Introduction

INTRODUCTION habitats can be impacted by wind development Wind energy has been produced commercially (Arnett et al. 2007, Loss et al. 2013; Erickson et al. in North America for nearly four decades and is 2014). one of the fastest growing forms of renewable RES America Developments, Inc. (RES) energy both nationally and globally (Arnett et al. proposes to develop the Skookumchuck Wind 2007, AWEA 2015). In recent years, the United Energy Project (hereafter Project) in Lewis and States (US) has been one of the world leaders in Thurston counties in western Washington (Fig. 1). wind capacity additions and at the end of the fourth The actual size of the Project will be determined quarter 2015 had an overall installed capacity closer to the time of construction; however, the totaling over 67,000 MW (AWEA 2015). The state current project design consists of 52 wind turbines of Washington currently ranks eighth in the US with a combined generating capacity of up to 104 with an installed wind capacity of 3,075 MW. MW. Characteristics of the current proposed wind Wind-generated energy does not produce turbines, Vestas V110 2.0 MW turbines, include a emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases monopole tower 80 m in height and three rotor associated with global warming and wind energy is blades each extending from a central hub with a generally considered an environmentally sound radius of 55 m. Thus, the total maximal height of alternative to fossil fuels; however, wildlife and each turbine would be 135 m with a blade in the

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington.

1 Skookumchuck Avian Study Objectives vertical position. RES contracted ABR, Inc.— conducted at other proposed wind energy projects Environmental Research and Services (ABR) to (e.g., Mabee et al. 2007, Tetra Tech EC 2009, conduct a full year of pre-construction studies of Chatfield et al. 2011). In addition to providing a avian use of the Project from winter 2014 through standardized design this approach allows for fall 2015. comparisons of bird use metrics among similar studies in the region and throughout the United OBJECTIVES States. Our study also conformed to the recommendations outlined in the Washington Wind The goal of the study was to obtain Energy Guidelines (WDFW 2009) and the U.S. information on the annual spatial and temporal use Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind of all birds in the Project area. The specific Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012). objective was to conduct avian use surveys using To maintain quality assurance and quality point-count methods to describe the relative control (QA/QC) field data forms were entered into abundance, distribution, and flight characteristics an electronic database immediately upon return to of birds in the Project and derive standard exposure the office or observers used handheld tablets to indices for estimating potential risk of collision. enter data directly into an electronic database in the field. A project manager periodically checked the STUDY AREA database for inconsistencies and errors and we The Project is located in West Cascades proofed the entire database again for errors prior to Ecoregion of western Washington, ~20–30 km final analyses. All data was stored on a network (12.4–18.6 mi) east of Centralia and the Interstate 5 server with frequent backups to prevent loss of corridor (Fig. 1). The Project consists of 4 different data. parcels that combined total ~7,954 ha (19,654 ac) and are situated entirely on the Vail Tree Farm, AVIAN USE SURVEYS private land owned and managed by the The goal of the avian use surveys was to use Weyerhaeuser Company (WEYCO) for timber standardized fixed-point surveys (point counts) to production (Fig. 2). ABR focused survey efforts obtain information on the spatial and temporal use for this study on the two larger parcels of 4,088 ha of all birds in the Project area. Specifically, the data and 2,049 ha, because these parcels are of collected provides information on the species primary interest for the initial phases of the composition, relative abundance, and flight development. The Project ridges range in elevation altitudes of birds during diurnal hours across all from ~450–1,050 m above sea level (asl) and are seasons of the annual cycle. We conducted surveys separated by lower elevation stream-lined valleys, from November 2014 through November 2015. with the Skookumchuck River bisecting the Seasons were defined as follows based on the Project area. The region experiences moderate timing of migration in this geographic region: temperatures throughout the year with average spring = 15 March–31 May; summer = 1 June–31 maximum temperatures ranging from 8–26° C August; fall = 1 September–15 November; winter (46–78 ° F) and average minimum temperatures = 16 November–14 March. ranging from 1–11° C (34–52° F; WRCC 2016). SURVEY METHODS Average annual precipitation is 116.6 cm (45.9 in) We conducted point count surveys based on a with 17.3 cm (6.8 in) snowfall at lower elevations variable circular-plot method described by and greater snowfall at higher elevations (WRCC Reynolds et al. (1980). We established a total of 2106). nine point count stations with a survey radius of 800 m throughout the Project area. The layout of METHODS these stations was selected to provide thorough coverage of the site and to include representative STUDY DESIGN AND PROTOCOLS habitat types and topographical features found in We based our study design and protocols on the project area (Fig. 2). All stations were standard pre-construction bird survey methods independent of each other with the exception of 90

Skookumchuck Avian Study 2 Methods es, Washington. Figure 2. Lewis and Thurston counti Project, Energy of diurnal avian point count stations at the proposed Skookumchuck Map Wind

3 Skookumchuck Avian Study Methods m of overlap in coverage at stations one and two, surveys) of any federal or state-listed bird because of a lack of other suitable locations for species of special interest (WDFW 2008, USFWS stations in this area of the Project. A qualitative 2016) or species not previously observed during viewshed assessment at each station indicated that point counts. Data collected during incidental all points provided 100% coverage within the 800 observations included the following: date, time, m radius survey area. The point count stations species identification, number of birds and flocks, cumulatively covered ~67% (35 of 52 turbines) of behavior, and habitat. We noted the location of the turbines in the current Project layout. incidental observations on a GPS or in a tablet- During each point count survey a single based GIS. observer used 10× binoculars to visually scan for all birds for a 20-minute (min) period. For all DATA ANALYSIS birds detected within an 800 m radius of each We computed the same avian-use metrics point count station we recorded the following utilized in numerous other studies at proposed information: date, time, number of minutes wind projects in the United States (e.g., Mabee et elapsed from the beginning of the 20-min survey, al. 2007, Tetra Tech EC 2009, Chatfield et al. species identification, number of birds and 2011). These metrics included: mean use, percent groups (i.e., flocks), distance to bird(s), first and composition, frequency of occurrence, and an minimum/maximum flight altitude (m above exposure index based on mean use and flight ground level [agl]), flight direction, behavior behavior characteristics. For each metric we (straight line flight, local/erratic flight, circling/ calculated both seasonal and annual values across soaring, perching/sitting, singing/calling), general the Project. The mean annual values were weighted habitat (clearcut [0–5 yrs old], forested [6–15 yrs], by the length of each season. We also conducted a and forested [16–50 yrs]), and whether the raptor “flight path” analysis to provide a qualitative detection was visual or auditory only. We also mapped flight paths of raptor observations in a assessment of spatial use of the project. Raptor tablet-based GIS. flight path figures show the raw data (flight lines) Weather information recorded during each on the landscape. point count, included wind direction, wind The mean use for a species equals the mean speed, cloud cover, ceiling elevation, visibility, number of individuals/20-min point count and temperature, and precipitation. Surveyors provides an index of relative abundance per survey attempted to minimize duplicate sightings of the point. This index does not describe density, same bird(s) both within and between point counts. however, because individuals may have been observed at multiple points (particularly raptors) SURVEY SCHEDULE and data were not corrected for differences in We attempted to visit all survey stations on a detectability. Percent composition equals the mean weekly basis during the spring and fall seasonal use for a species divided by the total use for all periods and every other week during the winter and species, multiplied by 100, and provides an summer periods. This survey schedule reflects estimate of the relative use at a site by a particular differing levels of variability in activity throughout species compared with the use of all other species. the year (i.e., greater variability during spring and Frequency of occurrence equals the percentage of fall migration versus decreased variability during 20-min point counts in which a species is observed the breeding season and winter) and matches the and it provides an index of how often a species sampling effort accordingly. We alternated the occurs in the Project area. Mean use and frequency order that survey stations were visited to reduce of occurrence reflect different aspects of any spatial or temporal bias in sampling. abundance, in that mean use is based on the INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS number of individuals (i.e., large flocks can In addition to regular point count surveys we produce high estimates), whereas frequency of also recorded incidental observations during occurrence is based on the number of flocks (i.e., it non-survey times (i.e., driving or before/after is not influenced by flock size). Together, these two

Skookumchuck Avian Study 4 Results estimates help one to discern the importance of count surveys successfully completed), 6 in high mean use values. summer (54 surveys), 11 in fall (77 surveys), and 8 The exposure index, a relative index of in winter (66 surveys). Weather conditions varied collision exposure (R) for bird species can be across the seasons including wind speeds from calculated as: 0–45 km/h (0–35 mi/h), temperatures ranging from R = A * Pf * Pt 0–29° C (32–84° F), and precipitation ranging from drizzle to light rain. A list of the common and Where A = mean use for a species, Pf = proportion of all observations when a species was observed scientific names of all species observed during surveys (within 800 m) and the corresponding flying (an index of the approximate percentage of number of individuals and groups observed is time a species spends flying during diurnal hours), and Pt = proportion of all flight observations within provided in Table 1. the rotor-swept area (RSA). The model and SPECIES COMPOSITION physical characteristics of wind turbines proposed We recorded a total of 68 species across all for the site have not been determined so for this point count surveys (Table 1). Two additional report we considered the RSA as the area species were observed only as incidental encompassing 25–135 m agl. Note that this index observations (Table 2). In combination, we accounts only for differences in certain aspects of observed six species of special interest during flight behavior and does not directly address other point count surveys and incidental observations, behaviors or ecological attributes of a particular including three raptor species and three small bird species that may influence collision exposure (e.g., species (Table 3). The raptor species of special turbine avoidance behavior, high-density prey interest included Northern Goshawk, Bald Eagle locations that may increase foraging behavior, and Peregrine Falcon and the small birds included flight movements along proposed turbine strings, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Pileated Woodpecker, and etc.). We examined seasonal patterns of variation Vaux’s Swift. A seventh species, Golden Eagle, in mean use values for passerines and raptors also was observed on two different occasions near using a non-parametric analysis of variance test the Project area, but those incidental observations (Kruskal-Wallis Test) and when we detected occurred during other studies (Sanzenbacher et al. differences used pairwise comparisons to 2011, Sanzenbacher et al. 2014). determine which seasons differed. To examine We observed the highest number of species spatial differences in mean use values across the during the spring (n = 51 species; Table 1), Project area we used the Kruskal-Wallis test to followed by summer (n = 44 species) and fall (n = compare annual mean use values of raptors and 43 species), reflecting the seasonal movement of passerines among survey stations that had a migrants and breeding birds through the area minimum of three survey visits/season. We (Table 1). In contrast, we observed the lowest computed all avian metrics using SPSS v. 18.0 number of species during the winter (n = 26 (SPSS 2009) and for statistical comparisons used species), reflecting the local species assemblage an Į-value of P < 0.05 as the threshold for during the wintering period. Passerines were the significance. dominant species group across all seasons and accounted for 66% of species observed during RESULTS surveys (n = 45 passerine species). Raptors represented 16% of the species observed (n = 11 POINT COUNT SURVEYS species of raptors). Over the year-long duration of our studies, we To simplify the presentation of results, we made a total of 36 survey visits to the site and grouped all species not classified as passerines, completed a total of 291 individual 20-min point raptors, gamebirds, or waterbirds into a single count surveys (i.e., 33 of 324 point count surveys “other birds” category. This species group were cancelled due to poor visibility/weather). In category consisted of ten species including total, we made 11 visits during spring (94 point doves, hummingbirds, woodpeckers, swifts, and

5 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results Winter Annual Total 19 17 11 1 56 19 17 1 78 located in located Project Energy Wind Skookumchuck proposed the at points survey Spring Spring Summer Fall 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 0 1 0 12 2 12 2 8 0 7 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 8 0 5 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 21 6 0 0 0 14 6 8 0 2 0 4 1 0 5 3 2 0 2 10 1 26 1 10 3 49 2 24 1 15 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 28 49 0 0 0 3 11 32 2 11 29 2 1 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 2 1 2 6 1 2 2 9 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 3 0 2 24 2 20 2 21 21 15 26 16 11 5 0 0 58 36 53 44 56 35 43 13 34 10 28 100 25 51 3 32 2 25 119 201 105 129 49 40 44 31 52 30 12 7 157 108 958 761 660 453 1,142 419 208 144 2,968 1,777 Birds Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Pandion haliaetus haliaetus Pandion Circus cyaneus Circus cyaneus Cathartes aura Cathartes aura Falco sparverius Falco sparverius Falco peregrinus Falco peregrinus Glaucidium gnoma Corvus corax Empidonax difficilis Empidonax trailii Haliaeetus leucocephalus Haliaeetus Cyanocitta stelleri canadensis Perisoreus brachyrhynchos Corvus cooperi Contopus Accipiter cooperii Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus Accipiter striatus Accipiter striatus Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Washington, counties, Thurston Lewis and Steller’s Jay Steller’s Jay Osprey Osprey raptor Unidentified 2 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 6 6 Northern Harrier Northern Turkey Vulture American Kestrel Kestrel American Flycatcher Olive-sided Peregrine Falcon Falcon Peregrine falcon Unidentified pygmy-owl Northern Raven Common 0 0 Pacific-slope Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Gray Jay Gray Jay Crow American Cooper’s Hawk accipiterUnidentified Red-tailed Hawk Hawk Rough-legged buteo Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 1 2 0 10 2 0 1 7 1 1 15 5 Sharp-shinned Hawk Sharp-shinned Corvids Corvids 91 54 114 89 50 48 187 265 37 405 Passerines Passerines Songbirds 844 670 606 405 955 330 158 107 2,563 1,512 2,563 107 158 330 Falcons 955 405 raptors Other 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 3 1 1 606 670 Songbirds 844 31 25 29 Owls 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Buteos Buteos Eagles Bald Eagle 10 2 27 13 19 10 41 2 5 7 8 7 2 2 3 2 8 3 21 14 Accipiters 1 0 1 4 1 0 10 1 12 6 Species-group/species Species-group/species Raptors Scientific name Table 1. Table bird of m 800 within recorded groups and species Avian

Skookumchuck Avian Study 6 Results Winter Annual Total Spring Spring Summer Fall 4 0 3 4 0 3 8 3 0 16 3 1 5 3 0 12 0 24 1 2 50 10 10 0 1 0 10 1 11 3 28 0 18 3 0 3 2 0 19 9 3 0 1 47 0 2 0 32 50 22 0 1 29 28 0 1 0 0 7 21 0 7 10 0 0 0 7 31 0 0 21 29 0 7 10 7 0 0 10 7 3 1 0 2 1 0 3 8 0 2 2 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 5 11 3 9 4 2 6 1 0 3 3 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 8 0 5 0 6 1 3 1 1 3 3 6 6 0 0 0 0 9 9 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 22 12 0 0 12 51 11 0 48 4 17 0 5 23 61 9 22 4 4 54 5 13 9 8 1 22 15 3 8 20 7 26 6 19 1 2 20 65 13 4 111 43 27 28 29 17 3 49 16 27 3 22 9 14 6 15 3 1 9 12 28 11 88 43 2 54 8 0 11 25 1 9 3 77 49 6 53 101 209 0 50 0 92 60 0 24 9 36 130 3 15 86 0 45 13 6 0 24 0 0 71 12 14 0 0 101 10 0 0 6 63 24 10 23 16 0 0 0 20 12 23 6 1 0 27 46 8 0 6 42 1 24 0 7 17 1 115 89 15 11 5 108 0 88 11 182 0 162 25 19 146 130 96 75 139 81 34 25 415 311 Birds Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Tachycineta bicolor bicolor Tachycineta thalassina Tachycineta Hirundo rustica Poecile atricapillus Poecile rufescens Psaltriparus minimus Sitta canadensis bewickii Thryomanes Troglodytes pacificus Regulus satrapa Myadestes townsendi Sialia mexicana Ixoreus naevius migratorius Turdus Catharus ustulatus Catharus guttatus Anthus rubescens Bombycilla cedrorum Vermivora celata tolmiei Geothlypis trichas Geothlypis Setophaga coronata Setophaga nigrescens Setophaga townsendi Setophaga occidentalis Cardellina pusilla Pipilo maculatus melodia Melospiza Zonotrichia atricapilla leucophrys Zonotrichia hyemalis Junco Piranga ludoviciana Vireo gilvus Vireo gilvus Vireohuttoni Vireohuttoni Violet-green Swallow Violet-green Pacific Wren Kinglet Golden-crowned Thrush Varied Robin American Thrush Swainson's Warbler Orange-crowned MacGillivray'sWarbler Gray Black-throated Warbler WarblerHermit Spotted Towhee Song Sparrow Sparrow Golden-crowned Dark-eyed Junco Bushtit Nuthatch Red-breasted Wren Bewick's Townsend's Solitaire Western Bluebird Thrush Hermit Cedar Waxwing Sparrow White-crowned Warbling Vireo Warbling Vireo Barn Swallow Chickadee Black-capped Chestnut-backed Chickadee Pipit American Yellowthroat Common Yellow-rumped Warbler Warbler Townsend's Wilson's Warbler Western Tanager Hutton's Vireo Vireo Hutton's Tree Swallow Species-group/species Species-group/species Scientific name Table 1. Table Continued.

7 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results Winter Annual Total Spring Spring Summer Fall 3 2 0 0 32 3 0 0 35 5 0 0 16 7 0 0 6 1 22 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 3 9 9 22 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 29 22 1 6 0 1 4 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 0 4 0 0 0 9 1 1 2 4 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 2 7 2 1 0 6 3 0 3 8 5 5 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 14 14 17 13 6 52 5 2 8 14 14 14 1 8 14 2 2 3 2 0 1 2 1 54 0 3 0 22 3 3 24 77 0 3 16 1 16 18 1 11 8 1 55 1 5 52 20 20 2 10 19 19 1 7 91 39 36 44 9 9 113 104 129 92 58 43 58 48 20 18 265 201 Birds Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups Birds Groups 1,153 909 764 528 1,287 503 241 170 3,445 2,110 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 14 1 109 8 35 1 21 58 0 10 24 0 3 320 11 1 48 4 1 8 0 1 6 0 495 39 113 12 20 5 Branta canadensis Branta canadensis Dendragapus fuliginosus Zenaida macroura Pheucticus melanocephalus Pheucticus vespertinus Coccothraustes Loxia curvirostra Carduelis tristis Patagioenas fasciata ruber Sphyrapicus Picoides pubescens villosus Leuconotopicus Colaptes auratus Hylatomus pileatus minor Chordeiles vauxi Chaetura Calypte anna Canada Goose Goose Canada Red Crossbill flycatcher Unidentified swallow Unidentified sparrow Unidentified songbird Unidentified Sooty Grouse Dove Mourning Pileated Woodpecker American Goldfinch Goldfinch American Flicker Northern Vaux’s Swift Black-headed Grosbeak Grosbeak Black-headed Band-tailed Pigeon Band-tailed Pigeon Hummingbird Rufous Evening Grosbeak Grosbeak Evening waterfowl Unidentified shorebird Unidentified Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker woodpeckerUnidentified Nighthawk Common 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 7 7 Unidentified hummingbird hummingbird Unidentified Sapsucker Red-breasted 5 5 7 6 1 1 0 0 13 12 Gamebirds Gamebirds Waterbirds Species-group/species Species-group/species Scientific name Birds Other Doves Hummingbirds 16 10 10 15 1 1 0 0 25 26 27 5 Totals 2 17 11 45 22 1 92 54 Other 2 7 4 4 2 0 3 14 8 0 Woodpeckers 61 58 10 7 43 40 18 17 132 122 132 17 18 40 43 7 10 Woodpeckers 58 61 Table 1. Table Continued.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 8 Results

Table 2. Avian species observed during incidental observations that were species of special interest, including eagles, or species not observed during point count surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Species of special interest includes species of elevated conservation status at the federal or state level (e.g., threatened/endangered species, species of concern, sensitive species, etc.). Number of individuals per season Species-group/species Scientific name Spring Summer Fall Winter Raptors Bald Eagle1,2,3 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 0 1 1 Northern Goshawk4 Accipiter gentilis 0 0 0 1 Peregrine Falcon2,3 Falco peregrinus 2 1 0 0 Waterbirds Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata 0 0 0 1

1 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 2 Federal Species of Concern. 3 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife – State Sensitive 4 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife – State Candidate

Table 3. Species of special interest observed during the baseline avian use study at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Includes species of elevated conservation status at the federal or state level (e.g., threatened/endangered species, species of concern, sensitive species, etc.). Numbers in parentheses are from incidental observations during non-survey times. Status Season observed Common name Federal1 State2 Spring Summer Fall Winter Northern Goshawk C (1) Bald Eagle BGEPA,SC S X X X X Peregrine Falcon SC S X X3 Olive-sided Flycatcher SC X X Pileated Woodpecker C X X Vaux’s Swift C X X X

1 SC = Species of Concern; BGEPA = Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 2 S = sensitive; C = Candidate. As defined by Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297 and overseen by the wildlife Diversity Division of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

9 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results nighthawks. These “other birds” represented Accipiter use was low during all seasons 14.7% of species observed at the Project (Table 1). (range = 0–0.13) and none were observed during We observed a total of 3,445 individuals in the summer period (Table 4). Buteos (primarily 2,110 groups during point counts (Table 1). Red-tailed Hawk) had relatively high mean use Passerines were the most abundant species group, compared to other raptor groups, with an annual with 2,968 individuals in 1,777 groups. The four average of 0.14. Mean use of Red-tailed Hawk most numerically dominant species all were peaked in summer (0.13) and fall (0.12) and was passerines and included Dark-eyed Junco (12% of lowest during winter (0.02). Bald Eagle was the all individuals), American Robin (6%), Common only eagle species observed. Eagles were detected Raven (6%), and White-crowned Sparrows (5%). in all four seasons, but had highest mean use in “Other birds” comprised the second most winter (0.12). Falcon use was low during all abundant species group with 265 individuals in 201 seasons (range = 0–0.04) and none were observed groups (Table 1). Northern Flicker (113 individuals during the summer or winter periods. In the “other in 104 groups), Band-tailed Pigeon (91 individuals raptor” group, Turkey Vulture was by far the most in 44 groups), and Rufous Hummingbird (14 common species. Turkey Vultures were present in individuals in 14 groups) were the three most spring (0.22), summer (0.48), and fall (0.14), but abundant species in this group. none were recorded during winter. Raptors were the third most abundant species Percent composition of raptors had a different group and included a total of 157 individuals in among-season pattern than the pattern observed in 108 groups (Table 1). Turkey Vulture was the most mean use. That is to say that, while mean use commonly observed raptor (58 individuals in 36 showed a large drop in winter (Table 4), percent groups), followed by Red-tailed Hawk (24 composition was somewhat constant across the individuals in 20 groups) and Bald Eagle (21 year (Table 5). Specifically, raptor percent individuals in 14 groups). In addition to these three composition ranged from 4.04%–5.76%, with an most numerous species, we observed (in order of annual average of 4.82%. Raptors ranked third among all species groups abundance) Northern Harrier, Sharp-shinned in frequency of occurrence, with an annual average Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, American Kestrel, Osprey, of 25.32% (Table 6). Not surprisingly, the Peregrine Falcon, and Northern Pygmy-owl. among-season pattern in frequency of occurrence The only species we observed in the gamebird was fairly similar to the pattern observed for mean species group was Sooty Grouse (20 individuals in use. Specifically, raptors were recorded on 27.66% 19 groups; Table 1). Similarly, we observed only a of surveys in spring, 40.74% of surveys in summer, single species in the waterbird species group (one 27.27% of surveys in fall, and 10.61% of surveys flock of Canada Geese). in winter (Table 6). MEAN USE, PERCENT COMPOSITION, AND Annual raptor activity varied significantly FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE across the Project (Kruskal-Wallis H = 20.114, df = 8, P = 0.010) with annual mean use values ranging Raptors from 0.15 ± 0.07 raptors/pt at points 8, and 9 to Annual raptor mean use (0.52) ranked third 1.54 ± 0.44 raptors/point at point 1 (Fig. 4). In among the various species groups (Table 4). pairwise comparisons between stations, the only Overall raptor use differed statistically by season statistically significant differences we found were (Fig. 3; Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.924, df = 3, P = between point 1 and all other points (i.e., points 0.019) and was highest during the summer 2–9 did not differ significantly from one another). breeding season (0.81) followed by fall (0.68), In contrast to the above analysis, the flight spring (0.52), and winter (0.18). Seasonal mean use path analysis (Figures 5–10) did not indicate any was significantly different only between summer major areas of raptor flight concentration across and winter (U = 16.604, Padj = 0.016), however. the Project. Note that these figures also contain Not every raptor species was represented in each flight tracks of raptors observed incidentally and/or season; in fact, the only species observed in all four beyond the point count survey radius (i.e., >800 seasons were Red-tailed Hawk and Bald Eagle. m), so they have a higher sample size than some of

Skookumchuck Avian Study 10 Results

Table 4. Estimated mean use (mean number of observations within 800 m per 20-min point count) of avian species observed during point count surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project located in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Mean Use Annuall Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average

