Avian & Bat Studies for Cape Vincent Wind

8/8/2019 Avian & Bat Studies for Cape Vincent Wind

1/59

G:\2007\0057356\11027H(rpt(rev3).doc

Avian and Bat Studies for the ProposedCape Vincent Wind Power Project

Appendix F

December 7, 2007Project No. 0057356

Environmental Resources Management15810 Park Ten Place, Suite 300

Houston, Texas 77084-5140(281) 600-1000


2/59

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSEDCAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Final Report

April 2006 May 2007

Prepared for :

BP Alternative Energy North America700 Louisiana Street, 33 rd Floor

Houston, Texas

Prepared by :

David P. Young, Jr., Jessica J. Kerns, Christopher S. Nations, and Victoria K. PoultonW estern EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

2003 Central AvenueCheyenne, Wyoming 82001

November 28, 2007

1 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


3/59

Cape Vincent Wind Power ProjectAvian and Bat Studies Report

WEST, Inc. i November 28, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BPAE) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energydevelopment in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York. The exact location and size of the development will be based on anumber of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmissionconstraints, permitting, and results of site surveys.

Early project evaluation identified issues concerning potential impacts from the project on avianand bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant birds and migrant raptors, migrant bats, andspecies of concern that may occupy the site. BPAE developed and implemented a one year avianand bat survey protocol to address the agency concerns and provide site-specific data for theresources of concern. The study plan was reviewed and approved by the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The primaryobjectives of the study were to: provide information on avian and bat resources and use of thestudy area that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts from the wind powerdevelopment, provide information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area thatwould help in designing a wind project that is less likely to expose species to risk of collisionswith turbines, and provide recommendations for further studies and potential mitigationmeasures, if appropriate.

The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar samplingduring the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed pointlocations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts;AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident batsduring the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various studycomponents took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrencein the project area.

Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. A total of 508 and 300 hours of radar sampling were conducted in the fall and spring respectively. Fallmean and dispersion of flight direction were = 209.2 and r = 0.34 and spring mean anddispersion of flight direction were = 34.0 and r = 0.52. The overall mean fall passage rate inthe horizontal mode was 345.8 13.3 targets/km/hr (mean SE) and the overall mean springpassage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 8.8 targets/km/hr (mean SE). For sampling atthe 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 1.7 m (mean SE) aboveradar level in the fall and 441.3 2.5 m arl in the spring. Approximately 7.7% of targets hadflight altitudes less than 125 m in the fall and approximately 14.0% of targets had flight altitudesless than 125 m in the spring. Clutter from non-avian or bat targets was considered minimal;during the fall and spring only 1% of targets were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) and not likely birdor bat targets.

Diurnal point count surveys were conducted during the raptor migration periods in the spring andfall 2006 and again in the spring 2007. During spring 2006, a total of 12 point count surveys

2 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


4/59


WEST, Inc. ii November 28, 2007

were conducted resulting in 777 individual birds recorded including 79 raptors of 10 species.During the fall season, a total of 30 surveys were conducted resulting in a total of 3,050individual birds recorded including 165 individual raptors of 10 species. During the spring 2007season, a total of 21 surveys were conducted and 1,851 individual birds were recorded including205 individual raptors of 9 species. Canada goose was the most commonly seen bird duringspring and fall surveys. During both spring seasons, turkey vulture was the mostly commonlyrecorded raptor species (n = 29, 66.7% of surveys; n = 111, 94.4% of surveys, respectively)followed by American kestrel (n = 13, 41.7% of surveys) in 2006 and northern harrier (n = 37,88.9% of surveys) in 2007. In the fall, northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptorspecies (n = 69, 76.7% of surveys), followed by turkey vulture (n = 50, 33.3% of surveys).Other raptor species seen included: broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk,sharp-shinned hawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, and Coopers hawk. There were no spatialdifferences in raptor use across the survey points.

Point count surveys were conducted for breeding birds on June 29 and July 6, 2006. Each pointwas surveyed twice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 812 individual birds wereobserved in 462 groups of 63 species. Red-winged blackbird, bobolink, and song sparrow werethe most common passerines observed based on mean use estimates (number observed within400 m per 3-minute survey). Several species of interest were recorded during the breeding birdsurveys including New York state species of concern northern harrier, Henslows sparrow,horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow, and two species on the USFWS 2002Birds of Conservation Concern list for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region,bobolink and wood thrush.

Spring AnaBat sampling occurred between April 13 and June 2, 2006 at the project met towerand resulted in a total of 241 bat calls recorded (4.92 calls/night) during the 49 days of sampling.Summer sampling occurred on 15 nights between June 28 and August 8 at the met tower andrecorded a total of 431 calls (28.7 calls/night). During fall, August 13 to October 9, samplingoccurred at three different heights at the met tower. The AnaBat unit positioned at ground levelrecorded the highest number of bat vocalizations per night (9.90 calls/night) over the 58 daysampling period. At least four different species of bat, eastern red bat, hoary bat, big brown bats,and Myotis sp. were recorded during the sampling. 208 calls that were of sufficient length toattempt species identification were submitted for quantitative analysis. Of these eastern red bat,little brown bat, northern myotis, and Indiana bat were identified.

Winter driving surveys in the project area were conducted on nine days between November 5,2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spent during the drivingsurveys and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys were conducted at the three fixed-point countstations. A total of 395 individuals in 96 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors and other birdswere recorded during the winter driving surveys and 255 individuals in 87 groups were recordedduring the winter fixed point counts. Two species of waterfowl, two species of waterbird, and sixraptor species were observed either during the surveys. Canada goose was the most commonwaterfowl species observed during the winter surveys based on use estimates. Rough leggedhawk and red-tailed hawk were the most common raptor species.

3 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


5/59


WEST, Inc. iii November 28, 2007

The results of the nocturnal radar survey were very similar to other radar studies conducted inNew York and the northeast U.S. Based on the characteristics of migration, there does notappear to be greater risk to nocturnal migrants than other wind sites studied. The diurnal raptormigration surveys do not indicate that a significant flight of migrant raptors pass through thestudy area when compared to established hawk watch sites in New York for either spring or fall.Based on the topography and landform of the Jefferson County area, there is little to concentrateraptor movement though the study area. The study results appear to indicate that migrant raptorsare more dispersed when they pass through the proposed project area region. Results of thebreeding bird were typical of mixed agricultural settings with a variety of common speciesrecorded indicating a diversity of habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during thesurveys, however, potential risk to any of these species is not considered high. Potential impactsare expected to be spread over several commonly observed species. Some waterfowl,waterbirds, and raptors winter in the Cape Vincent project area. The project would result inincreased exposure to wintering birds, however, most of the species observed were commonspecies with large populations and potential impacts would not be considered significant.

Based on the AnaBat surveys, bat abundance was greatest during the summer season. It is,however, likely that fall migrant species may be at risk from the project based on results fromother monitoring studies and a relatively high level of bat calls recorded during the fall season.Species identification from the AnaBat data and existing information from the NYSDECsuggests that Indiana bat, a federal endangered species, may be present on the site. Furtherstudies recommended for the project include additional bat surveys including mist-nettingsurveys to determine presence-absence and spatial distribution of Indiana bats in the project area.

