Appendix C Pre-Construction Sound Monitoring Study

Nobles 2 Wind Project Nobles County, Minnesota

NOBLES 2 WIND FARM

Nobles County, Minnesota

PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOISE MONITORING STUDY

Prepared for

Westwood Professional Services, Inc.

David Braslau Associates, Inc.

14 April 2016

Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sound level monitoring was performed at four residential locations within the Nobles 2 Wind Farm boundary in Nobles County, Minnesota. Sound level readings were taken every second for four full days between 9 March and 13 March 2016. Readings were taken with Larson-Davis Model 831 sound level meters located within 100 to 200 feet of homes on the residential properties.

Average energy equivalent sound levels (Leq) and statistical sound levels including the L50 (level exceeded 50% of an hour) were automatically calculated and stored by each meter each hour of the monitoring period

Meteorological data were collected by weather stations at two of the meters. A comparison of wind speeds with reported hourly data at Worthington airport showed similar variations in wind speeds. A moderated relationship between sound level and wind speed was found.

Regional average Leq and L50 were estimated from the data that were not strongly affected by local traffic flow, since most residences are not located close to busy roadways. The resulting regional average sound levels are presented in the table below.

Metric Daytime Nighttime Leq 43 35 L50 37 32

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1. Study Description...... 1 1.2. Study Objectives ...... 1 1.3. Meteorological Conditions...... 2 2.0 AVERAGE ENERGY LEQ RESULTS ...... 7 2.1. Hourly Leq ...... 7 2.2. Leq versus Wind Speed...... 7 2.3. Overall Average Leq ...... 7 3.0 AVERAGE L50 RESULTS ...... 14

4.0 SUMMRY OF FINDINGS ...... 18

APPENDIX A MONITOR SITES ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS OF METER LOCATIONS

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Location Homes and Sound Monitors within the Nobles 2 Boundary...... 3 Figure 1.2 Location of Monitoring Sites Between Weather Stations...... 4 Figure 1.3 Wind Speed During Monitoring Period...... 5 Figure 1.4 Hourly Temperature During Monitoring Period...... 6 Figure 2.1 Hourly Leq Data – All Meters –Day and Night Periods...... 8 Figure 2.2 Meter 1 Hourly Leq and Wind Speed ...... 9 Figure 2.3 M1 Leq versus M1 Wind Speed ...... 10 Figure 2.4 Daytime Average Leq Levels...... 11 Figure 2.5 Nighttime Average Leq Levels ...... 12 Figure 2.6 Calculation of Daytime and Nighttime Leq...... 13 Figure 3.1 Average Daytime L50 Level with No Wind and Wind ...... 15 Figure 3.2 Average Nighttime L50 Nighttime Levels with No Wind and Wind...... 16 Figure 3.3 Calculation of Daytime and Nighttime L50 ...... 17

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Minnesota Noise Standards (Mn. Rules 7070.0040)...... 2 Table 4.1 Average Pre-Construction Sound Levels – Nobles 2 Wind Farm ...... 18

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Study Description This Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring Report presents results of ambient sound level monitoring at four locations distributed throughout the Nobles 2 Wind Farm site in Nobles County, Minnesota. Larson-Davis Model 831 Type 1 sound level meters were set up at the following four properties. “Hxx” is the home property designation on the site.

Sound Level Meter Unit 1 [M1] + Weather Station H75 12171 Erickson Avenue Wilmont, MN 56185

Sound Level Meter Unit 2 [M2]+ Weather Station H259 18407 McCall Reading, MN 5665

Sound Level Meter Unit 3 [M3] H170 19067 160th St. Wilmont, MN 56185

Sound Level Meter Unit 4 [M4] H67 12129 Knauf Avenue Fulda, MN 56131

Locations of the monitoring sites are identified on Figure 1.1. The heavy black line represents the most recent boundary of the proposed wind farm. The meters were generally placed within about 100 feet from each residence as noted on the aerial photographs in Appendix A. Photographs of the sound level meter locations are included in Appendix B.

Monitoring was initiated on Friday afternoon, March 4, but restarted on March 9, 2016 due to strong winds and meter blow down at 2 am on March 6. Meters were collected on Sunday, March 13, providing for four full days with favorable weather conditions.

1.2. Study Objectives The objective of the study is to measure sound levels over a week period (which was reduced somewhat due to weather conditions) to establish representative pre-construction sound levels within the wind farm boundary. Two different sound level metrics have been provided for daytime and nighttime periods:

Leq (day) The average sound energy level over the time 0700 to 2200 Leq (night) The average sound energy level over the time 2200 to 0700

L50 (day) The L50 or median sound level during the period 0700 to 2200 L50 (night) The L50 or median sound level during the period 2200 to 0700

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

The State of Minnesota does not have noise standards that govern the Leq metric, although it is used in federal guidelines such as those by the FAA, FHWA, HUD, and FTA.

The L50 level is governed by Minnesota Rule 7030 on noise control. L50 is the median hourly sound level or level exceeded for 50 percent or 30 minutes in an hour. The state standards for the L50 metrics for NAC-1 (Noise Area Classification that includes residential land uses) are presented in Table 1.1. Daytime hours are 7 am to 10 pm, while nighttime hours are 10 pm to 7 am.

Table 1.1 Minnesota Noise Standards (Mn. Rules 7070.0040)

Time Period Daytime L50 Nighttime L50 NAC-1 (residential and sensitive areas) 60 dBA 50 dBA

1.3. Meteorological Conditions Monitored weather conditions prior to meter and weather station blow down showed increasingly stronger winds over the period. However, after setup on March 9, the weather stations recorded stable conditions through the remainder of the monitoring period. For completeness, hourly weather reports from Worthington Airport have been compared with the weather station data from M1 (which was the furthest location from the airport) to demonstrate regional consistency in weather conditions. Locations of the two weather stations and Worthington Airport are shown in Figure 1.2. A comparison of hourly wind speeds at M1 and Worthington Airport is presented in Figure 1.3.

The hourly temperature variation during the monitoring period is shown in Figure 1.4 for both M1 and the Worthington Airport. The temperatures were generally quite close except for some unexplained variations during the period of highest wind speed in the middle of the monitoring period.

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 2 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H75 H67

M1 M4

H170

H259 M2

Figure 1.1 Location Homes and Sound Monitors within the Nobles 2 Boundary \

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 3 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Figure 1.2 Location of Monitoring Sites Between Weather Stations

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Wind speed - M1 vs Worthington

Worthington 15 M1 Wind SpeedWind (mph) 10

0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 10-Mar 11-Mar 13-Mar 12-Mar Hour

Figure 1.3 Wind Speed During Monitoring Period

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Hourly Temperature - M1 vs Worthington

Worthington 40 M1 Temp (deg F) Temp 30

0 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hour

Figure 1.4 Hourly Temperature During Monitoring Period

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

2.0 AVERAGE ENERGY LEQ RESULTS

2.1. Hourly Leq Hourly Leq levels for each meter are presented in Figure 2.1. It can be see that the levels from M1 and M4 are similar but lower than the levels from M2 and M3. This can be explained by the locations of M1 and M4 at homes located adjacent to relatively busy roadways in the area.

It can be seen from the figure that the hourly Leq level can drop below 30 dBA during some of the nighttime periods. While the ambient level was as low 30 dBA, this cannot be considered to be an average value for the nighttime. It is possible that potential noise impacts could be greater during this hour, although a more appropriate ambient level should be determined from typical or average sound levels. A major challenge in this monitoring study was identifying representative sound levels averaging these by hour at each meter and across all four meters to come up with a regional average Leq level.

2.2. Leq versus Wind Speed The M1 Leq level is plotted against the M1 weather station wind speed in Figure 2.2. While there is little correlation between Leq and wind speed during the first few days when wind speeds were low, this relation is much closer with higher wind speeds. This could be explained in part by the location of trees within several hundred feet of the meter. Because every home in the study area is surrounded with a tree buffer against the wind, the ambient sound level near homes should take this into account.

Figure 2.3 is a plot of hourly Leq versus wind speed with a trend line showing a general increase in Leq with increase in wind speed. As can be seen, the trend line is controlled mostly by sound levels at higher wind speeds.

2.3. Overall Average Leq

The detailed data must be reduced to typical averages for each meter for the daytime and nighttime periods and then over the entire area to represent typical regional ambient sound levels.

Figure 2.4 shows daytime average Leq levels for each of the meters. The data are split between the early monitoring period with low wind speeds and the latter period with higher wind speeds. The figure clearly shows higher levels with higher wind speeds. Also clear from the figure is the role of traffic noise for the two monitors (M2 and M3) that were close to roadways.

Figure 2.5 shows average nighttime Leq levels for each of the meters. Relative differences between the meters are similar although the effect of traffic during the nighttime hours at M2 and M3 appears to be slightly higher than during daytime hours.

Figure 2.6 shows the calculations that were used to develop regional daytime and nighttime ambient Leq values. As can be seen, in the tables, the higher traffic-influenced levels are not included in the final calculation since this would not be representative of the regional ambient level since most homes are not located close to relatively busy roadways.

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Hourly Leq- All Meters

40 M1 M2 M3

Leq (dBA) 30 M4

0 3 5 7 9 3 5 7 9 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 10-Mar 11-Mar 12-Mar 13-Mar Hour

Figure 2.1 Hourly Leq Data – All Meters –Day and Night Periods

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

M1 Leq and Wind Speed

70 15.0

13.0 60 11.0

50 9.0

7.0 40

5.0

Leq (dBA) Leq 30 3.0 Wind SpeedWind (mph)

20 1.0

-1.0 10 -3.0

0 -5.0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 10 9 Mr 10-Mar 12-Mar 11-Mar 13-Mar Hour

Figure 2.2 Meter 1 Hourly Leq and Wind Speed

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 9 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

M1 Leq vs M1 Wind Speed

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

Leq (dBA) Leq 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Wind Speed (mph)

Figure 2.3 M1 Leq versus M1 Wind Speed

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Leq Day - No wind vs wind

Affected more by road traffic

40 No Wind

Leq Wind 30

0 M1 M2 M3 M4

Figure 2.4 Daytime Average Leq Levels

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 11 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

Leq Night - No wind vs wind

No Wind 30 Leq Wind

0 M1 M2 M3 M4

Figure 2.5 Nighttime Average Leq Levels

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2– Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

LAeq NO WIND WIND Day Night Day Night M1 37.8 30.6 47.7 39.4 M2 52.1 37.9 56.2 48.0 M3 55.7 45.3 57.6 50.0 M4 37.0 24.7 48.5 41.6 Average 45.7 34.6 52.5 44.8 Day Night Day Night M1/M4 37.4 27.7 48.1 40.5 M2/M3 53.9 41.6 56.9 49.0 TRAFFIC No traffic 37 28 48 41

Average Leq DAY NIGHT 43 35

Figure 2.6 Calculation of Daytime and Nighttime Leq

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

3.0 AVERAGE L50 RESULTS

The L50 metric (or hourly median sound level) is a statistical sound level rather than an average acoustical energy sound level represented by the Leq metric. As a statistical quantity defined for a one-hour period, daily averages are a mathematical invention that may not represent what is actually experienced by people. The Leq on the other hand is an “exposure” value which could be considered to be a more accurate reflection on noise impact. As noted in Table 1.1 on Page 2, the Minnesota daytime standard for the L50 is 60 dBA while the nighttime standard is 50 dBA.

The daily daytime L50 averages by sound level meter are shown on Figure 3.1 and are only 10 dBA below the daytime 60 dBA standard for the two locations close to busy roadways. .

The nighttime daily averages shown in Figure 3.2 are slightly lower than the daytime values but very similar for each of the meter locations.

Calculations of regional daytime and nighttime L50 levels follow the same approach as that used for the Leq calculation and are shown on Figure 3.3. As before, levels reflecting nearby traffic have not been included in calculating the average regional ambient level.

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 14 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

L50 Day - No wind vs wind

No Wind 30 L50 Wind

0 M1 M2 M3 M4

Figure 3.1 Average Daytime L50 Level with No Wind and Wind

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 15 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

L50 Night - No wind vs wind

No Wind 30 L50 Wind

0 M1 M2 M3 M4

Figure 3.2 Average Nighttime L50 Nighttime Levels with No Wind and Wind

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 16 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

L50 NO WIND WIND Day Night Day Night M1 30.1 26.0 42.2 37.9 M2 30.2 28.8 48.2 48.2 M3 39.7 27.9 50.0 43.7 M4 29.3 22.2 44.9 41.3 Average 32.3 26.2 46.3 42.8 Day Night Day Night M1/M4 29.7 24.1 43.6 39.6 M2/M3 35.0 28.4 49.1 45.9 TRAFFIC No traffic 30 24 44 40

Average L50 DAY NIGHT 37 32

Figure 3.3 Calculation of Daytime and Nighttime L50

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 17 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

4.0 SUMMRY OF FINDINGS

Sound level measurements were taken at four widely distributed sites within the Nobles 2 Wind Farm boundary. While measurements did not cover the week to nine day period, the extensive data collected provided an adequate basis for establishing a representative daytime and nighttime ambient sound level in the region.

Wind speed data were obtained from weather stations as M1 and M2 and compared with wind data from Worthington Airport. Hourly Leq levels are related to wind speed but the relationship is controlled primarily by higher wind speeds. This is most likely associated with trees in the vicinity of the sound level meters, which were located near residences in the future wind farm boundary. From aerial photographs, it can be seen that tree buffers are an integral part of homes and therefore contribute to the ambient sound level environment.

Average Leq and L50 levels for daytime and nighttime periods have been calculated from the extensive sound level data, and excluding the significantly higher levels from sites close to roadways where traffic noise was significant. Since the more heavily traveled roadways are very limited in the area, the estimated regional ambient sound level excludes these higher levels in calculating average sound level. The resulting regional ambient sound levels are presented below in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Average Pre-Construction Sound Levels – Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Metric Daytime Nighttime

Leq 43 35

L50 37 32

David Braslau Associates, Inc .Page 18 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

APPENDIX A

LOCATION OF SOUND LEVEL METERS ON AERIAL PHOTOS

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H67

H75

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H170

H259

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

APPENDIX B

MONITORING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H67 - M4

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H75 - M1 (with weather station)

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H170 - M3

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Nobles 2 – Pre-Construction Noise Monitoring

H259 - M2 (with weather station)

David Braslau Associates, Inc. Appendix D Sound and Shadow Flicker Analysis

Nobles 2 Wind Project Nobles County, Minnesota

FinalReport Nobles2WindFarm NoiseandShadowFlickerStudy NoblesCounty,MN

August14,

SubmittedTo: EricHansen,PEPG 2017 WestwoodProfessionalServices 7699AnagramDrive Minneapolis,MN5534 Tel:952Ͳ937Ͳ5150 EͲmail:[email protected] Author: JayHaley,P.E.,Partner SubmittedBy: JayHaley,P.E.,Partner CheckedBy: EAPCWindEnergy JayHaley,P.E.,Partner 3100DeMersAve. GrandForks,ND,58201 ApprovedBy: Tel:701Ͳ775Ͳ3000 JayHaley,P.E.,Partner EͲmail:[email protected]

3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

TABLEOFCONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...... 2 2. BACKGROUNDͲNOISE...... 2 3. STUDYMETHODOLOGYͲNOISE...... 2 4. RESULTSOFANALYSISͲNOISE...... 3 5. BACKGROUNDͲSHADOWFLICKER...... 3 6. STUDYMETHODOLOGYͲSHADOWFLICKER...... 5 7. RESULTSOFANALYSISͲSHADOWFLICKER...... 7 8. CONCLUSIONS...... 8 APPENDIXA:WINDTURBINECOORDINATES...... 10 APPENDIXB:NOBLES2WINDENERGYPROJECTSITEOVERVIEW...... 14 APPENDIXC:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTTABLEOFNOISERESULTS...... 16 APPENDIXD:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTSTANDARDRESOLUTIONNOISEMAP...... 33 APPENDIXE:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTTABLEOFSHADOWFLICKERRESULTS...... 35 APPENDIXF:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTSTANDARDRESOLUTIONSHADOWFLICKERMAP...... 54 LISTOFTABLES

Table1:Nobles2windturbinespecifications....... 2 Table2:Residentialstructuresrealisticnoisedistribution...... 3 Table3:SiouxFalls,SDmonthlysunshineprobabilities....... 6 Table4:Residentialstructuresrealisticshadowflickerdistribution...... 8 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

LegalNoticeandDisclaimer ThisreportwaspreparedbyEAPCexpresslyforthebenefitoftheclient.NeitherEAPCnoranyperson actingontheirbehalf:(a)makesanywarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttotheuseofany informationormethodsdisclosedinthisreport;or(b)assumesanyliabilitywithrespecttotheuseof anyinformationormethodsdisclosedinthisreport. Anyrecipientofthisdocument,bytheiracceptanceoruseofthisdocument,releasesEAPC,itsparent corporationsanditsaffiliates,fromanyliabilityfordirect,indirect,consequential,orspeciallossor damagewhetherarisingincontract,warranty,expressorimplied,tortorotherwise,andirrespectiveof fault,negligence,andstrictliability. Theresponsibilitiesfortheapplicationsanduseofthematerialcontainedinthisdocumentremain solelywiththeclient. Theinformationcontainedinthisreportisintendedfortheexclusiveuseoftheclientandmaycontain confidentialorprivilegedinformation. ReportUpdate EAPCbearsnoresponsibilitytoupdatethisreportforanychangesoccurringsubsequenttothefinal issuanceofthisreport. RevisionHistory Revision RevisionPurpose Date RevisedBy No. 0 Original 7/25/2017 J.Haley

3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

ExecutiveSummary EAPCwashiredbyWestwoodProfessionalServicestoprovideestimatesofthenoiseand shadowflickerpotentialforaproposedwindturbinelayoutfortheNobles2windfarm projectinsouthernMinnesota.Locationsofareadwellingsandawindturbinelayoutusing theVestasV1363.6MWwindturbinewithan82meterhubheightwereprovidedtoEAPCby theclient.AwindPROmodelwasbuiltcombiningdigitalelevationdatawiththeinformation suppliedtogenerateanoiseandshadowflickermodelforthesite.Theresultingmodelwas thenusedtoperformnoiseandshadowflickercalculationsforthearea.Basedonthe calculations,siteͲwiderealisticnoiseandshadowflickermapswereproducedandan evaluationofthenoiseandshadowflickeratall590areadwellingswasperformed. Forthenoisestudy,the590dwellingswererepresentedinthemodelbysinglepointnoise receptors,located1.5metersabovegroundlevel.Moderategroundattenuationwas assumed. Fortheshadowstudy,the590dwellingswererepresentedinthemodelbyomniͲdirectional shadowreceptorsthatsimulatea1mx1mwindow1mabovegroundlevel.Reductions basedonturbineoperationaltime,turbineoperationaldirection,andsunshineprobabilities wereusedtocalculatearealisticnumberofhoursofshadowflickertobeexpectedateach shadowreceptor.Noobstacleswereusedsothatshadowflickerreductionsdueto interferencefromtreesandstructureswerenotincluded,meaningthatthe“realistic” estimatesarestillconservative. Thesoundproducedfrompotentialturbinesmodeledvariesfrom93.0dB(A)to108.2dB(A) accordingtomanufacturerͲprovideddata.Insummary,allmodeledsoundlevelsatthe providedoccupiedresidencesareanticipatedtobebelow50.0dB(A).Themaximumsound pressurelevelsexpectedis48.8dB(A),thereforeNobles2wouldbeincompliancewith Minnesota’sallowablesoundlevelsasdescribedinMinnesotaRulesChapter7030. WhiletherearenorulesinMinnesotatolimitthenumberofshadowflickerhoursallowed,it isgenerallyacceptedindustrypracticetolimitthenumberofhourstolessthan30hoursper year.Fortheturbinearrayprovided,nooccupiedresidencesexperiencedmorethan29hours and7minutesofshadowflickeringperyearbasedonrealisticassumptionsregarding operationaltimeandsunshineprobability.

1 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

1. INTRODUCTION WestwoodProfessionalServiceshiredEAPCtoconductnoiseandshadowflickerstudies forthepotentialwindfarmlocatedinsouthernMinnesotanearthetownofWilmont.The layoutconsistsof86VestasV1363.6MWwindturbineswithahubheightof82meters. Thelocationsoftheproposedwindturbinesweresuppliedbytheclient.Coordinatesfor 590dwellingsinthevicinityoftheproposedwindfarmwerealsosuppliedbytheclient. ThetableofwindturbinecoordinatesisincludedinAppendixA.Thespecificationsforthe VestasV136Ͳ3.6windturbinemodelusedinthisstudyareincludedinTable1below. ͳǣʹ Ǥ

Nobles2WindͲShadowModeledTurbineSpecifications Rotor Hub Diameter CutͲInWind CutͲOutWind Manufacturer Model Height(m) (m) Speed(m/s) Speed(m/s) Vestas V136 82 136 3 20 TheareaofinterestislocatedinNoblesCountynearthetownofWilmontinsouthern Minnesota.Thesurroundingterrainhasachangeinelevationacrosstheprojectsite rangingfrom493to546meters(1,616to1,790feet).Theregionsvegetationiscomprised primarilyofagriculturalland.Theareaalsohasanumberofexistingwindenergyprojects currentlyinoperation.AprojectoverviewmapcanbefoundinAppendixB.

2. BACKGROUNDǦNOISE TodetermineifthelayoutprovidedwouldbecompliantwiththeStateofMinnesota’s regulations,detailedsoundscenarioswereanalyzedusingwindPRO.Thescenarios assumedthatthewindturbineswereoperatingatawindspeedthatresultedinthe loudestsoundbeingemitted.AccordingtotheVestassounddocumentationprovidedto EAPCfromtheclient,forthePowerOptimizedModeP01(withserratedtrailingedges), theloudestnormaloperatingnoiselevelemittedfromtheV136Ͳ3.6is105.5dB(A)at10 m/sandhigherat82mabovegroundlevel(AGL).ForthePowerOptimizedModeP01Ͳ0S (withoutserratedtrailingedges),theloudestnormalnoiselevelis108.2dB(A)at10m/s andhigher.Forthisstudyitwasassumedthattherewouldbenoserratedtrailingedges andtheloudervalueof108.2dB(A)at10m/sandhigherwasassumed.

3. STUDYMETHODOLOGYǦNOISE ThisnoiseanalysiswasperformedutilizingwindPRO1,asophisticatedwindmodeling softwareprogram.windPROhastheabilitytocalculatedetailednoisemapsacrossan entireareaofinterestoratsiteͲspecificlocationsusingnoisesensitivereceptors.

1 windPRO is the world’s leading software tool for designing wind farms, including noise and shadow flicker analysis. 2 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

TheanalysisassumedtheISO9613Ͳ2GeneralnoisecalculationmodelwithGeneral groundattenuationandanattenuationfactorof0.5,whichrepresentstypicalmixed vegetationandcropcover.Realisticsoundpressurelevelswerecalculatedat1.5mAGL atthepotentialoccupiedresidences.Theterm“realistic”inthiscase,meansthatsome amountofgroundattenuationisaccountedfor. TheinputsforthewindPROnoisecalculationincludethefollowing: •TurbineCoordinates •TurbineSpecifications •NoiseReceptorCoordinates •WindTurbineNoiseEmissionData •JointWindSpeedandDirectionFrequencyDistribution •USGSDigitalElevationModel(DEM)(heightcontourdata) •ExistingTurbines

4. RESULTSOFANALYSISǦNOISE Thenoisestudyindicatesthatnolocationswillbeabove50.0dB(A),thereforethe Nobles2projectwouldbeincompliancewithMinnesota’sallowablesoundlevelsas describedinMinnesotaRulesChapter7030.Thehighestnoiselevelpredictedis 48.8dB(A).Table2showsthedistributionofnoiselevelsfortheproject.Thefulltableof resultsfromtherealisticcasenoisestudycanbefoundinAppendixCandthemap showingthenoiseisoͲlinesisinAppendixD. ʹǣ

Vestas Realistic V1363.6Ͳ82 Noise Total# (dB(A)) Structures 0to15 0 15to25 179 25to35 232 35to40 71 40to45 75 45to50 33 50+ 0

5. BACKGROUNDǦSHADOWFLICKER

Shadowflickerfromwindturbinesoccurswhenrotatingwindturbinebladesmove betweenthesunandtheobserver.Shadowflickerisgenerallyexperiencedinareasnear windturbineswherethedistancebetweentheobserverandwindturbinebladeisshort enoughthatsunlighthasnotbeensignificantlydiffusedbytheatmosphere.Whenthe

3 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net bladesrotate,thisshadowcreatesapulsatingeffect,knownasshadowflicker.Ifthe blade’sshadowispassingoverthewindowofabuilding,itwillhavetheeffectof increasinganddecreasingthelightintensityintheroomatalowfrequencyintherange of0.5to1.2Hz,hencetheterm“flicker.”Inthiscase,withamaximumrotationalspeedof 11.7rpmfortheV136,thefrequencywouldbe0.58Hz.Thisflickeringeffectcanalsobe experiencedoutdoors,buttheeffectistypicallylessintense,andbecomeslessintense whenfartherfromthewindturbinecausingtheflicker.

Thisflickeringeffectismostnoticeablewithinapproximately1,000metersoftheturbine, andbecomesmoreandmorediffusedasthedistanceincreases.Therearenouniform standardsdefiningwhatdistancefromtheturbineisregardedasanacceptablelimit beyondwhichtheshadowflickerisconsideredtobeinsignificant.Thesameappliestothe numberofhoursofflickeringthatisdeemedtobeacceptable.

Shadowflickeristypicallygreatestinthewintermonthswhentheangleofthesunis lowerandcastslongershadows.Theeffectisalsomorepronouncedaroundsunriseand sunsetwhenthesunisnearthehorizonandtheshadowsarelonger.Anumberoffactors influencetheamountofshadowflickerontheshadowreceptors.

Oneconsiderationistheenvironmentaroundtheshadowreceptor.Obstaclessuchas terrain,treesorbuildingsbetweenthewindturbineandthereceptorcansignificantly reduceoreliminateshadowflickereffects.Deciduoustreesmayblocktheshadow flickeringeffecttosomedegree,dependingonthetreedensity,speciespresentandtime ofyear.Deciduoustreescanleadtoareductionofshadowflickerduringthesummer whenthetreesarebearingleaves.However,duringthewintermonths,thesetreesare withouttheirleavesandtheirimpactonshadowflickerisnotassignificant.Coniferous treestendtoprovidemitigationfromshadowflickeryearround.Forthisstudy,nocredit wastakenforanypotentialshadingeffectsfromanytypeoftreesorotherobstaclesthat wouldreducethenumberofshadowflickeringhoursatthestructures.

Anotherconsiderationisthetimeofdaywhenshadowflickeroccurs.Forexample,itmay bemoreacceptableforprivatehomestoexperiencetheshadowflickeringduringdaytime hourswhenfamilymembersmaybeatworkorschool.Likewise,acommercialproperty wouldnotbesignificantlyaffectedifalltheshadowflickerimpactoccurredbeforeor afterbusinesshours.

Theclimatealsoneedsbeconsideredwhenassessingshadowflicker.Inareaswitha significantamountofovercastweather,therewouldbelessshadowflicker,asthereare noshadowsifthesunisblockedbyclouds.Also,ifthewindisnotblowing,theturbines wouldnotbeoperationalandthereforenotcreatingshadowflickering.

4 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

6. STUDYMETHODOLOGYǦSHADOWFLICKER

ThisshadowflickeranalysiswasperformedutilizingwindPRO,asophisticatedwind modelingsoftwareprogram.windPROhastheabilitytocalculatedetailedshadowflicker mapsacrossanentireareaofinterestoratsiteͲspecificlocationsusingshadow receptors.

Shadowmapswhichindicatewheretheshadowswillbecastandforhowlong,are generatedusingwindPRO,calculatingtheshadowflickerinvaryinguserͲdefined resolutions.Standardresolutionwasusedforthisstudyandrepresentsshadowflicker beingcalculatedeverythreeminutesofeverydayovertheperiodofanentireyearovera gridwitha20mby20mresolution.

Inadditiontogeneratingashadowflickermap,theamountofshadowflickerthatmay occurataspecificpointcanbecalculatedmorepreciselybyplacingashadowreceptorat thelocationofinterestandessentially“recording”theshadowflickerthatoccursasthe relativesunrisetosunsetmotionofthesunissimulatedthroughoutanentireyear.

ThepointͲspecificshadowflickercalculationisrunatahigherresolutionascomparedto theshadowflickermapcalculationtoincludethehighestprecisionpossiblewithin windPRO.Shadowflickerateachshadowreceptorlocationiscalculatedeveryminuteof everydayforanentireyear.ShadowreceptorscanbeconfiguredtorepresentanomniͲ directionalwindowofaspecificsizeataspecificpoint(greenhousemode)orawindow facingasingledirectionofaspecificsizeataspecificpoint(singledirectionmode).The shadowreceptorsusedinthisanalysiswereconfiguredasgreenhouseͲmodereceptors representinga1mx1mwindowlocated1mabovegroundlevel.Thisrepresentsmoreof a“worstͲcase”scenarioandthuswillproducemoreconservativeresults.

Asapartofthecalculationmethod,windPROmustdeterminewhetherornotaturbine willbevisibleatthereceptorlocationsandnotblockedbylocaltopographyorobstacles. ItdoesthisbyperformingapreliminaryZonesofVisualInfluence(ZVI)calculation, utilizing10mgridspacing.Ifaparticularturbineisnotvisiblewithinthe10mx10marea thattheshadowreceptoriscontainedwithin,thenthatturbineisnotincludedinthe shadowflickercalculationforthatreceptor.

TheinputsforthewindPROshadowflickercalculationincludethefollowing: •TurbineCoordinates •TurbineSpecifications •ShadowReceptorCoordinates •MonthlySunshineProbabilities •JointWindSpeedandDirectionFrequencyDistribution •USGSDigitalElevationModel(DEM)(heightcontourdata) •ExistingTurbines

5 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

Adescriptionofeachinputvariableandhowtheyaffecttheshadowflickercalculationare includedbelow. TurbineCoordinates:Thelocationofawindturbineinrelationtoashadowreceptoris oneofthemostimportantfactorsindeterminingshadowflickerimpacts.AlineͲofͲsiteis requiredforshadowflickertooccur.Theintensityoftheshadowflickerisdependent uponthedistancefromthewindturbineandweatherconditions. TurbineSpecifications:Awindturbine’stotalheightandrotordiameterwillbeincluded inthewindPROshadowflickermodel.Thetallerthewindturbine,themorelikelyshadow flickercouldhaveanimpactonlocalshadowreceptorsastheabilitytoclearobstacles (suchashillsortrees)isgreater,althoughinthisanalysis,nocreditistakenforanysuch blockagefromtrees.Thelargertherotordiameteris,thewidertheareawhereshadows willbecast.AlsoincludedwiththeturbinespecificationsarethecutͲinandcutͲoutwind speedswithinwhichthewindturbineisoperational.IfthewindspeedisbelowthecutͲin thresholdorabovethecutͲoutthreshold,theturbinerotorwillnotbespinningandthus shadowflickerwillnotoccur. ShadowReceptorCoordinates:Aswiththewindturbinecoordinates,theelevation, distanceandorientationofashadowreceptorinrelationtothewindturbinesandthesun arethemainfactorsindeterminingtheimpactofshadowflicker.EAPCwasprovidedwith coordinatesfor590structuresfoundtobelocatedinthevicinityofthe86proposedwind turbinelocations. MonthlySunshineProbabilities:windPROcalculatessunriseandsunsettimesto determinethetotalannualhoursofdaylightforthemodeledarea.Tofurtherrefinethe shadowflickercalculations,themonthlyprobabilityofsunshineisincludedtoaccountfor cloudcover.Thegreatertheprobabilityofcloudcover,thelessofanimpactfromshadow flicker.ThemonthlysunshineprobabilitiesformanyofthelargercitiesacrosstheUnited StatesareavailablefromtheNationalClimaticDataCenter(NCDC).Forthisstudy,18 years’worthofmonthlysunshineprobabilitydatawereretrievedforSiouxFalls,SD, whichwastheclosest,mostrepresentativestation,tocreatethelongͲterm representativemonthlysunshineprobabilities.ThelongͲtermrepresentativemonthly averagesunshineprobabilitiesarepresentedbelowinTable3. ͵ǣ ǡǤ SiouxFalls,SDMonthlySunshineProbabilities(1965Ͳ1983) Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Sunshine% 53 59 46 54 55 58 71 61 59 57 49 55 retrievedfrom:http:// http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ccdͲdata/pctpos15.dat

6 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

JointWindSpeedandDirectionFrequencyDistribution:AsetoflongͲtermcorrected winddistributionswasprovidedbytheclienttorepresenttheannualwindspeedand directiondistributionfortheprojectsite.Thisdatawasusedtoestimatetheprobable numberofoperationalhoursforthewindturbinesfromeachofthe12winddirection sectors.Duringoperation,thewindturbinerotorswillalwaysbeassumedtofaceintothe windandautomaticallyorientthemselvesasthewinddirectionchanges.Shadowflicker canonlyoccurwhenthebladesareturningandthewindturbinerotorisbetweenthesun andthereceptor.Shadowflickerismostsignificantwhentherotorisfacingthesun. USGSDigitalElevationModel(DEM)(heightcontourdata):Forthisstudy,10mUSGS NationalElevationDatabase(NED)DEM’swereusedtoconstruct10Ͳfootintervalheight contourlinesforthewindPROshadowflickermodel.Theheightcontourinformationis importanttotheshadowflickercalculationsinceitallowsthemodeltoplacethewind turbinesandtheshadowreceptorsatthecorrectelevations.Theheightcontourlinesalso allowthemodeltoincludethetopographyofthesitewhencalculatingthezonesofvisual influencesurroundingthewindturbineandshadowreceptorlocations. Theactualcalculationofpotentialshadowflickeratagivenshadowreceptoriscarriedout bysimulatingtheenvironmentnearthewindturbinesandtheshadowreceptors.The positionofthesunrelativetotheturbinerotordiskandtheresultingshadowiscalculated intimestepsofoneminutethroughoutanentireyear.Iftheshadowoftherotordisk (whichinthecalculationisassumedsolid)atanytimecastsashadowonareceptor window,thenthisstepwillberegisteredasoneminuteofshadowflicker.Thecalculation alsorequiresthatthesunmustbeatleast3.0°abovethehorizoninordertoregister shadowflicker.Whenthesunangleislessthan3.0°,theshadowquicklybecomestoo diffusetobedistinguishablesincetheamountofatmospherethatthelightmustpass throughis15timesgreaterthanwhenthesunisdirectlyoverhead. Thesun’spathwithrespecttoeachwindturbinelocationiscalculatedbythesoftwareto determinethepathsofcastshadowsforeveryminuteofeverydayoverafullyear.The turbineruntimeanddirectionarecalculatedfromthesite’slongͲtermwindspeedand directiondistribution.Finally,theeffectsofcloudcoverarecalculatedusinglongͲterm referencedata(monthlysunshineprobability)toarriveattheprojectedannualflicker timeateachreceptor.

7. RESULTSOFANALYSISǦSHADOWFLICKER Theterm“realistic“asusedinthisreportmeansthatturbineoperationalhoursand directionaswellaslocalsunshineprobabilitieshavebeenfactoredin,butnoblockingor shadingeffectsduetotreesorstructureshavebeenaccountedfor.Thismeansthatthe realisticestimatesarestillinherentlyconservativevalues.Also,therealisticshadowflicker hourspredictedbywindPROassumesanavailabilityfactorof100%whichisveryunlikely tobethecase.Actualavailabilityfactorswilllikelybeintherangeof95Ͳ98%,however, withaconservativeapproachtoestimatingshadowflickertotals,therealisticestimates arenotdiscountedaccordingly. 7 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

Atotalof590residentialstructureswithintheprojectvicinitywereanalyzedandstandard resolutionrealisticshadowflickermapsandindividualmapsweregeneratedforthe turbinearray. The590shadowreceptorswerethenmodeledasgreenhouseͲmodereceptorsandthe estimatedshadowflickerwascalculatedforthearray.Ofthe590receptors,thenumber thatregisterednoshadowflickerhourswas472(80%).Table4containstherealistic shadowflickerdistributionofthe590residentialstructures.Thefulltableofresultsfrom therealisticcaseshadowflickerstudycanbefoundinAppendixEandthemapshowing theshadowflickerisoͲlinesisinAppendixF. Ͷǣ Realistic Vestas Shadow V1363.6Ͳ82 Flicker Total# (hrs/year) Structures 0 472 0to5 31 5to10 22 10to15 27 15to20 23 20to25 10 25to30 5 30+ 0

8. CONCLUSIONS Theconservativeresultsofthisstudyindicatethat,ofthe590receptorsmodeled,none measuredmorethan50dB(A)innoiselevels,ormorethan30hoursperyearofshadow flickeratanoccupiedresidence. Theshadowflickerimpactonthereceptorswascalculatedwithreductionsduetoturbine operationaldirectionandsunshineprobabilitiesincluded.Thisshadowflickeranalysisis basedonanumberofconservativeassumptionsincluding: x Nocreditwastakenfortheblockingeffectsoftreesorbuildings. x ThereceptorswereomniͲdirectionalratherthanmodelingspecificfacadesof buildings. x Studyassumes100%turbineavailability x Studyassumesnoserratedtrailingedgesonblades x Studyassumesallturbinelocations(includingspares)arebuiltandoperating

8 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

x StudyassumesallV136turbineseventhoughsomewillbeV110Ͳ2.0withalesser rotordiameterand,therefore,lessershadowflickerimpact Theoveralleffectofusingtheseconservativeassumptionsindicatethatrealistically,the numberofhoursofshadowflickerthatwouldbeobservedwillbelessthanthose predictedbythisstudy.

9 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXA:WINDTURBINECOORDINATES

9 Nobles2 VestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15

WTG Easting(m) Northing(m) ĂƐĞElev͘AMSL(m) T1 267,864 4,857,044 526.4 T2 268,770 4,858,267 521.2 T3 269,554 4,858,799 522.5 T4 270,128 4,858,105 518.2 T5 270,488 4,858,495 520.3 T6 270,504 4,857,705 521.2 T7 270,992 4,857,861 518.2 T8 270,467 4,856,821 524.3 T9 271,069 4,856,918 521.2 T10 271,567 4,856,618 521 T11 272,000 4,856,663 523.7 T12 272,488 4,856,591 518.2 T13 273,063 4,856,394 518.2 T14 274,331 4,856,862 515.1 T15 274,783 4,856,830 515.1 T16 275,259 4,856,842 515.1 T17 275,622 4,856,271 515.1 T18 277,562 4,856,307 500.3 T19 278,017 4,856,370 496.8 T20 278,347 4,858,011 497 T21 279,281 4,857,460 494.9 T22 279,538 4,857,910 493.8 T23 279,869 4,857,920 493.8 T24 266,961 4,855,092 543.4 T25 268,147 4,854,987 545.6 T26 270,798 4,854,933 528.3 T27 271,223 4,854,897 524.3 T28 271,711 4,854,832 524.3 T29 273,307 4,854,436 518.2 T30 274,775 4,854,596 515.1 T31 277,413 4,854,106 515.1 T32 277,634 4,854,717 509 T33 278,132 4,854,765 508.5 T34 264,645 4,853,979 515 T35 264,834 4,853,111 518 T36 265,058 4,853,967 520.7 T37 265,487 4,853,954 523.3 T38 265,990 4,853,806 535.1 T39 266,572 4,853,267 537 T40 267,089 4,853,497 539.5 T41 267,471 4,854,042 541.9 Nobles2 VestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

WTG Easting(m) Northing(m) ĂƐĞElev͘AMSL(m) T42 267,681 4,853,219 539.5 T43 268,295 4,853,429 539.5 T44 270,026 4,853,108 533.8 T45 270,735 4,852,936 530.4 T46 271,111 4,853,333 527.4 T47 271,507 4,853,553 527.3 T48 272,500 4,853,218 524.5 T49 272,961 4,853,173 521.6 T50 273,367 4,853,440 519 T51 274,710 4,853,140 515.1 T52 277,377 4,853,139 510.9 T53 278,106 4,853,133 515.1 T54 260,864 4,849,913 522.6 T55 261,224 4,850,375 524.3 T56 261,633 4,850,339 521.2 T57 261,927 4,850,959 520.4 T58 263,744 4,852,103 518.2 T59 264,206 4,852,172 518.2 T60 266,091 4,852,042 526.1 T61 266,460 4,851,476 529.5 T62 266,763 4,852,053 533.4 T63 267,861 4,851,806 532.8 T64 269,721 4,851,690 533.4 T65 270,206 4,851,885 533.4 T66 270,717 4,851,956 531.1 T67 271,112 4,851,599 530.4 T68 271,937 4,852,669 523.6 T69 272,372 4,852,287 521.2 T70 272,731 4,851,819 519.5 T71 274,407 4,851,494 515.1 T72 274,817 4,851,665 515.1 T73 277,418 4,851,994 512.1 T74 277,784 4,851,249 509.5 T75 266,224 4,850,465 518.2 T76 266,700 4,850,322 522.7 T77 266,897 4,849,230 515.5 T78 267,447 4,850,254 522.6 T79 267,870 4,850,712 530.2 T80 268,411 4,850,798 527.9 T81 267,819 4,849,698 516.9 T82 268,305 4,849,858 519.9 Nobles2 VestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

WTG Easting(m) Northing(m) ĂƐĞElev͘AMSL(m) T83 268,068 4,849,030 528.8 T84 268,482 4,848,975 530.4 T85 274,992 4,850,052 514.4 T86 275,560 4,849,962 511.8 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXB:NOBLES2WINDENERGYPROJECT SITEOVERVIEW

. client the with solely remain document this in contained material the of use and applications the for responsibilities The ty. liabili strict and negligence, fault, of irrespective and otherwise, or tort implied, or express warranty, contract, in arising

. Mile 0.5 012

ent corporations and its affiliates, from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage whether damage or loss special or consequential, indirect, direct, for liability any from affiliates, its and corporations ent par its EAPC, releases document, this of use or acceptance their by document, this of recipient Any drawing. this on disclosed

information disclosed on this drawing; or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of any information or methods or information any of use the to respect with liability any assumes (b) or drawing; this on disclosed information any of use the to respect with implied, or express warranty, any makes (a) behalf: their on acting person any nor EAPC Neither

$ 1

q Community User GIS the and swisstopo, IGP,

$ 1

H260 $ 1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, Aerogrid, Getmapping, AEX, USGS, USDA, DS, CNES/Airbus Geographics, Earthstar GeoEye, DigitalGlobe, Esri, Source: and other reserved rights, including the the including rights, reserved other and

$ 1

H266

EAPC shall retain all common law, statutory statutory law, common all retain shall EAPC $ 1

H263

of service shall remain the property of EAPC. EAPC. of property the remain shall service of H259

$ 1

instruments prepared by EAPC as instruments instruments as EAPC by prepared instruments $ 1

$ 1 H265

H261

field data, notes and other documents and and documents other and notes data, field

H264 H257

All maps, plans, specifications, computer files, files, computer specifications, plans, maps, All

$ 1

$ 1 H228

$ 1

H559

H220

H222

$ 1 $ 1 H225

$ 1

H450

$ 1

H226

$ 1

H230

H232

H436

$ 1

H569

$ 1

H449

H223

H440

$ 1

H567

H451

H561

H560

H570

$ 1 $ 1 H453

$ 1

$ 1 H568

$ 1

H221

H229

H227

H452

H571

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H208

$ 1

H224

H433

H231

$ 1 H219 $ 1

H565

H594

$ 1

H596

$ 1 H593 $ 1

H210

$ 1

H430 H448

H212

H431

$ 1 H566 1 $ $ 1

H563

$ 1

H419

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H413

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H445 H432 H439 $ 1

$ 1

H564

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H558 H424

$ 1 $ 1

H447

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H456 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H215 H217 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H595 $ 1 H554 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H557

$ 1 H438

$ 1 $ 1

H454

H443

$ 1

$ 1 H444 H442

H214

H218

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H556 $ 1

$ 1 H555

$ 1

H434

$ 1

H209 $ 1

H522

$ 1 H373 H525

H371

$ 1

H441

$ 1

H211

$ 1

H435

H526 H511 H179

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H460

$ 1

H171

$ 1

H213

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H553

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H186

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H527

H216

H529

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H461 1 $ Y $ 1

$ 1

H530 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H180

H446 $ 1

$ 1

H184

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H174

H506

H170

$ 1 $ 1 1

Y $ $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H505 $ 1 H437

H173

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H177 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H165

1 $ 1 $ H562

H163

H370 H369

$ 1

H528 H491

$ 1

H583

$ 1

$ Y

H572

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 H488 H167

$ 1

H486 H185 Y

$ 1

H169 Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H492

H493

$ 1 $ 1

H188 Y

H552

H487

H183

$ 1

H573 H172

$ Y

$ 1

V136 3.6 MW Turbines MW 3.6 V136 Y

H187 Y

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H175

H181 Y

$ 1

$ 1 H176 H128

H178 $ 1

H136

H168 Y $ 1

$ 1

Occupied Residences Occupied

H166

$ 1

H139

1 Y $

1 $ Y $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H122 H138

H131 $ 1

H127 Y

H123 H153

H140 H159 H160

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H162

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H581 H152

Y H133

H154

H135

H582 $ 1

H126 Y

1 $ 1

Y $ $ 1

H155

$ Y

$ 1 H132 H134 1 Y $

H125 Y

$ 1

H130

$ Y Y

H151 H574

Legend Y

H124

$ 1

H146 H121

1 $ Y

$ 1 $ 1

Y $

1 $ Y

$ 1

H108

$ 1

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H129

H106 H137

H597 H148

$ Y

$ 1

H161

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H103

$ 1

H104

$ 1

H101

1 Y $

$ 1 H149

$ 1 H150

$ 1 HJH By: Checked JH By: Drawn

H157

H156

H575 $ 1

H158

H94 $ 1

H93 H598

H551

1 Y $ H88

ecito Date Description #

H96

$ Y $ 1

H99 Y Y

Y Y Y H579

H110 Y

Original 1

2017.07.25 Y Y

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H549

$ Y H97

$ 1

H102 Y

H548

$ 1 H107

Y H550 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H105

H100

$ 1

H95

$ 1 H66

H64

H68 Y $ 1

$ 1

H71

H98 $ 1

$ 1

H91 Issue Dates Issue

$ Y Y Y

H62 H87

Y H576

$ 1 $ 1

Y H73

$ 1

H74

H85 Project #: Project 20162550 H82

$ 1

Y H77

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H80

H63 Wilmont, MN Wilmont,

Location: Y

H78

Y Y H547

$ Y Y Y

1 $ Y $ 1

H70

$ 1

Y $

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H67

H546

H86 H69 H65

H81

$ 1 $ 1

H75 H48

H79

$ 1 H76 H44

$ 1

$ 1 H84

$ 1

H37

H46

$ 1

H36

H545

H40

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H1

H39

$ 1

$ 1 H38 H50 H41

H33

Y H42 1

$ Y

Y $

Y $ $ 1

H49

H34

$ 1

H35

H43 Y 1

Y Y $

$ 1 H32

$ 1

residences. $ 1

Y Y Y Y H543 H47

H45 $ 1

H20 Y

$ 1

82 m HH WTGs and 590 occupied 590 and WTGs HH m 82 Y

H24

H26

$ 1

Nobles 2 overview with 86 Vestas V136 Vestas 86 with overview 2 Nobles

$ 1

H27

H31 H22

H30

$ 1

Y H542 H544

H25 Y

Project Description Project Y Y Y

$ 1 1

Y $

$ Y H28

H29

H19 Y $ 1

Westwood H23 Y

$ 1

H15

$ 1

$ Y

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 Client

$ 1

H3 H10

H17 H12

H13 H541

$ 1

Vestas V136 3.6 MW 82 m HH m 82 MW 3.6 V136 Vestas

H16

H540 H14

Project Site Overview Site Project

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 Nobles 2 Wind Farm Wind 2 Nobles

H11

H7 H6

$ 1

H538

$ 1 1 $ 1

www.eapc.net | 701.775.3000 | www.eapc.net

$ 1

H539

H535

$ 1

H534

H536

H590

$ 1

H533

$ 1

H588 H537

H531

$ 1

H589 H532 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXC:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTTABLEOFNOISE RESULTS