Raptors 0.52 0.81 0.68 0.18 0.52 Accipiters 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.03 Sharp-shinned Hawk 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 Cooper’s Hawk 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Unidentified accipiter 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.02 Buteos 0.07 0.24 0.25 0.03 0.14 Red-tailed Hawk 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.08 Rough-legged Hawk 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 Unidentified buteo 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.05 Eagles 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.08 Bald Eagle 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.08 Falcons 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 American Kestrel 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Peregrine Falcon 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01 Unidentified falcon 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01 Owls 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.00 Northern pygmy-owl 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01 Other raptors 0.33 0.54 0.22 0.02 0.26 Turkey Vulture 0.22 0.48 0.14 0.00 0.20 Northern Harrier 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.03 Osprey 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 Unidentified raptor 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.02 Passerines 10.19 12.22 14.83 3.15 9.37 Corvids 1.21 1.00 2.43 0.76 1.26 Steller’s Jay 0.56 0.65 0.36 0.05 0.37 Gray Jay 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.14 Common Raven 0.60 0.24 1.30 0.48 0.62 American Crow 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.13 Songbirds 8.98 11.22 12.40 2.39 8.11 Olive-sided Flycatcher 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 Pacific-slope Flycatcher 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 Willow Flycatcher 0.06 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.14 Warbling Vireo 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 Hutton's Vireo 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Tree Swallow 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.07 Violet-green Swallow 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 Barn Swallow 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 Black-capped Chickadee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 <0.01 Chestnut-backed Chickadee 0.04 0.15 0.31 0.17 0.17 Bushtit 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.14 Red-breasted Nuthatch 0.03 0.30 0.13 0.05 0.12 Bewick's Wren 0.13 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.09 Pacific Wren 0.54 0.09 0.04 0.44 0.29

11 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

Table 4. Continued. Mean Use Annuall Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average Songbirds (continued) Golden-crowned Kinglet 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.06 Townsend's Solitaire 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 Western Bluebird 0.18 0.24 0.84 0.09 0.30 Varied Thrush 0.24 0.17 0.35 0.02 0.17 American Robin 0.65 0.41 1.44 0.23 0.62 Swainson's Thrush 0.01 0.52 0.03 0.00 0.14 Hermit Thrush 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 American Pipit 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.08 Cedar Waxwing 0.16 0.80 0.56 0.00 0.35 Orange-crowned Warbler 0.21 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 MacGillivray's Warbler 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 Common Yellowthroat 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.30 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.13 Black-throated Gray Warbler 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01 Townsend's Warbler 0.15 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.05 Hermit Warbler 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Wilson's Warbler 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Spotted Towhee 0.56 0.44 0.13 0.02 0.26 Song Sparrow 0.52 0.28 0.31 0.41 0.38 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 White-crowned Sparrow 0.98 1.31 0.16 0.11 0.61 Dark-eyed Junco 1.55 1.78 1.81 0.52 1.32 Western Tanager 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.07 Black-headed Grosbeak 0.10 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.12 Evening Grosbeak 0.18 0.96 0.10 0.00 0.30 Red Crossbill 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.09 0.10 American Goldfinch 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.05 Unidentified flycatcher 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 Unidentified swallow 0.15 0.39 0.04 0.02 0.14 Unidentified sparrow 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.03 Unidentified songbird 1.16 1.07 4.16 0.12 1.42 Gamebirds 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 Sooty Grouse 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 Waterbirds 0.03 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.09 Canada Goose 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.06 Unidentified Waterfowl 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 Unidentified Shorebird 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 Other Birds 1.37 1.07 0.75 0.30 0.82 Doves 0.57 0.46 0.14 0.03 0.28 Band-tailed Pigeon 0.57 0.44 0.14 0.03 0.27 Mourning Dove 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 <0.01 Hummingbirds 0.11 0.30 0.01 0.00 0.10 Rufous Hummingbird 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.05 Unidentified hummingbird 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.05 Woodpeckers 0.65 0.19 0.56 0.27 0.39 Red-breasted Sapsucker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01 Downy Woodpecker 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03

Skookumchuck Avian Study 12 Results

Table 4. Continued. Mean Use Annuall Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average

Hairy Woodpecker 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01 Northern Flicker 0.59 0.19 0.51 0.14 0.32 Pileated Woodpecker 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 Unidentified woodpecker 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.03 Other 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.05 Common Nighthawk 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 Vaux’s Swift 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.02

Totals 12.27 14.15 16.71 3.65 10.86

1 Average of all four seasons weighted by the length of each season. the other summaries (e.g., more than in Table 1). only three species had annual mean use values The single exception to this general pattern of even >0.50 (Table 4). These three species included usage was that there appeared to be slightly higher American Robin (0.62), White-crowned Sparrow use of the area near survey points 1 and 2 by (0.61), and Dark-eyed Junco (1.32). Turkey Vulture (Figures 5 and 6). Passerines comprised the majority of bird sightings across all seasons with an annual percent Passerines composition value of 86.14% (Table 5). Percent Passerines were the dominant group across all composition was uniformly high during all seasons for all metrics. Mean use values varied seasons, ranging from 83.09 in spring to 88.73 in among seasons (H = 18.790, df = 3, P = <0.001; fall. The four passerine species noted above for Fig. 3) and were highest during the fall migratory highest mean use also exhibited the four highest period (14.83) followed by summer (12.22), spring percent composition values (Table 5). Based on (10.19), and winter (3.15; Table 4). Seasonal mean frequency of occurrence values (Table 6) we use was only significantly different between winter detected passerines during most surveys in every and spring (U = 14.080, Padj = 0.019), winter and season (seasonal range = 83.3%–98.94% of summer (U = 17.375, Padj = 0.010), and winter and surveys). fall (U = 20.025, Padj = <0.001), however. Passerine mean use values differed significantly Gamebirds, Waterbirds, and Other species across the Project stations (Kruskal-Wallis H = There was only a single species in the 21.343, df = 8, P = 0.006) and ranged from 6.23 ± gamebird species group (Sooty Grouse) and the 1.22 birds/point at point 6 to 15.27 ± 3.33 species was not observed in large numbers (Table birds/point at point 7 (Fig. 4). 1). Thus, the gamebird species group had low As mentioned previously, passerines were the annual mean use (0.05; Table 4), low annual largest species assemblage, represented by four percent composition (0.51; Table 5), and low species of corvid and 41 species of songbird (Table annual frequency of occurrence (4.95; Table 6). 1). Not surprisingly, songbirds (i.e., the species Similarly, there was only one species in the group with the highest number of both species and waterbirds group (Canada Goose; Table 1), so that individuals) were the largest contributor to mean species group also had low annual mean use (0.09; use values: the annual average mean use for Table 4), low annual percent composition (0.57; passerines was 9.37 (Table 4). Among corvids (and Table 5), and low annual frequency of occurrence most other passerines), Common Raven was the (1.04; Table 6). species with the highest annual mean use value “Other bird” mean use (0.82) ranked second (0.62). Among songbirds, there was considerable among the various species groups (Table 4). Mean variation in seasonal mean use for most species and use ranged from 0.30–1.37, with highest values

13 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

 ßÖ 14Ú 2Ý









 12&)% 5(($2  ' &)4$2  ÞÙ߃ 33$2&)Ý

  Ù 352

Ý  &2 ÝßÞ  $ )5 

 12&)% 5(($2  ' &)4$2

 × Ùß ßÞ &2Ý







 12&)% 5(($2  ' &)4$2

Figure 3. Summary of seasonal mean use (mean number of observations within 800 m / number of 20-min point counts) for raptors, passerines, and all birds at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014–2015. Note that the y-axis scale differs between the raptor figure and other figures.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 14 Results

Table 5. Estimated percent composition (mean use/total use by all species * 100) of avian species observed during point count surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project located in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Percent Composition Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter Average1 Raptors 4.25 5.76 4.04 4.98 4.82 Accipiters 0.09 0.00 0.78 0.41 0.32 Sharp-shinned Hawk 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.41 0.17 Cooper’s Hawk 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 Unidentified accipiter 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.11 Buteos 0.61 1.70 1.48 0.83 1.14 Red-tailed Hawk 0.61 0.92 0.70 0.41 0.64 Rough-legged Hawk 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 Unidentified buteo 0.00 0.52 0.78 0.41 0.43 Eagles 0.69 0.26 0.23 3.32 1.35 Bald Eagle 0.69 0.26 0.23 3.32 1.35 Falcons 0.09 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.07 American Kestrel 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 Peregrine Falcon 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Unidentified falcon 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 Owls 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Northern pygmy-owl 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Other raptors 2.69 3.80 1.32 0.41 1.94 Turkey Vulture 1.82 3.40 0.85 0.00 1.42 Northern Harrier 0.69 0.00 0.23 0.41 0.33 Osprey 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 Unidentified raptor 0.17 0.39 0.08 0.00 0.15 Passerines 83.09 86.39 88.73 86.31 86.14 Corvids 9.89 7.07 14.53 20.75 13.68 Steller’s Jay 4.60 4.58 2.18 1.24 3.00 Gray Jay 0.43 0.79 0.78 6.22 2.48 Common Raven 4.86 1.70 7.77 13.28 7.41 American Crow 0.00 0.00 3.81 0.00 0.79 Songbirds 73.20 79.32 74.20 65.56 72.46 Olive-sided Flycatcher 0.69 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.25 Pacific-slope Flycatcher 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 Willow Flycatcher 0.52 3.40 0.00 0.00 0.97 Warbling Vireo 0.26 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.25 Hutton's Vireo 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Tree Swallow 1.91 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.95 Violet-green Swallow 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.24 Barn Swallow 0.09 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.28 Black-capped Chickadee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.14 Chestnut-backed Chickadee 0.35 1.05 1.86 4.56 2.21 Bushtit 0.00 0.00 3.89 0.00 0.81 Red-breasted Nuthatch 0.26 2.09 0.78 1.24 1.15 Bewick's Wren 1.04 0.52 0.62 1.66 1.02 Pacific Wren 4.42 0.65 0.23 12.03 5.08

15 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

Table 5. Continued. Percent Composition Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter Average1

Golden-crowned Kinglet 0.26 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.35 Townsend's Solitaire 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.00 0.15 Western Bluebird 1.47 1.70 5.05 2.49 2.61 Varied Thrush 1.99 1.18 2.10 0.41 1.30 American Robin 5.29 2.88 8.62 6.22 5.68 Swainson's Thrush 0.09 3.66 0.16 0.00 0.97 Hermit Thrush 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 American Pipit 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.47 Cedar Waxwing 1.30 5.63 3.34 0.00 2.39 Orange-crowned Warbler 1.73 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.47 MacGillivray's Warbler 0.26 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.15 Common Yellowthroat 0.43 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.16 Yellow-rumped Warbler 2.43 1.18 0.70 0.00 0.96 Black-throated Gray Warbler 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 Townsend's Warbler 1.21 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.36 Hermit Warbler 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Wilson's Warbler 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 Spotted Towhee 4.60 3.14 0.78 0.41 2.07 Song Sparrow 4.25 1.96 1.86 11.20 5.44 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.16 White-crowned Sparrow 7.98 9.29 0.93 2.90 5.19 Dark-eyed Junco 12.66 12.57 10.80 14.11 12.72 Western Tanager 1.13 0.79 0.47 0.00 0.54 Black-headed Grosbeak 0.78 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.89 Evening Grosbeak 1.47 6.81 0.62 0.00 2.16 Red Crossbill 0.00 2.09 0.00 2.49 1.34 American Goldfinch 1.13 0.26 0.23 0.00 0.36 Unidentified flycatcher 0.09 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.15 Unidentified swallow 1.21 2.75 0.23 0.41 1.14 Unidentified sparrow 0.09 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.20 Unidentified songbird 9.45 7.59 24.86 3.32 10.19 Gamebirds 1.21 0.26 0.23 0.41 0.51 Sooty Grouse 1.21 0.26 0.23 0.41 0.51 Waterbirds 0.26 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.57 Canada Goose 0.00 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.36 Unidentified waterfowl 0.26 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.15 Unidentified shorebird 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.06 Other Birds 11.19 7.59 4.51 8.30 7.95 Doves 4.68 3.27 0.85 0.83 2.27 Band-tailed Pigeon 4.68 3.14 0.85 0.83 2.24 Mourning Dove 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 Hummingbirds 0.87 2.09 0.08 0.00 0.73 Rufous Hummingbird 0.43 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.39 Unidentified hummingbird 0.43 0.92 0.08 0.00 0.34

Skookumchuck Avian Study 16 Results

Table 5. Continued. Percent Composition Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter Average1 Woodpeckers 5.29 1.31 3.34 7.47 4.59 Red-breasted Sapsucker 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.02 Downy Woodpecker 0.26 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.60 Hairy Woodpecker 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Northern Flicker 4.77 1.31 3.03 3.73 3.20 Pileated Woodpecker 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.29 Unidentified woodpecker 0.09 0.00 0.23 1.25 0.47 Other 0.35 0.92 0.23 0.00 0.35 Common Nighthawk 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.20 Vaux’s Swift 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.00 0.16 Totals 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 Average of all four seasons weighted by the length of each season.

observed in spring and the lowest in winter. Most through this potential zone of risk for collisions. species in this group were not observed in all For these analyses, we identified the RSA as being seasons; the only species observed in all four from 25–135 m agl, although depending on the seasons were Band-tailed Pigeon and Northern turbine model selected for the Project the zone of Flicker. These two species also had the highest risk may differ slightly. Flight characteristics are annual mean use values for this group. presented for species and species groups observed The among-season pattern in percent within 800 m of point count stations across all four composition for “other birds” was different than seasons in Table 7. Flight altitudes were divided the pattern observed in mean use. That is to say into three categories: <25 m agl (below turbine that, while mean use showed a large drop in winter blades), 25–135 m agl (RSA of the turbine—the (Table 4), mean percent composition was higher in potential collision zone) and >135 m agl (above winter than in summer or fall (Table 5). turbine blades). We also present flight altitude Specifically, percent composition for “other birds” categories by season in Table 8. ranged from 4.51%–11.19%, with an annual All raptor observations (100%) were of flying average of 7.95%. individuals, with 63.94% of all flights in the RSA “Other birds” ranked second among all (Table 7). Seasonally, the percentage of raptor species groups in frequency of occurrence, with an flights in the RSA was 56.2% in spring, 47.7% in annual average of 42.85% (Table 6). Not summer, 63.5% in fall, and 81.8% during winter surprisingly, the among-season pattern in (Table 8). Individual species of raptors varied frequency of occurrence was fairly similar to the greatly in the proportion of time spent within the pattern observed for mean use. Specifically, “other RSA; however, small sample sizes for individual birds” were recorded on 63.83% of surveys in species in a single season should be recognized spring, 50.00% of surveys in summer, 44.16% of when interpreting their flight behaviors. The three surveys in spring, and 22.73% of surveys in winter most numerous species frequentlyy were observed (Table 6). XFSFin the RSA: Red-tailed Hawk (79.4% of observations in RSA), Bald Eagle (70.84%), and FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS Turkey Vulture (44.96%). The percentage of birds flying within the Passerines also were most commonly turbine rotor swept area (RSA) provides an observed while in flight (84.99% of observations; estimate of the likelihood that a species will fly Table 7). Annually, corvid flights occurred in the

17 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

Table 6. Estimated frequency of occurrence (percentage of surveys for which the species was recorded) of avian species observed during point count surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project located in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Frequency of occurrence Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1 Raptors 27.66 40.74 27.27 10.61 25.32 Accipiters 1.06 0.00 5.19 1.52 1.80 Sharp-shinned Hawk 1.06 0.00 1.30 1.52 0.99 Cooper’s Hawk 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.54 Unidentified accipiter 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Buteos 5.32 16.67 12.99 3.03 9.03 Red-tailed Hawk 5.32 11.11 10.39 1.52 6.59 Rough-legged Hawk 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.93 Unidentified buteo 0.00 1.85 2.60 1.52 1.50 Eagles 7.45 3.70 2.60 4.55 4.55 Bald Eagle 7.45 3.70 2.60 4.55 4.55 Falcons 1.06 0.00 3.90 0.00 1.04 American Kestrel 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.54 Peregrine Falcon 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Unidentified falcon 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Owls 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Northern pygmy-owl 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Other raptors 18.09 25.93 10.39 1.52 13.06 Turkey Vulture 13.83 22.22 5.19 0.00 9.64 Northern Harrier 7.45 0.00 3.90 1.52 2.90 Osprey 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.54 Unidentified raptor 2.13 3.70 1.30 0.00 1.66 Passerines 98.94 98.15 97.40 83.33 93.33 Corvids 63.83 55.56 71.43 45.45 57.34 Steller’s Jay 41.49 48.15 23.38 3.03 26.86 Gray Jay 4.26 7.41 12.99 13.64 9.93 Common Raven 38.30 16.67 51.95 31.82 33.58 American Crow 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.54 Songbirds 96.81 96.30 92.21 74.24 88.36 Olive-sided Flycatcher 7.45 5.56 0.00 0.00 2.99 Pacific-slope Flycatcher 0.00 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.93 Willow Flycatcher 4.26 35.19 0.00 0.00 9.78 Warbline Vireo 3.19 9.26 0.00 0.00 3.02 Hutton's Vireo 7.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 Tree Swallow 10.64 0.00 0.00 1.52 2.77 Violet-green Swallow 2.13 3.70 1.30 0.00 1.66 Barn Swallow 1.06 3.70 0.00 0.00 1.16 Black-capped Chickadee 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.49 Chestnut-backed Chickadee 4.26 9.26 12.99 4.55 7.43 Bushtit 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Red-breasted Nuthatch 3.19 20.37 9.09 4.55 9.19 Bewick's Wren 9.57 7.41 9.09 4.55 7.29 Pacific Wren 42.55 9.26 2.60 28.79 21.35

Skookumchuck Avian Study 18 Results

Table 6. Continued. Frequency of occurrence Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1 Songbirds (continued) Golden-crowned Kinglet 1.06 0.00 11.69 0.00 2.66 Townsend's Solitaire 3.19 3.70 1.30 0.00 1.89 Western Bluebird 9.57 12.96 15.58 3.03 9.55 Varied Thrush 18.09 11.11 16.88 1.52 10.67 American Robin 41.49 29.63 41.56 12.12 28.94 Swainson's Thrush 1.06 25.93 1.30 0.00 7.03 Hermit Thrush 0.00 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.47 American Pipit 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 1.89 Cedar Waxwing 1.06 14.81 7.79 0.00 5.58 Orange-crowned Warbler 19.15 5.56 0.00 0.00 5.49 MacGillivray's Warbler 3.19 3.70 0.00 0.00 1.62 Common Yellowthroat 4.26 1.85 1.30 0.00 1.65 Yellow-rumped Warbler 25.53 12.96 7.79 0.00 10.35 Black-throated Gray Warbler 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Townsend's Warbler 9.57 5.56 0.00 0.00 3.45 Hermit Warbler 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Wilson's Warbler 10.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 Spotted Towhee 42.55 35.19 11.69 1.52 20.89 Song Sparrow 37.23 16.67 22.08 31.82 27.13 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.00 0.00 7.79 0.00 1.62 White-crowned Sparrow 51.06 66.67 10.39 6.06 31.86 Dark-eyed Junco 80.85 83.33 72.73 27.27 62.32 Western Tanager 9.57 11.11 1.30 0.00 5.12 Black-headed Grosbeak 7.45 27.78 0.00 0.00 8.59 Evening Grosbeak 4.26 9.26 2.60 0.00 3.78 Red Crossbill 0.00 12.96 0.00 1.52 3.76 American Goldfinch 4.26 1.85 2.60 0.00 1.92 Unidentified flycatcher 1.06 7.41 0.00 0.00 2.09 Unidentified swallow 8.51 18.52 1.30 1.52 7.25 Unidentified sparrow 1.06 0.00 5.19 0.00 1.31 Unidentified songbird 21.28 25.93 36.36 7.58 21.12 Gamebirds 14.89 1.85 3.90 1.52 4.95 Sooty Grouse 14.89 1.85 3.90 1.52 4.95 Waterbirds 1.06 0.00 3.90 0.00 1.04 Canada Goose 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Unidentified waterfowl 1.06 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.50 Unidentified shorebird 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Other Birds 63.83 50.00 44.16 22.73 42.85 Doves 20.21 18.52 5.19 1.52 10.56 Band-tailed Pigeon 20.21 18.52 5.19 1.52 10.56 Mourning Dove 0.00 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.47 Hummingbirds 10.64 27.78 1.30 0.00 9.55 Rufous Hummingbird 5.32 16.67 0.00 0.00 5.34 Unidentified hummingbird 5.32 11.11 1.30 0.00 4.21

19 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

Table 6. Continued. Frequency of occurrence Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1 Woodpeckers 50.00 12.96 40.26 22.73 29.74 Red-breasted Sapsucker 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.27 Downy Woodpecker 3.19 0.00 0.00 4.55 2.16 Hairy Woodpecker 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 Northern Flicker 46.81 12.96 37.66 12.12 25.06 Pileated Woodpecker 1.06 0.00 0.00 3.03 1.22 Unidentified woodpecker 1.06 0.00 3.90 4.55 2.52 Other 2.13 7.41 2.60 0.00 2.86 Common Nighthawk 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 1.40 Vaux’s Swift 2.13 1.85 2.60 0.00 1.46

1 Average of all four seasons weighted by the length of each season.

RSA 29.45% of the time and songbird flights available to be able to model these avoidance occurred in the RSA 28.27% of the time. variables—hence they are currently not part of the Seasonally, the percentage of passerine flights in exposure index. the RSA was 19.2% in spring, 17.4% in summer, Exposure indices for all raptors combined 34.0% in fall, and 40.6% during winter (Table 8). ranged from 0.136 in winter to 0.429 in fall, Most gamebirds (i.e., Sooty Grouse) were averaging 0.293 for the year (Table 9). Most observed in flight (89.70%) and all flew below the individual species (i.e., 9 of 11 species) exhibited RSA (Tables 7 and 8). All the waterfowl we an exposure index of zero (0) in one or more observed were in flight and 49.35% flew within the seasons. Of the three most numerous raptor RSA (Table 7). species, Turkey Vulture exhibited the highest “Other birds” also were most commonly annual exposure index (0.088), followed by Bald observed while in flight (76.73% of observations; Eagle (0.063) and Red-tailed Hawk (0.053). The Table 7). Annually, 44.44% of “other bird” flights two raptor species of special interest (i.e., Bald occurred in the RSA. Seasonally, the percentage of Eagle and Peregrine Falcon) had variable exposure “other bird” flights in the RSA was 25.4% in indices among seasons. Specifically, exposure spring, 22.6% in summer, 54.5% in fall, and 66.7% indices for Bald Eagle were 0.074 in spring, 0.019 during winter (Table 8). in summer, 0.013 in fall, and 0.121 in winter and exposure indices for Peregrine Falcon were 0.011 EXPOSURE INDEX in spring, 0.000 in summer, 0.000 in fall, and 0.000 The exposure index is a relative measure of in winter (Table 9). the risk that each species will come into contact Exposure indices for all passerines combined with a turbine blade. The exposure index is based ranged from 0.428 in winter to 4.324 in fall, on the product of a species’ mean use, the averaging 1.748 for the year (Table 9). Most proportion of time spent flying, and the proportion individual passerine species (i.e., 43 of 45 species) of time that a bird will fly within the RSA. We exhibited an exposure index of zero (0) in one or present both seasonal and annual (Table 9) more seasons. Further, most (31 of 45) passerines breakdowns of this metric for each species. The had an annual exposure index of zero (0), because exposure index assumes that birds in the RSA will they either were never observed flying in the RSA not attempt to avoid the turbine blades or be able to or were not observed flying at all. Common Raven pass through the turbine blades. Although both of and Western Bluebird were the only two passerine these assumptions are unrealistic, few data are species with an exposure index >0 in all four

Skookumchuck Avian Study 20 Results

! !(1')0  Ùß





 Ù 4 

2)3  0

          0  %) "

ß  " !00 )%& 0 0  Ùß   2 ß & !   





         

'%&1ßÙ  2&1ß 1!1% &

Figure 4. Summary of annual mean use (mean number of observations within 800 m / number of 20-min point counts) by point count station for raptors and passerines at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014–2015. Note that the y-axis scale differs between the raptor and passerine figures.

