BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Final Environmental Impact Statement For Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit For the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Habitat Conservation Plan, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia

September 2013

US Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, WV 26241 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

For Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit For the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Habitat Conservation Plan

Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia

For Further Information Contact: Laura Hill Assistant Field Supervisor West Virginia Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, WV 26241 e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (304) 636-6586, ext. 18 FAX: (304) 636-7824

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... XIII CONTENT AND FORMAT OF FEIS ...... XVI PREFACE ...... XVII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... XVIII 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1.1 Modification of Stipulation ...... 4 1.2 Beech Ridge Energy Project Description – Phase I (Existing 67-Turbine Project) ...... 6 1.2.1 Phase I General Location ...... 6 1.2.2 Phase I General Components ...... 6 1.3 Beech Ridge Energy Project Description – Phase II (Proposed – 33-Turbine Project) .. 10 1.3.1 Phase II General Location ...... 10 1.4 Proposed Project Potential Effects to Listed Species ...... 12 1.4.1 Indiana Bat Seasonal Habitat Use and Home Range ...... 13 1.4.2 Indiana Bats in the Project Area ...... 13 1.4.3 Virginia Big-Eared Bats in the Project Area ...... 14 1.4.4 Estimating Take of Endangered Bats in the Project Area ...... 14 1.5 Regulatory and Legal Framework ...... 15 1.5.1 Federal Regulatory Requirements ...... 15 1.5.2 West Virginia Regulatory Requirements ...... 24 1.5.3 Greenbrier and Nicholas County Regulations ...... 25 1.6 Consultation and Regulatory Compliance History ...... 25 1.6.1 Federal Permitting ...... 25 1.6.2 State of West Virginia ...... 27 1.6.3 Greenbrier County ...... 29 1.7 Scoping and Public Interaction ...... 29 1.7.1 Issues Raised in Scoping ...... 31 1.7.2 Public Comments on FEIS ...... 32 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR FEDERAL ACTION AND FEIS ...... 33 2.1 Action Agency Purpose and Need ...... 33 2.2 Decisions to be Made ...... 34 3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS...... 35 3.1 Development of Alternatives ...... 35

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE i BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria for Reasonable Alternatives for the HCP/ITP Process ...... 36 3.2 Alternatives ...... 37 3.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative – No Take/No ITP/No HCP ...... 37 3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action – ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 39 3.2.3 Alternative 3: Additional Covered Species Addressed in ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 67 3.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only 69 3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 72 3.3.1 Full Project Build-Out, Unrestricted Operations, and No ITP/HCP ...... 72 3.3.2 ITP with Full Implementation of HCP and Reduced Permit Term ...... 72 3.3.3 Alternative Project Location ...... 73 3.3.4 Alternative Energy Sources for Electricity Generation ...... 74 3.3.5 ITP with Full Implementation of HCP and Reduced Number of Turbines with Larger Capacity 74 3.4 Alternatives Comparison ...... 74 3.4.1 Identification of Preferred Alternative ...... 74 3.4.2 Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...... 76 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 84 4.1 Geology and Soils ...... 84 4.1.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 84 4.1.2 Existing Conditions ...... 85 4.2 Noise ...... 89 4.2.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 89 4.2.2 Existing Conditions ...... 89 4.2.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification ...... 92 4.3 Climate and Air Quality ...... 92 4.3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 92 4.3.2 Existing Conditions ...... 93 4.4 Water Resources ...... 94 4.4.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 94 4.4.2 Existing Conditions ...... 94 4.5 Vegetation ...... 100 4.5.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 100 4.5.2 Existing Conditions ...... 100

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.6 Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 103 4.6.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 103 4.6.2 Existing Conditions ...... 103 4.7 Avian Resources ...... 105 4.7.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 105 4.7.2 Existing Conditions ...... 105 4.7.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification ...... 115 4.8 Bats ...... 116 4.8.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 116 4.8.2 Existing Conditions ...... 116 4.8.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification ...... 142 4.9 Socioeconomics ...... 143 4.9.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 143 4.9.2 Existing Conditions ...... 143 4.10 Land Use and Recreation ...... 147 4.10.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 147 4.10.2 Existing Conditions ...... 147 4.11 Visual Resources ...... 148 4.11.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 148 4.11.2 Existing Conditions ...... 150 4.12 Cultural Resources ...... 151 4.12.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 151 4.12.2 Existing Conditions ...... 153 4.13 Communications ...... 156 4.13.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 156 4.13.2 Existing Conditions ...... 156 4.14 Transportation ...... 157 4.14.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 157 4.14.2 Existing Conditions ...... 157 4.15 Safety and Security ...... 157 4.15.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 157 4.15.2 Existing Conditions ...... 157 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 160 5.1 Geology and Soils ...... 163

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.1.1 Impact Criteria ...... 163 5.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 163 5.2 Noise ...... 166 5.2.1 Impact Criteria ...... 166 5.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 166 5.3 Air Quality and Climate ...... 175 5.3.1 Impact Criteria ...... 175 5.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 176 5.4 Water Resources ...... 179 5.4.1 Impact Criteria ...... 180 5.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 180 5.5 Vegetation ...... 186 5.5.1 Impact Criteria ...... 186 5.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 186 5.6 Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 192 5.6.1 Impact Criteria ...... 192 5.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 193 5.7 Avian Resources ...... 201 5.7.1 Impact Criteria ...... 201 5.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 201 5.7.3 Alternatives Comparison ...... 234 5.8 Bats ...... 236 5.8.1 Impact Criteria ...... 236 5.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 236 5.8.3 Alternatives Comparison ...... 272 5.9 Socioeconomics ...... 273 5.9.1 Impact Criteria ...... 273 5.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 274 5.10 Land Use and Recreation ...... 277 5.10.1 Impact Criteria ...... 278 5.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 278 5.11 Visual Resources ...... 281 5.11.1 Impact Criteria ...... 282 5.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 283

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iv BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.12 Cultural Resources ...... 289 5.12.1 Impact Criteria ...... 289 5.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented By Alternative ...... 290 5.13 Communications ...... 297 5.13.1 Impact Criteria ...... 297 5.13.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 297 5.14 Transportation ...... 300 5.14.1 Impact Criteria ...... 300 5.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 300 5.15 Safety and Security ...... 303 5.15.1 Impact Criteria ...... 303 5.15.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 303 5.16 Cumulative Effects ...... 309 5.16.1 General Methodology...... 310 5.16.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 310 5.16.3 Cumulative Effects by Project Type ...... 311 5.16.4 Cumulative Effects by Resource ...... 317 5.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 376 5.18 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ...... 377 5.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 377 5.19.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative ...... 378 6 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 380 6.1.1 MBTA and BGEPA ...... 380 6.1.2 Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act ...... 380 6.2 List of Preparers ...... 385 6.3 Distribution...... 386 7 LITERATURE CITED ...... 388

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. West Virginia and National Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 18 Table 3-1. Alternatives considered for detailed analysis for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan...... 38 Table 3-2. Estimates of total ground disturbance associated with Phase I and Phase II construction and operation of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 41 Table 3-3. Seed mixtures used for reclamation at the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 50 Table 3-4. BRE alternatives comparison...... 77

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE v BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-1. Ambient sound survey results for receptors potentially affected by the Phase II 47- turbine layout (33 proposed locations and 14 alternate locations) (Acentech 2011)...... 90 Table 4-2. Perennial streams proximal to the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 95 Table 4-3. Streams identified within Phase II of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 99 Table 4-4. Potential jurisdictional wetlands identified within Phase II of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 99 Table 4-5. 2003 land cover types in and around the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project...... 102 Table 4-6. Rare passerines and other perching birds, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during bird use surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area in spring and fall of 2005...... 112 Table 4-7. Rare passerines and other perching birds, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program ...... 113 Table 4-8. Rare raptors and vultures, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during pre-construction raptor surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area during spring and fall 2005...... 114 Table 4-9. Rare raptors and vultures, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during spring post-construction surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area during spring and fall 2011...... 114 Table 4-10. Rare raptors, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, observed during spring 2011 pre-construction surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase II Project area...... 115 Table 4-11. Bats potentially present during summer, winter and spring/fall migration in West Virginia and in the Beech Ridge Project area...... 117 Table 4-12. Indiana bat population estimates rangewide and by recovery unit (RU)...... 120 Table 4-13. Caves within 3 mi of Phase I of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 124 Table 4-14. Caves and Indiana bat survey results within 10 miles, and between 10 and 20 miles, of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 125 Table 4-15. Virginia Big-eared bat winter hibernacula censuses in West Virginia...... 132 Table 4-16. Virginia big-eared bat maternity colony censuses and percent change in West Virginia...... 133 Table 4-17. Bat species captured during mist net surveys of 15 sites within Phase I of the Beech Ridge Project site, July 2005...... 134 Table 4-18. Bat species captured during mist net surveys of 12 sites along the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project transmission line from June 12 to 22, 2006...... 134 Table 4-19. Bat species captured during summer 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 137 Table 4-20. Bat species composition during summer 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 138 Table 4-21. Bat species captured during fall 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project area...... 138 Table 4-22. Bat species composition during fall 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project area...... 139 Table 4-23. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project weekly bat activity (bat passes per detector- night) over all 2010 AnaBat stations...... 140 Table 4-24. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project 2010 bat activity (bat passes per detector-night) at ground versus nacelle AnaBat stations (A17 and G5 are turbine numbers, g = ground, n = nacelle)...... 141 Table 4-25. Summary of echolocation passes recorded by survey night during the 2010 summer and fall mist-net surveys at the Beech Ridge Wind Energy...... 142 Table 4-26. Demographic information summary for Greenbrier and Nicholas counties and State of West Virginia...... 144 Table 4-27. West Virginia labor force statistics by county and statewide...... 145

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE vi BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-28. Second quarter 2011 employment by industry in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties and West Virginia...... 145 Table 5-1. Alternatives considered for detailed analysis for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan...... 162 Table 5-2. Ambient noise survey results and estimated turbine noise (dBA) from 6 locations identified in relationship to the 124-turbine Project...... 168 Table 5-3. Estimates1 of equivalent sound levels (Leq)2 of representative construction equipment used to construct a typical wind energy facility...... 169 Table 5-4. Ambient noise survey results and estimated turbine noise from 4 locations identified in relationship to 33 proposed and 14 alternate turbines for Phase II...... 171 Table 5-5. Estimated water use per year associated with the 4 alternatives...... 181 Table 5-6. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project seed mixtures used during reclamation of Phase I disturbed areas...... 188 Table 5-7. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project estimated Phase II construction habitat disturbance...... 189 Table 5-8. Coarse estimates of breeding population sizes and trends for 10 bird species of conservation concern at 4 geographic scales...... 204 Table 5-9. Potential effect of Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 (67-turbines and 2 MET towers) on 10 birds of conservation concern compared to breeding bird survey trends and estimated population sizes in West Virginia and Bird Conservation Region 28, Appalachian Mountains region...... 205 Table 5-10. Documented avian fatalities by bird group at wind farms between 1994 and 2009 in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. based on results of systematic searches conducted during limited study periods and not year-round...... 212 Table 5-11. Species composition of documented raptor fatalities at wind farms in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S...... 214 Table 5-12. Estimates of bird mortality at 9 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region...... 217 Table 5-13. Estimates of bird mortality at 2 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines in the mid- Atlantic region...... 218 Table 5-14. Predicted bird mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on either a 67- or 100-turbine Project and 2 or 4 MET towers...... 219 Table 5-15. Predicted composition of bird mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 31 post-construction studies conducted in the eastern and Midwestern U.S...... 221 Table 5-16. Potential effect of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (100 turbines and 4 MET towers) on 10 birds of conservation concern and relationships to breeding bird survey trends and estimated breeding population sizes in West Virginia and the Appalachian Mountains region...... 222 Table 5-17. Life-of-Project turbine and MET tower bird mortality predicted under each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operation of the Project...... 235 Table 5-18. Estimates of bat mortality at 9 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region...... 246 Table 5-19. Estimates of bat mortality at 2 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines in the mid- Atlantic region...... 248 Table 5-20. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 100- turbine Project with and without implementation of the Curtailment Plan...... 249 Table 5-21. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 251 Table 5-22. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 252 Table 5-23. Listed bat mortality for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment...... 254

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE vii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-24. Summary of curtailment trials and bat fatality reductions at wind turbine projects...... 260 Table 5-25. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 100- turbine Project with and without implementation of a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed...... 262 Table 5-26. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 5 other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 262 Table 5-27. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 265 Table 5-28. Listed bat mortality for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment...... 266 Table 5-29. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 67- turbine Project with and without implementation of the Curtailment Plan...... 268 Table 5-30. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 5 other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 269 Table 5-31. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 270 Table 5-32. Listed bat mortality for the 67-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment...... 271 Table 5-33. Life-of-Project bat morality for each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operation of the 67- and 100-turbine Projects...... 273 Table 5-34. Photographic views of Phase I turbines from various distances...... 285 Table 5-35. Estimates of total ground disturbance associated with Phase I construction and operation of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project...... 315 Table 5-36. Estimated annual avian mortality from anthropogenic causes in the U.S...... 331 Table 5-37. Results and estimates of annual avian mortality based on publicly available data from 25 studies at 14 different wind farms in the eastern U.S...... 334 Table 5-38. Total number of turbines and estimated bird mortality at operational and under construction wind facilities in 13 states in the eastern U.S...... 337 Table 5-39. Estimated annual near-future fatalities by bird group for the total operational and under construction projects in the cumulative effects analysis area based on a rate of 4.92 birds per turbine per year and the estimated 3,580 turbines operating and under construction...... 339 Table 5-40. Projected cumulative avian mortality for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in relationship to estimated wind power production projected for years 2012 through 2037 in BCRs 28, 13, 14...... 343 Table 5-41. Estimates of annual cumulative turbine mortality compared to rough population estimates for birds of conservation concern at wind energy projects in the northeastern U.S...... 344 Table 5-42. Estimates of near-future annual bat mortality in Mid-Atlantic Highlands...... 354 Table 5-43. Near-future bat mortality by species based on proportions of species documented at commercial wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 2003-2009...... 355 Table 5-44. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in relationship to estimated wind power production projected for years 2013 through 2038 in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands...... 357 Table 5-45. Cumulative bat mortality by species estimated for wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands from years 2012 to 2037...... 358 Table 5-46. WNS induced population changes of 6 species of hibernating bats in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia...... 361 Table 5-47. Concurrence and weight of various lines of evidence to determine significance criteria of population-level effects to bats at the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project...... 363 Table 5-488. Photographic views of Phase I turbines from various distances...... 368 Table 6-1. Record of the Service’s coordination and consultation with tribes and agencies for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center FEIS...... 382

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE viii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Timber company property and Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project leased lands, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV...... 2 Figure 1-2. Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Phase I Location, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia...... 7 Figure 1-3. GE 1.5 MW SLE Turbine...... 9 Figure 1-4. Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Phase II Location, Greenbrier County, West Virginia...... 11 Figure 4-1. West Virginia Physiographic Provinces...... 86 Figure 4-2. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project geology and soils, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia...... 88 Figure 4-3. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project 2-mile noise buffer in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia...... 91 Figure 4-4. Surface water resources in the Beech Ridge Energy Phase I Project Area...... 96 Figure 4-5. Surface water resources in the Beech Ridge Energy Phase II Project Area...... 97 Figure 4-6. Land cover types, Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV...... 101 Figure 4-7. Distribution of known Indiana bat summer maternity colonies and winter hibernacula in West Virginia and neighboring states...... 123 Figure 4-8. Indiana bat hibernacula relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project...... 126 Figure 4-9. Indiana bat hibernacula relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project...... 127 Figure 4-10. Documented Virginia big-eared bat caves relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project and other wind projects in West Virginia...... 131 Figure 4-11. 2010 mist-netting survey locations, Beech Ridge Energy Project...... 136 Figure 4-12. Visual resources areas of potential effect for Beech Ridge Energy Phase I and Phase II Project areas...... 149 Figure 4-13. Cultural resources areas of potential effect for Beech Ridge Energy Phase I and Phase II Project areas...... 152 Figure 5-1. Aerial view of the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project area...... 327 Figure 5-2. Map of the Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) of the United States. [Source: USFWS (2008a); map does not show BCR 67 (Hawaii) or 2 other BCRs on islands in the Pacific and Caribbean that are either U.S. Territories or other affiliates.] ...... 330 Figure 5-3. Energy sectors in the eastern United States as described by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation...... 338 Figure 5-4. Estimated number wind turbines in the northeastern U.S. through year 2038 based upon electricity generating capacity for wind projects. Source data: USEIA (2012), AWEA (2012)...... 341 Figure 5-5. Estimated projections of bird mortality by wind turbines in the Bird Conservation Regions 28, 13, and 14 through year 2037...... 342 Figure 5-6. Estimated number wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands through year 2038 based upon electricity generating capacity for wind projects. Source data: USEIA (2012), AWEA (2012)...... 356

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ix BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Table A-1. Alternatives screening analysis for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia Appendix B: Final Avian Protection Plan for Beech Ridge Energy LLC’s and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC’s Beech Ridge Wind Project Appendix C: Acoustical Reports for Beech Ridge Wind Project Report C-1. Acoustical Study of Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, WV (Acentech 2006) Report C-2. Acoustical Study of Proposed Expansion/Modification of Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, WV (Acentech 2011) Appendix D: Vegetation and Animal Lists for FEIS Table D-1. Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Referred to in FEIS Table D-2. Vertebrate Animals Known or Expected to Occur in Project Area Appendix E: Avian and Wildlife Resources Reports for Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Report E-1. Preliminary Report, Environmental Assessment – Wildlife Impacts, Proposed Wind Turbine Project in Greenbrier County, WV (Michael 1994) Report E-2. Fall 1994 Raptor Migration Study in Greenbrier County, West Virginia (Lipton and White 1995) Report E-3. Avian Phase I Assessment of Bird Populations on the MeadWestvaco Wind Power Project in Greenbrier County, West Virginia: Spring and Fall 2005 (Canterbury 2006) Report E-4. Avian Fatal Flaw Analysis for Mead Westvaco Wind Farm Area, Greenbrier County, West Virginia (Curry and Kerlinger 2004) Report E-5. Spring and Fall Eagle and Osprey Surveys for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, March– May and September– October 2011 (Young et al. 2012a) Report E-6. Avian Migration Studies for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Expansion Area, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, March-May and September- November 2011. (Young et al. 2012c) Report E-7. Avian and Bat Risk Assessment: Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Expansion Area, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. (Young et al. 2012b) Report E-8. Winter Raptor Surveys for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, December 2011- March, 2012 (Young et al. 2013) Appendix F: Bat Resources Reports for Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Report F-1. Mist Net Surveys at the Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia (BHE 2005) Report F-2. Chiropteran Risk Assessment, Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy Generation Facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (BHE 2006) Report F-3. Bat Mist Netting and Acoustic Surveys, Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (Young and Gruver 2011)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE x BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Report F-4. 2012 Post-Construction Carcass Monitoring Study for the Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, Final Report, April 1 – October 28, 2012 (Tidhar et al. 2013) Report F-5. Revision of Take Estimate for Beech Ridge Energy Permit (USFWS 2013b) Appendix G: Visual Resource Reports for Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Report G-1. Beech Ridge Wind Farm – Greenbrier County, West Virginia, Visual Resource Assessment, Final Draft Report, October 27, 2005 (Saratoga 2005) Report G-2. Beech Ridge Energy – Phase II Expansion/Modification Visual Resource Assessment (Saratoga 2011) Appendix H: Scoping Report and Scoping Notifications Appendix I: Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project – West Virginia National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits Appendix J: Wind power project data Table J-1. Comparison of bird and bat mortality at existing wind farms in the Eastern and Midwestern United States Table J-2. Summary of available fall avian radar survey results for wind power projects in the northeastern United States, 1998-2007 Appendix K: Cultural Resource Reports for Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project and MOA with WVDCH Report K-1. Phase I archaeological survey of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project & associated transmission support line, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia and survey addenda (CRA 2009, 2010) Report K-2. Architectural investigations for the Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier, Nicholas, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007) Report K-3. Final report reconnaissance-level architectural survey for the proposed expansion/modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (Gray & Pape 2011) Report K-4. Final report assessment of effects for the proposed expansion/modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (Gray & Pape 2012) Report K-5. Desktop analysis and archaeological reconnaissance survey for the proposed expansion / modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier County, West Virginia (CRA 2011) Phase I Memorandum of Agreement: West Virginia Division of Culture and History and Beech Ridge Energy, LLC Phase II Memorandum of Agreement: Beech Ridge Energy II, LLC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, and Catawba Indian Nation Appendix L: Documentation relating to Beech Ridge Energy’s request for modification to stipulation for operational adjustments for 67-turbine Project in 2012 and 2013, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service response letters and Court’s Approvals Appendix M: Breeding Bird Survey abundance trends for 10 bird species of concern at various geographic scales and time frames

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xi BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Appendix N: West Virginia Public Service Commission’s Siting Certificate for Beech Ridge Energy II LLC (Phase II)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADT average daily traffic agl above ground level amsl above mean sea level APE Area of Potential Effect APLIC Avian Power Line Interactive Committee APP Avian Protection Plan BBS Breeding Bird Survey BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP best management practice BRE or the Applicant Beech Ridge Energy LLC BWEC Bat and Wind Energy Cooperative C Celsius CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CRA Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. CRP Conservation Reserve Program CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel dBC C-weighted sound level FEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOI Department of Interior EIA Energy Information Administrative EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF electromagnetic fields ESA Endangered Species Act F Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAC Federal Advisory Committee FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Map FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act ft feet ft2 square feet ft3 cubic feet GE General Electric GHz gigahertz GIS Geographic Information Systems GPP Groundwater Protection Plan gW gigawatt HCP Habitat Conservation Plan Hz hertz ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ITP Incidental Take Permit kV kilovolt kW kilowatt Ldn day-night sound level Leq equivalent sound level

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xiii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LWEG Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines m meter m2 square meter mi2 square mile m/s seters per second MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MET meteorological MHz megahertz mi mile MOA Memorandum of Agreement mph miles per hour MW megawatt MWh megawatt hours NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHL National Historic Landmark NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSPS New Source Performance Standards NWNHP Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program NWP Nationwide Permit O&M operations and maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PIF Partners in Flight ppm parts per million RMAMP Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Plan ROW right-of-way rpm rotations per minute SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Technical Advisory Committee Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USDA-NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forestry Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey V volt VRA Visual Resource Assessment WNS White-nose syndrome WPCA Water Pollution Control Act WVDCH West Virginia Division of Culture and History WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection WVDNR West Virginia Division of Natural Resources WVDOT West Virginia Department of Transportation

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xiv BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

WVNHP West Virginia Natural Heritage Program WVOWR West Virginia Office of Water Resources WVPSC West Virginia Public Service Commission

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xv BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CONTENT AND FORMAT OF FEIS This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) follows the most recent Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and guidance, as well as the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1 and provides the following.

Preface: Explains a change in permit applicants between release of the draft and final EIS.

Executive Summary: Provides a brief summary of 1) the proposed action and alternatives, 2) the environmental consequences associated with the proposed action and alternatives, and 3) the significance of levels of impacts upon implementation of mitigation measures.

Chapter 1 Introduction: Provides 1) an introduction to the Beech Ridge Energy Project’s existing Phase I and proposed Phase II components, 2) a brief introduction to the proposed Project’s potential effects to listed species, 3) the regulatory and legal framework for the NEPA process, and 4) a summary of the public scoping process and comments received.

Chapter 2 Purpose and Need: Presents the purpose and need for the permit and Project.

Chapter 3 Alternatives Analysis: Presents details of 4 alternatives: the proposed action, a No-Action alternative, and two action alternatives, one in which the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Incidental take permit (ITP) addresses additional species to be included on the permit (covered species) and mitigation, and one in which the ITP and HCP are implemented for only the existing Phase I Project.

Chapter 4 Affected Environment: Describes 2 baseline conditions, that of the covered lands before Phase I was constructed and that of the current condition with Phase I in place and operating. Chapter 4 is organized by resource, and the 2 baseline conditions are discussed in relevance to each resource. Resources are categorized under the following topic headings: Geology and Soils; Noise; Climate and Air Quality; Water Resources; Vegetation; Wildlife and Fisheries; Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species; Socioeconomics; Land Use and Recreation; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Communications; Transportation; and Safety and Security.

Chapter 5 Environmental Consequences: Describes impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives to the resources described in Chapter 4. For each resource section, there is a separate subsection on impact criteria; direct and indirect effects presented by alternative; and mitigation. The cumulative effects analysis is provided in a separate section and addresses each resource.

Chapter 6 Consultation & Coordination: Provides an overview of agency and tribal consultation activities and public outreach activities that have occurred to date and that are anticipated in the future. This chapter includes documentation for all other federal, state, and local permitting associated with the Project.

Chapter 7 References: Provides a comprehensive list of all documentation, technical, legal, and otherwise, used and cited in preparation of the FEIS.

Chapter 8 Preparers: Provides a list of individuals involved in the preparation of the FEIS, their organizations, and role in preparing the FEIS.

1 CEQ and DOI regulations can be found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1500, and 43 CFR Part 46, respectively.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xvi BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PREFACE The Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project (Project), located in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties, West Virginia, consists of two phases. Phase I is already constructed and operating. It consists of 67 existing turbines and associated infrastructure. Phase II is not yet constructed. It is proposed to consist of up to 33 additional turbines and associated infrastructure.

At the time of public release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) had received an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application for the entire project from Beech Ridge Energy LLC. Since that time, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC has formed, and there has been a change in the status of the permit applicants. Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC have applied as co-permittees for 1 ITP for the Project.

Beech Ridge Energy LLC owns and operates Phase I of the Project. A separate business entity, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC, will construct, own and operate Phase II of the Project. The companies are jointly referred to in this Final Environmental Impact Statement as “BRE.” Both companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Invenergy Wind LLC and are separate companies with management control over their respective phases of the Project. Together the companies will be jointly responsible for implementing the terms and conditions of the Habitat Conservation Plan, ITP, and the Implementing Agreement. The companies will coordinate over administrative and operational issues relating to the HCP to insure efficient operation of the Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xvii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the impacts of implementing the Proposed Action and 3 alternatives (a total of 4 alternatives) relating to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS or the Service) proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project (Project). As part of its application for an ITP, Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Beech Ridge Energy II LLC (collectively referred to as BRE or the Applicant) submitted a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP is a component of the proposed action in this FEIS. It is intended to provide a plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate, to the maximum extent practical, the incidental take2 of 2 federally listed endangered species, Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), resulting from the implementation of Covered Activities in the HCP.

Under the Proposed Action, the Service would issue a 25-year ITP for Covered Activities associated with the proposed Project that may result in the take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. Under the Proposed Action, the Applicant has designed the HCP to include avoidance and minimization measures for reducing the level of take of endangered bats. Measures address adjustments to Project operations to reduce the incidence of bat-turbine interactions. The HCP also includes a mitigation strategy to offset the impacts of take of endangered bats. This strategy would implement actions identified in the recovery plans of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat by reducing threats of human disturbance and habitat loss off-site (through land acquisition, easements, and/or cave-gating and land management).

Components of the proposed Project include: 100 wind turbines, access roads, transmission and communication equipment, storage areas, and control facilities. During its operational life, approximately 25 years, actions associated with the Proposed Project are reasonably anticipated to result in the incidental take of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. The proposed ITP would authorize take associated with construction of up to 33 turbines and associated infrastructure, operation of 100 turbines, and decommissioning of the Project.

The Project, as described in the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WVPSC) Application and Siting Certificate, originally consisted of the construction and operation of 124 turbines on Beech Ridge in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties, West Virginia. As a result of a lawsuit, as reflected in the January 26, 2010, settlement agreement, the Project was reduced to 100 turbines. Of these 100 turbines, 67 are built and currently operating pursuant to the judicial order and a modified stipulation to the settlement agreement.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR FEDERAL ACTION The proposed HCP and ITP are necessitated because take of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat is reasonably anticipated during the 25-year duration of the ITP. An ITP is required to legally take listed species incidental to these otherwise lawful activities. Consistent with the requirements of the ESA, BRE commits to a range of conservation measures proposed to minimize and mitigate the effects of take of these two listed bats. Thus, the HCP, if approved, and the ITP, if issued, are designed to avoid and minimize take of these two species in the course of carrying out the proposed covered activities, but also to authorize the limited, unavoidable take that may occur, as well as to mitigate the impact of such take.

The Service is the lead agency for this EIS. This EIS has been developed for the following purposes: (1) evaluate the impacts of the proposed issuance of an ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP based upon implementation of the HCP; and (2) protect and conserve the two listed bats (Covered Species) and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the people of the United States.

2 The ESA and implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of threatened and or endangered species. The ESA defines the term take to include harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these acts” (16 USC 16 U.S.C § 1532(19)).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xviii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Service must decide whether to issue or deny the permit. If the permit issuance criteria contained in Section 10(a)(1)B) of the ESA are satisfied, the Service is required to issue the permit to the Applicant. Within these guidelines the Service may decide to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant, or to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted together with other measures specified by the Service. If the ESA’s criteria are not satisfied, the Service is required to deny the permit request.

PUBLIC SCOPING The Service’s formal scoping process began on July 22, 2010, with the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. The NOI announced the initiation of a 30-day public comment period, intent to prepare an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , and a public informational meeting (75 Federal Register 42767-42770). An additional Notice was published August 27, 2010, to announce the Service’s extension of the public comment period for an additional 30 days (75 Federal Register 52778). The Service distributed a press release to 16 media outlets (including local community, regional, and national outlets), notified 32 individual known interested parties by letter, and created a project-specific web site for disseminating current and historical information on the project to the public and to solicit scoping comments via a dedicated Service e-mail address. The Service held a scoping meeting in Rupert, West Virginia, on August 9, 2010. BRE assisted in spreading word of the meeting to the local community through a network of local community members who had worked on construction of Phase I of the Project.

On August 24, 2012, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register stating the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan (DHCP). The public comment period for these documents expired October 23, 2012. Comments received during the public comment period and the Service’s responses to those comments are provided in the Responses to Comments document (see Volume III).

The Service has carefully considered the public comments received during the scoping and comment processes and incorporated identified issues, as appropriate, into the FEIS. The scoping and comment letters suggested addressing environmental (e.g., wildlife, climate), socioeconomic (e.g., human health, cultural, economic costs), and energy issues (e.g., reliability, safety and security, and quality and quantity).

AGENCY CONSULTATION During scoping for this EIS, the Service informally coordinated with other potentially interested Federal and State agencies and Tribes. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) declined to be consulting agencies pursuant to this EIS.

The Service currently is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History and interested Tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This review is on-going, and a final decision on effects to cultural resources will not be made until the Section 106 consultation is completed.

Per the Service’s request, the USEPA commented on the preliminary DEIS in September 2011. The USEPA provided written comments on the draft and provided further guidance during a conference call on September 19, 2011. Pursuant to NEPA, the Service provided the DEIS to the USEPA for their review during the public comment period. On October 23, 2012, the USEPA provided comments on the DEIS. The Service addressed these comments accordingly in the Response to Comments document (see Volume III) and incorporated suggested changes into the FEIS.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xix BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing 67-turbine Project would operate as indicated in the original Court Order and Settlement Agreement dated January 23, 2010. Turbines would be turned off from 30 minutes after sunset to 15 minutes after sunrise from April 1 through November 15. Thus the Project would be operated in such a manner that no take of endangered or threatened species would occur, thus precluding the need for an ITP. BRE would forego the added benefits associated with the addition of Phase II (construction and operation of the proposed 33 turbines). There would be no risk to Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats associated with Project operations. BRE would not implement steps to obtain off-site conservation to mitigate the potential take of Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Thus Alternative 1 would have an overall neutral effect on the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bat: no take would occur, and no mitigation or other conservation measures would be implemented specifically for Indiana or Virginia big-eared bats. In addition, there would be no unlisted bat mortality because turbines would not operate at night during the bat active season.

Under these operating restrictions, the existing 67 turbines with a nameplate capacity of 100.5 Megawatts (MW) would generate up to approximately 254,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year.3 Regardless of whether an ITP is issued, BRE has indicated they would implement a research, monitoring and adaptive management plan (RMAMP), and an Avian Protection Plan (APP) under this alternative. Together these plans would monitor bird and bat mortality, determine the effectiveness of operating restrictions in reducing such mortality, and respond to significant bird and bat mortality should it occur by implementing techniques that are proven effective and economically feasible in reducing such mortality.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action – ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan Under Alternative 2 (Proposed Federal Action), the Service would issue a 25-year ITP that would authorize incidental take of Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Covered Activities are: 1) construction of 33 turbines and associated infrastructure (Phase II), 2) operation of 100 turbines (the existing 67 Phase I turbines plus the 33 additional Phase II turbines), and 3) eventual decommissioning of the entire project. BRE would implement an HCP that includes:

1. measures to reduce take of listed bats (turbine feathering at low wind speeds and raised cut-in speed4 of 4.8 meters/second (m/s) (10.7 miles per hour, mph) for 12 weeks of the year during late summer and fall); 2. off-site conservation measures for the listed bats; and 3. a RMAMP to test and measure the effectiveness of turbine operations in reducing listed bat mortality.

Under Alternative 2, turbine operating restrictions imposed by the court order, settlement agreement, and modified stipulation would be lifted and more energy would be generated than the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 has the potential to generate up to approximately 615,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions.

3 The BRE Project is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor between 35% and 45% as indicated in BRE’s application to the PSC for their expansion area. The estimate of energy produced given above is based on the assumptions that the Project would have a 187 MW nameplate capacity, and all turbines would operate unrestricted at the annual capacity factor range, i.e. without curtailment. 4 Turbine blades will be “feathered” or turned so that blades rotate less then 2 revolutions per minute (rpm) at wind speeds below the cut-in-speed. The cut-in-speed is the wind speed at which the generator is connected to the grid and produces electricity. Without feathering, turbine blades normally operate at full rpm in wind speeds below cut-in-speed, and thus pose greater mortality risk to bats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xx BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

construction of the 33 additional turbines. The operational footprint of Phase II will be approximately 21 acres. Together with Phase I, the complete 100-turbine Project will affect 71 acres for the life of the Project. BRE predicts that the ITP will need to be in effect for 25 years to address the time from start of Phase II Project construction through decommissioning of all phases.

Covered Activities Activities covered under the ITP will include the following:

1. Operation of the existing 67 turbines and to-be-constructed 33 turbines (100 turbines) for up to 25 years of the life of the Project. The physical operation of the turbines (spinning rotors and associated changes in air pressure in the rotor-swept area) may result in the take of covered species. 2. Construction of 33 additional turbines and associated infrastructure, including, but not limited to, roads, staging areas, and a concrete batch plant. Construction activities may take Indiana bats if such construction involves destruction of a tree with roosting Indiana bats. 3. Conversion of 127 acres of forested lands to grass/shrublands. An additional 21 acres will remain un-vegetated for the life of the Project. Habitat conversion may affect suitable foraging habitat for Indiana bat. 4. Maintenance and decommissioning of the 100-turbine Project (and all associated facilities, including, but not limited to, the substation and transmission line). It is possible that maintenance or decommissioning activity (e.g., tree removal for safety reasons) could result in take of covered species, but this is unlikely.

Take of Covered Species While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 100-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Indiana bats:

• up to 4.5 Indiana bats per year during years 1-3; • up to 1.8 Indiana bats per year during years 4-25; and • the aggregate take of up to 53 Indiana bats during the permit term [(4.5 bats x 3 years) + (1.8 bats x 22 years) = 53 bats).

While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 100-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Virginia big-eared bats:

• up to 1 Virginia big-eared bats per year during years 1-3; • up to 0.5 Virginia big-eared bats per year during years 4-25; and • the aggregate take of up to 14 Virginia big-eared bats during the permit term (1 bat x 3 years + 0.5 bats x 22 years = 14 bats).

As described in BRE’s RMAMP, during years 1-3, BRE will develop baseline bat mortality estimates from fully operational turbines to measure success of significantly reducing mortality of covered species and all bats in an effective manner consistent with the best available science.

For this Project, BRE is requesting authorized take of an aggregate of 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big-eared bats (based on adjusted fatality estimates) over the Permit Term, in which case BRE will not be out of compliance with the permit take authorization unless take exceeds these limits. However, given that bat mortality will undoubtedly vary during the Permit Term, 3 potential thresholds will trigger a meet and confer with the Service in order to reduce the likelihood of exceeding permit take authorization levels.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures To avoid and minimize bat mortality, BRE has reduced the number of Project turbines from 124 to 100. Additionally, BRE eliminated previously permitted turbine sites within the eastern portions of the Project

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xxi BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

based on their proximity to known and historical Indiana bat hibernacula and the general area where many caves are located.

To significantly minimize bat mortality, BRE will:

1. Implement the RMAMP. These measures are intended to detect take of the covered species and/or changes in bat mortality over the term of the ITP and to allow BRE to implement operational protocols to ensure that BRE does not exceed the authorized level of take of covered species provided in the ITP. BRE has designed their annual monitoring to measure impacts to birds and bats from the facility and to confirm the occurrence of major changes in fatalities from the first 3-year intensive monitoring program. 2. Implement the RMAMP to determine baseline bat mortality conditions at the Project and identify turbine operational protocols that will reduce bat mortality during periods of high activity during the first 3 years of the ITP. 3. Implement BRE’s Curtailment Plan in an attempt to reduce bat fatalities using best management practices supported by science (Arnett et al. 2010; citing a reduction of bat fatalities of 44 to 93% when using specified cut-in-speeds). To avoid and minimize take of covered species, BRE proposes to feather blades to make less than 2 rpms below the cut-in speed and to adjust the turbine cut-in speed on all Project turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.8 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.7 mph) for a 12- week period from July 15 through October 15 each year and from sunset for a period of 5 hours (BRE’s Curtailment Plan). BRE estimates that this avoidance and minimization strategy will reduce potential take of Indiana bats by 60% and Virginia big-eared bats by 50%; however, should these objectives not be met, BRE will implement other measures which meet the objectives (such as higher cut-in speeds, full night curtailment, or longer seasons. Exceptions to the Curtailment Plan will be those turbines that are part of the Year 1 curtailment study in which 10 turbines will operate at 4.8 m/s from sunset to sunrise and 10 turbines will operate at 3.5 m/s 24 hours per day (control). These 20 turbines will be compared directly to 10 different turbines that will operate as described for the Curtailment Plan. The number of control and treatment turbines in Years 2 and 3 will be determined based on the results of the study in the previous year(s).

To mitigate the effects of unavoidable incidental take of listed bats, BRE proposes to establish a habitat conservation fund used to support conservation efforts for Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bats based on objectives specified in the 2 species Recovery Plans (Bagley 1984, USFWS 2007). The goal of these projects will be to contribute to the conservation of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats by protecting priority habitat, either winter hibernacula or summer maternity colonies or roosts.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, BRE also would implement an APP, as further described below. In the event that significant bird mortality does occur, the APP includes adaptive management provisions to test different strategies to reduce bird mortality and/or to mitigate for it. This includes testing turbine curtailment, and adjustments related to the highest risk turbines, times of year, and weather events. The APP also includes provisions for off-site habitat protection and/or research for birds, if needed.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xxii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Additional Covered Species Addressed in ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan Under Alternative 3, a 25-year ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for the BRE Project. The Project would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action: the Phase II 33- turbines would be constructed, and all 100 turbines operated and eventually decommissioned. Like Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would implement the RMAMP and APP to reduce bat and bird mortality. On-site or near-site protection and management of bat maternity areas would be implemented, as well as off-site protection of bat hibernacula, and bird habitat and/or research if needed.

Under Alternative 3, the BRE HCP would include as covered species the Indiana bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and 3 additional bat species (little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern small-footed bat). These species would be treated as if they were listed; that is, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be implemented for these species as if they were currently listed under the ESA. Should these species be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA within the period of the ITP (25 years), the ITP would automatically cover these species for take without requiring a major amendment to the permit.

Under Alternative 3 project operations would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as the initial rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15. Changing turbine cut-in speeds during this time would cover the full season of all bat activity at and near the Project, thus reducing potential take of covered species and all bat species. These avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would occur regardless of whether any of the 3 unlisted bat species are listed during the life of the permit. BRE will implement the RMAMP to determine the effectiveness of the modified operations protocol, and adjustments would be made accordingly to ensure mortality is reduced by at least 76%.

Because of higher cut-in speeds, Alternative 3 would generate less electricity than the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 (100 turbines with up to187 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate up to approximately 473,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would include mist-netting to locate maternity areas for each of the 3 unlisted bats. Habitat protection would include areas to benefit the 3 additional covered species, as well as the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat.

Alternative 4: ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, a 25-year ITP for Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for operation and decommissioning of the existing 67-turbine Project; the Phase II 33-turbines would not be constructed. The Phase I Only Alternative would include the full implementation of the HCP, RMAMP, and APP as described for the Proposed Action. The curtailment measures would be the same as for the Proposed Action Alternative, reducing Indiana bat mortality by 60% and all other bat mortality by at least 50%. However, the minimum number of listed bats protected at off-site mitigation sites would be less than the Proposed Action, commensurate with reduced mortality of listed bats under Alternative 4. This alternative (67 turbines with 100.5 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate up to approximately 331,000 MWh per year with operating restrictions.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES FOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SENSITIVE RESOURCES Cultural Resources. Effects to historic resources by the construction of the 33-turbine expansion and operation of the 100-turbine Project will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated using measures approved by the Service in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, interested Tribes, BRE, and other consulting parties. BRE has entered into an MOA with the Service, West Virginia Division of Culture and History State Historic Preservation Office (DWVDCH SHPO), and Catawba Indian Nation to address cultural resources issues associated with the 33-turbine expansion.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xxiii BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Vegetation. To minimize impacts to vegetation, BRE will implement BMPs during construction and operation of the Project to protect topsoil and adjacent resources and to minimize soil erosion. BRE will use mechanical measures and herbicides to control noxious weeds in all surface-disturbed areas. Equipment will be washed at a commercial facility prior to construction and on-site during construction if weeds are encountered in the Project area.

Surface and Ground Water Protection. The Project has been designed to avoid direct impacts (both temporary and permanent) to surface water features. Specific protection plans and permits or modifications of prior approvals must be approved by the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) for those activities associated with the construction of the additional 33 turbines prior to construction. BRE has indicated that water withdrawal from streams for the purposes of dust control will be accomplished in a manner that preserves stream flows during withdrawal.

BRE will continue to comply with all federal regulations concerning any discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S., as listed in Title 33 CFR Part 323. The wind turbines and ancillary facilities will be built on ridges, which avoid the surface water features and designated floodplains. Wind turbines will not be placed in areas containing Waters of the U.S. During construction of the additional 33 turbines, riparian areas will be avoided, where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, activities within riparian areas will be conducted in conformance with WVDEP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements.

Avian Resources. The Project’s Avian Project Plan (APP) includes measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds. Measures include using previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable, tree- clearing outside of the nesting season for most species, using raptor-safe transmission lines, and using state-of-the-art turbine technology and lighting that minimizes bird collision risk.

The Project’s APP and RMAMP include measures for annual post-construction monitoring for 25 years, adaptive management, and reporting to estimate and evaluate avian mortality resulting from the Project. Monitoring will address bird fatality rates for the Project, especially those for species of concern. BRE will consult with the Service to assess whether bird fatality data suggest the need for measures to reduce impacts. The final determination on whether significant bird mortality has occurred will be made by the Service. In addition to intensive monitoring, BRE’s Operations and Maintenance personnel will conduct weekly searches, year-round, for the presence of eagle carcasses and large-scale mortality events. BRE’s RMAMP includes evaluating baseline migratory bird mortality rates and effects of various turbine operational protocols on migratory bird fatality rates as well as for bats. The APP includes response measures related to observed fatality rates of migratory birds, eagle fatality, and fatalities of bird species of concern.

The APP is based on the assumption that impacts to migratory birds can be effectively avoided and reduced through cost-effective operational adjustments. However, if monitoring results indicate operational restrictions are not effective at avoiding and minimizing impacts, and significant impacts to birds have occurred, then BRE will consider the potential for off-site mitigation to offset impacts, including possible off-site habitat preservation and/or restoration.

ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON Table 3-4 summarizes the key environmental impacts projected to occur as a result of implementing the No-Action Alternative and each of the Action Alternatives.

Based on the results of the public review and consideration of comments received, the preferred alternative and the reasons for the Service’s decision are explained in the Record of Decision.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE xxiv BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Action and 3 alternatives (a total of 4 alternatives) relating to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS or the Service) proposed issuance of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project (Project) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) The HCP is a component of the proposed action in this FEIS. It is intended to provide a plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate, to the maximum extent practical, the incidental take of two federally endangered species, Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), resulting from the implementation of covered activities in the HCP. The Applicant has designed the HCP mitigation strategy to offset the impacts of take. This strategy would implement actions identified in the recovery plans of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat by reducing threats of human disturbance and habitat loss off-site (through land acquisition, easements, and/or cave-gating and land management).

Beech Ridge Energy, LLC (BRE), a wholly owned subsidiary of Invenergy, LLC, owns and operates the Project. The Project is located in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties, West Virginia (Figure 1-1), approximately 5 miles (mi) northwest of the town of Trout, approximately 7 mi north-northwest of Williamsburg, and approximately 9 mi northeast of downtown Rupert.

The Project consists of several primary components, including wind turbines, access roads, transmission and communication equipment, storage areas, and control facilities. Construction and operation of 100 turbines on the Project site has been divided into 2 phases of development (described in Sections 1.2 and 1.3).

The Project is located on a 63,000-acre tract owned by a commercial timber company. BRE has leased over 27,000 acres and additional road rights-of-way (ROW) from this landowner (Figure 1-1). Only a small portion of the 27,000 acres will host wind project facilities. It is anticipated that the area of direct land use for the 100 turbines, access roads, substation and operations and maintenance (O&M) facility will be approximately 71 acres. BRE has acquired the necessary land rights to construct and operate the existing 67-turbine portion of the Project, its associated facilities, and the necessary land rights to develop the 33 additional turbines in the expansion area.

In August 2006, the West Virginia Public Service Commission (WVPSC) granted BRE a siting certificate to construct the Project. The Project, as initially approved, included up to 124 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines totalling 186 MW of nameplate generating capacity.

On June 10, 2009, Animal Welfare Institute, Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, and David G. Cowan, brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against BRE and Invenergy, LLC, alleging the Project would “take” endangered Indiana bats in violation of the ESA.

The Court held a trial on October 21-23 and 29, 2009 (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. RWT 09cv1519, Animal Welfare Institute, et al., plaintiffs v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et al., defendants). At the time of the trial, BRE was completing foundations for 67 turbines, stringing transmission lines in agreed upon areas, and erecting 40 turbines. At that time, BRE had not applied for an ITP, which would have allowed for the incidental take of an endangered species. Based on available information, BRE had concluded that take of listed species was not likely.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1-1. Timber company property and Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project leased lands, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The District Court ruled that BRE’s construction and operation of wind turbines (67 turbines planned by the end of 2010 and up to 57 additional turbines to be built at a later date) would violate Section 9 of the ESA unless and until Defendants obtain an ITP. The Court enjoined BRE from building additional turbines beyond the 40 already constructed and restricted turbine operation to the bat hibernation season (November 15 – March 31) until such time as BRE obtains an ITP. The Court also invited the parties to confer on whether they could agree on terms for further turbine construction and operation while BRE pursued an ITP.

Rather than appeal the District Court’s decision, BRE entered into a settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs that permitted Project construction and operation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement reached with the Plaintiffs on January 23, 2010, BRE agreed to the following:

a) BRE would abandon 24 of the original 124 turbines proposed that are closest to known bat hibernacula, limiting the Project to up to 100 turbines with up to 186 MW of generating capacity; b) Prior to receipt of an ITP, BRE may operate the 40 turbines already constructed (of which were permitted by the December 8, 2009 Court Opinion and Order) only during the Indiana bat hibernation period (i.e., from November 16 to March 31 of each year), and during daylight hours at other times of the year (i.e., between one-quarter hour after sunrise and one-half hour before sunset); c) Prior to receipt of an ITP, BRE may finish constructing the 27 turbines that were initiated prior to the court hearing; these 27 turbines would be subject to the same time-of-year and time-of-day restrictions as set forth for those turbines described in b); and d) BRE would seek an ITP to address the construction of the remaining 33 turbines and operate the existing 67 turbines plus the 33 proposed turbines during night-time hours from April 1 to November 15.

In summary, BRE began constructing the initial 67-turbine Project (Phase I) on April 15, 2009, and the Project first began generating electricity in March of 2010. All 67 Phase I-turbines were on-line and operating by August 15, 2010. Phase I operation and Phase II construction are subject to the operation restrictions described in Item b) and Item c) above, respectively.

The location of Phase II turbines is controlled by the settlement agreement. Phase II turbines are to be built on the western portion of the leased lands, which include ridges not selected for siting the original 124 turbines. Hence, much of Phase II was not part of the original application to the WVPSC. Therefore, Phase II of the Project was reviewed separately by the WVPSC as a modification to the existing certificate. On June 19, 2013, the WVPSC issued a citing certificate for the BRE Phase II turbines (provided in Appendix N). Other state, federal, and local approvals for the expansion area are in progress. Most of BRE’s proposed Phase II planning area falls outside the bounds originally stipulated in the January 23, 2010, settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs. However, on November 15, 2011, the District Court approved a revision to the settlement agreement to include these new areas proposed by BRE for Phase II turbines. This FEIS analyzes the Project based on BRE’s proposed Phase II location as approved by the Court stipulation and revision.

Consistent with the court order and settlement agreement, BRE has indicated its intent to pursue an ITP. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA authorizes the Service to issue ITPs to non-federal land owners and holders of leases for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided that, among other requirements, the take will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities, will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild, and will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.1.1 Modification of Stipulation

1.1.1.1 Project Operations in 2012 and 2013 In January 2012, BRE sought modification to the stipulation and requested technical assistance from the Service (Appendix L). With the Service’s assistance, BRE developed a take minimization strategy for limited Project operations of the existing 67 turbines during the period of April 1, 2012, through November 15, 2012, or until an ITP issued (whichever occurs soonest). On February 17, 2012, the District Court Judge approved BRE’s proposed strategy. (See Animal Welfare Institute v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Case No, 8:09-cv-0519-RWT, Order Granting Joint Motion for Approval of Modification of Stipulation, Docket. No. 98 (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2012) in Appendix L.)

In January 2013, BRE again sought modification to the stipulation and requested technical assistance from the Service (Appendix L). The Service has agreed to assist BRE and continues to believe that the interim operational modifications implemented in 2012 are likely to produce effects that are discountable and not likely to adversely affect listed bat species. BRE is operating the existing 67 turbines during the period of April 1, 2013, through November 15, 2013, or until an ITP issued (whichever occurs soonest). On March 14, 2013, the District Court Judge approved BRE’s modification strategy to be applied in 2013. (See Animal Welfare Institute v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Case No, 8:09-cv-0519-RWT, Order Granting Joint Motion for Approval of Modification of Stipulation, Docket. No. 101 (D. Md. Mar 14, 2013) in Appendix L.)

In 2012 and 2013, this strategy involved the following:

1. Beginning on April 1, implement turbine operations as follows: a. Operate turbines with cut-in-speeds (the minimum wind speed at which the wind turbines start to generate usable electricity) of 6.9 meters/second (m/s) during the period from April 1 through November 15 from 0.5-hour prior to sunset until 0.25-hour after sunrise; and b. Feather (pitch the angle of) turbine blades so there is only minimal rotation (<2 revolutions per minute [rpm]) at wind speeds below turbine cut-in speeds. 2. Implement appropriate monitoring to detect the unlikely take of ESA-listed species; and 3. In the event take is detected, discontinue night-time operations described above during the period of April 1 to November 15 until the final ITP is issued.

Based on an independent review of the best available scientific and commercial information, the Service concluded in a letter dated January 30, 2012, that the above operational modifications during this short time period will produce effects that are not likely to adversely affect listed bat species (see copy of letter in Appendix L).

The modified stipulation included a monitoring strategy conducted by a qualified biologist that searched all operating turbines every 2 days. This monitoring effort included carcass removal and searcher efficiency trials that intended to determine the effects that searcher and environmental biases have on estimated mortality rates. BRE shared with the Service and Plaintiffs the results of trials and monitoring. BRE provided monthly monitoring reports from May through December 2012 and a final report of the complete monitoring effort in January 2013. BRE is implementing this identical strategy in 2013 and will share with the Service and Plaintiffs the results of trials and monitoring.

The circumstances of the modified stipulation affect the existing condition of the Project area with regard to the following resources.

Noise: During the period from April 1 to November 15, 2012, turbines operated at night when the wind speed was 6.9 m/s or greater. Hence, turbines were generating operational noise at night in 2012 during

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 4 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

this period, compared to previous years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not generate operational noise at night from April 1 to November 15.

During the period from April 1 to November 15, 2013, turbines will be operating on those nights when the wind speed is 6.9 m/s or greater. Hence, turbines will be generating operational noise at night in 2013 during this period, compared to years 2010 and 2011 when turbines did not generate operational noise at night from April 1 to November 15.

Bat Resources: In 2010 and 2011, the risk of mortality for all bats was fundamentally zero because turbines were turned off when bats were active. In 2012, we anticipated curtailment at 6.9 m/s would reduce mortality of all bats by at least 76%. Based upon the best available information, we determined it to be unlikely that the limited operations protocol in 2012 would kill listed bats (few individuals would be exposed to the turbines), but believed there was still a risk to unlisted bats that are more numerous than listed bats and thus have greater potential exposure to the turbines. Unlisted bat fatalities have occurred at wind power projects on nights when wind speeds exceeded 6.9 m/s (Stantec 2010b, 2011) and bat activity has been documented at proposed wind power sites on nights when wind speeds exceeded 6.9 m/s (Redell et al. 2006, Arnett et al. 2007). Thus, in 2012 we assumed that limited operations would result in mortality levels roughly equally to 24% of the regional average fatality of all bats when turbines are operating normally. One must account for this risk to unlisted bats, particularly the risk to the tree-roosting migratory bats, which have been observed to sustain much higher rates of mortality relative to cave- dwelling bats.

Section 4.8.3 of the EIS summarizes the observed bat mortality at the BRE Project during the 2012 monitoring. In brief, post-construction monitoring did not detect ESA-listed bat species or Myotis fatalities. The mean fatality estimate was 3.04 bats per turbine per year based on 49 carcasses belonging to red bats, hoary bats, silver-haired bats, and tri-colored bats. The full report is provided in Appendix F, Report F-4 (Tidhar et al. 2013).

As for 2012 operations, in 2013 we anticipate curtailment at 6.9 m/s will reduce mortality of all bats by at least 76% and will be unlikely to kill listed bats. As observed in 2012, we believe there is still a risk to unlisted bats. Thus, in 2013 we assume that limited operations would result in mortality levels roughly equally to 24% of the regional average fatality of all bats when turbines are operating normally.

Avian Resources: There is a possibility that the limited operations protocol in 2012 (6.9 m/s curtailment) increased the risks to night-time migrating birds as compared to the risks associated with no night-time operations during the April 1 through November 15 period. BRE did not conduct post-construction monitoring for the 67-turbine Project in years 2010 and 2011. BRE conducted post-construction monitoring during the 2012 restricted operations. All 67 turbines were curtailed at 6.9 m/s in 2012. Because there were no control turbines in 2012 (e.g. turbines turned off at night or operating under normal manufacturer-set 3.5 m/s cut-in speeds), it is not possible to compare risks to birds at the project site in 2012 with modified turbine operations at the site in the same year. Furthermore, results of studies currently do not suggest that take minimization strategies for bats also reduce bird mortality.

For the purposes of this FEIS, the Service does not assume that the implementation of the 6.9-m/s strategy reduces collision risk for birds. Hence, we do not assume that the limited operations protocol implemented in 2012 increased bird mortality as compared to those years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not operate at night from April 1 to November 15. BRE is implementing this same protocol in 2013, and we continue to make this assumption for birds.

Section 4.7.3 of the FEIS summarizes the observed bird mortality at the BRE Project during the 2012 monitoring. In brief, BRE staff and biologists collected 81 bird carcasses during regularly scheduled searches and incidental to other duties, representing 31 identified and 4 unidentified species. The results from the 2012 monitoring indicate a mean rate of 1.79 birds per turbine per year.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 5 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

These short-term effects are not part of the proposed future federal action of issuing an ITP. The effects are ongoing (will have already occurred or will continue to occur) until an ITP is issued. For purposes of this EIS, we therefore analyze these short-term past and present effects as cumulative effects in chapter 5.5

1.2 Beech Ridge Energy Project Description – Phase I (Existing 67-Turbine Project) Provided here is a brief description of the BRE Phase I Project. Section 5.4 contains a detailed description of the Phase I Project as it relates to cumulative effects.

As stated above, Phase I of the Project consists of 67 wind turbines that are already constructed and operating. Forty turbines were constructed and operating by April 1, 2010. An additional 27 turbines were constructed and operating by August 15, 2010. Pursuant to the District Court’s order, settlement agreement (refer to Section 1.1), and modified stipulation (refer to Section 1.1.1), these 67 turbines currently operate under restrictions from April 1 through November 15. From November 16 through March 31 (winter months when bats are hibernating), the turbines operate unrestricted.

A transmission line that connects the Project to the existing electric power grid was constructed between April 2009 and April 2010. It extends approximately 14 mi northwest from the Project to Allegheny Power’s Grassy Falls Substation north of the community of Grassy Falls in Nicholas County, West Virginia.

1.2.1 Phase I General Location Phase I is located primarily along Beech Ridge (Figure 1-2). It is bounded on the west by Clear Creek Mountain, on the south by Old Field Mountain, on the east by Cold Knob, and on the north along County Road 10/1 just past Big Bull Hill.

1.2.2 Phase I General Components Phase I is composed of several primary components, including wind turbines, access roads, transmission and communication equipment, storage areas, and control facilities. These components are discussed below.

5 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Department of Interior (DOI) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define cumulative effect as the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfFederal) or person undertakes such other actions.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 6 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1-2. Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Phase I Location, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 7 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.2.2.1 Wind Turbines Phase I includes 67, 1.5-MW General Electric (GE) turbines (Figure 1-3). The GE 1.5-MW turbine is a 3- bladed, upwind, horizontal-axis wind turbine. The turbine rotor and nacelle are mounted on top of a tubular tower. The machine employs active yaw control to position the rotor to face the wind, active blade pitch control to regulate turbine rotor speed, and a generator/power electronic converter system attached to a variable speed drive train to produce a nominal 60 hertz [Hz], 575 volts (V) or 690 V of electric power.

Rotor, Hub, and Nacelle The rotor consists of 3 blades attached to a hub. The rotor blades are constructed of fibreglass and epoxy or polyester resin. The cast iron hub connects the rotor blades to the main shaft and transmits torque. The hub is attached to the nacelle, which houses the gearbox, generator, brake, cooling system, and other electrical and mechanical systems.

The GE 1.5 MW SLE wind turbine uses a maximum 77-meter (m, 252 feet [ft]) rotor diameter with a rotor swept area of approximately 4,654 square meters (m2, 50,095 square feet [ft2]). The rotor speed is from 11.0 to 22.2 rpm, and all rotors rotate in the same direction.

Towers The 67 GE 1.5-MW SLE turbine nacelles are mounted on freestanding monopole tubular steel towers with a hub height of 80 m (262 ft). The maximum height of the rotor is 118 m (387 ft) above ground.

Foundations The turbine towers are connected by anchor bolts to an underground concrete and rebar foundation. Geotechnical surveys and turbine tower load specifications dictate final design parameters of the foundations. Throughout the 67-turbine phase, BRE used a typical spread footer, which has a footprint similar to the tower diameter at grade but may spread out below grade.

Access Roads The Project is accessed using existing county public roadways, privately owned timber roads, and existing upgraded or newly constructed all-weather access roads. The main access route for the Project, including equipment deliveries, is via County Route 1 north from Rupert to Clearco. Phase I includes approximately 16 mi of roads, including approximately 8 mi of new upgrades to existing roads and 8 mi of newly constructed roads.

1.2.2.2 Communications and Collection System Inside the base of each turbine tower, a control panel houses communication and electronic circuitry. At the base of each turbine, a step-up transformer is installed to raise the voltage from 575 V or 690 V to collection line voltage of 34.5 kilovolts (kV). Generated electricity moves through an underground collection system to the Project substation.

1.2.2.3 Substation and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Facility The Project 34.5-kV/138-kV substation is owned by BRE; substation construction and operation meet industry standards. The substation is similar to substations used on transmission systems in the region. The substation houses those electrical facilities to step-up medium voltage power from the collection system to high voltage for delivery to the 138-kV transmission line.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 8 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1-3. GE 1.5 MW SLE Turbine.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 9 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Project O&M building is located separately from the Project 34.5/138-kV substation. The O&M building contains all necessary plumbing and electrical collections needed for typical operation of offices and a maintenance shop. Electric, water, telephone, and septic system utilities are provided on-site.

1.2.2.4 Meteorological Towers and Transformers Two permanent, guyed, 80-m (262-ft) meteorological (MET) towers were erected for the 67-turbine phase. MET towers were installed on 1-m (3 ft) diameter pier foundations. Transformer foundations were constructed using standard cut-and-fill procedures and pouring concrete in a shallow slab or using a precast structure set on appropriate depth of structural fill.

1.2.2.5 Transmission Line From the Project substation, the Project’s 138-kV overhead transmission line runs northwest into Nicholas County where it ties into the existing Allegheny Power Grassy Falls Substation located on State Route 20. The Grassy Falls Substation is referred to as the Point of Interconnect and is the location where energy generated by the Project connects to Allegheny Power’s existing transmission system.

1.3 Beech Ridge Energy Project Description – Phase II (Proposed – 33-Turbine Project) Phase II of the Project consists of an additional 33 proposed turbines; 47 possible turbine locations were identified, 14 of which were alternates to provide options for avoiding impacts to sensitive resources. As part of the WVPSC Phase II siting certificate, BRE dropped turbine sites 2 and 3, and alternate turbine location 3, leaving 44 possible turbine locations. The second phase of up to 33-turbines will be constructed pending issuance of the ITP. Construction of the additional turbines should be completed within 2 years of the issuance of the ITP. Commercial operation of the Phase II turbines is expected to occur immediately upon completion of construction.

1.3.1 Phase II General Location Phase II of the Project is located just west of Phase I and is proposed to be constructed primarily along Clear Creek and Pollock Mountain ridgelines (Figure 1-4). Construction of Phase II is expected to convert 127 acres of habitat (from mostly forested habitat to grass/shrub habitat that eventually will undergo natural succession back to forest habitat) and permanently remove 21 acres of existing habitat (see Table 3-1).

1.3.1.1 Phase II General Components Phase II is composed of several primary components, including wind turbines, access roads, transmission and communication equipment, storage areas, and control facilities. These components are discussed below.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1-4. Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project Phase II Location, Greenbrier County, West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 11 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Wind Turbines Turbine model type for Phase II will be selected after issuance of the ITP. Although anticipated to be very similar to Phase I turbines, the turbine model selected for the 33 additional turbines will be based on current turbine prices, turbine efficiency based on detailed wind reports for that specific area, turbine availability, and turbine ability to feather blades6 and change the cut-in speed.7 The nacelles for the 33 additional turbines would be mounted on monopole towers with a maximum hub height of 100 m (328 f). The maximum height of the 33 Phase II wind turbines with a blade extending straight up is 150 m (492 ft). This FEIS analyzes impacts based on turbine specifications provided in Chapter 3 and additional planning information provided by BRE.

Access Roads Approximately 6 mi of existing roads will be upgraded and 4 mi of new roads will be constructed for Phase II. Existing roads will be upgraded and new roads will be constructed in accordance with industry standards for wind project roads and local building requirements.

Communications and Collection System Underground electrical and communications cables will be placed in approximately 4-ft deep trenches, primarily located along the Project access roads and within the access road disturbance area.

Turbine Towers, Meteorological Towers, and Transformers Phase II turbine towers will be anchor-bolted to concrete foundations. Up to 2 additional permanent, self- supporting (unguyed) MET towers will be erected for Phase II. Transformer foundations will be constructed using standard cut-and-fill procedures and by pouring concrete in a shallow slab or using a precast structure set on appropriate depth of structural fill.

1.4 Proposed Project Potential Effects to Listed Species The proposed Project consists of 2 distinct phases of construction and operation. Decommissioning of both phases may occur simultaneously or by phase. This FEIS examines the impacts associated with both Project phases, 67 constructed and operational turbines and 33 proposed turbines, and the operation of the 100-turbine Project as a whole. Impacts from both phases are clearly identified, and impact analysis was performed in light of the Purpose and Need stated in Chapter 2, to respond to the Applicant’s request for an ITP under provisions specified in Section 10 of the ESA.

During the operational life of the Project, approximately 25 years, actions associated with the proposed Project are reasonably anticipated to result in the incidental take of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat, both listed as endangered under the ESA. Take of either bat could occur as a result of operation of the proposed Project. Wind turbines are known to kill a large number and variety of bats; however, many bat fatalities go undetected during post-construction monitoring due to high scavenger removal rates and low searcher efficiency rates. The rarity of Indiana bats compounds this problem, making searches for them difficult, especially at wind power projects located on forested ridgelines. The first documented mortality of an Indiana bat occurred in September 2009 at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm in Benton County, Indiana, during the fall migratory period (Johnson et al. 2010). A second Indiana bat fatality was documented at this same facility in September 2010 (Good et al. 2011). A third Indiana bat fatality was documented at the North Allegheny Wind Power facility in Blair and Cambria counties, Pennsylvania,

6 Feathered blades are pitched, or rotated, so that the rotor edge points directly into the wind, reducing blade rotation speeds to less than 2 rpm to minimize risks to bats and birds. No all turbine designs provide the feathering capability. Turbines that do not feather whenever wind speeds are below cut-in speed will spin freely at more than 2 rpm and increase collision risk. Similar to Phase I turbines, BRE has committed to selecting turbine designs for Phase II that include feathering capability when winds are below the cut-in speed provided by BRE’s Curtailment Plan, i.e. 4.8 m/s. 7 Cut-in speed is the minimum wind speed at which a wind turbine starts to generate usable power; this is around 3-4 m/s for turbines similar to those constructed and proposed for the Project. Increasing wind speed can eventually begin to pose risks to the turbine. Conversely, the cut-out speed, usually about 25 m/s, is the wind speed at which the braking system is applied to prevent damage to the turbine.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 12 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

during September 2011 (USFWS 2011d). A fourth Indiana bat fatality was documented at the Laurel Mountain Wind Project in Barbour County, West Virginia in July 2012. A fifth Indiana bat fatality was documented at Blue Creek Wind Farm in Van Wert and Paulding Counties, Ohio in 2012.