4 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


6/59


WEST, Inc. iv November 28, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................... 1

Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 3Study Components.......................................................................................................................... 3Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey................................................................................................. 5

Methods................................................................................................................................... 7Results..................................................................................................................................... 8

Raptor Migration Surveys......................................................................................................... 22Methods................................................................................................................................. 22Results................................................................................................................................... 23

Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................... 31Methods................................................................................................................................. 31Results................................................................................................................................... 33

Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ....................................................................................................... 35Methods................................................................................................................................. 35Results................................................................................................................................... 37

Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys..................................................................................... 39Methods................................................................................................................................. 39Results................................................................................................................................... 40

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 43Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey............................................................................................... 43Raptor Migration Surveys......................................................................................................... 45Breeding Bird Survey ............................................................................................................... 47Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys ....................................................................................................... 48Waterfowl and Winter Raptor Surveys..................................................................................... 50

References..................................................................................................................................... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnalraptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area............................25

Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed duringdiurnal raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. ..............27

Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the Cape Vincentwind power project area.....................................................................................................33

Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/nightrecorded by each AnaBat unit at the met tower for spring, summer, and fallsampling periods. ...............................................................................................................38

Table 5. Relative call frequency of species recorded at the met tower during the samplingperiods of each season. ......................................................................................................38

Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling................39Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys

at the Cape Vincent wind power project area. ...................................................................42Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed point..................42

5 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


7/59


WEST, Inc. v November 28, 2007

Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S..............44Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at six

established New York spring/fall hawk watch sites. .........................................................46Table 11. Wind projects in the U.S. with both AnaBat sampling data and mortality data

for bat species. ...................................................................................................................48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed Cape Vincent wind power project location. ....................................................2Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the Cape Vincent project area....................................................4Figure 3. Radar sampling locations and raptor survey locations for the Cape Vincent

project area...........................................................................................................................6Figure 4. Observed flight directions at Cape Vincent project area.................................................9Figure 5. Mean + 1 SE nightly passage rates in horizontal mode. ...............................................11Figure 6. Mean + SE nightly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.........................................12

Figure 7. Mean + SE hourly passage rates recorded in horizontal mode. ....................................13Figure 8. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.......................................14Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km. Height

class 1 represents altitudes 0-100 om, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200 om, etc.No targets were observed in classes 10-12, 14, or 15........................................................16

Figure 10. Mean + 1 SE nightly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. ..................................17Figure 11. Mean + 1 SE hourly flight altitude sampling at 1.5-km range. ...................................18Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions..........................................................................19Figure 13. Mean + 1 SE nightly target air speed. .........................................................................21Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape

Vincent wind power project area. ......................................................................................29

Figure 15. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the Cape Vincent wind powerproject area.........................................................................................................................32

Figure 16. AnaBat survey locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area....................36Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species location recorded

for the project area. ............................................................................................................41

6 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


8/59


WEST, Inc. 1 November 28, 2007

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BPAE) is evaluating the feasibility of wind energy

development in Jefferson County, New York. The proposed project, Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The city of Watertown is located approximately 12 milessoutheast of the project. The exact location and size of the development will be based on anumber of factors including power purchase agreement(s), electricity markets, transmissionconstraints, permitting, and results of site surveys.

Through the early project evaluation process, BPAE contacted the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) todetermine biological resources of concern for the project. Issues that were raised includedpotential impacts from the project on avian and bat resources, in particular nocturnal migrant

birds and migrant raptors, migrant bats, and species of concern that may occupy the site. Inresponse to comments from the agencies, BPAE requested that Western EcoSystemsTechnology, Inc. (WEST) develop an avian and bat survey protocol for a one-year study thatwould address the agency concerns and provide site-specific data for the resources of concern.

The principal goals of the study, initiated in April 2006, were to:

1) Provide baseline information on avian and bat resources and use of the study area thatwould be useful in evaluating potential impacts from the wind power development;

2) Provide baseline information on avian and bat migration over the proposed developmentarea that is useful in evaluating the relative risk of the proposed wind project;

3) Provide information on avian, bat, and sensitive species use of the study area that willhelp in designing a wind project that is less likely to expose species to risk of collisionswith turbines, and;

4) Provide recommendations for further monitoring studies and potential mitigationmeasures, if appropriate.

Specific objectives of the study were to: (1) describe and quantify nocturnal migration over theproposed project area; (2) describe and quantify spring and fall (diurnal) raptor migrationthrough the proposed project; (3) describe and quantify breeding bird use in the proposeddevelopment area (turbine locations); (4) describe and quantify migrant bat use over theproposed project; (5) identify resident bat species in the project area; (6) describe and quantifywaterfowl migration through the project area; (7) and identify the presence of any federal andstate-listed species that may occur within in the project area, as well as potential habitat for thesespecies. The protocol was developed based on input from NYSDEC and the USFWS, as well asthe expertise and experience of WEST implementing and conducting similar studies for windenergy development throughout the U.S.

7 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


9/59



Figure 1. Proposed Cape Vincent wind power project location .

8 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


10/59



STUDY AREA

The proposed project area is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Elevation of the ecozone varies from about 100-500 feet. The

dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple,white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20%wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Some of the overall project area is characterized by Alvarecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely vegetated rock barrens that developon flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).

The land within the project area is privately owned and the primary land use is agriculture anddairy farming (Figure 2). Most of the project development area is in agricultural fields. Thereare scattered farms and houses throughout the project and adjacent to the roads. Vegetation of the project is a mosaic of open grass/hay fields, cultivated agriculture, and scattered deciduoustree wood lots. The deciduous forest type tends to be variable in size with some small woodlots

intermixed with agriculture fields and some larger blocks of forest, particularly in low-lyingareas and along stream corridors. Several inlets, creeks, and wetland forests occur within theproject area.

STUDY COMPONENTS

The one-year avian and bat preconstruction study consisted of nocturnal marine radar samplingduring the spring and fall migration periods; diurnal point count surveys from fixed pointlocations conducive to observing raptors and other large birds; breeding bird survey point counts;AnaBat sampling for migrating bats during the spring and fall; AnaBat sampling for resident bats

during the summer; and winter and early spring waterfowl and raptor surveys. The various studycomponents took into consideration the potential for federal and state-listed species occurrencein the project area.

9 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


11/59



Figure 2. Land use/land cover of the Cape Vincent project area.

10 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


12/59



Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey

The overall purpose of the nocturnal marine radar survey is to characterize avian migration over

the project area and provide data that can be used to determine the relative magnitude of nocturnal migration over the proposed development area when compared to other sites. Theprimary objective of the radar study is to collect baseline information on flight direction, passagerates, and flight altitude of nocturnal migrants at a representative sampling location for theproposed development area.

A single radar unit was used for the migration seasons defined as 15 August 15 October for thefall and 15 April 15 1 June for the spring. The radar lab consists of an X-band marine radar,transmitting at 9,410 MHz with power output of 12 kW, mounted on a vehicle. Similar radarlabs have been successfully used to monitor nocturnal avian migration and are described inCooper et al. (1991) and Harmata et al . (1999).

The fall sampling location was selected based on constraints of the radar (e.g., minimization of ground interference), property ownership, access, and comments from the NYSDEC andUSFWS (Figure 3). Based on comments from the NYSDEC and USFWS, the ideal radarsampling point to allow characterization of avian/bat movement along the shoreline, as well asover inland areas, was restricted to those areas approximately 1.5 km from the shoreline. Todecrease ground clutter, the unit was positioned in a small hollow so that surroundingtopography reflected the lower portion of the main beam, producing a clear picture of skybeyond. Due to land management changes at the fall radar sampling location, the site wasinaccessible in the spring. A second sampling location was chosen with similar characteristics asthe fall site and also situated approximately 1.5 km from the shoreline (Figure 3).