15 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H1 263,102.71 4,856,075.62 513.0 31.8 H2 263,755.02 4,856,096.50 518.9 33.1 H3 269,049.71 4,859,112.53 526.1 43.7 H4 270,136.64 4,859,070.83 524.3 45.0 H5 270,734.27 4,859,087.94 524.3 43.4 H6 270,372.09 4,860,240.46 525.9 35.5 H7 271,421.59 4,860,232.59 524.3 34.2 H8 272,193.86 4,860,475.64 521.2 32.4 H9 274,892.68 4,860,231.34 512.1 31.1 H10 274,734.07 4,859,135.69 514.1 33.9 H11 277,982.72 4,860,168.51 499.5 31.7 H12 277,954.33 4,859,167.91 499.9 36.3 H13 277,958.29 4,859,217.28 499.9 36.0 H14 279,378.67 4,859,553.01 496.8 35.0 H15 278,911.52 4,858,872.40 496.8 39.7 H16 280,922.20 4,859,454.65 487.2 32.4 H17 281,294.04 4,859,166.83 486.8 32.0 H18 283,114.34 4,857,048.64 484.6 27.5 H19 281,658.16 4,858,425.67 487.7 32.2 H20 281,565.91 4,857,087.60 492.0 32.7 H22 278,465.46 4,857,523.40 496.8 45.6 H23 276,039.46 4,858,655.16 502.9 34.8 H24 275,877.40 4,857,243.67 506.1 42.5 H25 275,031.60 4,857,777.00 511.8 41.2 H26 274,061.90 4,857,318.28 515.1 45.0 H27 272,039.94 4,857,506.28 518.2 43.8 H28 269,350.34 4,858,303.44 519.1 46.8 H29 269,354.46 4,858,318.26 519.4 46.9 H30 269,011.63 4,857,548.35 524.4 42.6 H31 268,185.27 4,857,517.49 527.3 43.8 H32 266,985.95 4,856,888.28 529.0 39.3 H33 267,533.08 4,856,324.92 542.3 41.1 H34 268,719.40 4,856,676.03 533.4 40.5 H35 269,142.04 4,856,745.01 530.4 40.3 H36 269,154.76 4,855,946.85 531.7 39.5 H37 270,375.88 4,855,849.95 525.4 42.8 H38 271,183.80 4,856,170.86 524.3 46.2 H39 272,323.48 4,849,765.79 527.3 35.7 H40 273,710.17 4,856,241.17 518.2 44.1 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H41 273,928.25 4,856,220.41 518.2 43.7 H42 273,919.23 4,856,334.03 518.2 44.3 H43 276,070.58 4,856,760.56 506.3 43.7 H44 276,192.73 4,855,618.08 512.1 41.2 H45 278,583.26 4,857,071.79 496.8 43.3 H46 278,513.40 4,855,864.58 499.7 42.8 H47 278,866.87 4,857,062.31 496.8 44.5 H48 280,971.22 4,855,500.16 493.8 32.1 H49 281,717.29 4,856,633.55 493.2 31.4 H50 282,032.92 4,856,171.88 491.7 30.0 H51 282,880.95 4,856,925.66 485.5 28.1 H52 283,578.75 4,855,974.32 489.2 26.4 H53 285,540.43 4,853,830.64 483.0 23.1 H54 285,050.45 4,848,921.80 490.7 22.0 H55 284,876.16 4,854,440.98 486.6 24.1 H56 285,001.48 4,853,773.91 487.6 23.8 H57 284,849.56 4,853,785.50 487.7 24.0 H58 283,562.49 4,854,975.80 490.7 26.2 H59 283,358.63 4,855,214.56 490.7 26.6 H60 283,400.64 4,854,515.33 490.7 26.3 H61 283,360.74 4,853,802.33 490.7 26.1 H62 282,445.50 4,854,167.42 491.5 27.8 H63 281,766.01 4,854,731.53 492.2 29.5 H64 281,696.72 4,853,922.70 493.8 29.3 H65 279,105.32 4,855,416.08 498.9 38.8 H66 279,281.17 4,853,911.69 506.9 37.5 H67 278,505.57 4,855,337.88 504.6 43.0 H68 278,298.85 4,853,956.62 511.5 43.8 H69 275,019.76 4,855,408.21 515.1 42.1 H70 273,860.15 4,855,179.09 516.8 42.0 H71 274,609.92 4,854,030.69 515.1 44.4 H73 271,545.79 4,846,903.52 527.8 30.2 H74 270,994.59 4,854,416.53 527.3 47.5 H75 270,550.76 4,855,498.72 527.3 44.6 H76 269,179.05 4,855,602.61 533.4 39.8 H77 269,090.56 4,854,866.19 536.4 41.0 H78 268,912.84 4,854,813.88 538.1 41.9 H79 267,277.98 4,855,509.47 548.6 44.7 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H80 267,274.55 4,854,693.51 545.6 46.6 H81 265,893.68 4,855,436.73 536.4 39.6 H82 265,772.21 4,854,474.32 526.4 45.9 H84 264,700.73 4,855,777.82 521.2 36.0 H85 264,174.90 4,854,444.41 514.6 43.0 H86 264,071.98 4,855,372.60 505.1 36.4 H87 262,516.51 4,854,188.07 498.5 33.9 H88 262,678.16 4,852,865.61 515.1 37.2 H91 266,742.18 4,854,075.55 539.7 46.5 H93 266,412.33 4,852,734.88 533.4 46.9 H94 267,640.43 4,852,683.64 534.9 46.4 H95 268,662.32 4,853,870.71 541.8 44.7 H96 268,688.20 4,853,016.77 543.7 44.9 H97 269,095.28 4,853,620.96 537.8 42.8 H98 270,992.60 4,854,030.51 527.3 46.2 H99 271,912.53 4,853,208.23 527.3 48.8 H100 272,710.83 4,853,804.51 523.0 46.8 H101 273,654.26 4,852,465.40 518.2 43.5 H102 274,152.71 4,853,662.04 515.1 44.1 H103 274,947.61 4,852,412.87 515.1 43.6 H104 275,467.17 4,852,426.79 515.1 41.0 H105 280,057.70 4,853,777.72 496.8 33.8 H106 279,652.52 4,852,322.25 506.0 34.3 H107 280,743.61 4,853,702.68 494.1 31.5 H108 281,111.43 4,852,256.22 499.9 29.6 H110 282,423.22 4,853,749.54 492.2 27.7 H111 283,032.76 4,853,729.13 490.9 26.6 H112 284,852.87 4,852,770.89 487.7 23.7 H113 283,788.93 4,852,192.93 490.7 24.9 H114 285,075.79 4,852,987.45 487.7 23.5 H115 286,235.05 4,852,646.34 483.6 22.1 H116 286,460.79 4,851,865.13 481.6 21.7 H117 284,903.71 4,850,679.68 489.1 22.9 H118 284,548.78 4,852,073.94 489.0 23.8 H119 283,912.38 4,851,822.50 490.7 24.5 H120 282,877.48 4,852,008.54 495.9 26.1 H121 281,967.41 4,852,097.17 495.6 27.7 H122 281,801.33 4,851,066.25 493.9 27.3 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H123 281,671.01 4,851,151.35 495.6 27.6 H124 280,019.40 4,846,271.84 522.7 24.6 H125 278,556.85 4,851,852.34 512.1 39.9 H126 278,446.06 4,851,567.19 510.5 41.3 H127 277,219.20 4,851,127.66 509.4 43.7 H128 277,786.31 4,850,725.76 507.8 43.7 H129 276,321.06 4,852,297.62 513.3 39.8 H130 275,330.03 4,851,906.78 515.1 44.1 H131 275,273.11 4,851,103.15 512.2 43.1 H132 273,738.73 4,851,851.23 518.3 43.4 H133 273,811.69 4,851,416.87 517.2 44.1 H134 272,149.19 4,851,843.25 521.2 47.4 H135 272,109.71 4,851,490.65 524.3 44.5 H136 273,015.17 4,850,863.76 518.5 40.2 H137 271,435.00 4,852,315.47 525.1 47.0 H138 270,855.21 4,851,075.98 529.4 44.9 H139 270,300.19 4,851,121.76 530.4 44.5 H140 269,809.55 4,851,170.35 531.5 45.6 H141 268,942.67 4,852,559.61 538.5 42.8 H142 268,937.43 4,852,508.81 538.1 42.8 H143 268,930.60 4,852,461.19 537.7 42.8 H144 268,993.15 4,852,462.14 537.3 42.8 H145 269,053.79 4,852,436.27 536.7 42.9 H146 269,113.01 4,852,447.70 536.5 43.0 H147 269,122.06 4,852,533.58 537.3 43.0 H148 269,056.81 4,852,561.68 537.9 42.9 H149 268,996.01 4,852,577.24 538.4 42.8 H150 268,398.65 4,852,568.66 539.5 43.9 H151 268,544.46 4,852,017.35 536.4 43.9 H152 268,813.52 4,848,328.91 524.3 42.0 H153 268,779.42 4,851,165.64 536.4 45.8 H154 267,310.24 4,851,479.02 527.3 46.3 H155 267,197.90 4,851,716.92 529.3 47.0 H156 266,832.44 4,852,592.93 533.4 47.0 H157 266,023.47 4,852,589.81 529.5 46.2 H158 265,120.77 4,852,634.45 523.7 45.4 H159 265,340.43 4,851,173.89 520.4 41.7 H160 264,536.12 4,851,190.31 521.8 40.3 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H161 262,470.99 4,852,362.23 518.1 37.6 H162 262,777.81 4,851,286.01 518.4 40.3 H163 264,446.25 4,849,607.82 509.0 35.6 H165 265,430.14 4,849,581.85 511.9 39.1 H166 265,925.39 4,850,929.99 518.6 45.8 H167 266,362.84 4,849,940.54 518.2 47.3 H168 269,018.56 4,850,871.88 533.9 44.7 H169 268,905.94 4,850,083.18 524.3 44.9 H170 268,916.77 4,849,393.10 532.5 45.3 H171 269,915.27 4,849,401.60 539.5 38.1 H172 269,902.16 4,850,385.44 527.3 40.2 H173 270,664.29 4,849,423.74 536.4 36.2 H174 271,189.46 4,849,371.12 532.5 35.4 H175 271,201.93 4,850,572.21 527.3 40.1 H176 271,834.41 4,850,725.59 527.1 40.0 H177 272,027.91 4,849,574.68 530.4 35.3 H178 273,226.31 4,850,741.28 518.2 39.5 H179 274,022.07 4,849,285.67 518.3 36.8 H180 274,776.60 4,849,255.66 518.2 40.4 H181 275,247.72 4,850,626.92 512.1 44.4 H182 276,511.67 4,849,231.01 510.7 36.4 H183 276,899.14 4,850,295.33 509.0 37.7 H184 278,367.13 4,849,321.69 509.0 31.9 H185 278,467.42 4,850,028.57 509.0 34.5 H186 278,753.68 4,849,094.55 507.3 30.5 H187 280,031.39 4,850,505.84 506.0 30.6 H188 281,633.66 4,850,217.48 499.9 26.9 H189 282,551.96 4,848,995.07 499.6 24.6 H190 282,883.47 4,850,344.66 496.8 25.1 H191 284,612.91 4,850,128.52 493.7 23.0 H192 284,709.92 4,849,421.73 492.4 22.5 H193 285,055.98 4,854,898.52 484.6 23.9 H194 288,205.36 4,850,976.13 473.6 19.9 H195 288,036.59 4,850,285.55 476.3 19.8 H196 288,004.68 4,849,174.27 479.1 19.5 H197 289,598.18 4,850,046.50 471.0 18.6 H198 289,771.55 4,849,759.34 470.2 18.4 H199 289,582.84 4,847,940.22 475.5 18.1 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H200 289,545.83 4,847,222.45 475.5 17.9 H201 289,769.26 4,847,197.32 475.5 17.7 H202 287,465.18 4,848,711.54 484.6 19.8 H203 286,448.33 4,847,253.20 489.3 20.0 H204 286,008.56 4,847,287.20 491.3 20.4 H205 285,475.57 4,847,323.64 493.8 20.8 H206 284,796.05 4,848,835.35 491.4 22.1 H207 284,713.60 4,847,845.45 493.8 21.7 H208 281,868.38 4,847,409.15 515.1 24.0 H209 281,538.78 4,848,602.49 512.1 25.5 H210 279,827.70 4,847,478.19 519.6 26.2 H211 278,353.26 4,848,785.58 509.0 30.4 H212 276,803.45 4,847,606.05 512.1 29.8 H213 276,335.41 4,849,019.68 512.1 36.1 H214 275,323.21 4,848,351.82 515.1 34.2 H215 275,153.40 4,848,088.32 515.1 32.9 H216 273,955.99 4,849,113.62 518.8 35.9 H217 273,481.26 4,848,082.25 521.9 31.9 H218 272,289.78 4,848,351.23 528.0 32.4 H219 273,149.12 4,847,217.36 524.3 30.1 H220 273,039.64 4,846,033.75 524.5 28.2 H221 275,128.33 4,846,810.76 515.1 29.1 H222 276,242.54 4,846,083.81 518.2 27.2 H223 276,718.36 4,846,399.21 516.2 27.4 H224 277,630.21 4,847,158.03 517.7 28.0 H225 277,912.04 4,846,112.81 515.1 26.1 H226 278,584.51 4,846,174.69 518.2 25.7 H227 279,686.77 4,846,876.68 519.3 25.6 H228 279,510.42 4,845,846.14 521.2 24.6 H229 279,974.40 4,846,869.13 524.3 25.3 H230 280,020.12 4,852,083.18 505.6 32.6 H231 281,097.89 4,847,204.56 524.3 24.6 H232 281,468.02 4,846,282.94 525.3 23.4 H233 283,135.60 4,846,994.54 504.1 22.6 H234 282,951.72 4,845,756.28 509.7 21.9 H235 283,156.76 4,845,754.49 507.6 21.7 H236 284,679.56 4,846,811.02 496.8 21.2 H237 284,962.68 4,846,803.32 495.3 21.0 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H238 285,876.32 4,845,780.61 493.8 19.8 H239 286,332.92 4,847,109.32 490.7 20.1 H240 287,864.80 4,845,316.37 486.2 18.3 H241 286,398.91 4,845,653.31 493.8 19.4 H242 287,868.76 4,845,585.48 484.7 18.4 H243 289,451.24 4,846,064.93 481.6 17.6 H244 289,576.89 4,845,931.92 480.8 17.5 H245 289,578.93 4,844,559.79 481.6 17.0 H246 289,747.29 4,843,952.29 481.1 16.7 H247 289,447.25 4,844,373.68 481.6 17.0 H248 287,939.19 4,845,287.27 485.3 18.2 H249 287,863.82 4,847,103.66 481.6 19.0 H250 287,000.96 4,843,993.12 490.7 18.3 H251 286,395.21 4,845,072.66 492.8 19.1 H252 286,073.26 4,844,842.61 494.7 19.2 H253 284,748.22 4,845,369.24 498.7 20.4 H254 284,688.99 4,842,488.14 502.9 18.8 H255 284,513.67 4,844,592.24 502.9 20.1 H256 283,813.87 4,845,663.28 503.0 21.2 H257 282,396.98 4,845,499.13 517.8 22.1 H258 282,744.54 4,844,141.99 518.2 20.9 H259 281,422.92 4,845,099.60 527.3 22.5 H260 281,377.59 4,844,672.55 527.3 22.2 H261 280,055.30 4,845,425.21 521.2 23.8 H262 280,138.27 4,844,485.96 518.2 22.8 H263 279,818.04 4,844,928.11 517.2 23.4 H264 278,849.04 4,845,455.72 516.8 24.6 H265 278,219.77 4,845,355.91 515.1 24.9 H266 278,102.49 4,844,850.16 514.3 24.4 H267 277,060.09 4,844,273.15 518.2 24.3 H268 277,052.02 4,844,303.44 518.2 24.4 H269 278,177.88 4,843,878.80 513.9 23.4 H270 278,788.67 4,844,060.61 514.3 23.2 H271 278,713.07 4,842,611.18 513.2 22.0 H272 279,288.93 4,843,392.02 515.1 22.3 H273 279,812.82 4,844,042.97 515.1 22.6 H274 280,239.66 4,843,841.90 518.2 22.2 H275 280,673.76 4,842,595.38 518.2 21.0 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H276 281,114.90 4,842,845.09 518.7 21.0 H277 281,142.84 4,842,955.16 521.2 21.0 H278 281,428.51 4,842,932.33 522.1 20.9 H279 281,377.45 4,842,911.16 521.2 20.9 H280 281,377.18 4,842,889.99 521.2 20.9 H281 281,365.01 4,842,858.51 521.2 20.8 H282 281,328.50 4,842,777.54 520.2 20.8 H283 281,379.04 4,842,794.74 521.2 20.8 H284 281,485.93 4,842,893.43 523.4 20.8 H285 281,611.34 4,842,856.13 524.3 20.7 H286 281,615.31 4,842,794.48 524.5 20.7 H287 281,661.35 4,842,752.14 526.0 20.6 H288 281,667.70 4,842,694.99 525.2 20.6 H289 281,656.06 4,842,582.81 523.7 20.5 H290 281,652.62 4,842,617.47 524.0 20.5 H291 281,656.06 4,842,662.72 524.3 20.5 H292 281,719.03 4,842,568.52 524.7 20.4 H293 281,705.27 4,842,346.80 524.3 20.3 H294 281,578.53 4,842,383.31 520.8 20.4 H295 281,362.90 4,842,356.19 518.9 20.5 H296 281,361.71 4,842,383.18 518.8 20.5 H297 281,340.27 4,842,438.75 518.4 20.6 H298 281,292.25 4,842,542.33 518.2 20.7 H299 281,422.82 4,842,532.01 520.1 20.6 H300 281,349.40 4,842,531.22 518.9 20.6 H301 281,536.33 4,842,537.17 521.4 20.5 H302 281,487.08 4,843,410.28 526.3 21.2 H303 282,050.13 4,844,078.87 525.8 21.3 H304 282,980.00 4,843,799.33 518.2 20.6 H305 282,370.07 4,842,548.05 530.4 20.1 H306 283,486.97 4,844,041.19 512.1 20.4 H307 283,084.24 4,843,395.83 519.4 20.2 H308 283,276.25 4,842,554.04 519.7 19.6 H309 284,073.19 4,842,528.20 507.7 19.2 H310 284,686.31 4,845,516.33 499.1 20.5 H311 286,199.83 4,843,538.33 491.8 18.5 H312 286,644.38 4,842,425.99 492.7 17.8 H313 287,588.37 4,842,363.89 487.7 17.2 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H314 288,010.43 4,843,607.28 487.7 17.5 H315 288,087.41 4,842,404.63 484.9 17.0 H316 289,307.59 4,843,277.53 482.2 16.7 H317 289,511.96 4,843,283.68 481.6 16.6 H318 289,448.50 4,841,598.21 482.8 16.0 H319 289,392.20 4,842,018.68 482.9 16.2 H320 289,039.01 4,840,705.05 481.6 15.9 H321 288,537.03 4,840,733.93 484.9 16.1 H322 287,211.97 4,842,285.52 488.8 17.4 H323 287,125.08 4,840,769.03 493.5 16.8 H324 286,265.46 4,841,722.79 496.8 17.6 H325 286,132.58 4,840,790.72 499.9 17.3 H326 286,060.98 4,840,780.56 499.9 17.3 H327 286,064.95 4,840,831.36 499.9 17.3 H328 284,631.01 4,842,145.43 506.0 18.7 H329 284,472.03 4,842,204.15 506.0 18.8 H330 283,023.58 4,841,722.05 524.3 19.2 H331 283,150.97 4,840,907.10 518.9 18.7 H332 282,192.94 4,841,762.95 519.0 19.7 H333 281,191.05 4,841,615.44 521.1 20.1 H334 281,181.46 4,841,811.58 521.2 20.2 H335 280,353.52 4,842,482.08 515.1 21.1 H336 280,003.56 4,841,009.62 518.2 20.2 H337 278,501.92 4,842,487.08 515.1 21.9 H338 279,657.06 4,842,138.06 515.1 21.1 H339 279,561.95 4,841,206.92 518.2 20.5 H340 281,257.14 4,840,379.09 515.8 19.2 H341 281,057.69 4,839,803.05 520.1 18.9 H342 281,602.28 4,839,336.83 518.2 18.4 H343 282,927.04 4,839,571.32 514.6 18.0 H344 284,453.77 4,839,631.48 504.1 17.4 H345 284,316.65 4,839,257.88 506.0 17.3 H346 285,183.57 4,840,739.35 504.0 17.7 H347 284,582.98 4,840,019.87 506.0 17.6 H348 285,249.08 4,839,242.35 502.9 16.9 H349 285,953.82 4,839,234.22 502.9 16.6 H350 285,957.63 4,839,195.69 502.9 16.6 H351 286,089.58 4,840,350.51 502.2 17.1 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H352 286,054.81 4,840,333.84 502.7 17.1 H353 286,529.63 4,840,584.18 498.9 17.0 H354 286,422.45 4,839,157.38 502.9 16.4 H355 287,283.40 4,840,687.54 493.0 16.7 H356 287,398.46 4,839,650.18 495.4 16.2 H357 287,717.09 4,840,256.18 493.8 16.3 H358 287,804.02 4,840,446.49 492.4 16.3 H359 289,253.89 4,839,489.54 484.3 15.3 H360 289,286.91 4,839,379.05 484.6 15.3 H361 289,396.56 4,839,422.23 483.5 15.2 H362 289,293.14 4,840,096.46 481.6 15.5 H363 289,407.88 4,839,976.13 481.6 15.4 H364 287,782.36 4,838,759.57 496.8 15.6 H365 286,140.77 4,839,096.95 502.9 16.5 H366 286,115.09 4,838,503.85 502.9 16.2 H367 286,026.06 4,838,365.34 502.9 16.2 H368 282,133.76 4,839,230.89 515.1 18.2 H369 262,961.44 4,849,622.13 510.2 36.3 H370 262,911.08 4,849,623.97 510.4 36.4 H371 262,676.98 4,848,728.21 512.1 33.8 H372 262,736.19 4,848,704.87 510.7 33.6 H373 262,676.19 4,848,699.33 511.8 33.7 H374 262,673.31 4,848,634.68 511.9 33.5 H375 262,672.23 4,848,669.00 511.8 33.6 H376 262,667.72 4,848,548.66 512.2 33.2 H377 262,666.56 4,848,595.91 512.1 33.4 H378 262,729.25 4,848,550.30 511.0 33.1 H379 262,287.59 4,847,630.72 518.2 30.6 H380 262,290.63 4,848,402.13 517.9 33.2 H381 262,316.03 4,848,253.96 515.1 32.6 H382 262,286.62 4,848,447.69 518.2 33.4 H383 262,278.20 4,848,283.33 515.5 32.7 H384 262,434.56 4,848,257.47 515.1 32.5 H385 262,480.07 4,848,288.16 515.1 32.5 H386 262,479.81 4,848,270.83 515.1 32.5 H387 262,544.87 4,848,236.97 515.1 32.3 H388 262,598.05 4,848,297.29 514.2 32.4 H389 262,542.17 4,848,251.89 515.1 32.3 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H390 262,527.40 4,848,246.34 515.1 32.3 H391 262,896.01 4,848,237.57 509.3 32.1 H392 262,828.28 4,848,330.06 511.1 32.3 H393 262,826.16 4,848,289.42 511.1 32.2 H394 262,823.41 4,848,270.16 511.1 32.2 H395 262,766.73 4,848,176.76 512.1 32.0 H396 262,932.63 4,847,982.69 512.1 31.4 H397 262,891.75 4,847,985.47 512.1 31.4 H398 262,859.60 4,847,983.49 512.1 31.4 H399 262,813.17 4,847,986.26 512.1 31.4 H400 262,817.14 4,848,025.55 512.1 31.5 H401 262,816.74 4,848,062.86 512.1 31.6 H402 262,708.00 4,848,118.03 512.3 31.8 H403 262,648.07 4,848,007.01 513.6 31.6 H404 262,588.38 4,848,084.27 515.1 31.8 H405 262,533.13 4,847,980.76 515.1 31.5 H406 262,475.56 4,847,993.88 515.1 31.6 H407 262,424.55 4,847,997.06 515.1 31.6 H408 262,357.24 4,847,984.99 515.3 31.6 H409 262,318.71 4,848,092.31 515.1 32.0 H410 262,272.15 4,848,190.31 515.1 32.4 H411 262,272.99 4,848,155.39 515.1 32.3 H412 262,322.31 4,848,207.67 515.1 32.4 H413 262,319.98 4,848,150.73 515.1 32.2 H414 262,958.77 4,847,926.55 512.0 31.3 H415 262,925.30 4,847,929.06 512.1 31.3 H416 262,904.93 4,847,931.45 512.1 31.3 H417 263,020.92 4,847,925.25 510.9 31.3 H418 262,866.77 4,847,929.06 512.1 31.3 H419 262,812.32 4,847,929.70 512.1 31.3 H420 262,763.90 4,847,933.19 512.1 31.3 H421 262,729.20 4,847,930.55 512.1 31.3 H422 262,693.96 4,847,935.63 512.1 31.4 H423 262,708.56 4,847,933.40 512.1 31.3 H424 262,695.44 4,847,897.10 512.1 31.3 H425 262,645.86 4,847,939.33 513.1 31.4 H426 262,649.82 4,847,886.47 512.5 31.2 H427 262,624.58 4,847,865.19 512.9 31.2 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H428 262,461.52 4,847,937.19 515.8 31.4 H429 262,421.83 4,847,929.26 516.0 31.4 H430 262,296.68 4,847,913.38 516.4 31.4 H431 262,288.25 4,848,496.85 518.2 33.6 H432 263,505.75 4,847,832.55 508.8 31.2 H433 263,918.71 4,847,162.74 503.4 30.1 H434 263,727.29 4,848,554.27 502.8 32.7 H435 264,100.12 4,848,872.09 498.8 33.6 H436 265,783.29 4,846,308.54 493.8 30.2 H437 265,880.29 4,849,430.11 505.7 41.0 H438 265,565.91 4,848,222.94 503.2 35.2 H439 265,739.87 4,847,829.28 502.5 34.4 H440 267,027.95 4,846,405.94 497.3 31.5 H441 267,115.39 4,848,771.00 521.2 45.3 H442 267,247.29 4,848,323.00 521.2 41.0 H443 268,726.28 4,848,315.85 524.0 42.4 H444 268,809.21 4,851,406.91 535.7 44.4 H445 269,212.09 4,847,823.47 529.2 36.6 H446 269,660.84 4,849,257.38 541.2 39.1 H447 271,300.06 4,847,948.57 535.2 32.3 H448 268,661.71 4,847,492.34 527.3 36.1 H449 268,389.72 4,846,386.09 517.5 31.6 H450 268,955.23 4,846,144.94 512.1 30.7 H451 270,238.59 4,846,487.39 522.9 30.5 H452 271,545.54 4,854,278.84 524.3 47.0 H453 272,218.47 4,846,599.02 527.3 29.3 H454 262,886.02 4,848,289.26 509.7 32.2 H455 262,283.75 4,848,250.92 515.1 32.6 H456 267,094.58 4,848,047.72 515.0 38.7 H457 272,063.23 4,849,032.67 527.4 33.9 H458 272,069.86 4,849,069.12 527.5 34.0 H459 272,073.17 4,849,107.22 527.7 34.1 H460 272,075.04 4,849,202.68 527.8 34.3 H461 272,102.99 4,849,212.20 527.4 34.3 H462 272,181.46 4,849,201.85 527.3 34.3 H463 272,258.83 4,849,440.08 527.3 34.8 H464 272,260.19 4,849,633.71 527.3 35.4 H465 272,260.82 4,849,509.20 527.3 35.0 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H466 272,262.09 4,849,693.82 527.3 35.5 H467 272,252.48 4,849,380.51 527.3 34.7 H468 272,254.55 4,849,205.16 527.3 34.3 H469 272,255.49 4,849,184.69 527.3 34.2 H470 272,256.86 4,849,262.37 527.3 34.4 H471 272,257.19 4,849,287.84 527.3 34.5 H472 272,258.83 4,849,393.53 527.3 34.7 H473 272,259.46 4,849,145.79 527.3 34.1 H474 272,206.25 4,849,512.84 527.3 35.1 H475 272,260.74 4,849,410.99 527.3 34.8 H476 272,262.09 4,849,671.59 527.3 35.5 H477 272,208.54 4,849,589.68 527.3 35.3 H478 272,251.51 4,849,597.93 527.3 35.3 H479 272,255.86 4,849,464.22 527.3 34.9 H480 272,258.52 4,849,306.03 527.3 34.5 H481 272,259.34 4,849,543.54 527.3 35.1 H482 272,310.53 4,849,692.42 527.3 35.5 H483 272,328.23 4,856,093.15 522.4 47.0 H484 272,301.46 4,849,767.69 527.3 35.7 H485 272,037.83 4,850,113.84 527.3 37.0 H486 272,007.14 4,850,194.27 527.8 37.3 H487 272,013.49 4,850,276.82 527.7 37.7 H488 272,426.69 4,849,251.64 527.3 34.3 H489 272,376.53 4,850,111.13 526.8 36.8 H490 272,377.72 4,850,049.22 526.8 36.6 H491 272,378.27 4,850,187.25 526.9 37.1 H492 272,378.91 4,850,087.71 526.8 36.8 H493 272,378.91 4,850,142.09 526.9 37.0 H494 272,646.42 4,849,622.61 525.5 35.3 H495 272,608.95 4,849,637.54 525.7 35.3 H496 272,557.67 4,849,637.38 526.0 35.3 H497 272,531.35 4,849,268.86 524.9 34.4 H498 272,654.96 4,849,568.32 525.4 35.1 H499 272,653.37 4,849,511.17 525.5 35.0 H500 272,595.03 4,849,580.23 525.8 35.2 H501 272,483.84 4,849,268.78 526.6 34.4 H502 272,487.87 4,849,686.59 526.5 35.5 H503 272,493.49 4,849,749.32 526.5 35.6 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H504 272,653.05 4,849,453.74 524.3 34.8 H505 272,651.73 4,849,414.05 524.3 34.7 H506 272,650.08 4,849,368.08 523.2 34.6 H507 272,648.42 4,849,322.11 523.8 34.5 H508 272,648.09 4,849,267.87 523.8 34.4 H509 272,590.55 4,849,253.98 524.3 34.3 H510 272,532.27 4,849,647.22 526.2 35.4 H511 272,903.09 4,849,233.47 524.1 34.4 H512 272,480.40 4,849,250.60 526.9 34.3 H513 272,486.66 4,849,637.08 526.4 35.3 H514 272,430.11 4,850,108.75 526.6 36.8 H515 272,414.41 4,849,192.71 527.3 34.2 H516 272,415.47 4,849,124.42 527.3 34.0 H517 272,421.32 4,849,171.75 527.3 34.2 H518 272,413.14 4,849,063.25 527.3 33.9 H519 272,418.10 4,849,202.85 527.3 34.2 H520 272,363.51 4,849,019.98 527.3 33.8 H521 272,354.53 4,848,952.04 527.3 33.7 H522 272,358.68 4,848,912.89 527.3 33.6 H523 272,258.19 4,849,324.55 527.3 34.6 H524 272,255.21 4,849,344.72 527.3 34.6 H525 272,263.96 4,849,121.45 527.3 34.1 H526 272,305.23 4,849,125.15 527.3 34.1 H527 272,366.62 4,849,118.54 527.3 34.0 H528 272,305.70 4,849,725.15 527.3 35.6 H529 272,923.75 4,849,120.27 523.9 34.1 H530 273,011.81 4,849,231.06 523.7 34.4 H531 274,919.06 4,861,512.16 509.0 28.7 H532 273,734.72 4,861,872.02 516.9 28.5 H533 273,464.68 4,861,207.72 523.9 29.8 H534 272,743.39 4,860,728.17 524.3 31.3 H535 271,223.80 4,860,615.09 522.2 33.1 H536 269,897.34 4,860,868.79 524.4 32.8 H537 267,759.31 4,861,455.42 530.4 29.3 H538 267,560.09 4,860,626.93 533.6 31.0 H539 267,169.93 4,860,602.62 536.4 30.4 H540 266,790.11 4,859,498.18 537.1 32.0 H541 266,152.18 4,859,224.46 547.4 31.2 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H542 266,472.09 4,857,600.06 537.1 35.1 H543 264,087.77 4,856,944.46 524.3 31.7 H544 263,982.44 4,857,675.08 517.4 30.2 H545 261,499.56 4,855,966.99 501.3 29.0 H546 260,954.83 4,855,342.86 506.0 28.8 H547 260,830.27 4,854,829.70 496.8 29.2 H548 260,879.39 4,853,683.63 500.6 30.8 H549 262,385.91 4,853,605.54 508.0 34.5 H550 260,019.09 4,853,713.95 489.8 29.2 H551 261,514.65 4,852,811.67 503.6 34.0 H552 262,225.99 4,848,539.24 518.2 33.8 H553 262,161.10 4,849,072.91 520.3 36.7 H554 262,225.98 4,850,251.92 521.2 44.4 H555 262,222.11 4,848,186.03 515.1 32.4 H556 262,230.90 4,848,443.05 518.2 33.4 H557 262,222.11 4,848,485.20 518.2 33.6 H558 262,185.05 4,847,934.79 514.7 31.5 H559 263,685.88 4,846,000.07 503.5 28.0 H560 262,155.68 4,846,529.92 511.8 28.1 H561 261,248.06 4,846,489.36 501.6 27.6 H562 261,305.90 4,849,589.05 518.4 45.1 H563 260,775.67 4,848,025.57 509.0 31.9 H564 260,441.80 4,847,913.31 503.1 31.0 H565 260,341.80 4,847,237.65 505.4 28.6 H566 259,160.42 4,847,654.27 488.8 27.8 H567 259,198.50 4,846,749.38 493.8 26.1 H568 259,123.46 4,846,740.83 493.8 26.0 H569 260,220.76 4,846,338.17 506.0 26.5 H570 258,452.11 4,846,555.96 488.6 24.9 H571 258,902.35 4,846,946.38 491.2 26.1 H572 259,716.03 4,849,882.16 524.3 36.5 H573 260,669.30 4,850,396.10 525.3 46.3 H574 260,705.94 4,852,023.78 515.1 35.2 H575 259,457.36 4,852,624.27 496.8 29.8 H576 258,595.97 4,854,215.75 493.7 26.4 H577 257,656.54 4,854,241.94 506.5 25.0 H578 256,585.45 4,853,179.91 500.8 24.1 H579 257,823.36 4,853,299.37 491.1 25.9 Nobles2 Realcasenoiseresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Noise ElevationAMSL RealCaseNoise Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (dB(A)) H580 257,234.98 4,852,101.96 496.8 25.6 H581 258,758.81 4,851,409.35 513.1 29.8 H582 258,147.49 4,851,539.56 517.4 27.9 H583 257,951.91 4,849,819.10 512.1 27.7 H584 257,432.32 4,849,949.80 502.9 26.4 H585 257,164.37 4,849,442.70 493.0 25.6 H586 257,506.15 4,846,928.72 479.5 24.1 H587 257,312.10 4,847,272.01 478.5 24.2 H588 272,982.06 4,861,447.01 524.3 29.6 H589 275,481.66 4,861,803.89 506.0 28.0 H590 276,651.22 4,860,901.65 499.9 29.4 H591 255,883.35 4,852,698.89 493.8 23.3 H592 286,535.55 4,850,992.52 484.6 21.3 H593 274,747.30 4,847,458.62 516.7 30.7 H594 282,318.97 4,847,257.78 511.4 23.5 H595 273,612.39 4,848,118.62 521.2 32.1 H596 265,552.58 4,847,393.01 496.0 32.7 H597 269,556.73 4,852,322.43 536.4 45.4 H598 268,975.06 4,852,742.67 539.5 42.9 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXD:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTSTANDARD RESOLUTIONNOISEMAP

. Mile 0.5 012

$ 1

q Community User GIS the and swisstopo, IGP,

$ 1

H260 $ 1

$ 1

H266

EAPC shall retain all common law, statutory statutory law, common all retain shall EAPC $ 1

H263

of service shall remain the property of EAPC. EAPC. of property the remain shall service of H259

$ 1

instruments prepared by EAPC as instruments instruments as EAPC by prepared instruments $ 1

$ 1 H265

H261

field data, notes and other documents and and documents other and notes data, field

H264 H257

All maps, plans, specifications, computer files, files, computer specifications, plans, maps, All

$ 1

$ 1 H228

$ 1

H559

H220

H222

$ 1 $ 1 H225

$ 1

H450

$ 1

H226

$ 1

H230

H232

H436

$ 1

H569

$ 1

H449

H223

H440

$ 1

H567

H451

H561

H560

H570

$ 1 $ 1 H453

$ 1

$ 1 H568

$ 1

H221

H229

H227

H452

H571

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H208

$ 1

H224

H433

H231

$ 1 H219 $ 1

H565

H594

$ 1

H596

$ 1 H593 $ 1

H210

$ 1

H430 H448

H212

H431

$ 1 H566 1 $ $ 1

H563

$ 1

H419

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H413

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H445 H432 H439 $ 1

$ 1

H564

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H558 H424

$ 1 $ 1

H447

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H456 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H215 H217 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H595 $ 1 H554 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H557

$ 1 H438

$ 1 $ 1

H454

H443

$ 1

$ 1 H444 H442 55

H214

H218

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H556 $ 1

$ 1 H555

$ 1

H434

$ 1

H209

$ 1

H522

$ 1 H373 H525 50

H371

$ 1

H441

$ 1

H211

$ 1

H435

H526 H511 H179

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H460

$ 1

H171

$ 1

H213

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H553 45

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H186

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H527

H216

H529

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H461 1 $ Y $ 1

$ 1

H530 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H180

H446 $ 1

$ 1

H184

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H174

H506

H170

$ 1 $ 1 1

Y $ $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H505 $ 1 H437

H173

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H177 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H165

1 $ 1 $ H562

H163

H370 H369 $ 1

H528 H491

$ 1

H583

$ 1

$ Y

H572

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 H488 H167

$ 1

H486

H185 Y

$ 1

H169 Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H492

Sound Level (dB(A)) Level Sound H493

$ 1 $ 1

H188 Y

H552

H487 H183

$ 1

H573 H172

$ Y

H187 Y

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H175

H181 Y

V136 3.6 MW Turbines MW 3.6 V136 $ 1

$ 1 H176 H128

H178 $ 1

H136

H168 Y $ 1

$ 1

H166

$ 1

H139

$ 1

1 $ Y $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H122

H138

H131 $ 1

Occupied Residences Occupied

Y H127 Y

H123 H153

H140 H159 $ 1 H160

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H162

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H581 H152

Y H133

H154

H135

H582 $ 1

H126 Y

1 $ 1

Y $ $ 1

H155

$ Y

$ 1 H132 H134 1 Y $

H125 Y

$ 1

H130

$ Y Y

H151 H574

Legend Y

H124

$ 1

H146 H121

1 $ Y

$ 1 $ 1

Y $

1 $ Y

$ 1

H108

$ 1

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H129

H106 H137

H597 H148

$ Y

$ 1

H161

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H103

$ 1

H104

$ 1

H101

1 Y $

$ 1 H149

$ 1 H150

$ 1 HJH By: Checked JH By: Drawn

H157

H156

H575 $ 1

H158

H94 $ 1

H93 H598

H551

1 Y $ H88

ecito Date Description #

H96

$ Y $ 1

H99 Y Y

Y Y Y H579

H110 Y

Original 1

2017.07.25 Y Y

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H549

$ Y H97

$ 1

H102 Y

H548

$ 1 H107

Y H550 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H105

H100

$ 1

H95

$ 1 H66

H64

H68 Y $ 1

$ 1

H71

H98 $ 1

$ 1

H91 Issue Dates Issue

$ Y Y Y

H62 H87

Y H576

$ 1 $ 1

Y H73

$ 1

H74

H85 Project #: Project 20162550 H82

$ 1

Y H77

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H80

H63 Wilmont, MN Wilmont,

Location: Y

H78

Y Y H547

$ Y Y Y

1 $ Y $ 1

H70

$ 1

Y $

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H67

H546

H86 H69 H65

H81

$ 1 $ 1

H75 H48

H79

$ 1 H76 H44

$ 1

$ 1 H84

$ 1

not included.. not

H37

H46

$ 1

H36

H545

H40

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H1

attenuation. Ambient background noise background Ambient attenuation. H39

$ 1

$ 1 H38 H50

H41

H33 H42

noise Standard General with 0.5 ground 0.5 with General Standard noise Y 1

$ Y

Y $

Y $ $ 1

H49 an 82 m hub height, and ISO 9613-2 ISO and height, hub m 82 an

H34

$ 1

H35

H43 Y 1

Y Y $

$ 1 H32

$ 1

Assumes 108.2 dB(A) at 10 m/s at m/s 10 at dB(A) 108.2 Assumes $ 1

Y Y Y Y H543 H47

H45 $ 1

H20 Y

$ 1

HH WTGs. Realistic case noise map. noise case Realistic WTGs. HH Y

H24

H26

$ 1

Noise Analysis for V136 82m V136 for Analysis Noise

$ 1

H27

H31 H22

H30

$ 1

Y H542 H544

H25 Y

Project Description Project Y Y Y

$ 1 1

Y $

$ Y H28

H29

H19 Y $ 1

Westwood H23 Y

$ 1

H15

$ 1

$ Y

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 Client

$ 1

H3 H10

H17 H12

H13 H541

$ 1

Vestas V136 3.6 MW 82 m HH m 82 MW 3.6 V136 Vestas

H16

H540 H14

Noise Results Noise

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 Nobles 2 Wind Farm Wind 2 Nobles

H11

H7 H6

$ 1

H538

$ 1 1 $ 1

www.eapc.net | 701.775.3000 | www.eapc.net

$ 1

H539

H535

$ 1

H534

H536

H590

$ 1

H533

$ 1

H588 H537

H531

$ 1

H589 H532 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXE:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTTABLEOF SHADOWFLICKERRESULTS

