U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance Module 1 – Land-based Wind Energy

Version 2

Credit: Brian Millsap/USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management

April 2013

i

Disclaimer

ThisEagleConservationPlan Guidance isnotintendedto,norshallitbeconstruedto,limitor precludetheServicefromexercisingitsauthorityunderanylaw,statute,orregulation,orfromtakingenforcementactionagainstanyindividual,company,oragency.ThisGuidanceisnotmeanttorelieveanyindividual,company,oragencyofitsobligationstocomplywithanyapplicableFederal,state,tribal,orlocal

laws,statutes,orregulation. ThisGuidancebyitselfdoesnotpreventtheServicefromreferring cases forprosecution,

whetheracompanyhasfolloweditornot.

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Overview OfallAmerica’swildlife, eagles holdperhapsthe mostrevered placeinournationalhistoryand culture.The UnitedStates haslongimposedspecialprotections foritsbaldandgoldeneaglepopulations.Now,asthenation seeks toincreaseitsproduction ofdomesticenergy,wind energy developersandwildlifeagencies have recognized a need forspecificguidancetohelpmakewind energyfacilitiescompatiblewitheagle conservation andthe lawsandregulationsthatprotect eagles. Tomeetthisneed,theU.S.Fish andWildlifeService(Service) has developed theEagleConservation PlanGuidance(ECPG). Thisdocument providesspecificin‐depth guidanceforconserving baldand golden eaglesinthe courseofsiting,constructing,andoperatingwind energyfacilities.TheECPG guidance supplements theService’s Land‐Based WindEnergy Guidelines(WEG).WEG providesabroadoverviewofwildlifeconsiderationsforsitingandoperatingwind energyfacilities,butdoes not addressthein‐depth guidanceneededfor the specificlegal protectionsaffordedtobaldand goldeneagles.TheECPGfillsthisgap. Likethe WEG,theECPG callsforwindprojectdevelopersto take a stagedapproach to siting new projects.Bothcallforpreliminarylandscape‐levelassessmentstoassesspotentialwildlifeinteractions andproceedtosite‐specificsurveysandriskassessmentsprior toconstruction.They alsocallformonitoringproject operationsandreportingeagle fatalities to theService andstate and tribalwildlifeagencies. Compliance withthe ECPG isvoluntary,buttheServicebelieves thatfollowingtheguidancewill helpprojectoperatorsincomplyingwithregulatoryrequirementsandavoidingthe unintentional “take”of eaglesatwind energy facilities,andwillalsoassistthewindenergyindustryinprovidingthebiologicaldataneededtosupportpermitapplicationsforfacilitiesthatmayposearisktoeagles.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and GoldenEagleProtection Act(BGEPA) istheprimary law protectingeagles.BGEPA prohibits“take”ofeagles without a permit(16USC 668‐668c). BGEPAdefines“take”toinclude “pursue,shootat,poison,wound,kill,capture,trap,collect, molestordisturb,”andprohibitstakeof individualsandtheirparts,nests,oreggs. The Serviceexpandedthisdefinitionbyregulationto includethe term“destroy”to ensurethat“take”includesdestructionof eaglenests.The term “disturb”isfurtherdefinedby regulationas “toagitateorbother abaldor goldeneagleto a degree thatcauses, orislikelyto cause,….injuryto an eagle,adecreaseinproductivity,ornest abandonment”(50 CFR 22.3).

3. Risks to Eagles from Wind Energy FacilitiesWindenergydevelopmentcanaffect eaglesin a varietyofways. First,eaglescanbekilledby collidingwithstructuressuchas wind turbines.Thisistheprimarythreatto eaglesfrom windfacilities,andtheECPGguidanceisprimarily aimed atthisthreat.Second,disturbance frompre‐construction,construction,oroperationandmaintenanceactivitiesmightdisturbeaglesatconcentrationsitesorand resultinlossofproductivityatnearbynests.Third,seriousdisturbanceormortalityeffectscouldresultinthe permanent orlongterm lossofanestingterritory. Additionally,disturbances near important eagle useareas ormigrationconcentrationsitesmightstresseaglessomuchthatthey sufferreproductivefailure or mortality elsewhere,to adegree that

iii

couldamount toprohibitedtake.All oftheseimpacts,unless properlypermitted,areviolationsof BGEPA.

4. Eagle Take Permits TheServicerecognizesthatwind energyfacilities,eventhose developedandoperatedwiththeutmostefforttoconservewildlife,mayunder some circumstancesresultin the“take”of eaglesunderBGEPA.However, in2009,theServicepromulgatednewpermitrulesfor eaglesthataddressthis issue (50 CFR 22.26and 22.27). Underthesenewrules theServicecan issuepermitsthat authorizeindividualinstancesoftakeofbaldandgoldeneagleswhenthetake isassociated with,but notthepurposeof,anotherwiselawful activity,andcannot practicably beavoided.Theregulationsalsoauthorizepermitsfor“programmatic”take,whichmeansthatinstances of“take” maynotbeisolated,butmayrecur.Theprogrammatictake permitsarethe mostgermane permitsforwind energyfacilities.However, undertheseregulations,anyongoing orprogrammatictake must be unavoidableeven after the implementationof advancedconservationpractices(ACPs). TheECPG iswrittentoguidewind‐facilityprojectsstartingfromtheearliestconceptualplanningphase.Forprojectsalready inthe developmentor operationalphase,implementationofall stages ofthe recommended approachin the ECPG may notbe applicableorpossible.Projectdevelopersoroperatorswithoperatingorsoon‐to‐beoperatingfacilitiesand whoare interestedinobtaining a programmaticeagletakepermitshouldcontacttheService.The Service willworkwith project developersoroperatorsto determineiftheproject mightbe able to meetthe permitrequirementsin50CFR22.26. The Servicemay recommendthatthedeveloper monitoreaglefatalitiesanddisturbance, adopt reasonable measures to reduce eagle fatalitiesfromhistoriclevels,and implementcompensatory mitigation.SectionsoftheECPGthat addressthesetopicsare relevantto bothplanned andoperatingwind facilities(AppendicesEandF inparticular).Operatorsofwindprojects(andotheractivities) that werein operationpriorto 2009that posearisk to goldeneagles may qualify for programmaticeagletakepermitsthatdonotautomaticallyrequirecompensatorymitigation. Thisisbecausethe requirementsforobtainingprogrammatic take authorization aredesignedtoreducetake fromhistoric,baselinelevels,andthe preambleto the Eagle PermitRule specifiedthatunavoidabletake remaining after implementation ofavoidanceand minimization measuresatsuchprojectswould notbesubtractedfromregional eagletakethresholds.

5. Voluntary Nature of the ECPG Windprojectoperatorsare not legallyrequiredtoseekorobtain aneagletakepermit.However, thetake ofan eagle withouta permit isaviolation ofBGEPA, andcouldresultinprosecution.The methodsand approachessuggested intheECPGarenotmandatory to obtain an eagle takepermit. TheServicewillacceptotherapproaches that provide the information anddatarequiredbythe regulations. The ECP can be astand‐alonedocument,orpart of a larger birdandbatstrategy as described inthe WEG, solong as itadequatelymeets the regulatory requirementsat 50CFR 22.26 tosupport a permitdecision.However, Service employees whoprocesseagletake permit applications aretrainedinthe methodsandapproachescovered inthe ECPG.Usingother methodologiesmayresultinlonger applicationprocessingtimes.

6. Eagle Take Thresholds Eagletake permitsmay beissued onlyincompliancewiththeconservation standardsofBGEPA. Thismeansthatthetakemustbe compatiblewith thepreservationof each species,defined(in USFWS2009a)as “consistentwith the goalofstable orincreasingbreedingpopulations.”

iv

Toensurethatanyauthorized“take” of eaglesdoesnot exceed thisstandard,theService has set regionaltakethresholdsforeachspecies,usingmethodologycontainedinthe National EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA) FinalEnvironmentalAssessment (FEA) developedfor the new eaglepermit rules(USFWS2009b). TheServicelookedat regionalpopulationsofeaglesandset takethresholdsforeachspecies (upperlimitson thenumberof eagle mortalities that can be allowedunderpermit eachyearin theseregional management areas). Theanalysisidentifiedtakethresholdsgreaterthanzeroforbaldeaglesin mostregional management areas.However,theServicedeterminedthatgolden eaglepopulationsmightnotbe abletosustainany additional unmitigated mortalityat that time,andsetthethresholdsforthis speciesatzeroforallregional populations. This means that anynew authorized“take”ofgoldeneaglesmust be atleastequallyoffsetbycompensatorymitigation (specificconservationactionsto replaceor offsetproject‐inducedlosses). The Servicealso put in place measures to ensure that local eagle populations are notdepletedby take that wouldbe otherwiseregionallyacceptable.TheServicespecifiedthattakeratesmustbe carefullyassessed,bothforindividual projectsandforthecumulativeeffectsof otheractivities causing take, at the scale of thelocal‐areaeaglepopulation(apopulation withinadistanceof43 milesforbaldeagles and 140milesforgolden eagles).Thisdistance is based on the median distanceto whicheagles dispersefrom the nestwherethey are hatchedtowheretheysettleto breed. The Service identifiedtakeratesof between 1 and 5 percentof thetotalestimatedlocal‐area eaglepopulation assignificant,with5percentbeing attheupperend ofwhat mightbe appropriate undertheBGEPApreservationstandard,whether offset bycompensatorymitigationor not. Appendix Fprovides a fulldescriptionoftakethresholdsandbenchmarks,andprovidessuggestedtoolsfor evaluating how these applytoindividualprojects.

