TELEPHONE (304) 343-1654
-I August 4, 2000 ’ , , )*. \,:..
Ms. Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia Post Office Box 812 ‘i Charleston, West Virginia 25323
RE: CASE NO. 00- fLioq -E-CN BACKBONE MOUNTAIN WINDPOWER LLC Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessitv \ i Dear Ms. Squire:
Enclosed herein for filing please find the original and twelve (12) copies of the Application of Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC, for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate a wholesale windpower generating facility and related interconnecting transmission facilities in Tucker County, West Virginia. In addition, the Applicant is requesting a waiver of certain filing requirements which are not clearly applicable to this type of project, and for expedited treatment.
In addition to the information typically submitted with an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, the Applicant has also enclosed with this application, copies of the following documents:
1. Project viewshed analysis (Exhibit No. 5) 2. Project visual simulation (Exhibit No. 6) 3. Decibel analysis (Exhibit No. 7) 4. Risk Assessment of Endangered Species (Exhibit No. 8) and, 5. Phase I Avian Risk Assessment (Exhibit No. 9) '> '> Ms. Sandra Squire I Page Two Auuust 4, 2000
Because of the significant time constraints under which the Applicant is operating, and the fact that this is, to counsel's knowledge, the first significant windpower project to be developed in West Virginia, it is respectfully requested that the Commission retain this case rather than assign it to an Administrative Law Judge. Further, if a hearing is ultimately deemed necessary, it is respectfully requested that the hearing be held by the Commission at the earliest convenient date.
The Applicant is currently awaiting the issuance of a Certificate of Authority from the Secretary of State's Office. Immediately upon receipt thereof, copies of that document will be filed with the Commission.
Should you have any questions regarding this filing, please do not hesitate to contact me.
'/ Sincerelv.
Robert R. Ro-degker RRR/bg enclosures cc: Sam Enfield ; The0 J. deWolff William Moore BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 00- E-CN
BACKBONE MOUNTAIN WINDPOWER LLC Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity To Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Windpower Generating Facility and Related Interconnecting Transmission Lines In Tucker County, West Virginia
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING INFORMATION; REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
ORIGINAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
CASE NO. 00- E-CN
BACKBONE MOUNTAIN WINDPOWER LLC Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity To Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Windpower Generating Facility and Related Interconnecting Transmission Lines In Tucker County, West Virginia
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING INFORMATION; REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
Pursuant to West Virginia Code §24-2-11 and Rule 10.3 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Public Service Commission of
West Virginia ("Commission"), Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC
(Applicant), respectfully requests that the Commission grant a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("Certificate") and any and all other approvals within the jurisdiction of the
Commission required for the construction and operation of the wind power electric generating facility (the "Backbone Mountain
Project") and related transmission lines described herein. In support of its Application, the Applicant states: NAME, ADDRESS, OWNERSHIP AND NON-UTILITY STATUS
1. The name and address of the Applicant is:
Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC 3311 Church Road, Suite 210 Richmond, Virginia 23233
Applicant is entirely owned by Atlantic Renewable Energy
Corporation and its principals at the above listed address.
Applicant is not a public utility within the meaning of W. Va. Code
S24-1-1, et seq.
2. Applicant will operate the Backbone Mountain Project,
interconnecting transmission lines and ancillary facilities
(collectively the "Facility" as described herein) as an exempt
wholesale generator ("EWG") as defined under Section 32(a) of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (1935 "PUHCA"). A
requirement for obtaining and maintaining EWG status is that all
sales of electricity from the Backbone Mountain Project must be
exclusively to the wholesale market (i.e., sales for resale).
3. The Facility will include only those transmission
facilities that are necessary to interconnect the Backbone Mountain
Project with the transmission system of Allegheny Power System
("APS'') for the purpose of making wholesale sales of electricity.
4. Applicant will make no retail sales of electricity (i.e.,
sales not for resale) from the Backbone Mountain Project, including
I i -2- without limitation sales to industrial or commercial customers, unless and until such sales are: (i) permitted for nonutility generators under West Virginia law and the Commission's regulations; and (ii) permitted for EWGs under federal law. As an exclusively wholesale generator, Applicant will not provide any of the public services enumerated in West Virginia Code 524-2-1, including without limitation, the generation or transmission of electric energy for service to the public.
5. Despite its non-utility status, Applicant's construction and operation of the Facility may be subject to the Certificate requirements of West Virginia Code §24-2-11 as interpreted by the
Commission.
6. The lease for the site, and the purchase of the equipment for the development of the Facility, as well as the construction of the facility, will be financed through a combination of equity contribution by the Applicant and project financing. Applicant will be solely responsible for the construction of the Facility and for the operation and sale of electricity from the Facility.
THE COMPETITIVE WHOLESALE MARKET
7. The proposed Facility reflects the fundamental changes that have occurred in the electric generating industry in the last decade. It is no longer the regulated public utilities that predominantly construct, own and operate new electric generating
-3- plants. This role is now increasingly being filled by non-utility
generators, which are typically EWGs.
8. The shift from utility to non-utility ownership of
generating stations has been fostered by a number of regulatory
developments at both the state and federal levels. At the federal
level, the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 ("EPACT")
removed a significant market entry barrier by exempting EWGs from
the prospect of burdensome regulation under the 1935 Act. In 1996,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")issued its Order
888 which substantially enhanced the possibility of competition in
the wholesale energy market by, among other things, mandating that
public utilities provide all generators access to their
transmission systems on a comparable basis to the access they
provide to their own generating facilities. The FERC has further
fostered wholesale market competition by allowing virtually all
market participants, including traditional utilities, to sell
electricity at wholesale rates determined by the marketplace
whenever the seller could demonstrate that it lacked power to
control the market price.
9. Several states, including West Virginia, have undertaken
restructuring initiatives designed to promote competition in the
electric industry at both the wholesale and the retail levels.
These restructuring initiatives have often included a requirement
that the generation and distribution of electricity be functionally \ -4- separated or "unbundled". Further, these initiatives have often
provided standards for the amount of renewable energy that must be
included within the mix of generation sources supplied to
customers.
10. In 1998 the West Virginia Legislature enacted West
Virginia Code §24-2-18 which required the Public Service Commission
to determine whether West Virginia should adopt a plan whereby
users of electricity in the State should have open access across
existing and new utility delivery systems to a competitive market
for power supply.
11. On January 28, 2000, the Commission issued an Order finding, among other things, that West Virginia's electricity users
should have open access to a competitive market, including
renewable energy sources. The Order further found that
"Restructuring will require the separation of generation and other
power supply functions from the transmission and distribution
functions which will remain fully regulated under any party's
concept of a workable plan". Thus, the construction and operation
of Applicant's windpower project is fully consistent with the
evolving nature of the electric generating industry in the State.
12. The Commission approved and forwarded to the West
Virginia Legislature during its 2000 Session a "Proposed West
Virginia Plan for Customer Choice of Electric Power Suppliers, Open Access to Electricity Transport Systems and Deregulation of Power ,i -5- Supply" ("West Virginia Plan"). It is anticipated that, after
resolution of certain tax-related issues, the West Virginia Plan
will be adopted by the Legislature during the 2001 Session, and
electric restructuring, including customer choice of energy
supplier, will be instituted in this State shortly thereafter.
13. Against the backdrop of prospective electric industry
restructuring both in West Virginia and throughout the nation, many regulated utilities have become reluctant to invest in new or
additional generating capacity. This reluctance is understandable
because under restructuring the future of traditional rate
base/rate of return has become uncertain. Accordingly, non-utility
generation facilities, such as those here proposed by the
Applicant, assume an increasingly important role in meeting the
growing electrical needs of the nation generally and under the West
Virginia Plan particularly.
, APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FACILITIES AND SERVICES
14. Applicant proposes to install between approximately forty
(40) and sixty (60) wind turbine generators, each with a rotor
fifty-two (52) to seventy-one (71) meters in diameter and each with
a rated capacity between nine hundred (900) and fifteen hundred
(1500) kilowatts. Mounted on a concrete pad close by each turbine
will be a step-up transformer. The Backbone Mountain Project will
also include paved, all-weather access roads, underground
-6- transmission and communication lines interconnecting the turbines,
a substation, and an operation and maintenance facility, all
located in St. George and Fairfax Districts, Tucker County, West Virginia. For additional information on the Backbone Mountain
Project, see Exhibit 1 attached to this Application.
15. Upon its completion, the Backbone Mountain Project will be used by Applicant to generate electricity exclusively for wholesale sales in the competitive wholesale market including West Virginia and other locations in the East Central Electric i Reliability Coordination Agreement ("ECAR") region and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland and District of Columbia power markets. 16. Applicant will make no sales of electricity to ultimate consumers in West Virginia (i.e., retail sales) nor provide any of the other services enumerated in West Virginia Code §24-2-1, unless and until such sales or services are: (i) permitted for non-utility generators under West Virginia law, including the West Virginia 1 Plan, and the Commission's regulation, and (ii) permitted for EWGs under federal law. 17. Rates charged for electricity sold by the Backbone Mountain Project will be subject to regulation by the FERC pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act. The Applicant intends to file a market-based rate schedule with the FERC that will allow sales from the Backbone Mountain Project to be at negotiated rates. FERC acceptance of Applicant's market-based rate schedule will
-7- depend on, among other things, a determination that neither Applicant nor any of its affiliates possesses market power over generation or transmission rates in any relevant market. 18. Applicant will enter into an agreement with APS to govern the interconnection of the Backbone Mountain Project with APSIS transmission system, with that interconnection point to be located at APSIS existing William substation in Tucker County, West Virginia. Applicant, or the purchasers of electricity generated from the Backbone Mountain Project, will enter into agreements with APS for transmission of electricity generated by the Backbone Mountain Project subject to the terms of APSIS Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") on file with the FERC in accordance with this OATT. Applicant, or the purchasers of electricity from the Backbone Mountain Project that enter into Transmission Agreements with APS, will be responsible for the costs of any upgrades of the APS transmission system that are necessary and attributable to providing transmission service to the Backbone Mountain Project. Both the Interconnection Agreement and the Transmission Agreement(s) will be subject to FERC jurisdiction under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION - THE BACKBONE MOUNTAIN PROJECT, SITE, CONSTRUCTION DATES
19. The location of the Facility has been determined to be one of the best wind sites on the East Coast with a Class-5 wind resource.
-8- 20. The Backbone Wind Project will be constructed on the most
elevated portions - ranging between 3300 and 3600 feet above sea
level - of a 4400-acre site. Approximately 2 percent of the site
area will be physically occupied by the project. A preliminary
proposed layout of wind turbine generators to be installed on-site
is shown in Appendix B attached to Exhibit 1. Other land uses at
the site include the mining of an extensive sandstone resource.
The site is also extensively forested, and this resource is being
actively managed for productive purposes. The site is transected by U. S. Highway 219 in two places.
21. Offsite transmission lines will be constructed to interconnect the Backbone Mountain Project with APS's existing 138kV William substation. The William substation is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the proposed Backbone Mountain Proj ect . The interconnecting transmission line is currently planned as a single circuit 138 kV overhead bundled conductor line. APS has completed a draft engineering study that has established the feasibility of interconnecting the Backbone Mountain Project at the William substation. See Exhibit 2 attached hereto. 22. The Backbone Mountain Project, including the transmission line, will be constructed on property owned by Western Pocahontas Properties Limited Partnership, which has entered into a long-term lease agreement with the Applicant for these purposes.
-9- ! 23. The Backbone Mountain Project must commence commercial operation in 2001 in order to qualify for the federal wind energy production tax credit. In order to meet this deadline, delivery of the turbines must begin in May, 2001. In order to achieve that date, a substantial initial deposit must be made with the turbine supplier by mid-November 2000. Construction to prepare the site to receive the turbines must begin in March 2001. Applicant will enter a contract with a qualified Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. The EPC contract will require the EPC contractor to construct the Backbone Mountain Project in accordance will all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Currently, the M. A. Mortenson Company is performing preliminary design and engineering for the Backbone Mountain Project under a Memorandum of Understanding with AREC.
NAMES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH WHOM THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MAY COMPETE
24. Applicant will compete with all entities that participate
in the competitive wholesale electric market. These market
participants include public utilities, power marketers, and other
EWGs. Applicant will not compete with public utilities in the
generation of electricity for retail sale, in the transmission of
electricity, or in any other services regulated by the Commission
-10- unless and until such competition is allowed by applicable West
Virginia and federal laws and regulations.
CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY
25. Applicant is a Delaware Limited Liability Company. A copy of the Certificate of Good Standing issued by the Delaware
Secretary of State's Office and a copy of a Certificate of
Authority issued by the West Virginia Secretary of State's office,
1 authorizing the Applicant to conduct business in West Virginia will
be filed immediately upon receipt thereof by counsel. Exhibits 3
and 4 have been reserved for those documents.
REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF CERTAIN FILING INFORMATION
26. Applicant respectfully requests a waiver of the
requirement to provide information that is required for a public
utility seeking a Certificate. Applicant's waiver request includes,
without limitation, the information listed in Paragraphs 5 through
9 of Form 5 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(i.e., utility service rendered, proposed rates, construction
costs, financing plan, operating revenues and expenses,
respectively) and the information required by Rule 42 of the
Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure (e.g., statements of i -11- net income, operating revenues, depreciation, West Virginia
jurisdictional rate base, plant in service, capital structure).
27. Such information is intended to assist the Commission in
the regulation of public utilities that provide "cost of service" based retail electric service to West Virginia captive consumers.
The Applicant will have no captive consumers in West Virginia or elsewhere. Thus, it is not necessary or appropriate to require this filing information from a non-utility entity such as the
Applicant that will operate in a competitive market.
28. All those who purchase electricity from the Applicant will do so voluntarily and at negotiated rates. Furthermore; all rates charged by Applicant will be on file with the FERC and available for public inspection.
29. In sum, because the Applicant will not be regulated by the Commission as a public utility, Applicant respectfully requests a waiver of the Certificate filing and reporting requirements that are specific to public utilities.
REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE
30. The Commission should issue a Certificate for the
Backbone Mountain Project because:
(a) There is a demonstrated need for additional generating capacity in the ECAR Region which includes West Virginia, as well as the PJM and DC power markets;
-12- The Backbone Mountain Project will contribute to meeting this need without placing any financial risk on West Virginia ratepayers;
The Applicant has the expertise to construct and operate the Backbone Mountain Project in accordance with state and federal laws; and
Construction and operation of the Backbone Mountain Project will provide direct and indirect economic benefits for Tucker County and to the State of West Virginia.
Although a demonstration of need for generation capacity
in a competitive wholesale market should not be required, there is
a demonstrated need for additional capacity in the 'ECAR" region.
The ECAR region is projected to have a 1.7% annual growth in load
over the 1999 to 2008 period.
32. To meet this increased demand and assure adequate reserve
capacity, 9900 MW of additional capacity are "planned" for
installation by ECAR members by 2008. Only about 15% of the 9900
MW of necessary additional capacity is currently under construction i and 85% is still in the planning stages. ECAR region capacity
margins, determined at the peak summer demand, are projected to
decline from 10.6% in 1999 to a minimum of 1.8% in 2008. If
planned additional capacity is not installed, ECAR reserve capacity
margins could become negative by 2006.
33. In addition to the need for new generating capacity, the
availability of existing generating units at or above 80.3% was
found to be critical to maintaining reliability goals in the ECAR ) -13- region. Maintaining that level of availability may become
increasingly difficult. By the end of 2008 about 67% of the ECAR
members' generating capacity will be 30 or more years old. This
aging capacity carries the risk of decreasing availability due to
normal deterioration and obsolescence. The problem is exacerbated
by the decreasing capacity margins which can make it more difficult
for owners to schedule maintenance outages.
34. New regulatory requirements may mandate the retrofit
installation of NOX emission control technology and the retrofits
would require more extended maintenance outages. Approximately 80%
of the existing generating capacity in the ECAR region is fired by
fossil fuels and the bulk of this capacity is in older coal-fired units. The Backbone Mountain Project offers an alternative form of
energy that is not subject to the emission control regulations.
35. There is a clear need for additional generating capacity
in the ECAR region, and in the other markets that are connected to
I the grid served by the APS transmission facilities. The Backbone
Mountain Project represents a cost effective means to supply a
portion of the additional needed capacity without financial risk to West Virginia ratepayers. The entire financial risk of
constructing and operating the Backbone Mountain Project will be
borne by the Applicant. If the Backbone Mountain Project were to
become uneconomic as a result of changes in environmental
regulations, fuel costs, competition or reduced demand for power
-14- (which the Applicant is confident will not be the case), the
Applicant, and not the West Virginia ratepayers, will suffer the financial loss. Furthermore construction of the Backbone Mountain
Project will add a new competitor to the regional renewable wholesale capacity market.
APPLICANT'S EXPERIENCE
36. Applicant is an unregulated electric generation company whose primary focus is the development, ownership and operation of renewable energy projects. Applicant's indirect parent company,
Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation ("AREC"), currently has seven
(7) wind projects under development in Pennsylvania (2), New York
(4), and West Virginia.
37. AREC's 11.5 MW Madison (NY) Windpower Project is the first utility-scale, merchant wind power project in the Eastern
U.S. This project was the first selected by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority ("NYSERDA") as part of that agency's recent competitive solicitation to provide funding for utility scale wind plants in New York.
38. AREC's principals and staff have extensive experience in many aspects of the global power industry, especially in the financing, development and construction of renewable energy projects. Over the last ten years AREC principals have been involved in the successful development, construction and operation
-15- of more than 300 MW of capacity of wind energy projects and several
other renewable energy projects in Pennsylvania, Texas, California,
New York, Iowa, Oregon, Hawaii, and Costa Rica.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
39. Construction and operation of the proposed Backbone
Mountain Project will provide a number of economic benefits. As
many as 200 workers will be employed during construction. The
Applicant will employ between five and seven full-time employees to
operate and maintain the Backbone Mountain Project. Many, if not
most, of these positions can be filled locally. The Backbone
Mountain Project will also benefit the local economy and community
by enhancing the tax base of Tucker County, and through the
purchase of products and services.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ACTION 40. The Applicant is committed to locating the Backbone Mountain Project in Tucker County, West Virginia. This commitment is necessarily contingent on obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals on a schedule that will allow the Backbone Mountain Project to begin commercial operations by November, 2001. As discussed in paragraph 23 above, this schedule requires that site work begin by March 2001, and that equipment deposits be made by November 2000. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully, yet urgently, requests that the Commission review this Application on ) -16- i VERIFICATION
STATE OF
COUNTY OF 'wmn(0 , TO-WIT:
UlLctnfl E)(* hb2.M , /')112ECPOE of Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC, being duly sworn, says that the facts and allegations contained in the foregoing Application are true, ' except insofar as they are therein stated to be on information, and that, so far as they are therein stated to be on information, he believes them to be true. b&11-I' i Taken, subscr this day of , 2000. DIANE J. ARCHIBAl.0 My commission expires NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF ~R~~~D My Commiuion Expires W'mr I'
Notary -Public
_,:,-
I an expedited basis consistent with the Commission's policy; that it retain this case and, if a hearing is necessary, that the Commission prepare an expedited schedule to permit the issuance of a Final Order not later than November 1, 2000.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Commission grant the Applicant expedited treatment of this Application, grant the waivers requested for certain filing \ information as described herein, issue the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity requested in the Application and grant any and all other approvals within the jurisdiction of the Commission that are necessary for the construction and operation of the Backbone Mountain Project and the associated transmission lines. Dated this 4th day of August, 2000,
Respectfully submitted,
Backbone Mountain Windpower LLC
By Counsel
1210 Bank One Center Post Office Box 3713 Charleston, West Virginia 25337 304/343-1654
-17- 1 Exhibit No. 1 Backbone Mountain Wind Project
Project Description
Project Location
The proposed Backbone Mountain Project is located on Backbone Mountain, approximately 3 miles west of the town of Thomas, located in Tucker County, in the northeastern portion of West Virginia. Backbone Mountain serves as the boundary separating Saint George and Fairfax Districts of Tucker County (see Appendix A attached hereto).