34 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H1 263,102.71 4,856,075.62 513.0 0:00 H2 263,755.02 4,856,096.50 518.9 0:00 H3 269,049.71 4,859,112.53 526.1 21:08 H4 270,136.64 4,859,070.83 524.3 12:56 H5 270,734.27 4,859,087.94 524.3 2:00 H6 270,372.09 4,860,240.46 525.9 0:00 H7 271,421.59 4,860,232.59 524.3 0:00 H8 272,193.86 4,860,475.64 521.2 0:00 H9 274,892.68 4,860,231.34 512.1 0:00 H10 274,734.07 4,859,135.69 514.1 0:00 H11 277,982.72 4,860,168.51 499.5 0:00 H12 277,954.33 4,859,167.91 499.9 0:00 H13 277,958.29 4,859,217.28 499.9 0:00 H14 279,378.67 4,859,553.01 496.8 0:00 H15 278,911.52 4,858,872.40 496.8 0:00 H16 280,922.20 4,859,454.65 487.2 0:00 H17 281,294.04 4,859,166.83 486.8 0:00 H18 283,114.34 4,857,048.64 484.6 0:00 H19 281,658.16 4,858,425.67 487.7 0:00 H20 281,565.91 4,857,087.60 492.0 0:00 H22 278,465.46 4,857,523.40 496.8 11:45 H23 276,039.46 4,858,655.16 502.9 0:00 H24 275,877.40 4,857,243.67 506.1 18:51 H25 275,031.60 4,857,777.00 511.8 0:00 H26 274,061.90 4,857,318.28 515.1 17:33 H27 272,039.94 4,857,506.28 518.2 11:01 H28 269,350.34 4,858,303.44 519.1 24:44 H29 269,354.46 4,858,318.26 519.4 24:18 H30 269,011.63 4,857,548.35 524.4 9:27 H31 268,185.27 4,857,517.49 527.3 0:00 H32 266,985.95 4,856,888.28 529.0 5:49 H33 267,533.08 4,856,324.92 542.3 0:00 H34 268,719.40 4,856,676.03 533.4 10:39 H35 269,142.04 4,856,745.01 530.4 3:37 H36 269,154.76 4,855,946.85 531.7 0:00 H37 270,375.88 4,855,849.95 525.4 4:58 H38 271,183.80 4,856,170.86 524.3 2:42 H39 272,323.48 4,849,765.79 527.3 0:00 H40 273,710.17 4,856,241.17 518.2 17:47 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H41 273,928.25 4,856,220.41 518.2 12:03 H42 273,919.23 4,856,334.03 518.2 11:54 H43 276,070.58 4,856,760.56 506.3 17:08 H44 276,192.73 4,855,618.08 512.1 6:14 H45 278,583.26 4,857,071.79 496.8 9:43 H46 278,513.40 4,855,864.58 499.7 10:01 H47 278,866.87 4,857,062.31 496.8 7:02 H48 280,971.22 4,855,500.16 493.8 0:00 H49 281,717.29 4,856,633.55 493.2 0:00 H50 282,032.92 4,856,171.88 491.7 0:00 H51 282,880.95 4,856,925.66 485.5 0:00 H52 283,578.75 4,855,974.32 489.2 0:00 H53 285,540.43 4,853,830.64 483.0 0:00 H54 285,050.45 4,848,921.80 490.7 0:00 H55 284,876.16 4,854,440.98 486.6 0:00 H56 285,001.48 4,853,773.91 487.6 0:00 H57 284,849.56 4,853,785.50 487.7 0:00 H58 283,562.49 4,854,975.80 490.7 0:00 H59 283,358.63 4,855,214.56 490.7 0:00 H60 283,400.64 4,854,515.33 490.7 0:00 H61 283,360.74 4,853,802.33 490.7 0:00 H62 282,445.50 4,854,167.42 491.5 0:00 H63 281,766.01 4,854,731.53 492.2 0:00 H64 281,696.72 4,853,922.70 493.8 0:00 H65 279,105.32 4,855,416.08 498.9 10:42 H66 279,281.17 4,853,911.69 506.9 3:53 H67 278,505.57 4,855,337.88 504.6 7:45 H68 278,298.85 4,853,956.62 511.5 5:59 H69 275,019.76 4,855,408.21 515.1 0:00 H70 273,860.15 4,855,179.09 516.8 5:12 H71 274,609.92 4,854,030.69 515.1 4:16 H73 271,545.79 4,846,903.52 527.8 0:00 H74 270,994.59 4,854,416.53 527.3 2:36 H75 270,550.76 4,855,498.72 527.3 15:06 H76 269,179.05 4,855,602.61 533.4 4:53 H77 269,090.56 4,854,866.19 536.4 5:45 H78 268,912.84 4,854,813.88 538.1 10:44 H79 267,277.98 4,855,509.47 548.6 13:06 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H80 267,274.55 4,854,693.51 545.6 11:23 H81 265,893.68 4,855,436.73 536.4 3:21 H82 265,772.21 4,854,474.32 526.4 19:57 H84 264,700.73 4,855,777.82 521.2 0:00 H85 264,174.90 4,854,444.41 514.6 29:04 H86 264,071.98 4,855,372.60 505.1 0:00 H87 262,516.51 4,854,188.07 498.5 0:00 H88 262,678.16 4,852,865.61 515.1 5:26 H91 266,742.18 4,854,075.55 539.7 21:56 H93 266,412.33 4,852,734.88 533.4 5:34 H94 267,640.43 4,852,683.64 534.9 16:42 H95 268,662.32 4,853,870.71 541.8 17:46 H96 268,688.20 4,853,016.77 543.7 6:18 H97 269,095.28 4,853,620.96 537.8 12:03 H98 270,992.60 4,854,030.51 527.3 21:39 H99 271,912.53 4,853,208.23 527.3 24:28 H100 272,710.83 4,853,804.51 523.0 13:37 H101 273,654.26 4,852,465.40 518.2 13:31 H102 274,152.71 4,853,662.04 515.1 25:16 H103 274,947.61 4,852,412.87 515.1 0:00 H104 275,467.17 4,852,426.79 515.1 0:00 H105 280,057.70 4,853,777.72 496.8 0:00 H106 279,652.52 4,852,322.25 506.0 2:35 H107 280,743.61 4,853,702.68 494.1 0:00 H108 281,111.43 4,852,256.22 499.9 0:00 H110 282,423.22 4,853,749.54 492.2 0:00 H111 283,032.76 4,853,729.13 490.9 0:00 H112 284,852.87 4,852,770.89 487.7 0:00 H113 283,788.93 4,852,192.93 490.7 0:00 H114 285,075.79 4,852,987.45 487.7 0:00 H115 286,235.05 4,852,646.34 483.6 0:00 H116 286,460.79 4,851,865.13 481.6 0:00 H117 284,903.71 4,850,679.68 489.1 0:00 H118 284,548.78 4,852,073.94 489.0 0:00 H119 283,912.38 4,851,822.50 490.7 0:00 H120 282,877.48 4,852,008.54 495.9 0:00 H121 281,967.41 4,852,097.17 495.6 0:00 H122 281,801.33 4,851,066.25 493.9 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H123 281,671.01 4,851,151.35 495.6 0:00 H124 280,019.40 4,846,271.84 522.7 0:00 H125 278,556.85 4,851,852.34 512.1 10:53 H126 278,446.06 4,851,567.19 510.5 15:15 H127 277,219.20 4,851,127.66 509.4 20:45 H128 277,786.31 4,850,725.76 507.8 0:00 H129 276,321.06 4,852,297.62 513.3 5:06 H130 275,330.03 4,851,906.78 515.1 15:55 H131 275,273.11 4,851,103.15 512.2 13:55 H132 273,738.73 4,851,851.23 518.3 18:34 H133 273,811.69 4,851,416.87 517.2 24:36 H134 272,149.19 4,851,843.25 521.2 18:15 H135 272,109.71 4,851,490.65 524.3 14:28 H136 273,015.17 4,850,863.76 518.5 3:22 H137 271,435.00 4,852,315.47 525.1 21:47 H138 270,855.21 4,851,075.98 529.4 8:22 H139 270,300.19 4,851,121.76 530.4 1:21 H140 269,809.55 4,851,170.35 531.5 3:36 H141 268,942.67 4,852,559.61 538.5 15:50 H142 268,937.43 4,852,508.81 538.1 13:43 H143 268,930.60 4,852,461.19 537.7 12:38 H144 268,993.15 4,852,462.14 537.3 10:39 H145 269,053.79 4,852,436.27 536.7 10:43 H146 269,113.01 4,852,447.70 536.5 9:56 H147 269,122.06 4,852,533.58 537.3 8:47 H148 269,056.81 4,852,561.68 537.9 11:11 H149 268,996.01 4,852,577.24 538.4 14:16 H150 268,398.65 4,852,568.66 539.5 3:13 H151 268,544.46 4,852,017.35 536.4 11:28 H152 268,813.52 4,848,328.91 524.3 0:00 H153 268,779.42 4,851,165.64 536.4 29:07 H154 267,310.24 4,851,479.02 527.3 15:14 H155 267,197.90 4,851,716.92 529.3 26:00 H156 266,832.44 4,852,592.93 533.4 15:11 H157 266,023.47 4,852,589.81 529.5 15:59 H158 265,120.77 4,852,634.45 523.7 16:35 H159 265,340.43 4,851,173.89 520.4 13:53 H160 264,536.12 4,851,190.31 521.8 0:52 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H161 262,470.99 4,852,362.23 518.1 2:24 H162 262,777.81 4,851,286.01 518.4 6:20 H163 264,446.25 4,849,607.82 509.0 0:00 H165 265,430.14 4,849,581.85 511.9 1:24 H166 265,925.39 4,850,929.99 518.6 18:31 H167 266,362.84 4,849,940.54 518.2 7:59 H168 269,018.56 4,850,871.88 533.9 10:42 H169 268,905.94 4,850,083.18 524.3 17:16 H170 268,916.77 4,849,393.10 532.5 26:18 H171 269,915.27 4,849,401.60 539.5 1:34 H172 269,902.16 4,850,385.44 527.3 2:01 H173 270,664.29 4,849,423.74 536.4 0:00 H174 271,189.46 4,849,371.12 532.5 0:00 H175 271,201.93 4,850,572.21 527.3 0:00 H176 271,834.41 4,850,725.59 527.1 0:00 H177 272,027.91 4,849,574.68 530.4 0:00 H178 273,226.31 4,850,741.28 518.2 0:00 H179 274,022.07 4,849,285.67 518.3 1:42 H180 274,776.60 4,849,255.66 518.2 0:00 H181 275,247.72 4,850,626.92 512.1 0:00 H182 276,511.67 4,849,231.01 510.7 2:49 H183 276,899.14 4,850,295.33 509.0 1:31 H184 278,367.13 4,849,321.69 509.0 0:00 H185 278,467.42 4,850,028.57 509.0 0:00 H186 278,753.68 4,849,094.55 507.3 0:00 H187 280,031.39 4,850,505.84 506.0 0:00 H188 281,633.66 4,850,217.48 499.9 0:00 H189 282,551.96 4,848,995.07 499.6 0:00 H190 282,883.47 4,850,344.66 496.8 0:00 H191 284,612.91 4,850,128.52 493.7 0:00 H192 284,709.92 4,849,421.73 492.4 0:00 H193 285,055.98 4,854,898.52 484.6 0:00 H194 288,205.36 4,850,976.13 473.6 0:00 H195 288,036.59 4,850,285.55 476.3 0:00 H196 288,004.68 4,849,174.27 479.1 0:00 H197 289,598.18 4,850,046.50 471.0 0:00 H198 289,771.55 4,849,759.34 470.2 0:00 H199 289,582.84 4,847,940.22 475.5 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H200 289,545.83 4,847,222.45 475.5 0:00 H201 289,769.26 4,847,197.32 475.5 0:00 H202 287,465.18 4,848,711.54 484.6 0:00 H203 286,448.33 4,847,253.20 489.3 0:00 H204 286,008.56 4,847,287.20 491.3 0:00 H205 285,475.57 4,847,323.64 493.8 0:00 H206 284,796.05 4,848,835.35 491.4 0:00 H207 284,713.60 4,847,845.45 493.8 0:00 H208 281,868.38 4,847,409.15 515.1 0:00 H209 281,538.78 4,848,602.49 512.1 0:00 H210 279,827.70 4,847,478.19 519.6 0:00 H211 278,353.26 4,848,785.58 509.0 0:00 H212 276,803.45 4,847,606.05 512.1 0:00 H213 276,335.41 4,849,019.68 512.1 0:00 H214 275,323.21 4,848,351.82 515.1 0:00 H215 275,153.40 4,848,088.32 515.1 0:00 H216 273,955.99 4,849,113.62 518.8 1:15 H217 273,481.26 4,848,082.25 521.9 0:00 H218 272,289.78 4,848,351.23 528.0 0:00 H219 273,149.12 4,847,217.36 524.3 0:00 H220 273,039.64 4,846,033.75 524.5 0:00 H221 275,128.33 4,846,810.76 515.1 0:00 H222 276,242.54 4,846,083.81 518.2 0:00 H223 276,718.36 4,846,399.21 516.2 0:00 H224 277,630.21 4,847,158.03 517.7 0:00 H225 277,912.04 4,846,112.81 515.1 0:00 H226 278,584.51 4,846,174.69 518.2 0:00 H227 279,686.77 4,846,876.68 519.3 0:00 H228 279,510.42 4,845,846.14 521.2 0:00 H229 279,974.40 4,846,869.13 524.3 0:00 H230 280,020.12 4,852,083.18 505.6 0:00 H231 281,097.89 4,847,204.56 524.3 0:00 H232 281,468.02 4,846,282.94 525.3 0:00 H233 283,135.60 4,846,994.54 504.1 0:00 H234 282,951.72 4,845,756.28 509.7 0:00 H235 283,156.76 4,845,754.49 507.6 0:00 H236 284,679.56 4,846,811.02 496.8 0:00 H237 284,962.68 4,846,803.32 495.3 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H238 285,876.32 4,845,780.61 493.8 0:00 H239 286,332.92 4,847,109.32 490.7 0:00 H240 287,864.80 4,845,316.37 486.2 0:00 H241 286,398.91 4,845,653.31 493.8 0:00 H242 287,868.76 4,845,585.48 484.7 0:00 H243 289,451.24 4,846,064.93 481.6 0:00 H244 289,576.89 4,845,931.92 480.8 0:00 H245 289,578.93 4,844,559.79 481.6 0:00 H246 289,747.29 4,843,952.29 481.1 0:00 H247 289,447.25 4,844,373.68 481.6 0:00 H248 287,939.19 4,845,287.27 485.3 0:00 H249 287,863.82 4,847,103.66 481.6 0:00 H250 287,000.96 4,843,993.12 490.7 0:00 H251 286,395.21 4,845,072.66 492.8 0:00 H252 286,073.26 4,844,842.61 494.7 0:00 H253 284,748.22 4,845,369.24 498.7 0:00 H254 284,688.99 4,842,488.14 502.9 0:00 H255 284,513.67 4,844,592.24 502.9 0:00 H256 283,813.87 4,845,663.28 503.0 0:00 H257 282,396.98 4,845,499.13 517.8 0:00 H258 282,744.54 4,844,141.99 518.2 0:00 H259 281,422.92 4,845,099.60 527.3 0:00 H260 281,377.59 4,844,672.55 527.3 0:00 H261 280,055.30 4,845,425.21 521.2 0:00 H262 280,138.27 4,844,485.96 518.2 0:00 H263 279,818.04 4,844,928.11 517.2 0:00 H264 278,849.04 4,845,455.72 516.8 0:00 H265 278,219.77 4,845,355.91 515.1 0:00 H266 278,102.49 4,844,850.16 514.3 0:00 H267 277,060.09 4,844,273.15 518.2 0:00 H268 277,052.02 4,844,303.44 518.2 0:00 H269 278,177.88 4,843,878.80 513.9 0:00 H270 278,788.67 4,844,060.61 514.3 0:00 H271 278,713.07 4,842,611.18 513.2 0:00 H272 279,288.93 4,843,392.02 515.1 0:00 H273 279,812.82 4,844,042.97 515.1 0:00 H274 280,239.66 4,843,841.90 518.2 0:00 H275 280,673.76 4,842,595.38 518.2 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H276 281,114.90 4,842,845.09 518.7 0:00 H277 281,142.84 4,842,955.16 521.2 0:00 H278 281,428.51 4,842,932.33 522.1 0:00 H279 281,377.45 4,842,911.16 521.2 0:00 H280 281,377.18 4,842,889.99 521.2 0:00 H281 281,365.01 4,842,858.51 521.2 0:00 H282 281,328.50 4,842,777.54 520.2 0:00 H283 281,379.04 4,842,794.74 521.2 0:00 H284 281,485.93 4,842,893.43 523.4 0:00 H285 281,611.34 4,842,856.13 524.3 0:00 H286 281,615.31 4,842,794.48 524.5 0:00 H287 281,661.35 4,842,752.14 526.0 0:00 H288 281,667.70 4,842,694.99 525.2 0:00 H289 281,656.06 4,842,582.81 523.7 0:00 H290 281,652.62 4,842,617.47 524.0 0:00 H291 281,656.06 4,842,662.72 524.3 0:00 H292 281,719.03 4,842,568.52 524.7 0:00 H293 281,705.27 4,842,346.80 524.3 0:00 H294 281,578.53 4,842,383.31 520.8 0:00 H295 281,362.90 4,842,356.19 518.9 0:00 H296 281,361.71 4,842,383.18 518.8 0:00 H297 281,340.27 4,842,438.75 518.4 0:00 H298 281,292.25 4,842,542.33 518.2 0:00 H299 281,422.82 4,842,532.01 520.1 0:00 H300 281,349.40 4,842,531.22 518.9 0:00 H301 281,536.33 4,842,537.17 521.4 0:00 H302 281,487.08 4,843,410.28 526.3 0:00 H303 282,050.13 4,844,078.87 525.8 0:00 H304 282,980.00 4,843,799.33 518.2 0:00 H305 282,370.07 4,842,548.05 530.4 0:00 H306 283,486.97 4,844,041.19 512.1 0:00 H307 283,084.24 4,843,395.83 519.4 0:00 H308 283,276.25 4,842,554.04 519.7 0:00 H309 284,073.19 4,842,528.20 507.7 0:00 H310 284,686.31 4,845,516.33 499.1 0:00 H311 286,199.83 4,843,538.33 491.8 0:00 H312 286,644.38 4,842,425.99 492.7 0:00 H313 287,588.37 4,842,363.89 487.7 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H314 288,010.43 4,843,607.28 487.7 0:00 H315 288,087.41 4,842,404.63 484.9 0:00 H316 289,307.59 4,843,277.53 482.2 0:00 H317 289,511.96 4,843,283.68 481.6 0:00 H318 289,448.50 4,841,598.21 482.8 0:00 H319 289,392.20 4,842,018.68 482.9 0:00 H320 289,039.01 4,840,705.05 481.6 0:00 H321 288,537.03 4,840,733.93 484.9 0:00 H322 287,211.97 4,842,285.52 488.8 0:00 H323 287,125.08 4,840,769.03 493.5 0:00 H324 286,265.46 4,841,722.79 496.8 0:00 H325 286,132.58 4,840,790.72 499.9 0:00 H326 286,060.98 4,840,780.56 499.9 0:00 H327 286,064.95 4,840,831.36 499.9 0:00 H328 284,631.01 4,842,145.43 506.0 0:00 H329 284,472.03 4,842,204.15 506.0 0:00 H330 283,023.58 4,841,722.05 524.3 0:00 H331 283,150.97 4,840,907.10 518.9 0:00 H332 282,192.94 4,841,762.95 519.0 0:00 H333 281,191.05 4,841,615.44 521.1 0:00 H334 281,181.46 4,841,811.58 521.2 0:00 H335 280,353.52 4,842,482.08 515.1 0:00 H336 280,003.56 4,841,009.62 518.2 0:00 H337 278,501.92 4,842,487.08 515.1 0:00 H338 279,657.06 4,842,138.06 515.1 0:00 H339 279,561.95 4,841,206.92 518.2 0:00 H340 281,257.14 4,840,379.09 515.8 0:00 H341 281,057.69 4,839,803.05 520.1 0:00 H342 281,602.28 4,839,336.83 518.2 0:00 H343 282,927.04 4,839,571.32 514.6 0:00 H344 284,453.77 4,839,631.48 504.1 0:00 H345 284,316.65 4,839,257.88 506.0 0:00 H346 285,183.57 4,840,739.35 504.0 0:00 H347 284,582.98 4,840,019.87 506.0 0:00 H348 285,249.08 4,839,242.35 502.9 0:00 H349 285,953.82 4,839,234.22 502.9 0:00 H350 285,957.63 4,839,195.69 502.9 0:00 H351 286,089.58 4,840,350.51 502.2 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H352 286,054.81 4,840,333.84 502.7 0:00 H353 286,529.63 4,840,584.18 498.9 0:00 H354 286,422.45 4,839,157.38 502.9 0:00 H355 287,283.40 4,840,687.54 493.0 0:00 H356 287,398.46 4,839,650.18 495.4 0:00 H357 287,717.09 4,840,256.18 493.8 0:00 H358 287,804.02 4,840,446.49 492.4 0:00 H359 289,253.89 4,839,489.54 484.3 0:00 H360 289,286.91 4,839,379.05 484.6 0:00 H361 289,396.56 4,839,422.23 483.5 0:00 H362 289,293.14 4,840,096.46 481.6 0:00 H363 289,407.88 4,839,976.13 481.6 0:00 H364 287,782.36 4,838,759.57 496.8 0:00 H365 286,140.77 4,839,096.95 502.9 0:00 H366 286,115.09 4,838,503.85 502.9 0:00 H367 286,026.06 4,838,365.34 502.9 0:00 H368 282,133.76 4,839,230.89 515.1 0:00 H369 262,961.44 4,849,622.13 510.2 6:19 H370 262,911.08 4,849,623.97 510.4 6:34 H371 262,676.98 4,848,728.21 512.1 0:00 H372 262,736.19 4,848,704.87 510.7 0:00 H373 262,676.19 4,848,699.33 511.8 0:00 H374 262,673.31 4,848,634.68 511.9 0:00 H375 262,672.23 4,848,669.00 511.8 0:00 H376 262,667.72 4,848,548.66 512.2 0:00 H377 262,666.56 4,848,595.91 512.1 0:00 H378 262,729.25 4,848,550.30 511.0 0:00 H379 262,287.59 4,847,630.72 518.2 0:00 H380 262,290.63 4,848,402.13 517.9 0:00 H381 262,316.03 4,848,253.96 515.1 0:00 H382 262,286.62 4,848,447.69 518.2 0:00 H383 262,278.20 4,848,283.33 515.5 0:00 H384 262,434.56 4,848,257.47 515.1 0:00 H385 262,480.07 4,848,288.16 515.1 0:00 H386 262,479.81 4,848,270.83 515.1 0:00 H387 262,544.87 4,848,236.97 515.1 0:00 H388 262,598.05 4,848,297.29 514.2 0:00 H389 262,542.17 4,848,251.89 515.1 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H390 262,527.40 4,848,246.34 515.1 0:00 H391 262,896.01 4,848,237.57 509.3 0:00 H392 262,828.28 4,848,330.06 511.1 0:00 H393 262,826.16 4,848,289.42 511.1 0:00 H394 262,823.41 4,848,270.16 511.1 0:00 H395 262,766.73 4,848,176.76 512.1 0:00 H396 262,932.63 4,847,982.69 512.1 0:00 H397 262,891.75 4,847,985.47 512.1 0:00 H398 262,859.60 4,847,983.49 512.1 0:00 H399 262,813.17 4,847,986.26 512.1 0:00 H400 262,817.14 4,848,025.55 512.1 0:00 H401 262,816.74 4,848,062.86 512.1 0:00 H402 262,708.00 4,848,118.03 512.3 0:00 H403 262,648.07 4,848,007.01 513.6 0:00 H404 262,588.38 4,848,084.27 515.1 0:00 H405 262,533.13 4,847,980.76 515.1 0:00 H406 262,475.56 4,847,993.88 515.1 0:00 H407 262,424.55 4,847,997.06 515.1 0:00 H408 262,357.24 4,847,984.99 515.3 0:00 H409 262,318.71 4,848,092.31 515.1 0:00 H410 262,272.15 4,848,190.31 515.1 0:00 H411 262,272.99 4,848,155.39 515.1 0:00 H412 262,322.31 4,848,207.67 515.1 0:00 H413 262,319.98 4,848,150.73 515.1 0:00 H414 262,958.77 4,847,926.55 512.0 0:00 H415 262,925.30 4,847,929.06 512.1 0:00 H416 262,904.93 4,847,931.45 512.1 0:00 H417 263,020.92 4,847,925.25 510.9 0:00 H418 262,866.77 4,847,929.06 512.1 0:00 H419 262,812.32 4,847,929.70 512.1 0:00 H420 262,763.90 4,847,933.19 512.1 0:00 H421 262,729.20 4,847,930.55 512.1 0:00 H422 262,693.96 4,847,935.63 512.1 0:00 H423 262,708.56 4,847,933.40 512.1 0:00 H424 262,695.44 4,847,897.10 512.1 0:00 H425 262,645.86 4,847,939.33 513.1 0:00 H426 262,649.82 4,847,886.47 512.5 0:00 H427 262,624.58 4,847,865.19 512.9 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H428 262,461.52 4,847,937.19 515.8 0:00 H429 262,421.83 4,847,929.26 516.0 0:00 H430 262,296.68 4,847,913.38 516.4 0:00 H431 262,288.25 4,848,496.85 518.2 0:00 H432 263,505.75 4,847,832.55 508.8 0:00 H433 263,918.71 4,847,162.74 503.4 0:00 H434 263,727.29 4,848,554.27 502.8 0:00 H435 264,100.12 4,848,872.09 498.8 0:00 H436 265,783.29 4,846,308.54 493.8 0:00 H437 265,880.29 4,849,430.11 505.7 5:37 H438 265,565.91 4,848,222.94 503.2 0:00 H439 265,739.87 4,847,829.28 502.5 0:00 H440 267,027.95 4,846,405.94 497.3 0:00 H441 267,115.39 4,848,771.00 521.2 8:00 H442 267,247.29 4,848,323.00 521.2 2:45 H443 268,726.28 4,848,315.85 524.0 0:00 H444 268,809.21 4,851,406.91 535.7 19:46 H445 269,212.09 4,847,823.47 529.2 0:00 H446 269,660.84 4,849,257.38 541.2 3:50 H447 271,300.06 4,847,948.57 535.2 0:00 H448 268,661.71 4,847,492.34 527.3 0:00 H449 268,389.72 4,846,386.09 517.5 0:00 H450 268,955.23 4,846,144.94 512.1 0:00 H451 270,238.59 4,846,487.39 522.9 0:00 H452 271,545.54 4,854,278.84 524.3 2:52 H453 272,218.47 4,846,599.02 527.3 0:00 H454 262,886.02 4,848,289.26 509.7 0:00 H455 262,283.75 4,848,250.92 515.1 0:00 H456 267,094.58 4,848,047.72 515.0 0:00 H457 272,063.23 4,849,032.67 527.4 0:00 H458 272,069.86 4,849,069.12 527.5 0:00 H459 272,073.17 4,849,107.22 527.7 0:00 H460 272,075.04 4,849,202.68 527.8 0:00 H461 272,102.99 4,849,212.20 527.4 0:00 H462 272,181.46 4,849,201.85 527.3 0:00 H463 272,258.83 4,849,440.08 527.3 0:00 H464 272,260.19 4,849,633.71 527.3 0:00 H465 272,260.82 4,849,509.20 527.3 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H466 272,262.09 4,849,693.82 527.3 0:00 H467 272,252.48 4,849,380.51 527.3 0:00 H468 272,254.55 4,849,205.16 527.3 0:00 H469 272,255.49 4,849,184.69 527.3 0:00 H470 272,256.86 4,849,262.37 527.3 0:00 H471 272,257.19 4,849,287.84 527.3 0:00 H472 272,258.83 4,849,393.53 527.3 0:00 H473 272,259.46 4,849,145.79 527.3 0:00 H474 272,206.25 4,849,512.84 527.3 0:00 H475 272,260.74 4,849,410.99 527.3 0:00 H476 272,262.09 4,849,671.59 527.3 0:00 H477 272,208.54 4,849,589.68 527.3 0:00 H478 272,251.51 4,849,597.93 527.3 0:00 H479 272,255.86 4,849,464.22 527.3 0:00 H480 272,258.52 4,849,306.03 527.3 0:00 H481 272,259.34 4,849,543.54 527.3 0:00 H482 272,310.53 4,849,692.42 527.3 0:00 H483 272,328.23 4,856,093.15 522.4 17:21 H484 272,301.46 4,849,767.69 527.3 0:00 H485 272,037.83 4,850,113.84 527.3 0:00 H486 272,007.14 4,850,194.27 527.8 0:00 H487 272,013.49 4,850,276.82 527.7 0:00 H488 272,426.69 4,849,251.64 527.3 0:00 H489 272,376.53 4,850,111.13 526.8 0:00 H490 272,377.72 4,850,049.22 526.8 0:00 H491 272,378.27 4,850,187.25 526.9 0:00 H492 272,378.91 4,850,087.71 526.8 0:00 H493 272,378.91 4,850,142.09 526.9 0:00 H494 272,646.42 4,849,622.61 525.5 0:00 H495 272,608.95 4,849,637.54 525.7 0:00 H496 272,557.67 4,849,637.38 526.0 0:00 H497 272,531.35 4,849,268.86 524.9 0:00 H498 272,654.96 4,849,568.32 525.4 0:00 H499 272,653.37 4,849,511.17 525.5 0:00 H500 272,595.03 4,849,580.23 525.8 0:00 H501 272,483.84 4,849,268.78 526.6 0:00 H502 272,487.87 4,849,686.59 526.5 0:00 H503 272,493.49 4,849,749.32 526.5 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H504 272,653.05 4,849,453.74 524.3 0:00 H505 272,651.73 4,849,414.05 524.3 0:00 H506 272,650.08 4,849,368.08 523.2 0:00 H507 272,648.42 4,849,322.11 523.8 0:00 H508 272,648.09 4,849,267.87 523.8 0:00 H509 272,590.55 4,849,253.98 524.3 0:00 H510 272,532.27 4,849,647.22 526.2 0:00 H511 272,903.09 4,849,233.47 524.1 0:00 H512 272,480.40 4,849,250.60 526.9 0:00 H513 272,486.66 4,849,637.08 526.4 0:00 H514 272,430.11 4,850,108.75 526.6 0:00 H515 272,414.41 4,849,192.71 527.3 0:00 H516 272,415.47 4,849,124.42 527.3 0:00 H517 272,421.32 4,849,171.75 527.3 0:00 H518 272,413.14 4,849,063.25 527.3 0:00 H519 272,418.10 4,849,202.85 527.3 0:00 H520 272,363.51 4,849,019.98 527.3 0:00 H521 272,354.53 4,848,952.04 527.3 0:00 H522 272,358.68 4,848,912.89 527.3 0:00 H523 272,258.19 4,849,324.55 527.3 0:00 H524 272,255.21 4,849,344.72 527.3 0:00 H525 272,263.96 4,849,121.45 527.3 0:00 H526 272,305.23 4,849,125.15 527.3 0:00 H527 272,366.62 4,849,118.54 527.3 0:00 H528 272,305.70 4,849,725.15 527.3 0:00 H529 272,923.75 4,849,120.27 523.9 0:00 H530 273,011.81 4,849,231.06 523.7 0:00 H531 274,919.06 4,861,512.16 509.0 0:00 H532 273,734.72 4,861,872.02 516.9 0:00 H533 273,464.68 4,861,207.72 523.9 0:00 H534 272,743.39 4,860,728.17 524.3 0:00 H535 271,223.80 4,860,615.09 522.2 0:00 H536 269,897.34 4,860,868.79 524.4 0:00 H537 267,759.31 4,861,455.42 530.4 0:00 H538 267,560.09 4,860,626.93 533.6 0:00 H539 267,169.93 4,860,602.62 536.4 0:00 H540 266,790.11 4,859,498.18 537.1 0:00 H541 266,152.18 4,859,224.46 547.4 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H542 266,472.09 4,857,600.06 537.1 1:13 H543 264,087.77 4,856,944.46 524.3 0:00 H544 263,982.44 4,857,675.08 517.4 0:00 H545 261,499.56 4,855,966.99 501.3 0:00 H546 260,954.83 4,855,342.86 506.0 0:00 H547 260,830.27 4,854,829.70 496.8 0:00 H548 260,879.39 4,853,683.63 500.6 0:00 H549 262,385.91 4,853,605.54 508.0 0:00 H550 260,019.09 4,853,713.95 489.8 0:00 H551 261,514.65 4,852,811.67 503.6 0:00 H552 262,225.99 4,848,539.24 518.2 0:00 H553 262,161.10 4,849,072.91 520.3 1:18 H554 262,225.98 4,850,251.92 521.2 16:24 H555 262,222.11 4,848,186.03 515.1 0:00 H556 262,230.90 4,848,443.05 518.2 0:00 H557 262,222.11 4,848,485.20 518.2 0:00 H558 262,185.05 4,847,934.79 514.7 0:00 H559 263,685.88 4,846,000.07 503.5 0:00 H560 262,155.68 4,846,529.92 511.8 0:00 H561 261,248.06 4,846,489.36 501.6 0:00 H562 261,305.90 4,849,589.05 518.4 0:26 H563 260,775.67 4,848,025.57 509.0 0:00 H564 260,441.80 4,847,913.31 503.1 0:00 H565 260,341.80 4,847,237.65 505.4 0:00 H566 259,160.42 4,847,654.27 488.8 0:00 H567 259,198.50 4,846,749.38 493.8 0:00 H568 259,123.46 4,846,740.83 493.8 0:00 H569 260,220.76 4,846,338.17 506.0 0:00 H570 258,452.11 4,846,555.96 488.6 0:00 H571 258,902.35 4,846,946.38 491.2 0:00 H572 259,716.03 4,849,882.16 524.3 4:02 H573 260,669.30 4,850,396.10 525.3 20:22 H574 260,705.94 4,852,023.78 515.1 3:03 H575 259,457.36 4,852,624.27 496.8 0:00 H576 258,595.97 4,854,215.75 493.7 0:00 H577 257,656.54 4,854,241.94 506.5 0:00 H578 256,585.45 4,853,179.91 500.8 0:00 H579 257,823.36 4,853,299.37 491.1 0:00 Nobles2 Realcaseshadowflickerresults ResultsusingVestasV1363.6Ͳ82mhubheightWTGs UTMNAD83Zone15 continued

Shadow ElevationAMSL RealCaseShadow Easting(m) Northing(m) Receptor# (m) (hrs/year) H580 257,234.98 4,852,101.96 496.8 0:00 H581 258,758.81 4,851,409.35 513.1 0:00 H582 258,147.49 4,851,539.56 517.4 0:00 H583 257,951.91 4,849,819.10 512.1 0:00 H584 257,432.32 4,849,949.80 502.9 0:00 H585 257,164.37 4,849,442.70 493.0 0:00 H586 257,506.15 4,846,928.72 479.5 0:00 H587 257,312.10 4,847,272.01 478.5 0:00 H588 272,982.06 4,861,447.01 524.3 0:00 H589 275,481.66 4,861,803.89 506.0 0:00 H590 276,651.22 4,860,901.65 499.9 0:00 H591 255,883.35 4,852,698.89 493.8 0:00 H592 286,535.55 4,850,992.52 484.6 0:00 H593 274,747.30 4,847,458.62 516.7 0:00 H594 282,318.97 4,847,257.78 511.4 0:00 H595 273,612.39 4,848,118.62 521.2 0:00 H596 265,552.58 4,847,393.01 496.0 0:00 H597 269,556.73 4,852,322.43 536.4 19:06 H598 268,975.06 4,852,742.67 539.5 10:04 3100 Demers Avenue, Grand Forks, ND 58201 Ph: 701.775.3000 www.eapc.net

APPENDIXF:V1363.6Ͳ82LAYOUTSTANDARD RESOLUTIONSHADOWFLICKERMAP

. Mile 0.5 012

$ 1

q Community User GIS the and swisstopo, IGP,

$ 1

H260 $ 1

$ 1

H266

EAPC shall retain all common law, statutory statutory law, common all retain shall EAPC $ 1

H263

of service shall remain the property of EAPC. EAPC. of property the remain shall service of H259

$ 1

instruments prepared by EAPC as instruments instruments as EAPC by prepared instruments $ 1

$ 1 H265

H261

field data, notes and other documents and and documents other and notes data, field

H264 H257

All maps, plans, specifications, computer files, files, computer specifications, plans, maps, All

$ 1

$ 1 H228

$ 1

H559

H220

H222

$ 1 $ 1 H225

$ 1

H450

$ 1

H226

$ 1

H230

H232

H436

$ 1

H569

$ 1

H449

H223

H440

$ 1

H567

H451

H561

H560

H570

$ 1 $ 1 H453

$ 1

$ 1 H568

$ 1

H221

H229

H227

H452

H571

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H208

$ 1

H224

H433

H231

$ 1 H219 $ 1

H565

H594

$ 1

H596

$ 1 H593 $ 1

H210

$ 1

H430 H448

H212

H431

$ 1 H566 1 $ $ 1

H563

$ 1

H419

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H413

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H445 H432 H439 $ 1

$ 1

H564

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H558 H424

$ 1 $ 1

H447

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H456 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H215 H217 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H595 $ 1 H554 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H557

$ 1 H438

$ 1 $ 1

H454

H443

$ 1

$ 1 H444 H442 50

H214

H218

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H556 $ 1

$ 1 H555

$ 1

H434

$ 1

H209

$ 1

H522

$ 1 H373 H525 30

H371

$ 1

H441

$ 1

H211

$ 1

H435

H526 H511 H179

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H460

$ 1

H171

$ 1

H213

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H553 10

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H186

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H527

H216

H529

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

H461 1 $ Y $ 1

$ 1

H530 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H180

H446 $ 1

$ 1

H184

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H174

H506

H170

$ 1 $ 1 1

Y $ $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H505 $ 1 H437

H173

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1 H177 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H165

1 $ 1 $ H562

H163

H370 H369 $ 1

H528 H491

$ 1

H583

$ 1

$ Y

H572

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1 H488 H167

$ 1

H486 H185 Y

$ 1

H169 Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H492

Hrs/yr

H493

$ 1 $ 1

H188 Y

H552

H487 H183

$ 1

H573 H172

$ Y

H187 Y

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H175

H181 Y

V136 3.6 MW Turbines MW 3.6 V136 $ 1

$ 1 H176 H128

H178 $ 1

H136

H168 Y $ 1

$ 1

H166

$ 1

H139

$ 1

1 $ Y $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

H122

H138

H131 $ 1

Occupied Residences Occupied

Y H127 Y

H123 H153

H140 H159 $ 1 H160

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H162

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H581 H152

Y H133

H154

H135

H582 $ 1

H126 Y

1 $ 1

Y $ $ 1

H155

$ Y

$ 1 H132 H134 1 Y $

H125 Y

$ 1

H130

$ Y Y

Legend

H151

Y H574

H124

$ 1

H146 H121

1 $ Y

$ 1 $ 1

Y $

1 $ Y

$ 1

H108

$ 1

$ 1 1 $ Y

$ 1

H129

H106 H137

H597 H148

$ Y

$ 1

H161

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H103

$ 1

H104

$ 1

H101

1 Y $

$ 1 H149

$ 1 H150

$ 1 HJH By: Checked JH By: Drawn

H157

H156

H575 $ 1

H158

H94 $ 1

H93 H598

H551

1 Y $ H88

ecito Date Description #

H96

$ Y $ 1

H99 Y Y

Y Y Y H579

H110 Y

Original 1

2017.07.25 Y Y

$ 1

1 $ Y

$ Y $ 1

$ 1

Y H549

$ Y H97

$ 1

H102 Y

H548

$ 1 H107

Y H550 $ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H105

H100

$ 1

H95

$ 1 H66

H64

H68 Y

$ 1

H71

H98 $ 1

$ 1

Issue Dates Issue H91

$ Y Y Y

H62 H87

Y H576

$ 1 $ 1

Y H73

$ 1

H74

H85 Project #: Project 20162550 H82

$ 1

Y H77

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 H80

H63 Wilmont, MN Wilmont,

Location: Y

H78

Y Y H547

$ Y Y Y

1 $ Y $ 1

H70

$ 1

Y $

$ 1 $ 1 $ 1

H67

H546

H86 H69 H65

H81

$ 1 $ 1

H75 H48

H79

No obstacles assumed. obstacles No

$ 1 H76 H44

$ 1

$ 1 H84

$ 1

Sensors in "greenhouse" mode. "greenhouse" in Sensors

H37

H46

$ 1

H36

H545

H40

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1

$ 1 H1

orientation and operation probability. operation and orientation H39

$ 1

$ 1 H38 H50

H41

H33 H42

due to sunshine probability, turbine probability, sunshine to due Y 1

$ Y

Y $

Y $ $ 1

H49 (hrs/yr). Assumes statistical reduction statistical Assumes (hrs/yr).

H34

$ 1

H35

H43 Y 1

Y Y $

$ 1 H32

$ 1

flicker map and data at receptors at data and map flicker $ 1

Y Y Y Y H543 H47

H45 $ 1

H20 Y

$ 1

82 m HH WTGs. Realistic shadow Realistic WTGs. HH m 82 Y

H24

H26

$ 1

Shadow Flicker for Vestas V136 Vestas for Flicker Shadow

$ 1

H27

H31 H22

H30

$ 1

Y H542 H544

H25 Y

Project Description Project Y Y Y

$ 1 1

Y $

$ Y H28

H29

H19 Y $ 1

Westwood H23 Y

$ 1

H15

$ 1

$ Y

$ 1 $ 1

Client $ 1

$ 1

H3 H10

H17 H12

H13 H541

$ 1

Vestas V136 3.6 MW 82 m HH m 82 MW 3.6 V136 Vestas

H16

H540 H14

Shadow Flicker Results Flicker Shadow

$ 1

$ 1 $ 1

$ 1 Nobles 2 Wind Farm Wind 2 Nobles

H11

H7 H6

$ 1

H538

$ 1 1 $ 1

www.eapc.net | 701.775.3000 | www.eapc.net

$ 1

H539

H535

$ 1

H534

H536

H590

$ 1

H533

$ 1

H588 H537

H531

$ 1

H589 H532 Appendix E Telecommunications Studies

Nobles 2 Wind Project Nobles County, Minnesota

Wind Power GeoPlanner™

AM and FM Radio Report

Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Prepared on Behalf of White Wind Ventures

April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Table of Contents

1. Introduction - 1 -

2. Summary of Results - 1 -

3. Impact Assessment - 5 -

4. Recommendations - 5 -

5. Contact - 5 -

Comsearch Proprietary - 0 - April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

1. Introduction

Comsearch analyzed AM and FM radio broadcast stations whose service could potentially be affected by the proposed Nobles 2 Wind Farm project in Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota.

2. Summary of Results

AM Radio Analysis Comsearch found four database records1 for AM stations within approximately 30 kilometers of the project, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. These records represent station KWOA, which broadcasts out of Worthing, Minnesota, to the southeast of the project area of interest (AOI), and station KQAD, located in Luverne, to the southwest. Both stations are licensed separately for daytime and nighttime operations, with a higher transmit power permitted during daytime hours.

Required Transmit Distance to Frequency Operation Latitude Longitude Separation ID Call Sign Status2 ERP3 Center of (kHz) Time (NAD 27) (NAD 27) Distance4 (kW) AOI (km) (km) 1 KWOA LIC 730 1.0 Daytime 43.630000 -95.678056 0.41 20.14 2 KWOA LIC 730 0.159 Nighttime 43.630000 -95.678056 0.41 20.14 3 KQAD LIC 800 0.5 Daytime 43.650278 -96.171944 3.00 32.72 4 KQAD LIC 800 0.08 Nighttime 43.650278 -96.171944 3.00 32.72

Table 1: AM Radio Stations within 30 Kilometers of Project Area

1 Comsearch makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the data included in this report beyond the date of the report. The data presented in this report is derived from the AM/FM station’s FCC license and governed by Comsearch’s data license notification and agreement located at http://www.comsearch.com/files/data_license.pdf.

2 LIC = Licensed and operational station; APP = Application for construction permit; CP=Construction permit granted; CP MOD = Modification of construction permit.

3 ERP = Transmit Effective Radiated Power.

4 The required separation distance is based on the lesser of 10 wavelengths or 3 kilometers for directional antennas and 1 wavelength for non-directional antennas.

Comsearch Proprietary - 1 - April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Figure 1: AM Radio Stations within 30 Kilometers of Project Area

Comsearch Proprietary - 2 - April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

FM Radio Analysis Comsearch determined that there were ten database records for FM stations within a 30- kilometer radius of the Nobles 2 Wind Farm project, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Only nine of of these stations are currently licensed and operating, one of which is a translator station that broadcasts with limited range.

Transmit Distance to Frequency Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status5 Service6 ERP7 Center of (MHz) (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) AOI (km)

1 KRSW LIC FM 89.3 100.0 43.883611 -95.928889 14.63 2 KNSW LIC FM 91.7 99.0 43.883611 -95.928889 14.63 3 KISD LIC FM 98.7 100.0 43.897778 -95.947222 16.79 4 KJOE LIC FM 106.1 10.0 43.897778 -95.947222 16.79 5 KUSQ LIC FM 95.1 100.0 43.630000 -95.678056 20.14 6 K262AR CP FX 100.3 0.25 43.630000 -95.678056 20.14 7 K262AR LIC FX 100.3 0.23 43.632500 -95.568889 25.71 8 KZTP LIC FM 104.3 3.4 43.541667 -95.751389 27.32 9 KLQL LIC FM 101.1 100.0 43.806667 -96.206389 32.00 10 KITN LIC FM 93.5 50.0 43.525278 -95.413056 43.03

Table 2: FM Radio Stations within 30 Kilometers of Project Area

5 LIC = Licensed and operational station; APP = Application for construction permit; CP=Construction permit granted; CP MOD = Modification of construction permit.

6 FM = FM broadcast station; FX = FM translator station; FL = Low-power FM station; FS = FM auxiliary (backup) station; FB = FM booster station.

7 ERP = Transmit Effective Radiated Power.

Comsearch Proprietary - 3 - April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Figure 2: FM Radio Stations within 30 Kilometers of Project Area

Comsearch Proprietary - 4 - April 5, 2016 Wite Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ AM and FM Radio Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

3. Impact Assessment

The exclusion distance for AM broadcast stations varies as a function of the antenna type and broadcast frequency. For directional antennas, the exclusion distance is calculated by taking the lesser of 10 wavelengths or 3 kilometers. For non-directional antennas, the exclusion distance is simply equal to 1 wavelength. Potential problems with AM broadcast coverage are only anticipated when AM broadcast stations are located within their respective exclusion distance limit from wind turbine towers. The closest AM station to the Nobles 2 Wind Farm project, KWOA, is more than 7.3 kilometers from the limit of the project AOI. As there were no stations found within 3 kilometers of the project, which is the maximum possible exclusion distance based on a directional AM antenna broadcasting at 1000 KHz or less, the project should not impact the coverage of local AM stations.

The coverage of FM stations is generally not susceptible to interference caused by wind turbines, especially when large objects, such as wind turbines, are sited in the far field region of the radiating FM antenna in order to avoid the risk of distorting the antenna’s radiation pattern. The closest operational station to the Nobles 2 Wind Farm project, KRSW, is located more than 5.1 kilometers from the limit of the project area. At this distance, there should be adequate separation to avoid radiation pattern distortion.

4. Recommendations

Since no impact on the licensed and operational AM or FM broadcast stations was identified in our analysis, no recommendations or mitigation techniques are required for this project.

5. Contact

For questions or information regarding the AM and FM Radio Report, please contact:

Contact person: Denise Finney Title: Account Manager Company: Comsearch Address: 19700 Janelia Farm Blvd., Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone: 703-726-5650 (office) / 703-726-5595 (fax) Email: [email protected] Web site: www.comsearch.com

Comsearch Proprietary - 5 - April 5, 2016 Wind Power GeoPlanner™

Off-Air TV Analysis

Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Prepared on Behalf of White Wind Ventures

April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Table of Contents

1. Introduction - 1 -

2. Summary of Results - 1 -

3. Impact Assessment - 5 -

4. Recommendations - 6 -

5. Contact - 6 -

6. Appendix A - 7 -

Comsearch Proprietary - 0 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

1. Introduction

Off-air television stations broadcast signals from terrestrially-based facilities directly to television receivers. Comsearch identified those off-air stations whose service could potentially be affected by the proposed Nobles 2 Wind Farm project in Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota. Comsearch then examined the coverage of the stations and the communities in the area that could potentially have degraded television reception due to the location of the proposed wind turbines.

2. Summary of Results

The proposed wind energy project area and local communities are depicted in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1: Wind Farm Project Area and Local Communities

Comsearch Proprietary - 1 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

To begin the analysis, Comsearch compiled all off-air television stations1 within 150 kilometers of the center of the project area of interest (AOI). Appendix A contains a tabular summary of these stations. A plot depicting their locations appears in Figure 2, below.

Figure 2: Plot of Off-Air TV Stations within 150 Kilometers of Project Area

TV stations at a distance of 75 kilometers or less are the most likely to provide off-air coverage to the project area and neighboring communities. These stations are listed in Table 1, below, and a plot depicting their locations is provided in Figure 3. There are a total of fifty-four database records for stations within approximately 75 kilometers of the limits of the project AOI. Of these stations, only thirty-two are currently licensed and operating, twenty-four of which are low-power stations or translators. Translator stations are low-power stations that receive

1 Comsearch makes no warranty as to the accuracy of the data included in this report beyond the date of the report. The data presented in this report is derived from the TV station’s FCC license and governed by Comsearch’s data license notification and agreement located at http://www.comsearch.com/files/data_license.pdf.

Comsearch Proprietary - 2 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm signals from distant broadcasters and retransmit the signal to a local audience. These stations serve local audiences and have limited range, which is a function of their transmit power and the height of their transmit antenna. The eight remaining records in Table 1 represent stations KCMN, KELO-TV, KSFY-TV, KDLT-TV, KTTW, KWSD, KCSD-TV, and KRWF, which broadcast at full power.

Figure 3: Plot of Off-Air TV Stations within 75 Kilometers of Project Area

Comsearch Proprietary - 3 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service2 Channel ERP3 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 1 KSMN LIC DT 15 200.0 43.897778 -95.947222 16.79 2 K17MA-D CP LD 17 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 3 K27ML-D CP LD 27 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 4 K42LR-D CP LD 42 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 5 K50NJ-D CP LD 50 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 6 K22HJ-D LIC LD 22 1.8 43.617222 -95.688889 20.94 7 K20LV-D CP LD 20 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 8 K24KZ-D CP LD 24 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 9 K44LS-D CP LD 44 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 10 K26JI-D LIC LD 26 14.0 43.402778 -95.670833 43.81 11 K43LX-D LIC LD 43 15.0 43.376667 -96.196111 54.94 12 K20MB-D CP MOD LD 20 15.0 43.518611 -96.534667 65.47 13 KELO-TV LIC DT 11 30.0 43.518611 -96.534722 65.47 14 KSFY-TV LIC DT 13 22.7 43.518611 -96.534722 65.47 15 KDLT-TV LIC DT 47 1000.0 43.505000 -96.556111 67.70 16 KTTW LIC DT 7 7.5 43.505278 -96.571944 68.83 17 KWSD LIC DT 36 36.9 43.505278 -96.571944 68.83 18 K19HZ-D LIC LD 19 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 19 K23FO-D LIC LD 23 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 20 K30KQ-D LIC LD 30 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 21 K35IZ-D LIC LD 35 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 22 K36IV-D LIC LD 36 1.5 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 23 K40LA-D LIC LD 40 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 24 K41EG-D LIC LD 41 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 25 K43MJ-D LIC LD 43 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 26 K45EH-D LIC LD 45 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 27 K50KL-D LIC LD 50 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 28 K51KT-D LIC LD 51 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 29 NEW APP LD 23 3.0 43.574722 -96.650556 71.65 30 KCSD-TV LIC DT 24 80.9 43.574444 -96.655278 72.02 31 K22KD-D CP LD 22 3.0 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03 32 K56GF CP LD 23 15.0 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03 33 K56GF LIC TX 56 10.1 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03

2 Definitions of service and status codes: DT – Digital television broadcast station LD – Low power digital television broadcast station DC – Class A digital television broadcast station TX – Translator station LIC – Licensed and operational station CP – Construction permit granted CP MOD – Modification of construction permit APP – Application for construction permit, not yet operational

3 ERP = Transmit Effective Radiated Power

Comsearch Proprietary - 4 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service2 Channel ERP3 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 34 K04RR-D CP LD 4 3.0 43.538056 -96.713889 77.85 35 K06QJ-D CP LD 6 3.0 43.538056 -96.713889 77.85 36 KCPO-LP LIC TX 26 7.57 43.534167 -96.739167 79.92 37 KAUN-LP LIC TX 42 0.88 43.535556 -96.742778 80.14 38 KCWS-LP LIC TX 44 0.68 43.535556 -96.742778 80.14 39 K33MW-D CP LD 33 2.0 43.661250 -94.853194 78.31 40 K39MD-D CP LD 39 2.0 43.661250 -94.853194 78.31 41 KRWF LIC DT 27 58.0 44.484167 -95.490833 81.90 42 K43MH-D LIC LD 43 5.5 44.484167 -95.490556 81.91 43 K18IW-D LIC LD 18 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 44 K31KU-D LIC LD 31 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 45 K32JG-D LIC LD 32 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 46 K32JG-D CP LD 32 3.0 43.751389 -96.889111 86.96 47 K18IW-D CP LD 18 3.0 43.751389 -96.889444 86.99 48 K31KU-D CP LD 31 3.0 43.751389 -96.889444 86.99 49 K18KG-D LIC LD 18 6.9 43.255556 -94.976389 89.38 50 KBVK-LP LIC LD 21 6.8 43.255556 -94.976389 89.38 51 K21LK-D CP LD 21 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 52 K30LV-D CP LD 30 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 53 K33LR-D CP LD 33 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 54 NEW APP LD 48 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27

Table 1: Off-Air TV Stations within 75 Kilometers of Project Area

3. Impact Assessment

Seven of the eight licensed full-power digital stations, KCMN, KELO-TV, KSFY-TV, KDLT-TV, KTTW, KWSD, and KCSD-TV, may have their reception disrupted in and around the Nobles 2 Wind Farm project. The areas primarily affected would include TV service locations within 10 kilometers of the wind energy project that have clear line-of-sight (LOS) to a proposed wind turbine but not to the respective station. After the wind turbines are installed, communities and homes in these locations may have degraded reception of these three stations. This is due to multipath interference caused by signal scattering as TV signals are reflected by the rotating wind turbine blades and mast.

The service contours of low-power stations K22HJ-D and K43LX-D also overlap with the Nobles 2 Wind Farm project area. Disruption of these stations would occur under similar LOS conditions as above.

Comsearch Proprietary - 5 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

4. Recommendations

While TV signals are reflected by wind turbines, which can cause multipath interference to the TV receiver, modern digital TV receivers have undergone significant improvements to mitigate the effects of signal scattering. When used in combination with a directional antenna, it becomes even less likely that signal scattering from wind farms will cause interference to digital TV reception.

Nevertheless, signal scattering could still impact certain areas currently served by the TV stations mentioned above, especially those that would have line-of-sight to at least one wind turbine but not to a respective station antenna. In the unlikely event that interference is observed in any of the TV service areas, it is recommended that a high-gain directional antenna be used, preferably outdoors, and oriented towards the signal origin in order to mitigate the interference.

Both cable service and direct broadcast satellite service will be unaffected by the presence of the wind turbine facility and may be offered to those residents who can show that their off-air TV reception has been disrupted by the presence of the wind turbines after they are installed.

5. Contact

For questions or information regarding the Off-Air TV Analysis, please contact:

Contact person: Denise Finney Title: Account Manager Company: Comsearch Address: 19700 Janelia Farm Blvd., Ashburn, VA 20147 Telephone: 703-726-5650 Fax: 703-726-5595 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.comsearch.com

Comsearch Proprietary - 6 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Appendix A

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service4 Channel ERP5 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 1 KSMN LIC DT 15 200.0 43.897778 -95.947222 16.79 2 K17MA-D CP LD 17 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 3 K27ML-D CP LD 27 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 4 K42LR-D CP LD 42 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 5 K50NJ-D CP LD 50 1.0 43.631861 -95.761556 17.34 6 K22HJ-D LIC LD 22 1.8 43.617222 -95.688889 20.94 7 K20LV-D CP LD 20 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 8 K24KZ-D CP LD 24 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 9 K44LS-D CP LD 44 1.0 43.639583 -95.413722 35.74 10 K26JI-D LIC LD 26 14.0 43.402778 -95.670833 43.81 11 K43LX-D LIC LD 43 15.0 43.376667 -96.196111 54.94 12 K20MB-D CP MOD LD 20 15.0 43.518611 -96.534667 65.47 13 KELO-TV LIC DT 11 30.0 43.518611 -96.534722 65.47 14 KSFY-TV LIC DT 13 22.7 43.518611 -96.534722 65.47 15 KDLT-TV LIC DT 47 1000.0 43.505000 -96.556111 67.70 16 KTTW LIC DT 7 7.5 43.505278 -96.571944 68.83 17 KWSD LIC DT 36 36.9 43.505278 -96.571944 68.83 18 K19HZ-D LIC LD 19 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 19 K23FO-D LIC LD 23 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 20 K30KQ-D LIC LD 30 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 21 K35IZ-D LIC LD 35 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 22 K36IV-D LIC LD 36 1.5 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 23 K40LA-D LIC LD 40 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 24 K41EG-D LIC LD 41 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 25 K43MJ-D LIC LD 43 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 26 K45EH-D LIC LD 45 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 27 K50KL-D LIC LD 50 2.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90

4 Definitions of service and status codes : TV – Analog television broadcast station DT – Digital television broadcast station DS – Digital special temporary authority (STA) LP – Low power analog television broadcast station LD – Low power digital television broadcast station CA – Class A analog television broadcast station DC – Class A digital television broadcast station DX – Digital auxiliary (backup) facility TX – Translator station LIC – Licensed and operational station CP – Construction permit granted CP MOD – Modification of construction permit APP – Application for construction permit, not yet operational STA – Special transmit authorization, usually granted by FCC for temporary operation

5 ERP = Transmit Effective Radiated Power

Comsearch Proprietary - 7 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service4 Channel ERP5 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 28 K51KT-D LIC LD 51 3.1 43.603333 -94.992500 68.90 29 NEW APP LD 23 3.0 43.574722 -96.650556 71.65 30 KCSD-TV LIC DT 24 80.9 43.574444 -96.655278 72.02 31 K22KD-D CP LD 22 3.0 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03 32 K56GF CP LD 23 15.0 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03 33 K56GF LIC TX 56 10.1 43.553889 -96.684722 75.03 34 K04RR-D CP LD 4 3.0 43.538056 -96.713889 77.85 35 K06QJ-D CP LD 6 3.0 43.538056 -96.713889 77.85 36 KCPO-LP LIC TX 26 7.57 43.534167 -96.739167 79.92 37 KAUN-LP LIC TX 42 0.88 43.535556 -96.742778 80.14 38 KCWS-LP LIC TX 44 0.68 43.535556 -96.742778 80.14 39 K33MW-D CP LD 33 2.0 43.661250 -94.853194 78.31 40 K39MD-D CP LD 39 2.0 43.661250 -94.853194 78.31 41 KRWF LIC DT 27 58.0 44.484167 -95.490833 81.90 42 K43MH-D LIC LD 43 5.5 44.484167 -95.490556 81.91 43 K18IW-D LIC LD 18 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 44 K31KU-D LIC LD 31 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 45 K32JG-D LIC LD 32 3.0 43.752317 -96.885061 86.63 46 K32JG-D CP LD 32 3.0 43.751389 -96.889111 86.96 47 K18IW-D CP LD 18 3.0 43.751389 -96.889444 86.99 48 K31KU-D CP LD 31 3.0 43.751389 -96.889444 86.99 49 K18KG-D LIC LD 18 6.9 43.255556 -94.976389 89.38 50 KBVK-LP LIC LD 21 6.8 43.255556 -94.976389 89.38 51 K21LK-D CP LD 21 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 52 K30LV-D CP LD 30 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 53 K33LR-D CP LD 33 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 54 NEW APP LD 48 2.0 43.949417 -96.909472 90.27 55 K50DG-D LIC LD 50 4.5 44.300833 -96.766667 95.80 56 K40FZ APP LD 40 7.014 44.339472 -96.768556 98.54 57 K40FZ LIC TX 40 13.5 44.339444 -96.768611 98.54 58 K16CG-D LIC LD 16 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 59 K20LP-D LIC LD 20 1.3 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 60 K23MF-D LIC LD 23 1.3 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 61 K24JV-D LIC LD 24 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 62 K29IE-D LIC LD 29 3.0 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 63 K31KV-D LIC LD 31 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 64 K35KI-D LIC LD 35 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 65 K40BU-D LIC LD 40 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 66 K45LJ-D LIC LD 45 1.8 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 67 K49HE-D LIC LD 49 3.0 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 68 K23MF-D CP LD 51 3.0 44.107778 -94.598611 103.71 69 K14KE-D LIC LD 14 1.5 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91

Comsearch Proprietary - 8 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service4 Channel ERP5 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 70 K21DG-D LIC LD 21 2.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 71 K26CS-D LIC LD 26 2.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 72 K30FN-D LIC LD 30 12.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 73 K32GX-D LIC LD 32 1.2 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 74 K34JX-D LIC LD 34 2.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 75 K38MY-D LIC LD 38 1.9 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 76 K41IZ-D LIC LD 41 2.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 77 K44AD-D LIC LD 44 2.0 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 78 K58IZ-D CP LD 58 0.04 44.106944 -94.595556 103.91 79 K17BV-D LIC LD 17 0.398 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 80 K19CV-D LIC LD 19 0.395 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 81 K22KU-D LIC LD 22 0.39 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 82 K25II-D LIC LD 25 0.387 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 83 K28LL-D LIC LD 28 0.382 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 84 K33LB-D LIC LD 33 0.375 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 85 K36KW-D LIC LD 36 0.373 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 86 K39CH-D LIC LD 39 0.369 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 87 K46FY-D LIC LD 46 0.36 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 88 K48GQ-D LIC LD 48 0.357 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 89 K50KF-D LIC LD 50 0.354 44.549722 -94.966667 108.59 90 K33NF-D CP LD 33 1.0 43.659861 -97.147083 108.62 91 K35LZ-D CP LD 35 1.0 43.659861 -97.147083 108.62 92 K38OZ-D CP LD 38 1.0 43.659861 -97.147083 108.62 93 K48OK-D CP LD 48 1.0 43.659861 -97.147083 108.62 94 K38NJ-D CP LD 38 2.0 43.076944 -96.804528 112.48 95 KUSD-TV LIC DT 34 277.0 43.050278 -96.783611 113.40 96 NEW APP LD 35 10.0 43.050278 -96.783889 113.41 97 KEYC-TV LIC DT 12 52.7 43.937222 -94.411389 113.74 98 K14OL-D LIC LD 14 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 99 K16CP-D LIC LD 16 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 100 K21LF-D LIC LD 21 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 101 K22DO-D LIC LD 22 1.7 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 102 K24CS-D LIC LD 24 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 103 K29JW-D LIC LD 29 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 104 K32DR-D LIC LD 32 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 105 K35DK-D LIC LD 35 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 106 K40MC-D LIC LD 40 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 107 K41MF-D LIC LD 41 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 108 K45DJ-D LIC LD 45 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 109 K49LV-D LIC LD 49 1.8 44.804722 -95.580278 114.91 110 K27LB-D CP LD 27 2.0 44.383222 -97.010111 116.94 111 K38NI-D CP LD 38 2.0 44.383222 -97.010111 116.94

Comsearch Proprietary - 9 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service4 Channel ERP5 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 112 K42KO-D CP LD 42 2.0 44.383222 -97.010111 116.94 113 K45LV-D CP LD 45 2.0 44.383222 -97.010111 116.94 114 K43JE-D LIC LD 43 10.82 44.051528 -94.299722 124.91 115 KESD-TV LIC DT 8 15.0 44.337778 -97.228333 129.24 116 K18IR-D LIC LD 18 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 117 K20JY-D LIC LD 20 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 118 K23FP-D LIC LD 23 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 119 K38LC-D LIC LD 38 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 120 K47JE-D LIC LD 47 0.62 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 121 K49AJ-D LIC LD 49 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 122 K51AL-D LIC LD 51 0.79 44.759167 -94.873056 131.69 123 K45MN-D CP LD 45 1.0 43.658583 -94.176500 132.38 124 K33LS-D CP LD 33 1.0 42.782083 -96.766722 135.70 125 K35KT-D CP LD 35 1.0 42.782083 -96.766722 135.70 126 K44KV-D CP LD 44 1.0 42.782083 -96.766722 135.70 127 KTIV LIC DT 41 873.0 42.586667 -96.221639 137.14 128 KPTH LIC DT 49 1000.0 42.586667 -96.221667 137.15 129 K03IS-D CP LD 3 0.3 42.586667 -96.221694 137.15 130 K06QG-D CP LD 6 0.3 42.586667 -96.221944 137.15 131 KMEG LIC DT 39 1000.0 42.586667 -96.221944 137.15 132 KCAU-TV LIC DT 9 43.9 42.586389 -96.232222 137.39 133 K35GR APP LD 35 6.76 44.487528 -97.238806 138.51 134 K35GR LIC TX 35 11.9 44.487500 -97.238889 138.52 135 Q14A-D CP LD 14 1.0 43.703056 -97.547694 140.26 136 K30NS-D CP LD 30 1.0 43.703056 -97.547694 140.26 137 K40NS-D CP LD 40 1.0 43.703056 -97.547694 140.26 138 K22KJ-D CP LD 22 1.0 42.579694 -96.527583 145.94 139 K14NV-D CP MOD LD 14 15.0 42.514722 -96.304167 146.61 140 KSIN-TV LIC DT 28 400.0 42.514722 -96.304167 146.61 141 K45LM-D CP LD 45 4.0 42.493333 -96.305556 148.93 142 KSXC-LP LIC TX 5 3.0 42.490556 -96.305833 149.23 143 KSXC-LP CP MOD LD 5 1.34 42.484861 -96.305250 149.83 144 KSXC-LD CP LD 32 15.0 42.484861 -96.305250 149.83 145 KEJK-LD CP LD 16 8.0 42.484861 -96.305556 149.83 146 KCAU-TV LIC LD 30 2.7 42.493889 -96.402778 151.20 147 K14KD-D LIC LD 14 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 148 K21KF-D LIC LD 21 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 149 K23FY-D LIC LD 23 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 150 K27FI-D LIC LD 27 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 151 K29IF-D LIC LD 29 3.1 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 152 K31EF-D LIC LD 31 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 153 K35IU-D LIC LD 35 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23

Comsearch Proprietary - 10 - April 5, 2016 White Wind Ventures Wind Power GeoPlanner™ Off-Air Television Report Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Transmit Distance to Latitude Longitude ID Call Sign Status Service4 Channel ERP5 Center of (NAD 27) (NAD 27) (kW) Project (km) 154 K40JS-D LIC LD 40 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 155 K47MI-D LIC LD 47 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 156 K49JG-D LIC LD 49 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 157 K51KB-D LIC LD 51 3.0 43.585833 -93.929444 153.23 158 KWCM-TV LIC DT 10 50.0 45.167500 -96.000556 154.49 159 KTIN LIC DT 25 600.0 42.817500 -94.411389 156.23 160 K19KH-D CP LD 19 2.0 44.884917 -97.047917 157.21 161 K20KZ-D CP LD 20 2.0 44.884917 -97.047917 157.21 162 K30LU-D CP LD 30 2.0 44.884917 -97.047917 157.21 163 K39LN-D CP LD 39 2.0 44.884917 -97.047917 157.21 164 K22KF-D CP LD 22 15.0 44.885000 -97.048056 157.23 165 K23LI-D CP LD 23 15.0 44.885000 -97.048056 157.23 166 K32DK-D LIC LD 32 2.28 44.865556 -97.105833 158.53 167 K42FI APP LD 42 6.516 44.871139 -97.109361 159.18 168 K42FI LIC TX 42 10.0 44.871111 -97.109444 159.18

Table A: Off-Air TV Stations within 150 Kilometers of Project Area

Comsearch Proprietary - 11 - April 5, 2016 Appendix F Phase 1a Cultural Literature Review

Nobles 2 Wind Project Nobles County, Minnesota

Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review

Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota

Prepared for: Prepared by: Nobles 2 Power Partners LLC Ryan Grohnke 618 2nd Avenue Southeast – Cultural Resources Field Director Minneapolis, MN 55414 Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 937-5150

Amanda Gronhovd, MS, RPA – Principal Investigator 10,000 Lakes Archaeology 220 Ninth Avenue South St. Paul, MN 557075 (612) 670-6431

Project Number: 0001661.01 Date: 03/25/2016

Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Westwood Professional Services Inc. (Westwood) was retained by Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC to conduct a Phase Ia Literature Search consisting of background and archival research for the Nobles 2 Wind Farm located in Nobles and Murray Counties, MN. These investigations were conducted to determine: 1) if previously recorded archaeological sites or historic/architectural resources are located within the project area, and 2) the potential for unrecorded archaeological sites or historic/architectural resources. The review was conducted by an examination of materials available at the Office of the State Archaeologist, the MN State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Minnesota Historical Society Library and others.

