JACKSON@LYATTORNEYS AT LAW PLLC

1600 IAIDLMTOWER PO.BOX 553 * CHARLESTON,WESTVlRGlNIA 25322 ‘TELEPHONE: 304-340-1000 *TELECOPIER 304-340-1 I30 wJacksonkelly.com

Direct Dial No. (304) 340- 1251 e-mail: [email protected] State Bar ID No. 599 1 September 24,2002 Via hand delivery Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary

$5 Public Service Commission of West 201 Brooks Street Post Office Box 8 12 Charleston, 25323 Re: Case No. 02- 1189-E-CN NedPower Mount Storm LLC

Dear Ms. Squire: Enclosed please find an original and six copies of an “Endangered Species Status and Phase I Avian Risk Assessment” for the Project prepared by Potesta & Associates, Inc., NedPower’s environmental consultants on the Project (“Study”). In the Study, Potesta summarizes three assessments performed in

L.c% connection with the Project and attached to the Study as Appendices A, B and C, respectively: A. “Surveys for Potential Habitat of the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel at the Proposed NedPower Mount Storm LLC Windmill Turbines Project Site,” prepared by Dr. Edwin D. Michael, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University; B. “Habitat Assessments for Potential Habitat of Salamanders (Plethodon nettingi) in Proposed Windmill Sites of the NedPower Mount Storm LLC,” prepared by Dr. Thomas K. Pauley, Professor, Marshall University; and C. “Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant , West Virginia,” prepared by Dr. Ronald A. Canterbury, Professor, Concord College. We would be pleased to provide additional copies of the Study to the Commissioners shouy they so request. #L

~ . , - -.* %,, . ,- ,, > Was~~.C~~~~~~,*~in~on,KY Fairmont, WV Martinsburg, WV Wheeling, WV Morgantown, WV New Martinsville,WV Parkersburg,WV

, .. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary September 24,2002 Page 2

Please file this letter and the attached Study and circulate the six additional copies to the appropriate parties at the Commission. We also ask that you date stamp the extra copies of this letter and return them with our messenger. As always, we appreciate your assistance in this matter.

CLC/dgc cc: William V. DePaulo, Esq. (w/enc.) Caryn W. Short, Esq. (w/o enc,) Leslie J. Anderson, Esq. (w/o enc.) Vincent Trivelli, Esq. (w/enc.) Jerome Niessen (w/o enc.) Timothy P. Heinle (w/o enc.) James Alexander (w/o enc.) Laidley E. McCoy (w/o enc.)

C0646305.1

Potesta 6’Associates, Inc. Engineers and Environmental Consultants 2300 MacCorIde Avenue S.E.,Cox Hall, Charleston, West Virginia 25304-1099 Telephone: (3041342-1400 Fax: (304)343-9031 E-mail: [email protected]

September 2002

Endangered Species Status and Phase I Avian Risk Assessment For a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia

Preliminary Report - September 23,2002

Prepared for:

NedPower Mount Storm LLC 5 160 Parkstone Drive, Suite 260 Chantilly, Virginia 201 5 1

Prepared by:

Potesta & Associates, Inc. 2300 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25304

Project No. 02-0083

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, WV September 23, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 HABITAT EVALUATIONS ...... 1 2.1 West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel ...... 2 2.2 Cheat Mountain Salamander ...... 3 2.3 Indiana and Virginia Big-eared Bats ...... 3

3.0 PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 3

4.0 CLOSING ...... 4

- APPENDICES

“Surveys for Potential Habitat of the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel at Proposed NedPower, Mount Storm LLC Windmill Turbines Project Site” by Dr. Edwin D. Michael, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University...... APPENDIX A

“Habitat Assessments for potential Habitat of Cheat Mountain Salamanders in Proposed Windmill Sites of the NedPower Mount Storm LLC” by Dr. Thomas K. Pauley, Professor Marshall University ...... APPENDIX B

“Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia” by Dr. Ronald A. Canterbury, Assistant Professor of Biology, Concord College ...... APPENDIX C

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Endangered Species Status and Phase I Avian Risk Assessment For a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NedPower Mount Storm LLC (NEDPOWER) is currently developing a wind power project along the near Mount Storm, Grant County, West Virginia. The project entails the construction of a wind farm (up to 300MW) to be completed in three phases. The Project will consist of up to 200 wind turbines each with a rated capacity of 1.5 to 2.5 megawatts. Each turbine will be mounted on a steel tower approximately 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter and 210 to 330 feet (64 to 101 m) in height. Each turbine will have three blades of approximately 115 feet (35 meters) with each turbine’s blades being more than 82 feet (25 meters) from the ground.

The proposed NedPower Mount Storm wind farm project will be located on a site approximately 14 miles long with an average width of 0.5 miles near the Mount Storm power and in Grant County, West Virginia. The Site extends along the Allegheny Front from east of the to about 0.75 mile (1.21 km) from Mt. Pisgah. The site is private land primarily used for commercial logging and surface mining purposes. Telecommunications towers and utility rights-of-ways (ROWS) are found throughout the Mount Storm area. Actual land disturbance from the Project is expected to be less than 200 acres.

Any land disturbance that requires alteration in habitat has the potential to present risk to federally listed threatened and endangered species that may be present. Additionally, large stationary objects, such as cell towers or wind turbines, may present risk to avian species. It is for these reasons, as well as issues pursuant to Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Section 2 of the State Code (Natural Resources), I that NEDPOWER is presenting the following status report. This report summarizes activities to date related to rare, threatened and endangered species as well as avian risk.

2.0 HABITAT EVALUATIONS

Letters were sent on June 10 and July 8, 2002 to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Elkins, West Virginia and to the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (DNR), Elkins, West Virginia respectively. These letters were written to inform the agencies of the project and to make inquiries about rare, threatened and endangered species.

The Service visited the site on July 23, 2002. Based on this visit, the Service determined that the following federally listed species could occur in the proposed project area and could be impacted: the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the endangered Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), the endangered West Virginia northern flying squirrel

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Page 1 (GZaucomys sabrinus fuscus) and the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander (Rethodon nettingi).

The Service has suggested habitat surveys for the Cheat Mountain salamander and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. If potential habitat exists, the service recommends that the area with known habitat be surveyed for the presence of these species.

The Service recommended two courses of action in regard to the Indiana bat. The first option is to conduct mist net surveys to determine if summer foraging and roosting habitat occur within the proposed area. These types of surveys must be conducted between May 15 and August 15. If no Indiana bats are found during the mist net survey, the Service considers that if they are present, they are in low numbers. Therefore, the likelihood of a take from project construction is minimal, and removal can occur at any time of the year. The second option is to clear during the November 15 to March 31 time period. However, the Service recommends that a I habitat survey and analysis of the area within two miles from the centerline of the project be - completed prior to utilizing this option. This is done in an effort to determine if sufficient Indiana bat summer habitat will remain after the proposed projects tree removal. If tree removal in the NEDPOWER project area will significantly impact the available Indiana bat summer habitat, the service recommends that an additional mist net survey be completed.

The Service considers the southern portion of the proposed project area likely to be used by the Virginia big-eared bat for foraging. Due to this supposition, the Service is requesting an assessment of the potential “take” of the Virginia big-eared bat. The Service would also like an assessment of the potential for “take” completed on any other threatened or endangered species found within the project area. If all “take” of federally-listed species from construction andor operation of the project cannot be avoided, the Service recommends a Habitat Conservation Plan be prepared. The Service also recommends that an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) be requested

Habitat surveys have been completed for two of the federally listed species, which may be encountered within the proposed project area. These species are the West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the Cheat Mountain salamander. The flying squirrel habitat survey was completed by Dr. Edwin Michael, Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University and the salamander habitat survey was completed by Dr. Thomas Pauley, Professor of Biology at Marshall University. The results of these habitat surveys are discussed below. Surveys for the 1 listed species in the areas of identified suitable habitat are expected to be completed in October 2002.

~ 2.1 West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel

Dr. Michael completed an initial site visit with Mr. Tim Sedosky of Potesta and Associates, Inc. on August 6, 2002. On August 7-9 and 12-14, 2002 Dr. Michael surveyed along the proposed alignment of each string of wind turbines to determine if potential habitat exists for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. The primary goal was to locate stands and/or mature stands of northern hardwoods that would be impacted by the proposed project.

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Page 2 Dr. Michaels found three areas with high probability, suitable habitat. All three areas are located south of Route 42 and near Helmick Run. The first location is between two lines of turbines. The second and third locations are along the westernmost line of proposed turbines. A description of the area is included in Dr. Michael’s report (Appendix A). Dr. Michaels reported no suitable habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel along the eastern line of proposed turbines.

2.2 Cheat Mountain Salamander

Dr. Pauley completed an initial site visit with Tim Sedosky of Potesta and Associates, Inc. on August 6,2002. Dr. Pauley then completed the survey two weeks later. The primary goal of this survey was to locate potential Cheat Mountain salamander habitat. Dr. Pauley indicates this to be either stands of such as red spruce (Picea rubens) or hemlock ( canadensis) or stands of mixed deciduous forest at specific elevations.

Dr. Pauley broke the proposed project area into four sections. Section one extended from WV Route 42 north to the northern end of the project area. He found this area void of the proper habitat. Section two was the area south of WV Route 42 to Pigeonroost. Habitat in this area was similar to that found in section one and fbture surveys were not recommended. Section three was located south of Pigeonroost to the power-line right-of-way. Dr. Pauley did not recommended future surveys in this area. The final area, section four, which extended from south of the power line right-of-way to Stack Rock, did contain some potential habitat. Sections in the southern portion of this area contain typical Cheat Mountain salamander habitat (Figure 2, Appendix B), and a species survey is recommended by Dr. Pauley. Additionally, there is a known population of this species found in similar habitat approximately 5.5 miles away.

I 2.3 Indiana and Virginia Big-eared Bats

NEDPOWER expects to undertake a habitat survey for the Indiana bat and an assessment of the I potential for an incidental “take” of the Virginia big-eared bat in the near future.