7. An Approach for Developing and Evaluating Eagle ACPs Permitsforeagletake atwind‐energyfacilitiesareprogrammaticinnatureastheywillauthorizerecurringtakeratherthanisolatedincidencesoftake. Forprogrammatictakepermits,theregulationsrequirethat anyauthorizedtakemustbeunavoidableafter the implementationof advancedconservationpractices(ACPs).ACPsaredefined as “scientificallysupportablemeasuresthat are approved bythe Service andrepresent the bestavailable techniques toreduceeagle disturbance andongoing mortalitiesto a levelwhereremaining take isunavoidable”(50 CFR22.3). Becausethebestinformationcurrently availableindicatesthereareno conservationmeasuresthat have been scientifically shownto reduceeagle disturbance and blade‐strikemortalityatwindprojects,the ServicehasnotcurrentlyapprovedanyACPsforwindenergy projects. TheprocessofdevelopingACPs for windenergyfacilitieshasbeen hamperedbythe lack of standardized scientificstudyof potentialACPs. TheServicehasdeterminedthatthe bestwayto obtain the neededscientificinformationistoworkwithindustry todevelop ACPsfor windprojects aspart of an adaptive‐management regime andcomprehensive researchprogram tied tothe programmatic‐take‐permitprocess.Inthisscenario,ACPswill beimplementedat operatingwind facilitieswithan eagle takepermiton an “experimental” basis (theACPs are considered experimentalbecausetheywould notcurrentlymeetthedefinitionof anACPinthe eaglepermitregulation).TheexperimentalACPswouldbescientificallyevaluatedfortheireffectiveness,asdescribedindetailinthisdocument,andbasedontheresults of these studies,couldbemodifiedin

v

an adaptive management regime. This approach willprovide the neededscientificinformationfor thefuture establishment of formalACPs,whileenablingwindenergyfacilitiestomoveforwardin theinterim. Despitethecurrentlack of formallyapprovedACPs,theremaybeotherconservation measures basedon the best availablescientificinformation thatshould beappliedasaconditiononprogrammaticeagletakepermitsforwind‐energyfacilities.A projectdeveloperoroperatorwillbeexpectedtoimplement anyreasonable avoidance andminimization measures that may reduce take of eagles ata project.In addition,the Service andtheprojectdeveloperoroperatorwillidentifyothersite‐specificandpossibly turbine‐specificfactorsthat maypose riskstoeagles, and agree on the experimental ACPs to avoid andminimizethoserisks.Unless theServicedeterminesthat there isareasonablescientificbasis to implement the experimental ACPsupfront(oritisotherwise advantageous tothedeveloperto do so),werecommendthatsuch measuresbedeferreduntilsuch time asthere iseagle take atthe facilityorthe Servicedeterminesthatthecircumstances and evidence surroundingthe take orrisk oftake suggestthe experimentalACPs mightbewarranted. The programmaticeagle take permit wouldspecifythe experimentalACPs, ifcircumstances warrant,andthepermitwouldbe conditionedon theprojectoperator’sagreementtoimplement and monitorthe experimental ACPs. BecausetheACPswouldbeexperimental,theServicerecommends thatthey be subjecttoa costcap thatthe Serviceandtheproject developeroroperatorwouldestablishas partoftheinitial agreement before issuanceofan eaglepermit. Thiswouldprovidefinancial certainty as towhat maximumcostsofsuch measures mightbe. The amount ofthe cap shouldbeproportionalto overallrisk. Astheresultsfrom monitoring experimentalACPs acrossanumberoffacilitiesaccumulateandare analyzed,scientificinformation in supportofcertainexperimentalACPs mayaccrue,whereasotherACPsmayshowlittlevalueinreducingtake. Ifthe Servicedeterminesthattheavailable science demonstrates an experimental ACPis effective inreducing eagle take,the Servicewillformally approvethat ACPandrequireitsimplementationupfrontonnew projectswhenandwhere warranted. Asthe ECPG evolves,the Servicewill notexpect projectdevelopersoroperatorstoretroactivelyredoanalysesorsurveysusingthe new approaches.The adaptiveapproach totheECPGshouldnot deterprojectdevelopersoroperatorsfromusingtheECPGimmediately.

8. Mitigation Actions to Reduce Effects on Eagle Populations Wherewind energy facilitiescannot avoidtaking eaglesandeagle populations are nothealthyenoughtosustainadditionalmortality,applicantsmustreduce theunavoidablemortality to a no‐net‐lossstandardforthedurationofthepermitted activity. No‐net‐lossmeansthattheseactionseitherreduceanotherongoing form ofmortality to a levelequaltoorgreaterthan the unavoidablemortality,orleadtoanincreaseincarryingcapacitythatallows the eaglepopulationto growby an equal orgreateramount. Actions toreduceeaglemortalityor increasecarryingcapacitytothisno‐net‐lossstandardareknownas“compensatorymitigation”inthe ECPG.Examplesofcompensatory mitigationactivitiesmight includeretrofitting powerlinesto reduceeagle electrocutions,removingroad‐killedanimals alongroads wherevehicleshitandkillscavengingeagles,orincreasingpreyavailability. The Serviceand the project developeroroperator seekingaprogrammatic eagletake permit shouldagree onthe numberof eaglefatalitiestomitigateand what actions willbetaken if actual

vi

eagle fatalitiesdifferfrom the predictednumber.Thecompensatorymitigationrequirementandtrigger for adjustmentshouldbe specifiedin the permit.Iftheproceduresrecommendedinthe ECPGare followed, thereshouldnotbeaneedforadditionalcompensatorymitigation.However,if other,lessrisk‐aversemodelsareusedtoestimatefatalities, underestimatesmightbe expectedand thepermitshouldspecifythethreshold(s)oftake thatwouldtrigger additionalactions andthe specificmitigationactivities that mightbe implemented. Additionaltypesofmitigationsuch as preservinghabitat –actionsthat wouldnotbythemselvesleadtoincreasednumbersof eagles butwould assisteagleconservation – may also be advisedto offset other detrimental effects ofpermitson eagles.Compensatorymitigationisfurther discussed below(Stage 4– Avoidanceand Minimization of RiskandCompensatoryMitigation).

9. Relationship of Eagle Guidelines (ECPG) to the Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG) The ECPG is intendedto beimplementedinconjunctionwithotheractionsrecommendedintheWEGthatassessimpactstowildlifespeciesandtheirhabitats. The WEGrecommendsa five‐tierprocessforsuchassessments,and theECPGfitswithinthatframework.TheECPGfocusesonjusteaglestofacilitatecollection of information that couldsupport an eagletake permitdecision. The ECPGuses a five‐stage approachlike theWEG;the relationship betweentheECPGstages andthe WEGtiersis shownin Fig.1. Tiers 1and2 ofthe WEG(Stage1 of the ECPG) could providesufficient evidence to demonstrate that a project posesvery lowriskto eagles. Providedthisassessmentisrobust,eaglesmaynotwarrantfurtherconsiderationin subsequentWEG tiers,andStages 2 through5 ofthe ECPGand pursuitofan eagle take permit might beunnecessary.A similarconclusioncouldbereachedatthe endof Stage 2,3,or 4. In suchcases,ifunpermittedeagletakesubsequently occurs,thewind projectproponent shouldconsult with the U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceto determine howto proceed,possiblyby obtaining an eagletake permit. Thefollowingsectionsdescribethegeneralapproachenvisioned forassessingwind projectimpacts toeagles (alsosee the StageOverview Table atthe endof the Executive Summary).

Tiers 1 and 2 of the WEG, Stage 1 of the ECPGTier 1 ofthe WEGisthe preliminary siteevaluation (landscape‐scalescreeningofpossible projectsites).Tier2issitecharacterization(broad characterizationofoneormore potentialprojectsites).ThesecorrespondwithStage 1 ofthe ECPG,thesite‐assessment stage. Aspartofthe Tiers 1 and2 process,projectdevelopersshouldcarry outStage 1 oftheECPGandevaluate broadgeographicareastoassesstherelativeimportanceofvariousareasto residentbreeding andnon‐breeding eagles, and tomigrant andwintering eagles.DuringStage1,theprojectdeveloperoroperatorshouldgather existinginformationfrom publiclyavailableliterature,databases,andothersources,andusethosedatatojudgetheappropriatenessofvariouspotentialprojectsites,balancingsuitabilityfordevelopment withpotentialrisktoeagles. Toincrease theprobabilityof meeting theregulatoryrequirementsforaprogrammatictakepermit,biological advice fromthe Serviceand other jurisdictionalwildlifeagenciesshould berequestedasearly aspossibleinthe developer's planning processandshouldbeas inclusiveas possibletoensure allissuesare being addressed atthe same time andin a coordinatedmanner.Ideally,consultation withthe Service, and state andtribalwildlife

vii

agenciesisdonebeforewinddevelopersmake anysubstantial financial commitmentor finalize lease agreements.

Tier 3 of the WEG, Stages 2, 3, and 4 of the ECPG DuringTier 3of the WEG,adeveloper conductsfieldstudiesto documentwildlifeuseand habitatat the projectsite andpredict projectimpacts.These site‐specificstudiesarecriticaltoevaluatingpotentialimpacts toallwildlifeincludingeagles.Thedeveloperand theServicewouldusetheinformationcollectedtosupportaneagle takepermitapplication, shouldthedeveloperseekapermit. Aspartof Tier3,the ECPGrecommendsprojectdevelopersoroperatorsimplementthreestages ofassessment:

Stage2‐site‐specific surveysandassessments; Stage3 ‐predictingeagle fatalities; and Stage4 ‐ avoidance and minimization ofriskandcompensatorymitigation.