The project area is in SHPO Archaeological Regions Southwest Riverine (1) and Prairie Lake South (2s) (Prairie Lake South). Five previously identified archaeological sites and ten historic/architectural resources were identified within the project area with an additional 7 archaeological sites and 21 historic/architectural resources being identified in the one-mile buffer. Previously executed surveys were of limited scope and have not fully examined the project area for cultural resources.

Westwood recommends a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for locations that may be physically impacted by construction of the proposed project. An assessment of the potential visual impact of the proposed project on the National Register of Historic Places listed and eligible structures may be required should the project come under federal review.

Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

CONTENTS Management Summary ...... i List of Tables ...... ii List of Exhibits ...... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 2 4.0 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS ...... 2 4.1 Environmental Background ...... 2 Landscape ...... 2 Wildlife2 Vegetation ...... 3 Soils 3 Geology ...... 3 4.2 Cultural History ...... 3 PRE-CONTACT PERIOD ...... 4 Paleoindian Tradition (12,000 to 8,000 Before Present [B.P.]) ...... 4 Archaic Tradition (8,000 to 2,800 B.P.) ...... 5 Woodland Tradition (2,800 B.P. to European Contact) ...... 6 Plains Village & Mississippian/Oneota Traditions (1,100 B.P. to European Contact) .. 7 CONTACT/POST CONTACT PERIOD (1630 to Present) ...... 8 5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 5.1 Archaeological Region ...... 10 5.2 Previous Surveys ...... 10 5.3 Archaeological Resources ...... 10 5.4 Architectural Resources ...... 11 5.5 Additional Sources ...... 13 6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 14 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 15

TABLES

Table 1.1: Sections Included in Project Area and One-Mile Buffer ...... 1 Table 5.1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites...... 11 Table 5.2: Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Resources ...... 12

Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources

iii

Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

1.0 INTRODUCTION Westwood Professional Services Inc. (Westwood) was retained by Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC (N2PP) to conduct a Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review consisting of background and archival research for the Nobles 2 Wind Farm in Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota. The literature review was conducted in support of preparation of a Large Wind Energy Conversion System Site Permit Application. Amanda Gronhovd of 10,000 Lakes Archaeology served as Principal Investigator for the project.

The proposed project and the one-mile buffer included in the study area is located in eight townships in Nobles County, Minnesota and two townships in Murray County, Minnesota (Exhibit 1). A listing of townships and sections included in the defined project boundary is provided in Table 1-1 below.

Table 1-1: Sections Included in Project Area and One-Mile Buffer Township County Township Range Section(s) Name 103 40 3-10, 15-22, 27-33 103 41 1-15, 22-26 103 42 1-12 103 43 1-5, 8-12 Nobles 104 40 6, 7, 17-20, 29-34 104 41 1-36 104 42 1-36 104 43 11-15, 20-29, 32-36 105 41 30-36 Murray 105 42 25-28, 32-36

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review was conducted to provide an inventory of previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. The area of consideration also included a one-mile buffer surrounding the entire project area. This was done to ascertain if any recorded resources located immediately adjacent to the project area might be either physically or visually impacted by the proposed work. The one-mile buffer also increased the area examined to give a better indication of possible site types that may be located within the project area. Furthermore, the literature review assisted in determining levels of previous disturbance, the amount and degree of previous cultural resources work within the area, and the potential for unrecorded cultural resources.

1 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

3.0 METHODOLOGY The project area was examined using background research and a literature review. The environmental background and historic contexts were examined to assess the probability of sites and what types of sites might be identified.

On February 16 and 17th, 2016, Westwood Cultural Resource Specialist Ryan P. Grohnke conducted a review of the general project area by conducting a review of files at the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) located at Fort Snelling in St. Paul, MN, and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Minnesota Historical Society Library located at the Minnesota History Center in St. Paul, MN. Archaeological site and historic/architectural structure inventory files were examined to obtain a list of all previously recorded archaeological (historic and prehistoric) and historic/architectural resources within the project area. Archaeological reports for the county were reviewed to determine a listing of all surveys conducted within the project area. A request was also made by email to the Minnesota SHPO for a database search. Other documentary research sources used to identify potential cultural/historical resources in the area included county and township histories, historic contexts, environmental background, historic maps and atlases, the 1874 Historic Andreas Atlas, Trygg maps, Winchell’s Aborigines of Minnesota, and historic maps.

4.0 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

4.1 Environmental Background

Landscape The project area is within the Coteau Moraines and Inner Coteau subsections of the North Central Glaciated Plains Section of the Prairie Parkland Province according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ecological Classification System. The Prairie Parkland Province was primarily tallgrass prairie in pre-settlement times. The project study area consists of fairly level to sloping terrain. It is bounded on the west by the Coteau des Prairie escarpment. Most of the area has a deposit of drift from 100 to 600 feet deposited during the Wisconsin glaciation (Minnesota DNR 2016).

Wildlife Bison were the dominant large ungulates in the region through the Woodland period and until the mid-Nineteenth Century. White-tailed deer, elk, black and grizzly bears, and gray wolves were also present in the prairie region of Minnesota during this time period. Aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals were present in wetlands, shallow lakes and riverine areas. Such species include muskrats, beaver, mink, otters and raccoons. Wetlands, shallow lakes and rivers also supported large

2 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

populations of waterfowl and fish. Waterfowl species included mallard, blue-winged teal, gadwalls, shovelers, redheads, canvas backs, scaups, ruddy ducks, Canada geese, snow geese and swans. Sandhill cranes were also abundant on the prairie. Shallow lakes provided “a rich floral assemblage which includes such edible plants as water lilies and cattails. Wild rice was present. …but it wasn’t extensive” (Anfinson 1990:147). Upland areas supplied floral resources such as ground plum and prairie turnip.

Vegetation Presettlement vegetation consisted almost entirely of tallgrass prairie. Limited areas of wet prairies, marshes and sloughs, and river bottom forests could also be found in the project area (Marschner 1974). After Euro-American settlement, most of the original prairie was cultivated and used for farmland. Today the tallgrass prairie is almost completely gone, replaced by rows of corn and occasional pastureland. “It is a land that would not be recognizable to groups who lived there only a few centuries ago. The environment has been altered significantly, but climatic conditions persist” (Henning 1995:2).

Soils County soil data shows significant soil variation within the project area, but can commonly be categorized as medium- to fine-textured prairie soils (Anfinson 1990:146). The soil in the project area is generally composed of loam and clay loam (USDA 2013).

Geology The Coteau des Prairies, or “highland of the prairie,” forms the most prominent topographic feature in the region. Rising 500 to 800 feet above the gently rolling prairie, it contains some of the highest points in the state. The Coteau, a former mountain range, is the result of reductive glacial activity by the Des Moines lobe of Cary ice. By 13,000 B.P., the ice had receded from Iowa and Minnesota leaving what is known as the Bemis moraine (Gibbon 1980:10).

The crest of the Bemis moraine, which features bedrock of Sioux Quartzite, forms the divide between Mississippi and Missouri River drainages and is the dominant moraine in the three-state region. It also divides landscape types and is a boundary for archaeological regions. This is important because environment and topography affect cultural activities and ranges thus Anfinson’s regions generalize cultural use over time for the distinct physical regions of Minnesota.

4.2 Cultural History Minnesota SHPO has developed archaeological contexts for Minnesota and the Upper Midwest. These contexts are based on years of prehistoric and historic research in

3 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

the region to examine Minnesota’s historic (Contact and Post-Contact) and prehistoric (Pre-contact) past. They are general descriptive interpretations of the history of Minnesota. They give basic observations of current theories relating to prehistoric and historic people from different locations throughout the history of Minnesota.

The Pre-Contact period is focused solely on Native American peoples before the arrival of Euro-Americans. This period is divided into four traditions: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland and Plains Village and Mississippian/Oneota. These traditions are defined by changes in technology and food sources exploited.

The cultural histories focused solely on the interaction of American Indians and Euro- Americans are divided into the Contact and Post-Contact periods. These contexts range from the first contact between Europeans and American Indians during European exploration in the region (Contact), through Euro-American settlement of traditionally American Indian lands (Post-contact).

PRE-CONTACT PERIOD

Paleoindian Tradition (12,000 to 8,000 Before Present [B.P.]) According to the most accepted theory, the first people to arrive in North America, the Paleoindians, crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. When they arrived, approximately half of North America was covered by glacial ice. As the glaciers melted, the people moved south and eventually spread throughout the entirety of the Americas (Dobbs 1990). Pleistocene megafauna, such as mammoth and mastodon, roamed the land.

Paleoindian sites are relatively uncommon and difficult to locate by archaeologists due to buried deposits. The lack of stratified sites and the small number of artifacts from sites suggests that Paleoindian people lived in small, nomadic groups (Frison 1998).

Glacial meltwater created glacial lakes, including Lake Agassiz, Lake Superior, and many other smaller glacial lakes. As these lakes drained, the water began to cut river valleys. Modern vegetation began to cover the region. The changing environment, and possibly human overkill, led to the extinction of several species of megafauna.

Paleoindians were small groups known best for hunting large megafauna including mammoth, mastodon, and Bison antiquus - an extinct bison up to one-third larger than modern bison (Frison 1998). By 11,000 years B.P. mammoth and other megafauna became extinct and Paleoindians shifted their hunting focus to bison, the

4 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

next largest mammal (Frison 1998). Evidence also suggests that these people not only hunted megafauna and large mammals, but also exploited other food sources such as fish, berries, nuts, and small mammals (Tankersley 1998).

The earliest Paleoindian spearpoints are easily identified by a distinctive flute down both sides. During the middle of the Paleoindian period lanceolate, nonfluted points began to emerge. During the late Paleoindian periods, we see a shift from fluted and lanceolate to exclusively lanceolate points.

The earliest of the fluted point style is known as the Clovis point, dating from 12,000 – 11,000 years B.P. (Justice 1987). The original Clovis point was recovered from the Blackwater Draw site and named after the nearby town of Clovis, New Mexico. The spearpoints from Blackwater Draw were found in direct association with late Pleistocene fauna including Columbian mammoth, horse, camel, bison, and saber- tooth cat (Dobbs 1990).

Following the Clovis point is the Folsom point, differentiated from Clovis by a decrease in length and an increase in the length of the flute. Dates of the Folsom Complex last from approximately 11,000 – 10,200 years B.P. (Hofman 1995). The Folsom point and type site is named after the city of Folsom, New Mexico, where a Folsom projectile point was recovered with the ribcage of the now extinct species of bison, Bison antiquus (Dobbs 1990).

The Late Paleoindian period generally begins toward the end of the Folsom Complex and lasts to the beginning of the Archaic Period. Late Paleoindian technology is marked by a change from the distinctive Folsom style. Lanceolate points vary greatly in style, but share the features of being nonfluted, unnotched, and finely flaked. They arrive in the archaeological record during the Folsom Complex and continue to the end of the Paleoindian Tradition (Dobbs 1990).

Archaic Tradition (8,000 to 2,800 B.P.) Evidence suggests that Archaic people lived in small groups occupying seasonal camps, much like their Paleoindian predecessors (Jones et.al. 2003), although some research counters this belief, suggesting that community size increased and groups became more sedentary (Dobbs 1990). The major innovations differentiating the Archaic people from the Paleoindian people include a change in projectile point technology, the invention of ground stone tools, and a change in subsistence strategies. The Archaic Tradition is also noted for the development of regional differences, possibly due to regionalization of particular groups (Anfinson 1987).

5 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

By 8,000 years B.P. the glacial ice sheet and Lake Agassiz had both receded into Canada. The post-Pleistocene climate change had become more stable, but still lacked the environmental stability of modern times. Fluctuating precipitation and temperature brought significant changes in the vegetation creating more specific biomes (Dobbs 1990).

By the beginning of the Archaic period, the Pleistocene megafauna had long become extinct. This extinction promoted a shift towards a more effective, somewhat more localized hunting and gathering subsistence. Hunters now focused on bison, deer, and small mammals. Some archaeologists believe that Archaic people became more regionalized partly due to the major biomes. This regionalization allowed the people to perfect the exploitation of local raw material and food sources (Dobbs 1990).

The Archaic Tradition technology is marked by a change in projectile point manufacture. Projectile points have shifted from lanceolate to notched and stemmed points and the flaking quality begins to diminish. Other innovations of the Archaic people is the appearance of ground stone tools created by friction from grinding, polishing, and pecking igneous, and metamorphic rocks such as granite and basalt, and the emergent use of native copper (Anfinson 1987).

As with Paleoindian sites in Minnesota, Archaic sites are few and far between. Sites have likely been destroyed or buried by various natural geologic processes, making these sites more difficult to discover. As of 1990, of the few Archaic sites located, even fewer had been excavated, making it difficult to fully define the economies of the Archaic Tradition in Minnesota (Dobbs 1990).

Copper artifacts dating to the Archaic Tradition have been recovered throughout Minnesota. The use of copper begins approximately 7,000 years B.P. and persists until approximately 3,500 years B.P. The copper is found in large glacial drift nodules in the region and prehistoric copper mines have been located on Lake Superior’s Isle Royale (Dobbs 1990).

Woodland Tradition (2,800 B.P. to European Contact) The Woodland Tradition is generally divided into three periods throughout the Midwest. These periods are Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland; although Anfinson (1987) has suggested a division of Initial Woodland and Terminal Woodland for Minnesota. Current research suggests that these divisions can be further divided into Brainerd, Southeast Minnesota Early Woodland, Havana Related, Laurel, Fox Lake, and Lake Benton.

6 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

The Woodland Tradition is marked by the emergence of ceramic pottery vessels and the appearance of earthen burial mounds. The multiple contexts describing the Woodland period are a result of increased regionalization of the Woodland people (Anfinson 1990).

By Approximately 5,000 years B.P. the climate shifted from dry and warm to moist and cool. This climatic shift led to a change in some areas of Minnesota. The prairie- forest margin that had moved into Wisconsin, at approximately 7,000 B.P, had moved west back out of Wisconsin and into Minnesota by 5,000 B.P. By approximately 3,000 years B.P., the forest in northern Minnesota had shifted over the border to North Dakota. Although some areas saw major changes, some areas appeared much the same by 3,000 B.P as they did at the time of arrival of European explorers (Anfinson 1990).

The Woodland people most certainly exploited similar food sources to their Archaic ancestors. Bison, deer, and small mammals were still a major food source. Plants, such as wild rice, were exploited more heavily than in previous times and there is evidence of cultivation of maize and squash (Dobbs 1990).

The primary technological advance during the Woodland Tradition is the advent of ceramic pottery. The original divisions of Early, Middle, and Late Woodland were differentiated by their technology. Ceramics during the Early Woodland period are normally thick and crude with cord-marked decoration on the exterior. Middle Woodland shows early evidence of earthen burial mounds. Late Woodland continues the tradition of ceramics and burial mounds, but ceramic decorations and styles become more regionalized (Anfinson 1990).

Plains Village & Mississippian/Oneota Traditions (1,100 B.P. to European Contact) Significant changes in subsistence and settlement patterns characterize the Plains Village and Mississippian/Oneota cultures in Minnesota. The people of this period continued to manufacture ceramic vessels and construct earthen burial mounds. Populations became larger and even more regionalized than previous. These traditions last from the end of the Terminal Woodland Tradition to first contact with European explorers (Anfinson 1987).

Evidence suggests that the Plains Village Tradition developed out of the Woodland Tradition. The development of the Mississippian/Oneota Traditions are still unclear, possibly a development of people migrating from other areas to the Midwest. Another possibility is the regionalization of groups allowed a people to create distinctive ideas, and life-ways (Anfinson 1987).

7 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

The Plains Village and Mississippian/Oneota Traditions span through the time of the Little Ice age. The Little Ice Age is marked by cooler winter temperatures than current and slightly warmer summers. Vegetation at this time is approximately equivalent to the vegetation at the time of the first European Explorers (Dobbs 1990).

The Plains Village and Mississippian/Oneota would have focused heavily on bison for a food source. Corn horticulture intensified as people limited the number of different species of plants to exploit and as they became more regionalized. Perhaps the intensification of corn horticulture is a response to larger community size.

The site types assigned to the Plains Village and Oneota complexes are similar to the Woodland Tradition and the archaeological remains of these complexes range from cemeteries to small burials, limited use sites to extensive habitation sites. Site location is also consistent with the previous period and depends on numerous factors including the location of specific resources the people were using or the presence of a particular desirable environment.

CONTACT/POST CONTACT PERIOD (1630 to Present) This period generally refers to the span of time extending from the first European explorations until intensive Euro-American settlement of the region. Minnesota’s historical period began in 1673 when French explorers Marquette and Joliet discovered the upper portion of the Mississippi River. Ten years later, Catholic Missionary Father Louis Hennepin returned to France to write the first book about Minnesota, Description de la Louisiane, telling his story of exploring Minnesota and being held captive by the Dakota Indians.

The territory containing modern-day Minnesota was claimed by Spain, France, Great Britain, and eventually the United States. Lieutenant Zebulon Montgomery Pike lead the first United States expedition through Minnesota in 1805. Fort St. Anthony (later Ft. Snelling) was completed between 1819 and 1824, and in 1836 the Wisconsin Territory including a portion of Minnesota, was formed. Minnesota became a territory in 1849 and achieved statehood on May 11, 1858. The fur trade drove much of the European exploration and settlement in Minnesota through the mid- 1800s.

While the fur trade impacted the American Indian communities throughout all of Minnesota, European settlement in the area exploded after the 1860s. At that time, intensive settlement and agriculture dramatically transformed the landscape,

8 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

displacing a large number of American Indians. In 1862 tensions between white settlers and American Indians exploded resulting in the Dakota Conflict.

As white settlers made Minnesota their home, farming became the predominant industry. Wheat was the cash crop, and mills spring up along major waterways across the state, notably in Minneapolis. Minnesota dominated the world in wheat processing until the 1930s.

In addition to milling, Minnesota was also a leader in lumbering and iron mining. Lumbering played a significant role in the development of northern Minnesota, with the industry peaking between 1899 and 1905, and iron mining began affecting the state’s economy in 1884 when the Soudan Mine began shipping ore. The development of the Soudan Mine opened the Vermilion Iron Range, Minnesota’s first of three iron ranges, and over the next two decades mines sprang up across the northern and central portions of the state. The Mesabi, Cuyuna, and Vermilion Iron Ranges employed thousands of people and brought millions of dollars into Minnesota’s economy.

In Southern Minnesota, this period is marked by an agricultural economy. Railroads built lines across the region to transport goods to and from major markets like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago and Sioux City.

Possible archaeological site types associated with this period are generally consistent with those of earlier periods, but the influence of European and Euro- American traders, missionaries, settlers, and industries affected the locations of these sites. This period also includes the settlement patterns, subsistence activities, and economic strategies employed by Euro-American immigrants beginning in the mid-19th century. Associated archaeological and historic site types categorized in the Contact/Post-Contact period include standing structures as well as archaeological sites.

5.0 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review was conducted at the OSA, the Minnesota SHPO and the Minnesota Historical Society Library. Additional resources examined included county and township histories, historic contexts, environmental background, historic maps and atlases, the 1874 Historic Andreas Atlas, Trygg maps, Winchell’s Aborigines of Minnesota, and various online sources. Established or platted cemeteries were not investigated as part of this research; however, information on abandoned and possibly unmarked or unrecorded cemeteries was investigated when feasible.

9 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

5.1 Archaeological Region The project area is located in the Southwest Riverine (1) and Prairie Lake South (2s) Archaeological Regions of Minnesota (Anfinson 1990). Archaeological properties related to American Indian occupation and activities are usually found along lakes and streams, or by former large permanent bodies of water on prominent topographic features (i.e. uplands or terraces).

5.2 Previous Surveys A review of previous survey reports at the Minnesota SHPO indicated that six previous archaeological field surveys have been conducted within or immediately adjacent to the project area. The previous surveys were limited in scope and did not survey the entirety of the project area; the majority of the project area has not been examined with in-field investigations. The surveys conducted within and adjacent to the project area include:

x 2010 – Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Nobles County Wind Farm Project, Nobles, County, Minnesota by the 106 Group Ltd. x 2010 – Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey for Proposed Water Control Structure Installation in the Fenmont WMA by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Cultural Resources Program x 2009 - A Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance Survey of Lismore Cooperative Telephone Company’s Proposed Fiber Optic Cable Placement Project, Nobles County, Minnesota by Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College. x 2009 – NRCS Archaeological Survey for terraces overlooking a tributary to Champepedan Creek. x 2007 – Cultural Resources Identification and Assessment Report, Fenton Wind Farm Project, Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota by Westwood Professional Services and 10,000 Lakes Archaeology, LLC. x 1979/1980 – Minnesota State Archaeological Survey.

5.3 Archaeological Resources A review of records at the Minnesota SHPO and OSA indicated that 12 previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified within the study area that includes the project area and a one-mile buffer (Exhibit 1). Five of the previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the project area and the additional seven sites are located within the one-mile buffer.

Sites 21NOi and 21NOj are alpha sites. An alpha site is a reported, but unverified archaeological site, possibly identified through either an informant’s report or historic documentation, but not verified by a professional archaeologist. There is discrepancy in the records of 21NOi and 21NOj with the SHPO mapping and the SHPO

10 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

database mixing up the location of the two alpha sites. This discrepancy is not a concern, as both sites are prehistoric earthworks.

All of the 12 sites are prehistoric and consist of artifact scatters, lithic scatters, or single artifact finds. Site 21NO0058 also has a historic component. None of these sites have been listed or evaluated as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although it is possible that not all of the sites have yet been evaluated. The list of recorded archaeological sites is summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Site Site Name Site Type Location Project/Buffer Number 21LNO0039 Jangetjes Artifact Scatter T104N, R43W, Sec. 22 Buffer

21LNO0046 None Single Artifact T103N, R42W, Sec. 3 Project

21LNO0047 Kroontje Single Artifact T104N, R43W, Sec. 28 Project

21LNO0049 None Single Artifact T103N, R42W, Sec. 7 Buffer

21LNO0055 Fenton Wind Farm - 010 Single Artifact T104N, R42W, Sec. 7 Buffer

21LNO0056 None Lithic Scatter T104N, R42W, Sec. 4 Buffer

21LNO0057 None Single Artifact T104N, R42W, Sec. 31 Project

21NO0058 None Artifact Scatter T104N, R43W, Sec. 25 Project

21NO0059 None Single Artifact T103N, R43W, Sec. 11 Buffer

21NO0070 None Single Artifact T103N, R41W, Sec. 22 Buffer

21NOi None Earthworks T104N, R43W, Sec. 33 Project

21NOj None Earthworks T103N, R42W, Sec. 12 Buffer Key: Site Number = site designation applied by State Archaeologist; Site Name = name given to site; Site Type = defined site use type; Location = amended legal description of recorded property; Project/Buffer = location of site within defined project area (Project) or within a one-mile buffer (Buffer).

5.4 Architectural Resources A review of records at the Minnesota SHPO indicated that 10 historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within the project area. An additional 21 historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within the associated one-mile buffer or within the City of Lismore that is outside, but encircled by, the project area. One of these resources has been evaluated as eligible for listing on the NRHP, although it is possible that some of the other resources have yet been

11 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

evaluated. The Lismore Water Tower (Inventory Number NO-LSC-006) in the City of Lismore has been determined as eligible for listing on the NRHP (Exhibit 1). The list of recorded Historic/Architectural resources is summarized in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Resources

SHPO Number Description Location Project/Buffer

NO-SLT-025 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 8 Buffer

NO-BLM-001 Bridge No. L2616 T104N, R41W, Sec. 24 Project

NO-DEW-001 Farmstead T104N, R41W, Sec. 6 Project

NO-LRK-002 Bridge No. L3351 T103N, R42W, Sec. 5 Project

NO-LRK-018 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 12 Buffer

NO-LRK-019 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 12 Buffer

NO-LRK-020 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 1 Project

NO-LRK-021 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 11 Buffer

NO-LRK-022 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 12 Buffer

NO-LRK-023 Farmstead T103N, R42W, Sec. 11 Buffer

NO-LEO-001 Bridge No. L3471 T104N, R43W, Sec. 32 Buffer Bridge 53515 NO-LEO-002 T104N, R43W, Sec. 29 Buffer

NO-LSC-001 Lismore Firehall T103N, R43W, Sec. 1 Buffer

NO-LSC-002 Catholic Church T103N, R43W, Sec. 1 Buffer

NO-LSC-003 Grain Elevator T104N, R43W, Sec. 1 Buffer Commercial Building/ NO-LSC-004 T103N, R43W, Sec. 1 Buffer Lismore Café (moved) NO-LSC-006 Lismore Water Tower T103N, R43W, Sec. 1 Buffer Chicago, Rock Island and NO-LSC-005 Pacific RR grade – Lismore T103N, R43W, Sec. 10 Buffer Twp. Segment NO-SEW-001 Seward Township Hall T104N, R40W, Sec. 17 Buffer

NO-SLT-001 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 4 Project

NO-SLT-005 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 6 Project

NO-SLT-006 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 9 Buffer

12 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Table 5-2: Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Resources

SHPO Number Description Location Project/Buffer

NO-SLT-007 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 9 Buffer

NO-SLT-010 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 22 Buffer

NO-SLT-026 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 9 Buffer

NO-SLT-027 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 5 Project

NO-SLT-028 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 6 Project

NO-SLT-029 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 5 Project

NO-SLT-030 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 7 Buffer

NO-SLT-031 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 8 Buffer

NO-SLT-046 Farmstead T103N, R41W, Sec. 5 Project Key: SHPO Number = inventory number for recorded property in SHPO files; Description = name of historic structure or description of type of structure; Location = amended legal description of recorded property; Project Area / Buffer = denotes if listed site is within the defined project area or within the one-mile buffer.

5.5 Additional Sources Various other archival resources were also investigated to determine the potential for unrecorded archaeological or historic resources within the project area. An Illustrated Historical Atlas of Minnesota (Andreas 1874) indicates the house of A. Miner in Section 30, Township 104, Range 40; the house of H. Davis in the SW ¼ of Section 28, Township 104, Range 40; a school in the S ½ of Section 29, Township 103, Range 40; and the house of R. B. Plotts in the SE ¼ of Section 22, Township 103, Range. 40.

Several possible cultural resources are evident on the Trygg maps (1969). The Madelia to Sioux City road is situated in Sections 1 and 11 of Township 103, Range 42; Sections 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of Township 104, Range 41; and Sections 29 and 30 of Township 104, Range 40. Indian mounds are indicated in Section 12 of township 103, Range 42 and Section 33 of Township 104, Range 43. These mounds correspond to archaeological sites 21NOi and 21NOj.

A review of historic plat maps, specifically Nobles County in 1888 (National Publishing Co. 1888) and Murray County in 1916 (State of Minnesota Plat 1916) show multiple structures throughout the project area, generally associated with Euro-American settlement. These structures are primarily farmsteads (homes and outbuildings), but the occasional church and school are also found in the area.

13 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The literature review identified 12 archaeological sites within one-mile of the project area, of which five were located in the defined boundaries of the project area. In addition, 31 historic/architectural resources were identified within one-mile of the project area, of which 10 were located in the defined boundaries of the project area. The few previous surveys that have been conducted in the project area to date have only investigated small parcels of land, or were limited in scope.

Upon review of the archaeological sites and survey data compiled for the defined project area, Westwood concludes that the paucity of recorded archaeological sites within the project area are not necessarily indicative of a lack of cultural resources in the area, but instead may reflect the lack of survey coverage. The project area has a moderate potential for cultural resources due to the multiple water sources that exist in the county including Jack Creek, Champepadan Creek and their tributaries. Westwood recommends a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for locations that may be physically impacted by construction of the proposed project. An assessment of the potential visual impact of the proposed project on the NRHP eligible resources is recommended and may be required should the project come under federal review.

Should the project be deemed a Federal Undertaking (requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval; being located on federally owned or managed land; or receiving Federal financial assistance) a cultural resources survey would most likely be mandated. The scope of required cultural resource investigations would then be determined by the functioning Federal lead agency in cooperation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and pertinent Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) as defined in both Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) (NHPA).

14 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

Andreas, A.T. 1874 An Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Minnesota. A.T. Andreas Publishing Company, Chicago.

Anfinson, Scott. F. 1987 The Prehistory of the Prairie Lake Region in the Northeastern Plains. Thesis for the University of Minnesota. 1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G.E. Gibbon, pp. 135-166. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis.

Dobbs, Clark. 1990 Outline of Historic Contexts for the Prehistoric Period (CA. 12,00B.P.-A.D. 1700): A Document in the Series Minnesota History in Sites and Structures: A Comprehensive Planning Series. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigations Number 37, Minneapolis.

Frison, George C. 1998 Paleoindian Large Mammal Hunters on the Plains of North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 24. (Nov. 24, 1998), pp. 14576-14583.

Gibbon, Guy E. 1980 An Archaeological Survey of Nobles, Pipestone, and Rock Counties, Minnesota. Part of the Statewide Archaeological Survey.

Henning, Dale R., and H. Clyde Pedersen 1995 Archeological Investigations, Six Sites in Freeborn, Murray, Cottonwood and Nobles Counties. Office of the State Archaeologist, No. Mult-95-25.

Hofman, Jack L. 1995 Dating Folsom Occupations on the Southern Plains: The Lipscomb and Waugh Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology, 22(4), pp. 421-437.

Jones, G.T., Beck, C., Jones, E.E., Hughes R.E. 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity, 68(1), pp. 5-38.

15 Phase Ia Cultural Resources Literature Review 03/25/2016 Nobles 2 Wind Farm

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Marschner, F.J. 1974 The Original Vegetation of Minnesota (map). North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, St. Paul.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota DNR) 2016 Ecological Classification System. Electronic Document, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html, February 22, 2016.

National Publishing Co. 1888 Plat Book Nobles County, Minnesota. National Publishing Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, MN.

State of Minnesota Plat Book 1916 Murray County. Digitized Plat Maps and Atlases. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic Document, https://www.lib.umn.edu/borchert/digitized-plat-maps-and-atlases, last accessed March 22, 2016.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1998 Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene Eastern North America. American Antiquity, 63(1), pp. 7-20

Trygg, J.W. 1969 Composite maps of United States Land Surveyors Original Plats and Field Notes. Sheet 7 Minnesota Series.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2013 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document, http http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, last accessed March 23, 2016.

v NW 3rd St ve t Co Hwy 1 87

16thS Murray Cty 1 16th St Co Rd 2 E Lake Ave A

Rd 62 Ave

th VU

VU91 Fulda

0th Co

1 1

100th A 180

9 11th St ve

11th St 16 11th St 11th St

0th Ave T105N R43W T105N R42W T105N R41W Ave

0 T105N R40W wy 36 wy

hAv

ve 88

2 thAve t

Ave H

0th A

y 34 y e

10th Ave

Ave v

50th Av

eH Co Co Rd 85

e 80thAve

o Hwy o 3

w Rd

11 120th Ave 170 220th

v C Ave

Hwy 29 C

40th 34 35 36 31 130th 32

0th A Co Co

St h 30th Ave

Co H Co

150th

10th A

190th 2

2 9 1st St 1st St 100th St 1st St 100Murrayth St County Co Rd 71 Co Rd 72 Co Rd 71 Co Rd 72 1st St 100th St Co Rd 71 Co Hwy 13 1st St 1stSt CoRd88 1st St 100th St Co Rd 63 100th St 100th St 1st St 100th St 1st Ave W VU91 CoRd Nobles County 21LNO0056 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

Co Rd 19 Bedford Ave Bedford t MainSt St t 110th St

241 St Abbott Ave 110th S 110th 110th S ing Ave ing

ve K

A y Ave

k o 12 21LNO0055 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 sAve 11

C MillSt S

Loi

Co Rd 13 Bulic 120th St 120th Ave

231 St 120th St e 120th St

Av A

uf m e 18

14 13 e e

16 e 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 15 9

wy 17

v th Av th

Ave 5

Pal

Av Edwards

Kna y ro e Ahlers Ave

ll Av r A

te H te

Fellows 130th St

13 130th St o 0 e th S a 130th St t rom ney Av

t rfee rfee C T104N R40W T104N R43W n T104N R42W T104N R41W s Sta

SHw

Birkett Ave

Oliv

Du Jones Ave Hessel

M 15

ul Av Dillman Ave

Rock County Rock 21LNO0039 23 24 19 Pa Nobles County 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

T104N R44W Co Rd Co Co 140th St 140th St 211 St 140th St Erickson Ave 140th S t R d 78

26 d 13 21LNO0047 21LNO0058 30 28 26 25 30 25 29 28 30 o R 29 27 Nobles Co 19 28 27 27 26 25

Abbott Ave

201St 150th St 150th St Co Rd 69 150th St 150th St ¤£59

d69

t A t s

oR 36 21LNO0057 1 36 31 21NOi 33 34 35 36 31 33 34 35 C 31 32 33 34 35

91 32 59 Abbott Ave VU Wilmont 191st St 160th St 160th St 160th St 160th St 160th St

ve S WestsideAve U266 266 266 A V VU VU S tate Hw

71 Co Rd 16 GrainSt e 5 21LNO0046 5 y2 2 1 6 5 4 4 3 stsi 1 6 3 2 1 6 4 3

e ve 6 2 Lismore 6

ve st Av Kenneth A 4

1 Co Rd 170th St

N W 181 St 170thS th 170th St 170th St 170th S t t S

Lismore Water Tower 4 S

Ave

First 21NOj ing 7 e 12 8 9 7 21LNO0049 K 11 21LNO0059 11 12

Ave

o Rd o 71 266 Ahlers Ave Ahlers

C VU 180th St

lick Av St 180th St Co Rd 68 180th Lai

ds Ave

r e

ve m Ave m

Ave

e 9

e Knauf Ave Knauf

Ave Pal

Edwa

wy 91 fe 18 16 14 13 17 5 y

m Ave

ll Av

liver Av

kson A Stat o

Jones Ave

T103N R43W Dur T103N R42W T103N R41W te H te T103N R40W str 190th ows Ave St

haney eHwy 266 Ave Paul 190th St 190th St Eri 190th S t

Birkett Ave US Hw US

Sta

McCa

C Monroe Ave

Hesselroth

Fell

Rd 15 T103N R44W Co Rd 13 19 Co 19 20 1 24 21 21LNO0070 22 23 8th R S e t a

Abbott Ave

Rd 7 d i 200th St 200th St o 200th St n g ve

Co Rd 60 C S t

25 Muck A 30 29 28

Rd 7

St 141st St 210th St 210th St 210th St 210th St

Ahlers Ave Miles

1 ± 01.5 2 Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); ESRI WMS USA Topo & National Geographic Basemap CAN Legend Imagery (Accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); U.S. Nobles 2 Wind Project Fish and Wildlife Service (2013); MNDNR (2010). Note: Due to the sensitive ND Project Boundary NRHP Listed or Eligible Historic Structure Highway Nobles County, Minnesota nature of archaeological MI MN Municipal Boundary PLS Section with Archaeological Site(s) Major Road resources, locations have Previously Recorded WI been generalized to section SD County Boundary PLS Township Boundary Minor Road Cultural Resources Project level.

IA PLS Section Boundary EXHIBIT 1 Map Document:Map N:\0001661.00\GIS\N2_CulturalResourcesMap_Permit_160324.mxdAM 10:33:323/31/2016 Appendix G Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy

Nobles 2 Wind Project Nobles County, Minnesota

Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy

Nobles County, Minnesota September 5, 2017

Prepared For:

Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC 14302 FNB Parkway Omaha, NE 68154-5212 Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Nobles 2 Wind Project

Nobles County, Minnesota

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC Westwood Professional Services 14302 FNB Parkway 7699 Anagram Drive Omaha, NE 681544-5212 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (402) 691-9500 (952) 937-5150

Project Number: R0001661.00 Date: September 5, 2017 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Corporate Policy on Bird and Bat Conservation ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the BBCS ...... 1 1.3 Goals and Objectives ...... 2 1.4 Agency Coordination...... 3 1.5 Regulatory Framework...... 3 1.5.1 Endangered Species Act ...... 3 1.5.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...... 4 1.5.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act...... 5 1.5.4 State of Minnesota Regulations ...... 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 7 3.0 STUDY AREA...... 8 4.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT AND SITING ...... 10 4.1 Tier 1 – Preliminary Site Screening ...... 10 4.2 Tier 2 – Site Characterization ...... 10 4.3 Tier 1 & Tier 2 – USFWS WEG Questions and Responses ...... 11 4.4 Tier 3 – Field Studies to Document Site Wildlife Conditions and Predict Project Impacts ...... 12 4.4.1 Pre-Construction Avian Surveys ...... 13 4.4.2 Acoustic Bat Surveys ...... 40 5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 50 5.1 Birds ...... 50 5.1.1 Non-Raptor Avian Species ...... 50 5.1.2 Raptors ...... 55 5.1.3 Special-Status Avian Species ...... 57 5.1.4 Conclusion ...... 57 5.2 Bats ...... 58 5.2.1 General Impacts...... 58 5.2.2 Special Status Bat Species ...... 60 5.2.3 Use of Pre-Construction Acoustic Monitoring to Predict Post-Construction Bat Fatalities ...... 60 5.2.4 Conclusion ...... 61 6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES ...... 63 6.1 Project Siting and Design ...... 63 6.1.1 Avoidance of Migratory Pathways and Other Important Use Areas...... 63 6.1.2 Facilities and Turbine Layout and Design ...... 63

i Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

6.2 Construction and Maintenance ...... 65 6.3 Operation ...... 67 6.4 Decommissioning...... 68 7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...... 69 7.1 Tier 4 – Post Construction Monitoring ...... 69 7.1.1 Study Design ...... 69 7.1.2 Reporting and Data Analysis ...... 74 7.2 Tier 5 – Other Post-Construction Studies ...... 75 7.2.1 Continued Monitoring and Coordination Process...... 75 7.3 Adaptive Management for Unexpected Avian, Bat, and/or Habitat Impacts ...... 76 7.4 Additional Adaptive Management Considerations ...... 78 7.5 Action Plan Should New Risks Arise...... 79 8.0 BBCS IMPLEMENTATION ...... 80 8.1 Key Contacts ...... 80 9.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 81

TABLES

Table 3-1: Land Cover Types within the Study Area Table 4-1: Nobles 2 Tier 1 and 2 Evaluation Summary Table 4-2: Avian Survey Efforts to Date for the Nobles 2 Project Table 4-3: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Winter 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys Table 4-4: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Spring 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys Table 4-5: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Summer 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys Table 4-6: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Fall 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys Table 4-7: Flight Characteristics and Encounter Rates for Avian Species Flying within the Turbine Rotor Swept Area (RSA) for all Avian Point Count Surveys Combined Table 4-8: Special-Status Avian Species Observed during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys Table 4-9: Summary of Eagle Point Count Surveys Conducted to Date Table 4-10: 2016-2017 Raptor Nest Survey Results for the Nobles 2 Wind Project

ii Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-11: Species Composition and Activity (Number of Bat Passes) Recorded During the Period of May Through October 2016 at Heights of 45 and 5 Meters at Met Towers within the Study Area Table 4-12: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 6 Table 4-13: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 7 Table 4-14: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 0734 Table 5-1: Comparison of Mean Bird Use by Species for Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Projects Table 8-1: Key Contacts for the Nobles 2 Wind Project BBCS

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2-1: Project Location & USGS Topography Exhibit 3-1: Study Area Map Exhibit 3-2: Project Area and Study Area Comparison Map Exhibit 3-3: Topography & Major Drainage Features Exhibit 3-4: Land Cover Types Exhibit 3-5: Surface Water and Wetlands Exhibit 4-1: Frequency of Birds Observed During Winter General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-2: Frequency of Birds Observed During Spring General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-3: Frequency of Birds Observed During Summer General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-4: Frequency of Birds Observed During Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-5: Mean Bird Use by Sample Point for all Surveys Combined Exhibit 4-6: Bird Species Richness by Sample Point for all Surveys Combined Exhibit 4-7a: Mean Bird Use by Survey Period for all Birds Combined during Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-7b: Species Richness by Survey Period for all Birds Combined during Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys Exhibit 4-8: Height Data for Birds Observed Flying for all General Avian Point Count Surveys Combined Exhibit 4-9: 2016 Bald Eagle and General Raptor Nest Locations Exhibit 4-10: 2017 Bald Eagle Nest Locations Exhibit 4-11: Combined Composition of Species and Species Groups (Percent of Total Bat Passes) from all Met Towers Exhibit 4-12a and 4-12b: Nightly Total of Bat Passes at Met Tower 6; (a) 45 Meters and (b) 5 Meters Exhibit 4-13a and 4-13b: Hourly Average of Bat Passes at Met Tower 6; (a) 45 meters and (b) 5 Meters. Averages are Reported with ± Standard Error

iii Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Exhibit 4-14a and 4-14b: Nightly Total of Bat Passes at Met Tower 7; (a) 45 Meters and (b) 5 Meters Exhibit 4-15a and 4-15b: Hourly Average of Bat Passes at Met Tower 7; (a) 45 Meters and (b) 5 Meters. Averages are Reported with ± Standard Error Exhibit 4-16a and 4-16b: Nightly Total of Bat Passes at Met Tower 0734; (a) 45 Meters and (b) 5 Meters Exhibit 4-17a and 4-17b: Hourly Average of Bat Passes at Met Tower 0734; (a) 45 Meters and (b) 5 Meters. Averages are Reported with ± Standard Error Exhibit 4-18: Average Number of Nightly Bat Passes (±SE) at 5 m and 45 m at Met Tower 6. There was not a Significant Effect of Height on the Average Number of Bats Recorded per Night (Tukey's HSD test, P = 0.067) Exhibit 4-19: Average Number of Nightly Bat Passes (±SE) at 5 m and 45 m at Met Tower 7. There was a Significant Effect of Height on the Average Number of Bats Recorded per Night (Tukey's HSD test, P = 1.00) Exhibit 4-20: Average Number of Nightly Bat Passes (±SE) at 5 m and 45 m at Met Tower 0734. There was not a Significant Effect of Height on the Average Number of Bats Recorded per Night (Tukey's HSD test, P = 0.44) Exhibit 4-21: Percentage of Minnesota Species of Special Concern of the Total Number of Bat Passes Recorded for all Species and Species Groups Exhibit 4-22: Combined Composition of Minnesota Species of Special Concern (Percent of Total Bat Passes) from all Met Towers Exhibit 5-1: Comparison of Land Cover Types among Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Projects Exhibit 5-2: Comparison of Mean Bird Use By Species Group for Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Farms Exhibit 5-3: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Bird Mortality Monitoring Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest Exhibit 5-4: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Raptor Mortality Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest Exhibit 5-5: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Bat Mortality Monitoring Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest

APPENDICES

Appendix A: MNDNR Comment Letter

iv Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS amsl above mean sea level APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APM Applicant Proposed Measures BBCS Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy BBS North American Breeding Bird Survey BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMPs Best Management Practices DOC-EERA Dept. of Commerce, Energy Environmental Review and Analysis ECPG Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration ft feet GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System kV kilovolt IBAs Important Bird Areas IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation System LWECS large wind energy conversion systems m meters MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mi2 square mile(s) MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MPUC Minnesota Public Utilities Commission MW megawatt NHI Natural Heritage Inventory Nobles 2 Nobles 2 Power Partners NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWI National Wetlands Inventory O&M operations and maintenance RD rotor diameter ROW right-of-way RSA rotor swept area SCS Site Characterization Study SD standard deviation SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WEG USFWS Final Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines Westwood Westwood Professional Services

v Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

WIRS Wildlife Incident Reporting System WMAs Wildlife Management Areas WPAs Waterfowl Production Areas WTG wind turbine generator

vi Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Nobles 2 Power Partners, LLC (Nobles 2), is dedicated to producing clean, reliable, renewable power while demonstrating respect and stewardship for the natural environment. As the sponsor of the up to 260-megawatt (MW) Nobles 2 wind energy conversion system located in Nobles County, Minnesota (hereafter referred to as “Project” or “proposed Project”), Nobles 2 submits the following Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) as evidence of its approach to responsible wind energy development. Nobles 2 believes that the Project will be a net-benefit to the health and prosperity of the nearby communities of Nobles County, Minnesota.

1.1 Corporate Policy on Bird and Bat Conservation

Nobles 2 recognizes that wind power generation has the potential to impact birds and bats, and is committed to minimizing these impacts for the sake of the ecosystems and the communities on which they depend. Nobles 2 also understands that renewable power generation, as an alternative to fossil fuel energy sources, benefits the environment and its inhabitants. By instituting a comprehensive BBCS, Nobles 2 believes that the benefits of the proposed Project will far outweigh its impacts and will provide significant positive contributions to both the human and natural environments.

In that spirit, Nobles 2 is committed to working cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (DOC-EERA), Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), and non-governmental organizations to promote the reasonable protection of bird and bat species during all phases of the Project’s development, construction, and operation. Nobles 2 is dedicated to incorporating the latest, state-of-the-art knowledge and best management practices (BMPs) in the field of bird and bat protection at wind farms and this is reflected in its pre-construction assessments, project design, construction, post-construction monitoring, and long-term adaptive management strategies. Over the course of the Project’s operating life, Nobles 2 pledges to design and operate the proposed Project in a manner which provides decades of clean, renewable energy to the public while effectively reducing Project impacts to bird and bat species, thereby balancing the health of the environment with society’s growing need for electricity.