21 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results y stations 1–4 in the proposed Skookumchuck proposed y stations 1–4 in the res observed at point count surve during 2014–2015. during Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, Energy Wind Figure 5.vultu osprey and harriers, paths of all buteos, Flight

Skookumchuck Avian Study 22 Results y stations 5–9 in the proposed Skookumchuck proposed y stations 5–9 in the res observed at point count surve during 2014–2015. during Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, Energy Wind Figure 6.vultu osprey and harriers, paths of all buteos, Flight

23 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results in Lewis and Lewis in ookumchuck Wind Energy Project Energy Wind ookumchuck observed at point count survey stations 1–4 in the proposed Sk proposed the in 1–4 stations survey count point at observed Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014–2015. during Thurston counties, Washington, Figure 7.paths flight Eagle Bald

Skookumchuck Avian Study 24 Results in Lewis and Lewis in ookumchuck Wind Energy Project Energy Wind ookumchuck observed at point count survey stations 5–9 in the proposed Sk proposed the in 5–9 stations survey count point at observed Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014–2015. during Thurston counties, Washington, Figure 8.paths flight Eagle Bald

25 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results ind Energy Energy ind kookumchuck W n the proposed S –2015. point count survey stations 1–4 i point count survey stations Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014 Washington, Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Figure 9.falcons observed at Flight paths of all accipiters and

Skookumchuck Avian Study 26 Results Skookumchuck Wind Energy Energy Wind Skookumchuck –2015. t point count survey stations 5–9 in the proposed 5–9 in t point count survey stations Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, during 2014 Washington, Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Figure 10.falcons observed a Flight paths of all accipiters and

27 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results - - - 2.31 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.13 4.04 7.92 29.16 29.16 47.16 47.16 12.01 50.00 41.46 12.68 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Washington, 2014–2015. Rotor Washington, 79.94 79.94 70.84 70.84 14.98 12.85 12.85 53.25 44.96 39.48 50.00 50.00 30.09 23.83 29.45 40.65 63.94 - - - 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 17.74 17.74 43.03 39.99 39.99 85.02 46.75 50.00 34.70 67.78 51.43 23.38 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 < RSA RSA > RSA Percent flying within RSA categories across all seasons Percent flying within RSA d in Lewis and Thurston counties, Thurston and Lewis d in .00 ual birds flying at altitudes below RSA (<25 m agl), within RSA (<25 m agl), RSA birds flying at altitudes below ual 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.18 92.76 91.12 66.51 91.12 84.99 97.23 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 60.52 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 % individuals flying ithin 800 m of survey points du ring point count 800 m of observed flying w ithin avian species 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 4 2 2 2 6 6 7 0 24 24 21 21 12 12 58 58 49 32 11 11 15 264 172 155 1,616 flying Wind Energy Project locate Energy Wind # individuals # individuals 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 6 6 4 2 6 6 2 5 5 2 1 20 20 14 14 12 12 36 36 14 21 100.00 70.84 29.16 0.00 23 27 41 100.00 17.96 64.65 17.40 56 78 100.00 30.77 29.01 40.21 3.00 3.00 566 103 106 flying # groups groups # (25–135 m agl), and above RSA (>135m agl). Null values (-) indicate no birds were observed flying. (25–135 m agl), and above RSA (>135m agl). Null values (-) indicate surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck swept area (RSA) categories representthe percentage of individ raptors raptors Unidentified accipiter Unidentified Bald Eagle Gray Jay Gray Jay Raven Common Crow American Red-tailed Hawk Hawk Red-tailed Steller’s Jay Steller’s Jay Osprey Osprey raptor Unidentified Rough-legged Hawk Hawk Rough-legged American Kestrel Kestrel American Falcon Peregrine Northern Harrier Northern Northern pygmy-owl pygmy-owl Northern Turkey Vulture Vulture Turkey Unidentified buteo Unidentified falcon Unidentified Cooper’s Hawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Corvids 135 Buteos Buteos Passerines Other Other Falcons Eagles Owls 0 Accipiters 5 Species-group/species Species-group/species Raptors Table 7.Table Overall flight height characteristics and percentage of

Skookumchuck Avian Study 28 Results ------2.62 2.62 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.23 ------0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.27 28.27 31.26 31.26 30.89 20.29 23.55 23.55 24.14 42.37 11.28 ------79.71 64.57 64.57 69.11 75.63 75.63 76.50 75.86 57.63 57.63 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 < RSA RSA > RSA Percent flying within RSA categories across all seasons Percent flying within RSA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.54 20.00 43.40 86.18 98.49 98.49 91.11 74.96 97.54 97.54 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 % individuals flying 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8 8 6 6 1 1 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 23 23 11 16 50 13 80 80 12 29 98 98 103 1,352 82.45 69.11 69.11 82.45 1,352 flying # individuals # individuals 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 4 1 1 2 5 3 3 6 6 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 25 25 36 14 14 flying # groups groups # Olive-sided Flycatcher Flycatcher Olive-sided Pacific-slope Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher Warbling Vireo Vireo Hutton's Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Violet-green Barn Swallow Black-capped Chickadee Chickadee Black-capped Chestnut-backed Chickadee Bushtit Red-breasted Nuthatch Nuthatch Red-breasted Bewick’s Wren Bewick’s Wren Pacific Wren Golden-crowned Kinglet Golden-crowned Townsend's Solitaire Varied Thrush Thrush Varied Western Bluebird Western Bluebird American Robin Robin American Swainson's Thrush Thrush Swainson's Orange-crowned Warbler Orange-crowned MacGillivray'sWarbler Yellowthroat Common Yellow-rumped Warbler Hermit Thrush Thrush Hermit Pipit American Cedar Waxwing Cedar Waxwing Gray Black-throated Warbler Townsend's Warbler Townsend's Hermit WarblerHermit Wilson's Warbler Species-group/species Species-group/species 431 Songbirds Table 7.Table Continued.

29 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results - - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 < RSA RSA > RSA Percent flying within RSA categories across all seasons Percent flying within RSA 0.00 0.00 63.84 63.84 50.00 % individuals flying 1 0 0 16 16 flying # individuals # individuals 9 9 5 6 1 7 5 7 12 2 2 3 17 77.78 16 100.00 2 100.00 9 100.00 100.00 100.00 66.67 62.76 100.00 100.00 0.00 12.96 37.24 8.65 100.00 0.00 0.00 87.04 66.67 91.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 6 74.63 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 3 1 22 9 4 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 50.65 0.00 100.00 49.35 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 20 20 11 35 18 68 98 62.00 36 100.00 478 100.00 100.00 93.03 58.13 0.00 21.79 41.87 0.00 48.15 71.08 0.00 51.65 7.12 0.20 103 177 70.75 99.09 0.91 0.00 flying # groups groups # Sooty Grouse 6 7 89.70 100.00 0.00 0.00 Song Sparrow 8 11 56.11 100.00 0.00 0.00 Canada Goose Goose Canada Unidentified waterfowl waterfowl Unidentified shorebird Unidentified Golden-crowned Sparrow Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow White-crowned Dark-eyed Junco Western Tanager Grosbeak Black-headed Grosbeak Evening Red Crossbill Goldfinch American flycatcher Unidentified swallow Unidentified sparrow Unidentified songbird Unidentified Spotted Towhee Unidentified woodpecker woodpecker Unidentified Pileated Woodpecker Northern Flicker Flicker Northern Band-tailed Pigeon Pigeon Band-tailed Mourning Dove Hummingbird Rufous 41 13 0 84 13 0 93.42 100.00 0.00 27.61 100.00 71.60 - 0.00 0.79 - 0.00 - Unidentified hummingbird hummingbird Unidentified Sapsucker Red-breasted Downy Woodpecker 10 1 11 2 1 100.00 2 100.00 59.73 86.37 100.00 13.63 100.00 0.00 100.00 Hairy Woodpecker Gamebirds Gamebirds 6 7 89.70 100.00 0.00 0.00 Waterbirds Waterbirds 5 35 100.00 50.65 49.35 0.00 Species-group/species Species-group/species Other Birds Other Doves 81 41 84 93.42 0.79 13871.60 27.61 76.73 52.52 44.44 3.04 Hummingbirds Hummingbirds 23 24 100.00 0.00 6.22 93.78 Woodpeckers 13 20 66.26 100.00 Table 7.Table Continued.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 30 Results 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 32.90 0.00 0.00 67.10 < RSA RSA RSA > Percent flying within RSA categories across all seasons Percent flying within RSA 100.00 100.00 100.00 % individuals flying 4 4 6 flying # individuals # individuals 1 1 4 10 100.00 42.01 20.60 37.40 3 flying # groups groups # Common Nighthawk Nighthawk Common Vaux’s Swift Vaux’s Swift Species-group/species Species-group/species Other Table 7.Table Continued.

31 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results of survey points survey of Winter - - 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

), within RSA (25–135 m), and SA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA Fall 0.0 50.0 50.0 - - - 73.8 26.2 0.0 50.0 0.0 Season Project located in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, Thurston counties, Washington, Project located in Lewis and ing at altitudes below RSA (<25 m below altitudes at ing centages of individual birds fly centages oposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy oposed Skookumchuck Wind Spring Spring Summer 0.0 100.0 0.0 - - - 0.0 100.0 0.0 ------0.0 100.0 - - - 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 87.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 - 50.0 - 0.0 33.3 - 66.7 - 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 46.2 5.3 73.7 50.0 53.8 21.1 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 0.0 100.0 0.0 ------69.6 17.4 13.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 40.6 0.0 ------0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ------0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 10.0 90.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 100.0 ------50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ------35.5 38.7 25.8 48.3 48.3 3.4 52.9 41.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 41.2 52.9 3.4 48.3 48.3 25.8 38.7 35.5 19.0 75.0 47.6 12.5 33.3 12.5 53.8 - 42.3 3.8 - 54.5 - 45.5 0.0 66.7 33.3 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 79.3 3.5 30.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 66.5 19.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 69.6 100.0 17.4 0.0 13.0 100.0 66.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 - 59.4 40.6 - 0.0 - 53.7 41.5 4.9 - - - 61.5 38.5 0.0 - - - 25.0 56.2 18.8 47.7 47.7 4.6 28.8 63.5 7.7 0.0 81.8 18.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 36.4 0.0 36.4 0.0 27.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 55.2 44.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - 20.0 80.0 0.0 - - 0.0 80.0 - - 0.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - during point count surveys at pr per represent Values 2014–2015. flying during the season. above RSA (>135 m). Null values (-) indicate no birds were observed Unidentified accipiter Unidentified Bald Eagle Turkey Vulture Harrier Northern Osprey Unidentified raptor Unidentified Steller’s Jay Steller’s Jay Gray Jay Raven Common Crow American American Kestrel Kestrel American Falcon Peregrine falcon Unidentified Red-tailed Hawk Hawk Rough-legged buteo Unidentified Sharp-shinned Hawk Sharp-shinned Cooper’s Hawk Other raptors raptors Other Passerines Passerines Corvids Eagles Falcons Buteos Buteos Species-group/species Raptors < RSA RSA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA RSA < R Accipiters Table 8.Table m 800 within (RSA) area rotor-swept the to relative altitudes a t flying observed species avian of percentages Seasonal

Skookumchuck Avian Study 32 Results

- 0 0.0 .0 37.5 - - Winter - - -

------SA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA Fall 64.1 35.5 0.0 68.8 25.0 6.2 Season Spring Spring Summer

------100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 ------100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - 78.6 21.4 0.0 88.9 11.1 0.0 72.8 27.2 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 82.0 16.9 1.1 16.9 1.1 36.1 1.4 62.5 82.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - Golden-crowned Sparrow Golden-crowned Barn Swallow Swallow Barn Chickadee Chestnut-backed Bushtit - Red-breasted Nuthatch Wren Bewick’s Wren Pacific - 100.0 Kinglet Golden-crowned - Townsend's Solitaire 0.0 Western Bluebird - Thrush Varied - 100.0 0.0 Robin American - Thrush Swainson's 0.0 100.0 - - Pipit American 62.5 Waxwing Cedar - 0.0 0.0 Warbler 37.5 Yellow-rumped - WarblerTownsend's 100.0 85.7 0.0 - - - Hermit Warbler 0.0 100.0 14.3 - Wilson's Warbler 0.0 100.0 Spotted Towhee - 100.0 0.0 - - - 0.0 Song Sparrow 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 63.4 - 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 36.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - 60.5 - - - - 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 39.5 - 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 - - 0.0 100.0 - - - 7.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 92.9 0.0 - 0.0 - - 100.0 - 62.5 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0 75.9 - 0.0 - 100.0 - - - - 0.0 24.1 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 ------100.0 - - - 0. ------Tree Swallow Tree Swallow Swallow Violet-green 100.0 0.0 10.5 78.9 0.0 10.5 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 - - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 White-crowned Sparrow 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Dark-eyed Junco Junco Dark-eyed Western Tanager Black-headedGrosbeak EveningGrosbeak Red Crossbill 100.0 - 80.0 0.0 20.0 - 89.9 0.0 10.1 0.0 - - 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 4.5 100.0 100.0 - 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 ------0.0 - 100.0 0.0 Species-group/species (continued) Passerines Songbirds < RSA RSA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA RSA < R Table 8.Table Continued.

33 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results 7 0.0 Winter 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

------SA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA Fall Season Spring Spring Summer - - - 0.0 0.0 100.0 ------100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 ------0.0 100.0 0.0 - - - 64.8 31.5 3.7 3.7 31.5 0.0 52.9 47.1 0.0 90.9 64.8 0.0 100.0 9.1 0.0 64.8 12.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 87.5 - 31.5 - - 75.0 3.7 - 25.0 - - 47.1 0.0 52.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 90.9 - 0.0 - 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - - - 27.3 27.3 72.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 - - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - 33.3 66.7 0.0 - - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 66.7 100.0 33.3 - 0.0 0.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 100.0 0.0 - 0.0 - - - - 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 ------100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - - - - - Common Nighthawk Nighthawk Common Red-breasted Sapsucker Red-breasted Band-tailed Pigeon Canada Goose Canada Unidentifiedwaterfowl Unidentified shorebird 100.0 - 0.0 0.0 ------0.0 - 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - - - - - American Goldfinch Goldfinch American Unidentified flycatcher swallow Unidentified - 18.2 - 81.8 0.0 - 42.9 100.0 38.1 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - 0.0 - - - - - Unidentified sparrow songbird Unidentified - 90.5 8.6 - 1.0 - 70.9 29.1 - 0.0 - 52.5 - 47.5 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 - - - Vaux’s Swift Vaux’s Swift Downy Woodpecker Flicker Northern woodpecker Unidentified Unidentified hummingbird hummingbird Unidentified Other Doves Hummingbirds Hummingbird Rufous Woodpeckers Other Birds Other 71.8 25.4 2.8 67.3 22.6 10.1 45.5 54.5 0.0 33.3 66. Gamebirds Sooty Grouse Waterbirds 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - Species-group/species < RSA RSA > RSA < RSA RSA > RSA RSA < R Table 8.Table Continued.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 34 Results

Table 9. Seasonal and annual exposure indices (mean use * percent flying * percent flying within the altitude range of the rotor swept area [RSA = 25–135 m agl]) calculated for avian species observed within 800 m of survey points during point count surveys at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project located in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2014–2015. Exposure index Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1

Raptors 0.287 0.389 0.429 0.136 0.293 Accipiters 0.000 0.000 0.104 0.000 0.022 Sharp-shinned Hawk 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cooper’s Hawk 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.003 Unidentified accipiter 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.000 0.019 Buteos 0.074 0.111 0.182 0.015 0.087 Red-tailed Hawk 0.074 0.074 0.065 0.015 0.053 Rough-legged Hawk 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.009 Unidentified buteo 0.000 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.024 Eagles 0.074 0.019 0.013 0.121 0.063 Bald Eagle2,3,4 0.074 0.019 0.013 0.121 0.063 Falcons 0.011 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.010 American Kestrel 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.005 Peregrine Falcon3,4 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 Unidentified falcon 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.003 Owls 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Northern pygmy-owl 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Other raptors 0.128 0.259 0.091 0.000 0.112 Turkey Vulture 0.106 0.204 0.065 0.000 0.088 Northern Harrier 0.011 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.005 Osprey 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.003 Unidentified raptor 0.011 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.016 Passerines 0.910 2.064 4.324 0.428 1.748 Corvids 0.230 0.088 0.640 0.210 0.273 Steller’s Jay 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.030 Gray Jay 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Common Raven 0.230 0.088 0.494 0.210 0.243 American Crow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Songbirds 0.680 1.977 3.685 0.218 1.475 Olive-sided Flycatcher3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Pacific-slope Flycatcher 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Willow Flycatcher 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Warbling Vireo 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hutton’s Vireo 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tree Swallow 0.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 Violet-green Swallow 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.014 Barn Swallow 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.014 Black-capped Chickadee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Chestnut-backed Chickadee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Bushtit 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Red-breasted Nuthatch 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Bewick’s Wren 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

35 Skookumchuck Avian Study Results

Table 9. Continued. Exposure index Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1 Pacific Wren 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Golden-crowned Kinglet 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Townsend's Solitaire 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Western Bluebird 0.039 0.027 0.200 0.030 0.066 Varied Thrush 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 American Robin 0.093 0.000 0.570 0.000 0.138 Swainson's Thrush 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hermit Thrush 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 American Pipit 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.000 0.019 Cedar Waxwing 0.000 0.278 0.506 0.000 0.175 Orange-crowned Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MacGillivray's Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Common Yellowthroat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Black-throated Gray Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Townsend's Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hermit Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Wilson's Warbler 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Spotted Towhee 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Song Sparrow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 White-crowned Sparrow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dark-eyed Junco 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.016 Western Tanager 0.028 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.022 Black-headed Grosbeak 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Evening Grosbeak 0.014 0.963 0.000 0.000 0.246 Red Crossbill 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.091 0.070 American Goldfinch 0.101 0.037 0.039 0.000 0.039 Unidentified flycatcher 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unidentified swallow 0.122 0.148 0.039 0.000 0.072 Unidentified sparrow 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.003 Unidentified songbird 0.099 0.307 1.972 0.097 0.541 Gamebirds 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sooty Grouse 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Waterbirds 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.000 0.087 Canada Goose 0.000 0.000 0.286 0.000 0.059 Unidentified waterfowl 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.016 Unidentified shorebird 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.011 Other Birds 0.194 0.174 0.156 0.030 0.134 Doves 0.181 0.174 0.130 0.030 0.119 Band-tailed Pigeon 0.181 0.174 0.130 0.030 0.119 Mourning Dove 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hummingbirds 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Rufous Hummingbird 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unidentified hummingbird 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 Woodpeckers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Red-breasted Sapsucker 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Downy Woodpecker 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hairy Woodpecker 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Skookumchuck Avian Study 36 Discussion

Table 9. Continued. Exposure index Annual Species-group/species Spring Summer Fall Winter average1

Northern Flicker 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Pileated Woodpecker5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unidentified woodpecker 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Other 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.005 Common Nighthawk 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vaux’s Swift5 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.005

1 Average of all four seasons weighted by the length of each season. 2 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 3 Federal Species of Concern. 4 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife – State Sensitive 5 Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife – State Candidate seasons. The single passerine species of special surveys; those incidental observations included interest that we observed (i.e., Olive-sided four Bald Eagles and three Peregrine Falcons. Flycatcher) had exposure indices of 0 in all four seasons (Table 9). DISCUSSION The annual exposure index of gamebirds was Impacts of wind development on birds can be zero (0) and the annual exposure index of grouped into two categories: direct impacts in the waterbirds was 0.087 (Table 9). Exposure indices form of injury or fatality resulting from collisions for all “other birds” combined ranged from 0.030 with wind turbines (e.g., Loss et al. 2013, Erickson in winter to 0.194 in spring, averaging 0.134 for et al. 2014) and other structures associated with the year. Most individual “other bird” species (i.e., wind developments (e.g., guyed meteorological 9 of 10 species) exhibited an exposure index of towers); and indirect impacts including zero (0) in one or more seasons. Further, most (8 of displacement of birds because of disturbance, 10) “other birds” had an annual exposure index of habitat loss, and barrier effects (Drewitt and zero (0), because they either were never observed Langston 2006, Kuvlesky et al. 2007). Baseline flying in the RSA or were not observed flying at avian-use studies are an important tool for all. Band-tailed Pigeon was the only “other bird” assessing the likelihood and potential magnitude of species with an exposure index>0 in all four these impacts and data from these studies can seasons. Two of the species in the “other bird” provide critical information for making appropriate category, Pileated Woodpecker and Vaux’s Swift, siting recommendations to avoid or minimize were state-listed species (Table 9). The Pileated impacts to birds (USFWS 2012). Our approach is Woodpecker had exposure indices of zero (0) in all to discuss two key metrics from our study (i.e., four seasons and the Vaux’s Swift had exposure mean use and exposure indices) and provide indices of zero (0) in spring, summer, and winter context to evaluate the potential for direct (e.g., and an index of 0.026 in fall. collision fatalities) and indirect (e.g., displace- INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS ment) impacts to birds at the Project. This includes During incidental observations we detected a summary of mean use from wind projects at both single individuals of two species not recorded a regional (e.g., western US) and national scale. during point count surveys, a Northern Goshawk Whenever possible, we include examples specific and a Wilson’s Snipe (Table 2). We also made to the Pacific Northwest. Most information incidental observations of two species of special available for the Pacific Northwest comes from interest that were also observed during point count east of the Cascade Range, in the Colombia Plateau

37 Skookumchuck Avian Study Discussion

Ecoregion (CPE). Note that those sites are in a listed above also were observed at the proposed drier habitat and thus may have a somewhat Skookumchuck project. different avian community structure than the Golden Eagle and Bald Eagle are species of Project. Potentially most relevant are data from the particular interest, both because they are protected Coyote Crest Wind Resource Area (Coyote Crest; under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Tetra Tech EC 2009), located ~50 km west of the and because their fatalities at wind turbines (e.g., Project in the Northwest Coast Ecoregion. The Pagel et al. 2013) have elevated concern for the remaining metric (exposure index) has not potential impacts of wind development on local typically been summarized on a regional or and regional eagle populations (see USFWS Eagle national scale (because of the complexity of Conservation Plan Guidance 2013). Bald Eagles compiling values for individual species or groups were the third most numerous raptor species of birds) and hence we simply present a summary observed in the Project area (i.e., a total of 21 birds for this project and Coyote Crest. [Table 1] and 4 incidental observations [Table 2]), and were observed in all four seasons. Golden DIRECT IMPACTS Eagles were not observed during our point count RAPTORS study, but were observed in the Project area during other studies including one adult Golden Eagle on Fatalities 4 May 2011, ~2 km southwest of point count Raptor fatalities at newer generation wind station #3 (~0.5 km outside of the leased area of projects have varied regionally from 0–0.53 the Project; P. Sanzenbacher, pers. comm.) and one fatalities/MW/yr in the western US (Appendix 1), adult Golden Eagle on 11 July 2013, flying along averaging 0.08 fatalities/MW/yr in the Columbia the ridgeline near point count station #4 (B. Plateau Ecoregion (CPE) of the Pacific Northwest Cooper, pers. comm.). It is not surprising that both (Johnson and Erickson 2011), and ranging from species of eagles were detected because based on 0–0.07 raptor fatalities/MW/yr in the Midwest and WDFW data there are at least 5 occupied Bald eastern US (Erickson et al. 2008). The raptor Eagle nest sites within a 10-mile radius of the fatality rates from these newer generation wind project (known nests last checked sometime turbines are much lower than those from the between 2010–2015) and at least two occupied Altamont Pass area (~3.7 fatalities/MW/yr; Golden Eagle nest sites 10-15 miles from the Smallwood and Karas 2009). project (both nests last checked in 2013). None of Raptor fatalities comprised 8.7% of the total these nest locations were within the Project leased identified bird mortality at wind farms in Oregon area, however. and Washington (n = 23 wind energy facilities, all Mean use located in the CPE; Johnson and Erickson 2011). Annual raptor use estimates from pre- Most of these raptor fatalities were American construction studies at 57 other wind projects in the Kestrels (29% of all raptor fatalities) and US ranged from ~0.10–2.31 raptors/point count Red-tailed Hawks (22%). Other raptors found at (Fig. 11, Appendix 2). The annual raptor mean use these facilities included Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo at the Project was moderate (0.52 raptors/point swainsonii; 9%), Short-eared Owls (Asio count) and ranked 25th among these other 57 flammeus; 8%), Rough-legged Hawk (5%), studies. The mean use at the Project was slightly Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis; 4%), higher than mean use at Coyote Crest (i.e., 0.15; unidentified buteos (4%), Great Horned Owl (3%), Tetra Tech EC 2009), the only other project located Long-eared owl (Asio otus; 3%), Northern Harrier in western Washington. (3%), Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus; 2%), Similar to Coyote Crest (Tetra Tech EC 2009), Sharp-shinned Hawk (2%), Golden Eagle (1%), we recorded the highest raptor mean use values at Cooper’s Hawk (1%), Turkey Vulture (1%), the Project during the summer. The three most unidentified accipiter (1%), Barn Owl (Tyto alba; numerous raptor species in the Project were (in 1%), Barred Owl (Strix varia, 1%), and order of mean use) Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed unidentified owl (1%). Eight of the 16 species Hawk, and Bald Eagle (Table 4). Combined, these

Skookumchuck Avian Study 38

Discussion

  ß

!

  ß

!

 

 

ß

!  ß

1

 6  7 ß   



ß

7

 1

ß

! 7

ß

7

 %

 ! ""

1

citations for

 

ß

ß ! 

6    ß ß

!

ß 

7

       ß

!





   

4 7 ß

! ) 1

( 

ß

ß 

! 7

 

&2

ß   7 &



2

4

ß

ß



! 7 !

ß 



1 3

45 ß

!

  7

Ú ß

4 ß

! 7 3

ß

!

ß 

7

!