1.4.1 Indiana Bat Seasonal Habitat Use and Home Range Indiana bat maternity colonies appear to show fidelity to a general home range within and between years (Sparks et al. 2004). The distance from the roost to foraging areas may be constrained by the need to return periodically once the young are born (Henry et al. 2002) since lactating females return to the roost 2 to 4 times during the night (Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002, Murray and Kurta 2004). In general, the distance from the roost to foraging areas varies from 0.3 mi to 5.3 mi (USFWS 2007). In Michigan, the mean distance from the roost to the nearest edge of an activity center was 1.5 mi from the day roost (n=13; range 0.3 mi to 5.3 mi; Murray and Kurta 2004). Eleven females in Indiana used foraging areas on average 1.9 mi from their roosts (range 0.5 mi to 5.3 mi; Sparks et al. 2005). Menzel et al. (2005) found no difference between home ranges of male and female Indiana bats between May and August in Illinois. Mean home range of the 11 bats in the study was 358 acres (0.56 mi2). The mean home range of 24 females in the Champlain Valley of Vermont and New York was 205 acres (0.32 mi2; Watrous et al. 2006). Due to the different approaches in these investigations, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the home ranges of female Indiana bats during the summer (Lacki et al. 2007). Some variability in these home range estimates is likely attributed to differences in habitat quality among the study sites, as well as to differences in the methodologies employed for these foraging studies

Indiana bats return to the vicinity of the hibernacula in late summer and early fall where they exhibit a behavior known as “swarming.” This involves large numbers of bats that fly in and out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn. During the swarming period, most Indiana bats roost within approximately 1.5 mi of the cave, suggesting that the forests around caves provide important habitat prior to hibernation (USFWS 2007); a few bats roost in the cave during the day (Cope and Humphrey 1977). During the swarming period, bats engage in mating and gain fat stores vital for winter survival. While females enter the hibernaculum soon after arrival at the site, males remain active for a longer period and may also travel between hibernacula; both of these behaviors have the potential to increase mating opportunities for males (USFWS 2007).

Available data indicate Indiana bats swarm predominately at hibernacula in which they overwinter, but individuals will also visit and swarm at other hibernacula, as well as at non-hibernacula sites such as caves, mines, rock crevices/shelters and cliff faces (Cope and Humphrey 1977, LaVal and LaVal 1980). Thus, swarming activity also refers to bats moving between and among nearby hibernacula and/or swarming sites. Based on radio-telemetry data, it is reasonable to assume that swarming Indiana bats may be exposed to wind turbines that are sited within 10 mi of most Priority 3 or Priority 4 hibernacula8 (USFWS 2011a). This 10-mi buffer zone is intended to delineate areas where bats are foraging, roosting, and mating near their hibernacula and to capture local movements among nearby hibernacula and swarming sites. Additionally, migrating bats may be exposed to wind turbines at distances beyond the typical foraging range of swarming bats.

1.4.2 Indiana Bats in the Project Area There are no known summer maternity roosts or winter hibernacula that support Indiana bats within the Project area. The nearest known active Indiana bat hibernacula are located 9.3 mi and 12.9 mi from the nearest turbine. Calls matching those made by Indiana bats have been recorded by a limited number of

8 Priority 1 hibernaculum have ≥ 10,000 individual Indiana bats Priority 2 hibernaculum have 1,000 - 9,999 individual Indiana bats Priority 3 hibernaculum have 50 – 999 individual Indiana bats Priority 4 hibernaculum have 1 - 49 individual Indiana bats

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 13 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

acoustical detectors placed on the Project site during summer 20059 and 2010 (Young and Gruver 2011). Because the Project area and adjacent landscape contains suitable habitat and is located within the range of migrating, foraging, and roosting Indiana bats, Indiana bats are assumed to be present, and the risk of take at some time during the life of the Project is reasonably anticipated. BRE has requested a permit for take of 53 Indiana bats over the term of the 25-year permit. The BRE Project expansion also will necessitate further tree removal to clear areas for turbines. Trees provide potential roosting habitat for Indiana bat.

1.4.3 Virginia Big-Eared Bats in the Project Area Virginia big-eared bats form summer maternity colonies and winter roosts predominantly in caves but also in abandoned mine portals. There currently are no records of Virginia big-eared bats in the Project area or Greenbrier County. The closest known areas occupied by Virginia big-eared bats are a cluster of 4 mine portals in Fayette County, located 27.5 to 30 mi west of the Project area. Virginia big-eared bats do not usually migrate far between summer and winter habitat. The greatest movement recorded between summer and winter roosts was 19.8 mi (C. Stihler, unpublished data in Piaggio et al. 2009). While the likelihood of Virginia big-eared bats occurring in the Project area is currently low, this could change over time if new maternity areas or winter roosts become established. Therefore, as a precaution to cover themselves for take authorization in case the range of the species changes, BRE has requested a permit to take 14 Virginia big-eared bats over the term of the 25-year permit.

1.4.4 Estimating Take of Endangered Bats in the Project Area The HCP analyzes and describes the likely direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action on Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. The ranges of estimated take were developed using a combination of on-site surveys, information from other wind projects, and available scientific literature. Because of the low detection rate of the Indiana bat, BRE used the little brown bat (a more common species killed at wind power projects) as a surrogate indicator to bracket the range of estimated take of the less common Indiana bat.

During years 1-3 after ITP issuance, BRE will conduct intensive monitoring studies designed to detect bat mortality and to establish the ratios of Indiana bat take and Virginia big-eared bat take to mortality of all bat fatalities. Thereafter, during years 4-25, BRE will implement a surrogate approach (using all bats, little brown bats, or other bats as surrogates) to monitor take of covered species using ratios developed during the first 3 years of intensive study. A surrogate approach to monitoring in years 4-25 is reasonable given the difficulty of detecting a rare event and the fact that a surrogate approach will provide adequate monitoring levels to insure the Project is in compliance with authorized take limits over the term of the permit.

The HCP also describes what measures will be taken by the Applicant to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with Section 10 of the ESA. Avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the site design and configuration of the proposed wind facility. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to provide funding to implement off-site conservation measures to mitigate for residual take that is not avoided.

The HCP includes a post-construction monitoring protocol that will measure the effectiveness of minimization and avoidance measures and estimate the take of Indiana bats. The monitoring protocol allows for the implementation of adaptive management approaches to reduce uncertainty associated with proposed minimization and mitigation measures; that is, modifications to minimization, mitigation, and monitoring measures that may be needed to achieve goals based on the results of post-construction monitoring. In other words, the HCP will allow for alteration and refinement of minimization techniques

9 See pages 53-61 in the Memorandum Opinion for Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge Energy, LLC; District Court of Maryland case no. RWT 09cv15119.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 14 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

through time as understanding of impacts to bats from the proposed Project increases. Minimization techniques include turbine operational curtailment measures to reduce bat mortality.

Under the Proposed Action, the Service is considering issuing an ITP that would require implementation of the HCP and associated Implementing Agreement (IA). The proposed ITP would authorize take associated with construction of up to 33 turbines and associated infrastructure, operation of all 100 turbines with up to 187 MW of generating capacity, and decommissioning of the Project.

This FEIS serves as the NEPA compliance document for the Service’s proposed ITP; it analyzes the effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative and 3 other alternatives, including a No- Action Alternative.

1.5 Regulatory and Legal Framework

1.5.1 Federal Regulatory Requirements

1.5.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.

The Service’s consideration of an ITP application and the associated HCP is defined as a federal action, which means the Service must comply with NEPA (see discussion under ESA below).

The extent of NEPA review required depends upon whether any Significant Effects to the human environment may result from the proposed action. In this context, the human environment includes biological, physical, and socio-economic elements.

The Service has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is an appropriate level of review for this Project given: (1) the potential for significant cumulative effects to bats and birds, and visual effects to cultural resources; and (2) the potential for controversy over environmental effects, as reflected during the 2009 trial, with viewpoints of scientists ranging from low to high risk to listed bats (Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge LLC et al., U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. RWT 09cv1519). This FEIS evaluates impacts of the proposed federal action, as well as a range of alternatives to that action (including the No-Action Alternative).

The preparation of this FEIS conforms to NEPA, as well as its implementing regulations promulgated by both the CEQ and the DOI.

1.5.1.2 Endangered Species Act The Service is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal wildlife laws, including the ESA. Federally listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat are governed by the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code [USC] §§ 1531–1544) and the Service’s implementing regulations at 50 CFR Parts 13 and 17. The Service is authorized to identify species in danger of extinction and provide for their management and protection. The Service also maintains a list of species that are candidates for listing pursuant to the ESA.

ESA – Sections 7, 9, and 10 Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, entities, and governmental agencies subject to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 15 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

United States jurisdiction.10 Under the ESA and its associated implementing regulations, a variety of acts are prohibited. For the purpose of the FEIS and the underlying proposed permit, the most relevant is the prohibition on the take of wildlife species listed under the ESA. The ESA defines the term take to include harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these acts (16 USC 16 U.S.C § 1532(19)). The Service’s implementing regulations further define the terms “harass” and “harm.”11 Take of listed wildlife is illegal unless otherwise authorized by the Service (see permitting and consultation below in descriptions of Section 10 and Section 7 of the ESA).

With respect to endangered plants, analogous prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under federal jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the ESA prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any state law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law.

Section 10 of the ESA, among other things, authorizes the Service to issue permits (ITPs) to incidentally take ESA-listed species. Entities pursuing activities that could result in the take of federally protected species may apply for an ITP, which protects them from such liability.

The ESA and the Service’s implementing regulations prescribe the process by which ITP applications must be submitted and approved. A person wishing to obtain an ITP must submit an application on a form provided by the Service, along with the following required information:

1. A complete description of the activity sought to be authorized; 2. The common and scientific names of the species sought to be covered by the permit, as well as the number, age, and sex of such species, if known; and 3. A conservation plan that specifies: a. The impact that will likely result from such taking; b. What steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, the funding that will be available to implement such steps, and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances; c. What alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be utilized; and, d. Such other measures that the Director may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

To approve a permit, the Service must determine if the applicant satisfies the general permitting criteria in 50 CFR Part 13 and also find that:

(A) The taking will be incidental; (B) The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such takings;

10 See 16 USC § 1532(13) defining the term “person.” 11 Pursuant to 50 CFR § 17.3: Harass in the definition of “take” in the Act means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 16 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(C) The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided; (D) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; (E) The measures, if any, required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(D) of this section will be met; and (F) He or she has received such other assurances as he or she may require that the plan will be implemented.

In making his or her decision, the Service shall also consider the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the applicant's planned activities, including the amount of listed species habitat that is involved and the degree to which listed species and their habitats are affected.

Section 7 of the ESA states that any federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes activities must consult with the Service to make sure its actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. The consultation process can be either informal or formal. Issuance of an ITP is a federal action subject to Section 7 of the ESA. This means the Service must conduct an internal (or intra-Service) formal Section 7 consultation on permit issuance. The regulations governing consultation are found at 50 CFR Part 402.

Informal Consultation. Under Section 7of the ESA, federal agencies may informally consult with the Service in determining whether any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes (e.g., through a permit) may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. If after discussions with the Service it is determined that the proposed action will not affect, or may affect but is not likely to adversely affect, any listed species in the project area, the informal consultation is complete and the proposed project moves ahead. If it appears that the agency’s action may adversely affect a listed species, that agency may then prepare a biological assessment to assist in its determination of the project’s effect on a species.

Formal Consultation and the Biological Opinion. When a federal agency determines through a biological assessment or other review, that its action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, the agency submits to the Service a request for formal consultation. During formal consultation, the Service and the agency share information about the proposed project and the species likely to be affected. Formal consultation begins after receipt of complete information needed for the consultation. The Service has 90 days after initiation of formal consultation to formulate a draft biological opinion on whether the proposed activity will jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. The action agency and Service have 45 additional days to review and finalize the biological opinion (or a total of 135 days to complete the formal consultation process). The Service’s biological opinion evaluates the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the action, the anticipated take, and whether a species’ existence will be jeopardized by the proposed action. The biological opinion typically also contains reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize the impacts of the taking, as well as terms and conditions and conservation recommendations. The Service’s regulation identifies an action agency's obligations to incorporate certain measures into their decision-making processes.

This proposed Project is subject to the ESA because the construction and operation of the proposed Project is anticipated to take federally endangered Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. The Service is considering issuing an ITP under Section 10 of the ESA to authorize this take, which would otherwise be prohibited under Section 9 of the ESA. Prior to issuing an ITP, the Service must internally conduct an ESA Section 7 analysis of the ITP to ensure it will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. It must also make independent findings regarding the above-listed permit issuance criteria.

1.5.1.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) The concentration of a pollutant in the atmosphere depends on the amount of pollutant released, the nature of the source, and the ability of the atmosphere to transport and disperse the pollutant. The main

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 17 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

determinants of transport and dispersion are wind, atmospheric stability or turbulence, topography, and the existence of inversion layers.

Federal standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2011) represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations of air pollutants. These standards were developed for 6 “criteria” pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and sulphur dioxide (SO2). The NAAQS are summarized in Table 1-1. These represent safe levels that allow for avoidance of specific adverse human health effects associated with each pollutant.

Table 1-1. West Virginia and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards1 Pollutant Averaging Time Primary2 Secondary2 8-hour3 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm Ozone (O ) 4 3 1-hour 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Carbon dioxide 8-hour5 9 ppm 9 ppm (CO) 1-hour5 35 ppm 35 ppm

Nitrogen 5 5 Annual average 100 µg/m 100 µg/m dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm -- Sulfur dioxide 5 24-hour 0.14 ppm -- (SO ) 5 2 3-hour -- 0.5 ppm Particulate Annual arithmetic mean6 -- -- 7 5 5 Matter (PM10) 24-hour 150 µg/m 150 µg/m Annual arithmetic mean8 15 µg/m5 15 µg/m5 PM 9 5 5 2.5 24-hour 35 µg/m 35 µg/m Source: USEPA (2011). 1 West Virginia has adopted the NAAQS as the state ambient air quality standards. 2 ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; -- = not applicable 3 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor over each year must not exceed 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (effective May 27, 2008). 4 The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than 1. 5 Exceeded more than once per calendar year. 6 Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 17, 2006). 7 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 8 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean respirable particulate matter less than 2.5-micron size concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15 micrograms per cubic meter. 9 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter (effective December 17, 2006).

1.5.1.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) Applicable CWA Sections that set out specific provisions and protection of water resources include Sections 401, 402 and 404.

Section 401 This section includes the requirement for state certification for water quality protection under the federal CWA. In West Virginia, water quality certificates are administered by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 18 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Section 402 Federal water quality requirements were first instituted with the passage of the Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, also known as the CWA. Title IV of the CWA, Permits and Licenses, created the system for permitting wastewater discharges known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. These permits place limits on the amount of pollutants that may be discharged from a point source (a discrete conveyance such as a pipe) to U.S. waters and state waters. Permit discharge limits are set at levels to be protective of both aquatic life and human health in the waters that receive the discharge. NPDES requirements are described in Section 402 of the CWA. Under the current NPDES program, all facilities discharging pollutants from any point source into waters of the U.S. are required to obtain an NPDES permit. In West Virginia, the NPDES program is administered by the WVDEP.

Section 404 The USACE is directed by Congress under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1344) to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into all waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States at specified disposal sites. The selection and use of disposal sites will be in accordance with guidelines developed by the Administrator of EPA in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army and published in 40 CFR part 230.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. are defined in 40 CFR 230.3(s) and, in addition to wetlands, include navigable waters, lakes, stream, and tributaries. Waters of the U.S. and wetlands are protected under Section 404 of the CWA as noted above and under Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, U.S., 1977. Waters of the U.S. and associated wetlands are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and any discharge of dredged or fill materials into these features are subject to permitting by the USACE.

Non-jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and isolated wetlands are not subject to permitting by USACE under Section 404; however, all federal agencies are required to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts to the extent possible per Executive Order 11990.

1.5.1.5 Executive Orders Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.

Invasive Species Prevention and Management Executive Order 13112 was issued in 1999 to enhance federal coordination and response to the problems associated with invasive species. Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as one that is not native to the region or area whose introduction (by humans) causes or is likely to cause harm to the economy or the environment, or harms animal or human health. The goal of this Order is to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control upon introduction, and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts caused by invasive species.

1.5.1.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) The MBTA (16 USC 760c-760g), as amended, implements protection of all native migratory game and non-game birds with exceptions for the control of species that cause damage to agricultural or other

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 19 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

interests. According to 50 CFR § 10.12, a migratory bird means any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in the Service’s regulations12, or which is a mutation or a hybrid of any such species, including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof. In total, 836 bird species are protected by the MBTA, 58 of which are currently legally hunted as game birds.

The MBTA prohibits the take any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. Take, as defined in the MBTA, includes by any means or in any manner any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof.

The MBTA does not explicitly include provisions for permits to authorize incidental take of migratory birds. Executive Order 13186 (Jan. 10, 2001), however, provides requirements for all federal agencies to incorporate considerations of migratory birds into their decision-making, including the conservation of migratory birds, the proper evaluation of them in NEPA documents, and avoidance, minimization and mitigation of migratory birds impacts and take where appropriate.

The Service has and continues to provide wind power developers guidance in making a good-faith effort to comply with the MBTA. In March 2012, the Service released its Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (LWEG) (Service 2012c) which were developed after considering public comments and recommendations from the Wind Turbine Advisory Committee. These new guidelines are now in effect and replace interim guidelines published by the Service in 2003. The new guidelines encourage project proponents to address risks to species of concern from wind energy projects, including collisions with wind turbines and associated infrastructure; fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller blocks that may not support species of concern; displacement and behavioral changes; and indirect effects such as increased predator populations or introduction of invasive plants.

The LWEG use a tiered approach for assessing potential adverse effects to species of concern and their habitats. The tiered approach is an iterative decision-making process for collecting information in increasing detail; quantifying the possible risks of proposed wind energy projects to species of concern and their habitats; and evaluating those risks to make siting, construction, and operation decisions. During the pre-construction tiers (Tiers 1, 2 and 3), developers work to identify, avoid, and minimize risks to species of concern. During post-construction tiers (Tiers 4 and 5), project operators: 1) assess whether predictions made about risk in earlier tiers are true, 2) assess whether actions taken in earlier tiers to avoid and minimize impacts are successful in achieving the goals, and 3) when necessary, take additional steps to compensate for those impacts to species of concern determined by the Service to be significant.

The Service urges voluntary adherence to the LWEG and communication with the Service when planning and operating a wind power facility. While it is not possible to absolve individuals or companies from MBTA or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) liability, the Service’s Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting those who take migratory birds without identifying and implementing reasonable and effective measures to avoid the take. The Service will regard a developer or operator’s adherence to the LWEG, including communication with the Service, as appropriate means of identifying and implementing reasonable and effective measures to avoid the take of species protected under the MBTA and the BGEPA.13

12 FWS maintains its official list of migratory birds, as recognized under the 4 Migratory Bird Treaties to which the United States is a signatory: 50 CFR § 10.13. 13 With regard to eagles, this paragraph will only apply when a project is not likely to result in take. If Tiers 1, 2, and/or 3 identify a potential to take eagles, developers should consider developing an Eagle Conservation Plan and, if necessary, apply for a take permit.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 20 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The LWEG do not prevent the Service from referring violations of law for enforcement when a company has not followed the guidelines. The Chief of Law Enforcement or more senior official of the Service will make any decision whether to refer for prosecution any alleged take of such species, and will take such adherence and communication into consideration fully into account when exercising discretion with respect to such potential referral. Each developer or operator will be responsible for maintaining internal records sufficient to demonstrate adherence to the LWEG.

Although the guidelines leave decisions up to the developer, the Service retains authority to evaluate whether developer efforts to mitigate impacts are sufficient, to determine significance of impacts, and to refer for prosecution any unlawful take that it believes to be reasonably related to lack of incorporation of Service recommendations or insufficient adherence with the guidelines.

BRE began developing an Avian Protection Plan (APP) for the project before the LWEG were finalized. In developing its APP, BRE has relied to some degree on the Federal Advisory Committee’s (FAC) recommendations, as well as other prior-existing Service guidance.14 After the LWEG were finalized, the Service recommended that BRE revise its APP to more closely follow the LWEG risk prediction, validation, and decision framework. The APP included in Appendix B of this FEIS reflects BRE’s efforts to do so. The LWEG note that projects already under development or under operation are not expected to start over or return to the beginning of a specific tier. Instead, these projects should implement those portions of the guidelines relevant to the current phases of the project. Phase I of the Project is already constructed and operating (67 turbines), whereas Phase II planning (33 turbine expansion area) is far along. Therefore, portions of the Project fall within Tier 3 (pre-construction field studies) and portions within Tier 4 (post-construction monitoring) phases of the LWEG. Tier 3 field studies to predict project impacts for the Phase II 33-turbine expansion area have either been completed or in some cases are continuing (e.g., additional raptor surveys), whereas Tier 4 post-construction fatality monitoring at the existing Phase I 67-turbines has begun and is being planned for the future operation of the entire 100- turbine project.

1.5.1.7 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The BGEPA (16 USC 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) as amended, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and golden eagle by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such birds. BGEPA prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." BGEPA provides civil and criminal penalties for persons who violate the law or regulations.

Under 50 CFR 22.3, disturb is defined as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." The BGEPA’s definition of disturb also addresses effects associated with human-induced alterations at the site of a previously used nest during a time when eagles are not present. Upon an eagle's return, if such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts

14 In response to increasing wind energy development in the United States, the Service released a set of voluntary interim guidelines for reducing adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources from wind energy projects for public comment in July 2003. After the Service reviewed the public comments, the Secretary of Interior established an FAC in March 2007 to provide recommendations to revise the guidelines related to land-based wind energy facilities. The FAC submitted its recommendations to the Secretary in March 2010. The Service considered the FAC’s recommendations in drafting Service land-based wind power guidelines. A draft of these guidelines was made available for public comment in February 2011. After considering over 30,000 public comments, the Service finalized these guidelines in March 2012. In addition to developing these national land-based windpower guidelines, the Service issued a paper in August 2010 providing guidance for development of project-specific APPs for renewable energy facilities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 21 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment, then this would constitute disturbance.

In fall 2009, the Service established rules (50 CFR 22.26 and 22.27) authorizing limited legal take of bald and golden eagles and their nests “when the take is associated with, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity, and cannot practicably be avoided.” Such authorization is provided in the form of a permit issued by the Service, consistent with the regulatory criteria. The final rule notes that wind power is an industry sector for which programmatic permits for recurring long-term take are appropriate. We note that whereas the Service currently can issue permits for take of bald eagles in the eastern U.S., we are not currently issuing permits for take of golden eagles east of the 100th meridian until such time as a programmatic analysis of sustainable levels of golden eagle take is completed and the Service’s eagle permit regulations are revised. Thus a golden eagle permit option is not available to the Applicant at this time.

In April 2012, the Service published proposed changes to its eagle permit regulations related to length of permits and permit processing fees (77 Federal Register 22267). In addition to seeking comments on these regulatory changes, the Service sought public comments on future improvements to this permit program.

The Service also developed eagle guidelines on a parallel path with the regulatory changes. In January 2011, the Service issued for public review version 1 of draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance: Module 1-Wind Power. On May 2, 2013, the Service published version 2 of the guidelines (USFWS 2013a), which provide recommendations and an iterative process for avoiding and minimizing negative effects on eagles and their habitats resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of land-based, wind energy facilities in the U.S. The Service is implementing this version of the guidelines and encourages the regulated community to follow them in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. The executive summary explains that the guidance supports issuance of eagle programmatic take permits for wind facilities. Programmatic take permits will authorize limited, incidental mortality and disturbance of eagles at wind facilities, provided effective offsetting conservation measures that meet regulatory requirements are carried out. To comply with the permit regulations, conservation measures must avoid and minimize take of eagles to the maximum degree, and, for programmatic permits necessary to authorize ongoing take of eagles, advanced conservation practices (ACPs) must be implemented such that any remaining take is unavoidable. Further, for eagle management populations that cannot sustain additional mortality, any remaining take must be offset through compensatory mitigation such that the net effect on the eagle population is, at minimum, no change. The Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (version 2) interprets and clarifies the permit requirements in the regulations at 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 22.26 and 22.27), and does not impose any binding requirements beyond those specified in the regulations.

1.5.1.8 Cultural Resources – History, Archaeology, Native American Consultation A number of laws, regulations, executive orders, and guidelines establish the need and process for considering historic properties and the cultural heritage of Native Americans and others in the planning process for federal undertakings. In addition to NEPA, applicable federal laws and regulations are listed below.

Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209; 16 USC 461-471) This was the federal enabling legislation for the setting aside and protection of “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292; 16 USC 461-471) This Act expanded the role of the DOI in determining and protecting “historic and archaeological sites, buildings and objects.” In addition, a policy to protect nationally significant properties was initiated. Out of this law came the National Historic Landmark (NHL) program. The NHL program recognizes the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 22 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

importance of sites and areas across the country from battlefields to mining districts and others associated with our heritage.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (P.L. 89-665; 16 USC 470, as amended; 80 Stat.915) This NHPA mandates that all federal agencies must consider the effects of their projects and programs on cultural resources listed or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Later amendments include P.L. 91-243, P.L. 93-54, P.L. 94-422, P.L. 94-458, P.L. 96-199, P.L. 76-244, and P.L. 96-515. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Native American Tribes, and other interested parties on the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The intent of Section 106 is not to stop projects. It is to ensure that federal agencies fully consider historic preservation issues and the views of the public during project planning. If adverse effects to cultural resources cannot be avoided, the Section 106 process also affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Provisions of the NHPA are implemented through 36 CFR 800. Section 110 of the NHPA protects NHLs.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 This Act preserves significant historical and archaeological data from loss or destruction. The Secretary of the Interior will be notified of any adverse effect on archaeological or historical properties, and a data recovery or mitigation program will be implemented if appropriate.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 Consultation will be made with Native American traditional religious leaders to protect and preserve Native American cultural and religious practices under this Act.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (P.L. 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 USC 470a) This Act supersedes the 1906 Antiquities Act and provides that prior to excavations on federal or Native American lands, permits for archaeological investigations must be obtained.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 This Act requires consultation with appropriate Native American tribes for activities on federal lands before excavation or removal of cultural items. This Act also provides for repatriation of items from federal agencies and federally assisted museums.

1.5.1.9 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of state-wide or local importance.

1.5.1.10 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations as part of the NEPA evaluation process for federal actions or federally funded projects.

The purpose of the Order is to ensure that minority and low-income communities do not suffer a disproportionate share of adverse environmental impacts resulting from actions that are not offset by project benefits. Executive Order 12898 also requires that these parties have adequate access and opportunity to participate in project planning by receiving information, attending meetings, or providing input into public decisions. Our outreach strategy for the environmental justice community during the scoping and public comment phases of our permitting process are described in Section 1.7 of this FEIS.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 23 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.5.2 West Virginia Regulatory Requirements Below are state and local regulations applicable to the BRE development.

1.5.2.1 Power Generator Siting In West Virginia, the WVPSC administers the rules for siting all power projects, including wind energy (150 CSR 30). The WVPSC application process includes the consideration of environmental effects of the proposed development on multiple resources, including biological and socioeconomic resources. At the conclusion of the siting process, the WVPSC may issue a siting certificate containing conditions that must be implemented as a part of project construction and operation.

1.5.2.2 Water Quality The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) oversees regulations and permitting associated with water quality, air quality, waste (hazardous and solid), and land (mining, oil and gas). The principal water quality law in the state is the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA). The WPCA designates the West Virginia Office of Water Resources (WVOWR), within the WVDEP, as the water pollution control agency for the state. The WVOWR is charged with preserving the integrity of the state’s water resources. These water resources include streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and groundwater.

Generally, any applicant for a federal permit or license to conduct an activity that may discharge into state waters (including groundwater) must obtain a certification from the WVDEP. The WVDEP may grant, add conditions, deny, or waive certification. The federal permit or license will not be granted if WVDEP denies certification. The USACE CWA Section 404 permits require state certification.

Section 401 Section 401 of the CWA requires that any applicant for a Section 404 permit also obtain a Water Quality Certification from the state. States are authorized to issue Certification under Section 401 of the CWA. Applicants must receive State 401 Water Quality Certification before they can receive a permit from the federal agency. The purpose of the certification is to confirm that the discharge of fill materials will comply with the state’s applicable Water Quality Standards.

The WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management together with the WVDNR certify physical alterations under Section 401 of the CWA and state water quality standards.

This program also serves to protect wetlands in the State of West Virginia [Title 46, Series 1, Legislative Rules Governing Water Quality Standards]. In the State of West Virginia, “state waters” are defined as all water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including wetlands. "Wetlands" mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. It should be noted that the state definition of wetlands includes both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands as compared to the USACE jurisdiction definitions.

Section 402 - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Under the delegated NPDES permit program, most point source discharges of pollutants into state waters require a discharge permit from the WVOWR. West Virginia’s point source pollution discharge permit program is broader than the federal NPDES program. West Virginia regulates discharges into all state waters, including groundwater. State law also requires a permit not only for discharge, but also for the construction of a disposal system. The West Virginia Natural Streams Preservation Act requires a separate permit for certain designated streams.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 24 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.5.2.3 Air Quality West Virginia Air Pollution Control Act 35 charges the WVDEP with regulating air quality in the state. The WVDEP adopts and enforces air quality standards, emission control requirements, and other air regulations. The West Virginia clean air program follows the requirements of the federal CAA. The USEPA and WVDEP work cooperatively to enforce these requirements.

1.5.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) includes oversight related to wildlife and habitats statewide; however, West Virginia does not have state threatened and endangered species legislation. As required by federal law, West Virginia affords protection to species on the Service‘s list of federally threatened and endangered species.

1.5.2.5 West Virginia Department of Transportation Appropriate highway access permits and roadway load impact mitigation are required for all wind energy projects. These permits and mitigation requirements are handled by the West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) Division of Highways.

1.5.3 Greenbrier and Nicholas County Regulations Greenbrier County Building Permits, as well as County Road and Access Permits, are required. Nicholas County Building Permits, as well as Road and Access Permits, also may be applicable to this type of project.

1.6 Consultation and Regulatory Compliance History

1.6.1 Federal Permitting The proposed Project began under the assumption that there was no previous federal action requiring project-specific NEPA review or compliance. As a result, the following permitting and coordination occurred prior to the current Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DEIS for the Beech Ridge ITP and HCP (dated July 22, 2010).

1.6.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration within 6 mi of a Public Aviation Facility and structures over 200 ft required completion of 7460 Proposed Construction or Alteration Forms. BRE has an approved lighting plan for Phase I and will develop a lighting plan for Phase II to be submitted for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval.

1.6.1.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps provided an initial Nationwide Permit (NWP) #12 verification on October 3, 2006, stating the discharge of fill material to waters of the United States for the construction of the proposed transmission line met the criteria for authorization under NWP #12 (67 FR 2020). This version of NWP #12 expired on March 18, 2007. On May 6, 2008 the Corps issued a NWP #12 verification stating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States for the a construction of the proposed transmission line met the criteria for authorization under NWP #12 (72 FR 11092).

Field surveys for Phase II were completed between September 21 and October 1, 2010. The results of the field surveys identified 10 streams (5 perennial, 4 ephemeral, and 1 intermittent) and 3 jurisdictional wetlands. The USACE has reviewed the results of the delineation. However, the USACE’s jurisdiction determination is still pending. The exact locations of the 33 turbines have not been mapped. Once the layout for Phase II has been finalized, results of the field surveys and a summary of impacts will be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 25 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

submitted to the USACE, and the required authorizations/permits will be obtained. BRE intends to avoid all wetlands and streams to avoid the necessity of a Section 404 permit.

1.6.1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Elkins Field Office As BRE’s consultant, BHE Environmental first contacted the Service about the prospective BRE project in June 2005. Over several years, the Service provided technical assistance to BRE and its consultants through numerous exchanges of e-mails, conference calls, and letters regarding pre- and post- construction wildlife surveys, risk assessments, measures to avoid and reduce impacts, and permitting options. A summary of key correspondence and events follows.

During the project planning phase, the Service wrote 4 letters to BRE regarding impacts of the proposed project on endangered species, non-listed bats, migratory birds, and wildlife habitat (2 letters dated March 7, 2006, an August 10, 2006, letter, and a July 31, 2007 letter). The Service recommended 3 years of pre- construction and a minimum of 5 years of post-construction wildlife surveys, adaptive management strategies to test ways to reduce bird and bat mortality, and more robust bat survey methods than the mist-net study results provided. Given the presence of 8 hibernacula containing roughly 500 Indiana bats within 30 miles of the proposed turbines, the Service concluded there was a reasonable likelihood of take of the endangered Indiana bat during the 20+ year operational life of the project. BRE was informed of the voluntary ESA Section 10 ITP process but chose not to pursue an application.

On August 28, 2006, the WVPSC issued a citing certificate for the project, approving construction of up to 124 turbines.

On June 5, 2007, BHE Environmental sent a letter to the Service regarding certain WVPSC conditions and requested written confirmation from the Service that BRE was in compliance with rules and laws under jurisdiction of the Service. BHE Environmental further stated that BRE did not anticipate its project would take listed species; nevertheless, BRE would prepare a monitoring plan that would identify processes to be implemented in the unlikely event of such take. BHE Environmental requested Service concurrence with BRE’s opinion that both the post-construction-monitoring plan and adaptive management plan were outside the regulatory purview of the Service and that no additional endangered species studies would be required.

On July 31, 2007, the Service responded to the June 5, 2007, letter from BHE Environmental, disagreeing that post-construction monitoring and adaptive management was outside the purview of the Service. The letter discussed the Service’s independent regulatory authority regarding the take and liability provisions of the ESA and the MBTA, as well as the availability of permits. The Service expressed continuing concerns about annual and cumulative mortality of migratory bats and birds and lack of multiple years of preconstruction surveys.

In June 2009, the Animal Welfare Institute and others commended litigation against BRE alleging failure to obtain an ITP. Following a trial in October 2009, District Court Judge Roger Titus ruled for Plaintiffs on December 8, 2009, that BRE’s construction and operation of wind turbines would violate Section 9 of the ESA “unless and until Defendants obtain an [ITP].” The Judge encouraged the parties to seek a settlement agreement, which was signed on January 23, 2010. The settlement agreement reduced the size of the project, and allowed additional Phase I turbines to be constructed but restricted turbine operations to avoid take of Indiana bats until an ITP was obtained.

Since initiating the HCP process with the Service in January 2010, BRE, its consultants, and the Service have regularly interacted throughout the ITP application process through conference calls, meetings, e- mails, and exchanges of draft documents for review and comment. In addition to ESA issues, the Service has continued to discuss with BRE compliance with the MBTA and BGEPA throughout all phases of HCP development. Given the framework of the governing wildlife laws, there are a variety of ways that the applicant could address impacts to protected species (e.g., compliance with the Service’s BGEPA

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 26 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

guidelines; including these species in the HCP; applying for a BGEPA permit, should take be anticipated; developing an Avian Protection Plan (APP) consistent with Service’s Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012c). Here, BRE elected to address migratory birds and eagles in an APP. Unlisted bats are not addressed in the APP, but are addressed in the HCP as indirectly benefitting from the implementation of actions to avoid, minimize, monitor, and mitigate effects to the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat.

BRE began working on developing an APP in 2010. The APP has been discussed on numerous occasions, including meetings on October 6 and 7, 2010; January 25, 2011; March 17, 2011; and April 7, 2011. BRE, Blanton and Associates, Inc., and the Service held a conference call on February 7, 2011, to discuss the APP outline, scope, and content. A draft APP was provided to the Service on June 27, 2011, and the Service provided comments on September 26 and November 9, 2011, which were discussed during a call between BRE and the Service on November 17, 2011. BRE submitted a revised APP to the Service in January 2012. Informal discussions occurred during February and March 2012, followed by submittal of written comments on the APP from the Service on April 25, 2012. These comments included a recommendation to make the APP tie more closely to tracking Best Management Practices (BMPs), Tier 3 (pre-construction) and Tier 4 (post-construction) study recommendations, and decision frameworks in the Service’s Land-based Wind Power Guidelines released in March 2012. The version of the APP provided in Appendix B of the FEIS (see Appendix B) includes many of the BMPs in the LWEG, follows many of the Tier 3 and 4 study recommendations, and follows the decision framework in the guidelines.

1.6.2 State of West Virginia

1.6.2.1 Public Service Commission On August 28, 2006, the WVPSC issued an Order granting a siting certificate to BRE for construction and operation of 124 turbines at the Beech Ridge Project site: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, No. 05-1590-E-CS, 2006 W.Va. PUC LEXIS 2624, at 178-187. The certificate includes a number of conservation measures that must be implemented by BRE (pages 87-91 of the Order). Additional conservation measures have been developed by BRE in consultation with the Service during preparation of this HCP and are presented in Section 5.0 of this FEIS.

As a part of its siting certificate, BRE is required to file with the WVPSC: (1) a verified statement indicating that all pre-construction conditions and requirements of the certificate have been met and (2) evidence of any necessary environmental permits or certifications, including letters from Service, WVDNR, SHPO, and West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) outlining what action BRE needs to take to be in compliance with applicable requirements. BRE has filed statements with the WVPSC for Phase I of the Project and will file an ITP and related documents with the WVPSC upon issuance.

On February 13, 2009, the WVPSC authorized construction of the Project, concluding that BRE had satisfied the pre-construction conditions set forth in the January 11, 2007 Order denying the reconsideration requests. However, because much of Phase II of the Project was not part of the original application to the WVPSC, Phase II will have to undergo review by the WVPSC as a modification to the existing certificate. Other state, federal, and local approvals for the Phase II expansion area are in progress.

In working toward meeting the requirements to modify the siting certificate, and to adequately characterize the 33-turbine expansion area, BRE has completed surveys and provided data to the Service relating to wetlands and streams (Potesta 2005a, 2005b, 2010) and bat use of the area (Young and Gruver 2011). A summary of bat use survey results are presented in Sections 3.2.1.8 and 3.2.2.8 of this FEIS. Within the expansion area, as required by the WVPSC, BRE has completed a pre-construction spring avian migration study, avian and bat risk assessments, and winter raptor survey (Young et al. 2012b, 2012c, 2013). Reports related to these studies are located in Appendix E. BRE has also completed a literature, database, and field analysis, including a viewshed analysis for architectural

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 27 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

resources (Saratoga Associates 2011) within 5 mi of the expansion area as required by the WVPSC. These documents are included in Appendix G of this FEIS.

As a part of its siting certificate, BRE also is required to consult with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) whose membership is open to the WVPSC, the Service, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR), the Bat and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC), a statewide environmental organization, a statewide bird group, and a private or academic institution with experience in avian issues. The siting certificate requires BRE to consult with the TAC regarding, among other things, 3 years of post- construction bat mortality and adaptive management studies after operations commence. To maintain an independent regulatory enforcement role, the Service has chosen not to participate in the Project TAC.

On August 24, 2012, BRE II filed an application (case number 12-1196-E-CS) with the WVPSC for a siting certificate, pursuant to West Virginia Code §24-2-11 (c), to authorize the construction and operation of a second phase of the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project for up to 33 wind turbines. The WVPSC conducted a public hearing in Rainelle, West Virginia on January 10, 2013 and an evidentiary hearing in Charleston, West Virginia on February 28, 2013. Based upon public feedback and a thorough review of the evidence, the WVPSC indicated at the February 28, 2013 hearing that they will grant a siting certificate to BRE II no later than June 20, 2013, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the WVPSC’s order.

On June 19, 2013, the WVPSC issued a citing certificate for the BRE Phase II turbines (provided in Appendix N). BRE is granted a siting certificate for the construction and operation of an approximate 53.46 MW, but not to exceed 85.5 MW electric wholesale generating facility consisting of up to 33 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of 1.62 MW, but not to exceed 2.5 MW, and associated ancillary facilities in Greenbrier County.

1.6.2.2 State Historic Preservation Office Consultation In the original proposed Phase I Project, the scope for the NWP #12 included only the transmission line and the footprint of its associated wetland impacts, but it did not include the wind project turbines. Hence there was no federal action that triggered consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA. Hence, cultural resources were not reviewed under Section 106 for Phase I. However, pursuant to the State of West Virginia’s rules governing energy siting certificates, BRE addressed effects to cultural resources (150 CSR 30-3.1.o). BRE coordinated with the WVDCH SHPO for Phase I of the Project. In 2008, BRE and the WVDCH signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to address adverse visual effects to 20 historic buildings eligible for the NRHP and identify archaeological survey requirements.

To mitigate effects to historic resources as per the MOA, BRE will provide a one-time monetary funding of up to $10,000 or in-kind service of equivalent value for future assistance in historic preservation-related activities. Preservation activities are to focus on the affected communities.

As per the MOA, archaeological surveys were completed for Phase I of the Project. All archaeological resources were either avoided by project redesign or determined by the SHPO to be not eligible for the NRHP.

In working toward meeting the requirements to modify the WVPSC siting certificate for the Phase II expansion areas, BRE has also completed a literature, database, field analysis, and assessment of effects, including a viewshed analysis, for architectural resources (Saratoga Associates 2011, Gray and Pape 2012.) within 5 mi of the expansion area.

For the Phase II expansion, BRE has entered into an MOA with the Service, WVDCH SHPO, and Catawba Indian Nation to address potential adverse effects to historic properties and archaeological resources. To mitigate adverse visual effects to above ground historic resources, BRE has agreed to have a professional historian prepare an historic context of western Greenbrier County. The context is to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 28 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

include information on the evolution of development in this area including, but not limited to, agriculture, timber, coal mining, and wind energy. To mitigate potential effects to archaeological resources, BRE has agreed to conduct archaeological surveys before construction activities begin and to determine the eligibility of sites for the National Register of Historic Places through consultation with the Service, SHPO and THPO. Adverse effects to eligible sites will be avoided if possible, or the MOA signatories will jointly identify measures to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects to the site.

1.6.2.3 Department of Environmental Protection Two Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) were prepared and approved for Phase I of the Project. These site registration applications were submitted to the WVDEP under an existing NPDES permit.

The first SWPPP for Contract No. 1 was dated May 2007 and included approximately 14.2 mi of transmission line, a new substation, the construction staging area, and approximately 42 wind turbine towers and related access roads. The associated permit is NPDES Storm Water Construction General Permit No. WV0115924 dated July 18, 2007.

The second SWPPP for Contract No. 2 was dated February 2008 and included approximately 72 wind turbines and related access roads. The associated permit is NPDES Storm Water Construction General Permit No. WV0115924 dated July18, 2008.

Please note that the 2 SWPPPs address a spatial area for construction and associated ground disturbance rather than an exact number of turbines. Therefore, the number of turbines noted for each permit do not sum to 124, the number of turbines originally authorized by the WVPSC in 2006. The Project has been reduced from 124 to 100 turbines; however, a portion of the current proposed Phase II expansion area lies outside the boundaries of the existing SWPPPS. Therefore, they will need revision and approval prior to construction of the Phase II expansion area.

1.6.2.4 Public Lands Corporation A Stream Activity Permit license agreement was executed on January 19, 2007, for the original Project. It will be modified or amended to cover Phase II prior to construction.

1.6.2.5 Department of Transportation: Division of Highways A construction agreement was executed on January 14, 2009, for the original Project. It also will be modified or updated, if necessary, to address Phase II prior to construction.

1.6.3 Greenbrier County

1.6.3.1 Planning and Permit Department Building permits for Project construction were finalized for the original project on January 14, 2009. It will be modified or updated to address Phase II prior to construction.

1.6.3.2 Highway Department Road and driveway access location approval was obtained for the original project and the construction agreement with WVDOT included Greenbrier County. This agreement was executed on January 14, 2009. It also will be modified or updated to address Phase II prior to construction.

1.7 Scoping and Public Interaction Scoping is an important component of assessing the effects of a proposed federal action. Therefore, public participation was actively sought in the development of this FEIS. During scoping, the public,

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 29 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

federal and state regulators and cooperating agencies, and other stakeholders identify issues, concerns, and opportunities to guide the ensuing NEPA review process. The public comment phase on the FEIS provides additional opportunity to inform these stakeholders and seek their input to better inform agency decisions. This section of the FEIS describes the scoping process conducted for the Proposed Action, as well as our outreach strategy for informing and seeking stakeholder input during the scoping and public comment phases of this FEIS, including the environmental justice community.

NEPA (40 CFR 1501) and the DOI’s NEPA implementing regulations (43 CFR 46.235) both specify the intents and purposes for the public scoping process. Upon making the decision to prepare an EIS, scoping is initiated through an NOI published in the Federal Register. Scoping is used to:

• Invite affected federal, state, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the proponent of the action, and other interested persons to participate in the DEIS planning process; • Determine the scope and significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the FEIS; • Identify and eliminate from detailed analysis those issues that are not significant or have been covered by prior environmental review; • Allocate FEIS assignments to lead and cooperating agencies with the lead agency retaining responsibility for the EIS; • Identify other public environmental assessments relevant to but not part of the FEIS scope; • Identify other types of permits, environmental review, and consultation requirements and conduct these reviews concurrently and as part of the FEIS process; and • Identify relationships among the lead agency’s timing of the FEIS preparation and schedules associated with other planning and decision making.

The Service’s formal scoping process began July 22, 2010, with the publication of the NOI to announce the initiation of a 30-day public comment period, intent to conduct a NEPA analysis, and a public informational meeting (75 FR 42767-42770). An additional Notice was published August 27, 2010, to announce the Service’s extension of the public comment period an additional 30 days (75 FR 52778).

During project scoping for this FEIS, the Service distributed a press release to 16 media outlets (including local community, regional, and national outlets), notified 32 individual interested parties by letter, and created a project-specific web site for disseminating current and historical information on the project to the public and to solicit scoping comments via a dedicated Service e-mail address. The Service also solicited comments from 2 U.S. Congressman and 1 U.S. Senator, the Governor, 3 state Congressman, 2 state Senators, and 6 local governments. The new release was picked up by the Associated Press, national public radio, local, state, and national newspapers, as well as many web-based media outlets used by the wind industry and environmental community.

A scoping meeting was held in Rupert, West Virginia, on August 9, 2010, from 6 to 9 PM. Rupert is the town closest to the Project and is within driving distance of numerous small, local communities. BRE assisted in spreading word of the meeting to the local community through a network of local community members who had worked on construction of Phase I of the Project. The Service, BRE, and Stantec all had personnel on-hand to facilitate the meeting. Forty-two individuals from the general public (primarily local community members) attended the meeting and were provided information about the Project through 4 interactive poster stations, a pamphlet, and a 1-hour long presentation, followed by a question and answer session. This session was filmed and aired on a local television station. The posters, pamphlet, and presentation were specifically designed to succinctly summarize the Project and permitting process in plain English. Attendees were encouraged to provide substantive written comments relating to the Project.

A similar strategy is being used to solicit stakeholder involvement during the public comments phase of this FEIS: Federal Register publication, press release, and letters to known interested parties identified during scoping. Public meetings will be held if requested and will be tailored to the needs and desired

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 30 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

meeting format identified by the requestors. Electronic copies of the FEIS, HCP and associated documents will be available on the internet (at www.regulations.gov), and hard copies will be available at local libraries. To reach the local environmental justice community, the Service will focus its outreach efforts to articles in local community newspapers, and distribution of flyers at local gathering places such as churches, libraries, and community centers. BRE workers at the existing facility will also use word-of- mouth to spread news about the public comment period in the local community.

In addition, during May 2012, prior to Service publication of the Federal Register Notice, BRE made its HCP and IA available on the company’s website for early public review and comment. BRE sent letters to individuals on the mailing list developed by the Service for the DEIS and published a notice in local newspapers of the availability of the HCP and IA. Comments received by BRE on the HCP and IA will be transmitted by BRE for inclusion in the Service’s administrative record.

1.7.1 Issues Raised in Scoping During the scoping period, 69 comment letters were received from individuals and the following entities: Friends of Blackwater, Virginia Wind, Allegheny Front Alliance, Allegheny Highlands Alliance, Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County, Brooks Bird Club, Midland Trail Scenic Highway, West Virginia Forestry Association, and West Virginia Manufactures Association. The comment letters suggested addressing environmental (e.g., wildlife, climate), socioeconomic (e.g., human health, cultural, economic costs), and energy issues (e.g., reliability, safety and security, and quality and quantity). Issues raised during scoping are described in a Scoping Report provided in Appendix H. The results are summarized briefly below, with the percentage of comments on a topic noted in parentheses.

A) Environment Issues • Bats (84%) • Overall environment (73%) • Birds (67%) • Other flora and fauna (64%) • Alternatives and cumulative effects (55%) • Pre/post construction research, monitoring, and adaptive management (48%) • Climate (10%)

B) Socioeconomic Issues • Human health (47%) • Human safety and security (6%) • Cultural (43%) • Economic costs (40%) • Tourism (14%) • Property values (10%)

C) Energy Issues • Quality and quantity of energy production (32%) • Energy reliability (13%)

D) Consultant Qualifications (4%)

By far, the most substantive comments addressed wildlife and environmental issues. Wildlife occurrence in the Project area, use of the Project area, direct mortality from turbines, and loss of habitat were the primary issues cited for all wildlife species (ESA-listed and unlisted species). Issues cited regarding the overall environment were similar and ranged from forest fragmentation, to wetland and watershed impacts, to the loss of high elevation habitats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 31 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Substantive comments also were raised regarding alternatives and cumulative effects analysis. These comments included recommendations that the Service fully assess all viable alternatives; and that cumulative effects analysis take into account the Project’s impacts when viewed in conjunction with other wind projects in the eastern U.S. (especially the Appalachian corridor), non-wind projects such as timber harvests, mining, commercial and residential development, and impacts such as white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats and West Nile Virus in birds.

Nearly half of all comments also cited the need for thorough preconstruction surveys to determine exactly what ecosystem components will be impacted. These comments also identified the need for effective post-construction monitoring and adaptive management to minimize any such impacts.

Substantive socioeconomic issues cited included concerns about potential increases in human disease due to decreases in bat populations (i.e., due to increased pest populations such as mosquitoes and agricultural pests); noise, light, and shadow flicker impacts on human health caused by the turbines; and ice throws associated with turbines (i.e., safe set-backs). Cultural issues cited for inclusion into the FEIS focused primarily on the impacts a wind facility will have on the aesthetics (beyond visual) of the area and how those aesthetics are tied to the wellbeing of the local community. Forty percent of comments provided to the Service also cited the need for a thorough assessment of the economic impacts of the Project to include job creation, taxes, subsidies, grants, and grid tie-in costs.

Most substantive comments regarding energy issues cited a need to assess the cost of wind energy production versus traditional energy sources, including an analysis of the reliability of wind power production and difficulties associated with managing grids that include wind generated power. Many comments also noted wind as a clean renewable energy resource that lowers our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Three comments cited concern about Stantec’s credibility to conduct a thorough examination of the data, issues, and research, and to compile an unbiased, Service-approved EIS.

1.7.2 Public Comments on FEIS On August 24, 2012, the Service announced in the Federal Register the availability of the DEIS for public comment (77 FR 31554-31555) in accordance with requirements set forth in NEPA (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). The Service received public comments through October 23, 2012. The Service considered all comments received in assessing Project impacts and potential mitigation. This review has resulted in some modifications to our analysis and this FEIS. Responses to public comments on the FEIS and DHCP can be found in Volume III of this EIS. The Service will publish the Record of Decision documenting its decision on whether to issue the ITP no earlier than 30 days after the FEIS is published. The Service does not have a formal administrative appeal procedure for NEPA decisions. Judicial review of a Service NEPA decision is conducted in Federal court and according to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC §500 et seq.).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 32 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR FEDERAL ACTION AND FEIS This FEIS evaluates BRE’s application for an ITP for its underlying Project. The Applicant’s intent is to have a wind energy facility with an up to 187 MW nameplate capacity that can produce from roughly 575,000 to 740,000 MWh of electricity each year while complying with the ESA.15 In its HCP, BRE expressed a goal to maximize energy production using wind power to advance renewable energy objectives and economic opportunities in the local area, while at the same time minimizing impacts to wildlife. The HCP also states implementing renewable energy will produce fewer emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants than traditional sources of energy production, and will help in meeting state energy policies and goals; e.g., West Virginia’s Alternative Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (House Bill 103).

It is the intent of the FEIS to evaluate BRE’s application for an ITP. The FEIS and its analyses provide the Service with the necessary tools to make an informed decision on issuance of an ITP. The environmental review process under NEPA provides the acting agency with the framework for reviewing the federal action, alternatives, environmental effects, and possible mitigation of potentially harmful effects of the action. The NEPA review provides an opportunity for the public to be involved in the acting agency’s decision-making process. The acting agency can use a properly conducted NEPA analysis to review and improve plans, functions, programs, and resources. This FEIS is the mechanism and final step of the Service’s procedure for recording the results of a comprehensive planning and decision-making process surrounding BRE’s application for an ITP.

2.1 Action Agency Purpose and Need It is the Service’s purpose and need for action that determines the range of alternatives and provides a basis for the selection of an alternative in a decision.

The federal action triggering NEPA is the Service’s receipt from BRE an ITP application under the ESA. The underlying issue to which the agency is responding is a need for BRE to comply with the ESA by either avoiding take of an ESA-listed species (in which case an ITP is not needed) or to acquire a permit that authorizes take of listed species under the ESA. BRE has chosen to apply for an ITP and the Service needs to respond to the permit application.

The proposed HCP and ITP are necessitated because take of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat is reasonably anticipated during Project operations. An ITP is required to legally take listed species incidental to these otherwise lawful activities. Consistent with the requirements of the ESA, BRE commits to a range of conservation measures proposed to minimize and mitigate the effects of take of these two listed bats. Thus, the HCP, if approved, and the ITP, if issued, are designed to avoid and minimize take of these two species in the course of carrying out the proposed covered activities, but also to authorize the limited, unavoidable take that may occur, as well as to mitigate the impact of such take.

The Service’s purpose is to ensure ESA compliance for this Project by either avoiding take of listed species or legally authorizing the incidental take of the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats consistent with ESA permit issuance criteria contained in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the associated implementing regulations [50 CFR 17.22(b)(2) and 17.32(b)(2)]:

(i) the taking will be incidental; (ii) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;

15 The BRE Project is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor between 35% and 45% as indicated in BRE’s application to the PSC for their expansion area. The estimate of energy produced given above is based on the assumptions that the Project would have a 187 MW nameplate capacity, and all turbines would operate unrestricted at the annual capacity factor range, i.e. without curtailment.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 33 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(iii) The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan and procedures to deal with changed circumstances will be provided; (iv) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; (v) the measures, if any, required by the Service as being necessary or appropriate, will be provided; and (vi) the Service has received such other assurances as may be required that the plan will be implemented.

The goal or objective the Service is trying to achieve within the context of this permit application is to conserve the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat and their habitats in the Project area and region for the continuing benefit of the people of the United States.

2.2 Decisions to be Made The federal action under consideration is the proposed issuance of an ITP by the Service. The Service must decide whether to issue or deny the permit. If the permit issuance criteria contained in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA are satisfied, the Service is required to issue the permit to the Applicant. Within these guidelines the Service may decide to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant, or to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted together with other measures specified by the Service. If the ESA’s criteria are not satisfied, the Service is required to deny the permit request. Thus the Service has limited discretion and authority within which to determine the range of alternatives.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 34 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This chapter addresses the alternatives developed in response to the Applicant’s request for an ITP for its proposed Project. The Applicant’s proposed Project is a 100-turbine wind energy facility that has the potential to harm or kill Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats, thus the necessity for an ITP. Alternatives were analyzed for their capacity to address the Service’s purpose and need for the federal action of issuing an ITP and implementing an HCP for Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. This chapter summarizes the decision process that resulted in the elements of the Proposed Action and the development of the alternatives. Alternatives include modification to the proposed Project’s footprint and energy capacity, and the number of species to be included in the ITP and HCP (covered species). Additionally, this chapter describes alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the FEIS.

3.1 Development of Alternatives NEPA requires that a "range of alternatives" be discussed in the environmental documents prepared for a proposed action (40 CFR 1505.1(e)). This includes a discussion of all reasonable alternatives, which must be thoroughly explored and objectively evaluated. This also includes a brief discussion of alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further analysis (40 CFR 1502.14(a)).

The scope of reasonable alternatives is defined by the purpose and need for the action and guided by the goals and objectives of the acting agency. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from both a technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. Issues identified and discussed during scoping are integral to considering and developing alternatives retained for analysis.

In conformance with NEPA, this FEIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives (40 CFR 1508.9). A range of reasonable alternatives that could reduce the impacts on Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats were evaluated with respect to feasibility and purpose and need.

The Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1996) states that at least 2 types of alternatives are commonly included: • Any alternative that will reduce species take below levels anticipated for the Proposed Action; and • A No-Action alternative, which means that no permit will be issued and take will be avoided, or that the project will not be constructed or implemented.

All identified alternatives are listed in Appendix A, Table A.1 of this FEIS, including those derived from comments received during the NEPA scoping process. In summary, the alternatives analysis took the following approach. Initially, all reasonable alternatives were considered during the development of the FEIS. These original alternatives were compared and contrasted based on screening criteria, which are described below. The scoping process provided additional alternatives that were also screened using the same criteria. Project alternatives included other wind turbine configurations and quantities, other locations in West Virginia, as well as other renewable and traditional electric generation options.

Many alternatives were eliminated from further analysis because they did not meet the stated goals or objectives of the Service. Alternatives were dropped largely due to one or more of the following reasons:

• Did not adequately address the Service’s terms for protecting ESA-listed bats; • Ranked poorly according to the project siting criteria; and/or • Lacked practicality, feasibility, or common sense.

The Proposed Action and 3 alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative (a total of 4 alternatives), were advanced for detailed analysis in this FEIS. The retained alternatives were further examined to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 35 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ensure they met stated goals and objectives of the Service action and project intent. Lastly, retained alternatives were analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 Environmental Consequences; the results of the detailed analysis are compared in Table 3-4.

3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria for Reasonable Alternatives for the HCP/ITP Process

3.1.1.1 Conservation Measures for the Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-Eared Bat Proposed conservation measures were evaluated with the Service’s long-term goal for reducing impacts to the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat (covered species) so that eventually ESA protection is no longer necessary. To address conservation measures, reasonable alternatives are required to meet 1 or more of the following criteria: • Adequately avoid and minimize take of endangered bats; • Restore or protect endangered bat habitat; or • Enhance scientific understanding of wind energy development and bat interactions.

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures associated with the Project were based on BRE’s consultation with the Service and consistency with specified goals and tasks in 2 bat Recovery Plans (USFWS 1984, 2007). Conservation measures include or address measures to protect and/or enhance existing habitat for covered species. Conservation measures that did not meet Project objectives and the Service’s goal for consistency with species recovery plans were not retained for detailed analysis.

3.1.1.2 Effects to Other Potentially Affected Wildlife Resources Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures associated with each alternative were evaluated for their potential to positively affect other wildlife resources, with particular focus on unlisted bat species and avian species most at risk to the effects of wind development. Long-distance tree-roosting migratory bats have been found to be most at risk for collision with wind facilities, particularly during fall migration (Arnett et al. 2008, Horn et al. 2008). Fatalities of many bird species have been documented at wind power facilities (Erickson et al. 2001 and many others). Although raptors have received the most attention (e.g., at Altamont Pass in California), migratory songbirds (passerines) represent by far the highest number of avian fatalities at wind power facilities (Osborn et al. 2000, Johnson et al. 2000a, 2003a, Erickson et al. 2001, Howe 2002, and others). Thus, alternatives were evaluated based on the extent to which they minimized risks to other bat and avian species.

3.1.1.3 Wind Project Site Selection and Project Viability When considering alternatives to the proposed Project, site selection was an important evaluation criterion. Wind project viability is greatly affected by location. The site selection process used by BRE was based on several constraints, including reducing impacts to sensitive resources, maximizing energy production, and accommodating existing land uses. BRE conducted an environmental screening to identify a location that would meet the siting criteria and comply with specified environmental constraints. Of particular importance in the screening process was the Project’s location relative to adequate wind resources; electric transmission lines; land parcels that can accommodate the WVPSC’s defined setback distances; land use criteria; and sensitive natural resources. Alternatives were evaluated based on their ability to meet the conditions of this screening process.

The facility’s proposed location, based on this site selection process, is highly significant to Project viability. Locations that would result in non-adherence to siting criteria (e.g., proximity to transmission lines, adequate wind resource), and locations hindered by technical constraints were dropped from further consideration.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 36 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.2 Alternatives Alternatives include the No-Action, Proposed Action, and 2 action alternatives (for a total of 4 alternatives) These 4 alternatives are summarized in Table 3-1. The 3 action alternatives all consist of issuance of an ITP and implementation of measures to avoid and minimize take of covered species and conservation measures to benefit covered species. The Proposed Action includes issuance of an ITP and implementation of the HCP for the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat as proposed by the Applicant. One of the action alternatives considers the inclusion of additional covered species that are not currently afforded protection under the ESA but will be exposed to risks associated with the Project and will benefit from conservation measures. The remaining action alternative considers implementation of the HCP as proposed by the Applicant but only for Phase I of the Project (a reduced take alternative).

It is important to note, that the modification of the stipulation (described in Section 1.1.1) does not affect the 4 alternatives retained for detailed analysis. The limited operations were implemented from April 1, 2012, until November 15, 2012, and these same limited operations are being implemented again from April 1, 2013, until November 15, 2013. Should the ITP be issued prior to November 15, 2013, the interim operations specified in the modified stipulation will be superseded by the provisions of the ITP and HCP.

Pursuant to the modification of the stipulation, the limited operations protocol does affect the existing conditions of the Project. The existing conditions for those resources that may be affected by the modification (noise, bats, and birds) are discussed in those corresponding sections of Chapter 4, Affected Environment. These short-term effects also are analyzed as cumulative effects in Chapter 5.

3.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative – No Take/No ITP/No HCP Alternative 1 is the No-Action Alternative. Pursuant to NEPA, the No-Action Alternative requires the acting agency to consider the consequences of not implementing any action, in this case no ITP and no implementation of an HCP. No new construction would occur under this alternative; hence, Phase II of the project would not be built. The Project would be operated in a manner that does not result in take of listed bats. Under these operating restrictions, the existing 67 turbines with a nameplate capacity of 100.5 MW would generate up to approximately 254,000 MWh per year. A monitoring and adaptive management plan and an APP16 would be implemented to monitor bird and bat mortality and to determine the effectiveness of operating restrictions in reducing such mortality.

In typical NEPA analysis, the No-Action Alternative and affected environment are both baselines for comparison, but they are not synonymous. The affected environment describes the present setting for which the proposed action will take place and have effect. The effects of the No-Action Alternative are estimated from the current condition and are carried into the future (through analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects), as would be the case for any alternative being considered.

In NEPA analysis, the “No-Action” alternative can include one of several possible scenarios. The first scenario is an alternative in which the proposed activity does not take place (i.e. no project built) and compares the resulting environmental impacts of no action with the proposed action and additional alternative actions. For the BRE project, because 67 turbines are already constructed and operating under a court order, there is no practical value in evaluating a “no project built” alternative.

Another scenario considers the no-action alternative as a “no change” or continue operating “as is” alternative with no change in operations or management. This scenario applies to the circumstances surrounding BRE’s Project. BRE’s Phase I 67-turbine wind project is an existing condition with operational restrictions that avoid the take of listed bats in the absence of an HCP/ITP. Consequently, Alternative 1 is a “no change” alternative.