3.0 PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT

1 NEDPOWER undertook an avian risk assessment to study the impact of the proposed Project on I migratory birds and other bird species and to come up with ways to minimize any negative impact (if any) on birds. , I A Phase I Avian Risk Assessment has been completed on the proposed project area by Dr. Ronald Canterbury of Concord College. This type of assessment is used to determine the degree of risk an activity will have on avian populations. A Phase I risk assessment is completed by doing a site visit, compiling relevant literature and by interviewing local and regional experts (agency staff, academics, environmental organizations and local birdwatchers).

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Page 3 After completing a literature search, visiting the site, and discussing the issue with local experts, Dr. Canterbury determined that the proposed project presented minimal risk to avian populations. As with most avian risk assessments, Dr. Canterbury indicated that tower height, lighting, blade size and speed are all factors that may be considered to reduce or minimize risk to all avian species within the project area. Additionally, Dr. Canterbury suggests that risk may be minimized during the construction phase to species of concern, like the Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), by considering their habitat and avoiding it in the design phase of this proposed project. Using existing road structure may also reduce risk to avian species.

Dr. Canterbury’s results are similar to those reported by Curry and Kerlinger for the Mount Storm Wind Power Project, US Wind Force, L.L.C. As with the Mount Storm project, further studies are suggested, specifically migration studies and studies on the habitat of species of concern. However, Dr. Canterbury indicated that these types of studies should be completed at all locations that are proposed to accommodate wind towers and the issue was not specifically addressing problems associated with this location. Unlike, the Curry and Kerlinger report, which indicated that there was a potential for moderate risk to avian species at that location, minimal impact is expected. Utilizing the aforementioned recommendations with regard to the towers physical presence and habitat may further reduce this risk. In summary, Dr. Canterbury recommended that the developer should:

1. Utilize modern wind turbine technology including tubular tower structures and low RPM blades. 2. Relocate turbines from close proximity to Stony River Reservoir. 3. Minimize turbine lighting to the extent possible. 4. Minimize and reduce the risk to the Golden-winged Warbler through careful planning and consideration of habitats in micrositing of turbines. 5. Consider a migration study and/or post construction mortality monitoring. 6. Utilize existing roads to the extent possible.

4.0 CLOSING

This report was prepared to assist NedPower Mount Storm LLC in evaluating and planning with respect to the subject site. The scope of this study was mutually devised by Potesta & Associates, Inc. (POTESTA) and NedPower Mount Storm LLC and is limited to the specific project, location and time period described herein. The work scope and report represent POTESTA’S understanding of site conditions as discernible from information provided by others and obtained by POTESTA using the methods specified. POTESTA assumes no responsibility for information provided or developed by others, or for documenting conditions detectable with methods or techniques not specified in the work scope. In addition, no activity, including sampling, assessment or evaluation of any material or substance, may be assumed to be included in this study unless specifically considered in the scope of work and this report. Sketches and maps in this report are included only to aid the reader and should not be considered surveys or engineering studies.

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Page 4 If additional data concerning this site becomes available, POTESTA should be informed so that we may examine the information and, if necessary, modify this report accordingly.

Respectfully Submitted,

__ Seu io ScientisU

Endangered Species Status and Avian Risk Assessment, September 2002 Page 5 Appendix A YV --

SURVEYS FOR POTENTIAL HABITAT OF TEE WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN E'LYING SQUIRREL AT PROPOSED NEDPOWER, MOUNT STORM LLC WZNDMILL TURBINES PROJECT SITE

Dr. Edwin D. Michael, Professor Emeritus West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505

SUBMITTED TO: NedPower Mount Storm LLC/Potesta & Assoc, DATE SUBMITTED: August 19, 2002

In August, 2002, Potesta & ASSOC., Inc. contacted me to conduct surveys to determine if potential habitat exists for the endangered West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomvs sabrinus fuscus) along the proposed alignment of the NedPower Mount Storm LLC Project, Grant County, West Virginia. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1985. Throughout its eastern range, this subspecies of the northern flying squirrel is usually associated with boreal forests, especially spruce-fir and northern hardwoods (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Potential habitat with high suitability

1 rating is defined as a conifer stand characterized by the following: (1) dominant canopy trees of red spruce (Picea rubens), Norway spruce (), eastern hemlock (Tsuqa canadensis), or balsam fir (Abies balsamea), (2) numerous mature conifer trees (> 10" dbh) that reach into the canopy, (3) a stand size greater than 1 acre, and (4) the conifer stand not separated from other conifer stands of potential habitat by more than 0.5 miles. Northern flying squirrels in West Virginia seem to prefer moist forest stands with at least some widely-spaced mature trees, and an abundance of snags, both standing and fallen. Most individual northern flying squirrels in West Virginia have been captured at elevations of 3,000-4,500 feet (Stihler, et a1 1995). Although this subspecies of northern flying squirrel has not been captured in Grant County, several have been "captured" in flying squirrel nest boxes and in live traps at several sites throughout adjacent Tucker County. Most capture sites in Tucker County were located at elevations of 3,200-3,700 feet and were dominated by mature red spruce and yellow birch (Betula alleqhaniensis). The nearest

2 location of previous capture sites to the proposed NedPower Mount Storm LLC Project was in Blackwater Falls State Park, approximately 15 miles to the southwest. A population of this subspecies that exists between and Route 219, is the northernmost-known location of the West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Michael 2001).

1 THODOLOGY I met with Tim Sedosky, Potesta & Associates, Inc., on August 6, 2002 to conduct the initial site visit to learn the locations of each of the proposed wind turbine strings. On August 7-9 and 12-14, I commenced surveying along the proposed alignment of each string of wind turbines to determine if potential habitat exists for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. Most of the entire length of that section of the proposed project located south of Rt. 42 was walked. In addition, the first mile of that section located north of Rt. 42 was also walked. The primary goal was to locate conifer stands and/or mature stands of northern hardwoods that would be impacted during construction of the wind turbine project.

3 RESULTS Most proposed locations south of Rt. 42 for the NedPower Mount Storm LLC windmill turbines are at elevations between 3,300 and 3,700 feet, with those closer to Rt. 42 being between 3,000 and 3,200 feet. The majority of the locations where turbines are planned have been surface-mined and/or logged in recent years, some within the past two years. Most of the logging involved heavy selection cuts, while some involved clearcuts. Other I I locations are dominated by boulder-fields and stunted, wind- stressed shrubs and trees, High probability, suitable habitat was identified at three locations, all south of Rt. 42. The approximate locations of these sites are shown on the attached contour maps. Site #1 is situated on the primary ridgeline of the Allegheny Front, 0.65

I miles north of the large power line that crosses Helmick Run.

Site #2 is west of Helmick Run, adjacent to the headwater stream that forms Helmick Run. Site #3 is east of Helmick Run and north of the large power line that crosses Helmick Run. I Site #1 is situated between the two proposed lines of

1 windmill turbines and will not be directly impacted by the 1

4 construction of the windmill turbines. Sites #2 and #3 are situated along the westernmost line of windmill turbines. These two sites will be directly impacted by the construction of proposed windmill turbines. Site #1 is dominated by red spruce, while sites #2 and #3 are dominated by eastern hemlock, with red spruce scattered

9 throughout. Site #1 is isolated from other conifer stands, while Sites #2 and #3 are parts of a larger conifer complex that is situated near Helmick Run. No suitable habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel occurs along the eastern line of proposed windmill turbines. The majority of these eastern turbines will be situated east of the main ridge of the Allegheny front. The dominant habitat east of the main ridge is oak, with few conifers present.

DfSCUSSrON I conclude that northern flying squirrels could occur at Sites #2 and #3, but are much less likely to occur at Site #1 because of its isolation from other conifers and distance from

5 the nearest-known occupied habitat (over 15 miles). Also, the maps provided by NedPower Mount Storm LLC indicate that proposed windmill turbines will not directly impact the conifer stand at Site #l. Live-trapping will be necessary at Sites #2 and #3 to determine if northern flying squirrels are present.

PITERATURE CITED Michael, E. D. 2001. Virginia northern flying squirrel surveys along the Right Fork of Big Run and north of U.S. Route 219, Tucker County, WV. Submitted to Michael Baker, Jr. Inc., Charleston, WV. 13 pp. Stihler, C. W., J. L. Wallace, E. D. Michael, and H. Pawelczyk. 1995. Range of Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus), a federally endangered subspecies of the northern flying squirrel, in West Virginia. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science: 1995: 13-20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Mass. 49 pp.

6 Appendix €3 Habitat Assessments for Potential .-labitat of Cheat MountaIIi Salamanders Piethodon nettingr) in Proposed Windmill Sites of the NEDPower Mount Storm ' #LC

TO: Potesta & Associates 2300 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E. Cox Hall Charleston, WV 25304 FROM: Dr. Thomas K. Pauley DATE: 6 September 2002

Assessments for potential Cheat Mountain Salamander habitat were conducted at proposed windmill construction sites of the NEDPower Mount Storm LLC. The proposed construction area extends approximately 14 miles along the Allegheny Front from Stack Rock northeast to a point approximately 3.5 miles north of W Route 42.

Potential habitat of the Cheat Mountain Salamander has been determined by Or. Thomas K. Pauley to be either stands of conifers such as red spruce (Picea rubens) or hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) or stands of mixed deciduous forests at proper elevations. The forest floor is usually covered with Bazzania. Such habitats usually contain rock outcrops, emergent rocks, boulder fields, or narrow ravines lined with Rhododendron. Where potential habitat exists, inventories should be conducted above 2,000ft. in elevation in the northern part of the known range of the Cheat Mountain Salamander and above 3,500 8. in elevation in the southern part of the known range.

In general, dominant trees throughout the NED Power Project area consist of deciduous species such as Red Maple (), Sugar Maple (Acer sacchanrm), Striped Maple (Acer pennsytvankum), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and American Beech (fagus gmnMo/ia)and coniferous species such as Pitch Pine (Pinus mida), Hemlock and Red Spruce. Elevation ranges in the project area from approximately 3,000 ft. at the northern end of the project to 3,900 ft. at the southern end. Field studies were conducted on August 6, 15, 16, and 17. Far this report, we divided the project area into four areas. Two biologists (Dr. Thomas K. Pauley and Dr. Mark B. Watson) walked each area in search for habitat characteristics of the Cheat Mountain Salamander as described above.