11 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


13/59


WEST, Inc. 6

Figure 3. Radar sampling locations and raptor survey locations for the Cape Vincent project a

12


14/59


WEST, Inc. 7 Draft - November 1, 2007

Methods

The study period for radar sampling was 63 days during the fall season and 50 days during thespring. Due to the constraints of marine radar, sampling during some nights was compromised

or cancelled due to rain, so the total number of sampled nights was less than the total studyperiod. Nocturnal radar sampling occurred from approximately sunset each night until sunrisethe following morning. Each night was broken down into 60-min sampling periods thatconsisted of:

1) one 5-min session to collect weather data and adjust the radar to surveillance (i.e.,horizontal) mode,

2) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance modecollecting information on migration traffic (passage) rates;

3) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) with the radar in surveillance modecollecting information on flight direction and speed of targets, as well as general

location of migrants;4) one 5-min break to adjust radar to vertical mode;5) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect

information on migration traffic (passage) rate;6) one 10-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect

information on flight altitudes below 1500 m;7) one 5-min short-range session (1.5 km range) in the vertical mode to collect

information on the spatial distribution and altitudes of birds along an east-westtransect axis; and,

8) one 5-min long-range session (3.0 km range) in the vertical mode to collectinformation on flight altitudes below 3000 m.

The following weather data was collected at the beginning of each hour session: wind speed,wind direction; cloud cover (%); approximate ceiling height (m); approximate visibility (m);precipitation; barometric pressure; air temperature ( oC). Noticeable changes in weatherconditions, if any, were recorded when the radar unit was adjusted to vertical mode.

The Furuno FAR2117BB radar used in this study has several controls which affect detection andtracking of targets. In order to detect and track small targets, the radar operated under theshortest pulse length setting with the gain control turned up to near the highest setting. Initially,the anti-clutter controls on the radar were turned down to the lowest settings. The anti-sea cluttercontrol was then slowly turned up to about the point where background noise cleared from the

screen enough to see small targets. The anti-rain clutter control was kept at the lowest setting.While in the vertical mode, to eliminate ground clutter around the radar generated from secondechoes of radar energy bouncing off the van and ground, a blind sector was set so that the radardid not transmit energy when the antennae was pointing towards the ground (from 90 o to 270 o).The radar trails function was generally set at 30 seconds so that targets could be tracked for longenough to determine direction and speed. Target flight direction was determined by placing thecursor on a target echo within a trail and aligning the offset electronic bearing line (EBL) alongthe line of target echoes pointing in the direction of travel. Speed was recorded as the distance a

13 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


15/59



target traveled in 5 seconds (two sweeps of the radar antennae). With the target trails turned on,each sweep of the radar plots a new echo for any given target with each echo persisting on thescreen for a set amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds). Speed was determined with the offset variablerange marker (VRM) by placing the cursor on a target echo and measuring the distance between

that echo and the third echo in line (i.e., the distance traveled in 2 sweeps of the antennae or 5seconds). Target height was measured with an index line (a tangent on the VRM) on the monitorrelative to a horizontal line running through the radar point of origin.

All data were exported from Microsoft Access and imported into SAS V.8 for further dataprocessing, quality assurance, and analysis. Additional analyses were performed using MatlabV6.5. To determine passage rates in horizontal mode, the 2-dimensional area represented by theradar image was treated as a 1-dimensional front perpendicular to the direction of migration,with length equal to 3 km (the diameter of the surveyed area); all targets counted in the radarimage during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossed the front. Based on thatassumption, passage rate was calculated as number of targets per kilometer per hour.

Mean flight direction was estimated as ( )1tan y x = where ( )1 cosn

ii y n == ,

( )1sinn

ii x n == , and i was the flight direction for the ith observation (Batschelet, 1981).Dispersion in the data was calculated as ( )

1 22 2r x y= + such that 0 r 1. If all observationshad exactly the same direction, r = 1; conversely, r = 0 would indicate uniform distribution of directions around the circle.

Mean flight altitude was not adjusted for unequal sampling intensity at different heights orunequal detection probability as a function of distance from the radar unit.

Air speed of targets, V a, was calculated as ( )2 2 2 cosa g w g wV V V V V = + , where V g = targetground speed, V w = wind speed, and was the difference between the target flight directionand wind direction. Hourly weather observations made at ground level were used for estimatesof wind speed and direction. Wind direction categorized by field observers as N, NE, E,SE, etc.; were transformed to bearings (0 , 45 , 90, 135 , etc.) for the calculation of .Targets with air speeds less than 6 m/s or greater than 35 m/s were judged not to be migratingbirds and were excluded from further analysis.

Results

Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted most nights during the 63-day period between August15 and October 15, 2006 and the 50-day period between April 19 and June 8, 2007. During fall,radar sampling was conducted most nights for a total of approximately 508 hours of radarsampling during the study period. Very wet weather in mid-April and again in late-Maycompromised many survey nights during the spring study period. Radar sampling wasconducted for a total of approximately 300 hours during the spring study period.

14 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


16/59


17/59



Spring - The overall mean passage rate in the horizontal mode was 166.2 8.8 targets/km/hr(mean SE) ( n = 310 sample periods) and in the vertical mode was 191 9.4 targets/km/hr(mean SE) ( n = 308 sample periods). Mean nightly passage rate was highly variable in bothhorizontal mode (Figure 5) and vertical mode (Figure 6). The greatest nightly passage rates

occurred in early and mid May. Mean hourly passage rates tended to be low early in theevening, with rapid increases to maximum values just before midnight, followed byprogressively declining rates throughout the night with a second small increase early in themorning (Figures 7 and 8).

16 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


18/59



08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/130

500

1000

1500

DATE

N I G H T L Y P A S S A G E R A T E ( t a r g e

t s / k m

/ h r )

Fall

Spring

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

17 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


19/59



08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/130

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

DATE

N I G H T L Y P A S S A G E R A T E ( t a r g e

t s / k m / h r )

Fall

Spring

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

18 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


20/59



1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 06000

100

200

300

400

500

600

TIME

H O U R L Y

P A S S A G E R A T E ( t a r g e

t s / k m

/ h r )

Fall

Spring

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

19 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


21/59



1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 06000

100

200

300

400

500

600

TIME

H O U R

L Y P A S S A G E R A T E ( t a r g e

t s / k m

/ h r )

Fall

Spring

Figure 8. Mean + 1 SE hourly passage rates recorded in vertical mode.

20 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


22/59



Flight AltitudesFall - For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 490.4 1.7 m(mean SE) ( n = 30,749 targets) above radar level (arl) 1. Approximately 7.7% of targets hadflight altitudes less than 125 m (the approximate zone of risk posed by modern turbines) at the

site. Most targets were observed at altitudes below 500 m (Figure 9). The highest percentage of targets occurred between 201 and 300 m arl. Nightly mean flight altitudes were variablethroughout the study period and ranged from approximately 275 m to 685 m arl (Figure 10). Incontrast, hourly mean flight altitudes were relatively constant (typically in the 450 500 m range)(Figure 11) and close to the overall mean flight altitude for the study period. For samplingperiods at the 3-km range in vertical mode, 3.1% of targets (558 of 18,059) had flight altitudesgreater than 1500 m. On all sampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the medianvalue and the middle 50% of all observations were greater than 125 m arl (Figure 12).