Stage 2 – Site Specific Surveys and Assessments DuringStage 2the Service recommendstheprojectdevelopercollectquantitativedatathroughscientificallyrigoroussurveysdesignedtoassess thepotential riskof theproposedprojecttoeagles. TheServicerecommendscollectinginformationthatwillallowestimationoftheeagleexposurerate(eagle‐minutes flyingwithin the projectfootprintperhour perkilometer2),aswell assurveyssufficientto determine ifimportant eagleuse areasor migrationconcentrationsitesarewithinor inclose proximityto theproject footprint(see AppendixC). Inthecaseofsmallwind projects(oneutility‐scaleturbine or a fewsmallturbines),theprojectdeveloper shouldconsidertheproximity of eaglenestingandroostingsitestoaproposedprojectanddiscusstheresults ofthe Stage1 assessmentwith the Service to determineif Stage2 surveysare necessary.In manycasesthe hazardousareaassociatedwithsuchprojectswillbesmallenoughthatStage2 surveyswillnotbe necessary. Stage 3 – Predicting Eagle Fatalities InStage 3,theServiceandprojectdevelopersoroperatorsuse data from Stage2 in modelsto predicteagleriskexpressedasthe average number of fatalitiesperyear extrapolated tothetenure ofthepermit. These modelscancompare alternative siting,construction,and operationalscenarios,ausefulfeatureinconstructinghypothesesregardingpredictedeffects ofconservationmeasures and experimental ACPs.The Service encouragesprojectdevelopersoroperatorstousetherecommendedpre‐constructionsurveyprotocolinthisECPGinStage 2 tohelpinformour predictivemodelsin Stage3.IfService‐recommendedsurveyprotocolsareused,thisriskassessment can be greatly facilitatedusing model toolsavailable from the Service.Ifprojectdevelopersoroperatorsuseother formsofinformationfortheStage2assessment,theywillneedtofullydescribethosemethodsandtheanalysis usedfortheeaglerisk assessment. The Servicewill requiremoretimeto evaluate andreview the data because, forexample, theService willneedtocomparetheresultsof theproject developer or operator’s eagle riskassessmentwithpredictionsfromourmodels.Iftheresultsdiffer,wewillwork withtheproject developersoroperatorstodetermine whichmodel resultsare mostappropriatefor theService’s eventualpermittingdecisions.

viii

TheServiceandprojectdevelopersoroperatorsalsoevaluateStage2 data to determinewhetherdisturbance take islikely,andif so,at what level.Anylossof productionthat may stemfromdisturbance shouldbe addedto thefatalityrate predictionfortheproject. The riskassessmentsatStage2and Stage3 are consistentwithdevelopingthe informationnecessarytoassess theefficacyof conservation measures,andtodevelopthemonitoringrequiredbythepermitregulations at50 CFR 22.26(c)(2). Stage 4 - Avoidance and Minimization of Risk and Compensatory Mitigation InStage 4 the information gatheredshouldbe used bytheprojectdeveloper or operator and theServicetodeterminepotentialconservation measuresand ACPs(if available) to avoidor minimize predictedrisksatagivensite (seeAppendix E).The Servicewillcomparetheinitial predictionsofeaglemortality anddisturbancefortheproject withpredictionsthat takeintoaccount proposedandpotentialconservation measuresandACPs, oncedevelopedandapproved,to determineiftheprojectdeveloperoroperatorhasavoidedandminimizedrisksto the maximum degree achievable,thereby meetingtherequirementsforprogrammaticpermitsthatremainingtake isunavoidable.Additionally,theService willusetheinformationprovidedalongwith otherdatatoconductacumulative effectsanalysistodetermineiftheproject’simpacts,incombinationwithotherpermittedtakeandotherknown factors,areatalevelthatexceedtheestablished thresholdsor benchmarks foreagletakeat the regionalandlocal‐areascales.Thisfinaleaglerisk assessment is completed attheendof Stage4 after application ofconservation measuresand ACPs(if available) along with aplan forcompensatorymitigationif required. Theeaglepermitprocess requirescompensatorymitigationif conservationmeasuresdo notremove thepotential fortake, and theprojectedtakeexceedscalculatedthresholdsfortheeagle management unitinwhichtheprojectis located. However,there may also be other situationsinwhichcompensatorymitigationisnecessary.Thefollowingguidanceappliestothose situations aswell. Compensatorymitigationcanaddresspre‐existing causesofeaglemortality(suchaseagle electrocutionsfrom powerpoles)oritcan addressincreasingthe carrying capacityoftheeaglepopulation in the affected eagle management unit.However, there needsto be acredibleanalysisthatsupportstheconclusionthat implementingthecompensatory mitigationactionwillachievethedesiredbeneficial offsetinmortalityorcarryingcapacity. Fornewwinddevelopmentprojects,ifcompensatorymitigationisnecessary,thecompensatorymitigationaction(ora verifiable, legal commitmentto suchmitigation)willberequiredupfrontbeforeprojectoperations beginbecause projectsmustmeetthe statutory eagle preservationstandard beforethe Service mayissueapermit.Foroperating projects,compensatorymitigationshould be appliedfrom thestartofthepermitperiod,notretroactively from the timethe projectbegan.The initial compensatorymitigationeffortshould besufficientto offset the predictednumberof eagle fatalitiesper year for five years.Nolaterthan atthe endof thefive year period,theService andtheproject operatorwillcompare thepredictedannualtakeestimate to therealized take basedonpost‐constructionmonitoring.Ifthetriggersidentifiedin thepermitforadjustmentofcompensatory

ix

mitigationaremet,thoseadjustments shouldbeimplemented.In the case wherethe observed takewaslessthanestimated,thepermitteewillreceiveacreditforthe excesscompensation (thedifference betweenthe actual mean and the number compensatedfor)thatcanbe applied toothertake (either by the permitteeorother permittedindividualsathis/her discretion)within thesame eagle managementunit.TheService,inconsultationwiththepermittee,willdeterminecompensatorymitigation forfuture years forthe projectat thispoint,taking into account the observed levelsofmortalityand any reductionin that mortalitythat isexpected basedon implementationofadditionalexperimentalconservation measuresand ACPs.Monitoringusingthebest scientificandpracticablemethodsavailable should beincludedto determine theeffectivenessoftheresultingcompensatorymitigationefforts.The Servicewill modify the compensatorymitigation processtoadapttoany improvementsinourknowledge base asnew databecome available. Atthe end ofStage 4,allthematerialsnecessarytosatisfythe regulatory requirements tosupport a permitapplicationshouldbeavailable.Whileaproject operator can submit apermitapplicationat anytime,the Servicecan only begin the formalprocesstodeterminewhether a programmaticeagletake permitcan be issuedafter completion of Stage 4. Ideally,NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)andNational HistoricPreservationAct(NHPA)analyses andassessmentswillalready beunderway,butifnot, Stage4 shouldincludenecessaryNEPA analysis,NHPAcompliance,coordinationwithotherjurisdictionalagencies,and tribalconsultation.

Tier 4 and 5 of the WEG, Stage 5 of the ECPG Ifthe Service issuesan eagletake permitandthe projectgoes forward,projectoperators willconductpost‐constructionsurveystocollectdatathat can becomparedwiththe pre‐constructionrisk‐assessmentpredictionsfor eagle fatalities anddisturbance.Themonitoringprotocolshouldincludevalidatedtechniques for assessingbothmortalityanddisturbance effects,andthey mustmeetthepermit‐conditionrequirementsat50CFR22.26(c)(2).Inmost cases,intensivemonitoring willbeconductedfor at leastthefirsttwoyearsafterpermitissuance,followedbylessintensemonitoringforuptothreeyearsaftertheexpiration date of the permit.Projectdevelopersoroperatorsshouldusethepost‐construction surveyprotocolsincludedorreferencedinthis ECPG,butwewillconsiderothermonitoringprotocolsprovidedbypermitapplicantsthough theprocesswilllikely takelongerthanif familiarapproacheswere used. The Service willusetheinformation frompost‐constructionmonitoring ina meta‐analysis framework toweight andimprove pre‐constructionpredictivemodels. Additionally inStage 5,the Service and projectdevelopersor operatorsshouldusethepost‐construction monitoringdatato (1)assesswhethercompensatory mitigationisadequate, excessive,or deficient to offset observedmortality,and make adjustmentsaccordingly;and(2)explore operationalchangesthat might be warranted ata projectafterpermittingtoreduceobservedmortalityandmeetpermitrequirements.

10. Site Categorization Based on Mortality Risk to Eagles Beginningat the endofStage1, andcontinuing attheendofStages 2,3, and 4,werecommendtheapproachoutlinedbelow beused toassessthelikelihoodthat a windprojectwilltake eagles,andif

x

so,thatthe projectwillmeetstandards in50 CFR22.26 forissuance of a programmatic eagle take permit.

Category 1 – High risk to eagles, potential to avoid or mitigate impacts is low Aprojectisinthis categoryifit:

(1)hasanimportanteagle‐useareaormigration concentration sitewithintheproject footprint; or

(2)hasanannualeaglefatality estimate(average numberof eaglespredictedtobe taken annually)> 5% of theestimatedlocal‐areapopulation size; or

(3)causesthe cumulativeannual take forthelocal‐areapopulationto exceed5%ofthe estimatedlocal‐area populationsize.

In addition,projects that have eagle nests within½ the meanproject‐areainter‐nest distanceoftheproject footprintshould becarefullyevaluated.Ifitislikelyeagles occupyingtheseterritoriesuseorpass through the project footprint,category1designation maybeappropriate. Projectsoralternativesincategory 1 shouldbesubstantially redesignedto atleast meet the category2criteria.TheServicerecommendsthatprojectdevelopersnotbuild projectsat sitesincategory1 becausethe project wouldlikely not meet the regulatory requirements.Therecommendedapproachforassessingthepercentageofthelocal‐areapopulationpredictedtobetakenis describedinAppendix F.

Category 2 – High or moderate risk to eagles, opportunity to mitigate impacts Aprojectisinthis categoryifit:

(1)hasanimportanteagle‐useareaormigration concentration sitewithintheproject areabut not intheprojectfootprint;or

(2)hasanannualeaglefatality estimatebetween 0.03eaglesper year and 5% of the estimatedlocal‐areapopulationsize;or

(3)causescumulative annualtake ofthe local‐area population of lessthan 5%ofthe estimatedlocal‐area populationsize.

Projectsinthiscategorywillpotentially take eagles ata rategreater thanisconsistentwith maintainingstableorincreasing populations,but theriskmightbe reduced toanacceptable levelthroughacombinationof conservation measuresand reasonablecompensatory mitigation.Theseprojectshave ariskof ongoing take of eagles,butthisriskcanbe minimized.Forprojectsinthis categorytheprojectdeveloper oroperatorshouldprepareanEagleConservationPlan(ECP) orsimilarplantodocumentmeetingtheregulatoryrequirementsforaprogrammatic permit. The ECP orsimilar document canbe a stand‐alonedocument,orpartofalargerbirdandbat strategyasdescribedinthe WEG,solongas itadequately meetstheregulatory requirementsat 50 CFR 22.26 to support a permit decision.For eagle management populationswheretakethresholdsareset at zero,the conservation measuresin theECPshouldincludecompensatorymitigationandmustresult inno‐net‐loss tothebreedingpopulationto becompatible with the permit regulations. This doesnot applyto goldeneagleseastofthe 100th meridian, for whichno non‐emergency takecan presentlybe authorized(USFWS2009b).