1.2 Purpose of the BBCS

In fulfillment of Nobles 2’s commitment to environmental stewardship, Nobles 2 has developed this site-specific BBCS to reduce potential impacts to birds and bats as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Project. In formulating the BBCS, Nobles 2 incorporated recommendations and guidance from the following sources: the USFWS Final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG) (USFWS 2012); USFWS’s Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance – Module 1 – Land-based Wind Energy, Version 2 (ECPG) (USFWS 2013); USFWS’s

1 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Bird Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005); State Guidance from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR 2011); Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for Large Wind Energy Conservation Systems in Minnesota (Mixon et al. 2014); and the Edison Electric Institute’s Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 2012). This BBCS also draws upon the results of pre-construction bird and bat studies conducted at and near the Project site; results from relevant post-construction surveys conducted to date at similar facilities; the latest science regarding options for effectively avoiding and minimizing potential impacts to birds and bats; and comments and recommendations that have been received to date from the USFWS and MNDNR during the Project development process (Appendix A).

The BBCS is structured around an adaptive management framework and includes detailed provisions for avoiding, reducing, and, if warranted, mitigating for potential impacts to birds and bats. The BBCS will be a living document throughout the life of the Project, during which, Nobles 2 will work with USFWS and MNDNR to evaluate the findings of post-construction studies, formulate recommendations and definitions, and incorporate them into the BBCS on an iterative basis. The monitoring, reporting and adaptive management programs described in this BBCS will allow this plan to respond and adapt to both actual results and unforeseen or changing (biological or technological) circumstances over the life of the Project.

1.3 Goals and Objectives

This BBCS has been developed to be consistent with the Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for Large Wind Energy Conservation Systems in Minnesota (Mixon et al. 2014) and the most recent WEG, dated March 23, 2012 (USFWS 2012). The goal of this BBCS is to minimize the Project’s impacts to birds and bats in a scientifically sound, and commercially reasonable manner. Nobles 2 intends to achieve this goal by incorporating into the BBCS the following actions:

x Study baseline mortality and injury rates during the first year of project operation, and work with USFWS and MNDNR to establish management strategies and, if applicable, acceptable mortality thresholds; x Implement a permanent (for the life of the Project) informal wildlife mortality monitoring and reporting program and an immediate alert procedure for biologically significant events; x Implement a tiered consultation strategy to guide decision-making and allow for modifications to the BBCS, based on actual results and unexpected events over the life of the Project; and x Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of avoidance and minimization measures and adaptive management on minimizing bird and bat mortality.

This document follows the suggested tiered approach as outlined in the WEG by documenting preliminary site evaluation (Tier 1) and characterization (Tier 2), pre-

2 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 construction field studies and impact prediction (Tier 3), and post-construction monitoring studies and impact assessment (Tiers 4 and 5). Tier 1 and 2 analyses were conducted for the Project Area to screen for potential broad-based environmental and site development issues and to guide site design. To that end, a Site Characterization Study (SCS) and a Work Plan for 2016 Pre-Construction Avian and Bat Surveys was prepared and shared with the USFWS, MNDNR, and DOC-EERA as part of early agency coordination efforts. The SCS has been incorporated into this BBCS and the Site Permit Application for the Project. Tier 3 field studies served to inform the Project proponents and regulatory agencies regarding avian and bat species present within the Project boundary, and adjacent to the site. Furthermore, Nobles 2 is committed to an adaptive management strategy, such that as new guidance and information becomes available, the BBCS can be amended to incorporate more effective monitoring, avoidance, minimization and mitigation strategies, if needed.

1.4 Agency Coordination

Correspondence with state and federal agencies, including the MNDNR, USFWS, and DOC- EERA was initiated in January 2016 for information specific to the Project regarding sensitive resources and potential impacts. On February 29, 2016, Nobles 2 met with representatives of the USFWS, MNDNR, and DOC-EERA to discuss results of the SCS prepared for the Project on behalf of Nobles 2. Formal request for comment letters were sent by Nobles 2 to the MNDNR and USFWS on March 18, 2016. Comments received both during the February 29 meeting and from formal comment letters indicate that the MNDNR and USFWS would generally characterize the Project site as low risk for avian and bat species, but because of the overall size of the originally proposed Project, MNDNR believes there may be a moderate risk of impacts to bat species. However, since that time, the overall size of the Project Area has been reduced by more than 30,000 acres (see Section 3.0 below). As such Nobles 2 believes that the overall risk of the Project to bats is demonstrably low.

1.5 Regulatory Framework

This BBCS was prepared to demonstrate efforts to comply with federal and state regulations including the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and State of Minnesota regulations.

1.5.1 Endangered Species Act

The federal ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.), as amended, provides for the listing, conservation, and recovery of listed threatened and endangered species and conservation of designated critical habitat that the USFWS has determined is required for the survival and recovery of these species. Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the “take” of species listed by USFWS as threatened or endangered. ” Take is defined as “...to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct.” In

3 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 recognition that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) of the federal ESA includes provisions for take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits (incidental take permits) may be issued if take is incidental and does not jeopardize the survival and recovery of the species. Section 7(a)(2) of the federal ESA requires all federal agencies, including the USFWS, to evaluate projects with respect to any species proposed for listing or already listed as endangered or threatened and any proposed or designated critical habitat for the species. Federal agencies must undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that will jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its critical habitat.

The siting, design, and operation components of the Project incorporate measures to ensure the potential for impacts to federally listed bird and bat species is reduced or eliminated. These measures are described in this BBCS.

1.5.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The federal BGEPA of 1940 (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668c), as amended, is administered by the USFWS and was enacted to protect bald and golden eagles, their nests, eggs, and parts (e.g., feathers or talons). The BGEPA states that no person shall take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer for sale, purchase or barter, transport, export, or import any bald or golden eagle alive or dead, or any part, nest or egg without a valid permit to do so. The BGEPA also prohibits the take of bald and golden eagles unless pursuant to regulations. Take is defined by the BGEPA as an action “to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Disturb is defined in the BGEPA as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior”. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- caused alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles were not present. Although the bald eagle was removed from the Endangered Species List in June 2007, it is still federally protected under the BGEPA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA 1918), as described in the following section. In addition, the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines were published in conjunction with delisting by the USFWS in May 2007 to provide provisions to continue to protect bald eagles from harmful actions and impacts. In 2009, new permit rules were created for lawful take of eagles. In April, 2013, USFWS issued Final Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, Module 1: Land-based Wind Energy to address these new regulatory matters (USFWS 2013).

In 2017, a new incidental take permit rule for eagles became effective. Under 50 C.F.R. § 22.26, the USFWS can issue permits that authorize incidental take of bald and golden eagles when the take is associated with, but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity, and

4 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 cannot practicably be avoided, and is compatible with the preservation of the bald and golden eagle. The 2017 rule requires that the permittee comply with all avoidance and minimization or other mitigation measures specified in the terms of the permit to mitigate for the detrimental effects on eagles, including direct and cumulative effects of the permitted take, which the USFWS must also take into account before it issues the permit. Additional considerations for issuing incidental take permits include determinations of whether: the take is associated with the permanent loss of an important eagle use area; the take is necessary to protect a legitimate interest in a particular locality; or the cumulative authorized take may exceed five percent of the local area population.

1.5.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The MBTA of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and Russia (and other countries of the former Soviet Union). Most birds (outside of introduced species and non- migratory game birds) within the United States are protected under the MBTA. In total, more than 1,000 bird species are protected by the MBTA, 58 of which can be legally hunted with a permit as game birds.

The MBTA addresses take of individual birds, not population level impacts. Failure to comply with the MBTA can result in criminal penalties. Although the MBTA does not include a provision authorizing incidental take of migratory birds, the USFWS recognizes that some level of mortality of migratory birds at wind projects can occur even if all reasonable measures to avoid mortality are implemented (USFWS 2010). The USFWS has and continues to provide wind power project developers guidance in making a good-faith effort to comply with the MBTA. The USFWS has indicated that the Department of Justice has exercised discretion in enforcing provisions of the MBTA regarding companies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take of migratory birds. Due to the potential for resident and migratory birds to be affected by the Project, this BBCS has been developed, in part, as a good faith effort on behalf of Nobles 2 to comply with the MBTA.

1.5.4 State of Minnesota Regulations

Minnesota Statute 84.0895, Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species, and its associated rules (Minnesota Rules, Parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300) require the MNDNR to designate species meeting the statutory definition of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, and henceforth adopt rules to regulate the treatment of species identified as such under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134. Accordingly, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered or threatened species unless by MNDNR permit or designated exemption. In addition, Minnesota Statute 216F.03 requires large wind

5 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 energy conversion systems (LWECS) to be sited in a “manner compatible with environmental preservation, sustainable development, and the efficient use of resources.”

6 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Nobles 2 is proposing construction of the Project near the city of Wilmont, Minnesota, which is in the north half of Nobles County (Exhibit 2-1). This part of southwest Minnesota is already home to several operating, utility-scale wind farms and the Project is proposed in an existing gap between Nobles Wind Farm (200 MW), Community Wind South (30 MW), Fenton Wind Power Plant (205 MW), Stoneray (105 MW; not yet constructed), Prairie Rose Wind Farm (200 MW) and Lakefield Wind Farm (205.5 MW) where some of the best Minnesota wind resources exist.

The proposed Project will be constructed on approximately 42,547 acres (66 sq. mi.) of land (Project Area), of which 30,356 are currently leased for the Project. The overall footprint of the Project Area has been modified over time to respond to the identified presence of state and federal lands criteria, environmentally sensitive natural resource areas, airports and landowner input. Nobles 2 has selected the Vestas V136-3.6 MW wind turbine generator as the primary wind turbine model for the Project. If the technology is economical and commercialized, Nobles 2 may elect to utilize Vestas V136-3.45 MW, V136-4.0 MW or V136- 4.2 MW turbines instead. These turbine model variants have siting requirements that are equal to or lesser than the V136-3.6 MW. The Project will also include 10 to 21 Vestas V110- 2.0 MW wind turbines for the purpose of qualifying for the Federal Production Tax Credit (“PTC”). As a result, the number of turbines installed could range from 65 to 82, depending on the configuration selected.

Associated facilities will include wind turbines mounted on towers, underground electrical collection and communications lines, project substation and interconnection switchyard, an O&M building, permanent meteorological tower(s), and gravel access roads. Each WTG would have a hub height of approximately 80 to 82 meters (m) (262 to 269 feet [ft]) and a rotor diameter of 110 to 136 m (361 to 446 ft). The WTGs would be approximately 135 to 150 m (443 to 492 ft) tall at the maximum extension of the rotor blades (tip height) and mounted on a reinforced concrete foundation.

7 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

3.0 STUDY AREA

The Project was initially proposed within an area (hereafter referred to as the Study Area) located on approximately 73,128 acres (114 square miles) of predominantly private land in Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota (Exhibit 3-1). The Study Area was initially identified as an area within which the Project could be sited due to its suitability for wind energy development, including, but not limited to, proximity to existing electrical transmission infrastructure, existing wind energy facilities, suitable wind resources and an overall predominance of cultivated and cropped land, which is overall lacking in high quality habitats for wildlife. As depicted in Exhibit 3-2, the Study Area identified at the onset of pre- construction avian and bat surveys is larger than the current Project Area. As such, the Project Area represents that portion of the Study Area that is suitable for wind energy development while minimizing impacts to avian and bat species to the degree practicable. The Project Area boundary represents the same area for which Nobles 2 is seeking approval from the MPUC for a LWECS Site Permit. All of the avian and bat studies subsequently described in this BBCS were conducted within the larger Study Area.

Topography within the Study Area is generally undulating consisting of rolling hills, stream networks, a few lakes and numerous wetlands (Exhibit 3-3). Overall, the Study Area slopes downward from west to east from a high elevation of 1,800 feet above mean sea level (amsl) down to 1,560 feet amsl.

A total of eight land cover types are recognized and mapped within the Study Area. Approximately 89 percent of the Study Area is comprised of cultivated cropland, consisting primarily of corn and soybeans and the remaining nine percent is comprised of hay/pasture, grassland, shrub/scrub, deciduous and coniferous forest, open water, emergent herbaceous and woody wetland, and disturbed/developed areas (Exhibit 3-4) (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Land Cover Types within the Study Area

Total Area Percent of Land Cover Type (Acres) Study Area Cultivated Crops 65,123 89.0 Hay/Pasture 26 < 0.1 Grassland 2,370 3.0 Deciduous and Coniferous Forest 475 1.5 Shrub/Scrub 61 < 0.1 Open Water 106 0.1 Emergent Herbaceous and Woody Wetland 902 1.1 Disturbed/Developed 4,065 5.3 TOTAL 73,128 100

8 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

In addition, several named waterbodies are mapped within the Study Area, including Willow Lake, Stoderl Slough, and Penning Marsh (Exhibit 3-5). Intermittent and perennial watercourses cover approximately 74 linear miles within the Study Area and include Jack Creek, Kanaranzi Creek, Judicial Ditch 8, and several unnamed watercourses.

9 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

4.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT AND SITING

The following sections summarize the results of Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies completed within the Study Area by Westwood on behalf of Nobles 2. As recommended by the WEG, these studies involved considerable effort related to landscape-level and desktop environmental review to inform Project location, siting, and individual locations of turbines.

4.1 Tier 1 – Preliminary Site Screening

The Study Area and Project Area are primarily comprised of row crop agricultural land and, as such, is ecologically suited for wind development. Nobles 2 completed considerable desktop environmental review and siting analysis to determine where the Project Area should be located and to create a preliminary turbine layout that avoids sensitive resources in the Project Area. Turbine siting, spacing, and setbacks adhere to the wind energy conversion facility siting criteria outlined in the Commission's Order Establishing General Wind Permit Standards, Docket No. E,G-999/M-07- 1102 (January 11, 2008) (PUC General Permit Standards) and incorporates information from discussions with DOC-EERA, MNDNR, and USFWS. A map showing buildable and non-buildable land as determined by this data was developed to minimize impacts to the environment. Other constraints used in determining Project siting included the presence of jurisdictional wetlands; designated critical habitat for state and federal protected species, sensitive and unique ecosystems identified by the MNDNR, and the presence of existing wind generation infrastructure. Specific criteria in determining buildable areas also included a wind access buffer of five rotor diameters (RD) in the prevailing wind direction and three RD in the non-prevailing wind direction from non-participating parcels and state and federal conservation lands; a noise setback from residences meeting Minnesota Noise Standards, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030; and a minimum setback from residences of 1,600 ft, and a setback of 1x turbine height from road rights-of-way (ROW). Final turbine locations are subject to change based on final turbine model selection and results of other environmental and geotechnical investigations.

4.2 Tier 2 – Site Characterization

In Tier 2 studies, available site-specific information is gathered to further characterize sites identified as potentially suitable in the Tier 1 evaluation. As such, a SCS was prepared for the Project in February 2016 (Westwood 2016a). Site-specific information was obtained from publicly available sources to identify the likelihood of occurrence of wildlife species of concern. Based on areas identified in the Tier 1 evaluation, the evaluation was further focused to identify areas that could present particular risk to particular species or species groups, such as known or suspected bat hibernacula, areas of known avian migratory corridors or raptor nesting sites, or records of special status bird or bat species. Ecological resources near the Study Area were also identified through analysis of existing data sources. These sources included MNDNR Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) geographic information system (GIS) data; USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) federally listed species;

10 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

MNDNR Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs); USFWS Natural Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs), Audubon Society Important Bird Areas (IBAs), North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, and other readily available databases, public records, GIS data, and websites. The results of the study are summarized below.

Mapping resources indicate there are several areas of public and private conservation land, native plant communities and sites of biodiversity significance within the Study Area that may also support wildlife. In general, these areas are concentrated in the central and north- central parts of the Study Area, and to a lesser degree, in the southeast part. Larger concentrations of sensitive habitats are located outside of the Study Area, particularly to the northwest along Champepadan Creek.

Nesting habitat for raptors is poor in quality within the Study Area, particularly for bald eagles, and no IBA’s are located within 12 miles of the Study Area. No eagle species have been sighted along the three BBS routes closest to the Study Area, while three state- listed species, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), and Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) were listed on at least one of these BBS routes.

It is anticipated that the Study Area will be incidentally used for a variety of migrating birds; however, due to the lack of suitable habitat, eagle and rare/sensitive species are unlikely to utilize the Study Area for nesting purposes. Available data from avian surveys and pre-and post-construction monitoring of operating wind farms in the region indicate there is a low likelihood for federal and state-listed avian species of concern to occur within the Study Area and that the Project presents a low risk regarding impacts to birds (Table 4-1). Because of the overall similarity of the Nobles 2 Study Area to other wind farms in the area, avian fatalities are anticipated to be consistent with other nearby wind farms; e.g., approximately 0.4-1.07 birds/MW/study period.

Five of the seven bat species present in Minnesota have the potential to utilize wooded stream corridors and wetland areas within the Study Area for foraging and roosting habitat; however, no mines, caves, karst, or pseudokarst formations are known to occur within or near the Study Area or surrounding region that would provide hibernaculum or night- roosting habitat for bats (Table 4-1). Bat fatality within the Nobles 2 Wind Project is not anticipated to exceed fatality rates of neighboring wind farms which range from 3.09-20.2 bats/MW/ study period.

4.3 Tier 1 & Tier 2 – USFWS WEG Questions and Responses

Except for public and private conservation lands, the Study Area offers very little quality habitat. Publicly available bird occurrence data sources and state and federal rare species and critical habitat databases suggest the occurrence of rare avian species is generally

11 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 unlikely and, according to those data sources, no state or federally listed bird or bat species are known to occur within the Project Area. Based on Project intentions to avoid sensitive habitat and resources, it is unlikely Project development will have significant adverse effects on avian and bat populations or habitat availability (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1: Nobles 2 Tier 1 and 2 Evaluation Summary

Tier Question Tier Question Summary NHIS records indicate no bird or bat species of special concern, state threatened and federally endangered are mapped within the Project Area. No federally- or state-listed species were determined to have a high potential to utilize the Project Area. Bald eagles (de- Are there species of concern listed) and trumpeter swans (state species of concern) may utilize present on the potential site the Project Area for stopover habitat but occurrences will likely be or is habitat present for these limited to areas near high quality habitat and water features. Little species? brown bats, big brown bats, and tri-colored bats, all of which are state species of concern, may also occur within the Project Area. They will likely congregate near high quality water resources and tree corridors. Most likely species include common birds found in agricultural areas such as red-winged blackbirds, killdeer, and horned larks. Bat Which bird and bat species are species most likely to utilize the Project Area include the little likely to use proposed site? brown bat, big brown bat, silver haired bat, hoary bat, and eastern red bat. Unlikely, given the agricultural nature of the Project Area and Is there potential for adverse overall general lack of suitable habitat identified within Tier 1 and effects to species of concern? Tier 2 studies.

4.4 Tier 3 – Field Studies to Document Site Wildlife Conditions and Predict Project Impacts

The purpose of the pre-construction field studies is to evaluate the Project’s potential to result in adverse impacts to biological resources, including passerine birds, raptors, bats, and natural communities. The specific investigations that have been conducted are outlined below, and include one year of multiple field surveys in accordance with the USFWS WEG (USFWS 2012), USFWS ECPG (USFWS 2013), and Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Minnesota (Mixon et al. 2014).

With information from the SCS, the Project Area was evaluated against the four Tier 2 decision point outcomes contained in the USFWS WEG (USFWS 2012) to provide a general framework for determining the duration and intensity of study needed for Project siting, Project permitting and operations monitoring. For the purposes of this effort, it has been assumed that the proposed Project will be considered a Category 2 project in terms of biological study requirements under the Tier decision point outcomes. According to the

12 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

USFWS WEG (USFWS 2012), a Category 2 project consists of sites with little existing information and no indicators of high wildlife impacts. Projects in Category 2 have no obvious “red flags” that emerge from the preliminary site assessment (for example, “red flags” might be known occurrences of special-status species or high levels of fatalities at nearby wind facilities). More than 1,600 staff-hours were dedicated in 2016 and 2017 to avian and bat field studies, and the results of this effort are summarized below.

4.4.1 Pre-Construction Avian Surveys

Pre-construction avian surveys were initiated in mid-January 2016, and were completed in late-March 2017, for one full year of avian use data collection. Data collected from these studies were used to identify species or species groups that may be at risk from Project development and may provide additional information for micro-siting wind facilities to minimize impacts to birds. The avian baseline studies conducted for the proposed Project consisted of general avian point count surveys, eagle point count surveys, and ground-based raptor nest surveys (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Avian Survey Efforts to Date for the Nobles 2 Project

Study Taxa Dates Conducted Type of Survey

General avian point count January 15 – November 15, Variable circular-plot All birds surveys 2016 (Completed) point counts February 4, 2016 – January Fixed circular-plot Eagle point count surveys Bald eagles 19, 2017 (Completed) point counts March 16-18 and 28, 2016 Ground-based raptor nest Eagles and other and March 25-27, 2017 Driving existing roads surveys raptors (Completed)

The geographic coverage of each study may differ due to changes in the anticipated turbine layout at the time when the studies were initiated. Detailed descriptions of survey methods, results, and discussion can be found in the 2016 Annual Pre-construction Avian Survey Report (Westwood 2016b). A summary of the results of each survey is provided below.

4.4.1.1 General Avian Point Count Surveys

Winter general avian point count surveys were conducted twice per month from January 15, 2016 to March 31, 2016, spring general avian point surveys were conducted weekly from April 1, 2016 to June 15, 2016, summer general avian point count surveys were conducted twice per month from June 16, 2016 to August 31, 2016, and fall general avian point count surveys were conducted weekly from September 1 to November 15, 2016. Surveys were conducted in accordance with standard variable circular-plot point count survey methods

13 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

(Reynolds et al. 1980; Ralph et al. 1995) to measure species composition, relative abundance, and spatial and temporal use of the site by migrating and resident birds.

14 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Avian Use

A total of 2,467 birds representing 35 species and seven species groups were identified during the 186 winter general avian fixed-point count surveys (Table 4-3) and 5,428 birds representing 80 species and eight species groups were identified during the 341 spring general avian fixed point count surveys (Table 4-4). Some 2,077 birds representing 53 species and nine species groups were identified during the 186 summer general avian fixed point count surveys (Table 4-5) and 6,768 birds representing 48 species and eight species groups were identified during the 248 fall general avian fixed point count surveys (Table 4-6).

The most commonly observed birds during the winter survey effort were the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) (28.37 percent of all birds observed), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (15.24 percent), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) (10.50 percent), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) (8.84 percent), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) (6.61 percent), and American robin (Turdus migratorius) (3.77 percent). The remaining 29 species comprised 26.67 percent of the total number of birds observed (Table 4-3).

The most commonly observed birds during the spring survey effort were the common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) (22.57 percent of all birds observed), red-winged blackbird (17.48 percent), unidentified duck (9.10 percent), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) (5.40 percent), greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) (5.16 percent), and American robin (4.37 percent). The remaining 75 species comprised 35.92 percent of the total number of birds observed (Table 4-4).

During summer, the most commonly observed birds were the cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) (29.32 percent of all birds observed), barn swallow (7.80 percent), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) (7.41 percent), and unidentified swallow (6.50 percent). The remaining 50 species comprised 48.97 percent of the total number of birds observed during summer (Table 4-5).

During fall, the most commonly observed birds were the horned lark (29.02 percent of all birds observed), red-winged blackbird (15.43 percent), common grackle (11.69 percent), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) (11.45 percent), and Canada goose (8.38 percent). The remaining 43 species comprised 24.03 percent of the total number of birds observed during fall (Table 4-6).

Overall mean bird use within the Study Area during the winter survey period was 13.263 birds/5 min, ranging from 0 to 500 birds/5 min point count. Among all species groups, mean use was highest for passerines (9.016 birds/5 min). The most commonly observed species, red-winged blackbird, accounted for 41.74 percent of individuals in this species group. Among waterfowl, the second highest species group (2.925 birds/5 min), the most commonly observed species included the Canada goose (1.392 birds/5 min) and mallard (0.876 birds/5 min) (Table 4-3).

15 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-3: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Winter 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys

Frequency (% Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Composition (%) Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Passerines American Crow 16 29 13 0.156 6.45 1.73 1.18 American Robin 6 93 17 0.500 8.60 5.55 3.77 American Tree Sparrow 14 35 1 0.188 0.54 2.09 1.42 Blue Jay 22 3 2 0.016 1.08 0.18 0.12 Chipping Sparrow 23 2 1 0.011 0.54 0.12 0.08 Common Grackle 9 73 6 0.392 2.69 4.35 2.96 European Starling 2 376 11 2.022 5.91 22.42 15.24 Horned Lark 4 218 26 1.172 13.44 13.00 8.84 House Sparrow 10 60 8 0.323 4.30 3.58 2.43 Lapland Longspur 24 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.04 Red-winged Blackbird 1 700 17 3.763 6.99 41.74 28.37 Snow Bunting 8 75 2 0.403 1.08 4.47 3.04 Song Sparrow 19 8 1 0.043 0.54 0.48 0.32 Western Meadowlark 21 4 3 0.022 1.08 0.24 0.16 Total -- 1,677 109 9.016 -- 100.00 67.98 Waterfowl Canada Goose 3 259 10 1.392 4.30 41.37 10.50 Canvasback 13 40 2 0.215 1.08 6.39 1.62 Greater White-fronted Goose 21 4 1 0.022 0.54 0.64 0.16 Mallard 5 163 5 0.876 2.15 26.04 6.61 Northern Pintail 15 30 1 0.161 0.54 4.79 1.22 Northern Shoveler 15 30 1 0.161 0.54 4.79 1.22 Ring-necked Duck 18 10 1 0.054 0.54 1.60 0.41 Trumpeter Swan 4 23 2 1 0.011 0.54 0.32 0.08 Unidentified Duck 7 82 2 0.441 1.08 13.10 3.32 Wood Duck 20 6 1 0.032 0.54 0.96 0.24 Total -- 626 25 3.366 -- 100.00 25.37

16 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Frequency (% Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Composition (%) Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Upland Gamebirds Gray Partridge 17 12 2 0.065 1.08 20.34 0.49 Ring-necked Pheasant 12 43 7 0.231 3.23 72.88 1.74 Wild Turkey 21 4 1 0.022 0.54 6.78 0.16 Total -- 59 10 0.317 -- 100.00 2.39 Pigeons and Doves Eurasian Collared-Dove 24 1 1 0.005 0.54 1.85 0.04 Rock Pigeon 11 53 6 0.285 2.69 98.15 2.15 Total -- 54 7 0.290 -- 100.00 2.19 Shorebirds Killdeer 15 30 17 0.161 8.06 90.91 1.22 Ring-billed Gull 22 3 1 0.016 0.54 9.09 0.12 Total -- 33 18 0.177 -- 100.00 1.34 Raptors American Kestrel 22 3 3 0.016 1.61 27.27 0.12 Great Horned Owl 23 2 2 0.011 1.08 18.18 0.08 Red-tailed Hawk 20 6 5 0.032 2.69 54.55 0.24 Total -- 11 10 0.059 -- 100.00 0.45 Woodpeckers Hairy Woodpecker 22 3 2 0.016 1.08 42.86 0.12 Northern Flicker 21 4 2 0.022 1.08 57.14 0.16 Total -- 7 4 0.038 -- 100.00 0.28 Grand Total -- 2,467 183 13.263 -- -- 100.00 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

17 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-4: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Spring 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys

Mean Use Frequency Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Species Group (No. Birds/5 (% of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences minutes) Detected) Group Overall Passerines American Crow 25 23 19 0.067 4.69 0.61 0.42 Common Grackle 1 1,225 233 3.592 48.97 32.30 22.57 Red-winged Blackbird 2 949 154 2.783 32.26 25.03 17.48 Yellow-headed Blackbird 39 6 3 0.018 0.88 0.16 0.11 European Starling 6 257 67 0.754 17.30 6.78 4.73 American Goldfinch 34 12 9 0.035 2.64 0.32 0.22 American Robin 7 237 135 0.695 29.91 6.25 4.37 Brown Thrasher 41 4 3 0.012 0.59 0.11 0.07 Swainson’s Thrush 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 Brown-headed Cowbird 9 144 65 0.422 17.60 3.80 2.65 Baltimore Oriole 37 9 8 0.026 2.05 0.24 0.17 Eastern Kingbird 31 15 9 0.044 2.35 0.40 0.28 Eastern Wood-Pewee 43 2 2 0.006 0.59 0.05 0.04 Blue Grosbeak 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 Blue Jay 33 13 12 0.038 2.64 0.34 0.24 Horned Lark 10 130 30 0.381 8.50 3.43 2.39 Western Meadowlark 23 28 26 0.082 7.62 0.74 0.52 Lapland Longspur 12 83 4 0.243 1.17 2.19 1.53 Bobolink 27 21 13 0.062 3.81 0.55 0.39 Dickcissel 3 37 9 8 0.026 2.35 0.24 0.17 Loggerhead Shrike 1 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 Chipping Sparrow 40 5 5 0.015 1.47 0.13 0.09 Grasshopper Sparrow 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 Harris’s Sparrow 42 3 1 0.009 0.29 0.08 0.06 House Sparrow 35 12 7 0.035 2.05 0.32 0.22 Le Conte’s Sparrow 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02

18 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use Frequency Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Species Group (No. Birds/5 (% of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences minutes) Detected) Group Overall Savannah Sparrow 30 16 11 0.047 3.23 0.42 0.29 Song Sparrow 33 13 12 0.038 3.52 0.34 0.24 Vesper Sparrow 17 46 39 0.135 10.85 1.21 0.85 White-crowned Sparrow 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 Unidentified Sparrow 41 4 4 0.012 1.17 0.11 0.07 Red-eyed Vireo 43 2 1 0.006 0.29 0.05 0.04 Common Yellowthroat 31 15 14 0.044 4.11 0.40 0.28 Yellow Warbler 41 4 3 0.012 0.88 0.11 0.07 Yellow-rumped Warbler 42 3 3 0.009 0.88 0.08 0.06 Unidentified Warbler 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.03 0.02 House Wren 40 5 2 0.015 0.59 0.13 0.09 Chimney Swift 39 6 3 0.018 0.88 0.16 0.11 Barn Swallow 4 293 58 0.859 16.42 7.73 5.40 Cliff Swallow 16 55 8 0.161 2.35 1.45 1.01 Tree Swallow 21 37 12 0.109 3.52 0.98 0.68 Unidentified Swallow 15 58 5 0.170 1.47 1.53 1.07 Unidentified Bird 20 41 9 0.120 2.64 1.08 0.76 Total -- 3, 792 1,004 11.120 -- 100.00 69.86 Waterfowl Canada Goose 22 35 12 0.103 3.52 2.84 0.64 Greater White-fronted Goose 5 280 1 0.821 0.29 22.73 5.16 Mallard 8 163 26 0.478 7.62 13.23 3.00 American Wigeon 36 10 1 0.029 0.29 0.81 0.18 Blue-winged Teal 11 84 15 0.246 4.40 6.82 1.55 Green-winged Teal 19 44 6 0.129 1.76 3.57 0.81 Gadwall 36 10 1 0.029 0.29 0.81 0.18 Northern Pintail 43 2 1 0.006 0.29 0.16 0.04 Northern Shoveler 13 82 7 0.240 2.05 6.66 1.51 Ring-necked Duck 26 22 2 0.065 0.59 1.79 0.41 Wood Duck 40 5 3 0.015 0.88 0.41 0.09

19 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use Frequency Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Species Group (No. Birds/5 (% of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences minutes) Detected) Group Overall Double-crested Cormorant 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.08 0.02 Unidentified Duck 3 494 6 1.449 1.76 40.10 9.10 Total -- 1,232 82 3.613 -- 100.00 22.70 Raptors American Kestrel 38 7 7 0.021 2.05 14.85 0.13 Red-tailed Hawk 29 19 17 0.056 4.40 39.58 0.35 Northern Harrier 39 6 6 0.018 1.76 12.50 0.11 Cooper’s Hawk 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 2.08 0.02 Swainson’s Hawk 3 43 2 2 0.006 0.59 4.17 0.04 Turkey Vulture 33 13 8 0.038 2.35 27.08 0.24 Total -- 48 41 0.141 -- 100.00 0.88 Upland Gamebirds Ring-necked Pheasant 25 23 20 0.067 5.87 100.00 0.42 Total -- 23 20 0.067 -- 100.00 0.42 Pigeons/Doves Mourning Dove 18 45 28 0.132 7.92 42.86 0.83 Eurasian Collared Dove 43 2 2 0.006 0.59 1.90 0.04 Rock Pigeon 15 58 12 0.170 3.52 55.24 1.07 Total -- 105 42 0.308 -- 100.00 1.93 Shorebirds Killdeer 14 79 65 0.232 18.77 40.51 1.46 American Golden Plover 42 3 1 0.009 0.29 1.54 0.06 Greater Yellowlegs 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 0.51 0.02 Least Sandpiper 36 10 1 0.029 0.29 5.13 0.18 Pectoral Sandpiper 28 20 1 0.059 0.29 10.26 0.37 Semipalmated Sandpiper 24 25 1 0.073 0.29 12.82 0.46 Solitary Sandpiper 3 37 9 4 0.026 1.17 4.62 0.17 Upland Sandpiper 3 38 7 5 0.021 1.47 3.59 0.13 Common Snipe 39 6 3 0.018 0.88 3.08 0.11 Ring-billed Gull 23 28 1 0.082 0.29 14.36 0.52

20 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use Frequency Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Species Group (No. Birds/5 (% of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences minutes) Detected) Group Overall Bonaparte’s Gull 43 2 1 0.006 0.29 1.03 0.04 Wilson’s Phalarope 2 40 5 3 0.015 0.88 2.56 0.09 Total -- 195 87 0.572 -- 100.00 3.59 Woodpeckers Northern Flicker 32 14 13 0.041 3.81 70.00 0.26 Red-headed Woodpecker 3 39 6 6 0.018 1.47 30.00 0.11 Total -- 20 19 0.059 -- 100.00 0.37 Herons/Egrets/Cranes/Rails American Coot 39 6 1 0.018 0.29 46.15 0.11 Cattle Egret 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 7.69 0.02 Great Egret 44 1 1 0.003 0.29 7.69 0.02 Great Blue Heron 42 3 3 0.009 0.88 23.08 0.06 Sandhill Crane 43 2 2 0.006 0.59 15.38 0.04 Total -- 13 8 0.038 -- 100.00 0.24 Grand Total -- 5,428 1,303 15.918 -- -- 100.00 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

21 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-5: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Summer 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Passerines American Crow 20 10 5 0.054 2.69 0.56 0.48 American Goldfinch 12 36 27 0.194 13.98 2.00 1.73 American Robin 8 64 35 0.344 14.52 3.56 3.08 Baltimore Oriole 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.05 Barn Swallow 2 162 51 0.871 25.81 9.01 7.80 Brown-headed Cowbird 14 29 14 0.156 6.99 1.61 1.40 Blue Grosbeak 26 3 3 0.016 1.61 0.17 0.14 Blue Jay 27 2 2 0.011 1.08 0.11 0.10 Bobolink 27 2 2 0.011 1.08 0.11 0.10 Chipping Sparrow 20 10 9 0.054 4.84 0.56 0.48 Cliff Swallow 1 609 43 3.274 19.36 33.85 29.32 Common Grackle 6 112 33 0.602 15.05 6.23 5.39 Common Yellowthroat 17 19 19 0.102 9.68 1.06 0.91 Dickcissel 3 10 53 42 0.285 19.36 2.95 2.55 Eastern Kingbird 13 32 19 0.172 8.60 1.78 1.54 European Starling 11 51 11 0.274 5.38 2.83 2.46 Great Crested Flycatcher 25 4 3 0.022 1.61 0.22 0.19 Gray Catbird 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.05 House Finch 27 2 2 0.011 1.08 0.11 0.10 Horned Lark 21 9 8 0.048 4.30 0.50 0.43 House Sparrow 3 154 21 0.828 11.29 8.56 7.41 House Wren 27 2 1 0.011 0.54 0.11 0.10 Indigo Bunting 27 2 1 0.011 0.54 0.11 0.10 Orchard Oriole 26 3 2 0.016 1.08 0.17 0.14 Purple Martin 4 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.05 Red-winged Blackbird 6 112 33 0.602 15.59 6.23 5.39

22 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Sedge Wren 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.05 Song Sparrow 16 25 23 0.134 10.75 1.39 1.20 Tree Swallow 5 116 6 0.624 2.69 6.45 5.58 Unidentified Sparrow 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 0.06 0.05 Unidentified Swallow 4 135 4 0.726 1.08 7.50 6.50 Vesper Sparrow 15 26 25 0.140 11.83 1.45 1.25 White-crowned Sparrow 27 2 1 0.011 0.54 0.11 0.10 Western Meadowlark 24 5 4 0.027 2.15 0.28 0.24 Yellow-headed Blackbird 26 3 2 0.016 1.08 0.17 0.14 Total -- 1,799 456 9.672 -- 100.00 86.62 Shorebirds Killdeer 7 91 19 0.489 9.68 91.92 4.38 Upland Sandpiper 3 22 8 4 0.043 1.61 8.08 0.39 Total -- 99 23 0.532 -- 100.00 4.77 Pigeons and Doves Mourning Dove 9 57 40 0.306 19.89 69.51 2.74 Rock Pigeon 16 25 9 0.134 4.84 30.49 1.20 Total -- 82 49 0.441 -- 100.00 3.95 Waterfowl Canada Goose 16 25 4 0.134 2.15 60.98 1.20 Mallard 18 16 2 0.086 1.08 39.02 0.77 Total -- 41 6 0.220 -- 100.00 1.97 Raptors American Kestrel 19 13 10 0.070 5.38 50.00 0.63 Northern Harrier 27 2 2 0.011 0.54 7.69 0.10 Red-tailed Hawk 25 4 3 0.022 1.61 15.38 0.19 Swainson's Hawk 3 27 2 1 0.011 0.54 7.69 0.10 Turkey Vulture 24 5 5 0.027 2.15 19.23 0.24 Total -- 26 21 0.140 -- 100.00 1.25 Gamebirds

23 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Gray Partridge 23 6 1 0.032 0.54 50.00 0.29 Northern Bobwhite 27 2 2 0.011 1.08 16.67 0.10 Ring-necked Pheasant 25 4 4 0.022 2.15 33.33 0.19 Total -- 12 7 0.065 -- 100.00 0.58 Woodpeckers Downy Woodpecker 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 9.09 0.05 Northern Flicker 25 4 4 0.022 2.15 36.36 0.19 Red-headed Woodpecker 3 23 6 6 0.032 2.69 54.55 0.29 Total -- 11 11 0.059 -- 100.00 0.53 Cranes, Herons, and Egrets American White Pelican 4 27 2 1 0.011 0.54 33.33 0.10 Great Blue Heron 25 4 4 0.022 2.15 66.67 0.19 Total -- 6 5 0.032 -- 100.00 0.29 Swifts and Hummingbirds Chimney Swift 28 1 1 0.005 0.54 100.00 0.05 Total -- 1 1 0.005 -- 100.00 0.05 Grand Total -- 2,077 579 11.167 -- -- 100.00 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

24 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-6: Avian Species by Species Group Observed during Fall 2016 General Avian Point Count Surveys

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Passerines American Crow 8 155 9 0.625 3.63 2.80 2.29 American Goldfinch 23 13 6 0.052 2.42 0.23 0.19 American Robin 10 81 14 0.327 5.24 1.46 1.20 American Tree Sparrow 21 18 4 0.073 1.61 0.33 0.27 Barn Swallow 23 13 3 0.052 1.21 0.23 0.19 Brown-headed Cowbird 4 775 3 3.125 1.21 14.00 11.45 Blue Jay 9 123 13 0.496 4.44 2.22 1.82 Clay-colored Sparrow 28 7 2 0.028 0.81 0.13 0.10 Common Grackle 3 791 12 3.190 4.84 14.29 11.69 Common Yellowthroat 29 6 1 0.024 0.40 0.11 0.09 Dark-eyed Junco 15 57 7 0.230 2.82 1.03 0.84 Eastern Wood-Pewee 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 European Starling 7 189 9 0.762 3.63 3.41 2.79 Golden-crowned Kinglet 32 2 1 0.008 0.40 0.04 0.03 Harris's Sparrow 29 6 3 0.024 1.21 0.11 0.09 Horned Lark 1 1,964 29 7.919 10.89 35.48 29.02 House Sparrow 19 28 3 0.113 1.21 0.51 0.41 House Wren 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 Le Conte's Sparrow 32 2 1 0.008 0.40 0.04 0.03 Lincoln's Sparrow 14 63 5 0.254 2.02 1.14 0.93 Marsh Wren 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 Red-winged Blackbird 2 1,044 21 4.210 6.85 18.86 15.43 Savannah Sparrow 28 7 3 0.028 1.21 0.13 0.10 Sedge Wren 30 5 3 0.020 0.81 0.09 0.07 Snow Bunting 22 16 1 0.065 0.40 0.29 0.24 Song Sparrow 16 51 7 0.206 2.82 0.92 0.75

25 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Tennessee Warbler 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 Unidentified Warbler 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 Vesper Sparrow 17 49 24 0.198 9.68 0.89 0.72 Western Meadowlark 13 64 11 0.258 4.03 1.16 0.95 Yellow-rumped Warbler 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 0.02 0.01 Total -- 5,535 201 22.319 -- 100.00 81.78 Waterfowl Canada Goose 5 567 6 2.286 2.42 93.41 8.38 Trumpeter Swan 4 26 10 1 0.040 0.40 1.65 0.15 Unidentified Duck 18 30 2 0.121 0.81 4.94 0.44 Total -- 607 9 2.448 -- 100.00 8.97 Shorebirds Franklin's Gull 4 6 384 12 1.548 3.63 82.94 5.67 Killdeer 11 79 5 0.319 2.02 17.06 1.17 Total -- 463 17 1.867 -- 100.00 6.84 Pigeons and Doves Mourning Dove 28 7 3 0.028 1.21 9.33 0.10 Rock Pigeon 12 68 11 0.274 4.03 90.67 1.00 Total -- 75 14 0.302 -- 100.00 1.11 Raptors American Kestrel 30 5 5 0.020 2.02 8.77 0.07 Bald Eagle 3 32 2 2 0.008 0.81 3.51 0.03 Northern Harrier 23 13 12 0.052 4.84 22.81 0.19 Red-tailed Hawk 20 25 22 0.101 8.47 43.86 0.37 Turkey Vulture 24 12 5 0.048 2.02 21.05 0.18 Total -- 57 46 0.230 -- 100.00 0.84 Cranes, Herons, and Egrets American White Pelican4 25 11 2 0.044 0.81 73.33 0.16 Great Blue Heron 31 4 4 0.016 1.61 26.67 0.06 Total -- 15 6 0.060 -- 100.00 0.22

26 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Frequency (% Species Composition (%) Overall Number of Number of Mean Use (No. Species Group of Surveys Rank Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Min) Detected) Group Overall Woodpeckers Downy Woodpecker 31 4 4 0.016 1.61 26.67 0.06 Hairy Woodpecker 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 6.67 0.01 Northern Flicker 27 9 5 0.036 2.02 60.00 0.13 Red-headed Woodpecker 3 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 6.67 0.01 Total -- 15 11 0.060 -- 100.00 0.22 Gamebirds Ring-necked Pheasant 33 1 1 0.004 0.40 100.00 0.01 Total -- 1 1 0.004 -- 100.00 0.01 Grand Total -- 6,768 305 27.290 -- -- 100.00 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

27 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Overall mean bird use within the Study Area during the spring was 15.918 birds/5 min, ranging from 1 to 400 birds/5 min point count. Among all species groups, mean use was highest for passerines (11.120 birds/5 min).

The most commonly observed species, common grackle, accounted for 32.30 percent of individuals in this species group. Among waterfowl, the second highest species group (3.613 birds/5 min), the most commonly observed species included the unidentified duck (1.449 birds/5 min) and greater white-fronted goose (0.821 birds/5 min) (Table 4-4).

Overall mean bird use within the Study Area during the summer survey period was 11.167 birds/5 min, ranging from 1 to 100 birds/5 min point count. Among all species groups, mean use was highest for passerines (9.672 birds/5 min). The most commonly observed species, cliff swallow, accounted for 33.85 percent of individuals in this species group. Among shorebirds, the second highest species group (0.532 birds/5 min), the most commonly observed species was the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) (0.489 birds/5 min) (Table 4-5).

Overall mean bird use within the Study Area during the fall survey period was 12.496 birds/5 min, ranging from 0 to 650 birds/5 min point count. Among all species groups, mean use was highest for passerines (22.319 birds/5 min). The most commonly observed species, the horned lark and red-winged blackbird, accounted for 35.48 percent and 18.86 percent of individuals in this species group, respectively. Among waterfowl, the second highest species group (2.448 birds/5 min), the most commonly observed species was the Canada goose (2.286 birds/5 min) (Table 4-6).

Raptors are a group of special interest because of their propensity to fly at heights similar to those encompassed by the rotor swept area (RSA) of a turbine. Overall winter, spring, summer, and fall mean use for raptors was 0.059 birds/5 min, 0.141 birds/5 min, 0.140 birds/5 min, and 0.230 birds/5 min respectively. The raptors with the highest mean use for all seasons combined were the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) (0.053 birds/5 min) and the American kestrel (Falco sparverius) (0.032 birds/5 min) (Tables 4-3 to 4-6).

Species Composition and Frequency of Occurrence

Passerines were the most commonly observed species group during winter, spring, summer, and fall surveys. For the winter survey season, the horned lark was observed most frequently (13.98 percent of all surveys), followed by the American robin (9.14 percent), red-winged blackbird (8.60 percent), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (6.99 percent), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (5.91 percent of all surveys). The remaining nine species in this group were detected in 13.44 percent of surveys (Table 4-3) (Exhibit 4-1). Waterfowl were the second most commonly observed species group during winter surveys. Among waterfowl, Canada goose (5.38 percent of all surveys) and mallard (2.69 percent) were detected most frequently.

28 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

For the spring survey season, the common grackle was observed most frequently (51.61 percent of all surveys), followed by the red-winged blackbird (35.48 percent), American robin (33.23 percent), and brown-headed cowbird (19.03 percent of all surveys). Shorebirds were the second most commonly occurring species group during surveys. Among shorebirds, the killdeer (20.65 percent of all surveys) was detected most frequently (Table 4-4) (Exhibit 4-2). For the summer survey season, the barn swallow was observed most frequently (25.81 percent of all surveys), followed by the cliff swallow (19.36 percent), dickcissel (Spiza americana) (19.36 percent), and red-winged blackbird (15.59 percent of all surveys). Pigeons/doves were the second most commonly occurring species group during surveys. Among pigeons/doves, the mourning dove (9.68 percent of all surveys) was detected most frequently (Table 4-5) (Exhibit 4-3).

For the fall survey season, the horned lark was observed most frequently (10.89 percent of all surveys), followed by the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) (9.68 percent), and red- winged blackbird (6.85 percent). Raptors were the second most commonly observed species group, with the red-tailed hawk and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) detected at 8.47 percent and 4.84 percent of all surveys, respectively (Table 4-6) (Exhibit 4-4).

Spatial Use

Mean bird use and species richness (total number of species per survey) estimates by survey point were mapped across the Study Area for all survey seasons combined (Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6). Overall mean bird use was highest at sample points 15, 13, 12, and 29 in the central portions of the Study Area, and lowest at sample points 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27 in the southwestern portion of the Study Area (Exhibit 4-5). The number of species per survey point was greatest at sample points 10, 12, 15, 29, 30, and 25 in the central and western portions of the Study Area and lowest at sample points 20, 21, 31, 5, 7, 8, and 11 along the northwestern and eastern portions of the Study Area (Exhibit 4-6).

A qualitative comparison of mean bird use and species richness, as shown in Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6, with the land cover types in Exhibit 3-2, suggests that locations with the highest mean use and species richness are generally associated with non-agricultural herbaceous vegetation and open water areas; whereas locations with the lowest mean use are located predominately in agricultural areas. Other confounding factors also accounted for relatively high mean bird use levels at some locations. For example, numbers at sample point 2 are skewed due to several large flocks of common grackles (over 600 individuals), mean bird use at sample point 5 are skewed due to several large flocks of horned larks and Franklin’s gulls, while mean use numbers at sample point 13 are skewed due to more than 400 Canada geese migrating through the area. Regardless, the data strongly suggest that siting turbines in the predominantly agricultural areas will minimize the risk to avian species that are concentrated in higher quality habitats within the Study Area.

29 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Seasonal Abundance and Species Richness

Survey data was categorized into 31 survey periods to evaluate bird use and species richness across the winter, spring, summer, and fall survey seasons. A total of 16,895 birds representing 106 species and 10 species groups were identified during the 961 combined fixed general avian point count surveys. Some of the species observed were recorded throughout the year, while others use the Study Area for only one or two seasons. The birds with the highest mean use for all surveys combined were the red-winged blackbird (2.919 birds/5 min), horned lark (2.416 birds/5 min), common grackle (2.291 birds/5 min), brown- headed cowbird (0.986 birds/5 min), Canada goose (0.922 birds/5 min), and European starling (0.908 birds/5 min).

Among all species groups, mean use showed an increasing trend throughout the spring survey season and then declined through the summer months. Mean bird use increased again sharply during the peak of the fall migration period during late September through October as migratory flocks begin to move through the Study Area (Exhibit 4-7a).

While the overall mean use for all bird species combined showed a decreasing trend throughout the summer survey season, the number of species per survey period showed an increasing trend for the winter, spring, and early summer survey periods, peaking in late June, then declining throughout the remaining summer months and through the fall survey period (Exhibit 4-7b). This pattern was likely attributed to resident bird species entering the Study Area during the late spring and early summer month periods and consistent loss of summer resident bird species leaving the Study Area again during the fall migration period.

Flight Height and Encounter Rates

For all four survey seasons combined, behavioral data were collected for all birds observed within the Study Area. Approximately 46.68 percent of all birds were observed flying and flight height data was collected for these species during the study (Exhibit 4-8). The proportion of observations of a bird species flying at heights that correspond with the RSA of turbines provides a rough estimate of the risk of collision for that species. The space occupied by turbine blades (i.e., anticipated RSA) typically ranges from 30 to 110 meters (approximately 98 to 360 feet) above the ground, which is approximately the estimated distance between the bottom of the tip of the blade when pointed straight down and the maximum height of a turbine blade when pointed straight up.

For all species observed flying, 71.30 percent flew below the anticipated RSA, 16.20 percent flew within the anticipated RSA, and 12.50 percent flew above the anticipated RSA (Exhibit 4- 8). A total of 7,690 birds of 34 species were identified flying within the RSA (Table 4-7). The red-winged blackbird had the highest encounter rate (0.382 birds flying at RSA height/5 min), followed by the cliff swallow (0.196 birds flying at RSA height/5 min), horned lark (0.179 birds flying at RSA height/5 min), and blue jay (0.110 birds flying at RSA height/5 min) (Table 4-7).

