, through grasslands, woodland‐brushlands, and forested habitat, south to arid deserts, including Death Valley, California (Kochert et al. 2002). Historically, Golden Eagles bred in the Plains and Great Lake

6

states. Golden Eagles currently breed in and near much of the available open habitat in North America west of the 100th Meridian, as well as in eastern United States in the northern Appalachian Mountains (Palmer 1988, Kochert et al. 2002). The Lee and Spofford (1990) review of the literature for the eastern portion of the United States suggested historical nesting Golden Eagles south of New York in the Appalachians was unlikely. Nesting of introduced Golden Eagles has been reported in Tennessee and northwestern Georgia (Kochert et al. 2002), but we do not know if those territories are still extant.

A nesting territory for the purpose of this monitoring protocol is an area that contains, or historically contained, one or more nests within the home range of a mated pair. It is a confined locality where nests are found, usually in successive years, and where no more than one pair is known to have bred at one time (Steenhof and Newton 2007).

Golden Eagles avoid nesting near urban habitat and do not generally nest in densely forested habitat. Individuals will occasionally nest near semi‐urban areas where housing density is low and in farmland habitat; however Golden Eagles have been noted to be sensitive to some forms of anthropogenic presence (Palmer 1988). Steidl et al. (1993) found when observers were camped 400 meters from nests of Golden Eagles, adults spent less time near their nests, fed their juveniles less frequently, and fed themselves and their juveniles up to 67% less food than when observers were camped 800 meters from nests. In studies of Golden Eagle populations in the southwest (New Mexico and Texas) and the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains (New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming), Boeker and Ray (1971) reported that human disturbance accounted for at least 85% of all known nest losses. Breeding adults are sometimes flushed from the nest by recreational climbers and researchers, sometimes resulting in the loss of the eggs or juveniles due to nest abandonment, exposure of juveniles or eggs to the elements, collapse of the nest, eggs being knocked from the nest by startled adults, or juveniles fledging prematurely. However, Golden Eagles rarely flushed from the nest during close approaches by fixed‐wing aircraft and helicopters during various surveys in Montana, Idaho, and Alaska (Kochert et al. 2002).

Golden Eagles nest on cliffs, in the upper one third of deciduous and coniferous trees, or on artificial structures (windmills, electricity transmission towers, artificial nesting platforms, etc.; Phillips and Beske 1990, Kochert et al. 2002). Golden Eagles build nests on cliffs or in the largest trees of forested stands that often afford an unobstructed view of the surrounding habitat (Beecham 1970, Beecham and Kochert 1975, Menkens and Anderson 1987). Usually, sticks and soft material are added to existing nests, or new nests are constructed to create a strong, flat or bowl shaped platform for nesting (Palmer 1988, Watson 1997, Kochert et al. 2002). Sometimes Golden Eagle will decorate multiple nests in a single year; continuing to do so until they lay eggs in the selected nest. The completed nest structure(s) can vary from large

7

and multi‐layered; or a small augmentation of sticks in caves with little material other than extant detritus (Ellis et al. 2009). Most Golden Eagle territories have up to 6 nests, but they have been found to contain up to 14 nests (Palmer 1988, Watson 1997, Kochert et al. 2002).

Onset of courtship and nesting chronology

Courtship for Golden Eagles involves stick‐carrying, display flights, and vocalization (Ellis 1979, Kochert et al. 2002). Golden Eagles partake in undulating flight; however, undulating flight has been observed year‐round and is thought to be associated more with aggression and territory defense than with courtship (Newton 1979, Harmata 1982, Collopy and Edwards 1989, Watson 1997).

Nesting chronologies vary however there are some generalities. In California and in Texas, courtship at territories start in mid to late December (Palmer 1988, Hunt et al. 1997, D. Bittner pers. com); in Texas eggs have been detected as early as November (Olberholser and Kincaid 1974, in lit.). In Utah, courtship can commence in January. In northern tier states at upper latitudes and higher elevation sites, egg laying can occur as early as February and March, before late winter snows and storms have abated (Palmer 1988).

Golden Eagles lay 1 to 4 eggs, with 4 egg clutches rare. Most nests have 2 eggs. The laying interval between eggs ranges between 3 to 5 days. Incubation commences as soon as the first egg is laid, and hatching is asynchronous and can begin as early as late January in southern California (Dixon 1937, Hickman 1968), mid April to late May in southwest Idaho (Kochert et al. 2002) and late March–early May in central and northern Alaska (McIntyre 1995, Young et al. 1995; Fig. 3). In Texas, eggs have been noted from November to June (Oberholser and Kincaid 1974, in lit.). In the northeast United States, eggs have been laid in March/April (Palmer 1988). For more detail, please refer to Kochert et al. (2002, Appendix 2).

Migration and Wintering

Golden Eagles will migrate from the Canadian provinces and northern tier and northeastern states to areas that are milder in the winter and/or may have less snow cover. Wintering Golden Eagles have been noted in all states in the continental U.S. (Wheeler 2003, 2007). Some segments of the population can be found near their nest sites throughout the year. See Kochert et al. (2002) for detailed listing of winter range.

Roosts or gathering behavior

Golden Eagles are not known to roost communally as is common with wintering Bald Eagles in some areas of the United States, but will gather together if local food sources are abundant. A

8

caveat to this is that Golden Eagles have perched with bald eagles where there have been large concentrations of waterfowl or carrion (Palmer 1988).

V. Golden Eagle Responses to Disturbance

Golden Eagles visibly display behavior that signifies disturbance when they are stressed by anthropogenic activities; whether it is a lone hiker walking 1000 meters or more from a nest, or extended construction or recreation activities 2000 – 5000 meters from a territory. These postures, movements and behaviors can be overt. However, with Golden Eagles, disturbance behaviors are often subtle and require an experienced observer. Olendorff (1971), Fyfe and Olendorff (1976), and Olsen and Olsen (1978) identified considerations when human interactions may disturb nesting activities, and how to ascertain critical distances to avoid agitating nesting, roosting, and foraging raptors. Factors affecting critical distances included:

1. Mannerisms of intruder, 2. Size of intruder, 3. Stage of breeding cycle, and 4. Topography and exposure of intruder in relation to bird.

Golden eagle behavior varies among individuals and can be affected by previous experiences. However, some behavioral generalities relative to direct and indirect disturbance include the following:

1. Agitation behavior (displacement, avoidance, and defense), 2. Increased vigilance at nest sites, 3. Change in forage and feeding behavior, and/or 4. Nest site abandonment.

Of the preceding behaviors, nest‐site abandonment constitutes take under the Eagle Act, as it is specifically cited in the definition of ‘disturb’. The other behaviors, when considered cumulatively, may be evidence that activities are interfering with normal breeding behavior and are likely to lead to take. Human intrusions near Golden Eagle nest sites have resulted in the abandonment of the nest; high nestling mortality due to overheating, chilling or desiccation when young are left unattended; premature fledging; and ejection of eggs or young from the nest (Boeker and Ray 1971, Suter and Joness 1981).

VI. Overall Objectives of the Golden Eagle Survey Protocol

This survey protocol is intended to standardize procedures to inventory and monitor Golden Eagles within the direct and indirect impact areas of planned or ongoing projects where disturbance or lethal take from otherwise permitted human activities is possible. This protocol

9

will identify eagle use areas and identify and minimize potential observer‐related disturbance to Golden Eagles by surveys when conducted by qualified and experienced raptor biologists.

Additionally, data collected using this protocol may be used for, at a minimum, 1), sampling other geographic areas where suitable habitat may be present; 2) short and long‐term analysis of Golden Eagle occupancy and productivity at known nest sites, and historical locations where observation to determine occupancy maybe necessary; 3) identification and evaluation of potential disturbance factors. This protocol can standardize data collection for potential local and regional analysis of long‐term occupancy, productivity and eagle use trends. It was developed to acquire data on Golden Eagle locations, occupancy, and productivity, and as such may require additional area‐specific detail if used for research purposes.

Objectives of inventory and monitoring

The first objective of these surveys is to provide methods to identify areas occupied by Golden Eagles and select factors their behavior ecology. Additional objectives of these surveys include the following:

1. Record and report occupancy and productivity of local Golden Eagle territories. 2. Document and list historical and unsurveyed habitat for future analysis to assist

in determining local and regional population trajectories. 3. Determine nesting chronologies. 4. Provide information to document whether local Golden Eagle conservation

efforts meet permit conditions or goals for improvements in the status of Golden Eagles.

5. Provide a foundation to evaluate whether and which activities or conditions may be affecting Golden Eagles.

6. Document foraging behavior, diet and habitat use within breeding and non‐breeding home ranges.

VII. Inventory Techniques

CAUTION

Golden Eagles are one of several cliff and tree dwelling species sensitive to human disturbance. Monitoring eagles in a manner that ‘disturbs’ them, and causes them to be ‘agitated or bothered’ can cause nesting failure, and permanent site abandonment, either of which constitutes take under the Eagle Act.

These monitoring protocols should facilitate observer caution and identify techniques that will minimize potential for take of Golden Eagles. For additional information regarding

10

preventing observer disturbance while surveying raptors, please refer to Fyfe and Olendorff (1976).

Inventory

Inventories for Golden Eagles should occur if nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat are contained within the project boundary and exist within 10 miles of the project boundary. Local and regional Golden Eagle habitat variability will dictate the distance from the project boundary where surveys will occur; distances will be greater in xeric or other habitats where local prey may not be abundant. The Service will be basing its site‐specific evaluations and final determinations on local conditions, not national averages.

Nesting habitat

This account is not intended as a compendium of Golden Eagle habitat available and used in North America; please refer to Palmer (1988) and Kochert et al. (2002) for more detailed information.

Golden Eagles use a wide variety of habitat throughout North America. Small xeric mountain ranges in the Mohave and Great Basin deserts, forested habitat in the Pacific coastal, southern desert, Great Basin, Rocky, Sierra, and Cascade Mountain ranges are also key nesting areas. Local and regional variation of nesting habitat should be considered prior to surveys; however should include cliff, desert scrub, juniper woodland, and forested habitat. For example, in the northern Great Basin, Golden Eagles nest on cliff and in scrub‐forest habitat; both types of substrates should be surveyed prior to projects that have a potential to affect eagles. Identification criteria for nesting habitat at the local scale should take place in coordination with the Service, state, or tribal wildlife agencies, and raptor experts.

VII.a. Procedures for aerial and ground inventory and monitoring surveys

Golden Eagles generally show strong fidelity to the nesting area annually. Occupancy determination is the most important goal of nest searches. Considerable suitable habitat exists in western North America that has never been adequately surveyed. Inventories should examine habitat where Golden Eagles are not currently known to exist but where suitable habitat is present, as well as previously inventoried areas to detect new activity. Monitoring efforts examine all historical and extant territories where Golden Eagles have been detected either previously or in the current survey.

A nesting territory or inventoried habitat should be designated as unoccupied by Golden Eagles ONLY after at least 2 complete aerial surveys in a single breeding season. In circumstances where ground observation occurs, at least 2 ground observation periods lasting at least 4 hours or more are necessary to designate an inventoried habitat or territory as unoccupied as long as

11

all potential nest sites and alternate nests are visible and monitored. These observation periods should be at least 30 days apart for inventories to detect occupancy, and at least 30 days apart for monitoring of known territories. Intervals between observations at occupied nesting territories may need to be flexible and should be based on the behavior of the adults observed, the age of any young observed, and the data to be collected (see below, Section IX). Dates of starting and continuing inventory and monitoring surveys should be sensitive to local nesting (i.e. laying, incubating, and brooding) chronologies, and would be conducted during weather conditions favorable for aerial surveys from medium to long range distances (300 – 700 meters).

The first inventory and monitoring surveys should be conducted during courtship when the adults are mobile and conspicuous. When a survey of historical territories is conducted, observers should focus their search on known alternative nests, and also carefully examine the habitat for additional nests which may have been overlooked or recently constructed. A ‘decorated’ nest will be sufficient evidence to indicate the probable location of a nesting attempt. If a decorated nest or pair of birds is located, the search can then be expanded to inventory likely habitat adjacent to the discovered territory to see if additional golden eagle territories can be observed.

Note: Identification of alternate nests will be needed by the Service for determination of relative value of individual nests to a territory in cases of applications for permits to take ‘inactive’ nests, and when determining whether abandonment of a particular nest is likely to result in abandonment of a territory. The Service has determined that territory loss or permanent abandonment of a territory is a greater impact to populations than temporary abandonment of a nest.

Weather: Avoid searching potential and known nesting locations during periods of heavy rain, snow, high winds, or severe cold weather. Golden Eagles should not be induced to flush at any time during the survey period. Flushing when the adults are incubating or have small young can be particularly hazardous for successful nesting, and could constitute lethal disturbance take. High temperatures also may cause problems for successful viewing over long distances due to heat waves. Further, observer related incidences of causing flight of adults that are shading young to prevent overheating during high temperatures may cause mortality of the young. Observation for Golden Eagles during inclement weather is impractical, uncomfortable, and unsafe for Golden Eagles and observers. Weather will be recorded by the observer.

Time of day: Aerial surveys should be conducted at the beginning of the day if winds permit. Likewise, ground surveys should be initiated, where possible, in morning hours

12

when the air is still to avoid heat waves. Prime observation periods are around dawn, or shortly thereafter. In some cases the angle of the sun in relation to the cliff can be a more important issue, and some cliffs are better observed in afternoon light, however observations of adult behavior that are used to determine nesting chronologies may be conducted during most of the day. Observers should be aware of the angle of the sun in relation to the observation post and the nest. Some sites are plagued by afternoon winds, heat waves, or dust storms; local observation conditions should be taken into account prior to establishing viewing periods. Time of day will be recorded by the observer.

Time of year: Breeding surveys for Golden Eagles are latitude and elevation dependent; however, their nesting season ranges in the contiguous United States from 01 January to 31 August (Kochert et al. 2002). Nesting failures and seasonal variations should be considered as potential anomalies to ‘normal’ behavior and nesting chronologies. Dates to be used as a cut‐off period for observation and reporting of nesting failures or non‐nesting status will vary per region. The dates listed below are to be used as general guides, and should not be used as final nest site failure survey determination dates. Location‐specific determination dates should be developed in coordination with the Service, state, or tribal wildlife agencies, and raptor experts.

Duration of stay at observation points: Ground observers will survey from observation points for a minimum of 4 hours, unless observations yield Golden Eagle presence, or Golden Eagle behavior indicate eggs or young, or observation suggests the observer is disturbing the birds. Slowly walking and observing all potential nesting substrate can be used to completely inventory potential habitat. Observation periods may last longer as longer observation periods may be necessary to accurately determine nesting chronologies. Duration of stay at known or suspected territories during helicopter reconnaissance, or during ground observation periods, will be recorded by the observer.