    ß     

"

1

  

ß 7

! Ú ß

 

4 ß 

!

  

ß



 

ß

!



7



7 &

4 ß

!

 ß 7 !

Ö



!



! 4

ß ß

! ß

4

4 ß

!

 

! 7





ß 7

!

1 3

4  ß 7

!

ß

!

    $ ß ß

45 ß

!

4 ß

!

   



7 0

1

4 ß

!

ßÙ  Ù ß

ß 7 7





45 7 ß  %

!



     

  ß

! "

 ß

 4 ß ß

2

  ß





4 ! 7 ß

!

 ß

ß

 !   

 

ß

 ! !

 ß

7



 

ß

 4 !



4 & ß

!

 ß  

4 ß

ß

!

7  ß  

1

4

ß

! 

7

4 ß

   !

"

 ß     ß

!

4 ß

!

4  ß

7

!

  ß

7





4 ß 1

!



ß

7



! ß   

 ß 



2

%

4

ß

 use (# raptors/20-mi n survey)aptor mean values recorded at wind projects throughout the U.S (

! !

ß

4 ß 4

!

"

  ß 

4 ß

   ß

7

" ß

 !



1  ß ! 7



3



&

4

ß

! ß

7 

  ß

! "" 

$



ß 7



4 ß

ß  !

2 2

ß

!

4 ß

!

  

   ß 

  $

ß

 !



4 7

ß each location are provided in Appendix 2).

! )

  ß

!

   ß 

!





7 0

 ß

 ß 7

  !

  4



 ß

׃ Þ ×ƒ×  ×ƒÞ Þ ƒ  ƒ Þ ƒ×  ƒÞ Þ Þƒ  ރ Þ Þƒ×  ÞƒÞ Þ

%

4  ×Ý  ß  Ö×ÞÝ  ßß  ß   ß 

7 7 7 &



ß ! Figure 11. Summary of estimated r

39 Skookumchuck Avian Study Discussion species comprised the majority (69%) of total high compared to studies at other wind projects in mean raptor use. Similarly, the three most common the US (Fig. 11), particularly for American Kestrel raptor species at Coyote Crest were Turkey Vulture and Red-tailed Hawk (Kerlinger et al. 2006). (0.7 birds/point count), Red-tailed Hawk (0.3 Kerlinger et al. (2006) found that the raptor species birds/point count), and Northern Harrier (0.2 with the highest use also had the greatest number birds/point count). of fatalities during two years of monitoring The limited raptor activity at the Project was (American Kestrel = 45 fatalities, 0.14/MW/yr; significantly higher near survey point #1 (i.e., at Red-tailed Hawk = 18 fatalities, 0.06/MW/yr) and the north end of the Project) than at the other 8 that migrating and wintering individuals were at survey points. This difference mainly resulted from the greatest risk of collision. Other studies, high use of that area by Turkey Vultures and Bald however, indicate a more confounding relationship Eagles. For example, 21 (36%) of all 58 Turkey between raptor use and fatalities. For instance, a Vulture observations occurred at survey point #1 study by Orloff and Flannery (1992) at the and 8 (38%) of all 21 Bald Eagle observations were APWRA found that fatalities of some raptors (e.g., at survey point #1. In combination, these vultures American Kestrel, Golden Eagle, and Red-tailed and eagles made up 63% of the raptors detected at Hawk) occurred at higher rates than predicted survey point #1. Point #1 is the northernmost whereas other species (e.g., Turkey Vultures, survey point in the Project and thus is the point that Common Ravens) occurred at lower rates than lies closest to the lowlands ~3 km to the north. We predicted based on use of the site by these species. speculate that it is possible those lowlands may In summary, raptor mean use and fatalities are not contain food resources that attract both species and strongly or consistently correlated at new contributes to the higher concentrations of birds generation wind projects and more data are needed over the north end of the Project. Further, there are to determine the predictability and strength of this multiple Bald Eagle nest locations within 10 miles relationship. north of the Project (WDFW, unpubl. data) that Exposure index may have helped concentrate eagles on the north end of the Project. Landscape features, such as The exposure index is a metric that combines ridgelines, may create favorable wind conditions estimates of use at a site (i.e., mean use) with (e.g., updrafts) that concentrate raptors. However, characteristics of flight behavior (i.e., % there were no apparent concentrations of raptor individuals flying and % flights in RSA) and thus flight paths at any point along the ridge in this provides a more complete basis for assessing study (Figures 5–10). potential collision risk than many other baseline There is great interest in determining whether metrics. However, this metric does not account for pre-construction estimates of avian use can be used avoidance behavior and other factors that clearly to predict fatalities at wind projects. The are influential in predicting collision fatalities. One relationship between raptor use and raptor fatalities hundred percent of the raptors at the Project were at 16 wind projects in the US (mainly the western observed flying, but raptor mean use values were US; see Appendix 1) has been shown as low and the percentage of flights in the RSA varied statistically significant (R² = 66.4%; Chatfield et considerably among species (i.e., from 0% for al. 2011); however, this relationship is greatly Cooper’s Hawk to 100% for Rough-legged Hawk; influenced by outliers (i.e., the high mean use and Table 7). Turkey Vultures exhibited the highest high fatalities observed at two new generation annual exposure index (0.088), followed by Bald wind projects in California—the Diablo Winds and Eagles (0.063) and Red-tailed Hawks (0.053). High Winds projects). Of note, both these wind Similarly, the two raptor species with the highest projects are located in close proximity (<40 km exposure rate at Coyote Crest were Turkey Vulture [~25 mi]) to the Altamont Pass Wind Resource (0.05) and Red-tailed Hawk (0.01); although all Area (APWRC) where raptor fatalities have been other raptors in that area had exposure rates of zero more numerous than any other wind development (0; Tetra Tech EC 2009). in the US. For instance, raptor use estimates at the In addition to being one of the most common newer generation High Winds Power Project were raptor species in the Project area, Red-tailed Hawk

Skookumchuck Avian Study 40 Discussion is the second most common raptor fatality at wind ranged from a species that was abundant during projects in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and diurnal surveys (i.e., Horned Lark) to a species that Erickson 2011). Therefore, Red-tailed Hawk is was absent during diurnal surveys (i.e. likely the raptor species at greatest risk at the Golden-crowned Kinglet, a nocturnal migrant) Project. In contrast, Turkey Vulture is a very highlights the difficulty in predicting avian common species in Oregon and Washington, yet fatalities of all species from only diurnal survey very few have been killed at wind energy sites data. there. Mean use Bald Eagles have been killed at wind farms in The combination of annual and seasonal use Wyoming (Pagel et al. 2013); however, we could estimates provide the baseline information needed not find any records of Bald Eagle fatalities at wind to identify the dominant species at a site and when energy sites in Oregon or Washington, perhaps different passerine species will be present. because Bald Eagles tend to be uncommon species Passerines were the most common species group at the wind farms that have been studied in those observed at the Project and were recorded on ~86% two states. Regardless, Bald Eagle use occurred of surveys annually (Table 5) and exhibited, by far, throughout the year at the Project, were relatively the highest mean use values across all seasons common species and mostly (71% of observations) (Table 4). The dominant species were Dark-eyed flew within the RSA. Thus, there is some potential Junco, Common Raven, American Robin, and for collision risk for this species at the Project. White-crowned Sparrow. Combined, these four species made up 34% of all passerine use and 29% PASSERINES of all avian use at the Project. Fatalities A comparison of passerine observations at the The concern for passerine collisions at wind Project with the Coyote Crest project reveals power projects exists because passerines have notable similarities in the overall abundance of comprised the majority of fatalities at most wind passerines between these sites. For example, we projects. As a group, both migrant and resident detected a total of 45 species of passerine during passerines make up 74% of the avian fatalities in point count surveys at the Project, whereas 49 were the US (ranging from 69–86% by region; Erickson detected at Coyote Crest (Tetra Tech 2009). et al. 2008, Johnson and Erickson 2011) and small Further, annual passerine mean use was very songbirds in particular account for ~60% of similar between the Project (9.37 birds/point fatalities (Loss et al. 2013). Most passerines are count) and Coyote Crest (9.38). In contrast, there protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. were some differences in the species composition Information from existing wind projects can of passerines between the two sites. For instance, provide insights into the likelihood of passerine the five most abundant passerines at the Project collisions at a project. For instance, at wind were Dark-eyed Junco (1.32 birds/point count), projects in the Pacific Northwest, passerine Common Raven (0.62), American Robin (0.62), fatalities compose 69.5% of all bird fatalities White-crowned Sparrow (0.61), and Song Sparrow (Johnson and Erickson 2011). The ten most (0.38), while the five most common passerines at commonly observed songbird fatalities in the CPE Coyote Crest were Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus; are Horned Lark (29.9% of all fatalities; Eremophila 3.71 birds/point count), Red Crossbill (1.17), alpestris), Golden-crowned Kinglet (5.7%), Evening Grosbeak (0.62), Dark-eyed Junco (0.56), Western Meadowlark (3.0%; Sturnella neglecta), and Cedar Waxwing (0.49). Dark-eyed Junco (2.5%), White-crowned Sparrow Based on the history of passerine collisions at (2.0%), Townsend’s Warbler (1.9%), Yellow- wind projects and dominant use of the Project by rumped Warbler (1.7%), Ruby-crowned Kinglet this species group, one might predict that (1.5%; Regulus calendula), Pacific Wren (1.2%), passerines would comprise the majority of and American Robin (0.8%; Johnson and Erickson collision fatalities at the Project. Although this is 2011). However, the fact that the two most likely the case, the relationship between passerine commonly observed avian fatalities at these sites use and passerine fatalities has not been examined

41 Skookumchuck Avian Study Discussion on a regional or national scale. Passerines include obvious period of risk for passerines and when a many dozens of species, which generally large proportion of fatalities can occur is during outnumber other groups (such as raptors), thus spring and fall migration. In particular, ~30–50% their collision rate may not be out of proportion to of the fatalities at wind projects involve nocturnal their overall relative abundance in the landscape. passerine migrants (Erickson et al. 2001, For instance, Horned Larks were the most common Strickland and Johnson 2006) and this makes sense species observed at the Foote Creek Rim wind both because of poorer visibility at night and farm in Wyoming and also comprised the majority because passerines tend to migrate at lower of fatalities (Young et al. 2003). The lack of altitudes than do other groups of birds (e.g., relationship between use and fatalities (for most shorebirds, waterfowl; Kerlinger 1995, Alerstam passerine species), however, highlights the need to 1990). consider additional factors when attempting to predict collision risk with wind turbines. GAMEBIRDS, WATERBIRDS AND OTHER SPECIES Exposure index Gamebird fatalities at wind turbines vary Examination of exposure indices of passerines regionally and account for from 1–18% of all at the Project provides a good example of why fatalities at wind projects in other regions collision risk assessments should include not only (Erickson et al. 2008, Johnson and Erickson 2011). measures of bird abundance at a site but also At the Project, one species of grouse accounted for information on behavior and flight characteristics. all gamebird observations and this species had an We did not commonly observe passerines flying annual exposure index of zero (0). Therefore risk within the RSA at the Project and as a result only to gamebirds at the Project is presumably low. 14 of 45 passerine species observed during surveys Waterbirds have not been a major source of had annual exposure indices >0 (Table 9). Among reported fatalities at most wind farms and comprise passerines, exposure indices were generally low across all seasons because of a combination of low 4% of the avian fatalities recorded in the US to moderate use values and low percentage of (ranging from 2–14% by region) and only 2% of individuals flying within the RSA. The five fatalities in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion passerine species with the highest exposure rates at (Erickson et al. 2008, Johnson and Erickson 2011). the Project were Evening Grosbeak, Common Waterbird use at the Project was uncommon and Raven, Cedar Waxwing, American Robin, and Red one species (Canada Goose) accounted for all Crossbill (Table 9). The Evening Grosbeak, raven waterbird observations. Canada Geese were and crossbill also were among the five species with present only in fall, so the annual exposure index in the highest exposure rates at Coyote Crest (Tetra the Project was low for waterbirds (Table 9). Tech EC 2009). The single state- and/or Most individual “other bird” species (i.e., 8 of federally-listed passerine species that we observed 10 species) had an annual exposure index of zero (i.e., Olive-sided Flycatcher) had exposure rates of (0), because they either were never observed flying zero (0) in all four seasons (Table 9). in the RSA or were not observed flying at all. In some cases, a species may be at greater risk Band-tailed Pigeon was the only “other bird” during different times of year as a result of species with an exposure index>0 in all four season-specific behaviors. For instance, Horned seasons, but the exposure risk of all other species Larks perform ‘larking’ displays during the in the group is likely to be low. Two of the species breeding period during which individuals may fly in the “other bird” category, Pileated Woodpecker at heights within the RSA (Beason 1995). and Vaux’s Swift, were state-listed species (Table Although not present at the Project, this species is 9). The Pileated Woodpecker had exposure indices one of the most common passerine fatalities found of zero (0) in all four seasons and the Vaux’s Swift at wind projects and a review of fatalities at wind had exposure indices of zero (0) in spring, summer, projects in the Pacific Northwest estimated that and winter and an index of 0.026 in fall. Thus, the Horned Larks comprised 29.7% of unadjusted potential risk of collision is low for these two fatalities (Johnson and Erickson 2008). Another species of interest.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 42 Discussion

SENSITIVE SPECIES research conducted in southern Spain and Quebec There were no federal or state-listed found no difference in the abundance of most threatened or endangered species observed at the raptor species between areas within and outside Project (Table 3). We did observe a number of wind developments (Lucas et al. 2004, Ross 2009). species of special interest due to elevated The one exception was the Common Kestrel conservation status designations at the federal (Falco tinnunculus) that occurred in lower and/or state level. This included Bald Eagles, a numbers near an older generation wind farm in species protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Spain than at nearby sites, however differences in Protection Act and state Sensitive species. In vegetation structure (i.e., more preferred open addition to the 21 Bald Eagles observed during areas at control sites) potentially contributed to this point count surveys, we made incidental finding (Lucas et al. 2004). In the US, studies at the observations of four birds. Bald Eagles were Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area in Minnesota observed throughout the year in the Project area. suggested that raptors and other birds avoided We also observed Golden Eagles (a state Candidate areas with wind turbines, but again, differences in species protected by the BGEPA) prior to the habitat among study areas was a confounding current study: observations of adults occurred factor (Osborn et al. 1998). A study in Wisconsin documented a 47% decrease in raptor abundance once during our radar surveys for murrelets during post-construction compared to (Sanzenbacher et al. 2015) and once during our site pre-construction levels (Garvin et al. 2011). Raptor characterization survey visit (Sanzenbacher et al. nest surveys have not yet occurred, but based on 2011). Low numbers of other species of special general lack of nesting habitat for many raptors in interest also were observed at the Project, the Project (i.e., because the area is an industrial including Peregrine Falcon (Federal Species of forest managed for timber harvest), we speculate Concern and State Sensitive species) and that the area probably has a low raptor nesting Olive-sided Flycatcher (Federal Species of density and further speculate that displacement Concern). In addition, we observed low numbers of effects will be minimal as long as appropriate nest three Washington State Candidate species (i.e., buffers are implemented where raptor nests are Northern Goshawk, Pileated Woodpecker, and found and disturbance activities are minimized Vaux’s Swift). Of all the species of special interest near nest sites during key time periods (e.g., observed, the Bald Eagle had the highest exposure nesting season). index (0.063) compared to all others Historically the majority of studies examining (0.000–0.005). Thus, while all seven of these displacement of passerines at wind projects have species had low exposure indices, the Bald Eagle focused on grasslands and other upland habitats appeared to be the species of special interest with (see Mabey and Paul 2007). For example, Leddy the most exposure to collision risk at the Project. (1999) found that breeding songbirds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands at the INDIRECT IMPACTS Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota An emerging issue related to wind energy (an older generation facility) occurred in higher development is the potential for indirect impacts to densities on transects without wind turbines versus birds resulting from displacement, habitat change, transects with turbines. This study also found that and barrier effects (Drewitt and Langston 2006). mean bird densities were four times higher at These indirect impacts can occur due to the distances of 180 m and greater from turbines than presence of wind turbines and other structures at distances of 0–50 m from turbines (Leddy associated with wind projects (e.g., power lines 1999). Results were similar at two wind projects and roads) on the landscape as well as disturbance in North Dakota and South Dakota where (e.g., noise) resulting from operational activities. Shaeffer and Johnson (2009) found avoidance of These impacts appear to vary greatly by region, turbines by Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus habitat, and species (Drewitt and Langston 2006). savannarum) out to distances of 200 m; however, Studies examining displacement of raptors at these studies also found no displacement effects wind projects show mixed results. For instance, on four other grassland bird species. Likewise a

43 Skookumchuck Avian Study Conclusions study of grassland birds in north-central Texas but consistent numbers of Bald Eagle observations found no displacement effect on Sprague’s Pipit in the Project area and the presence of occupied (Anthus spragueii), Savannah Sparrow (Passer- eagle nest sites outside the Project, additional culus sandwichensis), or meadowlark (Sturnella sp.), information on Bald Eagles in the area is needed to however, Le Conte’s Sparrow nested in higher better evaluate potential risk to this species. numbers as distance from turbines increased The likelihood for passerine, gamebird, (Stevens et al. 2013). Surveys in the Pacific waterbird and “other bird” collisions at the Northwest at both the Combine Hills and Stateline proposed Project is also expected to be low and wind projects suggested reduced passerine use within the range of fatalities observed at within 50 m of turbines (Erickson et al. 2004, operational wind projects in the Pacific Northwest, Young et al. 2005). At the Project we did not based on the following factors: typical species observe high use by any passerines documented as diversity, low-to-moderate mean use, high susceptible to displacement effects and thus predict frequency of occurrence, low occurrence within that such effects will be similar to other wind the RSA, and low exposure index. The projects in the region. composition of the fatalities could be expected to be similar to those recorded at other new CONCLUSIONS generation facilities in the region with similar habitats. We completed a full year of pre-construction field studies at the Project to obtain information on LITERATURE CITED avian use of the site and to help assess the overall risk of collisions at the site. Overall species Alerstam, T. 1990. Bird migration. Cambridge diversity at the site was typical of the region and University Press, Cambridge, United ranged from 26–51 species in any season. We Kingdom. 420 pp. recorded seven species of special interest in the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Project area (Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, 2015. Industry fact sheets. http://www. Northern Goshawk, Olive-sided Flycatcher, awea.org/. Accessed February 2016. Pileated Woodpecker, and Vaux’s Swift). Of these seven species, only Bald Eagles were observed Arnett, E. B., D. B. Inkley, D. H. Johnson, R. P. commonly; the remaining species only were Larkin, S. Manes, A. M. Manville, J. R. observed infrequently. Raptors use of the site was Mason, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and moderate relative to other projects in the region, R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy with Turkey Vulture, Red-tailed Hawk, and Bald facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Eagle comprising the majority of observations. Wildlife Society Technical Review 07-2. The Passerine species composition was typical of the Wildlife Society, Bethesda, ME. region and use was moderate relative to other Beason, R. C. 1995. Horned Lark (Eremophila projects in the region. aplestris). In The Birds of North America, No. The likelihood for raptor collisions at the 195 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy proposed Project is expected to be low and within of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the the range of fatalities observed at operational wind American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, projects in the Pacific Northwest. This prediction is D.C. based on the following factors: typical raptor Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2011. species diversity for the region, low mean use, low Avian Baseline Studies for the Alta East Wind frequency of occurrence, moderate occurrence Resource Area, Kern County, California. within the RSA, and low exposure index. The Draft Final Report: July 10, 2010 – June 1, raptor species that would be expected to have the 2011. Prepared for CH2M HILL, Oakland, highest risk of collision would be Red-tailed CA. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Hawk, based on their collision history at other new Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. generation wind projects and because of their documented use of the Project area. Based on low

Skookumchuck Avian Study 44 Literature Cited

Drewitt A. L., and R. H. W. Langston. 2006. Kerlinger, P. 1995. How birds migrate. Stackpole Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. 228 pp. Ibis 148: 29–42. Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, L. Culp, A. Jain, C. Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. Wilkerson, B. Fischer, and A. Hasch. 2006. 2004. Stateline Wind Project wildlife Post-construction avian and bat fatality monitoring final report: July 2001 – monitoring study for the High Winds Wind December 2003. Technical report for FPL Power Project, Solano County, California: two Energy, Stateline Technical Advisory year report. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape Committee, and the Oregon Energy Facility May Point, NJ. Siting Council, by Western EcoSystems Kuvlesky, W. P. Jr., L. A. Brennan, M. L. Morrison, Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY, K. K. Boydston, B. M. Ballard, F. C. Bryant. and Walla Walla, WA, and Northwest Wildlife 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, OR. conservation: challenges and opportunities. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, Journal of Wildlife Management 71: D. P. Young, Jr., K. J. Sernka, and R. E. Good. 2487–2498. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a Leddy, K. L., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. summary of existing studies and comparisons 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland to other sources of avian collision mortality in nesting birds in Conservation Reserve the United States. National Wind Program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111: Coordinating Committee (NWCC), 100–104. Washington, DC. 62 pp. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. Erickson, W. P., D. Strickland, D. Young, G. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind Johnson. 2008. A summary of avian and bat facilities in the contiguous United States. fatalities at wind facilities in the U.S. Biological Conservation 168: 201–209. Presentation at the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) research Lucas, M. D., G. F. E. Janns, and M. Ferrer. 2004. meeting (NWCC VII), November 2008, The effects of a wind farm on birds in a Milwaukie, WI. migration point: the Straits of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 395–407. Erickson, W. E., M. M. Wolfe, K. J. Bay, D. H. Johnson, and J. L. Gehring. 2014. A Mabee, T. J., J. B. Barna, and B. A. Cooper. 2007. comprehensive analysis of small-passerine Baseline avian use at the proposed Klondike fatalities from collision with turbines at wind IIIa wind power project, Oregon spring 2007. energy facilities. PLoS ONE 9(9): Unpublished report prepared for David Evans e107491.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107491 & Associates, Inc., Portland, OR and Klondike Wind Power III LLC., Portland, OR Garvin, J. C., C. S. Jennelle, D. Drake, and S. M. by ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research and Grodsky. 2011. Response of raptors to a Services, Forest Grove, OR. 28 pp. windfarm. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 199–209. Mabey S., and E. Paul 2007. Critical literature review: impact of wind energy and related Johnson, G. D., and W. P. Erickson. 2011. Avian, human activities on grassland and bat and habitat cumulative impacts associated shrub-steppe birds. A literature review with wind energy development in the prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Columbia Plateau Ecoregion of eastern Collaborative (NWCC) by the Ornithological Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report Council. 183 pp. prepared by West, Inc., Cheyenne, WY, for Klickitat County Planning Dept., Goldendale, WA. 40 pp.

45 Skookumchuck Avian Study Literature Cited

Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine Shaeffer, J. A., and D. H. Johnson. 2009. effects on avian activity, habitat use, and Displacement effects of wind developments mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano on grassland birds in the northern Great County Wind Resource Areas, 1989–1991. Plains. Presented at the National Wind Final report to Alameda, Costra Costa, and Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) Wildlife Solano Counties and the California Energy and Wind Research Meeting VII, October Commission by Biosystems Analysis, Inc., 2008, Milwaukie, WI. Tiburon, CA. Smallwood, K. S., and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Osborn, R. G., C. D. Dieter, and K. F. Higgins. bat fatality rates at old-generation and 1998. Bird flight characteristics near wind repowered wind turbines in California. turbines in Minnesota. American Midland Journal of Wildlife Management 73: Naturalist 139: 29–38. 1062–1071. Pagel, J. E., K. J. Kritz, B. A. Milsap, R. K. Smallwood, K. S., and C. Thelander. 2008. Bird Murphy. E. L. Kershner, and S. Covington. mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 2013. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Area, California. Journal of Wildlife mortalities at wind energy facilities in the Management 72: 215–223. contiguous United States. Journal of Raptor SPSS. 2009. SPSS for Windows, version 18.0. Research 47: 311–315. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. Stevens T., A. Hale, K. Karsten, and V. J. Bennet. 1980. A variable circular-plot method for 2013. An analysis of displacement from estimating bird numbers. Condor 82: wind turbines in a wintering grassland bird 309–313. community. Biodiversity and Conser- Ross, M. 2009. Impact of wind turbines on the vation 22: 1755–1767. migration of raptors in Baie-des-Sables, Strickland, M.D. and D.H. Johnson. 2006. Quebec. Presented at the National Wind Overview of what we know about avian/wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) Wildlife interactions. NWCC Wildlife Workgroup, and Wind Research Meeting VII, October Research Planning Meeting VI, November 2008, Milwaukie, WI. 14–15, 2006, San Antonio, TX. Sanzenbacher, P. S., B. A. Cooper, and T. J. Mabee. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2009. 2007–2008 Avian 2011. Site characterization study and habitat baseline study report for the Coyote Crest mapping for the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Resource Area, Pacific and Lewis Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston Counties, Washington. Prepared for counties, Washington. Final Report prepared Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc., Portland, OR for RES Americas Developments, Inc., by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Portland, OR. 89 pp. Broomfield, CO, by ABR, Inc., Forest Grove, Appendix C of Draft Environmental Impact OR. Revised May 2015. 60 pp. Statement. Sanzenbacher, P. S., T. J. Mabee, and B. A. Cooper. http://lewiscountywa.gov/attachment/3118/D 2015. A radar and visual study of Marbled EISVolume2AppendixC.pdf. Accessed Murrelets at the proposed Skookumchuck February 2016. Wind Energy Project, summer 2013 and 2014. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. U.S. Final Report prepared for RES Americas Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Developments, Inc., Broomfield, CO, by Energy Guidelines. Release date 23 March, ABR, Inc., Forest Grove, OR. 38 pp. 2012. http://www.fws.gov/ecological- services/energy-development/wind.html. Accessed February 2016.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 46 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Eagle conservation plan guidance. Module 1 – land-based wind energy. Version 2. Division of Migratory Bird Management. http:// www.fws.gov/ecological-services/energy-dev elopment/eagle_guidance.html. Accessed February 2016. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Federally listed species by county. Environmental Conservation Online System: Information for Planning and Conservation. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed February 2016. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, WA. 177 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Wind Power Guidelines. Olympia, WA. 30 pp. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2016. Monthly climate summaries for Centralia, Washington from 1893–2015. http://www. wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmwa.html. Accessed February 2016. 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 Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, November 1998–June 2002. Unpublished report prepared for PacifiCorp, Inc., Portland, OR and SeaWest Windpower, Inc., San Diego, CA, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. 50 pp. Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, and M. Bourassa. 2005. Eurus Combine Hills Turbine Ranch. Phase 1 post construction wildlife monitoring final report – February 2004–February 2005. Technical report for Eurus Energy America Corporation and the Combine Hills Technical Advisory Committee, Umatilla County, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc., Pendleton, OR.