30 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-7: Flight Characteristics and Encounter Rates for Avian Species Flying within the Turbine Rotor Swept Area (RSA) for all Avian Point Count Surveys Combined

Mean Use Number Frequency Percent Encounter Species (No. Birds/5 of Birds (% Flying) within RSA Rate minutes) Red-winged Blackbird 2,801 2.915 34.06 38.47 0.382 Cliff Swallow 664 0.691 89.46 31.65 0.196 Horned Lark 2,271 2.363 76.44 9.91 0.179 Blue Jay 129 0.134 93.02 88.33 0.110 Unidentified Swallow 197 0.205 100.00 44.16 0.091 Canada Goose 883 0.919 70.78 6.72 0.044 Barn Swallow 468 0.487 100.00 8.33 0.041 American Tree Sparrow 53 0.055 66.04 100.00 0.036 Franklin's Gull 4 384 0.400 100.00 7.81 0.031 Mallard 342 0.356 9.94 76.47 0.027 Western Meadowlark 238 0.248 84.45 9.95 0.021 Turkey Vulture 30 0.031 93.33 64.29 0.019 Unidentified Bird 41 0.043 97.56 42.50 0.018 Brown-headed Cowbird 946 0.984 37.21 3.69 0.014 Red-tailed Hawk 52 0.054 75.00 30.77 0.012 American Robin 458 0.477 18.56 14.12 0.012 Common Grackle 2,191 2.280 27.20 2.01 0.012 American Crow 210 0.219 87.62 3.26 0.006 Rock Pigeon 204 0.212 38.24 7.69 0.006 Swainson's Hawk 3 4 0.004 100.00 100.00 0.004 Northern Harrier 21 0.022 85.71 22.22 0.004 Tree Swallow 153 0.159 43.79 5.97 0.004 Unidentified Duck 606 0.631 18.98 2.61 0.003 American Kestrel 28 0.029 42.86 25.00 0.003 Chimney Swift 7 0.007 100.00 42.86 0.003 Mourning Dove 99 0.103 56.57 5.36 0.003 Bald Eagle 3 2 0.002 100.00 100.00 0.002 European Starling 869 0.904 34.52 0.67 0.002 American White Pelican 4 13 0.014 84.62 9.09 0.001 Cooper's Hawk 1 0.001 100.00 100.00 0.001 Double-crested Cormorant 1 0.001 100.00 100.00 0.001 Sandhill Crane 2 0.002 100.00 50.00 0.001 Unidentified Warbler 2 0.002 100.00 50.00 0.001 American Goldfinch 46 0.048 73.91 2.94 0.001 Killdeer 249 0.259 16.87 2.38 0.001 Solitary Sandpiper 3 9 0.009 88.89 12.50 0.001 Common Snipe 6 0.006 16.67 100.00 0.001 Great Blue Heron 11 0.011 54.55 16.67 0.001 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

31 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

It should be noted that these estimates only represent the proportion of observations within the anticipated RSA and do not directly equate to the probability of a bird colliding with a turbine blade. Species with a high encounter rate are at a higher risk of collision than species with a low encounter rate, but it does not mean that mortality is certain. Other factors such as turbine location or a species ability to detect turbine blades, flight maneuverability, and habitat selection also influence mortality. Values are sensitive to large flocks of birds flying within the RSA; that is, a species will have a high encounter rate even if only seen a few times in large flying flocks. Encounter rate also does not account for migrating behavior of nocturnal migrants.

Special Status Avian Species

Twelve of the 106 avian species identified during winter, spring, summer and fall general avian point count surveys (10.4 percent) are classified as special-status species. Special- status avian species include those listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (0 species found); those listed as threatened or endangered under Minnesota’s Endangered Species statute (2 species found); species classified by the USFWS as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 1 (6 species found), and other species identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) as Special Concern Species (4 species found). These species, including their status, number of individuals, mean use, and frequency within the Study Area are presented in Table 4-8.

A total of 521 individuals of 12 special-status avian species were identified during the winter, spring, summer, and fall general avian point count surveys (Table 4-8). The most numerous avian species were Franklin’s gull (comprising 73.70 percent of all special-status birds observed) and dickcissel (11.90 percent). The remaining ten species comprised 14.40 percent of the total number of special-status birds observed (Table 4-8). The dickcissel was the most frequently observed special-status species (documented at least once in 4.58 percent of all surveys), followed by the red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) (1.04 percent), Franklin’s gull (0.94 percent), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) (0.83 percent of all surveys) (Table 4-8).

No federally listed species were observed during any of the general avian point count surveys. However, two bald eagles were observed flying within the Study Area during the fall survey period. One of the special-status avian species, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), is listed as a Minnesota State Endangered Species and one, the Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), is listed as a Minnesota State Threatened Species. Six of the

1 The formal BCC list was developed by USFWS as a result of a 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. This Act mandated that USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” The goal of the BCC list is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions and to consult on these species in accordance with Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.

32 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

special-status avian species; dickcissel, red-headed woodpecker, solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria), bald eagle, Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and upland sandpiper are listed as USFWS BCC, while the remaining four species: American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), purple martin (Progne subis), and Franklin’s gull are listed as Minnesota State Special Concern Species.

Table 4-8: Special-Status Avian Species Observed during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys

Mean Use Frequency Species Number Number of (No. Species (% of Surveys Composition of Birds Occurrences Birds/5 Detected) (%) minutes) Dickcissel 3 62 50 0.065 4.58 11.90 American White Pelican 4 13 3 0.014 0.31 2.50 Red-headed Woodpecker 3 13 13 0.014 1.04 2.50 Trumpeter Swan 4 12 2 0.012 0.21 2.30 Solitary Sandpiper 3 9 4 0.009 0.42 1.73 Wilson’s Pharalope 2 5 3 0.005 0.31 0.96 Purple Martin 4 1 1 0.001 0.10 0.19 Bald Eagle 3 2 2 0.002 0.21 0.38 Loggerhead Shrike 1 1 1 0.001 0.10 0.19 Swainson’s Hawk 3 4 3 0.004 0.31 0.77 Upland Sandpiper 3 15 9 0.016 0.83 2.88 Franklin’s Gull 4 384 12 0.400 0.94 73.70 Total 521 103 0.543 -- 100.00 1Minnesota State Endangered Species, 2Minnesota State Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

Incidental Observations

During spring avian surveys, biologists documented 10 additional species that were not detected during general avian point count surveys. These included the western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), orange-crowned warbler (Vermivora celata), Nashville warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), and pine warbler (Setophaga pinus).

One species, the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) was observed incidentally during the summer general avian point count surveys, and two species, the cedar waxwing (Bombycilla

33 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 cedrorum) and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) were observed incidentally during fall general avian point count surveys.

4.4.1.2 Eagle Point Count Surveys

Over the winter, spring, summer, and fall eagle point count survey seasons, surveys were conducted at each of the 21 fixed-point count stations twice per month from February through April and again in October through November, and once per month in September and December, 2016 for a total of 269 hours of survey effort. Surveys were not conducted from May through August since no active or inactive eagle nests were found in the Study Area and activity of nesting birds, immature birds, floaters, and migrants is generally reduced during this period. Therefore, survey efforts were focused on the periods of peak eagle activity in the early spring and late fall months.

A total of five bald eagles were observed during the fall eagle point count survey period for a mean use of 0.001 eagles per hour. All observations were of individuals in flight. These observations consisted of three adult eagles and two sub-adult eagles. All were observed within the Study Area for a combined total of 17 minutes, and four of the five were observed within the elevation range of 0-200 m (Table 4-9). Eagle observations were recorded from point count locations 30, 9, 19, 26, and 25, which are generally located in the western half of the Study Area.

Table 4-9: Summary of Eagle Point Count Surveys Conducted to Date 2

Time Time Total Time Number No. Observed Observed Eagle Survey Point Observed Minutes/ Eagles >200 m 0-200 m Notes Period ID within 800m (Hours) Observed Elevation Elevation Radius (Min) (Min) (Min) 2/4-2/6 1020/(17) ------2/23 – 2/25 1260/(21) ------3/9 – 3/11 1260/(21) ------3/24 – 3/26; 3/29 1260/(21) ------4/5, 4/6, 4/8 1260/(21) ------4/20 – 4/22; 4/28 1260/(21) ------9/19 – 9/21 1260/(21) ------10/5 – 10/7 1260/(21) 1 30 4 0 4 Adult 19 3 0 32nd Year 10/18 – 10/20 1260/(21) 1 19 3 3 0 Adult

2 Additional eagle point counts are being conducted in 2017. Data from the 2017 point counts will be incorporated into this BBCS upon the completion of the 2017 surveys. 34 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

1 26 2 1 1 Adult 11/1 – 11/3 1260/(21) 1 25 5 0 5 3rd year 11/16-11/17 1260/(21) ------12/28-12/29 1260/(21) ------1/18-1-19 1260/(21) ------TOTAL 16,140/(269) 5 -- 17 4 13 Mean use of 0.001 eagles per hour

One additional bald eagle was observed on September 28, 2016 during general avian point count surveys. Incidental sightings are those made outside of formal eagle sampling plots or times; although they are used to detect presence of birds, incidental sightings are not included in the analysis of the eagle point count data.

4.4.1.3 Ground-Based Raptor Nest Surveys

During the initial ground-based raptor nest survey conducted in March 2016, surveys for general raptor nests were conducted within the general avian Survey Area boundary and a 2- mile buffer around potential turbine locations, while surveys for bald eagle nests were conducted within a 10-mile buffer around potential turbine locations. Incidental observations of other tree nesting raptors outside the 2-mile and 10-mile buffer were recorded while conducting nest surveys for bald eagles. During the 2017 survey effort, surveys focused only on bald eagle nests within the Project site and associated 10-mile buffer.

While nesting density and distribution for all raptor species were of interest, bald eagles were a focus of the survey effort due to their special protection under the BGEPA (16 U.S.C. § 668) and continued agency interest in their populations.

Nesting Species Composition and Frequency of Occurrence

During the 2016 survey effort, a total of 37 raptor nests and one great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery site were recorded (Table 4-10, Exhibit 4-9). Fourteen (38 percent) of the raptor nests were active and the remaining 23 (62 percent) nests were identified as inactive. Of the 14 nests documented as active, 10 (72 percent) were occupied by red-tailed hawks, three (21 percent) were occupied by bald eagles, and one (7 percent) was occupied by a great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Table 4-10). Four of the active raptor nests (29 percent) (all red-tailed hawks) were located within the 2-mile buffer. The remaining 10 active nests (71 percent) were located outside of the 2-mile buffer, but within or adjacent to the 10-mile buffer (Exhibit 4-9). Of the 23 nests identified as inactive, two (9 percent) of the nests belonged to bald eagles, one (4 percent) belonged to a red-tailed hawk, and the

35 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 remaining 20 inactive nests (87 percent) could not be identified as to species, although most were likely constructed by red-tailed hawks (Table 4-10).]

36 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-10: 2016-2017 Raptor Nest Survey Results for the Nobles 2 Wind Project

Nest Nest Status Nest Location Species Substrate Notes ID 2016 2017 Condition Latitude Longitude 1 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.77530 -95.98643 2 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.75479 -95.99274 3 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.81177 -95.95809 4 Red-tailed hawk Inactive -- Fair DLT 43.77923 -95.95494 Recently predated 5 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Fair DLT 43.81405 -95.93355 2 nestlings present 6 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.65565 -95.92731 Rookery, 46 adults and 18 nests 7 Great blue heron Active -- Good DLT 43.60994 -96.01926 present RTHA seen in nest and flying to nest 8 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.64365 -96.11288 with nesting material 9 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.82963 -95.89899 10 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.82272 -95.91498 11 Unknown species Inactive -- Fair DLT 43.80563 -96.12712 12 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.84601 -96.13284 13 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.80211 -95.90633 14 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.78017 -95.87837 15 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.75999 -95.75466 16 Unknown species Active -- Good DLT 43.81100 -95.87359 17 Unknown species Active -- Poor DLT 43.84562 -95.81557 18 Unknown species Active -- Poor DLT 43.74813 -95.86681 19 Unknown species Active -- Fair DLT 43.71650 -95.73398 Smaller nest, likely ANCR or COHA 20 Unknown species Active -- Poor DLT 43.71547 -95.63230

37 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Nest Nest Status Nest Location Species Substrate Notes ID 2016 2017 Condition Latitude Longitude 21 Unknown species Active -- Poor DLT 43.80437 -95.70530 Nest is falling apart 22 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.79352 -95.75353 23 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.93770 -96.02601 Adult RTHA in nest 24 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.93295 -95.93887 25 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.90277 -95.73534 Adult RTHA in nest 26 Great horned owlActive -- Good DLT 43.77989 -95.59444 27 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.79192 -95.54214 28 Red-tailed hawk Active -- Good DLT 43.66292 -95.44210 29 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.79897 -95.50654 30 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.73001 -95.74568 31 Unknown species Inactive -- Good DLT 43.79715 -95.98387 32 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.77616 -95.90876 33 Unknown species Inactive -- Poor DLT 43.79175 -95.73934 34 Bald Eagle Inactive Active Good DLT 43.81016 -96.13546 35 Bald Eagle Active Inactive Good DLT 43.55453 -95.56396 Adult eagle in nest 36 Bald Eagle Inactive Active Good DLT 43.57165 -95.59420 37 Bald Eagle Active Active Good DLT 43.93279 -95.68051 Adult eagle in nest 38 Bald Eagle Active Active Good DLT 43.83187 -95.47168 Adult eagle in nest DLT = Deciduous Live Tree

38 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Red-Tailed Hawk. Red-tailed hawk nests were the most commonly occurring raptor nests recorded and were observed at 11 locations within the 10-mile buffer, five having been found in or directly adjacent to the Study Area (Exhibit 4-9). Ten of the nests were active with an adult in the incubation position, and one was inactive and been recently depredated. The density of occupied red-tailed hawk nests within a 2-mile buffer was estimated at approximately 0.027 nests/square miles (mi2).

Six of the 10 active red-tailed hawk nests were located outside the 2-mile buffer around the proposed turbines and were recorded incidentally during eagle nest surveys. Eight of the 10 active nests identified (80 percent) were located within the western half of the Survey Area (Exhibit 4-9). Despite the presence of transmission powerlines in the Survey Area, all the red- tailed hawk nests identified were located in deciduous trees and most were associated with wooded shelterbelts near farmsteads and other residences. While 20 of the total 37 nests (54 percent) identified were inactive and could not be identified to species, most were likely previously constructed and occupied by red-tailed hawks.

Bald Eagle. Bald eagles were the second most commonly occurring raptor nest identified with a total of five nests recorded, including three active nests (Exhibit 4-9). All were located in large cottonwood trees near perennial water sources. Four of the five nests identified were in the eastern half of the Survey Area. The nearest active nest (Nest ID 37) was located approximately 8.9 miles to the northeast of the originally-defined Project Area and the remaining two active nests (Nest ID 38 and 35) were located outside the 10-mile buffer approximately 12.2 miles to the east and 12.8 miles to the southeast of the Project Area, respectively (Exhibit 4-9). All the inactive bald eagle nests identified were in good condition suggesting that they may have been occupied in the last several years. The density of occupied bald eagle nests within a 10-mile buffer of the proposed turbine locations was estimated at approximately 0.001 nests/mi2.

Five incidental observations of bald eagles were also recorded during the survey period. Four of the observations were located near Ocheda Lake to the southeast of the Study Area (Exhibit 4-9). Two of these observations were of a mating pair of eagles sitting in a tree (ID 40 and 41), one observation was of a single adult sitting in a tree (ID 42), and one observation was of a single juvenile soaring (ID 39). The remaining observation was that of a single juvenile eagle soaring near Lime Lake to the northeast of the Study Area (ID 39) (Exhibit 4-9).

Great Horned Owl. A single occupied great horned owl nest (ID 26) was observed approximately 4 miles east of the Study Area adjacent to Jack Creek (Exhibit 4-9). Although great horned owls do not build their own nest, they typically use the nests of other raptor species such as red-tailed hawks.

Great Blue Heron. An active great blue heron rookery was also identified approximately 9.4 miles south of the Study Area (ID 7) (Exhibit 4-9). Some 46 adults and 18 nests were observed in this rookery, with numerous other nests under active construction. As the

39 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 survey period generally corresponded to the peak of nest building for great blue herons, no eggs or young were observed in this rookery. During the 2017 survey effort, a total of five bald eagle nests were recorded (Table 4-10, Exhibit 4-10). Four of the five nests (80 percent) identified were active. Two of the active nests were located within the 10-mile Survey Area and the remaining two active nests were located outside the 10-mile Survey Area. Nest ID 37 and 38 were active in both 2016 and 2017, Nest ID 34 was active in 2016 but not in 2017, and the activity status of Nest ID 35 and 36 switched between 2016 and 2017 (Exhibits 4-9 and 4-10).

Ten incidental observations of bald eagles were also recorded during the 2017 survey effort. Observations were generally distributed evenly throughout the Survey Area and nearly all were located near perennial water sources such as lakes or streams.

4.4.2 Acoustic Bat Surveys

Passive acoustic bat surveys were conducted using broadband full-spectrum Song Meter SM2BAT+ and SM3BAT+ detectors (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.) from May 17 through October 31, 2016 for one full season of data collection. Because of unusually high precipitation and saturated soil conditions during the spring season and associated access issues, initial monitoring efforts could not start until May 17, 2016. Surveys were conducted in accordance with current agency guidelines (Mixon et al. 2014) for bat wind farm screening to determine general bat presence, activity levels, and species composition in the proposed Study Area. Single duel channel detectors were deployed at each of three meteorological towers in the Study Area. As recommended by agency guidelines, one microphone for each detector was placed approximately 5 meters above ground level and a second microphone was placed at a height of at least 45 meters at each met tower.

Detailed descriptions of survey methods, results, and discussion can be found in the Bat Monitoring at the Proposed Nobles 2 Wind Energy Project, Nobles County, Minnesota Final Report – Spring-Fall 2016 (Zotz 2016). A summary of the results of the acoustic monitoring is provided below.

From all detector locations, a total of 2,717,563 sound files were recorded during the period of 17 May 2016 to 1 November 2016. Filtering and visual examination of files to eliminate extraneous noise (e.g., wind, insects, etc.) resulted in a total of 4,022 call files containing 4,024 bat passes (Table 4-11). More bat passes than call files can be the result of multiple bat species occurring in the same call file. Of these bat passes, 631 bat passes were detected at Met Tower 6, 462 bat passes at Met Tower 7, 23 bat passes at Met Tower 7 Temp (temporary location), and 2,908 bat passes at Met Tower 0734. Six species and six species groups were documented. The hoary bat composed the greatest proportion of bat passes (Exhibit 4-11). This was followed by the UNKLOW group (which was composed of potential calls by the silver-haired, big brown, hoary bat, and the big brown bat).

40 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

4.4.2.1 Met Tower 6

Monitoring was conducted over 122 nights from 16 June 2016 to 23 October 2016 (the last night a bat pass was recorded). Among the 631 bat passes detected at Met Tower 6, the hoary bat composed the greatest proportion of bat passes (42.31 percent) followed by the UNKLOW group (16.16 percent) and the big brown bat (13.47 percent). On average, the greatest number of bat passes per night ( x =4.19 ± 0.56 bat passes/night) was recorded at the 45-m height.

Met Tower 6, 45m

Among 122 nights, a total of 511 bat passes were recorded yielding an average of 4.19 ± 0.56 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the hoary bat (n=250) and the UNKLOW group (n=91). The majority of bat passes was by the hoary bat (n=250) and the UNKLOW group (n=91). Among all 122 nights, activity was greatest on 30 July 2016 (n=32), followed by 9 August 2016 (n=29), and 11 August 2016 (n=25) (Exhibit 4-12a). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to hoary bats. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2100 hrs ( x = 1.14 ± 0.29 bat passes/hour) followed by 2300 hrs ( x = 0.47 ± 0.13 bat passes/hour) and 0100 hrs ( x = 0.44 ± 0.10 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-13a).

Met Tower 6, 5m

Among 122 nights, a total of 120 bat passes were recorded yielding an average of 0.98 ± 0.23 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the big brown bat (n=35) and the hoary bat (n=26). Among all 122 nights, activity was greatest on 19 August 2016 (n=18), followed by 17 August 2016 (n=15), and 23 August 2016 (n=10) (Exhibit 4-12b). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to hoary bats, silver-haired bats, eastern red bats, and big brown bats. Average hourly activity was greatest at 0200 hrs ( x = 17 ± 0.07 bat passes/hour) followed by 0000 hrs ( x = 0.13 ± 0.05 bat passes/hour) and 2100 hrs ( x = 0.12 ± 0.05 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-13b).

4.4.2.2 Met Tower 7 Temporary

Monitoring was conducted over 26 nights from 17 May 2016 and the last bat pass recorded on 15 June 2016. Among the 23 bat passes detected at the temporary location near Met Tower 7, the majority of bat passes were made by the big brown bat (n=7), the UNKLOW group (n=6), and the hoary bat (n=4). Among 26 nights, an average of 0.88 ± 0.37 bat passes per night was calculated (Table 4-11). Among all 26 nights, activity was greatest on 27 May 2016 (n=9) and 4 June 2016 (n=3). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to the big brown bat and the UNKLOW group. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2200 hrs ( x = 0.42 ± 0.21 bat passes/hour), followed by the remaining hours of the night, 2300–0400 hrs ( x = 0.08 ± 0.05 or 0.08 bat passes/hour).

41 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

42 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-11: Species Composition and Activity (Number of Bat Passes) Recorded During the Period of May Through October 2016 at Heights of 45 and 5 Meters at Met Towers within the Study Area

Number of Bat Passes Met 6 Met 7 Temp Met 7 Met 0734 Percent Species/Species Group Total 45 m 5 m -- 45 m 5 m 45 m 5 m of Total Big brown bat 50 35 7 33 98 64 355 642 15.95 Eastern red bat 50 18 2 30 25 137 139 401 9.97 Hoary bat 250 17 4 91 8 379 227 976 24.25 Silver-haired bat 47 26 2 38 19 167 167 466 11.58 Little brown bat 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 0.15 Tri-colored bat 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0.07 EPFULANO 14 3 1 4 10 65 186 283 7.03 LABOPESU 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 27 0.67 LACILANO 2 0 0 0 0 61 13 76 1.89 UNKHIGH 4 8 1 7 16 19 98 153 3.80 UNKMED 3 2 0 2 3 12 22 44 1.09 UNKLOW 91 11 6 47 30 407 355 947 23.53 Total 511 120 23 252 210 1,316 1,592 4,024 No. of Nights 130 26 122 144 Average ± Standard Error 3.93 ± 0.54 0.92 ± 0.22 0.88 ± 0.37 2.07 ± 0.28 1.72 ± 0.29 9.14 ± 1.12 11.06 ± 1.16

43 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

4.4.2.3 Met Tower 7

Monitoring was conducted over 112 nights from 15 June 2016 to 15 October 2016 (the last night a bat pass was recorded). Among the 462 bat passes detected at Met Tower 7, the big brown bat composed the greatest proportion of bat passes (28.35 percent) followed by the hoary bat (21.43 percent) and the UNKLOW group (16.67 percent). On average, the greatest number of bat passes per night ( x = 2.25 ± 0.29 bat passes/night) was recorded at the 45-m height.

Met Tower 7, 45m

Among 112 nights, a total of 252 bat passes were recorded yielding an average of 2.25 ± 0.29 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the hoary bat (n=91) and the UNKLOW group (n=47). Among all 112 nights, activity was greatest on 20 September 2016 (n=18) followed by 20 July 2016 (n=10), 27 July 2016 (n=10) and 10 August 2016 (n=10) (Exhibit 4-14a). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to hoary and silver-haired bats. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2100 hrs ( x = 0.33 ± 0.08 bat passes/hour), followed by 0100 hrs ( x = 0.30 ± 0.08 bat passes/hour), and 0000 hrs ( x = 0.26 ± 0.07 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-15a).

Met Tower 7, 5m

Among 112 nights, a total of 210 bat passes were recorded yielding an average of 2.25 ± 0.29 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the big brown bat (n=98) and the UNKLOW group (n=30). Among all 122 nights, activity was greatest on 29 August 2016 (n=16) followed by 17 August 2016 (n=15) and 23 August 2016 (n=12) (Exhibit 4-14b). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to the big brown bat. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2100 hrs ( x =0.41 ± 0.12 bat passes/hour), followed by 2300 hrs ( x = 0.29 ± 0.07 bat passes/hour), and 2200 hrs ( x = 0.24 ± 0.06 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-15b).

4.4.2.4 Met Tower 0734

Monitoring was conducted over 143 nights from 17 May 2016 to 7 October 2016 (the last night a bat pass was recorded). Among the 2,908 bat passes detected at Met Tower 0734, the UNKLOW group composed the greatest proportion of bat passes (26.20 percent) followed by the hoary bat (20.84 percent) and the big brown bat (14.41 percent). On average, the greatest number of bat passes per night ( x = 11.06 ± 1.16 bat passes/night) was recorded at the 5-m height.

Met Tower 0734, 45m

44 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Among 143 nights, a total of 1,316 bat passes were recorded yielding an average of 9.20 ± 1.13 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the UNKLOW group (n=407) and the hoary bat (n=379). Among all 143 nights, activity was greatest on 21 July 2016 (n=68) followed by 22 July 2016 (n=59), and 2 August 2016 (n=52) (Exhibit 4-16a). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to the UNKLOW group, hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2200 hrs ( x = 1.66 ± 0.28 bat passes/hour), followed by 2300 hrs ( x = 1.52 bat passes/hour), and 2100 hrs ( x = 1.38 ± 0.23 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-17a).

Met Tower 0734, 5m

Among 143 nights, a total of 1,592 bat passes was recorded yielding an average of 11.13 ± 1.17 bat passes per night (Table 4-11). Most bat passes were those of the UNKLOW group (n=355) and the big brown bat (n=355). Among all 143 nights, activity was greatest on 21 July 2016 (n=67) followed by 23 July 2016 (n=52), and 22 July 2016 (n=51) (Exhibit 4-16b). Activity on these nights was largely attributed to the big brown bat, the hoary bat, and the UNKLOW group. Average hourly activity was greatest at 2200 hrs ( x = 2.15 ± 0.32 bat passes/hour), followed by 2300 hrs ( x = 2.03 ± 0.27 bat passes/hour), and 0100 hrs ( x = 1.27 ± 0.23 bat passes/hour) (Exhibit 4-17b).

4.4.2.5 Comparison of Bat Activity between Met Towers and Heights

Nightly bat activity varied significantly by met tower location (F2,747 = 71.396, P < 0.001) and the interaction of microphone height and met tower location (i.e., the combined effects of microphone height and met tower location on bat activity) (F2,747 = 5.352, P < 0.010) but not by microphone height alone (F1,747 = 0.696, P=0.404). Post hoc comparisons showed that at Met Tower 6 bat activity was nearly significantly different between the 5 m and 45 m detector heights (Tukey's HSD test, P = 0.061, Exhibit 4-18), bat activity at Met Tower 7 did not significantly differ between the 5 m and 45 m detector heights (Tukey's HSD test, P = 1.00, Exhibit 4-19), and bat activity at Met Tower 0734 did not significantly differ between the 5 m and 45 m detector heights (Tukey's HSD test, P = 0.458, Exhibit 4-20).

4.4.2.6 Comparison of Bat Activity for Species between Heights

Met Tower 6

Average bat activity differed significantly between the 5 m and 45 m heights for two species and three species groups at Met Tower 6 (Table 4-12). Bat activity was significantly greater at 45 m compared to 5 m for the eastern red bat, hoary bat, big brown/silver-haired bat group, hoary/silver-haired bat group, and the UNKLOW group.

Met Tower 7

45 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Average bat activity differed significantly between the 5 m and 45 m heights for three species at Met Tower 7 (Table 4-13). Bat activity was significantly greater at 5 m compared to 45 m for the big brown bat. Bat activity was significantly greater at 45 m compared to 5 m for the hoary bat and the little brown bat.

Table 4-12: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 6

Degrees of Species/Species 45 m 5 m t Freedom P value Group Avg. ± SE Avg. ± SE statistic (df) Big brown bat 0.41 ± 0.09 0.29 ± 0.07 1.22 121 0.22 Eastern red bat 0.41 ± 0.08 0.15 ± 0.05 3.16 121 0.00 Hoary bat 2.05 ± 0.39 0.14 ± 0.06 5.29 121 0.00 Silver-haired bat 0.39 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.09 1.61 121 0.11 EPFULANO 0.11 ± 0.05 0.02 ± 0.02 2.15 121 0.03 LACILANO 0.02 ± 0.02 ------UNKHIGH 0.03 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.03 1.42 121 0.16 UNKMED 0.02 ± 0.02 0.02 ± 0.01 0.38 121 0.71 UNKLOW 0.75 ± 0.10 0.09 ± 0.03 6.74 121 0.00

Table 4-13: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 7

Degrees of Species/Species 45 m 5 m t Freedom P value Group Avg. ± SE Avg. ± SE statistic (df) Big brown bat 0.29 ± 0.07 0.88 ± 0.21 2.63 111 0.01 Eastern red bat 0.27 ± 0.06 0.22 ± 0.07 0.51 111 0.61 Hoary bat 0.81 ± 0.14 0.07 ± 0.03 5.43 111 0.00 Silver-haired bat 0.34 ± 0.13 0.17 ± 0.06 1.17 111 0.24 Little brown bat 0.01 ± 0.01 ------EPFULANO 0.04 ± 0.02 0.09 ± 0.03 1.51 111 0.13 UNKHIGH 0.06 ± 0.03 0.14 ± 0.05 1.38 111 0.17 UNKMED 0.02 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02 0.45 111 0.66 UNKLOW 0.42 ± 0.07 0.27 ± 0.07 1.69 111 0.09

Met Tower 0734

46 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Average bat activity differed significantly between the 5 m and 45 m heights for two species and four species groups at Met Tower 0734 (Table 4-14). Bat activity was significantly greater at 5 m compared to 45 m for the big brown bat, the big brown/silver-haired bat group, the eastern red/tri-colored bat group, and the UNKHIGH group. Bat activity was significantly greater at 45 m compared to 5 m for the hoary bat and the hoary/silver-haired bat group.

47 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Table 4-14: Results of Paired T-test Analyses Comparing Activity by Each Species or Species Group Between 45 and 5 Meter Heights at Met Tower 0734

Degrees of Species/Species 45 m 5 m t Freedom P value Group Avg. ± SE Avg. ± SE statistic (df) Big brown bat 0.45 ± 0.11 2.48 ± 0.36 5.68 142 0.00 Eastern red bat 0.96 ± 0.16 0.97 ± 0.14 0.09 142 0.93 Hoary bat 2.65 ± 0.40 1.59 ± 0.27 3.03 142 0.00 Silver-haired bat 1.17 ± 0.17 1.17 ± 0.19 0.00 142 1.00 Little brown bat 0.01 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 0.38 142 0.71 Tri-colored bat 0.01 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 0.45 142 0.66 EPFULANO 0.45 ± 0.10 1.30 ± 0.17 5.21 142 0.00 LABOPESU 0.01 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.04 3.97 142 0.00 LACILANO 0.43 ± 0.11 0.09 ± 0.02 3.09 142 0.00 UNKHIGH 0.13 ± 0.04 0.69 ± 0.11 4.73 142 0.00 UNKMED 0.08 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.04 1.55 142 0.12 UNKLOW 2.85 ± 0.37 2.48 ± 0.29 0.90 142 0.37

4.4.2.7 Species of Special Concern

The big brown, little brown, and tri-colored bats which are listed as Species of Special Concern by the MNDNR were detected during the monitoring period. The big brown bat, one of Minnesota’s four species of cave-hibernating bats, was documented among 15.95 percent of total calls (Table 4-11) (Exhibit 4-21) and 98.62 percent among Species of Special Concern found in this study (Exhibit 4-22). Activity by this species was greatest from late July to late August 2016.

The little brown bat, one of Minnesota’s four species of cave-hibernating bats, was documented among 0.15 percent of total calls (Table 4-11) and 0.92 percent among Species of Special Concern found in this study (Exhibit 4-22). The little brown bat was documented on 17 May 2016, 22 July 2016, 20 August 2016, and 23 August 2016.

The tri-colored bat, one of Minnesota’s four species of cave-hibernating bats, was listed as a Species of Special Concern by the MNDNR in 1984 (MNDNR 2016d). The tri-colored bat was documented among 0.07 percent of total calls (Table 4-11) and 0.46 percent among Species of Special Concern found in this study (Exhibit 4-22). The tri-colored bat was documented on 23 May 2016 and 30 August 2016.

Although the two call analysis software programs (Kaleidoscope and EchoClass) each classified three call files to the northern long-eared bat, there was no agreement on the

48 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 classification of a single call (i.e., each of the six call files were a different call file). Manual review suggested these calls were approach phase calls (i.e., unclassifiable to a certain species) or calls produced by another species. The echolocation calls produced by the northern long-eared bat can overlap in characteristics with other species such as the little brown bat, making identification and differentiation of calls by these species difficult. Differentiation of calls is especially problematic in open (low clutter) environments (Broders et al. 2004), i.e. similar to the areas where the met towers are situated. In cluttered habitats (e.g., forests), however, the echolocation call of the northern long-eared bat is more easily distinguished due to its feeding specialization in these habitats. Additionally, likelihood of presence analyses based on the 6 call files initially classified to the northern long-eared bat suggest that this species does not likely occur in the Study Area.

49 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

This section provides a qualitative risk assessment for direct impacts to birds and bats related to the construction and operation of the proposed Project. The intention is not to predict the number of fatalities due to turbine collision and other sources of direct mortality, because recent studies have shown that there is little correlation between pre-construction risk assessments and actual documented mortality of bird and bat species at wind farms (de Lucas et al. 2008; Ferrer et al. 2011; Sharp et al. 2010). As such, it is difficult to predict expected mortality rates at a proposed facility from pre-construction survey data alone. Post construction data from nearby and regional operational wind projects is likely a more reliable and accurate predictor of risk. In response to these findings, this BBCS is designed to allow Nobles 2 to work continuously with the USFWS and MNDNR to adapt to actual results and unknown circumstances, so that unexpected events and changes over time may be addressed.

5.1 Birds

5.1.1 Non-Raptor Avian Species

The avian community documented within the Study Area during the winter, spring, summer, and fall survey seasons was characteristic of species associated with typical mid-western agricultural and grassland habitat. The majority of the Project Area and surrounding region has been developed for agricultural use, specifically crops such as wheat, soybeans, sunflower, alfalfa, and corn, with additional developed lands devoted to pastureland with a few remnants of native grassland.

Area wind farms that currently have publicly available detailed pre-construction avian data include the Odell and Stoneray wind projects, which are approximately 36 and 10 miles from the Nobles 2 Project, respectively. Both projects have highly similar land cover types to those of Nobles 2, with between 82 and 91 percent of the project areas comprised of cultivated cropland, and the remaining areas comprised of developed land, woodland, grassland, and isolated wetland areas (Exhibit 5-1).

Annual pre-construction bird surveys conducted for the Project generally indicate that avian species composition and mean use is comparable with, but less than that of the Odell and Stoneray wind projects. (Table 5-1) (Exhibit 5-2). For example, overall mean bird use for the Nobles 2 Project during the spring survey season was 17.61 birds/10 min and overall mean bird use for the Odell and Stoneray wind project was 22.82 birds/10 min and 36.29 birds/10 min, respectively (Table 5-1). Among all species groups, passerines accounted for the greatest difference among sites, while the remaining species groups; waterfowl raptors, upland gamebirds, pigeons/doves, shorebirds, woodpeckers, and herons/egrets/cranes/rails have very similar mean use values among sites (Table 5-1) (Exhibit 5-2).

50 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

While both the Odell and Stoneray wind projects have strong similarities to the Nobles 2 Project regarding land use and overall avian species composition and mean use, there currently is no formal post-construction fatality data for these projects to make direct inferences to avian fatality rates for the Nobles 2 Project. However, bird mortality documented during post-construction studies at 26 other wind energy facilities in the Midwest is comparatively low, with a mean mortality rate of 2.84 fatalities/MW/year, with a range from 0.48 fatalities/MW/year to 8.20 fatalities/MW/year (Exhibit 5-3).

Table 5-1: Comparison of Mean Bird Use by Species for Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Projects

Mean Use (No. Birds/10 minutes) Species Group Nobles 2 Odell Stoneray Passerines American Crow 0.08 0.28 0.83 American Goldfinch 0.04 1.01 0.56 American Robin 0.87 1.04 0.94 Baltimore Oriole 0.03 0.07 -- Barn Swallow 1.07 0.75 0.58 Belted Kingfisher -- 0.01 -- Black-capped Chickadee -- 0.01 0.01 Blue Grosbeak <0.01 -- -- Blue Jay 0.05 0.10 0.05 Bobolink 0.08 0.26 0.25 Brown Thrasher 0.02 0.03 -- Brown-headed Cowbird 0.53 0.92 2.45 Cedar Waxwing -- 0.11 -- Chimney Swift 0.02 0.01 -- Chipping Sparrow 0.02 0.07 0.03 Clay-colored Sparrow -- 0.05 0.13 Cliff Swallow 0.20 1.46 0.01 Common Grackle 4.49 1.96 3.93 Common Yellowthroat 0.06 0.36 0.20 Dickcissel 3 0.03 0.02 0.35 Eastern Kingbird 0.06 0.02 0.08 Eastern Phoebe -- 0.01 0.01 Eastern Towhee -- -- 0.01 Eastern Wood-Pewee 0.01 0.01 -- European Starling 0.94 0.44 3.35 Field Sparrow -- 0.05 -- Grasshopper Sparrow 3 <0.01 0.07 0.28 Gray Catbird -- 0.03 -- Harris's Sparrow 0.01 0.33 -- Horned Lark 0.48 0.21 0.49

51 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use (No. Birds/10 minutes) Species Group Nobles 2 Odell Stoneray House Finch -- 0.01 0.04 House Sparrow 0.04 0.24 0.10 House Wren 0.02 -- -- Lapland Longspur 0.30 -- -- Least Flycatcher -- 0.01 -- Le Conte's Sparrow <0.01 -- -- Loggerhead Shrike 1 <0.01 -- -- Marsh Wren -- 0.19 0.40 Nashville Warbler -- 0.01 -- Northern Cardinal -- 0.01 0.01 Northern Mockingbird -- -- 0.01 Northern Rough Wing Swallow -- -- 0.86 Orchard Oriole -- 0.01 -- Purple Martin -- 0.01 -- Red-eyed Vireo 0.01 -- -- Red-winged Blackbird 3.48 5.87 12.24 Rose-breasted Grosbeak -- 0.01 -- Ruby-throated Hummingbird -- 0.01 -- Savannah Sparrow 0.06 0.32 0.05 Sedge Wren -- -- 0.05 Song Sparrow 0.05 0.53 0.31 Swainson's Thrush 0.03 -- -- Swamp Sparrow -- 0.03 -- Tennessee Warbler -- 0.01 -- Tree Swallow 0.14 1.05 -- Vesper Sparrow 0.17 0.25 -- Warbling Vireo -- 0.03 -- Western Kingbird -- -- 0.01 Western Meadowlark 0.10 0.10 1.64 White-breasted Nuthatch -- 0.01 -- White-crowned Sparrow <0.01 -- -- Wood Thrush -- 0.02 -- Yellow Warbler 0.02 0.07 0.01 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.01 -- -- Yellow-headed Blackbird 0.02 0.19 -- Total 13.58 18.68 30.25 Waterfowl American Wigeon 0.04 -- -- Blue-winged Teal 0.31 0.03 0.78 Canada Goose 0.02 0.73 0.39 Double-crested Cormorant <0.01 -- 0.26 Gadwall 0.04 -- 0.03 Greater White-fronted Goose 1.03 -- -- Green-winged Teal 0.16 -- --

52 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use (No. Birds/10 minutes) Species Group Nobles 2 Odell Stoneray Hooded Merganser -- -- 0.04 Mallard 0.60 0.64 0.21 Northern Pintail 0.01 -- -- Northern Shoveler 0.30 0.07 -- Pied-billed Grebe -- 0.03 -- Redhead -- -- 0.01 Ring-necked Duck 0.08 -- -- Trumpeter Swan -- 0.01 -- Wood Duck 0.02 0.03 0.39 Total 2.59 1.54 2.10 Raptors American Kestrel 0.03 0.01 0.01 Cooper's Hawk ------Northern Harrier 0.02 0.01 0.01 Red-tailed Hawk 0.07 0.04 0.16 Rough-legged Hawk -- -- 0.01 Swainson’s Hawk 3 0.01 -- -- Turkey Vulture 0.05 0.01 -- Total 0.18 0.07 0.20 Upland Gamebirds Greater Prairie-chicken 4 -- -- 0.01 Ring-necked Pheasant 0.08 0.49 0.73 Total 0.08 0.49 0.74 Pigeons/Doves Mourning Dove 0.17 0.75 0.54 Eurasian Collared Dove <0.01 -- - Rock Pigeon 0.21 0.07 0.79 Total 0.38 0.82 1.33 Shorebirds American Golden Plover 0.01 -- -- Black Tern -- 0.01 -- Bonaparate's Gull <0.01 -- -- Common Snipe 0.02 -- 0.11 Greater Yellowlegs <0.01 -- -- Killdeer 0.29 0.85 1.16 Least Sandpiper 0.04 -- -- Lesser Yellowlegs -- 0.01 -- Pectoral Sandpiper 0.07 -- -- Ring-billed Gull 0.10 0.01 -- Semipalmated Plover -- -- 0.01 Semipalmated Sandpiper 0.09 -- -- Short-billed Dowitcher 3 -- -- 0.01 Solitary Sandpiper 3 0.03 -- -- Spotted Sandpiper -- -- 0.01

53 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Mean Use (No. Birds/10 minutes) Species Group Nobles 2 Odell Stoneray Upland Sandpiper 3 0.03 0.07 0.03 Wilson's Phalarope 2 0.02 -- -- Total 0.70 0.95 1.34 Woodpeckers Downy Woodpecker -- 0.01 0.01 Hairy Woodpecker -- 0.01 -- Northern Flicker 0.05 0.04 0.20 Red-bellied Woodpecker -- 0.03 -- Red-headed Woodpecker 3 0.02 0.01 0.01 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker -- -- 0.01 Total 0.07 0.10 0.24 Herons/Egrets/Cranes/Rails American Bittern 3 -- -- 0.01 American Coot 0.02 0.15 0.05 Cattle Egret <0.01 -- -- Great Egret <0.01 -- -- Great Blue Heron 0.01 0.01 0.03 Green Heron -- 0.01 -- Sandhill Crane <0.01 -- -- Total 0.03 0.17 0.09 Grand Total 17.61 22.82 36.29 Number Species Observed 80 78 62 1Minnesota Endangered Species, 2Minnesota Threatened Species, 3USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, 4Minnesota Special Concern Species

Bird risk within the Study Area is likely highest during the spring and fall migration seasons, as has been observed at most wind energy facilities (NWCC 2010). Passerines, both resident and migrant, are likely at highest risk in the Study Area, as this avian group represents the majority (75 percent) of mortalities at wind turbines nationwide (Johnson et al. 2007; Strickland and Morrison 2008) and was by far the most frequently observed species group during both winter and spring avian point count surveys within the Study Area. It is estimated that less than 0.01 percent of migrant songbirds that pass over wind farms are killed, based on radar data and mortality monitoring (Erickson 2007) and no studies to date indicate or suggest a level of fatality that rises to a level of concern, relative to population- level impacts. Night-migrating passerines may be at a higher risk, as this group has accounted for over 50 percent of avian fatalities at certain sites, but no particular species or group of species has been identified as incurring in greater numbers of fatalities (Erickson et al. 2002).

Locally breeding songbirds and other passerines may experience lower mortality rates than migrants because many of these species tend to fly below the RSA during the breeding season. However, some breeding songbird species have behaviors that increase their risk of collisions with turbines. Birds taking off at dusk or landing at dawn, or birds traveling in low

54 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 cloud or fog conditions, for example, are likely at the greatest risk of collision (Kerlinger 1995).

Collision risk is likely to be much lower for other non-raptor bird groups in the Study Area. While waterfowl were the second highest species group observed during pre-construction avian surveys, waterfowl are considered to have low risk for turbine-related fatalities either due to demonstrated avoidance behavior and/or few documented fatalities at other wind energy facilities. Research has demonstrated that waterfowl rarely collide with wind turbines (Kingsley and Whittam 2007; Gehring 2011). The only sites experiencing regular waterfowl fatalities have been those located on the shores of large, open expanses of water (Erickson et al. 2002).

The remaining non-raptor species groups detected during winter surveys have low risk for turbine collisions within the Study Area to a combination of relatively low mean use rates, infrequent flight within the height of the RSA, and/or few to no records of fatalities at other wind facilities with publicly available results of mortality studies.

5.1.2Raptors

Despite the observation that most avian fatalities at wind farms are passerines, raptor fatality (including eagles) historically has received the most attention. Raptor fatality at newer wind projects has been low relative to older-generation wind farms, although there is substantial regional variation in raptor fatality rates (Erickson et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2002; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Jain et al. 2007). Raptors constitute approximately 6 percent of reported bird fatalities, but generally have a smaller percentage of birds observed using wind farms during pre-construction surveys (Strickland et al. 2011).

High raptor use (greater than 2.0 birds/20 min) has been associated with high raptor mortality at wind farms (Strickland et al. 2011). Conversely, raptor mortality appears to be low when raptor use is low (less than 1.0 birds/20 min; Strickland et al. 2011), which is the case for winter, spring, summer, and fall raptor use within the Study Area. Mean raptor use within the Study Area for the all the surveys seasons was low (range of 0.096 – 0.373 birds/20 min), suggesting that raptor fatality will be low as well.

Raptor use of the Project Area was observed to be relatively low during the pre-construction surveys and is comparable to that of the Odell and Stoneray wind projects. As shown in Table 5-1, the mean spring raptor use rate for the Nobles 2 Project was 0.18 birds/10 min as compared with 0.07 birds/10 min and 0.20 birds/10 min for the Odell and Stoneray wind projects, respectively. What little data that is available for wind farms in the Midwest, suggests that fatality rates of raptors at these wind energy facilities are low (Exhibit 5-4). The lowest reported raptor fatality rate was 0.06 fatalities/MW/year for the NPPD Ainsworth Wind Farm in Nebraska and rates for the remaining three other studies: Buffalo Ridge, South Dakota; Moraine II, Minnesota; and Winnebago, Iowa reported 0.20, 0.37, and 0.27

55 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

fatalities/MW/year, respectively.

The red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, American kestrel, and northern harrier were the raptor species with the highest mean use and were also among the most frequently detected raptor species in the Study Area during general avian point count surveys. All three species are commonly associated with agricultural and grassland habitats which provide opportunities for foraging, an activity associated with susceptibility to turbine-collisions (Thelander et al. 2003). Red-tailed hawks, turkey vultures, American kestrels, and northern harriers have all been recorded fatalities at other wind projects (Kingsley and Whittman 2005), although northern harriers have few documented mortalities, even in areas with high northern harrier use (Erickson et al. 2002). This could possibly be because the species generally flies below the RSA, which is consistent with the observation of few northern harriers within the RSA during Project general avian point count surveys.

Risks to non-eagle raptors are expected to be low for the Project because topographic features that encourage risky behaviors like slope-soaring and kiting are limited and discontinuous (observed mostly in the northwest portion of the Study Area when occurring). In addition, any project-related fatalities are unlikely to have population-level impacts because red-tailed hawks and turkey vultures are common nationwide (Sauer et al. 2012).

Three species of raptors; red-tailed hawks, bald eagles, and a great horned owl, were documented nesting in the overall Survey Area, but the red-tailed hawk was the only raptor species documented nesting within one mile of potential turbine locations. A total of three active bald eagle nests were recorded within the surrounding region. The nearest nest (Nest ID 37) was located approximately 8.9 miles northeast of the Project Area boundary (see Exhibits 4-9 and 4-10).

Data on the collision risks of red-tailed tailed hawks and other raptors at wind energy facilities are well documented; however, currently few data concerning the collision risk of bald eagle nesting near wind energy developments are available. In general, bald eagles have been rarely documented as casualties at wind energy facilities and a recent study shows that bald eagles exhibit a high rate of avoidance of operational wind turbines (Sharp et al. 2011). As of 2012, six substantiated bald eagle fatalities or injuries were documented at wind turbines in the United States and two were reported in Ontario, Canada (Allison 2012; Pagel et al. 2013). At least one additional bald eagle fatality was recently reported in publicly available reports in fall 2015 at the Oliver III Wind Farm in Mercer County, North Dakota, although the exact cause of the eagle’s death is undetermined (Thompson 2015).

While bald eagles do occur seasonally within the Study Area, their occurrence appeared to be sporadic and in low numbers and indicative of transient bald eagles that may use the Study Area during migratory periods. Mean eagle use within the Study Area was moderately low (0.001 eagles per hour), as a total of five bald eagles were observed, four of which were observed flying within the RSA. Risks to bald eagles are expected to be low for the Project due to a combination of low mean use rates; limited amount of flight within the height of the

56 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

RSA; absence of nests within and directly adjacent to the Project Area, , and/or few records of fatalities at other wind facilities with publicly available results of mortality studies.

Habitat quality for nesting bald eagles is lower within the Project Area in comparison to available habitat in areas outside the Project Area that currently support nesting bald eagles. The Project Area contains few large trees suitable for nesting (i.e. large diameter, > 15-20 m in height, adequate crown structure). Where trees are present in the Project Area, most are associated with forested shelterbelts and are located near a residence, less than 25 m tall, are closed canopied and are located far from perennial water sources. In contrast, the six nests identified outside the Project Area but within the 10-mile survey area during 2016- 2017 nest surveys were generally located in large super canopy trees, > 25 m in height with large forked branches. In addition, all of the nests were within one (1) mile of a perennial stream or lake, with most located less than 0.5 mile from a perennial water source.

5.1.3 Special-Status Avian Species

No federally listed avian species were observed during winter, spring, summer, or fall avian surveys or as incidental observations within the Study Area. However, 12 of the species identified during general avian point count survey are classified as either Minnesota State listed species, Minnesota Species of Special Concern, or USFWS BCC. While Minnesota Species of Special Concern and USFWS BCC are of interest to the USFWS and MNDNR, they are not afforded legal status or protection under state or federal statutes; they are, however, protected under the MBTA.

The most numerous special-status bird species observed during general avian point count surveys was Franklin’s gull followed by the dickcissel. Collectively these two species comprised 85.6 percent of all special-status species observed. Compared to other species documented in this study, Franklin’s gull had moderately high mean use rates and encounter rates (0.031 birds flying at the RSA/5 min). Swainson’s hawk had low mean use rates and a low encounter rate (0.004 birds flying at the RSA/5 min) and the bald eagle, American white pelican, and solitary sandpiper all had low mean use rates and low encounter rates (0.002, 0.001, and 0.001 birds flying at the RSA/5 min, respectively).

The special-status bird species detected during general avian point count surveys are considered to have a low risk for turbine collision at the Project due to a combination of relatively low mean use rates for most species, infrequent flight within the height of the RSA, and/or few to no records of fatalities at other wind facilities with publicly available results of mortality studies.

5.1.4 Conclusion

57 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

The Project has been sited and designed to be a low-risk site for birds. Except for the limited number of WPAs and WMAs located in or directly adjacent to the Study Area, neither the Study Area nor the Project Area contains distinct topography, unique habitats or resources, or other features that could concentrate birds. No indicators of high avian risk in the Study Area or the Project Area (e.g., presence of federally-listed species, impacts to high quality avian habitat, high volume use as migration stopover habitat, etc.) were discovered during either the SCS (Tier 2 of the WEG) or the annual general avian point count surveys, which were conducted in accordance with Tier 3 of the WEG. Based on available data from operational wind projects in the Midwest, bird collisions at the Project are expected to occur at a low frequency and be comparable with that of other Midwest wind energy facilities. Impacts are not expected to occur to a degree which would adversely affect populations.