VII.b Aerial surveys

Helicopters are an accepted and efficient means to survey large areas of habitat to identify potential habitat and monitor known territories only if accomplished by competent and experienced observers. They can be the primary survey method, or can be combined with follow‐up ground surveys. Disturbance to eagles should be minimal only WHEN accepted aerial practices and techniques are followed. NOTE: Ground surveys can be used when their use is more efficient, or when other circumstances (e.g. bighorn sheep lambing areas) require this method.

13

Coordination between state and federal agencies is an important aspect of aerial surveys to develop acceptable search criteria to be used for identifying likely suitable nesting habitat and locating nests, as well as to be become acquainted with potential hazards and air space restrictions. Survey pilots should be aware of potential ground hazards within the habitat to be examined, including marked and unmarked transmission and wires. Other hazards to surveyors include rock‐fall or tree fall from above the helicopter, raptors or other birds colliding with the helicopter, and collision with other aircraft. Although pilots are often the first to note a flying raptor during surveys, some accidents involving wildlife researchers have been attributed to the pilots focusing on the survey, rather than giving their complete attention to flying the helicopter.

Helicopters used for surveying Golden Eagle habitat should be light utility, small to medium sized (such as the MD‐500/520, Eurocopter 145, Bell Jet‐Ranger 206, or UH‐72). The aircraft should be capable of vertical mobility in warm temperatures and at higher elevations. Inventories for raptors can be conducted with the main observer door(s) removed (which may provide more lateral and horizontal visibility), or with the doors closed. The decision regarding observer doors should remain a personal choice, with the safety of pilots and observers as the primary determinant.

Cliffs should be approached from the front, rather than flying over from behind, or suddenly appearing quickly around corners or buttresses. Inventories should be flown at slow speeds, ca. 30 – 40 knots. However, detection of nests may require slower speeds, e.g. 20 knots, while between nest speeds can be higher (+ 60 knots). All potentially suitable nesting habitats (as identified in coordination with the Service) should be surveyed; multiple passes at several elevation bands may be necessary to provide complete coverage when surveying potential nesting habitat on large cliff complexes, escarpments, or headwalls. Hovering for up to 30 seconds no closer than a horizontal distance of 20 meters from the cliff wall or observed nests may be necessary to discern nest type, document the site with a digital photograph of the nest, and if possible, allow for the observer to read patagial tags, count young, and age young in the nest (Hoechlin 1976). Confirmation of nest occupancy may be confirmed during later flights at a greater horizontal distance.

Re‐nesting is rare, but Golden Eagles may fail at their first nest attempt, and move to, or create, an alternate nest site. Multiple visits to known or potential nesting habitat may be necessary to provide complete observation and coverage of habitat.

To survey for the purpose of documenting presence/absence of Golden Eagles in potential habitat, at least 2 aerial observation flights of habitat are necessary. These flights will be spaced no closer than 30 days apart. Additional inventory work in the territory is not necessary after nests have been located where Golden Eagles are found incubating, or where eggs or

14

young and number of eggs or young are noted. At this point, the observation effort should switch to monitoring of the known territory. The nest location should be documented (see territory/nest naming convention, pp. 20.

Inventory and monitoring flights will be based on local knowledge of known nesting chronologies for that latitude and elevation, and should be timed to be the most efficient to reduce the number of visits to the nest site. Flights may occur preferentially during a) late courtship, b) egg‐laying though hatch, and/or c) when the young are between 20 and 51 days old. Productivity surveys are best scheduled when the young are 51 days old or more, but prior to fledging. Aerial visits at known nests may be augmented or replaced by ground observation (see below).

Other raptors or special status species may be observed during the flight, and should be recorded/reported. Coordination with state and federal agencies will be necessary when state or federally listed Threatened, Endangered or special status (species of concern, sensitive, etc.) species are present in the flight survey area (i.e. bighorn sheep, peregrine falcons, etc.). Bighorn sheep share the same type of cliff complexes Golden Eagles use for nesting, and are hyper‐sensitive to helicopters (Wehausen 1980, Bleich et al. 1990). Specifically for bighorn sheep lambing areas, helicopter reconnaissance and surveys for Golden Eagles are not possible as these flights will induce unpermitted take during the lambing season; all helicopter survey work for Golden Eagles should be avoided in known lambing areas. Ground observation will be necessary for inventory of cliff complexes and monitoring of potential and known Golden Eagle territories in bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Most Golden Eagles respond to fixed wing aircraft and helicopters by remaining on their nests, and continuing to incubate or roost (DuBois 1984, McIntyre 1995). Perched birds may flush. During aerial surveys, deference to flying eagles should be given at all times. Flights at nest sites should be terminated and the helicopter should bank away and move to the next location if Golden Eagles appear to be disturbed; i.e. behavior that indicates the birds are agitated by the presence of the helicopter. In short, observers should obtain their data, and leave as soon as possible.

Any disturbance behavior observed should be noted so that consecutive aerial surveys would be sensitive to Golden Eagles at that location. Aerial reconnaissance to inventory/monitor for potential habitat and additional visits at known nests may be augmented or replaced by ground observation from a safe distance (see below). Ground observation may be the recommended alternative to additional survey flights due to convenience or necessitated by other sensitive wildlife species. Follow‐up ground observation from a safe distance may also be the recommended alternative for additional nest site monitoring.

15

Observers in helicopters have specific duties. At least two observers may be best for aerial surveys; one the lead observer, the other(s) supplement survey effort. One observer is assigned to record data on a recorder (unless the verbal interchange can be recorded on the helicopters internal communication system), and the other briefly records data on hard‐copy and with digital photographs. Aerial observation routes should be recorded, downloaded, and reported using Global Positioning System track routes or applicable software programs. Observation locations and time‐on‐site should be recorded on applicable maps to ascertain coverage of cliff systems and other potentially suitable habitat.

Summary:

• Qualified observer(s) (as defined in section VIII).

• No closer than 10‐20 meters from cliff; no farther than 200 meters from cliff (safety dependent).

• Close approach and extended hovering is allowed when there are no birds on the nest to allow observers to count eggs, dead young, or confirm nest failure.

• Multiple passes or ‘bands’ (back and forth at different elevations above ground level) of observation across cliff habitat may be necessary to achieve complete coverage of a large cliff complex.

• Occupied territories and current and alternative nest sites will be documented; nests containing fresh branches should also be delineated.

• After a nest with eggs, young, or an incubating adult has been located, there is no need to search for other nests within the territory.

• Minimal hovering time at a known or potential nest should be less than 30 seconds.

• At least 2 surveys of previously unsurveyed habitat will be spaced at least 30 days apart.

VII.c. Ground Surveys

Ground surveys of potential habitat

Ground surveys for Golden Eagles in potential habitat may be achieved without aerial support, or may be used to augment extant aerial surveys. Ground surveys to detect Golden Eagle nests and the selected nest at known territories are effective in habitat where observation points are established to observe areas on cliffs, utility towers, or in trees suspected to be nesting habitat. As with aerial surveys, identification criteria for nesting habitat should take place in coordination with the Service, state or tribal wildlife agencies, and raptor specialists.

Observation posts (OPs) are established during initial reconnaissance of potential or known nest cliffs, and are established in locations that are far enough from the potential nest site to

16

effectively observe the behavior of the adults (if present) without disturbing nesting behavior. Well‐placed OPs provide unobstructed viewing of the potential nest location or of the area to be surveyed; including a broad panorama of the surrounding habitat. Multiple OPs or walking surveys may be necessary to observe potential nest sites. OPs located in front of, and below the potential nest cliff or tree are best. Placing OPs below the potential nest cliff reduces stress if an incubating adult may be present. The distance from an OP to the potential nest site may range from 300 – 1600 meters (latter represents extreme circumstances) from the cliff base to the observer, and generally no greater than 700 meters.

Golden Eagles may use alternative nests. Detection of previously unknown alternate nests and observation of all known alternative nests will become important if Golden Eagles fail in their initial nesting attempt, or are not observed at the probable nest location.

Ground monitoring; known territories

Monitoring to document nesting success at known territories may occur solely via ground observations. Observation of known territories should use the methodology described for ground monitoring of potential habitat (see section VIIc). Dates of all visits to the nesting territory will be recorded; date of confirmation of nesting failure will be key data for site specific and regional analysis.

Nesting outcomes

Fledging success will be determined via the observation of young that are at least 51 days of age, or are known to have fledged from the observed nest. If there is whitewash (Golden Eagle defecation) and a well worn nest, young were previously observed in the nest to be > 4 weeks old during a previous visit, and the young would have been > 51 days old at the time of the visit, and no dead young are found after a thorough ground search, the nesting attempt can be deemed successful.

Nesting failure occurs when a nest where eggs were laid or where incubation behavior was observed fails to have any young reach 51 days of age. If necessary, nesting failure will be confirmed by using a spotting scope to view the nest to determine if dead young are observed. Nesting failures may also be determined if observations of the nest prior to the projected fledge date yield no young or fledglings where eggs or young were previously observed. In these instances observation periods should last 4 hours (consecutively), or are confirmed by aerial survey. If dead young are observed in the nest (i.e. all young are dead), monitoring efforts may cease. Nest failures may also be confirmed by an approach (walk‐in) to the nest no more than 4 weeks after fledging was scheduled to occur. Observers will look for dead chicks at the base of the nest cliff or tree, where access is reasonable and safe.

17

Observers must document the criteria they use to conclude that success or failure occurred.

Summary

• Observation posts for monitoring known territories will be no closer than 300 meters for extended observations, and generally no further than 700 meters, where terrain allows. Maximum OP distance would be 1600 meters.

• To inventory and determine occupancy of cliff systems, there will be at least 2 observation periods per season. To determine fledging success, additional observations may (or may not) be necessary.

o Observation periods will last at least 4 hours for known nest sites, or until territory occupancy can be confirmed.

o Observation periods will last for at least 4 hours per 1.6 km of cliff system, based from the center point of that cliff complex.

o Observation periods will be at least 30 days apart for monitoring efforts. • To collect monitoring data at a known nest territory, there will be at least 2

observation periods per season. o Observation periods from ground observation points will last at least 4

hours for known nest sites or until nesting chronology can be confirmed per visit. Observation periods will be at least 30 days apart.

VIII. Observer qualifications

Surveyor experience affects the results of protocol‐driven raptor surveys. All observers should have the equivalent of 2 seasons of intensive experience conducting survey and monitoring of Golden Eagle and/or cliff dwelling raptors. That experience may include banding, intensive behavioral monitoring, or protocol‐driven survey work. Experience should be detailed and confirmed with references, and provided to action and regulatory agencies. All surveyors should be well‐versed with raptor research study design and Golden Eagle behavior and sign, including nests, perches, mutes, feathers, prey remains, flight patterns, disturbance behavior, vocalizations, age determination, etc. Aerial surveys should be conducted by raptor specialists who have at least 3 field seasons experience in helicopter‐borne raptor surveys around cliff ecosystems.

In lieu of limited or no Golden Eagle experience, ground surveyors should attend at least a 2‐day Golden Eagle training session convened with classroom and field components; trainers will be designated by the USFWS/USGS. Inexperienced or limited experience surveyors will be mentored by Golden Eagle specialists for at least 1‐2 field seasons, depending on their experience level, and should assist with the preparation of at least 3 surveys and reports over at least 3 years. A Golden Eagle specialist is defined as a biologist or ecologist with 5 or more years of Golden Eagle or cliff dwelling raptor research/survey experience, possession of

18

state/federal permit allowing capture, handling, and/or translocation of Golden Eagles and/or cliff dwelling raptors; and/or relevant research on raptors published in the peer reviewed literature.

IX. Documentation and recommended notation of territory/nest site and area surveyed

Data for each territory/nest site(s) and area visited should be reported annually to the applicable Regional Office of the USFWS or to the Division of Migratory Bird Management for collation into a national database. Information provided should include, as feasible: documentation of the methods and survey design used; available GIS layers, including nests, estimated territories, and flight paths for aerial surveys or OPs for ground surveys; and raw data in Excel format.

Recommended minimum data collected at known Golden Eagle territories

Observation of potential sites and known nest territories will produce data helpful to determine territory occupancy, productivity, and fate of the nesting attempt. Each observation and all site specific data collected should include at least;

a) Date of observation(s), b) Time of observation(s), c) Weather during observation(s), d) Duration of observation(s), e) Name of observer(s), f) Location of observation(s), and g) Description of observation(s).

Data collected during inventory and monitoring will include (at least) the following:

• Territory status [Unknown; Vacant; Occupied‐1 eagle; Occupied‐2 eagles‐ laying or non‐laying; Breeding successful (chick observed to be at least +51 days‐fledging), Breeding unsuccessful (failed‐nesting attempt failed after eggs were laid)].

• Nest location (decimal degree lat/long or UTM). • Nest elevation. • Age class of Golden Eagles observed. • Document nesting chronology;

o Date clutch complete (estimated). Describe incubation behavior observed to derive this date, and/or use backdating from known nestling age;

o Hatch date (estimated from age of nestlings); o Fledge date (known or estimated; see nesting outcomes, p. 18); o Date nesting failure first observed and/or confirmed; o Number of young at each visit and at >51 days of age;

19

o Digital photographs; a) landscape view of area inventoried, b) landscape view of territory, and c) nest(s); and

o Substrate upon which the nest is placed (tree species, cliff, or structure).

Additional data that can be collected include (but are not limited to):

• Presence or absence of bands (USGS and VID), patagial tags (number and color), or telemetry unit;

• Forage location (if known); • Prey items noted (if discerned); • Height of nest on cliff or in tree, and description of technique used to estimate

height; • Species of tree, type of rock, or type of structure used to support the nest; • Overall cliff or tree height, and description of technique used to estimate height; • Nest aspect; and • Other nesting raptors present nearby.

Each area surveyed using the guidance in this protocol, including surveyed habitat, occupied nesting territory, historical territory, and suspected/alternative nests, should be recorded in a standardized manner to allow local, regional, and national data analysis.

Recommended Golden Eagle Territory/site naming convention:

XX1‐XXX2‐XXXXX/XX3‐XXX4‐XX5 Territory name XX1 = State (two letter alpha) XXX2 = County (three letter alpha)

XX3= USGS Quad [five numeric/two letter alpha] (when the territory straddles adjacent quad maps, the quad in which the first nest was found will be used to describe the territory; XX5 is used to document the locations of alternate nests within a territory) XXX4=Assigned Territory number within USGS quad (three numeric) XX5=Assigned Nest number within territory in instances of alternate nests (two numeric) Site name=traditional site name, or if new, use local naming convention (e.g. Upper fork Amundsen Creek, Fort Peck flatland, Farmer Jane’s back 40)

Example CA‐KER‐38512/DG‐03‐02 Abbot Creek

X. Additional considerations

This interim document primarily contains methods for inventorying and monitoring at nest sites, but the prohibitions against take and the new regulations apply at nest sites and foraging areas, as well as during migration and other non‐breeding times. The Service will develop or adopt recommendations for surveys applicable to areas other than nest sites in other documents.