Wind Turbine Generators
The principal feature of the proposed project will be approximately 40 to 60 modern wind ) turbine generators, arrayed in the fashion indicated on the Preliminary Site Plan (see Appendix B attached hereto). These turbines will be mounted on tubular steel towers 65 to 72 meters (213 to 236 feet) in height. They will feature 3-bladed rotors mounted on the upwind side of the tower. The blades will be 26 to 35.5 meters (85 to 116 feet) in length, making the total height of each structure 98 to 100 meters (322 - 329 feet). The turbines will each have a rated capacity of 900 to 1500 kilowatts. The project will have a total generating capacity of approximately 50 to 70 megawatts. Attached as Appendix C hereto is a picture of wind turbines that are similar to those that will be utilized in this project.
Access to the turbines will be through secure hatches at the base of each tower. There will be no external means of ascending the towers. Nor will there be any appurtenances on either the tower or the turbine nacelle on which birds can perch.
Turbine Arrays and Access Roads
The wind turbines will be arrayed along the crest of the Backbone Mountain ridgeline, generally perpendicular to the prevailing westerly winds. Each turbine will be served by ' an all-weather, mud-fiee, gravel access road, approximately 20 feet in width. Each turbine site will also include a gravel turnout area and a permanent crane pad, similar in design and construction to the access road and in the range of 4000 to 5000 square feet in size, including the adjacent portion of the road.
Electrical hfkstructure
Each turbine will be served by a single step-up transformer, mounted on a concrete pad, located close by the base of the turbine tower, and contained within a secure steel cabinet. Connections between the transformer and the turbine and the transformer and the power collection system will be fully underground. The transformer will boost the voltage level I of the power generated by the turbine fiom several hundred volts to approximately
1 1 25,000 volts (25 kilovolts). Underground power collection lines will transmit the power from each turbine to the project substation. At the substation, the project output will be transformed to the 138-kilovolt level. From the substation, an overhead, pole-mounted 138-kilovolt power line will convey the project’s output to the William substation, ~ approximately 2.5 miles distant.
Communications Mastructure
Fiber optic cable will extend alongside the underground power collection lines, connecting each turbine to control Guipment located in the operations facility. Remote monitoring of each turbine, and of the facility as a whole, is possible via this system.
Ouerations and Maintenance Facility
An operations and maintenance facility will be established on site. It will house a spare parts inventory and the project’s maintenance equipment. It will also house a project office, including the project’s System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
Project Construction
Road and Turbine Site Construction
Initial construction activities will consist of grading and construction of access roads and turbine sites. Trenching for power collection and communication lines will be performed as well. These trenches will be approximately 2 feet in width, and 4 feet deep. They will include a bottom layer of gravel and protective layers of sand above and below the cabling. They will be back-filled to surface grade, and re-vegetated.
Roads and turbine sites will be engineered and constructed for all-weather use, and will \ be fully surfaced with gravel. Road pavement will be approximately 20 feet in width. Turbine sites will be 4000 to 5000 square feet in size, including the adjacent portion of the access road.
Turbine and Transformer Foundations
Turbine foundations will be excavated and constructed. Final foundation designs will be determined, based upon the findings of a geo-technical assessment.
Pad-mounted transformer foundations and underground power and communication connections will be installed at the same time. Transformer foundations will consist of a simple concrete pad of 4 to 6 inches in depth.
2 i Turbine Installation
Wind turbine towers and components will arrive on-site and be assembled on the foundations in progressive fashion. Tower bases will first be installed on the completed foundations, and top tower sections will then be attached. Turbine nacelles will arrive on-site as complete units, and will be hoisted into place atop the completed towers. Rotor blades will be attached to the hub, and this assembly will be hoisted and attached to the turbine nacelle, thus completing the turbine’s assembly.
In general, components will be removed fiom the truck trailers on which they arrived and will be directly installed, although dcientcleared space for the assembly of the rotor will be required. A single project staging area will be developed for any additional construction-related component storage that is required.
Electrical and Communications Infrastructure
Pad-mounted transformers will be installed at each turbine site, and connected electrically to the turbine and to the collection system. The transmission line and interconnection equipment will be installed. Finally, the substation will be constructed and energized.
Turbine and Proiect Commissioning;
Once the project electrical infrastructure is complete, is interconnected with the grid, and is energized by the grid, turbines can be commissioned as they are completed. This will be performed on a turbine-by-turbine basis, until the complete facility is fully operational.
Prbject Operations
Proiect Operations i The project will require an operations staff of 5 to 7 individuals. Wind turbines typically operate autonomously, with little direct, ongoing control exercised by project personnel. All wind turbine and pad-mount transformer accesses will be secured at all times.
Scheduled Maintenance
Once the project is fully operational, the Wind turbines will receive scheduled maintenance on a quarterly basis. This will be performed by a 2-person crew, and will require approximately 1 day’s time, per turbine. Use of lubricating fluids is typically limited to bearing grease replacement, and bi-annua.l replacement of gear oil. All gear oils are contained, and will be removed fiom the site for recycling.
Other project equipment will receive maintenance visits on a comparable schedule. )
3 'i Unscheduled Maintenance
Unscheduled Maintenance will be performed on an as-needed basis. This activity consists of repair or replacement of project components. Upon rare occasion, this could include the use of a crane, to remove components fiom the hub or nacelle.
,I
4 Appendix A BACKBONE MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT Appendix B ,
Legend: Proposed Turbine Locations -J Viewpoint Location -A Project Area Boundary .*.*.**....***
Prepared by: Developed by: Atlantic Renewable Energy Corp. BACKBONE MOUNTAIN 1825 I Street NW, #400 Washington, DC 20006 , P.C. H WIND PROJECT 202.775.6944 202.478.0450 (fax) July 2000 [email protected] Appendix C
Exhibit Nom2 i DRAFT
Engineering0 Study to Determine the Feasibility of Interconnecting 100 MW of Non-Utility Generation Tucker County, West Virginia
April 2000
Prepared by Allegheny Power's Operations Planning Section of the System Planning and Operations Group of Allegheny DR4FT
Introduction and Background 3
Proiect Description 4
Figure 1 5
Figure 2 6
Results ~
Summarv of costs 8
Assum Dtions 9
Study Methodology and Procedure 10 \ Short Circuit Studies 11
Stabilitv Considerations 12
Issues Bevond the Scope of this Study 13
I APPENDIX A
2 DRAFT ,I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROW
Atlantic Renewable Energy (Atlantic) has contacted Allegheny Power's System Planning and Operations group on the feasibility of interconnecting gas turbine generators in Allegheny Power's service territory near William Substation in Tucker County, West Virginia. The generation site is referred to as Backbone Mountain in this report.
Specifically, they propose to interconnect 11 1-900 kW or 105 MVA at a 95% power factor or 100 MW output, Wind Turbines (WT's) on Allegheny Power's transmission network near William Substation. Atlantic's requested in-service date is June 1,2001 for interconnection of the fist set of WT's totaling 50 MW with the second set of WT's totaling another 50 MW to be completed by June 1,2002.
This document is a report prepared for Atlantic to address their proposal to interconnect the 111- 9OOkW or 100 MVA of WT's at their Backbone Mountain site.
3 DRAFT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show two alternatives to interconnect the WT's. The alternative depicted in Figure 1 presumes that the customer would construct about 2.5 miles of 138 kV line to AP's existing William Substation and would attach to the William 138 kV bus. The alternative depicted in Figure 2 presumes that the customer would construct an unknown amount of line to a new AP Station, Backbone Mountain, in Tucker County, West Virginia. The new substation would be located on customer property and the site would provided by Atlantic. The Lou& Lane-William 138 kV line would loop into the station.
Each WT is rated to produce a maximum of 900 kW. Data provided by Atlantic is aggregated in Appendix A and shows that each WT is rated to operate at 0.95 power factor and to run 100 % of the year at some output level. It should also be noted that the WT cannot provide voltage regulation and will rely on the AP system to do that for them. The units are designated as base load type units and will probably operate most of the time. Service to the proposed site would
1 consist of a single 138 kV line, 138 kV terminal equipment, 138 kV circuit breaker, and 138 kV metering equipment. Refer to the sketches for details on each interconnectionproposal.
4 DRAFT
11 1-900 kW WIND TURBINES Q .95 PF (HIGHSIDE CORRECTED) 2001 40-5OMW 1 2002 100MW
V V V BLACKWATER SNOWY CREEK SNOWY CREEK NO. 130 NO. 116 NO. 22
AP - ALLEGHENY POWER SREC - SOMERSET RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE TI 6/01 1 ARE -ATLANTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY DRAFT 6/01 -
SWRQ 34-00 T. V. SPENCER 4 Allegheny Power P. L. ZAWELENSKY PL AN CMFILE CHW Nu PLAN ME WIWAMNUG.PPT ER WILLIAM SUBSTATION RNlEwED CONSTRUCT 138 kV FACILITIES TO INTERCONNECT NS WITH ATLANTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY APPFIOVU) mmmncu BACKBONE MOUNTAIN NUG SITE RE V *DATE ELKINS SERVICE CENTER
Figure 1
5 DRAFT
111-900 kW WIND TURBINES @ .95 PF (HIGHSIDE CORRECTED) 2001 40-50MW 2002 100MW
BACKBONE
-MOUNTAIN 25-138 kV
WILLIAM
CUT 138 kV - kV LOL-WM (156) 138 %
1. CUSTOMER TO PROVIDE AP STATION SITE I
PRESENT AP -ALLEGHENY POWER SREC - SOMERSET RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 6101 - ARE -ATLANTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY 6/01 I -1
3URCE ORAWN 4-13-00 T. V. SPENCER k0 flLE 3 BACKBONEMTNUGI.PPT H n EVIEWW BACKBONE MOUNTAIN NUG SITE SCALE NS CONSTRUCT 138 kV FACILITIES TO INTERCONNECT >PROVE0 WITH ATLANTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY AWHORIUTION > B 4TE ELKINS SERVICE CENTER
Figure 2
6 DRAFT i RESULTS The study results indicate that the AP system can accommodate the Atlantic request to interconnect the 11 1-900 kW or 100 MW WT's at the proposed location without any major system reinforcement or enhancements.
Short circuit studies indicate that the interconnectionhas no detrimental effect on the fault duty capability of the existing breakers on the AP transmission system.
7 DRAFT i
SUMMARY OF COSTS
The estimated cost for the reinforcements depicted on Fimre 1 is :
0 Acquire property from Atlantic and construct Backbone Mountain Switching Station: This cost assumes that approximately four acres of relatively flat ground would be provided by Atlantic. The fenced area would be about 150'*200'. The customer would be responsible for securing the site 'and associated right-of-way, permits, approvals, impact studies, etc. Cost = $931,000
0 Loop the existing 138 kV line into the proposed new switching station This cost assumes that the site is immediately adjacent to the AP William-Lough's Lane 138 kV line): ! Cost = $98,000
Total cost for the AP portion of the project = $1,029,000
The estimated cost for the reinforcements depicted on Fimre 2 is :
Install new 138 kV breaker and 138 kV metering at William Subtation: Cost = $214,000
Total cost for the AP portion of the project = $ 214,000
In both alternatives, the customer is responsible for construction on his side of the interface depicted on the sketches. I If derreviewing this report Atlantic wishes to proceed with this project, they need to formally inform AP of their intent. This will result in more detailed engineering, timing estimation, and cost refinements. An Interconnection and Operating Agreement will be prepared for Atlantic's signature. All costs indicated above must be paid before AP will start any construction. The costs are our best estimate, but Atlantic will be charged for actual costs. Any under-runs or over- runs will be reconciled at the conclusion of the project.
8 DRAFT
ASSUMPTIONS
All future studies require assumptions concerning the control area load, facility additions and transmission sales. This analysis is no exception. Analysis for this purposed installation was made with a 2004 summer base case. Allegheny Power control ai-ea load in this model is xxxx MW. Facility additions were assumed to be those as planned in the present series of cases that followed the present planning guide. A quick review of data indicates that Allegheny Power, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM), First Energy, Duquesne Light Company, American Electric Power and Virginia Power plan no major facility additions. Transmission sales modeled for those years are those included in the summer base case models and are only confirmed Firm Point to Point Transmission reservations. The destination of the power from the proposed Backbone Mountain site is unknown. Therefore several transfer scenarios were assumed. Output fiom the WT's was assumed to stay within the Allegheny Power control area.
Atlantic provided generation and step-up transformer data, which has been aggregated in Appendix A, for the purpose of this analysis.
9 DRAFT i STUDY METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE
The in-service date for the first phase of the proposed WT's installation is projected to be June 1, 2001, with the second phase to be in service by June 1,2002. Power flow base models were selected and studies completed for the summer of the year 2004. The assumptions, summarized earlier in this report, regarding forecasted control area loads, maintenance schedules, confumed Firm Point-To-Point Transmission reservations and generation dispatch, were all used in the feasibility analysis.
As indicated in the assumptions, the destination of the power output fiom the proposed Backbone Mountain generators is unknown. Atlantic has indicated that the power output &om the generators could be made up of long-term and short-term Point-to-Point energy sales and spot market hourly sales. It should also be noted that Atlantic has not made transmission arrangements with AP.
Power flow cases were created and contingency tests were evaluated based upon the 1998 Allegheny Power planning criteria reported in FERC Form 7 15, Part 4 which is available to the general public for a nominal fee. This criteria was applied on the 2004 model in order to evaluate the long-term effect the power output fiom the proposed Backbone Mountain generators may have on the Allegheny Power transmission system. If required, additional study work was to be performed to determine what if any limiting facility would require system upgrades to accommodate the proposed installation of 100 MW of WT generation. I The preliminary study work revolved around Atlantic request to install 11 1-900 kW WT's (1 05 MVA at a 95% power factor or 100 MW output). An initial analysis was performed for base conditions and no problems were discovered. Then single contingency studies were run and no adverse loading, due to the proposed installation and unit output, were noted. Results of the tests concluded that system reinforcement would not be required in order to accommodate the Atlantic request of 100 MW for either alternative depicted in Figures 1 and 2.
1
10 DRAFT f SHORT CIRCUIT STUDIES
Results of the short circuit evaluation are tabulated below. The fault current values determined in the study indicate that the substation equipment at the Backbone Mountain Substation and neighboring substations is adequate. The addition of the Atlantic's proposed generation will not cause any equipment short circuit ratings to be exceeded.
I Studvworkiscontinuing I I I
11 DRAFT STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
The transmission system must be designed so that generating units remain in synchronism and that cascading outages do not occur for credible contingencies such as electrical faults or sudden network changes caused by fault clearing and line reclosings.
Transient stability is simulated to assess expected performance of generating units whenever the transmission network is subjected to severe disturbances. Test results are used to determine critical fault clearing times and the ability of the system to prevent cascading outages. They are also used to study the effectiveness of alternative transmission plans to optimize the system's transient performance. Since it is impossible to anticipate and test for all combinations of contingencies that could occur on an interconnected network, those cases judged to be less severe using AP transient stability criteria as a guide, are not routinely tested.
There are also areas of the system that are considered strong enough fiom system dynamics I considerations to support the proposed amounts of generation without the need for stability analysis. It may, therefore, be deemed unnecessary to perform any stability simulations. This will be evaluated on a case by case assessment.
Transient stability testing done in the past has indicated that transient stability problem do not exist in the area of the proposed projects.
1 However, when the proposed generating station is designed and dynamics data for turbine generators are available, Atlantic should perform a transient stability study to determine critical fault clearing times and effects of line reclosings on the transient stability of the proposed units. In addition, any dynamic machine data should be forwarded to AP for their dynamics testing and analysis.
I
12 DRAFT I i
ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY
Before Atlantic produces power at either site they must sign on as an AP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OA'IT) customer of AP or hire an agent whose is an existing OATT customer of AP, to act as their agent to market and sell their generation. Previous dealings with Atlantic indicate that a third party may buy their power at the interface and such matters would be the third party's responsibility. However, for the purposes of this study, it was assumed that Atlantic would be the responsible party.
Atlantic indicated that the power output from the generators could be made up of long- term and short-term Point-to-Point transmission sales. Since Atlantic could not commit to a direction or market for the power output from the Mill Run site, no tests were made modeling the ) power as though it were sold off system. Atlantic should also be aware that the tests performed with this analysis assumed that the new installations were control-area capacity resources. Atlantic, by not providing a direction or market, has assumed the risk that Transmission Transfer Capability may not be available when they project comes on line. Any firm transmission reservations made by other marketers or developers prior to a Atlantic agreement would not only invalidate these study results, but could force limitations on Atlantic's generation output.
I Also, Atlantic needs to be aware that in the event that there is congestion on the Eastern Interconnection, generation dispatch out of Mill Run at times might be restricted. In that case, AP will follow the North American Electric Reliability Council's (NERC) Transmission Line ' Loading Relief Procedure (TLR) and the guidelines set forth within that procedure. A copy of this procedure can be downloaded via the Internet from the NERC website at http://www.nerc.com. Additionally, Atlantic may choose to implement the NERC Market Re- dispatch or the AP Security Coordinator might implement the Lake Erie Emergency Re-dispatch
I (LEER) procedures that could request the units at Mill Run to participate. Involvement in either procedure is voluntary. Allegheny Energy (AE) has incorporated these procedures in its OATT. More information on the NERC market re-dispatch procedure can be obtained from the NERC website at http://www.nerc.com. Information on the LEER can be obtained fiom the FERC-filed LEER procedure.
13 Exhibit No. 3 EXHIBIT NO. 3
\ TO BE FILED IMMEDIATELY
UPON RECEIPT Exhibit No, 4 EXHIBIT NO. 4
'i TO BE FILED IMMEDIATELY
UPON RECEIPT
, Exhibit No. 5
Exhibit No. 6A Turbines graphically simulated in actual size on photograph of site area, as seen froin the eastern of I periphery of Thomas, approximately 3 miles east of project. I Exhibit No. 6B Backbone PvlEountain Wind Project Visual Simulation
I
Turbines graphically siinulated in actual size on photograph of site area, as seen froin the northwest Exhibit Nom6C
Exhibit No. 7 WindPRO Version 1.60 June 1999, Wk Ber(mre(se tmbvwwn Sackbone Backbone Mt. Wind Farm 08/01/00 09:12 / I uS(0mec Wind- Enbeer s, loc. Mantic Renewable Energy Corporation P.O. Box 8972, Palm Springs ;am Enfield CA-92263 USA 131 1 Church Rd., Suite 210 tichmond, VA 23233 eengnec ~ ~ ~ -
~~ --08/01/00 01:38 DECIBEL - Backbone Wind Project Layout copy21 Calculation: Basic 0-level File: C:\000705 ARECWrec\Backbone\Backbone Wind Project Layout copy21 .bmi
... Map: Backbone Wind Project Layout copy21 , Print scale 1:70.000. Map center UTM 17 East: 623,871 North: 4,334,479 A NewWTG C Noise sensitive area Height above sealevel: 0.0 m - 35 dB - 40 dB - 45 dB - 50dB - 55 dB WndPRO erudviklel af Energi- og MiWIala, Nfe1.s Jemesvej 10,DK-QZOAalborg 0, ?7f. +45 96 35 44 44, Fax +45 98 35 44 48, emat [email protected] Exhibit NO=8 ..
Risk Assessment for Endangered Species and Birds at the
Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, WV Wind Power Project
Preliminary Report - July 27,2000
Prepared for: Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation
Prepared by: Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.
Yaul-KerhhiPkD: Cwry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O.Box 453 Cape May Poht, NJ 08212 609-8842842, fa- 884-4569 pkerlinger@ol. corn www. Currykerlinger.com Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ A wind power project of moderate size has been proposed by Backbone MountaG Windpower, LLC, a subsidiary of the Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation (AREC) and its principals, for a portion of Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia. The project would involve the installation of wind turbines, gravel roads, and underground cable along elevated portions of Backbone Mountain. To evaluate the potential risk to birds and to endangered and threatened species at the project site, a series of risk assessments and field surveys were undertaken by AREC. This report details the results of studies that have been completed, updates on studies now underway, and details of studies that are planned for the autumn of 2000. A timetable of these studies follows:
9 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment (risk to birds) - November 1999 - July 2000 - complete
9 Endangered and Threatened Species Studies - June-August 2000 - two of three studies complete, third study to be completed by August 5,2000)
9 Hawk and Songbird Migration Studies - September-November 2000
In December 1999 letters of inquiry (Appendix I) were written to the U. S. Fish \ and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Elkins, WV, and to the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (WVDNR-NHP), Elkins, WV, to inform them of the project and inquire about the presence of endangered and threatened species, species proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, and species of special concern (rare and, or declining). These letters are a standard, first step for determining whether a development poses a risk to those species. (Note: the PSC does ask for an avian impact analysis for its consideration of a Certificate of Necessity.) +I Letters from the USFWS and from WVDNR-NHP (Appendix 11) stated that there were no records of any endangered or threatened species or species proposed for listing from the project site. The letter from Fish and Wildlife went on to state their concerns regarding several types of wildlife. They recommended studies to determine whether the following species were present within the Backbone Mountain project area: Indiana bat (US Endangered), Virginia big-eared bat (US Endangered), Cheat Mountain salamander ,,,,,,,,,e~e8jJn~q~~l~~~~En~gered)~~~~~~non~~~~~e~ species has been recorded from the project site or immediately adjacent to the site, the ~ USFWS stated that they might be present. USFWS also expressed concern about migrating birds (songbirds and hawks) and recommended a migration study.