Category 3 – Minimal risk to eaglesAprojectisinthis categoryifit:

xi

(1)hasno important eagleuse areas ormigrationconcentration siteswithinthe project area;and

(2)hasanannualeaglefatality rate estimate ofless than 0.03; and (3)causescumulative annualtake ofthe local‐area population of lessthan 5%ofthe

estimatedlocal‐area populationsize. Projectsincategory3poselittlerisktoeagles andmaynot requireorwarranteagletake permits,but thatdecision shouldbe madein coordination with theService.Still,aproject developer or operatormaywishtocreateanECPorsimilardocumentorstrategythatdocuments theproject’slowriskto eagles,and outlinesmortalitymonitoring foreaglesand aplan of actionif eaglesaretakenduringprojectconstruction or operation. This would enablethe Servicetoprovideapermittoallowa de minimis amount oftake ifthe project developer or operatorwished toobtain such apermit.

The riskcategory ofa projectcanpotentiallychangeas a resultofadditional site‐specificanalyses andapplicationof measurestoreduce therisk.Forexample,a projectmay appearto be incategory 2as aresult ofStage 1 analyses,but aftercollectionofsite‐specificinformationinStage2itmightbecomeclearitisacategory 1project. Ifaprojectcannot practicallybeplaced inoneofthesecategories,theprojectdeveloperoroperatorandtheServiceshouldworktogetherto determine if theproject can meetprogrammaticeagle take permittingrequirements in 50 CFR 22.26 and22.27. Projectsshouldbeplacedinthe highestcategory (withcategory1 beingthehighest)in whichone ormoreof thecriteria aremet.

11. Addressing Uncertainty There issubstantial uncertaintysurroundingtheriskofwindprojectstoeagles, and of waysto minimizethatrisk.Forthisreason,theServicestressesthat it isveryimportantnotto underestimateeaglefatalityratesat windfacilities. Overestimates,onceconfirmed,canbeadjusted downwardbasedonpost‐constructionmonitoring information with noconsequenceto eagle populations.Projectdevelopers oroperatorscan tradeor becreditedfor excesscompensatorymitigation,anddebitstoregionalandlocal‐areaeagle‐takethresholdsandbenchmarkscanbeadjusteddownwardsto reflect actual fatalityrates.However, theoptionsforaddressingunderestimatedfatality rates are extremelylimited,andpose eitherpotentialhardshipsforwinddevelopersorsignificantriskstoeagle populations. Ourlong‐termapproachformoving forwardinthe face ofthis uncertainty istoimplementeagle takepermittingina formaladaptive management framework. The Serviceanticipates fourspecific setsof adaptive management decisions:(1) adaptive management ofwindprojectsitinganddesignrecommendations;(2)adaptivemanagementofwindprojectoperations; (3)adaptive managementofcompensatorymitigation;and(4) adaptive management ofpopulation‐leveltakethresholds.These arediscussedinmoredetailinAppendixA.Theadaptive managementprocesswilldepend heavilyon pre‐andpost‐construction data from individualprojects,butanalyses,assessment,and modelevaluationwillrelyondata pooledovermanyindividual windprojects.Learningaccomplished through adaptive management will berapidly incorporatedintothepermittingprocesssothattheregulatoryprocessadjustsinproportionto actualrisk.

12. Interaction with the ServiceTheServiceencourages early,frequentandthoroughcoordinationbetweenprojectdevelopersoroperators andService andother jurisdictional‐agencyemployees asthey implement the tiersofthe WEG,andthe relatedStagesof the ECPG.Closecoordination willaidtherefinementofthe

xii

modelingprocessusedtopredict fatalities,aswellasthe post‐constructionmonitoring to evaluate thosemodels.Weanticipatethe ECPGandtherecommendedmethodsand metricswillevolveas theService andprojectdevelopersor operatorslearntogether. TheService hascreated a cross‐program,cross‐regionalteamofbiologistswhowillworkjointlyoneagle‐programmatic‐takepermitapplicationstohelpensureconsistencyinadministrationandapplicationoftheEaglePermitRule.Thisclose coordination andinteractionisespeciallyimportant astheService processesthefirstfewprogrammaticeagletakepermitapplications. TheServicewillcontinuetorefine thisECPGwith inputfrom all stakeholderswiththe objectiveof maintainingstableorincreasing breedingpopulationsofbothbaldandgoldeneagleswhilesimultaneouslydevelopingscience‐basedeagle‐takeregulations andproceduresthat areappropriate tothe riskassociatedwitheach wind energyproject.

Stage Overview Table - Overview of staged approach to developing an Eagle Conservation Plan as described in the ECPG. Stages are in chronological order. Stage 5 would only be applicable in cases where a permit was issued at the end of Stage 4.

Stage Objective Actions Data Sources

1 Atthelandscapelevel,identifypotentialwindfacilitylocationswithmanageablerisktoeagles.

Broad,landscape‐scaleevaluation.

Technicalliterature,agencyfiles,on‐linebiologicaldatabases,datafromnearbyprojects,industryreports,geodatabases,experts.

2

Obtainsite‐specificdatatopredicteaglefatalityratesanddisturbancetakeatwind‐facilitysitesthatpassStage1assessment.Investigateotheraspectsofeagle usetoconsiderassessingdistributionofoccupiednestsintheprojectarea,migration,areasofseasonalconcentration,andintensity of useacrosstheprojectfootprint.

Site‐specificsurveysandintensiveobservation todetermineeagleexposurerateanddistributionofuseintheprojectfootprint,plus locationsofoccupiedeaglenests,migrationcorridorsandstopoversites,foragingconcentrationareas,andcommunalroostsintheprojectarea.

Projectfootprint:800‐mradiuspointcountsurveysandutilizationdistribution studies.Projectarea:nestsurveys,migrationcountsatlikelytopographicfeatures,investigationof use ofpotentialroostsitesandofareasofhighpreyavailability.Ideallyconductedfornolessthan2years pre‐construction.

3

Aspartofpre‐constructionmonitoringand assessment,estimatethefatalityrateofeaglesforthefacilityevaluatedinStage2,excludingpossibleadditions of conservationmeasuresand advancedconservationpractices(ACPs).Considerpossibledisturbance effects.

UsetheexposureratederivedfromStage2datainService‐providedmodelstopredicttheannualeaglefatalityratefortheproject.Determineifdisturbanceeffectsarelikelyandwhattheymightbe.

Pointcount,nest,andeagleconcentrationareadatafromStage2.

xiii

Stage Objective Actions Data Sources

4

Aspartofthepre‐constructionassessment,identify andevaluateconservation measuresandACPsthatmightavoidor minimizefatalitiesanddisturbanceeffectsidentifiedinStage3.Whennecessary,identify compensatorymitigationtoreducepredictedtake to ano‐net‐lossstandard.

Re‐runfatality predictionmodelswithriskadjustedtoreflectapplicationofconservationmeasuresand ACPstodeterminefatalityestimate(80%upperconfidencelimitorequivalent).Calculaterequiredcompensatorymitigationamountwhere necessary,consideringdisturbanceeffects,ifany.Identify actionsneededtoaccomplishcompensatorymitigation.

Fatalityestimatesbeforeandafterapplicationofconservationmeasuresand ACPs,usingpointcountdatafrom Stage2.EstimatesofdisturbanceeffectsfromStage3.

Permit Decision

Determineifregulatoryrequirementsforissuanceofapermithavebeenmet.

TheServicewillissueordenythepermitrequestbasedonanevaluation oftheECPorotherformofapplication.

DatafromStages1,2,3and4;resultsofNEPA analysis;andconsideringinformationobtainedduringtribalconsultationand throughcoordinationwiththestatesandotherjurisdictionalagencies.

5

Duringpost‐constructionmonitoring,documentmeanannualeaglefatalityrateandeffectsofdisturbance.Determineifinitialconservation measuresare workingandshouldbecontinued,andifadditionalconservationmeasuresmight reduceobservedfatalities.Monitoreffectivenessof compensatorymitigation. Ideally, assessuseof area byeaglesforcomparisontopre‐construction levels.

Conductfatality monitoring inprojectfootprint.Monitoractivity ofeaglesthatmaybedisturbedatnestsites,communalroosts,and/ormajorforagingsites.Ideally,monitoreagleuseofprojectfootprintviapointcounts,migrationcounts,and/orintensive observationof usedistribution.

Post‐constructionsurveydatabase forfatalitymonitoring,Comparablepre‐andpost‐construction dataforselectedaspectofeagle useoftheprojectfootprintandadjoiningareas.

Allpost‐constructionsurveysshouldbeconductedforatleast2years,andtargetedthereafterto assess effectivenessof anyexperimentalconservationmeasuresorACPs.