20

Suitable foraging habitat

Golden Eagles forage close to and far from their nests, i.e. < 6 km from the center of their territories, but have been observed to move 9 km from the center of their territories in favorable habitat (McGrady et al. 2002). These distances may be greater in xeric habitats.

Suitable wintering habitat

During winter, Golden Eagles are found throughout the contiguous United States. Surveys for wintering Golden Eagles will encompass all habitat where Golden Eagles have been known to nest, roost, and forage. Refer to Wheeler (2003, 2007) for maps of suitable wintering range.

Winter surveys

Survey information gathered during the non‐breeding period is needed to identify foraging areas and determine numerical estimates of use by Golden Eagles. Presence of Golden Eagles during winter surveys does not necessarily mean that breeding individuals are present; however follow‐up surveys during the breeding season are necessary to denote occupancy at suspected or known territories.

Migration surveys

The location of migration routes or areas in relation to a proposal that are likely to take Golden Eagles through injury or mortality may have critical implications. Therefore, evaluations should assess whether migratory or transient Golden Eagles are likely to be present during the construction and the life of the project. Other factors to consider include numbers of Golden Eagles moving through the project area, movement patterns (including a three‐dimensional spatial analysis), time of day, and seasonal patterns. In the case of wind development, surveys will need to identify the locations of migration routes and movements during migration in relation to proposed turbines and rotor‐swept area.

XI. Acknowledgments.

The authors are indebted to the expertise, experience, effort and kindness expended on all phases of this protocol by Dr. Mark Fuller (USGS), Mike Kochert (USGS Emeritis), and Karen Steenhof (USGS Retired). We greatly appreciate the time they took to review multiple drafts, and provide sound advice and guidance where necessary regarding all aspects of Golden Eagle inventory and monitoring. Robert Murphy’s comments on earlier drafts were also appreciated. We also appreciated Peter Bloom’s input and good humor regarding his observations of Golden Eagle natural history and monitoring, and the cover photograph of a Golden Eagle taken from beneath a calf carcass while he was in a southern California pit trap.

21

XII Literature Cited

BEECHAM, J.J. Jr. 1970. Nesting ecology of the Golden Eagle in southwestern Idaho. Master's thesis. Univ. of Idaho, Moscow.

BEECHAM, J.J. AND M.N. KOCHERT. 1975. Breeding biology of the golden eagle in southwestern Idaho. Wilson Bull. 87:506‐513.

BLEICH, V. C., R. T. BOWYER, A. M. PAULI, R. L. VERNOY, AND R. W. ANTHES. 1990. Responses of mountain sheep to helicopter surveys. Calif. Fish and Game 76:197‐204.

BLOOM, P.H. AND S.J. HAWKS. 1982. Food habits of nesting Golden Eagles in North‐east California and North‐west Nevada. J. Raptor Res. 16: 110‐115.

BLOOM, P.H. AND W.S. CLARK. 2001. Molt and sequence of plumages of golden eagles, and a technique for in‐hand ageing. N. Am. Bird Bander 26:97‐116.

BOEKER, E. L. and T .D. RAY. 1971. Golden eagle population studies in the southwest. Condor 73:463‐467.

BOEKER, E.L. 1974. Status of golden eagle surveys in the western states. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:46‐49.

COLLOPY, M.W. AND T.C. EDWARDS. 1989. Territory size, activity budget, and the role of undulation flight in nesting Golden Eagles. J. Field Ornithol. 60:43‐51.

DEGROOT, D.S. 1928. Record sets of eggs of California raptores [sic]. Condor 30:360‐361.

DIXON, J.B. 1937. The Golden Eagle in San Diego County, California. Condor 39:49‐58.

DUBOIS, K. 1984. Rocky Mountain Front raptor survey, December 1982‐November 1983, Fin. Rep. Montana Dep. Fish, Wildl., Parks, Helena.

ELLIS, D.H. 1979. Development of behavior in the golden eagle. Wildlife Monogr. No. 43.

ELLIS, D.H., T.CRAIG, E. CRAIG, S. POSTUPALSKY, C.T. LARUE, R.W. NELSON, D.W. ANDERSON, C.J. HENNY, J. WATSON, B.A. MILSAP, J.W. DAWSON, K.L. COLE, E.M. MARTIN, A. MARGALIDA, AND P. KUNG. 2009. Unusual raptor nests around the world. J. Raptor Res. 43:175‐198.

FARMER, C.J., L.J. GOODRICH, E. RUELAS INZUNZA, AND J.P. SMITH. 2008. Conservation status of North America’s birds of prey. Pp. 303 – 420 IN K.L. BILDSTEIN, J.P. SMITH, E. RUELAS INZUNZA AND R.R. VEIT (eds.). State of North America’s birds of prey. Series in Ornith. # 3, Nuttall Ornith. Club and the Am. Ornith. Union.

22

FYFE, R.W. AND R.R. OLENDORFF. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and other sensitive species. Canadian Wildl. Serv., Occas. Paper # 23.GOOD, R.E., R.M. NIELSON, H. SAWYER, AND L.L. MCDONALD. 2007. A population estimate for golden eagles in the western United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 71:395‐402.

GOOD, R.E., R.M. NIELSON, H. SAWYER AND L.L. MCDONALD. 2007. A population estimate for Golden Eagles in the western United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 71:395‐402.

HARLOW, D.L. AND P.H. BLOOM. 1989. Buteos and the Golden Eagle. Pp. 102‐110 in B.G. Pendleton, ed. Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and workshop. Natl. Wildl. Fed. Scien. Tech. Ser. No. 12.

HARMATA, A.R. 1982. What is the function of undulating flight display in Golden Eagles? Raptor Res. 16:103‐109.

HICKMAN, G.L. 1968. The ecology and breeding biology of the golden eagle in southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon. Draft number 2, U.S. Dept. Int. Bur. Sport Fish. and Wildl. Washington, D.C.

HOECHLIN, D.R. 1976. Development of golden eagles in southern California. Western Birds 7:137‐152.

HUNT, G.W., R.E. JACKMAN, T.L. BROWN, D.E. DRISCOLL, AND L. CULP. 1997. A population study of golden eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area; second‐year progress report. Predatory Bird Research Group, Long Marine Lab., UC Santa Cruz.

HUNT, G.W. 1998. Raptor floaters at Moffats equilibrium. Oikos 82:191‐197.

KOCHERT, M.N. AND K. STEENHOF. 2002. Golden eagles of the U.S. and Canada: status, trends and conservation challenges. J. Raptor Res. 36(S1):32‐40.

KOCHERT, M.N. K. STEENHOF, C.L. MCINTYRE AND E.H. CRAIG. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds). The Birds of North America, # 684. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

LEE, D.S. AND W.R. SPOFFORD. 1990. Nesting of golden eagles in the central and southern Appalachians. Wilson Bull. 102:693‐698.

NEWTON, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. T&AD Poyser, London.

NIELSON, R.M., T. RINTZ, M.B. STAHL, R.E. GOOD, L.L. MCDONALD AND T.L. MCDONALD. 2010. Results of the 2009 survey of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States. Western Ecosystems Tech. Inc. Contract # 201818C027 for the USFWS.

23

MCINTYRE, C.L. 1995. Nesting ecology of migratory golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in Denali National Park, Alaska. M.S. thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks.

MCGRADY, M.J., J.R. GRANT, I.P. BAINBRIDGE, AND D.R.A. MCLEOD. 2002. A model of golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ranging behavior. J. Raptor Res. 36 (1 Supplement):62‐69.

MENKENS, G.E., JR. AND S.H. ANDERSON. 1987. Nest site characteristics of a predominantly tree‐nesting population of golden eagles. J. Field Ornithol. 58:22‐25.

MILLSAP, B.A. AND G.T. ALLEN. 2006. Effects of falconry harvest on wild raptor populations in the United States: theoretical considerations and management recommendations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34:1392‐1400.

OBERHOLSER, H.C. AND E.B. KINCAID, JR. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 Volumes. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.

OLENDORFF, R.R. 1971. Falconiform reproduction; a review. Part 1. The pre‐nestling period. Raptor Res. Foundation Report # 1. Vermillion, SD.

OLSEN, P. AND J. OLSEN. 1978. Alleviating the impact of human disturbance on the breeding peregrine falcon: ornithologists. Corella 2:1‐7.

PALMER, R.S. 1988. Golden eagle. IN R.S. PALMER (ed.). Handbook of North American birds. Yale Univ. Press.

PHILLIPS, R.L. AND A.E. BESKE. 1990. Distribution and abundance of golden eagles and other raptors in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish and Wildlife Service Tech. Rept. 27. Washington DC.

PHILLIPS, R.L., A.H. WHEELER, J.M. LOCKHART, T.P. MCENEANEY, N.C. FORRESTER. 1990. Nesting ecology of golden eagles and other raptors in southeastern Montana and northern Wyoming. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish and Wildlife Service Tech. Rept. 26. Washington, DC.

SMITH, J.P., C.J. FARMER, S.W. HOFFMAN, G.S. KALTENECKER, K.Z. WOODRUFF, AND P.F. SHERRINGTON. 2008. Trends in autumn counts of migratory raptors in western North America. Pages 217‐254 IN K.L. BILDSTEIN, J.P. SMITH, E. RUELAS INZUNZA AND R.R. VEIT (eds.). State of North America’s birds of prey. Series in Ornith. # 3, Nuttall Ornith. Club and the Am. Ornith. Union.

STEENHOF, K. AND I. NEWTON. 2007. Assessing nesting success and productivity. Pages 181‐191 IN D.M. BIRD AND K.L. BILDSTEIN (eds.). Raptor research and management techniques. Hancock House, Surrey B.C.

24

STEIDL, R. J., K. D. KOZIE, G. J. DODGE, T. PEHOVSKI and E. R. HOGAN. 1993. Effects of human activity on breeding behavior of golden eagles in Wrangell‐St. Elias National Park and Preserve; a preliminary assessment. National Park Service, Wrangell‐St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Copper Center, Alaska, WRST Research and Resource Report; no. 93‐3.

SUTER, G.W., H, and J.L. JONESS. 1981. Criteria for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and prairie falcon nest site protection. J. Raptor Res. 15:12‐18.

USFWS [U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE]. 2009. Final environmental assessment; Proposal to permit take as provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Washington, DC.

WATSON, J. 1997. The golden eagle. T&AD Poyser, London.

WEHAUSEN, J.D. 1980. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: history and population ecology. PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan.

WRI [WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.]. 2009. Western Mohave 2008 raptor survey; BLM Johnson Valley and Stoddard Valley open areas and environs. WRI for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, CA.

WHEELER, B.K. 2003. Raptors of western North America; the Wheeler Guides. Princeton Univ. Press.

WHEELER, B.K. 2007. Raptors of eastern North America; the Wheeler Guides. Princeton Univ. Press.

YOUNG, D.D., JR., C.L. MCINTYRE, P.J. BENTE, T.R. MCCABE AND R.E. AMBROSE. 1995. Nesting by golden eagles on the north slope of the Brooks Range in northeastern Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 373‐379.

25

XIII Glossary

Action agency – an agency or entity authorizing an action or plan, or providing funding for actions and plans.

Active nest (from the regulations) — a Golden Eagle nest characterized by the presence of any adult, egg, or dependent young at the nest in the past 10 consecutive days immediately prior to, and including, at present. Applies only to applications for permits to take eagle nests.

Breeding home ranges ‐ the spatial extent or outside boundary of the movement of individuals from Golden Eagle pairs during the course of everyday activities during the breeding season.

Decorated nest – A nest upon which eagles have placed greenery. May constitute evidence of territory occupancy.

Inactive nest (from the regulations) ─ a Golden Eagle nest that is not currently being used by eagles as determined by the continuing absence of any adult, egg, or dependent young at the nest for at least 10 consecutive days immediately prior to, and including, at present. An inactive nest may become active again and remains protected under the Eagle Act.

Inventory –systematic observations of the numbers, locations, and distribution of Golden Eagles and eagle resources such as suitable habitat and prey in an area.

Local area population — the population within the average natal dispersal distance of the nest or nests under consideration (43 miles for bald eagles, 140 miles for golden eagles). Effects to the local area population are one consideration in the evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of take, and the mitigation for such take, under eagle take permits.

Migration corridors ‐ the routes or areas where eagles may concentrate during migration. Golden Eagles begin migrating across a broad front, but tend to concentrate along leading lines (geographical features such mountain ridges) as they move between geographic locations. Golden Eagles are observed in largest numbers along north‐south oriented mountain ranges where they soar on mountain updrafts. The species typically avoids lengthy water‐crossings. In North America, migrating Golden Eagles concentrate along the Appalachian Mountains in the East and Rocky Mountains in the West.

Management agency ‐ see Action Agency.

Monitoring ‐ inventories over intervals of time (repeated observations), using comparable methods so that changes can be identified. Monitoring assessment includes analysis of inventory data or measurements to evaluate change within or to defined metrics. Monitoring also includes repeated observations on a known nesting territory.

26

Occupied Nest ‐ a nest used for breeding in the current year by a pair. Presence of an adult, eggs, or young, freshly molted feathers or plucked down, or current years’ mutes (whitewash) suggest site occupancy. Additionally, for the purposes of these guidelines, all breeding sites within a breeding territory are deemed occupied while raptors are demonstrating pair bonding activities and developing an affinity to a given area. If this culminates in an individual nest being selected for use by a breeding pair, the other nests in the nesting territory will no longer be considered occupied for the current breeding season. A nest site remains occupied throughout the periods of initial courtship and pair‐bonding, egg laying, incubation, brooding, fledging, and post‐fledging dependency of the young.

Unoccupied Nests ‐ those nests not selected by raptors for use in the current nesting season. Nests would also be considered unoccupied for the non‐breeding period of the year. The exact point in time when a nest becomes unoccupied should be determined by a qualified wildlife biologist based upon observations and that the breeding season has advanced such that nesting is not expected. Inactivity at a nest site or territory does not necessarily indicate permanent abandonment.

Productivity ─ the mean number of individuals fledged per occupied nest annually.

Survey –is used when referring to inventory and monitoring combined.

Suggested Priority of Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management

(For External Distribution)

March 9, 2010

1. Avoid any take of migratory birds and/or minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of migratory bird habitat while completing the proposed project or action.

2. Determine if the proposed project or action will involve below- and/or above-

ground construction activities since recommended practices and timing of surveys and clearances could differ accordingly.