In addition to the letters, phone conversations with officials from the USFWS (Linda Smith, Elkins, WV office) and WVDNR wildlife biologists (Dr. Russ McLain, Craig Stihler, and Barbara Shepard) did not indicate the presence of the endangered and threatened species at the project site. Later, on May 9,2000, a meeting involving Smith,
C&K, LLC - 713 1/00 2 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
McClain, Stihler, Sam Eniield (AREC), and Paul Kerlinger (Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.) was held in Elkins, WV, to discuss concerns of these agencies and their recommendations
~~~ for-fbrther-studies.-&-that-meetingFthe likelihood of encountering endangered-and - threatened species within the Backbone Mountain project area was discussed, methods researchers should use in surveying for those species, and what sort of bird migration study should be undertaken. WV DNR maps for the endangered and threatened species concerned, revealed that these species had not been located on the Backbone Mountain project area and that the nearest recorded occurrences were several miles distant. These meetings also revealed that the Backbone Mountain project site was outside of the known geographic range of the salamander*andflying squirrel.
To conduct field studies to determine whether the four endangered and threatened species listed by USFWS were present on the Backbone project site, three research biologists were consulted and retained. To insure high quality and credible research, three experts who are recognized as world authorities were chosen to conduct the fieldwork.
a Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-eared Bat *I
Dr. Phillip Clem, Professor of Biology, Charleston University, toured the project site with Paul Kerlinger and Linda Smith (USFWS) on March 30,2000. During that tour, he examined habitat, elevation, and other features that are indicators of the presence or use of the site by these endangered bat species. His preliminary conclusion was that, I although trees on the site might be suitable to female Indiana bats during the summer
when they bear young, the elevation of the site was too great for the species. Cool night .. . temperatures would kill young bats, left behind the bark of trees while their mother foraged. He firther stated that the bats may wander through the site, but that the project site did not appear to contain high quality foraging habitat. Furthermore, most of the site is more than 5-7 miles from the nearest known cave used by both Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats.
Dr. Clem was then retained to conduct surveys for endangered and threatened bats. Dr. Clem surveyed three locations, one more than recommended by USFWS protocols, using mist nets in a manner that is stipulated by federal recommendations (Indiana Bat Recovery Protocol). No endangered or threatened bats were captured. In addition, Dr. Clem used a “listeningyydevice to detect the presence of bats by their vocalizations. He recorded only a small number of bat vocalizations, indicating that few -atsof-any kin&used t~-~~D~Clem‘slettersdreportareattachedasAppendi~m of this report.
CBtK,L.Lc - 7/31/00 3 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
Cheat Mountain Salamander
~- -Dr?Thomas-Pauley, Professor of Bio1ogy;Marshall Universityytoured the-site with Paul Kerlinger on March 3 1,2000. During that tour, Dr. Pauley stated that there was habitat within the project area that could support Cheat Mountain salamanders, but that the project site was outside of the known range of the species. Dr. Pauley was retained to conduct a search of the project area. Accompanying Dr. Pauley was a postdoctoral fellow fiom Marshall University who was also an expert on salamanders and who is conducting fieldwork elsewhere in West Virginia. Dr. Pauley hished the survey in late Jdy, but did not locate any Cheat Mountain salamanders on the project site. Dr. Padey will file a report with AREC during the first week of August 2000.
Northern Flying Sauirrel
Dr. Edwin Michael, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University, toured the site with Paul Kerlinger on March 3 1,2000. Because there was habitat within the project boundary that looked like it could support northern flying squirrels, Dr. Michael i recommended a trapping program. He also stated that the project site was severafmiles fiom the nearest site known to be occupied by northern flying squirrels. Four sites were selected for study, sites which, based on factors of habitat type and elevation, represent
the most likely locations for finding these animals. These areas were limited to a small 7- portion of the project area. Dr. Michael used protocols recommended in the USFWS recovery plan for surveying for this species.
As of July 26,2000, Dr. Michael had completed the first of two phases of trapping at the four study sites. During this phase he did not capture any northern flying squirrels. Dr. Michael’s research will be completed by about August 6 and a report will be filed shortly thereafter.
) Other Endangered and Threatened Species Reports from Backbone Mountain
Inquiries with the three endangered species biologists and other knowledgeable parties revealed that surveys for the endangered and threatened species listed above had been conducted previously on Backbone Mountain at locations immediately to the southwest of the wind power project site. Those studies had been conducted as part of the environmental studies for the Corridor H. During the course of those studies, no evidence was found to suggest that the species were present on that portion of Backbone Mountain. The salamander study was filed as part of the Corridor H EIR, and the northern flying squirrel and Indiana bat studies were done as parts of environmental assessments. The absence of these species immediately south of the project site is important, because it suggests that these species do not occur on Backbone Mountain, even in locations that are closer to their known ranges.
C&K, LLC - 7/31/00 4 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
Summarv and Conclusions: The weight of evidence fkom four separate sources of information strongly suggests that Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, Cheat Mountain ~ sal~d~d~rth~flyifiiiieldo not occur 5iitheBackb~EfomiiEpToject site. These sources include:
> USFWS and WVDNR-NHP databases,
> Records indicating the project site is outside the known geographic distribution for these species
> Studies conducted on-site in summer 2000 by three widely recognized biologists > Studies conducted on a site immediately adjacent to the project site
There is no reason to believe that endangered or threatened species are present on the project site. No further field research on endangered and threatened species is indicated.
Bird Studies
Because bird fatalities have been noted at a few wind power projects in both Europe and the United States, wind power developers conduct research to screen sites prior to permitting and construction. Such screening and evaluation can identifL sites that are likely to be problematic, as well as sites that are likely to be good choices for wind J power projects. The best means of evaluating a site is via a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment, Such an assessment was conducted for the Backhone Mountain project site by Dr. Paul Kerlinger during late 1999 and early 2000. The risk assessment is a standard means of evaluating the potential for risk to birds at a given site. The assessment cdnsiders various characteristics of the site, and anives at an overall evaluation as to whether or not there is significant risk. The assessment also identifies whether enough
) idormation is present for a given site and whether additional information need be collected. The Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for Backbone Mountain is attached as Appendix VI. The Phase I Assessment conducted for Backbone Mountain concluded that there was ample information about birds on and near the project site to permit a robust evaluation of risk and a conclusion that the project does not pose a si@cant risk to birds.
As indicated in the attached correspondence, the USFWS and WVDNR (see USFWS letter in Appendix II), requested studies of migrating songbirds and hawks. While the Phase I assessment indicates little migration risk, data fkom the site will be usefid in establishing a baseline with respect to this issue. In response, AREC will conduct a study of songbird and hawk migration along Backbone Mountain during autumn 2000. Dr. Paul Kerhger was retained to conduct this work to determine the numbers of migrants and their behavior as they fly along Backbone Mountain. The project will include the period - September 15-November 7,2000, after which a report will be filed with AREC. 1
C&K, LLC - 7131100 5 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
Appendix I. Letters fiom Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation consultant (Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.) requesting information on endangered and threatened species, species proposed for listing, and species of special concern fiom the Backbone Mountain wind power project site.
et P L
6 CURRY & KERLINGER, L.L.C. A Professional Consulting Group
i Barbara Sargent I WV DNR - NaturaJ Heritage Program ~ P.O.Box67 Elkins,WV 26241 December 20, 1999 Dear Ms. Sargent:
I am writing to you regarding the wind power project proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, WV, that we discussed earlier today by telephone. The project would consist of 50-60 modern wind turbines that would generate 50-75 megawatts of power. The site is on the Fairfax Stone property and adjacent lands that extend along the top of Backbone Mountain fi-om the Tucker County border at the north (about one mile north of where US Route 219 crosses the mountain) to a point one-half mile southwest of where US Route 219 crosses the mountain at the intersection of Sugarland Road. The entire length of the project portion of the ridge is about 5 miles. The southwest border is across the road fi-om the rest area and overlook at the intersection
\ of 219 and Sugarland Road. See attached map.
I would lie to know the following for a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment I am conc$cting for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, the project developer.
1. Whether your agency has knowledge of any endangered or threatened species (birds and other organisms) that inhabit or fiequent the ridge-top described above and in the area shown on the accompanying map. Also, any of the species listed by WV as Rare. I 2. Whether your agency knows of any si@cant aggregations of other birds that either pass over the mountain or make stopovers during migration; sipficant breeding areas on or adjacent to the project site; and, or significant winter aggregations of birds on or adjacent to the site. 3. Whether there are wetlands along the top of this ridge within the boundaries described and shown on the accompanying map.
1 I have made a similar request to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If you have any questions about the project or about wind power in general or windpower impacts on birds, please feel fi-eeto call me. I will either answer your questions directly or refer you to US Fish and Wildlife staEers who I’ve worked with in other states who may have the information you request.
Paul Kerlinger
Washington Oflice 0 Richard C. Curry, PhD. 0 1734 Susquehannock Dr. 0 McLean, VA 22101 0 (703) 821-1404 voice 0 (703) 821-1366 facsimile 0 email: [email protected]
New Jerseyoffice 0 Paul Kerhger, PhD. 0 P.O. Box 453 0 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842 voice 0 (609) 884-4569 facsimile 0 email: [email protected] CURRY & KERLINGER, L.L.C. A Professional Consulting Group
JeflFrey K. Towner, Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service
-~ Box 1278 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Elkins, WV 26241 December 9, 1999 Dear Mr. Towner:
Bill Tolin referred me to you regarding a windpower project proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, WV. The project would consist of 50-60 modern wind turbines that would generate 50-75 megawatts of power. The site is on the Fairfax Stone property and adjacent lands that extend along the top of Backbone Mountain &om the Tucker County border at the north (about one mile north of where US Route 219 crosses the mountain) to a point one- half mile southwest of where US Route 219 crosses the mountain at the intersection of Sugarland Road. The entire length of the project portion of the ridge is about 5 miles. The southwest border is across the road fiom the rest area and overlook at the intersection of 219 and Sugarland Road. i I would like to know the following for a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment I am conducting for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, the project developer. f 1. Your agency's policy regarding windpower development. 2. Whether your agency has knowledge of any endangered or threatened species (birds and other organisms) that inhabit or fiequent the ridgetop described above and in the area shown on the accompanying map. 3. Whether your agency knows of any sigdicant aggregations of migrating hawks or other birds that either pass over the mountain or make stopovers during migration; significant breeding areas on or adjacent to the project site; and, or signifcant winter aggregations of birds on or adjacent to the site. 4. Whether there are wetlands along the top of this ridge within the boundaries described and shown on the accompanying map. I have made a similar request to the West Virginia Natural Heritage program.
Ifyou have any questions about the project or about windpower in general or windpower impacts on birds, please feel free to call me. I will either answer your questions directly or refer you to Fish and Wildlife staffers who I've worked with in other states who may have the information you request.
Paul Kerlinger
Washington Oflice 0 Richard C. Curry, PhD. 0 1734 Susquehannock Dr. 0 McLean, VA 22101 0 (703) 821-1404voice 0 (703)%21-1366 facsimile 0 email: [email protected]
New Jerseyoffice 0 Paul Kerlinger, PhD. 0 P.O.Box 453 0 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842voice 0 (609) 884-4569 facsimile 0 email: [email protected] www.currykerlinger.com Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds
Appendix II. Letters fiom U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and West Virginia
~~ Department~~~~~ of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program stating that no records of endangered or threatened species, species about to be -. .. . .. C&K LLC - 7/31/00 7 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE --~-~ ~ --~~~ West Virginia Field Office Post Office Box 1278 Elkins, West Virginia 26241 February 24,2000 Dr. Paul Kerlinger Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O.Box 453 Cape May Point, New Jersey 08212 Dear Dr. Kerlinger: This responds to your information request of December 9, 1999 regarding federally listed endangered and threatened species, aggregations of migrating hawks or other birds, significant breeding areas or winter aggregations of birds, and wetlands on, or adjacent to, a proposed . project site. We provide these comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). I Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. is conducting an assessment for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation for a proposed wind power project for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia. The proposed project consists of 50-100 wind turbines. During a phone conservation with Linda Smith of my staff, you indicated that the towers would be of tubular construction, approximately 200,feet high, and would be lighted. There are three rotors that are 100 feet in length on each tower. There would be no guy wires and the wiring for the towers would be ) located below ground. The towers would sit on 15-foot diameter bases and would be placed about 400 feet apart for approximately five miles along the ridge. A maintenance road would be built connecting the towers. The project area appears to have a maximum elevation of 3662 feet mean sea level (msl). Federally listed species that could occur in the proposed project area, and could be adversely affected by the proposed project, are the endangered Indiana bat, Mvotis sodalis; the endangered Virginia big-eared bat, Coynorhinus townsendii virninianus; the endangered Virginia northern flying squirrel, Glaucomvs sabrinus fuscus; and the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, Plethodon nettingi. There are 29 known hibernacula for the Indiana bat in the limestone region of eastern West Virginia in Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Monroe, and Mercer Counties. The population of the hibernacula in West Virginia range in size from one to 9,000 Indiana bats. Recent data indicate that the area within an approximate 5.0 mile radius of a 'I hibernaculum is important foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat in the fall swarming _____period, August 15 through November 14. There is an Indiana bat hibernaculum south of the ~ I ~~~~ proji5CFiiFeq-butTGe pxposed project-area is outside a five mileradius of that cave, Therefore, fall-swarming behavior is not expected in the proposed project area. The recent capture of a young male Indiana bat during the maternity period, May 15 to August 15, near Richwood in Nicholas County suggests that female Indiana bats may utilize West Virginia for summer maternity range. Also, an adult male Indiana bat was recently captured in Clay County. Indiana bat summer foraging habitats are generally defined as riparian, bottomland, or upland forest, and old fields or pastures with scattered trees. Roosting/maternity habitat consists primarily of live or dead hardwood tree species such as shagbark hickory, which have exfoliating bark that provides space for bats to roost between the bark and the bole of the tree. Tree cavities, crevices, splits, or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs also provide roost sites. Potential summer/maternity habitat for the Indiana bat likely occurs in the Tucker County project area and we understand removal of trees will be necessary to accomplish the project. You have indicated a willingness to evaluate the project area for the occurrence of the Indiana bat. Mist net surveys are an important tool for answering the question of whether Ind'ana bats are present in the action area of a project. Mist net surveys for Indiana bats should be conducted between May 15 and August 15 using standard Indiana bat mist net protocol. A survey plan should be prepared by a consultant who is experienced in the biology, data collection techniques, ~ and identification of the Indiana bat (a list of qualified individuals is enclosed). This plan should be submitted to the Service and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources for review and approval. Survey findings should be reported to our office. If Indiana bats are not captured, tree removal can occur without seasonal restrictions. The endangered Virginia big-eared bat inhabits caves during both summer and winter. Moths (Lepidoptera) comprise the majority of their diet and are an important food source of many insectivorous bats. The approximate foraging range of female bats is five miles fiom the maternity cave, but the area within a five to six mile radius of each colony site should be 1 considered to contain habitat essential to the colony. The closest known maternity cave is approximately seven miles from the southern end of the project area. Foraging habitats include woodlands, old fields, and hay fields and the same general area is used on successive nights. Bats do not always return to the cave for day time roosting. These bats will occupy night roosts, often manmade structures, near the foraging area. The Service is concerned about bat collision with the rotors. During wind power tower mortality surveys inWiEEGin, many timesmoundthan birds. Towers that are lighted ~ would attract moths and would possibly attract feeding bats. All West Virginia bat species are insectivorous. We would also appreciate your assessment of the likelihood of incidental take of listed bats and the other eleven West Virginia bat species due to operation of the turbines. The Virginia northern flying squirrel occurs in only six counties in West Virginia which includes Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton, Webster, Pocahontas, and Greenbrier Counties. It is typically found in boreal forests comprised of spruce/fir/hemlockmixed with northern hardwoods such as i sugar maple, black cherry, American beech, black birch, and yellow birch. They have been captured-in-stands-of varying agerunderstory density; and compositionrbut most have been taken from moist forest with at least some widely spaced, mature trees and an abundance of standing and down snags. In West Virginia, this squirrel’s known range extends southwestward, following the Allegheny Mountains, from near Douglas and the northwestern edge of Dolly Sods Wilderness in Tucker County south to Briery Knob, Pocahontas County and Rabbit Run, Greenbrier County. Douglas is approximately three miles southeast of the proposed project area. It is not known to occur in West Virginia below 2,860 feet in elevation. The Service recommends that surveys for potential Virginia northern flying squirrel habitat be conducted in the proposed project area. If suitable habitat exists, the area should be surveyed for the presence of this species. Please report your survey findings to our office. The Cheat Mountain salamander, known to occur only in West Virginia, has the northern limit of its range in Tucker County. This salamander typically uses red spruce and northern hardwood forest above 3,500 feet in elevation, however in the Canaan Valley area of Tucker County, the elevational use extends down to 2,640 feet. Several populations occur in mixed deciduous forest that have replaced the original red spruce stands; these forests include yellow birch, American beech, sugar maple, striped maple, and Eastern hemlock trees. The Cheat Mountain salamander usually occurs on ridge tops or on cool, moist, north or east facing slopes. The salamander is known to occur on Cabin Mountain in southern Canaan Valley, Tucker County. These salamanders have a home range of only about five square meters (48 square feet). Alteration of - their habitat as minor as cutting hiking trails, access roads, or rights-of-way will expose the forest floor to temperature or moisture changes that can fragment and isolate populations. The Service recommends that a survey for potential Cheat Mountain salamander habitat be conducted in the proposed project area. If suitable habitat exists, the area should be surveyed for the presence of this species. Please report your survey findings to our office. West Virginia is the primary component of a major geographic area of importance to neotropical migrant birds in the Northeast Region. This recognition is based on the relatively high concentrations of high-priority bird species occurring in this area. For example, some of the highest concentrations of Northeast forest species such as cerulean warbler, Acadian flycatcher, worm-eating warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, scarlet tanager, and wood thrush occur in West Virginia. Unfortunately, the worm-eating warbler, the Louisiana waterthrush, and the cerulean warbler are showing significant declining trends in the state. . The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and im~rtatiorrof~~~s~~~t~,exceptwhen specifmliymthidp by the Department of the Interior. The Service believes that certain practices may result in the taking of birds, eggs, or active nests. These include, but are not limited to, timber harvesting, clearing, grubbing, burning, and mowing. Activities such as those noted above, that take birds, eggs, or active nests of migratory birds could occur under a permit pursuant to the MBTA. The Service does not have specific regulations that address the unintentional take of migratory birds. The Service has not issued any migratory bird permits for such practices in West Virginia, and to date, no permits have been requested. The Service is unaware if Backbone Mountain is a pathway for migrating hawks or other ______migratory birds, or whether migrating birds make stopoversthere. How-ever,,the high-eleyation ridgetop is a potentially important migration route for hawks and other birds. The Allegheny Front, approximately 15 air miles to the east, is an important migration corridor and is the site for a 40 year+ bird banding station. In order to determine if the Backbone Mountain area is an important migration route idto determine potential impacts to nocturnal and diurnal migrants, including raptors, the Service recommends that spring and fall migration surveys be conducted along the Backbone Mountain project area. This information should be included in your assessment of potential project impacts to birds. The Service recognizes that lighted towers contribute to mortality of nocturnal migratory birds, particularly in inclement weather. The Service recommends minimizing lighting to the extent possible. If tower height can be lowered so that lighting is not required, the effect on bird mortality should be reduced. When lighting is used, white strobes are preferred over red- pulsating or constant red lighting. 