1

Table of Contents

Disclaimer.............................................................................................................................................................. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ ii 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... ii 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................................................ ii 3. Risks to Eagles from Wind Energy Facilities .............................................................................................. ii 4. Eagle Take Permits .................................................................................................................................... iii 5. Voluntary Nature of the ECPG ................................................................................................................... iii 6. Eagle Take Thresholds............................................................................................................................... iii 7. An Approach for Developing and Evaluating Eagle ACPs ......................................................................... iv 8. Mitigation Actions to Reduce Effects on Eagle Populations ..................................................................... v 9. Relationship of Eagle Guidelines (ECPG) to the Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG) .................................... vi

Tiers 1 and 2 of the WEG, Stage 1 of the ECPG ........................................................................................ vi Tier 3 of the WEG, Stages 2, 3, and 4 of the ECPG .................................................................................. vii Tier 4 and 5 of the WEG, Stage 5 of the ECPG .......................................................................................... ix

10. Site Categorization Based on Mortality Risk to Eagles .......................................................................... ix Category 1 – High risk to eagles, potential to avoid or mitigate impacts is low ...................................... x Category 2 – High or moderate risk to eagles, opportunity to mitigate impacts ...................................... x Category 3 – Minimal risk to eagles ........................................................................................................... x

11. Addressing Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................... xi 12. Interaction with the Service .................................................................................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 4 1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Legal Authorities and Relationship to Other Statutes and Guidelines ..................................................... 6 3. Background and Overview of Process ........................................................................................................ 8

a. Risks to Eagles ........................................................................................................................................ 9 b. General Approach to Address Risk ......................................................................................................... 9

ASSESSING RISK AND EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... 12 1. Considerations When Assessing Eagle Use Risk .................................................................................... 12

a. General Background and Rationale for Assessing Project Effects on Eagles ..................................... 12 b. Additional Considerations for Assessing Project Effects: Migration Corridors and Stopover Sites ... 14

2. Eagle Risk Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Overview of Process to Assess Risk ......................................................................................................... 16 4. Site Categorization Based on Mortality Risk to Eagles ........................................................................... 25

a. Category 1 – High risk to eagles, potential to avoid or mitigate impacts is low ................................ 25 b. Category 2 – High or moderate risk to eagles, opportunity to mitigate impacts ................................ 25 c. Category 3 – Minimal risk to eagles ..................................................................................................... 26

5. Cumulative Effects Considerations .......................................................................................................... 26 a. Early Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 26 b. Analysis Associated with Permits ........................................................................................................ 27

2

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 28

EAGLE CONSERVATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................................................ 29 1. Contents of the Eagle Conservation Plan ................................................................................................. 30

a. Stage 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 31 b. Stage 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 31 c. Stage 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 31 d. Stage 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 31 e. Stage 5 – Post-construction Monitoring .............................................................................................. 31

INTERACTION WITH THE SERVICE .................................................................................................................... 32

INFORMATION COLLECTION.............................................................................................................................. 33

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 34

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................. 40

APPENDIX A: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 44 1. Adaptive Management as a Tool ............................................................................................................. 45 2. Applying Adaptive Management to Eagle Take Permitting .................................................................... 46

a. Adaptive Management of Wind Project Operations ............................................................................ 46 b. Adaptive Management of Wind Project Siting and Design Recommendations .................................. 47 c. Adaptive Management of Compensatory Mitigation ........................................................................... 47 d. Adaptive Management of Population-Level Take Thresholds ............................................................. 47

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX B: STAGE 1 – SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 50 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 52

APPENDIX C: STAGE 2 – SITE-SPECIFIC SURVEYS AND ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 53 1. Surveys of Eagle Use ................................................................................................................................ 53

a. Point Count Surveys .............................................................................................................................. 53 b. Migration Counts and Concentration Surveys ...................................................................................... 60 c. Utilization Distribution (UD) Assessment ............................................................................................. 62 d. Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 63

2. Survey of the Project-area Nesting Population: Number and Locations of Occupied Nests of Eagles .. 64 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 66

APPENDIX D: STAGE 3 – PREDICTING EAGLE FATALITIES ............................................................................... 68 1. Exposure .................................................................................................................................................... 69 2. Collision Probability .................................................................................................................................. 71 3. Expansion .................................................................................................................................................. 72

3

4. Fatalities.................................................................................................................................................... 72 5. Putting it all together: an example ........................................................................................................... 72

a. Patuxent Power Company Example ...................................................................................................... 73 b. Exposure ................................................................................................................................................ 74 b. Collision Probability ............................................................................................................................... 75 c. Expansion ............................................................................................................................................... 75 d. Fatalities ................................................................................................................................................ 75

6. Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 76 a. Small-scale projects ..............................................................................................................................76

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 77

APPENDIX E: STAGE 4 – AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF RISK USING ACPS AND OTHER CONSERVATION MEASURES, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ............................................................... 78

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 79

APPENDIX F: ASSESSING PROJECT-LEVEL TAKE AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSES .......................... 80 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 85

APPENDIX G: EXAMPLES USING RESOURCE EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE TAKE OF GOLDEN AND BALD EAGLES FROM WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 86

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 86 2. REA Inputs ................................................................................................................................................. 86 3. REA Example – WindCoA ......................................................................................................................... 88

a. REA Language and Methods ................................................................................................................. 89 b. REA Results for WindCoA ..................................................................................................................... 91 c. Summary of Bald Eagle REA Results .................................................................................................... 92 d. Discussion on Using REA ...................................................................................................................... 93 e. Additional Compensatory Mitigation Example ..................................................................................... 93 f. Take from Disturbance ........................................................................................................................... 93

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 94

APPENDIX H: STAGE 5 – CALIBRATING AND UPDATING OF THE FATALITY PREDICTION AND CONTINUED RISK-ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 96

1. Fatality Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 96 2. Disturbance Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 98 3. Comparison of Post-Construction Eagle Use with Pre-Construction Use ................................................ 99 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................. 99

4

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Themission oftheServiceisworking withotherstoconserve, protectand enhance fish,wildlife,plantsandtheirhabitats forthecontinuing benefit oftheAmericanpeople.Aspartofthis,wearechargedwith implementingstatutesincludingthe BGEPA,MBTA(MigratoryBirdTreatyAct),andESA(EndangeredSpeciesAct).BGEPAprohibitsalltakeofeaglesunlessotherwiseauthorizedbytheService. A goalof BGEPAisto ensurethatany authorizedtake of bald andgolden eaglesis compatible withtheirpreservation, whichtheServicehas interpretedto mean allowingtake that is consistentwiththegoalofstableor increasingbreedingpopulations. In 2009, the Servicepromulgated regulationsauthorizingissuanceofpermitsfornon‐purposeful take ofeagles;the ECPGisintendedtopromote compliancewithBGEPAwith respect tosuch permitsby providing recommendedproceduresfor:

(1) conductingearlypre‐constructionassessmentstoidentifyimportant eagle useareas; (2) analyzing pre‐constructioninformationto estimatepotentialimpactsoneagles; (3) avoiding,minimizing,and/orcompensatingforpotentialadverseeffectsto eagles; and (4) monitoringforimpactstoeagles duringconstructionandoperation.

TheECPGcallsforscientifically rigoroussurveys,monitoring, riskassessment,andresearch designsproportionate to theriskto bothbaldandgoldeneagles.The ECPG describesaprocessbywhichwindenergydevelopers,operators,andtheirconsultants cancollectandanalyzeinformationthatcouldleadto a programmaticpermittoauthorize unintentionaltake of eaglesat wind energy facilities.Theprocessesdescribedhereisnot required,but projectdevelopersoroperatorsshouldcoordinatecloselywiththeServiceiftheyplantousean alternativeapproach tomeetthe regulatoryrequirements forapermit.

1. Purpose TheServicepublishedafinalrule (EaglePermitRule)on September11,2009 underBGEPA(50 CFR22.26) authorizing limitedissuanceofpermitstotake bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) andgolden eagles(Aquila chrysaetos)‘‘fortheprotectionof...otherinterestsinanyparticular locality’’wherethe take iscompatible withthe preservation of thebaldeagle andthe goldeneagle, isassociated withandnotthepurposeof anotherwiselawful activity,andcannot practicablybe avoided(USFWS2009a). The ECPG explainsthe Service’s approachtoissuingprogrammaticeagle takepermits forwindenergy projectsunderthis authority, and providesguidancetopermitapplicants(projectdevelopersoroperators),Servicebiologists,andbiologistswithotherjurisdictionalagencies(stateandtribalfishandwildlifeagencies,inparticular)on thedevelopment of Eagle Conservation Plans (ECPs)to supportpermitissuance. SincefinalizationoftheEaglePermit Rule,the developmentandplanneddevelopment of wind facilities(developmentsforthe generationofelectricityfrom windturbines)have increasedinthe rangeof the goldeneagleinthe westernUnitedStates.Golden eaglesarevulnerable tocollisions withwindturbines(Hunt 2002), andin some areassuchcollisionscouldbeamajorsourceof mortality (Hunt et al. 1999,2002;USFWSunpublisheddata). Although significant numbersofbald eagle mortalitieshave not yet beenreportedat NorthAmerican windfacilities,deathshave occurredatmorethan onelocation(USFWS,unpublisheddata),andthecloselyrelated and behaviorally similarwhite‐tailedeagle(Haliaeetus albicilla)hasbeenkilledregularlyatwind facilitiesinEurope(Krone 2003, Cole2009, Nygård et al. 2010).Because ofthisriskto eagles, manyofthecurrentandplannedwindfacilitiesrequirepermits underthe EaglePermit Ruleto be incompliancewiththe law if andwhen aneagleis taken at thatfacility.Inadditiontobeinglegally

https://CFR22.26

5

necessarytocomplywithBGEPA and 50 CFR 22.26,theconservation practicesnecessary to meetstandardsrequiredforissuanceofthesepermitsshouldoffset theshort‐andlong‐termnegativeeffectsof windenergy facilitiesoneaglepopulations.Because oftheurgent needfor guidanceon permitting eagle take at windfacilities,thisinitialmodulefocusesonthisissue.Many of the conceptsand approachesoutlined inthis modulecan be readily exportedtoothersituations(e.g., solarfacilities,electricpower lines),andtheService expectsto release other modulesin thefuture specificallyaddressingothersourcesofeagletake. TheECPG isintendedtoprovide interpretiveguidancetoServicebiologistsandothersin applying theregulatorypermitstandards asspecifiedintherule.They donot in‐and‐ofthemselvesimpose additionalregulatory or generally‐bindingrequirements.AnECP per se is notrequired,even to obtain a programmatic eagle take permit.Aslong asthe permit applicationiscompleteand includestheinformationnecessary to evaluate a permit application under 50 CFR 22.26 or 22.27, theService willreviewtheapplicationandmake a determinationifa permitwillbeissued. However,Servicepersonnelwillbe trainedin the application ofthe proceduresand approaches outlinedin theECPG,anddevelopers whochoose touse other approaches shouldexpect thereview timeonthepartoftheService to belonger.TheServicerecommendsthatthebasicformat forthe ECPbefollowedtoallowforexpeditiousconsiderationoftheapplicationmaterials. PreparationofanECPandconsultationwiththeServicearevoluntaryactionsonthepart ofthe developer.Thereisnolegalrequirementthatwind developers apply for or obtain an eagletake permit,solong asthe projectdoesnot resultintake ofeagles.However,takeofaneaglewithout an eagletake permitisa violation ofBGEPA,sothe developer or operatormustweigh therisksin his/herdecision.The Serviceisavailableto consultwiththe developer or operatoras he/she makesthatdecision. TheECPG iswrittentoguidewind‐facilityprojectsstartingfromtheearliestconceptualplanningphase.Forprojectsalready inthe developmentor operationalphase,implementationofall stages ofthe recommended approachin the ECPG may notbe applicableorpossible.Projectdevelopersoroperatorswithoperatingorsoon‐to‐beoperatingfacilitiesand whoare interestedinobtaining a programmaticeagletakepermitshouldcontacttheService.The Service willworkwith project developersoroperatorsto determineiftheproject mightbe able to meetthe permitrequirementsin50CFR22.26. The Servicemay recommendthatthedeveloper monitoreaglefatalitiesanddisturbance, adopt reasonable measures to reduce eagle fatalitiesfromhistoriclevels,and implementcompensatory mitigation.SectionsoftheECPGthat addressthesetopicsare relevantto bothplanned andoperatingwind facilities(AppendicesEandF inparticular).Operatorsofwindprojects(andotheractivities) that werein operationpriorto 2009that posearisk to goldeneagles may qualify for programmaticeagletakepermitsthatdonotautomaticallyrequirecompensatorymitigation. Thisisbecausethe requirementsforobtainingprogrammatic take authorization aredesignedtoreducetake fromhistoric,baselinelevels,andthe preambleto the Eagle PermitRule specifiedthatunavoidabletake remaining after implementation ofavoidanceand minimization measuresatsuchprojectswould notbesubtractedfromregional eagletakethresholds (U.S.Fish andWildlifeService2009a). The ECPG is designedto becompatiblewiththe more general guidelinesprovidedinthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land‐based Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG) http://www.fws.gov/ habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html. However,becausethe ECPGdescribesactions whichhelpto comply with the regulatoryrequirementsinBGEPAforan eagletake permitasdescribedin 50 CFR 22.26 and 22.27,they aremore specific.The Servicewill make every effortto ensurethe work andtimelines forbothprocessesareascongruentaspossible.