47 Skookumchuck Avian Study in the s* nner et al. 2008 Johnson et al. 2003 Erickson et al. 2003a Erickson et al. 2004, 2007 Erickson et al. 2008 Chatfield et al. 2009 Young et al. 2007 Chatfield et al. 2010 Erickson and Sharp2005 Kerlinger et al. 2010 Kerlinger et al. 2006 Young et al. 2006 Young Jeffrey et al. 2009 NWC andWEST 2007 Young et al. 2009 Young Young et al. 2003c Young Young et al. 2003c Young Enk and Bay 2010 WEST 2006, 2008 et al. 2003c Young

------ickson 2004 Kro WEST 2006 Johnson et al. 2002 Kerlinger et al. 2005 Johnson2004 WCIA and WEST 1997 Erickson et al. 2000 Young et al. 2003a NWC and WEST 2005 2008 Gritski et al. WEST 2005 Erickson et al. 2001 Young et al. 2003b Johnson et al. 2006 Erickson et al. 2003b Erickson et al. 2002 Johnson and Er Young et al. 2003c

0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.07 Raptor fatalities (fatalities/MW/yr) Raptor use sources Raptor fatalities source ------0.48 0.48 2.16 2.16 0.29 0.51 0.51 1.07 0.66 0.66 2.34 2.34 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.77 0.55 0.51 0.70 0.70 0.75 Raptor use Raptor use (birds/survey) WA 2008 western United States. Note that use estimates calculated as birds/20-min survey. Null values (-) indicate no data publicly Null values (-) survey. calculated as birds/20-min use estimates Note that States. western United available. SMUD Solano, CA CA Solano, SMUD Shiloh I, CA I, CA Shiloh High Winds, CA CA Winds, High Diablo Winds, CA Winds, Diablo Alite, CA OR II, Klondike Dillon, CA CA Dillon, OR I, Klondike Combine Hills, OR Hills, OR Combine Vansycle, OR OR Vansycle, OR Leaning Juniper, Elkhorn, OR Hopkins Ridge I, WA 2006 2006 WA I, Hopkins Ridge Stateline, OR/WA Stateline, OR/WA Hopkins Ridge I, Hopkins Ridge WA Nine Canyon, WA Tuolumne, Wild Horse, WA Big Horn, WA WY II, Rim Foote Creek Foote Creek Rim I, WY I, Rim Foote Creek Foote Creek Rim III, WY Rim Foote Creek Intermountain West West Intermountain Region/project Region/project California *Complete citations follow. Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Appendix 1.Appendix power developments wind (per MW/yr) from collision fatalities and estimated raptor Examples of raptor use estimates

Skookumchuck Avian Study 48 Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report. Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report. Wind Power Canyon 2002–August 2003. Prepared for the Nine September Technical Advisory Committee and Energy Northwest by Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, Technology, Inc. (WEST), WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, OR. http://www.west-nc.com/reports/nine_canyon_monitoring_ final.pdf. Accessed February 2014. Wild 2003b. Wildlife baseline studyand H. Sawyer. the for 2002-2003 Horse Wind Project. Summary from of results wildlife surveys. Draft report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, OR byWestern EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. 2001– Report. July Wildlife Monitoring Annual Wind Project December 2003. Technical report peer-reviewed by and to FPL Energy,the Oregon Energy Siting submitted Facility the Stateline Technical AdvisoryCouncil, and Committee. Cheyenne,Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.(WEST), WY. Mortality the SMUD Monitoring Report for 2004–2005 Municipal Project. Prepared for Sacramento Solano Wind Utility District (SMUD), Sacramento, California. Prepared by Western EcoSystemsURS Sacramento, CA and Technology, Inc. (WEST). Cheyenne, WY. Developments. Technical report prepared for Bonneville Power Developments. WY. OR by Inc., Cheyenne, Portland, Administration, WEST, http://www.bpa.gov/Power/pgc/wind/Avian_and_Bat_Study_12 February-2002.pdf. Accessed 2014. Erickson, W. P. and L. Sharp. 2005. Phase 1 1a Avian Erickson, W. Erickson, W.P., K. Kronner, and R. Gritski. 2003a. Nine Canyon and R. Gritski. Erickson, W.P., K. Kronner, J. Jeffrey,P., D. Young, G. Johnson, K. Bay,Erickson, W. R. Good, and K. Bay. 2004. Stateline J. Jeffrey,K. Kronner, Erickson, W.P., r. , R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and Sernka. Use, Raptor Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Nesting and Wind Proposed and Existing from Mortality Information 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycleand bat mortality 2000. Avian County,Wind Project, Umatilla year. Oregon, 1999 study report prepared for Umatilla County Department Unpublished OR, by of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, Cheyenne,WEST, Inc., WY. 26 pp. Wind Baseline Study the Nine Canyon 2001. Wildlife for report 2001 Technical 2000-October Project, Final Report May prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, WA. Fatality Facility, Study, Dillon Wind-Energy Riverside County, California. Final Report: March 26, 2008–March 2009. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Portland, OR. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, Technology, Inc. (WEST), WY. Fatality at the Alite Wind-Energy Facility, County, Study Kern 2010. Draft 2009–June 15, California. Final Report: June 15, report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne,Prepared for CH2M HILL, Oakland, WY. CA. Klickitat County, Wind Project, Monitoring Study, Tuolumne 2010. 7, 2009 to April April 20, Final Report: Washington. Prepared for Turlock Irrigation District, Turlock, California. Western EcoSystems Prepared by Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Erickson, W. P., E. Lack, M. Bourassa, K. Sernka, and Kronne r. P., E. Lack, Erickson, W. Strickland Jr., D. P., G. D. Johnson, P. Young, Erickson, W. Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2009. Avian and Bat 2009. Avian and K. Bay. Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and Bat 2010. Avian and K. Bay. Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, K. Bay.and Bat Fatality Enk, T. and 2010. Post-Construction Avian and K. Kronne P., G. D. Johnson, M. Strickland, Erickson, W. Appendix 1. References.

49 Skookumchuck Avian Study

is of Post- Potential Wildlife Impacts from the Windy from Potential Wildlife Impacts Point Wind Energy report Unpublished Washington. Project, Klickitat County, prepared byWestern EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Klondike Wind Project, for the Klondike Wind Project, Baseline Ecological Studies Final report prepared for County, Oregon. Sherman Northwesternby Wind Power, Goldendale, Washington, Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, WY, Technology, Inc. (WEST) and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR. Year of Operation at the Klondike the First Mortality During Phase I Wind Project, Sherman County,Oregon. Technical report prepared for Northwestern Wind Power, Goldendale, byWashington, Technology, Inc. Western EcoSystems (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. study the High Winds Wind Power Project, for monitoring Year One Report prepared for High California. Solano County, Winds, LLC and FPL Energy. and bat fatality avian and A. Hasch. 2006. Post-construction study the High Winds Wind Power Project, for monitoring yeartwo report. Curry and California: Solano County, Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May Point, NJ. I Wind the Shiloh Study for Avian Monitoring Construction Final Report: Power Project, Solano County, California. October 2009. Third Year Report (Revised). Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (IRI). Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC., McLean, VA. Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, and J. D. Jeffrey.Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, 2006. Analys Kerlinger, P., R. Curry,Culp, A. Hasch, and Jain. 2010. L. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and K. Kronner. 2002. K. Kronner. and K. Bay, W.P. Erickson, Johnson, G.D., and Bat and J. White. 2003. Avian W.P. Erickson, Johnson, G.D., avian R. Curry. 2005. Post-construction Kerlinger, P., L. Culp, and Culp, A. Jain, C. Wilkerson, B. Fischer, Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, L. ind ind at nd . Monitoring: Year 1 Report. Puget Sound Energy Horse Monitoring: Wild Wind Project, Kittitas County,for Puget Washington. Prepared by Western Washington, Sound Energy, Ellensburg, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne,EcoSystems Technology, WY. report. final wildlife monitoring Power Project, 2006–2008 report prepared for PacifiCorp Energy, Portland, Unpublished Inc., Pendleton, OR. 49 OR, by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, pp. Boehrs, and A. Palochak. 2009. Horizon Wind Energy, Elkhorn Avian and Bat ValleyProject, Post-Construction Wind 2008. First Annual Report, January–December Monitoring, Technical report prepared for Horizon Wind Energy, Portland, Technology,Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Inc., Cheyenne, WY, and Walla Walla, WA. County, Oregon. II Project, Sherman from the Klondike impacts Technical reportEnergy prepared for CH2M HILL and PPM by Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, Technology, Inc. (WEST), WY. Wildlife/Wind Plant Interactions, Bighorn Site, Klickitat Prepared for CH2MHILL, Portland, OR County, Washington. by Cheyenne, WEST, Inc., WY. Project Wildlife Monitoring Report, January–December 2006. to FPL Energy, the Oregon EnergyTechnical report submitted Facility Siting Council, and the Stateline Technical Advisory Committee. Erickson, W.P., K. Kronner, and K.J. Bay. 2007. Stateline II Wi and K.J. Bay. 2007. Stateline K. Kronner, Erickson, W.P., Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey,and V.K. Poulton. 2008. Avian B Gritski, B., K. Kronner, and S. Downes. 2008. Leaning Juniper W Jeffrey, J.D., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, Baker, J M. Sonneberg, J. wildlife and habitat of potential 2004. Analysis Johnson, G.D. 2004. AnalysisPotential and W.P. Erickson. of Johnson, G.D. Appendix 1. References, continued.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 50

d, and k, R. E. G. Lack. 2003a. Avian and sensitive species baseline studyE. G. Lack. 2003a. Avian and Hills Turbine Ranch, Combine report. Eurus plan and final Technical report prepared for Eurus County, Oregon. Umatilla Energy America Corporation, San Diego, CA and Aeropower byServices, Inc., Western EcoSystems Portland, OR, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne,Technology, WY. H. Sawyer.E. Good, and 2003b. Baseline avian studies for County, Columbia the proposed Hopkins Ridge Wind Project, Prepared March 2002–March 2003. Final report, Washington. for RES North America, LLC., Portland, OR, by Western Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne,EcoSystems Technology, WY. G.D. Johnson. 2003c. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with Windpower Project, the Initial Phase of Foote Creek Rim 1998–June Final Report, November Carbon County, Wyoming, Oregon, SeaWest 2002. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc. Portland, of Land San Diego, CA, and Bureau Windpower Inc. Rawlins DistrictManagement, Office, Rawlins, WY. Post Hills Turbine Ranch. Phase 1 Combine 2006. Eurus Annual Report. Wildlife Monitoring First Construction Technical report prepared for Eurus Energy America Hills Technical San Diego, CA, and the Combine Corporation, Advisory Committee, Umatilla County, OR. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, Technology, Inc. (WEST), WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR. Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. E. Goo J. Jeffrey,Jr., W. P. Erickson, R. K. Bay, Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, J. Jeffrey,E. G. Lac Young, D. P. and Strickland, M.D. Jr., W.P. Erickson, R.E. Good, Young, D.P. Jr., J. Jeffrey,Young, D.P. W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and V.K. Poulton. Project wildlife fatality study, 2006–2007. Report monitoring prepared for PPM Energy,Horn Portland, OR and the Big Northwest Project Technical Advisory Committee. Prepared by Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Goldendale, WA. Inc. (WEST). 2005. Wildlife baseline studyTechnology, the for County, Oregon. Wind Power Project, Gilliam Leaning Juniper Prepared for PPM Energy, and CH2MHill, Portland, OR by and WEST, Cheyenne, Portland, OR NWC, Pendleton, OR, WY. and bat Inc. (WEST). 2007. Avian EcoSystems Technology, Power Project. Klondike II Wind report for the monitoring Prepared for PPM Energy, County, Oregon. Portland, Sherman OR, and WEST, Cheyenne,OR, by NWC, Pendleton, WY. Project. Exhibit A. baseline study at the Elkhorn Wind Power Final report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, LLC., Portland, OR, by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. report, March 2005–February progress wildlife monitoring 2006. Technical report submitted to FPL EnergyAlameda and County by California WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Report: March 2005–February Wildlife Monitoring Progress 2007. Prepared byCheyenne, WEST, WY. Baseline EcoSystems Inc. (WEST). 1997. Avian Technology, VansycleStudy the Ridge Project-Vansycle for Ridge, Oregon Mortalityand Wildlife Studies, Vansycle Wind Project, Prepared for Esi VansycleWashington. Partners, L.P., North Beach, FL. Palm Kronner, K., B. Gritski, and S. Downes. 2008. Big Horn Wind Power Wind Power B. Gritski, and S. Downes. 2008. Big Horn Kronner, K., Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), and Western EcoSystems Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC) and Western Western EcoSystems 2005. Ecological Technology, Inc. (WEST). Western EcoSystems 2006. Diablo Winds Technology, Inc. (WEST). Western EcoSystems 2008. Diablo Winds Technology, Inc. (WEST). (WCIA) and Western Woodward-Clyde International-Americas, Appendix 1. References, continued.

51 Skookumchuck Avian Study . 007. Puget Sound EnergyPuget Sound Hopkins Ridge Wind Project Phase 1 Post- First Annual Report, Avian and Bat Monitoring Construction Technical reportSound 2006. January–December for Puget Ridge Wind Project and Hopkins Washington Energy, Dayton, Technical Advisory County, Committee, Columbia WA. Western EcoSystems Cheyenne, WY, Technology, Inc. (WEST) and Walla Walla, WA. 25 pp. EnergyPuget Sound Hopkins Ridge Wind Project, Phase 1, County, Avian and Columbia Washington. Post-Construction January–December, Report: Second Annual Bat Monitoring, Energy,2008. Prepared for Puget Sound Dayton, WA, and the Hopkins Ridge Wind Project Technical Advisory Committee, County,Columbia WA. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne,Technology, WY, and Walla Walla, WA. Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, and V.K. Poulton. 2 Jr., W.P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, and V.K. Poulton. Young, D.P. 2009 W.P. Erickson. Jr., J.D. Jeffrey,Young, D.P., and K. Bay, Appendix 1. References, continued.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 52 Appendix 2. Data sources and full citations for summary of raptor mean use values at wind projects shown in Figure 11. Project name Citation* Big Horn, WA Kronner et al. 2008 Coyote Crest, WA TetraTech EC, 2009 Desert Claim, WA Young et al. 2003a Dutch Flats, WA Young et al. 2009 Hopkin’s Ridge, WA Young et al. 2003b Invenergy Vantage, WA WEST 2007 Hoctor Ridge, WA Johnson et al. 2006b Imrie, WA Johnson et al. 2006c Tuolumne, WA Johnson et al. 2006a Kittitas Valley, WA Erickson et al. 2003a Kuhl Ridge, WA Young et al. 2009 Linden Ranch, WA Johnson et al. 2007a Lower Snake River, WA Young et al. 2009 Maiden, WA Erickson et al. 2002b Nine Canyon, WA Erickson et al. 2001 Oliphant, WA Young et al. 2009 Reardon, WA WEST 2005a Roosevelt, WA NWC and WEST 2004 Stateline, WA/OR URS et al. 2001 Swauk Ridge, WA Erickson et al. 2003a Tucannon, WA Young et al. 2009 White Creek, WA NWC and WEST 2005a Wild Horse, WA Erickson et al. 2003b Windy Flats, WA Johnson et al. 2007b Zintel Canyon, WA Erickson et al. 2002a Biglow Canyon, OR WEST 2005b Combine Hills, OR Young et al. 2003c Condon, OR Erickson et al. 2002b Elkhorn, OR WEST 2005c Golden Hills, OR Jeffrey et al. 2008 Klondike, OR Johnson et al. 2002 Leaning Juniper, OR NWC and WEST 2005b Shepherds Flat, OR Young and Poulton 2007 Vansycle, OR Erickson et al. 2000 Alite, CA Chatfield et al. 2010a Altamont, CA Erickson et al. 2002b Alta East, CA Chatfield et al. 2011 Diablo Winds, CA WEST 2006a Hatchet Ridge, CA Young et al. 2007a High Winds, CA Kerlinger et al. 2005 Homestead, CA WEST et al. 2007

Skookumchuck Avian Study 53 Appendix 2. Continued. Project name Citation* San Gorgino, CA Erickson et al. 2002b Sun Creek, CA Chatfield et al. 2010b Tehachapi Pass, CA Erickson et al. 2002b North Valley, MT WEST 2006c Cotterel Mountain, ID Cooper et al. 2004 Dunlap Ranch, WY Johnson et al. 2009 Foote Creek Rim, WY Erickson et al. 2002b Simpson Ridge, WY Johnson et al. 2000 Silver Mountain, CO Sanzenbacher et al. 2010 Dry Lake, AZ Young et al. 2007b Sunshine, AZ WEST and CPRS 2006b Buffalo Ridge II, SD Derby et al. 2008

*Complete citations follow.

Appendix 2 References Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2010a. Avian and Bat Fatality Study at the Alite Wind-Energy Facility, Kern County, California. Final Report: June 15, 2009–June 15, 2010. Draft report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Prepared for CH2M HILL, Oakland, CA. Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2010b. Baseline Avian Studies at the Sun Creek Wind Resource Area Kern County, California. Final Report: May 2009–May 2010. Prepared for CH2M HILL, Oakland, CA. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. Chatfield, A., W. P. Erickson, and K. Bay. 2011. Avian Baseline Studies for the Alta East Wind Resource Area, Kern County, California. Draft Final Report: July 10, 2010–June 1, 2011. Prepared for CH2M HILL, Oakland, CA. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Cooper. 2004. A radar study of nocturnal bird migration at the proposed Cotterel Mountain Wind Energy Facility, Idaho, Fall 2003. Technical report prepared for Windland, Inc., Boise, ID, by ABR, Inc. – Environmental Research and Services, Forest Grove, OR. Derby, C., K. Seginak, A. Dahl, and K. Bay. 2008. Wildlife baseline studies for the Buffalo Ridge II Wind Resource Area, Brookings and Deuel Counties, South Dakota. Final report prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc., Minneapolis, MN and Iberdrola Renewables, St. Paul, MN by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 66 pp. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and bat mortality associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon, 1999 study year. Unpublished report prepared for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, OR, by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 26 pp. Erickson, W. P., E. Lack, M. Bourassa, K. Sernka, and K. Kronner. 2001. Wildlife baseline study for the Nine Canyon Wind Project, final report May 2000–October 2001. Technical report prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, WA, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR.

54 Skookumchuck Avian Study Appendix 2. References, continued. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, K. Bay, and K. Kronner. 2002a. Ecological baseline study for the Zintel Canyon Wind Project. Final report April 2001–June 2002. Technical report prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, WA, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, D. P. Young, Jr., M. D. Strickland, R. E. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002b. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting, and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Unpublished report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 124 pp. Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, D. Young, K. Bay, R. Good, K. Sernka, and K. Kronner. 2003a. Wildlife baseline study for the Kittitas Valley Wind Project: summary of results from 2002 wildlife surveys. Final report February 2002 – November 2002. Prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, OR, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR. Erickson, W. P., D. Young, G. Johnson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. Good, and H. Sawyer. 2003b. Wildlife baseline study for the Wild Horse Wind Project. Summary of results from 2002–2003 wildlife surveys. Draft report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, OR by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Jeffrey, J. D., W. P. Erickson, K. J. Bay, V. K. Poulton, W. L. Tidhar, and J. E. Baker. 2008. Wildlife baseline studies for the Golden Hills Wind Resource Area, Sherman County, Oregon, final report, May 2006–June 2008. Unpublished report prepared for BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc., Houston, TX, by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 84 pp. Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, Jr., and W. P. Erickson. 2000. Wildlife monitoring studies for the SeaWest Windpower Project Carbon County, WY, 1995–1999. Unpublished report prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation, San Diego, California by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and K. Kronner. 2002. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Klondike Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Final report prepared for Northwestern Wind Power, Goldendale, Washington, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) Cheyenne, WY, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, OR. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, and J.D. Jeffrey. 2006a. Analysis of Potential Wildlife Impacts from the Windy Point Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. February 3, 2006. Johnson, G.D., J. Jeffrey, V. Poulton, and K. Bay. 2006b. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Hoctor Ridge Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared for Windtricity Ventures, LLC., Goldendale, Washington by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 5, 2006. Johnson, G.D., J. Jeffrey, V. Poulton, and K. Bay. 2006c. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Imrie Ranch South Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared for Windtricity Ventures, LLC, by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 5, 2006. Johnson, G.D., J. Baker, and K. Bay. 2007a. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Lower Linden Ranch Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Northwest Wind Partners, LLC, Goldendale, Washington. July 18, 2007. Johnson, G. D., J. Jeffrey, J. Baker, and K. Bay. 2007b. 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, WY.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 55 Appendix 2. References, continued. Johnson, G., K. Bay, and J. Eddy. 2009. Wildlife baseline studies for the Dunlap Ranch Wind Resource Area, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for CH2MHill, Englewood, CO, by WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 91 pp. Kerlinger, P., L. Culp, and R. Curry. 2005. Post-construction avian monitoring study for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California. Year One Report prepared for High Winds, LLC and FPL Energy. Kronner, K., B. Gritski, and S. Downes. 2008. Big Horn Wind Power Project wildlife fatality monitoring study, 2006–2007. Report prepared for PPM Energy, Portland, OR and the Big Horn Project Technical Advisory Committee. Prepared by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Goldendale, WA. Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), and Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2004. Ecological baseline studies for the Roosevelt Wind Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Final report. Prepared by NWC, Pendleton, OR, and WEST, Cheyenne, WY. URS Corporation, Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC). 2001. Avian baseline study for the Stateline Project. Prepared for FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC, Juno Beach, FL. Sanzenbacher, P. M., L. B. Rodman, T. J. Mabee, and B. A. Cooper. 2010. Baseline studies of avian activity, raptor nesting, and habitat mapping at the proposed Silver Mountain Wind Farm, Colorado, 2009–2010. Unpublished Draft report prepared for Renewable Energy Systems America Developments, Inc., by ABR, Inc., Forest Grove, OR. 78 pp. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2009. 2007–2008 Avian baseline study report for the Coyote Crest Wind Resource Area, Pacific and Lewis Counties, Washington. Prepared for Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc., Portland, OR by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Portland, OR. 89 pp. Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, J. Jeffrey, E. G. Lack, and H. H. Sawyer. 2003a. Baseline avian studies for the proposed Desert Claim Wind Power Project, Kittitas County, Washington. Final report. Prepared for Desert Claim Wind Power, LLC, Ellensburg, WA, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, J. Jeffrey, E. G. Lack, R. E. Good, and H. H. Sawyer. 2003b. Baseline avian studies for the proposed Hopkins Ridge Wind Project, Columbia County, Washington. Final report, March 2002–March 2003. Prepared for RES North America, LLC., Portland, OR, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Young, D. P. Jr., W. P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. E. Good, and E. G. Lack. 2003c. Avian and sensitive species baseline study plan and final report. Eurus Combine Hills Turbine Ranch, Umatilla County, Oregon. Technical report prepared for Eurus Energy America Corporation, San Diego, California and Aeropower Services, Inc., Portland, OR, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Young, D.P. Jr. and V.K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Shepherds Flat Wind Project, Gilliam and Morrow Counties, Oregon. Prepared for LifeLine Renewable Energy, Inc., by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 2007. Young, D. P. Jr., G. D., Johnson, V. K. Poulton, and K. Bay. 2007a. Ecological baseline studies for the Hatchet Ridge Wind Energy Project, Shasta County, California. Prepared for Hatchet Ridge Wind, LLC, Portland, OR by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. Young, D. P. Jr., V. K. Poulton, and K. Bay. 2007b. Ecological baseline studies report: proposed Dry Lake Wind Project, Navajo County, Arizona. Unpublished report prepared for PPM Energy, Portland, OR by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. 55 pp.