Spring - For sampling at the 1.5-km range in vertical mode, mean flight altitude was 441.3 2.5m (mean SE) ( n = 16,151 targets) arl. Approximately14.0% of targets had flight altitudes lessthan 125 m. The highest percentage of targets (19.2%) occurred between 101 and 200 m arl(Figure 9). Nightly mean flight altitudes were variable throughout the study period and rangedfrom approximately 170 m to 650 m arl (Figure 10). In contrast, hourly mean flight altitudeswere relatively constant (typically in the 440470 m range) (Figure 11) and close to the overallmean flight altitude for the study period. For sampling periods at the 3-km range in verticalmode, 2.6% of targets (253 of 9061 targets) had flight altitudes greater than 1500 m. On allsampling nights the mean flight height was greater than the median value and above 125 m arl;however, on two nights the median value was below 125 m arl and on seven nights the middle50% of all observations overlapped the zone of risk (Figure 12).

1 Target altitude was measured in relation to a horizontal line running through the point of origin for the radar andthus termed above radar level. Height above ground level (agl) is highly variable depending on the topographydirectly below any given target and not measurable with the radar.

21 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


23/59



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

HEIGHT CLASS

P E R C E N T O F T A R G E T S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

5

10

15

HEIGHT CLASS

P E R C E N T O F T A R G E T S

Fall

Spring

Figure 9. Frequency histogram of targets by height class, sampling at 1.5-km. Height class 1represents altitudes 0-100 om, class 2 represents altitudes 100-200 om, etc.

22 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


24/59



08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/130

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

DATE

F L I G H T A L T I T U D E ( m )

04/26 05/01 05/06 05/11 05/16 05/21 05/26 05/31 06/05 06/100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

DATE


Fall

Spring

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

23 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


25/59



1800 2000 2200 0000 0200 0400 06000

50

100

150

200

250

300

TIME


0000 0200 0400 2000 22000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

TIME


Fall

Spring

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

24 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


26/59



Fall

Spring

Figure 12. Recorded target altitude distributions 2.

2 The boxes within the chart represent the 1 st and 3 rd quartile (50%) of the nightly observations, the horizontal lineswithin boxes represent nightly median value of flight heights, and solid circles represent the nightly mean flightheight.

25 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


27/59



Target SpeedFall - Air speed of targets was calculated by adjusting for wind speed and direction (see Methodsabove). Of 12,190 targets, approximately 1% (120 targets) were moving very slow (< 6 m/s) andone target was moving at high speed (> 35m/s). After excluding very slow and very fast targets,

overall mean target air speed was 12.95 0.03 m/s (mean SE) ( n = 12069 targets). Nightlymean target air speed varied from approximately 10 to 17 m/s (Figure 13). Because thepercentage of targets moving slowly was so small, no further adjustment to the data set waswarranted.

Spring - Of 5,003 targets, approximately 1% (56 targets) was excluded because they weremoving very slow (< 6 m/s) or due to high speed (> 35m/s) and 47 targets were excluded due tomissing wind speed and/or direction to allow for air speed adjustments. After excluding veryslow and very fast targets, overall mean target air speed was 13.65 0.06 m/s (mean SE)(n = 4900 targets). Nightly mean target air speed varied from approximately 11 to 18 m/s(Figure 13). Because the percentage of targets moving slowly was so small, no further

adjustment to the data set was warranted.

26 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


28/59



08/14 08/24 09/03 09/13 09/23 10/03 10/130

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

DATE

A I R S P E E D ( m / s )

Fall

Spring

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

27 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


29/59



Raptor Migration Surveys

The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of thesites by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g., waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds.

Point counts using variable circular plots (Reynolds et al. 1980, Bibby et al . 1992) wereconducted within the project area according to methods used by the Hawk Migration Associationof North America (HMANA) with observers continuously scanning the sky and surroundingareas for raptors in the survey area. The emphasis of the surveys was locating and countingraptors migrating through the area. The timing of surveys was determined in consultation withthe NYSDEC and based on available information from migrant raptor watch stations in northernand western New York (e.g., Derby Hill, see below).

Methods

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

visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area, and also attemptingto minimize the potential for double-counting individual birds (Figure 3). Survey stations wereestablished to maximize visibility over long distances in an effort to locate and identify migratingraptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while maintaining the integrity of the east-west layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the vegetation and topographicfeatures of the area, good visibility in 360 o around the point, and so that each point wassurveying unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observationpoint. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within anapproximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birdsbeyond the 800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot.

Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900 1700) tocover the peak period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60minutes long. All raptors and other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigneda unique observation number and plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for eachsurvey included date; start and end time of the observation period; and weather information suchas temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover. Species orbest possible identification, number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance fromplot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above ground, activity (behavior), andhabitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight direction or movementpaths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each raptor/large birdand habitat in which or over which the bird was first observed were recorded. Behavior

categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted incomments). Habitats included agriculture, old (fallow) field, deciduous woods/forest, developed(e.g., farms), and other (noted in comments). Approximate flight height at first observation andthe approximate lowest and highest flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meterinterval. Any comments or unusual observations were noted in the comments section.

Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration through the project area. In NewYork, spring hawk watch locations are concentrated along the Great Lakes shorelines and are

28 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


30/59



more inland in eastern portions of the state during fall migration. According to spring count datafrom the Derby Hill Bird Observatory (Mexico, New York) approximately 50 miles south of Cape Vincent along Lake Ontario, peak numbers of sharp-shinned hawks migrate through thearea during April, with large pulses of broad-winged hawks during the last two weeks of April.

Fall migration counts from Franklin Mountain in Oneonta, New York (150 miles southeast of Cape Vincent) report peak periods for migrant broad-winged and sharp-shinned hawks duringSeptember and October, respectively. Concern for migrant golden eagles potentially using theCape Vincent project area was expressed during talks with the NYSDEC. Golden eagles areearlier and later migrants with peaks reported from the end of March through April during springmigration and the end of October through November during fall migration. Spring raptorsurveys at the Cape Vincent project area began later in the 2006 season (April 14, 2006) andlikely did not capture early raptor migrants, such as golden eagles; however, spring surveys wereconducted again in 2007 and began at an earlier date, March 21, and ran until May 1. In fall,surveys were conducted from September 23 November 11.

Results

During the spring 2006 season, each point was surveyed 4 times, for a total of 12 surveys. Atotal of 777 individual birds were recorded; 79 raptors of 10 species were observed (Table 1).During the fall season, each fixed point was surveyed 10 times during the survey window, for atotal of 30 surveys. A total of 3,050 individual birds were recorded during the surveys; 165individual raptors of 10 species were observed. During the spring 2007 season, each point wassurveyed 7 times, for a total of 21 surveys. A total of 1,851 individual birds were recordedduring the surveys; 205 individual raptors of 9 species were observed. (Table 1)

Canada goose was the most commonly seen bird during spring and fall surveys. During both

spring migration surveys (2006 and 2007), turkey vulture was the mostly commonly recordedraptor species (n = 29, freq = 66.7% and n = 111, freq = 94.4%, respectively). American kestrel(n = 13, freq = 41.7%) followed turkey vulture in numbers during the spring 2006 surveys,whereas northern harrier (n = 37, freq = 88.9%) followed turkey vulture in the 2007 springsurveys. In the fall, northern harrier was the most commonly recorded raptor species (n = 69,freq = 76.7%), followed by turkey vulture (n = 50, freq = 33.3%). Other raptor species seenincluded: broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, osprey,peregrine falcon, and Coopers hawk.

Exposure indices were calculated as the mean use estimates (number of birds/60-minute survey)multiplied by the proportion of birds observed flying and the proportion of birds flying within

the zone of risk (defined as the approximate rotor-swept area). During the migratory seasons,gull species had the highest exposure index due to high numbers of individuals occurring in theproject area (Table 2). For raptors, turkey vulture had the highest exposure index also dueprimarily to the higher use estimates.