16 BRE has indicated they would implement their APP regardless of whether or not an ITP is issued.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 37 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-1. Alternatives considered for detailed analysis for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan. For the Proposed Action and each action alternative, the turbine blades would be feathered (pitched) to rotate at <2 revolutions/minute when wind speeds are below the indicated cut-in speed, thus minimizing bat mortality. Estimates of power production are based on the typical Project capacity factor of 39.5% as provided by the Applicant. Estimated hours per year are based on the unrestricted time turbines could operate and the typical Project capacity factor. Permit Construction Energy Capacity Implement Implement Implement Alternative Operations Term Type with Curtailment HCP RMAMP APP (years) 67 turbines would operate unrestricted 73% of 100.5 MW time (6,399 hours per year) at normal cut-in Alternative 1: No new nameplate speed of 3.5 m/s. Turbines will be turned off None No Yes Yes No-Action construction capacity; from 30 minutes before sunset to 15 minutes ~254,000MWh/year after sunrise from April 1 through November 15. 100 turbines will operate 95% of time (8,328 33 turbines Up to 187 MW hours per year). Turbines will be restricted so Alternative 2: and nameplate that blades move less than 2 rpms when wind Yes, with off- Proposed 25 Yes Yes associated capacity; ~615,000 speeds are below the raised cut-in speed set site mitigation Action infrastructure MWh/year at 4.8 m/s from sunset for 5 hours from July 15 through October 15. 100 turbines would operate 73% of time (6,399 hours per year) at normal cut-n speed of 3.5 Alternative 3: 33 turbines Up to 187 MW Yes, with on- m/s. Turbines will be restricted so that blades Additional and nameplate site (or off- move less than 2 rpms when wind speeds are 25 Yes Yes Covered associated capacity; ~473,000 site) below a raised cut-in speed set at 6.5 m/s from Species infrastructure MWh/year mitigation. 30 minutes before sunset to 15 minutes after sunrise from April 1 through October 15. 67 turbines would operate 95% of time (8,328 Yes; lower 100.5 MW hours per year): Turbine will be restricted so take estimates Alternative 4: No new nameplate that blades move less than 2 rpm when wind would warrant 25 Yes Yes Phase I Only construction capacity; ~331,000 speeds are below a raised cut-in speed set at reduced off- MWh/year 4.8 m/s from sunset for 5 hours from July 15 to site mitigation October 15. measures.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 38 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 67-turbine Project would operate as described in the original Court Order and Settlement Agreement17. Turbine operations would stop 30 minutes before sunset to 15 minutes after sunrise from April 1 through November 15. Accordingly, the Project would be operated in such a manner that no take of endangered or threatened species would occur, thus precluding the need for an ITP. BRE would forego the added benefits associated with the addition of Phase II (construction and operation of the proposed 33 turbines). There would be no risk to Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats associated with Project operations. BRE would not implement steps to obtain off-site conservation to mitigate the potential take of Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Thus Alternative 1 would have an overall neutral effect on the Indiana and Virginia big-eared bat: no take would occur, and no mitigation or other conservation measures would be implemented specifically for Indiana or Virginia big-eared bats. In addition, there would be no unlisted bat mortality because turbines would not operate at night during the bat active season.

The existing WVPSC siting certificate for the Project indicates that BRE would conduct 3 years of post- construction mortality surveys to assess the Project’s impacts on bats and birds. If the Project causes significant levels of bat or bird mortality and adaptive management techniques are proven effective and economically feasible in reducing such mortality, BRE would make a good faith effort to implement facility- wide adaptive management strategies to reduce mortality levels. Under the No-Action Alternative, post- construction and adaptive management studies thus would be implemented. Because the Project would not operate at night from April 1 through November 15, risks would be eliminated for bats. It is unknown, however, whether the seasonal night-time turbine operating restrictions would benefit birds under this alternative. Under BRE’s APP, post-construction monitoring would determine whether turning off turbines at night from April 1 through November 15 would benefit birds. If the Project caused significant levels of bird mortality, adaptive management measures would be implemented to reduce mortality if they are proven effective and financially feasible. Alternative 1 Summary Alternative 1 meets the Service’s goals and objectives for protecting and conserving the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat and their habitats in context of the Project for the continuing benefit of the people of the United States. Under this alternative, the Project operations do not pose risks to listed bats because the turbines are turned off at night during the bat-active season for the life of the Project. The No-Action Alternative would be the alternative implemented if the Service denies BRE the ITP.18

3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action – ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan Under Alternative 2 (Proposed Federal Action), the Service would issue a 25-year ITP that would authorize incidental take of Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat associated with: 1) construction of 33 turbines and associated infrastructure (Phase II), 2) operation of 100 turbines (the existing 67 Phase I turbines plus the 33 additional Phase II turbines), and 3) eventual decommissioning of the entire project. BRE would implement an HCP that includes:

1. measures to reduce take of listed bats (turbine feathering at low wind speeds and raised cut-in speeds of 4.8 m/s for 12 weeks of the year during fall); 2. off-site conservation measures for the listed bats; and 3. a research, monitoring, and an adaptive management plan (RMAMP) to test and measure the effectiveness of turbine operations in reducing listed bat mortality.

17 We recognize that the No-Action Alternative is a product of a court-approved consent decree. The Service does not presuppose what the court might do if the Service were to deny the permit. Rather, we provide this No-Action Alternative as best reflecting the operating regime at the Project pursuant to the original Court Order and stipulation, thereby allowing a better basis to compare impacts. As will be noted in Chapter 5, we also provide details on the impacts to the human environment if both Phases of the Project were to become fully operational, unencumbered by any restrictions that would benefit ESA-listed species. As described in Section 3.3.1, this alternative was dismissed because it would not satisfy the agency’s goal of minimizing or mitigating impacts of take under the ESA. But we include the relevant information to allow a more robust comparison. 18 See footnote number 13.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 39 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Under Alternative 2, BRE also will implement an APP similar to the No-Action Alternative. Turbine operating restrictions imposed by the court order, settlement agreement, and modified stipulation would be lifted and more energy would be generated than the No-Action Alternative. Alternative 2, consisting of a total of 100 turbines with a nameplate capacity of up to 187 MW, has the potential to generate around 615,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions (Table 3-1).

The Project, as described in the WVPSC Application and Siting Certificate, originally consisted of the construction and operation of 124 turbines on Beech Ridge. As a result of discussions and negotiations with environmental organizations, as reflected in the January 26, 2010, settlement agreement, the Project was reduced to 100 turbines. Of these 100 turbines, 67 are built and currently operating pursuant to the judicial order and modified stipulation to the settlement agreement.

Under the Proposed Action, 33 additional turbines will be constructed upon issuance of the ITP. Construction will likely be completed within 2 years after ITP issuance, and commercial operation will be expected to commence upon completion of construction. About 148 acres of land will be disturbed during construction of the 33 additional turbines. The operational footprint of Phase II will be approximately 21 acres. Together with Phase I, the complete 100-turbine Project will affect 71 acres for the life of the Project (Table 3-2). BRE predicts that the ITP will need to be in effect for 25 years to address the time from start of Project construction through decommissioning. The Project components described for Phase I of the Project largely apply to Phase II as well.

The layout of Table 3-2 and the values shown were changed for the FEIS. The temporary acres which were shown in Table 3-2 in the DEIS are now designated as converted habitat acres in the FEIS, which are those areas cleared, reclaimed, and allowed to regenerate to forest naturally. Temporary acres in Table 3-2 in the FEIS now show the number of all acres affected during construction, which was not disclosed as such in the DEIS. Table 3-2 in the FEIS identifies temporary acres as the extent of disturbed ground associated with construction of each Phase of the Project and in total. The acre-value for the temporary impact associated with the Phase II turbine assembly area/pad increased by 11 acres between the DEIS and FEIS, but the value for the permanent impact is the same in both the DEIS and FEIS.

3.2.2.1 Phase II Construction BRE predicts Phase II construction would be completed within approximately 2 years after issuance of the ITP. BRE estimates the actual Phase II construction period would be approximately 6 to 9 months. Prior to construction of the additional 33 turbines, BRE will conduct the following steps:

1. order all necessary components, including wind turbine generators, foundation materials, electrical cable, and transformers; 2. identify final turbine locations; 3. complete an American Land Title Association survey to establish locations of structures and roadways; and 4. complete soil borings, testing, and analysis for proper foundation design and materials.

Phase II includes construction and operation of an additional 33 turbines using a turbine model yet to be determined. The 33 additional wind turbines will have a maximum 100-m (328-ft) rotor diameter with a maximum rotor swept area of approximately 7,875 m2 (84,454 ft2). The rotor speed will be 9.75 rpm to 16.25 rpm, and all rotors will rotate in the same direction. The nacelles (the fiberglass structures that house the gear boxes, generators, etc.) for the 33 additional turbines will be mounted on monopole towers with a maximum hub height of 100 m (328 ft). Maximum height of rotor will be 150 m (492 ft) above ground. Each tower will be made either of a steel design similar to the towers described for Phase I or with a steel lattice structure covered in architectural fabric to create a monopole tower.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 40 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-2. Estimates of total ground disturbance associated with Phase I and Phase II construction and operation of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project.Temporary acres are all acres affected during construction. Converted habitat is based on acreage that was temporarily impacted, reclaimed, and then allowed to grow naturally with little to no management. Acres of permanent disturbance represent those areas cleared and converted to project facilities for the life of the Project. While turbines, pads, and buildings will be removed at the end of the project, these disturbed areas will be graded and revegetated at the request of the landowner; thus some areas, such as roads, may remain after the life of the project. For purposes of this EIS, these areas are treated as if they will result in permanent impacts (worst case scenario). Phase II – 33 turbines (not yet Phase I – 67 turbines (already built) Total proposed Project – 100 turbines constructed) Converted Converted Converted Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Disturbance type habitat habitat habitat (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Turbine assembly 1 109 100 9 65 60 5 174 160 14 areas/pads Existing roads to 2 39 39 -- 29 29 -- 68 68 -- be upgraded New access roads 3 59 43 16 29 21 8 88 64 24 to be constructed Staging / laydown area and concrete 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 batch plant 4 Electrical and communication 8 0 8 3 0 3 11 0 11 line trenches 5 Overhead 6 140 129 11 19 17 2 159 146 13 transmission line Substation, O&M building, 6 0 6 3 0 3 9 0 9 permanent MET towers 7 Total 373 311 50 148 127 21 521 438 71 1 Based on a 150-ft radius during construction for Phase I and a radius of 165 ft for Phase II. Permanent impacts are based on a crane pad of approximately 40-ft x 120-ft crane pad plus a 20-ft radius permanently maintained area for operational purposes. 2 Assumes existing road width to be increased by an additional 40 ft during construction and reclaimed to 16 ft wide for Project operations. 3 Assumes new roads to be 60 ft wide during construction and reclaimed to 16 ft wide for Project operations. 4 Phase I staging area and batch plant were located on approximately 12 acres of agricultural and reclaimed following construction. Same area will be used for Phase II and reclaimed following construction. Impact in table is only included under Phase I. 5 Disturbance areas for those portions of electrical collection system solely used for that purpose are not located in road ROW. Trenches up to 4 ft wide during construction; all trenches to be completely reclaimed for Project operations excepting 2-ft ROW used for permanent impact. 6 Existing transmission line is 14 mi, of which 11.5 mi runs through native habitat. Permanent impact includes an 8-ft access road. Phase II will require 1.6 mi of supplementary line. Construction includes a 100-ft ROW; permanent ROW is a 50-ft ROW. 7 Assumes 1 acre for substation, 2 acres for O&M building, and 1.5 acres for 4 permanent MET towers (2 for each Phase).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 41 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BRE will ensure that the turbine rotors (both the existing 67 Phase I turbines and the 33 Phase II turbines) remain fully feathered whenever wind speeds are below cut-in speed. Fully feathered blades are pitched (rotated) so that the blade edge points directly into the wind, reducing blade rotation speeds to less than 2 rpm.

Phase II will be constructed using standard construction procedures and equipment used for other wind projects in the eastern U.S. Listed in typical order of occurrence, construction will entail the following activities:

• access road and pad construction; • wind turbine foundation excavation and pouring concrete foundations for turbine towers, MET towers, transformers pads; • electrical collection and communications system placement; • tower erection, nacelle and rotor installation; • testing and commissioning; and • final road grading, erosion control, and site clean-up.

A construction staging and laydown area containing Project offices, equipment, and employee parking was developed on approximately 8 acres of agricultural field for Phase I of the Project. This same staging and laydown area will be utilized during construction of the additional 33 turbines. A temporary concrete batch plant will be located on a 4-acre area adjacent to this staging and laydown area.

A water well was installed at the staging and laydown area to serve the concrete batch plant. Water utilized for dust suppression will be taken from local perennial creeks and ponds within the Project area. Portable self-contained restroom facilities will be provided and used by contractor personnel while on site. These facilities will be delivered, maintained, and removed by a third-party contractor.

Access Roads and Crane Pads Upgrading existing roads and constructing new roads for Phase II will result in 29 acres of ground disturbance. After construction is completed, new roads will affect 8 acres and remain operational for the life of the Project (Table 3-2).

Existing roads will be upgraded and new roads will be constructed in accordance with industry standards for wind Project roads and local building requirements. The roads will accommodate all-weather access by heavy equipment during construction and long-term use during O&M. The 4 mi of new roads will be located in consultation with the landowner to minimize disturbance, maximize transportation efficiency, and avoid sensitive resources and unsuitable topography, where feasible. All new roads will be constructed specifically for Project construction and O&M.

Roads will be designed, built, surfaced, and maintained to provide safe operating conditions at all times. The minimum travel way for access roads will be 16 ft. All roads will include road base, surface materials, appropriate drainage, and culverts. Surface disturbance will be contained within road ROWs, which will average 60 ft along turbine/crane access roads. Disturbance width may increase in rugged topography due to cuts and fills necessary to construct and stabilize roads on slopes.

Topsoil removed during road construction will be stockpiled in elongated rows within road ROWs. Topsoil will be re-spread on cut-and-fill slopes, and these areas will be revegetated as soon as possible after road construction is complete.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 42 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Temporary ground disturbances will include the following:

• 40-ft x 120-ft crane pads at each turbine site extending from the roadway to the turbine foundation graded to a minimum of 1%; • 44 ft of gravel roadway on either side of the permanent roadway (60 ft total width) for the cranes; • turning areas for oversized equipment at certain county and local road intersections; • 150-ft radius area centered on turbine foundation graded to a maximum of 10% for rotor laydown; • trenching to install underground electrical system; and • storage/stockpile areas.

For Project construction and O&M, traffic will be restricted to those roads developed for the Project and designated existing roads. Use of unimproved roads will be restricted to emergency situations. Speed limits will be set to 25 miles per hour (mph) to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow and minimize the potential for animal/vehicle collisions. Signs will be placed along the roads as necessary to identify speed limits, travel restrictions, and other standard traffic control measures.

Turbine Tower, Meteorological Tower, and Transformer Construction The foundations for the 33 turbines will be constructed as described for the Phase I turbines (see Section 1.2.2); they will be based on geotechnical surveys and may include spread footers of deep foundations. Foundations will be excavated using a backhoe, forms installed, and concrete poured. Turbine towers will be anchor-bolted to concrete foundations. Anchor bolts will be embedded in the concrete, and the foundations will be allowed to cure prior to tower erection.

Up to 2 permanent, self-support (unguyed) MET towers will be erected for Phase II. Permanent MET towers will be 80 m (262 ft) tall and installed on 1-m (3.3-ft) diameter pier foundations. MET tower and transformer construction procedures will follow that as described for Phase I (see Section 1.2.2).

Communications and Collection System Underground electrical and communications cables will be placed in approximately 4-ft deep trenches located primarily along the Project access roads and within the access road disturbance areas. In some cases, trenches will run from the end of 1 turbine string to the end of an adjacent string to link more turbines together via the underground network. Electric collection and communications cables will be placed in the trench using trucks. First, electrical cables will be installed, and then the trench will be backfilled partially prior to placement of the communications cables. Trenches will be backfilled and the area re-vegetated concurrently with other construction areas.

Tower Erection, Nacelle and Rotor Installation Turbine tower assembly and erection will occur within the laydown area at each turbine site. Tower bottom sections will be lifted with a crane and bolted to the foundation, and then the middle and top sections will be lifted into place and bolted to the section below. Once the tower is erected, first the nacelle and then the rotor will be hoisted into place.

Testing and Commissioning Testing involves mechanical, electrical, and communications inspections to ensure that all systems are working properly. Performance testing will be conducted by qualified wind power technicians and include checks of each wind turbine and the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) system prior to turbine commissioning. Electrical tests of the Project (i.e., turbines, transformers, and collection system) and transmission system (i.e., transmission line and substation) will be performed by qualified electricians to ensure that all electrical equipment is operational within industry and manufacturer’s tolerances and installed in accordance with design specifications. All installations and inspections will comply with applicable codes and standards.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 43 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Final Road Grading, Erosion Control, and Site Clean-up Once construction of the 33-turbine phase is complete, all disturbed areas will be graded to the approximate original contour, and any remaining trash or debris will be properly disposed off-site. Areas disturbed during construction will be stabilized and reclaimed using appropriate erosion control measures, including site-specific contouring, reseeding, or other measures agreed to by the landowner and designed and implemented in compliance with the Project’s approved SWPPPs. Areas that are disturbed around each turbine will revert to the original land use after construction except for a 20-ft radius area around each turbine that BRE will maintain for O&M purposes.

During final road grading, surface flows will be directed away from cut-and-fill slopes and into ditches that outlet to natural drainages. BRE has prepared and implemented 2 SWPPPs and will prepare additional SWPPP(s) for the 33-turbine phase, as required by the WVDEP. The plans will include standard sediment control devices (e.g., silt fences, straw bales, netting, soil stabilizers, check dams) to minimize soil erosion during and after construction.

Following construction, BRE will ensure that all unused construction materials and waste are picked up and removed from the Project area. Contractors will provide trash barrels or dumpsters to collect all construction-related waste for proper disposal at an approved facility. Waste incineration will not occur. While BRE does not anticipate the use of any liquid chemicals within the Project area, BRE will inspect and clean up the Project area following construction to ensure that no solid (e.g., trash) or liquid wastes (e.g., used oil, fuel, turbine lubricating fluid) were inadvertently spilled or left on-site. Cleanup crews will patrol the construction site on a regular basis to remove litter. Final site cleanup will be performed prior to shifting responsibilities to O&M crews.

Construction Mitigation Measures BRE and its contractors will comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws, orders, and regulations. Prior to construction, all supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on: (1) federal and state laws regarding cultural resources, and sensitive plants and wildlife, including collection and removal; and (2) the importance of these resources along with the purpose and necessity of protecting them.

Soils. No construction or routine maintenance activities will be conducted when soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment creates ruts in excess of 4 inches deep). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars will be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures will be monitored, especially after storms, and will be repaired or replaced if needed. Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with landowner easement agreements. Construction activities in areas of moderate to steep slopes (15-20%) will be avoided to the extent possible.

Construction contractors will be required to ensure their employee and delivery vehicles are driven responsibly. Night-time construction work will be minimized, and when it does occur, it generally will be limited to relatively quiet activities. Construction during church hours will be limited. The affected community will be notified in advance of any blasting activity, and blasting will be limited to daylight hours and will follow all state and federal rules, regulations, and laws.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 44 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Air Quality/Noise. All vehicles and construction equipment will be maintained to minimize exhaust emissions and will be properly muffled to minimize noise. Disturbed areas will be watered as necessary to suppress dust. Construction-related concrete batch plants will acquire the appropriate authorization for operation from the WVDEP Air Quality Office.

Surface and Ground Water Protection. To satisfy the requirements of an NPDES permit, a SWPPP will be prepared to ensure that erosion is minimized to the fullest extent practicable. BRE will comply with the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, as well as all maintenance and monitoring conditions of the NPDES permit. SWPPPs will be kept at all construction sites, as well as in the construction contractors' offices. To minimize damage to the land surface and property, work crew and equipment movements will be limited to the Project site; this includes confining traveling on access routes to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. When weather and ground conditions permit, construction-caused deep ruts will be repaired. Ruts, scars, and compacted soils will be loosened and levelled using a ripper or disc or other landowner-approved method. Damage to ditches, roads, and other features of the land will be repaired. Water bars or small terraces will be constructed along access road ditches on hillsides to minimize water erosion and to facilitate natural revegetation.

BRE will continue to comply with all federal regulations regarding any discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S., as per 33 CFR 323. To minimize impacts associated with water crossings, BRE will implement the following measures:

1. Refueling and staging will occur at least 300 ft from the edge of a channel bank at all stream channels; 2. Sediment control measures will be utilized; and 3. Vegetation disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for construction.

BRE will require that its contractors avoid physical disturbance to riparian vegetation. Equipment and vehicles will not cross riparian areas during construction, operation, or decommissioning activities. Existing bridges or fords will be used to access the ROW on either side of riparian areas.

The wind turbines and facility appurtenances will be built on ridges to avoid surface water features and designated floodplains. Wind turbines will not be placed in areas containing Waters of the U.S.

BRE will develop a groundwater protection plan (GPP) as part of the SWPPP that will be kept on-site during all construction activities. The GPP details procedures that will be used to protect groundwater resources, such as using double-walled tanks or providing secondary containment. Wind turbines will not be sited within 500 ft of occupied structures and existing water wells.

Vegetation Resources. BRE will implement BMPs during construction of the Project to protect vegetation, topsoil, and adjacent resources and to minimize erosion. Practices will include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil, stabilizing restored material, and re-vegetating areas as necessary. BRE plans to utilize existing roads and previously disturbed lands (from mining and/or other construction activities) for some of the turbine foundation sites to reduce vegetation impacts.

Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with landowner easement agreements. Removal or disturbance of vegetation will be minimized through site management (e.g., utilizing previously disturbed areas, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, scalping) and reclaiming all disturbed areas not required for operations.

BRE will use mechanical measures to control noxious weeds and unwanted vegetation in all surface- disturbed areas at the Project turbines. Equipment will be washed at a commercial facility prior to construction and on-site during construction if weeds are encountered in the Project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 45 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Roads, portions of roads, crane paths, and staging areas not required for operation and maintenance will be restored to the original contour and made impassable to vehicular traffic. Areas to be reclaimed will be contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, provide for proper drainage, and prevent erosion.

Threatened and Endangered Species. To minimize potential take of roosting Indiana bats, most tree clearing for Phase II construction will occur when Indiana bats are not expected to be within the Project area. BRE commits to limiting its tree clearing during construction of the expansion area to the period between November 15 and April 1, except that up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 15. Tree clearing will occur in the Phase II Project area (Figure 1-4). The additional 30 to 45 days are needed to provide BRE flexibility should weather, deep snow, or ice prevent clearing or create safety issues for construction workers. The clearing of up to 15 acres of trees outside of the hibernation period will be conducted within 5 years of the 2010 bat mist-netting survey, during which no Indiana bats were captured so as to reduce the likelihood of impacting tree-roosting Indiana bats. If tree-clearing is necessary during either of these periods, BRE will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for potential roost trees prior to clearing and confirm that they are not occupied by roosting bats. If trees are found to be occupied, BRE will mark the occupied trees and delay removal until trees are unoccupied.

Visual Resources. To minimize adverse aesthetic effects, BRE designed the layout of the Project to position turbines more than 3,000 ft from permanent residences. Most turbine locations are more than 1 mi from existing residences. BRE will locate turbines within Phase II of the project a minimum of at least 3,000 feet from residences to the extent feasible. To further minimize adverse aesthetic effects, turbines will be coated/painted a non-reflective white, and turbines will be lighted only as required by FAA regulations. A low-voltage light activated by a motion sensor will be installed at the entrance door of each turbine. Security lighting at the O&M building will be kept to the minimum required. The lights have motion sensors so they operate only when needed, and the lights are down-shielded to minimize light emission into the sky, thus minimizing impacts to night-time viewsheds. Existing roads will be used for construction and maintenance where possible, minimizing the need for new road cuts. Access roads created for the Project will be located along ridge tops when possible to minimize visible cuts and fills.

Cultural Resources. For the Phase II expansion, BRE has entered into an MOA with the Service, WVDCH SHPO, and Catawba Indian Nation to address potential adverse effects to historic properties and archaeological resources. To mitigate adverse visual effects to above ground historic resources, BRE has agreed to have a professional historian prepare an historic context of western Greenbrier County. The context is to include information on the evolution of development in this area including, but not limited to, agriculture, timber, coal mining, and wind energy. To mitigate potential effects to archaeological resources, BRE has agreed to conduct archaeological surveys before construction activities begin and to determine the eligibility of sites for the NRHP through consultation with the Service, SHPO and THPO. Adverse effects to eligible sites will be avoided if possible, or the MOA signatories will jointly identify measures to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects to the site.

Architectural resource inventories and effects analyses were completed on all land in the Phase II expansion area proposed for surface disturbance. In addition, cultural resource specialists conducted a desktop analysis and site reconnaissance for archaeological resources in the Phase II Project area. On- the-ground archaeological resource inventories will be conducted at actual ground disturbance sites when these sites have been identified. Any cultural resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by BRE or any person working on its behalf will be immediately reported to BRE. BRE will suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Service. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the Service in consultation with BRE, the SHPO, and Catawba Indian Nation to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. BRE will be responsible for the cost of evaluation, and any decision as to proper

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 46 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

mitigation measures will be made by the Service after consulting with BRE and other interested parties. BRE is responsible for meeting WVPSC requirements for consultation with the SHPO pursuant to state law, whereas the Service is responsible for satisfying requirements for federal consultation with the SHPO, tribes, and other interested parties pursuant to the NHPA.

Traffic. BRE requires its contractors to conform to all safety requirements for maintaining the flow of public traffic. BRE will conduct construction operations so as to offer the least possible obstruction and inconvenience to public traffic.

Fire Suppression and Control. During construction of Phase I, BRE designed and now implements a fire protection system using best industrial practices; this system is in accordance with all applicable fire safety codes. BRE coordinates with fire, safety, and emergency personnel to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response. BRE’s designated fire representative is in charge of fire control during construction and operation of the Project. The fire representative ensures that each construction crew has appropriate types and amounts of firefighting tools and equipment, such as extinguishers, shovels, and axes available at all times. At all times during construction and operation, BRE requires that satisfactory spark arresters be maintained on internal combustion engines. This same fire protection system will be implemented for Phase II construction and operation.

3.2.2.2 Phase I and Phase II Operations, Maintenance, Decommissioning, and General Mitigation BRE is responsible for and will perform Project O&M for the life of the Project, which is anticipated to be up to 25 years. BRE and the turbine supplier will control, monitor, operate, and maintain the Project by means of the SCADA system and regularly scheduled on-site inspections. BRE anticipates that approximately 7 to 20 O&M staff will be employed for the life of the Project.

BRE has committed to implementing initially a turbine curtailment plan that includes feathering all turbines below the 4.8 meters per second (m/s) cut-in speed beginning at sunset for a period of 5 hours from July 15 through October 15. In addition, they will implement the RMAMP (an adaptive management strategy) to assess whether those minimization measures are effective in achieving the 60% annual reduction in Myotis fatalities and 50% annual reduction in other bat fatalities. Through the RMAMP, BRE will also evaluate the potential for additional reductions in bat fatality through several modifications to the curtailment plan (e.g., increased cut-in speeds, full-night curtailment). If the minimization measures prove to be ineffective in achieving the 60% annual reduction in Myotis fatality and 50% annual reduction in other bat fatality, BRE has committed through the RMAMP process to increase the cut-in speed levels, the nightly duration of applying the cut-in speeds, and/or extending the season of applying the curtailment measures until such point as the biological goals and objectives are achieved (see Project HCP, Appendix C: RMAMP, Section 5.2.1). BRE’s Curtailment Plan will be modified only with the written agreement of the Service.

Exceptions to the Curtailment Plan will be those turbines that are part of the Year 1 curtailment study in which 10 turbines will operate at 4.8 m/s from sunset to sunrise and 10 turbines will operate at 3.5 m/s 24 hours per day (control). These 20 turbines will be compared directly to 10 different turbines that will operate as described for the Curtailment Plan. The number of control and treatment turbines in Years 2 and 3 will be determined based the results of the study in the previous year(s).

Public Access and Safety Public Access. Public access to private lands is restricted by the landowner in accordance with easement agreements. The substation and O&M building is fenced as required for public safety; no other fencing is proposed at this time. Safety signing will be posted around those towers where needed, transformers and other high-voltage facilities, and along roads in conformance with applicable state and federal regulations.

Structure Lighting. The FAA typically requires every structure taller than 200 ft above ground level (agl) to be lighted. In the case of wind power developments, the FAA allows a strategic lighting plan that provides

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 47 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ample visibility to aviators but does not require lighting every turbine. BRE has an approved lighting plan for the 67-turbine phase and will develop a lighting plan for the 33-turbine phase to be submitted for FAA approval. An estimated 20 to 25% of the Project's turbines will be designated for lighting with medium intensity dual red synchronously flashing lights for night-time use and, if needed, for daytime use.

Structural Failure and Ice Throw. Turbine structural failures include tower collapse and blade shear. Blade shear occurs when a turbine blade detaches and is thrown due to the spinning motion. Ice throw occurs when ice builds up on a turbine blade and either sheds straight to the ground or is thrown if the turbine is spinning. In the rare event of structural failure or ice throw, danger to public safety is expected to be minimal. The required setbacks from residential structures and roads are established to minimize this potential impact.

The following security measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the chance of physical and property damage, as well as personal injury, at the site.

• Phase I turbines are a minimum of 3,500 ft from residences that are not participating in the Project (i.e., do not lease land to BRE for Project development and operation) and a minimum of 425 ft from public ROWs. Although the 425-ft distance exceeds the safety setback of 388 ft (1.1 times full turbine height), ice throw has been documented to distances of 500 ft. County Route 10/1 is the only public road that is less than 500 ft from a turbine, and this road has an average daily traffic of 30 vehicles. • Phase II turbines will be a minimum of 3,500 ft from non-participating residences and a minimum of 545 ft from public ROWs (the expansion turbines may be up to 489 ft in total height). • Security measures will be taken during the construction and operation of the Project, including temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities.

Turbines will sit on solid steel enclosed tubular towers in which all electrical equipment will be located, except for the pad-mounted transformer. Access to the tower is only through a solid steel door that will be locked when not in use.

Occupational Safety. BRE prepared emergency response plans that comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. All construction and operational personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations that could arise at the site.

Lightning Protection and Grounding. To protect the wind turbines from damage caused by lightning strikes and to provide grounding for electrical components of the wind turbine, an electrical grounding system will be installed at each turbine location. Parts of the grounding system are built into the wind turbine blades, nacelle, and tower. In addition, a buried grounding system will be constructed as part of the wind turbine foundation pad. Design of the buried grounding system will consider local soil electrical conductivity conditions to ensure that electricity from lightning strikes will be dissipated into the ground. The design of the grounding system will also comply with all applicable local electrical codes.

Hazardous Materials. The only hazardous chemicals anticipated to be on-site are the chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, coolant (ethylene glycol), and lubricants in machinery. BRE and its contractors will comply with all applicable hazardous material laws and regulations existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated regarding these chemicals and will implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP), as necessary. Hazardous chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, ethylene glycol, and lubricants will not be stored in or near any stream; nor will any vehicle refuelling or routine maintenance occur in or near streams. When work is conducted in and adjacent to streams, fuels and coolants will be contained in the fuel tanks and radiators of vehicles or other equipment.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 48 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Operations and Maintenance BRE will perform Project O&M for the life of Project, which is anticipated to be up to 25 years. BRE and the turbine supplier will control, monitor, operate, and maintain the Project by means of the SCADA system, and regularly scheduled on-site inspections will be conducted. BRE anticipates that approximately 7 to 20 O&M staff will be employed throughout the life of the Project.

All maintenance activities would occur within areas previously disturbed by construction; no new ground disturbance will occur during O&M of the Project. Turbine maintenance is typically performed up-tower (i.e., O&M personnel climb the towers and perform maintenance within the tower or nacelle and access the towers using pick-up trucks, so no heavy equipment is needed). In the unlikely event a large crane would be needed for maintenance, vegetation would be cleared within the area previously disturbed during construction to provide for safe and efficient operation of the crane, but no tree removal or soil disturbance would be necessary. Ground-disturbing activities may include occasional access to underground cable or communications lines.

Vegetation within 130 ft of turbines being monitored for wildlife mortality will be regularly mowed to improve searcher efficiency. The transmission line route and other Project areas will be inspected for hazard trees that may pose safety threats or potentially damage Project facilities. Hazard trees will be trimmed or cut as needed. Inspections and tree-cutting will occur between November 15 and March 31 to avoid additional risks to Indiana bats and other tree-roosting bats except for those times when there are imminent threats to public safety.

Decommissioning and Restoration BRE has a contractual obligation with the landowner to remove turbines and foundations if and when the Project is no longer viable for operation, and if BRE determines the site cannot be retrofitted with replacement turbines. BRE’s WVPSC siting certificate includes an obligation to maintain a Decommissioning Fund sufficient to cover the cost of the removal of all improvements to 4 ft below grade. The fund has been established with the Greenbrier County Commission.

Within 90 days after the Service announces a final decision on BRE’s application for an ITP, BRE will decommission 10 turbine foundations that were built as part of Phase I but for which future construction of associated turbines was later prohibited as part of the settlement agreement.

At the end of the Project’s useful life, BRE expects to explore alternatives for decommissioning the Project. One option may be to continue operation of the Project, providing energy under a new long-term contract with a power purchaser or on a merchant basis. In that case, BRE would reapply for new or amended permits to retrofit and upgrade turbines and the power system to allow the Project to continue to operate for additional years.

If the Project is not replaced or repowered after 25 years, the following sequence will be implemented for removal of components:

• Turbines, transmission line, and substation would be dismantled and removed; • Pad-mounted transformers would be removed; • All turbine and substation foundations would be removed to a depth of 4 ft; • Disturbed areas and access roads would be graded to the original contour as near as practicable at the request of the landowner; and • BRE will use the seed mixes19 described in Table 3-3 for reclaiming ground disturbances.

19 BRE has an obligation to consult landowners and use seed mixes at the request of the landowner. The Service recommends use of native seed mixes and has requested that BRE ask landowners to consider restoring disturbed areas using native seed.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 49 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-3. Seed mixtures used for reclamation at the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Mix #1 – Contractors Gold (species percentage) Mix #2 – Erosion Gold (species percentage) Annual rye (49.0%) Annual rye (47.7%) Red fescue (29.4%) Fawn tall fescue (14.4%) Perennial rye (19.6%) AllSport II perennial rye (19.1%) Trefoil (7.6%) Med red clover (9.5%) Other crop seed (1.1%) Inert matter (1.2%)

The Decommissioning Fund for Phase I is already in place; this would be updated to include Phase II as the 100-turbine Project approaches commercial operation. The Decommissioning Fund covers dismantling of the turbines and towers, as well as land reclamation, monitoring of revegetation success, and reseeding if needed to ensure revegetation success. Ground-cover (vegetation) must cover at least 70% of the given disturbed area before the SWPPP can be terminated based on specific state reclamation requirements. BRE has engaged an independent expert to calculate the funds needed for decommissioning. This value is based on resale or salvage value of the Project components. This estimate will be re-assessed periodically and reported to the WVPSC.

General Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and Mitigation Measures As part of the Project, BRE proposes to implement a host of practices designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the environment. These measures, which include conditions of various permits and environmental laws, are summarized below. These measures are described as part of the Phase II Project (BRE’s commitments to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the environment) and would also be implemented under Alternative 2 or Alternative 3.

Construction, Operations, and Maintenance Practices. BRE and its contractors will comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws, orders, and regulations. Prior to construction, all supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on the protection of cultural and ecological resources, including (1) federal and state laws regarding antiquities and plants and wildlife, including collection and removal, and (2) the importance of these resources and the purpose and necessity of protecting them. This information is disseminated through the contractor hierarchy to ensure that all appropriate staff members are aware of the correct procedures and responsibility to report (see Section 3.2.2 in the Project’s RMAMP for wildlife handling and reporting procedures).

Ground Disturbance and Erosion Control. SWPPPs will be prepared to ensure that erosion is minimized during storm events, and they will be kept on-site at all construction sites, as well as in the construction contractors’ offices. BRE and its contractors will implement the SWPPPs. In order to minimize damage to the land surface and property, they will limit the movement of crews and equipment to the Project site, including access routes, to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. When weather and ground conditions permit, deep ruts, scars, and compacted soils caused by construction will be loosened and levelled. Damage to ditches, roads, and other features of the land will be repaired. Water bars or small terraces will be constructed along access road ditches on hillsides to minimize water erosion and to facilitate natural revegetation.

Restoration and Reclamation. Roads, portions of roads, crane paths, and staging areas not required for O&M will be restored to the original contour and made impassable to vehicular traffic. Areas to be reclaimed will be contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, to provide for proper drainage, and to prevent erosion. Seed mixtures used for reclamation of Phase II will

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 50 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

likely be similar that used for Phase I and based on requirements or recommendations by WVDEP or specific requests by the landowner. BRE intends to maintain areas needed for O&M clear of trees.

Contamination. Construction activities will be performed using standard construction BMPs so as to minimize the potential for accidental spills of solid material, contaminants, debris, and other pollutants. Excavated material or other construction materials will not be stockpiled or deposited within 305 ft of streams.

Waste Materials. No burning or burying of waste materials will occur at the Project site. The contractor will be responsible for the removal of all waste materials from the construction area. BRE will dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in approved landfills in accordance with appropriate environmental regulations.

Air Quality. All vehicles and construction equipment will be maintained to minimize exhaust emissions. Disturbed areas will be watered as necessary to suppress dust. Construction-related concrete batch plants will acquire the appropriate authorization for operation from the WVDEP Air Quality Office. Authorization will be acquired prior to the commencement of construction.

Noise. Effective exhaust mufflers will be installed and properly maintained on all construction equipment. BRE will require construction contractors to comply with federal limits on truck noise. BRE will require contractors to use pile-driving equipment that has the least noise impact and to restrict pile driving to weekdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Construction activities will take place mostly during daylight hours. Night-time construction work will be minimized, and when it does occur, it generally will be limited to relatively quiet activities. Construction during church hours will be limited. The affected community will be notified in advance of any blasting activity, and blasting will be limited to daylight hours and will follow all state and federal rules, regulations, and laws.

Cultural Resources. Pursuant to federal NHPA compliance, any effects to historic resources by the construction of the 33-turbine expansion and operation of the 100-turbine Project will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated using measures approved by the Service, in consultation with the SHPO, BRE, and other consulting parties (such as interested Tribes). BRE will be responsible for the cost of proper avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures prescribed by the Service. BRE will be responsible for compliance with state requirements for cultural resource protection.

Similar to the MOA prepared for the Phase I Project (provided in Appendix K), BRE will enter into an MOA with the Service, WVDCH, WVPSC, interested tribes, and any other interested parties to address cultural resources issues associated with the Phase II 33-turbine expansion. These parties will execute the MOA prior to issuance of the final ITP. The consultation process defined in the MOA will be implemented after ITP issuance but prior to construction, including, but not limited to, completion of required archaeological surveys.

Vegetation. To minimize impacts to vegetation, BRE will implement BMPs during construction and operation of the Project to protect topsoil and adjacent resources and to minimize soil erosion. Practices may include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil and stabilizing restored material, and re-vegetating areas as necessary. Plans to utilize existing roads within the Project area with little development of new access roads and the use of existing areas of previously disturbed land resulting from mining or construction activities for a portion of the turbine foundation sites will reduce vegetation impacts within the Project area. In addition, BRE will undertake the following measures.

• Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. • All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 51 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Removal or disturbance of vegetation will be minimized through site management (e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, and designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas) and by scalping and reclaiming all disturbed areas not required for operations.

No construction or routine maintenance activities will be conducted when soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment creates ruts in excess of 4 inches). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars will be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures will be monitored, especially after storms, and will be repaired or replaced if needed. Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements. Construction activities in areas of moderate to steep slopes (~15-20%) will be avoided, where possible.

BRE plans to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. Herbicides would be used in conjunction with periodic removal of vegetation within the transmission line ROW. Herbicides would be applied by hand; there would be no aerial applications.

A qualified and certified contractor would apply all herbicides in accordance with Federal label requirements and standards. Low-volume foliar application, stump application, and hack-and-squirt (injecting into cambium of tall trees) methods may all be used. BRE anticipates that most herbicide applications would occur in late-May or early-June following leaf-out.

BRE has indicated herbicides would include products such as Arsenal, Escort, Tordon, Plateau, Oust, Garlon, Roundup, Transline, or other similar compounds. BRE has indicated the herbicides selected will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio- accumulation, and that are unlikely to pose chronic risks to wildlife. Material data sheets for each of these products are available online from the manufacturers. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

Surface and Ground Water Protection. The Project has been designed to avoid direct impacts (both temporary and permanent) to surface water features. Two SWPPPs were prepared for the Project, and the WVDEP approved coverage under the Stormwater Construction General Permit.

Conditions contained in the permits require weekly inspections, as well as inspections after 0.5 inch or greater rainfall, and prompt reporting and repair of any problems with silt fences or other erosion control measures. Construction of the 33 additional turbines will be regulated and approved by the WVDEP. A specific SWPPP, NPDES Permit, and GPP will be submitted to and approved by the WVDEP for those activities associated with the construction of the additional 33 turbines prior to construction.

BRE has indicated that water withdrawal from streams for the purposes of dust control will be accomplished in a manner that preserves stream flows during withdrawal. Water will only be taken from local perennial streams and ponds.

BRE will continue to comply with all federal regulations concerning the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S., as listed in Title 33 CFR Part 323. The wind turbines and ancillary facilities will be built on ridges, which avoid the surface water features and designated floodplains. Wind turbines will not be placed in areas containing Waters of the U.S. Refuelling and staging will occur at least 91 m (300 ft) from the edge of a channel bank at all stream channels. Sediment control measures will be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 52 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

utilized. Vegetation disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for construction. BRE will require that its contractors span riparian areas located along the transmission line ROW and avoid physical disturbance to riparian vegetation. Equipment and vehicles will not cross riparian areas on the ROW during operation or decommissioning activities. Existing bridges or fords will be used to access the ROW on either side of riparian areas. During construction of the additional 33 turbines, riparian areas will be avoided, where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, activities within riparian areas will be conducted in conformance with WVDEP SWPPP requirements.

BRE developed a groundwater protection plan as part of the SWPPPs that will be implemented and kept on-site during all construction activities. A new plan, specific to the construction of the 33 additional turbines, will be developed in accordance with WVDEP regulations and included with the new SWPPP. Wind turbine locations will not impact the use of existing water wells because the turbines will not be sited within 500 ft of occupied structures.

The USACE will provide jurisdictional determination for Phase II upon receiving the final construction plans from BRE. It is likely that most, if not all, jurisdictional waters will be avoided. Once the layout for the 33 turbines has been finalized, an impact assessment will be submitted to the USACE, and the required authorizations and permits, including any mitigation and compensation, will be confirmed.

General Wildlife. Project construction will minimize fragmenting wildlife habitat through the use, where practical, of lands already disturbed. Tree clearing will be limited to that which is necessary for Project construction and to the period between November 15 and March 31 (outside the nesting season for most birds). With exception, up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. Project construction will minimize the addition of new roads by using existing roadways. In addition, the Project has implemented the Avian Power Line Interactive Committee (APLIC 2006) recommendations to ensure that designs will minimize raptor collision and electrocution risks associated with electrical generation, transmission, and distribution.

BRE consulted and coordinated with the Service and WVDNR to identify mitigation measures to minimize impacts to bats in general and migratory birds. BRE’s RMAMP addresses post-construction monitoring for bats and birds (described briefly below and in detail in the Project HCP, Appendix C). This plan was peer- reviewed by bat experts, as well as reviewed by the Plaintiffs and by members of the TAC. BRE will conduct post-construction mortality monitoring in accordance with the requirements of the proposed ITP, as well as in accordance with separate requirements of the WVPSC siting certificate. The WVPSC siting certificate requires BRE to consult with the TAC to evaluate the results of post-construction monitoring and make recommendations to the WVPSC regarding the need for continued monitoring or changes to the monitoring strategy. If significant levels of bat or bird mortality occur, BRE shall apply proven cost- effective adaptive management measures to reduce such mortality. [It should be noted that the Service is not a member of the TAC. However, recommendations of the TAC or decisions by BRE or the WVPSC will not preclude the Service from exerting its independent regulatory authority with respect to the laws and regulations the Service enforces (e.g., ESA, MBTA, and BGEPA).

Avian Resources Avoidance and Minimization Measures. The Project’s APP (provided in Appendix B) focuses primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to birds through site selection and project design and construction. These measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Siting the Project in a location that has not been identified as a major bird migration corridor or stop-over area; 2. Using previously disturbed areas and existing roads to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation; 3. Minimizing new road construction and width of road upgrades; 4. Conducting most tree clearing when birds are not nesting;

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 53 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5. Surveying for and avoiding impacts to active nests; 6. Burying communication cables to avoid bird collisions; 7. Using raptor-safe transmission lines; 8. Using state-of-the-art turbine technology and lighting that minimizes bird collision risk (including unguyed tubular towers, slow-rotating upwind rotors, and red-flashing lights); 9. Minimizing lighting on buildings to avoid attracting birds to the site; 10. Controlling carrion on the Project site so as not to attract avian scavengers; 11. Using unguyed MET towers for the Phase II expansion area;20 12. Monitoring bird mortality to determine its significance and to determine the effectiveness of the bat curtailment strategy in also reducing bird mortality; and 13. Implementing additional studies, operational changes, and habitat protection should significant bird mortality occur.

Post-Construction Monitoring and Adaptive Management. The WVPSC siting certificate issued for the Project required a post-construction eagle and osprey study to be conducted. Based on an agreement with the TAC, BRE will contribute to an ongoing eagle study conducted by West Virginia University to meet this requirement for eagles. BRE also conducted spring/fall 2011 and winter/spring 2012 surveys in the Phase I and Phase II Project areas to further address ospreys, eagles, and other raptors in the Project area.

As part of the Project’s APP, BRE will implement a post-construction monitoring, adaptive management, and reporting program to estimate and evaluate avian mortality resulting from the Project. The program will follow the protocol presented in the Project’s RMAMP (see Appendix C of the Project HCP).

BRE will analyze bird mortality monitoring data to address the following information needs:

1. Determine bird fatality rates for the Project. 2. Determine fatality rates for bird species of concern. 3. Compare estimated bird fatality rates to predicted fatality rates. 4. Evaluate bird fatalities within the project site in relation to site characteristics. 5. Compare bird fatality rates to those from existing projects in similar landscapes with similar species composition and use. 6. Determine the composition of fatalities in relation to migrating and resident birds at the site, and 7. Assess whether bird fatality data suggest the need for measures to reduce impacts.

In addition, BRE’s O&M personnel will conduct weekly searches, year-round, for the presence of eagle carcasses and large-scale mortality events. During the HCP mortality monitoring period (April through November), O&M personnel will drive to all non-search turbines to check for readily observable carcasses. Outside of the HCP monitoring period (i.e., December through March) O&M personnel will inspect areas around Project turbines for readily observable carcasses.

BRE’s adaptive management plan, presented in detail in the RMAMP (Appendix C of the Project HCP), includes evaluating baseline migratory bird mortality rates and effects of various turbine operational protocols on migratory bird fatality rates as well as for bats. The RMAMP includes multiple years of testing various turbine operational protocols and effects on estimated fatality rates. Monitoring will be conducted daily to evaluate relationships between bird fatality rates and weather. Monitoring will include investigations into probable causes of large-scale fatality events that could trigger the need for adaptive management, including weather events, turbine conditions, lighting, and other considerations.

20 Two existing MET towers for Phase I of the Project have guy wires. The Service recommended that BRE install diverters or high- visibility markers on the wires to reduce bird mortality. BRE installed bird diverters on the Phase I MET tower guy wires.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 54 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The APP includes the following adaptive management thresholds and responses to significant events:

1. If documented fatalities are lower or not different than predicted and are not significant, no mitigation will be conducted.21 2. If fatalities are greater than predicted and are likely to be significant, BRE will meet and confer with the Service and the applicable actions presented below will be carried out. If a particular cause can be identified, BRE will develop specific mitigation measures in consultation with the Service to address the occurrence.

If a bald or golden eagle fatality occurs at the project, the following actions will be taken:

1. Working with a trained and permitted wildlife biologist, BRE will promptly identify and secure the carcass at the place of its discovery. BRE will obtain a global positioning system location and take at least three pictures of the carcass, including identifying characteristics, and placement of the carcass in relation to any project infrastructure. BRE will notify the Service prior to the removal and storage of the carcass unless Service personnel cannot be reached and the carcass will be compromised. The carcass will be properly stored after its discovery until it can be transferred to state or federal authorities. 2. BRE will notify the Service within one business day after the discovery of the eagle fatality. 3. BRE will meet and confer with the Service to investigate, using available data, the circumstances under which the fatality occurred. 4. BRE will work with the Service to evaluate available data concerning the event and, as appropriate, identify and implement avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce the risk of future mortalities. 5. BRE will conduct follow-up post-construction monitoring in the season in which the fatality occurred during the subsequent year of operations to assess whether avoidance or mitigation measures are effective at reducing impacts on eagles.

If new information becomes available that suggests that take of bald and/or golden eagles by the project is likely, BRE will investigate and implement measures to minimize this risk. In addition, should significant mortality of any bird species of concern occur, avoidance and minimization actions that may be taken under adaptive management include the following:

1. Removing/modifying the source(s) of bird attraction. 2. Implementing turbine operational protocols designed to reduce bird fatalities at turbines that data show are likely to take bald and/or golden eagles, or have shown higher than average fatality rates, including: raising cut-in speeds; changing time of day, days of the year, turbines affected; incorporating weather triggers [e.g., storm front] or biological triggers [e.g., fall migration for large flocks of a particular species]. 3. Implementing technological solutions. If bird mortalities exceed the above-defined adaptive management triggers and new techniques or technology become available that are cost-effective and feasible to implement, BRE will evaluate whether to replace or augment the measures detailed in the APP with these new approaches. 4. Negotiating with transmission line owners to retrofit power poles to adhere to APLIC guidelines to reduce raptor electrocutions (APLIC 2006).

The APP is based on the assumption that impacts to migratory birds can be effectively avoided and reduced through cost-effective operational adjustments. However, if during monitoring operational

21 While the LWEG indicate that no further monitoring is needed under this scenario, BRE has committed to life-of-project monitoring in Appendix C in the HCP and will continue to monitor and report on bird mortalities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 55 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

restrictions are not effective at avoiding and minimizing impacts and significant impacts to eagles or other migratory birds occur, then BRE, after consultation with the Service, will implement applicable measures to reduce and mitigate significant effects, including the potential for additional off-site habitat preservation and/or restoration. The off-site mitigation project to be completed to mitigate impacts to Indiana bats (see Section 5.0 in the HCP) will also benefit migratory birds and thus may off-set a portion of any adverse effect from the project. Alternatively, if off-site mitigation is infeasible or ineffective and specific research needs addressing migratory bird mortality are identified, BRE could facilitate such research to take place.

Mitigation. The proposed off-site habitat mitigation identified for bats includes a 300-acre parcel of high quality forest to be protected. This large block of intact, older forest comprises a diverse mix of tree species and age classes. The off-site mitigation parcel currently targeted for purchase provides habitat for a variety of mature forest birds, especially passerines that may be affected by the Project. However, if this parcel is not purchased, a bat maternity area or cave gate project may be implemented instead which may not benefit birds.

Therefore, the APP contemplates possible additional mitigation through adaptive management to compensate for the impacts associated with the taking of migratory birds. As explained in Section 5.2 of the APP, adaptive management responses for birds will depend on the character of any potential significant fatality event, i.e., affected species and identified fatality source. Adaptive management responses may include additional eagle surveys, removing/modifying the source(s) of bird attraction, implementing turbine operational protocols designed to reduce bird fatalities at turbines that data show are likely to take bald and/or golden eagles or have shown higher than average fatality rates for all birds and/or for individual bird species of conservation concern, and implementing technological solutions. The APP includes a commitment to evaluate possible off-site mitigation (habitat preservation and/or restoration) if it is determined that modified turbine operations are not effective at reducing significant impacts to birds. This would supplement the HCP’s off-site mitigation for bats, which as currently proposed, would protect forested habitat and provides incidental benefits to many species of birds.

3.2.2.3 Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Activities This section provides a summary of Project-related activities for which BRE has requested a permit to authorize take of Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Covered Activities, as defined in Section 1.4 of the Project HCP and Section 2 of the Project IA, include the following:

1. Operation of the existing 67 turbines and to-be-constructed 33 turbines (100 turbines) for up to 25 years of the life of the Project. The physical operation of the turbines (spinning rotors and associated changes in air pressure in the rotor-swept area) may result in the take of covered species. 2. Construction of 33 additional turbines and associated infrastructure, including, but not limited to, roads, staging areas, and a batch plant. Construction activities may take Indiana bats if such construction involves destruction of a tree with roosting Indiana bats. 3. Conversion of 127 acres of forested lands to grass/shrublands. An additional 21 acres will remain un-vegetated for the life of the Project.22 Habitat conversion may affect suitable foraging habitat for Indiana bat. 4. Maintenance and decommissioning of the 100-turbine Project (and all associated facilities, including, but not limited to, the substation and transmission line). It is possible that maintenance or decommissioning activity (e.g., tree removal for safety reasons) could result in take of covered species, but this is unlikely.

22 Construction of the 67 turbines for Phase I (311 acres of converted habitat and 50 acres permanently un-vegetated) is not a covered activity.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 56 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Currently, the Project consists of 67 turbines that were brought online between April 1 and August 15, 2010. The final 33-turbine phase will be constructed after issuance of the ITP. Commercial operation of the final 33 turbines is expected to occur immediately upon completion of construction. BRE anticipates that the Project will be operated for up to 25 years.

Take of Covered Species To estimate the amount of take of Indiana bats, BRE and the Service used the best available scientific information on little brown bats to inform a surrogate model. Based upon this model, BRE estimates that covered activities may take annually between 0 and 4.5 Indiana bats based on 100 turbines, or between 0 and 112.5 Indiana bats over the term of the 25-year permit, prior to implementing a turbine operation curtailment plan to reduce bat mortalities. Based on the Project’s location at the edge of Virginia big- eared bat range, BRE estimated that covered activities may take annually between 0 and 1 Virginia big- eared bats based on 100 turbines, or an aggregate of approximately 14 individuals, over the life of the permit in the absence of avoidance and minimization strategies prior to implementing a turbine operation curtailment plan. Section 4.1.3 in the Project HCP provides a summary of the available information on little brown bats and an explanation of the surrogate model used to estimate take. Scientific information and details on the surrogate model used to develop the take estimates are provided in Section 4 of the Project HCP.

To avoid potential take of roosting Indiana bats, BRE will limit tree-clearing to the period between November 15 and March 31, except that up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. Tree clearing will occur in the expansion area (Figure 1-4). The additional 30 to 45 days are needed to provide BRE flexibility should weather, deep snow, or ice prevent clearing or create safety issues for construction workers. The clearing of up to 15 acres of trees outside of the hibernation period will be conducted within 5 years of the 2010 mist-netting survey, during which no Indiana bats were captured so as to reduce the likelihood of impacting roosting Indiana bats. If tree- clearing is necessary during either of these periods, BRE will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for potential roost trees prior to clearing and confirm that they are not occupied by roosting bats. If trees are found to be occupied, BRE will mark the occupied trees and delay removal until trees are unoccupied.

After accounting for the implementation of proposed Curtailment Plan, BRE submitted an ITP application requesting authorization of the take levels described below, which are based on the modeled annual take.

In the DHCP, BRE estimated the proposed Project would take up to 70 bats under implementation of the proposed Curtailment Plan. However, this quantification was based upon use of pre-WNS data on bat species composition available at the time the DHCP was written and the DEIS was made available. The model used to estimate take is sensitive to total annual bat mortality rates and ratios of the Indiana bat to the surrogate species. Because bat species compositions are changing rapidly as a result of WNS and because the take estimate in the DHCP was based on pre-WNS data, the take estimate in the DHCP is not current and overestimates the anticipated take. We therefore re-ran the take models using the best available post-WNS data (USFWS 2013b). This analysis has been included in Appendix F (Report F-5). Based on this analysis BRE has revised its HCP to indicate the estimated cumulative take of up to 112 Indiana bats over the life of the project in the absence of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts.

While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 100-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Indiana bats:

• up to 4.5 Indiana bats per year during years 1-3; • up to 1.8 Indiana bats per year during years 4-25; and • the aggregate take of up to 53 Indiana bats during the permit term (4.5 bats x 3 years + 1.8 bats x 22 years = 53 bats).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 57 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 100-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Virginia big-eared bats:

During years 1-3, BRE will develop baseline bat mortality estimates, i.e., mortality estimates from fully operational turbines (see Section 2.0 in the RMAMP) that will be used to judge success with meeting the biological goal of significantly reducing mortality of covered species and all bats in an effective manner consistent with the best available science (see Section 5.0 in the HCP and Section 2.0 in RMAMP).

BRE is requesting authorized take for this Project of an aggregate of 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big- eared bats (based on adjusted fatality estimates) over the Permit Term, in which case BRE will not be out of compliance with the permit take authorization unless take exceeds these limits. However, given that bat mortality will undoubtedly vary during the Permit Term, 4 potential thresholds will trigger a meet-and- confer with the Service.

1. In any year, if the Indiana bat adjusted fatality estimate exceeds 4.5., based on actual number of Indiana bat carcasses and corrected for field biases. 2. If the 3-year running average estimated Indiana bat fatalities exceeds 1.8 (with a 90% confidence interval23), based on the actual number of surrogate carcasses found corrected for field bias and corrected for the Indiana bat-to-surrogate species ratio. 3. In any year, if Virginia big-eared bat adjusted fatality rate estimates exceed 1. 4. If the 3-year running average estimated Virginia big-eared bat fatalities exceeds 0.5 (with a 90% confidence interval), based on the actual number of surrogate carcasses found corrected for field bias and corrected for the Virginia big-eared bat-to-surrogate species ratio.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures BRE has defined the biological goals of the HCP as follows.

1. Avoid and minimize bat mortality consistent with the best available scientific information. 2. Minimize potential take of covered species through on-site minimization measures. 3. Mitigate unavoidable impacts to covered species by implementing habitat restoration or protection measures in key Indiana bat habitats within the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit.

To demonstrate attainment of the biological goals, BRE will achieve the following objectives:

1. a 60% reduction in Myotis fatalities, 2. a 50% reduction in Virginia big-eared bat fatalities, and 3. a 50% reduction in all bat fatalities. (Note: BRE will evaluate, each year for Permit Term, the Curtailment Plan’s effectiveness at reducing all bat fatalities by 50% and commits to maintain this objective through life of permit. BRE and USFWS will meet annually and work in good faith to identify cost effective measures to achieve the objectives. Disputes will be handled in accordance with Section 14.0 in the IA [see Implementing Agreement in Appendix F of Project HCP]).

23 Confidence intervals are used to indicate the accuracy of the estimate, which is not the true value. The interval is used to illustrate how far the estimate is likely to be from the true value. In this particular case, the user, BRE, has selected a 90% confidence interval. Based on the sample evidence, this means that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and fatality rate estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting interval or range of fatality rates across multiple occasions would include the true value 90 times out of 100.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 58 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

To evaluate the effectiveness of minimization over the term of the ITP, BRE will implement the monitoring and adaptive management measures defined in the RMAMP. These measures are intended to detect take of the covered species and/or changes in bat mortality over the term of the ITP and to permit BRE to implement operational protocols to ensure that BRE does not exceed the authorized level of take of covered species provided in the ITP.

To mitigate unavoidable impacts to covered species, BRE will select and implement habitat restoration and protection projects that satisfy specified mitigation criteria (provided below). To the extent such measures are not in place prior to a permit decision, BRE will establish a trust fund account to assure that mitigation is implemented within 2 years of ITP issuance.

Project Layout. The original design of the Project called for construction and operation of 124 turbines at the site. As a result of discussions and negotiations with environmental organizations as reflected in a January 26, 2010, settlement agreement, the Project was reduced from 124 turbines to 100 turbines. Using the same approach for estimating take applied in Section 4.1.3 of the HCP, the estimated potential take associated with a 124-turbine project would have been roughly 25% greater (6.25 Indiana bats per year) than the current proposed Project. Additionally, BRE eliminated previously permitted turbine sites within the eastern portions of the Project based on their proximity to known and historical Indiana bat hibernacula and the general area where many caves are located.

Project Construction. To avoid potential take of roosting Indiana bats, tree clearing for the 33-turbine phase will occur when Indiana bats are not expected to be within the Project area. BRE commits to limiting its tree clearing during construction of the expansion to the period between November 15 and March 31 when bats are not expected to be active in the Project area. As explained above, up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. BRE will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for potential roost trees prior to clearing during the bat active season and confirm that they are not occupied by roosting bats. If trees are determined to be occupied, trees will be marked and clearing will be delayed until trees are unoccupied.

Project Operations. Previous studies have documented that the majority of bat fatalities at wind turbines occur in low wind speeds during late-summer and fall migration periods (Arnett et al. 2008). There are 5 known turbine operation/bat fatality studies conducted to date (Baerwald et al. 2009, Arnett et al. 2010, Good et al. 2011, Young et al. 2011a; O. Behr, University of Erlangen, unpublished data). These studies indicate that the number of bat fatalities can be reduced by curtailing operations (raising cut-in speeds or partially feathering blades) at low wind speeds. A fall 2011 study at Fowler Ridge tested the effect of fully feathering turbine blades all night and demonstrated reduced bat fatality for the fall season by 36%, 57%, and 73%, at cut-in speeds of 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 m/s, respectively, compared to normally operating turbines (Good et al. 2012). Under the RMAMP, BRE will conduct similar studies to identify how turbine operational protocols can be used to reduce Indiana bat and all bat fatalities.

Curtailment Plan. To avoid and minimize take of covered species, BRE initially proposes to adjust the turbine cut-in speed on all Project turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.8 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.7 mph) for a 12-week period from July 15 through October 15 each year from sunset for a period of 5 hours (BRE’s Curtailment Plan). Turbine blades will be fully feathered below the cut-in speed so that blade rotation is minimized (i.e., 1 to 2 rpm). BRE estimates that this avoidance and minimization strategy will reduce potential take of Indiana bats by 60% and Virginia big-eared bats by 50%; however, should these measurable objectives not be met, BRE will adjust operations to meet the targets through adaptive management (e.g. test and measure the effectiveness of curtailing all night, for a longer season, and/or or at a higher cut-in speed).

Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Plan BRE will implement an RMAMP (see HCP, Appendix C) designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Curtailment Plan for achieving the objectives enumerated above.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 59 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1. BRE will use post-construction monitoring to: a. refine estimates of the amount of all bat fatalities, b. identify the circumstances and conditions under which fatalities occur (monitoring component), and c. continue to determine the most effective operational protocols to achieve the biological objectives. 2. The first 3 years of the RMAMP will include intensive monitoring using methods based on the LWEG (USFWS 2012c), daily casualty searches at 30 Project turbines, and surveys to measure potential biases (searcher efficiency, carcass removal, carcass distribution). Intensive monitoring may continue beyond 3 years if HCP goals have not been met or if the curtailment plan changes. Annual monitoring during interim years (see Section 3.2.4 in the RMAMP) will be less intensive but will involve formal carcass searches to be conducted weekly at 24 turbines. Mortality surveys will be conducted by trained personnel and will also be designed to ensure that avoidance/minimization strategies put in place during intensive studies are functioning effectively. 3. Evaluate the research and monitoring results to either deem the avoidance/mitigation strategies successful at achieving biological goals and objectives or to refine the research and monitoring to attain the goals and objectives. It is BRE’s intent that the avoidance/minimization strategies will be deemed successful after Year 1; however, the adaptive management strategy contained in the RMAMP allows for modification to operational protocols to improve and refine the avoidance/minimization strategy in successive years of the ITP (e.g. curtailing all night, for a longer season, and/or at a higher cut-in speed). Moreover, Section 8.2.5 defines the actions BRE would take if a maternity colony is discovered near the Project.

All operating turbines not subject to the research studies (see Project HCP, Appendix C, RMAMP Section 2.0) will be operating in accordance with the Curtailment Plan. The Curtailment Plan, as modified to achieve the objectives, will be implemented at all 100 turbines for the ITP term unless: 1. BRE demonstrates through research that less restrictive operational protocols will meet the objectives and USFWS agrees in writing, or 2. a changed circumstance is triggered (described briefly below and in detail in Project HCP, Section 8.2).

In addition to the 3 years of intensive research and monitoring, annual monitoring will be completed as described in the RMAMP (see HCP, Appendix C). BRE has designed their annual monitoring to measure impacts to birds and bats from the facility and will include weekly fatality monitoring in each year of the ITP to measure all bat fatalities and to correlate annual monitoring with intensive monitoring results. The Adaptive Management Process is described in detail in the RMAMP.

Off-Site Conservation To mitigate the effects of unavoidable incidental take of listed bats, BRE proposes to establish a habitat conservation fund used to support conservation efforts for Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bats based on objectives specified in the 2 species Recovery Plans (Bagley 1984, USFWS 2007). Details on implementing the conservation fund are described in Section 6.0 the Project HCP, including, but not limited to, payment terms, funding amounts, reporting, and administration. The fund will be used to implement projects that will contribute to the conservation of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats by protecting priority habitat, either winter hibernacula or summer maternity colonies or roosts.

BRE has been working with the Service and WVDNR to identify 2 specific conservation projects suitable for mitigating unavoidable impacts to listed bats. A suitable off-site conservation area for the Indiana bat has been identified in West Virginia, and BRE has nearly completed the acquisition. So as to not to interfere with ongoing negotiations with the landowner, the specific location of the project is not being disclosed at this time. The site includes an extensive cave network occupied by Indiana and other bats, a

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 60 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

river, and a high quality forest buffer of approximately 300 acres that occurs within a larger, intact forest ecosystem with high species diversity. The cave is not currently infected by WNS. In addition, a bat gating project to benefit Virginia big-eared bats also has been identified at a different location in West Virginia. BRE will continue to work with the Service and others to complete these mitigation projects. In the event that BRE is unable to complete these mitigation projects described above, BRE will pursue alternative mitigation projects in consultation with the Service. The characteristics of suitable mitigation are further described below. Both of the aforementioned projects meet these criteria.

In consultation with the Service, BRE has developed criteria for identifying acceptable conservation projects to be undertaken and completed within 2 years of permit issuance. Proposed Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat conservation projects will be evaluated based on the following guidelines, objectives, and criteria. The term “protection” is further defined in the HCP (Appendix H of Project HCP), including a detailed description of mandatory restrictions and provisions that must be included in any legal conveyance of a property-interest, in perpetuity.