56 Skookumchuck Avian Study Appendix 2. References, continued. Young, D. P. Jr., J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, and J. R. Boehrs. 2009. Wildlife baseline studies for the Lower Snake River Wind Resource Area Columbia and Garfield Counties, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for RES America Developments, Inc., Portland, OR, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. 68 pp. Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), and Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005a. Ecological baseline studies and wildlife impact assessment for the White Creek Wind Power Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared for Last Mile Electric Cooperative, Goldendale, WA, by NWC, Goldendale, WA, and WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), and Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005b. Wildlife baseline study for the Leaning Juniper Wind Power Project, Gilliam County, Oregon. Prepared for PPM Energy, Portland, OR and CH2MHill, Portland, OR by NWC, Pendleton, OR, and WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005a. Ecological baseline study for the proposed Reardon Wind Project, Lincoln County, Washington. Draft final report. Prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, WA, by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005b. Wildlife and habitat baseline study for the proposed Biglow Canyon Wind Power Project, Sherman County, Oregon. March 2004–August 2005. Prepared for Orion Energy, LLC., Oakland, CA by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005c. Ecological baseline study at the Elkhorn Wind Power Project. Exhibit A. Final report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, LLC., Portland, OR, by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2006a. Diablo Winds wildlife monitoring progress report, March 2005–February 2006. Technical report submitted to FPL Energy and Alameda County California by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), and Colorado Plateau Research Station (CPRS). 2006b. Avian studies for the proposed Sunshine Wind Park, Coconino County, Arizona. Prepared for Sunshine Arizona Wind Energy, LLC., Flagstaff, AZ, by WEST, Cheyenne, WY, and CPRS, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2006c. Wildlife baseline study for the North Valley County Wind Project: summary of results from 2006 wildlife surveys. Prepared for POWER Engineers, Boise, ID, and Wind Hunter, LLC., Grapevine, TX, by WEST, Cheyenne, WY. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2007. Wildlife and habitat baseline study for the Vantage Wind Power Project, Kittitas County, Washington. Draft report prepared for Invenergy by WEST, Cheyenne, WY and Walla Walla, WA. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), EDAW, Inc., and Bloom Biological, Inc. 2007. Baseline avian use and risk assessment for the Homestead Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California. 2005–2006. Prepared for Horizon Wind Energy by WEST, Cheyenne, WY, EDAW, Inc., San Diego, CA, and Bloom Biological, Inc., Santa Ana, CA.

Skookumchuck Avian Study 57

Site Characterization Surveys Site Characterization

ATTACHMENT C – SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AND HABITAT MAPPING FOR THE PROPOSED SKOOKUMCHUCK WIND ENERGY PROJECT, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON

PETER M. SANZENBACHER BRIAN A. COOPER TODD J. MABEE

PREPARED FOR RES AMERICA DEVELOPMENTS, INC. BROOMFIELD, COLORADO

PREPARED BY ABR, INC.–ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & SERVICES FOREST GROVE, OREGON

SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AND HABITAT MAPPING FOR THE PROPOSED SKOOKUMCHUCK WIND ENERGY PROJECT, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for RES America Developments Inc. 11101 W. 120th Avenue, Suite 402 Broomfield, Colorado 80021

Prepared by Peter M. Sanzenbacher Brian A. Cooper Todd J. Mabee

ABR, Inc. —Environmental Research & Services P.O. Box 249 Forest Grove, Oregon 97116

July 2011 (Revised May 2015)

Printed on recycled paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii LIST OF TABLES...... iv LIST OF APPENDICES...... iv INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PROJECT SITE...... 1 METHODS...... 1 RESULTS...... 4 LAND COVER...... 4 FEDERAL- AND STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES...... 9 UNIQUE OR IMPORTANT HABITATS ...... 9 WILDLIFE...... 9 FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES...... 14 FEDERALLY THREATENED SPECIES...... 14 STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 18 STATE THREATENED SPECIES...... 18 USFS SENSITIVE SPECIES...... 19 BIRDS ...... 19 BATS...... 25 CONCLUSIONS ...... 27 REFERENCES ...... 31

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 2 Figure 2. Topography of the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 3 Figure 3. GPS track of site visit with photo points for the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011 ...... 5 Figure 4. Land cover classifications of the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 7 Figure 5. Distribution model for the Marbled Murrelet in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the US Geological Survey...... 16 Figure 6. Distribution model for the Northern Spotted Owl in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the US Geological Survey...... 17 Figure 7. Breeding Bird Survey routes near the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington...... 20 Figure 8. Distribution model for Golden Eagles in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the US Geological Survey...... 24 Figure 9. Distribution model for Bald Eagles in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the US Geological Survey...... 26 Figure 10. Distribution model for the Pacific Townsend’s big-eared bat in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the US Geological Survey ... 28

ABR, Inc. iii Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wildlife species observed during a site visit on 4 May, 2011, at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington...... 6 Table 2. Land cover classifications for the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 8 Table 3. Federally listed and state listed plant and animal species reported for Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington...... 10 Table 4. Federally and state recognized species of special conservation status reported for Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington ...... 11 Table 5. Raptor species reported for Lewis and Thurston counties...... 22 Table 6. Species of bats that potentially occurr at the Skookumchuk Wind Energy Project and their US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and Washington state status...... 27 Table 7. Qualitative summary of the exposure level of biological resources to wind energy development at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington...... 29 Table 8. Summary of recommended studies to assess the biological resources at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington...... 30

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. ABR letter to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife requesting information regarding federal or state endangered, threatened, or rare species, sensitive habitats, and wildlife considered vulnerable in the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 35 Appendix 2. ABR letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service requesting information regarding federal or state endangered, threatened, or rare species, sensitive habitats, and wildlife considered vulnerable in the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 36 Appendix 3. Response from US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding ABR’s request for information about federal or state endangered, threatened, or rare species, sensitive habitats, and wildlife considered vulnerable in the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 37 Appendix 4. Labels and definitions of map layers found in Appendix 5 and based on information from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species database...... 38 Appendix 5. Map of data products provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program ...... 39 Appendix 6. Photographs of landscape features and habitat characteristics in the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011...... 41 Appendix 7. Definitions for federal and Washington state-listed species...... 60

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study iv ABR, Inc. Introduction

INTRODUCTION 1.1–11.2° C (34.0–52.2° F; WRCC 2010). Average annual precipitation is 118.1 cm (46.5 in) with 15.2 Collecting preliminary data on biological resources, including vegetation and wildlife, is an cm (6.0 in) snowfall at lower elevations and greater important initial stage in the development of wind snowfall at higher elevations. The Project is not energy projects. The goal of these studies is to located within the 100-year floodplain. The closest identify the occurrence of sensitive species and Superfund sites on the Environmental Protection habitats at a proposed project area to help evaluate Agency National Priority List are near the towns of the feasibility of developing a site. These studies Centralia and Chehalis ~22 km (13.7 mi) to the fall within the Tier 2 Site Characterization Studies west and include the American Crossarms and of the US Fish and Wildlife recommended wind Conduit Company, Centralia Municipal Landfill, guidelines (USFWS 2011b) and the Pre-project and Hamilton/Labree Roads Ground Water Assessment and Information Review of the Contamination sites (EPA 2011). Additional sites Washington state wind guidelines (WDFW 2009). on the National Priority List can be found further ABR followed these two guidance documents in to the north near Olympia and Fort Lewis, designing and conducting a preliminary assessment Washington. of the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy METHODS Project to identify important biological resources on the proposed project site and determine the need We characterized the biological resources for future studies. The specific objectives of this within the Project by reviewing the existing study are to 1) create a habitat analysis map literature, consulting state and federal agency staff, showing the different vegetative features of the and conducting an on-site visit of the proposed project area; 2) characterize the biological project site. We relied on several sources of resources present; 3) summarize potential risk available data including published literature, factors to biological resources; and 4) suggest ideas reports, field guides, and web-based sources. We for future studies for the proposed Skookumchuck cite data from specific studies, but did not cite Wind Energy Project (henceforth Project). general information that is available from numerous sources. All sources used to complete PROJECT SITE this report are included as references. We requested information regarding sensitive species from 1) The Project is located in Lewis and Thurston agency employees at WDFW and USFWS counties in southwestern Washington and currently (Appendices 1 and 2), and 2) the WDFW habitat consists of four separate parcels all on a single tract and species database program. At the time of of property owned by Weyerhauser Company this report we have not received any response (WEYCO; Fig. 1). The Project is 26.5 km (16.5 from agency personnel at WDFW and an email mi) southeast of Olympia, 40 km (13 mi) response from USFWS indicated that the agency southwest of Eatonville, and 47 km (12 mi) east of no longer provides sensitive species occurrence Chehalis and the Interstate 5 corridor. The different letters (Appendix 3) and instead directed us to project parcels comprise approximately 19,654 ac information on the USFWS state website. (7,954 ha) combined and are situated entirely on However, RES America Developments, Inc. and private lands owned and managed by WEYCO for ABR attended a meeting with personnel from these timber production. These Project areas occur on a agencies to discuss the Project on May 5, 2011, and series of ridgelines that range in elevation from at that time were able to ascertain more ~450 m (1,476 ft) to 1,050 m (3,445 ft) and are information on potential sensitive species issues at separated by lower elevation stream-lined valleys the Project. Chell Stoddard, RES Developments (Fig. 2). The region experiences moderate Manager, summarized this meeting in an email to temperatures throughout the year with maximum Brian Cooper at ABR dated May 16, 2011, and we temperatures ranging from 4.4–26° C (40.0–78.8° incorporated pertinent information in this report. F) and minimum temperatures ranging from Information was formally requested from the

ABR, Inc. 1 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Methods d Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011. and Thurston counties, Washington, Lewis Project, Energy Wind d Skookumchuck Figure 1.propose Location of the

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 2 ABR, Inc. Methods oject, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011. 2011. Washington, counties, Thurston oject, Lewis and osed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Pr Energy osed Skookumchuck Wind Figure 2. of the prop Topography

ABR, Inc. 3 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results

WDFW habitat and species database program on RESULTS May 2, 2011 and we received the data products the week of June 27, 2011 (Appendices 4–5). This data LAND COVER consisted of a set of GIS map layers for the Project Regional setting and surrounding land sections. In some cases map The Project site generally occurs within the layers included specific observation locations Cascades Ecological Region (Tier III ecoregion), whereas for some sensitive species locations were which stretches from the central portion of western generalized to township. We also provide species Washington, south through the Cascade Range of distribution and habitat maps from the WDFW Oregon, and includes a disjunct area around Mt. GAP analysis studies from 1997. Shasta in northern California (EPA 2006). The ABR, Inc. conducted a site visit on May 4–5, terrain of this ecoregion is characterized by steep 2011. During this visit we used the existing road ridges and river valleys with elevations ranging system to access as much of the Project area as from 250–4,390 m (820–14,402 ft). The Columbia feasible and observe the habitat and landscape River and associated tributaries is the dominant characteristics present in the Project area. We took riverine system in this ecoregion. Vegetation photographs at various points to document both within the ecoregion is characterized by highly representative habitats and unique features of the productive coniferous forests with Douglas-fir area (Fig. 3, Appendix 6) and also recorded all (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga wildlife species observed at the site (Table 1). heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Although informative we emphasize that our list of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and red observed wildlife is incomplete because of the alder (Alnus rubra) at lower elevations within brief duration of our visit and is provided solely as the range of the Project area. A large portion of a description of those species observed during our this ecoregion is federal land managed by the time on the project area. US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Following the site visit we created a Habitat Management (BLM) with the remainder held in Analysis Map using data from the US Geological private ownership. Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Database Vegetation (NLCD) as well as the USFWS National Wetlands The Habitat Analysis Map indicates that there Inventory (NWI). These datasets utilize Landsat 7 are eight major land cover categories at the Project satellite imagery to classify the land cover in the (Fig. 4, Table 2) and the dominant land cover is United States into discrete habitat categories. The evergreen forest (9,220 ac; 46.9% of site total) NLCD map products were last updated in 2006 and followed by shrub/scrub (6,359.1 ac; 32.4%), and the NWI maps in 2009. The map that we created grassland/herbaceous (1,978.9 ac; 10.1%). All from these data sources classifies the different other categories each comprise <10% of the site. vegetation communities present on the Project and Based on the land cover definitions and what we surrounding WEYCO property (Fig. 4, Table 2). observed during the site visit the evergreen forest We also created several maps showing project site habitat is characterized primarily by Douglas-fir, location, topography, our site visit route and photo Western hemlock, and Western red cedar. Because stations, and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes the Project site and surrounding areas are heavily using GIS layers from the USGS. For these managed for timber extraction it is evident that products we used aerial photo GIS layers from the majority of lands classified in the Shrub/Scrub ESRI Imagery -World 2D (accessed May 2011). and Grassland/Herbaceous habitat categories in RES Developments provided the project site reality represent the various stages of recently boundary dated April 13, 2011. harvested lands and in most cases was previously evergreen forest habitat. These recently harvested areas are characterized by regrowth of Douglas-fir, colonizing red alder saplings, and shrub and undergrowth species such as Himalayan blackberry

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 4 ABR, Inc. Results ies, dix 4). dix osed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston count Project, Energy Wind osed Skookumchuck ond to photo points (see Appen points (see photo ond to Washington, 2011. Numbers corresp 2011. Washington, Figure 3. GPS track of site visit with photo points for the prop

ABR, Inc. 5 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results

Table 1. Wildlife species observed during a site visit on May 4, 2011, at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington. Taxon/species Scientific name Residency statusa Amphibians Pacific tree frog Pseudacris regilla Birds Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura BR/M Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicencis BR/M Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos BR/M Sooty Grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus BR Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo BR Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura BR/M Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata BR/M Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi BR/M Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus BR/M Stellar’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri BR/M Common Raven Corvus corax BR/M Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor BR/M Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota BR/M Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla BR/M Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii BR/M Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes BR/M American Robin Turdus migratorius BR/M Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis BR/M Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculates BR/M Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia BR/M Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis BR/M American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis BR/M Mammals black bearb Ursus americanus Douglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii elk Cervus canadensis mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

a Residency status for birds: BR = Breeding resident species presumably nesting on or near the project area; M = Migrant species present during winter months or migratory period; BR/M = some species represented by both breeding resident populations and migratory individuals. b No individuals seen but scat observed on logging road in project area.

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 6 ABR, Inc. Results 2011. 2011. atabase and the National Wetlands Inventory. Inventory. and the National Wetlands atabase k Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, Energy k Wind Data provided by the US Geological Survey National Land Cover D Figure 4. Land cover classifications of the proposed Skookumchuc

ABR, Inc. 7 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results

Table 2. Land cover classifications for the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington, 2011. Classifications are derived from the US Geological Survey National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Data accessed May 2011. Land cover classification Definition Area (acres) % of site Evergreen Forest Areas dominated by trees generally >5 m tall and 9,220.3 46.9 >20% of total vegetation cover. Canopy is never without green foliage. Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by shrubs >5 m tall with shrub 6,359.1 32.4 canopy typically >20% of total vegetation. Includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.

Grassland/Herbaceous Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous 1,978.9 10.1 vegetation comprising >80% of total vegetation.

Developed Includes buildings and other structures and also 1,363.5 6.9 roads.

Mixed Forest Areas dominated by trees generally >5 m tall and 399.9 2.0 >20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are >75% of total tree cover.

Deciduous Forest Areas dominated by trees generally >5 m tall and 163.4 0.8 >20% of total vegetation cover. Also >75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.

Wetlanda Includes herbaceous march, fen, swale and wet 128.9 0.7 meadow and also forested swamp or wetland shrub bog or wetland

Barren Land Barren areas of bedrock, scarps, talus, slides, gravel 40.5 0.2 (Rock/Sand/Clay) pits and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for <15% of total cover.

Totals 19,654.5 100.0

a Combines habitats identified as wetlands by the NWI and NLCD databases.

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 8 ABR, Inc. Results

(Rubus discolor) and various grasses. None of the Project, with the exception of small areas of habitats mapped at the site occur on the WDFW isolated wetlands and associated riparian habitats. Priority Habitat and Species List, with the For instance, in the northwest section of the site at exception of riparian areas that are defined as the photopoint 13 there is a small creek and associated “…area adjacent to flowing or standing freshwater marshy area (Fig. 3, Table 2). An additional aquatic systems” (WDFW 2008). Wetlands consideration is that although unlikely there may identified by the NWI and NLCD classifications be scattered remnant old growth/mature forest trees total ~128.89 ac and cover <1% of the Project area at the site, a WDFW priority habitat that was not and any habitat directly adjacent to wetlands would identified by the mapping effort or site visit. We be considered riparian habitat. RES Developments recommend that RES Developments consult with should consider additional mapping efforts to the property owner, WEYCO, to verify that no old identify and demarcate these wetland and riparian growth/mature forest habitat occurs on or adjacent habitats. to the Project. At a more regional scale the Gifford FEDERAL- AND STATE-LISTED Pinchot National Forest borders the southeastern THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT section of the WEYCO property and Mt. Rainier SPECIES National Park is located 40 km (24.9 mi) to the east Data obtained from the USFWS indicate that of the Project. These public lands are known to four plant species listed as federally threatened or contain various unique and important habitats, endangered occur in Lewis and Thurston counties particularly old growth/mature forest. Pertinent to (Table 3), however, further research indicates that the Project is that this forest habitat is important to suitable habitat for these species is not found both the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus within the project area boundary (Burke Museum marmoratus) and Northern Spotted Owl (Strix of Natural History and Culture 2011). These four occidentalis caurina) and thus these species may species are golden paintbrush (Castilleja occur adjacent to the project and may traverse the levisecta), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus project en route to these habitats. The WDFW data ssp. kincaidii), Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea also identified important concentration areas for nelsoniana) and water howellia (Howellia the Centralia Mine and Skookumchuck herds of aquatilis). The distribution and habitat of these Rocky Mountain and Roosevelt Elk within and species includes the following: golden paintbrush adjacent to the northwest sections of the Project occurs in meadows and prairies at low elevations (Appendix 5). in Thurston County; Kincaid’s lupine occurs in moist to dry areas of prairies and openings in oak woodlands of Lewis County; Nelson’s WILDLIFE checker-mallow occurs in gravelly well-drained Several federal- and state-listed wildlife soils at low elevations in Lewis County; and water species occur in Lewis and Thurston counties and howellia occurs in ponds and lakes in Thurston lists of these species and their conservation status County. Additionally there are six other plant are maintained by USFWS and WDFG (see species classified as federal or state species of Appendix 7 for legal definitions of federal- and concern or sensitive species (Table 4). state-listed species). The remainder of this report focuses on vertebrate species that are known or UNIQUE OR IMPORTANT HABITATS suspected to occur in the above counties and, in The Project area consists of a series of particular, on habitats present on the Project. ridgelines and associated sloping terrain. As Habitat diversity at the Project is generally low and previously described the habitat diversity at the site most species of conservation concern known from is generally low and comprised primarily of a Lewis and Thurston counties are dependent on mosaic of evergreen forest and harvested areas in habitats not found within the project area (e.g., various stages of regrowth with shrub/scrub and lowland prairies, old growth/mature forest, etc.), or grassland/herbaceous cover. Thus, there are no in the case of birds likely occur solely as seasonal priority habitats as identified by WDFW at the

ABR, Inc. 9 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results c concern Distribution/ Distribution/ suitable habitat . County Thurston Thurston listed as federal species of the wildlife Diversity Division of the the wildlife Diversity Division Lewis County he Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area. Project area. Wind Energy Skookumchuck he b State a SE X X SE N ST X X ST N C SE X X N C SE X Y? C X X C X N C X N C SE X X N C X X C X N C SE X N C ST X X N LT X LT LE SE N X N LT X X LT X X Y? LT X X Y? LT X X X LT N Y? LT N X LT X X X LT N Y? N LT ST X X LT SE X X Y? Y? LE X X LE X LE N N LT N X N ril 2011. See Table 4 for species See Table ril 2011. he US Fish and Wildlife Service Washington state office and state office Service Washington he US Fish and Wildlife ESA Thomomys mazama ssp. pugentensis, tumuli, and yelmensis and tumuli, Thomomys mazama ssp. pugentensis, species reported species animal and plant threatened) and (endangered listed state and ) d Wildlife online databases, Ap Wildlife Ursus arctos horribilis Orcinus orca Thomomys mazama spp. Salvelinus confluentus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus Oncorhynchus kisutch Thaleichthys pacificus Oncorhynchus nerka mykiss Oncorhynchus Lynx Canadensis Martes pennant Eremophila alpestris strigata Eremophila alpestris Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus Brachyramphus caurina Strix occidentalis Coccyzus americanus Clemmys marmorata marmorata marmorata Clemmys marmorata Rana pretiosa Euphydryas editha taylori taylori editha Euphydryas Gulo gulo luteus luteus gulo Gulo Sciurus griseus griseus griseus griseus Sciurus Castilleja levisecta Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Sidalcea nelsoniana Howellia aquatilis Polites mardon Scientific name Scientific name and state listed sensitive species. for Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington. Data provided by t by Data provided Washington. and Thurston counties, for Lewis Washington Department of Fish and Washington Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife. of Washington Department Mammal Western pocket gopher pocket Mammal orca Western Mammal Mammal grizzly bear bear grizzly Mammal Fish chinook salmon salmon salmon Fish chinook salmon Fish chum Fish coho Fish eulachon Fish sockeye lynx Fish steelhead Canada Mammal Mammal fisher Fish bull trout Fish bull Bird Streaked Horned Lark Lark Horned Bird Streaked Bird Northern Spotted Owl Owl Spotted Cuckoo Bird Northern Bird Yellow-billed Bird Marbled Murrelet Murrelet Bird Marbled Reptile Western pond turtle turtle pond Reptile Western Amphibian Amphibian spotted frog Oregon Invertebrate Taylor’s checkerspot checkerspot Taylor’s Invertebrate Mammal wolverine Mammal Western gray squirrel squirrel gray Western Mammal Plant Nelson’s checker-mallow checker-mallow howellia Plant Nelson’s Plant water skipper mardon Invertebrate Plant golden paintbrush paintbrush lupine Taxon Plant golden Plant Kincaid’s name Common Species listed as endangered (SE), or threatened (ST) as defined by Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297 and overseen by by and overseen Code 232-12-297 Administrative Washington by defined (ST) as threatened or (SE), as endangered listed Species include and Yelm) Tenino, (Olympia, of Mazama pocket gopher Candidate subspecies Species listed as endangered (LE) or threatened (LT) under the federal Endangered Species Act. C = candidate for listing. listing. for candidate C = Species Act. Endangered federal the (LT) under threatened or (LE) as endangered Species listed in t habitat exists suitable if and a species of distribution the known current area falls within project the Indicates whether a b c d Table 3.Table candidate and threatened, (endangered, listed Federally