5.2 Bats

5.2.1 General Impacts

In the study for the proposed Project, the primary species detected were the hoary and silver-haired bat. Documented bat fatalities of these and other common bat species at previously developed wind farms have been associated almost exclusively with operating turbines. Studies conducted in Minnesota and other wind farms in the United States reported that all dead bats were recovered from turbine locations; none were located at meteorological towers or transmission lines (Johnson et al. 2000; Young et al. 2003). The prominent proximate causes of bat deaths at wind turbines are direct collision (i.e., blunt- force trauma) (NREL 2013) and barotrauma (Grodsky et al. 2011).

Bat fatality at previously developed wind farms has been associated primarily with dispersing and migrating bats. Three species of long-distance migratory bats (hoary bat, eastern red bat, and silver-haired bat) compose the majority of fatalities, and hoary bats alone compose about half of all documented fatalities in North America (Kunz et al. 2007). Although the majority of documented bat fatalities at existing wind projects is related to long-distance migratory species, some mortality among resident bat species is also associated with the spring and fall migration periods, and during the summer pup rearing period. At wind farms in the Midwest, where grassland and crop fields accounted for a substantial proportion of the vegetative cover, over 90 percent of the documented bat fatalities occurred between mid-July and mid-September (Erickson et al. 2002).

Bat fatalities at wind farms are also known to be affected by other factors, such as weather variables. It has been shown that most bat fatalities tend to occur during low wind speeds over relatively short periods of time (Arnett et al. 2008; Hein et al. 2013).

As mentioned previously, the Project Area is located on a landscape dominated by agricultural use. The loss of disturbed, agricultural habitat is likely to be of minor consequence for the local bat community due to the demonstrated preference for forested 58 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 and open water habitat by most bat species that may occur within the Study Area. As with any North American wind energy facility within the range of bat species, the operating WTGs will present a risk of bat mortality due to collisions or barotrauma. Although the Study Area is located in a primarily agricultural landscape, the presence of the WTGs, even in open, non- forested areas, poses a risk of bat mortality. Bat mortality has been documented at Midwestern wind energy facilities in agricultural areas during the fall migration season, demonstrating that some migrating bats will fly over open land (Johnson et al. 2003; Kerlinger et al. 2007; Good et al. 2011).

Based on data evaluated for the spring, summer, and fall survey periods, bat assemblage and use is expected to be comparable to that of other operational wind projects in the Midwest. Bat mortality documented for 27 post-construction studies at wind energy facilities in the Midwest is variable, with a mean mortality rate of 7.62 bat fatalities/MW/year. Bat fatalities ranged from a low of only 0.10 fatalities/MW/year at the Buffalo Ridge I Project in South Dakota, to a high of 30.61 fatalities/MW/year at the Cedar Ridge Project in Wisconsin (Exhibit 5-5). None of the bat mortalities observed at these facilities was known to consist of northern long-eared bats.

In Minnesota, there have been a number of publicly available studies on the impacts to bats from wind energy developments. These studies report fatality estimates ranging from 1-20 bats/MW/year (1-30 bats/turbine/year) throughout southern Minnesota with the highest fatality rates documented in southwestern Minnesota. The Lakefield Wind Project is nearest to the proposed Nobles 2 Wind Energy Project (approximately 30 miles east in nearby Jackson County) with available post-construction fatality data. During a fatality monitoring study conducted in 2012, an estimate of 19.87 bats/MW (29.80 bats/turbine) was observed with fatalities composed of 27 eastern red bats (48.21%), 13 hoary bats (23.21%), 13 little brown bats (23.21%), and 3 big brown bats (5.36%) (Westwood 2013).

During a second fatality monitoring study conducted in 2014, an estimate of 20.19 bats/MW (30.28 bats/turbine) was observed with fatalities composed of 21 eastern red bats (21.43%), 43 hoary bats (43.88%), 21 little brown bats (21.43%), 12 silver-haired bats (12.24%), and one unidentified bat (1.02%) (Westwood 2015). Conversely, other wind energy facilities in the southwestern Minnesota region report lower fatality estimates ranging from 0.2–2.7 bats/MW/study period (Arnett et al. 2008; Johnson et al. 2003). Although species composition is not available for these studies, species similar to those found during the Lakefield Wind Project studies have been documented at some of these projects. For instance, at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Project, species included eastern red bats, hoary bats, little brown bats, silver-haired bats, big brown bats, and tri-colored bats (Johnson et al. 2003), with the tri-colored bat not documented at the Lakefield Wind Project. The species (especially the hoary, eastern red, and silver-haired bat) found among these studies represent those that have been reported among the greatest numbers of fatalities at wind projects across North America (Arnett et al. 2008).

59 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

In the present study for the proposed Nobles 2 Wind Project, the primary species detected were the hoary bat, big brown bat, and silver-haired bat. Each of these species have been reported among fatalities at operating wind energy developments across the United States (Arnett and Baerwald 2013; Arnett et al. 2008). Furthermore, the majority of fatalities have been reported during the late summer and early fall, which corresponds to the period of time during which the greatest activity was acoustically recorded in the present study. Activity and subsequent fatalities during the late summer/early fall period is primarily due to the migratory nature of two of these species (i.e., the hoary and silver-haired bat).

5.2.2 Special Status Bat Species

Species (or species groups) that were detected in this study confirmed potential occurrences based on existing distributions (IUCN 2016; MNDNR 2016a; USGS-GAP 2013). The big brown, little brown, and tri-colored bats which are listed as Species of Special Concern by the MNDNR were detected during the monitoring period. A likelihood of presence analyses based on the few call files initially classified to the northern long-eared bat (a federally- and state-listed species), suggest that this species does not likely occur in the Study Area.

The MNDNR (2016) considers the northern long-eared bat to occur throughout the entire State. In Minnesota, the northern long-eared bat is considered to occupy summer roosting habitat during 1 April–30 September and winter hibernacula during 1 October–15 May (USFWS 2014). Suitable summer roosting habitat for the northern long-eared bat primarily consists of a variety of forested and wooded habitats including fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. As of April 1, 2016, there are no documented northern long- eared bat maternity roost trees or hibernacula in Nobles County or adjacent counties (MNDNR and USFWS 2016), though the MNDNR stresses this information is limited in determining the distribution of the northern long-eared bat as statewide surveys are incomplete and all known locations were not included to produce this information.

Operating wind turbines have been documented to kill northern long-eared bats, particularly during the fall migratory period (USFWS 2014). Northern long-eared bats have been reported in percentages ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 percent (2-6 individuals) among fatalities at two wind energy facilities in the eastern United States (Arnett et al. 2008). More recent data reveals a total of 43 fatalities have been reported throughout North America with the majority found during the fall (1 August–5 October) (Gruver and Bishop-Boros 2015).

5.2.3 Use of Pre-Construction Acoustic Monitoring to Predict Post-Construction Bat Fatalities

To date, it remains unclear whether data acquired from pre-construction acoustic monitoring can predict post-construction fatalities. However, some studies have attempted to correlate post-construction acoustic bat pass rates with fatalities at operating wind energy

60 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 projects (Baerwald and Barclay 2009; Gruver et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2004) with varying degrees of success. One recent and comprehensive study (Hein et al. 2013) aimed to address this issue by characterizing bat activity based on acoustic monitoring and post- construction fatality studies across geographic regions. Hein et al. (2013) synthesized data from 94 pre-construction bat acoustic surveys and 75 post-construction bat fatality studies at proposed and operating wind energy facilities across four regions in the United States and Canada. From 12 of these facilities, both pre-construction acoustic and post-construction fatality data were available to examine whether bat acoustic data collected prior to construction can be used to predict fatality. Among the larger synthesis study, both pre- construction acoustic and post-construction fatality data varied considerably both within and among regions. The examination of the 12 facilities with paired pre- and post-construction data suggested a positive relationship, but was found to be not significant and pre- construction activity only explained a small portion of the variation in fatalities (Hein et al. 2013). However, the authors cited that more data with consistent methodologies could help to tease out a relationship between pre-construction bat acoustic surveys and post- construction fatality studies.

Considering the Hein et al. (2013) study, there is a lack of publicly available data on pre- construction acoustic bat pass rates and post-construction fatality rates in Minnesota to make a scientifically plausible prediction of fatalities for any wind energy development in the region. Hence, the acoustic data obtained in the present study may not necessarily indicate bat mortalities at the proposed Nobles 2 Wind Project. However, data obtained from this study can be useful in identifying potential mitigation measures that may be effective in reducing fatalities (Arnett et al. 2011; Baerwald et al. 2009). For example, the activity recorded during the late summer through early fall period indicates a period of about 8 weeks from late July to late September when bat activity is the highest, and most this activity was within four hours during the first part of the night, 2100—0100 hrs (9:00 pm—1:00 am). If fatalities are detected during post-construction, then this information could be of value when determining a mitigation strategy, such as feathering turbine blades so as to not allow them to “free-wheel” when not operating between 9:00 pm—1:00 am during the 8-week period of July to September. Furthermore, greater efficiency in a mitigation strategy could be gained by modeling environmental variables to predict bat activity throughout the late summer to early fall period (Weller and Baldwin 2011).

5.2.4 Conclusion

Following review of an early iteration of the proposed Project that included up to 150 wind turbines and nameplate capacity of up to 300 MW, MNDNR considered the Project to have a medium risk designation to bat species due to the large size of the Project as proposed at that time (See correspondence dated April 14, 2016; Appendix B). Since that time, the plan has been revised to reduce the overall nameplate capacity of the Project to up to 260 MW and to increase the number of turbines with higher rated power output. The results of these changes reduces the number of turbines required to construct the Project by a minimum of

61 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

68 turbines and results in the installation of no more than 82 wind turbines. Nobles 2 operational measures have also been adjusted at the request of MNDNR to provide seasonal feathering of turbine blades when operating below equipment cut-in speeds as explained in Section 6.3. Considering these and other elements, the Project has been sited and designed to be a relatively low-risk site for bats. The Study Area does not contain distinct topography, unique habitats or resources, or other features that could concentrate bats or bat activity. No indicators of high bat risk in the Study Area (e.g., impacts to roost trees or hibernaculum, high volume use as a migration corridor, etc.) were discovered during either the SCS (Tier 2 of the WEG) or the annual passive acoustic bat monitoring, which was conducted in accordance with Tier 3 of the WEG. Based on available data from operational wind projects in Minnesota and elsewhere in the Midwest, bat fatalities at the Project are expected to occur at a low frequency and be comparable with that of other Midwest wind energy facilities. Impacts are not expected to occur to a degree which would adversely affect populations.

62 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES

Nobles 2 will implement measures to avoid and minimize impacts to birds and bats in the siting and design, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project as presented in the following sections.

6.1 Project Siting and Design

Nobles 2 is committed to the development of a project design intended to avoid sensitive habitats to the degree possible. The siting process was initiated with the completion of a SCS (Westwood 2016a) and was further informed by subsequent field studies. Previous studies on wind farms have identified a variety of design measures and BMPs to minimize adverse effects on habitat and wildlife (USFWS 2012). Prudent avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into this BBCS and actual Project siting and design to minimize risk to bird and bat species. The following have been, or will be, taken into consideration throughout the planning, design, and construction process.

6.1.1 Avoidance of Migratory Pathways and Other Important Use Areas

The Study Area is broadly located within the Central Flyway although no critical areas of wildlife congregation, staging areas, nesting sites, migration stopovers or corridors, special management areas, or other areas of seasonal importance occur within the Study Area. The nearest major migratory passageway occurs approximately 32 miles east of the Study Area along the Des Moines River. By locating the Project outside of major migratory corridors and other important use areas for wildlife, the siting guidelines recommended by the USFWS regarding the avoidance of migration flyways and other important use areas for birds were followed. There are no known corridors for bats near the Study Area. Furthermore, no winter roosts for any bat species are known to occur within the Study Area, nor are any mines, caves, karst, or pseudokarst formations known to occur within or near the Study Area or surrounding region.

6.1.2 Facilities and Turbine Layout and Design

In order to minimize impacts to wildlife, Nobles 2 has incorporated the following avoidance and minimization measures into siting decisions for the proposed turbines and associated infrastructure currently known and planned for construction.

1) Project siting minimized impacts to habitat used by grassland and riparian birds to the maximum extent practicable; a. Turbines were sited in agricultural fields to minimize impacts to grassland bird species.

63 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

b. For the proposed turbine layout, all native prairie will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 2) Creation of new roads will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable; a. Existing roads or farm lanes will be utilized to the extent practical. b. No more than 25 miles of new access roads will be created to connect wind turbines to existing access roads. c. The permanent footprint of new access roads will be kept to a minimum width (20 ft) to minimize disturbance to surrounding grasslands or other vegetation.

3) Tower design will minimize opportunities for bird perching; a. Tubular tower supports rather than lattice supports are incorporated into the Project design to minimize bird perching and nesting opportunities. b. Internal ladders and platforms on tubular towers are part of the Project design to minimize perching and nesting of birds.

4) Underground electrical collection and transmission lines have been incorporated into the Project design to the extent practical, minimizing potential for avian and bat collisions and electrocutions; a. All of the 34.5 kilovolt (kV) electrical collection lines (approximately 66 miles) will be buried underground. b. Transmission lines, if not underground, will be equipped with insulated and shielded wire to avoid electrocution of birds and bats. c. Placement of transmission lines will avoid impacts to wetlands. d. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines (APLIC 2006) will be followed for the siting of above ground transmission lines. e. New distribution poles will be fitted with bird perch deterrents, where possible and as dictated by APLIC construction guidelines.

5) Operational lighting will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable; a. Unnecessary lighting on the operations and maintenance building and substation at night will be eliminated to reduce attraction of birds and bats. b. No steady burning lights will be left on at the facility buildings or turbines unless necessary for safety or security; in such cases, the lights will be shielded downward and utilize motion detectors, infrared light sensors or “auto-off” switches that will automatically be extinguished after 2 hours to avoid continuous lighting.

6) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lighting will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable; a. Attached to the top of some of the nacelles, per specifications of the FAA, will be a single, medium intensity aviation warning light. b. The minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting specified by the FAA will be used (FAA 2007).

64 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

c. FAA lights are anticipated to be flashing red strobes (L-864) that operate only at night. Nobles 2 will use the lowest intensity lighting as allowed by FAA. d. To the extent possible, USFWS recommended lighting schemes will be used on the nacelles, including reduced intensity lighting and lights with short flash durations that emit no light during the “off phase”. e. MET towers will also utilize the minimum lighting as required by the FAA.

7) MET tower design will minimize opportunities for avian collision; a. Effort will be made to avoid MET tower designs that include guy wires to the greatest extent practicable. b. If guy lines are used on MET towers, they will be equipped with bird deterrent devices in accordance with the APLIC (2006) guidelines and/or according to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

6.2 Construction and Maintenance

The following construction phase measures have been incorporated into the BBCS to avoid construction activities near sensitive habitats during critical periods in bird and bat life cycles, and to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat. These measures were derived from industry based BMPs, the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012), and Applicant Proposed Measures (APM), which are voluntary measures proposed by Nobles 2.

1) Clearing and construction practices will reduce soil disturbance and allow for the reestablishment of natural vegetation; a. Where possible, vegetation will be cleared without grubbing or removal of stumps or roots. b. All construction equipment will be restricted to designated travel areas to minimize ground disturbance. c. Vegetation removal will be limited to the minimum area needed to construct the proposed Project and will be restricted in environmentally sensitive areas. During construction, travel and equipment staging will be restricted to designated access roads and work areas to minimize disturbance to nearby vegetation. The extent of these areas will be shown on the construction plans and clearly demarcated in the field with stakes, flagging, or fencing. d. Construction clearing for storage yards, staging areas, or temporary roads not needed for long-term operation of the Project will be allowed to revegetate after commissioning of the Project. e. If turbines require substantial maintenance involving large cranes or other heavy equipment, the same measures used during construction to limit clearing of vegetation and disturbance of soil will be used. f. Areas where mowing will be conducted to support post-construction monitoring will be cleared and mowed prior to the breeding season for most birds. Regular

65 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

mowing will occur to prevent establishment of habitat suitable for nesting activities throughout the active breeding season. 2) BMPs will be used to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive species; a. Construction vehicles and equipment that arrive from other areas will be regularly cleaned. b. Following construction, depending on seed availability and landowner preferences, non-agricultural areas will be re-seeded and stabilized using native seed, to restore natural habitat. Re-seeding will be consistent with state requirements to avoid the introduction of invasive plant species.

3) BMPs for construction activities will minimize degradation of water quality from storm water runoff and sediment from construction; a. A plan note will be incorporated into the construction contract requiring that contractors adhere to all provisions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). b. Federal and state measures will be followed for handling toxic substances to minimize danger to water and wildlife resources from spills. c. The Project was designed to avoid or minimize stream crossings and wetlands where reasonable and practicable. Due to the nature of this type of project, there is some flexibility in selecting turbine locations and, more so, access road and electric collection line locations. As such, great care was taken to design Project facilities to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, drainages, and other water features to the maximum extent practicable.

4) Maintenance activities will help to avoid the creation of foraging opportunities for raptors and/or scavengers, or availability of materials that could be harmful to birds; a. Rock and brush piles that could create habitat for raptor prey will be removed from turbine areas. b. Any observed road-kill or other dead animals that may attract scavenging raptors such as vultures or eagles will be cleared from within turbine areas, and access roads; To avoid disruption of study results, clearing/removal of dead animals will be suspended as appropriate during post-construction monitoring period in areas within the monitoring transects that overlap turbine areas and access roads. c. Food waste littering by construction/maintenance staff will be prohibited. d. To avoid attracting wildlife to the construction site, contractors will provide appropriate trash collection receptacles throughout the Project Area to collect construction related waste materials, including garbage and refuse.

5) Maintenance of overhead utilities will minimize impacts to birds; a. Bird flight diverters will be installed on all new overhead transmission lines to be built near sensitive habitat areas (i.e. streams, wetlands, or other water 66 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

bodies) to minimize risks to waterfowl and other birds. The fiber optic and shield wire will be marked in these areas with bird diverters at intervals of 20 feet. Where two shield wires are required, the bird diverters will be placed at alternating intervals of 40 feet such that the over-all interval between bird diverters on both wires is 20 feet. The conductor wires will be attached to the poles via davit arms, brace post, or post mount insulators and arms, as needed, to meet local utility practice and rural utility specifications. b. All conductor wire spacing and other features will follow the guidelines developed by the APLIC working group guidelines as they are written at the time of installation.

6) Fire potential will be minimized; a. Spark arrestors will be used on all electrical equipment. b. Smoking will be restricted to designated areas on site.

6.3 Operation

The following operation phase measures have been incorporated into the BBCS to avoid operation activities near sensitive habitats during critical periods in bird and bat life cycles, and to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat.

1) Turbine blades will be feathered when operating below the equipment cut-in-speed as specified by the manufacturer during the period beginning April 1 and ending October 31 of each year, from ½ hour before sunset to ½ hour after sunrise.

2) All operations personnel will be trained to identify potential wildlife conflicts and the proper response. This training will include sensitivity to birds and other terrestrial wildlife. For operations, Nobles 2 will develop an incidental reporting process by which operations personnel document bird or bat casualties during routine maintenance work and at other times that they are within the Project Area (see Section 7.2.1).

3) All carrion discovered on-site during regular maintenance and monitoring activities will be removed, pursuant to the terms of all applicable permits, to avoid attracting bald eagles and other raptors.

4) Project personnel will be advised regarding speed limits on Project-owned roads (25 mph) to minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions.

5) Fires will be handled in accordance with the Nobles 2 Fire Protection and Prevention Plan. The plan includes pre-fire planning with the local fire department, fire prevention through good housekeeping and equipment maintenance, reporting fires to the local fire authorities and Nobles 2 management, and limited fire suppression using fire extinguishers by trained Nobles 2 personnel. 67 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

a. At all times during operation, satisfactory spark arresters will be maintained on internal combustion engines.

6) Mechanical measures will be used to the greatest extent practicable to control noxious weeds in all surface-disturbed areas. a. The use of herbicides and pesticides will be minimized and spot treatments implemented where possible to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to nearby water resources.

7) All applicable hazardous material laws and regulations existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated regarding hazardous or solid wastes will be complied with and a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan will be implemented as appropriate by federal and/or state regulations. The only hazardous chemicals anticipated to be on- site are the chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, coolant (ethylene glycol), and lubricants in machinery. a. Hazardous chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, coolant (ethylene glycol), and lubricants will not be stored in or near any wetland or other waterway, nor will any vehicle refueling or routine maintenance occur in or near waterways without appropriate secondary containment.

6.4 Decommissioning

Once the Project has reached the end of its operational life and transitions to decommissioning stage that process will target restoration of the baseline ecosystem to the extent practicable and will be completed in coordination with appropriate regulatory agencies. Nobles 2 will comply with the decommissioning recommendations and conditions from the MPUC Site Permit, as required.

1) Decommissioning activities will avoid additional site disturbances and removal of native vegetation to the extent practicable. 2) Foundations will be removed to a depth of 4 feet below the surrounding grade and covered with soil to allow for reestablishment of native plants or crops or as otherwise prescribed by conditions specified in the Site Permit. 3) If topsoil is removed during decommissioning, it will be stockpiled and used as topsoil for replanting. Once decommissioning activities are complete, topsoil will be restored, reseeded, and stabilized. 4) Overhead pole lines that are no longer needed will be removed. 5) Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented in all disturbance areas where potential for erosion exists, consistent with storm water management objectives and requirements. 6) Any fencing erected for the Project will be removed unless in use by the landowner and allowed under MPUC Site Permit conditions.

68 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

7.0 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

7.1 Tier 4 – Post Construction Monitoring

The USFWS WEG recommends at least one year of post-construction fatality monitoring for sites at which studies predict a low probability of significant adverse impacts, and suggests that two or more years of fatality monitoring may be necessary at sites for which pre- construction field studies indicate moderate or high probability of significant adverse impacts. Results of the Tier 1 and 2 analysis for the Project, Tier 3 analyses of data from the avian surveys on the Project to date, and analysis of pre-construction and fatality monitoring data from other operating wind projects in the Midwest suggest that the potential risk to avian and bat species from the Project is low. Factors influencing the low risk determination for the Project include the overall lack of distinct topography, unique habitats or resources, or other features that could concentrate birds or bats; absence of federally-listed species; and lack of evidence from other operating wind projects in the Midwest of significant numbers of bird and bat fatalities.

To facilitate Nobles 2 evaluation of mortality rates of birds and bats at the Project, one year of post-construction avian and bat mortality monitoring is proposed. The overall objectives of the post-construction monitoring effort will be to determine the overall bird and bat fatality rates from the Project; to evaluate the circumstances under which fatalities occur; and to determine whether the estimated mortality is lower, similar, or higher than the average mortality rates observed at other local, regional, and national wind projects. The baseline monitoring will also address USFWS objectives which are to validate the risk assessment and to adaptively manage impacts in cooperation with the agencies to meet no net loss standards of the BGEPA and minimize impacts to general avian and bat populations. Post-construction monitoring will be completed for bats and birds concurrently, and detailed methods for these surveys are presented in Section 7.2.1 below. Since post-construction monitoring methods are constantly improving as researchers develop new and more accurate methods of survey, Nobles 2 will consider recommendations to adopt new survey techniques and protocols as they become available.

7.1.1 Study Design

Wind farm-related fatality estimation is based on the number of carcasses found during carcass searches conducted under operating turbines. Both the probability that a carcass persists on site long enough to be detected by searchers (carcass persistence) and the ability of searchers to detect carcasses (searcher efficiency) can lead to imperfect detection of carcasses during standardized searches. Therefore, this post-construction monitoring will include (1) standardized carcass searches to monitor potential injuries or fatalities associated with wind farm operation, (2) carcass removal trials to assess seasonal, site-specific carcass

69 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 persistence time, and (3) searcher efficiency trials to assess observer efficiency in finding carcasses. Annual fatality rates will then be calculated by correcting for the bias (i.e., underestimation) due to searcher efficiency and scavenging rates by using an equation that accounts for the number of turbines searched, the carcass persistence, and searcher efficiency (e.g., Huso estimator, Huso 2010). Post-construction monitoring will consist of systematic searches of approximately 25-30 percent of the planned turbines. To ensure representative sampling, sampling locations will be rotated systematically to sample all turbines over the course of the study.

The one-year fatality monitoring study is proposed to be initiated immediately following the commercial operation date and will be largely consistent with USFWS and MNDNR recommendations, but may be adapted in certain ways to improve overall efficiency and data quality. Approximately 35 surveys will be conducted over three seasons with seasons roughly defined as spring (March 15–May 15), summer (May 16–July 31), and fall (August 1– November 15). Nobles 2 will coordinate with the wildlife agencies to obtain the necessary State and federal salvage permits prior to the start of surveys.

7.1.1.1 Turbine Selection and Transect Establishment

The fatality monitoring study will consist of systematic searches of 20 percent (minimum of 10 and maximum of 25) of the turbines within the Project Area for one to two days weekly. The project team will randomly select turbines to be utilized for the full monitoring period and coordinate with Nobles 2 to arrange for fatality monitoring acceptance and site access by individual landowners. As per the recommendations contained in the Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Minnesota (MNDNR), a minimum search plot size of approximately 120 meters x 120 meters (394 x 394 feet [3.56 acres]) will be sampled at each of the turbine locations.

Dense vegetation reduces searcher efficiency, which in turn results in imprecise and unreliable fatality estimates. Vegetation removal within the plots will be considered if dense vegetation (grass/crops) will persist during the peak bat fatality months of July-September. A grid of parallel linear transects 120 meters (394 feet) on a side will be established at each of the searched turbines, with transects spaced at 6-m (20 foot) intervals. Transects will be pre- loaded onto a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Trimble Geo-XH or similar) and marked in the field around searched turbines using wooden stakes, fluorescent flagging tape, and/or fluorescent marking paint. Searchers will walk along each transect searching both sides out to 3 m (10 feet) for fatalities. Biologists trained and tested in proper search techniques will conduct the carcass searches. Plot stakes will be removed and collected at the end of the monitoring season. Based on feedback from landowners during the monitoring, the above staking program may be modified to meet landowner preferences.

70 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

7.1.1.2 Plot Search Protocol

The carcass search protocol will be implemented as follows:

1. Each search plot, road area, and turbine base will be searched by two (2) biologists a minimum of one time per week separated by a minimum of 3 days.

2. The daily sequence of plot searches will be randomized so that each plot is searched at various times of day.

3. Biologists will walk transects at a speed of approximately 35 meters per minute (1.5 miles per hour).

4. Data forms will include the following information recorded for each search: a) Date b) Turbine number c) Observer d) Start time e) End time f) Weather (F = fog; D = Drizzle; R = Steady rain; W = Wind > 10 mph) g) Visibility class (1, 2, 3 or 4) h) Number and type of bird or bat carcasses found

5. The following information will be recorded each time a dead bird or bat is found: a) Observer b) Date c) Turbine number d) Transect number e) Specimen number f) Species. g) Sex (M, F, Unknown). h) Age (Adult, Juvenile, Unknown). i) Condition (Intact/Complete, Scavenged/Dismembered, Feather Spot). j) Estimated time since death (< 1 day, 2 days, > 2 days). k) Habitat (Grass/Hay; Cropland; Wetland). l) GPS coordinates (translated later to distance and direction from turbine).

Biologists will photograph the carcass before disturbing it, record the information listed above, and use rubber gloves to place the carcass in a labeled plastic bag. Fresh carcasses may be redistributed at random points for scavenging trials. Carcass collection and data recording and reporting will be in general conformance with agency protocols.

If a bird or bat carcass is found outside of the designated search plot and/or outside of the standardized search period, it will be recorded as an incidental fatality. Incidental fatalities

71 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 will be documented with the same level of detail as survey finds; however, they will be excluded from statistical analyses.

72 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

7.1.1.3 Searcher Efficiency Trials

Searcher efficiency, or the probability that an observer detects a carcass that is available to be found during a search, is used to account for imperfect detection in carcass searches. Nobles 2 will conduct searcher efficiency trials in which a known number of study carcasses are placed in random locations within the survey areas. These trials will incorporate the assessment of each member of the field staff and will be conducted so that searchers being assessed have no prior knowledge of the trial. Bird carcasses of 2 size-classes (large bird and small bird) and bats (mice as bat surrogates) will be used in the trials.

Trial turbines will be randomly selected and trials will be conducted concurrently during fatality monitoring for all three seasons (i.e., spring, summer, and fall). For each season, approximately 30-35 carcasses will be utilized with no more than 3 carcasses placed at any given turbine. These carcasses will be placed at randomly generated points within the selected turbines’ search plots with points defined into one of the following 4 visibility classes:

x Class 1 (easy): Bare ground 90% or greater; all ground cover sparse and 6 inches or less in height (i.e. gravel pad or dirt road).

x Class 2 (moderate): Bare ground 25% or greater; all ground cover 6 inches or less in height and mostly sparse.

x Class 3 (difficult): Bare ground 25% or less; 25% or less of ground cover over 12 inches in height.

x Class 4 (very difficult): Little or no bare ground; more than 25% of ground cover over 12 inches in height.

All carcasses placed will be representative of the number and size class of species found during the fatality monitoring, and will replicate the manner in which the majority are found in that visibility class. Study carcasses will be dropped from waist high or higher and allowed to land in a random posture. Each study carcass will have their location marked by GPS and be discreetly marked so that they can be identified as a study carcass if they are detected. The location of each carcass will be recorded along with a unique identifier. When observers locate each study carcass, all data will be collected as if the object was a fatality. The date, time, and location that each study carcass was planted will be recorded, as well as the date of the search and whether the carcass was retrieved.

Study carcasses that are found by the surveyor being tested are considered successful trials, and collected by that surveyor. Trial carcasses that are not found by the surveyor being tested are considered unsuccessful trials and will be recovered by the trial coordinator, such that a surveyor has only one opportunity to find each individual study carcass.

73 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

7.1.1.4 Carcass Removal Trials

Carcass removal time, or the number of days a carcass persists in the study area before it is removed, is used to account for removal bias. Carcasses may be removed from the search plot due to scavenging or other means (e.g., decomposition). It is assumed that carcass removal occurs at a constant rate and does not depend on the time since death of the organism. Because carcass persistence is expected to vary with season and carcass size, a carcass removal trial will be conducted in the spring, summer, and fall survey periods using carcasses of varying size classes (large bird, small bird, and bat surrogates). Mice will be used as surrogates for bats.

Estimates of carcass removal will be used to adjust the total number of carcasses found for those removed from the study area, correcting for removal bias. Removal trials will be conducted within the search plots and on roads and pads within 80 meters (262 feet) of turbines if roads and pads are being searched for a portion of the survey period.

Carcass removal trials will begin when carcass search studies begin. Approximately 25 bird carcasses will be used each season, along with a total of 25 bat carcasses for the summer and fall seasons. Bird carcasses will consist of the same species as the searcher efficiency trials species. Carcasses will be placed on a minimum of two dates during each season, spreading the trials throughout the monitoring year to incorporate the effects of varying weather, climatic conditions, and scavenger densities.

Persistence trials will be conducted at 3 to 5 randomly selected turbines from the subset of turbines searched weekly. Carcasses will be placed at randomly generated points within the selected turbine’s search plots and will be marked with GPS and be discreetly marked so that it can be identified as a study carcass if it is not removed from the plot.

Biologists conducting carcass searches will monitor the trial birds over a 30-day period and date of placement, species, and visibility class surrounding the carcass will be recorded for each carcass. Carcasses will be checked daily for the first four (4) days following placement in the field (days 1–4) and then on day 7, day 10, day 14, day 20, and day 30. This schedule may vary depending on weather and coordination with the other survey work. Experimental carcasses will be left at the location until the end of the carcass removal trial. At the end of the 30-day period any evidence of the carcasses that remain will be removed. Changes in carcass condition will be tracked and documented with photos.

7.1.2 Reporting and Data Analysis

Nobles 2 will provide an annual mortality monitoring report to USFWS and MNDNR following the completion of the post-construction monitoring. The report will include fatality

74 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 estimates and data summaries. Fatalities will be expressed both in terms of fatalities/turbine/season and in terms of fatalities/MW/season, as recommended to facilitate comparison with other studies (USFWS 2012). The report will include all data analyses, including overall fatality estimates and a discussion of monitoring results and their implications. In addition to the mortality monitoring report, Nobles 2 will report the discovery of any federally-listed species or eagles to UWFWS and the discovery of State listed species to the MNDNR within one business day of their discovery.

Estimates of total avian and bat fatality rates, adjusted for carcass removal rates, searcher efficiency, and area searched, will generally follow the widely used Shoenfeld estimator. Another estimator may be used (i.e., Huso) if it is considered a viable alternative at the time of analysis. Fatality estimates will be categorized as collision, unknown, or other, to the extent feasible. Estimates of facility-related fatalities will be based on the following:

1) Observed number of carcasses found during standardized searches during the monitoring year for which the cause of death is either unknown or is probably facility related, 2) Non-removal rates expressed as the estimated average probability a carcass is expected to remain in the study area and be available for detection by the searchers during removal trials, 3) Searcher efficiency expressed as the proportion of planted carcasses found by searchers during searcher efficiency trials, and 4) Percent of area searched at each turbine (i.e., takes into consideration road and pad sampling) and percentage of carcasses found at varying distances from turbine.

Data will be pooled as necessary to run statistically and biologically meaningful models. A map displaying the locations of all avian and bat fatalities and/or injuries detected during standardized searches or incidental finds will be produced to investigate broad scale spatial patterns.

7.2 Tier 5 – Other Post-Construction Studies

7.2.1 Continued Monitoring and Coordination Process

In addition to the one year post-construction fatality monitoring study, Nobles 2 will implement a Wildlife Incident Reporting System (WIRS) at the start of operations and it will remain active for the life of the Project. The WIRS will be designed to provide a means of recording avian and bat fatalities found at the Project site to increase the understanding of wind turbine and wildlife interactions. The WIRS will provide a set of standardized instructions for the Projects’ personnel to follow in the event of a wildlife incident within the Project Area. Each incident will be documented on a data sheet and reported to the USFWS and MNDNR on an annual basis or as otherwise minimally required by each agency. The 75 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017 data will be logged into and maintained within a tracking spreadsheet by the Site Manager or a designee. All site personnel will be required to receive training on WIRS procedures as well as how to complete and submit the WIRS report.

This long-term operational effort will consist of managerial, operations, and maintenance staff documenting and reporting any fatality discovered during the Project’s operation. The WIRS will provide a set of standardized instructions for Project personnel to follow in response to wildlife incidents within the Project. These instructions will include the following:

x Each fatality/injury will have a WIRS form completed, and a photo documentation, x A qualified individual will be contacted to remove carcass or injured wildlife, x Species identification will be completed and confirmed by a qualified individual, x Carcass will be removed and/or disposed of per any site permits, x If injured, a rehabilitation center will be contacted to remove and care for injured wildlife, and x If the subject species is federally-listed or an eagle, and incident will be reported to USFWS and MNDNR as soon as possible, within not more than one business day.

7.3 Adaptive Management for Unexpected Avian, Bat, and/or Habitat Impacts

Nobles 2 is committed to an adaptive management approach when monitoring and evaluating the effects of the Project on birds and bats. The basis of this approach allows for flexible decision-making that can be adjusted as events and circumstances become better understood. The underlying goal is to understand observed versus predicted impacts, and to identify design features that minimize unexpected effects through an iterative learning process and regarding other studies and current research.

Based on the results of the Tier 4 monitoring program described in Section 7.1.1, adaptive management measures could be considered to further avoid, minimize, or compensate for unanticipated and significant project impacts to wildlife. Factors considered when determining potential need for an adaptive response will include:

x Mortality of an eagle or mortality of a species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal ESA or Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute. Note that the final 4(d) Rule concerning NLEB currently concludes that incidental take of this species resulting from wind energy development and operation is not prohibited. Any documented NLEB mortality will be reported to the USFWS and Department of Commerce, however adaptive management measures are presently not contemplated under the current 4(d) rule. If the status of the NLEB is downgraded to

76 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

endangered, or the 4(d) rule is changed, Nobles 2 will update this BBCS and adaptive management measures as appropriate.

x Significant levels of mortality of unlisted bird and bat species. Significance will be determined by qualified biologists and will be based on the latest information available, including the most recent data on species’ population sizes and trends. For example, even relatively high levels of mortality of the most common species may not be significant. Conversely, lower levels of mortalities of less common species may be of more concern, particularly if these species appear to be at risk (e.g., USFWS’s BCC).

As stated previously, bat mortality at the Project is expected to be within the range reported for other Minnesota wind projects. In particular, Nobles 2’s commitment to operation measures, including overnight feathering of turbine blades up to the manufacturer set cut-in speed from April 1 to October 31 (as described in Section 6.3), expected to minimize impacts to bats.

Because the Project is not expected to result in higher bat mortality than has been observed in Minnesota to date as well as the fact that there is a general shortage of available data on unlisted bat populations from which to determine a specific threshold that would indicate potential for significant impacts, specific adaptive management thresholds regarding general bat fatality rates are not proposed.

However, during the post-construction monitoring period, Nobles 2 will notify the PUC and MNDNR of bat fatality rates at the time of annual monitoring report submittal. Per the MNDNR’s recommendations in their April 14, 2016 comment letter, the annual report will include the estimated bat fatalities per MW, as well as a facility-wide bat fatality estimate on an annual and operational lifespan scale for the Project. Additionally, if five or more dead or injured bats are found in one five-day period, the PUC will be notified within 24 hours.

Nobles 2 will coordinate with the MNDNR and DOC-EERA regarding annual bat fatality rates, as well as, if five or more dead or injured bats are found in one five-day period. Nobles 2 will investigate, based on the available data, the circumstances under which the fatalities occurred, the species affected, and whether population-level3 impacts may be occurring. Nobles 2 will coordinate with the MNDNR, DOC-EERA, and PUC regarding the conclusions of the investigation and discuss whether the implementation of potential minimization measures (e.g., operational changes) and/or mitigation measures (e.g., reduce non-Nobles 2 sources of mortality for the affected species) may be appropriate.

3 Population will be evaluated at the smallest level for which reliable population size and/or trend data are available. Local, regional, or range-wide populations may be evaluated depending on the data available for the particular species. 77 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Following the implementation of remedial actions, Nobles 2 will calculate estimates of non- listed bat fatality rates from the monitoring data collected at the Project for at least one subsequent year to evaluate the effectiveness of the adaptive management measures.

After the intensive post-construction monitoring period, incidental monitoring will be used to continue to monitor impacts to bats over the life of the Project. Bat carcasses will be reported regularly to Nobles 2’s environmental staff. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the PUC for the life of the Project, identifying any dead or injured bat species found, as well as the location and date of the species. If at any point over the life of the Project, five or more dead or injured bats are detected within a five-day period, Nobles 2 will notify the PUC within 24 hours, and if any federally listed species are affected, the USFWS will also be notified. As described above, Nobles 2 will then investigate, based on the available data, the circumstances under which the event occurred, the species affected, and whether population-level impacts may be occurring. Nobles 2 will coordinate with the PUC and MNDNR regarding the conclusions of the investigation and discuss the implementation of potential minimization measures (e.g., operational changes) and/or mitigation measures (e.g., reduce non-Nobles 2 sources of mortality for the affected species).

7.4 Additional Adaptive Management Considerations

If the impacts observed in the first year of monitoring represent a significant impact to wildlife, the second year of post-construction fatality monitoring could be modified to provide further information to be used in implementing adaptive management measures. This second year would likely focus on the any significant impacts identified for species of concern. For example, if it is found that the bat fatalities at the Project are significant based on analysis of the post- construction fatality data, a second year of fatality monitoring could be done that focuses on the time period when subject bat fatalities were discovered in year one (e.g., July-October). The same protocol as stated above would be used for searches but, in this example, with a focus on a concentrated search period and reduced plot sizes to narrow the search to the area where bat carcasses are most likely to be found (e.g., closer to the turbines).

Some of the adaptive management options that could be considered, depending on the results of the post-construction mortality monitoring and taking into account economic feasibility 4, might include the following:

1) Lighting may be modified if it contributes to bird mortality events and provided it is not contrary to FAA requirements.

2) Installation of or modifications to anti-perching and anti-nesting devices.

3) Regular removal of livestock or big game carcasses from the turbine areas.

4 Once a project is operational there is a fixed amount of capital expenditure and the only available source of funding is from operational budgets, which must be within the economic parameters of the Project. 78 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Operational minimization (e.g., feathering, modified operations from sundown to sunrise, alteration of cut-in speeds, measures with turbines demonstrating higher levels of impact). 4) The above and other state-of-the-art technology proven to decrease bird/bat mortality without affecting the financial viability of the Project may be considered and/or applied.

7.5 Action Plan Should New Risks Arise

In addition to adaptive management triggered based on the results of the post-construction mortality studies, additional adaptive measures will be considered as a result of other studies or incidental wildlife observations during Project operations. Operations staff will also be trained to implement an incidental wildlife reporting protocol (Section 7.2.1). Nobles 2 will communicate the results of this monitoring activity to the USFWS and MNDNR. Any further decisions regarding the scope of additional survey efforts (if needed) or adaptive management will be coordinated with the USFWS and MNDNR.

There may be other scenarios where newly identified risks, such as finding a new eagle nest near turbines, that may require additional measures; including a need for individual turbines be monitored more closely for use and fatalities. The intent of monitoring is to document changes in use (e.g., higher use) in a timely manner such that management changes (e.g., removal of prey sources) or operational changes can be implemented and, in this example, potential impact to bald eagles will continue to be minimized.

Lastly, Nobles 2 will consider implementing adaptive management measures if the status of any species potentially impacted by the Project changes, such as if any species become listed under federal or state protected species regulations, or the status of a species is changed.

79 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

8.0 BBCS IMPLEMENTATION

Project construction is anticipated to begin in mid-2018. Monitoring and reporting measures detailed in the BBCS were developed based on industry standards and the perceived risks from the Project. This document will be modified with the incorporation of new data obtained from post-construction fatality monitoring as the Project proceeds. Any modification to this document will be made in coordination with the USFWS, MNDNR, and Minnesota Department Commerce Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (DOC-EERA) office.

8.1 Key Contacts

Nobles 2 has identified the individuals listed in the Table 9-1 below with the goal of connecting avian experts with company decision makers. These individuals are currently considered to be primary contacts for questions regarding this BBCS. Additional contacts to be identified for the Project include a Site Manager.

Table 8-1: Key Contacts for the Nobles 2 Wind Project BBCS

Title Contact Phone Email Dir. Environmental Joe Finocchiaro (402) 691-9577 [email protected] Programs Site Manager TBD TBD TBD Project Consultant Kelly Kunst 952-906-7412 [email protected] Westwood Senior Brad Norling 952-697-5767 [email protected] Biologist USFWS Contact Margaret Rheude (952) 252-0092 ext. 202 [email protected] MNDNR Contact Cynthia Warzecha (651) 259-5115 [email protected]

80 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

9.0 REFERENCES CITED

Allison, T.D. 2012. Eagles and Wind Energy. Identifying Research Priorities. American Wind Wildlife Institute. Washington D.C. Available online at: https://awwi.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/AWWI_White_Paper_Eagles_and_Wind_Energy_May_201 2.pdf.

Arnett, E.B., and E.F. Baerwald. 2013. Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Implications for Conservation. Pages 435-456 in A. Adams and S. C. Pedersen, editors. Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

Arnett, E. B., Brown, W. K., Erickson, W. P., Fiedler, J. K., Hamilton, B. L., Henry, T. H., Jain, A., Johnson, G. D., Kerns, J., Koford, R. R., Nicholson, C. P., O’Connell, T. J., Piorkowski, M. D., and R. D. Tankersley. 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78.

Arnett, E. B., M. M. Huso, M. R. Schirmacher, and J. P. Hayes. 2011. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:209–214.

Arnett, E.B., Johnson, G.D., Erickson, W.P., and Hein, C. D. 2013. A synthesis of operation Mitigation Studies to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Prepared for The National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) guidelines. Edison Electric Institute. Washington D.C.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-022. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington D.C. and Sacramento, California.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC, Washington D.C.

Baerwald, E.F. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Geographic variation in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy 90(6):1341–1349.

81 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Baerwald, E. F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R. M. R. Barclay. 2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1077–1081.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). 1940. 16 United States Code (USC) § 668- 668d. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, June 8, 1940, Chapter 278, § 2, 54 Statute (Stat.) 251; Expanded to include the related species of the golden eagle October 24, 1962, Public Law (P.L.) 87-884, 76 Stat. 1246. As amended: October 23, 1972, P.L. 92- 535, § 2, 86 Stat. 1065; Nov. 8, 1978, P.L. 95-616, § 9, 92 Stat. 3114.

Britzke, E. 2016. Instructions for using the EchoClass Acoustic ID Program. Version 3.0. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/EchoclassV 3Instructions.pdf.

Brown, W.K. and B.L. Hamilton. 2006. Monitoring of Bird and Bat Collisions with Wind Turbines at the Summerview Wind Power Project, Alberta: 2005-2006. Prepared for Vision Quest Windelectric, Calgary, Alberta by TAEM Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, and BLH Environmental Services, Pincher Creek, Alberta. September 2006. Available online at: http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Brown2006.pdf. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whitfield, D.P. & Ferrer, M. 2008. Collision Fatality of Raptors in Wind Farms Does Not Depend on Raptor Abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1695–1703. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/filedownloads/ftp_nctccsp/SDM %20Practicum/Readings/de%20lucas%20et%20al%202008%20collision%20fatality%2 0does%20not%20depend%20%20on%20raptor_%20abundance.pdf

Clean Water Act (CWA). 1972. Clean Water Act. October 18, 1972. 33 United States Code § 1251-1387, 1251 et seq., 2000.

Derby, C., A. Dahl, W. Erickson, K. Bay, and J. Hoban. 2007. Post-Construction Monitoring Report for Avian and Bat Mortality at the NPPD Ainsworth Wind Farm. Prepared for Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus, Nebraska.

Erickson, W.P. 2007. Summary of Methods and Results for Prediction and Estimation of Impacts and Risk. Presented at NWCC Probability of Impact Workshop, 13 November 2007, Golden, Colorado.

Erickson, W.P., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Technical Report Prepared by WEST, Inc., for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

82 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Ferrer. M., M. de Lucas, G.F.E. Janss, E. Casado, A.R. Munoz, M.J. Bechard and C.P. Calabuig. 2011. Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02054.x. Article first published online: 1 SEP 2011. Available online at: http://www.cb.iee.unibe.ch/content/e7117/e7118/e8764/e9889/e9893/Ferrer_JA ppEco2011.pdf

Gehring, J. 2011. Avian Studies for the Crosswinds Proposed Wind Energy Site: Summary of Fall 2010 Field Season. Prepared for Consumer’s Energy. Lansing, Michigan.

Good, R.E., W. Erickson, A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, K. Bay, and C. Fritchman. 2011. Bat Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Energy Facility Benton County, Indiana, April 13 – October 15, 2010. Prepared for: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Gritski, R., S. Downes, and K. Kronner. 2010. Klondike III (Phase 1) Wind Power Project Wildlife Monitoring: October 2007-October 2009. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Portland, Oregon for Klondike Wind Power III LLC. Prepared by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc., Pendleton, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/energy/Siting/docs/KWP/KWPWildlifeReport091210.pdf.

Grodsky, S.M. and D. Drake. 2011. Assessing Bird and Bat Mortality at the Forward Energy Center. Final Report. Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin. PSC REF#:152052. Prepared for Forward Energy LLC. Prepared by Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

Gruver, J. and L. Bishop-Boros. 2015. Summary and synthesis of Myotis fatalities at wind facilities with a focus on northeastern North America. Unpublished report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Gruver, J., M. Sonnenburg, K. Bay, and W. Erickson. 2009. Post-construction bat and bird fatality study at the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center, Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin July 21 - October 31, 2008 and March 15 - June 4, 2009. Unpublished report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. December 17, 2009.

Hein, C. D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, and M. R. Schirmacher. 2013. Avian and Bat Post- Construction Monitoring at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia. An Annual Report Submitted to Edison Mission Energy and the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas.

International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. . Downloaded on 21 September 2016.

83 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2010. Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2009. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. March 9, 2010.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study—2006. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project.

Johnson, G.D. and W.P. Erickson. 2011. Avian, Bat and Habitat Cumulative Impacts Associated with Wind Energy Development in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion of Eastern Washington and Oregon. Prepared by West, Inc. for Klickitat County, Washington.

Johnson, G.D., J. Jeffrey, J. Baker, and K. Bay. 2007. Baseline Avian Studies for the Windy Flats Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared for Windy Point Partners, LLC., by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G., M. Perlik, W. Erickson, M. Strickland, D. Shepherd, and P. Sutherland, Jr. 2003. Bat Interactions with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: An Assessment of Bat Activity, Species Composition, and Collision Mortality. Prepared for EPRI, Palo Alto, California, and Xcel Energy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo. 2002. Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at a large-scale wind power development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:879- 887.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. Shepherd. 2000. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: Results of a 4-Year Study. Prepared for Northern States Power Company by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available at. http://www.west- inc.com/reports/avian_buffalo_ridge.pdf.

Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual report for 2003. Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee.

Kerlinger, P. 1995. How Birds Migrate. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, A. Hasch, and J. Guarnaccia. 2007. Migratory Bird and Bat Monitoring Study at the Crescent Ridge Wind Power Project, Bureau County, Illinois: September

84 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

2005-August 2006. Final Draft. May 2007. Prepared for Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Washington, DC. 41 pp.

Kingsley, A. and B. Whittam. 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds – A Background Review for Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Environment Canada/Canadian Wildlife Service.

Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher and M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Questions, Research Needs and Hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315-324.

Minnesota Department of Commerce Office of Energy Security-Energy Facilities Permitting. 2010. Application Guidance for Site Permitting of Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Townships containing documented northern long-eared bat (NLEB) maternity roost trees and/or hibernacula entrances in Minnesota. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota_nleb_township_ list_and_map.pdf. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2016a. Bats. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ mammals/bats.html.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2016b. Perimyotis subflavus. Rare Species Guide. http://dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement= AMACC03020.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Division of Ecological Resources. 2015. MNDNR Native Plant Communities Dataset.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2012. Proposed Amendments to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134 (Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species). December 10, 2012. Available online at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/ets/etsc_summary.pdf

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Guidance for Commercial Wind Energy Projects. 2011. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. New Ulm, Minnesota, USA. 19pp.

Mixon, K.L., J. Schrenzel, D. Pile, R. Davis, R. Doneen, L. Joyal, N. Kestner, M. Doperalski, and J. Schladweiler. 2014. Avian and Bat Survey Protocols For Large Wind Energy

85 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Conversion Systems in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. New Ulm, Minnesota. 41 pp.

National Wind Coordinating Collaborative [NWCC]. 2010. Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and Their Habitats: a Summary of Research Results an Priority Questions: Spring 2010. Available online at: www.nationalwind.org//publications/bbfactsheet.aspx.

NREL 2013. NREL Study Finds Barotrauma Not Guilty. Wind Newsletter. Available online at: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2013/2149.html

Pagel, J.E., K.J. Kritz, B.A. Millsap, R.K. Murphy, E.L. Kershner, and S. Conington. 2013. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle mortalities at wind energy facilities in the contiguous United States. Journal of Raptor Research 47:311–315.