1 Area Number 1: This area extends from WV Route 42 north to the northern end of the project site. Elevation ranges from 3,000 to 3,240 ft. Habitat consists mainly of xeric deciduous tree species without typical components of the Cheat Mountain Salamander habitat described above. Inventories for Cheat Mountain Salamanders are not recommended in this area.

Area Number 2: This area extends south from WV Route 42 to Pigeonroost. Elevation ranges from 3,000 to 3,525 ft. Habitat consists mainly of xeric deciduous tree species without typical components of the Cheat Mountain Salamander habitat described above. Inventories for Cheat Mountain Salamanders are not recommended in this area.

Area Number 3: This area extends south of Pigeonroost to a first (most northern) power-line right-of-way. Elevation ranges from 3,400 to 3,600 ft. Habitat consists mainty of xeric deciduous tree species with scattered Red Spruce and Hemlock. Other components of the Cheat Mountain Salamander habitat described above are lacking. Ridges; are lined with Pitch Pine and a dense heath shrub and herbaceous layer, which are indicative of a xeric habitat. Inventories for Cheat Mountain Salamanders are not recommended in this area.

Area Number 4: This area extends south of the first (most northern) pawer-line right-of-way to Stack Rock. Elevation ranges from 3,400 to 3,793 ft. Red Spruce is the dominant tree species on some ridges and slopes while deciduous species are the dominated fomon other ridges and slopes. The section along the Allegheny Front from Stack Rock north to a (3,793ft.) has some components of the Cheat Mountain Saiamander habitat, Le., stands of Red Spruce and large rocks. Dr. T. K. Pauley has conducted inventories for Cheat Mountain Salamanders along the Allegheny Front south of this area. He found Cheat Mountain Salamanders near the headwaters of fisher Spring Run (El. 3,800 to 4,000 ft), approximately 5.5 miles south of Stack Rock. Because there are components of the Cheat Mountain Salamander habitat at this site and the site’s proximately to a known population of Cheat Mountain Salamanders, inventories are recommended between Stack Rock and this high point. This area is outlined in red on the map as shown in Figure 1.

Report submitted by

2 Figure 1. Topographical map outlining portion of Area 4 containing potential habitat of Cheat Mountain Salamanders. Appendix C September 2002

Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia

Prepared for:

Potesta & Associates, Inc. 2300 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia 25304

Prepared by:

Ronald A. Canterbury Assistant Professor of Biology Chair, WV Partners In Flight Research and Monitoring Editor, Proceedings of the WV Academy of Science Concord College Department of Biology The Southern West Virginia Bird Research Center Athens, WV 24712 Voice: (304) 384-5214 Fax: (304) 384-6225 E-mail: [email protected]

Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury September 20,2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 3

3 .0 TOPOGRAPHIC/PHY SIOGRAPHIC AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION . OVERVIEW ...... 6

4.0 SITE EXAMINATION AND THE GRANT COUNTY AVIFAUNA ...... 7

5 .0 INTERVIEWS. CONCERNS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 10 5.1 Fish & Wildlife Service ...... 10 5.2 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources ...... 10 5.3 Environmentalists ...... 11 5.4 College and University Professors ...... 11 5.5 Summary of Interviews ...... 12

6.0 CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.0 CONCLUSION ...... 13

8.0 LITERATURE SITED ......

APPENDICES

! Species Detected in the Project Area ...... TABLE 1 West Virginia Partners in Flight Listed Species ...... TABLE 2 Bird Species Observed in the Project Area that are Declining ...... TABLE 3 A View of the Allegheny Front in the Mount Storm Area ...... FIGURE 1 Avian Survey Points ...... FIGURES 2, 3, 4 Stony River Reservoir ...... FIGURE 5 I i

Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County. WV .Canterbury. September 2002 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a Proposed Wind Farm in Grant County, West Virginia

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed NedPower Mount Storm LLC wind farm project (the “Project”) will be located on a site (the “Site”) approximately 14 miles long with an average width of 0.5 miles running from the southwest to the northeast about 2 miles east of the Mount Storm power plant and Mount Storm Lake in Grant County, West Virginia. The Site extends along the Allegheny Front (2,625 - 3,914 feet or 800 - 1193 m) from east of the Stony River Reservoir to about 1.21 km (0.75 mile) from Mt. Pisgah (2,766 feet or 843 m). The Site is private land primarily used for industrial logging and strip mining purposes. Telecommunications towers and utility rights-of- ways (ROWs) are found throughout the Mount Storm area. Actual land disturbance from the Project is expected to be less than 200 acres.

The Project will consist of up to 200 wind turbines each with a rated capacity of 1.5 to 2.5 megawatts (not to exceed 300 megawatts in the aggregate). Each turbine will be mounted on a steel tower approximately 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter and 210 - 330 feet (64 - 101 m) in height. Each turbine will have three blades of approximately 115 feet (35 meters). Each turbine’s blades will be more than 82 feet (25 meters) from the ground, enabling other activities on the ground, like cattle grazing, hunting, etc., to continue.

This report is a Phase I avian risk assessment for the Project. The report includes information obtained from a recent visit to the Site, as well as interviews and discussions with local experts and a literature review. These sources provide an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use the Site and the surrounding area. This information is used to determine the Project’s degree of risk to birds.

The Site consists of an area of high elevation ridges covered mainly by mixed hardwoods and hardwood-spruce forest (Hall 1983). ’ The forest is second growth and contains some areas dominated by spruce (red and Norway) and hemlocks. The southern half of the Site is dominated by hardwood spruce forest, while the northern half is mixed hardwoods. The Site contains considerable pockets of selectively logged areas and strip mines. There are also a few homes and farms (mostly cattle grazing) within the general area. The entire area is ideal for logging and/or surface mining and a considerable amount of the Site is already disturbed and I I owned by coal or land companies. Mount Storm Lake and the coal-fired Mount Storm power plant lie just west of the Site. The area adjacent to the Stony River Reservoir is the only large wetland in the proposed project area. Turbines are proposed for the ridge east of and in close proximity to Mount Storm Lake and power plant. These latter entities along with the vast amount of other disturbed land, including ROWs, cut-over forests, and mined areas, indicate that the Site is already highly impacted by human activities. A number of small wetlands and

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 1 seasonally wet or ephemeral pockets lie along the Allegheny Front, but outside (mainly west of) the proposed turbine corridor. Numerous creeks (e.g., Helmick Run, Saltblock Run, and tributaries of Abram Creek) drain the area and are lined with hemlock, rhododendron, mountain laurel, and brushy thickets. Some of the ridges contain cut-over forests and black locust stands along steep slopes.

A review of the literature, a Site visit on July 13, 2002, and interviews with agency personnel, bird and natural history experts and of the High Alleghenies (see Hall 1983), and environmental organization staff revealed some potential, but minimal risks, to birds. The habitat where turbines are proposed is primarily suitable for common forest species and no federally threatened or endangered bird species are known to occur in the area. However, the site does harbor Partners In Flight (PIF) and Audubon WatchList species. The Golden-winged Warbler is a Neotropical migratory species that breeds in the general vicinity although the majority of turbines will be located well east of the best habitat. This species is on the decline and Partners in Flight find it to be a species of high conservation concern. The bird species inhabits areas of secondary succession with pole-sized trees. The Site contains a few areas of suitable Golden- winged habitat. To minimize and reduce the risk associated with construction impacts on habitat to this species, the habitat should be considered in the planning phase of the project. Another successional WatchList species in the area is the Prairie Warbler. Forest WatchList songbirds include Eastern- Pewee, Wood Thrush, and Black-throated Blue Warbler. These latter three species, although Neotropical migrants, are fairly abundant throughout their ranges, while Golden-winged Warblers and, in many areas, the Prairie Warbler are in decline. Again, to minimize and reduce risk associated with construction impacts on habitat to this species, ideal habitat should be considered in the project turbine layout. Raptor species such as Red- shouldered Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, and Cooper’s Hawk (WV rare) occur in the project area.

Previous work in the Mount Storm area by Kerlinger (2002), in collaboration with local experts from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WV DNR) Nongame Wildlife and Natural Diversity Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), reported: (1) no records of threatened or endangered species from the U.S. Wind Force project site and Grant County, (2) concern for migrating and wintering waterfowl and eagles on Mount Storm Lake and Stony River Reservoir, (3) a potential for isolated wetlands in the project area that might support habitat for species of concern, (4) concern for nesting Neotropical songbirds that are declining and known to nest in West Virginia, (5) suggestive studies to determine if habitat for federally listed species or species of concern are present, (6) post-construction mortality surveys, and (7) the need for bat studies.

Kerlinger (2002) reported that migration on the U.S. Wind Force project site (near the Site of this report, i.e., 9 miles or 14.5 km west of Mount Storm) is not known to be substantial and not likely to be significant in magnitude. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence associated with the U.S. Wind Force project’s study, pre- and post-turbine studies should be considered so that the potential impacts of wind turbines on nocturnal migrants at the Site may be assessed. There is limited evidence of significant waterfowl concentrations and wintering eagles on Mount

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 2 Storm Lake and Stony River Reservoir (K. O’Malley, WV DNR), but no local Christmas Bird Count (CBC) in the area to document avian populations in winter. Kerlinger (2002) examined CBC data from several local counts in northern West Virginia, but found little specific data to lead to the possibility of negative impacts of turbines on wintering birds in Mount Storm. Except for forest resident species, such as Tufted Titmouse and Black-capped Chickadee, the area is most likely, with the high elevation and cold winters, not heavily used by most bird species in the winter (mid-November - March).