Indiana Bat Mitigation

Option 1 – Funding Acquisition and Hibernaculum Protection. BRE may fund the protection (through fee title acquisition or conservation easement) of an Indiana bat hibernaculum and adjacent high-quality habitat that protects the hibernaculum in perpetuity from ongoing and future adverse threats and land management activities. Project criteria are as follows:

1. The project should be located within the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit. 2. The site should be a Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 hibernaculum that supports Indiana bats. Preference will be for a hibernaculum that is not infected by WNS and currently supports multiple bat species and at least 53 Indiana bats. 3. In addition to the cave itself, a minimum 0.25-mi buffer around each entrance for the hibernaculum will be protected, which is approximately 126 to 160 acres, depending on circular or rectangular protection delineated in relationship to 1 opening as the central point. For a hibernaculum with multiple entrances, the main entrance will be the central point of protection. BRE will evaluate threats to entrances. Cave gates would be installed if it is determined that gates would remove or reduce threats. Depending on the context of the surrounding landscape, larger buffers may be warranted to remove threats to roosting and foraging habitat from logging, urban development, mining, road construction, and other activities. 4. BRE will conduct a threats-analysis of the hibernaculum to identify any proximal land management practices that may adversely affect bats in the cave. The threats analysis will utilize readily available, existing information or information available from the landowner regarding current and potential future conditions and activities within and surrounding the cave. Eliminating these kinds of threats will help to ensure bat survival in the cave and adequate habitat buffer such that bats leaving the cave do not have to travel far to find abundant roosting and foraging habitat. 5. Hibernaculum will have a non-federal landowner (public or private) who is willing to sell the property and/or a protective easement. 6. Focus will be on a hibernaculum that is not already in public ownership or has no perpetual protective easements in place. 7. If human activity poses a threat to bats in the cave, then entrances will be gated in conjunction with the easement or land acquisition. 8. New landowner or easement holder must be willing to protect and maintain the cave so that it continues to serve as a hibernaculum for bats. 9. Easement or land acquisition must account for all encumbrances (e.g., utility easements, mineral rights). The Service will evaluate the parcel to ensure any encumbrances do not defeat the purpose of the acquisition. 10. BRE will prepare a hibernaculum protection plan to be referenced in the conveyance document. Protection plan will identify measures necessary to protect hibernaculum.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 61 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Protecting a Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 hibernaculum that supports Indiana bats and removing threats that affect survivorship will improve the chances for the long-term survival of the population in the cave to promote stability and perhaps growth. Protection of such caves in perpetuity would not only increase the likelihood that bats in the cave survive over time and continue contributing to the local population; it would also help to offset the impacts of the potential take of the bats during the operation of the Project.

Option 2 – Fund Acquisition and Protection of Maternity Colony and Enhancement of Roost/Foraging Habitat. In the event that Option 1 cannot be achieved, BRE will fund the acquisition or purchase of a conservation easement to protect Indiana bat maternity areas, including roosting or foraging habitat; implement silvicultural measures to create corridors between known roosting habitats; improve known foraging areas; or reforest woodlots (blocks of habitat). Project criteria are as follows.

1. Mitigation projects will occur at sites that are known to be used by Indiana bats (i.e., documented roost trees present) or assumed to have a very high likelihood of being used based on proximity to known roosting, foraging sites (e.g., within 2.5 mi of known colonies). 2. Suitable habitat may consist of roosting or foraging habitat; reforestation of corridors between known roosting habitats, reforestation of foraging areas, or reforestation of woodlots (blocks of habitat). 3. Ability to manage a sustainable supply of roost trees (e.g., creating snags in areas where snags are limiting). 4. Mitigation projects must be contiguous habitat and in an amount agreeable to both the Service and BRE. 5. Mitigation projects will occur within the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit. 6. Projects will be conducted where summer habitat is located.

For Indiana bats, the average maternity colony size is 60 to 80 reproductive females (USFWS 2007). By protecting a known Indiana bat maternity colony and removing threats that affect survivorship, the long- term survival of the population in the maternity colony remains stable or potentially increases. Protection of such maternity colonies in perpetuity would thus not only increase the likelihood that bats in the maternity colony survive over time and continue contributing to the local population; it would also help to offset the impacts of the potential take of the bats during the operation of the wind farm.

Option 3 – Fund Implementation of a Hibernaculum Gate. In the event that BRE can achieve neither Option 1 nor Option 2, BRE will fund an effort to gate a hibernaculum to protect Indiana bats from human disturbance in perpetuity. Hibernaculum criteria are as follows.

1. The cave will be located within the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit. 2. The cave must be a Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 hibernaculum that is known to support Indiana bats. Preference will be for a cave that is not infected by WNS, supports multiple bat species, and supports at least 53 Indiana bats. 3. BRE will conduct a threats-analysis of the hibernaculum to identify any proximal land management practices that may adversely affect bats in the cave. 4. The cave will have a landowner (public or private) who is willing to allow the gate and can ensure implementation of a gate maintenance plan. The Service or their third-party will have future access to the site to monitor bat populations and bat use of the cave. 5. If there are multiple cave entrances for a hibernaculum, each entrance will be gated. 6. BRE will prepare a hibernaculum protection plan.

By protecting a Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4 hibernaculum that supports or has the potential to support Indiana bats and removing threats that affect survivorship, the long-term survival of the population in the cave remains stable or increases. Protection of such caves in perpetuity would thus increase the likelihood that bats in the cave survive over time. Protection of such caves in perpetuity would thus not only increase the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 62 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

likelihood that bats in the cave survive over time and continue contributing to the local population, it would also help to offset the impacts of the potential take of the bats during the operation of the wind farm.

Virginia Big-Eared Bat Mitigation

To compensate for unavoidable impacts to Virginia big-eared bats, BRE will fund implementation of a gating project at a known hibernaculum to facilitate protection of Virginia big-eared bats from human disturbance in perpetuity. Project criteria are as follows.

1. The project will be located within the area occupied by the same genetically isolated population where the impact will occur. 2. The hibernaculum is known to support or capable of supporting at least 14 Virginia big-eared bats. Preference will be for caves that support multiple bat species. 3. BRE will conduct a threats analysis to determine whether human activity is a threat to bats in the cave. 4. The cave must have a landowner (public or private) who is willing to have the project implemented and can ensure implementation of the gate maintenance plan. The Service or their third party should have future access to the site to monitor bat populations and/or use of the cave. 5. If there are multiple cave entrances for a hibernaculum, each entrance will be gated. 6. BRE will prepare a cave gating plan.

By protecting a hibernaculum that supports Virginia big-eared bats and removing threats that affect survivorship, the long-term survival of the population in the cave remains stable or increases. Protection of such caves in perpetuity will not only increase the likelihood that bats in the cave survive over time and continue contributing to the local population, it would also help to offset the impacts of the potential take of the bats during the operation of the Project.

Management of Mitigation Efforts and Cost Estimate BRE agrees that the annual management costs will cover property management tasks, including preserving general habitat functions for the species, maintenance and installation of cave gates to prevent human access (in the event the project is cave protection), timber management for roost trees (in the event the project is maternity habitat protection), and monitoring for species benefits.

Based on these estimates, BRE concludes that at a cost of $785,500 or less, including transaction costs and a management fund, it could acquire or otherwise protect about 300 acres of suitable habitat that would result in the protection of more than 53 Indiana bats and other bats species per year, using current cave counts and other estimates. This amount of habitat would also be sufficient to protect an assemblage of maternity trees plus a buffer or a cave entrance or entrances plus a buffer. In addition, in the event the selected conservation project does not also benefit Virginia big-eared bat, BRE will provide $25,000 to fund additional Virginia big-eared bat cave-gating projects.

HCP Reporting During the term of the ITP, BRE will submit annual reports to the Service by February 15 of each year. These reports will track compliance with permit terms and conditions, as well as report on the effectiveness of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to Indiana and Virginia big- eared bats. In addition, during the first 3 years of post-construction monitoring, BRE will submit a report to the WVPSC and TAC twice each year containing the results of post-construction monitoring. BRE will send copies of these reports to the Service concurrently with their submittal to the WVPS and TAC. These monitoring reports will be filed on or before January 30 and July 31 each year unless the WVPSC specifies otherwise.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 63 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Changed Circumstances Changed circumstances refer to changes affecting a species or geographic area covered by an HCP that can reasonably be anticipated and that can be planned. As per the HCP Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1996), the ITP applicant must discuss measures to address such changes over time, usually through adaptive management for the covered species. BRE has identified the following potential changed circumstances in advance and developed strategies for dealing with them. Hence, adjustments can be made as necessary without having to amend the HCP. Changed circumstances are described briefly below and in more detail in Section 8.2 of the Project HCP.

Impacts of WNS on Covered Species The occurrence of WNS and declines in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit of Indiana bat or in the rangewide population of Virginia big-eared bat constitute foreseeable changed circumstances that warrant consideration in the Project HCP. WNS has been confirmed in nearby bat populations, but it is difficult to predict at this time what the long-term effects of WNS will be on listed bats and all other cave- dwelling bats.

For Indiana bats, the trigger for WNS as a changed circumstance will be a 70% or greater reduction in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit population from 2011 (USFWS 2012a), based on the Service’s biennial population estimates. Seventy percent is the approximate population reduction for Indiana bats in the Northeast Recovery Unit from 2007-2011, based on the best scientific data currently available. The Northeast Recovery Unit has been experiencing effects from WNS since 2006, and we anticipate other recovery units will follow the same trend as WNS continues to spread. The Service has incorporated this reduction trend into the Indiana bat population model in the Biological Opinion analyzing the effects to Indiana bats as a result of issuance an ITP to BRE on the Indiana bat. The peak population in the Northeast Recovery Unit, prior to WNS, occurred in 2007. WNS has now been confirmed in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit, and the Service accepts that 2011 will likely represent the peak Indiana bat population for the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit. The Project HCP’s assessment of negative effects is based on a reasonable assumption that the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit population will decline in the same fashion as in the Northeast Recovery Unit. If, however, at any time the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit population decreases by 70% or greater than the documented 2011 level, this will constitute a changed circumstance as a key assumption that the Indiana bat population model will have been violated.

In the event that the WNS changed circumstance has been triggered, BRE will conduct an analysis, in coordination with the Service, to determine whether the level of Indiana bat take at the Project is having a material negative effect (after accounting for benefits of mitigation) to the remaining Indiana bat population in the recovery unit. If the analysis demonstrates that a 60% take reduction is no longer sufficient to prevent material negative effects to the declining population, then BRE will consult with the Service to determine additional operational restrictions or minimization measures to be implemented by the next bat spring emergence season (April of the following year) to address the observed material negative effects. The Service will determine what level of take reduction prevents material negative effects to the population. We consider material negative effects to mean that there is a measurable (i.e. not deminimus) difference in the population trajectory when comparing the population demographics with and without the incidental take that is occurring from the project. BRE will provide a written plan to the Service by December of the year in which the changed circumstance occurred and formal concurrence will be reached by February 1st. The written plan will describe additional monitoring for investigating the effectiveness of the newly implemented measures. Any unresolved issues will be dealt with through the dispute resolution process described in the IA (Appendix E of Project HCP). The effectiveness of these measures will be evaluated by additional monitoring detailed in the written plan.

WNS has not yet been detected in Virginia big-eared bats. However, it is reasonable to expect that the fungus may evolve over time and eventually affect other bat species. For Virginia big-eared bats, the trigger for WNS as a changed circumstance is the documented occurrence of WNS and negative effect

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 64 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

on the West Virginia population. Using readily available winter and summer cave survey results for Virginia big-eared bat and other available information on WNS, the Service will evaluate whether this trigger has been met and inform BRE.

In the event that the WNS changed circumstance has been triggered, BRE will conduct an analysis, in coordination with the Service, to determine whether the level of Virginia big-eared bat take at the Project is having a material negative effect (after accounting for benefits of mitigation) to the remaining Virginia big-eared bat population in West Virginia. If the analysis demonstrates that a 50% take reduction is no longer sufficient to prevent material negative effects with the declining population, BRE will consult with the Service to determine additional operational restrictions or minimization measures to be implemented by the next bat spring emergence season (April of the following year) to address the observed material negative effects. BRE will provide a written plan to the Service by December of the year in which the changed circumstance occurred and formal concurrence will be reached by February 1st. The written plan will describe additional monitoring for investigating the effectiveness of the newly implemented measures. Any unresolved issues will be dealt with through the dispute resolution process described in the IA (Appendix E of Project HCP). The effectiveness of these measures will be evaluated by additional monitoring detailed in the written plan

Examples of different turbine operational protocols that BRE will consider include changes in the turbine cut-in speed; changes in timing of turbine operating regimes (if timing of Indiana bat or Virginia big-eared bat fatalities suggests a specific period when either of these species is at greatest risk); selected turbine curtailment (if evidence indicates specific turbines are causing significantly greater mortality of bats); making operational adjustments based in part on other environmental factors such as temperature; and deployment and testing of bat deterrent technology if suitable technology is available.

As described in the IA, the Service reserves its legal authority to revoke the ITP in the event we determine the ITP jeopardizes any listed species (Project HCP, Appendix F, Section 13.2).

Elevated Annual Take Due to Changing Environmental Conditions The HCP has estimated that potential take of Indiana bats at the Project as a result of turbine operations could range up to 4.5 bats per year during research and development of avoidance/minimization measures and up to 1.8 bats per year after implementation of avoidance/minimization measures. The presence of Indiana bats in the Project area over the life of the permit is uncertain. Future Indiana bat occurrence may be influenced by the potential expansion or contraction of the species’ range and local population size due to recovery actions or changes in habitat utilization as a result of WNS, climate change, or other factors. Hence, the distribution and occurrence of Indiana bat in or near the Project could change. Change in population could also include the establishment of a maternity colony near the Project. As a result, it is appropriate to plan for potential exceedance of take of 4.5 Indiana bats per year during the term of the ITP.

In the event that take of Indiana bats exceeds 4.5 in any year during Years 4 through 25 of the ITP, or if BRE, in consultation with the Service, has reason to believe that the aggregate take of covered species may be exceeded, BRE will notify the Service and confer over potential adjustments to its research study design. Discussions will include joint agreement on subsequent years to focus on those specific areas of the Project or time of year demonstrating the highest likelihood of take based on the new information. Through this process, BRE will intensively evaluate geographic areas of the site containing the species, including seasonal and temporal presence of the species, and it will develop and implement turbine- specific operational protocols to reduce take in these areas.

Listing of New Species In the event of any future listing of bats or other species as threatened or endangered, BRE will confer with the Service regarding an amendment to the ITP as described in Section 8.4 of the Project HCP. In the event of a future candidate species designation, BRE will confer with the Service over the need to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 65 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

pursue an amendment of the Project HCP to include these as covered species and incorporate appropriate conservation measures. To be clear, while the decision to amend an HCP to include additional covered species is that of the permittee, the Service advises the permittee on these matters and generally considers the inclusion of additional listed species to an ITP (those not adequately considered, analyzed, or included in the original HCP, ITP, and EIS) as triggering a major amendment. The need for including additional covered species on the ITP will be evaluated by both the Service and the Permittee upon future listing actions or new information about impacts from the covered activities.

Populations of cave-dwelling bats in the eastern and central U.S. are declining due to WNS and other factors. In particular, northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, and little brown bat have experienced declines in recent years due to a variety of factors. If one or more of these species becomes listed during the permit term, BRE will comply with the ESA and will avoid take or seek to include such newly listed species as covered species in the ITP. Such measures may include turning off turbines or other restrictions during the time of year and night when bats are active.

Changed Technology/Techniques Over the 25-year life of the permit, advances in wind turbine technology and techniques to avoid or minimize bat mortality are reasonably foreseeable. Over time, techniques that deter bats from collisions with turbines may prove effective in reducing bat mortality. Turbine configuration, new turbine and/or blade designs, or automated changes in turbine operation may also prove useful in reducing bat mortality at wind turbines. If new techniques or technology become available, are cost effective, feasible to implement, and meet the biological goals of the Project HCP, BRE will take action to apply them to the Project facility.

Indiana Bat Maternity Colony within 2.5 Miles of the Project Area The Project area is located in an area surrounded by a matrix of second- and third-growth upland forest with small openings and forest roads. Such areas provide potential foraging habitat, travel corridors, and maternity roost trees for Indiana bats. Whereas summer mist-netting efforts did not capture Indiana bats in habitat close to the Project, Indiana bat-like calls were collected on acoustic detectors in the Project area during late-July in 2005 and 2010. The elevation and cold night-time temperatures characteristic of the Project area may reduce but do not eliminate the likelihood that maternity areas occur or will develop in the Project area. Hence, it is possible that a maternity colony exists or could develop within or near the Project area over the term of the permit. The presence of a maternity colony may increase the likelihood of take and exceed the amount of authorized take of Indiana bats.

Finding a reproductive female or young-of-the-year juvenile Indiana bat fatality while monitoring Project operations during the maternity season (May 15 to August 15) could indicate the presence of a maternity colony on covered lands. Such an event (maternity take event) may constitute a changed circumstance requiring additional surveys and further minimization measures. A single maternity take event occurring during the implementation of conservation and mitigation measures pursuant to changed circumstances shall be considered covered take under the ITP as long as BRE remains in compliance with the provisions of the HCP, Implementing Agreement, and the ITP. Prior to, and after a single maternity take event, take of males occurring at any time or a female or young-of-the-year occurring outside the maternity season (May 15 to August 15) shall remain authorized under the ITP as long as BRE remains in compliance with the condition of the HCP, Implementing Agreement, and ITP. The Service reserves the right under 50 CFR § 17.22(b)(8) to revoke the ITP in the event the permitted activity is found to be inconsistent with the criterion set forth in 16 USC § 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv) and the inconsistency has not been remedied in a timely fashion.

Upon such an occurrence, BRE will immediately raise turbine cut-in speeds to 6.9 m/s (15.2 mph) from sunset to sunrise during the maternity season (May 15 to August 15) at all turbines within 5 mi of the turbine where the maternity take event occurred. Thereafter and in consultation with the Service, BRE will develop and implement final operational adjustments during the maternity season known to be effective in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 66 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

avoiding Indiana bat mortality. Results of a post-construction mortality study where cut-in speeds were tested showed an Indiana bat was killed when the cut-in speed was 5.0 m/s (Good et al. 2011). Take of Myotis bats may have occurred when turbine cut-in speed was 6.5 m/s (E. Baerwald, personal communication with BRE as cited in Project HCP).

If a maternity take event occurs, BRE will promptly notify the Service and implement surveys to determine if a maternity colony is present within 2.5 mi of the Project. Survey methods and efforts will be determined by BRE in consultation with the Service, and may include more than 1 year of surveys if the colony is not initially found. If a maternity colony is discovered within 2.5 mi of the Project and thereafter its existence is confirmed by the Service, BRE will evaluate Indiana bat movement in and around the maternity colony, assess the effects of Project operations on the maternity colony, and implement, as appropriate, operational adjustments to reduce risk to the maternity colony. If take has already occurred and the maternity colony is found then BRE will consult with the Service and implement operational adjustments to reduce risk to the maternity area. (See Section 8.2.5 of the Project HCP for additional details).

If a maternity colony is not found despite multiple years of intensive habitat searches and mist-netting, the Service may determine that it is unlikely that a maternity colony is present and that the additional maternity season restrictions on operations can be lifted.

3.2.2.4 Proposed Action Summary Within the context of this Project, the Proposed Action meets the Service’s purpose and need for providing a means to conserve the habitats and ecosystems of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. The Proposed Action’s compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to covered species is to be achieved through suitable mitigation that will satisfy the goals and objectives outlined for the off-site conservation.

Alternative 2 would serve the Applicant’s need to meet the requirements of the District Court Order that ruled that the Applicant obtain an ITP and implement an HCP to operate the Project at night during the bat-active season. In the absence of an ITP, the Project would be unlawful if take of either endangered bat occurred.

3.2.3 Alternative 3: Additional Covered Species Addressed in ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan Under the Additional Covered Species Alternative, a 25-year ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for the BRE Project. The Project would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action: the Phase II 33-turbines would be constructed, and all 100 turbines operated and eventually decommissioned. Like the other alternatives, Alternative 3 would implement a research, monitoring and adaptive management plan, as well an APP, to reduce bat and bird mortality. On-site or near-site protection and management of bat maternity areas would be implemented, as well as off-site protection of bat hibernacula (Table 3-1).

Because reproductive individuals of the 3 currently unlisted bat species have been detected on site in mist-nets, it is assumed the Project area provides maternity areas for these bats. Upon issuance of the ITP, project operations would be modified as described below (higher cut-in speeds) to avoid and minimize mortality of the 3 additional covered species and to reduce impacts to breeding individuals for the duration of the ITP (25 years). Habitat protection would include areas to benefit the 3 additional

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 67 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

covered species, as well as the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. These avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would occur regardless of whether any of the 3 unlisted bat species are listed during the life of the permit.

Because of higher cut-in speeds, Alternative 3 would generate less electricity than the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 (100 turbines with up to 187 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate around 473,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions, approximately 1.9 times more energy than the No-Action Alternative (Table 3-1).

Habitat Assessment in the Project Area Implementation of Alternative 3 would include mist-netting to locate maternity areas for each of the 3 unlisted bats. Qualified biologists would capture bats (preferably reproductive females and males), attach radio transmitters, and track the marked bats to identify roost sites and delineate foraging areas. Delineated habitats would be used to evaluate specific areas of the Project that may pose the greatest risks to covered species.

3.2.3.1 Modified Operations Protocol Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s as the initial rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15, which is the presumed period for which Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats are active. Changing turbine cut-in speeds during this time would cover the full season of all bat activity around the Project, thus reducing potential take of covered species and all bat species. Curtailment studies in North America have shown that turbines with raised cut-in speeds between 5.0 m/s and 6.5 m/s and reduced rotor speeds (rpm) on calmer nights kill an average of 76% fewer bats (range of 50 to 87% reduction in overall bat mortality) than normally operating turbines over the course of one fall migration season (Baerwald et al. 2009, Arnett et al. 2011, Good et al. 2011, 2012).

If the Project’s research and monitoring results show that this proposed Curtailment Plan does not reduce overall bat mortality by at least 76%, BRE would conduct additional research on further modifying operations until the goal of 76% is reached (e.g., use of higher cut-in speeds, bat deterrents, different turbine colors). On the other hand, if the Project’s research and monitoring results show that this proposed Curtailment Plan reduces overall bat mortality by at least 76%, then BRE would have the option of operating the turbines in this way for the life of the Project or conducting additional research to determine if the same or better reduction in mortality could be achieved by modifying the Curtailment Plan to employ less restrictive operations. Less restrictive operations could include some combination of lowering the cut-in speed, reducing the length of the seasonal curtailment period (fewer days/year), reducing the night-time hourly period (fewer hours/night), and curtailing specific turbines that pose the greatest risk to the 3 additional covered species (based upon locating maternity colonies, assessing habitat, and tracking bat activity patterns and habitat use with radio telemetry). Less restrictive operations would be adopted for the life of the Project only if they were demonstrated to achieve greater than or equal to 76% reduction in all bat mortalities.

Additionally, the Curtailment Plan would be modified to implement expanded avoidance and minimization measures to protect roosting and brooding sites within and proximal to the Project area should they be identified. The habitat assessment may identify roost/maternity sites occupied by any of the 3 additional covered species. If this is the case, the Curtailment Plan would be further modified to include a plan for curtailing specific turbines that pose the greatest risk to these additional covered species during the entire period bats are active (April 1 through November 15). First, turbines within a specified distance (agreed upon by BRE and the Service based on results of field study) of delineated summer roosting or maternity habitat would operate at a cut-in speed of 6.5 m/s. Second, turbines within a specified distance (agreed upon by BRE and the Service based on results of field study) of an identified active roost would not operate from July 15 to November 15. Because information is extremely limited on the commuting

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 68 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

distances of these 3 species during the maternity season, specified distances between inoperative turbines and active roosts would be determined based on the results of telemetry studies to be performed for the additional covered species.

3.2.3.2 Habitat Protection Habitat conservation measures would be implemented for Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat as described for the Proposed Action. Additional habitat protection measures would be implemented for the 3 additional covered species using the information derived from the field surveys described above (Section 3.2.3.1). The HCP would include measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat for the additional covered species on or near the Project site (if feasible). It is important to note that habitat protection measures implemented on or near the Project area may increase the incidence of bat use and, in turn, increase risks to bats.

If on-site or near-site protection is not feasible due to unwilling landowners or it creates an undesirable hazard to the species, then the HCP would include measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat or known hibernacula for the additional covered species off-site removed from the Project. In addition, BRE would enhance habitat by creating potential roost trees proximal to the nearest bat hibernacula. This habitat enhancement may provide an alternate site for roosting away from the Project.

3.2.3.3 Alternative 3 Summary Alternative 3 meets the Service’s purpose and need for providing a means to conserve the habitats and ecosystems depended on by the 5 covered species within the context of the Project. Alternative 3 includes compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to covered species; compensation would be achieved through suitable mitigation that would satisfy the goals and objectives for on-site and off-site conservation. Alternative 3 meets the Service’s purpose and need to ensure the long-term survival of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat through protection and management of the species and their habitat within the context of this Project. The revised curtailment protocol implements an initial cut-in speed of 6.5 m/s that has been demonstrated to reduce bat mortality by an average of 76% at other projects. This higher cut-in speed for those turbines proximal to known roost/maternity sites and identified suitable habitat is likely to increase the efficacy of avoidance and minimization measures for reducing take of covered species.

Alternative 3 would meet the Applicant’s need to meet the requirements of the District Court Order that ruled that the Applicant obtain an ITP and implement an HCP to operate the Project at night during the bat-active season. In the absence of an ITP, the Project would be unlawful if take of any threatened or endangered bat occurred.

We have developed this alternative to provide for a meaningful comparison of consequences among possible permit approaches. But its design depends on both science that is dynamic and changing, and speculation as to whether an applicant could employ the measures described. It is premature to definitively determine what measures would be required as part of an ITP application for these species, which have not yet been listed, and the needs of which may change over time. This alternative is based on the current science, which is also subject to change.

3.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, a 25-year ITP for Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for operation and decommissioning of the existing 67-turbine Project; the Phase II 33-turbines would not be constructed. The Phase I Only Alternative would include the full implementation of the HCP as described for the Proposed Action. The curtailment measures would be the same as for the Proposed Action Alternative; however, the minimum number of listed bats protected at off-site mitigation sites would be less than the Proposed Action, commensurate with reduced mortality of listed bats under Alternative 4. Bat and bird mortality would be reduced by implementing the RMAMP and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 69 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the APP. This alternative (67 turbines with 100.5 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate approximately 331,000 MWh per year with operating restrictions.

For the 25-year term of the ITP, BRE would adjust the cut-in speed for all 67 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) for the time of night from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from mid-July to mid-October (BRE’s Curtailment Plan). Turbine blades will be fully feathered below cut-in speed to minimize blade rotation (i.e., 1 to 2 rpm). Changing turbine cut-in speeds during this period of the year would help avoid key periods of bat activity around the Project, thus reducing potential take of covered species and all bat species. If research and monitoring results show that this proposed Curtailment Plan is not meeting the HCP’s goals and objectives, BRE would modify the Curtailment Plan to employ more restrictive operations. However, BRE’s Curtailment Plan would be modified only with the written agreement of Service.

This alternative would reduce the number of turbines BRE is proposing for the Project. Reducing the number of turbines would not necessarily eliminate the likelihood that Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats would be taken. A project of this size in proximity to known hibernacula still poses a likelihood of take of Indiana bats. However, the estimated number of bat fatalities would be lower for 67 turbines than that for 100 turbines, as described for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 4 would serve the Applicant’s need to meet the requirements of the District Court Order that ruled that the Applicant obtain an ITP and implement an HCP to operate the Project at night during the bat-active season. In the absence of an ITP, the Project would be unlawful if take of either endangered bat occurred.

3.2.4.1 Take of Covered Species Using scientific information on little brown bats to inform a surrogate model, BRE estimated that covered activities may take annually between 0 and 5 Indiana bats based on 100 turbines, or between 0 and 125 Indiana bats over the term of the 25-year permit, prior to implementing a turbine operation curtailment plan to reduce bat mortalities. Based on the Project’s location at the edge of Virginia big-eared bat range, BRE estimated that covered activities may take annually between 0 and 1 Virginia big-eared bats based on 100 turbines, or an aggregate of approximately 14 individuals, over the life of the permit in the absence of avoidance and minimization strategies that include BRE’s Curtailment Plan. Section 4 of the HCP provides a summary of the available information on little brown bats and the surrogate model used to estimate take. These estimates can be used to estimate potential take of covered species for the 67- turbine project. It is estimated that the 67-turbine project implementing the HCP would take annually between 0 and 3.0 Indiana bats and between 0 and 0.7 Virginia big-eared bats per year over the life of the project.

To avoid potential take of roosting Indiana bats, BRE will limit tree-clearing to the period between November 15 and March 31, except that up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. Tree clearing will occur in the expansion area shown on Figure 1-4. The additional 30 to 45 days are needed to provide BRE flexibility should weather, deep snow, or ice prevent clearing or create safety issues for construction workers. The clearing of up to 15 acres of trees outside of the hibernation period will be conducted within 5 years of the 2010 mist-netting survey, during which no Indiana bats were captured so as to reduce the likelihood of impacting roosting Indiana bats. If tree-clearing is necessary during either of these periods, BRE will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for potential roost trees prior to clearing and confirm that they are not occupied by roosting bats. If trees are found to be occupied, BRE will mark the occupied trees and delay removal until trees are unoccupied.

After accounting for the implementation of the proposed Curtailment Plan, BRE submitted an ITP application requesting authorization of the take levels described below, which are based on the modeled annual take.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 70 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 67-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Indiana bats: • up to 3.0 Indiana bats per year during years 1-3; • up to 1.2 Indiana bats per year during years 4-25; and • the aggregate take of up to 39.0 Indiana bats during the permit term (3.0 bats x 3 years + 1.2 bats x 22 years = 35.4 bats).

While testing the Curtailment Plan, BRE estimates the 67-turbine Project could take the following numbers of Virginia big-eared bats: • up to 0.7 Virginia big-eared bats per year during years 1-3; • up to 0.3 Virginia big-eared bats per year during years 4-25; and • the aggregate take of up to 14.0 Virginia big-eared bats during the permit term (0.7 bats x 3 years + 0.3 bats x 22 years = 9.0 bats).

During years 1-3, BRE will develop baseline bat mortality estimates, i.e., mortality estimates from fully operational turbines (see Section 2.0 in the RMAMP), that will be used to judge success with meeting the biological goal of significantly reducing mortality of covered species and all bats in an effective manner consistent with the best available science (see Section 5.0 in the HCP and Section 2.0 in RMAMP).

Under Alternative 4, the ITP would authorize take for this Project of an aggregate of 39 Indiana bats and 9 Virginia big-eared bats (based on adjusted fatality estimates) over the Permit Term, in which case BRE would not be out of compliance with the permit take authorization unless take exceeds these limits. However, given that bat mortality will undoubtedly vary during the Permit Term, 3 potential thresholds will trigger a meet and confer with the Service:

1. In any year, if Indiana bat adjusted fatality estimates exceed 3.0, or 2. In any given year, if Virginia big-eared bat adjusted fatality rate estimates exceed 0.7, or 3. In 3 consecutive years, if adjusted fatality estimates for all bats exceed the 90% confidence interval24 of baseline levels established during Years 1-3 of the ITP. Mean adjusted fatality rates will be determined for fully operational turbines; the means will have associated confidence intervals. If the mean rates documented in Years 4-25 exceed the 90% confidence intervals of the means established in Years 1-3, the threshold is met and further discussions will take place.

Under Alternative 4, an ITP would be issued contingent upon implementation of the conservation plan set forth in the Project HCP, albeit with some degree of reduced mitigation measures for off-site conservation. Because the number of turbines would decrease, the estimate of take for Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats correspondingly would decrease. Off-site mitigation for these impacts to covered species would need to support 39 Indiana bats and 9 Virginia big-eared bats in perpetuity. The mechanisms for establishing off-site mitigation would be conducted as specified in Alternative 2.

3.2.4.2 Alternative 4 Summary Alternative 4 meets the Service’s purpose and need for providing a means to conserve the habitats and ecosystems depended on by the covered species within the context of the Project. Alternative 4 includes compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to covered species; compensation would be achieved through suitable mitigation that would satisfy the goals and objectives for off-site conservation. Alternative 4 meets the Service’s purpose and need to ensure the long-term survival of the Indiana bat and Virginia

24 Confidence intervals are used to indicate the accuracy of the estimate, which is not the true value. The interval is used to illustrate how far the estimate is likely to be from the true value. In this particular case, the user, BRE, has selected a 90% confidence interval. Based on the sample evidence, BRE is confident that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and fatality rate estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting interval or range of fatality rates across multiple occasions would include the true value 90 times out of 100.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 71 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

big-eared bat through protection and management of the species and their habitat within the context of this Project.

Alternative 4 would fulfill the Applicant’s need to meet the requirements of the District Court Order that ruled that the Applicant obtain an ITP and implement an HCP to operate the Project at night during the bat-active season. In the absence of an ITP, the Project would be unlawful if take of either endangered bat occurred.

3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis NEPA requires that federal agencies thoroughly consider and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and briefly explain the basis for eliminating those alternatives that were not retained for detailed analysis (40 CFR 1502.14). Early discourse between the Service and BRE on potential minimization and mitigation measures resulted in an initial list of potential alternatives for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives were later determined to not meet the purpose and need, have potentially significant adverse impacts to air quality and climate, or have environmental impacts that would be similar to the proposed action. Other alternatives could not be legally undertaken, or were found to be lacking in sufficient protection for the covered species or other wildlife resources, or included conservation measures that were not practicable given the magnitude of potential effects. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered but eventually dismissed from detailed analysis for reasons summarized below.

3.3.1 Full Project Build-Out, Unrestricted Operations, and No ITP/HCP Under the Unrestricted Operations Alternative, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for development of the BRE Project, and an HCP would not be implemented. Phase II would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action. The facility would operate without seasonal or daily operational restrictions on the existing Phase I (67 existing wind turbines) and proposed Phase II (33 proposed turbines) project components. The Project would operate at the standard 3.5 m/s cut-in speed, the minimum wind speed at which turbines would generate electricity. In addition, BRE would forego all other conservation measures not otherwise required by the WVPSC siting certificate. BRE would forego establishment of a fund to facilitate conservation projects.

The Unrestricted Operations Alternative would not meet the Service’s purpose and need for avoiding and minimizing take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. As discussed above, BRE has estimated that the Project may result in the take of up to 5 Indiana bats and 1 Virginia big-eared bat per year. This alternative would not result in implementation of conservation measures that are rationally related to the potential level of take that could occur as a result of Project operations. Implementation of this alternative would include no conservation benefits to the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat through habitat protection and enhancement of known Indiana bat habitat, or through research to locate unknown Indiana bat habitat.

This alternative would not meet the Applicant’s need to meet the requirements of the District Court Order that ruled that the Applicant obtain an ITP and implement an HCP to operate the Project at night during the bat-active season. In the absence of an ITP, the Project would be unlawful if take of either endangered bat occurred.

In conclusion, the Unrestricted Operations Alternative is not a reasonable alternative to consider for detailed analysis in this FEIS.

3.3.2 ITP with Full Implementation of HCP and Reduced Permit Term The Reduced Permit Term Alternative would be implemented as described for the Proposed Action with an ITP term for 10 years as opposed to 25 years. The RMAMP would also be modified to reflect implementation for a 10-year period. Upon nearing the end of the 10-year period, BRE would seek an

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 72 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

extension of the ITP if they saw fit. The length of the renewal period would be decided at the time that BRE seeks the modification and would be based on the results of the RMAMP. At the time of the request for a permit renewal, greater certainty would be known about the effectiveness of turbine operational curtailment measures to reduce bat fatalities. The initial permit would authorize less take than the Proposed Action, but if renewed, would likely have similar long-term effects as the Proposed Action, including its adaptive management strategy.

Under this Alternative, an ITP would be issued contingent upon implementation of the conservation plan set forth in the Project HCP. Therefore, this alternative would meet the Service’s purpose and need to provide a means to conserve the habitats and ecosystems depended on by the covered species within the context of the Project. The Reduced Permit Term Alternative also meets the Action agency goals of avoiding and minimizing take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats.

This alternative was dropped from further consideration because it is primarily a permit processing alternative that would not clearly reduce take over the long term, would create an additional administrative burden, and would likely have similar long-term effects as the Proposed Action Alternative. The annual review process outlined in the RMAMP, which would be implemented under any of the action alternatives, provides for a system of checks and balances for reducing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of operational curtailment. This review process will implement procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the HCP and ensuring that take levels specified in the ITP are not exceeded. Because it does not provide substantially different protection for listed bats beyond what is proposed in the retained alternatives, this alternative was dropped from consideration.

3.3.3 Alternative Project Location Under this alternative, the Project would be sited at a different location to minimize potential for take of listed species. During the Project development process, BRE took into consideration environmental concerns, including listed species.

Alternative sites for the Project in the region are unlikely to eliminate the potential for impacts to listed species. Alternative high-elevation ridgelines within the nearby region would likely have similar potential for impacts to Indiana bats as the current site. Alternative high-elevation ridgeline sites also may have a low potential for affecting maternity colonies but have potential to impact migrating Indiana bats. Lower elevation sites could be closer to suitable maternity habitat and other non-industrial sites could have greater habitat impacts. Alternative sites could position the Project closer to occupied bat caves than the proposed site increasing the risks to bats. This would be particularly problematic for Virginia big-eared bat if the alternate site was closer to an occupied cave for that species.

Moving the Project to another high elevation location in West Virginia or another state would not necessarily eliminate the likelihood that Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats would be affected. BRE selected their proposed Project location because of its wind energy development potential. In BRE’s application to the WVPSC, the Reasons for Siting and Siting Criteria Sections described the Beech Ridge site as an ideal location for siting a wind energy project due to available wind, access to the bulk transmission grid, willing land lease participants, site accessibility, compatible land use characteristics, and limited sensitive ecological resources (as indicated in the BRE Application to WVPSC, Sections Siting Rule 3.1.a.2 and Siting Rule 3.1.g.1.a).

This alternative was dropped from consideration because impacts would likely be the same or greater to listed bats as the Proposed Action. In addition, because Phase I of the Project is already built, it is not practicable to build the project in another location.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 73 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.3.4 Alternative Energy Sources for Electricity Generation Under this alternative, the Project would be constructed using a different technology to generate electricity. During the Project development process, BRE evaluated the potential for using coal and natural gas technologies to generate electricity in West Virginia. These technologies would have permitted BRE to build the Project at a specific West Virginia location in McDowell County that was further from known Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat habitat, consequently reducing the potential for take. However, using fossil fuels to generate electricity raises a significant number of additional potential environmental impacts, including significant concerns regarding air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions caused by fuel combustion and damage to water quality and wildlife habitat during fuel exploration and production. As noted in an October 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, “the lifecycle damages of wind power are small compared with those from coal and natural gas.” Consistent with this conclusion, BRE determined that while using coal or natural gas technology for the Project may have reduced the potential for take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats, it would have significantly increased the Project’s overall negative impacts on the environment. Additionally, BRE’s purpose of and need for producing clean, renewable energy would not be achieved.

3.3.5 ITP with Full Implementation of HCP and Reduced Number of Turbines with Larger Capacity Under this alternative, turbines in the expansion area would be reduced in number but possess a capacity of 2 MW or higher. This would reduce the amount of land affected by actual turbine siting. However, larger turbines are taller and have larger rotor-swept areas. There is little evidence to suggest that implementing fewer yet larger turbines effectively reduces bird or bat mortality. Conversely, it is hypothesized that taller turbines may result in higher bat fatalities. Section 5.8.2.2 in the EIS provides further explanation and analyzes the potential effects of turbine size on bat strikes using the best available information. This alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis in the FEIS because it would not meet the Action agency’s goal of effectively reducing bird and bat mortality.

3.4 Alternatives Comparison This section summarizes the evaluation of alternatives discussed in detail in Chapter 5 Environmental Consequences. Reasonable alternatives determined to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects to Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats and other resources were compared and contrasted based on results of the detailed analysis. Table 3-4 summarizes the key environmental impacts projected to occur as a result of implementing the No-Action Alternative and each of the Action Alternatives. Following the public review and consideration of comments received, the Service has selected a preferred alternative and an environmentally preferred alternative as described below.

3.4.1 Identification of Preferred Alternative The agency’s preferred alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 4a, 46 CFR 1500-1508, 46 FR: 18026-18038).

The preferred alternative is a preliminary indication of the agency’s preferred action, which is chosen from among the Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed in an EIS. It is identified so that other agencies and the public can understand the lead agency’s preference. The preferred alternative may be selected for a variety of reasons (such as the priorities of the particular lead agency) in addition to the environmental considerations discussed in the EIS. The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; rather, it is an indication of the agency’s preference. The final agency decision is presented in the Record of Decision.

The selection of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as the preferred alternative is based on the following factors which are driven by our wildlife conservation mission, priorities, and statutory responsibilities

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 74 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(ESA, BGEPA, and MBTA) to conserve listed bats and migratory birds while giving considering to economic, environmental, technical and other factors:

Alternative 1 (No Action/No ITP). This alternative would result in no new ground disturbance or construction and thus would have no effect to physical aspects of the human environment. It would result in no mortality of listed and unlisted bats, and would have 30% less mortality of birds than Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). As further explained below in Section 3.4.2, it is the least damaging environmental alternative. This alternative is unique in that it reflects a court order which enjoined BRE from constructing up to 33 additional turbines and directed BRE to operate the existing 67-turbine project in such a way as to avoid take of listed bats until such time as BRE obtains an ITP. Because of the operating restrictions, this alternative produces the least energy of all alternatives.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action/ITP with Implementation of the HCP). This alternative reflects BRE’s application for a permit to take listed bats incidental to otherwise lawful construction of up to 33 additional turbines and operation of all 100 turbines. Construction of new turbines and associated infrastructure would result in 148 acres of ground disturbance, causing relatively minor short-term physical impacts to the human environment (noise, water, and air pollution, etc.). This alternative is designed to meet biological objectives and permit issuance criteria while fulfilling agency statutory mission and responsibilities. Among all alternatives, it has the greatest overall economic impact in terms of energy produced and jobs created.

Alternative 3 (Additional Covered Species Addressed in the ITP and HCP). This alternative would result in 148 acres of ground disturbance associated with construction of up to 33 additional turbines and associated infrastructure. Thus it would have similar effects to physical aspects of the human environment as the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would provide take coverage for three additional species of bats should they be listed during the permit term. It has fewer impacts to listed and unlisted bats than Alternative 2, an equivalent impact on birds, and greater habitat protection and enhancement than Alternative 2. Because the three unlisted bat species are known to be breeding on or near the project site, avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures are greater than Alternative 2 which presumes impacts to listed bats primarily during migration. Because of these biological considerations, this alternative would result in 23% less energy production than the Proposed Action, while creating an equivalent number of jobs.

Alternative 4 (ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only). This alternative would result in no new ground disturbance or construction and thus would have no effect to physical aspects of the human environment. Although Alternative 4 would have fewer impacts to listed bats, unlisted bats and birds than Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), it also would have less habitat protection and enhancement than the Proposed Action. Among the action alternatives, it would have the smallest overall economic impact in terms of energy produced and jobs created.

We note that it may appear that Alternative 3 (Additional Covered Species Addressed in ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan) would reasonably serve as the agency’s preferred alternative because of greater reduction of bat fatality and mitigation for additional species than Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), yet the applicant decides which species to include in a permit application. BRE’s application for the two currently listed bat species and the HCP’s curtailment plan (e.g., 4.8 m/s, feathering and the RMAMP) were designed to meet our biological objectives and permit issuance criteria. We have developed Alternative 3 to facilitate future NEPA compliance should any of the three unlisted bat species be listed in the future and should BRE decide to apply for a permit amendment to add any of these species to its permit for take coverage. The Service generally considers the inclusion of additional listed species to an ITP (those not adequately considered, analyzed, or included in the original HCP, ITP, and EIS) as triggering a major amendment process (i.e. additional NEPA analysis and public comment). We also have developed Alternative 3 to provide for a meaningful comparison of consequences among possible permit approaches. But its design depends on both science that is dynamic and changing, and speculation as to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 75 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

whether an applicant could employ the measures described. It is premature to definitively determine what measures would be required as part of an ITP application for these 3 additional species, which have not yet been listed, and the needs of which may change over time. This alternative is based on the current science, which is also subject to change.

BRE has applied for an ITP and included an HCP to meet our biological objectives and permit issuance criteria. If the permit issuance criteria contained in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA are satisfied, the Service shall issue the permit to the Applicant consistent with ESA implementing regulations found at 43 CFR 17.22 (b)(2). Within these guidelines the Service may decide to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant, or to issue a permit conditioned upon implementation of the HCP as submitted together with other measures specified by the Service. If the ESA’s criteria are not satisfied, the Service is required to deny the permit request. Thus the Service has limited discretion and authority within which to select an alternative.

In accordance with the NEPA (40 CFR §1502.14(e)) and ESA regulations (43 CFR 17.22 (b) (2), and based on consideration of agency and public comments on the DEIS, the Service has identified the Proposed Action – Alternative 2 (ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan) as the preferred alternative. Of the alternatives evaluated in this FEIS, this alternative best meets the agency purpose and need to conserve listed bats and respond to an ITP application, while fulfilling our statutory mission and responsibilities and giving consideration to economic, environmental, and other factors.

3.4.2 Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that would promote the national environmental policy expressed in Section 101(b) of NEPA. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources (CEQ Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 6a; 46 CFR 1500- 1508, 46 FR 18026-18038). The USFWS has selected Alternative 1 (No Action: No Take/No ITP/No HCP) as the environmentally preferred alternative. Under this alternative Phase II of the project would not be constructed; hence there would be no new ground disturbance from construction of up to 33 additional turbines and thus there would be no impact to physical aspects of the environment, including historic, cultural, and natural resources. Under this alternative the existing Phase I 67 turbines would be turned off at night during the bat active season, resulting in no mortality of listed or unlisted bats. Bird mortality would occur but would be 33% less than that of a 100-turbine project (Alternatives 2 and 3). Under its APP, BRE would monitor bird mortality through an adaptive management framework, and would reduce and mitigate for it should significant effects to any species of bird occur. Largely through avoidance of impacts, this alternative causes the least damage to natural resources. However, we also recognize that this alternative would produce the least amount of renewable energy, and thus would make the smallest contribution of any of the alternatives to potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 76 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-4. BRE alternatives comparison.

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations 148 acres of temporary 148 acres of temporary 148 acres of temporary disturbance; risk of soil disturbance; risk of soil disturbance; risk of soil Geologic erosion during erosion during erosion during 50 acres converted to 50 acres converted to Resources: construction and construction and construction and built facilities and loss built facilities and loss Topography, 5.1 reclamation; 71 acres reclamation; 71 acres reclamation; 71 acres of soil productivity for of soil productivity for Geology, and converted to built converted to built converted to built life of Project. life of Project. Soils facilities and loss of facilities and loss of facilities and loss of soil productivity for life soil productivity for life soil productivity for life of Project. of Project. of Project. Short-term noise Short-term noise Short-term noise Short-term impacts impacts from impacts from Short-term impacts impacts from from decommissioning; construction and construction and from decommissioning; construction and turbine noise at decommissioning; decommissioning; turbine noise at decommissioning; sensitive receptor turbine noise at turbine noise at sensitive receptor turbine noise at Noise 5.2 locations estimated to sensitive receptor sensitive receptor locations estimated to sensitive receptor be equivalent to locations estimated to locations estimated to be equivalent to locations estimated to measured ambient be equivalent to be equivalent to measured ambient be equivalent to noise. measured ambient measured ambient noise. measured ambient noise. noise. noise. Short-term effects due Short-term effects due Short-term effects due Short-term effects due Short-term effects due to equipment to equipment to equipment to equipment to equipment emissions for turbine emissions for turbine emissions for turbine emissions for turbine emissions for turbine installation and installation and installation and decommissioning; decommissioning; up decommissioning; decommissioning; up decommissioning; up Air Quality and ~254,000 MWh per to ~331,000 MWh per 25 5.3 ~615,000 MWh per to ~473,000 MWh per to ~656,000 MWh per Climate year of emission-free year of emission-free year of emission-free year of emission-free year of emission-free energy; minor effects energy; minor effects energy; minor effects energy; minor effects energy; minor effects associated with associated with associated with associated with associated with maintenance vehicle maintenance vehicle maintenance vehicle maintenance vehicle maintenance vehicle emissions. emissions. emissions. emissions. emissions.

25 Energy production estimate based on the higher Project capacity factor of 45% as provided by the Applicant.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 77 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations 100 turbines O&M 100 turbines O&M 100 turbines O&M building, and other building, and other building, and other appurtenances result appurtenances result appurtenances result in 47 acres of in 47 acres of in 47 acres of impervious surface; impervious surface; impervious surface; 67 turbines, O&M well water withdrawal well water withdrawal 67 turbines, O&M well water withdrawal building, and other for cement mixing for cement mixing building, and other cement mixing appurtenances result (290,000 gallons); (290,000 gallons); appurtenances result (290,000 gallons); Water Resources: in 28 acres of surface water surface water in 28 acres of surface water Groundwater, impervious surface; withdrawal for dust withdrawal for dust impervious surface; withdrawal for dust Surface Water, 5.4 surface water suppression during suppression during surface water suppression during Floodplains, and withdrawal for dust construction (1.8 to 2.7 construction (1.8 to 2.7 withdrawal for dust construction (1.8 to 2.7 Wetlands suppression during million gallons for 1 million gallons for 1 suppression during million gallons for 1 decommissioning year) and year) and decommissioning year) and (150,000 gallons per decommissioning decommissioning (150,000 gallons per decommissioning year for 1-2 years). (225,000 gallons per (225,000 gallons per year for 1-2 years). (225,000 gallons per year for 2-3 years); year for 2-3 years); year for 2-3 years); increased risks of run- increased risks of run- increased risks of runoff and sedimentation off and sedimentation off and sedimentation into surface waters into surface waters into surface waters during construction. during construction. during construction. Construction to affect Construction to affect Construction to affect Project to occupy 50 148 acres of native 148 acres of native Project to occupy 50 148 acres of native Vegetation 5.5 acres of forest land for vegetation; Project to vegetation; Project to acres of forest land for vegetation; Project to 25 years. occupy 71 acres of occupy 71 acres of 25 years. occupy 71 acres of forestland for 25 years. forestland for 25 years. forestland for 25 years.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 78 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations Construction will Construction will Construction will adversely affect small, adversely affect small, adversely affect small, slow-moving wildlife slow-moving wildlife slow-moving wildlife Localized and create short-term and create short-term Localized and create short-term fragmentation; disturbance to most disturbance to most fragmentation; disturbance to most displacement of some terrestrial animals. terrestrial animals. displacement of some terrestrial animals. Wildlife and 5.6 terrestrial wildlife; 50 Localized Localized terrestrial wildlife; 50 Localized Fisheries acres of forest fragmentation; fragmentation; acres of forest fragmentation; converted to displacement of some displacement of some converted to displacement of some developed facility. terrestrial animals; 71 terrestrial animals; 71 developed facility. terrestrial animals; 71 acres of forest acres of forest acres of forest converted to converted to converted to developed facility. developed facility. developed facility. Project construction Project construction would cause short- would cause short- term displacement to term displacement to Project construction most birds. Localized most birds. Localized would cause short- No new habitat loss. fragmentation; fragmentation; No new habitat loss. term displacement to Project operation displacement of some displacement of some Project operation most birds. Localized predicted to kill forest birds; 71 acres forest birds; 71 acres predicted to kill fragmentation; ~10,500 birds for life of of forest converted to of forest converted to ~10,500 birds for life of displacement of some project. Low risk of developed facility. developed facility. project. Low risk of forest birds; 71 acres bald eagle fatality; Project operation Project operation bald eagle fatality; of forest converted to Birds 5.7 moderate to high risk predicted to kill predicted to kill moderate to high risk developed facility. of golden eagle fatality ~15,100 birds for life of ~15,100 birds for life of of golden eagle fatality Project operation over life of project. project. Low risk of project. Low risk of over life of project. predicted to kill APP will implement bald eagle fatality; bald eagle fatality; APP will implement ~15,100 birds for life of measures to reduce moderate to high risk moderate to high risk measures to reduce project. Moderate to bird mortality if of golden eagle fatality of golden eagle fatality bird mortality if high risk of bald and significant. over life of project. over life of project. significant. golden eagle fatality APP will implement APP will implement over life of project. No measures to reduce measures to reduce APP. bird mortality if bird mortality if significant. significant.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 79 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 80 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations Project construction Project construction may affect suitable may affect suitable roosting habitat. roosting habitat. Project operation has Project operation has the potential to harm or the potential to harm or kill 27 Indiana bats kill up to 53 Indiana Project operation has Project operation under the 6.5 m/s Project operation bats, particularly the potential to harm or would not harm or kill curtailment, particularly predicted to kill 125 during migration; kill 32 Indiana bats, Indiana bats, No during migration; Indiana bats, operational particularly during habitat protection or operational particularly during modifications migration. Habitat Indiana Bat 5.8 conservation modifications migration. No implemented to reduce protection and measures implemented to reduce curtailment. No habitat the likelihood of conservation implemented to benefit the likelihood of protection and Indiana bat mortality; measures would recovery of Indiana Indiana bat mortality; conservation habitat protection and benefit recovery of bats. habitat protection and measures. conservation Indiana bats. conservation measures measures implemented to implemented to compensate compensate unavoidable effects to unavoidable effects to Indiana bats. Indiana bats. Project operation Project operation predicted to kill up to Project operation predicted to kill 6 Project operation 14 Virginia big-eared predicted to kill 8 Virginia big-eared bats Project operation would not harm or kill bats during 4.8 m/s Virginia big-eared bats, under the 6.5 m/s predicted to kill 25 Virginia big-eared bats. curtailment. Habitat particularly during curtailment, particularly Virginia big-eared bats. Virginia Big-eared No habitat protection protection and migration. Habitat 5.8 during migration. No curtailment. No Bat or conservation conservation protection and Habitat protection and habitat protection and measures measures conservation conservation conservation implemented to benefit implemented to measures would measures would measures. Virginia big-eared bats. compensate benefit recovery of benefit recovery of unavoidable effects to Virginia big-eared bats. Virginia big-eared bats. Virginia big-eared bats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 81 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations Additional income Additional income Additional income Additional income Additional income derived from derived from derived from derived from derived from construction jobs; construction jobs; construction jobs; construction jobs; construction jobs; additional tax revenue additional tax revenue additional tax revenue additional tax revenue additional tax revenue for municipalities and for municipalities and for municipalities and for municipalities and for municipalities and school districts; school districts; school districts; school districts; school districts; opportunity to provide opportunity to provide opportunity to provide opportunity to provide opportunity to provide renewable electric renewable electric renewable electric renewable electric renewable electric Socioeconomics 5.9 power resulting in a power resulting in a power resulting in a power resulting in a power resulting in a stabilizing effect on stabilizing effect on stabilizing effect on stabilizing effect on stabilizing effect on electricity prices. No electricity prices. No electricity prices. No electricity prices. No electricity prices. No disproportionate disproportionate disproportionate disproportionate disproportionate effects predicted to effects predicted to effects predicted to effects predicted to effects predicted to occur for low-income occur for low-income occur for low-income occur for low-income occur for low-income or minority or minority or minority or minority or minority populations. populations. populations. populations. populations. 71 ac of managed 71 ac of managed 50 ac of managed 71 ac of managed 50 ac of managed forest would be forest would be forest would be forest would be forest replaced by replaced by utility replaced by utility replaced by utility replaced by utility utility development. No development. No development. No development. No development. No Land Use and impacts to developed 5.10 impacts to developed impacts to developed impacts to developed impacts to developed Recreation or nature-based or nature-based or nature-based or nature-based or nature-based recreational areas and recreational areas and recreational areas and recreational areas and recreational areas and associated visitor associated visitor associated visitor associated visitor associated visitor experiences. experiences. experiences. experiences. experiences. Moderate change in Moderate change in Moderate change in Moderate change in Moderate change in viewshed of ridgeline; viewshed of ridgeline; viewshed of ridgeline; viewshed of ridgeline; viewshed of ridgeline; Visual Resources 5.11 no adverse impacts to potential adverse potential adverse no adverse impacts to potential adverse sensitive visual impacts to sensitive impacts to sensitive sensitive visual impacts to sensitive resources. visual resources. visual resources. resources. visual resources.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 82 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 3: Discarded Alternative 2: Additional Covered Alternative 4: ITP Alternative: FEIS Alternative 1: No- Proposed Action - Species – ITP and with Full Unrestricted Resource Section Action Alternative – ITP with Full HCP with Additional Implementation of Operations for 100- No. No-ITP/HCP Implementation of Measures and HCP for Phase I Only Turbine Project – No HCP Restricted Project ITP/HCP Operations Impacts to unknown Impacts to unknown Impacts to unknown archaeological archaeological archaeological resources to be resources to be resources to be Cultural No identified impacts No identified impacts 5.12 avoided; adverse avoided; adverse avoided; adverse Resources to cultural resources. to cultural resources. impacts to historic impacts to historic impacts to historic resources will be resources will be resources will be mitigated. mitigated. mitigated. No impacts to No impacts to No impacts to No impacts to No impacts to telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications telecommunications facilities. No adverse facilities. No adverse facilities. No adverse facilities. No adverse facilities. No adverse impacts to television impacts to television impacts to television impacts to television impacts to television Communications 5.13 and radio broadcasts, and radio broadcasts, and radio broadcasts, and radio broadcasts, and radio broadcasts, microwave microwave microwave microwave microwave transmission, and transmission, and transmission, and transmission, and transmission, and military radar. military radar. military radar. military radar. military radar. Short-term impacts to Short-term impacts to Short-term impacts to Short-term impacts to Short-term impacts to existing roads during existing roads during existing roads during Transportation 5.14 existing roads during existing roads during construction and construction and construction and decommissioning. decommissioning. decommissioning. decommissioning. decommissioning. Potential adverse Potential adverse Potential adverse Potential adverse Potential adverse effects associated with effects associated with effects associated with effects associated with effects associated with Safety and turbine blade shear turbine blade shear turbine blade shear turbine blade shear turbine blade shear 5.15 Security and ice throw are and ice throw are and ice throw are and ice throw are and ice throw are anticipated to be anticipated to be anticipated to be anticipated to be anticipated to be unlikely. unlikely. unlikely. unlikely. unlikely.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 83 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the existing conditions of the Project area and its surroundings. CEQ and DOI regulations implementing NEPA indicate that the scope of analysis depends on the extent of reasonably foreseeable Project-related impacts. This Project is somewhat unique in that a lawsuit halted construction at 67 turbines.26 The court’s decision forced the Project to be completed in two phases (see Chapter 1), and requires BRE to acquire an ITP to change operations and complete Phase II (33 additional turbines). Effects to the environment resulting from the proposed federal permitting action would cover incidental take of Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats resulting from Phase I changes in operations and construction and operation of Phase II, as well as decommissioning of both phases. As such, to properly define the affected environment, each section in this chapter will delineate the Project area prior to Phase I construction, as well as the environment as it exists today with Phase I in place and operating under the court’s restriction.

Phase I and Phase II of the Project are located in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, and include the 27,000-acre lease and the additional road ROWs [3,688 acres have been leased from a commercial timber company; 3,172 acres will be added to the lease for Phase II]. The Project also includes a transmission line that extends into Nicholas County and is currently servicing Phase I of the Project. Phase II will require creating a small transmission line laterally to connect the western most turbines associated with Phase II construction. The ITP and HCP would apply to the 27,000 acres of land leased by BRE for construction and operation of the Project (covered lands) (Figure 1-1). These lands include the locations for Phase I turbines (existing and operational) and Phase II turbines (proposed for construction) under the WVPSC siting regulations. The total area leased by BRE is privately owned and managed primarily for coal and timber production.

As described Section 1.1.1, the existing stipulation modification will alter the existing condition for some resources. Based on this modification, the limited operations for the existing 67 turbines are:

1. Beginning on April 1, 2012, implement turbine operations as follows: a. Operate turbines with cut-in-speeds of 6.9 m/s during the period from April 1 through November 15 from 0.5 hour prior to sunset until 0.25 hour after sunrise; and b. Feather turbine blades so there is only minimal rotation (<2 rpm) at wind speeds below turbine cut-in speeds. 2. Implement appropriate monitoring to detect the unlikely take of ESA-listed species; and 3. In the event take is detected, discontinue night-time operations described above during the period of April 1 to November 15, 2012.

This change may alter existing night-time conditions for noise, birds, and bats. These changes are addressed below in their corresponding sections.

4.1 Geology and Soils

4.1.1 Scope of Analysis This section describes the existing soil and geologic resources in the Project area, including topography, bedrock features, and seismicity. The soils and geology analysis in this FEIS is based on information

26 The Service discourages wind power developers from segmenting projects (i.e. constructing a project or a portion of a project, and then applying for an ITP to cover operations after the project is already constructed). We prefer that applicants seek ITPs prior to construction rather than waiting until turbines are operational. In this case, the Service provided technical assistance to BRE during project planning to help BRE judge the risk of take, explained to BRE it was responsible for ensuring its actions did not result in unauthorized take, discussed take authorization mechanisms, and offered BRE assistance in this regard prior to project construction (Service letters to BRE dated March 7, 2006, August 10, 2006, and July 31, 2007).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 84 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

publicly available in online databases and/or documents produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

4.1.2 Existing Conditions

4.1.2.1 Topography and Geology The covered lands exhibit abrupt topography of steep Appalachian Mountain Ridgelines. The Project area elevations range from 2,940 ft to 4,357 ft above mean sea level (amsl). The covered lands are located in the Allegheny Mountains section of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province (Figure 4-1). These mountains are described as a dissected, westward-tilting plateau of high, sharp ridges, low mountains, and narrow valleys (McNab and Avers 1994). In the Project area, side slopes range from 0 to 38% and average approximately 11%. Mountain tops in the Project area include Beech Ridge, Big Ridge, Cold Knob, Ellis Knob, Old Field, Nunly Mountain, Rock Camp Ridge, and Shellcamp Ridge; their average elevation is approximately 4,014 ft amsl.

Most of the rocks in West Virginia are sedimentary and were deposited during the Paleozoic Era (600 to 230 million years ago). The Project area generally is composed of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian deposits approximately 280 to 330 million years old (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey 1969). The Mississippian deposits include the Greenbrier Group, which is composed primarily of limestone yet includes shale and sandstone. Pennsylvanian deposits include thousands of feet of non- marine sandstone, shale, and coal.

During the Permian Period (225 to 270 million years ago), the Appalachian range of West Virginia was uplifted, the heavy deposition of sediments ceased, and erosion became the dominant geologic activity. This resulted in the formation of the ridges and valleys that now characterize the Project area. Although Permian tectonic activity occurred in the area to create structural folds and faults, seismic activity in the Project area occurs infrequently (USGS 2008).

Within the Central Virginia Seismic Zone near the town of Mineral, reverse faulting on a north or northeast-striking plane produced a 5.8 magnitude earthquake on August 23, 2011. This event was felt strongly in much of central Virginia and southern Maryland and caused minor damage in parts of Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, and southern New Jersey (USGS 2011). Mineral, Virginia is approximately 150 mi east of the Project area. The Central Virginia Seismic Zone has produced small and moderate earthquakes since at least the 18th century (USGS 2011). The largest historical shock from this seismic zone occurred in 1875, prior to the invention of effective seismographs; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that it produced a 4.8 magnitude earthquake at that time (USGS 2011).

The Project area generally borders the eastern boundary of the West Virginia coal fields. The coal resources in the area are found in deposits in the New River and Pocahontas Formations of the Pottsville Group. There are several underground and surface coal mines in the Project area.

Geology underlying the Project area is sandstone and shale of the Kanawha Formation. The Kanawha River alluvial aquifer, a semi-confined aquifer, underlies the Project area. Sandstone and sturdy carbonates support slopes and ridges, and weaker carbonates and shale underlie valleys (McNab and Avers 1994).

The Project area is located in an eroded plateau where the ridgetops and upper side slopes are comprised of the Kanawha, New River, and Pocahontas Formations of the Pottsville Group of the Pennsylvanian age, which usually consists of sandstone and conglomerate (Flegel 2007). The middle and lower side slopes consist of the Bluestone, Princeton, and Hinton Formations of the Mauch Chunk Group of Mississippian age, which usually consists of yellow and brown shale and siltstone.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 85 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-1. West Virginia Physiographic Provinces.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 86 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

All Phase I turbines were built along ridgelines at sites ranging from approximately 3,870 ft amsl to 4,385 ft amsl. Newly constructed roads for Phase I ranged in elevation from approximately 3,825 ft amsl to 4,348 ft amsl. The currently proposed Phase II turbine locations are at slightly lower elevations ranging from approximately 3,570 ft amsl to 4,065 ft amsl. Phase II on-the-ground siting of exact turbine and access road locations have yet to be identified. However, the approximate sites are indicated in Figure 1-4.

Caves and Mines In 2006, BRE queried available literature on caves within the general Project area (Davies 1965 as cited in BHE 2006, Storrick 1992 as cited in BHE 2006). BRE also coordinated with the WVDNR; the Natural Resources Analysis Center at West Virginia University; and Mr. Bill Balfour, a caving authority in the Project area. BRE developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) database identifying approximately 140 known caves within 5 mi of the then proposed turbine locations. This number was reported as an approximation because compiling data from numerous sources may have included undetected duplications. BRE focused their attention on caves within 5 mi because previous studies at the time indicated Indiana bat activity during swarming (prior to hibernation) and staging (after hibernation) was concentrated within 5 mi of hibernacula. All caves within 5 mi of the Project site occur in a southwest to northeast trending band, south and east of the then proposed turbine locations (BRE 2006). A query of mining permits by BRE revealed that several hundred mines in varying stages of use (e.g., active to inactive) exist within 20 mi of Phase I and Phase II Project areas.