Avian and raptor use varied among survey stations (Figure 14). Avian use was highest at Station1 during the fall 2006 season; however Station 2 was the highest during both spring seasons.Large flocks of Canada geese and other duck species recorded at this survey point contributed to

29 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


31/59



this high use estimate. Station 2 is located on the western edge of the project area and closest toLake Ontario. High numbers of Canada geese and gull species accounted for higher avian use atthis survey station. Raptor use was generally similar between seasons and survey points. Station2 had higher use in the spring seasons but the differences were not significant.

30 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


32/59


WEST, Inc. 25

Table 1. Raptors and other large bird species observed during spring and fall diurnal raptor migration surveys at thepower project area.

Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Species/Group # ind # groups mean

use3

% freq 4 # ind # groups mean

use% freq # in

Waterbirds 221 22 34 18 58Bonaparte's gull 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 Caspian tern 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 Common loon 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 0 Common tern 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 Double-crested cormorant 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 Great blue heron 8 7 0.67 50.00 3 3 0.10 10.00 26 Herring gull 6 2 0.50 16.67 6 2 0.20 6.67 0 Ring-billed gull 57 6 4.75 33.33 8 7 0.27 20.00 21 Unidentified gull 150 7 12.50 41.67 16 5 0.50 13.33 4 Waterfowl 457 25 2677 92 136Canada goose 411 19 34.25 75.00 2337 64 77.90 50.00 1305 Bufflehead 0 0 0.00 0.00 9 1 0.30 3.33 3 Common merganser 0 0 0.00 0.00 9 2 0.30 6.67 0 Gadwall 0 0 0.00 0.00 14 1 0.47 3.33 0 Green-winged teal 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 1 0.07 3.33 0 Hooded merganser 0 0 0.00 0.00 26 3 0.87 6.67 5 Mallard 41 5 3.42 25.00 91 16 3.03 40.00 36 Ring-necked duck 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 12 Tundra swan 0 0 0.00 0.00 20 1 0.67 3.33 0

Unidentified duck 5 1 0.42 8.33 168 2 5.60 6.67 4 Raptors 79 58 165 129 20 Accipiters

3 Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 60-min survey4 Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed

31


33/59


WEST, Inc. 26

Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Species/Group # ind # groups meanuse 3 % freq

4 # ind # groups meanuse % freq # in

Coopers hawk SC 0 0 0.00 0.00 3 3 0.10 10.00 2

Northern goshawk 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 Sharp-shinned hawk SC 3 3 0.25 25.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 0

ButeosBroad-winged hawk 8 6 0.67 33.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 Red-tailed hawk 11 10 0.92 50.00 29 23 0.97 33.33 26 Rough-legged hawk 2 2 0.17 16.67 2 1 0.07 3.33 5 Unidentified buteo 1 1 0.08 8.33 2 1 0.07 3.33 5 FalconsAmerican kestrel 13 5 1.08 41.67 5 5 0.17 16.67 17 Peregrine falcon 0 0 0.00 0.00 2 2 0.07 6.67 0 Other RaptorsNorthern harrier ST 7 7 0.58 33.33 69 63 2.30 76.67 37 Osprey SC 1 1 0.08 8.33 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 Turkey vulture 29 19 2.42 66.67 50 28 1.67 30.00 111 Unidentified raptor 4 4 0.33 25.00 2 2 0.07 6.67 0 Other Birds 20 8 170 65 21American crow 20 8 1.67 41.67 146 56 4.83 70.00 68 Common raven 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.03 3.33 5 European starling 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 110 Killdeer 0 0 0.00 0.00 4 2 0.13 6.67 5 Ring-necked pheasant 0 0 0.00 0.00 8 6 0.27 16.67 11

Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 7 Wild turkey 0 0 0.00 0.00 15 2 0.50 6.67 17

Total 777 113 3050 306 185

ST = State listed threatened; SC = State listed species of special concern

32


34/59


WEST, Inc. 27

Table 2. Flight height characteristics and exposure indices by species observed during diurnal raptor migration surveywind power project area.

Relation to rotor-swept area

Species Mean Use % birds

flying% below % within % abo

Waterbirds 97.47 28.10 29.32 4Bonaparte's gull 0.04 0.00 NA NACaspian tern 0.02 100.00 0.00 100.00Common loon 0.01 0.00 NA NACommon tern 0.01 100.00 0.00 100.00Double-crested cormorant 0.01 100.00 0.00 0.00 100Great blue heron 0.44 97.30 27.78 61.11 1Herring gull 0.15 100.00 41.67 58.33Ring-billed gull 1.06 98.84 81.18 17.65Unidentified gull 2.10 100.00 42.69 56.73

Waterfowl 98.09 50.97 46.75Canada goose 51.00 98.64 28.78 29.87 4Bufflehead 0.15 75.00 100.00 0.00Common merganser 0.11 100.00 22.22 0.00 7Gadwall 0.17 100.00 0.00 100.00Green-winged teal 0.02 100.00 0.00 100.00Hooded merganser 0.38 54.84 100.00 0.00Mallard 2.11 84.80 36.55 48.28Ring-necked duck 0.16 0.00 NA NATundra swan 0.25 100.00 0.00 0.00 1Unidentified duck 2.19 97.74 0.00 2.89 9

Raptors 95.05 30.63 41.46 Accipiters 100.00 10Cooper's hawk 0.06 100.00 20.00 60.00 2

5 Defined as the area between approximately 25 and 125 m above ground level6 Exposure index = (mean use) * (% individuals flying) * (% flying within rotor-swept area)

33


35/59


WEST, Inc. 28

Relation to rotor-swept area

Species Mean Use % birdsflying % below % within % abo

Northern goshawk 0.01 100.00 0.00 0.00 10

Sharp-shinned hawk 0.05 100.00 0.00 50.00 5 Buteo 88.97Broad-winged hawk 0.10 100.00 0.00 62.50 3Red-tailed hawk 0.94 90.00 18.06 50.00 3Rough-legged hawk 0.47 81.58 41.94 35.48 2Unidentified buteo 0.06 100.00 0.00 0.00 10Falcon 76.92 93.33 6.67American kestrel 0.46 75.68 100.00 0.00Peregrine falcon 0.02 100.00 0.00 100.00OwlsShort-eared owl 0.02 100.00 100.00 0.00

Other raptorsNorthern harrier 1.46 100.00 66.67 24.17Osprey 0.02 100.00 0.00 50.00Turkey vulture 2.20 99.47 4.76 57.14 3Unidentified raptor 0.07 100.00 16.67 33.33 5Other BirdsAmerican crow 3.56 87.20 51.59 38.10 1Common raven 0.07 100.00 66.67 33.33European starling 1.36 68.18 100.00 0.00Killdeer 0.11 100.00 44.44 55.56Ring-necked pheasant 0.26 19.05 100.00 0.00

Rose-breasted grosbeak 0.09 100.00 0.00 100.00Wild turkey 0.52 4.76 100.00 0.00

34


36/59


WEST, Inc. 29

Figure 14. Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape Vincent wind pow

All Birds for Spring 2006

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

1 2 3

Station

M e a n u s e

Raptors for Spring 2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

1 2

Station

M e a n u s e

All Birds for Fall 2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3

Station

M e a n u s e

Raptors for Fall 2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

1 2

Station

M e a n u s e

35


37/59


WEST, Inc. 30

Figure 15 (continued). Diurnal avian mean use estimates for each survey point by season at the Cape Vincent win

All Birds for Spring 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3

Station

M e a n u s e

Raptors for Spring 2007

0

3

6

9

12

15

1 2

Station

M e a n u s e

36


38/59



Breeding Bird Survey

The objective of the breeding bird surveys was to estimate the spatial and temporal use of theproposed development area by breeding resident birds. The emphasis of the surveys was

locating and counting breeding resident birds within the area proposed for development. Thesurveys were conducted based on the regional timing recommended for USGS BBS in centralNew York (USGS 2001).