Overall, the proposed wind farm at Mount Storm Lake is projected to have minimal impacts on birds. The conclusion is supported not only by the vast amount of literature and studies that have shown little to no impacts of turbines on birds, but also by the interviews obtained for this report and especially by results of Kerlinger’s two earlier studies in close proximity to the Mount Storm Lake wind project area. Numerous studies have documented minimal impacts of wind turbines on bird populations. Local wind turbine studies on Backbone Mountain and those in adjacent states such as suggest that the Project is no exception. The biggest operational concern may be with nocturnal migrants, especially Neotropical migrants that depend upon the Allegheny Front flyway, and this report discusses this concern and potential solutions.

From a construction perspective, although the Golden-winged Warbler’s main successional habitat is west of the Site, there is some concern for their habitats, such as the logged over forest areas and ROWS, that support Golden-winged Warblers. This WatchList species is being evaluated throughout its range due to a decline in population. Specific pre- and or post-wind farm studies to assess how impacts can be minimized for the Golden-winged Warbler would help with phases of conservation plan development for the species, as well as minimize analyses for future wind power project proposals. Nesting surveys for Golden-winged Warblers and other species of concern may help in the micrositing of turbines and to avoid disturbing the species (Kerlinger 2002). Migration studies may also be considered. Although detailed studies and monitoring programs should be considered to fully assess the impacts of wind turbines on Mount Storm, this Phase I avian risk assessment provides a general examination of any potential impacts on birds and suggestive ways to minimize degradation of avian populations.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The US. wind energy industry is a fast-growing industry strategically positioned in developing a critically needed clean energy source for meeting the growing demands for electricity and other energy sources. The wind energy industry not only will, through the production and use of wind energy, reduce emissions of the Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and reduce noxious air pollutants, but will also boost the economy by creating jobs, providing tax revenues to the County and State and yielding lease payments to local landowners. While the general public has some concern about avian impacts of wind farming, this concern is rooted in the incorrect assumption that wind turbines may function like telecommunication towers and may negatively impact declining Neotropical migrant songbirds and raptors. Yet, many studies have noted minimal impacts of wind turbines on birds. Modern wind turbines, unlike communications

~~~ ~~ Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 3 towers, have no guy wires (Kerlinger 2000a) and utilize tubular poles (not lattice structures) to prevent birds from nesting or perching. Further, modern wind turbines run at lower RPM (less than 20 RPM) and are spaced further apart than early turbine models.

An examination of past and on-going studies regarding avian mortalities at wind turbines, for example, disclosed minimal impacts on bird populations (e.g., Erickson et al. 2000a). A recent symposium (the fourth of its kind) organized by the National Wind Coordinating Committee, an organization consisting or environmental groups, state and federal authorities and project developers, documented what we currently know about wind energy and birds (PNA WPPM-IVY 2001). As an example, the symposium reviewed reports that indicate that the annual avian collision mortality in the United States caused by wind turbines is in the range of 10,000 - 40,000 compared to 60 million - 80 million by vehicles, greater than 98 million from buildings and windows and more than 4 million by communications towers (PNA WPPM-IV, 2001).

With the exception of Altamont Pass Wildlife Resource Area of California (Howell and DiDonato 1991 ; Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996; and Curry and Kerlinger 1997), relatively few bird mortalities have been noted at wind farm sites. At Altamont Pass, mainly raptor species have been killed and the site, which does not utilize modern wind turbine technology, is considered an anomaly in reference to other wind power sites (Kerlinger 2002).

Studies of avian mortalities at wind power facilities have been conducted in many areas throughout the United States, two provinces in Canada, and throughout much of Europe (Kerlinger 2002). In Europe, turbines are even being placed in coastal and pelagic areas. Locally, a migration study at the Backbone Mountain wind project site in Tucker County, West Virginia, as well as a Phase I avian risk assessment for the Backbone Mountain wind power site, revealed minimal risk to avian populations (Kerlinger 2000a, b). The recent Kerlinger (2000b) study at Backbone Mountain documented items such as hawk and vulture migration pathways, altitude of flight for birds in reference to rotor height, distribution of songbird migration pathways, and other data that led to predicting minimal bird - wind turbine interactions. In addition, there is already a wind fmn proposed by U. S. Wind Force adjacent to the proposed locality of this wind farm (Kerlinger 2002).

There are numerous studies on wind energy and impacts on birds (e.g., Anderson et al. 2000; Colson and Associates 1995; Curry and Kerlinger 2000; Erickson et al. 2000a, Gray 2001; Hanowski and Hawrot 2000; Hawrot and Hanowski 1997, Higgins et al. 1996; Howell 1997; Howell and DiDonato 1991; Howell and Noone 1992; Howell et al. 1991a,b; Johnson et al. 2000, 2001; Kerlinger 1997, 2000c; Kerlinger and Curry 2000a, b; Kerlinger et al. 2000a,b; McCrary et al. 1983,1984, 1986; McIsaac 2001; Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996; Osborn et al. 2000, Strickland et al. 2000a-c; Thelander and Rugge 2000a,b; Ugoretz et al. 2000). The role of visual acuity in bird-wind turbine interactions has been studied (Morrison 2000). Further, guidance documents exist for studying wind energy - bird interactions (Anderson et al. 2000). Richardson (2000) published studies regarding migration times, flight behavior, and collision risk during migration at wind turbine sites. Radar and remote sensing have been employed in evaluation risk impacts on birds at wind turbines (Kelly 2000, Harmata et al. 2000).

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 4 Furthermore, GPS technology has also been used (Dedon 2000) along with night vision and thermal imaging equipment (Cooper and Kelly 2000). Finally, statistical methods to assess the risk of impacts to birds from wind (Erickson et al. 2000b) and practical modeling framework for estimating the impact of wind technology on bird populations are available (Morrison and Pollock 2000). Collectively, these studies have disclosed minimal impacts on birds by wind turbines.

Where avian mortalities at wind power facilities have occurred, they are correlated with specific site location, turbine type, and species attributes (Anderson 1998). Adverse weather (such as dense fog) and lighting may also play a role in contributing to mortalities like that seen at telecommunication towers (A. Manville, USFWS). Overall, however, wind turbines have had little impact on avian populations (Kerlinger 2002).

This report is a Phase I avian risk assessment to determine the potential impacts to birds from the proposed Project. The report is designed to guide developers, regulators, environmentalists, landowners, and other stakeholders through the process of determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how potential impacts can be minimized (Kerlinger 2002). Typical of Phase I risk assessments, the report includes: (1) a site visit, (2) a literature review (much of which was discussed above), and (3) interviews with local avian experts and environmentalists. The proposed wind farm site and surrounding area were toured by automobile and walking some the project area. Habitat and topography were examined and all birds seen or heard were noted. The site visit was not meant to be a quantitative study or inventory of birds on the site or surrounding area. Rather, the site visit was conducted for the purpose of gaining an understanding of the habitat and topography features and assembling a potential target list of birds that may be in the area and at risk. The literature search include an examination of pertinent materials such as standardized counts (e.g., Breeding Bird Surveys, BBS), migration literature, West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA), Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program, heritage databases, previous wind farm studies, and other sources of data. The purpose of the literature search was to determine what avian species nest in the area, migrate through, winter or concentrate in the area, or use the area for foraging. Much of what we know about West Virginia birds, including the project area and Grant County, can be found in Hall (1 983) and Buckelew and Hall (1994).

Interviews consist of standard questions (Kerlinger 2002) asked to regulators (USFWS and state bird biologists), avian experts (college and university professors, amateur and professional ornithologists who observe or study avian migration, nesting songbirds, and staging waterfowl), and environmentalists (local Audubon chapters, bird clubs, and PIF members, etc.). Information from these diverse sources are integrated into the body of the report and were essentially used to summarize what species are present in the proposed wind farm area, potential risk and concerns, and suggestions for further studies, if needed.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 5 3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC/PHYSIOGRAPHICAND HABITAT DESCRIPTION - OVERVIEW

Topography, physiography, and habitats of the proposed turbine sites and general area were obtained by examination of USGS topographic maps and an aerial photograph, and ground truthing via a site visit. The Grant County area is part of the physiographical region of West Virginia and is near the western edge of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province of the state (Hall 1983; Buckelew and Hall 1994). Much of Grant County, and specifically the Allegheny Front, is characterized by high elevation, steep and rolling hills, ridges, and mountains. The flora and fauna of the Allegheny Mountain physiographic province are somewhat different from the Ridge and Valley region that lies east of it and is, for the most part, higher elevation than the Allegheny Plateau that lies to the south and west of the Allegheny Mountains (Hall 1983). The highest elevations are approximately 3,000 - 4,400 feet (925 - 1,358 m) and the historical habitat was hardwood and sprucekonifer forest (Hall 1983). The highest elevation in the area where turbines are proposed is 3,914 feet (1,208 m). The spruce forest in West Virginia has been decimated by logging and pest species. Red spruce occurs mainly in areas above 3,500 feet (1,079 m). Because of its relatively high elevation and northern location within the state, Grant County consists mainly of northern- affinity species. The forest cover consists mainly of oak species, red, sugar and striped maples, black cherry, yellow and black birch, hickory species, hemlock, beech, and red spruce.