4.1.2.2 Soils According to Flegel (2007), the headwaters of the Meadow and Cherry Rivers and their tributaries are located in an eroded plateau where the ridgetops and upper side-slopes comprise the Kanawha, New River, and Pocahontas Formations of the Pottsville Group of Pennsylvanian age. The middle and lower side-slopes comprise the Bluestone, Princeton, and Hinton Formations of the Mauch Chunk Group of Mississippian age (Figure 4-2).

The Pottsville Group on ridgetops usually consists of sandstone and conglomerate (Flegel 2007). At the higher elevations, these positions are occupied by the Gauley, Summers, Leatherbark, and Simoda soils. The Pottsville Group and the Bluestone and Princeton Formations of the Mauch Chunk Group on the upper and middle side-slopes consist of yellow and brown shale and siltstone; Mandy soils are on these sites. Snowdog and Trussel soils are on the foot-slopes.

Briery soils cover the strip-mined areas in the Pottsville Group at the higher elevations (Flegel 2007) such as on Cold Knob and Grassy Knob. At the lower elevations in the Pottsville Group and Bluestone and Princeton Formations of the Mauch Chunk Group, the Gilpin and Lily soils are on the ridgetops, the Gilpin soils are on the side slopes, and the Macove soils are on the foot-slopes. The Kaymine soils are in strip- mined areas at lower elevations. The lower side slopes that are in the Hinton Formation of the Mauch Chunk Group are composed mainly of siltstone and shale. The reddish Cateache soils and the yellowish Culleoka soils are on the side-slopes, and the reddish Shouns soils and yellowish Macove soils are on the foot-slopes.

Predominant soil types in the Project area belong to Mandy channery silt loam, Macove-Gilpin complex, Cateache silt loam, and Kaymine rock outcrop (Flegel 2007, USDA-NRCS 2008). These well-drained, loamy soils are formed in siltstone, shale, and sandstone. Additionally, these soils are not subject to flooding or high water tables (Flegel 2007, USDA-NRCS 2008).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 87 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-2. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project geology and soils, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 88 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.2 Noise Potential noise from the Project was evaluated in terms of its likely audibility or perceptibility at noise sensitive receptor locations relative to the background sound level. Noise sensitive receptor locations can be described as specific locations of any property or outdoor activity that is considered to contain noise- sensitive land use (e.g., residential developments, schools, hospitals, recreational areas).

4.2.1 Scope of Analysis The WVSPSC Siting Rules include specifications for assessing noise (§150-30-3.1.m.4.A-C). The assessment must include estimates for preconstruction (ambient), construction, and operations noise. The base line noise study must be no less than 7 days, including Saturday and Sunday. The Siting Rules do not identify noise limits or recommend setbacks. BRE contracted with Acentech, Incorporated to conduct acoustical studies for Phases I and II of the Project. These reports are provided in Appendix 4, and the results of these studies are summarized in this section.

4.2.1.1 Measuring Noise Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB). The quietest sound level that can be heard by a healthy human ear is around 0 dB. A moderate sound level is 55 to 60 dB, about the level of normal conversation. What one considers to be loud becomes somewhat objective; generally, sounds around 80 dB and higher often are interpreted to be loud.

Sound frequency or tonality is measured in Hz, and most sounds include a composite of frequencies. The normal range of healthy human hearing extends from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Hearing sensitivity varies, and humans generally hear best in the frequency range of human speech, around 500 Hz to 4,000 Hz.

Sound level instruments are equipped with a weighting filter. Filters make it possible to isolate measurements of those sounds perceived by the human ear. Environmental noise is most often measured using the A-weighted filter, which will remove frequencies below 500 Hz, and is expressed as dBA. The C-weighted scale is used to measure noise at very high sound levels and includes more of the low-frequency range of sounds than the A-weighted scale. The C-weighted filtered measurements are expressed as dBC.

The equivalent sound level (Leq) quantifies the entire ambient noise as a single value for a specified period, also sometimes known as average sound level. The Leq includes both the high-level single event sounds and the relatively steady background sounds. The day-night sound level (Ldn) is the A-weighted average equivalent sound for a 24-hour period with 10 dBA added to the Leq from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Adding 10 dBA to the night-time sound levels accounts for the expectation that night-time is a quiet period. The USEPA (1978) selected both the Leq and Ldn as the most meaningful descriptors for measuring and evaluating environmental noise. The USEPA (1978) indicated an Ldn level of 55 dBA as sufficient for the protection of human health and welfare.

4.2.2 Existing Conditions The Project area is located approximately 10 mi northeast of Rupert, West Virginia in a mountainous area south of the Monongahela National Forest. The proposed and existing turbine strings run along mountain ridges and peaks north of State Route 60 and Interstate 64 and west of State Route 219. Lightly traveled paved and unpaved roads cross this heavily forested landscape, which is infrequently dotted with small settlements, single residences, and hunting cabins. Lands are primarily used for commercial timber production.

Turbines are present and planned for the Project area in the commercial timber lands. A noise study identified noise sensitive receptor locations such as residences and churches. Other potential noise

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 89 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

sensitive receptor areas include larger communities with schools, hospitals, and libraries, recreational areas, and parks; these sites are located more than 1 mi from the Project area.

BRE contracted with Acentech, Incorporated to conduct an acoustical study to assess the potential noise impacts from Phase II construction and operation. Acentech conducted the study in February 2011. The report is provided in Appendix C (Report C-2) and summarized below. Although this study was conducted to help assess the potential impact of construction and operation of Phase II, it collected information on the existing conditions post-Phase I construction and operation, and thus helps to determine the overall current noise levels in the Project area.

For assessing the noise environment, the Phase II analysis area included 47 turbines, comprised of 33 proposed turbine locations and 14 alternate turbines locations (Figure 4-3). [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations.] For the Phase II 47-turbine layout, Acentech conducted a 12-day acoustical study during February 4-15, 2011. The Phase II noise study identified noise sensitive areas within 1 mi and 5 mi of the 47-turbine layout. Acentech monitored ambient (background) noise levels at 4 locations proximal to the 2-mi buffer of the 47-turbine layout (Figure 4-3). Monitoring locations were in close proximity to nearby homes, seasonal residences, and small groups of homes and ranged from 1,600 ft to 10,600 ft from the nearest proposed Phase II turbine location. Acentech (2011) determined these locations to be representative of the general site conditions found at the identified sensitive noise receptors.

Acentech monitored each of the sites for 255 hours; they measured dBA and dBC ambient noise at each of the 4 locations. By comparing dBA with dBC, one can determine the low frequency component of the sound. Ldn sound levels ranged from 47 dBA to 50 dBA (Table 4-1). Ambient noise levels across the 4 locations were relatively uniform; the average Ldn was 48 dBA (SD ±1 dBA; Acentech 2011).

Table 4-1. Ambient sound survey results for receptors potentially affected by the Phase II 47-turbine layout (33 proposed locations and 14 alternate locations) (Acentech 2011). Ambient noise levels shown indicate current conditions in the western portion of the Project area (Phase II) and include noise associated with the unrestricted operation27 of 67 Phase I turbines in the eastern portion of the Project area. Approximate Survey Ambient Ambient Receptor Description distance to nearest location Ldn (dBA) Ldn (dBC) turbine Hamlet with several 10,500 ft (2.0 mi)1 1 Town of Duo 2 48 65 residences, church 3,600 ft (0.7 mi) 2 Beech Ridge Road Few rural residences 1,600 ft (0.3 mi) 50 73 Near hamlet with 3 NW of Phase II 5,800 ft (1.1 mi) 47 55 several residences Hamlet with several 4 Town of Quinwood 5,000 ft (0.9 mi) 48 56 residences

1 Distance to nearest proposed Phase II turbine. 2 Distance to nearest existing Phase I turbine.

Sound levels included both steady background and short-term intrusive sounds. Observed sound sources included wind in trees, local and distant traffic, dogs barking, bird songs, aircraft, distant mining industry, and a flowing creek.

27 Under the court order and settlement agreement, these 67 turbines are allowed to operate unrestricted during winter months when bats are in hibernation. The noise levels were recorded February 2011.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 90 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-3. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project 2-mile noise buffer in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 91 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

During a site visit, the Acentech field crew heard sounds of the existing wind facility while at the Town of Duo location (Acentech 2011). Eventually, local wind speed increased, and the associated sound of wind in the trees masked the turbine noise. In this particular instance, the wind was from the southwest, and the Duo location was typically crosswind/downwind of the existing Phase I Project. The average sound levels at the Town of Duo location ranged from 41 dBA to 43 dBA during the time when the wind facility sound was observed (Acentech 2011). Although the nearest turbines could be heard, the Acentech field team judged that turbine sound did not significantly influence the average sound levels (Acentech 2011). As the data in Table 4-1 indicate, the long-term Ldn sound level at the Town of Duo location was similar to the Ldn levels measured at the 3 other monitoring locations that are much farther from the existing wind facility.

4.2.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification During the period from April 1 through November 15, 2012, the 67-turbine Project will operate during night-time hours when wind speeds are 6.9 m/s or higher. This is a change from the previous 2 years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not operate at night during this period. The limited operations during this seasonal period will result in night-time turbine noise. However, based on the results of the Acentech surveys (2006, 2011), turbine operation noise at night is not expected to have major adverse effects on the surrounding environment. Turbine noise is estimated to be comparable to the ambient noise levels at several locations within the Project area (Acentech 2006, 2011; see Section 5.2.2.1).

4.3 Climate and Air Quality

4.3.1 Scope of Analysis This section describes the current climate and ambient air quality associated with the covered lands and the surrounding region. The climate and air quality analysis in this FEIS is based on data and information from publicly available online databases and/or documents produced by the following:

1. U.S. Global Change Research Program: coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society; 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climate Data Center; 3. Northeast Regional Climate Center and West Virginia State Climate Office (climate summaries); 4. USEPA: the primary federal agency responsible for protecting and regulating air quality in the U.S.; and 5. WVDEP Division of Air Quality: the state agency responsible for ensuring West Virginia’s compliance with NAAQS mandated by the CAA.

The Northeast Regional Climate Center and West Virginia State Climate Office and Meteorology monitor and report on climate in West Virginia. The National Weather Service Office in Beckley, West Virginia is the closest first-order weather station (approximately 50 mi from the Project area). First-order weather stations observe and report on an array of meteorological elements, including atmospheric pressure, temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation type and amount, cloud cover, and visibility.

The National Regional Climate Data includes West Virginia, along with 12 other states, as part of the northeast region. For this region, the National Weather Service has tracked records for the past 116 years. Monthly climate summaries are available back through 1994 for the region and back through 2010 for West Virginia.

The WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality publishes annual air quality data for the State of West Virginia. The most recent summary of air quality data available for the state is the 2009 Air Quality Annual Report

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 92 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(WVDEP 2010). Included in this report are summaries of the NAAQS, 2009 air quality data, air toxics monitoring projects, and education and outreach efforts.

The WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality monitors air pollutants throughout West Virginia using ambient air quality sampling sites, 1 of which is located in Greenbrier County. The 6 West Virginia counties and 2 Virginia counties that abut Greenbrier County do not have ambient air quality sampling sites. The air quality sampling sites assess air quality levels based on population exposure and industry emissions, determine compliance with the NAAQS, and determine background levels. Each site is designed to monitor those air pollutants and parameters identified as problematic.

4.3.2 Existing Conditions

4.3.2.1 Regional Climate The warmest and wettest years for the northeast region occurred after 1996. In 2010, the average annual temperature was 49.2°Fahrenheit (F), making 2010 the 5th warmest year since record-keeping began in 1895 (NRCC 2011). Annual precipitation in the northeast was 52 inches (NRCC 2011).

From 1981 through 2010, the Elkins area (130 mi northeast of the Project) experienced an average annual temperature of 50.0°F. Average annual maximum temperature was 62.0°F, and average annual minimum temperature was 38.0°F. The maximum and minimum temperatures on record for the area are 99.0° F and -28.0°F, respectively. Annual average precipitation from 1971-2000 was 45.09 inches; average snowfall was 83.8 inches per winter season (NOAA-NWS 2011).

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reports that the annual average temperature in the northeast region has increased by 2°F since 1970 (Karl et al. 2009). Over the next several decades, temperatures in the Northeast are projected to rise an additional 2.5°F to 4°F in winter and 1.5°F to 3.5°F in summer.

In the past 50 years, the Northeast has experienced increased incidents of heavy rain events, winter precipitation falling less as snow and more as rain, and reduced snowpack (Karl et al. 2009). It is projected that climate change in the Northeast would result in a general trend of warmer, shorter winters and hotter, longer summers (Karl et al. 2009). Future climate models project there will be an increased frequency of rare events such as extreme heat waves and severe winter storms (Karl et al. 2009).

4.3.2.2 Local Climate Winters are cold and snowy in the Project area. Summers are fairly warm in the mountains and very warm and occasionally very hot in the valleys. The average temperature in winter is 33.1°F, and the average daily minimum temperature is 23.0°F. In summer, the average temperature is 69.7°F and the average daily maximum temperature is 81.7°F.

Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year, but it is significantly heavier on the west-facing slopes. Normal annual precipitation is roughly 40 inches (Flegel 2007). Of this, 18.4 inches (45%) typically falls from May through September. The Allegheny Mountains form a “rain shadow” that shelters the eastern portion of Greenbrier County from the prevailing storm systems. The average seasonal snowfall is about 28.5 inches. On average, 19 days of the year have at least 1 inch of snow on the ground. Prevailing winds are from the southeast, and the average wind speed is highest during March at 9.6 mph (4.3 m/s).

4.3.2.3 Air Quality

Ozone (O3) is the only criteria pollutant monitored at the Greenbrier County sampling site located at Sam Black Church, which is roughly 6.5 mi from the Phase II Project area. The site monitors ozone (O3) during the ozone season, which is April through October. When averaged over 3 years, the WVDEP standards for ozone were not exceeded at the air quality monitoring station in Greenbrier County (WVDEP 2009).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 93 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

However, the NAAQS standards for ozone were exceeded at this site according to the revised standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), which the WVDEP adopted into rule in 2010 (45 CSR 8 § 4.4).

Ground-level ozone is formed by chemical reactions among nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents, and natural sources emit NOx and VOCs that help form ozone.

For most days of recent years (2007-2009), Greenbrier County experienced good air quality (WVDEP 2009). Generally, less than 15% of the days per year were of moderate air quality or unhealthy for sensitive groups; ozone was the main pollutant (WVDEP 2009).

Based on the available air quality information (WVDEP 2008, 2009), the air quality in the Project area is not in attainment for ozone based on the revised NAAQS standards and the new WVDEP rule. Phase I Project operation does not generate air emissions. Project maintenance requires a small amount of vehicular traffic resulting in some carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and particulates.

4.4 Water Resources Water resources include groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is subsurface water that serves as a resource for commercial and residential consumption, agricultural irrigation, and surface water discharge/recharge. Surface water resources include open water (lakes, ponds), waterways (rivers, streams), wetlands, and floodplains.

4.4.1 Scope of Analysis The Project has the potential to affect groundwater and surface water resources within and proximal to the Project area. The water resources analysis in this FEIS is based on information from publicly available databases and documents, and materials prepared for the Project application to the WVPSC. Sources include:

• USGS 7.5 minute topographical maps; • Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs); and • Potesta & Associates, Inc.’s (Potesta) wetland and stream delineations for the facility and transmission line (Potesta 2005a, 2005b, 2010).

4.4.2 Existing Conditions

4.4.2.1 Groundwater The Kanawha River alluvial aquifer, a semi-confined aquifer, underlies the Project area. According to the Greenbrier County Local Health Department, there are no public water wells in the Project area (GCLHD 2009 as cited in HDR 2009). Information describing the location and nature of domestic and private wells in the Project area was not available.

4.4.2.2 Surface Water There are 2 federally designated National rivers in West Virginia. The New River Gorge National River and Bluestone National Scenic River are approximately 24 mi and 42 mi southwest of the Project area, respectively.

The Project area is within the Gauley River drainage, which merges with the New River to form the Kanawha River, a tributary of the Ohio River. These drainage basins can be divided into smaller sub- watersheds using the WVDEP’s stream coding system, which uses an alphanumeric code to label tributaries within the watersheds of larger rivers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 94 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 illustrate the location of streams in relationship to the existing turbines, proposed and alternate turbines, and associated Project infrastructure. Tributaries of the Gauley River and a headwater stream of the Greenbrier River drain the Phase I and II Project areas (Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5). Based on USGS topographic maps, surface water resources and their associated tributaries are listed in Table 4-2. A number of unnamed intermittent and ephemeral streams, which may be designated waters of the U.S., are located within the Project area. The unnamed streams flow to the streams listed in Table 4-2. In addition, there are numerous borrow pits and settling ponds from past coal mine activities located on and around the Phase I and II project footprint areas.

Table 4-2. Perennial streams proximal to the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project.

Stream WV AN Code Designated Trout Waters1 Gauley River Watershed Meadow Creek WVKG-17-A No - Warm water fishery Big Clear Creek WVKG-19-U Yes - Documented Brown Creek WVKG-19-U-1 Yes - Documented South Fork Big Clear Creek WVKG-19-U-2 Yes – Documented Job’s Knob Creek WVKG-19-U-2-D Yes - Documented Unnamed Tributary WVKG-19-U-2-D-1 No Old Field Branch WVKG-19-U-2-C No - Warm water fishery Sam Creek WVKG-19-U-3 Yes - Documented Elijah Branch WVKG-19-U-4 Probably - Undocumented Long Branch WVKG-19-U-5 Yes - Documented Maple Branch WVKG-19-U-7 Probably - Undocumented Bruffman Branch WVKG-19-U-6-A No - Warm water fishery Hominy Creek WVKG-24 Yes - Documented Peaser Branch WVKG-24-K Probably - Undocumented Laurel Creek/Cherry River WVKG-34-E Yes - Documented McMillion Creek WVKG-34-E-6 Probably - Undocumented Beech Run WVKG-34-E-8 Yes - Documented Hogcamp Run WVKG-34-E-9 Yes - Documented Jackson Run WVKG-34-E-9.7 No Rupe Hinton Branch WVKG-34-E-11.5 No Job Knob Branch WVKG-34-E-12 No Linn Branch WVKG-34-E-12A Yes - Documented Cold Spring Branch WVKG-34-E-13 Yes - Documented Bull Run WVKG-34-E-13 No Johnson Branch WVKG-34-E-14 No South Fork Cherry River WVKG-34-G Yes – Documented Blue Knob Branch WVKG-34-G-10-B Yes - Prospective Greenbrier River Watershed Roaring Creek WVKNG-30-0.5A-1-C-1-(S) Yes - Documented

1 Source: WVDEP Water Quality Standards Program.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 95 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-4. Surface water resources in the Beech Ridge Energy Phase I Project Area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 96 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-5. Surface water resources in the Beech Ridge Energy Phase II Project Area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 97 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The WVDEP’s Water Quality Standards Program has designated uses for surface waters. The water quality standards rule (47 CRS 2) states that all streams at a minimum are designated for propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life (i.e., warm water fishery or cold water trout fishery) and contact recreation. In addition, the standards apply a public water supply use to all streams. For aquatic life use, streams that are not designated trout waters are automatically designated warm water fishery. Trout waters are designated use for propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life in streams or stream segments that sustain year-round trout populations. In the Phase I and Phase II Project areas, 15 streams are designated trout waters, and 4 streams are probably trout waters but have not been documented (Table 4-2, WVDEP Water Quality Standards Program, personal communication).

4.4.2.3 Floodplains and Drainage Hydrology A floodplain is flat land adjacent to a stream or river that experiences occasional or periodic flooding. The 1%-annual chance flood, also referred to as Base Flood or the 100-year floodplain, is the basis for delineation of Special Flood Hazard Areas on FIRMs and floodplain regulations administered by West Virginia communities. The Special Flood Hazard Area is divided into the floodway and flood fringe. The floodway includes the channel and the portion of the adjacent floodplain required to pass the 100-year flood without increasing flood heights. Most floodplain regulations require that proposed floodway developments do not block the free flow of flood water, as this could dangerously increase that water's depth and velocity. The flood fringe is the remaining portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area that usually contains slow-moving or standing water. Regulations for development in the flood fringe typically require protection from floodwaters through flood proofing so water cannot enter the structure.

A review of FEMA FIRMs indicated no 100-year floodplains occur within the disturbance footprint of the existing Phase I project area or within the footprint of the proposed Phase II project areas.

4.4.2.4 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Wetlands and other surface waters were identified in accordance with the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987, and subsequent regulatory guidance issued by the USACE), and WVDEP (WVDEP 2009).

From August 31, 2005, through September 9, 2005, Potesta delineated wetlands and streams within what was at the time the Beech Ridge Project area. Potesta surveyed wetlands and streams at the sites of the then proposed 133 turbine locations, proposed new access roads, and existing roads. These surveys covered all of the currently operational Phase I footprint, including 5 turbine sites proposed for Phase I at the time that are now proposed for the Phase II expansion (Figure 4-4, Potesta 2005b). The USACE approved the Phase I wetland and stream delineation on March 23, 2006. Potesta identified jurisdictional waters of the U.S. during this survey (Potesta 2005b). One non-jurisdictional wetland was identified in association with the 5 turbine sites that are now the sites of 7 Phase II turbines (Phase II turbines 2 through 8, Figure 4-5).

From September 14, 2010, through October 1, 2010, Potesta delineated wetlands and streams within the Phase II Project area. The survey area was defined within an approximately 200-ft wide corridor along the ridgelines where turbines are proposed. Potesta surveyed wetlands and streams at the sites of proposed turbine locations, proposed new access roads, and existing roads. Potesta identified 3 potentially jurisdictional wetlands, 3 potentially non-jurisdictional wetlands, 1 potentially non-jurisdictional pond, 4 perennial streams, 1 intermittent stream, and 4 ephemeral streams (Table 4-3 and Table 4-4). Included in the Phase II analysis area is 1 non-jurisdictional wetland that was identified during the Phase I delineation (Potesta 2005b), located near what was originally turbine I2 and now referred to as turbine 3 (Figure 4-5).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 98 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-3. Streams identified within Phase II of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Stream Relationship to Project Reach Classification USGS Name Characteristics Component(s) ID Unnamed ~550 ft north of proposed STR-II-2 Ephemeral tributary of Brown turbine 20 Creek Sam Creek Between proposed turbines STR-II-3 Perennial Spring-fed headwaters 14 and 15 Unnamed Ordinary high water mark STR-II-4 Ephemeral tributary of Elijah ~1,000 ft from proposed Branch turbine 14 ~1,300 ft northeast of Ordinary high Elijah Branch proposed turbine 9; adjacent STR-II-5 Perennial water mark at WL- headwaters to Eck Kessler Road; crossed II-5 by unnamed mining road Unnamed ~1,400 ft northeast of Flows into STR-II- STR-II-6 Ephemeral tributary of Elijah proposed turbine 9; adjacent 5 Branch to unnamed mining road Flows into STR-II- Unnamed ~1,100 ft northeast of 5; ordinary high STR-II-7 Intermittent tributary of Elijah proposed turbine 9; crossed water mark at WL- Branch by Eck Kessler Road II-4 Unnamed ~3,000 ft south of proposed STR-II-8 Perennial tributary of Elijah Spring-fed turbine 14 Branch Unnamed headwater ~700 ft east of proposed STR-II-9 Perennial Flows into WL-II-2 tributary of turbine 11 McMillion Creek Sources: Potesta (2005b, 2010)

Table 4-4. Potential jurisdictional wetlands identified within Phase II of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project.

Wetland Wetland Relationship to Project Area 1 Characteristics ID Type Component(s) (ac) ~1,000 ft east of proposed Hydrologically connected to WL-II-2 PEM turbine 11; abuts Trap Ridge 0.27 STR-II-9 Road ~1,000 ft northeast of Hydrologically connected to WL-II-4 PFO proposed turbine 9; within 0.04 STR-II-7 100 ft of Eck Kessler Road ~1,000 ft northeast of Hydrologically connected to WL-II-5 PFO proposed turbine 9; within 0.12 STR-II-5 150 ft of Eck Kessler Road 1 Based on Cowardin et al. (1979); PFO = Palustrine Forested, PEM = Palustrine Emergent Sources: POTESTA (2005a, 2005b, 2010).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 99 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Two turbines, associated roads, and the electrical collection system line were not formally reviewed by the Applicant’s consultants, Potesta and Associates, in their 2010 Wetland Delineation report. However, this area has been informally reviewed, and no additional wetlands/streams were detected within the potential impact area. However, should BRE seek a USACE permit, this area along Blue Ridge will be formally reviewed.

Streams The surface water delineation (Potesta 2010) identified 8 streams within the 200-ft wide corridor along the ridgelines where turbines are proposed. These 8 streams are potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (as per 40 CFR 230.3(s)). Table 4-3 summarizes the characteristics of these streams and their relationships to Project components.

Wetlands The surface water delineation (Potesta 2010) identified 3 wetlands within the 200-ft wide corridor along the ridgelines where turbines are proposed. These 3 wetlands are potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (as per 40 CFR 230.3(s)). Table 4-4 summarizes the characteristics of these wetlands, each of which are less than 0.3 acre individually.

4.5 Vegetation

4.5.1 Scope of Analysis This section of the FEIS provides a description of vegetative cover in the covered lands, the leased 27,000-acre Project area, and associated transmission line. The description includes a spatial layout of vegetation cover types and details on botanical character and composition relevant to habitat features. Information was gathered from publicly available databases, federal and state employees, and documents available through credible internet sources (e.g., State Natural Heritage Program, USGS, NRCS).

4.5.2 Existing Conditions

4.5.2.1 Dominant Ecological Communities The 27,000-acre Project area lies within the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Ecological Subregion in the southern portion of the Allegheny Mountains ecological section (Bailey 1995, McNab and Avers 1994). Vegetation of the Allegheny Mountains section is categorized in 4 forest groups influenced by elevation and aspect: red spruce, northern hardwoods, mixed mesophytic (moist forest of mixed deciduous hardwood and evergreen trees), and oak.

Of the 48,000 acres surrounding and within 0.5 mi of the site, most of the forested stands are greater than 26 years old (Project HCP). The Project area’s current primary use is timber production. Forests are a combination of mixed deciduous and northern hardwood with some pine plantations; beech-maple-cherry is the dominant association of tree species. The beech-maple-cherry association appears to replace Appalachian oak forests following logging (Canterbury 2006).

Dominant tree species include American beech, sugar maple, tulip poplar, black cherry, yellow birch, red oak, and cucumber tree as reported by Michael (1994). Striped maple, mountain maple, and mountain laurel are dominant in the understory. The shrub, herbaceous and ground layers consists of elderberry, blackberry, greenbrier, stinging nettle, jewelweed, goldenrods, and numerous fern species. Additionally, reclaimed and unreclaimed mine areas contain mainly grasses, vetch, clover, bush clovers, black locust, and pines. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6 describe the land cover types (USGS classifications) found in and around the Phase I and Phase II Project area. [Scientific names of all plants and animals are provided in Appendix D, Table D-1.].

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 100 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-6. Land cover types, Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, WV.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 101 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-5. 2003 land cover types in and around the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project.

Habitat Type Percent Cover Deciduous forest 87.30 Pasture-hay 4.00 Mixed forest 2.74 Open space 2.30 Evergreen forest 1.56 Barren land 1.02 Cultivated crops 0.48 Low intensity developed 0.20 Open water 0.12 Emergent herbaceous wetlands 0.06 Woody wetlands 0.05 Medium intensity developed 0.02 Source: USGS Land Cover Analysis Tool (LCAT) Version 2 (http://lcat.usgs.gov/)

Michael (1994) documented 55 herbaceous species and 20 woody species in the Phase I Project area in August 1994. Uncommon plants included cucumber tree, mountain magnolia, eastern hemlock, American mountain-ash, and Allegheny menziesia

4.5.2.2 Invasive Plants The State of West Virginia has declared 14 plant species as noxious weeds (§61-14A-5). Surveys in the Phase I and II Project areas did not document the occurrence of plant species designated by the state as noxious (Michael 1994, Potesta 2005b, 2010). BRE employees have observed invasive non-native Japanese stiltgrass, autumn olive, and bush honeysuckle in the planning area (E. Duncan, personal communication). Other invasive species that have the potential to occur in the Project area include kudzu, garlic mustard, tree-of-heaven, Morrow’s honeysuckle, and multiflora rose. This potential for occurrence is based on the species documented occurrence in West Virginia (USDA-NRCS 2011) and habitat preference.

4.5.2.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants Plants designated by the Service as threatened, endangered, or of concern are not likely to occur in the Project area. There are 3 federally listed plants with records of occurrence in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties: the shale barren rock-cress is listed endangered, and Virginia spiraea and small whorled pogonia are listed as threatened. The shale barren rock-cress occurs on south- and west-facing slopes in shale deposits at elevations ranging from 1,300 ft to 1,500 ft. The Virginia spiraea occurs along rocky, flood-scoured banks of high-gradient streams or rivers. These habitats are not found in the Project area, and it is unlikely that these species are present. To date, there are only 2 occurrences of small whorled pogonia in West Virginia. The WVDNR has a predictive model of habitat for this species. The model does not predict habitat for small whorled pogonia in the Project area. In addition, Michael (1994) did not detect any rare plants or unique plant communities during surveys conducted in the Phase I Project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 102 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.6 Wildlife and Fisheries

4.6.1 Scope of Analysis This section of the FEIS describes the affected environment associated with animals other than birds and bats. Due to the concern expressed during scoping about impacts to birds and bats at wind projects, these 2 animal resources are discussed separately in Sections 4.7 and 4.8.

The wildlife and fisheries analysis in this FEIS describes animal resources within the Phase I and Phase II Project areas. Generally speaking, animals are highly mobile; dispersal and migration are life strategies for many species. Between the 2 Phases, animals are expected to move, and habitat types are very similar. The wildlife and fisheries analysis in this FEIS is based on Michael (1994), Canterbury (2006), and information provided by the West Virginia Wildlife Diversity Program.

4.6.2 Existing Conditions

4.6.2.1 Terrestrial Animals Vertebrate animals likely to use the Project area are represented by those often associated with extensively forested landscapes, altered by disturbances associated with timber harvesting and surface mining. Many of the animal species documented and expected to occur are common and widely distributed throughout the mountains of West Virginia. The extensive commercial timber harvest and surface mining over the past 2 centuries have affected native habitats in the Project area. Available habitat includes combinations of uninterrupted forest, forest patches, and clearings. Appendix D, Table D- 2 provides lists of vertebrate terrestrial and aquatic animals likely to occur in the Project area and its vicinity based on Michael (1994), Lipton and White (1995), Canterbury (2006), Sauer et al. (2011), West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (2011), Young et al. (2012a, 2012c), and information provided by the West Virginia Wildlife Diversity Program.

Michael (1994) conducted an assessment of terrestrial animals in the Phase I Project area from May to November 1994. According to Michael (1994), the Project area is known or expected to support those animals often associated with multi-age hardwood forests with intermittent patches of conifers and herbaceous openings. Phase II is likely to possess similar suites of animals. Michael (1994) estimated 28 amphibians, 19 reptiles, 61 birds, and 29 mammals are likely to occur in the Project area.

Large carnivores are represented by black bear, coyote, and bobcat. Other large mammals such as white-tailed deer are also abundant. Over a century ago, as late as 1887, woodland bison and eastern elk were found in this area, but they have since been extirpated due to hunting. The red spruce vegetation zone (above 3,500 ft) contains various smaller species, such as rabbits, red squirrels, and southern flying squirrels. Gray squirrels and fox squirrels are more abundant within the lower vegetation zones of the area. Small mammals such as deer mouse, meadow jumping mouse, and various weasels are common within the Project area.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Terrestrial Animals

West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel, a subspecies, is endemic to the Allegheny Highlands and confined to montane boreal forests (USFWS 1990). The West Virginia northern flying squirrel primarily uses spruce and mixed spruce-northern hardwood forests; however, they will use hardwood-dominated forests that are adjacent to red spruce. In 1985, the Service listed the West Virginia northern flying squirrel as endangered due to rarity and extensive habitat loss. The Service delisted the squirrel (73 FR 50226-50247, August 26, 2008), but then relisted it (76 FR 35349-35350, June 17, 2011) as the result of a lawsuit challenging the delisting (Friends of Blackwater et al. v. Salazar et al., Case No 1:09-cv-02122-EGS, 2011).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 103 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The current known range of the West Virginia northern flying squirrel follows the spine of the high Allegheny Plateau from Blackwater Canyon/Dolly Sodds (Tucker County) to Cranberry/Upper Williams (Pocahontas and northwestern Greenbrier Counties), covering 7 counties in West Virginia and Highland County in Virginia (USFWS 2006).

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel is not thought to inhabit the Project area. Based upon the lack of suitable habitat found within the Project area and 3 years of negative nest-box data conducted by another private party on-site, it was concluded that it was unlikely for West Virginia northern flying squirrel to occupy the Project area. Potential harm to the West Virginia northern flying squirrel through habitat loss associated with the Project is not anticipated. The Service concluded the Project is not likely to adversely affect the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, and that no further consultation under the ESA would be required for this species (letter from the Service dated March 7, 2006).

Cheat Mountain Salamander. The Service listed the Cheat Mountain salamander as a threatened species on August 18, 1989 (54 FR 34464-34468). The Cheat Mountain salamander inhabits moist coniferous and mixed deciduous forests at higher elevations, above 2,000 ft and 3,500 ft in northern and southern portions, respectively, of their range (USFWS 2009a). The salamander’s decline has been attributed to the loss and degradation of their relatively selective habitat conditions (USFWS 1991). Currently, the Cheat Mountain salamander is known from a 695-mi2 area in Randolph, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Tucker, and Grant Counties in eastern West Virginia (USFWS 2009a). Known populations are discontinuous and restricted to the higher elevations (>2,000 ft amsl) of 12 mountains (USFWS 2009a).

The Project area is roughly 40 mi southwest of the nearest known Cheat Mountain salamander population at Thorny Flat at the south end of Cheat Mountain (Pauley 2007a as cited in USFWS 2009a). Although the species has been found in areas where some disturbance has occurred, the extent as well as the type of disturbances (i.e., clear cutting and surface mines) implemented in the Project area make occurrence of the species unlikely.

Northern Water Shrew. The northern water shrew is a West Virginia state species of special concern. It is often associated with high-elevation (>2,000 ft amsl) mountain streams and northern hardwood forests dominated by yellow birch, American beech, red spruce, red maple, and eastern hemlock trees and with dense, shrubby understory (WVDNR 2004). It occurs in forests along mountain streams characterized by cut banks, rocks, fallen logs, and abundant moss and leaf litter. It feeds on aquatic insects. To date, there are only 18 records of northern water shrews in Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton and Pocahontas counties. Surveys have not been done on the project site for the Northern water shrew, although potential habitat may exist on site.

4.6.2.2 Aquatic Animals There are no major rivers or lakes situated within or near the Project area; however, the area includes perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams (described in Section 4.4.2.2) Additionally, numerous borrow pits and settling ponds from past mining activities are located in the Project area. Common fish species found in these small rivers and creeks include brook trout and sculpins at higher elevations, with bass, rock bass, minnows, and darters found within the lower elevations.

The WVDEP’s Water Quality Standards Program has documented 15 streams as designated trout waters, and 4 streams are probably trout waters but have not been documented (Table 4-3, WVDEP Water Quality Standards Program, personal communication). Four other streams are not documented, but are probably trout waters, and 1 stream is a prospective trout stream. Trout waters are designated for the propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life in streams or stream segments that sustain year-round trout populations.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 104 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Aquatic Animals There are no federally listed endangered or threatened fish species found in West Virginia. However, 10 freshwater mussel species are listed as federally endangered. These mussels are associated with rivers and streams that are larger than the streams within and proximal to the Project area. Streams in the Project area are small, high-elevation streams that do not provide suitable habitat for listed mussels.

The candy darter is designated as a species of concern by the State. The WVNHP has assigned it to category S2 (6 to 20 documented occurrences, or few remaining individuals within the state; very rare and imperilled). The candy darter is found only in the upper Kanawha River System of West Virginia and Virginia. At least 80% of its range is within West Virginia's Gauley, Greenbrier, and Bluestone river drainages. It is not known if streams within and proximal to the Project area support the candy darter.

4.7 Avian Resources

4.7.1 Scope of Analysis Based on studies of existing wind power projects in North America and Europe, the greatest potential for wildlife impacts are related to avian and bat species. Hence, this section devotes extensive discussion on avian resources, the majority of which are protected under the MBTA.

This FEIS describes avian resources within the Phase I and Phase II Project areas. Birds are highly mobile, and dispersal and migration are important aspects of their life strategies. Birds are expected to move between the 2 Project phases, which have similar habitat types. The avian resources analysis is based on information from the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (WVNHP) database, West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas II (2011), and studies conducted for the Project. Project area avian studies include:

• Environmental Assessment – Wildlife Impacts (Michael 1994) • Raptor Migration Study (Lipton and White 1995) • Avian Fatal Flaw Analysis (Curry & Kerlinger 2004) • Avian Phase I Assessment of Bird Populations (Canterbury 2006) • Spring and Fall Eagle And Osprey Surveys (Young et al. 2012a) • Avian Migration Studies (Young et al. 2012c) • Avian risk assessment (Young et al. 2012b) • Winter raptor survey (Young et al. 2013)

Two avian resource studies are quite old (1994, 1995) and were conducted as part of a previous developer’s environmental investigations. BRE contracted the more recent studies listed above. The study reports are provided in Appendix E.

4.7.2 Existing Conditions Lipton and White (1995) and Canterbury (2006) described the Project area in terms applicable to bird use. Michael (1994) also assessed the Project area using a broader scope to include plants and other wildlife, as well as birds. All targeted bird surveys occurred relative to those areas proposed for turbine siting.

As mentioned previously, the leased lands largely have been used for timber production and coal mining. Much of the area was harvested in the first half of the 20th century, resulting in extensive cleared areas (Michael 1994). More recently, commercial timber harvests were conducted systematically in 40-acre clear-cut units (Michael 1994). Although the regional landscape can be described as contiguously forested, the Phase I and Phase II Project areas are a mixture of managed forests, active and abandoned strip mines, herbaceous reclamation lands, old fields, man-made ponds, and wetlands. Recent clearing for the Phase I project has resulted in linear and small openings of brushy scrub/shrub habitat, which is expected to last for 5 to 6 years until natural succession advances to the immature tree stage. Contiguous

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 105 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

forest patches tend to be larger (> 500 acres) and more extensive in the eastern portion of the project area (Phase I), compared to the more fragmented western portion of the project area where Phase II is proposed. There are many forest patches < 250 acres in the Phase II project area, as well as many small openings < 40 acres with abrupt (hard) edges.

Using their knowledge of the avifauna of the region and experience with wind power development in West Virginia and elsewhere, Curry and Kerlinger (2004) reviewed topographic maps, available data, and literature in an attempt to identify potential risks to birds in association with the proposed Project. The review focused on identifying endangered, threatened, and species of special concern that may be found on and around the Project site. The habitat within the Project area does not exhibit characteristics unique to the landscape that may attract concentrations of birds. Curry and Kerlinger (2004) did not identify important stopover or staging sites where birds could rest and replenish resources such as large water bodies, agricultural fields, or wetlands. Curry and Kerlinger’s (2004) interpretation of available information on the habitat and geographic location of the Project did not lead them to conclude that there were major bird migration and/or potential stopover sites within the Project boundary.

BRE conducted several pre-construction bird surveys in the Phase I Project area during the spring and fall of 2005 (Canterbury 2006). In addition, BRE conducted a post-construction osprey survey in the Phase I Project area in the spring of 2011 (Young et al. 2012a). BRE also conducted a pre-construction avian use survey in the Phase II Project area in the spring of 2011 (Young et al. 2012c) and winter of 2011-2012 (Young et al. 2013). Survey methods generally followed established protocols: point counts, transects, and observations as described in the Service’s land-based wind power guidelines (USFWS 2012c), with exception that breeding bird surveys missed the early nesting season of the American woodcock. Results are described briefly here and in detail in Canterbury (2006) and Young et al. (2012a, 2012c, 2013).

Appendix D, Table D-1 provides scientific names of all plants and animals referenced in the FEIS, and Table D-2 provides lists of birds and other vertebrate animals known or expected to occur in the Project area.

4.7.2.1 Diurnal 50-m (165-ft) Radius Fixed Point Counts (Phase I Project Area) Diurnal 50-m (165-ft) radius fixed point counts were conducted at least twice a week at 100 points from May 10 to June 20, 2005, and from August 23 to November 15, 2005 (Canterbury 2006). The diurnal point counts provided information on species composition, habitat use, and flight characteristics. Passerines constituted 86.4% of the total birds observed during the spring and fall point counts.

During the spring, the most numerous species (total counted) observed were the red-eyed vireo, American crow, turkey vulture, American robin, yellow-rumped warbler (migrant through the area), and blue jay. Warblers were the most numerous passerine subgroup detected. Thrushes, corvids, and vireos were also frequently detected. A total of 366 raptors were observed during the spring point count surveys; 300 of these individuals were vultures. During the fall, the 5 most numerous species were the European starling, blue jay, common grackle, turkey vulture, and cedar waxwing. Grassland birds and sparrows were the most numerous passerine group. Warblers and thrushes made up 21.3% of all passerines detected. A total of 1,390 raptors were recorded (9% of total birds observed); 829 of these individuals were vultures.

Habitats in the project area are a combination of contiguous forest, forest patches, and clearings. Species composition and frequency of occurrence varied with landscape and patch size, as well as tree diameter and percent canopy cover. Passerine use in the spring generally was higher in areas with the lowest overhead canopy (0-20%). This could be due to the preference of certain species for clear cuts, as well as increased delectability in these areas. Although considerably variable, the passerine species with an affinity for forest habitat were most often found in areas with greater than 70% forest cover.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 106 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

With regard to flight characteristics of birds in the project area, most of the passerines observed in the spring were often below 25 m (82 ft), and therefore outside the “zone of risk” of the rotor-swept area (25- 115 m; 82-377 ft). Of the passerines observed in flight, 32% were within the risk zone. Waterfowl, raptors, and other large birds were often observed at or slightly above the risk zone during spring and fall. As a group, 79% of raptors were within the risk zone during the spring study period. In the fall, 84% of raptors were observed flying within the “zone of risk.” Corvids, starlings, waxwings, blackbirds, and finches appeared to be at greater risk than other passerine subgroups during the fall. Approximately 39% of warblers flying during the fall study were within the risk zone. Overall for both study periods, raptors appeared to be at the greatest risk for flying in the risk zone; this risk was higher in the fall than in the spring.

4.7.2.2 Diurnal 500-m Line-Transects (Phase I Project Area) Canterbury (2006) surveyed diurnal 500-m (1,650-ft line-transects in 5 ridgetop locations during the breeding season from June 16 to June 20, 2005. Line-transects provided information on relative abundance and bird-habitat associations. Observers recorded 69 species among 640 individuals. The 5 most abundant species were red-eyed vireo, chestnut-sided warbler, black-throated green warbler, veery, and dark-eyed junco (Canterbury 2006).

4.7.2.3 Spring Diurnal Raptor Surveys (Phase I Project Area) Spring diurnal raptor surveys were conducted using 2 methods, the broadcast call and quiet observer methods (Canterbury 2006). Spring raptor surveys provided information on relative abundance, and nesting.

The broadcast method was used at 50 of the point count locations from May 10 to June 15, 2005, from sunrise to 1300 hours. The broadcast call method is originally based on that described by Mosher et al. (1986 as cited in Canterbury 2006). Recorded vocalizations of targeted raptor species are broadcasted from a designated survey point for a specified duration. Vocalizations are broadcast using a trumpet speaker that is directed in at least 2 directions from the survey point. The broadcast period is followed by a period of the observer listening and recording bird responses to the vocalizations. The combined periods are often 10 to 20 minutes at each survey point.

The quiet observer method was used at 32 of the point count locations during 2 periods of the day, from daybreak until noon and 1300 to 1800 hours. The quiet observer method is the standard raptor survey method where an individual observes birds without the aid of call vocalizations. Observer points are usually surveyed for longer periods than 10 to 20 minutes.

During the spring, observers recorded 107 raptors of 10 species. Red-shouldered hawks were sighted at the greatest frequency in the spring, and northern harriers and American kestrels were sighted more often in the spring than the fall. Eastern screech-owl, Cooper’s hawk, and broad-winged hawk were confirmed breeding in the study area.

4.7.2.4 Fall Diurnal Raptor Surveys (Phase I Project Area) Fall diurnal raptor surveys were conducted using 2 methods (Canterbury 2006). The broadcast call method was used at 50 of the point count locations from September 1 to November 12, 2005, from sunrise to 1300 hour. In addition, 8 ridgetop locations were surveyed during this same timeframe using the quiet observer method. Each of the 8 ridgetop locations was surveyed only once for 12.5 hours and thus likely underestimated raptor use. Fall raptor surveys provided information on migratory patterns and relative abundance.

During the fall, observers detected 715 raptors of 16 species. More than 500 of these raptor sightings were vultures. Other commonly observed raptors were broad-winged, sharp-shinned, and red-tailed

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 107 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

hawks. Eighty-four percent of raptors detected in flight during the fall surveys were observed to be within the rotor-swept zone. Raptor migration peaked during September. Raptor passage rates were similar across the study area, but a few more eagles were noted along Cold Knob (location of the existing Phase I, 67 turbines) and Grassy Knob (outside of the existing Phase I and planned Phase II, 33-turbiine expansion area).

During fall 1994, Lipton and White (1995) conducted raptor surveys from 6 observation points (Beech Knob, Five Points, Job Knob, Cold Knob, Craters Knob, and Joe Knob), 3 of which were within the Phase I Project area. Between September 10 and November 29, 1994, Lipton and White (1995) reported 974 raptors. Of these, 2 points, Beech Ridge and Cold Knob located within the existing Phase I turbine strings, had the highest raptor migration rates in 1994 (Lipton and White 1994), as well as in 2005 and 2011 (Canterbury 2005, 2006, Young et al. 2011). Cold Knob and Beech Knob also had the highest number of observed resident raptors in 1994 (Lipton and White 1994). During 2005 surveys, Cold Knob also had the highest rates of eagle and songbird migration during fall (Canterbury 2005, 2006).

Lipton and White (1995) compared their survey results to those of Hanging Rock Tower, an established hawk migration observation point in Waiteville, West Virginia (<40 mi south of the Project area). Comparing counts from corresponding days and hours from both sites, Hanging Rock Tower had an overall passage rate more than 10 times that observed by Lipton and White (1995). Thus, the study area appears to have low to moderate raptor use, although certain locations such as Grassy Knob, Cold Knob, and Beech Ridge may be more attractive to raptors than others.

4.7.2.5 Woodcock and Nocturnal Bird Surveys (Phase I Project Area) Woodcock and nocturnal birds were surveyed using 2 methods. During spring 2005, playback call surveys consisted of 5 minutes of broadcasting vocalizations followed by 5 minutes of observation/listening time (Canterbury 2006). Playback calls included those of owls, whip-poor-will, bitterns, and rails. Playback calls were conducted at point counts located on the existing timber company access road for only 12 nights, a limited timeframe that may have underestimated use. The playback call surveys provided information on the presence or absence of woodcock and nocturnal birds.

In fall 2005, Canterbury (2006) surveyed nocturnal migrants using a method described in Evans and Rosenberg (1999). For 12 nights in the fall, stationary points in the Project area were sampled for 4 to 5 hours using a sensitive microphone and recorder. These limited acoustic surveys provided some basic information on nocturnal migration in the Project area but did not represent the full migration season.

Five whippoorwills were heard in the spring of 2005. Fall nocturnal surveys yielded 11 species and 11,000 individuals, the most common of which were the Swainson’s thrush, gray-cheeked thrush, and common nighthawk.

4.7.2.6 Golden-Winged Warbler and Cerulean Warbler (Phase I Project Area) Golden-winged warbler and cerulean warbler were surveyed from each of the 100 point count locations using song playbacks of both species (Canterbury 2006). Each point count location was surveyed 1 time for 10 minutes. Due to the short time frame, results may underestimate use. Playback songs of both species were broadcast. The survey results were used to locate breeding warblers; observers measured vegetation in occupied sites to assess habitat conditions.

Canterbury (2006) detected 2 golden-winged warblers during the point count survey, and an additional 7 territorial males while conducting activities associated with site visits (3 of these were just outside of the Project area). All detections occurred in clear-cut and mid-successional forest habitats. Golden-wing warblers were absent from 85% of the suitable habitat in the project area. Canterbury (2006) did not detect cerulean warblers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 108 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

During May 26 to June 2, 2010, the Brooks Bird Club conducted a rapid bio-assessment of various locations in Greenbrier County, including the location of the existing Beech Ridge wind project (Fox 2011). One golden-winged warbler was found at a reclaimed strip mine; however, it is unclear from the report whether this warbler was on the Beech Ridge project site. The report notes that cerulean warblers were uncommon in Greenbrier County and only found at low elevations; thus, we presume they were not found on the high elevation Beech Ridge project site by the Brooks Bird Club. However, they were seen in the Phase II expansion area by Western Ecosystems Technology during spring bird surveys in 2011 (Young et al. 2012c).

4.7.2.7 Fall Migrant Songbirds (Phase I Project Area) Canterbury (2006) conducted mist-net surveys for fall migrant birds along the ridgetop access road in the Phase I Project area. Licensed banders ran from 10 to 15 mist-nets each day at road access areas on 40 days within the proposed Project area. Mist-netting results provided information on migrant species composition and migration patterns. Netting efforts captured 75 species among 1,612 individuals. The most numerous species captured were dark-eyed juncos and Cape May warblers. Several species were captured that were not observed during the fall point counts such as golden-winged warblers and Kentucky warblers.

4.7.2.8 General Observations from 2005 Surveys (Phase I Project Area) Observers detected 124 species during the 2005 surveys (Canterbury 2006). Observers confirmed 100 species during the spring study and 121 species during the fall survey. Of the 100 species observed during the spring survey, all but 7 likely used the Project area for breeding, as determined by the presence of territorial, singing males well into mid-June. Wood duck, whip-poor-will, and eastern kingbird were observed during the spring, but not during the fall survey. [See Appendix E, Report E-4 to see Canterbury (2006)].

Overall, 2,578 raptors consisting of 18 different species were observed within the Project area during all survey efforts. The only shorebird observed in the surveys was the American woodcock. Waterfowl detected were the wood duck and mallard. The size and number of wetlands within the Project area are very limited and therefore would not be expected to attract abundant water birds.

4.7.2.9 Post-Construction Osprey Survey (Phase I Project Area) The WVPSC siting certificate issued to BRE contains a condition for a post-construction study of eagles and osprey. BRE conducted a spring raptor survey in 2011 to specifically address osprey occurrences in the Phase I Project area (Young et al. 2012a).

Surveys were conducted from 5 locations (point stations) within the Phase I Project area. Each station was surveyed 3 times per week from March 16 to May 31, 2011, the period of time when migrant ospreys are likely to be observed, based on information from other regional hawk surveys (Young et al. 2012a). Mean bird use (including raptors, vultures, and owls) in the area varied among the point stations, from 1.74 birds per observer-hour at Station 2 to 7.78 birds per observer-hour at Station 5. Station 5 was located near Turbine J-03 and the transmission line.

Observers detected 126 individual raptors representing 9 species. One individual osprey was observed, accounting for 0.8% of total observed raptors. Seven eagles were observed, 1 bald eagle and 6 golden eagles, representing 5.5% of total observed raptors. It is important to note that the surveys likely missed the peak of golden eagle spring migration, which generally occurs prior to March. Hence, golden eagle use over the Project area probably is higher in late winter (see Section 4.7.2.11). Turkey vulture was the most commonly recorded species, representing 79.9% of all observations. The full report for the osprey survey (Young et al. 2012a) is provided in Appendix E, Report E-5.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 109 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Raptor use within the Phase I Project area was 0.62 birds per observer-hour. Buteos were observed in 35.7% of the surveys; their mean use was 0.48 birds per observer-hour. Broad-winged hawk was the most common buteo observed, with 39 individuals observed during the survey period. Eagles were observed during 3.6% of the surveys, and eagle use was 0.04 birds per observer-hour. Ospreys had the lowest use of all raptors detected (less than 0.01 birds per observer-hour) and were observed in only 0.7% of all surveys.

Raptor detections were highest in the middle of the day (1200 hours) from late-April through early-May. Based on estimated flight heights, 44% of detected raptors were within the rotor-swept zone (i.e., 35 m to 130 m [115 ft to 427 ft] agl).

Young et al. (2012a) compared data from the fall 2011 Phase I raptor surveys to similar data on corresponding days from 4 sites in the same geographic region that are used regularly for hawk migration studies (HMANA 2011). Excluding vulture observations, the average number of raptors per observer-hour was substantially lower at the Phase I Project (1.30 raptors per observer-hour) than at 4 other established sites (ranging from 9.15 to 56.85 raptors per observer-hour in fall (Young et al. 2012a).

4.7.2.10 Pre-Construction Avian Use Surveys (Phase II Project Area) BRE conducted bird surveys between March 17 and May 31, 2011, in the Phase II Project area (Young et al 2012c). Surveys included fixed-point bird use surveys and raptor migration surveys.28

Bird Use Survey From April 8 to May 31, 2011, bird use in the Phase II Project area was surveyed from 34 points; each point was surveyed approximately weekly. After completing 292 20-minute counts in 34 50-m (165-ft) radius plots, observers recorded 2,552 individuals consisting of 80 species (Young et al. 2012c). Mean species richness was 3.62 species per 20-minute survey per plot (Young et al. 2012c). Passerines represented 90% of all detections (Young et al. 2012c). The most common species observed (based on frequency of occurrence) were eastern towhee, red-eyed vireo, chestnut-sided warbler, and black- throated green warbler. The full report for the Phase II pre-construction surveys (Young et al. 2012c) is provided in Appendix E, Report E-6.

Diurnal raptor use in the bird use surveys was 0.01 birds per 20-minute survey per plot and raptors comprised 1% of all bird use (Young et al. 2012c). Twenty-four individual raptors of 5 species were recorded, with red-shouldered hawk most commonly observed. Diurnal raptor use within the 50-m plots included buteos and northern harrier. One barred owl was the only owl detected.

Spring Raptor Survey Raptor surveys were conducted from 3 locations (point stations) within the Phase II Project area (Young et al. 2012c). Each station was surveyed approximately 3 times a week (totalling 32 or 33 times) from March 17 to May 31, 2011.

Observers detected 661 individual raptors representing 11 species. For all 3 stations in the Phase II Project area, mean bird use (includes raptors, vultures, and owls) was 4.88 birds per observer-hour. Mean bird use in the area varied slightly among the 3 point stations, from 4.36 birds per observer-hour at Station 3 to 6.82 birds per observer-hour at Station 2. Turkey vulture was the most commonly recorded species, representing 73.1% of all observations, and vulture use was 3.62 birds per observer-hour. Six golden eagles were observed, representing 1.0% of total observed raptors, and golden eagle use was 0.05 birds per observer-hour. As previously indicated, the spring raptor survey likely missed the peak of

28 BRE’s pre-construction surveys included fall surveys that are also described in Young et al. (2012c), which was made available in July 2012. This was too late to summarize in the FEIS; this information will be summarized in the FEIS. However, the full report is provided in Appendix E, Report E-6.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

golden eagle migration, which generally occurs prior to March. Hence, golden eagle use over the Project area probably is higher in late winter. BRE conducted a winter survey in 2011/2012 in the Phase I and Phase II Project areas to further address the presence of ospreys, eagles, and other raptors in the Project area during migration and winter (see Section 4.7.2.11). The first report for the 2011 Phase II pre- construction surveys (Young et al. 2012c) is provided in Appendix E, Report E-6.

Raptor use within the Phase II Project area was 3.68 birds per observer-hour during spring 2011 and represented 25.7% of all observations (Young et al. 2012c). Buteos represented 23% of all observations; their mean use was 1.08 birds per observer-hour (Young et al. 2012c). Red-shouldered hawk and broad- winged hawk were the most common buteos observed, with 71 and 47 individuals observed, respectively, during the survey period (Young et al. 2012c).

Based on estimated flight heights, 46.4% of detected raptors were within the rotor-swept zone (i.e., 35 m to 130 m [115 ft to 427 ft]) agl.

Young et al. (2012c) compared data from the spring 2011 Phase I raptor surveys to similar data on corresponding days from 3 sites in the same geographic region that are used regularly for hawk migration studies (HMANA 2011). Including vulture observations, the average number of birds per observer-hour (0.91) was slightly lower at the Phase II Project area than at 3 established sites (ranging from 2.58 to 4.39) (Young et al. 2012c). Overall raptor use within the Phase II Project area appeared to be lower than raptor use recorded at other hawk migration study sites in the region.

4.7.2.11 2011-2012 Winter Raptor Survey BRE conducted weekly raptor counts in Phases I and II of the Project from December 14, 2011 to March 27, 2012. During nearly 128 hours of surveying at 8 locations, observers counted 188 raptors and vultures from 5 species (Young et al. 2013, provided in Appendix E, Report E-8). The mean raptor passage rate was 0.51 raptors per observer-hour while the mean vulture passage rate was 0.61 vultures per observer hour. Raptor passage rates in the proposed expansion area were higher (between 0.48 and 1.33 raptors per observer-hour) than that observed in the Phase I Project area (between 0.09 and 0.40 raptors per observer-hour).

For eagles, observers detected only golden eagles, which used both Phases I and II. A total of 25 golden eagle observations were recorded, and averaged 0.20 eagles per observer-hour (Young et al. 2013). Observation points in Phase II had eagle passage rates (0.04 to 0.34 eagles per observation-hour) that were slightly higher than the observation points located in Phase I (0.06 to 0.18 eagles per observation- hour). Of the 10 observations of eagles flying within 800 m (~0.5 mi) of the observer, 3 were flying within the rotor swept zone. Observers detected golden eagles between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, with the highest passage rates after 12:00.

We attempted to compare golden eagle distribution in the Project area with that observed elsewhere in the region. Winter raptor counts in the region are limited. Hawk migration surveys typically end in November. The Hanging Rock Observatory conducts winter counts that primarily target bald eagles. The counts are conducted from 2 or more locations along a river, include several simultaneous observers, and do not include counts from mountain ridges where one would be more likely to observe golden eagles. Based on a cursory examination, the January 2013 count data show roughly 1.5 golden eagles per observer-hour (Hanging Rock Observatory 2013). We looked at the results of raptor counts conducted in November 2012 at Hanging Rock Tower. During 65.5 hours of survey in November 2012, observers counted 21 golden eagles averaging 0.32 birds per observer-hour (Hanging Rock Observatory 2013). With the limited data available, it is not possible to make a reliable comparison of eagle use of the Project area to that of the surrounding region.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 111 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.7.2.12 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Birds The Service is responsible for implementing the ESA and BGEPA. Although the bald eagle is no longer listed under the ESA, BGPEA continues to offer protection and prohibits the take of this species, as well as golden eagles. West Virginia does not have state threatened and endangered species legislation; species listed as either threatened or endangered in the state are those on the Service’s list of federally threatened and endangered species. The MBTA provides additional protections to all migratory birds.

Passerines No federally listed passerine species were observed during Phase I and Phase II surveys. Two bird species known from the region are currently on the Service’s list of birds of conservation concern (USFWS 2008a), golden-winged warbler and cerulean warbler. Both have been observed on the project site and surrounding lands. The Service received petitions to list both these warblers under the ESA. The Service determined that listing of cerulean warblers was not warranted (71 FR 70717). The Service will initiate a status review within the next year to determine if listing the golden-winged warbler is warranted. Approximately 9 golden-winged warblers were recorded within Phases I and II of the Project area (Michael 1994, Canterbury 2006, Young et al. 2012c) and in surrounding areas (Fox 2011). Seventeen cerulean warblers were identified during 2011 spring avian use surveys in the Phase II expansion area (Young et al. 2012c).

Observers detected several passerine species that are designated rare in the state by the WVNHP (WVNHP 2007) in both Phase I and II Project areas (Table 4-6 and Table 4-7).

Table 4-6. Rare passerines and other perching birds, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during bird use surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area in spring and fall of 2005. Spring survey Fall survey Species Status No. of No. of No. of No. of groups individuals groups individuals Red-headed woodpecker S2B S3N 2 2 4 4 Yellow-bellied flycatcher S1B 3 3 10 10 Alder flycatcher S3B 8 8 2 2 Swainson’s thrush S3B 61 49 33 90 Golden-winged warbler S2 2 2 0 0 Nashville warbler S1 0 0 14 14 Blackburnian warbler S3 5 5 31 55 Vesper sparrow S2N S3B 0 0 26 41 S1 = West Virginia State critically imperilled and/or extremely rare species (less than 5 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S2 = West Virginia State imperilled or rare species (5 to 20 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S3 = West Virginia State species of concern (21 to 100 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) B = Breeding N = Non-breeding Source: Canterbury (2006)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 112 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-7. Rare passerines and other perching birds, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program that were observed during spring surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase II Project area in spring of 2011. Spring survey Species Status No. of groups No. of individuals Alder flycatcher S3B 3 3 Swainson’s warbler S3B 1 1 Golden-winged warbler S2 9 9 Nashville warbler S1 5 6 Blackburnian warbler S3 2 2 S1 = West Virginia State critically imperilled and/or extremely rare species (less than 5 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S2 = West Virginia State imperilled or rare species (5 to 20 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S3 = West Virginia State species of concern (21 to 100 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) B = Breeding N = Non-breeding Source: Young et al. (2012c)

Of the species listed in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 113 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-7, Canterbury (2006) indicated yellow-bellied flycatcher and Swainson’s thrush were not observed as breeding birds in the Project area. Additionally, Nashville warblers were observed only during fall surveys.

The results of the West Virginia breeding bird atlas indicate that all species listed in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 are possible, probable, or confirmed breeders in West Virginia (West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas 2011), with the exception of the yellow-bellied flycatcher. Based on habitat requirements and known conditions in the Project area, vesper sparrows likely did not use the Project area for breeding.

Raptors Bald and golden eagles are raptors that are afforded protection under the MBTA and BGEPA. The WVNHP designates rare status to other raptors, but these species are not protected under state law. A summary of raptors is provided for Phase I in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9.

Table 4-8. Rare raptors and vultures, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during pre-construction raptor surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area during spring and fall 2005. Spring survey Fall survey Species Status No. of No. of No. of No. of groups individuals groups individuals Black vulture S3B 4 15 9 30 Osprey S2B 0 0 6 6 Northern harrier S1B S2N 3 3 8 8 Golden eagle EA 0 0 1 1 Bald eagle EA S2B S3N 0 0 1 1 EA = Protected under Eagle Act S1 = West Virginia State critically imperilled and/or extremely rare species (less than five known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S2 = West Virginia State imperilled or rare species (five to 20 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S3 = West Virginia State species of concern (21 to 100 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) B = Breeding population N = Non-breeding population Source: Canterbury (2006)

Table 4-9. Rare raptors and vultures, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, that were observed during spring post-construction surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase I Project area during spring and fall 2011. Spring survey Fall survey Species Status No. of No. of No. of No. of groups individuals groups individuals Black vulture S3B 4 15 9 30 Osprey S2B 0 0 6 6 Northern harrier S1B S2N 3 3 8 8 Golden eagle EA 0 0 1 1 Bald eagle EA S2B S3N 0 0 1 1 EA = Protected under Eagle Act S1 = West Virginia State critically imperilled and/or extremely rare species (less than five known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S2 = West Virginia State imperilled or rare species (five to 20 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S3 = West Virginia State species of concern (21 to 100 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) B = Breeding population N = Non-breeding population Source: Canterbury (2006)

During the Phase II pre-construction bird surveys (Young et al. 2012c, Young et al. 2013), there were few observations of rare raptors (Table 4-10). One golden eagle was observed during point-count surveys in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 114 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

addition to the 6 golden eagle observations during the raptor survey (Young et al. 2012c). As mentioned in Section 4.7.2.11, there were 25 golden eagle observations total in the Phase I and Phase II Project areas combined during the 2011-2012 winter raptor survey. Golden eagle passage rates were higher in the Phase II than the Phase I study area. No other rare raptor species were observed during the winter survey.

Table 4-10. Rare raptors, as designated by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, observed during spring 2011 pre-construction surveys conducted for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Phase II Project area. Spring survey Species Status No. of groups No. of individuals Golden eagle EA 3 7 Northern harrier S1B S3N 5 5 EA = Protected under Eagle Act S1 = West Virginia State critically imperilled and/or extremely rare species (less than five known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) S3 = West Virginia State species of concern (21 to 100 known occurrences; WVDNR 2007) B = Breeding population N = Non-breeding population Source: Young et al. (2012c)

Suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles has not been identified in the Project area (Curry & Kerlinger 2004, Canterbury 2006). Bald eagles are known to migrate through the region. They were observed in low numbers in the Project area during spring and fall migration. Because these surveys missed peak eagle migration periods, they may underestimate use by bald eagles of the project site.

Currently, there are no known active golden eagle breeding territories in the eastern U.S. (USFWS 2011c). Hundreds of golden eagles that breed in eastern Canada migrate into the U.S. and winter primarily in the Appalachian Mountain region, including West Virginia. A telemetry study documented a golden eagle moving through the Project area in December 2006 (Miller 2011, T. Katzner, personal communication with BRE, November 29, 2011). This same study found migrant and wintering golden eagles concentrating largely to the east and southwest of the Project (Miller 2011); however, this should not be interpreted to mean that golden eagles are not using the Project area. Radio-marked birds tend to stay near the area where they are captured, and none of the radio-marked eagles was captured on the Project area. Because radio-marked birds caught near the Project area spent the winter all around the Project area, and habitat conditions are similar throughout this area. The Service assumed that golden eagles migrate through and winter in the Project area, and the results of the winter raptor survey verified this (see Section 4.7.2.11 above).