Methods

Twenty survey points were established within the project area. The survey points were selectedto cover as much of the proposed development area and habitat types as possible. Each surveystation was marked on a map and GPS coordinates were recorded for mapping (Figure 15). Thehabitat at each survey point was described to examine the applicability of the site to representother areas within the proposed development area.

U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey (USGS 2001) methods were used for the surveys.Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the observation point. All birdsobserved were recorded; however, the survey effort was concentrated within an approximate 400m (0.25 mi) radius circle centered on the observation point. All points were surveyed twiceduring the recommended survey period (June - July) and seven days were skipped between thesurveys to spread the effort over the breeding season.

Survey periods at each point were 3 minutes long, similar to the BBS method. The date; startand end time of the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, windspeed, wind direction, and cloud cover were recorded for each survey. Species or best possible

identification, number of individuals of each species, how observed (visual or auditory), andbehavior (flying, perching, singing, etc.) were recorded for each observation during the 3-minutecount at each survey point.

37 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


39/59



Figure 16. Breeding bird survey point count locations for the Cape Vincent wind power projectarea.

38 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


40/59



Results

Point count surveys were conducted on June 29 and July 6, 2006. Each point was surveyedtwice, for a total of 40 survey periods. A total of 812 individual birds were observed in 462

groups (Table 3). Sixty-three species were observed during the surveys. Red-winged blackbird,bobolink, and song sparrow were the most common passerines observed based on mean useestimates (number observed within 400 m per 3-minute survey). The majority of the speciesrecorded during breeding bird surveys are species commonly associated with agriculture,grasslands, and/or edge habitat. Several species of interest were recorded during the breedingbird surveys including northern harrier and Henslows sparrow, two New York state threatenedspecies; horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow, three New York state species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush, two species on the USFWS 2002 Birds of ConservationConcern list for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region.

Table 3. Avian species observed during breeding bird surveys within the Cape Vincent windpower project area.Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Mean UseWaterbirds 46 10 1.15Double-crested cormorant 2 1 0.05Great blue heron 6 5 0.15Ring-billed gull 38 4 0.95

Waterfowl 55 3 1.375Canada goose 12 1 0.3Mallard 8 1 0.2Unidentified duck 35 1 0.875

Shorebirds 22 8 0.55Killdeer 7 7 0.175Unidentified shorebird 15 1 0.375

Raptors/Vultures 41 30 1.025American kestrel 9 8 0.225Northern harrier ST 8 6 0.2Red-tailed hawk 6 5 0.15Turkey vulture 18 11 0.45

Passerines 612 394 15.095American crow 41 16 1.025American goldfinch 27 17 0.675American redstart 2 2 0.05American robin 31 26 0.775Baltimore oriole 1 1 0.025Barn swallow 19 6 0.475Black-and-white warbler 3 2 0.075Black-capped chickadee 8 4 0.02Blue jay 6 6 0.15Bobolink BCC 65 38 1.625Brown-headed cowbird 8 5 0.2

39 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


41/59



Species/Group # of individuals # of groups Mean UseCarolina wren 1 1 0.025Cedar waxwing 27 8 0.675Chestnut-sided warbler 10 10 0.25

Chipping sparrow 2 2 0.05Common grackle 22 9 0.55Common yellowthroat 21 16 0.525Eastern bluebird 1 1 0.025Eastern kingbird 20 13 0.5Eastern meadowlark 26 24 0.65Eastern towhee 19 16 0.475Eastern tufted titmouse 2 1 0.05

Empidonax sp. 1 1 0.025European starling 13 4 0.325Field sparrow 2 2 0.05Grasshopper sparrow SC 2 2 0.05Gray catbird 6 6 0.15Henslows sparrow ST, BCC 1 1 0.025House finch 1 1 0.025Horned lark SC 3 2 0.05Indigo bunting 1 1 0.025Northern cardinal 3 2 0.075Ovenbird 4 3 0.1Red-eyed vireo 6 6 0.15Red-winged blackbird 75 38 1.875Savannah sparrow 19 15 0.475Scarlet tanager 2 2 0.05Song sparrow 55 44 1.375Tree swallow 4 2 0.1Unidentified passerine 7 1 0.175Unidentified sparrow 5 3 0.125Vesper sparrow SC 1 1 0.025Wood thrush BCC 3 3 0.075Yellow warbler 38 32 0.95

Upland Gamebirds 3 3 0.075Ring-necked pheasant 2 2 0.05Ruffed grouse 1 1 0.025

Doves 24 6 0.6Mourning dove 5 3 0.125Rock pigeon 19 3 0.475

Other Birds 6 6 0.15Downy woodpecker 1 1 0.025Northern flicker 3 3 0.075Red-bellied woodpecker 1 1 0.025Unidentified woodpecker 1 1 0.025

All Birds 812 462 20.02ST = State listed threatened; SC = State listed species of special concern; BBC = Birds of Conservation Concern

40 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


42/59



Nocturnal AnaBat Surveys

The objective of the nocturnal AnaBat surveys was to record the relative abundance of echo-

locating bats flying through the sampling area during summer breeding season and the spring andfall migration seasons.

Methods

Bat activity at the project area was recorded using an AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detector attachedto a zero-crossing analysis interface module (ZCAIM) which houses a compact flash memorycard for temporary download of ultrasonic activity files. To sample continuously on remotemode (automatic data collection), the detector and ZCAIM were powered by an external 12Vbattery. Each AnaBat unit (detector, ZCAIM, and 12V battery) was enclosed inside a plastic boxor dry bag with the detector microphone positioned against a PVC tube protruding from the

box/bag. This design prevented water from damaging the AnaBat units without compromisingthe ability of the unit to detect ultrasonic noise in the environment. To minimize variationamong AnaBats, sensitivity settings were calibrated for each unit prior to data collection. MostAnaBat units were set at or near setting 7 on the sensitivity dial. Each AnaBat unit waspositioned so that the microphone faced the same cardinal direction, east, for each samplingperiod. Calls were recorded from approximately sunset to sunrise (1900 0700). AnaBat unitswere removed from the field approximately once per week to download files, recharge batteries,and troubleshoot technical problems. Data gathered from the passive AnaBat units at the mettower were used to calculate bat activity (designated as number of calls/detector-night) present atthe site during the sampling periods. Nights that experienced any number of technicaldifficulties were not included in the final analyses.

During the spring sampling season (April 13 June 2), three AnaBat sampling locations wereestablished (Figure 16). One unit was placed in the open grassy field at the project met towerand two other units were deployed near wooded riparian areas within the project to increaselikelihood of detecting additional species. One of these riparian units, centrally located in theproject area, was stolen in late spring and never recovered. The remaining two samplinglocations (Met tower and Riparian 1) were maintained through the summer sampling season(June 28 August 8). During fall (August 13 October 9), two pulley systems were attached tothe met tower guy wires which allowed AnaBat units to be deployed at three different levels:ground level (1 m above ground), approximately 25m high (half way up the met tower), andapproximately 50m high (near the top of the met tower).

41 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


43/59


WEST, Inc. 36

Figure 16 . AnaBat survey locations for the Cape Vincent wind power project area.