3. If the proposed project or action includes a reasonable likelihood that take of migratory birds will occur, then complete actions that could take migratory birds outside of their nesting season. This includes clearing or cutting of vegetation, grubbing, etc. The primary nesting season for migratory birds varies greatly between species and geographic location, but generally extends from early April to mid-July. However, the maximum time period for the migratory bird nesting season can extend from early February through late August. Also, eagles may initiate nesting as early as late December or January depending on the geographic area. Due to this variability, project proponents should consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Program (USFWS) for specific nesting seasons. Strive to complete all disruptive activities outside the peak of migratory bird nesting season to the greatest extent possible. Always avoid any habitat alteration, removal, or destruction during the primary nesting season for migratory birds. Additionally, clearing of vegetation in the year prior to construction (but not within the nesting season) may discourage birds from attempting to nest in the proposed construction area, thereby decreasing chance of take during construction activities.

4. If a proposed project or action includes the potential for take of migratory birds

and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and work cannot occur outside the migratory bird nesting season (either the primary or maximum nesting season), project proponents will need to provide the USFWS with an explanation for why work has to occur during the migratory bird nesting season. Further, in these cases, project proponents also need to demonstrate that all efforts to complete work outside the migratory bird nesting season were attempted, and that the reasons work needs to be completed during the nesting season were beyond the proponent’s control.

Also, where project work cannot occur outside the migratory bird nesting season, project proponents must survey those portions of the project area during the nesting season prior to construction occurring to determine if migratory birds are present and nesting in those areas. In addition to conducting surveys during the

nesting season/construction phase, companies may also benefit from conducting surveys during the prior nesting season Such surveys will assist the company in any decisions about the likely presence of nesting migratory birds or sensitive species in the proposed project or work area. While individual migratory birds will not necessarily return to nest at the exact site as in previous years, a survey in the nesting season in the year before construction allows the company to become familiar with species and numbers present in the project area well before the nesting season in the year of construction. Bird surveys should be completed during the nesting season in the best biological timeframe for detecting the presence of nesting migratory birds, using accepted bird survey protocols. USFWS Offices can be contacted for recommendations on appropriate survey guidance. Project proponents should also be aware that results of migratory bird surveys are subject to spatial and temporal variability. Finally, project proponents will need to conduct migratory bird surveys during the actual year of construction, if they cannot avoid work during the primary nesting season (see above) and if construction will impact habitats suitable for supporting nesting birds.

5. If no migratory birds are found nesting in proposed project or action areas

immediately prior to the time when construction and associated activities are to occur, then the project activity may proceed as planned.

6. If migratory birds are present and nesting in the proposed project or action area,

contact your nearest USFWS Ecological Services Field Office and USFWS Region Migratory Birds Program for guidance as to appropriate next steps to take to minimize impacts to migratory birds associated with the proposed project or action.

* Note: these proposed conservation measures assume that there are no Endangered or Threatened migratory bird species present in the project/action area, or any other Endangered or Threatened animal or plant species present in this area. If Endangered or Threatened species are present, or they could potentially be present, and the project/action may affect these species, then consult with your nearest USFWS Ecological Services Office before proceeding with any project/action. ** The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, and transportation, (among other actions) of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically permitted by regulations. While the Act has no provision for allowing unauthorized take, the USFWS realizes that some birds may be killed during construction and operation of energy infrastructure, even if all known reasonable and effective measures to protect birds are used. The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that have taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds, and by encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take of migratory birds. It is not possible to absolve

individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality avoidance or other similar protective measures. However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting individuals and companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all reasonable, prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to work closely with Service biologists to identify available protective measures when developing project plans and/or avian protection plans, and to implement those measures prior to/during construction or similar activities. *** Also note that Bald and Golden Eagles receive additional protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). BGEPA prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export or import, of any Bald or Golden Eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit. Further, activities that would disturb Bald or Golden Eagles are prohibited under BGEPA. “Disturb” means to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden Eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an Eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. If a proposed project or action would occur in areas where nesting, feeding, or roosting eagles occur, then project proponents may need to take additional conservation measures to achieve compliance with BGEPA. New regulations (50 CFR § 22.26 and § 22.27) allow the take of bald and golden eagles and their nests, respectively, to protect interests in a particular locality. However, consultation with the Migratory Bird, Ecological Services, and Law Enforcement programs of the Service will be required before a permit may be issued.

Eagle Take Permitting under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 8: Interim Guidance for External Partners May 2010

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed regulations (Federal Register 72:31132-31140, 05 June 2007 and Federal Register 74:46835-46879; 11 September 2009) that provide a definition of disturbance, and allow permits to take eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (50 CFR 22.26). Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, “take” is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb.” “Disturb” is defined in the regulations as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” The Eagle Act provides for individual and programmatic permits that are consistent with the goal of stable or increasing eagle breeding populations. Individual permits can be authorized in limited instances of disturbance, and in certain situations other take, but individual permits do not authorize landscape-scale impacts, mortalities or injuries. However, with adequate population data and projections for take and mitigation, programmatic permits may authorize take over a longer period of time or across a larger area. Specifically, the regulation set forth in 50 CFR § 22.26 provides for issuance of permits to take bald eagles and golden eagles where the taking is associated with but not the purpose of the activity and cannot practicably be avoided. Most take authorized under this section will be in the form of disturbance; however, permits may authorize non-purposeful take that may result in mortality. The regulation at 50 CFR § 22.27 establishes permits for removing eagle nests where: (1) necessary to alleviate a safety emergency to people or eagles; (2) necessary to ensure public health and safety; (3) the nest prevents the use of a human-engineered structure; or (4) the activity or mitigation for the activity will provide a net benefit to eagles. Only inactive nests may be taken, except in the case of safety emergencies. Inactive nests are defined by the continuous absence of any adult, egg, or dependent young at the nest for at least 10 consecutive days leading up to the time of take. The Final Environmental Assessment ((FEA) (USFWS 2009)) for eagle take permitting outlines an approach to the development of Advanced Conservation Practices (ACPs) that will, in part, provide the basis for programmatic permit conditions. Working with entities to craft effective conservation measures has been initiated but not yet completed for many activities. Therefore, in most cases and in most areas, programmatic permits have not yet been developed. However, use of interim measures consistent with the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations can help in the development of ACPs as well as programmatic permits.

The development of renewable energy is a top priority for this Administration and the Department of the Interior. However, activities such as solar, wind and geothermal development on and off public lands have the potential to impact eagles and their habitat. The Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM) and the Branch of Conservation Planning Assistance (CPA) have developed an approach, outlined below, to addressing eagle conservation needs while continuing to work with our federal and industry partners on current energy proposals. Interim Approach While the Service’s eagle permitting program is being refined, we will continue working with other agencies, industries, individual project developers and NGOs on the siting and operation of development projects, with particular regard to energy. The Service’s goal continues to be to collaborate with our partners on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The following provides guidance to Service personnel and others while the eagle take permitting program is further developed and implemented.

1. The Service’s Ecological Services Field Offices, in close cooperation with the Regional Migratory Bird Program, will provide most of the early technical assistance, where biologists will work with project proponents to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of projects on eagles and other wildlife. Field staff, with assistance from Regional Offices, Service raptor ecologists, and in coordination with Migratory Bird Offices, will assess the potential for impacts to eagles, including take, using the best available current and historic information and appropriate risk analysis tools. Field staff should use the best available conservation techniques and their knowledge of the area to recommend site specific conservation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to breeding and non-breeding eagles until the National Raptor Conservation Measures and Advanced Conservation Practices are available. Results of the impact analysis and mitigation planning should be recorded in mitigation plans, Avian and Bat Protection Plans (ABPPs), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or other functionally equivalent documents. Depending on the size and potential impacts of the project, as well as the stage of planning and permitting, any combination of these documents could be employed to formalize mitigation plans with developers and further the goal of eagle conservation. With large projects or multiple projects within an area, these documents may serve as an interim step while a programmatic permit is considered. The Service’s Field Offices, in consultation with Migratory Bird Offices, will recommend which document(s) are most appropriate.

2. Data on eagle territory home range, productivity dispersal, breeding and non-

breeding season foraging, prey base, and non-breeding season movements and migration for each site specific circumstance should be collected at the earliest opportunity in collaboration with federal, state, Tribal and private partners. To the extent feasible, new installations of potentially lethal facilities should be sited outside of known and/or suspected eagle territory home ranges, as well as outside of areas where flight behavior, topography and weather may affect eagle take. Project proponents are encouraged to cooperate with the Service early in the

planning process to develop the level of avoidance and protection commensurate with the potential of risk to the eagles. Assessment documents (e.g., NEPA) should describe the risks to eagles to the broadest extent possible, however, if site/region specific data are lacking, these documents should describe the limits of the analysis, the need for additional data, and the mitigation approach to be used in light of data uncertainties, potential errors and overall confidence of the assessment, as well as compensatory mitigation to meet the no net loss threshold. Measures to meet the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations should be specified. Draft documents are being developed concerning non-breeding season surveys and regional population sampling design recommendations. Contact the Service for the most recent information on breeding, non-breeding, and population level survey design.

3. Project mitigation should include conservation measures addressing the siting and operation of the facility, post construction monitoring and reporting on impacts to eagles, and adaptive management measures that outline potential approaches to modify the project if eagle take (including disturbance) occurs. These measures are frequently documented in ABPPs; however, other documents, including those already mentioned above could also serve as Service-approved conservation plans for a developer and/or lead agency. Conservation planning documents should be consistent with the goal of stable or increasing eagle breeding populations in order to facilitate eagle conservation.

4. ABPPs or other appropriate site and species specific mitigation plans may also

serve as part of the application process should a programmatic eagle permit be sought. The programmatic permit may be able to build from the ABPP, reducing coordination time. However, additional information may be needed for a proposed project and/or geographic area to meet requirements for a programmatic permit.

5. Eagle take permits are not a legal requirement of development. However, any

activity is subject to the prohibition of take found in the Eagle Act. It is the Service’s intent to collaborate with developers to avoid take, and if necessary to develop permits as a conservation tool to be used when a project is reasonably likely to take eagles.

6. The regulation and FEA also reiterated that the Service has an obligation to

consult with Native American Tribes before authorizing any take that would affect their interests. Take thresholds, permit conditions, cumulative impact analyses, and management recommendations have been or will be designed to ensure the Service’s ability to meet the preservation standard of the Eagle Act and be compatible with the Service’s Tribal Trust responsibilities.

7. If the construction and implementation of a proposed project results in take of an

eagle, and the project proponent chooses not to work with the Service, or to ignore suggestions for mitigating the risks to eagles, the project proponent and/or action agency could be vulnerable to prosecution under the Eagle Act.

8. For golden eagles, and in some areas for bald eagles, a landscape-scale, multi-party approach to eagle conservation may offset impacts from take. The FEA recommends that "in some instances it may be advisable to develop geographically-based programmatic permits involving more than one industry or agency." Parties involved in projects which may impact eagles are encouraged to cooperate fully to minimize adverse cumulative impacts to eagles.

ABPPs can be an important tool while the ACPs are being developed. However, the cumulative impacts of development on eagle populations need further evaluation. Applicants and Field Offices should include cumulative impacts analysis into ABPPs where the information is available. It may be necessary to maintain ABPP’s as dynamic documents after the ACPs and other elements of programmatic permits are finalized, so that the ABPP includes the refinement of additional analysis and conservation measures. Additional information on the Eagle Act can be found on the Service’s website at:

http://www.fws.gov/cno/conservation/migratorybirds.html Reference

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment Proposal To Permit Take As Provided Under The Bald And Golden Eagle Protection Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.

United States Department of the Interior

In Reply Refer To: FWS/AFIIC·IIRC·CPAl045617

Memorandum

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington. D.C. 20240

AUG 03 2010

To: Service Directorate Acting Deputv From: Director

Subject: Service Whi P er roviding Guidance for the Development of ProjectSpecific AVian and Bat Protection Plans for Renewable Energy Facilities

Attached is a Service white paper on the development of specific Avian and Bat Protection Plans (ABPPs) or Avian Protection Plans (APPs) for renewable energy facilities. The white paper provides the components that would be incorporated into ABPPs or APPs, and is consistent with previous Service recommendations. This paper is a guide and field offices should apply it to projects as appropriate. Although the concept of ABPPslAPPs is relatively new, the Service has received numerous requests for guidance in ABPP/APP development. The white paper provides considerations for ABPPs and APPs while the national ABPP guidance and template are under development.

The Bureau o f Land Management (BLM) has provided an Instructional Memorandum (1M) to their regional and field offices directing stafT, when needed, to collaborate with the Service in develop ing ABPPs or APPs for current and future renewable energy projects. The 1M directs BLM staff to acqu ire written concurrence from the Service that the ponions of ABPPslAPPs applicable to federal trust species adequately addresses potential impacts prior to signing a project's otice to Proceed. We will soon provide suggested language for those concurrence letters.

The development ofan ABPP or an APP should begin at the earliest planning stages of a proposed project. However, the white paper may be applied to projects that have progressed into later stages. Suggestions on micrositing turbines, facility operations, wildlife monitoring and adaptive management should be applied to the extent practicable in the development of ABPPs or APPs that are already beyond the site planning stage. As with all projects, Service Field Offices will work with applicants to apply these suggestions to specific projects and acquire the needed infomlation.

TAKE PRIDE°Ilf::-1 INAMERlCA~

While the development and implementation of AB PPs arc voluntary. a sound and properly implemented ABPP may represent a "good faith" effort by a company or other project proponents to conserve migratory birds and bats when deve loping a renewable energy project. However, an ASPP should not be used as a substitute for complying with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act when a renewable energy project is expected to cause take of endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, the preparation oran ABPP does not limit or preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor does it release any individual, company, or agency of its obligat ions to comply with Federal , State, or local laws, statutes, or regulations.