http://www.fws.gov

6

2. Legal Authorities and Relationship to Other Statutes and GuidelinesThere areseverallawsthatmust beconsideredfor complianceduring eagle take permit application review under the 50 CFR22.26 and 22.27 regulations: BGEPA,MBTA,ESA,theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act(NEPA)(42 U.S.C.4321 et. seq.),andtheNationalHistoricPreservation Act(NHPA)(16U.S.C.470 et seq.).BGEPAistheprimary lawprotectingeagles.BGEPAdefines “take”to include“pursue, shoot,shoot at,poison,wound,kill,capture,trap,collect,molest or disturb”and prohibitstakeof individuals,andtheirparts,nests, oreggs(16 USC668 & 668c).The Serviceexpandedthisdefinition by regulationto includethe term“destroy” toensurethat“take” includesdestructionof eagle nests(50 CFR 22.3). The term“disturb” is defined by regulation at 50 CFR22.3as“toagitateor botherabald orgolden eagle to adegreethatcauses,orislikelytocause,…injurytoaneagle,adecrease inproductivity,ornestabandonment…” (USFWS 2007). A goal of BGEPAisto ensurethat any authorized take iscompatiblewith eaglepreservation,whichthe Servicehasinterpretedto mean itcan authorize takethat isconsistent with the goal of stable or increasingbreedingpopulationsofbaldandgoldeneagles(USFWS 2009b).

In 2009,two newpermit ruleswerecreatedforeagles.Under50 CFR 22.26, theServicecanissue permitsthat authorize individualinstances oftake of bald and goldeneagleswhenthetakeis associatedwith,butnotthepurpose ofan otherwiselawfulactivity,andcannotpracticablybe avoided.Theregulationalsoauthorizesongoing orprogrammatictake,butrequiresthatanyauthorizedprogrammatictakebe unavoidable after implementationofadvancedconservationpractices.Under50CFR 22.27,theServicecanissuepermitsthatallowtheintentional take of eagle nestswherenecessarytoalleviateasafetyemergencytopeople or eagles,to ensurepublichealth andsafety,where anestprevents use of a human‐engineeredstructure,andtoprotectaninterestinaparticularlocalitywheretheactivityor mitigationfortheactivitywillprovide a net benefit to eagles.Only inactive nests are allowedtobetaken exceptin casesofsafetyemergencies. The new EaglePermit Ruleprovides a mechanism wherethe Servicemaylegallyauthorizethenon‐purposefultake ofeagles. However,BGEPAprovidesthe Secretaryof the Interiorwiththe authority toissue eagletake permitsonlywhen thetake iscompatiblewiththepreservation ofeachspecies, definedin USFWS(2009a)as “…consistentwiththe goal ofstableorincreasingbreeding populations.” The Service ensuresthatany take it authorizes under 50 CFR22.26 does not exceed thispreservationstandardbysetting regionaltake thresholds foreachspeciesdeterminedusing themethodologycontainedinthe NEPAFinalEnvironmentalAssessment(FEA)developedforthenewpermitrules(USFWS 2009b). The details and background of theprocessusedtocalculate thesetake thresholdsare presentedin the FEA (USFWS2009b). It isimportantto notethatthetakethresholdsforregionaleagle management populations(eagle management units) andtheprocessbywhichthey are determined arederivedindependent fromthisoranyother ECPG module. Manystatesandtribes haveregulationsthat protecteagles,andmay requirepermitsfor purposeful andnon‐purposefultake. Projectdevelopersor operatorsshouldcontactallpertinentstateandtribalfishandwildlifeagenciesattheearliestpossiblestageofprojectdevelopmentto ensurepropercoordinationand permitting.TheServicewillcoordinateourprogrammatictakepermitswithallsuchjurisdictionalagencies. Windprojectsthatareexpected tocausetake of endangeredor threatened wildlifespeciesshouldstillreceiveincidentaltakeauthorizationsunder sections7or10 of ESAin ordertoensure compliancewithFederallaw.Aprojectdeveloper oroperatorseeking an Incidental Take Permit

https://CFR22.26https://CFR22.26

7

(ITP) throughthe ESAsection10 HabitatConservation Plan (HCP)processmaybeissuedanITP onlyif the permittedactivityisotherwiselawful (section 10(a)(1)(B)).Iftheprojectand covered activitiesintheHCParelikely to take baldorgoldeneagles, the projectproponent shouldobtain a BGEPApermitorinclude thebaldor goldeneagleas acoveredspeciesinthe HCPinorder forthe activitytobe lawful inthe eventthat eagles are taken.When baldorgolden eaglesare coveredin anHCP and ITP,the take isauthorized underBGEPA even ifthe eaglespecies isnotlisted underthe ESA(see 50 CFR22.11(a)). Ifbaldorgoldeneagles areincludedascoveredspeciesin an HCP,theavoidance,minimization, andother mitigation measuresinthe HCPmust meetthe BGEPA permitissuancecriteriaof50CFR 22.26,andincludeflexibilityforadaptive management.If take ofbaldor goldeneaglesislikelybut theprojectdeveloperoroperator does notqualify foreagletake authorization(orchoosesnot to requestsuchauthorization),an ITPmaybeissuedinassociationwiththe proposedHCP. The projectproponent mustbeadvised,inwriting,thatbaldorgoldeneagleswouldnotbeincludedascoveredspeciesandtake of baldeaglesorgoldeneagleswould not,therefore,beauthorizedundertheincidentaltakepermit.The projectdeveloper or operatormustalsobeadvisedthattheincidentaltakepermitwouldbe subjecttosuspensionor revocation iftake ofbaldeaglesorgolden eaglesshouldoccur. Inadditionto ESA,wind projectdevelopersoroperatorsneedtoaddresstakeunderMBTA. MBTAprohibitsthetaking,hunting,killing,pursuit,capture,possession,sale,barter,purchase,transport,andexport ofmigratory birds,theireggs,parts,and nests,exceptwhen authorizedbythe Department ofthe Interior.Foreagles, theBGEPAtake authorizationservesasauthorizationunder MBTA per 50CFR 22.11(b).For otherMBTA‐protectedbirds,becauseneithertheMBTAnorits permit regulationsat50 CFR Part21currentlyprovideaspecificmechanism to permit “unintentional”take,itisimportantforprojectdevelopersor operatorstoworkproactivelywith theServicetoavoidandminimizetake of migratorybirds.The Service,withassistancefromaFederal AdvisoryCommittee,developedtheWEGtoprovide astructuredsystemtoevaluateandaddresspotentialnegativeimpactsofwindenergyprojectsonspeciesofconcern.Because the Servicehastheauthoritytoissue apermitfor non‐purposeful take of eagles, ourlegaland proceduralobligationsare significantly greater,andtherefore theECPGis morefocused and detailedthanthe WEG. Wehave modeledas muchofthe ECPGas possibleaftertheWEG,butthere are important and necessarydifferences. NEPAappliestoissuance ofeagle take permits becauseissuing apermitis a federal action.WhileprovidingtechnicalassistancetoagenciesconductingNEPAanalyses,the Servicewill participateintheother agencies'NEPA tothe extentfeasible in orderto streamlinesubsequentNEPAanalysesrelatedtoaproject.Foractionsthatmayresultinapplicationsfordevelopmentofprogrammaticpermits, the Service mayparticipate asacooperating agency to streamlinethepermittingprocess. Ifnofederalnexusexists,otherthan an eagle permit, or if the existing NEPAof anotheragency is not adequate,theService mustcomplete a NEPA analysis before itcan issuea permit. TheService willworkwiththeprojectdeveloperoroperatorto conductacompleteNEPAanalysis,includingassistingwithdataneedsanddeterminingthescopeof analysis.Projectdevelopersoroperatorsmayprovideassistancethatcan expeditetheNEPAprocessin accordance with40 CFR §1506.5. Additionally,thereareopportunitiesto “batch” NEPAanalyses forproposedprojectsinthesame geographic area. Inthese cases,projectdevelopersoroperators andthe Servicecouldpoolresourcesanddata,likelyincreasingthequality of theproduct andtheefficiency of theprocess.DevelopersshouldcoordinatecloselywiththeServiceforprojectswithnofederal nexusotherthan