42


44/59



In addition to the stationary passive units, a roaming or mobile AnaBat unit was deployedduring the summer to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the project area (Figure16). Roaming sampling was conducted using a handheld AnaBat unit for 9 nights (3 samplingperiods of 3 consecutive nights each) at habitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. To

select locations for active sampling, reconnaissance visits were made to the project area duringthe day time to select sampling locations based on the presence of travel corridors (trails androads), linear landscape features (forest edges), and access to water; habitat features known to beimportant for bats. Active sampling was conducted from sunset until 4 hours after sunset(approximately 2100 0100).

Analysis of bat calls was conducted using Analook software (DOS version). Analook displaysultrasonic activity in a format similar to a sonogram used for analysis of bird vocalizations (e.g.,frequency versus time). Species identification was aided by the Preliminary Key to theQualitative Identification of Calls within the AnaBat System (Amelon 2005, unpublished data)where characteristics such as slope, frequency, minimum frequency, consistency of minimum

frequency, and shape of pulse assist in the identification of bat vocalizations. Due to similarityof call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into onespecies category. All Myotis-like calls were identified to genus only and submitted toNYSDEC-recommended biologist, Eric Britzke, for identification to species. To obtain speciesidentifications, an ID filter (Britzke and Murray 2001) was loaded into Analook to determinecalls sequences of sufficient quality and length for possible species identification. Onceseparated, echolocation calls of sufficient quality and length were categorized using quantitativetechniques (Britzke 2003). Quantitative analyses are conducted by a cross-validatedclassification model based on 10 extracted call parameters [duration (Dur), maximum frequency(Fmax), minimum frequency (Fmin), mean frequency (Fmean), duration to the knee (Tk),frequency of the knee (Fk), duration of the body (Tc), frequency of the body (Fc), initial slope

(S1), and slope of the body (Sc)] collected from 1,846 sequences (35,979 calls) of 12 easternU.S. bat species (Britzke 2003). Average accuracy rates for species identification using thisstatistical method ranges from 56.9% (eastern red bat) to 98.5 % (gray bat), with accuracy ratesfor Indiana bat ranging from 81.4% to 88.6%.

Results

The total number of calls and number of calls per night, recorded by each AnaBat unit at the mettower varied by season (Table 4). Spring sampling began on April 13, 2006 and recordedcontinuously until June 2, 2006. The AnaBat unit detected 241 bat calls total (4.92 calls/night)during the 49 days of spring sampling. Summer sampling occurred at the met tower on 15 nights

and recorded a total of 431 calls (28.73 calls/night). During fall, sampling occurred at 3 differentheights at the met tower. The AnaBat unit positioned at ground level recorded the highestnumber of bat vocalizations per night (9.90 calls/night). Despite a similar number of samplingdays, the low position AnaBat unit recorded significantly more bat calls/night than either themid- or high-level units.

43 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


45/59



Table 4. Number of sampling days, total number of calls recorded, and calls/night recorded byeach AnaBat unit at the met tower for spring, summer, and fall sampling periods.

Season Location

# of samplingdays used in

analysis

Total # of

calls # calls/nightSpring Met tower low

49 241 4.92

Summer Met tower low 15 431 28.73

Fall Met tower lowmidhigh

484851

47520533

9.904.270.65

At least four species of bats were recorded at the met tower location (Table 5). Due to similarityof call characteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped into onespecies category. As is typical with AnaBat sampling, the majority of vocalizations were unableto be identified due to the few number of pulses per call (


46/59



Summer sampling with the mobile AnaBat unit occurred on nine nights and recorded 316 batcalls. The objective of the mobile sampling was to identify, to the extent possible, species andrelative abundance of each species using the Cape Vincent project area. No additional specieswere recorded during the roaming surveys that were not recorded at the met tower station. As

with the fixed station sampling, the majority of the calls could not be identified to species. Thehighest number of recorded calls was of big brown bat (Table 6); however, >50% of those callsoccurred on one night at one location and may have been from only one or a few individualsecho-locating repeatedly near the AnaBat microphone.

Table 6. Number of detections by species during summer roaming AnaBat sampling.Species Date Sampled

CommonName

ScientificName

6/284 hrs

6/294 hrs

6/304 hrs

7/244 hrs

7/254 hrs

7/264 hrs

8/064 hrs

8/074 hrs

8/084 hrs

Big brown bat Eptescus fuscus 8 3 0 33 7 0 8 2 0

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 0 1 0 0 0 7 2 0 2

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

Myotis species Myotis spp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

No Species ID 42 17 15 48 8 10 41 53 3Total Detections/night 50 22 15 84 15 19 51 55 5

Following the qualitative screening, 203 call files with characteristics resembling Myotis specieswere submitted to Eric Britzke for further analysis. Of those files, 83 calls (40.9%) did not

contain sufficient enough information to be processed quantitatively. The remaining calls wereanalyzed quantitatively on a nightly basis by site (Britzke 2003). Calls meeting the quantitativecriteria for the following species were identified: eastern red bat (36 calls), little brown bat (44calls), Indiana bat (25 calls), and northern myotis (15 calls).

Winter Waterfowl and Raptor Surveys

The objective of the waterfowl and winter raptor surveys was to estimate spatial and temporaluse of the site by migrant and wintering waterfowl and raptor species. During initial projectscoping, the agencies raised concerns over the potential for the proposed wind project to impact

wintering waterfowl and raptors.

Methods

Driving transect surveys were conducted along most roads through the proposed project area thatallowed nearly complete coverage of the project area (Figure 17). Surveys consisted of drivingtransects to locate and count winter waterfowl in the project area. In addition, nine 30-minutepoint count surveys were conducted at each of the fixed point count stations that were used

45 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


47/59



during the migrant raptor surveys (see above). All waterfowl and raptor observations wereplotted on maps of the survey points or coordinates (UTMs) were recorded along the road foreach group observed during driving surveys. Surveys were generally conducted in the earlymorning or late evening hours when waterfowl were most active. In addition to waterfowl, all

raptors and other waterbirds were recorded during the surveys.

Results

Driving surveys in the Cape Vincent project area were conducted on nine days betweenNovember 5, 2006 and March 1, 2007. Approximately 27 hours of survey time were spentduring the driving transects over the winter seasons and a total of 13.5 hours of surveys wereconducted at the three fixed-point count stations. A total of 395 individuals in 96 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, raptors and other birds were recorded during the winter driving surveys(Table 7) and 255 individuals in 87 groups were recorded during the winter fixed point counts(Table 8). Two (2) species of waterfowl were observed either during the fixed point count

surveys or the driving surveys across the study area. Two waterbirds species, six raptor species,and four other bird species were also recorded during the surveys. Based on use estimatesderived from the fixed point surveys, Canada goose was the most common waterfowl speciesobserved during the winter surveys (Table 7 and 8). Rough legged hawk and red-tailed hawk were the most common raptor species (Table 7 and 8).

46 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


48/59


WEST, Inc. 41

Figure 17. Waterfowl and winter raptor driving transects with species location recorded for the proj

47


49/59



Table 7. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 driving surveys at theCape Vincent wind power project area.

Winter 2007Species/Group # of individuals # of groups

WaterbirdsRing-billed gull 48 1WaterfowlCanada goose 41 3Raptors/VulturesAmerican kestrel 4 4Northern harrier 7 6Red-tailed hawk 19 18Rough-legged hawk 36 30Other BirdsAmerican crow 13 9

Ring-necked pheasant 9 5Wild turkey 218 20Total 395 96

Table 8. Waterfowl and raptors observed while conducting winter 2007 fixed pointsurveys at the Cape Vincent wind power project area.