4.7.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification During the period from April 1 through November 15, 2012, the 67-turbine Project operated during night- time hours when wind speeds were 6.9 m/s or higher. This was a change from the previous 2 years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not operate at night during this period. The limited operations during this seasonal period resulted in a changed environment for night-time migrating birds due to the spinning turbines, which were not operating during this season in 2010 and 2011. There was no post-construction monitoring in years 2010 and 2011, so it will not be possible to calculate actual differences in bird mortality under the 2 scenarios.

Tidhar et al. (2013, see Appendix F, Report F-4) provide the fatality estimates from the 2012 post- construction monitoring at the BRE Project. BRE staff and biologists collected 81 bird carcasses during scheduled searches and incidental finds, representing 31 identified and 4 unidentified species. More than 85% of the detected bird carcasses were passerines. Red-eyed vireos were roughly 25% of the detected carcasses. Small bird fatality estimates were highest in fall. One sharp-shinned hawk was the only raptor detected. Searchers found 7 carcasses belonging to birds of conservation concern, 4 black-billed

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 115 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

cuckoos, 2 wood thrushes, and 1 prairie warbler. The results from the 2012 monitoring indicate a mean rate of 1.79 birds per turbine per year, which is relatively low compared to that of rates reported at other projects in the region.

It is possible that curtailment strategies designed for bats could reduce bird mortality by removing the risk of spinning blades in the birds’ air space; however, birds are also known to strike stationary objects. The Service is aware of no evidence to date that supports an assumption that curtailment strategies for bats also reduce mortality of birds. Curtailment studies published to date focus on bat mortality, whereas studies currently being conducted are beginning to shift focus to birds as well.

The 2012 monitoring results are based on only curtailed operations with no control operations to facilitate comparison. The mean rate of 1.79 birds per turbine per year is on the low-end of fatality estimates for most wind projects that make available their post-construction monitoring results. However, with only 1 year of sampling and no control turbines, we cannot determine if this relatively low rate is related to site conditions, year conditions, or curtailed operations.

Until there is new information available, the analysis in this FEISFEIS assumes that curtailment strategies for bats have no effect on bird mortality. Hence, this analysis assumes that implementation of the limited operations from April 1 to November 15, 2012 did not result in changes in bird mortality as compared to the previous 2 years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not spin at night during this period. Estimates of bird mortality for the 67 existing turbines from March 2010 (when operations began) until the present are included in the cumulative effects section of Chapter 5 as a past and present effect of the Project.

Turbine noise being created during the limited 7.5-month night-time operations period may have affected birds. However, as described in Section 4.2.3, the affected noise environment will not be substantially different than the existing ambient conditions. The effects of turbine noise on birds are not well understood and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

BRE will implement the same interim modified operations beginning April 1, 2013 up until the time they obtain an ITP. BRE will provide monthly reports and a final report on the monitoring results.

4.8 Bats

4.8.1 Scope of Analysis This FEIS describes bat resources within the Phase I and Phase II Project areas. Bats are highly mobile, and dispersal and migration are important aspects of their life strategies. Similar bat species can be expected to occur throughout the Project area as habitat is similar in both the Phase I and Phase II areas. For the purposes of this NEPA analysis, federally listed and non-listed bats (those species not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA) are addressed together in this Section. The bat resources analysis is based on consultations with staff of the WVDNR and the Service, as well as information in the WVNHP database and studies conducted for the Project, which include the following:

• Mist Net Surveys (BHE 2005); • Chiropteran Risk Assessment (BHE 2006); • Bat Mist Netting and Acoustic Surveys (Young and Gruver 2011), and • Bat Risk Assessment (Young et al. 2012b).

The study reports are provided in Appendix F.

4.8.2 Existing Conditions Fourteen species of bats have been documented in West Virginia. Most have potential to occur in the Project area (Table 4-11). The gray bat (federally endangered), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, Seminole

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 116 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

bat, and the evening bat are considered rare in West Virginia. WVDNR notes the gray bat as an accidental occurrence (only two individuals observed [WVDNR 2010]). The 10 additional bat species in West Virginia include year-round residents and migrants (BRE 2006).

Table 4-11. Bats potentially present during summer, winter and spring/fall migration in West Virginia and in the Beech Ridge Project area.

Potential Seasonal Presence within Identified in Fed/State Greenbrier and Species Project Area Status Nicholas Summer Winter Migration Counties* Indiana bat FE/S1 Yes No Yes Winter Virginia big-eared bat FE/S2 Yes No Yes** No Northern long-eared bat None Yes No Yes Summer/Winter Eastern small-footed bat None/S1 Yes Yes Yes Summer/Winter Little brown bat None Yes No Yes Summer/Winter Tri-colored bat None Yes Yes Yes Summer/Winter Big brown bat None Yes Yes Yes** Summer/Winter Eastern red bat None Yes Yes Yes Summer Hoary bat None Yes Unlikely Yes Summer Silver-haired bat None/S2 No Yes Yes Winter Gray bat FE/S2 No No No No Rafinesque's big-eared bat None/S1 No No No No Evening bat None/SH Unlikely No Unlikely No *Absence of records in the county likely reflects survey effort and does not indicate absence of the species. **Species is not migratory, but may be present in spring and fall. WVNHP Rank: S1 = Five or fewer documented occurrences, or very few individuals remaining in the state. Extremely rare and critically imperilled, or because of factor(s) making the species vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Six to 20 documented occurrences, or few individuals remaining in the state. Very rare and imperilled, or ranked because of factor(s) making the species vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Historically located in the state, not relocated in past 20 years, may be rediscovered. Source: BHE (2006).

Of the 10 species of bats potentially occurring within the Project area, the Indiana bat and Virginia big- eared bat are federally listed as endangered. The remaining 8 species of bats— the northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, little brown bat, tri-colored bat (formerly eastern pipistrelle), big brown bat, eastern red bat, hoary bat, and silver-haired bat— currently have no federal regulatory status. However, the eastern small-footed bat and the silver-haired bat are considered rare by the West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program (NWNHP). The NWNHP tracks populations of rare species; however, the state of West Virginia does not list species as threatened or endangered. The largest numbers of hibernating eastern small-footed bats are found in caves of Greenbrier and Monroe counties, but the total number known to hibernate in the state is less than 50 individuals (WVDNR 2010).

Due to the rapid spread of WNS and its impact on various bat species, the Service has been petitioned to consider listing the eastern small-footed bat and northern long-eared bat. The Service considers the information provided in these petitions as substantial and has solicited information on the species to consider in its review (76 Federal Register 38095). The Service is also evaluating the status of the little brown bat due to the impact of WNS. BRE has opted to not include these species as covered species in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 117 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the HCP.29 Should any of these species be listed in the future, BRE would need to avoid take of these species or seek a major amendment to the permit to add newly listed species.

Of the 10 species of bats likely to be present during some portion of the year in the Project area, most have been killed at 1 or more operating wind energy sites. Based upon results of mortality monitoring completed to date at similar wind energy sites, hoary bats and eastern red bats would be expected to account for the majority of bat mortality at Beech Ridge (BHE 2006).

Wind projects have been cited as a potential threat to migrating bats for a number of years, and emerging evidence suggests that tree-roosting migratory bats30 could be at a greater risk of collision than birds. Little is known about the migration patterns and numbers of tree-roosting migratory bats and the factors contributing to levels of risk.

Concern about tree-roosting bats arose mainly from a 2003 study at the 44-turbine Mountaineer Wind Energy Facility in Tucker County, West Virginia where 475 dead bats (including many tree-roosting bats) were documented between April 20 and November 9, 2003 (Johnson and Strickland 2004). The 2003 Mountaineer study reported that 475 dead bats were found, however, this is not the adjusted mortality estimate based on searcher efficiency and scavenger efficiency trials. The researchers conducted searcher efficiency and scavenger removal trials for birds only and had a small sample size of 30 birds. Searcher efficiency and scavenger efficiency is likely different for birds versus bats, and is highly influenced by sample sizes. Presumably using birds as substitutes for bats in searcher efficiency trials, Kerns and Kerlinger (2004) estimated that 2,092 bats (47.5 bats per turbine per year) were killed at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Facility during the study period. This number should therefore be interpreted with caution because it may be biased high or low. It is among the highest reported rates of bat fatality at any wind power project.

Mortality of bats has been documented at wind energy facilities in the eastern United States (Kunz et al. 2007b), with most fatalities occurring during what is generally considered the fall migration period (August to November; Arnett et al. 2008, Cryan 2003, Cryan and Brown 2007, Johnson et al. 2005). Species documented under turbines in the East include little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, tri-colored bat, Seminole bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat, red bat, Indiana bat, and big brown bat.

Researchers currently have a limited understanding of the actual mechanism of bat collisions. Evidence from the timing of fatalities documented at existing wind facilities and other structures suggests that migrating bats are most at risk. Some authors consider resident bats during the summer feeding and pup- rearing period to be at low risk of collision (Johnson et al. 2003a, Johnson and Strickland 2004); however, risk could be high if a breeding bat’s home range overlaps with the turbines and the bat flies repeatedly at the height rotor-swept area. Certain species of bats that tend to fly at heights of the rotor-swept area appear to be at higher risk than others.

Fatalities at Mountaineer and other northeastern wind energy facilities are heavily skewed toward tree- roosting migratory bats, including red bat, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat (Johnson et al. 2011). Although several wind energy facilities report mortality rates drastically lower than those observed at Mountaineer (Erickson et al. 2003a, Johnson et al. 2003a, Arnett et al. 2008), the increasing number of wind energy facilities being constructed in the eastern United States has led some to suggest that populations of tree- roosting bats may decline as a result of the long-term cumulative impacts of present and future wind power developments (Kunz et al. 2007a, Kuvlesky et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008).

29 Early in the development of the HCP, the Service recommended that BRE include the eastern small-footed bat, northern long- eared bat, and little brown bat as covered species. 30 Tree bats (or lasiurines) roost in trees throughout the year and make seasonal long-distance migrations to spend winters in warmer climates. They include hoary bat, eastern red bat, and silver-haired bat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 118 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In addition, studies show that all species are exposed to collision risk at different times of the year in various geographic areas. Nightly detection rates of silver-haired, hoary, and eastern red bats during fall migration peaked earlier in the year in the two northernmost geographic regions compared to the mid- Atlantic region (Johnson et al. 2011). Additionally, nightly detection rates of the three species during spring migration peaked earlier in the year in the mid-Atlantic compared to geographic regions farther north (northeast region and northern Allegheny plateau) (Johnson et al. 2011).

A summary of a study on migratory routes of tree-roosting bats (Cryan 2003) indicates seasonal differences in migratory routes exist. Other studies (Johnson et al. 2011) contend that these differences do not adequately explain the difference between spring and fall detection rates observed over such a large geographic scale. Flight behavior may be a factor. It may be that bats emerging from winter hibernacula quickly fly to summer breeding habitat and in so doing fly at high enough elevations so as to avoid the rotor swept area. Some authors have hypothesized that the tree-roosting bats fly at lower heights during fall than spring migration, as suggested by Cryan and Veilleux (2007) and Valdez and Cryan (2009). This argument is supported by studies showing mortality at wind energy facilities occur primarily during fall migration in the eastern United States (Johnson 2005, Kunz et al. 2007a, and Arnett et al. 2008).

4.8.2.1 Indiana Bat The Indiana bat was included on the list of endangered species in 1967 prior to the enactment of the ESA (USFWS 2007; 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). At the time of listing, primary threats to the species were believed to include loss of habitat and human disturbance, especially at winter hibernacula, and a general lack of knowledge about the species biology and distribution (USFWS 2007).

The range of the Indiana bat extends throughout much of the eastern U.S. and includes 22 different states (Gardner and Cook 2002, USFWS 2007). Indiana bats have two distinct habitat requirements: a stable environment in which to hibernate during the winter, and woodland habitat for maternity roosts in the summer. Indiana bats in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit typically hibernate between November 15 and March 31. Full description of life history and habitat requirements are found in the Project HCP (Section 3.2.1).

Indiana Bat Status and Occurrence Rangewide. From 1965 to 2001, there was an overall decline in the range-wide population of the Indiana bat (USFWS 2007). Despite the discovery of many new, large hibernacula during this time, the rangewide population estimate dropped approximately 57% from 1965 to 2001. Contrary to the apparent long- term trend of decreasing population numbers of Indiana bats, the estimated range-wide population increased from 328,526 Indiana bats in 2001 to 590,875 Indiana bats in 2007 (USFWS 2012a and Table 4.12). The first observed Indiana bat range-wide decline since 2001 was documented from 2007 to 2009 when the overall Indiana bat population declined by approximately 9.0% (i.e., loss of approximately 53,028 Indiana bats) (Table 4.12). The most recent analysis of data from 2013 show the total known Indiana bat population is estimated to be approximately 534,239 bats, a 9.6% decrease from the 2007, and a 2.8 decrease from 2011 (Table 4.12) (USFWS 2013c). This decline has been attributed to White Nose Syndrone (WNS), a fungus that has killed over 5.5 million bats of different species (USFWS 2012d).

Recovery Units Trends. Beginning in 2006, WNS was first detected in the Northeast Recovery Unit, (USFWS 2012d). Until 2007, the Northeast Recovery Unit was the fastest growing population of all the recovery units (Thogmartin et al. 2013), peaking at 53,763 Indiana bats in 2007. But the Northeast Recovery Unit population lost approximately 70% of its Indiana bats between 2007 to 2011 (Table 4.12). This decline is attributable to the onset and rapid spread of WNS. Indiana bat population estimates for 2013 indicate the Northeast Recovery Unit has increased by approximately 13% in the 8th year post-WNS infection (Table 4.12), though it is unclear if this increase represents true population growth, immigration from other areas, or other factors. Continued monitoring of population status will yield more conclusive trends as WNS moves through this population over time.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 119 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-12. Indiana bat population estimates rangewide and by recovery unit (RU). Estimates are based primarily on winter surveys at known Priority 1 and 2 hibernacula. Additional data from Priority 3 and 4 hibernacula were included when available; however, survey efforts for these smaller hibernacula vary over time (USFWS 2013c).

% of 2013 2011-2013 total Recovery Unit (RU) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 percent popula- change tion rangewide Appalachian

Mountain: West Virginia 13,417 14,745 17,965 20,296 3,845 -81.1 0.7 Tennessee (East) 8,853 5,977 11,058 11,096 13,200 19.0 2.5 Pennsylvania 835 1,038 1,031 519 120 -76.9 <0.1 Virginia 567 535 514 556 418 -24.8 0.1 North Carolina 0 0 1 1 1 0.0 <0.1 Maryland No info. No info. No info. No info. No info. No info. 0 RU Total 23,672 22,295 30,569 32,468 17,584 -45.8 3.3

Other RUs: Ozark-Central 1 196,197 194,475 191,446 195,554 197,707 1.1 37.0 Midwest 265,729 320,342 281,977 308, 324 300,675 -2.5 56.3 Northeast 42,710 53,763 33,855 16,124 18,273 13.3 3.4 Rangewide Total 548,308 590,875 537,847 552,470 534,239 -3.3 100.0 1 A previously unknown Indiana bat hibernaculum was discovered in Missouri in 2012 containing approximately 123,000 Indiana bats when surveyed in January 2013. The Service has included the same number of Indiana bats as was found in 2013 to each previous biennium through 1981 to avoid an artificial spike in population trends based upon first-hand accounts of very large numbers of bats observed at this site for several decades.

The Midwest Recovery Unit population estimates show an increase in numbers between 1983 and 2009; however the wide confidence intervals around the estimates preclude definitive statements about population increase during that time period (Thogmartin et al. 2012). The population estimate peaked in 2007, at 320,342 Indiana bats (Table 4.12). WNS was first detected in multiple states within the Midwest Recovery Unit in 2011. The most recent (2013) population estimates indicate a roughly stable population compared to 2011 estimates (Table 4.12). Significant declines have been observed at some individual hibernacula, while significant increases have been observed at others. The Midwest Recovery Unit has not yet documented recovery unit-wide declines from WNS that the Northeast saw in the first 3 years post-infection. It is possible that the Midwest Recovery Unit may behave similarly to the Appalachian Recovery Unit (further described below), in that there may be a time lag between when WNS is first observed and when recovery unit-wide impacts are observed.

The Ozark-Central Recovery Unit declined by 81% between 1983 and 1999, but then increased significantly to 196,197 in 2005 (Table 4.12) (Thogmartin et al. 2012). The population has hovered between roughly 191,000 and 197,000 through 2013 (Table 4.12). Presence of WNS was suspected in this Recovery Unit in 2010, but not confirmed until 2012. WNS trends for this recovery unit are not yet available.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 120 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Project area falls within the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit, which includes the range of Indiana bat within the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and the far eastern tier of Tennessee. This recovery unit exhibited a strongly increasing trend between 1983 and 2011 (Thogmartin et al. 2012), peaking at 32,468 in 2011 (Table 4.12). WNS was first documented in the Appalachian Recovery Unit in 2008 at several sites in Pennsylvania, but did not spread to the largest hibernacula in West Virginia and Tennessee until 2010 or later. Population estimates for 2013 (17,584) indicate a roughly 46% decline in population in the Appalachian Recovery Unit from the 2011 peak estimate, attributable to the impacts of WNS (Table 4.12). This recovery unit accounts for approximately 3.3% of the rangewide 2013 Indiana bat population (Table 4.12).

According to the Service’s Regional and National WNS coordinators (R. Geboy, J. Coleman, J. Reichard, and C. Kocer, personal communication), it is fully anticipated that Indiana bat populations in each of the recovery units infected with WNS will experience WNS declines on par with the declines observed in the Northeast Recovery Unit. Based on similarities in climate, population dynamics, hibernation periods, and behavior between the Indiana bat recovery units, we have no reason to expect that Indiana bat populations in the Midwest, Appalachian, and Ozark-Central Recovery Units would behave any differently than the Northeast Recovery Unit when exposed to WNS. Therefore over the next few years, we anticipate up to 70% declines in the Indiana bat populations within each of the Recovery Units as WNS continues to run its course.

There are 88 known Indiana bat hibernacula in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit, 55 of which have extant (at least one record since 1995) winter populations (USFWS 2007). There are 2 Priority One31 hibernacula in the recovery unit, Hellhole Cave (WV) and White Oak Blowhole (TN), both of which are designated Critical Habitat for Indiana bats. These 2 hibernacula had estimated populations of 12,858 and 5,481 Indiana bats, respectively, in 2007 (USFWS 2009b) and 14,855 and 11,058 Indiana bats, respectively, in 2009. In 2011, Hellhole and Blowhole caves had an estimated 18,557 and 7,435 Indiana bats, respectively, which represent approximately 79% of the total number of Indiana bats in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit (USFWS 2011b). In 2013, Blowhole Cave populations remained stable, while Hellhole Cave (2,540 Indiana bats) had an 86% reduction compared to 2011(Stihler 2013).

West Virginia. Prior to 2013, numbers of hibernating Indiana bats in West Virginia steadily increased from approximately 9,714 in 2001 to 20,296 individuals in 2011 (Table 4-12; USFWS 2012a). Increases in the number of bats hibernating in Hellhole Cave accounted for most of this growth. The entrance to this cave was fenced in 1985, limiting human access. However, since the introduction of WNS, numbers of hibernating Indiana bats in West Virginia have decreased statewide from approximately 20,296 in 2011 to 3,845 individuals in 2013 (Table 4-12).

West Virginia is located in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit for Indiana bat (USFWS 2007). In 2009 and 2011, respectively, approximately 3.3% and 3.7% of the estimated rangewide population of Indiana bats hibernated in West Virginia (Table 4.12). However, populations in West Virginia decreased significantly in 2013 due to WNS effects in Hellhole and many other caves. In 2013 approximately 0.7% of the estimated rangewide population of Indiana bats hibernated in West Virginia, suggesting that Indiana bat numbers in West Virginia are no longer stable.

Surveys in Hellhole Cave in February 2010 documented 18,557 Indiana bats (Stihler 2013). This is the highest count ever recorded for this site and was an increase of nearly 5,700 from the 2007 survey. At the time, this indicated a possible total population of slightly over 20,000 Indiana bats hibernating in West Virginia. However, the survey confirmed the presence of WNS in the cave. Approximately 2% of the

31 Priority 1 hibernaculum includes ≥ 10,000 individual bats Priority 2 hibernaculum includes 1,000-9,999 individual bats Priority 3 hibernaculum includes 50 – 999 individual bats Priority 4 hibernaculum includes 1-49 individual bats

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 121 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

visible Indiana bats in Hellhole Cave showed signs of WNS, and the number of little brown bats in surveyed areas was 53% less than the 2007 count, indicating the potential level of WNS-associated mortality in that species. Based on data from 3 WNS-affected sites in West Virginia, 43% mortality of Indiana bats has already been observed in these affected caves. Continued monitoring in future years should provide more information on the extent of WNS-related impacts to populations in West Virginia and the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit.

There are 37 known Indiana bat hibernacula in the state and of these, 27 have extant winter populations (USFWS 2007). Of the West Virginia hibernacula, 1 is classified as Priority 1, 1 is classified as Priority 2, 11 are Priority 3, 22 are Priority 4 hibernacula, and 2 are unclassified (USFWS 2007). Thirteen of the 22 Priority 4 hibernacula are considered extinct or had a maximum population size of zero since 2000 (USFWS 2007). The Priority 1 hibernaculum, Hellhole Cave, is located in Pendleton County in the east- central part of the state.

All of the hibernacula in West Virginia are found in the eastern part of the state in the Appalachian Mountains, Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest Ecoregion, including in Greenbrier and adjacent counties (USFWS 2007). Caves known to be important to the Indiana bat relative to the Project are illustrated in Figure 4-7.

As of the 2007 Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007), only 3 maternity colonies, located in Boone and Tucker Counties, were recorded for the state. Since 2007, 2 additional maternity colonies have been located in Marshall and Wetzel counties. This is believed to represent a very small portion of maternal colonies due to the limited nature of surveys for maternal colonies (C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication). Six counties (Clay, Nicholas, Pendleton, Raleigh, Randolph, and Tucker) have summer records of Indiana bats other than reproductive females or maternal colonies (Project HCP). Figure 4-7 illustrates known summer and winter occurrences of Indiana bats within West Virginia.

Local Population/Project Area. Existing information suggests that the occurrence and abundance of Indiana bats in the Project area is probably variable over time. Based on the available information, results of site surveys, and distance to the nearest known hibernacula, it is assumed that Indiana bats may migrate through or occupy the Project area from approximately April 1 through November 15. On-site summer and fall mist net surveys did not capture any Indiana bats on site in 2006 or 2010 (BHE 2006, Young and Gruver 2011). No Indiana bats are expected to be in the Project area from November 15 through March 31 when they are hibernating.

Acoustic data collected during the on-site mist net surveys in 2005, which was limited to the late July period, recorded between 3 to 8 calls that had characteristics of Indiana bat vocalizations, depending on the method of analysis used to screen the calls (Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge Energy et al. Memorandum Opinion 2009).

BRE collected additional acoustic data on the Project site between July 21 and November 23, 2010. The analysis involved 2 quantitative screens and 1 qualitative screen. Quantitative screens included a call analysis filter and a multivariate statistical model developed from a set of known calls. In addition, an Indiana bat biologist assessed calls visually to make identifications (Young and Gruver 2011).

Of the 12,431 call files examined, one screening method identified 8 potential Indiana bat calls, another method identified 111 potential calls, and a third method identified one potential call. Six Indiana bat calls were identified by two screening methods and 1 Indiana bat call was identified by all 3 screening methods (Young and Gruver 2011). Of the 7 calls identified by 2 or more methods, 3 were recorded on the same night (July 28), and of those 3 calls, 2 were from the same station (Station 3559 located at ground level). The one file identified by all 3 screening methods as a potential Indiana bat call was recorded at Station 3559 on the night of July 29.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 122 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-7. Distribution of known Indiana bat summer maternity colonies and winter hibernacula in West Virginia and neighboring states.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 123 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The acoustic information provides evidence that an unknown number of Indiana bats are likely using the project area, at a minimum during July, which corresponds to the transition between the maternity season and fall swarming/early migration. It is not known whether the calls reflect one bat repeatedly circling an area or multiple bats using the air space. It is also not known if the calls were made by male or female Indiana bats, or if they were reproductively active. However, the timing of the calls and circumstances leave open the possibility of an undiscovered maternity area or male bachelor colony somewhere nearby, despite the fact that Indiana bats have not been caught on site during repeated mist-net surveys.32 Considering the rarity of Indiana bats on the landscape, one can surmise potentially greater use of the site by Indiana bats than the limited acoustic sampling indicates. Calls were heard in 2005 and again in 2010 within the project area, using only a few detectors with a limited field of detection, which encompassed only a small portion of the project air space. The chance of detecting Indiana bats with such limited sampling efforts seems remote if, in fact, few individuals are using the site; however, Indiana bats were detected every year that detectors were placed out, perhaps indicating greater use of the Project area than limited sampling would indicate. A more extensive sampling effort to represent the full extent of the Project footprint would have required many more detectors.

Information on Indiana bat movements from West Virginia is limited; 4 Indiana bats have been documented traveling between 30 and 100 mi from summer locations in Pennsylvania to hibernacula in Randolph, Pendleton, and Tucker Counties, West Virginia (C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication). Two other Indiana bats have been documented traveling up to 64 mi from a hibernaculum in Pennsylvania to a maternity site in Ohio County, West Virginia (C. Butchkoski, Pennsylvania Game Commission, personal communication).

BHE (2006) identified 24 caves within 3 mi of the Phase I footprint (Table 4-13). All 24 caves were assessed for hibernacula suitability and bat presence in March 2006. BHE Environmental used standard, literature-supported protocols and criteria to assess caves, including cave length, entrance and structural access by bats, flooding potential, air flow, floor and ceiling temperatures, bat presence, and amount and composition of water in the cave. Based on these assessments conducted by BHE Environmental, 12 of the 24 caves may provide suitable habitat for hibernating bats, including the Indiana and Virginia big- eared bat. The BHE (2006) report can be found in Appendix F, Report F-2.

Table 4-13. Caves within 3 mi of Phase I of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Caves – *Unsuitable Hibernacula Caves – *Potential Hibernacula DePriest Cave No. 2 Bob Gee Cave Roadside Cave Thrashe Cave Jarvis Collapsed Dome Cave Roaring Creek Cave Mashed Finger Well Carr Branch Cave Hanging Tree Cave Ben’s No. 5/Smokehole Cave Little Bird Cave Williamson Cave No. 2 McCoy Thunderdome Cave Windmill Water Cave Bore Hole Bransford’s Cave Wolfe’s Blowhole Casteret Cave Dogwood Sink Cave Portal Cave McCoy’s Thunderdome South Knight Saltpeter Cave Miller’s Cave No. 1 Cadle Cave Source: BHE (2006) *Based on site assessments.

32 See the changed circumstances section of the HCP for a description of the response should mortality of reproductive female or juvenile Indiana bats occur on the Project site.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 124 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Of the 12 caves BHE (2006) deemed as potential habitat, Portal Cave, located between 4 and 5 mi from the nearest proposed turbine location, contained the greatest number of unlisted bats (n=637); followed by Bransford’s Cave (located between 3 and 4 mi from turbine locations, n=224); and Bob Gee Cave (located between 2 and 3 mi from turbine locations, n=206). No bats were found in 2 of the 12 caves, and the remaining 7 caves contained 50 or fewer bats. No endangered bats were identified in any of the surveyed caves. Four bat species were observed within the caves in descending order of abundance: tri- colored bat (n = 566), little brown bats (n = 490), big brown bats (n = 86), and northern long-eared bats (n-3) (BHE 2006). Based on these results, fall swarming and spring emergence mist-net surveys were not conducted at cave sites in Phase I or Phase II.

There are no known caves within the Project area that support hibernating Indiana bats (BHE 2006). Table 4-14 summarizes the distance, last survey, and number of Indiana bats found during the last survey of caves within 10 mi and from 10 to 20 mi from the BRE Project. Figure 4-8 shows the location of these caves in relationship to the Project. There are 4 Priority 3 and 4 caves within 10 mi of the Project area. Of these, Snedegar’s Cave (P3) is an active Indiana bat hibernaculum, whereas Bob Gee Cave (P4), Lobelia Saltpeter Cave (P4), and Mcferrin Cave (P4) have served as hibernacula for Indiana bats in the past but are not known to be currently occupied. Within 10.1 to 20 miles of the Project area, there are 3 Priority 3 and 4 caves. Of these, Martha’s Cave (P3) and Piercy’s Cave (P3) are considered active Indiana bat hibernacula, whereas Tubb Cave (P4) was occupied in 2001 but has not been surveyed since then. Snedegar’s Cave, Martha’s Cave, and Piercy’s Cave are approximately 9.3 mi, 12.9 mi, and 16.5 mi. respectively, from the eastern edge of the Project area (BRE 2006). There are no Priority 1 or 2 caves within 20 mi of the Project area. No mines in the Project area have records of either Indiana or Virginia big-eared bats.

Based upon radio-telemetry studies, the Service believes that swarming Indiana bats typically forage within 20 mi of known Priority 1 and 2 hibernacula, and within 10 mi of known Priority 3 and 4 hibernacula, although longer distances are possible (USFWS 2011a). The eastern-most portion of the Project area (approximately 14 of the existing 67 Phase I turbines) occurs within the 10-mi swarming zone of a known Indiana bat hibernacula, Snedegar’s Cave (see Figure 4-9). It is likely that the eastern portion of the project area poses the greatest risk to Indiana bats because they are likely to spend substantial portions of time within the 10-mi swarming zone.

Table 4-14. Caves and Indiana bat survey results within 10 miles, and between 10 and 20 miles, of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Last Survey Maximum number Cave Name Number of of Indiana bat ever Year Indiana bats recorded Located within 10 miles of a Beech Ridge turbine: Bob Gee 2002 0 33 Snedegars 2011 179 304 Lobelia Saltpeter 2001 0 4 Mcferrin 1984 0 41 Higginbothams 1998 0 Unknown1 Located within 20 miles of a Beech Ridge turbine: Marthas/Upper Marthas 2008 251 285 Tubb 2001 20 23 Piercys 2008 34 57 1 Data from Higginbothams Cave survey in 1976 are not available.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 125 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-8. Indiana bat hibernacula relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 126 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-9. Indiana bat hibernacula relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 127 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Draft Indiana bat recovery plan (USFWS 2007) reports an additional 94 Indiana bats in caves in Greenbrier and Pocahontas counties that occur within roughly a 30-mi radius of Beech Ridge. Between 13,442 and 14,855 Indiana bats have been recorded in 37 caves since 2000 within roughly a 100-mi radius of the Beech Ridge site (with greatest numbers in Hellhole, approximately 70 mi away; USFWS 2007). Based upon the acoustic data, bat numbers, and distances to caves, it is assumed that Indiana bats will travel through the Project area during the 25-year operating life of the project.

There are no records of Indiana or Virginia big-eared bats hibernating in any nearby mines, and none were surveyed in conjunction with this Project.

Summer Maternity/Pup-rearing Season. An important characteristic for the location of Indiana bat maternity roost sites is a mosaic of woodland and open areas, with the majority of maternity colonies having been found in agricultural areas with fragmented forests (USFWS 2007). Primary roosts are often found near clearings or edges of woodland where they receive greater solar radiation, a factor that may be important in reducing thermoregulatory costs for reproductive females and their young (Vonhof and Barclay 1996, Callahan et al. 1997).

In the summer, Indiana bats predominantly roost under slabs of exfoliating bark or cracks in trees (Kurta 2005). Cool summer temperatures may force female Indiana bats to use torpor to conserve energy, which could, in turn, slow reproductive functions (e.g., gestation, milk production, juvenile growth) and could be costly when the reproductive season is short (Wilde et al. 1995, 1999 as cited in Garroway and Broders 2008, Barclay and Kurta 2007). Due to these factors, maternal colonies are typically located in lower elevation areas that have higher summer temperatures for longer periods. However, elevation alone cannot be used to determine maternity site suitability. Within the Appalachian Mountains, suitable microclimates with adequate solar radiation and tree structure are found at a wide variety of elevations and aspects, including the Beech Ridge Project site and surrounding forest. Four of 7 known maternity areas in West Virginia are located on ridges and upper slopes (above 984 ft in elevation). In Tucker County, West Virginia, a maternity colony was found roosting in direct sunlight at an elevation of 3,001 ft (Sanders Environmental, Inc. 2004 as cited in Project HCP). In the mountainous areas of western North Carolina, a maternity colony was found roosting in direct sunlight at an elevation of 3,798 ft (Britzke et al. 2003), comparable to the Beech Ridge site (average elevation of 3,650 ft). Because warmer temperatures generally occur at lower elevations, one would expect a greater chance of a maternity area being located downslope of the ridges where the Beech Ridge turbines are or will be located; however, it is possible for a maternity area to be located near the ridge.

In the event that an Indiana bat maternity colony does occur on-site or nearby at lower elevation, it is likely that female Indiana bats would utilize the ridges in the Project area for foraging. This event would trigger a changed circumstance in the HCP, requiring consultation with the Service, additional bat surveys, monitoring, and potential changes in project operations to reduce the risk of mortality to reproductive Indiana bats.

Less is known about the summer habitat of male Indiana bats. Compared to female Indiana bats, males tend to roost alone or in bachelor colonies and use a wider range of roost trees in terms of size and location (Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002, Gumbert 2001). Due to these factors and the location of the Indiana bat hibernacula closest to the Project area, it is assumed that some male Indiana bats could occur in the Project area during the summer months of June, July, and August during the life of the Project and ITP. It is unknown whether the Indiana bat-like calls heard on the Project site in late July 2006 and 2011 (the late maternity season/early fall swarming and migration season) were made by reproductively active or non-reproductive males and/or females.

Late Summer Mating/Swarming Season and Fall Migration. Indiana bats have been documented traveling up to 19 mi in a night during the late-summer mating/swarming season (Hawkins et al. 2005 as cited in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 128 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

USFWS 2007). However, most appear to roost within a 2-mi to 5-mi radius of the hibernaculum; this is especially evident for those individuals associated with Priority 3 hibernacula (USFWS 2007). Indiana bats have been documented traveling considerable distances during the fall season, but it is unknown if the size of the hibernating population influences the swarming, and therefore mating, behavior (USFWS 2007). During the fall period, Indiana bats, particularly males, are not necessarily associated with only 1 cave and may travel between caves, presumably in search of mates. In West Virginia, 1 male was observed traveling up to 23 mi between caves in different years, and 1 bat captured in Pennsylvania was found in Hellhole Cave (West Virginia) over 100 mi away in a subsequent winter (C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication cited in Project HCP; Section 3.2.1.9).

As previously noted, the Service has recently compiled information from 10 hibernacula studies to further determine the approximate distance bats regularly travel from hibernaculum during swarming (or mating) activities (USFWS 2011a). The results of these analyses help to identify the area of potential exposure surrounding hibernaculum during swarming. The 2011 analysis conducted by the Service compared Indiana bat winter population data over time and determined that positive changes in population size (N) at some hibernacula could not be solely explained by high survival and recruitment. Therefore, immigration and emigration of bats from other hibernacula likely played a role in some of the observed population changes. When population data from multiple Priority 3 and Priority 4 hibernacula that were located within 10 mi of one another were combined in this analysis (i.e., hibernacula complexes were examined together), the changes in population sizes could likely be explained by recruitment. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that swarming Indiana bats may be exposed to wind turbines that are sited within at least 10 mi of P3 and P4 (small) hibernacula. The analysis also suggests that it is reasonable to assume that swarming Indiana bats may be exposed to wind turbines that are sited within 20 mi of Priority 1 and Priority 2 (large) hibernacula, although this assumption is only made from data associated with 3 caves.

By September, it is assumed that Indiana bats have returned to caves for the mating season (swarming); and by November 1, most bats have entered the cave or are closely associated with the cave for the onset of hibernation. Depending on weather conditions, Indiana bats are believed to be active outside the caves until approximately November 15. From limited tag returns, it appears that Indiana bat movements in West Virginia are in all directions (C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication cited in Project HCP; Section 3.2.19). Movements from Snedegar’s and Martha Caves in all directions during the spring emergence and fall migration periods (April-May and August-October, respectively) likely will result in Indiana bats traversing the Project area at these times.

In 2009, bat experts provided testimony concerning all data collected in regards to Indiana bats on the Project site (Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge Energy et al. Memorandum Opinion 2009). In considering and weighing contradictory expert testimony, the court concluded the following:33

• the acoustic data confirm the presence of Indiana bats on site; • potential roost sites exist at the Project site; • construction has increased, rather than diminished, the likelihood that Indiana bats are present at the site (i.e., created summer habitat); • maternity colonies may be present nearby during the summer and that Indiana bats may still use the site during migration, fall swarming, and spring staging. • Indiana bats are likely present at the Project site during the spring, summer, and fall; and • Indiana bats will be harmed, wounded, or killed by the Beech Ridge Project during the spring, summer, and fall.

33 See Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Case No.: RWT 09cv1519 (D. MA January 20, 2010) (Stipulation). The Stipulation discusses in detail the agreed construction and operational regime currently implemented as a part of the baseline environmental conditions.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 129 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As such, in consideration of the data available and the conclusions of the court, this FEIS assumes the Project area is or will be utilized by Indiana bats at times and that take of Indiana bats will occur at some point during the 25-year operating life of the turbines.

4.8.2.2 Virginia Big-Eared Bat Virginia big-eared bat is a subspecies of the Townsend’s big-eared bat, a species common throughout the western U.S. The Virginia big-eared bat was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1979. Virginia big-eared bats predominantly roosts in caves, although individuals have been found in abandoned coal and hard rock mines in both the summer and during the winter. The species is generally sedentary and does not migrate far between summer and winter habitat (Bagley 1984, Johnson et al. 2005).

The Virginia big-eared bat is found in a few isolated populations within northwest Virginia, northeast and south-central West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and northwest North Carolina. Additional description of life history and habitat requirements are found in the Project HCP (Section 3.2.2).

Virginia Big-Eared Bat Status and Occurrence Regional. State agency data show occurrence records for Virginia big-eared bat in 10 Kentucky counties, 3 counties in North Carolina, 3 counties in Virginia, and 6 counties in West Virginia. Range-wide, the population of Virginia big-eared bats increased from 1,300 to more than 13,000 in 2007/2008 (winter counts) since the bat's listing in 1979 (USFWS 2008b). Rangewide population estimates for 2013 are not yet available. To date, WNS has not been detected in Virginia big-eared bats, even in caves where the fungus has affected other species of bats. The WVDNR found that numbers of wintering Virginia big- eared bats increased by 122% from the previous survey to the 2011-2012 winter survey at 1 WNS- affected cave (WVDNR 2012).

In West Virginia, the greatest movement recorded between summer and winter roosts is 19.8 mi (C. Stihler, unpublished data in Piaggio et al. 2009). Based on this distance, an approximate range map was created to include a 20-mi buffer around Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina counties with recent records of Virginia big-eared bat. The distance between the geographic populations is outside the known dispersal range of these bats; therefore, it is unlikely that there is interbreeding (Humphrey and Kunz 1976, Piaggio et al. 2009). Recent genetic studies, which include data from individuals in 4 of these populations (the NC population was not included in the study), showed that they are significantly differentiated from each other and suggest a complete loss of connectivity among regional populations for females, and between all but the northeastern and central West Virginia populations for males (Piaggio et al. 2009).

West Virginia. Virginia big-eared bat winter hibernacula are known from 9 caves in 4 West Virginia counties: Tucker, Grant, Hardy, and Pendleton. These caves are censused approximately every 2 years (C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication), although quite a few caves were not surveyed in 2010 or 2012 due to concerns about WNS affecting other bats in the caves. Assuming a stable population of wintering Virginia big-eared bats in caves not surveyed, the WVDNR (2012) estimated the number of hibernating Virginia big-eared bats in West Virginia in 2012 was at least 11,792 (approximately 85% of the known rangewide population; Table 4-15). The assumption of a stable population is reasonable given the stable to increasing trend of Virginia big-eared bats in maternity cave counts and no evidence of WNS affecting this species.

Most known Virginia big-eared bat maternity colonies have been censused 3 times over the past 5 years (Table 4-16) and may give a better indication of trend than winter hibernacula surveys. Steady increases in numbers over the last few years for both summer and winter colonies have been observed at most West Virginia caves (Table 4-15 and Table 4-16). Figure 4-10 illustrates known occurrences of Virginia big-eared bats relative to the Project and other wind projects in West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 130 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-10. Documented Virginia big-eared bat caves relative to the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project and other wind projects in West Virginia.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 131 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-15. Virginia Big-eared bat winter hibernacula censuses in West Virginia.

Change (#/%) Cave County 2007 2009 2010 2012 between most recent surveys Arbogast/Cave Hollow Tucker 543 586 ns 1 593 +7 / 1.2 Cliff Pendleton 87 138 ns ns +51 / 58.6 Green Hollow Hardy 14 ns ns ns - / - Hellhole Pendleton 5,006 ns 10,025 ns1 +5,019 / 100.3 Hoffman School Pendleton 9 6 ns ns -3 / 33.3 Minor Rexrode Pendleton 203 163 ns ns -40 / 19.7 Peacock Grant 84 68 ns ns -16/ 19.0 Schoolhouse Pendleton 1,285 941 948 ns -337 / 26.2 Sinnett Pendleton 75 124 119 264 +145 / 121.8 TOTAL 7,306 2,026 11,092 11,792 2 +700 / 6.3 1 ns = not surveyed; an incomplete count of Virginia big-eared bats in Hellhole in 2013 showed 7,640 bats. 2 This estimate is based on the assumption that caves not surveyed during this job segment had stable populations. Source: C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication; WVDNR (2012)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 132 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-16. Virginia big-eared bat maternity colony censuses and percent change in West Virginia.

Change (#/%) 1 between 2012 Cave RP 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Comments and 2013 surveys Arbogast / 2012 highest 350 728 850 615 836 935 933 -2 / -0.2 Cave Hollow since 1988 Cave Declining since 600 424 357 307 365 371 368 -3 / 0.8 Mountain 1989

2 Highest since Cliff - 880 1,151 1,154 1,045 1,124 1,165 +41 / +3.5 2001 Hoffman 755 1,077 1,208 1,186 1,231 1,098 1,195 +97 / +8.8 2011 highest ever School Lambert - 305 430 468 473 493 447 -46 / -9.3 Highest ever Highest since Mill Run - 203 235 272 275 278 297 +19 / +6.8 2000 Mystic 250 598 618 578 633 566 537 -29 / -5.1 Peacock 160 1,013 1,119 1,229 1,199 1,228 1,246 +18 / +1.5 Highest ever Schoolhouse 338 726 795 834 775 792 905 +113 / +14.3 Highest ever Sinnett / 167 419 482 529 629 646 841 +195 / +30.2 Highest ever Thorn

Minor 3 Census not 95 ns ns ns ns ns ns -- Rexrode completed Census not Smoke Hole 1 ns ns ns ns ns ns -- completed TOTAL 2,620 6,373 7,245 7,172 7,461 7,531 7,934 +403 / +5.4 Highest ever 1 RP = Estimate from the Recovery Plan 1984 2 not surveyed; shown is 2007 count 3 ns = not surveyed Source: C. Stihler, WVDNR, personal communication; WVDNR (2012)

Local Population/Project Area. There are no records of Virginia big-eared bats in Greenbrier County, West Virginia (C. Stihler, WVDNR, person communication cited in Project HCP; see Figure 4-10). The closest known occupied cave or portal is in Fayette County, West Virginia, which is adjacent to Greenbrier County, approximately 27 to 30 mi to the southwest of the Project. In September 2002, 27 Virginia big- eared bats were captured here at the entrance to 1 of 5 mine portals. These captures included mostly males and non-reproductive females. Based on surveys conducted in the vicinity of the Project area and information provided by the WVDNR, there are no records for Virginia big-eared bat in the Project area (Project HCP). No Virginia big-eared bats were captured during in the Project area during the 2005, 2006, and 2011 mist net surveys.

While it is unlikely that Virginia big-eared bats currently inhabit the Project area, the greatest movement recorded between summer and winter roosts was 19.8 mi (C. Stihler unpublished data in Piaggio et al. 2009), suggesting that over time, they could pass through the Project area if the species range changes due to climate change or other factors. Therefore, it is possible that over of the life of the Project and ITP, Virginia big-eared bats could occur in the Project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 133 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

To better understand the bat composition in the Project area, BRE implemented pre-construction mist net and cave surveys.

4.8.2.3 Pre-Construction Mist Net Surveys (Phase I Project Area) Winter and summer pre-construction bat surveys were completed for Phase I of the Project (BRE 2005, BRE 2006). These studies included mist net surveys within Phase I, along the transmission line corridor, and of specific caves within 5 mi of Phase I turbine sites.

Six species, the little brown bat, big brown bat, eastern red bat, tri-colored bat, northern long-eared bat, and hoary bat, were captured during the 2005 and 2006 summer maternity season (Table 4-17 and Table 4-18). No federally listed species were captured during these surveys (BRE 2006). However, as previously discussed, AnaBat acoustic data collected during the on-site mist net surveys in 2005, which was limited to the late July period, recorded between 3 and 8 echolocation calls that had characteristics of Indiana bat vocalizations, depending on the method of analysis used to screen the calls (Animal Welfare Institute et al. v. Beech Ridge Energy et al. Memorandum Opinion 2009). Because of this information, it cannot be assumed that federally listed bats will not occur in the BRE Project area. Table 4-17. Bat species captured during mist net surveys of 15 sites within Phase I of the Beech Ridge Project site, July 2005.

Adult Adult Female Species Juvenile Escape Total Percent Male PL L NR Little brown bat 4 12 3 0 2 1 22 27.5 Northern long-eared bat 4 4 2 0 0 0 10 12.5 Tri-colored bat 1 8 0 0 0 1 10 12.5 Big brown bat 2 9 4 0 0 2 17 21.25 Hoary bat 2 3 0 1 0 0 6 7.5 Red bat 0 7 0 0 6 13 16.25 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2.5 Total 13 43 9 1 2 12 80 PL = Post-lactating; L = Lactating; NR = Non-reproductive. Source: BHE (2005).

Table 4-18. Bat species captured during mist net surveys of 12 sites along the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project transmission line from June 12 to 22, 2006. Adult Female Species Juvenile Adult Male Escape Total Percent PL L NR Little brown bat 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 26 Northern long-eared bat 3 4 2 0 3 0 12 28 Tri-colored bat 6 7 0 0 0 0 13 30 Big brown bat 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 9 Red bat 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 5 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Total 15 18 2 2 3 3 43 PL = Post-lactating; L = Lactating; NR = Non-reproductive. Source: BHE (2006)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 134 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.8.2.4 Cave Surveys (Phase I Project Area) The Service’s Indiana bat draft recovery plan (USFWS 2007) summarizes information that describes ambient temperatures in occupied hibernacula. Most Indiana bats hibernate in caves or mines with relatively stable temperatures between 10°Celsius (C; 50.0°F) and 3°C (37.4°F) (Hall 1962, Myers 1964, Henshaw 1965, Humphrey 1978, Tuttle and Kennedy 2002). Caves with the highest Indiana bat populations are typically large complex systems that allow air flow, but the volume and complexity often buffer or slow changes in temperature. These complexes often have large rooms or vertical passages below the lowest entrance that allow entrapment of cold air that is stored throughout the summer, providing arriving bats with relatively low temperatures in early fall (Tuttle and Kennedy 2002).

BHE (2006) describes a GIS database identifying approximately 140 known caves within 5 mi of Phase I turbine locations. Based upon information available prior to field surveys, BHE (2006) concluded that 115 (82%) of the 140 caves within 5 mi of the Project area did not provide suitable winter habitat for Indiana or Virginia big eared-bats. These caves are less than 100 ft in length, and presumably, temperatures in these small caves would closely reflect outside air temperatures, fluctuating too widely to support hibernating bats. Additionally, these caves would reach temperatures below freezing, which are fatal to hibernating bats. Twenty-four caves were evaluated in the field. One cave was not evaluated, and the circumstances surrounding this 1 cave are unknown. Of these 24 caves, the entrances and/or portions of the interiors of 12 caves were evaluated and found to be unsuitable for use by Indiana or Virginia big- eared bats. Twelve other caves, including Bob Gee Cave, a historic Indiana bat hibernaculum, were surveyed and data were collected, including number and species of bats present, a description of the cave entrance, floor and ceiling temperatures, a description of air flow, and amount of water within the cave (BHE 2006).

No endangered bats were identified in any of the surveyed caves. Four bat species were observed within the caves: little brown bats, big brown bats, tri-colored bat, and northern long-eared bats (BHE 2006). Based on these results, fall swarming and spring emergence mist net surveys for Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats were not conducted at cave sites in the Phase I or Phase II Project areas.

4.8.2.5 Post Phase I Construction Mist Net Surveys (Phase I and Phase II Project Area) In 2010, BRE contracted Sanders Environmental to mist-net at 14 sites in the Project area during the summer and fall seasons. Sanders Environmental surveyed 8 sites in Phase I and 6 sites in the Phase II to assess species composition (Figure 4-11).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 135 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-11. 2010 mist-netting survey locations, Beech Ridge Energy Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 136 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2010 Summer Mist-Net Survey The summer mist-net survey was conducted between July 27 and August 9, 2010. Mist net arrays captured 209 bats of 7 species (Table 4-19), which did not include Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats (Young and Gruver 2011). The red bat was the most common species in terms of numbers and distribution during the summer mist-netting (>35% of all bats captured). Seventy-four red bats were captured at 13 of the 14 net sites. On average, 5.3 red bats were captured per night during the 2010 summer netting. The most common Myotis captured during the 2010 summer was little brown bat (slightly more than 24% of all bats captured). Fifty-one individual little brown bats were captured at 12 of 14 net sites (Young and Gruver 2011).

Table 4-19. Bat species captured during summer 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Northern Eastern Little Big Tri- long- small- Hoary Site brown brown colored Red bat Total eared footed bat bat bat bat bat bat 1 1 7 2 5 15 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 14 3 6 1 7 4 11 2 1 3 6 23 5 4 4 4 12 6 2 2 4 7 7 5 4 3 1 18 38 8 4 2 4 10 9 1 5 1 2 1 10 10 2 1 11 11 10 5 2 2 4 17 40 12 4 1 1 6 4 1 17 13 2 3 5 14 1 1 1 3 Total 51 37 12 20 14 74 1 209 Percent 24.4% 17.7% 5.7% 9.6% 6.7% 35.4% 0.5% of total Average 3.6 2.6 0.9 1.4 1.0 5.3 0.1 14.9 per site Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

During the 2010 summer netting, 65% of the bats captured were adults (26% females, 39% males), 28% were juveniles, and 7% were of undetermined age and sex (Table 4-20; Young and Gruver 2011). Signs of reproduction were noted in adult females of 5 species: northern long-eared bat, little brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, red bat, and big brown bat (Young and Gruver 2011). Juveniles were captured among 6 species: northern long-eared bat, little brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, red bat, tri-colored bat, and big brown bat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 137 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-20. Bat species composition during summer 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Adult Species Juvenile Adult Male ND Total Female Little brown bat 12 29 8 2 51 Northern long-eared bat 19 15 3 0 37 Eastern small-footed bat 1 3 8 0 12 Red bat 17 23 23 11 74 Hoary bat 0 1 0 0 1 Tri-colored bat 5 7 1 1 14 Big brown bat 5 4 11 0 20 Total 59 82 54 14 209 Percent of Total 28% 39% 26% 7% ND = not determined Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

2010 Fall Mist-Net Survey The 2010 fall mist-net survey was conducted between September 13 and September 24, 2010 (Young and Gruver 2011). Biologists captured 116 bats of 8 species (Table 4-21). No Indiana bats or Virginia big- eared bats were captured during the fall survey (Young and Gruver 2012).

Table 4-21. Bat species captured during fall 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project area. Northern Eastern Little Big Tri- Silver- long- small- Hoary Site brown brown colored Red bat haired Total eared footed bat bat bat bat bat bat bat 1 6 7 14 2 1 1 3 2 3 5 4 4 5 1 5 1 16 5 2 2 11 15 6 2 1 3 7 3 1 2 6 8 1 2 3 9 0 10 1 1 2 4 11 3 3 1 5 12 12 1 3 4 13 2 6 3 2 11 2 6 32 14 1 1 Total 14 22 11 2 4 53 3 7 116 Percent 12.1% 19.0% 9.5% 1.7% 3.4% 45.7% 2.6% 6.0% of total Average 1.0 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.5 8.3 per site Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 138 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The red bat was the most common species in terms of numbers and distribution (45% of all bats captured). Fifty-three red bats were captured, and this species was caught at 12 of the 14 net sites (~86%). On average, 3.8 red bats were captured per night during the 2010 fall netting. The most common Myotis captured during the fall was northern long-eared bat; 22 individuals (19% of all bats) were captured at 8 of 14 net sites (Young and Gruver 2012).

During the 2010 fall netting, 36% of the bats captured were adults (9% females, 27% males), 58% were juveniles, and 6% were individuals of undetermined age and sex (Table 4-22; Young and Gruver 2011). Juveniles were observed among all species captured.

Table 4-22. Bat species composition during fall 2010 mist net surveys of 14 sites within the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project area. Adult Adult Species Juvenile ND Total Male Female Little brown bat 8 4 2 0 14 Northern long-eared bat 14 4 2 1 21 Eastern small-footed bat 4 1 6 0 11 Red bat 30 18 0 6 53 Hoary bat 1 2 0 0 3 Tri-colored bat 3 0 1 0 4 Big brown bat 1 1 0 0 2 Silver-haired bat 6 1 0 0 7 Total 67 31 11 7 116 Percent of Total 58% 27% 9% 6% ND = not determined. Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

4.8.2.6 Post Phase I Construction Acoustic Surveys (Phase I and Phase II Project Area) A passive acoustic survey using AnaBat SD1 acoustic detectors at 2 fixed stations was conducted from July 21 to November 15, 2010. AnaBat stations were located within the existing Project area to take advantage of the turbines as a platform for elevating AnaBats to the rotor swept area. The fixed stations were spatially separated to provide coverage in the eastern and western halves of the Project. The stations utilized 2 AnaBat units (paired sampling). One AnaBat was deployed at ground level near the base of the turbine. The second AnaBat was mounted on top of the turbine nacelle, approximately 260 ft agl (Young and Gruver 2011).

In addition to the 2 fixed stations, an AnaBat survey station was established near a net site on each night that netting was conducted. The AnaBat was operated during the mist-net survey effort from approximately sunset to the end of the netting survey period, and remained fixed (i.e., the Anabat detector was not moved) for the sampling period each night. The AnaBat data were analyzed to investigate temporal changes in bat activity within the Project (Young and Gruver 2011).

Four AnaBat detectors collected data for 433 detector-nights. For all stations, the mean bat activity for the period was 33.08 bat passes per detector-night. On a weekly basis, peak detection was approximately 105 passes per detector-night during the week of August 16, and a low of 0.04 passes per detector-night during the week of November 1 (Table 4-23). The highest overall activity occurred on August 16 (203.75 passes), and the 3 highest nights occurred between August 16 and August 22.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 139 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-23. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project weekly bat activity (bat passes per detector-night) over all 2010 AnaBat stations. Results are presented by call frequencies1.

Week Low-Freq. Mid-Freq. High-Freq. All Bats 7/21-7/25 5.79 7.46 9.38 22.63 7/26-8/1 3.43 5.68 15.29 24.39 8/2-8/8 12.00 13.04 14.96 40.00 8/9-8/15 22.04 36.43 37.29 95.75 8/16-8/22 15.25 36.00 53.39 104.64 8/23-8/29 16.93 24.21 17.04 58.18 8/30-9/5 16.21 19.82 18.86 54.89 9/6/-9/12 10.61 9.71 17.75 38.07 9/13-9/19 15.71 8.18 10.18 34.07 9/20-9/26 10.07 5.89 6.11 22.07 9/27-10/3 4.43 4.82 3.11 12.36 10/4-10/10 1.41 0.82 0. ° 2.73 10/11-10/17 1.05 1.86 1.14 4.05 10/18-10/24 0.52 0.24 0.76 1.52 10/25-10/31 0.19 0.57 0.71 1.48 11/1-11/7 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 11/8-11/15 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.33 Totals 8.67 11.18 13.22 33.08 1 Low-frequency species: big brown bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat Mid-frequency species: red bat (Note: pulses can range into high frequency.) High-frequency species: Indiana bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

The ground-based AnaBat at each station recorded between 5 and 10 times more bat passes than the AnaBat on the turbine nacelle (Table 4-24). When divided by call frequency type, high-frequency calls (given by small bats, e.g. Myotis sp.) were the most abundant call type at ground level stations and low- frequency calls (given by larger bats; e.g. silver-haired, big brown, and hoary bats) were most abundant at the nacelle-level stations (Young and Gruver 2011). Caution must be used in making an assumption that these data show that bats of the Myotis species are at a lesser risk of collision at the Project site than larger bats. Call frequency, as measured by bat passes per detector-night do not directly relate to abundance of bats present. Bat passes per detector could be greatly influenced by bat behavior at the site. For instance, only several bats may have been responsible for all or the majority of the passes as they forage in the area. Conversely, each of the bat passes may represent individual bats. However, the pattern measured by these studies is consistent with other projects where Myotis bats calls are more abundant near tree canopy level and calls of larger bats are more abundant at higher altitudes. Anecdotal observations generally confirm that Myotis bats are more commonly observed near the tree canopy based on light tag studies.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 140 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-24. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project 2010 bat activity (bat passes per detector-night) at ground versus nacelle AnaBat stations (A17 and G5 are turbine numbers, g = ground, n = nacelle). Station A17g A17n G5g G5n 86.24 8.60 43.24 8.16

Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

Two AnaBats were used to investigate bat activity near mist-net sites by deploying the units at ground level within approximately 50 m of a mist-net site on each night of netting. The number of sites netted per night during the summer period ranged from 1 to 4 and during the fall period from 2 to 3. On a nightly basis at both AnaBats during the summer netting period, there was a distinctive pattern in bat activity with increasing activity through approximately 11:00 PM followed by a decrease in activity to the end of the netting period, which usually occurred around 1:00 or 2:00 AM (Young and Gruver 2011; see Appendix F, Report F-3, Figure 6). The majority of bat passes recorded during the summer netting period were high frequency (i.e., Myotis) calls (Table 4-25). During the fall netting period, bat activity was highest during the first 2 hours of netting and dropped off after approximately 9:00 PM (Young and Gruver 2011; see Appendix F, Report F-3, Figure 7). Bat passes recorded during the fall netting period were predominantly in the high-frequency call group. However, the relative percentage of high-frequency calls was lower during the fall netting period (Table 4-25).

The 2010 bat survey report (mist net and acoustics) is provided in Appendix F, Report F-3. The 2010 summer mist net surveys did not capture Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats. This suggests that there is a low likelihood of an Indiana bat or Virginia big-eared bat maternity area being on or within 2.5 miles of the areas surveyed. Furthermore, the fall mist-netting effort caught no Indiana bats among 116 total bat captures. The 2010 acoustic survey data suggest that Indiana bats were potentially recorded onsite in very low numbers from late July to early August which coincides with the start of their fall migration. Of the 12,431 files examined for characteristics of Indiana bat calls, 3 different screening filters identified 7 files as potentially coming from Indiana bats. Of these 7 files, 6 were identified by 2 screening tools, and 1 was identified by all 3 screening tools. All 7 of these files were from detectors located near the ground. Only on 1 night during the study period, were there at least 2 potential Indiana bat call files per; this occurred on July 28 at Station 3559.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 141 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-25. Summary of echolocation passes recorded by survey night during the 2010 summer and fall mist-net surveys at the Beech Ridge Wind Energy. Survey Night HF MF LF Total 7/28/10 57 0 3 60 7/29/10 900 4 0 904 7/30/10 203 12 16 231 8/1/10 37 0 0 37 8/2/10 25 0 5 30 8/3/10 64 1 6 71 8/7/10 210 1 0 211 8/8/10 45 0 0 45 8/9/10 44 1 3 48 Total 1,585 19 33 1,637 Percent of Total 97% 2% 1%

9/13/10 59 10 6 75 9/14/10 93 0 0 93 9/15/10 582 91 69 742 9/18/10 32 1 4 37 9/19/10 33 5 1 39 9/20/10 31 0 4 35 9/21/10 141 50 42 233 9/22/10 9 0 4 13 9/23/10 16 9 33 58 9/24/10 6 0 1 7 Total 1,002 166 164 1332 Percent of Total 75% 12.5% 12.5% Grand Total 2,587 185 197 2,969 1 Low-frequency species (LF): big brown bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat Mid-frequency species (MF): red bat (Note: pulses can range into high frequency.) High-frequency species (HF): Indiana bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat Source: Young and Gruver (2011)

4.8.3 Effect of Stipulation Modification During the period from April 1 through November 15, 2012, the 67-turbine Project operated during night- time hours when wind speeds were less than 6.9 m/s or higher. This is a change from the previous 2 years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not operate at night during this period. The limited operations during this seasonal period resulted in a new source of mortality to tree-roosting migratory bats and tri- colored bats due to the spinning turbines, which were not operating at night during this season in 2010 and 2011.

The cut-in speed during this period of limited night-time operation was 6.9 m/s, a rate that slightly exceeds the values investigated in available reports of curtailment studies (Baerwald et al. 2009, Arnett et al. 2010, 2011, Good et al. 2011, 2012). These studies showed an average 76% reduction in overall bat

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 142 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

fatality rates (range of 74% to 79% across studies) when turbines were curtailed below wind speeds of 6.5 m/s. We did not assume that no tree-roosting migratory bats would be affected; we anticipated that the number of migratory bats killed would be low during this period and reduced by at least 76% compared to the regional average bat fatality rates for turbines operating normally. The operating conditions in the bat-active season in 2012 changed the existing condition for migratory bats relative to the assumed zero number of migratory bats killed under the no-night-time operations scenario under the original stipulation. Bat carcasses detected during the 2012 monitoring included those belonging to red bats, hoary bats, silver-haired bats, and tri-colored bats. Carcass detections did not include any Myotis. Based on the results provided in Tidhar et al. 2013 (see Appendix F, Report F-4), searchers found 48 bat carcasses during standardized searches and 1 bat carcass in a search plot but incidentally to standardized searches. BRE based the Project’s fatality rate on these 49 carcasses. Four additional bats (1 red bat, 1 hoary bat, and 2 silver-haired bats) were found incidentally to the standardized searches and outside of search plots. These 4 bats were not included in the fatality analysis. Total bat fatalities comprised 59.2% red bats, 22.4% hoary bats, 14.3% silver-haired bats, and 4.1% tri- colored bats. The mean estimate was 3.04 bats per turbine per year (90% CI 1.89 - 7.44), which translates to 204 bats per year. This is an 88% reduction from our DEIS predicted estimate of 1,749 bats killed annually for the 67-turbine Project without curtailment based on the rate of 26.11 bats per turbine per year (see Table 5-29 in Chapter 5). We quantify and analyze this low-level of bat mortality from April 1 through November 15, 2012 in the cumulative effects section of this FEIS as an ongoing effect of the operation of the existing 67-turbine Phase I project. BRE will implement the same interim modified operations beginning April 1, 2013 up until the time they obtain an ITP. BRE will provide monthly reports and a final report on the monitoring results

4.9 Socioeconomics

4.9.1 Scope of Analysis This section of the FEIS describes the socioeconomic elements relative to the Project area, including population, housing, employment, tax structure, property values, and environmental justice for the area surrounding the Project. Depth of analysis (both spatially and temporally) varies depending on applicability to the analysis and many times, availability of data.

4.9.2 Existing Conditions

4.9.2.1 Population The intent of an affected environment discussion on population and employment is to identify the human element associated with the Project. Typical sources for this information range from the US Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to state, county, and local governments. The results of the 2010 U.S. Census were released in March 2011. The rural settlement patterns associated with the Project area and the general low population, and employment numbers have resulted in the focus on county and state-level demographic data rather than on the small settlements dispersed amidst the surrounding 63,000 acres of commercial timber lands and mining properties in the area.

Greenbrier (population 35,480) and Nicholas (population 26,233) Counties support rural population densities of 34.8 and 40.6 persons per square mile, respectively, compared to the statewide average of 77.1, Table 4-26. Populations in these counties have shown little growth or population loss from 2000 to 2010.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 143 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-26. Demographic information summary for Greenbrier and Nicholas counties and State of West Virginia. Greenbrier Nicholas Demographic Information West Virginia County County Population, 2010 estimate 35,480 26,233 1,852,994 Population,% change 2000 to 2010 3.0% -1.2% 2.5% Persons under 18 years old,%, 2010 20.1% 21.2% 20.9% Persons 65 years old and over,%, 2010 19.3% 17.1% 16.0% Female persons,%, 2010 51.3% 50.8% 50.7% White persons,% 2010 a 94.6% 98.4% 93.9% Black persons,% 2010 a 2.8% 0.2% 3.4% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% persons,% 2010 Asian persons, % 2010 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, % 1.2% 0.6% 1.2% 2010 Housing units, 2010 18,980 13,064 881,917 Homeownership rate, 2006-2010 75.0% 82.05% 74.6% Median value of owner-occupied housing $93,900 $73,400 $94,500 units, 2006-2010 Households, 2006-2010 15,302 10,304 740,874 Persons per household, 2006-2010 2.26 2.53 2.42 Median household income, 2006-2010 $33,732 $38,457 $38,380 Persons below poverty level,%, 2006-2010 19.4% 18.7% 17.4% Land area, 2010 (square miles) 1,019.57 646.82 24,038.21 Persons per square mile, 2010 34.8 40.6 77.1 a Includes persons reporting only one race Source: U.S. Census State and County Quick Facts (2010). Accessed 5/3/2012; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states

The nearest settlements to the Project area are Anjean, Cobb, Clearco, Duo, Flynn’s Creek, Little Beech Knob, Leonard, Cordova, Trout, and Friars Hill. Populations of these unincorporated settlements are too small to pick up from the US Census except at the block level. Rupert and Williamsburg are larger communities set adjacent to the Project area. These settlements and communities are located in Greenbrier County. The transmission line intertie with Grassy Falls Substation in Nicholas County is in the small settlement of Grassy Falls between Tolbert and Leivasy on State Route 20.