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 10 ABR, Inc. Results d habitat suitable Distribution/ Distribution/ gton. Includes County Thurston Thurston Lewis County c State b USFS a S X S N C X X Y? C C X X Y? C C X N C C X N C C X N? C C X N? C C X X N C C X N C C X X X N C S X X X Y S S X X X Y S SC X SC Y SC SC X N SC X X SC Y SC X SC N SC SC X N SC C C X SC N SC C X X C SC N SC X X SC Y SC X SC X SC N N SC X X SC Y SC X SC Y SC X SC Y? SC X X SC N SC S X X S SC Y SC C X X C SC Y SC X X SC Y USFWS office, USFS, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Wildlife of Fish Department and Washington USFS, office, by the USFWS Washington state by the USFWS Washington Scientific name Scientific name Delphinium leucophaeum Sidalcea malvifloraSidalcea ssp. Virgata Cimicifuga elata Howellia aquatilis Meconella oregano Aster curtus Aster curtus Agonum belleri Prophysaon coeruleum coeruleum Prophysaon Mitoura johnsoni johnsoni Mitoura Leschius mcallisteri mcallisteri Leschius Ostrea lurida Ostrea lurida Gomphus kurilis Gomphus kurilis Plebejus icarioides blackmorei blackmorei Plebejus icarioides Speyeria zerene bremnerii bremnerii zerene Speyeria Rana cascadae Rana cascadae Rhyacotriton kezeri Plethodon larselli Ascaphus truei truei Ascaphus Plethodon vandykei Plethodon vandykei Bufo boreas Bufo boreas Clemmys marmorata marmorata marmorata Clemmys marmorata Haliaeetus leucocephalus Haliaeetus Picoides arcticus Picoides arcticus Uria aalge Aquila chrysaetos Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus Brachyramphus Accipiter gentilis Accipiter gentilis Strix occidentalis caurina caurina Strix occidentalis Contopus cooperi cooperi Contopus est Service (USFS) sensitive species, and state sensitive and sensitive and state species, sensitive (USFS) Service est Service (USFWS) species of concern, US For US Fish and Wildlife online databases, May 2011. 2011. databases, May online candidate species. Data provided Plant pale larkspur Taxon Plant pale name Common Plant rose checker-mallow checker-mallow Plant rose Plant tall bugbane Plant tall Plant water howellia Plant water Plant white meconella meconella Plant white Plant white-top aster Plant white-top Invertebrate Invertebrate ground beetle Beller's Invertebrate blue-gray taildropper blue-gray Invertebrate Invertebrate Johnson's hairstreak hairstreak Johnson's Invertebrate Invertebrate Leschi's millipede Invertebrate Leschi's Invertebrate Olympia oyster Olympia Invertebrate Invertebrate Pacific clubtail Pacific Invertebrate Invertebrate Puget blue blue Puget Invertebrate Invertebrate valley silverspot Invertebrate valley Amphibian Cascades frog Cascades Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian salamander torrent Columbia Amphibian tailed frog Amphibian tailed Amphibian Larch Mountain salamander Amphibian Amphibian salamander Van Dyke’s Amphibian Western toad toad Western Amphibian Reptile Western pond turtle turtle pond Reptile Western Bird Bald Eagle Bird Bald Bird black-backed woodpecker woodpecker Bird black-backed Bird Common Murre Bird Common Bird Golden Eagle Eagle Bird Golden Bird Marbled Murrelet Murrelet Bird Marbled Bird Northern Goshawk Goshawk Bird Northern Bird Northern Spotted Owl Owl Spotted Bird Northern Bird Olive-sided Flycatcher Flycatcher Bird Olive-sided Table 4.Table status reported for Lewis and Thurston counties, Washin Federally and state recognized species of special conservation

ABR, Inc. 11 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results d habitat suitable Distribution/ Distribution/ County Thurston Thurston Lewis County c State b USFS a C X X X Y C C X X N? X C C X X X Y C C X N C C X X X N C SX X Y? C S C X X X Y? C S C X X X N C S C X X X Y? C S C X N C C X X N C C X X N C C X X N C S X X X N S C X N C SX X Y? C

SC C X X C SC N SC S X X S SC Y? SC SC X N SC C C X SC N SC X X SC Y SC C X X C SC N SC C C X SC N SC C C X SC N SC C C X SC N SC X X SC N SC C C X SC N SC C C X SC N USFWS Scientific name Scientific name affinis Pooecetes gramineus Falco peregrines Falco peregrines Dryocopus pileatus Dryocopus pileatus Progne subis subis Progne Sitta carolinensis aculeate Chaetura vauxi vauxi Chaetura Aechmophorus occidentalis occidentalis Aechmophorus Coccyzus americanus Coccyzus americanus Sebastes auriculatus Salvelinus confluentus Oncorhynchus tshawytscha tshawytscha Oncorhynchus Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus Oncorhynchus clarki clarki clarki clarki Oncorhynchus Oncorhynchus kisutch Sebastes caurinus Sebastes caurinus Thaleichthys pacificus Rhinichthys falcatus falcatus Rhinichthys Catostomus platyrhynchus platyrhynchus Catostomus Lampetra ayresi ayresi Lampetra Novumbra hubbsi Novumbra hubbsi Gadus macrocephalus Merluccius productus productus Merluccius Clupea pallasi pallasi Clupea Lampetra tridentata Sebastes maliger Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus mykiss mykiss Oncorhynchus Theragra chalcogramma chalcogramma Theragra Nuthatch Nuthatch Taxon Bird name Common Oregon Vesper Sparrow Bird Peregrine Falcon Falcon Bird Peregrine Bird Pileated Woodpecker Woodpecker Bird Pileated Bird Purple Martin Bird Purple Bird Slender-billed White-breasted Bird Slender-billed Bird Vaux’s Swift Swift Bird Vaux’s Bird Western Grebe Grebe Bird Western Bird Yellow-billed Cuckoo Bird Yellow-billed Fish brown rockfish Fish brown Fish bull trout Fish bull Fish chinook salmon salmon Fish chinook Fish chum salmon salmon Fish chum Fish Coastal Res./searun cutthroat cutthroat Res./searun Fish Coastal Fish coho Fish copper rockfish Fish copper Fish Eulachon Fish leopard dace dace Fish leopard Fish mountain sucker sucker Fish mountain Fish river lamprey lamprey Fish river Fish Olympic mudminnow mudminnow Fish Olympic Fish Pacific cod Fish Pacific Fish Pacific hake hake Fish Pacific Fish Pacific herring herring Fish Pacific Fish Pacific lamprey lamprey Fish Pacific Fish quillback rockfish Fish quillback Fish sockeye salmon salmon Fish sockeye Fish steelhead Fish walleye pollock pollock Fish walleye Table 4.Table Continued.

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 12 ABR, Inc. Results d habitat suitable Distribution/ County Thurston Thurston Lewis County c ildlife Diversity Division of the Washington the of ildlife Diversity Division t lands. State b he proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area. area. Project Wind Energy Skookumchuck proposed he USFS a X X N C X X Y? C S X X X N S S X S N C X X X N C C X N C N? N? SC SC X N SC X X SC N SC X X SC Y SC X X SC Y SC C X X C SC Y USFWS Scientific name Scientific name kenyoni lutris Enhydra Lynx canadensis Lynx canadensis Vulpes vulpes cascadensis cascadensis vulpes Vulpes Canis lupus Canis lupus Ursus arctos horribilis Sciurus griseus griseus griseus griseus Sciurus Gulo gulo luteus luteus gulo Gulo Myotis evotis Myotis evotis Myotis volans Myotis volans Phocoena phocoena Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii big-brown bat, myotis bats, big-brown bat, myotis pallid bat Department of Fish and Wildlife. and Wildlife. Fish Department of Mammal Northern sea otter sea Taxon Northern Mammal name Common Mammal Canada lynx Canada Mammal Mammal Cascade red fox red Mammal Cascade Mammal Gray wolf wolf Gray Mammal Mammal Grizzly bear Mammal Grizzly Mammal Western gray squirrel squirrel gray Western Mammal Mammal wolverine Mammal long-eared myotis Mammal long-eared Mammal long-legged myotis myotis long-legged Mammal Mammal Pacific harbor porpoise porpoise harbor Pacific Mammal Mammal Mammal Bat roosting concentrations: Mammal Mammal bat big-eared Townsend’s Species listed as Sensitive (S) by USDA Forest Service and document or suspected as occurring at Gifford Pinchot National Fores National at Gifford Pinchot as occurring or suspected document Service and USDA Forest as Sensitive (S) by listed Species in t habitat exists suitable if and a species of distribution the known current area falls within project the Indicates whether Species listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Species of Concern (SC). (SC). Concern as Species of Wildlife Service and Fish U.S. by Species listed w the overseen by 232-12-297 and Code Administrative Washington by as defined (C) Candidate as Sensitive (S), or Species listed a b c d Table 4.Table Continued.

ABR, Inc. 13 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results migrants that fly through, but do not reside on, the Murrelet breeding period generally extends from project area. late March to mid-September and during this time There are a total of 17 federally or state-listed flights by adults to inland nests occur at all times threatened and endangered vertebrate species of day but most often at dawn and dusk (Nelson reported from Lewis and Thurston counties (Table and Hamer 1995). Both sexes incubate eggs in 3). Additionally, there are two federal candidate alternating 24-hr shifts and chicks are fed an species reported for these areas. Lack of suitable average of four times daily. Although less habitats on the Project makes the occurrence of 12 common, Marbled Murrelets may also visit inland species on the project area unlikely or impossible breeding sites during the winter, presumably to (Table 3). Below we treat the remaining species of visit previous nest sites or prospect for new nest possible occurrence on the Project. sites. For monitoring purposes, federal and state FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES agencies have divided populations of Marbled NONE Murrelets in the Pacific Northwest into five FEDERALLY THREATENED SPECIES different Conservation Zones. In Washington Zone 1 includes the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Hood Canal and the San Juan Islands and Zone 2 Marbled Murrelets occur in coastal waters includes the Washington outer coast. At-sea survey along the Pacific coast from Alaska to California. data collected from 2001–2010 indicates a 7% In the Pacific Northwest the use of inland forested annual decline in Marbled Murrelet populations in areas by Marbled Murrelets for nesting is unique Conservation Zones 1 and 2 during this period among seabirds in the region. In Washington, (Pearson et al. 2011). Additionally, the Washington Marbled Murrelets feed in nearshore waters mainly Department of Natural Resources coordinated within 1–2 km (0.6–1.2 mi) of shore and are most efforts by a team of experts that ranked the value of numerous in inland waters north of Everett and 17 blocks of state land (planning blocks) in Kitsap counties and are less abundant in the south southwestern Washington for designation as Puget Sound and the outer coast (Wahl et al. 2005). Marbled Murrelet management areas (Raphael et Inland breeding habitat is characterized by al. 2008). The two closest planning blocks to the mature/old growth forest with large trees and Project, the Skookumchuck and East I-5 blocks, moderate to high canopy closure. The Marbled were both ranked as low priority based on habitat Murrelet breeding season in Washington covers a characteristics and the lack of known occupied nest period extending from late March to mid sites (Raphael et al. 2008). September with peak inland activity occurring in Based on the apparent lack of suitable nesting from June to mid-July (Hamer and Nelson 1995, habitat at the Project and surrounding areas the Huff et al. 2006). Marbled Murrelets do no likelihood of Marbled Murrelet use of the Project construct a typical nest structure and instead lay a site is low; however, the WDFW data indicate a single egg in a small depression in moss or debris. known historical occupied site on WEYCO As a result, nest trees must have large branches or property <1 mi from the southeastern section of the other deformities that provide suitable structure for Project (Appendix 5). The data from WDFW nesting (Nelson 1997). Nest stands are generally consists of a cluster of murrelet detections dating comprised of low elevation conifers and of 51 nests from 1995–1997. Of interest is that the WDFW found in Oregon and Washington 35 (68.6%) were data also indicates a single incidental murrelet in douglas-fir, 14 (27.4%) in western hemlock, and detection from 1995 within the proposed project 1 each (2.0% each) in Sitka spruce (Picea area ~3–4 mi northwest of the previously sitchensis) and western red cedar (Nelson 1997). In mentioned cluster of murrelet detections. Most Washington, nesting or probable nesting has been likely this was an individual flying over the project detected up to 84 km inland in the north Cascades area en route to nesting habitat outside the Project. and within 40 km of marine waters in the There is potential for Marbled Murrelet nesting in southwest (Wahl et al. 2005). The Marbled the adjacent Gifford Pinchot National Forest and

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 14 ABR, Inc. Results

Mt Rainier National Forest (Fig. 5). Thus, there is also found in inland waters. Bull trout stocks in additional potential risk from the Project to Washington require water temperatures below 15° Marbled Murrelets traversing the site en route to C because they can exhibit various life history other inland areas. conditions (i.e., anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident). In relation to the project site, the nearest river basin for bull trout would be within the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) coastal Washington region of Grays Harbor and the The range of Northern Spotted Owl Chehalis River. According to the updated 2004 encompasses structurally complex forests from Salmonid Stock Inventory, the bull trout/dolly southwestern British Columbia to northern varden in the Chehalis River/Grays Harbor system California as far south as Marin County. Although are a distinct stock and have been caught in the individual Spotted Owls can disperse through anadromous zone during spring and fall. The highly fragmented forests and forests of younger Chehalis River Basin includes the Skookumchuck seral stages, scientific evidence indicates that River and Newaukum River (north and south Spotted Owls generally rely on mature and forks) and therefore it is likely that this species old-growth forests with complex forest structure occurs adjacent to the Project and in some cases that provide suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, could traverse up into the smaller stream channels and foraging. The Northern Spotted Owl is known that occur in parts of the Project (WDFW 2004). to occur in Thurston and Lewis counties (Fig. 6). The potential direct and indirect impacts from project development on Northern Spotted Owls Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) could include the loss of suitable nesting, foraging, The North American range of chinook salmon and roosting habitats; displacement through the extends from southern California in the Ventura removal of any existing nest and roost trees; or River north to Point Hope, Alaska. Chinook direct mortality if an active nest were removed. salmon are often referred to as king salmon, as they Data from GIS analyses and the site visit are the largest of the five Pacific salmon species. performed by ABR suggested no old growth/ Anadromous chinook salmon stocks have been mature forest at the site and thus none or limited found in Washington streams including those of potential for nesting. Based on this apparent lack of Puget Sound, Hood Canal, the Strait of Juan de suitable habitat the likelihood of Northern Spotted Fuca, Olympic Peninsula coast, and the Columbia Owl use of the Project site is low and thus the River (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Spawning potential for impacts to this species from the adults have been documented in drainages from Project is low. However, WDFW data (generalized most larger streams of the middle and lower to township) indicates two historic spotted owl Columbia River drainage, coastal drainage, and sites within or directly adjacent to the northeast Puget Sound. Spring run chinook salmon occur in section of the Project (Appendix 5). The WDFW portions of the Chehalis River Basin including the data consists of one site record dating from 1995 Skookumchuck River and Newaukum River (north and classified as a single bird of unknown status and south forks) adjacent to the Project and and another record dated 2001 labeled “historic”. therefore may be found within water drainages that occur on the Project (WDFW 2010). Data provided by WDFW (Appendix 5) supports the occurrence Bull Trout (Strix occidentalis caurina) of three different stocks of Chinook (Chehalis Fall, Bull trout are found from the Oregon– Chehalis Spring, and South Sound Tributaries) in California border eastward to Nevada, north streams directly adjacent to the northwest and through Montana and western Alberta, continuing southwest sections of the Project. through western British Columbia and north into Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Bull trout are native to the Pacific Northwest where they Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) reach the Pacific Ocean on the Olympic Peninsula The North American distribution of coho and Puget Sound in Washington; however, they are salmon extends from central California (Monterey

ABR, Inc. 15 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results by the US the by Geological Survey. Data from 1997. Geological Survey. Figure 5.administered Program Analysis Gap Washington the from state Washington in Murrelet Marbled the for model Distribution

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 16 ABR, Inc. Results hington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Program administered by the by administered Program Analysis Gap Washington the from state hington US Geological Survey. Data from 1997. US Geological Survey. Figure 6.Was in Owl Spotted Northern the for model Distribution

ABR, Inc. 17 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results

Bay) north to Point Hope, Alaska. In Washington, the Project for six species: mardon skipper (Polites anadromous spawning adults are found within mardon), Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha most streams of the Columbia River, coastal, and taylori), Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata Puget Sound drainages. Coho salmon from marmorata), Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila Washington coastal streams and the Puget Sound alpestris strigata), fisher (Martes pennant), and migrate north and south along the Pacific coast orca (Orcinus orca). However, the Streaked from the Queen Charlotte Islands to San Francisco Horned Lark could potentially fly over the site Bay, California (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). during seasonal migratory movements. The Coho salmon occur in the Skookumchuck River remaining species, the Northern Spotted Owl, is and Newaukum River (north and south forks) also a federally threatened species and we address adjacent to the Project and therefore may be found the potential occurrence of this bird above. within water drainages that occur on the Project (WDFW 2010). Data provided by WDFW Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris (Appendix 5) supports the occurrence of Deschutes strigata) and Chehalis stocks of Coho in streams directly The Streaked Horned Lark is a rare subspecies adjacent to the Project. of the Horned Lark that occurs in prairie and open coastal habitats of Oregon and Washington. In Washington there are known small breeding Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations on prairie remnants and airports in the Steelhead are an anadromous form of rainbow south Puget Lowlands, on beaches and adjacent trout and were historically found inhabiting waters lands near Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, and on from northern Mexico to southeastern Alaska dredge spoil islands on the Columbia River including inland rivers accessing the Pacific (Pearson and Altman 2005). The closest known Ocean. The historic distribution is now inhibited sites to the project are at Fort Lewis and the by the presence of dams that are impassable in Olympia airport. There is no breeding or wintering many locations, and anadromous steelhead stocks habitat at the Project or in the vicinity, however, have been eliminated south of San Francisco, because the subspecies migrates between sites it is California. In western Washington, steelhead are possible that small numbers of these birds could found in most drainages of Puget Sound, coastal seasonally pass over the site streams, and in the lower Columbia River STATE THREATENED SPECIES (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Winter steelhead occur in the Skookumchuck River and Newaukum Three species listed as threatened in River (north and south forks) adjacent to the Washington are reported from Lewis and Thurston Project and therefore may be found within water counties (Table 3). The known distribution of the drainages that occur on the Project (WDFW 2010). Western pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama spp) Data provided by WDFW (Appendix 5) supports and Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus griseus) the occurrence of Deschutes and Skookumchuck/ falls outside the project area and there is limited or Newaukum stocks of winter steelhead in streams no suitable habitat on the Project. The other both adjacent and within the Project. In particular, species, the Marbled Murrelet, is a federally the WDFW data indicates steelhead occurring threatened species and discussed above. within the northeast (Mitchell Creek) and USFS SENSITIVE SPECIES northwest (Baumgard Creek) sections of the Nine species are listed as sensitive by the Project. USFS and documented or suspected of occurring at STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES the nearby Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Fig. 1, Table 4). The Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Seven state-listed endangered species are Owl, bull trout, Chinook salmon, coho, and known from Lewis and Thurston counties (Table 3) steelhead are addressed above. Suitable habitat for including two invertebrates, one reptile, two birds, and two mammals. No suitable habitat is present at

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 18 ABR, Inc. Results the remaining species does not occur on the project Winter Residents area. The Christmas Bird Count (CBC) is an annual BIRDS nationwide winter survey conducted between December 14 and January 5. CBC’s have been Birds have long been considered indicators of conducted for 110 years with the participation of biological health and the proactive implementation volunteers and provide valuable baseline data for of conservation management helps to ensure the abundances of locally occurring winter birds. The survival of birds and the well being of the closest CBC to the Project is at Olympia ~29 km ecosystems in which they exist. Washington has a (18 mi) to the northwest. Because this count is at rich diversity of birds including 345 species the south end of the Puget Sound the data from this regularly reported in the state (Paulson 2010). CBC are of limited value in interpreting winter bird There are various national and state conservation abundances on the Project, but they do provide an strategies to protect bird diversity with one of the indication of the regional bird concentrations major programs involving the designation of during winter. Over five year period from Important Bird Areas (IBA; National Audubon 2004–2008 the average number of species reported Society 2011). Although IBAs do not confer was 127 with no federal or state listed threatened or regulatory status or protection to sites they do help endangered species (National Audubon Society identify sites that provide essential habitat for 2010). The most abundant species were waterfowl breeding, wintering, and migrating birds. The IBA and wading birds. Ten species of raptors were in closest proximity to the Project is located ~32 reported over this time span, with the most km (20 mi) to the north at the Fort Lewis Military abundant species being Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Reservation and McChord Air Force Base. The leucocephalus, average 74 per count), Red-tailed dominant habitat types at this IBA (i.e., oak Hawk (Buteo jamaicencis, average 63 per count), woodland, ponderosa pine, large wetlands) do not and Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus, average 23 occur at the Project area and thus the site is not per count). No other raptor species averaged particularly relevant for comparison with the greater than 10 individuals per count and no Project. Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) were observed. Breeding Residents Migratory Birds One source of data on local breeding birds is the annual Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) initiated Migratory species of passerines such as by the USGS in 1966. Each BBS route is 24.5 thrushes (Turdidae), vireos (Vireonidae), and miles (35.4 km) long and is comprised of points warblers (Parulidae) have a known history of spaced every 0.5 miles (800 m) along the colliding with above-ground structures (Kerlinger designated route. During a survey all birds seen or 2000, Longcore et al. 2005, Kerlinger et al. 2010) heard at a point are tallied over a 3-minute period. and seem to be the most vulnerable to collisions The Menodota and Rainier routes in Lewis and during their migrations (Manville 2005). The Thurston counties are the closest BBS routes to the species composition of these fatalities varies Project area. The Rainier Route is closest in regionally and passerines (“songbirds”) experience proximity (~3.2 km, 2.0 mi) and habitat types to the greatest impacts comprising ~74% of the the Project area (Fig. 7). Data from 1966–2007 known bird collisions at wind power developments indicates 89 bird species regularly reported from throughout the US (Erickson et al. 2008). In the route and no species federally or state listed as general, songbirds are nocturnal migrants and fly at threatened or endangered (Sauer et al. 2011). The altitudes between 150–305 m (500–1,000 ft, which three numerically dominant species in descending is higher than most modern turbines. However, order of detection rate were European Starling these species may be vulnerable during inclement (Sturnus vulgaris), American Crow (Corvus weather, when turbines are less visible, or when brachyrhynchos), and American Robin (Turdus descending or ascending while visiting a stopover migratorius) with detection rates of these species site. ranging from 33.5 to 37.3 birds/route. The Project is located in the Pacific Flyway, a known migratory pathway for a diversity of bird

ABR, Inc. 19 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results on. Washingt Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Energy huck Wind Figure 7. Breeding Bird Survey routes near the proposed Skookumc

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 20 ABR, Inc. Results species. Suitable habitat for roosting and foraging (see USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan by migrant songbirds occurs both within and Guidance, 2011). surrounding the Project, principally in forested Eighteen diurnal and 12 nocturnal raptor stands or scrub/shrub habitat along ridgelines. species have been reported for Thurston and Lewis During the site visit we observed various species Counties (Table 5). Of these 14 may occur at the of migratory birds such as Hermit Warbler Project as breeding resident pairs, migrants, or (Dendroica occidentalis), Tree Swallow winter residents. All raptor species potentially (Tachycineta bicolor), and Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura occurring on the Project are protected under federal vauxi), thus establishing the presence of migrating law by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and birds at the site. the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Multiple features of the landscape, vegetation, Raptors and presence and abundance of other vertebrate The occurrence of relatively high numbers of species influence raptor presence and use in a raptor collision fatalities at some older-generation particular area. Of special interest are prey wind projects (e.g., Altamont Pass Wind Resource abundance and availability, potential roost and Area, CA) has resulted in a heightened focus on diurnal raptors in the siting of wind power nesting habitat, and topography. Prey densities at developments across the US Review of newer the Project are unknown at this time but during the generation wind farms in the western US found site visit we observed raptor food resources such as that raptor fatalities ranged from 0–0.87 small birds and small mammals. We did not fatalities/MW/yr compared to the ~1 observe any rock outcrops or other features that fatality/MW/yr at older generation wind projects would provide suitable roost and nest substrates for such as Altamont Pass (Erickson 2004). However, raptors on the Project, however, remnant older high levels of raptor fatalities have occurred at trees might have gone undetected. The various some new generation wind projects in California ridgelines at the Project could produce updrafts for (Kerlinger et al. 2006), demonstrating the soaring raptors and may attract raptors for this complexity of understanding the mechanisms reason. behind the fatalities. (Erickson et al. 2009). Raptor species reported from the adjacent Presently it is unclear whether differences in the Rainier Breeding Bird Survey route ~2 km (1.25 occurrence and composition of raptor fatalities is a mi) northwest of the Project include Turkey result of geographical differences, improved siting, Vulture (Cathartes aura, 0.33 birds/route), Osprey or from other factors (e.g., newer generation (Pandion halieatus, 0.08 birds/route), Northern turbines). Harrier (0.08 birds/route), Sharp-shinned Recent Golden Eagle fatalities at modern (Accipiter striatus, 0.08 birds/route), Cooper’s wind projects in the Western US have also Hawk (Accipiter cooperi, 0.25 birds/route), heightened the sensitivity of raptor fatalities at Red-tailed Hawk (0.17 birds/route), and American wind projects throughout the country. For instance, Kestrel (Falco sparverius, 0.17 birds/route). 1 Golden Eagle was found dead at a new During the site visit we observed an adult Golden generation wind project in Washington (Goodnoe Eagle carrying a prey item in the WEYCO property Hills wind project; Durbin 2009), 3 Golden Eagles area and adjacent to the eastern section of the were found dead at the Elkhorn project in Project area (Fig. 3). The eagle was first seen at an northeastern Oregon (Rautenstrauch 2010), and altitude of ~40 m (131 ft) above the ground and one Golden Eagle was killed at the Foote Creek soared up to an altitude of ~250 m (820 ft) before Rim Phase II Wind Project in Wyoming (Young et disappearing from sight. Other raptors observed al. 2003). The claim of declining Golden Eagle during the site visit included Red-tailed Hawk and populations coupled with a history of Golden Eagle Turkey Vulture (Table 1). fatalities at some wind energy sites in the western Raptor migration sites are those sites with US has elevated the concern for eagles and the special topographic features that concentrate large potential impacts of wind development on them numbers of migrating raptors. Information on the migration of raptors in the region surrounding the

ABR, Inc. 21 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results

Table 5. Raptor species reported for Lewis and Thurston counties. Presence or absence of habitat suitable for breeding resident or wintering populations on the Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project area is indicated. Common name Scientific name Residency statusa Suitable habitat Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura BR/M Y Osprey Pandion haliaetus BR/M N White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus BR N Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BR/M Y Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus BR Y Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus BR Y Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi BR Y Northern Goshawk Accipter gentilis BR N Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus C N Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni C N Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis BR/M Y Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus W N Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos BR/M Y American Kestrel Falco sparverius BR Y Merlin Falco columbarius CW N Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus V N Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus C N Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus C N Barn Owl Tyto alba BR N Western Screech-Owl Megascops kennicottii BR Y Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus BR Y Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus V N Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma BR Y Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina BR Y? Barred Owl Strix varia BR Y Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa V N Long-eared owl Asio otus W N Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus W N Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus V N Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus BR Y

a BR = species potentially represented by breeding populations; C = species a casual visitor to the area; M = species potentially represented by migratory individuals; W = species potentially represented by wintering resident populations; V = species occurs as vagrant occasionally reported from the region.