Attachment

2

Attachment

Considerations for Avian and Bat Protection Plans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service White Paper

July, 2010 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is developing national Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) guidance for wind energy and other renewable energy projects. Until this guidance is approved, the Service has prepared this white paper that provides a template for content and discussion that should be considered for inclusion in ABPPs (or Avian Protection Plans depending on the location) for renewable energy projects. The bolded headings below are intended to be the primary sections of an ABPP. All developers of renewable energy facilities are encouraged to coordinate with Service field offices and State fish and wildlife agencies when developing an ABPP, and if eagles occur on or near the project site, to consult the Service’s 2010 eagle permitting implementation guidance (USFWS 2010) if they intend to seek programmatic permits under 50 CFR 22.26. Any national ABPP guidance prepared by the Service in the future will supersede this white paper. This white paper presents relatively broad approaches for dealing with the possible effects of renewable energy projects on birds and bats. We have developed the approaches described herein with particular emphasis on working with others to achieve the conservation of birds and bats while recognizing the importance of expanding renewable energy production. Our statutory authority for addressing effects to birds stems primarily from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as the Endangered Species Act (ESA); for bats our statutory authority arises primarily from the ESA. We must be careful to recognize and inform our partners in conservation that an ABPP cannot provide authorization to take endangered or threatened wildlife. When renewable energy projects are expected to take any listed wildlife, the project proponents should be advised to pursue an incidental take permit authorization pursuant to section 7(o)(2) or 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA in addition to any recommendations to prepare an ABPP. An ABPP is a project-specific document that delineates a program designed to reduce risks to bats and birds associated with construction and operation of renewable energy facilities. Although each project’s ABPP will be different, the overall goal of any ABPP should be to reduce or eliminate avian and bat mortality. If a project has a National Environmental Policy Act document associated with it, that document should provide much of the analysis needed for the ABPP. The development and implementation of an ABPP are voluntary actions. They do not limit or preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor do they release any individual, company or agency of its obligation to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, statutes, or regulations. A soundly developed and properly implemented ABPP may ultimately represent a "good faith" effort by companies and other project proponents to conserve migratory birds and bats and to use the most environmentally friendly ways possible to develop energy projects and produce renewable energy.

2

Our Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that have taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds and by encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take. It is not possible to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality avoidance or other similar protective measures. However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting individuals and companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all reasonable, prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to work closely with the Service to identify available protective measures when developing project plans and/or avian protection plans or avian and bat protection plans, and to implement those measures prior to/during construction or other similar activities. Adaptive Management The ABPP should map out how the wildlife monitoring, site planning, construction and operation of a proposed facility will change if unexpected impacts to birds or bats appear likely. Early wildlife surveys may point out a potential problem or a problem may only arise after operation begins. Due to the difficulty of predicting these impacts, project developers need to be flexible and willing to modify their approach if issues arise. Adaptive management is one tool available to reduce risks to bats and birds. Adaptive management is an iterative learning process producing improved understanding and improved management over time (Williams et al. 2007). The Department of the Interior determined that its resource agencies, and the natural resources they oversee, could benefit from the implementation of adaptive management (Secretarial Order 3270, dated March 9, 2007). Therefore, DOI adopted the National Research Council’s (2004) definition of adaptive management, which states:

Adaptive management [is a decision process that] promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders.

The use of adaptive management should be discussed among the project proponent, Service field office, and the State fish and game agency. Measures to consider as elements of a project’s adaptive management approach should include siting or structural changes if a particular turbine proves lethal to birds or bats, operational adjustments such as turbine feathering or cut-in speed and habitat manipulation if monitoring shows problems with given species or seasonal migrations. The DOI Adaptive Management Technical Guide is located on the web at www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/index.html.

3

Surveys Siting of a renewable energy project is the most important factor when considering potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats. There are many different methodologies that can be used to assess the risk posed to wildlife at a particular site. The tiered approach discussed in the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) Recommendations is the most recent document to discuss methods to select sites with lower risk to wildlife and is a good source of information. The FAC Recommendations are located on the web at http://www.fws.gov/ habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html. For further suggestions on project siting, see Project Design Measures. During the site selection process, wildlife surveys should be conducted to assess species presence and use of a site. Here are three topics to consider regarding wildlife surveys:

1. Selection of appropriate survey methodology – Based on the project and questions being asked, there are many suitable methods to survey birds and bats and establish baseline data. Generally, we recommend multiple survey techniques to ensure adequate data collection. A good summary of survey methods can be found in Kunz et al. (2007) for night-migrating birds and bats, and in Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) for bats. Efforts are under way to update the Anderson et al. 1999 methods for monitoring diurnally active birds. In addition, the Interim National Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring Guidelines; Pagel et al. 2010, are available for use. Examples of survey methods that might be appropriate for wind projects include acoustic, radar, infrared, radio telemetry, mist netting, harp trapping, and a variety of observational surveys. Survey methods could include:

a. Diurnal bird use counts; b. Nocturnal bird use counts; c. Raptor nest searches (see Pagel et al. 2010 for golden eagle protocol

recommendations); d. Small bird counts (CEC 2007, Environment Canada 2006a and 2006b); e. Migration counts; f. Acoustic bat monitoring; and g. Bat roost exit counts – if applicable.

2. Duration and timing of surveys – To collect data under variable climatic conditions and

accumulate sufficient samples for data analysis, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to assess the potential risk of the proposed project to wildlife. Multi-year surveys, up to three years pre-construction, may be warranted. This can vary depending on the project specifics, known or perceived level of risk, variability in use of habitat by avian species, environmental stochasticity, and species present. Surveys should be designed to ensure adequate data are collected on breeding, staging, migration, and winter bird/bat use of the project site, taking into account peak use of the site temporally and spatially. Coordination with the wildlife agencies is recommended when selecting locations for bird and bat data collection.

3. Special status species – When evaluating a project site, special status species should be

identified. Special status species include all Federal and State species listed as

4

endangered or threatened, State species of concern and fully protected species, and those listed on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. (http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf).

The ABPP should address whether bald eagles or golden eagles use the project site for foraging, roosting, nesting, wintering, migration, or as a migration stop-over site. The project assessment should address whether there are nesting bald or golden eagles within 16 km (10 miles) of the project site and include whether the project development impacts eagle foraging habitat, roost sites, wintering habitat, migratory stop-over sites, migratory corridors, defended eagle territories, or displaces eagles during either the breeding and/or the winter seasons.

Risk Assessments It is useful to conduct a risk assessment to identify potential threats to the species and to then develop specific measures to avoid and reduce those threats. A risk assessment should identify potential short and long-term impacts of the project development on bird and bat populations, including the risk of mortality.

1. Site specific threats – Based on the results of site specific wildlife surveys, a site specific risk assessment should address what the potential for take is based on:

a. Turbine collision and other turbine interactions (such as barotrauma, crippling loss or

injury from wind wake turbulence and blade-tip vortices); b. Transmission line, power tower, met tower, or guy line collision; c. Electrocution potential; d. Displacement issues; e. Nest and roost site disturbances; f. Habitat loss; g. Habitat fragmentation; and h. Additional human presence disturbances.

2. Cumulative Impacts – Effects that are likely to result from the project in combination

with other projects or activities that have or will be carried out should be analyzed. The cumulative effects assessment, where practicable and reasonable, should include the impacts from all threats. The geographic area and time frame of the analysis will depend upon the species affected and the type of impact, such as behavioral modification or direct mortality. Discussions with Federal and State resource agencies will assist the applicant in identifying focal species and issues that will ultimately define the limits of the cumulative impacts analysis.

Project Design Measures Based on the information gathered in the pre-siting data collection and risk assessment phase, the project design should be tailored so that wildlife mortality risks are avoided and minimized. The primary consideration is how to design the project to reduce the impacts to species and their habitats. Below are measures to consider when siting and designing a wind project, but additional methods to reduce impacts can be found in the FAC recommendations.

5

1. Project siting – After all pre-siting survey data have been collected and analyzed, it is

important to select the site that will have the least impacts to bird and bat populations. The ultimate goal is to avoid any take of migratory birds and bats and/or minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of migratory bird or bat habitat by placing projects in disturbed and degraded areas to the maximum extent practicable. Siting conservation measures should include both the macro- and micro-site scales.

a. Macro-siting – Consideration should be made to avoid:

1. Locations with Federally or State listed, or otherwise designated sensitive species, and areas managed for the conservation of listed species, such as designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;

2. Areas frequently used for daily bird and bat movements, such as areas between roosting and feeding sites;

3. Breeding and wintering eagle use areas; 4. Known migration flyways for birds and bats; 5. Areas near known bat hibernacula, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; 6. Areas with high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility, or

where other risk factors may come into play; and 7. Fragmentation of large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (see Environment

Canada 2006a and 2006b).

b. Micro-siting – Once a footprint has been selected, there may be opportunities for finer scale micro-siting of the project components. Component siting considerations include:

1. Avoid placing turbines near landscape features that attract raptors; 2. Avoid placing turbines near landscape features that attract migrant birds, such as

water sources and riparian vegetation); 3. Set turbines back at least 200 meters (~650 feet) from cliff tops where raptors nest

(Richardson and Miller 1997); and 4. Minimize the potential for creating habitats suitable for rodents such as rock piles

and eroded turbine pads with openings underneath that will additionally attract raptors, especially golden eagles.

2. Buffer zones – It might be appropriate and necessary to establish biologically meaningful

buffer zones to protect raptor and other bird nests, areas of high bird and bat use, and known bat roosts. These buffers should be established up-front and be part of the siting process. The Service recommends that the following avoidance buffers be considered:

a. Passerines – Avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within

established buffers for active nests of any protected bird species or any high quality nesting habitat, such as riparian areas. Buffer distances should consider species, terrain, habitat type, and activity level as these features relate to the bird alert distance and bird flight initiation distance (Whitfield et al. 2008). Buffer size should be coordinated with the Service biologists prior to activities.

6

b. Raptors (including eagles) – Avoid siting wind turbines, minimize human access, and avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within 1.6 km (1 mile) of an active raptor/eagle nest, unless specific features (e.g., terrain, barriers) dictate reduced buffers (Richardson and Miller 1997). Buffer size should be coordinated with the Service and State agencies.

c. Prairie and Sage Grouse – Avoid construction of wind facilities within close

proximity of lekking sites in consultation with State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies.

3. Appropriate facility design – There are many conservation measures that can be

incorporated into the facility design that might reduce the potential effects of a project on bird populations; including the following: a. Using tubular supports with pointed nacelle tops rather than lattice supports to

minimize bird perching and nesting opportunities. b. Avoiding the use of external ladders and platforms on tubular towers to minimize

perching and nesting. c. Considering the use of fewer larger turbines compared to a larger number of smaller

turbines. d. Avoiding the use of guy wires for all meteorological towers and do not light them

unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires them to be lit, which is generally >60 meters (>199 ft) AGL in height. Any necessary guy wires should be marked with recommended bird deterrent devices (APLIC 1994, USFWS 2000).

e. If taller turbines (top of rotor swept area is >60 meters [>199 ft] AGL) require lights for aviation safety, the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting specified by the FAA should be used (FAA 2007), approximately 1 in every 5 turbines should be lit, and all lights within the facility should illuminate synchronously. Lighting of the boundary of the facility is most important as an aviation safety warning. Unless otherwise requested by the FAA, use only the minimum number of strobed, strobe-like or blinking red incandescent lights, with minimum intensity, duel strobe lights preferred per lit nacelle. No steady burning lights should be used on turbines or facility infrastructures.

f. Focusing facility lights downward to reduce skyward illumination. Lights should be equipped with motion detectors to reduce continuous illumination.

g. Where feasible, placement of electric power lines underground or on the surface as insulated, shielded wire to avoid electrocution of birds. Use recommendations of APLIC (1994, 2006) for any required above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors. When transmission lines must be above-ground, avoid placing lines within wetlands and over canyons.

h. The creation of roads leads to further loss and fragmentation of migratory bird habitat. The Service recommends that the number of roads be minimized for all phases of a project.

i. A well thought out turbine layout can substantially reduce the potential for bird strikes. Some examples of better turbine layouts include grouping turbines versus spreading them widely across the project area and orienting rows of turbines parallel

7

to known bird movements. In addition, placing large, turbine sized pylons at the end of turbine rows and in ridge dips can re-direct birds and bats away from the danger areas.

Construction Phase Measures During the construction of energy facilities, standard construction conservation measures should be established. Measures that specifically relate to bird conservation include (but are not limited to):

1. Minimizing the area disturbed to extent practicable, including access road construction – To minimize the amount of habitat disturbance and fragmentation, construction plans should emphasize the minimization and placement of habitat disturbance. Construction roads not required for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility should be closed and restored to the pre-construction habitat type.

2. Minimizing vegetation clearing – Vegetation within the project footprint that will be

disturbed should be cleared when it poses the least impact to species, depending on the species impacted. If the proposed project includes potential for take of migratory birds and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and vegetation removal cannot occur outside the bird breeding season, project proponents should provide the Service an explanation for why work must occur during the bird breeding season. Further, in these cases, project proponents should demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable efforts to complete work outside the bird breeding season were attempted, and that reason for work to be completed during the breeding season were beyond the proponent’s control.

3. When vegetation removal cannot take place outside of the breeding season and a

reasonable explanation was provided to the Service, the Service recommends having a qualified, on-site biologist during construction activities to locate active nests, establish avoidance buffers around active nests, watch for new nesting activity, and if necessary stop construction when noise and general activity threaten to disturb an active nest. All active nests of protected birds (e.g., MBTA, ESA, State regulations) should not be disturbed until after nest outcome is complete.

4. Minimizing wildfire potential – Wildfire is a potential threat that could impact bird and

bat habitat. The Service recommends that construction activities are conducted in a manner that avoids and/or minimizes the ignition of a wildfire.

5. Minimizing activities that attract prey and predators – During construction, garbage

should be removed promptly and properly to avoid creating attractive nuisances for birds and bats.

6. Controlling non-native plants – The introduction of non-native, invasive plant species can

impact bird habitat quality. The Service recommends that all appropriate control measures be implemented to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species with and surrounding the project area. Use only plants native to the area for seeding or planting during habitat revegetation or restoration efforts.

8

Operational Phase Measures Once a facility is built, appropriate measures should be in place to reduce the attractiveness of the facility to breeding, migrating, and wintering birds and bats to ensure mortality is minimized. The following are examples of measures that should be considered, depending on the species and circumstances of the project:

1. Avoid creating or maintaining attraction features for birds/bats – Through appropriate habitat maintenance, facilities should seek to reduce features that attract birds and bats to the facility. Simple measures could include removal of carrion that attracts raptors and other scavengers to the site, maintain vegetation heights around turbines to reduce raptor foraging (habitat maintenance to reduce prey availability), and minimizing water sources (especially in desert habitats) that birds and other wildlife seek, and avoid creating situations where rodent prey bases will increase (i.e., through creating new habitats for them, disturbance, and cattle grazing) thus drawing in raptors. These measures should be implemented only after completely evaluating each specific project site and implementation of these measures will not have deleterious effects on other special status wildlife species.

2. Turbine feathering and cut-in speed - Data suggest that most bird fatalities at wind

projects occurred at times of low wind speed (typically <6m/sec), conditions under which rotor blades are moving, but the amount of electricity generated is minimal (Kunz et al. 2007). Turbine feathering, electronically pitching the blades parallel to the wind, could significantly reduce bird impacts by making the blades stationary at low wind speeds (Kunz et al. 2007, Manville 2009). In addition, changing the blade cut-in speed and reducing operation hours in periods of low wind (e.g., from cut-in at 3.0 mps to 5.0 mps) has been shown to reduce bat mortality by up to 92% with minimal power loss (Arnett et al. 2009). The Service recommends setting a maximum turbine rpm rate that allows for sufficient energy production but minimizes the potential for avian and bat collisions. In addition, the Service recommends reducing operation hours during periods of low wind.