Rupert’s population as of July 2009 was 916, and Williamsburg’s population is estimated at 446. Lewisburg and Charleston are larger cities, approximately 35 mi and 55 mi from the Project area, respectively. Lewisburg’s population as of July 2009 was 3,497, and Charleston’s population was 50,846. All of these cities recorded loss of population since 2000.

4.9.2.2 Employment Employment and labor force data by county are shown in Table 4-27. Employment rose slightly, and unemployment dropped slightly, from 2010 to 2011 in both counties and statewide.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 144 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4-27. West Virginia labor force statistics by county and statewide.

Civilian Labor Force Total Employment Total Unemployment Unemployment Rate County Nov Oct Nov Nov Oct Nov Nov Oct Nov Nov Oct Nov 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2010 Greenbrier 15,320 15,410 14,480 14,250 14,310 13,150 1,070 1,100 1,320 7.0 7.1 9.1 Nicholas 10,430 10,510 9,560 9,590 9,380 9,560 870 920 1,100 8.3 8.8 10.5

775,60 780,80 777,200 720,600 723,600 706,100 55,000 57,100 71,100 7.1 7.3 9.1 Statewide 0 0

Source: Workforce West Virginia (2010)

Residents of Greenbrier County derive their income from sectors that include natural resources and mining ([e.g., dairy products, hay, grain, poultry, limestone, and coal); transportation and utilities; leisure and hospitality services; education and health services; and government services (Table 4-28). Nicholas County residents work in similar sectors, with the exception of the computer and electronic product manufacturing sector.

Table 4-28. Second quarter 2011 employment by industry in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties and West Virginia. Employment by Location Industry Greenbrier Nicholas West Virginia Total, All Industries 13,537 8,770 701,658 Total, Private Sector 11,251 6,907 559,668 Natural resources and mining 235 1,332 34,071 Construction 441 251 33,278 Manufacturing 752 707 49,621 Wood product manufacturing a 226 379 4,995 Computer and electronic product manufacturing a 299 NA 1,374 Trade, transportation and utilities 2,441 1,835 131,809 Retail trade b 1,970 1,470 86,710 Information 89 47 10,327 Financial activities 335 257 25,695 Professional and business services 883 405 62,287 Education and health services 2,644 1,017 117,217 Leisure and hospitality 3,006 855 73,951 Other services 422 198 20,942 Government 2,287 1,862 141,991 a A subset of manufacturing employment. b A subset of trade, transportation and utilities. Source: Workforce West Virginia (2011).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 145 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.9.2.3 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to incorporate consideration of environmental justice populations into the NEPA evaluation process for federal actions or federally funded projects. The purpose of the Executive Order is to ensure that minority and low-income communities do not suffer a disproportionate share of adverse environmental impacts resulting from actions that are not offset by project benefits. Executive Order 12898 also requires that these parties have adequate access and opportunity to participate in project planning by receiving information, attending meetings, or providing input into public decisions.

CEQ guidance indicates that where a potential environmental justice issue has been identified by an agency, the agency should state clearly in the EIS, in light of all of the facts and circumstances, whether a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low- income populations, or Indian tribe is likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives (CEQ 1997). When determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable: (a) whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant (as employed by NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; (b) whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison group; and (c) whether health effects occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards (CEQ 1997).

Minority and low-income data are summarized for the state and the 2 counties in Table 4-26.34 Generally, the counties closely mirror the statewide demographics, in terms of minorities and low income people. Based on the 2010 census, minorities (Black, American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino persons) made up 4.7% of the population of Greenbrier County and 1.3% of the population in Nicholas County, compared to 5.5% statewide. The 2006-2010 median household income in Greenbrier County was $33,732, which is about $4,650 lower than the state average of $38,380. The 2006-2010 median household income for Nicholas County was $38,457, which was about the same (0.2% higher) as the state average. In 2010, approximately 19% of the population was below poverty level in both Greenbrier County and in Nicholas County, which is approximately 2% higher than the state average of 17%.

Block group data available in 2000 confirm the trends noted above. Based on the 2000 census, minorities made up 5% of the population of Greenbrier County and 1% of the population in Nicholas County. The block groups in the Project area had lower percentages of minorities than the counties. The 1999 per capita income in Greenbrier County was $16,247, slightly lower than the state average of $16,477. The 1999 per capita income for Nicholas County was $15,207, which was also lower than the state average. The block groups in both Greenbrier and Nicholas counties within the Project area had per capita incomes lower than the county averages. In 2000, 18% of the population was below poverty level in Greenbrier County and 19% in Nicholas County, approximately the same as the state average of 17%. Two of the block groups within the Project area had higher percentages of their populations below the poverty level than the county percentage.

Therefore, based on the CEQ factor “(b)” above, none of the potential impacts that are discussed in Chapter 5 that may occur in these minority or low-income populations would raise the issue of environmental justice because neither of these populations would be affected at rate that appreciably

34 Many Tribes have ancestral ties to West Virginia; however, no Tribal reservations exist. The census data show a small percentage of residents of West Virginia (0.2%) identify themselves as American Indian; the percentages are similar in Greenbrier (0.3%) and Nicholas (0.2%) counties (Table 4.26).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 146 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

exceeds the potential impacts to the general population of comparison; in this case the state demographic group. The state demographic shows a low number of minorities in the state, with a lower than average number in both of the counties in which the project occurs. Low-income families, which are a relatively significant percentage of the overall state population, are generally dispersed throughout the state and are found in these two counties at nearly the same rate as the rest of the state. However, they occur at significantly reduced population densities in these two counties compared to the statewide average, which indicates any project impacts would occur to significantly lower numbers of low-income individuals compared to higher density population areas in the state.

4.10 Land Use and Recreation

4.10.1 Scope of Analysis This section of the FEIS provides a discussion of current and future land use; state, regional, county, and municipal comprehensive plans and regulations; residential structures; agricultural programming; and recreation within and in the vicinity of the Project area. The Project has the potential to affect land use patterns and recreational resources beyond the actual Project area. Both spatial and temporal scale of the analysis was determined by resource and availability of data.

The land use analysis was based on publicly available state, regional, county, and municipal-level planning documents and U.S. Census Bureau and USDA data.

4.10.2 Existing Conditions

4.10.2.1 Existing and Projected Land Use Existing and future land uses are identified for the Project area and surrounding areas.

Forest Products and Mining The primary and historical land use in the Project area is timber production and contour surface mining. Although forested, the area is not densely forested or pristine. A number of small towns are nested within the forested areas. Small amounts of agricultural uses are indicated as well. Areas disturbed from historic surface mining are shown as barren land (see Figure 4-6 in Section 4.5.2).

No changes in land use are foreseen in the future. Exclusive of the proposed Phase II Project, continued timber harvest and mining are likely future land uses.

Farmland Prime farmland is defined by the NRCS as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses. This information is based on individual soil series characteristics and cannot be derived from soil associations. The NRCS has 3 levels for prime farmland. The most important farmland is “prime farmland” because it contains the most productive category of soils. Soils that are categorized as “prime farmland if drained” include areas that have the potential to be prime farmland but require drainage or hydrologic alteration to achieve high productivity. Soils that are “farmland of statewide importance” are nearly prime farmland but are not as productive due to factors such as permeability, slope, and erosion potential.

Less than 1 acre of land in the Project area is considered prime farmland or prime farmland when drained, and less than 1 acre of land in the Project area is considered farmland of statewide importance.

4.10.2.2 Tourism and Recreation This resource is of importance to Greenbrier County and as such is identified in this analysis. It is directly reflected in the West Virginia Labor Market Information under “Leisure and Hospitality” (Table 4-28).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 147 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Tourism is a major component of Greenbrier County’s economy; the county ranks fifth in the state for overall travel spending, behind 4 counties that offer gaming (e.g., casinos). The Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau Annual Report for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year reported that visitors to the county spent $214 million in 2008. The industry provided 2,460 jobs in the county, which impart nearly $87 million in earnings. Tourism generates over $1.8 million in local government revenue and $14.2 million in state revenue (Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau 2009). Data from 2010 show a slight decrease in employment for that sector.

The tourism industry in Greenbrier County tends to be focused away from the Project area in communities such as Williamsburg.

Recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, hiking, water sports, and other sports) are also abundant in Greenbrier County, and likely play a significant role in its economic status. However, specific financial contributions of such activities are impossible to quantify with existing census and economic data available. These activities cross many of the traditional economic boundaries defined by various datasets.

Public access to private lands is already restricted by the landowner and will continue to be restricted in accordance with easement agreements. The substation and O&M building will be fenced as required for public safety, but no other fencing is proposed at this time.

4.11 Visual Resources

4.11.1 Scope of Analysis For the purpose of this FEIS, the assessments of visual resources are focused on characterizing the visual environments of both the 67-turbine built project (Phase I) and the proposed 33-turbine expansion project (Phase II), and on identifying existing and potential visual and aesthetic effects of the wind turbines. As a part of the WVPSC Energy Facility Siting Certificate process, BRE contracted with Saratoga Associates Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga) to conduct visual resource assessments (VRAs). VRAs have included two efforts by Saratoga, one in 2005 for the Phase I Project (Saratoga 2005) and one in 2011 for the Phase II Project (Saratoga 2011). The Saratoga studies followed accepted methodologies for visual assessment. In accordance with the WVPSC Series 30 Rules (150CSR30), both the Phase I and Phase II assessments utilized study areas that extended up to 20 mi from the outermost turbine locations. These 20-mi study areas are considered the Areas of Potential Effects (APE) for the Projects. The term APE in these assessments is used specifically in the context of compliance with implementing regulations for the NHPA. The term is relevant to this NEPA analysis as it represents the geographic areas within which there is a relatively high probability that portions of the Projects (i.e., the wind turbine structures) would be visible. The VRA reports are provided in Appendix G, Reports G-1 and G-2, and summarized below.

The Phase I Project APE included the areas within 20 mi of the initially proposed 124 turbine locations, while the Phase II APE encompassed the areas within 20 mi of the proposed 33 turbine expansion sites and the 14 alternate turbine expansion sites (Figure 4-12). Note that the Phase I and Phase II APEs overlap to a great extent (exact overlap not reported by Saratoga), whereby approximately all but the outer 5 mi of the western portion of the Phase II APE was included in the Phase I VRA. Also note that only 67 of the initial 124 turbines associated with the Phase I Project have been constructed (and are considered existing), and that the visual effects of these existing turbines were assessed by Saratoga (2011) along with the proposed expansion sites where the Phase I and Phase II APEs overlapped.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 148 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-12. Visual resources areas of potential effect for Beech Ridge Energy Phase I and Phase II Project areas.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 149 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The VRAs consisted of desk-top viewshed mapping, field evaluations, and photo simulations from various points within the APEs, with a focus on identifying geographic areas within which there would be a relatively high probability that some portion of the Project would be visible, and on assessing the potential visual effects of the turbines on publicly accessible viewpoints such as roads, parks, and other areas with open views. The VRAs were completed using assumed maximum turbine blade-tip heights of 401.5 ft for the Phase I Project and 497 ft for Phase II. For the viewshed mapping, the effects of topography and vegetation were factored in as elements that had the potential to screen the turbines from surrounding areas, effects that were confirmed in the field evaluations. The viewshed analyses used a conservative 40-ft vegetation height to estimate the effect of vegetative screening, even though, based on field observation, most trees in forested portions of the APEs are taller than 40 ft. In the photo simulations, it was assumed that atmospheric and weather conditions (e.g., clouds, haze) also play a significant role in the evaluation of Project visibility. To assist in evaluating potential night-time visibility, a viewshed map was also created using an assumed approximate height of 275 ft for the red strobe lights that the FAA would require on select turbines (i.e., not all turbines would have FAA strobes).

Field reconnaissance surveys for the Phase I Project were performed on August 10-11, 2005, and September 19, 2005, in order to evaluate the accuracy of the viewshed maps, and to identify and photograph potential locations where simulations would best illustrate the Project. Similar field surveys were conducted for the Phase II Project.

4.11.2 Existing Conditions The Phase I and Phase II Visual Resource APEs overlap to a great extent, and the visual and aesthetic resources are much the same in each. The Phase II APE contains additional lands in Summers and Fayette Counties to the southwest of the proposed expansion area. Also, existing wind turbine generators from the built Phase I Project are visible from portions of both the Phase I and Phase II APEs.

The topography of the 20-mi VRA APEs for the Phase I and Phase II Project areas consists of ridges and valleys typical of the Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia. Ridges and higher elevations are predominantly forested. Steep topography between valleys and high ridges is typical. On-going and past timber harvest areas are common visual features on the ridges and slopes, as are surface coal mines. These heavily vegetated tracts experience dynamic states of cover as active logging and mining activities occur. Valleys and rolling hills, particularly in the southeastern portion of the APEs, are interspersed with open farmlands, pastures, and farmsteads. Population centers within the APEs vary in size, but are limited to small rural towns, including Camden-on-Gauley, Cowen, Craigsville, Richwood, Marlington, Williamsburg, Trout, and others. Scattered rural residences are found throughout portions of the APEs. Several U.S. and county roads crisscross the outer portions of the VRA APEs, and local roads are found throughout.

The proclamation boundary of Monongahela National Forest encompasses much of the northeastern portions of the VRA APEs. The Forest Service has no control over lands within this proclamation boundary, an area identified for future potential expansion of the forest. No Project components occur on lands under current administrative ownership of the USDA Forest Service. There are several scenic and recreational resources located 5 mi to 20 mi from the Project, including the Calvin Price State Forest, Watoga State Park, Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park, Beartown State Park, Cranberry Wilderness, Hill Creek Falls Scenic Area, and Meadow River Wildlife Management Area (Saratoga 2005). Hiking trails are common on the public lands, including the Cranberry Wilderness in the north and some of the state parks in the APEs. Many of the existing Phase I wind turbine generators are visible from open areas and vista points within the APEs (Saratoga 2011).

Saratoga (2011) identified landscape units within the Phase II APE that characterize common landforms, vegetation, land use, and land use intensity, representing relatively homogenous and unified landscapes related to visual character. These units included:

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 150 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Community Center Unit – Residential and commercial centers with built structures and streets dominating the visual landscape. There are several community center units in the Phase II APE, where views are filtered or obstructed by existing structures and vegetation. • Mountain Forest Unit – Numerous mountain ranges, peaks and ridges, and national and state forests. This unit is primarily wooded but includes occasional open views, as well as filtered views during leaf-off seasons. It is mostly undeveloped and has low population densities. • Agricultural Landscape Unit – Patchworks of open lands, including both active croplands and fallow fields. Population densities are low and buildings are sparse. This unit includes small community centers as well as scattered residences.

Saratoga (2011) identified 68 visually sensitive resources within the Phase II APE. These resources have national, state-wide, or county-wide significance and are generally considered to be of cultural and/or aesthetic importance. They include 25 Cultural Resource sites, 12 Highways, 6 National Recreation Resources, and 25 State and County Recreational Resources, and are listed in the Saratoga (2011) report as to their name, location, distance to nearest proposed turbine, and theoretical visibility status based on the viewshed analysis.

4.12 Cultural Resources

4.12.1 Scope of Analysis For the purpose of this FEIS, the assessments of cultural resources are focused on historic properties, cultural heritage of Native Americans and others, and archaeological data and properties, particularly as they relate to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA and eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP. The NHPA gives the following criteria for eligibility of cultural resources for listing on the NRHP. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (33 CFR Part 60, NPS 1997).

Cultural resource studies have included reconnaissance-level historic architectural surveys (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007, Gray & Pape 2011) and reconnaissance-level archaeological surveys (CRA 2009, 2010, 2011). Cultural resources have been assessed within the APEs of both the Phase I and Phase II Project areas. The Phase I Project Cultural Resources APEs included the areas within 5 mi of the initially proposed 124 turbine locations, as well as the connecting transmission line, operations facilities, and various temporary construction storage and laydown areas. The Phase II Cultural Resources APE encompassed the areas within 5 mi of the proposed turbine expansion sites. Figure 4-13 illustrates that the APEs for the Phase I and Phase II cultural resource studies overlap to a great extent.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 151 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4-13. Cultural resources areas of potential effect for Beech Ridge Energy Phase I and Phase II Project areas.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 152 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As part of the permit application process, BRE coordinated with the WVDCH to request input on the Phase I Project’s potential to affect sensitive cultural resources in portions of Greenbrier, Nicholas, and Pocahontas counties. BRE retained the services of BHE Environmental and Gray & Pape, Inc. (Gray & Pape) to work with the WVDCH on their behalf to address cultural resource management issues. The archaeological survey firm Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRA) was retained to conduct the archaeological surveys of areas where the Phase I Project and its associated transmission line and facilities would result in ground-disturbing activities. Gray & Pape initiated contact with the WVDCH in 2005, and continued coordination through 2011. An MOA was signed by the WVDCH and BRE in 2008. The purpose of the MOA was to address adverse effects on 20 NRHP-eligible historic buildings and structures in the Phase I Project APE and to identify archaeology survey requirements. Table 6-1 in Chapter 6 of this FEIS provides a record of consultation with the WVDCH.

4.12.2 Existing Conditions

4.12.2.1 Historic Structure Resources Phase I Project Gray & Pape conducted reconnaissance-level architectural history reviews for the Phase I Project APEs based on guidance received from the WVDCH in 2005, 2006, and 2007. The intent of these surveys was to identify structures and sites within the APEs that were potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, with a goal of avoiding direct impacts (including visual and noise impacts) to those resources. The historic structure APE for Phase I was initially defined as extending 5 mi around the locations of the 124 wind turbines (approximately 165,000 acres or 258 mi2), which encompassed areas within Greenbrier, Nicholas, and Pocahontas counties of West Virginia. Surveys were also completed for an additional APE that was later established for the transmission line portion of the Phase I Project. Within the historic structures APE, a March 2007 architectural history report (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007; Appendix K, Report K-2) identified a total of 51 recommended eligible resources, including:

• 4 historic districts - the Duo Historic District; the Robins Fork/Boggs Run Roads Historic District; the Williamsburg/Trout Historic District; and the Friars Hill Historic District; • 9 NRHP-eligible rural churches as both individually eligible and eligible as a thematic group - Eureka Church, Liberty Methodist Church, Beulah Methodist Church, Rock Camp Community Church, Olive Baptist Church, McMillion Methodist Church, First Baptist Church of Trout, New Salem Methodist Church, and Lacy Presbyterian Church; • 4 rural schoolhouses recommended as individually eligible and eligible as a thematic group - Boggs Run School, Old Rock Camp School, Old McMillion School, and an unnamed school located on a former farmstead; • 13 rural cemeteries recommended as eligible; and • 21 other buildings and structures as individually eligible. They include 8 farmsteads, 11 dwellings, 1 commercial building, and 1 gristmill.

The WVDCH concurred with the results of the architectural history report on March 28, 2007. Through further consultation, WVDCH and Gray & Pape concluded that there were 51 eligible historic properties within the historic structure APE of the Phase I Project, including 4 historic districts and 47 individual resources.

During the summer of 2007, additional work was conducted to identify historic buildings and structures within the transmission line APE, including an assessment of the effects the Phase I Project may have on historic properties located in that APE. BHE Environmental submitted a study plan for the transmission line APE on July 3, 2007, and a transmission line APE was established in consultation with the WVDCH. It extended 0.25 mi on both sides of the transmission poles. Because approximately 70% of the transmission line would be constructed within the previously surveyed historic structures APE, the 14-mi- long transmission line would have an un-surveyed historic structures APE of only 3 mi in length and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 153 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

approximately 960 acres in size. The WVDCH concurred with the proposed methodology on July 19, 2007. O’Bannon and Sweeten (2007) identified 18 buildings within the transmission line APE that were 50 or more years old. No historic districts were identified within the transmission line APE, and no architectural or structural resources located within the transmission line APE were listed on, or determined to be eligible for, the NRHP. The WVDCH concurred with that finding, and indicated on November 27, 2007, that no further consultation was required for the transmission line APE. The WVDCH accepted the additional information and reaffirmed on January 11, 2008, that there was no need for additional consultation regarding architectural or structural resources within the transmission line APE.

Phase II Project Gray & Pape (2011a) also conducted reconnaissance-level architectural history reviews for the Phase II Project APE to identify structures that were potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, with a goal of avoiding direct impacts (including noise and visual impacts) to such structures. Gray & Pape’s historical architectural investigations of the Phase II APE focused on identification and evaluation of NRHP-eligible resources that may have their viewsheds altered if the Phase II wind turbines were constructed. The Phase II historic structure APE was defined as extending 5 mi around the 47 wind turbine sites being evaluated for construction, comprised of up to 33 proposed sites and 14 alternate sites (Figure 4-13). [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations.] The Phase II APE encompasses approximately 103,450 acres (162 mi2) within Greenbrier and Nicholas counties of West Virginia, though approximately 72,654 of these acres (114 mi2) overlap with the Phase I historic structures APE (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007).

Within the Phase II historic structures APE, Gray & Pape (2011a and 2011b) identified 206 additional historic-period resources (i.e., not included in the Phase I investigations) that would likely have one or more of the wind turbines in their viewshed if Phase II were constructed. Of these 206 resources: • Only the Mt. Urim Baptist Church and its associated cemetery are recommended for inclusion in the NRHP based on eligibility criteria. The Mt. Urim Baptist Church is located on County Route 17 in southeastern Nicholas County. • No other rural churches or cemeteries are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. • No newly identified historic districts (e.g., towns or portions of towns) are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. • No rural and historic landscapes are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. • No other individual resources (i.e., sites, buildings, structures, and objects) are recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

Of the historic architectural resources previously identified in the Phase I investigation as eligible for NRHP: • Only the Duo Historic District is within the Phase II APE, and is likely the only historic district in both the Phase I and Phase II APEs to have views of Phase II wind turbines. • Only the Eureka Church and Liberty Methodist Church are located in the Phase II APE, and only the Eureka Church is anticipated to have views of the Phase II wind turbines if constructed. • None of the 13 rural cemeteries, 11 farmsteads, 8 dwellings, 1 commercial building, and 1 gristmill recommended as individually eligible for the NRHP is anticipated to have views of the Phase II wind turbines if constructed.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 154 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.12.2.2 Archaeological Resources Phase I Project BRE coordinated the archaeological survey of the Phase I Project with the WVDCH. On March 6, 2006, the WVDCH concurred with the proposed methodology for archaeological investigation of the Phase I Project. The APE was identified based on the expected area of ground disturbance associated with construction of the Project. The correspondence from the WVDCH did not note any known sites of Native American concerns. In their letter, WVDCH stated, “we concur with the methodology proposed and are confident that it will result in the identification of any archaeological sites that may [be] present.” In the summer of 2008, the WVDCH and BRE signed an MOA that included detailed information regarding the completion of an archaeological survey once sufficient information was known regarding the location of ground disturbing activities.

The archaeological survey for the Phase I Project was subsequently completed by CRA in 2008. A records search was completed on July 17, 2008, and the field investigation was conducted between August 25 and September 26, 2008, prior to any construction. The archaeological survey, as detailed in the initial report (CRA 2009), resulted in the identification of 6 newly recorded archaeological sites.

• Site 46Gb445 is a potential stone mound. • Site 46Gb446 is a multi-component artifact scatter containing prehistoric lithic debris and historic- period refuse. • Sites 46Gb447 and 46Gb448 are possible historic-period gravesites. • Sites 46Gb449 and 46Gb450 are prehistoric lithic scatters of unknown cultural and temporal affiliation.

Based on extant information, there was insufficient evidence to determine the origin, age, or cultural affiliation of sites 46Gb445, 46Gb447, and 46Gb448. The eligibility of these 3 sites was indeterminable, and the recommendation was made that the sites be avoided by all Phase I construction activities by no less than 100 ft. The remaining sites (46Gb446, 46Gb449, and 46Gb450) were recommended as not being eligible for NRHP listing. The WVDCH concluded on March 9, 2009, that archaeological sites 46Gb449 and 46Gb450 were not eligible for NRHP listing and recommended that no further archaeological surveys were required for these 2 sites. The WVDCH also concluded that the portion of archaeological site 46Gb446 that was within the Phase I area was not eligible, and no further work was warranted for this site. These recommendations were followed during Phase I construction. Impacts to Sites 46Gb445, 46Gb447, and 46Gb448 were avoided entirely, as these sites were located in areas that were not constructed as part of the 67 Phase I built Project.

CRA also conducted a phase I archaeological survey for a 22.1-acre construction laydown and concrete batch plant site for the Phase I Project. CRA provided WVDCH with a copy of the technical report on April 13, 2009 (CRA 2009, Appendix K, Report K-1, Addendum I). The survey resulted in the identification of site 46Gb467, a previously undocumented prehistoric site of unknown age and cultural affiliation. CRA recommended that this archaeological site not be eligible for NRHP listing. The WVDCH approved the report on April 17, 2009, and concurred with the recommendation that 46Gb467 was not eligible, and indicated that no further consultation was required for the site. Therefore, it was concluded that the construction of the layout and concrete batch plant would have no adverse effects to archaeological resources.

CRA conducted a second phase I archaeological survey in 2009 for a small tract of land associated with proposed construction of the Project’s O&M facility in the Williamsburg Historical District. One new site, 46Gb468, was identified in the area, and CRA recommended that the site be considered not eligible for the NRHP and that no further work be conducted. WVDCH reviewed the report addendum (CRA 2009, Appendix K, Report K-1, Addendum II) and concurred with CRA’s recommendation regarding Site 46Gb468.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 155 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CRA conducted a third phase I archaeological survey in March 2010 for 7 turbines sites for the Phase I Project (F-1, F-2, G-13, G-14, G-16, G-17 and H-10 turbines) and associated access roads. Systematic pedestrian survey failed to discover evidence of archaeological sites (CRA 2010, Appendix K, Report K-1, Addendum III).

In summary, surveys in the Phase I Project’s direct APE resulted in the discovery of 8 new archaeological sites prior to construction. Of the 8 sites, 5 were determined not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, and no further survey work at these sites was warranted. The remaining 3 sites were indeterminable but were avoided entirely because the turbines and towers in those areas were not constructed as part of Phase I.

Phase II Project At the request of the Service, BRE coordinated the completion of a reconnaissance-level archaeological survey of the Phase II Project to assess the probability that the Project area contains significant archaeological sites. The study (CRA 2011) included a desktop analysis and archaeological reconnaissance survey of the direct APE. The direct APE was defined as the estimated potential area of temporary and permanent ground disturbance associated with the construction of the Phase II Project, encompassing an approximate 0.25-mi buffer surrounding the 33 proposed turbine sites and the 14 alternate sites. Figure 4-13 illustrates the limits of the Phase II direct APE for archaeological resources.

Based on desktop analyses and reconnaissance field surveys of the direct archaeological resources APE for Phase II, CRA (2011) found no evidence of NRHP-eligible resources, and concluded that the majority of the APE has a low probability to contain archaeological sites, especially those that would qualify for inclusion on the NRHP. Four previously recorded sites were identified within or near the APE, all located on ridgetops and landforms with slopes less than 15-20% and in areas mapped as Mandy channery silt loam. Each of these 4 prehistoric sites was previously identified by CRA in the assessment of the Phase I Project, and each was determined by the WVDCH to be not eligible for the NRHP. No further examination of the sites was recommended by CRA or WVDCH. CRA (2011) recommends that further surveys should be conducted to examine ridgetops and other landforms with slopes less than 20% and not previously examined in the reconnaissance survey, with specific attention to the areas of Mandy channery silt loam soil type.

4.13 Communications

4.13.1 Scope of Analysis The potential for communications conflicts exists for microwave paths, television broadcast signals, cellular and two-way radio, and wireless internet signals. This section in the FEIS describes the communications facilities and transmissions in the vicinity of the Project area, including radio and television broadcasts, microwave, and cellular/Personal Communication Services telephone communications. The analysis is based on publicly available information.

4.13.2 Existing Conditions Microwave Paths Microwave telecommunication systems transmit and receive line-of-sight signals across the Project area. The microwave beam band range is generally 960 megahertz to 23 gigahertz frequency band range.

Television Television broadcast signals pass through and are received within the Project area.

Cellular and Two-way Radio Cellular and two-way radio signals are transmitted through the Project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 156 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Wireless Internet Wireless communication has become an indispensable tool for providing data communications in a variety of industries. Point-to-Multipoint links are frequently used to connect a central tower or “master” site to a group of subscriber devices. A common application of this arrangement is broadband internet service. Point-to-Point wireless links typically connect one or more towers together or connect a tower to a network operation center, which provides access to fiber-optic or other communications media. Point-to- Point links are found in a wide range of sectors, from public safety to telecommunications to utilities.

Wireless system reliability and performance is strongly affected by the strength of an incoming signal. To maximize signal strength, links are usually designed with a clear line-of-sight between antennae. Wireless systems in the Project area are unknown.

4.14 Transportation

4.14.1 Scope of Analysis The existing roadway transportation infrastructure is described for the Project area and adjacent access roads. Airport implications are also examined.

4.14.2 Existing Conditions The Project area is predominately rural and does not contain any state highway or interstate connections. Most of the access to the Project area is via county roads or local access roads related to ongoing timber harvest and mining activities and linkages to small communities. The main access route for the Project is via County Road 1 North, which runs from Rupert to Clearco. Rupert connects with U.S. Route 60 and State Highway 20. U.S. Route 60 provides access to Interstate 64. Local roads in the Project area include: CR 1 and Anjean Road, Beech Ridge Road, and Pole Road.

The nearest public airport to the Project is the Greenbrier Valley Airport, located along U.S. Route 219 near Lewisburg, approximately 13 mi away from the Project.

4.15 Safety and Security

4.15.1 Scope of Analysis The safety and security analysis in this FEIS examines the issues related to public health and safety as they relate to a wind power facility located in a rural mountain landscape. The safety issues primarily are related to operation and/or failure of one or more Project components and are confined to the Project area. The safety and security analysis is based on scientific studies and data from currently operating wind projects in the United States.

4.15.2 Existing Conditions Public safety concerns associated with the operation of a wind project are largely related to potential injury or death associated with falling overhead objects. Wind turbine noise also is a concern associated with human health; this is addressed in Section 4.2. Examples of such safety concerns include ice throw, tower collapse, and blade throw. Other safety concerns include stray-voltage and fires associated with electricity generation facilities.

To date, the Phase I Project has not experienced any failures in Project components. BRE continues to operate Phase I based on the conditions of their Siting Certificate. BRE restricts public access to all of the turbine locations. The substation and O&M building are fenced as required for public safety. Project area access is limited to public and private roads that are regularly open to the public. Hunting is not permitted on lands leased for Phase I.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 157 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Safety signs are posted at the towers (where necessary), transformers and other high voltage facilities, and along roads, in conformance with applicable state and federal regulations. Although the 425-ft distance exceeds the safety setback of 388 ft (1.1 times full turbine height), ice throw has been documented to within 500 ft of turbines. County Route 10/1 is the only public road that is less than 500 ft from a turbine, and this road has an average daily traffic of 30 vehicles. Although it cannot be eliminated, risk to the public from ice throw is low.

BRE installed an electrical grounding system at each turbine location to protect them from damage caused by lightning strikes and to provide grounding for electrical components.

Public Access Public access to private lands is restricted by the landowner in accordance with easement agreements. The substation and O&M building is fenced as required for public safety; no other fencing is proposed at this time. Safety signing will be posted around those towers where needed, transformers and other high- voltage facilities, and along roads in conformance with applicable state and federal regulations.

Structure Lighting For aircraft safety, the FAA typically requires every structure taller than 200 ft agl to be lighted. In the case of wind power developments, the FAA allows a strategic lighting plan that provides ample visibility to aviators but does not require lighting every turbine. BRE has an approved lighting plan for the 67-turbine phase and will develop a lighting plan for the 33-turbine phase to be submitted for FAA approval. An estimated 20-25% of the Project's turbines will be designated for lighting with medium intensity dual red synchronously flashing lights for night-time use and, if needed, for daytime use.

Structural Failure and Ice Throw Turbine structural failures include tower collapse and blade shear. Blade shear occurs when a turbine blade detaches and is thrown due to the spinning motion. Ice throw occurs when ice builds up on a turbine blade and either sheds straight to the ground or is thrown if the turbine is spinning. In the rare event of structural failure or ice throw, danger to public safety is expected to be minimal. The required setbacks from residential structures and roads are established to minimize this potential impact.

The following security measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce the chance of physical and property damage, as well as personal injury, at the site.

• Phase I turbines are a minimum of 3,500 ft from residences that are not participating in the Project (i.e., do not lease land to BRE for Project development and operation) and a minimum of 425 ft from public ROWs. Although the 425ft distance exceeds the safety setback of 388 ft (1.1 times full turbine height), ice throw has been documented to within 500 ft. County Route 10/1 is the only public road that is less than 500 ft from a turbine, and this road has an average daily traffic of 30 vehicles. • Phase II turbines will be a minimum of 3,500 ft from non-participating residences and a minimum of 545 ft from public ROWs (the expansion turbines may be up to 489 ft in total height). • Security measures will be taken during the construction and operation of the Project, including temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 158 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Occupational Safety BRE prepared emergency response plans that comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. All construction and operational personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations that could arise at the site.

Lightning Protection and Grounding To protect the wind turbines from damage caused by lightning strikes and to provide grounding for electrical components of the wind turbine, an electrical grounding system will be installed at each turbine location. Parts of the grounding system are built into the wind turbine blades, nacelle, and tower. In addition, a buried grounding system will be constructed as part of the wind turbine foundation pad. Design of the buried grounding system will consider local soil electrical conductivity conditions to ensure that electricity from lightning strikes will be dissipated into the ground. The design of the grounding system will also comply with all applicable local electrical codes.

Hazardous Materials The only hazardous chemicals anticipated to be on-site are the chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, coolant (ethylene glycol), and lubricants in machinery. BRE and its contractors will comply with all applicable hazardous material laws and regulations existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated regarding these chemicals and will implement a SPCCP, as necessary. Hazardous chemicals contained in diesel fuel, gasoline, ethylene glycol, and lubricants will not be stored in or near any stream; nor will any vehicle refuelling or routine maintenance occur in or near streams. When work is conducted in and adjacent to streams, fuels and coolants will be contained in the fuel tanks and radiators of vehicles or other equipment.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 159 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The CEQ and DOI regulations for implementing NEPA require that the Service discuss:

the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented....40 CFR § 1502.16.35

This chapter describes the environmental effects of the 4 alternatives identified in Chapter 3. We categorize the significance of impacts in terms of their context and intensity.36 The following sections provide the criteria used to evaluate significance of impacts for each of the aspects of the human environment analyzed. Additionally, the terms minor, moderate, and major are used to describe the degree of impact in determining whether an impact is significant. We evaluated each alternative and compared among alternatives in the context of meeting the Service’s purpose and need for responding to the Applicant’s request for an ITP for the 2 endangered bats.

Before presenting the detailed effects analysis, each of the 4 alternatives is briefly summarized below.

Alternative 1 is the No-Action Alternative (No ITP/No Take). This alternative will be used to analyze the environmental consequences of continued operations of the 67 turbines under the Court stipulation and the eventual decommissioning of these 67 turbines. With full seasonal operating restrictions in place, there is no take of listed bats, and therefore this alternative does not include an ITP, HCP, or implementation of any minimization or mitigation measures for bats. The existing turbine cut-in-speed of 3.5 m/s would not change under this alternative. No additional turbines would be constructed under this alternative. BRE would continue to operate its facility consistent with its state siting certificate, which requires 3 years of post-construction wildlife mortality surveys to assess the Project’s impacts on bats and birds. If the Project causes significant levels of bat or bird mortality and adaptive management techniques are proven effective and economically feasible in reducing such mortality, BRE would make a good faith effort to implement facility-wide adaptive management strategies to reduce mortality levels, consistent with its APP. Alternative 1 (67 turbines with 100.5 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate approximately 254,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions.

35 Section 1502.16 further defines the content of the “consequences” assessment to include: “It shall include discussions of: (a) Direct effects and their significance (b) Indirect effects and their significance (c) Possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned. (d) The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action. (e) Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. (f) Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. (g) Urban quality, historic and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. (h) Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully already fully covered in alternatives.” 36 See CEQ regulations at 40 CFR § 1508.27 for a definition of the term “significantly,” further explaining the relevance of context and intensity.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 160 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action Alternative: issuance of an ITP for the Indiana bat and Virginia big- eared bat and implementation of an HCP as submitted by the Applicant. The analysis for this alternative evaluates the impacts of construction of an additional 33 turbines (Phase II) and associated infrastructure along with operation and eventual decommissioning of the entire 100-turbine wind Project.37 Under this alternative, the current seasonal operating restrictions imposed by the court order/settlement agreement and modified stipulation will be lifted and more energy will be generated. Take of listed bats will occur because the turbines will be operating at night and during the season when bats are active. The HCP includes:

(1) measures to reduce take of listed bats (turbine feathering at low wind speeds and raised cut-in speeds of 4.8 m/s for 12 weeks of the year during fall); (2) off-site conservation measures for the listed bats; and (3) an RMAMP to test and measure the effectiveness of turbine operations in reducing listed bat mortality.

Under Alternative 2 BRE also will implement an APP. Alternative 2 (100 turbines with up to 187 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate around 615,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions.

Alternative 3 is the Additional Covered Species Alternative. Similar to the Proposed Action Alternative, the analysis of Alternative 3 evaluates the impacts of an ITP and HCP for construction of 33 additional turbines, operation of all 100 turbines, and eventual decommissioning of 100 turbines, but additionally evaluates the impacts of including 3 additional bats species in the HCP and the impacts of additional minimization and mitigation measures for these 3 species. Measures to be added to the HCP would include higher turbine cut-in speeds of 6.5 m/s for longer seasons and on-site mitigation habitat protection and enhancement (or off-site if on-site is not practicable). Like the Proposed Action Alternative, under Alternative 3 BRE would implement an RMAMP and an APP. Alternative 3 (100 turbines with up to 187 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate around 473,000 MWh of electricity per year with operating restrictions.

Finally, Alternative 4 is the Phase I Only Alternative. Alternative 4 is used to evaluate the impacts of an ITP for the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat and implementation of an HCP for operation and eventual decommissioning of the 67-turbine wind Project. The curtailment measures would be the same as Alternative 2; however, the minimum number of listed bats protected at off-site mitigation sites would be less than Alternative 2, commensurate with reduced mortality of listed bats under Alternative 4. Like the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, under Alternative 4 BRE would implement an RMAMP and an APP. Alternative 4 (67 turbines with 100.5 MW nameplate capacity) has the potential to generate around 331,000 MWh per year with operating restrictions.

Chapter 5 is organized by resource as in Chapter 4. Within each resource section, environmental effects associated with Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative are presented first (to facilitate comparison with other alternatives), followed sequentially by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Table 5-1 provides for comparison of the main features of each alternative. The same table appears in chapter 3 but is repeated here for the convenience of the reader. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative are disclosed in each resource section. These sections are then followed by the cumulative effects analysis of each alternative by resource.

37 As indicated in Chapter 1 of this FEIS, the 100-turbine Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project consists of 2 phases. Phase I (67 turbines) were constructed prior to establishment of a federal nexus with the Service. These turbines are currently operating under the restrictions of a modified stipulation such that take of listed bats is not likely. The environmental effects of constructing the 67 existing turbines are analyzed as a past action in the cumulative effects section of this FEIS (which analyzes the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions). The effects of the current restricted turbine operating regime also are analyzed as part of cumulative effects (a past and ongoing action).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 161 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-1. Alternatives considered for detailed analysis for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Habitat Conservation Plan. For the Proposed Action and each action alternative, the turbine blades would be feathered (pitched) to rotate at <2 revolutions/minute when wind speeds are below the indicated cut-in speed, thus minimizing bat. Estimates of power production are based on the typical Project capacity factor of 39.5% as provided by the Applicant. Estimated hours per year are based on the unrestricted time turbines could operate and the typical Project capacity factor. Energy Permit Construction Capacity Implement Implement Implement Alternative Operations Term Type with HCP RMAMP APP (years) Curtailment 67 turbines would operate unrestricted 73% 100.5 MW of time (6,399 hours per year) at normal cut- nameplate Alternative 1: No new in speed of 3.5 m/s. Turbines will be turned capacity; None No Yes Yes No-Action construction off from 30 minutes before sunset to 15 ~254,000 minutes after sunrise from April 1 through MWh/year November 15. 100 turbines will operate 95% of time (8,328 187 MW 33 turbines hours per year). Turbines will be restricted so Alternative 2: nameplate and that blades move less than 2 rpms when wind Yes, with off- Proposed capacity; 25 Yes Yes associated speeds are below the raised cut-in speed set site mitigation Action ~615,000 infrastructure at 4.8 m/s from sunset to sunrise from July 15 MWh/year through October 15. 100 turbines would operate 73% of time (6,399 hours per year) at normal cut-n speed 187 MW Alternative 3: 33 turbines of 3.5 m/s. Turbines will be restricted so that Yes, with on- nameplate Additional and blades move less than 2 rpms when wind site (or off- capacity; 25 Yes Yes Covered associated speeds are below a raised cut-in speed set at site) ~473,000 Species infrastructure 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset to 15 mitigation. MWh/year minutes after sunrise from April 1 through October 15. 67 turbines would operate 95% of time (8,328 Yes; lower 100.5 MW hours per year): Turbine will be restricted so take estimates nameplate Alternative 4: No new that blades move less than 2 rpm when wind would warrant capacity; 25 Yes Yes Phase I Only construction speeds are below a raised cut-in speed set at reduced off- ~331,000 4.8 m/s from sunset to sunrise from July 15 to site mitigation MWh/year October 15. measures.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 162 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.1 Geology and Soils

5.1.1 Impact Criteria There are no specific federal or state regulations pertaining to geology and soils that are relevant to the analysis for this Project. As per NEPA and CEQ guidelines, the human environment includes geologic resources, and impacts to these resources can result in secondary effects to other resources. Additionally, potential geologic hazards must be considered with respect to project siting that could pose a risk to people, structures, and other aspects of the human environment.

Impacts to soils and geology would be considered significant if: • The project results in substantial soil erosion; • The project is located on an unstable geologic unit or on soil that has a high likelihood of resulting in a major landslide; or • The project is located on a known earthquake fault, exposing people, structures, and plants and animals to high risk of loss, injury, or death.

5.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.1.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, effects to soil and geologic resources would occur only in association with operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of Phase I, the 67-turbine Project, and associated infrastructure. There would be no new construction.

Phase I Operation Project infrastructure (buildings, concrete pads, etc.) would prohibit 50 acres of soil from contributing to forest productivity for the life of the Project (approximately 25 years). There would be no new ground disturbance; 311 acres of reclaimed areas from Phase I construction would continue to recover and eventually become forested.

Phase I Decommissioning BRE would implement BMPs during decommissioning to minimize soil erosion. Practices would include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil and stabilizing restored material, and re-vegetating areas to be reclaimed. Ground disturbance would be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient removal of Project components. All temporarily disturbed areas would be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

No decommissioning activities would be conducted where soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment created ruts in excess of 4 inches deep). Certified weed- free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars would be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures would be monitored, especially after storms, and would be repaired or replaced as necessary. Decommissioning activities would be intermittent, short-term, and localized. BRE may begin decommissioning the Phase I turbines as early as 2035.

No-Action Alternative Summary The No-Action Alternative would not result in substantial amounts of soil erosion. The Phase I Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or on soil that has a high likelihood of resulting in a major landslide. The Phase I Project is not located on a known earthquake fault, exposing people, structures, and plants and animals to high risk of loss, injury, or death. The No-Action Alternative would not cause significant effects to geologic features or soils.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 163 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.1.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action Alternative 2, effects to soil and geologic resources would occur in association with construction of 33 Phase II turbines and associated infrastructure, and with operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the entire 100-turbine Project and associated infrastructure.

Phase II Construction The effects of the Proposed Action during the construction of Phase II of the Project will be largely limited to surface soil disturbance. Phase II of the Project will not impact karst formations or caves. Phase II of the Project also is not located on a known fault line. The Project is located in a low-level earthquake risk zone. It is approximately 180 miles west of the epicenter of a recent low level earthquake (see Section 4.1.2). Similar to the No-Action Alternative, the risk of an earthquake at the Project site causing a landslide or exposing humans, plants, and wildlife to loss or injury is low.

Phase II construction of 33 turbines and associated infrastructure will affect 148 acres of soils covered with native vegetation; 127 acres of these soils will be temporarily disturbed during construction and reseeded to prevent soil erosion, and 21 acres will be covered with impervious surfaces and removed from forest productivity for the 25-year operational life of the Project (Table 3-2). In addition to these 148 acres, Phase II will affect an unknown amount of previously disturbed soils. Previously disturbed areas include agricultural lands, abandoned strip mines, and the site used for the Phase I batch plant and laydown area. The batch plant site is located in an old field and will be used for the same purposes during Phase II construction.

Ground will be excavated to install turbine tower pads. Rock blasting will be necessary at those turbine locations where rock prohibits excavation. The Project has been sited to use previously disturbed areas to the fullest extent practicable.

Phase I and Phase II 100-Turbine Project Operation During the 25-year operating life of the Project, no soil disturbance is anticipated for maintenance and operation of the 100-turbines, transmission-line, or facility buildings. A small amount of soil disturbance may occasionally occur to access or repair underground cable or communication lines.

Mitigation for Phase II Construction and Project Operations During construction of the 33 Phase II turbines and operation of the 100-turbine Project, BRE will implement BMPs to minimize soil erosion. Practices will include containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil and stabilizing restored material, and re-vegetating areas to be reclaimed. Ground disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. All temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

No construction activities will be conducted where soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment created ruts in excess of 4 in deep). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars will be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures will be monitored, especially after storms, and will be repaired or replaced as necessary. BRE will use existing roads within the Project area to avoid creating new access roads and use previously disturbed areas for some turbine foundation sites.

100-Turbine Decommissioning If it is determined that the wind turbines are not to be replaced or repowered after 25 years, BRE will begin decommissioning Phase I turbines as early as 2035, and Phase II turbines as early as 2037. The decommissioning process will take several years. Impacts to soils and geology associated with decommissioning activities will be short-term and localized within the original Project footprint. Soil will be disturbed as the turbines, buildings, transmission line, and substations for Phases I and II are removed and the disturbed areas recontoured and seeded to herbaceous vegetation. Some access roads will be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 164 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

left in place at the request of the landowner. The extent of soil disturbance associated with decommissioning will be comparable to that which occurred during Phase I and II construction combined (approximately 521 acres or 2% of the BRE leased lands (27,000 acres) and 0.8% of the surrounding commercial timber tract (63,000 acres).

Proposed Action Summary In summary, under the Proposed Action Alternative, there will be periodic short-term and localized effects to soil and geologic resources associated with construction of Phase II turbines and decommissioning of the 100-turbine Project and associated infrastructure. This alternative is not expected to result in major soil erosion during construction, facility maintenance, or decommissioning provided that BMPs are effectively implemented. The Project has been sited and designed to avoid areas at high risk of major earthquakes and landslides. Thus, impacts to soil and geology are expected to be minor. The Proposed Action will not result in significant effects to geologic features or soils.

5.1.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Similar to Alternative 2, under Alternative 3, effects to soil and geologic resources would occur in association with construction of 33 Phase II turbines and associated infrastructure, and with operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the entire 100 turbine Project and associated infrastructure.

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning Under Alternative 3, geology and soil disturbances and associated mitigation would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action (construction of 33 turbines, operation of 100 turbines and infrastructure, and decommissioning of the entire facility). Impacts to soil and geology are expected to be periodic, short-term, and localized. This alternative would not be expected to result in substantial soil erosion. Nor would this alternative increase risks to the public associated with earthquakes and landslides. Thus impacts to soils and geology would be expected to be minor.

Alternative 3 Summary Implementation of Alternative 3 will result in periodic short-term and localized effects to soil and geologic resources associated with construction of Phase II turbines and decommissioning of the 100-turbine Project and associated infrastructure. Alternative 3 is not expected to result in major soil erosion during construction, facility maintenance, or decommissioning provided that BMPs are effectively implemented. Phases I and II have been sited and designed to avoid areas at high risk of major earthquakes and landslides. Thus, impacts to soil and geology are expected to be minor. Alternative 3 will not result in significant effects to geologic features or soils.

5.1.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Similar to Alternative 1, under Alternative 4, effects to soil and geologic resources would occur only in association with operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of Phase I, the 67-turbine Project. There would be no new construction.

Phase I Operation, and Decommissioning Under Alternative 4, geology and soil disturbances and associated mitigation would be the same as those described for the No-Action Alternative. No new construction would occur. There would be periodic, short- term, and localized effects to soil and geologic resources associated with the decommissioning of the 67 turbines and associated infrastructure. This alternative would not be expected to result in substantial soil erosion or pose a high risk of damage from earthquakes and landslides. Thus, impacts to soil and geology are expected to be minor.

Alternative 4 Summary Implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in substantial amounts of soil erosion. The Phase I Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or on soil that has a high likelihood of resulting in a

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 165 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

major landslide. The Phase I Project is not located on a known earthquake fault, exposing people, structures, and plants and animals to high risk of loss, injury, or death. Alternative 4 would not cause significant effects to geologic features or soils.

5.2 Noise

5.2.1 Impact Criteria Pursuant to the PSC Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators (Siting Rules; 150 CSR Series 30), the Applicant must prepare a predictive noise study that addresses pre-construction, construction, and operations noise levels. The Siting Rules do not specify noise “increase” criteria, that is, noise level increases that correspond to a relative impact. In the absence of any specific or absolute regulatory noise level limits, this EIS evaluates the potential effects of noise from the Project in terms of its likely audibility or perceptibility at residences (where people spend most of their time and are likely to be sensitive to noise) relative to the background sound level. This approach is commonly used in siting analyses for various types of new infrastructure projects.

The A-weighting curve is most often used for environmental noise measurement. Changes in background (ambient) sound levels around 5 dBA or 6 dBA generally are considered to be noticeable by most people. Changes in ambient sound levels by 10 dBA generally are considered to be doubling (if increased) or halving (if decreased) perceived sound. In other words, a new noise source without any distinctive character normally must have a sound level that is about 5 dBA higher than the background before it begins to be perceptible to most people.

For wind turbines, the threshold of perception is slightly lower due to modulating amplitude. Depending on the speed of turbine rotation, the sound level rises and falls slightly in about 1-second intervals. The down-turning blade briefly generates aerodynamic noise as it passes the tower, followed by a short pause then the sound of the next down-turning blade. This blade “swish” gives turbine noise a periodic sound that makes it more readily perceptible than a steady, bland sound of the same magnitude.

This assessment set the nominal noise impact threshold at 5 dBA above the prevailing background level. A project’s sound level must not be so loud that it legitimately creates disturbance at a large number of homes. Setting a nominal threshold of 5 dBA above the ambient sound level is consistent with facility siting guidelines in other states (NYSDEC 2001, MDLEG 2007) and represents a reasonable value for addressing concerns among all interested parties. Thus, an impact will be considered significant if it is predicted to result in noise 5 dBA above the prevailing background level.

5.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative This section addresses potential direct and indirect effects of noise by alternative. Methodologies for measuring and predicting noise are explained in detail in the acoustical assessments by Acentech (2006, 2011) of the construction and operation of the Project (provided in Appendix 4.B). Acentech (2006, 2011) estimated operational noise in Project Phases rather than the 100-turbine Project as a whole. Phase I post-construction noise was not measured, except for the town of Duo. Therefore, with exception of Duo, noise estimates are based on the pre-construction predictive models and analyses for the 2 Phases.

5.2.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no noise associated with new construction as no additional turbines would be built.

Phase I Operation Consistent with the court order and settlement agreement, for the life of the Project (25 years), the existing 67 turbines would continue to operate and generate turbine noise year-round during daytime hours; however, turbines would continue to be turned off and not generate operational noise at night for

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 166 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.5 months of the year (April 1 through November 15). Noise would also be generated during the decommissioning phase when the Project is dismantled.

The existing 67 turbines are GE 1.5sle wind turbine generators. This model incorporates the following noise control treatments into its design: • Noise insulation of the gearbox and generator; • Reduced-noise gearbox; • Reduced-noise nacelle; • Vibration isolation mounts; and • Quieted-design rotor blades.

In addition, the Project installed high-efficiency, reduced-noise transformers.

Acentech (2006) modeled predicted noise levels at 6 monitoring sites resulting from operation of the then proposed 124-turbine Project (Appendix 4.B). Thus, modeled noise levels overestimate noise effects for the No-Action Alternative (67 turbines) and reflect a worst case scenario. The Project would not necessarily be less noisy, but the area affected by turbine noise would be significantly smaller for the constructed Project as compared to the original 124-turbine layout.

When in operation, wind turbines emit noises that come from the gearbox and movement of the blades through air. The predicted turbine noise levels (Ldn) range between 28 dBA and 52 dBA, or 21 dB lower to 1 dB higher than existing ambient levels at these sites (Table 5-2). Additionally, Acentech (2006) modeled the turbine noise levels at locations within 0.2 to 1.1 mi of the nearest turbines, as well as at 3 communities (Trout, Friars Hill, and Williamsburg) located more than 2 mi from the nearest turbine. Predicted Ldn turbine-generated noise levels at these locations are between 17 dBA to 41 dBA, which are lower than the ambient average noise levels (49 dBA to 52 dBA) (Table 5-2).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 167 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-2. Ambient noise survey results and estimated turbine noise (dBA) from 6 locations identified in relationship to the 124-turbine Project.1 Approximate Average Estimated Location Description distance to measured facility nearest turbine ambient Ldn operation Ldn Hamlet with several 1. Town of Duo homes & small 3,600 ft (0.7 mi) 49 dBA 39 dBA church 2. Little Beech 2 Few rural homes 3,200 ft (0.6 mi) 51 dBA 41 dBA Knob Group of seasonal 3. Hunting Cabins 900 ft (0.2 mi) 51 dBA 52 dBA hunting cabins 4. Home South of Rural home 4,100 ft (0.8 mi) 52 dBA 35 dBA B Turbine Line Scattered rural 5. Flynn’s Creek homes, farms, & 7,800 ft (1.5 mi) 49 dBA 28 dBA church 6. Leonard Road between 2 6,000 ft (1.1 mi) 49 dBA 34 dBA /Cordova small settlements Trout Community 15,000 ft (2.8 mi) Not measured 30 dBA Friars Hill Community 22,000 ft (4.2 mi) Not measured 25 dBA Williamsburg Community 21,000 ft (3.9 mi) Not measured 17 dBA 1 Comparisons are provided for the actual sound monitoring locations, in some areas, residences are located closer to wind turbines. See discussion that follows. 2 Homeowners in this area to participate in project, otherwise distance to nearest turbine will be 1 mi. Project participation is considered when landowners have agreed to have turbines sited closer than 3,500 ft to their residence. Source: Acentech (2006).

Acentech (2006) estimated Project operation sound levels on a time-weighted basis (Ldn)38 for outdoor locations. Estimated sound levels for indoors of residences were reduced by 12 dBA and 24 dBA with windows open and closed, respectively (Acentech 2006). Based on the existing ambient noise estimates and the predicted Project noise, Acentech (2006) predicted that the wind farm may be heard at locations within 4,000 ft of the nearest turbine. Turbine noise may be audible to less than 40 residences, based on the number of residences indicated within 1 mi of the original 124-turbine Project layout (Acentech 2006 see Appendix C, Report C-1, Figure 19).

Acentech (2011) monitored ambient noise in the Town of Duo in 2010 when the existing 67 turbines were operating to estimate potential noise associated with the Phase II 33-turbine Project (described in Section 4.2.2.2). Ambient Ldn for the Town of Duo was measured at 48 dBA. This is comparable to the ambient noise level estimated for the Town of Duo prior to construction of the 67 turbines (Acentech 2006).

Phase I Decommissioning The impacts of noise from Phase I decommissioning would occur episodically over a period of several years as infrastructure is removed in phases. Acentech did not model the noise effects of decommissioning. However, one can assume that noise levels would be comparable in magnitude to those generated during construction of the 67 turbines. Phase I construction included noise associated with rock blasting, excavating, hauling, grading, concrete mixing, tower erection, and vehicle traffic noise.

38 Ldn is a time-weighted energy average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighting refers to the fact that noise occurring during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. In the Ldn scale, noise occurring between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is penalized by 10 dB. This penalty was selected to attempt to account for the higher sensitivity to noise in the night-time and the expected further decrease in background noise levels that typically occur in the night-time.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 168 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Noise levels associated with ground excavating and grading by heavy machinery, and truck hauling and other vehicle traffic noise during decommissioning would be similar to that during construction. Noise associated with MET and turbine tower deconstruction would also be comparable to that during tower construction. A crane is used to carry out the reverse sequence of steps that occurred during construction. Noise associated with destruction of tower pads (concrete jack hammering) would be different than any noises associated with construction. Jackhammer noise would be more protracted in nature and possibly more intrusive than rock-blasting, which is explosive but brief and infrequent. A jackhammer emits 89 dBA at 50 ft (FHWA 2006a, 2006b).

Representative Leq values associated with the equipment used to perform rock blasting, excavating, hauling, grading, concrete mixing, tower erection, and vehicle traffic noise are provided in Table 5-3. One can assume that certain decommissioning activities would be audible at residences within 1 mi of the Project. For a typical construction workday, Acentech (2006) estimated sound levels to be 54 dBA at 1,550 ft (the nearest permanent residence) and 41 dBA at 4,000 ft. Figure 19 in Acentech (2006; Appendix C, Report C-1) illustrates estimated maximum Ldn sound levels during construction over the entire original 124-turbine Project area.

1 2 Table 5-3. Estimates of equivalent sound levels (Leq) of representative construction equipment used to construct a typical wind energy facility. Sound levels at varying distances (dBA) Equipment type 900 ft3 1,550 ft4 4,000 ft 1 mi 5 mi 5 Rock blasting 66 60 47 43 14 5 Pile driving 65 59 46 42 13 Bulldozer 55 49 36 32 3 Excavator 56 50 37 33 4 Trenching 56 50 37 33 4 Grader 54 48 35 31 2 Steamroller 51 45 32 28 <0 Heavy truck 50 44 31 27 <0 Batch plant 47 41 28 24 <0 Crane 56 50 37 33 4 1 Sound level estimates based on ESEERCO (1977) as cited by Acentech (2006). 2 Estimated Leq sound levels over a 10-hour daytime shift; 24-hr Ldn would be 4 dBA less than each Leq. 3 Distance to seasonal hunting cabins (temporary residences). 4 Distance to nearest property boundary and year-round community residence (closest residence at Little Beech Knob to turbine). Homeowners in this area participate in Project. Otherwise, approximate distance to nearest turbine would be 1 mi. 5 Estimated values for blasting and pile driving are maximum sound levels (Lmax) as opposed to Leq.

Certain decommissioning activities, such as a jackhammer, within 1,550 ft of any sensitive receptor would create moderately disturbing noise. A value of 60 dBA exceeds the threshold 5 dBA above the measured ambient noise levels in nearby communities of 49 dBA to 52 dBA (Table 5-2). Other decommissioning noise would be temporary in nature and produce sounds already familiar to communities within hearing distance.

No-Action Alternative Summary Vehicle and turbine noise associated with Phase I operation is not estimated to exceed the threshold of 5 dBA above measured ambient noise (Acentech 2006). Phase I operation is expected to have minor noise impacts. Certain Phase I decommissioning activities are expected to exceed the threshold of 5 dBA above measured ambient noise. This effect is significant but it will be temporary and will be confined to daytime hours. Decommissioning activities would cause moderately annoying sounds in the daytime causing some disruption to the solitude of the rural landscape.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 169 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, BRE will construct the 33 Phase II turbines. The 100-turbine Project will operate as described in the HCP. For the term of the ITP, BRE will adjust the cut-in speed for all 100 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from July 15 through October 15 (i.e., the Curtailment Plan). All 100 turbines will be feathered up to the point in time that the cut-in speed is reached; thus, there will only be minimal rotation of turbine blades (<2 rpm) during periods when winds are below the cut-in speed.

The Proposed Action will generate noise during construction of the Phase-II 33 turbines, and during operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the 100-turbine facility and associated infrastructure.

Phase II Construction Acentech (2011) documents the acoustical assessment of a 47-turbine, Phase II layout (33 proposed turbine locations and 14 alternate locations), although only 33 turbines will be constructed (provided in Appendix 4.C). [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations.] Thus the study presents a worst case scenario for noise. As described in Section 4.2.2.2, ambient noise was assessed from 4 monitoring locations focused on nearby residences.

Facility construction will consist of the following activities:

• Access road construction and improvements, • Timber clearing, • Site preparation and foundation installation at 33 turbine sites, • Concrete manufacturing, • Material and subassembly delivery, • Erection of 33 turbines, and • Electrical interconnect line trenching.

Construction noise associated with these activities will include: • Rock blasting, • Pile-driving, • Concrete drilling, • Heavy equipment operation, and • Vehicle traffic noise.

Construction activities will occur largely within normal daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Noise will be similar in character to that associated with the timber and mining activities that already occur in the Project area and surrounding commercial timber property.

The individual pieces of equipment likely to be used for each construction phase and typical noise levels are summarized in Table 5-3. During the day when construction activities will occur, a sound level of 35 dBA is generally considered a negligible sound level even in the case of reduced background noise (USEPA 1978).

BRE has estimated that Phase II construction activities will occur over a period less than 2 years. The sound estimates for Phase II assumed construction activity at all 47 potential turbine locations (Acentech 2011). [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations. BRE is now considering only 44 turbine locations. Noise from construction activities will constitute a temporary unavoidable impact at some of the homes in the Project area. Acentech (2011) estimated that typical construction activity will be 53 dBA at 1,640 ft (distance to residence closest to Phase II layout) and 44 dBA at 3,330 ft. Such levels generally would not be considered acceptable on a permanent basis. As an atypical daytime occurrence, construction noise of

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 170 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

this magnitude will not go unnoticed by many in the vicinity of the Project. Nearby communities currently experience sounds from timber harvesting, and noise associated with log trucks, felling equipment, and other logging machinery are commonplace.

Phase II turbine sites are located more than 1,500 ft from permanent residences. However, there may be some cases where road construction or trenching operations occur closer to homes; this could result in higher sound levels if this work occurs very close to residences. For example, a short-term sound level of 80 dBA is theoretically possible where the distance to nearby work is about 200 ft. In such cases, every effort will be made to give affected residents advanced notice as to when this kind of work will occur and its duration.

100-Turbine Operation At roughly 1,000 ft, modern wind turbine noise is normally 35 dBA to 45 dBA (BWEA 2000), which is comparable to background sound inside a typical suburban home (EPA 1978). This level of noise is not sufficient to cause hearing damage. Wind turbine noise created by aerodynamic modulation (blade swish) may be perceived by some as more annoying than steady sound or ‘white noise’ (Morehouse et al. 2007).

Acentech (2011) predicted noise levels that will propagate from 47 wind turbines operating at maximum output. Table 5-4 shows the estimated Ldn operating sound levels for the 4 monitoring sites. The predicted turbine noise levels (Ldn) range between 34 dBA and 47 dBA, none greater than average measured ambient levels (47 dBA to 50 dBA) at the 4 monitoring sites (Table 5-4). At 21 residences at varying distances less than 1 mi, estimated Ldn sound levels ranged from 38 dBA to 50 dBA (Acentech 2011). In reduced wind speeds, background sounds would be less and so would turbine sound emissions.

Table 5-4. Ambient noise survey results and estimated turbine noise from 4 locations identified in relationship to 33 proposed and 14 alternate turbines for Phase II.1 Average Average Approximate Estimated facility Estimated facility measured measured Location distance to operation operation ambient ambient nearest turbine A-weighted Ldn C-weighted Ldn A-weighted Ldn C-weighted Ldn 1. Town of Duo 10,500 ft (2.0 mi) 48 dBA 34 dBA 65 dBC 53 dBC 2. Beech Ridge 1,600 ft (0.3 mi) 50 dBA 47 dBA 73 dBC 62 dBC Road 3. NW of Project 5,800 ft (1.1 mi) 47 dBA 37 dBA 55 dBC 54 dBC 4. Town of 5,000 ft (0.9 mi) 48 dBA 38 dBA 56 dBC 52 dBC Quinwood 1 Comparisons are provided for the actual sound monitoring locations. In some areas, residences are located either closer or farther than the approximate distance to wind turbine. Source: Acentech (2011).

Acentech (2011) estimated Project operation sound levels on a time-weighted basis (Ldn) for outdoor locations. Estimated sound levels for indoors of residences were reduced by 12 dBA and 24 dBA with windows open and closed, respectively (Acentech 2011). Based on the existing ambient noise estimates and the predicted Project noise, Acentech (2006) predicted that the Phase II turbines may be heard at locations within 1,600 ft. Long-term Ldn sound levels of the turbines will be similar to or less than the existing ambient Ldn levels at 1,600 ft for both indoor and outdoor locations.

The Project will be inaudible at night during the curtailment period (July 15 through October 15) when winds are below 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours. Curtailment will reduce the amount of overall noise generated by operations as compared to a project with no curtailment.

Low Frequency Noise. Concerns for wind turbine noise include exposure to low-frequency sounds and infrasound, which are defined as that below 200 Hz and below 20 Hz, respectively. Low-frequency noises

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 171 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

and infrasound and their effects on humans are not well understood, and there are opposing views on the subject (NRC 2007), ranging from non-existent or imagined effects to serious medical conditions.