Winter 2007Species/Group # ind # groups Mean use 7 % freq 8 WaterbirdsUnidentified gull 1 1 0.05 4.76

WaterfowlCanada goose 128 3 6.10 4.76Mallard 3 1 0.14 4.76RaptorsAmerican kestrel 2 2 0.10 9.52Northern harrier 7 6 0.33 28.57Red-tailed hawk 14 13 0.62 47.62Rough-legged hawk 29 25 1.38 80.95Short-eared owl 2 1 0.10 4.76Unidentified buteo 2 1 0.10 4.76Other Birds

American crow 55 30 2.62 80.95Ring-necked pheasant 2 2 0.10 9.52Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0 0.00 0.00Wild turkey 10 2 0.48 9.52Total 255 87 12.10

7 Mean use = number observed within 800 m of survey point per 30-min survey8 Frequency of occurrence = percent of surveys in which species was observed

48 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


50/59



DISCUSSION

Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey

The nocturnal radar study was designed to collect data that could be used to characterizenocturnal migration over the site and also be used in a larger statewide comparison of resultsfrom numerous sites (M. Woythal, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). In the analysis, the radar data werenot corrected for differences in detectability with distance from the radar unit or due to groundclutter on the radar screen. Also, the 2-dimensional area represented by the radar image wastreated as a 1-dimensional 3-km front perpendicular to the direction of migration, and alltargets counted in the radar image during the sampling period were treated as if they had crossedthe front. Thus, passage rate estimates should be considered a sample or index of the actualnumber of targets passing through the area .

Measurements from radar studies potentially are highly variable due to a number of factorsincluding observer bias and the radar settings affecting target detection. To minimize thesebiases, efforts were made to standardize data collection and radar settings as much as possible.For example, the radar was operated under the shortest pulse length setting with the gain controlturned up to near the highest setting. While short wave-length and high gain insure detection of small targets, these settings also have the effect of producing atmospheric or background noiseon the screen which consequently can obscure small targets. To clean up the screen the anti-sea clutter [which minimizes clutter and noise close to the radar] was slowly turned up to thepoint where background noise was dispersed and limited primarily to the outer edge of thescreen. The anti-rain clutter [which reduces interference from small targets throughout thesurvey area (e.g., rain drops)] was kept at the lowest setting so that no small targets would be

eliminated. These settings insure that small targets such as individual passerines can be detectedby the radar. Also during sampling, specific functions or capabilities of the radar were used todetermine data values to minimize observer bias. For example, the electronic bearing line andvariable range marker used in offset mode allowed the compass bearing of a target trail and thespeed at which the target was moving to be measured by the radar as opposed to estimated by theobserver or measured with a hand held scale.

Results from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the Cape Vincent project area were similarto other radar studies in New York and the eastern U.S. (Table 9). Mean fall flight direction forthe Cape Vincent project area was 209 and for the spring was 34, slightly more southwesterlyand northeasterly than most other New York studies but within the range of directions reported at

other New York sites. Mean passage rate for fall 2006 was higher (346 t/km/hr) than the averagefor NY and the eastern U.S. (259 t/km/hr); however, it fell within the overall range of passagerates reported at other New York sites. Conversely, spring passage rate was on the lower end of the range of other studies. Mean flight height of targets was approximately 490 m in the fall and441 m in the spring, which is similar to other studies in NY and near the means for all reportedstudies in the eastern U.S. (Table 9). The percent of targets (~8% fall and ~14% spring) whichflew through the zone of risk, defined as the air space below 125 m, were also very near themean for all other studies where flight height was recorded with vertical mode radar.

49 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


51/59



Table 9. Results of radar studies at proposed and existing wind project sites in the U.S.

SitePassage

Rates(t/km/hr)

Mean FlightHeight (m)

% Targetsbelow 125 m

Mean FlightDirection

Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall Spr Fall SprCape Vincent Wind Power, NY(this report)

346 166 490 441 8 14 209 34

Dairy Hills, Wyoming Co., NY(Young et al. 2006)

170 234 466 397 10 15 180 14

Alabama Ledge, Genessee Co., NY(Young et al. 2007)

165 200 487 413 11 14 219 35

Flat Rock, NY(Mabee et al. 2005)

158 415 8 184

Chautauqua, NY(Cooper et al . 2004a,b)

238 395 532 528 5 4 199 29

Prattsburgh (1), NY(Mabee et al. 2004, 2005)

200 170 365 319 9 18 177 18

Clinton County, NY(Mabee et al. 2006)

197 110 333 338 12 20 162 30

Marble River, NY(Woodlot Alternatives 2006a,b)

152 254 438 422 5 11 193 40

Jordanville, NY(Woodlot Alternatives 2005a, b)

380 409 440 371 6 21 208 40

Prattsburgh (2), NY(B. Roy, pers. comm. 2006)

193 277 516 370 3 16 188 22

West Hill, NY(Woodlot Alternatives 2005)

732 160 664 291 3 25 223 31

High Sheldon, NY(Woodlot Alternatives 2005)

197 112 422 418 3 6 213 29

Fairfield Top Notch, NY(B. Gary, NYDEC, pers. comm.)

691 509 516 419 4 20 198 44

Searsburg, VT(Roy and Pelletier 2005a, 2005b)

178 404 556 523 4 6 203 69

Sheffield, VT(Roy et al. 2005)

109 199 564 522 1 6 200 40

Martindale, PA(Plissner et al . 2005)

187 436 8 188

Casselman, PA(Plissner et al . 2005)

174 448 7 219

Mount Storm, WV(Young et al . 2004)

199 410 16 184

Mean 259 259 472 412 7 14 197 34Note: Some values are approximations based on the limited information provided in the report or averagedover more than one sampling location (e.g., Flat Rock, Mount Storm).

While the overall patterns of nocturnal migration in New York and along the Great Lakesshorelines are generally unknown, passage rates could be expected to be higher for coastal sitesif birds and bats tend to move around the lakes as opposed to flying directly over them. Diurnalmigrants such as raptors are known to concentrate along and move parallel to the shorelines of large water bodies. If nocturnal migrants behave in a similar manner, then it would be expectedthat greater passage rates would be recorded for coastal sites than interior sites. For the studies

50 g:\2007\0057356\11027H(AppF).pdf


52/59



conducted in New York, while results have been variable, the highest fall passage rates havebeen recorded at interior sites. For spring migration results again were variable with the highestpassages rates coming from a coastal site as well as two interior sites (see Table 9). The resultsfrom the Cape Vincent study do not appear to support the hypothesis that nocturnal migrants

concentrate along the shoreline.

The passage rates in the study area may have been influenced locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the shoreline (


53/59



Based on the topography in the Cape Vincent peninsula area and Jefferson County there is littleto concentrate migrant raptors moving north and the study results appear to indicate that raptormigration is more dispersed in the project region.

Table 10. Number of raptors observed per surveyor hour in the project area and at sixestablished New York spring/fall hawk watch sites.

Spring 2006 Cape VincentWind Project

Ripley Hawk Hamburg BraddockBay

DerbyHill

4/14/06 6.7 31.4 83.8 no survey 21.54/21/06 10.3 35.9 17.9 no survey 353.15/02/06 3.3 17.3 0.8 no survey 6.05/12/06 6.0 5.6 5.2 no survey 44.8

Average 6.5 22.5 26.9 -- 106.3

Spring 2007 Cape VincentWind Project

Ripley Hawk Hamburg BraddockBay

DerbyHill

3/

Avian & Bat Studies for Cape Vincent Wind

Documents

Transcript of Avian & Bat Studies for Cape Vincent Wind