3. Locking rotors during daytime and at night during peak migration periods and peak

presence – In areas with high concentrations of migrating raptors, passerines, and bats, and high concentrations of overwintering raptors, it may be appropriate to turn the turbines off during peak migration periods or peak use of an area (Manville 2009).

4. Following APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities – If overhead transmission lines are

necessary, facilities should follow all APLIC (1994 and 2006) guidelines.

5. Minimizing lighting – Research indicates that lights can both attract and confuse migrating birds (Gehring et al. 2009, Manville 2005, 2009) and bats are known to feed on concentrations of insects at lights (Fenton 1997). The goal of every facility should be to minimize operational lighting to the maximum extent practicable.

a. To avoid disorienting or attracting birds and bats, FAA visibility lighting of wind

turbines should employ only strobed, strobe-like or blinking incandescent lights,

9

preferably with all lights illuminating simultaneously. Minimum intensity, maximum “off-phased” duel strobes are preferred by the Service. No steady burning lights, such as L-810 Steady-Burning Obstruction Lights, should be used. See also Project Design recommendations for additional lighting guidance.

b. Keep lighting at both operation and maintenance facilities and substations located

within ½ mile of the turbines to the minimum level for safety and security needs by using motion or infrared light sensors and switches to keep lights off when not required, shielding operational lights downward to minimize skyward illumination, and do not use high intensity, steady burning, bright lights such as sodium vapor or spotlights.

Post-construction Monitoring An essential element to understanding the actual impacts of each wind energy facility is post-construction monitoring. The goal of the post-construction monitoring program is to validate the pre-construction risk assessment and allow the facility to implement adjustments based on identified problems and triggers. Monitoring objectives usually include: estimates of bird/bat fatality rate due to all aspects of facility operation; assessments of changes in bird/bat behavior due to all aspects of facility operation; assessments of changes in population status within and adjacent to the project footprint; assessments of displacement and avoidance of birds/bats from within the project footprint; and, determining whether avoidance and minimization measures implemented for the project were adequate to reduce mortality. A monitoring plan will depend upon the species impacted and the facility. Consult the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies for assistance in monitoring design and protocol. Decommissioning Decommissioning is the cessation of wind energy operations and removal of all associated equipment, roads, and other infrastructure. The land is then used for another activity. During decommissioning, contractors and facility operators should apply measures for road grading and native plant re-establishment to ensure that erosion and overland flows are managed to restore pre-construction landscape conditions. The facility operator, in conjunction with the landowner and State and Federal wildlife agencies, should restore the natural hydrology and plant community to the greatest extent practical. For specific decommissioning measures, see the FAC Recommendations (Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee 2010). Reporting All post-construction monitoring results and risk assessment validation should be reviewed by the appropriate agencies annually. Additional reporting may be a condition of permits issued. Confidentiality should be maintained between the proponent and the agency(ies) reviewing the project reports. For Service reviews, to the extent allowable under FOIA, project-specific information will remain confidential between the Service and the proponent and be protected from release to the public. Literature Cited

10

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian collisions on power lines: of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington, DC.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on

power lines, the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, and California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.

Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of changing

wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA.

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California

Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development Commission Final Report. California energy Commission, Renewable Committee, and Energy Facilities Siting Division, and California Department of Fish and Game, Resources Management and Policy Division. CEC – 700-2007-008-CMF.

Environment Canada. 2006a. Wind turbines and birds, a guidance document for environmental

assessment. March version 6. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 50 pp.

Environment Canada. 2006b. Recommended protocols for monitoring impacts of wind turbines

and birds. July 28 final document. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 33 pp.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory Circular

AC-70/7460. Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1-14. Gehring, J.L., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, II. 2009. Communication towers, lights and

birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19:505-514.

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. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal Wildlife Management 71:2249-2486.

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers,

and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation, pp.1051-1064. In C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, [eds.], Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. USDA

11

Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings – steps being taken by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these structures. Pp 262-272. In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmondi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson [eds.], Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Habitats and People. Proceedings 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008, McAllen, TX. Partners in Flight.

National Research Council. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Planning, The

National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background

Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and

monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human

disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638. USFWS. 2000. Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting,

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management,

Arlington, VA. USFWS. 2010. Implementation guidance for eagle take permits under 50 CFR 22.26 and 50

CFR 22.27. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.

Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2010. Recommendations on developing

effective measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities. Kearns & West, Washington DC.

9/2/10

1

US Fish and Wildlife Service – Pacific Southwest Region

REGION 8 INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT-SPECIFIC AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN FOR

SOLAR ENERGY PLANTS AND RELATED TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

I. Introduction and Purpose

Increased energy demands and the national goal to increase energy production from renewable sources have intensified the development of energy facilities, including solar energy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) supports renewable energy development. However, the Service strongly encourages energy development that is wildlife and habitat-friendly. Of concern are the cumulative effects of renewable energy projects in initiating or contributing to the decline of some bird and bat populations, as well as other affected species. In order to ensure that renewable energy projects avoid and minimize impacts to bird and bat populations, the Service’s Pacific Southwest Region developed these Interim Guidelines for the Development of a Project-Specific Bird and Bat Protection Plan for Solar Energy Plant and Related Transmission Facilities as a means to provide energy project developers a tool for assessing the risk of potential impacts, and designing and operating a bird- and bat-friendly solar facility. Similar to the Service’s wind energy guidelines, the recommendations set forth in this document were based upon the Avian Powerline Interaction Committee’s (APLIC) Avian Protection Plan template (2005; see Appendix) developed for electric utilities and have been modified accordingly to address the unique concerns with solar energy facilities.

An Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) is a project-specific document that delineates a program designed to reduce the operational risks that result from bird and bat interactions with a specific solar energy facility. Although each project’s ABPP will be different, the overall goal of any ABPP should be to reduce, and ultimately eliminate bird and bat mortality to the extent practicable. The statutory authority for addressing effects to birds stems primarily from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as the Endangered Species Act (ESA); for bats the Service’s statutory authority arises primarily from the ESA.

The development and implementation of an ABPP are voluntary actions. They do not limit or preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor do they release any individual, company or agency of its obligation to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, statutes, or regulations. A soundly developed and properly implemented ABPP may ultimately represent a "good faith" effort by companies and other project proponents to conserve migratory birds and bats and to use the most environmentally friendly ways possible to develop energy projects and produce renewable energy.

Our Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that have taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds and by encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take. It is not possible to absolve

9/2/10

2

individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality avoidance or other similar protective measures.

However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting individuals and companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all reasonable, prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to work closely with the Service to identify available protective measures when developing project plans and/or avian protection plans or avian and bat protection plans, and to implement those measures prior to/during construction or other similar activities.

Due to the rapid advances and proliferation of solar energy technology beyond small scale photovoltaic panels, little is known about how large-scale, solar energy facilities impact birds and bats (Leitner 2009). The Service does anticipate that, due to the nature of these commercial-sized facilities, extensive terrestrial habitat loss could occur. In addition, bird and bat mortality from collisions with transmission lines, power towers, meteorological towers, or even solar reflectors could occur at these sites. In one of the few studies of avian mortality at solar energy plants, McCrary (1986) documented bird mortality from a variety of causes, including burning. Therefore, the Service recommends that commercial-scale solar energy facilities create an ABPP with an emphasis on post-construction monitoring. A well-designed monitoring scheme, with an adaptive management framework, will allow a facility to evaluate potential take and implement appropriate corrective actions . II. Guidance on Specific Elements of a ABPP for solar energy projects The following summary is meant to provide project planners useful information for designing each development phase of the facility. For each phase outlined below, conservation measures and guidance are recommended for inclusion in the development of any solar energy power plant. Coordination An essential element to developing a successful project is the coordination between the project proponent and the appropriate agencies (e.g., federal, state, county agencies). The Service highly recommends early coordination on essential elements, such as wildlife surveys, project siting criteria, operational limitations, etc. to ensure that all parties and agencies understand the scope of the project and can identify potential issues early in the planning process. Adaptive Management and Habitat Compensation

The Service recommends that proponents take an Adaptive Management (AM) approach to project development and operation. The AM process should establish clear, biologically appropriate goals and triggers tied to mitigation measures. For a complete discussion of AM, see Williams et al. (2009).

In order to compensate for the loss of high quality wildlife habitat, the Service strongly encourages project proponents to conduct a Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) to quantify interim and permanent habitat injuries (i.e, temporary disturbance vs. permanent loss) at the start

9/2/10

3

of the project and to guide upfront habitat compensation. This approach is described further below.

Template for Developing ABPP

Pre-siting Data Collection Due to local differences in wildlife concentrations and movement patterns, habitats, topography, facility design, and weather; each proposed development site is unique and requires detailed and individual evaluation. In addition, renewable energy projects are rapidly expanding into habitats and regions that have not been well studied and where animal population data are scarce. Thus, in an effort to place projects in locations that will yield the least risk of population impacts, a rigorous siting evaluation process should be completed. Data collection methods will vary among projects due to differences in topography, habitat, and animal abundance, however the Service recommends the following considerations when conducting pre-siting assessments.

A. Coarse Site Assessment – Each pre-siting assessment should start with a coarse site assessment of the potential environmental issues that might preclude the site from development based on its perceived or validated level of risk. At a minimum, every solar project should conduct a Potential Impact Index (PII) (USFWS 2003 – Appendix). A PII represents a “first cut” analysis of the suitability of a site proposed for development by estimating use of the site by selected wildlife species as an indicator of potential impact.

Factors that should be considered during any coarse assessment include:

1. Is the site designated as Critical Habitat for any federally listed species? 2. Is the site designated as an Important Bird Area (see

http://www.audubon.org/bird/IBA/), or a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network or Ramsar site?

3. Does the site provide suitable habitat for any federal or state listed species, or sensitive species?

4. What is the type and quality of bird/bat habitat within and surrounding the footprint?

B. Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) – The Service encourages the solar industry to look

for opportunities to promote bird, bat, and other wildlife conservation when planning renewable energy facilities. These opportunities may come in the form of voluntary habitat acquisition or conservation easements. In order to quantify the appropriate compensation acreage, the use of an HEA can be used to identify high quality habitat and calculate compensation for the development of high quality habitats for both permanent and temporary losses. The objective of an HEA is to replace lost habitat services with like services, providing a replacement ratio for interim and permanent injury. Habitat services are generally defined by a metric (e.g., species density, that represents the functionality of that habitat (e.g., the ability of that habitat to provide nest sites, prey populations, cover from predators, etc.). See HEA resources in the Appendix of this document.

http://www.audubon.org/bird/IBA/

9/2/10

4

C. Site Specific Wildlife Surveys 1. Development of appropriate survey question – It is important to develop the

appropriate survey questions as they dictate the sampling design and protocols to be used. An inappropriate study design and/or insufficient duration of data collection may result in unreliable data inferences with resultant biases and skewed results (Kunz et al. 2007). Pre-siting survey data will become the baseline for project impacts to bird and bat populations. Thus, most survey designs should be established as before-after control impacts studies, when possible. Examples of possible survey questions include (but are not limited to):

a. Which species of birds and bats use the project area and how do their numbers vary temporally (i.e., daily, monthly, annually)?

b. How much time do birds/bats spend in the risk zone (within the solar array) and does this behavior vary by season?

c. What is the estimated range of bird/bat mortalities from the project? d. Are there nesting raptors on site or within 3 miles of project footprint. For

eagles, are there eagles nesting within 10 miles of project footprint?

2. Selection of appropriate survey methodology – Based on the project and questions being asked, there are many suitable methods to survey birds and bats and establish baseline data. Generally, it is recommended to employ multiple survey techniques to ensure adequate data collection. Though written for the wind energy industry, a good summary of survey methods can be found in Kunz et al (2007) for night-migrating birds and bats and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) for bats. Specific survey methods should include:

a. Diurnal bird use counts b. Nocturnal bird use counts c. Raptor nest searches (see Pagel et al. 2010 for golden eagle protocols) d. Small bird counts (Canadian Wildlife Service 2006a and 2006b) e. Migration counts f. Acoustic bat monitoring g. Bat roost exit counts – if applicable

3. Duration and timing of surveys – To collect data under variable climatic conditions and accumulate sufficient samples for data analysis, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to assess the potential risk of the proposed project to wildlife. Multi-year surveys, up to three years pre-construction, may be warranted. This can vary depending on the project specifics, known or perceived level of risk, the variability in use of habitat by avian species, environmental stochasticity, and species present. Surveys should be designed to ensure adequate data are collected on breeding, staging, migration, and winter bird/bat use of the project site, taking into account peak use of the site temporally and spatially. Bird surveys should include diurnal and nocturnal use studies for the project footprint. Bat surveys should also include year-round acoustic monitoring to detect presence and activity (e.g., mean number of passes/detector/night), as little information is typically known about the ecology of resident, wintering, and migrating bats. Coordinate with wildlife agencies when selecting locations for bird and bat data collection.

9/2/10

5

4. Use of additional data – Other sources of abundance or habitat data may be available for specific project sites. When available and appropriate, these data should also be included in the site evaluation. Other good sources of bird data include (but are not limited to) Audubon Christmas Bird Count data, USGS Breeding Bird Survey data, Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird data, California Natural Diversity Database, and Audubon Important Bird Area data.

D. Risk Assessment - A risk assessment should identify potential short and long-term impacts of the project development on bird and bat populations, including lethal “take” (as defined by all applicable regulations). 1. Site specific threats – Based on the results of the wildlife surveys, the site specific

risk assessment should address the potential for take based on: a. Burning from concentrated light at solar arrays b. Transmission line, power tower, meterological tower, or guy line collision c. Electrocution potential d. Territory abandonment e. Nest and roost site disturbances f. Habitat loss and fragmentation g. Disturbance due to ongoing human presence at the facility

2. Cumulative Impacts – Effects that are likely to result from the projects, which have been or will be carried out throughout the anticipated life of the project, should be analyzed. We recommend that the cumulative effects assessment, where practicable and reasonable, should include the impacts from all threats for which the proponent or landowner has some form of control. The geographic area and time frame of the analysis will depend upon the species affected and the type of impact, such as behavioral modification or direct mortality. Discussions with Federal and State resource agencies will assist the applicant in identifying focal species and issues that will ultimately define the limits of the cumulative impacts analysis.

E. Reporting – After all appropriate pre-siting survey work is completed; the resulting

information and risk assessment should be provided to all appropriate agencies for review and discussion.