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 22 ABR, Inc. Results

Project is limited. The Hawk Migration Olympic Mountains (Fig. 8; Terrence et al. 2005, Association of North America (HMANA 2010) WDFW 2011). Nests in the western portion of the operates a network of sites throughout North state are most often found above timberline, or in America where migrating raptors are observed and managed forest lands with extensive open areas counted during spring and fall migrations. The (Terrence et al. 2005). In southeastern Washington nearest HMANA hawk watch sites are located at egg-laying takes place from mid-March to Chelan Ridge, (225 km (140 mi) northeast of the mid-April (Kochert et al. 2002). Similarly, Project, and Bonney Butte, 165 km (102.5 mi) to egg-laying occurs from late February to mid-April the south-southeast of the Project. Although data in southwestern Idaho and mid- to late-March in from these sites are not directly transferrable to the southeastern Oregon, with hatching occurring early Project because of the geographic distances they do April to late May in these populations (Kochert et provide some regional perspective on raptor al. 2002). Nests are built on a variety of substrates migration. Average fall raptor counts at Chelan including cliffs, trees, and power structures. Ridge from 1998–2005 were 2,134 individuals per The most comprehensive data on home range year (Smith et al. 2008). Sharp-shinned hawk was size and breeding densities comes from the Snake the most abundant species observed at this site River Birds of Prey Conservation Area in (average of 796 individuals/year) and average southwestern Idaho. Breeding season home range counts of Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles were 5 averages 25.5 km² (9.8 mi²); Kochert et al. 2002). and 127 individuals per year respectively. At Resident pairs occupy year-round territories, with Bonney Butte average fall raptor counts from winter territories up to 10 times larger than 1994–2005 were 2,898 individuals per year. breeding home ranges, resulting from periodic Similarly, the most abundant species was excursions outside the core areas (Marzluff et al. Sharp-shinned Hawk (average of 1,119 1997). Golden Eagle breeding densities vary individuals) and average counts included 47 Bald widely in the western US, but observed densities Eagles per year and 95 Golden Eagles per year have been 28 km² (11 mi²)/pair in Denali National (Smith et al. 2008). Park, Alaska, 100–119 km² (39–46 mi²)/pair in Utah, 66 km² (25 mi²)/pair in Idaho, 252 km² (97 Eagles mi²)/pair in Nevada (Kochert et al. 2002). Golden Bald and Golden Eagles are afforded federal Eagles can range over 15 km (9 mi) from their nest protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle sites in California (Hunt et al. 1995, CEC and Protection Act. Due partly to a history of eagle CDFG 2006). Direct and indirect human causes fatalities at wind energy sites and also because of account for >70% of recorded mortalities, declining populations of Golden Eagles in the including accidental trauma (collisions with Western US, there is concern regarding potential vehicles, powerlines, structures) ranking highest impacts of wind development on both species (see (27%) followed by electrocutions (25%; Kochert et USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, al. 2002). Golden Eagles are also sensitive to 2011). Here we review literature on eagles human disturbance during the nesting period. pertinent to the Project. Because there are few Suitable foraging habitat exists on the Project and published data on eagle biology specific to the foraging, dispersing, or transient Golden Eagles region surrounding the project area we begin by could occur on the Project at any time of year. summarizing eagle biology in the western United Also, during the meeting with federal and state States. We then briefly review known information agencies on May 16, 2011, Washington relevant to eagles in southwestern Washington. Department of Fish and Wildlife made reference to In Washington the Golden Eagle occurs a known nesting Golden Eagle in the vicinity of the primarily in dry open forests and shrub-steppe Project to the east. habitats on the east front of the Cascade Bald Eagles can be found throughout Mountains, the Okanogan highlands, and the Washington in forested habitats, but are most southeast corner of the state, with some breeding abundant in the cooler, maritime region west of the occurring at high elevations in the Cascades, San Cascade Mountains (Fig. 9). Bald Eagle nests are Juan Islands, and in the rain shadow of the most often constructed near marine shorelines,

ABR, Inc. 23 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results US Geological Survey. Data from 1997. Geological Survey. Figure 8. Gap Analysis Program administered by the sta te from the Washington Eagles in Washington Distribution model for Golden

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 24 ABR, Inc. Results

around reservoirs and lakes, and along major rivers where roosting trees are lacking, and this in the state, including the Nisqually River that phenomenon may be due to an attraction to borders Thurston and Lewis Counties. Nesting turbines (Horn et al. 2008). High fatality rates for habitat consists of areas with tall trees, often migratory tree-roosting bats typically occur in fall old-growth, that is taller than surrounding habitat. during the mating and migratory season. Although Bald Eagles are known to nest in both Thurston most known bat fatalities occur during the fall and Lewis Counties (Washington GAP website, migration period, silver-haired bat deaths have also accessed May 6, 2011). Nests are most often found been reported during spring and summer seasons along waterways, including the Nisqually River (Arnett et al. 2008). Fatality estimates for that originates in Mount Rainier National Park and migratory tree-roosting bats vary across the farther along it’s reach forms the border of Pierce country with lower estimates typically occurring in and Thurston counties ~8 km (5 mi ) northeast of western states and higher estimates along forested the Project. Suitable habitat may also be found ridges of the eastern US (Arnett et al. 2008). Data around Skookumchuck Reservoir, at the northwest from Canada and the Midwest, however, suggest margin of the Project and in the vicinity of the high fatality events occur across a variety of Skookumchuck River, which lies between Project landscapes in North America (Jain 2005, Barclay parcels. In fact, WDFW data identifies a historical et al. 2007, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008). nest site between the northwest and northeast The long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), Project parcels (Appendix 5). Following historical long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), and Pacific declines in the 20th century the nesting population Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus of Bald Eagles in Washington increased 707% townsendii townsendii) are listed as Species of from 1981–2005 and as of 2005 the statewide Concern by the USFWS. Additionally, the Pacific breeding population was estimated at 1,939 nesting Townsend’s big-eared bat is a State Species of pairs (Stinson et al. 2007). Winter populations in Concern and BLM/USFS Sensitive Species known Washington include individuals from northern to occur in the vicinity of the project area. Mine Canada, Alaska, Montana, and California. The shafts and caves are scattered throughout the winter distribution of Bald Eagles in Washington is mountains in Thurston, Lewis, and Pierce counties similar to the breeding distribution, but during and provide potential summer day-roosts and/or winter Bald Eagle numbers tend to concentrate at maternity colonies for Townsend’s big-eared bats communal feeding and roosting sites where fish and winter hibernacula for long-eared myotis, and waterfowl are concentrated (Stinson et al. 2007 long-legged myotis, and Townsend’s big-eared bats [Washington Status Report]). Mid-winter that may forage on or migrate through the Project. populations of Bald Eagles in Washington have Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus numbered as many as 3,000 individuals (Stinson et townsendii) al. 2007), with >200 individuals found along the Nisqually River in some years (Stinson et al. The Townsend’s big-eared bat is broadly 2007). distributed throughout western North America from the southern portion of British Columbia BATS south along the Pacific coast to central Mexico and There are ten species of bats that potentially east into the Great Plains. It has been reported in a occur in the Project area and three of these are wide variety of habitat types ranging from sea level considered sensitive species by federal and/or state to 3,300 meters. Habitat associations include agencies (Table 6). Migratory tree-roosting bats coniferous forests, deserts, native prairies, riparian (e.g., hoary and silver-haired bats), often comprise communities, active agricultural areas, and coastal >75% of fatalities at wind development sites in habitat types. Maternity colonies typically roost in North America. It is unknown why tree-roosting caves and mines, but the species has been reported species are common fatalities at wind energy sites roosting in buildings, bridges, rock crevices and

ABR, Inc. 25 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Results S tered by the U tered Geological Survey. Data from 1997. Geological Survey. Figure 9. Gap Analysis Program adminis from the Washington state Distribution model for Bald Eagles in Washington

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 26 ABR, Inc. Conclusions

Table 6. Species of bats that potentially occurr at the Skookumchuk Wind Energy Project and their US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Washington state status.

USFWS USFS/BLM State Common name Scientific name statusa statusb statusc big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Cd California myotis Myotis californicus hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus little brown bat Myotis lucifugus long-eared myotis Myotis evotis SC long-legged myotis Myotis volans SC silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SC S C Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis myotis bats Myotis spp. Cd

a SC = USFWS Species of Concern. b S = BLM & USFS Sensitive species. c C = State Candidate Species. d Only roosting concentrations proposed for candidate status. hollow trees. The females are nearly always found at the Project is comprised primarily of a matrix of in stable communal roosts, used year after year. managed evergreen forest, scrub/shrub, and Foraging associations include edge habitats along grassland/herbaceous habitats. Potential impacts of streams adjacent to and within a variety of wooded wind energy development on plant diversity and habitats. Suitable foraging habitat occurs within associated wildlife in this ecosystem may be and roosting habitat occurs in the vicinity of the classified as indirect, through the loss of suitable project area, suggesting the potential for the habitat or disturbance of breeding behavior, or species to occur on the project is moderate (Fig. direct, resulting from road construction or 10). Data from WDFW (Appendix 5) indicates a collisions with turbines or associated power or known roost site (generalized to township) transmission lines. observed to the west of the Project in summer 2010 The Habitat Analysis Map shows land cover consisting of two individuals. classes on the Project to be typical of managed forest habitats in the region. No rare or unique CONCLUSIONS plant communities are found on the project area, Site Characterization Studies are designed to and there is presumably no associated risk factor to summarize the biological resources, describe unique plant communities. potential conflicts, and recommend further The potential presence on the Project of up to studies for a proposed wind energy facility and seven wildlife species listed as endangered or are strongly recommended in Washington as a threatened at the federal and state levels, as well as preliminary step in evaluating sites for wind numerous federal and state species of special energy development (WDFW 2008). Based on concern warrants additional information gathering this effort we summarize the biological risks and directed biological surveys. These surveys are and recommended studies for the proposed recommended to adequately document annual and Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Tables 7 diurnal patterns of occurrence for these species. In and 8 respectively. particular, we recommend radar surveys during the The Project is located in southwestern summer breeding period to determine the presence Washington in the Cascade ecoregion. Land cover and flight altitudes of Marbled Murrelets flying

ABR, Inc. 27 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study Conclusions gram ed bat in Washington state from the Washington Gap Analysis Pro state from the Washington bat in Washington ed administered by the US Geological Survey. Data from 1997. administered by the US Geological Survey. Figure 10. big-ear Townsend’s Distribution model for the Pacific

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 28 ABR, Inc. Conclusions

Table 7. Qualitative summary of the exposure level of biological resources to wind energy development at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project, Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington. Issue Exposure Concern Unique habitat features present Low Unique and rare habitat types exist in Lewis and Thurston counties but only limited riparian habitat at the Project. Federally-listed species presence & use Moderate Marbled Murrelets may pass over the site en route to inland nest sites further east and Northern Spotted Owl could occur in any remnant older stands of trees or forage in cleared habitats. There are four species of listed fish that could occur at or adjacent to the Project. State-listed species presence & use Moderate The Streaked Horned Lark could pass over the site during migration. Also both Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl could occur at the site (see above). Raptor presence & use Low/moderate Roosting and foraging habitat for raptors is present and some migration is expected through the Project Raptor nesting potential Low Nest substrates consist of scattered tall trees and utility structures. Migratory bird presence & use Low/moderate Moderate amount of suitable habitat and resources for migratory birds found in remnant timber stands and scrub/shrub habitat. Resident bird presence & use Low/moderate Breeding birds expected to occur in patches of suitable habitat (i.e., remnant forested areas, edges of forested areas, and cleared areas. Bat presence & use Low/moderate Limited roosting but some suitable foraging habitat present on the Project. Species considered vulnerable to wind development are likely to occur during migration. High uncertainty because of few comparative data. over the site. We also recommend focused ground wildlife agencies on May 16, 2011 it was pointed surveys to determine the presence and extent of out that Streaked Horned Lark could potentially fly potential Northern Spotted Owl habitat. For any over the Project during migration. There are few areas with suitable habitat we recommend options for determining the presence of this species additional surveys to determine the presence of passing over the Project but standard point count Northern Spotted Owls on the Project. Stream methods during migratory periods might provide surveys may be warranted to determine the some information. presence and extent of special status fish species on The Project area contains few suitable the Project. resources for resident and migrating raptors. Diversity of resident and migratory birds has Isolated larger trees may provide suitable substrate not been characterized for the Project. Year-round for nest sites and perches, and potential prey such avian monitoring is recommended to adequately as small mammals and birds were observed during document the diversity and abundance of resident the site visit. Additionally, the observation of an species and to characterize the timing, species adult Golden Eagle with prey during the site visit composition, and relative abundances of migratory warrants attention and additional studies. The birds. During the meeting with federal and state topographical relief at the site may provide

ABR, Inc. 29 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study References

Table 8. Summary of recommended studies to assess the biological resources at the proposed Skookumchuck Wind Energy Project in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington. Recommended Studies/Course of Action

» Discuss data availability for Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets and any other species of interest (e.g., fish) on Weyerhauser property. The availability and extent of data on sensitive species will strongly influence the need for additional studies. » If needed, conduct audio-visual surveys to determine presence and distribution of Northern Spotted Owl if remnant older forested stands within or directly adjacent to the Project. A preliminary habitat assessment would help determine the scope of these efforts » Radar surveys to determine passage rates and flight altitudes of Marbled Murrelets passing over the Project en route to inland nest sites. » Raptor nest surveys to determine number and distribution of raptor nests, with an emphasis on Bald and Golden Eagle nesting distribution.

» Avian point counts for a full year to determine presence and use of migratory and resident bird species.

» Bat acoustic surveys during appropriate seasons (ideally spring through fall) to determine nightly and seasonal activity patterns.

» If needed, stream surveys to determine presence of federally listed fish species.

sufficient updrafts suitable for raptor movements when bats are known to be active in Washington. during spring and fall migration. Conducting raptor Little information is available to predict the time of nest surveys and year-round surveys for resident year when bats may be most at risk because wind and migrating raptors will help determine the level power development in forested regions of the of raptor use at the Project. Raptor surveys could Pacific Northwest is just beginning. We would be incorporated as part of a year round avian expect fatalities during fall migration (similar to monitoring program. other studies throughout the US) but the added Bats considered vulnerable to wind uncertainty of what is expected during spring and development are known to occur in Lewis and summer periods leads us to also recommend spring Thurston counties and reside locally or migrate and summer acoustic monitoring to evaluate bat through the region. Although there are no known activity during these important time periods. bat roosts or hibernacula within the project area, Species of concern such as the Townsend’s big potential summer roosting and foraging habitat eared bat, long-eared myotis, and long-legged does occur on the Project and maternity colony myotis may require the use of highly sensitive roosts as well as hibernacula have been recorded in microphones or mist nets to detect the presence of Thurston, Pierce, and Lewis counties. Additionally, these species that have low intensity echolocation Mount Rainier, Mount Saint Helens, and Mount calls. Adams are all within 161 km (100 mi) of the project area and numerous caves, abandoned REFERENCES mines, and/or lava tubes in their vicinity provide Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. potential winter hibernacula. As a result, bat Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, activity may increase in the project area when bats G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. are migrating between winter hibernacula and Nicholson, T. J. O’Connell, M. D. summer roosts. Acoustic monitoring studies should be considered during the spring, summer, and fall

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 30 ABR, Inc. References

Piorkowski, and R. D. Tankersley. 2008. Hawk Migration Association of North America Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy (HMANA). 2010. Hawk Watch site data. facilities in North America. Journal of http://www.hmana.org/index.php. Wildlife Management 72: 61–78. Hayes, G. E., and J. C. Lewis. 2006. Washington Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). State Recovery Plan for the Fisher. 1940. US Code § 668–668d. June 8, 1940. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Barclay, R. M., R. E. F. Baerwald, and J. C. Gruver. Olympia. 62+ viii pp. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at Horn, J. W., E. B. Arnett, and T. H. Kunz. 2008. wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of Behavioral responses of bats to operating rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife of Zoology 85:381–387. Management 72: 123–132. Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. Huff, M. H., R. Martin, G. Miller, S. K. Nelson, S. 2011. Herbarium Collection. University of Kim, and J. Baldwin (tech. coords.). 2006. Washington, Seattle, Washington. http://www. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 10 years washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/her (1994–2003): status and trends of populations barium/index.php and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. California Energy Commission and California Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-650. Portland, Department of Fish and Game (CEC and OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest CDFG). 2006. Statewide guidelines for Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. reducing impacts to birds and bats from wind 149 p. energy development. Draft Staff Report. Hunt, W. G., R. E. Jackman, T. L. Brown, J. G. Durbin, K. 2009. Washington wind turbines claim Gilardi, D. E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. 1995. A first known eagle victim. The Columbian pilot golden eagle population study in the (Vancounver, WA). May 19 2009 article. Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Prepared by The Predatory Bird Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1973. 16 US Code Research Group, University of California, § 1531–1544. December 28, 1973. Santa Cruz, for The National Renewable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. National Priorities List (Superfund sites). Jain, A. A., 2005. Bird and bat behavior and http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index mortality at a northern Iowa wind farm. .htm Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Erickson, W. P., D. Strickland, D. Young, G. Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at Johnson. 2009. A summary of avian and bat communication towers: a review of recent fatalities at wind facilities in the US literature, research, and methodology. Presentation at the National Wind Unpublished report prepared for US Fish and Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) research Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird meeting (NWCC VII), November 2008. Management, by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC., Fenton, M. B., L. Acharya, D. Audet, M. B. C. Cape May Point, NJ. 38 pp. Hickey, C. Merriman, M. K. Obrist, and D. M. Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, L. Culp, A. Jain, C. Syme. 1992. Pyllostomid bats (Chiroptera: Wilkerson, B. Fischer, and A. Hasch. 2006. Phyllostomidae) as indicators of habitat Post-construction avian and bat fatality disruption in the Neotropics. Biotropica 24: monitoring study for the High Winds Wind 440-446. Power Project, Solano County, California: two Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995. Nesting year report. Prepared for High Winds, LLC, Chronology of the Marbled Murrelet. Chapter and FPL Energy. 4 in USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152.

ABR, Inc. 31 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study References

Kerlinger, P., J. L. Gehring, W. P. Erickson, R. 2002, C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, Editors. Curry, A. Jain, and A. Guarnaccia. 2010. USDA Forest Service General Technical Night migrant fatalities and obstruction Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest lighting at wind turbines in North America. Research Station, Albany, CA: 1051–1064. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122: 744–754. Marzluff, J. M., S. T. Knick, M. S. Vekasy, L. S. Kochert M. N., K. Steenhoff, C. L. Mcintyre, and Schueck, and T. J. Zarriello. 1997. Spatial use E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila and habitat selection by Golden Eagles in chrysaetos). In Poole, A. (Ed.). The birds of southwestern Idaho. Auk 114: 673–686. North America online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 1918. 16 US Ornithology. Code § 703–712. July 13, 1918. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684 National Audubon Society. 2010. The Christmas Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Bird Count Historical Results. http://www. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. christmasbirdcount.org Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of National Audubon Society. 2011. Important Bird wind-energy development on nocturnally Areas Program. http://web4.audubon.org/ active birds and bats: a guidance document. bird/iba/index.html Journal of Wildlife Management 71: Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet 2449–2486. (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Pages 1–32 in Linders, M. J., and D. W. Stinson 2007. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Birds of North Washington State Recovery Plan for the America, No. 276. The Academy of Natural Western Gray Squirrel. Washington Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. Washington. 128+ viii pp. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.bnaproxy.birds.co rnell.edu/bna/species/276/articles/ Longcore, T. L., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2005. Scientific basis to establish policy Nelson, S. K., and T. E. Hamer. 1995. Nesting regulating communication towers to protect biology and behavior of the Marbled migratory birds: response to Avatar Murrelet. Pages 57–68 in C. J. Ralph, G. L. Environmental, LLC., report regarding Hunt, Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, eds. migratory bird collisions with Ecology and conservation of the Marbled communications towers, WT Docket No. Murrelet. US Department of Agriculture, 03–187, Federal Communications Forest Service General Technical Report Commission Notice of Inquiry. Unpublished PSW-GTR-152, Albany, CA. report prepared for American Bird Paulson, D. 2010. Birds of Washington. Slater Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest Museum, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Conservation Council, and The Humane WA. http://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/ Society of the United States, by Land academic-resources/slater-museum/biodiversi Protection Parnters and Clemson University. ty-resources/birds/birds-of-washington/ 33 pp. Pearson, S. F., and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide Manville, A. M. 2005. Bird strikes and Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris electrocutions at power lines, communication strigata) Assessment and Preliminary towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and Conservation Strategy. Washington state of the science – next steps toward Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, mitigation. Bird Conservation Implementation WA. 25pp. in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 32 ABR, Inc. References

Pearson, S. F., M. G. Raphael, M. M. Lance, and T. Stinson, D. W., J. W. Watson, and K. R. McAllister. D. Bloxton, Jr. 2011. Washington 2010 at-sea 2007. Washington state status report for the marbled murrelet population monitoring: bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish research progress report. Washington and Wildlife. 86 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/ Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife publications/pub.php?id=00315 Science Division and USDA Forest Service US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, 2006. WA. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Raphael, M. G., S. K. Nelson, P. Swedeen, M. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United Ostwald, K. Flotlin, S. Desimone, S. Horton, States Department of Interior, Fish and P. Harrison, D. Prenzlow Escene, and W. Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Jaross. 2008. Recommendations and Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Supporting Analysis of Conservation http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ Opportunities for the Marbled Murrelet Long-Term Conservation Strategy. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Washington State Department of Natural Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. 106 Resources, Olympia, WA. http://www.dnr. pp. http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ wa.gov/Publications/lm_mamu_sci_team_rep US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. ort.pdf Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Raphael, M. G., J. A. Young, B. M. Galleher. 1995. 80 pp. http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ A Landscape-Level Analysis of Marbled US Geological Survey (USGS) Breeding Bird Murrelet Habitat in Western Washington. Survey (BBS). 2008. BBS Database, North Chapter 18 of USDA Forest Service Gen. American Breeding Bird Survey Internet Data Tech. Rep. PSW-152. 12 pp. Set. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Rautenstrauch, B. 2010. Wind farm forum draws Center. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ 150. The Observer - newspaper for Union and Wahl, T. R., B. Tweit, S. G. Mlodinow (eds.). 2005. Wallowa Counties, Oregon. June 24, 2010 Birds of Washington: status and distribution. issue. http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/ Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. News/Local-News/Wind-farm-forum-draws-1 436 pp. 50 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. (WDFW) 2004. Washington state salmonid Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. stock inventory: Appendix: bull trout/Dolly Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - Wildlife, Olympia. WA. 441 pp. 2009. Version 3.23.2011. USGS Patuxent Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Smith, J. P., C. J. Farmer, S. W. Hoffman, G. S. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Kaltenecker, K. Z. Woodruff, and P. F. (WDFW). 2009. Wind Power Guidelines. Sherrington. 2008. Trends in autumn counts Olympia, WA. 30 pp. of migratory raptors in western North America. In Bildstein, K. L., J. P. Smith, E. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Ruelas Inzunza, and R. R. Veit (Eds), State of (WDFW). 2010. Salmonid Stock Inventory North America’s Birds of Prey. Published by 2002 reports. Washington Department of Fish Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge, and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. www.wdfw.wa. MA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/index.html Washington, D.C.

ABR, Inc. 33 Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study References

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2011. Raptor Ecology. Information web page. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. http://wdfw.wa. gov/conservation/research/projects/raptor/ Washington Gap Analysis Project (GAP). 1997. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. www.depts.washington.edu/ natmap/projects/wagap/ Washington Herp Atlas, 2009. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, USD.I. Bureau of Land Management, and US Forest Service. www. dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ Washington’s Important Bird Areas Program. www.iba.audubon.org/iba/viewState.do?state =US-WA Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2010. Monthly climate summaries for Centralia, Washington from 1893–2010. http://www. wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmwa.html 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 Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, November 1998–June 2002. Unpublished report prepared for PacifiCorp, Inc., Portland, OR and SeaWest Windpower, Inc., San Diego, CA, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, WY. 50 pp.

Skookumchuck Site Characterization Study 34 ABR, Inc.