1 Construction of this project and maintenance of open areas and access roads will likely create habitat changes that will result in an increase of prey species for raptors. The Service is concerned that raptors like the red-tailed hawk, the red-shouldered hawk, the broad-winged hawk, the Northern harrier, the American kestrel, the peregrine falcon, the great horned owl, and the Eastern screech-owl may use the project area while hunting, and collide with rotors. Evaluation of the impacts of the project to resident raptors should be included in your assessment , of potential project impacts. Our review of the National Wetlands Inventory 7%-minutetopographic maps indicates that a palustrine forest/palustrine emergent wetland complex occurs on the southern end of the proposed project area (map enclosed). However, definitive determinations of the presence of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the need for permits, if any, are made by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. They may be contacted at: Pittsburgh District, Regulatory Branch, William S. Moorhead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 18222-4188, telephone (412)395-7 152. The Service appreciates your effort to make a thorough evaluation of potential project impacts to endangered species and migratory birds. We look forward to working with you and Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation in an effort to avoid and minimize potential project impacts to these important trust resources. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Linda Smith of my staff at (304) 636-6586. Sincerely, \ Jeffrey K. Towner Field Supervisor Enclosures Qualified Indiana Bat Surveyors* ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Dr. Virgil Brack, Jr. 3D Environmental Service, Inc. 781 Neeb Road, Suite 5 Cincinnati, Ohio 45233 . 513-922-8199 Mr. John Macgregor Berea Ranger District Daniel Boone National Forest 1835 Big Hill Road Berea, Kentucky 40403 606-745-3 100 p. Dr. Karen Campbell Biology Department Albright College Reading, Pennsylvania 196 14 21 5-921-2381 Hal Bryant Eco-Tech, Inc. P.O. Box 8 , Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-0008 502-223-8 13 6 ) Mr. Chris Sanders 121 Queen Ester Drive Sayre, Pennsylvania 18840 7 17-888-2290 Dr. Michael R. Gannon Department of Biology Penn State University ,000-IvysidePark Altoona, Pennsylvania 16601-3760 814-949-5210 Dr. Phillip Clem 2300 MacCorkle Ave., SE Charleston, West Virginia 25304 ~~~ Dr. LYERobbins ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ Southwest Missouri State University Biology Department 901 South National Springfield, MO 65804 417-836-5366 Robert F. Madej R.D. Zande & Associates 1237 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 4321 5 800-340-2743 Fax: 614-486-4387 * This list includes INDIVIDUALS who are qualified to conduct surveys for Indiana bats, this list may not include all individuals qualified to conduct such surveys. Inclusion of names on this list does not convtitute endorsement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any other U.S. Government agency. A scientXc collecting permit will be required from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Non-Game Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program to sample for bats in West Virginia. Note that various techniques are used to sample for and study bats, including mist-netting, Anabat detectors, and radio-telemetry. Some individuals on this list may not be - qualified to conduct all three techniques. . DIVISIONOF NATURALRESOURCES Wildlife Resources Section Operations Center P.O. Box 67 Elkins, West Virginia 26241-3235 Cecil H. Underwood Tekphone (304) 637-0245 John B. Rader Governor Fax (304) 637-0250 Director January 11,2000 Mr. Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. ! P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 Dear Mr. Kerlinger: I am responding to your request for information on rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species and wetlands for the area of your proposed wind turbine project along Backbone Mountain in - . Tucker County, WV. We have no records of any RTE species within your project area. However, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map indicates there are wetlands within your outlined project area. I have enclosed a copy of the NWI map to assist you with your planning process. Concerns with migratory' birds will be handled by our district biologist. This response is based on information currently available and should not be considered a comprehensive survey of the area under review. Enclosed please find an invoice. Thank you for your inquiry and should you have any questions, please feel free to call upon us. Environmental Resources Specialist Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program Wildlife Resources Section enclosure . .- Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds Appendix III. Report of Dr. Phillip Clem, University of Charleston, on Indiana and Virginia big-eared bat research at Backbone Mountain wind power project site, Tucker County, WV. ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ______~ _____~~ 'I C&K, UC- 7/31/00 8 UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON -- p23CK-MZCEHe AGe.~S.E.~Charleston,WV 25304 . Phone (304) 357-4800 . FAX (304) 357-4715 . wwwyhaswv.edu 1 July 2000 Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC P.O.Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 Dear Paul, I Enclosed you will find the results of our mist net survey conducted last week and the expense report for the work we completed. I made a slight change to our netting schedule upon arrival at the site. I decided to do three sites instead of two to ensure that we meet the guidelines established for linear projects by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. As I recall, the total length of the area in question along Backbone Ridge was T- about five miles. The Indiana Bat Recovery Protocol suggests a sampling site every two miles for linear projects. I felt, and still feel, that given the characteristics of the area in I question two sites would have been suficient but I was able to find two sites just south of the wind tower that were about % mile apart. I decided to do both of these in addition to the site at the southern end of the project area, thus giving us three sites. This should be more than sufficient to meet the guidelines established. One of the reasons I thought it best to over-sample was because a project I worked on last summer at a coalmine was determined to be in non-compliance with the ) U.S.F.W. S. protocol because it had too few sample sites. It was an area project and the number of sites on area projects are determined by a different formula. At any rate, I thought it best to err on the side of caution. Since I was able to cover both sites # 1 and # 2 on the same nights, then it was possible to get in three in a single week. As I expected, I took no Indiana Bats. Enclosed you will find the mist net report for the Backbone Mountain Project describing the materials and metho_ds_anhaur_redts for the three sites. I hope this report enables you to complete the Biological Assessment for the area in question. Sincerely, I\ BACKBONE RIDGE PROJECT MIST NET REPORT JUNE 2000 MATERIALSANDMETHODS All netting was done using standard 38 mm mesh nets witb reduced "bag" of varying lengths (Avinet, Inc.), Dryden, NY. The nets were held in place by a fiamework ) of 1 % inch diameter metal antenna poles &owes Inc.). Eyebolts in the end of the top pole section allowed for attachment of the topline above the net, the guy-lines to anchor the poles to the bank of the stream or flight corridor, and to hold the top pulley for the pulley rope system, used to raise and lower the nets. Another eyebolt in the bottom section provided an anchoring point for the bottom pulley. The pole sections were five feet in length, allowing systems of varying heights to be collstfucted according to the situation encountered in the field. Small diameter (3-4 mm) braided nylon climbing rope \ was used in the pulley system to prevent twisting of the rope when under the tension of the pulleys. Guy-lines were of % inch Manilla Hemp rope. Top-lines were of % inch -_ braided nylon. . All bats collected were identified to species and weighed using a model GS-200 digital electmac balance, manufirctwed by Acculab. Readability was to the nearest 0.1 g with a 200 g capacity. Forearm measurements were taken to the nearest 0.1 mm using ) vernier calipers, model 6914 by SPI. In addition, the bats were sexed, assessed as to reproductive status and condition, and a detemimtioa was made as to their age (juvenile versus adult). Any unusual featuFes or characteristics were noted as well as any noticeable parasites. Bats were held only long enough to collect the above data and then released. Tempenrtute in degrees F was recorded at the time of cam of each bat, using a dial thermometer accurate to the nearest 1.0 degree (Taylor Inc.). Three sitesmmedectdfor sarnplingalong thefive-mile project-aradongthe- crest of Backbone Ridge. Each site was sampled (netted) for two nights. Nets were placed in flight Corridors either over streams or though natural open corridors in adjacent forest. Where possible, the flight corridors were completely closed fiom side to side and fkom water surfhce to the forest canopy. Nets were raised at 9:OO PM and sampling continued until 1:OO AM each night. . .: Site # 1 was an upland site located on the crest of Backbone Ridge about % mile south of the wind tower on property owned by Fairfhx Stone. The site was a large I ~ --corridor cut-through the existing forest of Map1e;Yellow Birch, and Hemlockmd connecting two jeep trails. The corridor was approximately 100 m long. The canopy cover was high, ranging from 35 to45 feet, and about 8 mwide. A9 m/3 net set was used across this corridor. The nets extended from forest edge to forest edge and 25 feet into the canopy. Site # 1 was sampled on the evenings of 26 and 27 June. Site # 2 was an upland site located about % mile south of site # 1. It was set in a natural junction of three corridors about 4 to 5 m in width. This site was located in a grove of Hemlock and Yellow Birch and was about % mile away from any ofthe roads that had been cut through the area. The corridors in this area opened up at the point of the junction but disappeared into the surrounding forest as they ran away &om the junction. The canopy cover at this junction was approximately 25 &et high. A 6 m / 3 net set was used across this junction. The nets extended fiom forest edge to forest edge and to the canopy at 25 feet. Site # 2 was sampled on the evenings of 26 and 27 June. . 1 Site # 3 was an upland site located at the edge of a small water impoundmqnt at the southern terminus of the project area. This site is located near the small roadside park on WV 219. This water impoundment is located in thick forest just west of the crest of the ridge and beside a jeep trail leading to open areas to the south east. Canopy at this site is primarily Hemlock and Yellow Birch. Three nets were used at site # 3. The first was a 6 m / 2 net set enclosing the northern end ofthe jeep trail leading to the water impoundment. This net extended hmthe edge of the road on one side to the edge on the \ other and from the ground to the canopy at a height of I5 feet and was 250 m into the fbrest &om the road leading up from the highway. The second was a 2.6 m / 2 net set located directly over the small water hole and 150 m northeast of the Zd system. The water was in a small depression at the edge of the jeep trail. It was approximately 3 m long and about 2 m wide. The net system effectively covered the water fiom both directions that were open to the flight of the bats. The third system was mother 6 m / 2 net system located 45 m past the water hole on the jeep trail. Like the first system, it enclosed the entire comdor fkom side to side and fiom ground level to the canopy at a height of about 15 feet. RESULTS The data in this section is based on the three sites noted above. A total of only fofiats was taken during the mey(1 .O batdnight; 0.4 batdndnight). AI1 bats ~ collected were Mptis lwijkgus (Little Brown Bats). No Indiana Bats (jkfyotis dlis) were taka during the study. i ___~______~ ~~ ~ ~______~ ~~~~ TABLE#L~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Bats collected on Backbone Ridge during the week of 26-29 June of 2000 for Atlantic Renewable Energy. SPECIES !3ITE#1 Sm#2 sm#3 TOTAL My2i.S lucifugus 0 2 2 4 TOTAL 0 2 2 4 Of the 4 Myotis Zucz~gustaken, three were male. The fourth was a lactating female, indicating a nursery colony somewhere in the vicinity. No parasites were noted on any of the bats and all seemed to be healthy. The average weight for the males was 6.2 g and the female weighed 5.7 g. The average forearm length was 35.1 mm for the males and the female had a forearm length of 37.0 mm. The temperature for the week during the netting period ranged fiom a high of 65' to a low of 58'. ..b The area in question, although containing potential summer foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana Bat, yielded no data to suggest that it is actually being utilized as such by that species. Phillip D. Clem, Ph. D. Associate Professor of Biology University of Charleston Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds Appendix IV. Report of Dr. Thomas Pauley, Professor of Biology, Marshall University, on Cheat Mountain salamanders at the Backbone Mountain wind power project site, 1- Tucker County,~~~~~~ WV; completed late July 2000, report to be available- during- the~~ first week of July. To be included in August 2000 C&K, UC - 7/31/00 9 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds Appendix V. Report of Dr. Edwin Michael, Professor Emeritus, Marshall University, on northern flying squirrels at the Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, WV wind power project site; completed early AugustZOOO. ~ ~~~~~~ To be included in August 2000. t C&K, LLC - 7/31/00 10 Backbone Mountain Risk Assessment - Endangered Species and Birds Appendix VI. Phase I Avian Risk Assessment report (Paul Kerlinger, author) for Backbone Mountain wind power project site, Tucker County, WV. - ______~~ ~~~ ~- ~ ~~~ - C&K, UC- 7/31/00 11 . .. - Exhibit No. 9 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 2 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the Backbone Mountain Wind Proiect Proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia Executive Summary Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, of Washington, D. C. and Richmond, Virginia, proposes to construct a wind power development with a capacity of 75 to 100 megawatts on Backbone Mountain, in Tucker County, West Virginia. The proposed project will include approximately 50 - 80 wind turbine generators, each with 3-bladed rotors 170 to 23 1 feet in diameter, mounted on tubular steel towers 210 - 226 feet in height. The site of the proposed project includes approximately 7 generally contiguous miles of Backbone Mountain, at elevations between 3300 and 3600 feet (1,015-1,108 meters) above sea level (ASL) in St. George and Fairfax Districts. The project site is privately owned, and is also the site of extensive logging and mining operations. This report constitutes a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development at the proposed Backbone Mountain site. It includes a literature review, interviews with local and regional experts (agency staff, environmental organizations, and local birders), and site visits by an avian expert on November 18- 19, 1999. Together, these sources of information provide an 1 indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use the project site and the area surrounding it. This information is then used to determine the degree of risk to birds, if any, from wind power development at the site. In addition, the concerns of regulators and environmental organizations are determined and incorporated into the risk assessment. The Backbone Mountain project site consists of high elevation ridge covered with a habitat mosaic of second-growth deciduous forest, hemlock and rhododendron patches, clear-cut I forest, selectively cut forest, recently clear-cut forest, a stone quarry, and concrete plant. Plans for the entire site include logging and, or mining. The site is transected in two places by US Route 219 and contains several industrial roads (mining and logging). There are also telecommunications towers and a water tower on site, as well as a 69-kilovolt Allegheny Power transmission line. About one-half of the site is occupied by recent or active logging or quarrying operations. There are no large wetlands on site, although small, seasonally wet pockets may occur in the forest in places. A review of the available literature, a site visit in November 1999, and interviews with agency and environmental organization staff and bird experts in the area indicates that the proposed project poses minimal risk to birds. Habitat on the site is mostly unsuitable for nesting of endangered and threatened species, West Virginia rare species, or Audubon WatchList species. Instead, the habitat is primarily suitable for common forest and edge species, although there is the remote possibility that one or two of the species listed as rase by West Virginia or as Audubon WatchList species may nest on site. These species, though they are rare or designated as WatchList in West Virginia, are common elsewhere in the eastern United States. C&K, LLC - 7/00 #AvianRisk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 3 i No evidence of endangered or threatened species at the site emerged from the literature review or during interviews with experts. A letter from West Virginia Division of Natural Resources WirdiEResources Section statedTmhTd "no recordKfmhreatenedT- endangered species" from the project area. The letter stated that wetlands were present on the project site and that "concerns with migratory birds" would be handled by a district biologist. A letter from U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) reported no known endangered or threatened species, although they reported several small, isolated wetlands in the project site area. The Service voiced concern about the impacts of the project on nesting Neotropical songbirds, and on several species that are declining and known to nest in West Virginia. They also expressed concern for migrating hawks and songbirds, suggesting field studies. Migration at the project site is not known to be significant, although small numbers of night-migrating songbirds may use the ridge after dawn, and small numbers of raptors may use the ridge during daytime. There was no evidence of significant concentrations of wintering birds on or near the project site. Between mid-November and mid-March, habitat on the site is unsuitable for most species of birds and the diversity, and abundance of birds using the site is expected to be very low during this four to five-month period. Based on what is known about risks to birds at wind power plants in North America and Europe, and what was learned from the literature search, site visit, and interviews, there is nothing that suggests the project proposed for the site will result in significant adverse impact to birds. From this Phase I Avian Risk Assessment there is no indication that fbrther study is I needed. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 4 A wind power project consisting of approximately 50 - 80 turbines (tower heights of 210 to 226 feet [70 m], rotors 170 to 23 1 feet [52 - 70.5 m) in diameter]) that will provide 75 to 100 megawatts of power has been proposed for Backbone Mountain, St. George and Fairfa Districts, Tucker County, West Virginia. Ownership of the property is private and it is currently for used for mining of gravel and sand, concrete manufacturing, and timber harvesting. The Federal Aviation Administration recommends lighting of such towers, although the specific lighting to be used has not been determined. The project will supply energy for a minimum of 12,000 homes. Because birds have been impacted at a few sites in the United States and Europe, concern for their well-being has been raised as an issue at many proposed wind power facilities. The impacts on birds include fatalities resulting from collisions with operating turbines and habitat I modification as a result of construction on a particular site. Although the range of impacts is great, at virtually all modem wind power facilities few or no significant adverse impact!; have been reported. An example of a significant adverse impact of wind power on birds is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California (AWRA), where raptors are known to collide with revolving turbine blades (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996, Curry and Kerlinger 1997). The Altamont seems to be an anomaly because no other site has been found to impact large numbers of raptors or other birds. At the other end of the spectrum from the Altamont are wind power sites in Searsburg, Vermont (Kerlinger in press); Ponnequin, Colorado (Kerlinger and Curry unpublished data); Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota (Strickland in press); San . Gorgonio and Tehachapi Mountains, California (Anderson in press); and several other locations where few birds were found to be impacted. Reports from Europe have been similar, with at least one exception (Winkelman 1994). From what we now know, avian fatalities at wind power facilities are related to specific site location, turbine type, and, or species attributes according to 1 Anderson (1998) of the California Energy Commission. Most importantly, wind power facilities have not been shown to impact avian populations. This report is a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment perf'ormed for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation. The purpose of a Phase I Assessment is to determine the potential risks to birds at a proposed wind power site. Thus, the Phase I Assessment is designed to guide developers, regulators, environmentalists, and other stakeholders through the process of ~terrniningt~~-&egree-of~ata particular sichow impacts or potentid impacts, if any, are perceived, and whether fbrther study is indicated. The initial assessment includes: (i) a site visit, (i) a literature search, and (iii) interviews with avian experts, environmentalists, and regulators. The site visit is made by a trained avian ecologist (Dr. Paul Kerlinger) with extensive experience in wind power development. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile. During the visit, habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is I observed. The site visit is not meant to be a quantitative survey or inventory of birds on the site C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 5 and surrounding area. Instead, the purpose of the site visit is to gain an understanding of the - habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds evaluated. The literature search includes examination of pertinent materials including Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, hawk migration literature/ newsletters, the West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas, USGS Breeding Bird Surveys, Important Bird Areas programs, heritage databases, and other sources of information on birds that might nest, migrate through, forage on, winter on, or concentrate at or near the site. Interviews consist of a series of questions (Appendix I) asked of regulators (US Fish and Wildlife Service and state non-game/game biologists), avian experts (university professors, amateur and professional ornithologists who observe hawk migration, nesting songbirds, waterfowl, etc.), and environmentalists (local Audubon chapters, state Audubon, bird clubs, Hawk Migration Association of North America, Partners in Flight, American Bird Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, etc.). Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a report like the one that follows, summarizing what is present at a site, the potential for risk to birds from wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison of risk at the site with other sites where risk has been determined empirically, and suggestions for krther studies, if indicated. i In addition to the avian risk assessment, this report includes information on sen.;itive habitats, wetlands, and endangered and threatened species other than birds. This information is included in Appendix I1 in the form of letters from West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TopographicLPhysiographic and Habitat Description - Overview Information regarding topography, physiography, and habitat of the sites and general area was gathered using a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map, and ground truthing via site visits (described below). In addition, several texts were examined to determine the type of habitat known to be present in the vicinity of the proposed wind plant and, therefore, the bird communities and species that are likely to be present (l3uckelew and Hall 1994). The Tucker County area is part of the Allegheny Mountain Plateau. Situated at the western edge of the long, distinct ridge system of eastern West Virginia and Virginia, most of the county is high-elevation terrain characterized by steep and rolling hills, ridges, mountains, and higher elevations than much of the state. The Allegheny Mountain Plateau is somewhat different from the Appalachian Mountain ridge and valley, and the Blue Ridge provinces to the east, in ~~h~ountains~~~ess~~ep~o~thePlatemadthgbasgelgv~ionsae~e~~hi~her- on the Plateau. The highest elevations exceed 3,000-4,000 feet (925-1230 m), with many other areas exceeding 2,500 feet (770 m). The area is rich in coal and has been mined extensively over the past century in Tucker County. The historically dominant habitat of Tucker County was hardwood forest, with some conifer. Hemlock is found at higher elevations, and red spruce at the highest elevations, especially elevations greater than 3,500 feet ASL. Because of its range in elevation and C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 6 northerly location in West Virginia, the Tucker County forests consist of many northern and southern forest elements. The forests are a diverse mixture of oak (mostly red), red and sugar ~ maple, black cherry, yellow and black birch, hickory, striped maple, hemlock, spruce, and i several other species. The type of forest (including southern and northern affinities) found in a given~lo~ation~depend~on~elevation~aspe~and~soil~conditi~ns~Forest~~pr~ct~~d~t~~ diseases (chestnut blight) have dramatically changed the species composition in all forests of the county in the past two centuries. Forests were historically cleared for farming and timber. The steepest hillsides were used primarily for harvesting of forest products rather than agriculture. Later, farmlands and forests were cleared for strip mining in some places. The higher elevations remain forested, as do some of the valleys. The latter are a combination of small agriculture and overgrown fields. Strip mining for coal has occurred to a varying degree throughout Tucker County. Many strip mines have been reclaimed and now support early succession grasses, shrubs and trees, or pine plantations in some cases. Overall, Tucker County is mostly forested with some agriculture and a smaller amount of residential neighborhoods and coal strip mines (active and reclaimed). Site Visit to Backbone Mountain Project Site, Tucker County - Topography and Habitat Description On November 18 and 19, 1999, March 30 and 3 1,2000, and May 9,2000, the Backbone Mountain project site was visited. In addition to walking and driving around the project site, the area for many miles surrounding the site was toured on foot and by automobile. During these visits, an effort was made to observe the bird life and habitat on and adjacent to the site, and to determine what birds or ornithological phenomena might be present. The weather was clear and cold or cool on both site visit days. There was some snow on the ground in the forested areas. Visibility was excellent and the wind was not strong. The following descriptions are of the narrow area along the top of the mountain, as shown in Figure 1. To the northwest of the mountain the hillside is very steep. The slopes are mostly forested for hundreds of yards from the summit. In places the forests extend to the valley ’ below, although near the northern and southernmost parts of the site, either the forests have been logged recently or the forests do not extend far from the top of the mountain. On the southeast side of the mountain, land use includes active quarries near both the northern and central portions of the project area, a large reclaimed strip mine (now a pine plantation), ongoing logging operations, old fields, and second growth forest. The slope on much of this side of the mountain is less steep than the northwest side of the mountain. There are also some &ZFi%iiWjeep trails going up this side of the mountain. To provide a description of the habitat found on the Backbone Mountain project site, the site was divided into several sections based on land use practices and homogeneity of habitat. From northeast to southwest, there appear to be five areas in which the habitat and land use is ) C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 7 - fairly homogeneous. The areas are delineated in Figure 1 and are as follows (photographs of the f representative habitats are given in Figure 2). ~~ 1. Northeast Forest 2. Quarry and Industrial Area 3. Mid-Site Forest 4. South-central Forest 5. Southwest Forest Northeast Forest. This section extends from the north side of U.S. Route 219 (adjacent to the concrete factory) northeast to the northern end of the property (1.5 mi., 2.4 km.) at the border of Tucker County. A heavily used, gravel, logging road extends from a yellow gate along the top of the ridge, with several lesser roads going off in various directions. The forest had been logged in autumn, 1999, as was evident from the newly cut trees, large slash piles, and piles of logs I awaiting transport. Walking and inspecting this section of the project is easy because of the road and the fact that large-scale cutting promotes viewing. The forest that remains is an open canopy of maple, beech, striped maple, black birch, and a few scattered hemlocks. There were also catbrier tangles and low-bush blueberry present. Many of the oaks were harvested, as were the larger individuals of other species. There are small rocky outcroppings here and there. Forests to the southeast have also been extensively logged, and on the northwest side of the mountain the forest has been logged to within 100-200 feet of the road. From US Route 219 - 1 Seneca Trail, the cleared area is easily visible as are piles of slash and stumps. Overall, this forest is highly dissected and disturbed. The canopy is open throughout this section of the project site. Quam and Industrial Area. From US Route 219 at the concrete plant and quarry southwest to the forest edge (1 .O mile., 1.6 km.), just beyond the meteorological tower, this area is the center of industrial activity on the project site. Several wide, gravel roads suitable for heavy construction equipment dissect this area. A large area has been quarried, with a 20 to 40-foot (6 I to 13-m) high-wall remaining. Also present are a concrete plant, a rock crushing area, several small buildings, and sedimentation settling ponds. In a couple of locations, small plots (< 1 acre) of forest remain that are similar in composition to the forests in the surrounding areas. At the southern end of the quarried area is a meteorological tower. Under and around the tower and its guy wires the ground is covered with grasses, gravel, and disturbed earth. There are some smal1 saplings here and there. To the southwest of the meteorological tower and large, open quarry, there is a recent clear cut of~~~a~~only-a-han~~l-~~tre with piles of dash and stumps. Beyond this clear-cut is a second-growth forest with relatively large trees. Overall, this portion of the project site is highly disturbed and the habitat within the stone quarry and industrial area is not suitable for birds or other wildlife. A few birds may frequent the open gravel and small grass or forest patches, but very few are likely to nest in this area or use it i C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 8 for foraging. Surrounding this area is forest, although to the northeast there is more quarry and - J to the southeast the lands are either disturbed or are forest patches. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ TliXion of the project site overlooks the hamlet of Pierce on the southeast side of the mountain. Mid-Site Forest. Extending from the above site southwestward for about 2 1/2 miles (4 km.) is a virtually unbroken second-growth forest. There are signs of recent logging, and older, larger stumps are visible throughout. The site is predominantly mixed hardwood forest, with patches of hemlock and rhododendron scattered throughout. The hardwood trees are a diverse mix of red maple, beech, black cherry, yellow birch, black birch, striped maple, and some red oak, mostly on the hillsides. Scattered here and there are red spruce seedlings, with few mature trees of this species. The canopy of this forest varies but is mostly 25-50 feet (7-16 m) in height and varies in density. In some areas, the forest is open; in others, mostly in the hemlock and rhododendron, it is thick. Ground cover includes varying amounts of mosses, ground pines, and ferns. From the clear-cut area to the southwest for nearly one-half mile (0.8 km), there is an , active logging road. Beyond this road, there are patches of hemlock and rhododendro*i. This type of habitat extends to the southwest along the mountain top almost to US 219 (toward Parsons). It is deciduous forest with patches of hemlock and rhododendron. Nearer the southwest end of this section of the site, at and around a pinnacle (3,640 feet, 1,120 m), there is a patch of hemlock with some rhododendron mixed in. The rhododendrons I are also found in some low areas where they are in some places nearly impenetrable. These same areas may be moist in spring and early summer, with some pockets of standing water possible. There are small red spruce saplings coming at and around this southern pinnacle and at other locations on the mountain. The saplings are distributed here and there, with an occasional tree greater than 30 feet (10 m) in height. No dense stands of red spruce were found. Large, old stumps are evident through much of this portion of the site. This forest is relatively undisturbed, although it is second growth. The hardwood forest I is not terribly dissected, and is typical of much of the overall area in the state. The hemlock and rhododendron stands are somewhat special. These patches are probably the only habitats on the project site that could be construed as sensitive (see nesting birds section for details). Throughout this section there are old logging roads or signs of such roads, with most being overgrown and unused. -T hissmallareaextend~~~m~~~~~~ort~e~t~~~~o~ne=h~- mile (0.8 km). It has been logged in recent years and there are now dense stands of young deciduous trees about 6-15 feet (2-5 m) in height. There are also many stumps and some evidence of fairly recent logging (downed trees and piles of slash) from several years ago. At the northeast end of this section, the forest character changes with hemlock beginning, along with rhododendron patches (see above). The southwest end of this portion of the project site is US Route 219, which cuts over the mountain. Along this side of US Route 219 is a narrow band of i mature hardwoods. A small logging road goes into the site from a parking area where Sugarland C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 9 . Road intersects with US Route 219. The road, and several overgrown logging roads, are evident and form an network of trails on site. The young trees are mostly maple, black birch, beech and black cherry. Below this area on the southeast side of the ridge is the Stanley Industries Gravel ~ Pit on US Route 219, which extends up the mountain into the forest. Farther to the east on US Route 2 19 is a large, reclaimed strip mine that is now covered with several species of planted pine trees. These pines do not extend far up the mountain. A large wetland is located just north of US Route 219 that would be buffered during construction. Southwest Forest - From US Route 219 southwest along Backbone Mountain for about 1.5 mi (2.4 km.) to the southwestern end of the property there are several distinctive man-made features. This site is forested although there are small clear cuts in several places. A drivable road extends from a large parking and rest area on US Route 219 to the top of the hill (- 3,660 feet ASL). At the very top of this section of mountain is a small, dense hemlock forest adjacent to water tower, a telecommunications tower, and an abandoned and dilapidated building. There is evidence of dumping. There is a transmission line to the southwest of the property that extends over the I mountain and down to US Route 219 on the east side of the mountain. In addition to kemlock, there are some larger trees near US Route 219 (something of a beauty strip), patches of dense young trees, and some second growth forest. Trees on site were isolated hemlock and some hemlock in small, dense stands, along with a mix of yellow birch, maple, black cherry, striped maple, black birch, and a few red oak and white ash. Saplings are emerging in the cutover areas and there are still signs of recent logging including downed trees that have not yet commenced decomposing. The ground cover includes ground pines (Lycopodium, dense in places), ferns, and grasses. The habitat surrounding this site includes forest along the ridge to the southwest, Route 219 along the northwest side (rest area) and some forest, US Route 219 to the northeast as it crosses the mountain; young forest across US Route 219 to the northeast, and forest to the southeast. The southern terminus of this section of the project site is near the beginning of a creek called Big Run which apparently flows into Big Run Bog. This bog is sensitive habitat, I but it is well off-site. At least two companies now have the rights to either mine (gravel and sandstone) or log most of the area within the project site. West Virginia has an extensive list of endangered and threatened species, as well as species of concedrare species (Table 1). The latter includes species that are extirpated. The rare species list is a curious mix of species that are rare either because they have either more northerly or southerly af€inities and the state is at or near the terminus of the species' geographic distribution or because they have experienced declines in population as a result of human or 1 other sources. The National Audubon WatchList for West Virginia is a list developed by the C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 10 Partners in Flight program of species that are not yet rare but that may be experiencing declines in some places. It was developed to provide a focus for these species and management plans -before they-become rare or-endangered, These lists-will-be referred to-frequently-because-the- species listed therein are of particular importance to both environmental organizations and wildlife agencies. The analyses that follow will, in part, determine which, if any, of the species listed in Table 1 are known to occur on or near the project site, their abundance in the area, their frequency and season of occurrence, and what these species are doing in the area. In addition, reference will also be made to common species that have been or may be at risk of colliding with wind turbines or occupy habitats that are similar to those on the project site. Table 1. West Virginia endangered, threatened, and rare Breeding Birds (from West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program). The Audubon WatchList for West Virginia is also included. Federally Endangered Species None Federally Threatened Species i Bald Eagle Rare List for West Virginia Pied-billed Grebe (NS) American Bittern (NS) Least Bittern (NS) i Great Blue Heron (NS) American Black Duck (NS) Blue-winged Teal (NS) Hooded Merganser (NS) Black Vulture (NS) Northern Goshawk (S? - could nest and migrate along ridge) Northern Harrier (NS - could migrate along ridge, no foraging habitat) Asprefl-uHmigrak-d- %&&W Bald Eagle (NS - could migrate along ridge, no foraging habitat) Golden Eagle (NS - could migrate along ridge, no foraging habitat) Peregrine Falcon (NS) King Rail (NS) Virginia Rail (NS) Sora (NS) American Coot (NS) C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 11 Common Moorhen (NS) - Upland Sandpiper (NS) Common Snipe (NS) ~ ~~~ Long-eared Owl (NS) Northern Saw-whet Owl (MS?) Barn Owl (NS) Chuck-will's-widow (NS) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (NSMS?) Red-headed Woodpecker (NS) Bank Swallow (NS) Cliff Swallow (NS) Fish Crow (NS) Marsh Wren (NS) Sedge Wren (NS) Appalachian Bewick's Wren (NS) Loggerhead Shrike (migrant - NS) Brown Creeper (MS?) 'I Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (NS) Alder Flycatcher (NS) Olive-sided Flycatcher (NS) Nashville Warbler (NS) Yellow-rumped Warbler (NS) Northern Waterthrush (NS) Prothonotary Warbler (NS) Golden-winged Warbler (NS) Swainson's Warbler (NS) Henslow's Sparrow (NS) Bachman's Sparrow (NS) Lark Sparrow (NS) Dickcissel (NS) Bobolink (NS) Blue Grosbeak (NS) Red Crossbill (NS) Pine Siskin (NS) C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 12 -, Table 1. continued. ~ -Audubon-WatchL-ist-Species (November 1999)~-- ~ ~ - - ~P Whip-poor-will (NS) Eastern Wood-Pewee (MS) Bewick's Wren (NS) Wood Thrush (NS-MS) Prairie Warbler (NS) Cerulean Warbler (NS) Golden-winged Warbler (NS) Black-throated Blue Warbler (S - rhododendronhemlock patches) Worm-eating Warbler (NS) Yellow-throated Vireo (NS) Louisiana Waterthrush (NS) Henslow's Sparrow (NS) i *S = suitable nesting habitat on site; *MS = habitat marginally suitable to species, not for nesting - suitability as indicated; *NS = not suitable nesting or other habitat; ? = Questionablehncertain as suitable habitat or may be unsuitable Nesting/Breeding Birds Several data sets and information sources were used to examine the presence of listed (endangered, threatened, rare, and WatchListed) species and other species that nest in Tucker County and, more specifically, on the project site: West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA), USGS Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), West Virginia Non-game Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program (WV Division of Natural Resources), U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the site visits. Detection of any listed species in these information sources would signal that they might be .J found on the proposed wind power site. A letter (Appendix II) from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Section stated that there were "no records of any RTE (rare, threatened or endangered) species within your project area" and went on to state that the "National Wetlands Inventory map indicates there are wetlands within the outlined project area." A similar letter from the U. S. Fish - -and Wildlife Service office in Elkins reports no endangered or threatened birds known to be present in the project area, but that a small area of federally protected wetlands occurs within the project area. The letter from Fish and Wildlife also expressed concern for several species of Neotropical songbirds that may nest in the area, because they are species known to be declining in the eastern United States. In addition, the letter expressed interest in migrating songbirds and hawks at the project site. \ The BBA project for WV surveyed about 5 16 ''blocks" of the approximately 2,700 I "blocks" within the state, slightly less than 20% of all blocks. Each block includes about 9.4 C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 13 - square miles (24 square kilometers). Such coverage provides a high level of confidence as to I what species nest in the county and at the project site. The Atlas was conducted between 1984 and-1989;a-six-year period;-The-actual-project-site-was not included-in-an-atlas-blockalthough a block was immediately adjacent to it. Information from the atlas was examined to determine if any endangered or threatened birds, or any West Virginia rare or WatchList species, were present on or near the project site. The BBA revealed that a vast majority all the species that nest in Tucker County and nearby are common birds of forest, edge, brush, and grasslandfm field habitats. No endangered or threatened species were present in Tucker or surrounding counties. However, a number of the rare and WatchListed species were present either within the nearest atlas block or within Tucker County. Table 2 provides a list of these species, and their status within the atlas block and Tucker County. No endangered or threatened species were noted. Six USGS Breeding Bird Surveys were examined (Table 2) that are now conducted almost yearly in Tucker and surrounding counties. Ten years of these surveys, from 1989 through 1998, were examined for the presence of listed species and species of special concern. Not all of these BBS were conducted in all ten years, as indicated in Table 3. The USGS BBS for the period 1989-1998 revealed a similar species diversity and composition as the BBA. As with the Breeding Bird Atlas, most of the species that nest in the project area are common forest and edge species. Although no endangered or threatened species were found, several West Virginia rare or Watchlist species were present (Table 4). Of the rare and WatchList species found on the atlas and breeding bird surveys (Table 2 and 4), only a very few may nest on the project site or immediately adjacent to it. Table 1 provides an overview of the suitability of the habitat on Backbone Mountain to listed species. Of the rare species only Northern Saw-whet Owl, Brown Creeper, and, perhaps Yellow-rumped Warbler may be present. Of the Audubon WatchList species, Black-throated Blue, Wood Thrush, and Eastern Wood-Pewee may nest on the project site: The habitat for these species is, for most, only marginally suitable. If other species on the list are present in the habitats available I within the Backbone Mountain project area, they are not using habitat typical for the species. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 14 ~ Table 2. Nesting status of species listed as Rare by West Virginia Natural Heritage Program and Audubon WatchList species found during the West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas project. ~resence-was-investigated-for-the-BBA-blo~~n~arest-th~Ba~kbone-Mountain-proje~t-siteand-for the whole of Tucker County as specified in the table. Block Nearest Project Tucker County WV Rare Species Great Blue Heron No Observed American Black Duck No Confirmed Common Snipe No Probable Barn Owl No Possible Northern Saw-whet Owl No Confirmed Alder Flycatcher No Confirmed Bank Swallow Observed Observed Brown Creeper No Confirmed Golden-winged Warbler No Confirmed Nashville Warbler Possible Confirmed Yellow-rumped Warbler No Possible Northern Waterthrush Observed Confirmed Bobolink Probable Confirmed Audubon Watchlist Eastern Wood-Pewee Possible Confirmed Whip-poor-will Possible Probable Wood Thrush Possible Codinned Yellow-throated Vireo No Possible Golden-winged Warbler No Confirmed Prothonotary Warbler No Probable Black-throated Blue Warbler Probable Probable Cerulean Warbler No Probable Worm-eating Warbler No Possible 1 Louisiana Waterthrush No Confirmed Table 3. USGS Breeding Bird Surveys adjacent to or near the Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia project site. N = number of years within time period that survey was conducted. Nameand Number Counties Years Species Range- Bowden, WV (#902) Randolph, Tucker 93-98 (N=6) 51-59 Dailey, WV (#032) Randolph, Tucker 89-98 (N=lO) 62-74 Meadowville, WV (#046) Barbour, Randolph, Tucker 89-98 (N=10) 51-69 Mo of Seneca, WV (#033) Pendleton, Grant 89-98 (N=7) 52-77 Bismark, WV (#147) Bismark, Grant, Mineral 89-98 (N=lO) 41-60 I Stever. MD (#052) Steyer. Garrett. MD 96-98 @+3) 64-77 C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 15 - Table 4. Presence of species listed as rare by West Virginia Natural Heritage Program or Watchlisted by Audubon on USGS BBS counts listed in Table 3. Numbers given are the - ~ ~______~--___ - ~- -numberefound-on-the spec-ific-BBS-for that-year; Rare Species Number Found on Breeding Bird Surveys Great Blue Heron 1 - 1995 - Mo of Seneca, 1 - 1996 - Bismark Black Vulture 1 - 1991, 1 - 1993 - Mo of Seneca Red-headed Woodpecker 1 - 1994 - Mo of Seneca, 1 - 1996, 1997, 1998 Steyer, MD Cliff Swallow 1 - 1989 - Mo of Seneca, 1 - 1992 - Dailey, 2 - 1996 and 6 - 1997 - Steyer, MD Alder Flycatcher 1 - 1997, 2 1998, Steyer, MD Brown Creeper 2 - 1995 - Bowden, 1 - 1998 - Steyer, MD Prothonotary Warbler 1 - 1997 -Bismark Golden-winged Warbler 1 - 1993 - Mo of Seneca, 1 - 1989, 1 - 1992 - Meadowville, 3 max 10 of 10 years - Dailey, 1 max - 5 of 10 years - Bismark, 1 - 1998 - Steyer, MD Blue Grosbeak 3 - 1993 - Meadowville Bobolink 1 - 1991,2 - 1993, 1- 1995 - Mo of Seneca, 1 1991 - Meadoville, max of 5 in 8 of 10 years - Bismark, 2 - 1996, 12 - 1997,6 - 1998 - Steyer, MD WatchListed Species Number Found on Breeding Bird Surveys Eastern Wood Pewee max 18 in 7 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 5 in 3 of 3 years - Steyer, max 9 in 10 of 10 years - Meadowville, max 9 in 9 of 10 years - Bismark, rnax 6 in 10 of 10 years - Dailey, max 8 in 5 of 6 years - Bowden Wood Thrush max 29 in 7 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 14 in 3 of 3 years - Steyer, max 23 in 10 of 10 years - Meadowville, max 10 in 10 of 10 years - Bismark, max 15 in 10 or 10 years - Dailey, rnax 18 in 6 of 6 years - Bowden Yellow-throated Vireo max 9 in 7 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 1 in 4 of 10 years - Meadowville, max 4 in 1 of 10 years - Bismark, max 2 in 2 of 10 years - Dailey, max 2 in 3 of 6 years - Bowden Prairie Warbler max 2 in 5 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, rnax 1 in 3 of 10 years \ Meadowville, max 1 in 1 of 10 years - Bismark, max 2 in 7 of 10 years - Dailey, Cerulean Warbler max 5 in 4 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 2 in 2 of 10 years - Meadowville, max 4 in 9 of 10 years - Bismark, max 2 in 3 of 10 years - Dailey, max 2 in 2 of 6 years - Bowden Golden-winged Warbler max 1 in 1 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 1 in 1 of 3 years - Steyer, max 1 in 2 of 10 years - Meadowville, rnax 1 in 5 of 10 years - Bismark, max 3 in 10 of 10 years - Dailey Black-throated Blue Warbler max 2 in 1 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 3 in 2 of 10 years Meadowdle, max 50 in 10 of 10 years - Uailey, 8 in 6 of 6 years - Bowden Worm-eating Warbler rnax 2 in 2 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 2 in 4 of 10 years Meadowville, max 1 in 3 of 10 years - Bismark, Louisiana Waterthrush max 5 in 3 of 7 years - Mo of Seneca, max 7 in 9 of 10 years - Meadowville, max 2 in 1 of 10 years - Bismark, max 2 in 3 of 10 years - Dailey, max 7 in 6 of 6 years - Bowden C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 16 ~ - ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~-- Site Visits. During the site visits of November-18 and 19, 1999, March 30 and 3 1, and May 9 2000, the habitat was assessed for its suitability primarily for nesting birds. In addition, all birds observed during the visit were listed. Overall, the site is likely to be frequented primarily by forest nesting birds and some migrants. The nesters are likely to be those species that occupy second-growth deciduous forest or small hemlock stands. The larger expanses of forest will provide habitat for forest interior species, while the edge and disturbed areas will provide habitat for more common species. The disturbed areas will support and attract fewer species, and the birds in these areas will change from year to year depending on land-use practices. In addition to nesting songbirds, it is likely that some migrating songbirds will use the habitat or pass over it. It is unlikely that other species such as shorebirds, waterfowl, long-legged waders, or others frequent the site, as habitat is not suitable for species that need open water, wetlands, brushland, or grasslands. A site-by-site description of the habitat suitability to nesting and other birds foPows. Northwest Forest. The intensive timber harvest on this site has rendered the site degraded with respect to forest nesting bird potential. It will be most suitable for birds of forest edge and brush for the next few years, especially for those that prefer open canopy situations. These will likely include the most common species of songbirds. During migration, some species of songbirds will use this habitat. Species seen during the site visit were few, including Downy Woodpecker (I), Northern Raven (2), Tufted Titmouse (1) and Black-capped Chickadee (2) Quarry and Industrial Area. This habitat is disturbed to the point that it is not currently suitable for any but the most tolerant of songbirds for nesting or foraging. Red-tailed Hawk was seen soaring in the distance as were five Black Vultures and more than one Turkey Vulture. Mid-Site Forest. The second growth forests of this portion of the site are suitable to a variety of songbirds that nest in the area. In addition, hawks and songbirds migrating along the ridge system will fly over the site in some numbers (see below in hawk migration section). The large size and contiguity of this site makes it suitable as nesting habitat for common and less common forest nesting species of songbirds and forest nesting raptors may breed within this portion of the project site or adjacent to it. This forest might support Brown Creeper and Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, rare species in West Virginia. Normally, this species nests far to the north of West Virginia. Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush, Audubon WatchList species, may nest in the hadwood&ads&~~~&bm~~. eseafet.ePqFeo-pb throughout much of their ranges, but have experienced declines in some places. The presence of hemlock stands with associated rhododendron suggests the presence of species that frequent this habitat type. This would include Black-throated Blue Warbler, a species that is common throughout West Virginia and the northeast, but one that has experienced declines in some places resulting in its placement on the Audubon WatchList. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 17 South-central Forest. The early successional nature of this section of Backbone Mountain . makes it suitable for species that nest in young forests. These are mostly common species of young forest, brush, and forest edge. Interior nesting species are probably not present. -~ ~~ ~ Migrating hawks and songbirds will probably fly over this section, although a few individuals may use these habitats for foraging or resting. Common Raven, Downy Woodpecker, and Black-capped Chickadees were present during the site visit. In the distance Turkey Vultures were observed soaring. Southwest Forest. The fragmented nature of this site, from logging, logging roads, clearing for towers and water tank, and nearby US Route 219 (as well as the possible construction of the new highway nearby), make it less than optimal as nesting habitat for forest nesting songbirds and hawks. Whereas some species of songbirds are likely to nest within this portion of the project site, it is unlikely that raptors or rare species nest there. Most songbird species that nest are likely to be common species. Northern Raven and Black-capped Chickadees were the only species observed. What these information sources demonstrate is that there are no endangered or threatened species that are known to nest on or near the Backbone Mountain project site. The presence of some rare and WatchList species in the area suggests their possible presence on site. I ew, if any, of those species listed as rare are likely to be found on the project site and they are likely to be found only in the Mid-Forest portion of the project site. There is a remote chance that Brown Creeper nests on the top of Backbone Mountain. One WatchListed species is likely to be present in the Mid-Forest area. It is almost certain that Black-throated Blue Warbler nests in or near the hemlock patches and Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush possibly nest in the hardwood forests. Migrating Birds Although wind power facilities in North America have not been demonstrated to I sigdicantly impact migrating birds, the Backbone Mountain project site and adjacent areas in Tucker and other counties were screened for migration concentrations. There do not seem to be major or significant migration pathways or stopover areas within or immediately adjacent to the project site. There are stopover habitats for waterfowl, other waterbirds, and probably hawks and songbirds in Tucker County, but the closest to the project site appears to be the Canaan Valley some 10 miles (16 km) away from the project site where there is a National Wildlife Rehge. The topography and habitat over most of the county is not suggestive of locales where lug- ' ~centmtedu~n~~~ca~em~~~CLhFeSL Habitat in the county that is suitable for waterbirds or shorebirds, is limited. The habitat on site, while suitable for many migrating songbirds and some hawks, is relatively common in this part of the state and is widely distributed throughout so those migrants that fly through Tucker County are likely to be dispersed over a wide geographic area with few concentration locations. i C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 18 I Nocturnal Songbird Migration ~ Studies using ceilometer, moon watching, or radar have not been conducted in the Tucker County region (to my knowledge), so it is not known if large numbers of night migrating birds concentrate anywhere in the county. The habitat over most of the county is suitable for migratory stopovers of night-migrating songbirds because forests are plentihl throughout the area. The forests of Backbone Mountain are devoid of riparian and lowland type forests that often attract large numbers of songbird migrants (Dr. Ron Canterbury, Concord College, personal communication)in other parts of West Virginia. The literature is virtually devoid of references to songbird migration in Tucker County, although the Allegheny Front to the east of the Backbone Mountain project site is known to have a morning flight of songbirds along the ridge (Hall and Bell 1981). The Allegheny Front is two ridges to the east of Backbone Mountain, a distance of about 15 miles (25 km). For nocturnally migrating songbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds, the migration over and through Tucker County is probably dispersed with few, if any concentration points. Such widely dispersed nocturnal migration is the norm over much of the eastern United States, away from oceans, lake;, and rivers. There is likely to be some movement of songbirds at dawn along the linear ridge-tops as has been demonstrated in portions of West Virginia (Hall and Bell 1981). At the Allegheny Front Bird Observatory near Dolly Sods, many migrants are captured in nets during the morning after migration. These nets are placed within forests and birds fly into them as they fly from tree to tree at very low altitudes. Waterbirds do not seem to migrate in appreciable numbers along the ridges. Morning flight is a phenomenon in which songbird migrants fly after dawn along steep ridges, ridge-tops and occurs mostly within the first 100 to 300 feet (3 1-92 m) above the ground. The major ridges within Tucker County are broad-topped and this morning flight, if it does occur, is probably spread over a much larger area than over the West Virginia sites. Portions of the top of Backbone Mountain within the project area are narrow and may concentrate some songbirds, although there is no evidence of this at the present time. If concentrations occur on Backbone Mountain, the numbers of birds involved are not likely to be as great as at the Allegheny Front and ridges to the east (Dr. George Hall, personal communication). Thus, it is probable that songbirds making stopovers in the region would be spread thinly over hundreds of square miles, and that large concentrations of songbirds do not occur on Backbone Mountain. Hawk Migration in West Virginia and at the Project Site The migration of hawks through West Virginia has been studied since the late 1940s and early 1950s (DeGarmo 1953, see Heintzelman 1975, 1986) and there has been a significant effort to locate migration pathways of hawks in the state since that time. Heintzelman (1986, 1975) lists more than 30 sites for the state that have been investigated. Thus, the state has been C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 19 ~ explored and is relatively well known with respect to hawk migration concentration sites. It is I likely that the localities where large numbers of hawks concentrate during migration have been -identifiedybecause-of the-significant amount of-effort expended over the years.Yet;no-major- migration pathway for hawks has been identified and none of the sites for watching hawks in West Virginia appear in the directory of hawk watching locations (Zalles and Bildstein, in press). This directory is a compilation of the major migration locations in this country and beyond. In general, the best hawk watching in West Virginia is along the eastern ridges of the state, including the Allegheny Front. The largest numbers are counted at places like Bear Rocks at Dolly Sods, east of Canaan Valley, a distance of about 15 miles (25 km) from the project site . From the long, annotated list presented by Heintzelman (1986), it seems that hawks can be seen migrating in small numbers at almost any high-elevation site in the eastern half of West Virginia. The numbers for an entire migration season rarely exceed two to four thousand hawks per year, with Broad-winged Hawks being the most numerous species (Heintzelman 1986). This species often accounts for more than two-thirds of the raptors seen. The remainder are smaller numbers of the other North American species that migrate throughout the eastern half of North America. These numbers are less than 10-20% of the number counted at the major hawk watching sites in eastern North America such as Hawk Mountain Sanctuary in Pennsylvania or Cape May, New Jersey. In central, northern Tucker County, on the Backbone Mountain ridge, the migration has been reported to be "on a par with Blue Ridge, North Mountain, and Allegheny Front" by DeGarmo (1953, see Heintzelman 1975, 1986), but no data have been presented to substantiate that claim. William Wylie (see interview section) stated that he and others had done hawk counts in autumn near where US Route 2 19 crosses Backbone Mountain at several locations near the project site. He had no data and could provide only rough estimates of numbers, when queried regarding how many raptors migrate over Backbone Mountain. This ridge is an extension of the Allegheny Ridges that traverse west-central Pennsylvania. The easternmost of these ridges in Pennsylvania support the largest numbers of migrants, while the westernmost ridges support few migrants. The same seems to be the case for West Virginia. 1 Perusal of newsletters and journals of the Hawk Migration Association of North America also revealed no significant hawk migration sites in West Virginia, although minor sites are known. It is likely that small numbers of hawks migrate along Backbone Mountain. The most common migrant is likely to be Broad-winged Hawk, followed by Red-tailed and Sharp-shinned -hawk. Smaller numbers of the other species are also likely to pass, including a small number of Golden and Bald eagles. There are several reasons why large numbers of migrants are not observed on the ridges of West Virginia and why virtually no high-quality hawk-watching sites have been identified. The most important is that the most common species, Broad-winged Hawks, simply do not use ridges that much as they move southward. Instead, Broad-winged Hawks and, to a lesser extent, some other species fly at high altitudes and do not need the updrafts found along ridges (Kerlinger 1989). Also the long, linear ridges that are suitable for use by migrants are not C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 20 -- oriented in the appropriate direction for many migrants (Heintzelman 1975, Kerlinger 1989). The ridges are mostly oriented to the southwest or west-southwest. Many migrants from the northeastern United States and Maritime provinces of Canada are found in winter on the c_o_as_tal plain, so the migration that is seen on the ridges of eastern Pennsylvania eventually flies to the east of the ridges of West Virginia. The result is that there are few places where large or significant numbers of hawks can be seen during migration (called migration routes or pathways) in West Virginia. Wintering Birds The winter climate in Tucker County, West Virginia is harsh. At the higher elevations a combination of deep snow, low temperatures, and consistent wind make the area, including the project site, relatively inhospitable for birds. Such harsh weather necessitates high caloric intake for avian survival. Because avian food resources at and adjacent to the project site are scarce in winter, the area is likely to support a very low diversity and small number of birds during this season. The harsh weather commences in mid-November with the first snows and lasts into early to mid-March, although some snow lingers into April. This is the particularly the case for the project site, which is situated at about 3,300-3,600 feet ASL. The primary source of information on birds wintering near the project site in Tucker County were four National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs), including those conducted at Canaan, Pendleton County, and Morgantown in West Virginia, and Oakland in I Maryland. The period from 1994 through 1998 was examined for all CBCs except for the Canaan count, which included 1993 (no data was available for 1997). For each of these counts, five years of data was analyzed. Each of these Christmas Counts included the area within a 7.5-mile-radius circle (176.7 square miles, 452 square kilometers), so these CBCs covered a very large geographic area. These counts included a portion of Tucker County, counties immediately adjacent to Tucker County, or counties nearby with similar habitat (Table 5). They were selected because they were 1 either adjacent to or near the project site and included some habitat that was similar or virtually identical to the habitat found on the project site. In addition, the selection of a large area makes this analysis robust, in that it includes a greater probability of including rare species or significant aggregations of birds because of the wide geographic area and types of habitats included. CBCs provide an overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winter, &iWo&40-~dC~, ezeffs~i~~ff~~~~e~~~~~~€l~ birds encountered. These birders search during the day, and to a lesser extent at night, in the entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition, they scout for birds during that season, especially during the "count week" period, to prepare for the actual count day. Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs, they are usually proficient or highly skilled observers and some are professional biologists. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes, including population tracking and determining geographic range and C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 21 abundance of species. In the analyses that follow, all birds seen on the counts and during the + count week periods were included. The diversity of-EFmheCBCs examiXwas rather lo< ranging from 39 speciesin Canaan (nearest count to the project site) in 1996 to a high of 68 species in Morgantown in the same year. The Canaan count, which comes very close to the project site, routinely reported the lowest number of species and number of individuals Table 5. Summary of Christmas Count data sets used for wind power site avian risk assessment. Christmas Bird Count Count Center Years Observers" Species (min-max) ~~ ~~~ Canaan, WV - 94 Laurel Run 93-98 11 39-47 Oakland, MD Oakland 94-98 8 55-61 Pendleton County, WV Franklin, PO 94-98 4 48-60 Morgantown, WV Airport 94-98 13 46-68 Several species from the West Virginia rare species list (Table 1) were found on the CBCs examined (Pied-billed Grebe, Great Blue Heron, American Black Duck, Hooded Merganser, Black Vulture, Osprey, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Northern Harrier, Red-headed Woodpecker, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Brown Creeper, Yellow-rumped Warbler, and Pine Siskin). Few, if any, of these species are likely to be on the top of Backbone Mountain during the winter, as the habitat is unsuitable for most at any time of the year. The grebe, heron, ducks, and Bald Eagle depend on open water, which is not available at the top of the mountain during winter. The other species are upland species that will be found mostly at lower elevations along fields, marshes, pastures, and forest edges. Only the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Brown Creeper, and Pine Siskin might frequent the forests on the project site, but they too are more likely to be found at lower elevations during winter. It should be noted that most of the individuals of the species listed in the previous paragraph are either migrants passing through the state or are winter residents, nesting far to the north. Thus, few of these individuals actually qualifl as being rare, threatened, or endangered in West Virginia, because the list refers to nesting populations within the state. On the nearest CBC, only Pied-billed Grebe, American BwNarthernHHarrier- Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Brown Creeper, and Yellow-rumped Warbler were listed as being present. Small numbers of these species were noted in a year, and the species were not present in all years. Instead, they were present in only one to three of the five years examined. None of these species is likely to be found on the top of Backbone Mountain during winter because of habitat preferences during winter. The Pied-billed Grebe and American Black Duck are found on open water, the Northern Harrier is found on farm and old fields, and the three forest species 1 are likely to be found at low elevations during winter where food and habitat are suitable. It is C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 22 possible that Yellow-bellied Sapsucker and Brown Creeper use habitats on the project site, but - only in small numbers and for short periods of time. They prefer the more productive and warmer areas at lower elevations durineinter. ~ ~~ ~~~ Wintering birds on the project site are likely to be primarily Black-capped Chickadees, Tufted Titmouse, Pileated Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Ruffed Grouse, and a few other hardy species. These are mostly year-round residents, although even some members of the nesting populations of these species move off the top of the mountain during winter. Golden Eagle, was present only on the Pendleton CBC. Between one and four sightings of this species have been reported during the five-year period for which CBCs were examined. However, habitat on the project site is not foraging habitat for this species, and there is little reason why it would be on site during winter. Bald Eagles were present in some years on Pendleton CBCs and in all years on Oakland CBCs. This species frequents river edges and open water, so it is not likely to be present in winter on Backbone Mountain. Red-tailed Hawks were present on most CBCs examined. This species may visit the site during winter, but only on occasion because of the lack of prey and suitable habitat. Consultation with several local experts revealed no concentrations of birds at tile project site or in areas adjacent to the project. These experts knew of no habitat features that might attract birds to the site during winter. Overall, there do not seem to be any major raptor or other wintering bird concentrations at the project site or in the area immediately surrounding the site. The habitat present on site is not suitable or attractive to many birds during winter, suggesting low risk during this season. Important Bird Areas, Parks, Nature Preserves, Sanctuaries, Wildlife Viewing Areas, and Sensitive Habitats Near the Backbone Mountain Project Site (Tucker and adjoining counties) .,I Imuortant Bird Areas. There have been no important bird areas established in West Virginia, although in the near fbture a program is likely to commence. No sites are currently slated for designation. Big Run Bog. This wetland and forest complex is situated off the project site, although the headwaters of the Bog run through a portion of the project area that will not have turbines. The area has many important plants, especially wetland species, as well as some birds such as ~ ~ flyc~c~~~~~~~s~h~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~€yta€mpGL these habitats or the wildlife that inhabits them. Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refbge. This new National Wildlife Refbge is located 8+ (12.8 km) to the southeast of the project site, and includes important wildlife habitat. The impact of the project on the wildlife of the refbge should be minimal or nil, a result of the large intervening distance. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 23 Canaan Vallev State Park. This park is about 7 miles (1 1.2 km) from the project site. It contains ~ I significant wildlife habitat and many bird species. The distance from the project site suggests ______~ that impacts to birds of this park will be minimal or nil. Blackwater Falls State Park. Located in Davis about 3 miles (4.8 km) from the project, this park hosts very important wildlife habitat. The distance that separates this Park from the project site, makes the possibility of wildlife impact from the project minimal or nil. Fairfax Stone Monument State Park. Situated about one mile (1.6 km) east of the northwest terminus of the project site, this park marks a historical site. There is no significant wildlife habitat at this site. Fernow Exuerimental Station. This state-owned area is just off US Route 219 about 6.5-7.5 miles (10.4-12 km). It is an important for many Neotropical songbird species and other wildlife. The distance of this Station to the project site provides ample buffer against impacts. Cathedral State Park. This small park contains some of the oldest hemlocks in the eastern United States. It supports some birds, but not large numbers. It is more than 8 miles (12.8 hi) from the northern end of the project area, so there is little chance of impact to wildlife of this sthte park. Nature Conservancv Preserves. No preserves owned or operated by the Nature Conservancy are located within five miles of the project site. The Greenland Gap Preserve is located more than 15 miles (24 km) from the Backbone Mountain project site. Farther away, near Cave Mountain l and Seneca Rocks, the Nature Conservancy administers a Bioreserve. As with the above sites, the large distance between the Nature Conservancy holdings and the project, should preclude any impact to birds or other wildlife that inhabits these holdings. (Information on location of Nature Conservancy holdings came from Rodney Bartgis of the Nature Conservancy.) West Virginia Division of Natural Resources RJatural Heritage Pronram -WVNHP). A request for information about rare, threatened, and endangered species (including all animals and plant species) at or within one mile of the proposed project site was made. A response letter is I provided in Appendix I1 stating there were no records of endangered or threatened species from the project site. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 24 Interviews With Local Avian and Environmental Experts. The following people with ~ specialized knowledge of birds or related environmental issues were contacted. They were asked several-questions (Appendix I-details the interview-procedure) about-the birds of-the projectsite- and the Tucker County area. They were also informed that a wind power facility was being planned for the site and that this author was conducting a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the project. Specifically, they were asked if they had knowledge regarding (1) rare, threatened, or endangered birds (or other species) on or adjacent to the project site, (2) sensitive or important bird habitat on or adjacent to the project site, (3) bird concentration (migration, foraging, wintering, and nesting) sites on or adjacent to the project site, or (4) other people who would have knowledge about the site or general area. In addition, they were asked to express their concerns regarding the construction of a wind power facility in Tucker County and at the specific project site. Summaries of these interviews are provided in Appendix 111. Kathleen Leo, Project Leader for the West Virginia Nongame Wildlife Program. Messages left. Roger Anderson, Supervisor of Environmental Coordination, WV Division of Natural Resources - telephoned author at request of Kathleen Leo Barbara Sargent, West Virginia Non-game Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program. Russ McClain, Ph.D. Avian Ecologist with West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program. George Hall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus West Virginia State University and coauthor of The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas. Petra Wood, Ph.D., biologist with the USGS Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. Ron Canterbury, Ph.D., Professor, Concord College, Athens, WV, expert on birds and has conducted research on nesting birds on Backbone Mountain. Terry Evans, U. S. Forest Service biologist. Messages left. Scott Shalaway, author of birding books, articles, and bird expert. Alex Hoar, Ecological Services, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts, messages left. ~ - ~tpnd3%ck&nit~~~esHish an&Witd€ife Service, Elkins, WV. Kathryn Beamer, President, Mountaineer Audubon Society, Morgantown, WV. William Wylie, former college professor and hawk watcher at Backbone Mountain. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 25 - Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the Backbone Mountain Wind Power J Project, Tucker County, West Virginia, With Existing Wind Power Facilities ~~ ~ Perhaps the best means of assessing risk to birds at proposed wind power project sites is to compare the avifauna, geographic setting, habitat, and topographic conditions found at that site with locations where risk is known and has been documented empirically. This must also be done by season, as the birds that use a site change through the year. By comparing the species and numbers of individuals, seasonal presence, and behavior of birds that are likely to nest on or use the Backbone Mountain site in different seasons with existing wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, an educated assessment can be made as to the overall risk to birds that can be anticipated at the Backbone Mountain site resulting from development of a wind power facility. Reviewing what is known about avian impacts by wind turbines, two types of negative impacts have been suggested or documented. Habitat alteration with resulting negative impact on birds is not well known or documented. Few studies have addressed this problem because i habitat alteration is not often construed as a legal issue, except in the case of federally endangered and threatened species or some state listed species. Habitat alteration is m!nimal and, generally, temporary with respect to wind plant construction and operation activity. This is because of the small footprint required for the turbines and because after construction there is little human activity on site. Modern turbines are primarily controlled remotely via telecommunications systems and usually need relatively infrequent maintenance. The other type of impact is from collisions with turbine rotors when operating. These collisions usually result in fatalities. The overall mortality at wind plants has been reported from about a dozen wind power sites in North America (Appendix IV). With one exception, the mortality has been found to be small, and no population impacts have been demonstrated at any site (but see below). The only wind power site in the United States where risk to birds has been documented as significant is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California, where raptor fatalities have I been reported for more than a decade (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, Kerlinger and Curry 1997). Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and some others collide with turbines in varying numbers in the APWRA and seem to be the most susceptible of birds. Large numbers of gulls, ravens, vultures, and many other species fly amongst the turbines and almost never collide with them. According to the emerging, but substantial, body of empirical evidence from numerous other wind power sites, it appears that the situation in the APWRA with respect to raptor impact is an anomaly. Several factors are now believed to contribute to risk in the Altamont. They are: an extraordinarily large number of operating turbines (N = 5,400, reduced fiom about 7,000 several years ago), close spacing of turbines, which does not provide space for birds to fly safely between turbines, the presence of very large numbers of foraging raptors throughout the year, enormous populations of California ground squirrels (which attract the raptors), a very hilly I topography, with turbines placed in valleys and along canyon edges, turbines mounted on lattice- type towers that permit perching and provide shelter from sun and rain, and turbine blades that C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 26 rotate at high revolutions per minute These factors have been hypothesized by various -I (rpm). researchers to act alone or in concert (Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996~-ICerlingerand-Curry-19977-6.xryand-Kerlinger in-press) to produce mortality in the ~ APWRA. In Europe, avian fatality has not been shown to be significant at wind power plants, although in a few localities small numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastal Netherlands, at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, several dozen songbirds and shorebirds of various species were killed (Winkelman 1995). This site was adjacent to the North Sea, where migration is concentrated into a relatively small area. That several species were involved is important because the fatalities were spread among species, all but eliminating the possibility of population impacts. In Tarifa, Spain, where one of the largest concentrations of migrating raptors and land birds occurs (Straits of Gibraltar), fatalities of migrants have been rare. Local WonVultures are killed on occasion, apparently because they habituate to the turbines and forage amongst them constantly. At the new wind power facilities in the United States, avian mortality has or is being studied intensively. Appendix IV summarizes the number of fatalities documented at t'iose sites. In the eastern United States, fatalities have been examined at three wind power facilities. In Vermont, six months of carcass searches revealed no fatalities at 11 new turbines situated on a forested hilltop (Kerlinger in press). In upstate New York, several months of searches during spring and fall migration under two wind turbines located in open fields revealed no carcasses (Cooper et al. 1995). Finally, at an older wind power facility of about a dozen turbines in a forested setting in Massachusetts, no fatalities have been reported (M. Jacobs, personal communication). The wind power facility in Massachusetts is on Mount Watchusett, which is the site of one of the largest inland hawk watches in New England. All other locations studied are in the Midwest or western United States (Appendix IV). For example, the number of fatalities recently reported from the San Gorgonio Pass and Tehachapi Mountains of California (Anderson in press), where there are together more than 8,000 turbines, is relatively small, involving several dozen individuals of more than a dozen species spread over two years (Anderson in press). At the Buffalo Ridge wind power facility near Lake Benton, Minnesota, small numbers of fatalities have been reported by researchers (Strickland in press) from the more than 200 wind turbine sites surveyed at this site. The species composition included a variety of birds, but did not include raptors or significant numbers of migrating songbirds. ~ - At all other facilities in the Midwest and West, the number of turbines is much smaller, with a correspondingly smaIlernuikiber of fatalities. A one-year study on the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin revealed 3 songbird fatalities under 35 turbines situated in fmfields. After one year of regular, systematic searches at 29 new turbines in a grazed grassland situation in northern Colorado, the only collisions reported have been six songbirds and a swiR (Kerlinger and Curry reports to U. S. Fish and Wildlife and Colorado Division of Wildlife). Most of these facilities have been situated in agricultural fields or grazing lands, and only small numbers of fatalities have been documented. There has been no suggestion of population impacts at any of these facilities, nor have fatalities involved endangered or threatened species. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 27 . Fatalities at the modem wind power facilities do not compare with those in the Altamont and are usually an order of magnitude or more lower. In addition, the fatalities at other sites do not involve raptors or only involve small numbers of raptors. Most oRen, the small numbers of fatalities are spread among a variety of species such that only very small numbers of a given species are involved. From the recent studies, it is obvious that avian fatalities at wind turbine sites are rare events, and, to date, no population impacts have been demonstrated as resulting from collisions with wind turbines. Comparing the project at the Backbone Mountain project site with known or suspected risk factors is of heuristic value. Such a comparison (Table 6)reveals that none of the factors known or suspected to represent a high risk to birds are present at the Backbone Mountain site. Table 6. Comparison of known or suspected risk factors at wind power facilities compared to the Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia, project site. Known or Suspected Risk Factors Backbone Mountain Pro&.ct Site 1. Large numbers of turbines - 1,000s - 50-80 turbines 2. Lattice towers - perching raptors Tubular towers - no perching 1 3. Fast-Rotating Turbine Blades - 50-70+ rpm Slow-Rotating Blades - <30 rpm 4. Closely Spaced Turbines - 80-100 feet Widely Spaced Turbines - 300+ feet 5. Turbines in Steep ValleysKanyons Turbines on Hilltop or Slight Slope 6.Large Prey Base - Attract Raptors No Significant Prey Base ki 7. Raptor Use of Area High Raptor Use of Area Low Whereas none of the risk factors discussed above pertain to the Backbone Mountain site (Table 6), other factors can be examined to assess risk to birds. At the Backbone Mountain site, only.- a .few species known to be susceptible to colliding with wind turbines are likely to present, n ~e~c~~~~~~~ie~~~~~~ Mountain site is not likely to be great for several reasons. Most importantly, these species are likely to be present on site in very small numbers and not be present during the entire year. In the Altamont there are hundreds of individuals of these species that use the wind resource area. At Backbone Mountain, these species are likely to not be present during winter and present in small numbers during the rest of the year. In winter, very few individuals of these species will frequent the site because of snow and lack of prey. During the rest of the year, they might forage I at times in the cleared areas, but this habitat (stone quarry and logged over land) is not very C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 28 attractive habitat for these species. Second, turbines will be mounted on tubular towers, rather ~ than lattice towers, that do not offer perching opportunities. Red-tailed Hawks and American Kestrelsperch_extensiYely_onlatticeiturbines_inthe_AltamontP_ass_\a7indfarms.Thus,_tke_ turbines will not be an attractive nuisance for raptors. The other risk factors in Table 6 are also not present at the Backbone Mountain project site. Because hawk migration on Backbone Mountain appears to be minimal, risk to migrating hawks is not likely. In addition, the lessons from Tarifa in Spain where there are hundreds of turbines and tens of thousands of migrating hawks suggest that migrants are not susceptible to colliding with turbines. Behavioral observations (by this author and B. Cooper who has studied the situation in Tarifa - personal communication) revealed that Black Kites and other hawks fly around strings of turbines in Tarifa. In addition, in a study done in southern Vermont (Kerlinger in press), raptors did not fly near operating turbines during autumn migration. To date, no risk to migrating raptors has been documented from wind power facilities. The issue of night migrating song and other birds colliding with turbines should be mentioned when assessing risk. The studies listed in Appendix IV report that very few night migrants were found to collide with wind turbines and some report no collisions. The incidents mostly involve a single bird, unlike the catastrophic events that have occured at very tdl communicationstowers, particularly those greater than 500 feet (1 54 m) in height. The total number of nocturnal migrants that have been found dead may total a few dozen from all the wind turbines that have been studied. The reason so few nocturnal migrants collide with wind turbines, as opposed to communicationstowers, is related to the shorter height of wind turbines and their lack of guy wires. A majority of migrants fly betM :en 300 and 2,500 feet (91-915 m) above the ground (Kerlinger 1995, Kerlinger and Moore 191 9), with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet 1,524 m). Except for during landing and take-off, few migrants are below about 500- 600 feet (152-183 m). Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet (366-457 m). The telecommunications towers responsible for a vast majority of avian fatalities are taller than 500 feet (154 m), whereas turbines rarely exceed 300 feet (92 m; from literature and recent unpublished studies; also see Trapp 1998, Kerlinger 2000 report to US Fish and Wildlife i Service). There are no published or other accounts of wind turbines being involved in. the mass- fatality events like those at telecommunications towers in excess of 500 feet. With most migrants flying at greater than 300 feet above ground level, they are well above the turbine blades and even higher above the turbine lights. The fact that there are no guy wires on turbines is also important, because it is the guy wires that account for most of the collisions at communications towers. "egar-ww struetb@&qac*rn&k&E construction and other infrastructure at the Backbone Mountain project site will be minimal. In those portions of the site where logging has been extensive or recent (Northeast Forest and South-central Forest), quarry sites (Quarry and Industrial Area), and where there are existing radio towers and buildings (Southwest Forest), the impact will be minimal to nil. The habitat in these areas is already degraded. Habitat alteration is likely to have some impact in the Mid-site Forest resulting from clearing for roads and turbines. Construction of the turbines, however, requires cutting of a relatively small number of trees so that only a small percentage of the forest C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 29 ~ will be impacted. Within the Mid-site Forest, small stands of hemlock and rhododendron are i present, although this habitat does not suggest the presence of endangered or threatened birds, ~~ and-there is-only-a-very remote possibility that it-or other habitats-on the-mountain-support-one-or more species that are listed as Rare in West Virginia. It should be noted that the entire project site is slated to be logged or mined by three companies that own or hold mineral rights to the area. Such activities will change the habitat far more than construction of the wind power facility, making the entire project area similar to the portion at the north end that has been logged and mined. Clearing for roads and turbine pads transforms only a small percentage of habitat at a given wind power project. Following construction, during the operational phase of the project, impact to nesting birds via disturbance will be minimal. Once the turbines are operating, they are not visited often because they are monitored via computer from off site. At the Searsburg, Vermont, wind power facility, many forest nesting birds, including warblers, thrushes and others that are found on the Backbone Project site, resumed nesting activity in the first year after construction (Kerlinger in press). Overall, the absence of known and suspected risk factors at the proposed Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia, wind power project, combined with what was learned about the bird life of the project site suggests minimal risk to birds. '! C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 30 Summary ~ From what was observed of the avifauna, habitat, and topography of the Backbone Mountain, -Tucker-C-ountyyWest-Virginia;project-site and-from-results-oft he-literature-search-and- ~~ interviews, the following conclusions were made: 1. The predominant habitat on the project site, by acreage, is second-growth forest. The site is mostly disturbed land that may include small wetlands, somewhat mature forest patches, or ecologically special habitats (small patches of hemlock and rhododendron on the mountain top). Several small (constructed, sedimentation) ponds are present in the quarry area. 2. Land uses on-site include an active stone quarry, active logging areas, and second-growth forest. Communications towers, buildings, roads, small clear-cuts, truck parking areas, and a water tower are present on the mountaintop. The entire project site is slated to be mined (gravel and sandstone) or logged. 3. The West Virginia Natural Heritage Program reported no records of endangered, threatened, or rare bird species on the project site. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service reported no records of endangered or threatened birds from the site, but they did express concern about sensitive Neotropical songbirds that may nest there, as well as about migrating hawks and songbirds. 4. The site supports typical nesting birds of middle-to-higher elevations in West Virginia, but does not appear to be habitat suitable for endangered or threatened birds. There is a remote possibility (though unlikely) that one or more "rare" West Virginia or Audubon WatchList species inhabit the Mid-site Forest area. 5. There are no Important Bird Areas, Nature Conservancy holdings, state parks, or officially designated special areas or habitats adjacent or within three miles of the project site. Big Run Bog, a special habitadwetlands is located southwest of the southwest terminus of the project site. 6. Significant hawk, songbird, waterfowl, shorebird, or other migration is not known to occur I over the project site or immediately adjacent lands, although the small numbers of migrating hawks and songbirds may use Backbone Mountain during autumn are not likely to be at risk. 7. The habitat on-site suggests no major concentrations of birds (shorebirds, waterfowl/ waterbirds, raptors, songbirds) stopping over during migration. -8. Few birds will be found at or adjacent to the Backbone Mountain site November- March because ofharsh weather, resulting in minimal risk for one-fourth to one-third of the year. Conclusion: Based on the findings provided above, the wind power facility proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia, is likely to pose minimal risk to birds. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 31 References -~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ Anderson, R. 1998. California Energy Markets, Jan. 23, 1998, No. 448:13. Anderson, R. in press. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at Tehachapi and San Gorgonio, WRAS. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop III, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE,Inc. Buckelew, A. R., and G. A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 215. Curry, R., and P. Kerlinger. In press. The Altamont Avian Plan. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop 111, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. \ Cooper, B.A., C.B. Johnson, and R.J. Ritchie. 1995. Bird migration near existing and proposed 1 wind turbine sites in the eastern Lake Ontario region. Report to Niagara Mohawk Pov;er Corp., Syracuse, NY. DeGarmo, W. R. 1953. A five-year study of hawk migration. Redstart 20(3):39-54. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook, a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and Shuster, New York. Hall, G.A., and R.K. Bell. 1981. The diurnal migration of passerines along an Appalachian Ridge. American Birds 35:135-138. HMANA, Hawk Migration Studies (The Journal of the Hawk Migration Association of North America). 1996, 1997, 1998 and other volumes. 1 1 Heintzelman, D.S. 1975. Autumn hawk flights, the migrations in eastern North America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 398. Heintzelman, D.S. 1986. The migrations of hawks. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. 369 pp. ~ ~ 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, Sept. 1988 through August 1989. Final Rept. for Kenetech Windpower, San Francisco, CA. Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight strategies of migrating hawks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, E. pp. 389. Kerlinger, P. 1995. How birds migrate. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. pp. 228. I C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 32 An - Kerlinger, P. in press - 2000. Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation’s Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. ~~ Proceedings of the National Wind/Avian Planning Meeting, San Diego, CA, May 1998. Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication towers: A review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management, http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/tblcont.html Kerlinger, P. and R. Curry. 1997. Analysis of Golden Eagle and Red-tailed Hawk fatalities on Altamont Ownership Consortium property within the Altamont Wind Resource Area (AWRA). Report from Altamont Avian Plan for the Ownership Consortium and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Kerlinger, P., and F. R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. In Current Ornithology, vol. 6: 109-142. Plenum Press, NY. 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, 1989-1991. California Energy Commission, CA. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1996. A continued examination of avian mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area. California Energy Commission, CA. Strickland, D. in press. Avian use, flight behavior, and mortality on the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power Interaction Workshop 111, May, 1998, San Diego, CA. National Wind Coordinating Committee/RESOLVE, Inc. Trapp, J. 1998. Bird Kills at towers and other human-made structures: An annotated partial bibliography (1960-1998). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff report. http ://migrat orybirds . fw s. gov/issues/t ower .html Winkelman, J. E. 1995. Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. Proceedings of National Avian-Wind Planning Meeting, Denver, CO, July 1994. Pp. 110-119. (see other references and summaries within this Proceedings volume). Zalles, J.I., and K.L. Bildstein. In press - 2000. Raptor Watch: A global directory of raptor migration sites. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association. ~~ C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 33 -A Figure 1. Map showing location of proposed Backbone Mountain w ..id power facility in Tucker i I1 County, West Virginia, including the location of the five sections of the project delineated to describe-habitat-and-bird-life on-the-project-site. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV - Figure 2. Photographs showing habitat present on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West I Virginia at site of proposed wind power facility. - Northeast Forest. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 36 Figure 2. Photographs showing habitat present on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia at site of proposed wind power facility. - Quarry and Industrial Area. ? ~ . . , , . . . , . .. ! C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 37 Figure 2. Photographs showing habitat present on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia at site of proposed wind power facility. - Mid-Site Forest. ~~ ~ ~~~~ i C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 38 Figure 2. Photographs showing habitat present on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West 7I Virginia at site of proposed wind power facility. - South-central Forest. II C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 39 Figure 2. Photographs showing habitat present on Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West ~- Virginia at site of proposed wind power facility. - Southwest Forest. '. , 1 I ,! C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 40 - Appendix I. Procedures for interviews of agency staff, environmental organization staff, and ; knowledgeable partiedavian experts. 0 Interviewer identifies himself and identifies client. Interviewer states purposes of phone call: a) That he is doing a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment of a wind powgr project. b) What a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment is (site visits, literature search, and interviews with experts - resulting in a report for developer and others to use to evaluate overall risk at a given site if it is developed as a wind power facility). c) Location of the project - county, township, mountain or other distinguishing feature. d) Brief description of project - megawatts of power, approximate number of turbines, characteristics of turbines (tubular towers, height, rotation speed of blades). Ask the following: a) What is the policy of the agency or organization on wind power - if there is one. b) Knowledge of bird life of a site/area at or near the project. c) Specifics about nesting species, migration concentrations, wintering concerrrations, migratory stopover concentrations, rare, threatened or endangered species, species of special concern. d) Knowledge of significant habitats on project site or nearby. e) Their concerns about wind power and risk to birds. f) Other experts who should be contacted - names, phone numbers/organizations/agencies,etc. Ask if they wish to know anything about wind power or wind power in relation to birds. Inform them that they can call in the fbture to supply information or ask questions about wind power, the specific project, or risk to birds. I Interviews are not always conducted the same way. In some cases the order of the questions and information supplied changes as a result of the person being interviewed having questions or taking the lead. Overall, however, all of the above questions are asked and information supplied. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 41 Appendix 11. Letters from West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage 2 Program and United States Fish & Wildlife Service in response to an inquiry for information ~~~~ regardingspecies~ of threatened, endangered, and rare species at the Backbone Mountain project site. This inquiry covered all types of animals and plants that are of special concern, as well as wetlands in the project area. C&K, LLC - 7/00 DIVISIONOF NATURALRESOURCES Wildlife Resources Section Operations Center P.O. Box 67 Elkins, West Virginia 26241-3235 Cecil H. Underwood Telephone (304) 637-0245 John 8. Rader Governor Fax (304) 637-0250 Director January 11,2000 Mr. Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 Dear Mr. Kerlinger: I am responding to your request for information on rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species and wetlands for the area of your proposed wind turbine project along Backbone Mountain in Tucker County, WV. We have no records of any RTE species within your project area. However, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map indicates there are wetlands within your outlined project area. I have enclosed a copy of the NWI map to assist you with your planning process. Concerns with migratory birds will be handled by our district biologist. This response is based on information currently available and should not be considered a comprehensive survey of the area under review. 1 Enclosed please find an invoice. Thank you for your inquiry and should you have any questions, please feel free to call upon us. Environmental Resources Specialist Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program Wildlife Resources Section enclosure i SERVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~- West Virginia Field Office Post Office Box 1278 Elkins, West Virginia 26241 February 24,2000 Dr. Paul Kerlinger Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, New Jersey 082 12 i Dear Dr. Kerlinger: This responds to your information request of December 9, 1999 regarding federally listed endangered and threatened species, aggregations of migrating hawks or other birds, significant breeding areas or winter aggregations of birds, and wetlands on, or adjacent to, a proposed . project site. We provide these comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. is conducting an assessment for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation for a proposed wind power project for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia. The proposed project consists of 50-100 wind turbines. During a phone conservation with Linda Smith of my staff, you indicated that the towers would be of tubular construction, approximately 200 feet high, and would be lighted. There are three rotors that are 100 feet in length on each tower. There would be no guy wires and the wiring for the towers would be ) located below ground. The towers would sit on 15-foot diameter bases and would be placed about 400 feet apart for approximately five miles along the ridge. A maintenance road would be built connecting the towers. The project area appears to have a maximum elevation of 3662 feet mean sea level (msl). Federally listed species that could occur in the proposed project area, and could be adversely affected by the proposed project, are the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis; the endangered A+ginia*m- o&iim~ei=&kirg~rn~tb&~~~~k flying squirrel, Glaucomvs sabrinus fuscus; and the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, Plethodon nettingi. There are 29 known hibernacula for the Indiana bat in the limestone region of eastern West Virginia in Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Monroe, and Mercer i Counties. The population of the hibernacula in West Virginia range in size from one to 9,000 Indiana bats. Recent data indicate that the area within an approximate 5.0 mile radius of a hibernaculum is important foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat in the fall swarming I period, August 15 through November 14. There is an Indiana bat hibernaculum south of the projeet-area,-but-theproposed-project-area-is outsidea-five-mile-radius-of-that-cave;-', fall-swarming behavior is not expected in the proposed project area. The recent capture of a young male Indiana bat during the maternity period, May 15 to August 15, near Richwood in Nicholas County suggests that female Indiana bats may utilize West Virginia for summer maternity range. Also, an adult male Indiana bat was recently captured in Clay County. Indiana bat summer foraging habitats are generally defined as riparian, bottomland, or upland forest, and old fields or pastures with scattered trees. Roosting/maternity habitat consists primarily of live or dead hardwood tree species such as shagbark hickory, which have exfoliating bark that provides space for bats to roost between the bark and the bole of the tree. Tree cavities, crevices, splits, or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs also provide roost sites. Potential summedmaternity habitat for the Indiana bat likely occurs in the Tucker County project area and we understand removal of trees will be necessary to accomplish the project. 1 You have indicated a willingness to evaluate the project area for the occurrence of the Indiana bat. Mist net surveys are an important tool for answering the question of whether Ind-ana bats are present in the action area of a project. Mist net surveys for Indiana bats should be conducted between May 15 and August 15 using standard Indiana bat mist net protocol. A survey plan should be prepared by a consultant who is experienced in the biology, data collection techniques, and identification of the Indiana bat (a list of qualified individuals is enclosed). This plan should I be submitted to the Service and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources for review and approval. Survey findings should be reported to our office. If Indiana bats are not captured, tree removal can occur without seasonal restrictions. The endangered Virginia big-eared bat inhabits caves during both summer and winter. Moths (Lepidoptera) comprise the majority of their diet and are an important food source of many insectivorous bats. The approximate foraging range of female bats is five miles from the maternity cave, but the area within a five to six mile radius of each colony site should be I considered to contain habitat essential to the colony. The closest known maternity cave is approximately seven miles from the southern end of the project area. Foraging habitats include woodlands, old fields, and hay fields and the same general area is used on successive nights. Bats do not always return to the cave for day time roosting. These bats will occupy night roosts, often manmade structures, near the foraging area. The Service is concerned about bat collision with the rotors. During wind power tower mortality ~~~lllculy~~ire-fwu~~n-~~l~~t~~ would attract moths and would possibly attract feeding bats. All West Virginia bat species are insectivorous. We would also appreciate your assessment of the likelihood of incidental take of listed bats and the other eleven West Virginia bat species due to operation of the turbines. The Virginia northern flying squirrel occurs in only six counties in West Virginia which includes Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton, Webster, Pocahontas, and Greenbrier Counties. It is typically found in boreal forests comprised of spruce/fir/hemlockmixed with northern hardwoods such as _j sugar maple, black cherry, American beech, black birch, and yellow birch. They have been captured in stands of varying age, understory density, and composition, but most have been taken ~istfo~twlth~tleastsome widely spaced, mature trees andTabKdEE5TfTEGG3ngp and down snags. In West Virginia, this squirrel's known range extends southwestward, following the Allegheny Mountains, from near Douglas and the northwestern edge of Dolly Sods Wilderness in Tucker County south to Briery Knob, Pocahontas County and Rabbit Run, Greenbrier County. Douglas is approximately three miles southeast of the proposed project area. It is not known to occur in West Virginia below 2,860 feet in elevation. The Service recommends that surveys for potential Virginia northern flying squirrel habitat be conducted in the proposed project area. If suitable habitat exists, the area should be surveyed for the presence of this species. Please report your survey findings to our office. The Cheat Mountain salamander, known to occur only in West Virginia, has the northern limit of its range in Tucker County. This salamander typically uses red spruce and northern hardwood forest above 3,500 feet in elevation, however in the Canaan Valley area of Tucker County, the elevational use extends down to 2,640 feet. Several populations occur in mixed deciduous forest 1 that have replaced the original red spruce stands; these forests include yellow birch, American beech, sugar maple, striped maple, and Eastern hemlock trees. The Cheat Mountain salamander usually occurs on ridge tops or on cool, moist, north or east facing slopes. The salamander is known to occur on Cabin Mountain in southern Canaan Valley, Tucker County. These salamanders have a home range of only about five square meters (48 square feet). Alteration of their habitat as minor as cutting hiking trails, access roads, or rights-of-way will expose the forest floor to temperature or moisture changes that can fragment and isolate populations. The Service recommends that a survey for potential Cheat Mountain salamander habitat be conducted in the proposed project area. If suitable habitat exists, the area should be surveyed for the presence of - this species. Please report your survey findings to our office. West Virginia is the primary component of a major geographic area of importance to neotropical migrant birds in the Northeast Region. This recognition is based on the relatively high concentrations of high-priority bird species occurring in this area. For example, some of the I highest concentrations of Northeast forest species such as cerulean warbler, Acadian flycatcher, worm-eating warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, scarlet tanager, and wood thrush occur in West Virginia. Unfortunately, the worm-eating warbler, the Louisiana waterthrush, and the cerulean warbler are showing significant declining trends in the state. . The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Departmfthe interior. 'Ihe Service believes that certain practices may result in the taking of birds, eggs, or active nests. These include, but are not limited to, timber harvesting, clearing, grubbing, burning, and mowing. Activities such as those noted above, that take birds, eggs, or active nests of migratory birds could occur under a permit pursuant to the MBTA. The Service does not have specific regulations that address the unintentional take of migratory birds. The Service has not issued any migratory bird permits for such practices in West Virginia, and to date, no permits have been requested. * The Service is unaware if Backbone Mountain is a pathway for migrating hawks or other migratory birds, or whether migrating birds make stopovers there. However, the high elevation _____~_____ridgetop-is-a-potentially-important~migration-rout~for~hawk~and-other~birds~The~Allegheny~ Front, approximately 15 air miles to the east, is an important migration corridor and is the site for a 40 year+ bird banding station. In order to determine if the Backbone Mountain area is an important migration route and to determine potential impacts to nocturnal and diurnal migrants, including raptors, the Service recommends that spring and fall migration surveys be conducted along the Backbone Mountain project area. This information should be included in your assessment of potential project impacts to birds. The Service recognizes that lighted towers contribute to mortality of nocturnal migratory birds, particularly in inclement weather. The Service recommends minimizing lighting to the extent possible. If tower height can be lowered so that lighting is not required, the effect on bird mortality should be reduced. When lighting is used, white strobes are preferred over red- pulsating or constant red lighting. Construction of this project and maintenance of open areas and access roads will likely create habitat changes that will result in an increase of prey species for raptors. The Service is concerned that raptors like the red-tailed hawk, the red-shouldered hawk, the broad-winged hawk, the Northern harrier, the American kestrel, the peregrine falcon, the great horned owl, and the Eastern screech-owl may use the project area while hunting, and collide with rotors. Evaluation of the impacts of the project to resident raptors should be included in your assessment \ of potential project impacts. Our review of the National Wetlands Inventory 7%-minutetopographic maps indicates that a palustrine forest/palustrine emergent wetland complex occurs on the southern end of the proposed project area (map enclosed). However, definitive determinations of the presence of waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the need for permits, if any, are made by the US. Army Corps of Engineers. They may be contacted at: Pittsburgh District, Regulatory Branch, William S. Moorhead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 18222-4188, telephone (412)395-7152. The Service appreciates your effort to make a thorough evaluation of potential project impacts to endangered species and migratory birds. We look forward to working with you and Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation in an effort to avoid and minimize potential project impacts to these important trust resources. Sincerely, Jeffrey K. Towner Field Supervisor Enclosures Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 42 ~ , Appendix 111. Summaries of interviews with avian experts, environmental organization representatives, and state and federal wildlife agency staffers. West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage (WV Department of Natural Resources) - Kathleen Leo - Project Leader, West Virginia Nongame Program and Coordinator for Partners In Flight program for West Virginia, referred to Roger Anderson. Roger Anderson - Supervisor of Environmental Coordination for West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, called at the request of Kathleen Leo. He was not knowledgeable about birds, but he was familiar with the site. He mentioned that the new road, the "Appalachian Corridor H" was slated to be built near or within the southern terminus of the project area - crossing Backbone Mountain. Barbara Sargent - West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and Natural Heritage Program staffer, could not provide information on the birds of Backbone Mountain and she did not have detailed knowledge of birds on the project site or in that area. A letter of inquiry regsrding rare, threatened, and endangered species, as well as wetlands and sensitive habitats, was sent. Regarding avian expertise, Sargent deferred to Dr. Russ McClain a biologist on staff. Russ McClain, Ph.D. - A biologist with the West Virginia Nongame Program is very new to the I position and did not have any information on birds that might inhabit the Backbone Mountain project site. Dr. McLain suggested that Dr. Petra Wood (Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit) and Terry Evans (U. S. Forest Service) be contacted because of their knowledge of the region's avifauna. McClain was asked about older reports that might have been conducted on Backbone Mountain with state assistance, but no reports were subsequently found. Important Bird Areas - R. Chip Chipley of the American Bird Conservancy was consulted, as I was Fred Baumgarten, head of IBA program for the National Audubon Society, and asked whether an IBA program was planned for WV and whether there were any sites proposed currently. The answer was no. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Bill Tolin, a biologist with the Service expressed concern regarding the number of telecommunications towers that are proliferating in WV. He then instructed this author to write a letter of inquiry to Jeffrey K. Towner, Supervisor of the Elkins, WV office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. He stated that there could be wetlands on Backbone Mountain and refmd to the fJlgKunljog(wliidiiswest of the project and--- site). In addition, he stated that there were "bird sensitive areas" at the project site, although he did not specie what they were or where. Further, he stated that the letter of inquiry should focus on endangered and threatened species of all taxa and on wetlands. During several conversations with Linda Smith of the West Virginia office in Elkins about the letter from Fish and Wildlife regarding endangered and threatened species, interest in migratory bird patterns in the area were I expressed (hawks and songbirds). Those interests and interest in other species of endangered C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 43 and threatened organisms (non-birds), as well as wetlands are addressed in the letter (Appendix . 11). Partners in Flight - Kathleen Leo, Project Leader, West Virginia Nongame Wildlife Program. Speaking for PIF, Roger Anderson - (see above) stated that PIF does not have a policy with respect to wind turbines. The Nature Conservancy - Mid-Appalachian Bioreserve Director Rodney Bargis of the Nature Conservancy was queried as to his organizations holdings in the area. He stated that none of the Bioreserve was in Tucker County and that much of it was to the east and somewhat south of the project site, near Seneca Rocks and Cave Mountain. National Audubon Society - Cindy Dunn, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Audubon Society (and West Virginia), stated that although Audubon has no policy regarding wind power development, her organization wishes to be kept abreast of wind power projects. 1 National Audubon Society - Local Chapter - Kathryn Beamer of the Mountaineer Audubon Society was contacted and was not sure if the Mountaineer chapter covered the area. :The Mountaineer Chapter is the closest to the project site.) She had no information about 4rds that might be in the area or knowledge of the project site. Dr. George Hall, Professor Emeritus from the West Virginia University and co-author of The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas, did not have much experience with Backbone Mountain. Dr. Hall's expertise is mostly with the dawn songbird migration at the Allegheny Front near Dolly Sods, where he has studied birds for 42 years. He stated that "there will be some migration .. . but not very concentrated" when asked about songbird migration on Backbone Mountain. He also speculated that there were likely to be fewer birds involved than along the Allegheny Front. He did know of an old hawk migration watch near the project site and suggested I contact William Wylie of Terra Alta, WV, regarding hawk migration at Backbone Mountain. The few experiences he had with Backbone with respect to migrating hawks were not rewarding, suggesting that the site is not a significant one for migrating hawks. Dr. Ron Canterbury of Concord College asserted that he had worked on Backbone Mountain and adjacent properties in the early 1990s. He worked on top of the mountain and on the southeast side of the mountain, the site of the reclaimed strip mine. He fbrther suggested that there would be songbird migration along the ridge - morning flight - and that the mountain was part of the same system of ridges as the one Dr. Hall of the Allegheny Front Bird Observatory researches. Thus, morning flight likely occurs on this mountain, although he did not know of any studies of ~~~beffgff40~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Virginia birds were suburban sprawl, forest fkagmentation, and loss of old fields. Of these, forest fragmentation could apply to the portions of the proposed wind power project because roads and openings in the forest will be result. Dr. Canterbury referred to his two-year, ongoing research project on telecommunications towers in West Virginia, stating that the towers less than 500 feet (154 m) in height were not resulting in fatalities of migrating song or other birds. This is an important fact in light of the fact that the turbines will be much shorter and without guy wires. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 44 -,Petra Wood, Ph.D., avian biologist with the U. S. Geological Service Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit could not provide information regarding birds on Backbone Mountain or near the ~ ~~ projectsite. Scott Shalaway, author of birding books, articles, and bird expert, was not knowledgeable about the Backbone Mountain area. He suggested that Dr. George Hall and Dr. Ron Canterbury be interviewed. He did express concern for night-migrating songbirds and suggested I look into hawk migration at the project site. William Wylie, former professor and hawk watcher, stated that "back in the 70s" he and others watched and counted hawks along Backbone and other mountains in West Virginia. He said that he did not know if anyone in recent years watched hawks there. The locations he mentioned for watching included the top of the mountain near the road that leads into Fairfax Stone, sites farther to the north at Table Rock Road and Roth Rock (in Maryland), and the rest aredoverlook at US 219 and Sugarland Road near the southwest terminus of the project site. Although records were thrown out and not sent to the Hawk Migration Association of North America, Mr. Wylie's 1 recollection was that between a "couple of hundred" and a "couple of thousand" hawks could be seen at these sites. The species were mostly Broad-winged Hawks and Red-tails, with an occasional Golden Eagle being seen. Backbone Mountain was also referred to as a "good spring breeding bird" location in the 1970s. Mr. Wylie has not visited the project site in recent years. It is likely that this site was not used as a hawk migration watch because so few hawks migrate there. C&K, LLC - 7/00 Avian Risk Assessment - Backbone Mountain, WV 45 - Appendix IV. Summary of avian collisions with wind turbines at sites across the United States. I The numbers presented are fatalities known to have occurred based on the results of systematic ~~~ and*gorous searcheSbeneatkturbmes.S tudies are nowb-eg~~n~ucte~~n~~e~~n~I~~a~ California, Wyoming, and Texas. 0 Vermont - Searsburg (near Green Mountain National Forest) - 11 modern turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted June-October, 1996; zero fatalities recorded (Kerlinger, 1999, in press, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume) Massachusetts - Princeton Windfarm (Watchusett Mountain State Forest and Hawkwatch) - 8 older turbines at forested site. Surveys conducted in autumn & winter, 1993; zero avian fatalities recorded (Jacobs, 1995, Paper presented at Windpower ‘94, Minneapolis, MN) 0 Minnesota - Buffalo Ridge (near Lake Benton) - 200+ modern turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted 1997-1999; about two dozen avian fatalities recorded - zero raptors or endangeredhhreatened species (Strickland, 1999, in press, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume) Wisconsin - Door County Peninsula, 35 modern turbines at a farmland site. Surveys conducted in 1999, 3 avian fatalities recorded (information presented at conference) New York - Copenhagen (30 miles inland fiom Lake Ontario) - 2 modem turbines at farmland site. Surveys conducted in spring and autumn migration seasons, 1994; zero avian fatalities recorded (Cooper and Johnson, 1995, Proc. American Wind Energy Association Conference 1996) Colorado - Ponnequin - 29 modern turbines at rangeland site (cattle and bison). Surveys conducted 1998-July 2000 (ongoing); 7 songbird fatalities recorded - zero raptors or endangeredthreatened species; Curry & Kerlinger unpublished data provided to National Audubon Society and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) 1 California - Altamont - 5,400+ mostly older turbines at grassland site. Significant raptor mortality recorded (exceptionally high raptor and prey density); small numbers of some other species involved (Orloff & Flannery, 1992, 1996, California Energy Commission Report, other reports) ~ California - San Gorgonio Pass (Palm Springs area) - 2,700 modern and older turbines at desert site (or 3,500 in area). Recent studies indicate few fatalities (And erson, Califimik Energy Commission, 1999, in press, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume) California - Tehachapi Pass - 3,750 modern and older turbines in study (of 5,000 in area) at rangelandarid grassland site. Recent surveys indicate low (perhaps moderate) level of avian mortality - small numbers of raptors (Anderson, California Energy Comm., 1999, in press, National Wind Coordinating Committee Volume) I C&K, LLC - 7/00 Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for a Wind Power Facility Proposed for Backbone Mountain, Tucker County, West Virginia July 2000 Report Prepared for: Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation Report Prepared by: Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Bex-453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842,fax 884-4569 email: [email protected]