Forests were historically cleared for farming and timber (Hall 1983). The steepest hillsides were used primarily for harvesting timber in the early 1990s, while farming and strip mining have become more abundant during the last 70 years. The ridges and highest elevations (knobs and peaks) remain largely forested, as do some of the steep slopes. In the valleys, active small-scale agriculture and abandoned farmlands persist. Overgrown fields are increasing because of accelerated mine use, followed by some reclamation and bond release or abandonment. Many mines, including some surface mine sites, occur in the area, and numerous disturbed areas have been reclaimed and seeded with grasses and trees. Red, pitch, and Virginia pines dominate most of the pine plantations produced by reclamation, where, depending on the stand age, they are suitable habitat for Golden-winged and Prairie warblers. There are also areas with Norway and Scotch pine plantings. Grant County is primarily forested with some small farms and some local watersheds have been heavily surface mined (abandoned, active and reclaimed). Small, rural residential areas occur throughout the county. This information was obtained from Hall (1983), other source books, similar reports (Kerlinger 2002), and this author’s 15 years of research. This includes unpublished reports, coauthored by this author and Dollie Stover (Chief Naturalist at the Southern WV Bird Research Center), which were completed in this region of West Virginia (e.g., 1991 unpublished report submitted to the WV DNR and studies on breeding birds, especially atlasing for Golden-winged Warblers, Canterbury and Stover, unpubl. data).

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 6 4.0 SITE EXAMINATION AND THE GRANT COUNTY AVIFAUNA

The proposed location for the wind power farm is in Grant County, West Virginia along the Allegheny Front (Figure 1). The proposed turbine locations are to the northeast and southeast of Mount Storm Lake and Stony River Reservoir. The northern most point in the Site is located east of Laurel Run of Abram Creek and approximately 1.2 1 km (3/4 of a mile) from Mt. Pisgah. The southern most point is located near Stack Rock. The Project is proposed for the ridges (including the plateaus and western slope leading to the ridges) running along this described area of the Allegheny Front. Hillsides are generally steep and the elevations variable. They range from about 2,461 ft. (750 m) at the eastern valley edge of the Allegheny Front to 3,525 feet (1,074 m) at Pigeonroost, and the highest elevation within the project area is 3,914 feet (1,193 m), with most of the turbines proposed for areas above 2,700 feet (823 m).

The Mount Storm area and proposed wind farm site were visited on July 13, 2002 and 106 species that typically breed in the area, including Golden-winged Warblers (Table 1, Figures 2-4) were noted. The project area was surveyed by walking and driving along various habitats and recording birds seen and/or heard. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of localities surveyed were taken and the habitats for which bird species may likely be present (in reference to Hall 1983, Canterbury 1991) were examined. The weather was partly-cloudy with a high temperature of 78°F (37°C) and a low of 59°F (28°C). Visibility was good and wind was light (< 1 mph).

The habitat within the project area was historically northern hardwood-spruce forest, but has been periodically logged since the early 1900s. No old growth areas were noted, and most of the trees appeared to be less than 70 years old and most had diameter at breast height (DBH) less than 15 inches (38 cm). Some of the area was currently being logged andor surfaced mined, and understory trees consisted of sassafras, hornbeam, striped maple, witch hazel, and red maple. Many of the selectively logged areas were dominated by maples, black cherry, and black locusts. Ground cover in the area consists mainly of fern species, grasses, forbs, blackberries, greenbrier, club mosses, and mosses. Most of the project area is similar to that described by Kerlinger (2002) for the U. S. Wind Force project. One major difference may be the more extensive stands of trees (especially along the higher elevations) as compared to the U. S. Wind Force Project Site (Kerlinger 2002), but forest fragments were also noted in this project area. Rhododendrons, mountain ivy, and hemlocks were noted in all the ravines and stream areas.

The right-of-ways (ROWs) were extensive and covered large areas. The powerline habitats were similar to that described Kerlinger (2002) and were often more than 100 feet (30 m) in width. Powerlines transverse the project area at the south end at Helmick Run, just north of the Mount j Storm Power Station Dam, and at Fore Knobs (2,820 feet or 860 m). Grasshopper Sparrows, Bobolinks, and Eastern Meadowlarks were noted in some of the suppressed successional ROW areas. These areas are not anticipated to be affected by the project, as no turbines will be constructed within the ROWs. Grassland species have shown steep, widespread declines throughout their ranges, especially in their potentially-native regions of the Midwest. In West Virginia, however, grassland bird species are maintained by farmland abandonment and surface

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 7 mining. Therefore, concern has been shifted away from grassland birds in favor of forest and shrubland bird species with long-term continental declines, such as the Cerulean and Golden- winged warblers (Canterbury et al. 2002).

The Site is disturbed, in general, by Routes 42 and 93 and various strip mines and logged areas. Furthermore, Corridor H, a new four-lane highway, is currently being constructed along nearly the same path as Route 93 and will bring additional disturbance and will impact farms, wetlands, and forested areas. The Allegheny Front Migration Observatory (AFMO) has studied avian migration for 44 years (results are generally published annually in the Redstart) and has clearly documented that the site at Dolly Sods is a major flyway for nocturnal migrating songbirds, including relatively heavy thrush flights and spruce-budworm warblers such as the Tennessee Warbler (see Hall 2001).

The Mount Storm area is also used as a Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) route (Sauer et al. 2001). The BBS has a rich history of monitoring breeding bird populations across the U.S. and is typically the database used for assessing long-term trends in breeding bird populations. Therefore, the data collected by BBS volunteers at Mount Storm could potentially be used to monitor the impacts of wind farming, especially for the spruce-northern hardwood forests species. Kerlinger (2002) reported BBS data from the Mount Storm area and other local BBS routes from northern West Virginia.

The Golden-winged Warbler breeds in the Mount Storm area and ranks at the top of concern by researchers throughout the northeast, because of its widespread, steep decline in numbers for many years. Furthermore, the Golden-winged Warbler is currently being evaluated for possible federal Endangered Species Act listing. To minimize and reduce the risk to this species, associated with the impact of construction on the species’ habitat, shrubland (poles-sized trees of 15 to 40 year old reclaimed mine lands) should be considered in site development. Shrubland birds, such as the Field Sparrow and Golden-winged Warbler, have some of the highest declines on any avian group (Hunter et al. 2001, Canterbury et al. 2002). Despite, steep declines in grassland birds, most of our grassland bird species are believed to be native to the Midwest and expanded into West Virginia due to habitat changes. Furthermore, adequate grasslands are being created with mountaintop mining, which will support many grassland bird species for many years (Canterbury et al. 2002). One way to mitigate is to place as many turbines as possible on old strip mines or in recently reclaimed grassland areas and to a lesser extent in shrublands (pole- size succession) or spruce-hardwood forests. Other successful wind farms have been placed on reclaimed strip mines (e.g., Buffalo Mountain wind park).

Figures 2 to 4 show Mount Storm areas, mainly west of the Project Site, that harbor Golden- winged Warblers or potentially dense pockets of high elevation species, species of concern or species which are on the Partners In Flight WatchList (see Canterbury et al. 2002). Disturbance in these areas poses potential risk for these species, but only four of the GPS points located on the maps of Figures 2 to 4 fall within the projected turbine area. Much of the Mount Storm area is disturbed by mining and ROWS (powerlines). These offer prime Golden-winged Warbler habitat and the enclosed map indicates some of the best localities for this species in the Mount

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 8 Storm area. Since the proposed locations for the turbines lie mainly on the ridge of the Allegheny Front and extending between Routes 42 and 93, then these wind turbines will be placed considerably east of the best successional habitats. For these reasons, the developer has apparently made a suitable prediction as to the appropriate placement of turbines. The major exception, however, is the placement of turbines immediately adjacent to Stony River Reservoir, which is excellent bird habitat (e.g., species such as Vesper Sparrow, Hermit Thrush, and Yellow-breasted Chats, see Table 1). In order to reduce risk in this area, an option may be to reduce or reconfigure the proposed turbines located in this vicinity. It is the author’s understanding that indeed the developer is considering the reconfiguration of certain turbine locations.

Table 2 shows the species listed under the West Virginia Partners in Flight (PIF) WatchList and were noted in the turbine-proposed area and Mount Storm area. These species are either: (1) declining throughout their range, (2) have a significant portion of their populations occurring in West Virginia, (3) a National WatchList species or a species of concern in West Virginia, and/or (4) restricted to specialized habitats. Table 3 shows avian species observed in the Mount Storm area and are declining in West Virginia and/or nationally. Population trends were obtained from the BBS (Sauer et al. 2001). This table does not include species that are increasing range-wide and in West Virginia and were noted in the project area, such as the Red-tailed Hawk and Red- bellied Woodpecker. These latter species can be obtained by cross-referencing Tables 1 and 3. Readers should consider that avian population trends vary with number of routes (sample sizes), location, and other factors that determine projected species population numbers (Sauer et al. 2001).

Kerlinger (2002) provided an analysis of the avifauna of Grant County when he assessed the impacts of wind turbines at the U. S. Wind Force project site. He found relatively few potential impacts of wind turbines on birds at the U. S. Wind Force project site and Mount Storm area in general. Kerlinger (2002) comprised a list of 58 bird species that are federally threatened, state rare, and/or on the Audubon WatchList (see Table 1 in Kerlinger 2002). Of these 58 species, we observed the Great Blue Heron, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Upland Sandpiper, Yellow-bellied , Eastern Wood-Pewee, Alder Flycatcher, Yellow-throated Vireo, Golden-winged Warbler, Prairie Warbler, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler, and the Bobolink. It is unclear why the Great Blue Heron is on this list of vulnerable species, since it is increasing throughout much of its range (Sauer et al. 2001). It may be its association with wetlands. Other vulnerable species observed nearby (west of the proposed turbine route) included Cliff Swallow and Northern and Louisiana Waterthrushes. Kerlinger (2002) used BBA data, Hall (1983), and interviews to assess the breeding birds, spring and fall migrants, and whether any endangered or threatened species were present. He discussed the potentiality for wetlands occurring in the Mount Storm area and noted that West Virginia does not currently have any Important Bird Areas (IBAs). He concluded, with information from the WV DNR and USFWS, that no endangered or threatened bird species occurred at the U. S. Wind Force project site (just west of Mount Storm) area or Grant and Tucker counties. The threatened Bald Eagle may occur in the area, potentially during winter, but is proposed for de-listing because of its

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 9 recovery. Readers may refer to Kerlinger (2002) for more information on birds of Grant County and the Mount Storm area.

The Mount Storm area is not an IBA in West Virginia. It is likely that this area will not be nominated as an IBA due to the fact that there are numerous other sites with significantly better bird populations and habitats.