8

theeaglepermit.Close coordination betweenprojectdevelopersoroperatorsandthe Service regardingthedata needs andscopeoftheanalysisrequiredfor apermitwillreducedelays. Through 50 CFR22.26 andthe associatedFEA,theServicedefined“mitigation”aspertheService Mitigation Policy(46 FR 7644,Jan. 23,1981),and thePresident’sCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(40 CFR 1508.20(a‐e)),tosequentiallyincludethefollowing:

(1)Avoidingtheimpactoneagles altogetherbynottakingacertainactionor partsofanaction; (2)Minimizingimpactsbylimiting the degreeormagnitudeoftheactionandits

implementation; (3)Rectifying the impact byrepairing, rehabilitating,orrestoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by implementingpreservationand

maintenanceoperationduringthe lifetimeoftheaction;and(5)Compensatingfortheimpact byreplacingorprovidingsubstituteresourcesor

environments. Throughoutthis document we differentiatebetweenmitigation,whichcoversallof the components listedabove,andcompensatorymitigation,whichisasubsetof (5) above and directlytargetsoffsettingpermitteddisturbance andmortalitytoaccomplisha no‐net‐lossobjective at thescale of theeagle management unit.The Servicerequirescompensatory mitigation(potentiallyinaddition toothermitigation)whereithasnotbeen determinedthateaglepopulationscansustain additional mortality.TheNEPA analysison ourpermitsandthediscussion ofmitigationin thisdocument followthissystem, andinthisECPG wereferto (1)–(4) asconservation measuresto avoid and minimizetake,ofwhichACPsare asubset,andto(5)as compensatorymitigation. Eaglesare significantspeciesinNative American cultureandreligion (Palmer 1988)and may be consideredcontributing elements toa“traditionalculturalproperty”under Section 106 ofthe NHPA.Somelocations whereeagles wouldbe takenhavetraditionalreligiousandcultural importance toNative Americantribes andthushavethe potentialofbeingregardedastraditional culturalpropertiesunderNHPA. Permitted takeof one ormore eagles fromthese areas,forany purpose,couldbeconsideredan adverseeffect tothetraditionalculturalproperty.TheseconsiderationswillbeincorporatedintoanyNEPAanalysisassociatedwith an eagle take permit. Federally‐recognizedIndiantribesenjoy aunique government‐to‐governmentrelationshipwiththe UnitedStates.The Service recognizes Indian tribal governmentsasthe authoritative voiceregarding the managementoftriballandsandresourceswithintheframeworkofapplicablelaws.Itisimportanttorecallthatmany tribaltraditionallandsandtribalrightsextend beyondreservationlands.The Serviceconsultswith Indiantribalgovernmentsunderthe authoritiesofExecutive Order13175“Consultation andCoordination withIndianTribal Governments”andsupportingDOI andService policies.To thisend,whenitis determinedthat federal actionsand activitiesmayaffectatribe’sresources(includingculturalresources),lands,rights,or abilitytoprovide services toitsmembers,theServicemust,tothe extentpracticable,seek toengagethe affectedtribe(s)in consultation andcoordination.

3. Background and Overview of Process Increasedenergydemandsandthenationwidegoaltoincreaseenergyproductionfrom renewable sourceshaveintensifiedthedevelopmentof energyfacilities, includingwind energy. The Service supports renewable energy development that is compatible with fishandwildlifeconservation. TheServicecloselycoordinateswith state,tribal,andotherfederalagenciesinthe reviewand

https://CFR22.26

9

permitting ofwindenergyprojectstoaddresspotentialresourceeffects,including effects to bald andgolden eagles.However,ourknowledge ofthese effectsand howto addressthem at thistime is limited.Given thisandtheService’s regulatory mandate to onlyauthorizeactionsthatare“compatiblewiththegoal ofstableorincreasingbreedingpopulations”of eagleshasledustoadopt an adaptive management framework predicated,inpart,ontheprecautionaryapproach for considerationandissuanceof programmaticeagle takepermits. Thisframeworkconsistsofcase‐specificconsiderationsappliedwithina nationalframework,andwiththeoutcomescarefully monitoredsothat we maximizelearning from each case. Theknowledgegainedthrough monitoring canthen be usedtoupdateandrefine theprocess formakingfuturepermittingdecisionssuchthatourultimate conservation objectives are attained,as wellasto consideroperationaladjustmentsatindividualprojectsatregularintervalswheredeemednecessaryandappropriate. TheECPGprovides thebackgroundandinformation necessaryforwindprojectdevelopersoroperatorstoprepare anECPthatassessestheriskofa prospectiveor operatingprojecttoeagles,andhowsiting,design,andoperationalmodifications can mitigatethat risk. Implementationof the finalECP must reducepredictedeagletake,andthepopulation leveleffectof thattake,to adegree compatiblewith regulatory standardsto justifyissuanceofaprogrammatic takepermit bythe Service.

a. Risks to Eagles Energydevelopmentcan affect eagles ina variety of ways.First,structuressuchaswindturbinescan causedirect mortalitythroughcollision(Hunt2002,Nygård et al. 2010). This istheprimary threatto eagles from windfacilities, andthe monitoringandavoidanceand minimization measures advocated intheECPGprimarilyareaimed atthisthreat.Second,activities associatedwith pre‐construction,construction,oroperationandmaintenanceof a projectmightcausedisturbance and resultinlossofproductivityat nearbynestsor disturbancetonearbyconcentrations ofeagles. Third,ifdisturbanceormortalityeffects arepermanent,theycouldresult inthepermanent orlongterm lossofanestingterritory.Alloftheseimpacts,unlessproperlypermitted,areviolations ofBGEPA(USFWS2009a). Additionally,disturbances near important eagle useareas ormigrationconcentrationsitesmight stress eaglesto adegree thatleadstoreproductivefailureormortalityelsewhere;theseimpactsare ofconcernas well,andthey couldamountto prohibitedtake,thoughsucheffectsaredifficulttopredict andquantify. Thus,theECPG addressesbothdirectmortalityanddisturbance.Manynewwindprojectsarelocatedinremote areasthat have few,if any, transmission lines. The Serviceconsidersnewtransmissionlinesandother infrastructure associatedwithrenewableenergy projectstobepartofaproject.Accordingly,assessmentsofprojectimpactsshouldincludetransmissionlinesandother facilities,not merely windturbines.

b. General Approach to Address Risk Applicantsforpermits under50 CFR22.26,non‐purposefuleagle take, are required to avoid andminimize the potentialfor takeof eaglesto the extentpracticable.Permitsforwind‐energydevelopmentare programmaticastheywill authorize recurringtake,rather than isolatedincidencesof take.For programmatictakepermits,theregulationsat50CFR 22.26 requirethat any authorizedtake isunavoidable afterimplementation ofACPs.50 CFR 22.3defines“advancedconservationpractices”as“scientificallysupportablemeasuresthatareapproved by theService andrepresentthe best available techniquestoreduceeagle disturbance andongoing mortalitiesto a levelwhereremaining takeisunavoidable.”

10

Because thebest information indicatesthattherearecurrently noavailablescientifically supportablemeasuresthatwillreduce eagle disturbance and blade‐strikemortalityatwindprojects,the ServicehasnotcurrentlyapprovedanyACPsforwind‐energyprojects.The preamble to the EaglePermit RuleenvisionedtheService andindustryworking togetherto identify and evaluatepossibleACPs (USFWS2009a). TheprocessofACPdevelopmentforwind‐energyfacilitieshasbeenhamperedbecausethere hasbeen little standardized scientificstudyof potentialACPs, andsuchinformation can bestbe obtainedthroughexperimentalapplicationofACPsatoperatingfacilitieswitheagle takepermits.Giventhis,andconsideringthe pressing need todevelop ACPs forwind‐energyfacilities,the Servicebelievesthatthe bestcourseofactionis toworkwith industrytodevelop ACPsfor windprojectsaspart oftheprogrammatictake permitprocess. Underthisscenario,ACPswould be implementedatoperating windfacilitieswithaneagle takepermit on an“experimental”basis(theACPs areconsidered experimentalbecausethey would notyet meet the definition of an ACP in the eagle permit regulation).The experimental ACPswould be scientificallyevaluated fortheireffectiveness,andbasedontheresultsofthesestudies,couldbemodifiedinanadaptive management regime. Despitethecurrentlack of available ACPs,thebest available scientificinformationmay demonstrate that a particularavoidance,minimization,orother mitigationactionshould be applied as a condition on an eagle programmatic take permit for wind‐energyfacilities(see 50 C.F.R.22.6(c)(1)).A project developeroroperatorwillstillbe expected toimplementanyreasonableavoidanceandminimizationmeasuresthatmayreduce take of eagles at a project.However,theService andtheprojectdeveloperor operatorwilldiscussandagree onothersite‐specificand possiblyturbine‐specific factorsthatmayposeriskstoeaglesand experimental ACPsthat might reduceor eliminate those risks if the risksaresubstantiated bythe best availablescience.UnlesstheServicedeterminesthatthereisareasonablescientificbasistoimplementexperimental ACPsupfront,we recommendthatsuch measuresbe deferred untilsuchtime asthere iseagletake at thefacilityor theService determinesthatthecircumstances and evidence surroundinginstances of take orriskof takesuggesttheexperimentalACPsmight be warranted. This agreement wouldbe specifiedasaconditionoftheprogrammaticeagletake permit. BecauseACPswouldbeconsidered experimentalin these situations,werecommendthat theybesubjecttoacost capthat the Service andtheproject developeroroperatorestablish aspart ofthe initial agreement beforeissuance ofapermit,therebyprovidingfinancial certaintytotheprojectoperator ordeveloperas to what maximumcostsofsuchmeasures might be. The amountof thecap shouldberelevanttothe theorizedriskfactorsidentified fortheproject,andproportionaltooverallrisk. If eagletake isconfirmed through post‐constructionmonitoring, developers or operatorswouldbe expectedtoimplement the experimentalACP(s)and tomonitorfutureeagletakerelativetotheACP(s)aspartoftheadaptive management processspecified inAppendixA, butallwithinthelimitsofthe pre‐determined financialcap. Astheresultsfrommonitoring experimental ACPsacross anumberoffacilitiesaccumulatesand isanalyzed aspart of the adaptive management process,scientificinformationin support ofcertainACPsmayaccrue, whereas otherACPs may showlittlevaluein reducingtake. If theServicedeterminesthat theavailable sciencedemonstrates an experimentalACPiseffectiveinreducingeagletake, theService willapprove thatACP andrequire itsimplementationup front onnew projects whenandwherewarranted.