Project Design Conservation Measures

Based on available data, the project design should be tailored, so that avian mortality risks are avoided and minimized. The primary questions to be asked are what design features and/or considerations can potentially reduce the hazard of solar facilities to wildlife populations? Consideration for the following aspects is strongly recommended:

A. Project siting – After all pre-siting survey data have been collected and analyzed, it is important to select the site that will have the least impacts to bird and bat populations. The ultimate goal is to avoid, where possible, any take of migratory birds and bats and/or minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of migratory bird or bat habitat by placing projects in disturbed and degraded areas to the maximum extent practicable. Siting conservation measures should include both the macro- and micro-site scales.

9/2/10

6

1. Macro-siting – Consideration should be made to avoid: a. Locations with federally or state listed, or otherwise designated sensitive

species, and areas managed for the conservation of listed species (such as designated critical habitat)

b. Areas frequently used for daily bird and bat movements (i.e., areas between roosting and feeding sites)

c. Breeding and wintering eagle use areas d. Known migration flyways for birds and bats e. Areas near known bat hibernacula, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies f. Fragmentation of large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (see Canadian

Wildlife Service 2006a and 2006b) 2. Micro-siting – Once a footprint has been selected, there may be opportunities for

finer scale micro-siting of the project components. Component siting considerations include:

a. Avoid features that attract raptors (areas supporting tall perching structures including trees, utility poles, etc.)

b. Avoid features that attract migrant birds (e.g., water sources, riparian vegetation) Minimize the potential for enhancing habitats suitable for raptor prey species such as rodents that would likely attract raptors to the project site.

B. Buffer zones – It might be appropriate and necessary to establish biologically meaningful buffer zones to protect raptor and other bird nests, areas of high bird and bat use, and known bat roosts from disturbance related to operation of solar energy plants. Pre-project surveys to determine sensitive wildlife areas are highly recommended. Consideration of these buffers should be part of the project siting process. The Service recommends that the following avoidance buffers be considered: 1. Passerines – Avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within

established buffers for active nests of any protected bird species or any high quality nesting habitat (e.g., riparian areas). Buffer distances should consider species, terrain, habitat type, and activity level as these features relate to the bird alert distance and bird flight initiation distance (Whitfield et al. 2008). Buffer size should be coordinated with the Service biologists prior to activities.

2. Raptors (including eagles) – Minimize human access, and avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise from operations) within 8 km (5 miles) of an active raptor/eagle nest, unless specific landscape features (e.g., terrain, barriers) dictate reduced buffers (Richardson and Miller 1997). Reduced buffers should be coordinated with the Service.

3. Grouse – Avoid construction of solar facilities within 8 km (5 miles) of all grouse lekking sites (Manville 2004).

4. Bats – Avoid placement of facilities in close proximity to know bat roost sites, maternity colonies, or hibernacula. Appropriate buffer distances should be established in consideration of the disturbance type (type of energy plant to be operated), distance to roost or hibernacula, time of year of disturbance (if the facility operation has seasonal activities), and the duration of the disturbance that may occur from the facility’s operation.

9/2/10

7

C. Appropriate facility design – There are many conservation measures that can be incorporated into the facility design that might reduce the potential effects of a project on bird populations. Some include: 1. Avoid using lattice-type structures, placing external ladders and platforms on

towers to minimize perching and nesting. 2. Implement measures to reduce or buffer adverse noise effects associated with

operation of the facility on surrounding wildlife habitat. Noise impacts to birds (Rheindt 2003, Brumm 2004, Parris and Schneider 2009) and bats (Schaub et al. 2008) have generally been found to be negative; therefore facility design should take this fact into consideration when selecting the type of solar technology (such as photovoltaic panels vs. parabolic dish engines) to be used and the placement of the solar power plant within bird and bat habitats.

3. Avoid the use of guy wires for all meteorological towers and do not light them unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires them to be lit, which is generally >60 meters (>199 ft) AGL in height. Any necessary guy wires should be marked with recommended bird deterrent devices (APLIC 1994, USFWS 2000).

4. If structures (>60 meters [>199 ft] AGL) require lights for aviation safety, the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting specified by the FAA should be used (FAA 2007). All lights within the facility should illuminate synchronously. Lighting of the boundary of the facility is most important as an aviation safety warning. Unless otherwise requested by the FAA, use only the minimum number of strobed, strobe-like or blinking red incandescent lights of minimum intensity. No steady burning lights should be used on facility infrastructures (Gehring et al. 2009).

5. Facility lights should be focused downward to reduce skyward illumination. Lights should be equipped with motion detectors to reduce continuous illumination.

6. Where feasible, place electric power lines underground or on the surface as insulated, shielded wire to avoid electrocution of birds. Use recommendations of the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 1994, 2006) for any required above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors. When transmission lines must be above-ground, avoid placing lines within wetlands and over canyons.

7. The creation of roads leads to further loss and fragmentation of migratory bird habitat. The Service recommends that the number of roads be minimized for all phases of a project.

8. If evaporation ponds are required for the operation of the facility, placement of netting over the surface of the ponds is encouraged to prevent birds and bats from contacting the water’s surface.

9. Reducing the attractiveness of solar reflectors to polarotactic water insects (those attracted to polarized light) (Horvath et al. 2010) will help reduce the attractiveness of these facilities to birds and bats.

Construction Phase Conservation Measures

During the construction of energy power plants and transmission facilities, standard construction conservation measures should be established. Conservation measures (CMs) that specifically relate to bird conservation include (but are not limited to):

9/2/10

8

A. Minimize area disturbed to extent practicable, including access road construction. To minimize the amount of habitat disturbance and fragmentation, construction plans should emphasize the minimization and placement of habitat disturbance. Construction roads not required for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility should be closed and restored to the pre-construction habitat type.

B. Vegetation clearing – Over 1,000 bird species and their eggs and nests are protected from take by MBTA. Thus, the Service recommends that all vegetation within the project footprint that will be disturbed be cleared outside of the bird breeding season to the maximum extent practicable (Note: the bird breeding season will vary from location to location, by habitat type, and by species, please consult the Service for breeding seasons in the specific project area). If the proposed project includes potential for take of migratory birds and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and vegetation removal cannot occur outside the bird breeding season, project proponents should provide the Service an explanation for why work must occur during the bird breeding season. Further, in these cases, project proponents should demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable efforts to complete work outside the bird breeding season were attempted, and that reason for work to be completed during the breeding season were beyond the proponent’s control. When vegetation removal cannot take place outside of the breeding season and a reasonable explanation was provided to the Service, the Service recommends having a qualified, on-site biologist during construction activities to locate active nests, establish avoidance buffers around active nests, watch for new nesting activity, and if necessary stop construction when noise and general activity threaten to disturb an active nest. All active nests of protected birds (e.g., MBTA, Endanger Species Act, state regulations) should not be disturbed until after nest outcome is complete (i.e., the young have fledged or the nesting attempt failed).

C. Minimize wildfire potential.

D. Minimize activities that attract prey and predators – During construction, garbage should be removed promptly and properly to avoid creating attractive nuisances for birds and bats.

E. Control of non-native plants – The introduction of non-native, invasive plant species can

impact bird habitat quality. The Service recommends that all appropriate control measures be implemented to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species within and surrounding the project area including roads associated with operation of the power plant and associated transmission lines. Use only plants that are native to the area for seeding or planting during habitat revegetation or restoration efforts.

Operational Phase Conservation Measures

Once a facility is built, appropriate CMs should be in place to reduce the attractiveness of the facility to breeding, migrating, and wintering birds and bats to ensure mortality is minimized. The following Operational CMs should be considered:

9/2/10

9

A. Do not create or maintain attraction features for birds and bats. Avoid introducing water and food resources in the area surrounding the power plant. Through appropriate habitat maintenance, facilities should seek to reduce features that attract birds and bats to the facility.

B. Follow APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities (APLIC 1994). C. Minimize anthropogenic noise

D. Follow APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities (APLIC 1994). E. Minimize Anthrogenic Noise –Noise has generally been found to be negative for birds

(e.g., Rheindt 2003, Brumm 2004, Parris and Schneider 2009) and bats (Schaub et al. 2008), though not all species are affected to the same degree (Brumm 2004). Therefore facility design should take this into consideration when selecting the type of solar technology (such as photovoltaic panels vs. parabolic dish engines) to be used and the placement of the solar power plant within bird and bat habitats. During the operation of these energy facilities, means to buffer, muffle, or otherwise dampen any anthropogenic noise pollution that exceeds ambient noise should be fully explored.

F. Minimize use of outdoor lighting at the power plant– Research indicates that lights can both attract and confuse migrating birds (Gehring et al. 2009, Manville 2005, 2009) and bats are known to feed on concentrations of insects at lights (Fenton 1997). The goal of every facility should be to minimize the use of lights needed to operate the facility to the maximum extent practicable.

Post-construction Monitoring

Because solar energy technology is developing rapidly, the potential impacts of solar energy facilities are not well understood. To accurately evaluate the potential impacts of a solar facility, post-construction monitoring is a critical element to any ABPP. The goal of the post-construction monitoring program is to validate the pre-construction risk assessment and allow the facility to implement adjustments based on identified problems and triggers (see Adaptive management section above).

A. Monitoring Objectives should include but are not limited to: 1. Estimate bird and bat fatality due to all aspects of facility operation. 2. Assess bird use of evaporation ponds, if applicable. 3. Assess changes in bird and bat behavior due to all aspects of facility operation

(noise, lighting, etc.). 4. Assess territorial abandonment, nest avoidance, and changes in population status

within and adjacent to the project footprint. 5. When operations have been adapted to reduce bird and/or bat mortality, assess

whether mortality avoidance and minimization measures implemented for the project were adequate.

9/2/10

10

B. Monitoring Design - The degree and intensity of a monitoring program is determined by a combination of factors including size of the facility, presence of special status species as determined by pre-construction data, and perceived/known risks at the site. Important aspects of a post-construction monitoring plan include: 1. Duration and Timing - Post-construction monitoring programs should be done for a

minimum of three years after operation of the facility begins (see Pagel et al. 2010 for duration of eagle monitoring). For projects that will be built in phases over the course of several years, each complete phase should include a minimum of three years of monitoring. Where risk is determined to be high or where regular mortality is observed, at least five years of assessment and monitoring is recommended (Stewart et al. 2007). This time period ensures data capture differences in parameters due to seasonal and annual variability. Monitoring programs should be extended, as appropriate, if mortality level triggers are reached or the project results in the mortality of a listed species or eagle. It is important to ensure that monitoring includes data collection during breeding, wintering, and migration periods as bird and bat use of areas will vary seasonally.

2. Study Components – All injury and fatality studies should be based on the objectives of the monitoring program and should follow accepted scavenger and search efficiency studies (e.g., Erickson et al. 2004 for wind energy projects).

a. Mortality Studies should cover solar panel/dish/tower collisions and mortalities associated with other aspects of the facility (e.g., electrocutions, transmission line collisions, displacement). The Service recommends that mortality surveys be completed on a weekly basis for at least one year post-construction. The survey frequency could be adjusted, if appropriate, depending on the results of the detectability and scavenger studies

b. Assessment of search efficiency (observer bias studies) c. Assessment of carcass scavenger rates d. Ensure monitoring plan is representative of the entire footprint

3. Eagle Monitoring – In addition to project-specific mortality monitoring studies, the Service recommends monitoring eagles separately to ensure that Bald and Golden eagle mortality is adequately assessed (see 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for Bald Eagle protocols). If eagles do occur on or near the project site, project proponents should consult the Service’s 2010 eagle permitting implementation guidance (USFWS 2010) if they intend to seek permits under 50 CFR 22.26 or 22.27.

C. Nest Management – Each facility should have protocols in place on how to manage nests established on any part of the facility (see APLIC 2006). Eagle nests should be addressed per the Service’s 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

D. Risk Assessment Validation – Using pre-and post-construction data, the proponent

should validate the identified risks of the project. The validation process should consider: 1. Whether the documented mortality rate is higher, lower, or as expected, compared

to the pre-construction risk assessment 2. Are CMs adequate to minimize bird and/or bat mortality to the maximum extent

practicable?

9/2/10

11

3. Would additional CMs reduce mortality rates? 4. Do documented mortality rates trigger additional management or mitigation

actions? E. Reporting – All post-construction monitoring results and risk assessment validation

should be reviewed annually. An annual meeting should be held between the Service, Facility Manager, and other applicable state or federal agencies to review the annual monitoring report and discuss monitoring results and CMs.

III. Literature Cited

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian

collisions on power lines: state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington, DC.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on

power lines, the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, and California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.

Brumm, H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird.

Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 434-440. Canadian Wildlife Service. 2006a. Wind turbines and birds, a guidance document for

environmental assessment. March version 6. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 50 pp.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 2006b. Recommended protocols for monitoring impacts of wind

turbines and birds. July 28 final document. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 33 pp.

Erickson, W., J. Jeffery, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004. Stateline Wind Project wildlife

monitoring annual report, results from the period July 2001-December 2003. Technical Report Submitted to FPL Energy, the Oregon Office of Energy, and the Stateline Technical Advisory Committee.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory Circular

AC-70/7460. Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1-14. Gehring, J.L., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, II. 2009. Communication towers, lights and

birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19: 505-514.

9/2/10

12

Horvath, G., M. Blaho, A. Egri., G. Kriska, I. Seres., and B. Robertson. 2010. Reducing the maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conservation Biology (In Press).

Leitner, P. 2009. The promise and peril of solar power. The Wildlife Professional 3(1):48-53. Manville, A.M., II. 2004. Prairie grouse leks and wind turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

justification for a 5-mile buffer for leks; additional grassland songbird recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Arlington, VA. (Peer-reviewed white paper.)

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers,

and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation, pp.1051-1064. In C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, [eds.], Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings – steps being taken by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these structures. Pp 262-272. In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmondi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson [eds.], Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Habitats and People. Proceedings 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008, McAllen, TX.

McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.W. Schreiber, W.D. Wagner, and T.C. Sciarrotta. 1986.

Avian mortality at a solar energy plant. Journal of Field Ornithology 57:135-141. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background

Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and

monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington, VA

Parris, K.M., and A. Schneider. 2009. Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of

roadside habitats. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 29 [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol14/iss1/art29/

Rheindt, F.E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in

determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal of Ornithology 144: 295-306. Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human

disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):634-638.

9/2/10

13

Schaub, A., J. Ostwald, and B.M. Siemers. 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. The Journal of Experimental Biology 211: 3174-3180.

Stewart, G.B., A.S. Pullin, and C.F. Coles. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of

windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 34:1-11. Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.

Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Whitfield, D.P., M Ruddock, and R. Bullman. 2008. Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying

bird tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation 141:2708-2717. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on

Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning. Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Implementation guidance for eagle take permits under 50

CFR 22.26 and 50 CFR 22.27. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.