5.0 INTERVIEWS, CONCERNS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Project was discussed with Dr. Albert Buckelew, Jr., (Professor of Biology, Bethany College), Tom Fox (WV DNR and the Brooks Bird Club), Dr. Albert Manville (USFWS), Judy Rodd (Environmentalist), Rob Tallman (WV DNR), and John Trapp (USFWS). Typical concerns and other comments are outlined below.

5.1 United States Fish & Wildlife Service

John Trapp, a biologist in the Office of Neotropical Migratory Bird Management, said impacts of wind farms on birds was not in his area of work and referred this author to A1 Manville in the USFWS. Trapp was also not familiar with Mount Storm and the habitats present, but expressed concern for potential impacts on raptor migration and indicate that waterfowl in the area should be studied. Although it is not a major raptor or waterfowl migration area, Mount Storm lies along the Potomac flyway where species such as Trumpeter Swans and Wood Ducks may pass through.

Dr. Albert Manville, head of the Communication Tower Working Group (CTWG), said the wind power industry was one of the fastest growing industries. He said high elevation weather was a concern in placement of turbines, and wondered whether shutting turbines down during heavy fog when migrants are coming through would reduce risk to birds. Further, Dr. Manville expressed the success of tubular designs over lattice structures and elimination of guy wires. He said the slow moving blades of modern turbines, although the length of a football field, were better than the smaller, faster blades of earlier turbine models. He said he was working on the USFWS protocol for wind turbines, and expressed concern about lighting at turbines. Dr. Manville expressed concern about the need for more recommendations from turbine companies to the USFWS.

5.2 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources

Tom Fox, a conservation officer for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) and a former president of the Brooks Bird Club, expressed concern about the potential impacts of tower lighting on nocturnal migrants. Between 3,000 and 8,000 migrant songbirds are generally banded on the Allegheny Front each fall (Hall 2001). Mr. Fox indicated that during periods of dense fog, the use of red lights on turbine towers may have an adverse impact on migrant songbirds. He recommended specific concerns and questions should be

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 10 addressed with FAA lighting regulations for towers above 200 ft. (60.6 meters). Fox stated that the telecommunications and wind power industries need to work with FAA in getting lighting restrictions changed. He asked whether turbines could be turned off during peak migration times. He was also concerned about which habitats would be impacted, especially on how much ridgetop forests and areas with spruce trees will be cut. He was familiar with the Project area. Positive comments by Fox included slow turning blades and the need for clean, safe energy.

Rob Tallman, WV PIF coordinator and a nongame biologist with the WV DNR, questioned whether the project would have a negative impact on avian life. Tallman said he and other DNR and USFWS officials met with Dr. Paul Kelinger in January 2002 concerning the U. S. Wind Force project. Tallman felt the best habitat for placing turbines at the Mount Storm area was recently reclaimed grasslands, and felt the need to stay out of as much spruce forests as possible, as well as Golden-winged Warbler habitat. He said the impacts of wind turbines on birds breeding in the area, especially high elevation species such as some spruce-affinity warblers and thrushes should be considered. Potential impacts of wind turbines on Bald Eagles that might be wintering in the area was mentioned. Favorably, Tallman noted that the WV DNR and USFWS in Elkins, West Virginia were getting more calls from developers asking for comments on wind farm proposals, and the industry seeks to minimize any and all potential impacts.

5.3 Environmentalists

Judy Rodd, an environmentalist in Charleston, West Virginia and Senior Vice President of the WV Highlands Conservancy, was not very familiar with wind energy in general, but voiced concern about lighting and the potential for dense fog to cause birds to collide into the turbines placed on the Allegheny Front. Rodd said the state needs a committee to address the future of wind farming in West Virginia.

5.4 College and University Professors

Dr. Albert R. Buckelew, Jr., a professor of Biology at Bethany College, co-author of the West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas and Editor of the Redstart, said he had not done any research on wind farms and was only experienced with the subject through his readings. Dr. Buckelew said the he was slightly familiar with the site in that he had been near the Mount Storm power plant, but was not specifically familiar with the exact locality where the turbines may be placed. He stated that you can see the power plant smoke stacks from the Red Creek, Dolly Sods banding station, but that, overall, he didn’t think the wind turbines would have a major impact on birds. Buckelew committed his two major concerns: (1) roads to service the wind turbines, and (2) lights on towers and placing tall structures on mountaintops. He said the use of existing mining roads to the extent possible, rather than building new roads, will minimize potential impacts. He expressed the view that the developer should not use service lights and guy wires, and that height was irrelevant. In other words, migrants are killed, or could be killed, at any building or tower structure placed on the crest of mountains if lights, especially service lights that stay on all the time, are used, He expressed how fog and lighting have led to two groups of avian mortalities at man-made structures in the high mountains of West Virginia and cited these (Buckelew et al.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 11 1986; Fregonara and Boyle 2000). He said lights placed at or just above tree height on mountaintops are hazardous to birds. Dr. Buckelew said, from what he has read, he didn’t think that the Project would have many impacts on birds. He did not consider AFMO a substantial migration site in comparison to places such as Cape May. He also said that raptor migration across the Allegheny Front was not even close to that on Peters Mountain in Monroe County, West Virginia or at Hawk Mountain in Pennsylvania. He opined that the slow turning of the blades would most likely pose little threat to birds. He said that if a few of the 200 proposed turbines prove to harm birds, then these could be further studied for information on micrositing. He said he has more concern about the impacts of vacation homes on the crest of ridges than wind farms.

Dr. Robert C. Whitmore, a professional and well-published ornithologist and professor of at West Virginia University, said he was familiar with the project site, and had even seen the Altamont Pass wind farm in California. He said he has not done research on wind power and birds, but was familiar with the habitats at the project site. Dr. Whitmore said he had little concern for the breeding birds at the project site, mainly because they are dispersed and sedentary during reproductive times. However, he said the entire area is known as a migratory route for Neotropical migrants and referred to Dr. George Hall’s life-long work. He was concerned with lighting and dense fog and the possibility of avian mortalities at the towers. He said the proposed site was selected because of the wind, and the migratory birds use the wind during migration and are naturally drawn to the area. Thus, his biggest concern was placing turbines in a migration corridor. He said, however, that many of the migrants may fly below the height of the turbines (blades). Dr. Whitmore also said that from 1998-1999 there were 97 mortalities at the Altamont Pass (which utilizes older generation turbines), including three Golden Eagles. Most of these 97 mortalities were Red-tailed Hawks (n = 15) and Rock Doves (n = 14) and occurred primarily from August through October. Again, Dr. Whitmore noted that there may not be much concern for breeding birds, but migration was a different story. He also expressed concern for the remaining spruce forest, changing the habitat and building roads.

5.5 Summary of Interviews

There were four primary issues raised by the interviewees. First, the potential impact on avian habitats associated with construction activities (construction of roads and forest clearing) was mentioned. Special mention was made of the habitat of the Golden-winged Warbler and the impact on wetlands. Second, the nature of the equipment to be used in the Project was noted. Specific recommendations included the use of slow-turning turbines, tubular towers, and the need to avoid the use of guy wires. Third, the impact of the Project on avian migration was mentioned. Several interviewees wondered whether turbine lighting and dense fog would cause an increase in avian mortality above that which normally occurs due to dense fog along the Allegheny Front. Finally, one of the interviewees suggested that a state committee be established to address the future of wind farming in West Virginia.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 12 6.0 CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS

Avian mortality results from a wide variety of man-made structures (light houses, telecommunication towers, tall buildings, windows, pesticides and cats). These activities will have some cumulative impact on avian population. However, the Wind Power Industry’s contribution to the overall avian mortality has been minimal. As wind farming becomes more prevalent, additional measures should be considered to reduce the already low wind turbine induced mortality rates even further.

The developer should adhere to typical wind-turbine methodology that has traditionally minimized avian mortalities at successful wind farms. These include tubular designs and not lattice structures, consider as much critical avian habitats as possible, such as pole-sized reclaimed strip mines that harbor imperilled Golden-winged Warblers, which is currently under USFWS status assessment for proposed federal listing, to reduce or minimize risk and consideration of tower height, lighting, blade size and speed. The developer should monitor the impacts on birds by participating in research and finding ways to reduce avian mortalities at wind turbines. Cherry (1 980) has documented some of the wind energy resource methodology. Lighting must be carehlly designed to minimize impact on nocturnal avian migrants. Studies to date indicate that the most important action to take in reducing avian mortality at wind turbines is to carefully evaluate sites before wind turbines are installed. Substantial research documents and recent studies show these problems have mainly been solved by the Wind Power Industry. A resource document produced by National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC, PNA WPPM- IV, 200 1) list all avian collisions with wind turbine studies, telecommunication towers, and other man-made structures and summaries existing studies. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has placed wind turbines in areas that are not significant bird migration routes or in areas not inhabited or occasionally used by endangered species.

7.0 CONCLUSION

It is concluded that there are only two major concerns with the Project area: (1) Golden-winged Warbler habitat and (2) lighting considerations on the turbines. Overall, however, the Project is projected to have minimal impacts on birds. This conclusion is supported not only by the vast amount of literature and studies that have shown little to no impacts of turbines on birds, but also by the interviews obtained for this report and especially by results of Kerlinger’s two earlier studies in close proximity to the Mount Storm Lake wind project area.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 13 The developer should:

1. Utilize modern wind turbine technology including tubular tower structures and low RPM blades. 2. Relocate turbines from close proximity to Stony River Reservoir. 3. Minimize turbine lighting to the extent possible. 4. Minimize and reduce the risk to the Golden-winged Warbler through careful planning and consideration of habitats in micrositing of turbines. 5. Consider a migration study andor post construction mortality monitoring. 6. Utilize existing roads to the extent possible.

~~ ~ Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 14 8.0 LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, R. 1998. California Energy Markets, Jan. 23, 1998. No. 448:13.

Anderson, R., M. Morrison, K. Sinclair, and D. Strickland. 2000. Studying wind energy/ bird interactions: a guidance document. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Avery, M., P.F. Springer, and J.F. Cassel. 1977. Weather influences on nocturnal bird mortality at a North Dakato tower. Wilson Bulletin 89:29 1-299.

Buckelew, A.R., Jr., and G.A. Hall. 1994. West Virginia breeding bird atlas. University of Pitt. Press: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2 15 pp.

Buckelew, A.R., Jr., E.E. Hutton, and T. Allen. 1986. Mountaintop buildings: Hazards for migrating birds. Redstart 53(4): 124-130.

Canterbury, R.A. 199 1. Birds of the Upper Watershed (Mower Tract). Report submitted for: Natural History of the Upper Shavers Fork Watershed, Monongahelia National Forest. Elkins, West Virginia: West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.

Canterbury, R. A., D. M. Stover, G. Tower, S.I. Canterbury, B.J. Crigger, J.R. Daniel, A. Hayes, J.A. Meyer, J.C. Meyer, C. Parrish, T.R. Stover, and A. Waldron. 2002. Mountaintop , removal and valley-fill mining environmental impact study: Bird populations along edges. I USFWS and EPA report, College Station, PA. 160 pp.

Cherry, N.J. 1980. Wind energy resource methodology. Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics 5:247-280.

Colson and Associates. 1995. Avian interactions with wind energy facilities: A summary , prepared for the American Wind Energy Association, Washington, D.C. Cooper, B.A., and T.A. Kelly. 2000. Night vision and thermal imaging equipment. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Curry, R.C., and P. Kerlinger. 2000. Avian mitigation plan: Kenetech model wind turbines, Altamont Pass, WRA, California. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Dedon, M. 2000. Using GPS to study avian interactions associated with wind turbines. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - canterbury, September 2002 Page 15 Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K. Kronner. 2000a. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycle wind project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 study year. - Technical report prepared by WEST, Inc. for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and Development, Pendelton Oregon. 2 1 pp.

Erickson, W.P., M.D. Strickland, G.D. Johnson, and J.W. Kern. 2000b. Examples of statistical methods to assess risk of impacts to birds from windplants. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Fregonara, J., and K. Boyle. 2000. Mixed migratory bird kill at Monterville, West Virginia. Redstart 67(2):44-47.

Hall, G.A. 1983. West Virginia Birds. Carnegie Mus. Nat. His. Spec. Publ. No. 7, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 180 pp.

Hall, G.A. 2001. Allegheny Front Migration Observatory: Fall migration 2000. Redstart 68(2) :5 3 -5 7.

Hanowski, J.M., and R.Y. Hawrot. 2000. Avian issues in the development of wind energy in western . Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Hamata, A.R., K.M. Podruzny, J.R. Zelenak, and M.L. Morrison. 2000. The use of radar in evaluations of avian-wind development projects: Norris Hill wind resource area, Montana. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Hawrot, R.Y., and J.M. Hanowski. 1997. Avian assessment document: avian population analysis for wind power generation regions--012. NRRI Technical Report No. NRRUTR-97- 23. Center for Water and the Environment, Natural Resources Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota. 14 pp.

Higgins, K.F., R.G. Osborn, C.D. Dieter, and R.E. Usgaard. 1996. Monitoring of seasonal bird I activity and mortality at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area Minnesota, 1994-1995. Completion report for the research period May 1, 1994 - December 31, 1995. Unpubl. report prepared for Kenetech Windpower, Inc. by the South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Brookings, South Dakota. 84 pp.

Howell, J.A. 1997. Bird mortality at rotor swept area equivalents, Altamont Pass and Montezuma Hills, California. Transactions Western Section Wildlife Society 33:24-29.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 16 Howell, J.A., and J.E. DiDonato. 1991. Assessment of avian use and mortality related to wind turbine operations, Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California, September 1988 through August 1989. Final report prepared for Kenetech Windpower.

Howell, J.A., and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality as a U.S. windpower and wind energy development site, Solano County, California. Final report to Solano County Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, California. 4 1 pp.

Howell, J.A., J. Noone, and C. Wardner. 1991a. Avian use and mortality study, U.S. Windpower, wind energy site development, Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California, post construction, spring, 1990 to spring, 1991. Final report prepared for Kenetech W indpower.

Howell, J.A., J. Noone, and C. Wardner. 1991b. Visual experiment to reduce avian mortality related to wind turbine operations, Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California, April 1990 through March 199 1. Final report prepared for Kenetech Windpower.

Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440- 455.

Johnson, G.D., W.D. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Sheperd, and D.A. Sheperd. 2000. Avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-year study. Technical report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2 12 pp. Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, Jr., W.D. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, and P. Becker. 2001. Avian and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim windpower project, Carbon County, Wyoming: November 3, 1998 - October 31, 2000. Technical report prepared by WEST, Inc. for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. 32 pp.

Kelly, T.A. 2000. Radar, remote sensing and risk management. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Kerlinger, P. 1997. A study of avian fatalities at the Green Mountain Power Corporation’s Searsburg, Vermont, windpower facility - 1997. Prepared for Vermont Department of Public Service, Green Mountain Power Corporation, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Vermont Environmental Research Associates. 12 pp.

Kerlinger, P. 2000a. Phase I avian risk assessment for the Backbone Mountain wind project proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia. Report prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 17 Kerlinger, P. 2000b. Migration study at the Backbone Mountain Wind project site, Tucker County, West Virginia. Report prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation and Backbone Mountain Windpower, L.L.C.

Kerlinger, P. 2000c. An assessment of the impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation’s Searsburg, Vermont wind power facility on breeding and migrating birds. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Kerlinger, P. 2002. Phase I avian risk assessment for the Mount Storm wind power project, Grant County, West Virginia. Report prepared for US Wind Force, L.L.C.

Kerlinger, P., and R. Curry. 2000a. Avian risk studies at the Ponnequin wind energy project, Weld County, Colorado: status of field studies - 1999 - report for Technical Review Committee. Report prepared for Public Service Company of Colorado.

I Kerlinger, P., and R. Curry. 2000b. Impacts of a small windpower facility in Weld County, Colorado on breeding, migrating, and wintering birds: Preliminary results and conclusions. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, and R. Ryder. 2000a. Ponnequin wind energy project: reference site avian studies - January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998. Prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract No. TAT-8- 18209-0 1, NREWSR-500-27546. Golden Colorado. 27 pp. Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, and R. Ryder. 2000b. Ponnequin wind energy project avian studies, Weld County, Colorado: summary of activities during 2000. Prepared for the Public Service Company of Colorado. 8 pp.

McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.E. Landry, W.D. Wagner, R.W. Schreiber. 1983. Nocturnal avian migration assessment of the San Gorgonio wind resource study area, spring 1982. Report prepared for Research and Development, Southern California Edison Company. 12 1 PP.

1 McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, and R.W. Schreiber. 1986. San Gorgonio wind resource area: impacts of commercial wind turbine generators on birds, 1985 data report. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company. 33 pp.

McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, W.D. Wagner, and R.E. Landry. 1984. Nocturnal avian migration assessment of the San Gorgonio wind resource study area, fall 1982. Report prepared for Research and Development, Southern California Edison Company, report #84- RD-11. 87~~.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind fann in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 18 McIsaac. H.P. 2001. Raptor acuity and wind turbine blade conspicuity. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Morrison, M.L. 2000. The role of visual acuity in bird-wind turbine interactions. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Morrison, M.L., and K.H. Pollock. 2000. Development of a practical modeling framework for estimating the impact of wind technology on bird populations. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989- 199 1. Final report to Alameda, Costra Costa, and Solano counties and the California Energy Commission by Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Tiburon, California.

Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1996. A continued examination of avian mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area. Final report to the California Energy Commission by Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Tiburon, California.

Osborn, R.G., K.F. Higgins, R.E. Usgaard, C.D. Dieter, and R.G. Neiger. 2000. Bird mortality associated with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge wind resource area, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 143:41-52.

PNA WPPM-IV. 2001. Proceedings of National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting IV, Cannel, California, May 16-17, 2000. Prepared for the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee by RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Susan Schwartz, ed. 179 pp.

Richardson, W.J. 2000. Bird migration and wind turbines: Migration timing, flight behavior, and collision risk. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, .

Strickland, M.D., W.P. Erickson, K. Kronner, and S. Orloff. 2000a. Effect of bird deterrent methods applied to wind turbines at the CARES wind power station in Washington state. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 19 Strickland, M.D., D.P. Young, Jr., G.D. Johnson, C.E. Derby, W.P. Erickson, and J.W. Kern. 2000b. Wildlife monitoring studies for the SeaWest Wind Power Development, Carbon - County, Wyoming. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Strickland, M.D., G.D. Johnson, W.P. Erickson, S.A. Sarappo, and R.M. Halet. 2000c. Avian use, flight behavior, and mortality on the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, wind resource area. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Thelander, C.G, and L. Rugge. 2000a. Avian risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont wind resource area - March 1998 to February 1999. Prepared by BioResource Consultants for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract No. TAT-8- 18208-0 1, NREWSR-500- 27545. Golden, Colorado. 23 pp.