11

Wheretake isunavoidableandwheneaglepopulationsat thescaleoftheeaglemanagement unit(asdefinedinUSFWS 2009b)are notestimated tobe healthyenoughto sustainadditional mortalityover existinglevels,applicantsmustreducetheeffectofpermittedunavoidablemortality toano‐net‐loss standardthrough compensatorymitigationforthedurationofthepermittedactivity.No‐net‐lossmeansthatunavoidablemortalitycausedbythepermittedactivitiesisoffsetbycompensatorymitigation that reducesanother,ongoing formof mortalityby an equalor greateramount,orwhichleadsto anincrease in carryingcapacity that allowsthe eaglepopulation togrowbyanequalorgreateramount.Compensatorymitigationmayalsobenecessary tooffset substantial effectsin othersituations (USFWS2009a), andmitigation designedtooffsetother detrimental effectsof permitson eaglesmay be advisedin additionto compensatory mitigationin some cases. TheService andtheprojectdeveloper or operator seeking a programmaticeagletake permitshouldagree onthenumberof eagle fatalitiesto mitigate andwhatactionswillbe taken if actual eagle fatalitiesdifferfrom the predictednumber.Thecompensatorymitigationrequirementandtriggerforadjustmentshouldbespecifiedinthepermit.Ifthe proceduresrecommendedintheECPGare followed,thereshouldnot be a need for additionalcompensatory mitigation.However,ifother,lessrisk‐averse models are usedto estimate fatalities,underestimatesmight be expected andthe permitshouldspecifythethreshold(s)oftakethatwouldtriggeradditionalactions andthespecificmitigationactivitiesthatwouldbeimplemented if fatalitiesareunderestimated.The approachdescribedintheECPGisapplicableforallland‐basedwindenergyprojectswithintherangeofthe baldandgolden eaglewhereinteractionswithwindprojectinfrastructurehavebeendocumentedorarereasonablyexpectedtooccur.TheECPGisintendedtoprovideanationalframework for assessingandmitigatingrisk. Aspartof the application process fora programmatic eagle takepermit,theService recommends thatprojectdevelopers oroperators prepare an ECP that outlinestheproject developmentprocessandincludes conservation andmonitoringplansas recommendedin thisECPG. TheECPGprovidesexamplesofways that applicants can meettheregulatory standards inthe rule, andwhile other approaches may be acceptable,theServicewill determinetheiradequacy on acase‐by‐casebasis.Asnoted previously,anECPisnotrequired,butifoneisdevelopedfollowingtheapproachrecommendedhere,itwillexpediteServicereview oftheproject.

There issubstantial uncertaintysurroundingtheriskofwindprojectstoeagles, and of waysto minimizethatrisk.Forthisreason,theServicestrongly recommendsthat care be takento protect againsttheconsequences ofunderestimating eagle fatalityratesatwind facilities.Overestimates, onceconfirmed,can beadjusted downwardbasedonpost‐constructionmonitoring information withnoconsequenceto eaglepopulations,andprojectdevelopersoroperatorscantradeorbe creditedforexcesscompensatory mitigation.However,theoptionsfor addressingunderestimated fatalityrates are extremelylimited,and poseeither potential hardshipsforwinddevelopersor significantriskstoeaglepopulations.

12

ASSESSING RISK AND EFFECTS

1. Considerations When Assessing Eagle Use RiskBaldeaglesandgolden eaglesassociatewithdistinctgeographicareas and landscape featuresthroughouttheirrespectiveranges. TheServicedefinesthese “important eagle‐use areas”as“an eaglenest,foraging area,orcommunalroostsitethateaglesrelyon for breeding,sheltering,orfeeding,and thelandscapefeaturessurroundingsuchnest,foragingarea,or roostsitethatareessentialforthecontinuedviabilityofthesitefor breeding, feeding, or sheltering eagles”(USFWS2009a; 50 CFR22.3). Migration corridorsandmigrationstopoversitesalsoprovideimportantforaging areasfor eagles duringmigration(e.g.,Restani et al. 2001,Mojica 2008) andresultinseasonalconcentrationsofeagles.As aresult,the presence ofamigrationcorridororstopover siteonornearaproposedwinddevelopmentproject couldincreasetheprobabilityofencountersbetween eaglesandwind turbines. Although these sitesare not specificallyincludedwithinthe regulatorydefinitionof animportant eagle‐use area at 50 CFR 22.3,the presenceof suchasite on ornearaproposedwindproject couldincreasethelikelihoodofcollisions. Windenergyprojectsthatoverlap,orareproximateto,importanteagleuseareasormigrationconcentrationsitesmayposeriskstotheeaglesforreasonsdescribedearlier.Projectdevelopersoroperatorsshouldidentifythe locationandtype ofallimportanteagleuseareasormigration concentrationsitesthatmight be affectedby aproposedwind project(e.g., withinthe projectarea). Ifrecent (withinthe previous5 years) localdata are available on the spacing of eagle nestsforthe project‐areanestingpopulation, those datacan be usedtodetermineanappropriateboundaryfor suchsurveys (asdescribedinAppendixH).Otherwise,forboth specieswe suggestinitialsurveys beconducted on andwithin10 miles of a project’s footprintto establishtheproject‐areamean inter‐nestdistance. The projectfootprintisthe minimum convexpolygon(e.g.,Mohr1947)thatencompassesthewindprojectareainclusiveofthehazardousareaaroundallturbinesandanyassociatedinfrastructure, includingutilitylines,out‐buildings,roads,etc.Wesuggestasite‐specificapproach basedonthespacingbetween nearest, simultaneouslyoccupiednestsfor thespecies presentin the area. Ifdataon nest‐spacinginthe projectareaarelacking,projectproponents oroperatorsmaywishtosurveyup to 10miles,asthisis½the largestrecordedspacingobservedforgoldeneaglesintheMojave/SonorandesertsofwesternArizona (Millsap1981).. Forsubsequent monitoring (e.g.,post‐constructionmonitoringofoccupancyandproductivityof pairspotentially disturbedby theproject),theproject‐areameaninter‐nestdistancecanbeused to define a morerelevantproject‐areaboundary. The 10‐mileperimeter maybe unnecessaryforbaldeaglesinsome areas,andtheServiceacknowledgesthere needsto be flexibilityintheapplicationofthis approachtoaccommodatespecificsituations. Evaluating thespatialareadescribedabove foreachwindprojectisakeypartof theprogrammatictakepermittingprocess.Asdescribedlater,surveys shouldbe conductedinitiallytoobtaindatato predicteffectsofwindprojects on eagles.After the project beginsoperating,studiesshouldagain beconducted todeterminethe actual effects.Thefollowingsectionsincludedescriptionsandcriteriafor identifyingimportanteagleuseareas ormigration concentrationsitesin these assessments.

a. General Background and Rationale for Assessing Project Effects on Eagles Asynthesis ofpubliclyavailable databases andtechnicalliteratureare fundamentalto thepre‐constructionassessmentcomponentofanECP.Insomeinstances,thisworkmayrevealinformation onuseof a proposedproject area by eagles thatisstrong enoughto supportadecisiononwhetherto proceedwiththe project.In mostcases,ifavailable

13

informationwarrantsfurtherconsiderationofapotentialwind projectsite,on‐sitesurveysshouldbeimplementedto furtherdocumentuse of theprojectareaby eagles.The goal of suchsurveys shouldbe to quantifyand describeuseofthe projectarea by breeding(territorial)andnon‐breedingeaglesacrossseasonsandyears. A variety of survey approaches may beneededto accomplishthisgoal. Although potentialforpresenceof alltypesof importanteagle useareasor migration concentrationsitesshould beconsideredwhen beginning toassessapotentialprojectsite,specialattentionistypicallygiventonestsandnestingpairs.An eagle territoryisdefinedin50 CFR 22.3 asan area thatcontains,orhistoricallycontained,oneormorenestswithinthe home range of a matedpairofeagles.Werecognizethat usage conflictswiththetrue biologicalmeaningofthetermterritory,butwe use itherein in itsregulatorycontext. Newton(1979)consideredthe nesting territory ofaraptor asthedefendedareaarounda pair’s nestsiteanddefinedthe homerangeas“...theareatraveledbytheindividualinitsnormal activitiesoffoodgathering,mating,andcaringforthe young.”Forgoldeneaglesat least,the extentof thehomerangeandterritoryduringnestingseasongenerallyare similar;the eagle defends itsterritorybyundulatingflightdisplaysnear the home range boundariesandadjoining territoriesbarely overlap(Harmata 1982,Collopy andEdwards 1989,Marzluff et al. 1997). Avoidancezones,often distinguished byspecific“buffer”distances,have been prescribedto protectnestsandothertypesof eagle useareas fromdisturbance.Recommendationsforthesizeofavoidancezonesfor nestsofbaldeaglesandgolden eagleshave sometimesbeen basedondocumenteddistancesbetween nests and territoryboundaries. Forexample, McGrady et al. (2002) and Watson andDavies(2009)indicated nestingterritoriesofgolden eaglesextendtoat least 4milesfrom theirnests. Garrett et al. (1993) found that baldeagle territoriesextend atleast 2 miles fromnests,thoughstudies in areasofdenselypackedbreedingterritoriesofbaldeaglessuggestmuchsmallerdistances(Sherrod et al. 1976, HodgesandRobards1982,Anthony 2001).Arecommendation for a spatial bufferto avoid disturbance of eagle nests can hardlybe applied throughout the entire range of eitherspeciesduetomarkedvariation inthesizeandconfigurationofnestingterritories.Assuch,these avoidanceprescriptionshave been conservative because there are fewsite‐specificdataonspatialextentofterritoriesin thepublishedandunpublishedliterature.Forbaldeagles,minimum‐distancebuffers are prescribed bythe Service toprotectnests,foragingareas,andcommunalroostsagainstdisturbancefromavarietyofactivities(USFWS2007b). The approach we recommend in the ECPGforevaluatingsitingoptionsandassessingpotentialmortalityanddisturbanceeffectsofwindfaciliti