9/2/10

14

Appendix. Key Resources for Bird and Bat Protection Plan Development

Adaptive Management Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.

Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf

Bird and Bat Protection Plan Guidelines

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian protection plan (APP) guidelines. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/APP/AVIAN%20PROTECTION%20PLAN%20FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdf

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines, the state of the art in 2006. http://www.aplic.org/

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian collisions on power lines: state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington, DC.

Birds of Conservation Concern U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds. 2008. Birds of Conservation

Concern. Arlington, VA. http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf

Eagle Rule and Guidance

For a general overview of the new eagle permits final rule, review the Service's Migratory Bird Management Information: Eagle Rule Questions and Answers; located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/QAs%20for%20Eagle%20Rule.final.10.6.09.pdf

Review the Service's 2009 Final Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Permit Take as Provided Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/FEA_EagleTakePermit_Final.pdf

Review the Service's 2009 Eagle Permits; Take Necessary to Protect Interests in Particular Localities; Final Rules; located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/Final%20Disturbance%20Rule%209%20Sept%202009.pdf

Minimize impacts to bald eagles by implementing recommendations provided in the Service's 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington, VA

http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/APP/AVIAN%20PROTECTION%20PLAN%20FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/APP/AVIAN%20PROTECTION%20PLAN%20FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdf

http://www.aplic.org/

http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/QAs%20for%20Eagle%20Rule.final.10.6.09.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/QAs%20for%20Eagle%20Rule.final.10.6.09.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/FEA_EagleTakePermit_Final.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/FEA_EagleTakePermit_Final.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/Final%20Disturbance%20Rule%209%20Sept%202009.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/Final%20Disturbance%20Rule%209%20Sept%202009.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

9/2/10

15

Habitat Equivalency Analysis

King, D.M. 1997. Comparing ecosystem services and values, with illustrations for performing habitat equivalency analysis. Prepared by King and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C., for U.S. Department of Commerce, Silvery Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Habitat equivalency analysis: an overview. http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Restoration economics, habitat equivalency analysis. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/habitatequ.htm

Bird and Bat Monitoring Methods

California Bat Working Group. 2006. Guidelines for assessing and minimizing impacts to bats at wind energy development sites in California. http://www.wbwg.org/conservation/papers/CBWGwindenergyguidelines.pdf

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. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal Wildlife Management 71:2249-2486.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.

Solar Project Development Guidance

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2009. Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona. http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/documents/FinalSolarGuidelines03122010.pdf

Energy Development Guidance

USFWS. 2003. Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/service interim guidance pdf

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/habitatequ.htm

http://www.wbwg.org/conservation/papers/CBWGwindenergyguidelines.pdf

http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/documents/FinalSolarGuidelines03122010.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/service

US Fish and Wildlife Service – Pacific Southwest Region Monitoring Migratory Bird Take at Solar Power Facilities: An

Experimental Approach

May 2, 2011

Chris Nicolaia, Steve Abeleb, Heather Beelerc, Rob Dosterd, Eric Kershnere and Tom McCabef

a USFWS, Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502 b USFWS Ecological Services, Reno Field Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502 c USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 d USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 752 County Road 99W, Willows, CA 95988 e USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92011 f USFWS Region 8 Conservation Partnership Program, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825

SUMMARY

Studies examining effects of energy development on mortality of migratory birds has primarily focused on wind energy (California Energy Commission 2006, Huso 2010). Currently, few large scale solar facilities are operational in the United States, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has little data on the effects of solar facilities on migratory bird mortality. While monitoring programs to study these effects are in place for wind development, there remains a need to provide consistent guidance and study design to quantify mortality of migratory birds at solar power facilities currently and in the future. This document provides methods similar to monitoring for wind developments, but is adapted for solar power facilities. The USFWS Pacific Southwest Region has designed the following monitoring scheme for migratory bird mortality for solar energy development. In this paper, we provide a consistent monitoring design, across different types of solar developments, to estimate the number of bird mortalities and which takes into consideration spatial variation, mortality type, scavenging, and observer detection rates. This method relies heavily on a capture recapture design conducted during 7- day sampling periods at the beginning of each month for a 12 month period. The Service’s Pacific Southwest Region is proposing this monitoring regimen for solar energy developments, with the expectation that it will produce adequate data for assessing impacts to migratory birds. As our understanding and techniques for monitoring improve, the Service will adapt the monitoring program in the future.

UNKNOWNS AND METHODS TO RESOLVE

1) Intensity of mortalities – Provide data from initial studies controlling for detection rate, method of mortality, scavenging rate, and locations of mortality. Potential in the future to adapt monitoring protocols for a project based on these initial studies to set monitoring effort.

2) Detection rate – Data from initial studies will inform detection rate as a function of distance from established transect lines. This will allow the initial solar developments to help develop future protocols and set distances from transect line to monitor mortalities.

3) Method of mortalities – Provide data from initial studies. Descriptions of found mortalities and location within development will aide in this assessment. These initial studies will identify where in the solar development mortalities occur and direct future efforts to reduce take due to specific causes.

CONSIDERATIONS 1) Use capture recapture to estimate abundance of dead migratory birds (Lukacs 2011,

California Energy Commission 2006). 2) Consider variation in frequency of carcasses that may vary over time and location across and

within transects. 3) Consider scavenging rates that may vary over time and location across and within transects. 4) Four general types of solar developments are proposed for development: power tower,

solar troughs, Stirling engine, and photovoltaic cells.

SAMPLING DESIGN 1) Strata – We propose 3 strata in this design; 1) within the mirror array and central tower (for

power tower developments), 2) ponds, and 3) along transmission lines. 2) Transects – Transects are used as replicates within strata. We propose that transects should

cover 10-30% of strata area. Coordinates for transect lines will be established. 3) Extrapolate sampled areas to overall area within each strata.

TRANSECT LAYOUT

Within mirror array and central tower (for power tower developments) Mirror or photovoltaic cells typically are created in a circular or tetragon shape. Given the difference in these developments, we propose two different approaches to laying out transects. Transect design should result in 10-30% total area coverage within strata. We suggest a minimum of 8 transects within this strata to obtain good replication and enough data to test for effects of distance on mortality events. CIRCULAR DESGINS WITH A CENTRAL TOWER (power towers)

We propose that transect layout in a power tower array (typically circular) encompasses the 360° area surrounding the central tower (Figure 1). We want to consider detection of carcasses randomly throughout the mirror array. Therefore, we propose to sample 8 transects which originate at the central tower and extend to the edge of the mirror array. These transects shall be at every 45° which should result in 10-30% coverage.

TETRAGON DESIGN Because this design is simpler than an array with a central potential source of bird mortality, the transect design can also be simpler. All transects should begin and end at an edge of the tetragon (Figure 2).

Ponds Transects lines should be placed randomly along the immediate edges of ponds (Figure 1) to monitor floating or pulled out carcasses. One transect should occur for each cardinal direction (i.e., north side, south side, east side, and west side) within this strata due to effects of wind or current. If multiple ponds occur, efforts should be made to sample each pond with at least one transect. Minimum of 4 transect in this strata.

Transmission lines Overall length of the sampled transmission line should be determined and transects should be randomly assigned to result in 10-30% coverage. Transect should run down the middle of the transmissions lines. Minimum of 4 transects in this strata.

SAMPING ALONG TRANSECTS We encourage the use of a single qualified observer. The observer will walk along pre-

determined transects searching for bird carcasses. The observer will walk along the predetermined path and scan away from the transect to detect carcasses. When a carcass is observed, they are asked to walk the shortest distance to the carcass. At each discovery of a carcass, a GPS location (UTM) will be recorded, the species identified and information regarding carcass condition will be collected. Each carcass (not the location) will be uniquely and inconspicuously marked with tape and permanent marker. By recording UTMs, distances from the transect can be calculated for analysis in Program DISTANCE. All carcasses will be left exactly as found. By marking carcasses, future encounters will be used as recaptures. Once data is collected at a carcass, the observer will return to the pre-determined transect and continue with the survey. As all sampling periods will be seven consecutive days, observers will continue to record presence, location (UTM), and condition of all observed carcasses. Table 1 provides a sample data sheet. Carcasses shall be assigned to one of the following 4 classes at each encounter: 1) fresh (eyes are still wet and not totally sunk into sockets), 2) medium (eyes are totally sunk into sockets and breast muscle and viscera still present), 3) non-scavenged carcass (a stiff carcass consisting of a dried complete carcass), 4) remnant (a dried carcass consisting of non-edible parts). Additionally, the presence or absence of evidence of superheating (singed feathers) should be recorded.

DATA TO BE PROVIDED

As this is an experimental approach, the USFWS has a definitive interest in the analysis of the data and the results. Shapefiles showing the solar development including each mirror, tower, building, road, transmission line, transmission tower, and cooling pond are to be provided to USFWS, as are separate shapefiles showing all transects. Completed data sheets, or their copies also should be provided to the Service.

ANALYSIS Two primary analyses will be conducted. The first will use Program DISTANCE to determine the

most effective transect width to search for carcasses. The second will use Program MARK to estimate total number of mortalities controlling for detection rate, scavenging rate, and proximity to the power tower.

Program DISTANCE

The preliminary analyses will benefit from the use of Program DISTANCE to determine the distance from established transects, which detection probabilities remain > 0.95. ARCGIS can use shapefiles containing the transect routes and a separate shapefile identifying the locations of carcasses to develop distances from the transect in which carcasses were detected. This initial analysis will develop protocols in which to sample along transects and whether a set transect width should be implemented in future surveys.

Program MARK

A suggested analysis will use the closed captures design within Program MARK (Lukacs 2011) to estimate the number of dead birds in the sampled area (10-30% of total area). This approach will allow the estimation of number of dead birds (N), apparent survival (Φ) to be the inverse of scavenging rate, and capture probability (p) to be observer detection rate. Therefore, the estimate of the number of carcasses will include variation in scavenger and detection rate. The estimate of number of carcasses will be extrapolated to the full area within each stratum and will be summed to provide an estimate of total number of carcasses for the facility.

Consideration of multiple models will allow determination of source of mortality (e.g., central tower (models including distance from tower is selected)).

ADAPTIVE STRUCTURE Initially, all transects will be sampled for seven consecutive days at the beginning of each month

for a year. We suggest that this year round monitoring program is initiated at the beginning of the most active migratory period for the area. Analyses should be updated seasonally (every 3 months). At the end of the first year, the extrapolated full-year estimate of number of bird mortalities will be considered for future refinement of monitoring protocol.

Figure 1. General diagram showing a typical footprint for a circular solar facility with a central power tower. Included is an approximation of the layout for transects to estimate migratory bird mortality.

Figure 2. General diagram showing a typical footprint for a tetragon shaped solar facility. Included is an approximation of the layout for transects to estimate migratory bird mortality.

LITERATURE CITED California Energy Commission. 2006. California guidelines for reducing impacts to birds and bats from

wind energy development. Sacramento, CA. Huso, M. M. P. 2010. An estimator of wildlife fatality from observed carcasses. Environmetrics DOI:

10.1002/env.1052 Lukacs, P. 2011. Closed population capture-recapture models In Program MARK: A gentle introduction.

Online: http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/pdf/chap14.pdf Program DISTANCE. 2011. http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/ Program MARK. 2011. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mark/mark.htm

http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/pdf/chap14.pdf

http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mark/mark.htm

SAMPLE DATA SHEET (Excel file is available)

XXX Solar Facility Migratory Bird Monitoring Project Date:

(us e a different s heet for ea ch da y)

Observer:

Transect #

Unique Carcass

ID Species

Carcass

Condition UTM

Cause of

Death Transect #

Unique Carcass

ID Species

Carcass

Condition UTM

Cause of

Death

Transect

Total Number of carcasses (include zeros for transects with no carcasses; put X if not sampled)

Daily Summary

Transect

Total Number of carcasses (include zeros for transects with no carcasses; put X if not sampled)

Mirror 1 Pond 1 Mirror 2 Pond 2 Mirror 3 Pond 3 Mirror 4 Pond 4 Mirror 5 Line 1 Mirror 6 Line 2 Mirror 7 Line 3 Mirror 8 Line 4

Region 8 - Solar ABPP Document Review Checklist

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The plan considers ALL bird species The plan addresses bats Plan is written within adaptive management framework SPECIFIC SECTION CONSIDERATIONS SITE ASSESSMENT

Coarse site assessment completed (e.g., RAM, PII) Appropriate site specific wildlife surveys completed Protocol eagle/raptor surveys (breeding, wintering, migration) Bird use counts (breeding, wintering, migration) Acoustic bat monitoring Additional data sources consulted Identifies special status species

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Species specific threats identified by species Collision with solar technology (e.g., panels, power towers) Burning and blinding from concentrated light Evaporation ponds (i.e., attractive nuisance, hyper-saline toxicity) Transmission line, met tower, guy wire collision Utility electrocution Nest and roost site disturbance Habitat loss Habitat fragmentation Additional human presence disturbance Cumulative threats analyzed Eagles Other birds and bats Quantitative risk assessment for all species

CONSERVATION MEASURES

Macro-siting considerations (e.g., placement in least sensitive landscape) Micro-siting considerations Avoidance of sensitive habitat fragmentation (e.g., desert washes) Minimize footprint/disturbance area Implementation of disturbance buffers Nesting Birds (construction and operation phases) Raptors and Eagles Grouse

Bats Construction Best Management Practices Avoid inclusion of structures for nesting/perching (e.g., lattice towers) Noise reduction/buffers Avoid use of guy wires were possible Bury all electrical lines where possible Tower lighting Minimize access roads Minimize fire potential Vegetation clearance outside of bird breeding season Within breeding season with avoidance surveys Control of non-native plant establishment Control garbage and attractive nuisance sources Operational Avoidance and Minimization Measures Minimize features that attract wildlife (e.g., water, nest sites, perches, prey) Implement APLIC standards for utility components Minimize operational noise on adjacent habitat Minimize operational lighting (e.g., motion sensors, shielding, etc) Evaporation pond exclusions

POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Assess bird/bat mortality related to solar technology (e.g., collision, burning, blinding)

Assess bird mortality associated with utilities (e.g., collisions, electrocutions) Evaluate bird use of evaporation ponds and effectiveness of exclusion devices Assess impacts of fragmentation and displacement Eagle monitoring (i.e., nesting, foraging behavior) Project site nest management protocols

RISK VALIDATION

Quantify actual impacts post-operation Assess whether conservation measures are adequate to minimize impacts

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Are additional conservation measures identified Phased-in approach based on triggers Mitigation approaches identified Habitat Equivalency Analysis (i.e., pre-construction habitat compensation) Eagle mitigation measures

REPORTING

Identifies reporting mechanism for project specific data/information

Documents

FWS Comments on Silver State South Solar