Thelander, C.G., and L. Rugge. 2000b. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont wind resource area. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Ugoretz, S., R. Atwater, W. Fannucchi, and G. Bartelt. 2000. Wind powerhird interactions studies in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting 111. National Wind Coordinating Committee. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Avian Risk Assessment for a proposed wind farm in Grant County, WV - Canterbury, September 2002 Page 20 FIGURES Figure 1

A view of the Allegheny Front in the Mount Storm, Grant County area. Avian Survey Points - Figure 2 Golden-Winged Warbler and Minimum of 20 Species Present

o Golden-Winged Warbler Present o Minimum 20 Species o Windmill Locations

Ref: USGS 7.5’ Topographical Map Greenland Gap - UTM 1983 Mount Storm - UTM 1983

Potesta & Associates, Inc Engineers and Environmental Consultants 2300 MacCorkle Ave. SE, Chas. WV 25304 Tel: (304) 342-1400 Fax: (304) 343-9031 1 0 1 2 Miles Avian Survey Points - Figure 3 Golden-Winged Warbler and Minimum of 20 Species Present

o Golden-Winged Warbler Present Minimum 20 Species o Windmill Locations

Ref: USGS 7.5' Topographical Map Blackbird Knob - UTM 1983 Greenland Gap - UTM 1983 Mount Storm Lake - UTM 1983 Maysville - UTM 1983

- Potesta Associates, Inc Engineers and Environmental Consultants 2300 MacCorkle Ave. SE, Chas. WV 25304 2 0 2 4 Miles Tel: (304) 342-1400 Fax: (304) 343-9031 e-mail: [email protected] I Avian Survey Points = Figure 4 1I I / Golden-Winged Warbler and Minimum of 20 Species Present 1 0 Golden-Winged Warbler Present 8 Minimum 20 Species i 0 Windmill Locations I 1

b

Ref: USGS 7.5’ Topographical Map Antioch - UTM 1983 Mount Storm - UTM 1983

1-I

- Potesta & Associates#, Inc igii iers and Emfironmental Cons!ultan h 2300 MacCorkle Ave. SE, Chas. W 25304 2 Tel: (304) 342-1400 Fax: (304) 343-9031 e-mail: [email protected] Figure 5

Stony River Reservoir in Grant County. A portion of the proposed area for wind turbines is in the background.

! TABLES Table 1 Species detected in the Mount Storm Lake Wind Turbine Project Area on July 13,2002. Vernacular (common) and scientific names are given for each species in American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) order. Common Name I Species Great Blue Heron (SRR)' Ardea herodias Green Heron (SRR) Butorides virescens

~ ~ Turkey Vulture I Cathartes aura Canada Goose Branta canadensis Wood Duck (SRR) Aix sponsa Mallard (SRR) Anas platyrhynchos Osprey t (SRR) I Pandion haliaetus Northern Harrier * Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Red-tailed Hawk I Buteo jamaicensis American Kestrel Falco spawerius Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Wild Turkey 1 Meleagris gallopavo Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Upland Sandpiper (SRR) Bartramia longicauda American Woodcock * (6R) I Scolopax minor Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Table 1 Species detected in the Mount Storm Lake Wind Turbine Project Area on July 13,2002. Vernacular (common) and scientific names are given for each species in American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) order.

Common Name Species I Black-billed Cuckoo (SRR) Coccyzus erythropthalmus Barred Owl Strix varia Ruby-throated Archilochus colubris Hummingbird c Belted Kingfisher (SRR) Ceryle alcyon Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes car0 1inus Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

~~ Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Least Flycatcher Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Eastern Kingbird White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Yellow-throated Vireo Vireoflavifrons Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Common Name Species Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata American Crow I Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Raven Corvus corax Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor N. Rough-winged Swallow * Stelgidopteryx serripennis Cliff Swallow * Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta car0 1in ens is Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Veery I Catharusfuscescens Hermit Thrush I Catharus guttatus Wood Thrush I Hylocichla mustelina American Robin I Turdus migratorius Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Northern Mockingbird Mim us polyglo ttos Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Table 1 Species detected in the Mount Storm Lake Wind Turbine Project Area on July 13,2002. Vernacular (common) and scientific names are given for each species in American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) order. Common Name I Species European Starling I sturnus vulgaris Cedar Waxwing I Bombycilla cedrorum Golden-winged Warbler I Vermivora chrysoptera

~~ Northern Parula I Parula americana Yellow Warbler * Dendroica petechia Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendro ica pensylvanica Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Northern Waterthrush * Seiurus noveboracensis Louisiana Waterthrush * Seiurus motacilla (SRR) Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Yellow-breasted Chat * Icteria virens Common Name Species European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Cedar Waxwing I Bombycilla cedrorum

Northern Parula Parula americana

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia American Redstart Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Northern Waterthrush * Seiurus noveboracensis Louisiana Waterthrush * Seiurus motacilla (SM) Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis tr ichas Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Canada Warbler I Wilsonia canadensis Yellow-breasted Chat * Icteria virens Table 1 Species detected in the Mount Storm Lake Wind Turbine Project Area on July 13,2002. Vernacular (common) and scientific names are given for each species in American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) order. I CommonName Species Piranga olivacea Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Spizella pusilla Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

~~ ~ Savannah Sparrow * Passerculus sandwichensis

Lasshopp er Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Melospiza melodia ____~ Swamp Sparrow (SRR) Melospiza georgiana EthroatedSparrow * * Zonotrichia albicollis Junco hyemalis Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis hose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Guiraca caerulea Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea I Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Agelaius p hoen iceus Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Orchard Oriole * Icterus spurius Table 1 Species detected in the Mount Storm Lake Wind Turbine Project Area on July 13,2002. Vernacular (common) and scientific names are given for each species in American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) order. Common Name I Species Baltimore Oriole I Icterus galbula I Purple Finch I Carpodacus purpureus I American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis House Sparrow Passer domesticus . (SRR)’ These species were observed only within 1000 m circle around Stony River Reservoir (SRR) during a single daily count of birds on July 13,2002 at Mount Storm, West Virginia.

* Found only on the western side of Mount Storm Lake and Stoney River Reservoir, and, thus, outside of the proposed turbine locations.

** Only a single, but species-typical call note heard. Bird was not seen. This species is a rare, sporadic summer visitor in West Virginia (Buckelew and Hall 1994).

No breeding records from atlasing noted in Grant County in Buckelew and Hall (1994).

c -’ Table 2 West Virginia Partners In Flight listed species observed in the Mount Storm area on July 13,2002. Cooper’s Hawk Northern Parula Black-billed Cuckoo Chestnut-sided Warbler Ruby- throated Magnolia Warbler Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Black-throated Blue Warbler I Yellow-bellied Sapsucker I Black-throated Green Warbler I Eastern Wood-Pewee I Prairie Warbler I Alder Flycatcher I Black-and-white Warbler I Least Flycatcher I American Redstart Eastern Phoebe Worm-eating Warbler Great Crested Flycatcher Ovenbird Eastern Kingbird Common Yellowthroat White-eyed Vireo Hooded Warbler Yellow-throated Vireo Canada Warbler - Blue-headed Vireo Scarlet Tanager Red-eyed Vireo Chipping Sparrow Tree Swallow Grasshopper Sparrow Barn Swallow Rose-breasted Grosbeak Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Blue Grosbeak Veery Indigo Bunting Wood Thrush Bobo link I Gray Catbird I Orchard Oriole Golden-winged Warbler Baltimore Oriole Table 3 Bird species observed in the project area that are declining in West Virginia andor range- wide (national). Reference is also made to species occurring near (and slightly) outside (e.g., west of Mount Storm Lake) the turbine locations, which also may be impacted by the turbines. Forest Species Trend' Shrubland/grassland Trend1 WV National Species WV National Sharp-shinned -5.7 +7.2 Ruffed Grouse +1.3 -1.9 Hawk

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker I None -0.2 I Killdeer I +2.9 -0.3 * Downy Woodpecker I Black-billed Cuckoo I -o.8 O.O I -4.3 -1.9 * Hairy Woodpecker -1:3 +1.5 Northern Flicker I -3.6-2.2"

Eastern Wood- -4.6 -1.7 * Least Flycatcher -1.1 -0.9 * Pewee

Great Crested -3.2 * 0.0 Eastern Phoebe -0.6 +1.2 Flycatcher

Yellow-throated Vireo -1.4 +0.8 Eastern Kingbird -2.0 -0.9 *

Blue-headed Vireo -0.4 +5.0 Barn Swallow -1.1 -0.6 *

Blue Jay -1.1 * +2.6 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher -1.5 +0.7

Black-capped Chickadee -0.3 +1.4 Gray Catbird -0.7 -0.2

Tufted Titmouse -0.2 +1.0 N. Mockingbird +1.0 -0.8

Golden-crowned lnglet +7.9 -0.5 Brown Thrasher -2.80 -1.2 **

Veery +5.8 -1.3 * European Starling 1 -1.0 -0.9 *

Wood Thrush -0.6 -1.9 * Cedar Waxwing -0.2 +1.4

Northern Parula I -0.3 +0.9 I Golden-winged Warbler I -2.5 -9.9 **

Black-and-white Warbler +0.1 -2.9 * Chestnut-sided Warbler +0.9 -0.7

Worm-eating Warbler -2.5 +0.9 Prairie Warbler -5.3 -2.2 **

Hooded Warbler American Redstart

Scarlet Tanager I +0.6 -0.2 I Common Yellowthroat -2.5 -0.3 ** Rose-breasted Grosbeak +4.6 -0.8 I Canada Warbler I +9.6 -1.9 Table 3 Bird species observed in the project area that are declining in West Virginia and/or range- wide (national). Reference is also made to species occurring near (and slightly) outside (e.g., west of Mount Storm Lake) the turbine locations, which also may be impacted by the turbines. Forest Species Trend' Shrubtandlgrassland Trend1 I WV National Species WV National Baltimore Oriole I +0.8 -0.5 * Eastern Towhee -1.6 -1.9 ** Purple Finch +4.4 -1.8 * I Chipping Sparrow -1.4 -0.1 * Other Species Field Sparrow -3.7 -3.1 **

Green Heron -3.8 -0.8 ** Vesper Sparrow -14.5 -0.9 **

Belted Kmgfisher -0.5 -1.6 Grasshopper Sparrow -11.6 -3.7 **

House Sparrow -3.1 -2.5 ** Song Sparrow -0.6 -0.5

Species noted outside turbine locations (all are shrubland Dark-eyed Junco +2.4 -1.2 birds except the waterthrush and oriole)

Northern Harrier None -0.7 Northern Cardinal -0.3 0.0

American Woodcock I None -1.0 I Indigo Bunting

Northern Rough-winged I -4.1 +O. 1 I Bobolink I +1.5 -1.6 * Swallow

Louisiana Waterthrush -2.2 +0.8. Red-winged Blackbird -2.4 -1.0 *

Yellow-breasted Chat -3.4 -0.1 * Eastern Meadowlark -3.3 -2.9 **

Savannah Sparrow -7.0 -0.5 ** Common Grackle -2.2 -1.4 **

Orchard Oriole +0.4 -0.6 Brown-headed Cowbird -4.8 -1.0 **

American Goldfinch -4.2 -0.4 *

1 Population trend estimation obtained from BBS data (Sauer et al. 2001) and represent %change/year from 1966-2000. Trends are noted as positive (+) or negative (-),

Those with an * are significantly declining in either West Virginia or nationally.

Those with ** are declining significantly (~'0.05) throughout their range, including West Virginia. All others are declining, albeit nonsignificantly, in West Virginia andor nationally at this time.

$ An introduced (non-native) species