Ralph, C.J., S. Droege, and J.R. Sauer. 1995. Managing and Monitoring Birds Using Point Counts: Standards and Applications in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege, Editors. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. PSW-GTR-149. Albany, Calif. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-plot Method for Estimating Bird Numbers. Condor 82:309–313.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2012. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2011. Version - 07.03.2013 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland.

Sharp, L., C. Herrmann, R. Friedel, K. Kosciuch and R. MacIntosh. Comparison of Pre- and Post-construction Bald Eagle Use at the Pillar Mountain Wind Project, Kodiak, Alaska, Spring 2007 and 2010. Presentation for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VIII, October 19-20, 2010, Lakewood, Colorado. Available online at: http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/research_meetings/Research_Meeting_VIII_ Sharp.pdf.

Steenhoff, K. and I. Newton. 2007. Assessing Nesting Success and Productivity. Pp. 181-193, in: D.M. Bird and K. L. Bildstein (editors). Raptor Research and Management Techniques. 464 pp.

Strickland, D., and M.L. Morrison. 2008. A Summary of Avian/Wind Facility Interactions in the U.S. Federal Guidelines Committee for Wind Siting Guidelines, Washington, DC.

Strickland, M.D., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, D.H. Johnson, G.D. Johnson, M.L. Morrison, J.A. Shaffer, and W. Warren-Hicks. 2011. Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind

86 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide_to_Studyin g_Wind_Energy_Wildlife_Interactions_2011.

Thelander, C.G., K.S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird Risk Behaviors and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Period of Performance: March 1998-December 2000.

Thompson, D. 2015. Bald Eagle Death Could Mean a New Look at Wind Turbine Siting Rules. Prairie Public News. Available online at http://news.prairiepublic.org/post/baldeagle-death-could-mean-new-look-wind-turbine-siting-rules.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Northern long-eared bat interim conference and planning guidance. January 6, 2014. https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, Module 1 – Land-Based Wind Energy, Version 2. 71 pp. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ pdf/management/eagleconservationplanguidance.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Bald Eagle Permit: Non-Purposeful Take. Step 2. Step-by-Step Guidance: Determining Whether a Wind Turbine Project May Cause the Non-Purposeful Take of Bald Eagles. Eagle Permits, USFWS. Online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ midwestbird/eaglepermits/baeatake/wind2.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. Final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. March 23, 2012. 82 pp. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Preamble to the committee recommendations, committee policy recommendations, and committee recommended guidelines. Submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by the Wind Turbines Guidelines Advisory Committee.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Eagle permits: take necessary to protect interests in particular localities. Federal Register 74(175): 46836-46879.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/EcologicalServices/pdf/ NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf.

87 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program (USGS-GAP). 2013. National Species Ranges. Available: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov. Accessed 21 September 2016.

Weller, T. J. and J. A. Baldwin. 2011. Using echolocation monitoring to model bat occupancy and inform mitigations at wind energy facilities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 9999:1-13.

Westwood Professional Services (Westwood). 2016a. Site Characterization Study – Nobles 2 Wind Project, Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota. Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 48 pp + appendices.

Westwood Professional Services (Westwood). 2016b. 2016 Pre-Construction Avian Survey Report – Nobles 2 Wind Project, Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota. Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 63 pp.

Westwood Professional Services. 2015. 2014 Post-construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring, Lakefield Wind Project, Jackson County, Minnesota. Prepared for LWP Lessee, LLC by Westwood Professional Services.

Wildlife Acoustics Inc. 2015. Kaleidoscope Pro. Version 3.1.1.

Young, D.P., Jr., W.P. Erickson, R.E. Good, M.D. Strickland, and G.D Johnson. 2003. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Wind Power Project, Carbon County, Wyoming November 1998 – June 2002. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc., Sea West Windpower Inc., and Bureau of Land Management by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Zotz Ecological Solutions (Zotz). 2016. Bat Monitoring at the Proposed Nobles 2 Wind Energy Project, Nobles and Murray Counties, Minnesota (Final Report – Spring-Fall 2016). Denver, Colorado. 37 pp + appendices.

88 Nobles 2 Wind Project – Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy September 5, 2017

EXHIBITS

USTH 59 e 81st St 81st St v 81st St 360th St 81st St A 81st St

1 t CR-66 20th Ave

150th Ave 173rd Ave 2 200th Ave 200th S d

h 350thAve 71st St n Ave 280th

71st St N t 71st St 71st St 2 71st St CSAH 13

50th Ave 0

185thAve 1

80th Ave

70th Ave Lake St

Hatfield Ave 330th 30thAve 66th St 10 CSAH 6 Avoca

100th Ave

T106N R45WT106N

T106NR38W T106N R45W T106N R44W T106NR39W

T106N R44W T106N R43W T106NR39W

T106NR40W

T106NR41W T106NR40W T106NR41W

T T106N R42W

T106NR42W 230thAve 61st St T106N R45W T106N R44W T106N R43W T106N R42W 105th Ave T106N R41W T106N R40W T106N R39W T106N R38W 61st St T-18 61st St 61st St 61st St 140th Ave 61st St 61st St 380th St 380th St

190th Ave 40th Ave T105N R45W T105N R44W T105N R43W e T105N R39W T105N R38W 56th St 56th St T105N R42W v T105N R41W T105N R40W e 56th St

v Chandler A

150th Ave

e A

h CSAH 7 CSAH

140th Ave 51st St v 51st St 390th St 390th St h 51st St 51st St

t 240th Ave A U

3 Iona

h S 1 e

160th Ave 1

t 180thAve

d v 395th St 46th St T

0 R

H y A 110th Ave 110th Ave 7 lle

1 120thAve

a h

190th Ave 5

25th Ave 5th Ave V t CSAH 15 41st St 180th Ave 41st St 41st St 41st St 9 165th Ave

3708

80th Ave

90th Ave 90thAve

120th Ave 130th Ave 290thAve 260thAve

1 ParnellSt

v W

360th Ave 360th

USTH 75 USTH e

T-155

A v

220th Ave 220th

h 31st St CSAH 6 410th St 31st St 0

270thAve 4

250thAve 3

3 412th St 210th Ave

200th Ave Trosky 5 26 th S 2

t e

0 280thAve

A 185thAve

T105N R45W

T105NR39W T105NR38W

T105N R45W

T T105N R44W T105N R43W

T105N R40W T105N R39W T105N R42W T105NR40W

230th Ave 21st St CSAH 9 21st St 21st St T105N R41W T105NR41W 21st St 21st St 420th St

h 21st St t CSAH 18 100th Ave

150th Ave 0 5th St 16th St Mill St 16th St CSAH 1 th S 5 16th St 423rd St 425th St

16 t 1

7th Ave e

4th Ave W

140th Ave

Park Ave v

MNTH 91

Edgerton t A 11th St 105th Ave 11th St 11th St 11th St 11th St 11th St 11th S MNTH 62 MNTH 62 50th Ave

190th Ave h 110th Ave Fulda t 80th Ave

250th Ave 250th 170thAve

2 333rdAve

T-117

10th Ave

20th Ave

CSAH 46 CSAH CSAH 34 CSAH

130th Ave 190thAve

1st St T105N R45W Pipestone County 160th Ave T105N R44W T105N R43W 1st St T105N R42W T105N R40W Murray County T105N R39W T105N R38W 1st St Ave County Line T-83 T-196 T105N R41W M-19 440th St 440th St 100th Ave 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St T104N R45W Rock County T104N R44W T104N R43W T104N R42W 5 T104N R41W T104N R40W Nobles County T104N R39W Dundee T104N R38W

200th Ave 4 1 6 4 3 2 e 3 2 688 241st St 241st St CSAH 10 110th St v 110th St 110th St 930th St

CSAH 11 CSAH Ulrich Ave Ulrich

Knauf Ave Knauf

T-94 e

Birkett Ave

Abbott Ave 10

20th Ave 11

v King Ave King Cory Ave Cory 10 8 9

Bulick Ave Bulick

Cory Ave Cory v

l 340thAve

9 11 12 7 A M-9

T104NR41W T104NR40W A

e s t TownAve 920th St 231st St 150th Ave 20th S 231st St 231st St 231st St 1 t F

r Kinbrae Oliver Ave Oliver m

l e

Erickson Ave

b W

o 8

9 0 17 14 13 JonesAve 17 15 30 CSAH 19 CSAH 13 18 16 18 16

- 3 R

15 3

T d

R Ahlers Ave Ahlers R 910th St

CR-65 130th St CSAH 21 CSAH 2 221st St 130th St 130th St 3833 R

p N N p

i T-301 4 4 r

23 350thAve 0

24 19 22 24 0 T T104NR41W 20 T104NR42W 19 20 21 22 1

21 1 T104NR39W T

T104N R40W

T104N R45W T104N R44W T104N R43W 211th St T104N R44W 140th St 140th St 900th St Roberts Ave

160thAve 141st St

Cory Ave Cory Dillman Ave Dillman

T-87

190th Ave 146th St

170th Ave 170th 28 330thAve 164thAve 26 25 30 29 27 26 25 30 29 28 CSAH 7 150th St 890th St

1st St CSAH 7 150th St Ave Zeh 320th Ave 320th

CSAH 3

Ulrich Ave

148th Ave Wilmont

T104N R43W T104N R42W 340thAve

90th Ave Ross St 34 35 31 CSAH 7 33 34 Wass Ave 33 32 33 34 32 35 36 31 3rd St e

35 v T104N R40W T104N R39 T104N R38W T104N R45W Hardwick 191st St T104N R44W T104N R43W 160th St T104N R42W 36 160th St T104N R41W 160th St 160th St W 160th St 880th St 191st St A

Abbott Ave

e T1 T103N R38W o T Ave 4th T103N R40W 03N R39W 103N R45W T103N R44W Park Ave T103N R43W 1 T103N R42W T103N R41W 2 e 3 r

6 6 n

2 A v 3 5 Kenneth 5 4 2 1 4 3 o

A 100thAve

181st St 170th St Zeh Ave 870th St

160th Ave 3rd Ave M 181st St 170th St 4th St 170th St m Read Ave

h o

t r

0 Lismore t

USTH 59

s MNTH 60

1 y

King Ave King

e v

Paul Ave

N v

120th Ave A

171st St 180th St T-330 86 th St 860th St

USTH 75 0 A

171st St l 180th St JonesAve T-144

CSAH 19 l

T103N R42W

T103N R41W y

a Sundberg Ave Sundberg

e W

CSAH 25 C

W Ave Ahlers

Roberts Ave Roberts n LaisAve

c 9

e e

5 4 Ave Ulrich

a MNTH 60 Town Ave

3 v

4 4 160th Ave h

A A

R 850th St

R 190th St 850th St CSAH 20 R 190th St 190th St 190th St

s m

d N l

r 198th St Knauf Ave Knauf

Oliver Ave Oliver 3

3 3

190th Ave 190th

Durfee Ave

0 0

w 1 e

1 1

d v

T103N R46W

T103N R45W

T103NR40W

T103NR38W T T103NR39W

T103N R43W T103N R42W T T

T103N R44W

T103N R43W 151st St E 200th St 840th St

151st St A

100th Ave

CSAH 9 Ave Bulick T-124 Brewster h 9 t

CSAH 3

CSAH 11 Birkett Ave 350thAve

t 0

145th St T-148 h e

6th Ave 4

v S t 3

CSAH 8 e 141st St 210th St 210th St 210th St 210th St 830th St

s y

Cory Ave Cory v

180th Ave

y t

r A

t Ulrich Ave

330th Ave 330th

n h

t e

0 u

MNTH 91

5 e

u R 131st St T103N R45W A T103N R44W T T103N R40W T103N R39W T103N R38W 820th St 1 o 03 T103N R41W

1 N R42W T103N R40W 131st St 131st St T103N R43W v 20th St 220th St 220th St 220th St 2 AveWass

h o

CSAH 18

0 n T102N R39W T102N R38W T102N R45W T102N R44W T102N R40W C 4 T102N R43W T102N R42W a

Rock County

i CSAH 5 Ave Ahlers 230th St 230th St 810th St 230th St e E Dodge St 121st St 121st St Nobles County 230th St 230th St 230th St

D s

160th Ave M-50 River Rd

b k 115th St W W Warren St T-155 CSAH 14 235th St 235th St

90th Ave CSAH 4 o Luverne Magnolia 3390 a 111th St 111th St 240th St 240th St 240th St T-216 240th St 27th St MNTH 60 240th St N 800th St Main St D J M-72 ia W W 2357 359 Sundberg Ave W 1841

W 612 ISTH 90 3530 ISTH 90 Ave Derby ISTH 90 g 244th St ISTH 90 6 5 CSAH 4 ISTH 90 4999 ISTH 90 o 4876

5 3 2 1681 Cory Ave Adrian n 1

4 4

4 4 a l 3 R R t R 250th St 790th St R 101st St 101st St 250th St R 250th St CSAH 35 R

d h Humistan Ave Humistan

CSAH 11

N N

N T102NR40W

T102NR41W S 2 2

95th St 2 t 0

02 5th St 0

0 8th Ave

1 1 1 1 1

5 TownAve

T 1st St T

T102N R40W T102N R39W T102N R39W

T102N R38W T T102N R44W

T102N R44W T102N R43W T T Worthington 780th St v 91st St CSAH 16 5 CR-57 260th St 260th St 260th St 260th St

A 140thAve C

R v 124th Ave 124th R 120th Ave

y Rushmore -

A C 85th St r 5 85th St e S Shore Dr

USTH 75 USTH 7

T102N R42W T102N R41W 0 FellowsAve 6

o CSAH 5 CSAH

180th Ave 180th H v W Shore Dr

e T Erickson Ave Erickson

N Ave Roberts e

e C

A v M

CSAH 3 CSAH 770th St

81st St A s 270th St 81st St Ave 200th A

a 270th St i

ZehAve

Ahlers Ave Ahlers

g a h

Wass Ave

110thAve

Ulrich Ave Ulrich

d 340th Ave 340th

Durfee Ave Oliver Ave Oliver n L

160th Ave 160th

C a

Nystrom Ave Nystrom

CSAH 3 CSAH 320th Ave 320th

Dayton Ave

Dillman Ave Dillman

Monroe Ave n Bulick Ave Bulick

CSAH 9

Sundberg Ave

275th St MNTH 60 e

K o

90th Ave R J R40W T102N R38W 2N PlottsAve 102N R39 T102N R45W T10 QuineAve T W Abbott Ave Abbott 760th St 144th Ave T102N R44W T102N R43W T102N R42W T102N R41W CSAH 15 134thAve 71st St 280th St 280th St T-15 280th St 280th St T101N R45W T101N R40W PaulAve T101N R39W T101N R38W Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data T101N R44W T101N R43W T101N R42W T101N R41W Gateway (various dates); ESRI Basemap, Imagery Lincoln Legend (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates). County Lyon County Redwood County Nobles 2 Wind Project Project Area Road Nobles County, Minnesota Project

Minnesota Murray Cottonwood 29 South Dakota Miles ¨¦§ Pipestone County County County Existing Wind Turbine County Boundary Project Location & 03 Jackson Rock Nobles County ± PLS Township Boundary Municipal Boundary USGS Topography County County ¨¦§90 Minnesota ¨¦§229 Iowa PLS Section Boundary EXHIBIT 2-1 Map Document:Map N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\N2_ProjectLocation_BBCS_Ex2-1_170601.mxd2:18:256/1/2017 PM © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. NW 3th St AH E Lake Ave 16th St CS 1 16th St 16th St W Front St

Maple St 180thAve

110th Ave 100thAve 11th St v 11th St 8th St SW

t v

MNTH 91 A

10th Ave 20th Ave 30th Ave 70thAve

T-117

40th Ave

50th Ave 80th Ave 200thAve

90th Ave

140thAve e

210thAve 170thAve 220th Ave

150thAve 160thAve

130th Ave

County Line Ave Line County

y 59 USTH

190thAve CSAH 34 CSAH 1st St T-83 T-196 T-196 Murray County L 1st St 1st St 1st St 31st St 31st St 1s 1st St CSAH 13 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St S 1st St t S t Nobles County 60th Ave

Park Ave

Birkett Ave

Abbott Ave 1st Ave CSAH 10 110th St Main St 110th St 1st St 1st St

Cory Ave Cory King Ave King

Cory Ave Cory

Bulick Ave Bulick

Oliver Ave Oliver

A JonesAve

Dillman Ave Dillman

231st St 120th St Monroe Ave m

Fellows Ave Ahlers Ave Ahlers

Cory Ave Cory

Nystrom Ave

Abbott Ave Abbott 130th St 3833 130th St 221st St 130th St

140th St 211th St 140th St 141st St T-87

Abbott Ave

201st St 150th St 150th St 1st Ave 1st

6 N 4th Ave 4th N

t 4th St h A

v Oliver Ave Oliver

e 160th St 191st St 160th St 160th St

USTH 59USTH

Paul Ave Paul 4th Ave 4th

185th St 170th St CSAH 31

v 170th St

181st St 170th St A 4th St

3rd Ave

t et

W Cory Ave W Cory

1st Ave

i B Lais Ave

Knauf Ave

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Chaney Ave Chaney

180th St T-144 180th St MNTH91

King Ave

Erickson Ave Edwards Ave

Rock County Rock

Nobles Nobles County Bulick Ave Bulick

Hesselroth Ave Hesselroth CSAH 25

Durfee Ave 190th St 161st St 190th St 190th St 190th St Ave Palm

Jones Ave

Fellows Ave

Cory Ave

R e

Abbott Ave a d in

151st St T-148 200th St 2829 200th St g

T-124 Knauf Ave A v e

210th St 141st St 210th St 210th St

McCall Ave

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Dillman Ave Dillman

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery Lincoln (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); County Lyon County Redwood Legend Department of Geology and Geophysics (2010); USGS County Nobles 2 Wind Project NHD Dataset (2013). Nobles County, Minnesota Project Study Area Minnesota Murray Cottonwood

29 South Dakota ¨¦§ Pipestone County County Miles County Road 01.5 Study Area Map Rock Jackson ± County Nobles County County ¨¦§90 Minnesota ¨¦§229 Iowa County Boundary EXHIBIT 3-1 Map Document:Map N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\N2_StudyAreaMap_BBCS_Ex3-1_170601.mxd PM 2:18:05 6/1/2017 © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. NW 3th St AH E Lake Ave 16th St CS 1 16th St 16th St W Front St

Maple St 180thAve

110th Ave 100thAve 11th St v 11th St 8th St SW

t v

MNTH 91 A

10th Ave 20th Ave 30th Ave 70thAve

T-117

40th Ave

50th Ave 80th Ave 200thAve

90th Ave

140thAve e

210thAve 170thAve 220th Ave

150thAve 160thAve

130th Ave

County Line Ave Line County

y 59 USTH

Park Ave Birkett Ave

Abbott Ave 1st Ave CSAH 10 110th St Main St 110th St 1st St 1st St

Cory Ave Cory King Ave King

Cory Ave Cory Bulick Ave Bulick

e Oliver Ave Oliver

A JonesAve

Dillman Ave Dillman

231st St 120th St Monroe Ave m

Fellows Ave "/ "/

Ahlers Ave Ahlers

Cory Ave Cory Nystrom Ave Abbott Ave Abbott 130th St 3833 130th St 221st St 130th St "/ (! 140th St 211th St 140th St 141st St T-87

Abbott Ave 150th St 201st St 150th St

Ave 1st "/

6 N 4th Ave 4th N t h 4th St A

v Oliver Ave Oliver

e 160th St 191st St 160th St 160th St

USTH 59USTH Ave Paul Ave 4th 185th St 170th St CSAH 31

v 170th St

181st St 170th St A 4th St

3rd Ave

t et

W Cory Ave W Cory

1st Ave

i B Lais Ave "/

Knauf Ave

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Chaney Ave Chaney

180th St T-144 180th St MNTH91

King Ave

Erickson Ave Edwards Ave

Rock County Rock

Nobles Nobles County Bulick Ave Bulick

Hesselroth Ave Hesselroth CSAH 25

Durfee Ave 190th St 161st St 190th St 190th St 190th St Ave Palm

Jones Ave

Fellows Ave

Cory Ave

R e

Abbott Ave a d in

151st St T-148 200th St 2829 200th St g

T-124 Knauf Ave A v e

210th St 141st St 210th St 210th St

McCall Ave

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Dillman Ave Dillman

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery Lincoln Legend (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); County Lyon County Redwood Department of Geology and Geophysics (2010); USGS County Nobles 2 Wind Project NHD Dataset (2013). Project Area Preliminary Turbine Location Nobles County, Minnesota Project Minnesota Murray Cottonwood /" Miles 29 South Dakota Study Area Met Tower ¨¦§ Pipestone County County County 01.5 Project Area & Study Area

Jackson Road (! Triton Sonar ± Rock Comparison Map County Nobles County County ¨¦§90 Minnesota ¨¦§229 Iowa County Boundary EXHIBIT 3-2 Map Document:Map N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\N2_ProjectArea&StudyAreaMap_BBCS_Ex3-2_170601.mxd PM 3:02:05 6/1/2017 © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. NW 3thSt CSAH 1 E 16th S t 16thSt 16thSt W Front St La

e h Ave h

Ave ke Ave h ve Maple St

th Av

A 180t

e 00t

e e 0

e e

110th Ave 1

v v

v v 11t h St

H 91 thSt 8th St SW Av 11

A 20 e A

A A Av

T Ave

v e

h h

N th 210th

t th v

th th t

A J 0 udicial

0 0 220th Ave

0 0

4 Di 70thAve

2 t 10th Ave 70th c

20th Ave 30th Ave

T-117

4 5 hNu

80th Ave 90t 1

v mber e

1 15

1 160t Twe t nty t A e

130th h

County LineAve USTH 59 USTH y

a 0t

f C e

h CSAH 34 CSAH

1stSt T-83 T-196 T-196 Murray County a

S 1stSt h Av 1st St

m 1st St 31st St 31st St 1s 1st St CSAH 13 1stSt 1st St 1st St 1st St 1stSt 1st St 1st St 1st St t 1st St t S

0 p t

Nobles County e

a d J a u d

Park Ave Birkett Ave n icial e C

Abbott Ave

v r 1st Ave e Di Av

A h St

Ave 110t

CSAH 10 110th St Main St k e k tc 1st St c h Numb

1st St ng

ory i

C K

Buli

A er Twel

m e

l v

i ve A

Ave Monroe Ave

231stSt 120th St r m

Olive

Ave Ave

ws Ahlers Ave Ahlers

ory o

Nys

ek e 3

Abbott Ave v

e Fell r th St C A 130 383 130th St 221st St 130th St n a s ad e p n

e o

p J m a h C J ac k k 140thSt

-87 C 211th St 140th St e 141st St J T re e a e r c k C k i C z r n e a e r Abbott Ave k a Jack C n ree a k K 150thSt

201st St 150th St

st Ave st

1 4th Ave 4th

6 e

N r Av r

h e

4th St Av

A ve

A Oliv

e 160th St 191st St 160th St 160th St a

USTH USTH

P 4th

Rock County

Nobles County

k 170th St ve CSAH 31 185th St e CR-71

e r

4:27:14 PM 4:27:14 C

Ave

e n A Cory

v 170th St 181st St a 170th St 4th St

d A

st e p

p yAv

e ne

auf Ave auf a 1

h 9 ha A

C k Ahlers Ave Ahlers

e C n Av

e s TH

e g Av N n St r so 180th 180th St i T-144

k M Birkett Ave Birkett C

ward k i

oth Av r l d

E E k

sse e

e ulick Ave

e B

He CSAH 2

ee Ave

r Av

lm i

Du z

ows 5 190th St 190th St Pa 161st St 190th St n 190th St ll

ones Ave a

Fe ve

Ave

Lai

Cory

R 8 e Abbott Ave ad in -14 151st T St 200th St 2829 200th St g

T-124 Knauf A v e

l A

l unty Ditch Num Co be Ca 210th St Elk Creek

r c 141st St 210th St 210th St Fiv

e M Ahlers Ave Ahlers Miles 01.5 Dillman Ave Dillman

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery Lincoln County (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); Lyon County Redwood Legend Karst Index

a County Department of Geology and Geophysics (2010); USGS t Nobles 2 Wind Project

NHD Dataset (2013). k

e Project Area Spring Major Drainage Feature Elevation Range Nobles County, Minnesota

hD t Project

Min o Murray Cottonwood 1,803ft

29 S Pipestone County County Study Area Stream Sink Minor Drainage Feature County Topography & Major

Rock Jackson County Boundary Sinkhole 1,560ft Drainage Features County Nobles County County 90 229 Minnesota Iowa Road EXHIBIT 3-3 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_Topography&MajorDrainageFeatures_BBCS_Ex3-3_170817.mxd 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_Topography&MajorDrainageFeatures_BBCS_Ex3-3_170817.mxd Document: Map © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. NW 3thSt CSAH 1 E 16th S t 16thSt 16thSt W Front St La

h Ave h ke Ave

Maple St

180t

e e

e e v

v ve v ve

v v 11t h St

H 91 thSt 8th St SW Av 11 A

A e A

A A A Av

T Ave

v e

h h

N th

t th v

th th t 0thAve

A 0

0 0

M A

0 0

e 4

0 10th A 70thAve 20th A

2 10th Ave 70th

20th Ave 30th Ave

T-117

4 5

80th Ave 90t 2 1 v e

1 210th 2 15

1 160t

t A

130th h

County LineAve USTH 59 USTH y

a 0t

19 CSAH 34 CSAH 1stSt T-83 T-196 T-196 Murray County L

S 1stSt h Av 1st St 1st St 31st St 31st St 1s 1st St CSAH 13 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St t St 1st St 1st St 1st St t 1st St 1s t S 0 t Nobles County 6

Park Ave

Birkett Ave

Abbott Ave 1st Ave v Av

A Ave Ave

CSAH 10 110th St Main St k 110th St

1st St c

1st St ng

ory i

ory e

C K

Buli v

ver A ver

v A

231stSt 120thSt m

Ave

ws Ahlers Ave Ahlers o

e 3

Abbott Ave

Fell Ave

A 383 130th St 221st St 130th St 130th St

e man

l n

J Dil

ve 140th St 211th St 140th St -87 141stSt T

Ave

auf A auf

ory

Abbott Ave 150thSt

201st St 150th St

st Ave st

e 1

4th Ave 4th e oth Ave

e v

r e

9 v

N A

TH 91 A

e Av e 4thSt

ll Av

on Av on e

o rds

s A s

es ul

a k

Ca th St trom Av 0 a

ai 16 n 160th St A H h St

c 160t

191st St ur

L o USTH

Ave P

r D

Edw

4t 6t

185th St 170th St ve CR-71 CSAH 31

Birkett Ave e

Cory A Cory

st d

r 4th St 170thSt 181st St 170th St 1

W 3

Chaney Ave Chaney

Ave er

g Av

Oliv

Ave Ahlers Ave Ahlers

180th St lm

180th St T-144 a P

Rock CountyRock

Nobles CountyNobles

e ulick Ave

B CSAH 2

ows 190th St 5 190th St 161st St 190th St 190th St ll

ones Ave

Ave

Cory

R 8 e Abbott Ave ad in -14 151st T St 200th St 2829 200th St g

T-124 Knauf A v e

210th St 141st St 210th St 210th St

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Dillman Ave Dillman

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); Legend U.S. Geological Survey (2011). Nobles 2 Wind Project Project Area Unclassified Developed, Medium Intensity Evergreen Forest Hay/Pasture Nobles County, Minnesota Study Area Open Water Developed, High Intensity Mixed Forest Cultivated Crops County Boundary Developed, Open Space Barren Land Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands Miles Land Cover Types 01.5 Road Developed, Low Intensity Deciduous Forest Herbaceuous Emergent Herbaceuous Wetlands EXHIBIT 3-4 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_LandCover_BBCS_Ex3-4_170817.mxd 8/28/17 4:29:05 PM 4:29:05 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_LandCover_BBCS_Ex3-4_170817.mxd Document: Map © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Corabelle NW 3thSt t CSAH 1 Judi Unnamed

16th S 16thSt cial Ditch 20 16thSt W Front St h Ave h

Stoderl Unnamed

180t e e Second e

e e

e e v

v v ve

v v 11t h St ve Slough

H 91 thSt 8th St SW Av 11 A

e A Fulda

A A A Av

T Ave

h h

N th

t th

th th t

A 0

0 0

0 0 Judicia

Ave

e 4

0 70thAve 20th A

2 10th Ave 70th

20th Ave 30th Ave

T-117

4 5

80th Ave 90t

1 v

1 210th 2 15

1 160t

e l Ditch 20 v A First

130th

A h County LineAve Unnamed USTH 59 USTH

110th

h 0t

t Fulda

19 CSAH 34 CSAH 9 Unnamed 0 1stSt T-83 T-196 T-196 Murray County 2 1stSt h Av 1st St 1st S t 31st St 1st St CSAH 13 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St 1st St t Unnamed 1st St

0 CSAH 2 Willow Nobles County 6 Sieverding Marsh

Park Ave

Birkett Ave

Abbott Ave 1st Ave v Av

A Ave Ave

CSAH 10 110th St Main St k 110th St e

1st St v

1st St ng

ory i

ory

C K

Buli

ver A ver i

Judicia

Ol e

l D v Unnamed itc A

231stSt 120thSt h m

12 l

Ave

ws Ahlers Ave Ahlers o

e Unnamed 3

Abbott Ave

Fell Ave

A 383 130th St 221st St 130th St 130th St

e man

l Unnamed n

J Dil

ve 140th St 211th St 140th St -87 141stSt T

Ave

auf A auf

n Jack Creek

ory

Abbott Ave 150thSt 201st St k 150th St J e a e c r k C C i

z r

st Ave st e e

n e

e 1 e

4th Ave 4th e oth Ave

e a v k

r e

9 r v

N A

A a 5

TH 91 A

s A

n s

e Av e 4thSt

ll Av

N on Av on

a e

rds s

es ul

fe M

K a L k

Ca th St trom Av 0 a

16 n 160th St A H h St

c 160t

191st St ur

o USTH

Ave P

r D

Edw Ny

4t Penning Groth 6t Marsh Marsh

185th St 170th St ve CR-71 CSAH 31

Birkett Ave e

Cory A Cory

st d

r 4th St 170thSt 181st St 170th St 1

W 3

Chaney Ave Chaney

Ave er

g Av

Oliv

Ave Ahlers Ave Ahlers

180th St lm

180th St T-144 a P

Rock CountyRock

Nobles CountyNobles

e ulick Ave

B CSAH 2

ows 190th St 5 190th St 161st St 190th St 190th St ll

ones Ave

J k Fe

e Ave re C

lk Cory E ve

R 8 e Abbott Ave ad in -14 151st St 200th St T 2829 200th St g E T-124 Knauf A v lk e C r e e k

210th St 141st St 210th St 210th St

Ahlers Ave Ahlers Dillman Ave Dillman

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013); NWI, MnDnr and Ducks Unlimited (2014); USGS NHD Dataset (2013); Geospatial Data Gateway Legend (various dates); PWI, MnDNR (2008); FEMA (various Nobles 2 Wind Project dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); MnDNR (various dates). Project Area PWI Watercourse Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake Nobles County, Minnesota Study Area PWI Ditch Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Riverine Miles Surface Water and Wetlands County Boundary Major Drainage Feature Freshwater Pond Road 01.5 PWI Basin Minor Drainage Feature EXHIBIT 3-5 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_WaterResources_Ex3-5_170817.mxd 8/28/17 4:26:16 PM 4:26:16 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_WaterResources_Ex3-5_170817.mxd Document: Map 16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Frequency (% of Surveys Detected) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Killdeer Mallard Blue Jay Blue Wood Duck Canvasback Wild Turkey Rock Pigeon Rock Horned Lark Horned Snow Bunting Song Sparrow Canada Goose Canada Gray Partridge Ring-billed Gull Ring-billed House Sparrow House American Crow American American Robin American Northern Pintail Northern Flicker Red-tailed Hawk Red-tailed Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter American Kestrel American Common Grackle Lapland Longspur Chipping Sparrow European StarlingEuropean Ring-necked Duck Ring-necked Unidentified Duck Great Horned Owl Northern Shoveler Hairy Woodpecker Hairy Red-winged Blackbird Red-winged Western Meadowlark Ring-necked Pheasant Ring-necked Eurasian Collared-Dove American Tree Sparrow Tree American Greater White-fronted Goose

Exhibit ϰͲϭ: Frequency of Birds Observed During Winter General Avian Point Count Surveys 60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0 Frequency (% Surveys Detected)

10.0

0.0 Killdeer Mallard Blue Jay Blue Gadwall Bobolink Dickcissel Great Egret Wood Duck Wood Cattle Egret Rock Pigeon Rock Horned Lark House Wren House Cliff Swallow Tree Swallow Barn Swallow Barn Song Sparrow Sandhill Crane Canada Goose Chimney Swift Chimney Blue Grosbeak Blue American Coot Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s Ring-billed Gull Common SnipeCommon House Sparrow House American Crow Yellow Warbler Yellow Red-eyed Vireo Red-eyed Turkey Vulture Turkey Mourning Dove American Robin Vesper Sparrow Vesper Least Sandpiper Brown Thrasher Brown Northern Pintail Northern Flicker Red-tailed Hawk Red-tailed Eastern Kingbird Baltimore Oriole Bonaparte’s Gull Harris’s Sparrow American Kestrel Unidentified Bird Blue-winged Teal Common Grackle Common Swainson’s Hawk Great Blue Heron Northern Harrier Lapland Longspur Lapland Chipping Sparrow European Starling Ring-necked Duck Ring-necked American Wigeon Upland Sandpiper Unidentified Duck Solitary Sandpiper Loggerhead Shrike Loggerhead Northern Shoveler Swainson’s Thrush Savannah Sparrow Savannah Greater Yellowlegs Green-winged Teal Pectoral Sandpiper Wilson’s Phalarope Phalarope Wilson’s Le Conte’s Sparrow Sparrow Conte’s Le American Goldfinch Unidentified Warbler Unidentified Swallow Unidentified Sparrow Eastern Wood-Pewee Red-winged Blackbird Red-winged Grasshopper Sparrow Western Meadowlark Western Ring-necked Pheasant Common Yellowthroat Common Eurasian Collared Dove Brown-headed Cowbird Brown-headed Yellow-rumped Warbler American Golden Plover White-crowned Sparrow Yellow-headed Blackbird Yellow-headed Semipalmated Sandpiper Red-headed Woodpecker Red-headed Double-crested Cormorant Greater White-fronted Goose

Exhibit ϰͲϮ: Frequency of Birds Observed During Spring General Avian Point Count Surveys 30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

Frequency (% Surveyes Detected) 10.0

5.0

0.0 Killdeer Mallard Blue Jay Bobolink Dickcissel Sedge Wren Rock Pigeon House Finch House Horned Lark House Wren House Gray Catbird Gray Cliff Swallow Tree Swallow Barn Swallow Song Sparrow Purple Martin Canada Goose Canada Chimney Swift Blue Grosbeak Blue Gray Partridge Gray Indigo Bunting Turkey Vulture Turkey Orchard Oriole House Sparrow House American Crow Mourning Dove Vesper Sparrow American Robin Northern Flicker Eastern Kingbird Red-tailed HawkRed-tailed Baltimore Oriole Northern Harrier American Kestrel American Swainson's Hawk Swainson's Common Grackle Great Blue Heron Blue Great Chipping Sparrow Chipping European Starling European Upland Sandpiper Upland Northern Bobwhite Northern American Goldfinch Downy Woodpecker Unidentified Swallow Unidentified Sparrow Red-winged Blackbird Red-winged Western Meadowlark Western Ring-necked Pheasant Ring-necked Common Yellowthroat Brown-headed Cowbird Brown-headed AmericanPelican White White-crowned Sparrow Yellow-headed Blackbird Great Crested Flycatcher Red-headed Woodpecker Red-headed

Exhibit ϰͲϯ: Frequency of Birds Observed During Summer General Avian Point Count Surveys 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Frequency (% of Surveys Detected) 4.0

2.0

0.0 Killdeer Blue Jay Bald Eagle Sedge Wren Rock Pigeon Horned Lark House Wren House Marsh Wren Barn Swallow Snow Bunting Song Sparrow Franklin's Gull Canada Goose Turkey Vulture Turkey House Sparrow House American Crow Mourning Dove Vesper Sparrow American Robin Northern Flicker Harris's Sparrow Harris's Red-tailed HawkRed-tailed Dark-eyed Junco Dark-eyed Trumpeter Swan Trumpeter Northern Harrier American Kestrel American Common Grackle Great Blue Heron Blue Great Lincoln's Sparrow Lincoln's European Starling European Unidentified Duck Savannah Sparrow Savannah Hairy Woodpecker Le Conte's Le Conte's Sparrow Tennessee Warbler Tennessee American Goldfinch Downy Woodpecker Unidentified Warbler Clay-colored Sparrow Eastern Wood-Pewee Eastern Red-winged Blackbird Red-winged Western Meadowlark Western Ring-necked Pheasant Ring-necked Common Yellowthroat Common American Tree Sparrow Brown-headed Cowbird Brown-headed AmericanPelican White Yellow-rumped Warbler Yellow-rumped Golden-crowned Kinglet Red-headed Woodpecker Red-headed

Fulda

Murray County Nobles County

19 16 18

7 15 20 14 21 22

13 12 23 6

25 29 5 24 10 11 4 59 28

9 26 27 31 Wilmont 8 30

Rock County 266

Nobles County

9 PM 3 Kenneth Lismore 2

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); NAIP Basemap, Imagery (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); Legend Mean Use (No. Birds/ 5 min) ESRI WMS World Streets Basemap Imagery (Accessed Nobles 2 Wind Project 2016). Project Area US Highway 0.09 - 0.28 0.90 - 1.64 Nobles County, Minnesota Study Area State Highway 0.29 - 0.59 Mean Bird Use by Sample Point 1.65 - 2.60 County Boundary County Road 0.60 - 0.89 Miles for all Surveys Combined 01.5 1 Point Number EXHIBIT 4-5 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_MeanBirdUseAllCombinedSeasons_Ex4-5_170817.mxd 8/28/17 4:28:3 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_MeanBirdUseAllCombinedSeasons_Ex4-5_170817.mxd Document: Map © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.

Fulda

Murray County Nobles County

19 16 18

7 15 20 14 21 22

23 13 12 6

25 24 29 10 11 5 4 59 28

27 9 26 31 Wilmont 8 30

Rock County 266

Nobles County 3 28:08 PM Kenneth Lismore 2

Data Source(s): Westwood (2016); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); NAIP Basemap, Imagery (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); Legend Species Richness (No. Species/Survey Point) ESRI WMS World Streets Basemap Imagery (Accessed Nobles 2 Wind Project 2016). Project Area US Highway 13 - 17 32 - 37 Nobles County, Minnesota Study Area State Highway 18 - 22 Miles Bird Species Richness by Sample Point 38 - 49 01.5 County Boundary County Road 23 - 31 for all Surveys Combined 1 Point Number EXHIBIT 4-6 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_SpeciesRichnessAllCombinedSeasons_Ex4-6_170817.mxd 8/28/17 4: 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_SpeciesRichnessAllCombinedSeasons_Ex4-6_170817.mxd Document: Map 2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80 Mean Use Min) Mean Use (No. Birds/5 0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 6-Jul 1-Jun 8-Jun 5-Oct 6-Apr 3-Feb 7-Sep 3-Aug 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 2-Nov 2-Mar 9-Mar 4-May 20-Jan 27-Jan 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 12-Oct 19-Oct 26-Oct 13-Apr 20-Apr 27-Apr 10-Feb 17-Feb 24-Feb 14-Sep 21-Sep 28-Sep 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 31-Aug 16-Mar 23-Mar 30-Mar 11-May 18-May 25-May Survey Date

Exhibit ϰͲϳa: Mean Bird Use by Survey Period for all Birds Combined during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys

Species Richness (No. Individual Species) 10

0 6-Jul 1-Jun 8-Jun 5-Oct 6-Apr 3-Feb 7-Sep 3-Aug 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 2-Nov 2-Mar 9-Mar 4-May 20-Jan 27-Jan 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 12-Oct 19-Oct 26-Oct 13-Apr 20-Apr 27-Apr 10-Feb 17-Feb 24-Feb 14-Sep 21-Sep 28-Sep 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 31-Aug 16-Mar 23-Mar 30-Mar 11-May 18-May 25-May Survey Date

Exhibit ϰͲϳb: Species Richness by Survey Period for all Birds Combined during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall General Avian Point Count Surveys $ERYH56$ :LWKLQ56$ 2WKHU )O\LQJ %HKDYLRU %HORZ56$

2323 2424 3737 E Murray County Pipestone County Cottonwood County 2525

1212 1717 3838 99 1010 5 3434 33 5 1616 1111 2121 1313 29 3131 29 2222 3333 2727 44 1414 2626 11 3232

1515 22 1818

3030

1919 2020 4:31:31 PM

Jackson County Rock County Nobles County

2828 66 88

77 D C

A B 3636

3535

Data Source(s): Westwood (2017); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery Legend (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); U.S. Geological Survey (2011). Data and map Nobles 2 Wind Project are approximate. Project Area (est. 2017) 2-Mile Nest Survey Buffer Great Blue Heron Rookery Bald Eagle Nest 20 Nest ID Nobles County, Minnesota Original Study Area County Boundary Great Horned Owl Nest Incidental Bald (basis of 2016 nest survey) Eagle Observation A Incidental Observation ID Miles Bald Eagle and General Raptor Red-Tailed Hawk Nest 03.75 10-Mile Nest Survey Buffer Nest Locations (2016) Unknown Species Nest Active Nest Exhibit 4-9 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_BaldEagle&GeneralRaptorNestLocations_Ex4-9_170817.mxd 8/28/17 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_BaldEagle&GeneralRaptorNestLocations_Ex4-9_170817.mxd Document: Map © 2017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.

3939

3737 G E Murray County Pipestone County Cottonwood County

3838

H 3434 M N

II Jackson County Rock County Nobles County

3636

3535

Data Source(s): Westwood (2017); Geospatial Data Gateway (various dates); Minnesota NAIP Imagery Legend (accessed 2016); ESRI (2012); MnDOT (various dates); U.S. Geological Survey (2011). Data and map Nobles 2 Wind Project are approximate. Project Area Bald Eagle Nest 20 Nest ID Nobles County, Minnesota (basis of 2017 nest survey) Incidental Bald Miles A Incidental Observation ID 10-Mile Nest Survey Buffer Eagle Observation A 03.75 Bald Eagle Nest County Boundary Locations (2017) Active Nest Exhibit 4-10 Map Document: N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_BaldEagleNestLocations_Ex4-10_170817.mxd 8/28/17 4:29:24 PM 4:29:24 8/28/17 N:\0001661.00\GIS\BBCS_Exhibits\170817_updates\N2_BaldEagleNestLocations_Ex4-10_170817.mxd Document: Map ϯϬ͘ϬϬй

Ϯϱ͘ϬϬй

ϮϬ͘ϬϬй

ϭϱ͘ϬϬй

ϭϬ͘ϬϬй WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨdŽƚĂůĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ

ϱ͘ϬϬй

Ϭ͘ϬϬй

ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϭ͗ŽŵďŝŶĞĚŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐĂŶĚ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ'ƌŽƵƉƐ;WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨdŽƚĂůĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐͿ ĨƌŽŵĂůůDĞƚdŽǁĞƌƐ

Ă ϯϱ ϯϬ

Ϯϱ

ϮϬ

ϭϱ

EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϭϬ

ď ϮϬ ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϴ ϲ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ

ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϮĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϮď͗EŝŐŚƚůǇdŽƚĂůŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϲ͖;ĂͿϰϱDĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱDĞƚĞƌƐ ϭ͘ϲϬ ϭ͘ϰϬ

ϭ͘ϮϬ

ϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϴϬ

Ϭ͘ϲϬ

ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ Ϭ͘ϰϬ

Ϭ͘ϮϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϯϬ

Ϭ͘Ϯϱ

Ϭ͘ϮϬ

Ϭ͘ϭϱ

Ϭ͘ϭϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ

Ϭ͘Ϭϱ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϴ͗ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϯĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϯď͗,ŽƵƌůǇǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϲ͖;ĂͿϰϱŵĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱ DĞƚĞƌƐ͘ǀĞƌĂŐĞƐĂƌĞZĞƉŽƌƚĞĚǁŝƚŚц^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƌƌŽƌ Ă ϮϬ ϭϴ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϴ ϲ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ

ď ϭϴ ϭϲ

ϭϰ

ϭϮ

ϭϬ

ϲ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϰ

ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϰĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϰď͗EŝŐŚƚůǇdŽƚĂůŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϳ͖;ĂͿϰϱDĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱDĞƚĞƌƐ

Ă Ϭ͘ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϯϱ

Ϭ͘ϯϬ

Ϭ͘Ϯϱ

Ϭ͘ϮϬ

Ϭ͘ϭϱ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ Ϭ͘ϭϬ

Ϭ͘Ϭϱ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ ď Ϭ͘ϲϬ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϰϬ

Ϭ͘ϯϬ

Ϭ͘ϮϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ

Ϭ͘ϭϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϱĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϱď͗,ŽƵƌůǇǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϳ͖;ĂͿϰϱDĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱ DĞƚĞƌƐ͘ǀĞƌĂŐĞƐĂƌĞZĞƉŽƌƚĞĚǁŝƚŚц^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƌƌŽƌ

ϴϬ

ϳϬ

ϲϬ

ϱϬ

ϰϬ

ϯϬ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϮϬ

ϭϬ

ϴϬ ϳϬ

ϲϬ

ϱϬ

ϰϬ

ϯϬ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ ϮϬ

ϭϬ

ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϲĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϲď͗EŝŐŚƚůǇdŽƚĂůŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϬϳϯϰ͖;ĂͿϰϱDĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱ DĞƚĞƌƐ

Ϯ͘ϱϬ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ

ϭ͘ϱϬ

ϭ͘ϬϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϴ͗ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ ϯ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ͘ϱϬ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ

ϭ͘ϱϬ

ϭ͘ϬϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϴ͗ϬϬ ϭϵ͗ϬϬ ϮϬ͗ϬϬ Ϯϭ͗ϬϬ ϮϮ͗ϬϬ Ϯϯ͗ϬϬ Ϭ͗ϬϬ ϭ͗ϬϬ Ϯ͗ϬϬ ϯ͗ϬϬ ϰ͗ϬϬ ϱ͗ϬϬ ϲ͗ϬϬ ϳ͗ϬϬ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϳĂĂŶĚϰͲϭϳď͗,ŽƵƌůǇǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϬϳϯϰ͖;ĂͿϰϱDĞƚĞƌƐĂŶĚ;ďͿϱ DĞƚĞƌƐ͘ǀĞƌĂŐĞƐĂƌĞZĞƉŽƌƚĞĚǁŝƚŚц^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƌƌŽƌ

ϱ͘ϬϬ

ϰ͘ϱϬ

ϰ͘ϬϬ

ϯ͘ϱϬ

ϯ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ͘ϱϬ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ

ϭ͘ϱϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ

ϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰϱŵ ϱŵ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϴ͗ǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨEŝŐŚƚůǇĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^ͿĂƚϱŵĂŶĚϰϱŵĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϲ͘dŚĞƌĞ ǁĂƐŶŽƚĂ^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ,ĞŝŐŚƚŽŶƚŚĞǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚƐZĞĐŽƌĚĞĚƉĞƌEŝŐŚƚ;dƵŬĞǇΖƐ ,^ƚĞƐƚ͕WсϬ͘ϬϲϳͿ

ϯ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ͘ϱϬ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ

ϭ͘ϱϬ

ϭ͘ϬϬ ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰϱŵ ϱŵ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϭϵ͗ǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨEŝŐŚƚůǇĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^ͿĂƚϱŵĂŶĚϰϱŵĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϳ͘dŚĞƌĞ ǁĂƐĂ^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ,ĞŝŐŚƚŽŶƚŚĞǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚƐZĞĐŽƌĚĞĚƉĞƌEŝŐŚƚ;dƵŬĞǇΖƐ,^ ƚĞƐƚ͕Wсϭ͘ϬϬͿ

ϭϰ͘ϬϬ

ϭϮ͘ϬϬ

ϭϬ͘ϬϬ

ϴ͘ϬϬ

ϲ͘ϬϬ

ǀĞƌĂŐĞĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^Ϳ ϰ͘ϬϬ

Ϯ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰϱŵ ϱŵ ǆŚŝďŝƚϰͲϮϬ͗ǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨEŝŐŚƚůǇĂƚWĂƐƐĞƐ;ц^ͿĂƚϱŵĂŶĚϰϱŵĂƚDĞƚdŽǁĞƌϬϳϯϰ͘ dŚĞƌĞǁĂƐŶŽƚĂ^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ,ĞŝŐŚƚŽŶƚŚĞǀĞƌĂŐĞEƵŵďĞƌŽĨĂƚƐZĞĐŽƌĚĞĚƉĞƌEŝŐŚƚ ;dƵŬĞǇΖƐ,^ƚĞƐƚ͕WсϬ͘ϰϰͿ

16%

Species of Special Concern Other

84%

Exhibit 4-2ϭ: Percentage of Minnesota Species of Special Concern of the Total Number of Bat Passes Recorded for all Species and Species Groups 0.92 0.46

Big brown bat Little brown bat Tri-colored bat

98.62

Exhibit 4-2Ϯ: Combined Composition of Minnesota Species of Special Concern from all Met Towers. Nobles 2 Land Cover Odelle Land Cover

Cropland Cropland Developed/Disturbed Developed/Disturbed Grassland Grassland Wetland Wetland Forest Forest Open Water Open Water Shrub/Scrub

Stoneray Land Cover

Cropland Grassland Developed/Disturbed Forest Shrub/Scrub

Exhibit ϱ-1: Comparison of Land Cover Types among Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Projects 35.0

30.0

Nobles 2 25.0 Odell Stoneray 20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0 Mean Use (No. Birds/10 Min) Stoneray 0.0 Odell

Nobles 2

Species Group

Exhibit ϱ-2: Comparison of Mean Bird Use By Species Group for Nobles 2, Odell, and Stoneray Wind Farms 9

8 Mean = 2.84 Fatalities/MW/Year 7

3 Bird Fatality/MW/Year

Exhibit ϱ-3: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Bird Mortality Monitoring Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest 0.4

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Raptor Fatality/MW/Year

0.1

0.0 Moraine II, MN Winnebago, IA Buffalo Ridge I, SD NNP Ainsworth, NE

Exhibit ϱ-4: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Raptor Mortality Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest 35

Mean = 7.62 Fatalities/MW/Year 25

15 Bat Fatality/MW/Year 10

Exhibit ϱ-5: Results of Publicly Available Post-Construction Bat Mortality Monitoring Studies at Wind Energy Facilities in the Midwest EŽďůĞƐϮtŝŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚʹŝƌĚĂŶĚĂƚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ƵŐƵƐƚϳ͕ϮϬϭϳ

APPENDICES

EŽďůĞƐϮtŝŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚʹŝƌĚĂŶĚĂƚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ƵŐƵƐƚϳ͕ϮϬϭϳ

APPENDIX A

MNDNR COMMENT LETTER