Acentech (2011) estimated the C-weighted Ldn sound levels for the Phase II turbines to address the issue of low frequency sound. As stated in Section 4.2.1.1, the C-weighted scale includes more of the low-frequency range of sounds than the A-weighted scale. This results in a measured C-weighted sound level being greater than its corresponding A-weighted sound level at a given location. By comparing an A- weighted sound level (dBA) with a C-weighted sound level (dBC), one can determine the low frequency component of the sound.

The C-weighted Ldn sound levels for the Phase II turbines and the measured ambient C-weighted Ldn values are provided in Table 5-4 (Acentech 2011; see Appendix C, Report C-2, Figures 15 and 16 and Tables 6 and 7). The estimated C-weighted Ldn sound levels for the Phase II turbines range from 52 dBC to 62 dBC at the monitoring locations (Table 5-4). At 21 residences at varying distances less than 1 mi, estimated Ldn sound levels ranged from 54 dBC to 62 dBC (Acentech 2011). These turbine noise estimates compare to the similar range of measured ambient C-weighted Ldn values of 55 dBC to 73 dBC at the monitoring locations (Table 5-4).

Madsen and Pedersen (2010) studied 33 old and 14 new turbines and found an average increase of low frequency noise per installed power of around 1 dB for new turbines compared to older turbines. Low- frequency noise is relatively higher for turbines in the 2.3-MW to 3.6-MW range as compared to turbines that are less than 2.0 MW (Moller and Pedersen 2011), and these larger turbines may contribute more significantly to annoying environmental noise. The installed Phase I turbines and the proposed Phase II turbines are and will not be in this larger range of turbine size.

Schust (2004) reviewed experimental studies on the effects of low frequency sounds and indicated negative physiological effects occurring when humans were exposed to low frequency sounds above 80 dBA. Low frequency and infrasonic sound from modern turbines has been measured to be around 50 dBA to 70 dBA (Leventhal 2006). Low-frequency noise associated with the 100-turbine Project will have minor contributions to annoying environmental noise. There is not enough evidence to suggest that this minor contribution will result in impacts to human health.

The main source of complaint about wind turbine noise has been determined to be the sound of the down-turning blade as it passes the tower (Leventhal 2006), which is not low-frequency noise. Blade swish noise coming from the Project will have minor contributions to annoying environmental noise at locations within 1,600 ft.

Other Potential Operational Noise Sources. The proposed Project will not involve any other new noise sources. Once the 33 turbines are built and operational, the proposed Project will contribute a small amount of traffic to local roads (see Section 5.14 Transportation). Impacts from traffic noise are not anticipated to be significant.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Noise created during decommissioning activities will be similar to that described for the No-Action Alternative and similar to the noise created during construction of Phases I and II. BRE predicts that decommissioning the 100-turbine Project will take up to 3 years to complete. Noise will occur in association with the following activities:

• Dismantling and removing turbines, transmission line, and substation; • Removing pad-mounted transformers; • Removing all turbine and substation foundations to a depth of 4 ft; • Grading disturbed areas and access roads to as near as practicable to the original contour at the request of the landowner.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 172 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase I and Phase II construction included noise associated with rock blasting, excavating, hauling, grading, concrete mixing, tower erection, and vehicle traffic noise. Noise levels associated with ground excavating and grading by heavy machinery, and truck hauling and other vehicle traffic noise during decommissioning would be similar to that during construction. Noise associated with MET and turbine tower deconstruction would also be comparable to that during tower construction. A crane is used to carry out the reverse sequence of steps that occurred during construction. Noise associated with destruction of tower pads (concrete jack hammering) would be different than any noises associated with construction. Jackhammer noise would be more protracted in nature and possibly more intrusive than rock-blasting, which is explosive but brief and infrequent. A jackhammer emits 89 dBA at 50 ft (FHWA 2006a, 2006b).

Representative Leq values associated with the equipment used to perform rock-blasting, excavating, hauling, grading, concrete mixing, tower erection, and vehicle traffic noise are provided in Table 5-3. One can assume that certain decommissioning activities would be audible at residences within 1 mi of the Project. For a typical construction workday, Acentech (2006) estimated sound levels to be 54 dBA at 1,550 ft (the nearest permanent residence) and 41 dBA at 4,000 ft. Figure 19 in Acentech (2006, Appendix C, Report C-1) illustrates estimated maximum Ldn sound levels during construction over the entire original 124-turbine Project area.

Certain decommissioning activities, such as a jackhammer, within 1,550 ft of any sensitive receptor would cause moderately disturbing noise. A value of 60 dBA exceeds the threshold 5 dBA above the measured ambient noise levels in nearby communities of 49 dBA to 52 dBA (Table 5-2). Other decommissioning noise would be temporary in nature and produce sounds already familiar to communities within hearing distance.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation BRE already has in effect a reasonable complaint resolution procedure to ensure that any complaints regarding construction or operational sound are adequately investigated and resolved.

Construction activities will implement the following measures to reduce noise impacts:

• Construction activities will take place mostly during daylights hours. • Effective exhaust mufflers will be installed and properly maintained on all construction equipment; contractors will comply with federal limits on truck noise. • The Project will implement pile driving equipment identified as having the least noise impact and restrict this activity to weekdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. • BRE and its contractors will adhere to a Project-wide speed limit of 25 mph or lower depending on the requirements of the specific equipment utilizing the roads. • Night-time construction work will be minimized and confined to relatively quiet activities. • Construction during normal church-attending hours will be limited. • The affected community will be notified in advance of any blasting activity, and blasting will be limited to daylight hours and will follow all state and federal regulations.

The Project layout was designed to minimize operational noise impacts. In their original 124-turbine layout, BRE eliminated those turbines identified as the most likely to create noise problems. Eliminating those turbines diminished the potential negative impact of noise from the Project as it removed most turbines within 1 mi of identified sensitive receptors.

Proposed Action Summary Based on the results of the studies conducted for the Project (Acentech 2006, 2011) and what is currently understood about the effects of wind turbine noise on humans, sounds generated from Proposed Action operations are not expected to exceed the 5-dB threshold for significance. Noise impacts associated with certain construction and decommissioning activities will exceed the 5-dB threshold for significance. These

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 173 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

activities are expected to be short-term and confined to daytime hours. Noise impacts to the surrounding communities would be moderate during rock-blasting and jack hammering activities. The Proposed Action Alternative would be noisier than the No-Action Alternative because of Phase II construction. The addition of 33 turbines will not make Project operations louder, but will increase the spatial area affected by turbine noise.

5.2.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, BRE will construct the 33 Phase II turbines. Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s as the initial rate for curtailment. All 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period from April 1 through October 15.

Phase II Construction, 100-Turbine Operation, and Decommissioning Under Alternative 3, noise impacts associated with construction of 33 turbines and decommissioning of 100 turbines and associated infrastructure would be as described for the Proposed Action. Operations would include a longer curtailment season (April 1 through October 15), longer night-time restriction (30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise), and higher cut-in speed (6.5 m/s). This would result in a Project that would create less overall turbine noise at night as compared to the Proposed Action or a project with no curtailment.

Alternative 3 Summary Based on the results of the studies conducted for the Project (Acentech 2006, 2011) and what is currently understood about the effects of wind turbine noise on humans, sounds generated from Alternative 3 operations are not expected to exceed the 5 dB threshold for significance. Noise impacts associated with certain construction and decommissioning activities will exceed the 5 dB threshold for significance. These activities are expected to be short-term and confined to daytime hours. Noise impacts to the surrounding communities would be moderate during rock-blasting and jack hammering activities. Alternative 3 would be noisier than the No-Action Alternative because of Phase II construction and the extended period to remove 100 turbines as opposed to 67. The addition of 33 turbines will not make Project operations louder, but will increase the spatial area affected by turbine noise.

5.2.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for only the existing 67-turbine Project. Under this alternative, the Phase II 33-turbines would not be constructed. The Phase I Only Alternative would include the full implementation of the HCP as described for the Proposed Action. These actions would occur for the Project as it is currently constructed.

For the term of the ITP, BRE would adjust the cut-in speed for all 67 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from July 15 through October 15 (BRE’s Curtailment Plan). Turbine blades will be fully feathered below the cut-in speed so that blade rotation is minimized (i.e., less than 1 to 2 rpm).

Phase I Construction and Decommissioning Under Alternative 4, there would be no noise associated with construction as no new turbines would be built. Under Alternative 4, the 67 turbines, transmission line, and substation would be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. Noise associated with decommissioning would be the same as described for the No-Action Alternative. Avoidance and minimization measures also would be as described for the No-Action Alternative.

Phase I Operation Under Alternative 4, BRE would adjust the cut-in speed for all 67 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from mid-July to mid-October (BRE’s

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 174 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Curtailment Plan). Operational noise associated with Alternative 4 would be greater than that associated with the No-Action Alternative because turbines would begin to operate at night from April 1 through November 15. Turbines would not generate noise only during the curtailment season (July 15 through October 15), during the restricted hours (for 5 hours from sunset), and on those nights when wind speeds are less than 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph).

Under Alternative 4, operational noise would be the same as that described for the Proposed Action but would have a smaller area affected by turbine noise due to the fewer number of turbines. Conversely, Alternative 4 would create less overall noise as compared to a 100-turbine Project with no curtailment due to Alternative 4 having fewer turbines and a season with operational restrictions.

Alternative 4 Summary Vehicle and turbine noise associated with Phase I operation is not estimated to exceed the threshold of 5 dBA above measured ambient noise (Acentech 2006). Phase I operation is expected to have minor noise impacts for longer periods of time than the No-Action Alternative because turbines would operate at night year-round albeit with restriction from July 15 to October 15. Certain Phase I decommissioning activities are expected to exceed the threshold of 5 dBA above measured ambient noise. This effect would be moderate but temporary and confined to daytime hours. Decommissioning activities would cause moderately annoying sounds in the daytime causing some disruption to the solitude of the rural landscape.

5.3 Air Quality and Climate

5.3.1 Impact Criteria In February 2010, the CEQ provided for public comment a draft guidance memorandum on the ways in which Federal agencies can improve their consideration of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts throughout the NEPA process and address these issues in their agency NEPA procedures.

If a Proposed Action would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis, agencies should recognize this as an indication to conduct quantitative and qualitative assessments on those emissions. For long-term actions that have annual direct emissions less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide- equivalent, the CEQ encourages Federal agencies to consider whether the Proposed Action’s emissions in the long-term should be assessed. During the NEPA process, the CEQ also encourages agencies to determine which climate change impacts warrant consideration in relationship to a Proposed Action. Climate change impacts that warrant consideration in this FEIS are addressed under those Resource Sections that are relevant.

In accordance with Section 111 of the CAA of 1970, the USEPA established New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to regulate emissions of air pollutants from new stationary sources. The WV Code of State Rules contains NSPS regulations beyond those promulgated at the federal level. These standards apply to a variety of facilities, including landfills, boilers, cement plants, and electric generating units fired by fossil fuels. All new sources of air emissions in West Virginia are required to obtain a permit from WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality.

Administered by the EPA, the Acid Rain Program was established by the CAA Amendments of 1990 to reduce emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) through regulatory and market based approaches. No phases of the Project will emit SO2 or NOx.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration applies to new major sources of pollutants or major modifications at existing sources for pollutants where the area the source is located is in attainment or unclassifiable

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 175 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

with the NAAQS. No phase of the Project will emit new major sources of pollutants. The Project is not and will not be associated with an existing source of air pollutants.

5.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.3.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines and HCP would not occur. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for the BRE Project.

There would be no new construction or air emissions associated with construction.

Phase I Operation and Maintenance Turbines will continue to operate year-round during daytime hours and will only operate at night during the winter months. The turbines themselves would not generate atmospheric emissions. Phase I maintenance requires a small amount of vehicular traffic resulting in the emission of carbon dioxide emissions and particulates, and fugitive dust from unpaved access roads. These emissions are not estimated to be significant contributions.

Phase I Decommissioning The 67 turbines, transmission line, Project interconnect, and substation will be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. During decommissioning, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would affect air quality temporarily. Engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving, and travel on unpaved roads would create air emissions. Dust causes annoyance and deposits on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts would be short-term and localized.

Phase I Avoidance and Minimization During operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of Phase I, BRE would implement best management practices to minimize the amount of dust and exhaust generated by vehicle travel and equipment operation. All vehicles used for operation, maintenance, and decommissioning would be maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions from Project-related activities. Roads would be watered to suppress dust on unpaved roads (public roads, as well as private access roads).

No-Action Alternative Summary Air emissions permits are not required for the No-Action Alternative. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not have any new effects on the existing air quality in the Project area, with exception of a small amount of emissions and dust generated from Project vehicles. Phase I Project operation has the potential to produce around 254,000 MWh of electricity annually (assuming a 100.5-MW nameplate capacity, 39.5% Project capacity, and operating 73% of the time) with zero emissions. Power delivered to the grid from the Project would not add to the emissions produced at existing conventional power plants. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is expected to have no effect on air quality.

5.3.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, BRE will construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure and operate the 100-turbine Project according to the Project HCP. The Service will issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project, and avoidance, minimization, and conservation efforts will be implemented as described in the HCP and specified in the ITP.

Phase II Construction During the site preparation and construction phases, temporary impacts to air quality likely will result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Impacts will occur as a result of emissions from engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving and vegetation removal, and travel on

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 176 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

unpaved roads. Dust could cause annoyance and deposit on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts are expected to be short-term and localized.

BRE will be required to obtain a permit from the WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality to operate a concrete batch plant for constructing the 33 turbine foundations. Particulate matter and aggregate and sand dust emissions are the primary pollutants of concern during the manufacture of concrete. For the most part, emissions will be fugitive in nature. The only point source emission will be from the transfer of cement and pozzolan material (added to concrete to increase certain material properties and reduce material costs) to silos, and these will be vented through a fabric filter. Fugitive dust will be generated during the transport of sand and aggregate, truck and mixer loading, vehicle traffic at the plant and on unpaved roads, and wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles.

Project construction is not anticipated to emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide-equivalent of greenhouse gases. The concrete batch plant will be a temporary source of air pollutants.

100-Turbine Project Operation The operation of the 100-turbine Project will not generate major air emissions. Project maintenance will require a small amount of vehicular traffic resulting in the emission of carbon dioxide emissions and particulates. These emissions are not estimated to have a significant effect on local or regional air quality or contribute greatly to the amount of greenhouse gases. Project operation will not generate any new sources of air pollutants.

Project operation is expected to produce around 615,000 MWh of electricity annually (assuming a 187-MW nameplate capacity, 39.5% Project capacity, and operating 95% of the time) with zero emissions. Power delivered to the grid from the Project will not add to the emissions produced at existing conventional power plants.

The Project will not cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis. The Project is not expected to result in greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to problems associated with climate change.

Available information on how wind projects affect local weather is limited. Several investigations have indicated that wind turbines effectively mix atmospheric layers and may affect changes in local temperatures (Roy and Pacala 2004, Roy and Traiteur 2010, Zhou et al. 2012). Wind turbine blades stir up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warmer air on top. This layering effect is usually reversed during the daytime, with warm air on the surface and cooler air higher up. These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable effects on local to regional weather and climate. For the period from 2003-2011, Zhou et al. (2012) showed a warming trend of up to 1.3° F (0.72° C) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to non-wind-farm regions.

100-Turbine Decommissioning The 100 turbines, transmission line, Project interconnect, and substation will be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. During decommissioning, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles will affect air quality temporarily. Engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving, and travel on unpaved roads will create minor air emissions. Dust causes annoyance and deposits on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts will be short-term and localized.

Avoidance and Minimization Best management practices will be implemented to minimize the amount of dust generated by construction activities. All construction vehicles will be maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions from construction-related activities. In addition, the extent of exposed/disturbed areas on the site at any one time will be minimized and restored/stabilized as soon as possible. Roads will be watered as needed throughout the duration of construction activities to suppress dust on unpaved roads (public

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 177 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

roads as well as private access roads). Any unanticipated construction related dust problems will be identified and immediately reported to the construction manager and contractor.

Proposed Action Summary An air emissions permit is required for the Proposed Action during construction. Operation of the 100- turbine Project would not have any new effects on the existing air quality in the Project area, with exception of a small amount of emissions and dust generated from Project vehicles. The Proposed Action will have minor effects on air quality associated with fugitive dust during construction and for the lifetime of the Project through decommissioning. The Proposed Action will add relatively minor amounts of greenhouse gases associated with vehicle and equipment emissions.

5.3.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under the Additional Covered Species Alternative, BRE would construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure, operate the 100-turbine Project, and implement the HCP with modified avoidance and minimization measures to reduce bat mortality. The Service would issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project to take the 2 listed bats and 3 additional bat species should they be listed during the permit term. The Project HCP would be modified to include avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures for 3 species, in addition to those measures for the 2 listed bats specified in the Project HCP. The Curtailment Plan would implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed initially, and results of the RMAMP would be used accordingly to adjust Project operations in subsequent years.

Phase II Construction Under Alternative 3, construction impacts to air quality and climate would be as described for the Proposed Action. These impacts would be short-term and localized. BRE would be required to obtain a permit from the WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality to operate a concrete batch plant for constructing the 33 turbine foundations. The concrete batch plant would be a temporary source of air pollutants.

100 Turbine Operations Under Alternative 3, operational impacts to air quality and climate would be as described for the Proposed Action. The operation of the 100-turbine Project would not generate major air emissions. Low levels of emissions and fugitive road dust associated with a small amount of vehicular traffic are not estimated to have a significant effect on local or regional air quality or contribute greatly to the amount of greenhouse gases. The Project is not expected to result in greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to problems associated with climate change.

100-Turbine Decommissioning The 100 turbines, transmission line, Project interconnect, and substation would be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. During decommissioning, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would affect air quality temporarily. Engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving, and travel on unpaved roads would create minor air emissions. Dust causes annoyance and deposits on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts would be short- term and localized.

Avoidance and Minimization BRE would avoid and minimize impacts to air quality and climate using measures as described for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 Summary An air emissions permit is required for Alternative 3 during construction. Operation of the 100-turbine Project would not have any new effects on the existing air quality in the Project area, with exception of a small amount of emissions and dust generated from Project vehicles. Phase I and Phase II Project operation would produce 473,000 MWh of electricity annually (assuming a 187-MW nameplate capacity, 39.5% Project capacity, and operating 73% of the time) with zero emissions. Power delivered to the grid

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 178 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

from the Project would not add to the emissions produced at existing conventional power plants. The Alternative 3 will have minor effects on air quality.

5.3.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under the Phase I Only Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines would not be built. An ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued only for BRE’s Phase I Project, and the HCP would address measures for the operation of only 67 turbines. Off-site conservation measures would be reduced to address the unavoidable take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. Take estimates for these 2 listed bats would be less than that estimated for the 100-turbine Project. There would be no new construction or air emissions associated with construction under Alternative 4.

Phase I Operation and Maintenance The operation of the 67-turbine Project would not generate major air emissions. Project maintenance would require a small amount of vehicular traffic resulting in the emission of carbon dioxide emissions and particulates. These emissions are not estimated to have a significant effect on local or regional air quality or contribute greatly to the amount of greenhouse gases. Project operation would not generate any new sources of air pollutants.

Phase I Decommissioning The 67 turbines, transmission line, Project interconnect, and substation would be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. During decommissioning, the operation of construction equipment and vehicles would affect air quality temporarily. Engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving, and travel on unpaved roads would create air emissions. Dust causes annoyance and deposits on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts would be short-term and localized.

Avoidance and Minimization During operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of Phase I, BRE would implement BMPs to minimize the amount of dust and exhaust generated by vehicle travel and equipment operation. All vehicles used for operation, maintenance, and decommissioning would be maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions from Project-related activities. Roads would be watered to suppress dust on unpaved roads (public roads as well as private access roads).

Alternative 4 Summary Air emissions permits are not required for the Phase I Only Alternative. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not have any new effects on the existing air quality in the Project area, with exception of a small amount of emissions and dust generated from Project vehicles. Phase I Project operation has the potential to produce approximately 331,000 MWh of electricity annually (assuming a 100.5-MW nameplate capacity, 39.5% Project capacity, and operating 95% of the time) with zero emissions. Power delivered to the grid from the Project would not add to the emissions produced at existing conventional power plants. We therefore conclude that Alternative 4 will have minor effects on air quality.

5.4 Water Resources This section of the FEIS contains a discussion on the Project’s potential effects on water resources and the measures to protect water resources.

Effects to water resources are regulated at the federal level by the Federal WPCA (CWA) of 1972, Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977), Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts of 1968, and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Dangers associated with development in floodplains are also addressed under Executive Order 11988 and the West Virginia State Building Code, which limit development in these areas.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 179 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Permits required to install and operate water pollution control equipment and treatment processes include the following:

• West Virginia National NPDES construction storm water general permit; • An individual or nationwide permit under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA; and • Permit to install onsite sewage treatment for the O&M facility under West Virginia’s Department of Human Health and Resources regulations (64 CSR 9).

5.4.1 Impact Criteria The alternatives will have the potential to affect water resources. The Service considers impacts to water resources to be significant should any of the following result:

• Lost functions and values at a unique hydrological feature; • Significant alteration of the quantity or quality of a water supply for existing users; • Compromised safety and security of any water supply; • Natural functions of a floodplain or wetland that provides flood storage are affected, thus creating a potentially unsafe condition; or • Water withdrawals that would result in substantially degraded aquatic resources.

Otherwise minor impacts on water resources could result in significant effects to other resources. For example, specialized flora or fauna that are highly dependent on certain hydrologic conditions may become vulnerable should these conditions become altered. In this case, impacts on water resources could be considered significant.

5.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.4.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33-turbines would not be constructed and the HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for the BRE Project, and the 67 turbines would operate as directed under the Settlement Agreement. There would be no new construction under the No-Action Alternative.

Phase I Operation Under the No-Action Alternative, BRE would continue to implement erosion control BMPs to protect water quality in association with the Phase I Project; however BRE would be under no obligation to implement SWPPP permit conditions. BRE has been released from its SWPPP permit that required 1) weekly inspections and inspections after each precipitation event of 0.5 inches or greater rainfall, and 2) prompt reporting and repair of any problems with silt fences or other erosion control measures.

Groundwater. Groundwater use would be confined to activities at the O&M where 15 to 20 employees, at most, would use the facilities during the day. Water is supplied locally through the use of wells, and the building generates sewage and wastewater comparable to that of a small business office. These wastes are managed through the on-site septic system. Thus, groundwater use in association with the No-Action Alternative is not expected to deplete any local groundwater water supply. The No-Action Alternative operations would have minor effects to groundwater resources.

Surface Water. Operation of the Phase I Project would have minor impacts to streams in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads, causing some sedimentation. These effects would be localized should they occur. Project operations would not involve the discharge of water or waste into streams, ponds, or wetlands.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 180 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Minor oil spills from leaking transformers or gear boxes are possible. Should these spills enter surface waters, they may cause localized impacts on water quality and, in turn, have the potential to impact vegetation and wildlife. These impacts would be unlikely due to the small volume of oil that would actually spill. Any potential oil spills are addressed in BRE’s SPCC Plan.

No water would be used during operations for dust suppression on roads. Considering the potential for minor sedimentation and spills, the No-Action Alternative operations would have minor effects to surface water resources.

Phase I Decommissioning Under the No-Action Alternative, the 67 turbines, transmission line, and substation would be removed when the Project has reached the end of its functional life. As for construction, a GPP and SWPPPs would be implemented and kept on site during all decommissioning activities. Fuel and lubricants would be stored onsite during decommissioning. No other potential pollutants would be stored on the Project area. The GPP details procedures that would be used to protect groundwater resources such as using double-walled tanks or providing secondary containment. There may be minor, localized impacts to surface waters during decommissioning associated with sedimentation and erosion. Properly implemented sediment and erosion control measures would avoid and minimize surface water impacts.

BRE would implement BMPs outlined in a new SWPPP to protect water quality in association with the Phase I Project decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve water withdrawals from local streams and ponds for dust suppression on gravel roads during dry conditions. Dust suppression would require estimated water withdrawal of approximately 150,000 gallons per year over a 1 to 2 year period (Table 5-5). Small increments of this total amount (no more than 2,500 gallons/day or 30,000 gallons/month) would be withdrawn on those days when maintenance crews are driving during unusually dusty conditions (approximately 3 days per week for 20 weeks).

Table 5-5. Estimated water use per year associated with the 4 alternatives. During project operations, no water will be used for dust control. Gallons Yards of per yard Gallons Total concrete per of per No. of gallons per Construction: element concrete element elements year Well water for turbine pads 299 29 8,671 33 286,143 (Alts. 2 and 3) Stream and pond water for 15,000 gal/day, 20 days/month for 6 to 9 months 1,800,000- road dust suppression (Alts. 2 2,700,000 and 3) Decommissioning: Stream and pond water for 2,500 gallons per day, 3 days/week, for 30 weeks per dust suppression on roads year for 2 to 3 years 225,000 during removal of Phase I and II components (Alts. 2 and 3) Stream and pond water for 2,500 gallons per day, 3 days per week, for 20 weeks, dust suppression on roads for 1 to 2 years during removal of Phase I 150,000 components only (Alts. 1 and 4) Source: e-mail from K. Coppinger, Invenergy, May 17, 2012.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 181 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Should BRE need to implement temporary stream crossings to remove the transmission line, they will seek additional USACE permitting as appropriate.

Impacts to surface water resources due to water withdrawals would vary based on the source. Volumes of water in headwater streams higher in the watershed are significantly less than perennial streams lower in the watershed, especially during dry periods when dust suppression is likely to be required. To minimize impacts to intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams, BRE would take water only from local perennial streams and ponds. Water withdrawals would have fewer effects to surface water resources if water was taken primarily from man-made ponds.

Although the WVDEP does not regulate water withdrawals of less than 750,000 gallons/day, it has developed water withdrawal guidance and a tool to help individuals know when it is environmentally safe to withdraw water from a stream (WVDEP 2012). The guidance is based on percentages of mean annual flow, based on a 10-year period that affords an appropriate flow to protect aquatic habitat.

Because the tool has not yet been validated as adequately protective of aquatic species under all weather and precipitation conditions, water users should use common sense when making water withdrawals so as not to dewater streams. The tool should be checked daily before withdrawing significant quantities of water from any watershed. Users should exercise caution particularly during drought or extended dry conditions or in cases where multiple users may be withdrawing water from the same source. If a trout stream is low and withdrawing additional water could expose portions of the stream bottom or banks that are normally submerged, including riffle areas downstream from pools from which water is typically withdrawn, users should find a different location or water source. Water users should not block, dam, or divert flows, or excavate pools in streams or their direct tributaries.

BRE has agreed to use this tool and to use common sense as described above when making water withdrawals (K. Coppinger, Invenergy, personal communication, May 23, 2012).

No-Action Alternative Summary The No-Action Alternative has the potential to affect water resources. Water withdrawals from multiple perennial streams and ponds in small daily increments during summer months for 1 to 2 years would have a low likelihood of resulting in major alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions, provided that readily available tools and common sense are used so as not to exceed stream flow volumes. Should water withdrawals modify hydrologic conditions in local steams, impacts on local water resources would be considered major.

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative is not expected to compromise the quantity, safety, and security of any water supply, nor affect flood storage capability of any floodplain or wetland. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative includes BRE’s compliance with the Project’s GPP and SWPPs for protecting water resources in the Project area.

5.4.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Regulatory Compliance Background For Phase II siting and construction, BRE intends to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters to the fullest extent practicable. Once the layout for the 33 turbines has been finalized, results of the field surveys and a summary of impacts will be submitted to the USACE, and the required authorizations and permits, if any, will be obtained.

Phase II Construction Groundwater. Approximately 290,000 gallons of groundwater will be withdrawn from an existing well to prepare the concrete foundations for the 33 turbines (Table 5-5). Groundwater withdrawal can have impacts on nearby surface water sources. Water withdrawal impacts on groundwater resources are most often related to the rate of withdrawal (gallons per minute) and the rate of groundwater recharge. Water

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 182 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

withdrawal for the batch plant could have effects on groundwater, and in turn nearby surface waters, if withdrawal rates exceed recharge rates. These effects are uncertain because withdrawal and recharge rates have not been measured or predicted.

There will be no impacts to groundwater from sewage disposal during the construction phase. Portable toilets would be used on site.

Surface Water Quality. Construction of the Phase II Project may contribute pollutants and sediments to streams in association with accidental spills and stormwater runoff on unpaved roads. These effects will be localized should they occur. Construction activities will be performed using standard construction BMPs so as to minimize the potential for accidental spills of solid material, contaminants, debris, and other pollutants. Excavated material or other construction materials will not be stockpiled or deposited within 100 ft of streams.

In addition, BRE will prepare and implement SWPPP(s) for the 33-turbine phase, as required by the WVDEP. The SWPPPs will ensure that erosion is minimized during storm events. In order to minimize damage to the land surface and property, they will limit the movement of crews and equipment to the Project site, including access routes, to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. When weather and ground conditions permit, deep ruts caused by construction will be levelled, filled and graded, or otherwise eliminated. Ruts, scars, and compacted soils will be loosened and levelled using a ripper or disc or other landowner-approved method. Damage to ditches, roads, and other features of the land will be repaired. Water bars or small terraces will be constructed along access road ditches on hillsides to minimize water erosion and to facilitate natural revegetation.

The SWPPPs also will include standard sediment control devices (e.g., silt fences, straw bales, netting, soil stabilizers, check dams) to minimize soil erosion during and after construction. Areas disturbed during construction will be stabilized and reclaimed using appropriate erosion control measures, including site- specific contouring, reseeding, or other measures agreed to by the landowner and designed and implemented in compliance with the Project’s approved SWPPPs.

Surface Water Quantity. Road dust suppression during Phase II construction will affect water levels in local streams and ponds. Effects will vary by the water source. To minimize impacts to intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams, water utilized for dust suppression will be taken from local perennial creeks and man-made ponds within the Project area. Approximately 15,000 gallons of water would be used each day that roads would need watering during the 6 to 9 months required for construction of Phase II. Depending on the source, water withdrawal could have adverse effects on aquatic communities and hydrologic conditions necessary to maintain flows in a stream. Withdrawal of 15,000 gallons for 20 days in 1 month is 300,000 gallons. In the dry season, when dust suppression is likely to be required, this could have a moderate impact on that particular stream source. Water withdrawals would have fewer effects to surface water resources if water was taken primarily from man-made ponds.

Pursuant to West Virginia Code §§22-26, BRE is not required to register with the WVDEP and provide all requested survey information regarding withdrawals of state waters. Only large quantity users are required to register, which means “any person who withdraws over [750,000] gallons of water in a calendar month from the state's waters.” However, the WVDEP tool and guidance on water withdrawal is based on percentages of mean annual flow over a 10-year period. This is to ensure that water sources maintain an appropriate flow to protect the aquatic habitat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 183 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BRE has agreed to use this tool to help judge when it is safe to withdraw water from local streams and to apply common sense so as not to dewater streams. (See the more detailed description of these measures under the No-Action Alternative). These measures reduce the likelihood that substantial degradation of aquatic resources would occur.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. BRE has committed to avoiding impacts to wetlands and streams for construction of Phase II. It should be noted, exact turbine locations for the expansion area will not be determined until just prior to construction. BRE has included alternate turbine locations that they may select for turbine siting should wetlands be discovered at an initially proposed location.

100-Turbine Project Operations Groundwater. A typical spread footer foundation for a 1.5-MW turbine is approximately 16 ft to 18 ft in diameter at the surface but may spread out below grade to as much as 49 ft in diameter and 12 ft deep. Similar to the Phase I Project, Phase II turbine foundations are not expected to affect the flow of groundwater, provided that foundation depths do not reach the water table in the Project area. Effects are uncertain because no information is available on the depth of the water table.

Surface Water. Project operations may have minor impacts to streams in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. These effects would be localized should they occur. Project operations will not involve the discharge of water or waste into streams, ponds, or wetlands. The O&M building generates sewage and wastewater comparable to that of a small business office; these wastes are managed through the on-site septic system. O&M activities would not require water withdrawals for dust suppression.

Minor oil spills from leaking transformers or gear boxes are possible. Should these spills enter surface waters they may cause localized impacts on water quality and, in turn, have the potential to impact vegetation and wildlife. These impacts will be unlikely due to the small volume of oil that would actually spill. Any potential oil spills are addressed in BRE’s SPCCP.

100-Turbine Project Decommissioning Project decommissioning will have similar effects on water resources as those described for Phase II construction but will extend to include the Phase I area as well. Potential effects on water resources include runoff and sedimentation from ground disturbance. These effects will be temporary and localized. Sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented during decommissioning to prevent runoff into water resources. Properly implemented sediment and erosion control measures would avoid and minimize surface water impacts. Should BRE need to implement temporary stream crossings to remove the transmission line, they will seek additional USACE permitting as appropriate.

Water withdrawals will be necessary for dust abatement if road surfaces become dry during decommissioning. Water withdrawals would have minor effects to water resources if water is taken from streams with adequate flows, such as large perennial streams lower on the slopes of the ridge.

To remove the full build-out of the Project (100 turbines and associated infrastructure), BRE estimates that dust suppression will require 220,000 gallons of water per year for 2 to 3 years. Water will be withdrawn in small increments (no more than 2,500 gallons per day, 3 days per week for 30 weeks, or no more than 37,500 gallons per month) during dry months (Table 5-5).

Impacts to surface water resources due to water withdrawals will vary based on the source. Water withdrawals will have the greatest impacts to habitat conditions in streams higher in the watershed at higher elevations especially during dry periods when dust suppression is likely to be required. Volumes of water in headwater streams are significantly less than streams lower in the watershed. Water withdrawals will have fewer effects to surface water resources if water was taken from some of the man-made ponds. To reduce impacts to intermittent headwater streams, BRE has committed to taking water only from

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 184 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

perennial water sources and ponds. In addition, BRE will use the WVDEP water withdrawal tool and common sense to reduce the likelihood that perennial streams are not dewatered.

As for construction, BRE’s GPP and SWPPPs would be implemented and kept on-site during all decommissioning activities. Fuel and lubricants would be stored on-site during decommission No other potential pollutants would be stored on the Project area. BRE will implement BMPs outlined in the existing SWPPP to protect water quality in association with the Phase I Project decommissioning. Conditions contained in the permits require 1) weekly inspections and inspections after 0.5 inch or greater rainfall, and 2) prompt reporting and repair of any problems with silt fences or other erosion control measures.

Proposed Action Summary The Proposed Action has the potential to affect water resources. Minor, localized impacts to streams may occur in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. Implementation of the Proposed Action includes BRE’s compliance with the Project’s GPP and SWPPPs for protecting water resources in the Project area. Implementation of the Proposed Acton will not compromise the quantity, safety, and security of any water supply. Implementation of the Proposed Action also is not expected to affect flood storage capability of any floodplain or wetland.

Depleting wells or withdrawing too much water from perennial streams could result in alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions if withdrawals exceed stream flow volumes. Withdrawing water from multiple perennial streams and ponds in small daily increments would have a low likelihood of resulting in major alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions, provided that readily available tools and common sense are used so as not to exceed stream flow and well volumes. Should water withdrawals modify hydrologic conditions in local steams, impacts on local water resources would be considered major.

5.4.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, effects to water resources associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning would be as described for the Proposed Action. Groundwater (286,143 gallons) would be drawn to make concrete for the turbine foundations. Surface water withdrawals would occur for dust suppression during construction, operation, and decommissioning (see Table 5-5). Minor, localized impacts to streams may occur in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. Avoidance and minimization measures will be as described for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 Summary Alternative 3 has the potential to affect water resources similar to Alternative 2. Depleting wells or withdrawing too much water from perennial streams may result in alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions if withdrawals exceed stream flow volumes. Water withdrawals from multiple perennial streams and ponds in small daily increments would have a low likelihood of resulting in major alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions, provided that readily available tools and common sense are used so as not to exceed stream flow and well volumes. Should water withdrawals modify hydrologic conditions in local steams, impacts on local water resources would be considered major.

Implementation of Alterative 3 would not compromise the quantity, safety, and security of any water supply, and is not expected to affect flood storage capability of any floodplain or wetland. Implementation of Alternative 3 includes BRE’s compliance with the Project’s GPP and SWPPPs for protecting water resources in the Project area.

5.4.2.4 Alternative 4: HCP and ITP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, effects to water resources in associated with Project operation and decommissioning would be as described for the No-Action Alternative. There would be no new construction. Surface water

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 185 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

withdrawals would occur for dust suppression during decommissioning (see Table 5-5). Minor, localized impacts to streams may occur in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. Avoidance and minimization measures will be as described for the Phase I Project.

Alternative 4 Summary Alternative 4 has the potential to affect water resources similar to Alternative 1. Water withdrawals from multiple perennial streams and ponds in small daily increments during summer months for 1 to 2 years would have a low likelihood of resulting in major alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions, provided that readily available tools and common sense are used so as not to exceed stream flow volumes. Should water withdrawals modify hydrologic conditions in local steams, impacts on local water resources would be considered major.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would not compromise the quantity, safety, and security of any water supply, nor would it be expected to affect flood storage capability of any floodplain or wetland. Implementation of Alternative 4 includes BRE’s compliance with the Project’s GPP and SWPPPs for protecting water resources in the Project area.

5.5 Vegetation This Section of the FEIS contains a discussion of the potential effects on vegetation and measures to protect vegetation resources in the Project area.

5.5.1 Impact Criteria Federally listed plants are afforded protection under the ESA and the State of West Virginia. Executive Order 13112 addresses federal coordination and response to the problems associated with invasive species. There are no specific federal or state regulations pertaining to non-listed plants that are relevant to the analysis for this Project. As per NEPA and CEQ guidelines, the human environment includes vegetation resources, and impacts to these resources can result in secondary effects to other resources.

Vegetation can be impacted at the individual, population, or community level. The Service considers impacts to vegetation resources to be significant should implementation of an alternative result in any of the following:

• Naturally occurring population reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional level; • Substantial loss or degradation of soil stabilization services; • Substantial loss or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species; and • Introduction of invasive species that results in substantial replacement of native species.

5.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, effects to vegetation resources would be confined to those in association with operation and decommissioning activities. There would be no new construction.

Phase I Operation Project infrastructure (buildings, concrete pads, etc.) would prevent 50 acres of soil from supporting vegetation for the life of the Project (25 years). There would be no new ground disturbance; 311 acres of reclaimed areas from Phase I construction would continue to recover and eventually become forested.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 186 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

All maintenance activities would occur within areas previously disturbed by construction. No new vegetation disturbance would occur during Project operations. Turbine maintenance is not likely to need the assistance of heavy equipment. In the unlikely event that a large crane would be needed for turbine maintenance, vegetation would be cleared within the area previously disturbed during construction to provide for safe and efficient operation of the crane, but no large tree removal or soil disturbance would be necessary. Ground-disturbing activities may include the occasional need to access underground cable or communications lines.

Under the No-Action Alternative, turbines would be monitored for animal fatalities as required in the WVPSC’s Siting Certificate. Herbaceous vegetation would be maintained around the O&M building and within 130 ft of each turbine to facilitate search efforts during post-construction mortality monitoring. Maintenance activities would occasionally need to remove unsafe trees from the facility. However, overall operation of the facility would not require any additional clearings. As such, additional effects to native vegetation from operations are not expected.

The transmission line route and other Project areas would be inspected for hazard trees that may pose safety threats or potential damage to Project facilities. Hazard trees will be trimmed or cut as needed. Inspections and tree cutting needed for these purposes will occur between November 15 and March 31 to ensure no potential for direct impacts to Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats, except in an emergency where there is a risk to public safety.

Noxious Weed Management. BRE would monitor the substation and areas around the turbines (the turbine laydown area) for invasive plants and use mechanical measures to control noxious weeds in these areas.

Certain invasive plants have been detected along the roads, and they were present prior to the BRE Project. BRE’s weed control effort would not include the road system in the Project area. It is possible that invasive plants along the roads may encourage infestations elsewhere in the Project area. Under any alternative, including the No-Action Alternative, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation. BRE has indicated the herbicides selected will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio-accumulation, and are unlikely to pose chronic risks to wildlife. Material data sheets for each of these products are available online from the manufacturers. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

Phase I Decommissioning During the decommissioning of Phase I, impacts to vegetation would be limited to small amounts of clearing should forest regeneration impede crane access for dismantling the turbines. Tree harvesting would be confined to winter months and limited to that which is necessary to facilitate equipment access for removing Project components. Disturbed areas and access roads would be graded to as near as practicable the original contour if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads would be left in place.

It is assumed that BMPs implemented during construction of Phase I would be implemented during decommissioning activities to protect soil and vegetation resources but will be based on the current SWPPP requirements approved for the decommissioning effort. BMPs include the following.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 187 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Excavated material would be contained, stabilized, and protected. • Surface disturbance would be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient removal of Project components. • All surface-disturbed areas would be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

Areas to be reclaimed after decommissioning would be contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, to provide for proper drainage, and to prevent erosion. The seed mixtures used for reclamation after Phase I construction would be implemented for decommissioning (Table 5-6). Tree planting is not included in the reclamation plan.

Table 5-6. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project seed mixtures used during reclamation of Phase I disturbed areas. Mix #1 Contractor’s Gold Mix Mix #2 Erosion Gold Mix Species / Percent of Application Species / Percent of Application Annual Rye / 49.0% Annual Ryegrass / 47.7% Red Fescue / 29.4% Fawn Tall Fescue /14.4% Perennial Rye / 19.6% AllSport II Perennial Ryegrass / 19.1% Trefoil / 7.6% Med Red Clover / 9.5% Other Crop Seed / 1.1% Inert Matter / 1.2%

No-Action Alternative Summary Implementation of the No-Action Alternative is not expected to cause reductions in numbers of any naturally occurring plant population to such an extent as to affect population viability at the local or regional level. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative will result in minor effects to soil stabilization services during decommissioning when soils are exposed and unvegetated for a short period of time. It is possible that the No-Action Alternative may result in the introduction of invasive plants when soils are exposed during decommissioning. Implementation of Project BMPs would attempt to avoid and control noxious plant invasions in areas disturbed by the project, with exception of roadways. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative is not expected to result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare animal species or in substantial replacement of native species.

5.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction BRE estimates that Phase II construction will affect approximately 148 acres, most of which will be managed forest land. Table 5-7 shows the estimated impact to the various habitat types found on-site. Activities associated with creating work areas, laydown areas, turn-arounds, and road expansions will disturb the greatest amount of habitat. Of the 27,000 acres leased, 0.5% will be disturbed to construct the Phase II Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 188 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-7. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project estimated Phase II construction habitat disturbance. Percent of Overall Habitat Type Acres Impacted Disturbance Deciduous forest 117.6 79.0% Open space 13.1 9.1% Barren land 10.0 6.9% Low intensity developed 3.2 2.2% Mixed forest 1.6 1.1% Evergreen forest 0.7 0.5% Medium intensity developed 0.7 0.5% Cultivated crops 0.6 0.4% Pasture/hay 0.4 0.3% 147.9 100.0%

Effects to vegetation during construction will include death of individual plants through removal, crushing, soil compaction, or hazardous substance release. Plant individuals or groups may become stressed from loss of physical parts (e.g., leaves, branches, flowers), being covered in dust or other material, being exposed to altered light conditions or hydrology, or from other types of disturbances.

BRE will implement the following BMPs during construction to protect soil and vegetation resources.

• Excavated material will be contained, stabilized, and protected. • Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. • All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements. • Removal or disturbance of vegetation will be minimized through site management (e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, scalping) and reclaiming all disturbed areas not required for operations.

No construction or routine maintenance activities will be conducted when soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment will create ruts in excess of 4 inches deep). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars will be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures will be monitored, especially after storms, and repaired or replaced as necessary. Construction activities will be avoided in areas of moderate to steep slopes (15-20%) as much as possible.

Under the Proposed Action, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation. BRE has indicated the herbicides selected will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio- accumulation, and that are unlikely to pose chronic risks to wildlife. Material data sheets for each of these products are available online from the manufacturers. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 189 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Restoration and Reclamation. Roads, portions of roads, crane paths, and staging areas not required for operation and maintenance will be restored to the original contour and made impassable to vehicular traffic. Areas to be reclaimed will be contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, to provide for proper drainage, and to prevent erosion. The seed mixtures used for reclamation after Phase I construction would be implemented for decommissioning (Table 5-6). Tree planting is not included in the reclamation plan. BRE intends to maintain areas needed for O&M clear of trees.

Riparian Areas. Equipment will not cross riparian areas. BRE will conduct construction activities up to riparian areas from either side as they did for Phase I construction.

100-Turbine Project Operation Phase II Project operations will remove 21 acres of soil from forest productivity for the life of the Project. Once construction activities are completed, 127 acres of disturbance will be reclaimed as described above. Altogether, the Project will remove 71 acres of soil from forest productivity for the life of the Project. Of the 27,000-acre leased area, <.3% will be directly affected by the Project footprint.

Reclaimed areas will be comprised of regenerating forest and maintained herbaceous cover propagated from the applied seed mixes. Succession will be allowed to occur naturally in those areas of forest regeneration. Based on the management history of the Project area, one can assume that the cleared forest is second-growth beech-maple-cherry. In years 1-5, recovering habitat will consist of herbs, bramble, and seedling trees. This early-successional stage often has the greatest species diversity, especially along edges. Years 5-10 will be characterized by shrubs and sapling trees. In years 10-25, stands will be composed of sapling and pole-sized trees. As forests regenerate, species assemblages will change until climax stage is reached and mature forest conditions predominate. After 25 years, stands will only then begin to resemble those mature stands that were cleared for the Project.

A 130-ft radius area around turbines is to be monitored for animal fatalities. The monitoring area will be regularly mowed to improve searcher efficiency for finding bird and bat carcasses. These areas and areas around the O&M building will be maintained in an herbaceous state. Maintenance activities will occasionally need to remove unsafe trees from the facility. However, overall operation of the facility will not require any additional clearings above what has already been described. As such, additional effects to native vegetation from operation are not expected.

Maintained herbaceous cover at the forest/Project interface will create abrupt edges. Edge effects include changes in environmental conditions, such as light, temperature, wind, and humidity. Edges have changes in vegetation structure and altered microclimate (increased temperature and decreased humidity). Maintained herbaceous openings will be relatively small as compared to an agricultural field, but these are unnatural spaces that will be low in botanical diversity.

Indirect effects to vegetation resources include the introduction or spread of invasive species in the Project area. Invasive species in the United States cause major environmental damages and losses adding up to almost $120 billion per year. There are approximately 50,000 foreign species and the number is increasing. About 42% of the species on the threatened or endangered species lists are at risk primarily because of alien-invasive species (Pimental et. al. 2004). Several studies have demonstrated that invasive plant species reduce native plant diversity and regularly invade areas through fragmented habitats caused by linear corridor developments (NISC 2008, Stubbs et. al. 2007, USEPA 1994, CEQ 1993).

In the high elevations of the Appalachians in West Virginia, there is a potential for spread of garlic mustard, autumn olive, bush honeysuckle, and Japanese stilt grass. Invasive plant management can only be successful through early intervention, frequent monitoring, and maintenance.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 190 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

100-Turbine Decommissioning During the decommissioning of Phases I and II, impacts to vegetation would be limited to small amounts of clearing should forest regeneration impede crane access for dismantling the turbines. Tree harvesting would be confined to winter months and limited to that which is necessary to facilitate equipment access for removing Project components. Disturbed areas and access roads will be graded to as near as practicable the original contour if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads will be left in place.

BMPs implemented during construction of Phase II will be implemented during decommissioning activities to protect soil and vegetation resources. BMPs include the following.

• Excavated material will be contained, stabilized, and protected. • Surface disturbance will be limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient removal of Project components. • All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

No decommissioning activities will be conducted where soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment created ruts in excess of 4 inches deep). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars will be used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures will be monitored, especially after storms, and would be repaired or replaced if necessary.

Areas to be reclaimed after decommissioning will be contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, to provide for proper drainage and to prevent erosion. The seed mixtures used for reclamation after Phase I and Phase II construction will be implemented for decommissioning (Table 5-6). Tree planting is not included in the reclamation plan.

Proposed Action Summary Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to cause reductions in numbers of any naturally occurring plant population as to affect population viability at the local or regional level. Implementation of the Proposed Action will result in minor effects to soil stabilization services during construction and decommissioning when soils are exposed and unvegetated for a short period of time. It is possible that the Proposed Action may result in the introduction of invasive plants when soils are exposed during construction and decommissioning. Implementation of Project BMPs will attempt to avoid and control noxious plant invasions in areas disturbed by the project, with exception of roadways which may become seed sources for the project area. Vigilance, early intervention, frequent monitoring, and maintenance of invasive plants on the project area may be needed. Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for any rare animal species, or in substantial replacement of native species. The Proposed Action will have moderate short-term impacts and minor long-term impacts to vegetation resources. Affected habitat types are in abundant supply in the landscape. The amount of impact to managed forest habitats is not likely to have wide-ranging effects on plants and animals that depend on them.

5.5.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, effects to vegetation resources associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning would be as described for the Proposed Action. Regenerating forest in the Phase I and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 191 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase II Project areas would continue to recover in the reclaimed areas, and herbaceous vegetation would be maintained around the O&M building and in the 130-ft radius search areas around turbines. Tree-growth would be managed to maintain an open corridor for the transmission line. Avoidance and minimization measures would be as described for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 Summary As described for the Proposed Action, implementation of Alternative 3 is not expected to cause reductions in numbers of any naturally occurring plant population as to affect population viability at the local or regional level. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in minor effects to soil stabilization services during construction and decommissioning when soils are exposed and unvegetated for a short period of time. It is possible that Alternative 3 may result in the introduction of invasive plants when soils are exposed during construction and decommissioning. Implementation of Project BMPs would attempt to avoid and control noxious plant invasions within the project footprint, excluding roadways. Implementation of Alternative 3 is not expected to result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for any rare animal species. Alternative 3 would have moderate short-term impacts and minor long-term impacts to vegetation resources. Affected habitat types are in abundant supply in the landscape. The amount of impact to managed forest habitats is not likely to have wide-ranging effects on common plants and animals that depend on them.

5.5.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, effects to vegetation resources associated with operation and decommissioning would be as described for the No-Action Alternative. There would be no new construction, and no significant additional clearing would take place. Regenerating forest in the Phase I Project area would continue to recover in the reclaimed areas, and herbaceous vegetation would be maintained around the O&M building. Because post-construction monitoring would be conducted under Alternative 4, herbaceous vegetation would be maintained in the 130-ft radius search areas around turbines. Tree- growth would be managed to maintain the transmission line. Decommissioning activities may require some clearing of regeneration forest should certain sites impede crane access for turbine removal. Avoidance and minimization measures would be as described for the No-Action Alternative.

Alternative 4 Summary Implementation of Alternative 4 is not expected to cause reductions in numbers of any naturally occurring plants as to affect population viability at the local or regional level. Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor effects to soil stabilization services during decommissioning when soils are exposed and unvegetated for a short period of time. It is possible that Alternative 4 may result in the introduction of invasive plants when soils are exposed during decommissioning. Implementation of Project BMPs would attempt to avoid and control noxious plant invasions in the project footprint, with exception of roadways. Implementation of Alternative 4 is not expected to result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for any rare animal species, or in substantial replacement of native species

5.6 Wildlife and Fisheries This section of the FEIS addresses the potential effects on and measures to protect wildlife and fisheries resources in the Project area. Birds and bats are addressed separately in Sections 5.7 and 5.8, respectively.

5.6.1 Impact Criteria Impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources are considered significant if an action would substantially affect a species’ population, or substantially diminish the quality or quantity of its habitat. Potential direct effects to species include, but are not limited to, disturbance, injury, mortality, and habitat alteration or loss during Project construction or maintenance activities. Potential indirect and secondary effects to species or habitats include habitat alteration or loss that occurs later in time or in another place due to groundwater or surface water withdrawal, creation of habitat edges or openings that may eventually attract different

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 192 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

suites of species, and animal avoidance or displacement due to increased traffic or other human-related activities. This effects analysis considers the potential for the proposed Project to affect species distribution and life history strategies in the context of an effect’s intensity, duration, and frequency. The evaluation of potential effects considers any implemented BMPs and mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts.

5.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.6.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Project and HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for Phase I operation or Phase II construction and operation. Impacts to wildlife and fisheries associated with construction of Phase I of the project, which are part of the baseline, are also further discussed in Section 5.15 – Cumulative Effects.

Phase I Operation Impacts associated with operation of the Project under Alternative 1 would be similar to that described for the 100-turbine Project (Alternatives 2 and 3) but over a smaller area. All maintenance activities would occur within areas previously disturbed by construction (e.g., occasional redisturbance of vegetation in previously disturbed areas such as removal of hazard trees that could pose a safety threat or potentially damage Project facilities, removal of trees within the transmission line ROW as they become tall enough to interfere with power transmission, vegetation clearing around turbine pads to allow crane access for turbine maintenance). Ground-disturbing activities may include the occasional need to access underground cable or communications lines. Such activities generally would be commensurate or less intrusive than other activities in the region (e.g. timber harvesting, natural gas exploration). Infrequent disturbances of early-successional habitats would not be expected to result in population declines of abundant edge-adapted wildlife species. Less tolerant wildlife may be displaced by habitat loss and human presence in the project area.

Displacement impacts are potentially complex, involving changes in species abundance, shifts in habitat use, and disruption of life strategies. There are limited data available addressing impacts to mammals associated with habitat loss due to wind farm developments in the U.S.; the majority of studies have focused on bird and bat collision mortality. The effects of wind turbines on those animal species found in forested landscapes are assumed to occur but they are not fully understood. Wind facilities in forested landscapes create a noticeable disruption of habitat is association with turbine pad clearings, new roads, and transmission lines as compared to facilities constructed in open landscapes (e.g., agriculture or grassland).

The 67-turbine Project likely caused localized reductions in wildlife species dependent on forested habitats, such as deer mice, squirrels, and hares. New roads, the transmission line corridor, and other Project components may degrade habitat conditions for those species known to respond negatively to human intrusion such as black bear.

Conversely, some species have a greater tolerance than others for human activity and habitat modification in the vicinity of breeding and feeding areas. While habituation may not be immediate, species such as white-tailed deer, striped skunk, and raccoon generally adapt quickly to the presence of man-made features in their habitat, as evidenced by the abundance of these species in suburban settings. Deer have been observed at recently constructed wind power projects (Stantec 2010a, 2010b). Significant displacement of white-tailed deer, skunks, and raccoons from a wind power site has not been reported.

Under Alternative 1, general wildlife would experience minor effects associated with displacement. Black bears would be likely to avoid the Project area due to the increase in human intrusion. Snowshoe hare would be likely to avoid maintained areas surrounding the turbines, and cottontail rabbits would be likely

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 193 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

to frequent them. Rodents that frequent woodlands would be replaced by those that use grassy forest openings. The magnitude of these impacts will be minimal as the Project will result in a small amount of habitat loss and disruption relative to the character of the surrounding landscape, which is predominately industrial forest. These impacts are expected to consist primarily of shifts in distribution of species within the Project area that could also occur in association with other types of impacts, such as logging and gas and mineral development.

Operation of the Phase I Project would have minor impacts to fish and other aquatic life in streams in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. These effects would be localized should they occur. Project operations would not involve the discharge of water or waste into streams, ponds, or wetlands.

Minor oil spills from leaking transformers or gear boxes are possible. Should these spills enter surface waters they may cause localized impacts on water quality and, in turn, potentially impact fish and other aquatic life. These impacts would be unlikely due to the small volume of oil that would actually spill. Any potential oil spills are addressed in BRE’s SPCCP.

Under any alternative, including the No-Action Alternative, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation. BRE has indicated the herbicides selected will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio-accumulation, and that are unlikely to pose chronic risks to wildlife. Material data sheets for each of these products are available online from the manufacturers. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

When herbicides are applied as described in Section 2.1.4.4 of the Project HCP, risks to wildlife from these compounds are likely to be minimal but cannot be completely discounted. Highly mobile wildlife are likely to flush and move away from spraying activities. However, slow or sessile animals may come in direct contact with spraying. Some of the herbicides identified for use could have acute effects should animals come in direct contact with some of the active and inactive compounds. We predict that impacts at the individual animal level will occur infrequently. We do not anticipate herbicide application to have population effects at the local or regional level. None of the compounds will be used to control vegetation in wetlands or surface waters. Aquatic wildlife would not be affected.

Phase I Decommissioning Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance may be cleared again to remove Project components. Direct impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources will be similar to construction impacts, but at a much lower level.

Disturbed areas and access roads will be graded to the original contour as near as practicable if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads will be left in place.

BRE’s plan for decommissioning includes land reclamation, monitoring of revegetation, and reseeding if needed to ensure revegetation success. Ground cover (vegetation) must be established in at least 70% of the disturbed area based on specific state reclamation requirements. Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance may be cleared again to allow crane access for remove turbines. Forest clearing of the regenerating forest will restart the regeneration process of the forest. Suitable wildlife habitat for some species generally occurs in forests more than 50 years in age. This will mean that areas that were originally cleared and then recleared for decommissioning will not provide suitable mature forest habitat for more than 70 to 75 years (assuming a 25-year project life). There are very few areas in the region that exhibit this mature forest structure.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 194 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Decommissioning activities would require water withdrawals from local perennial streams and ponds for dust suppression on gravel roads during dry conditions. There are fewer roads associated with the Phase I Project, and dust suppression would require water withdrawal of up to 150,000 gallons per year for 1 to 2 years. Fractions within this amount (up to 2,500 gallons/day) would be withdrawn on those days when maintenance crews are driving during unusually dusty conditions. Water for dust suppression could potentially be taken from any local pond or stream within the Phase I or II planning area. Because there are a number of designated trout streams in the area (Table 4-2), there is potential for minor to moderate impacts to fisheries and aquatic habitats as a result of water withdrawals if fish are entrained or water withdrawals exceed flows or recharge rates. To minimize the likelihood that significant effects would occur, BRE has committed to using state tools and common sense for water withdrawals to ensure adequate stream flows (see Water Resources effects in Section 5.4).

No-Action Alternative Summary Under the No-Action Alternative, the Project will not result in substantial changes in wildlife habitat or populations. Under Alternative 1, general wildlife would experience minor effects associated with displacement. There is potential fish entrainment and dewatering of state-designated trout streams if water withdrawals exceed flows or recharge rates. To minimize the likelihood that significant effects would occur, BRE has committed to using state tools and common sense for water withdrawals to ensure adequate stream flows.

5.6.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction BRE estimates that a total of 148 acres will be disturbed during construction of Phase II. An estimated 29 acres of this disturbance will be the result of newly constructed roads of which 8 acres will permanent (see Table 3-2). As discussed in Section 5.5, the majority of disturbed habitat (79%) will be deciduous forest and will not be replaced during the 25-year permit term.

Wildlife habitat removal will have unavoidable impacts such as mortality and habitat loss. Noise and human intrusion associated with construction will cause some animals to avoid the Project area forcing them to seek quieter sites.

In the Phase I and Phase II Project areas, 15 streams are designated trout waters, and 4 streams are probably trout waters but have not been documented (Section 4.4.2, Table 4-2; WVDEP Water Quality Standards Program, personal communication). Water withdrawals and sedimentation during project construction has the potential to adversely affect fisheries by stranding fish in isolated pools, smothering eggs, and polluting water. There are a number of warm and cold water streams in the proposed Project area, including the 19 streams that have been documented or are suspected as being trout fisheries (see Section 4.4.2, Table 4-2) that are within or proximal to the Project area. Properly installed sediment and erosion controls can prevent impacts to streams that may be at risk for receiving sediment from disturbed soils and minimize or eliminate impacts to these fisheries during project construction.

A large amount of water (over 2 million gallons in one year) is needed for construction (Table 5-5). Water withdrawals from wells for cement mixing should be monitored so as not to exceed the recharge rate of the well. Excessive water withdrawals from wells for cement mixing, or from local streams for dust suppression can potentially degrade aquatic habitat conditions in these 19 streams if water is withdrawn at a time when it would impact water quality or quantity.

To minimize effects when making water withdrawals, BRE has committed to taking water from local perennial streams and ponds, as well as using the state water withdrawal guidance, on-line tool, and common sense so as not to dewater streams (K. Coppinger, Invenergy, personal communication, May 23, 2012). The WVDEP has developed guidance and a tool to help individuals know when it is environmentally safe to withdraw water from a stream (WVDEP 2012). The guidance is based on

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 195 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

percentages of mean annual flow, based on a 10-year period that affords an appropriate flow to protect aquatic habitat.

Because the tool has not yet been validated as adequately protective of aquatic species under all weather and precipitation conditions, water users should use common sense when making water withdrawals so as not to dewater streams. The tool should be checked daily before withdrawing significant quantities of water from any watershed known to contain trout. Users should exercise caution particularly during drought or extended dry conditions or in cases where multiple users may be withdrawing water from the same source. If a trout stream is low and withdrawing additional water could expose portions of the stream bottom or banks that are normally submerged, including riffle areas downstream from pools from which water is typically withdrawn, users should find a different location or water source that does not contain trout. Water users should not block, dam, or divert flows, or excavate pools in state designated trout streams or in their direct tributaries.

Construction of the Phase II Project will have minor to moderate effects to general wildlife associated with the conversion of 21 acres of habitat to development and the removal of 127 acres of mixed-age forest, predominately greater than 26 years old. Immediately following construction, BRE will reseed 127 acres and allow forests to regenerate. The reclaimed areas will benefit few species until woody regeneration initiates. Eventually, species that use early-successional forest habitat will use the regenerating forest patches. This includes snowshoe hare, white-tailed deer, and several small mammals. Conversely, animals that depend on mature forest (e.g., salamanders, squirrels, and black bears) will avoid using the Project area and newly created forest openings. It is important to note that although BRE is leasing 27,000 acres, a commercial timber company retains the timber harvesting rights on the leased lands, and logging is likely to continue in forests surrounding the Project.

100-Turbine Operation The Proposed Action includes turbine operational adjustments. During the period from July 15 through October 15, turbine cut-in speed will be set at 4.8 m/s from sunset for 5 hours. Curtailment is not expected to affect general wildlife species and is implemented to reduce bat mortality.

A 130-ft radius area around turbines will be monitored for animal fatalities. The monitoring area will be regularly mowed to improve searcher efficiency for finding bird and bat carcasses. These areas and around the O&M building will be maintained in an herbaceous state. Maintenance activities will occasionally need to remove unsafe trees from the facility and transmission line. However, overall operation of the facility will not require any additional clearings above what has already been described.

Project operations will have impacts to general wildlife in the form of displacement or avoidance. Sensitive species such as black bear may avoid the Project area due to human intrusion. Humans are expected to frequent the sight to maintain turbines and monitor collision mortality. Some individual bears may acclimate eventually to the presence of the turbines and human activities. Increases in vehicle traffic may result in road-kill wildlife. BRE has set a 25 mph speed limit on all maintained Project roads to minimize the potential for animal/vehicle collisions. The newly created roads may also lead to increased accessibility of the tract by hunters, fisherman, and poachers.

Project operations will include occasional removal of small amounts of vegetation from previously disturbed areas such as removal of hazard trees and trees within the transmission line ROW, and clearing around turbine pads to allow crane access for turbine maintenance. Ground-disturbing activities may include the occasional need to access underground cable or communications lines. Such activities generally would be commensurate or less intrusive than other activities in the region (e.g. timber harvesting, natural gas exploration). Infrequent disturbances of early-successional habitats would not be expected to result in population declines of abundant edge-adapted wildlife species. Less tolerant wildlife may be displaced by edge effects and human presence in the project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 196 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Under Proposed Action, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation. BRE has indicated the herbicides selected will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio- accumulation, and that are unlikely to pose chronic risks to wildlife. Material data sheets for each of these products are available online from the manufacturers. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

Applied as described in Section 2.1.4.4 of the Project HCP, risks to wildlife from these compounds are likely to be minimal but cannot be completely discounted. Highly mobile wildlife are likely to flush and move away from spraying activities. However, slow or sessile animals may come in direct contact with spraying. Some of the herbicides identified for use could have acute effects should animals come in direct contact with some of the active and inactive compounds. We recognize that these are unavoidable impacts at the individual animal level, but we estimate they will occur infrequently. We do not anticipate herbicide application to have population effects at the local or regional level. None of the compounds will be used to control vegetation in wetlands or surface waters. Aquatic wildlife would not be affected.

Forest Fragmentation and Edge Effects. The effects of habitat fragmentation on animals have become an increasingly important concern. Habitat fragmentation is the process of subdividing habitat, which results in decreased continuity (isolation), reduced patch size, and general habitat loss (Andrén 1994). At the junction of two vegetation communities, such as forest and clearing, there is a tendency for species (plants and animals) diversity and density to increase. This is generally referred to as the edge effect. Forest edges have their own microclimate and species assemblages.

The extent of fragmentation in a landscape has been related to the magnitude of edge effect (Robinson et al. 1995, Donovan et al. 1997, Hartley and Hunter 1998). Adverse effects to wildlife associated with edges and fragmentation largely have been associated with landscapes dominated by agriculture or urbanization, and they have been researched primarily in bird communities. Studies that have looked at fragmentation and edge effects on animals other than birds and compared landscape contexts are limited. [Potential effects to birds from habitat edges, loss, and fragmentation are addressed in Section 5.7.2.2.] However, it is generally accepted that fragmenting contiguous forest decreases the amount of forest interior habitat and diminishes the overall forest habitat quality. The quantity of interior forest is reduced as the remaining forested patches become smaller and more isolated. The forest habitat quality is degraded as the smaller patches are affected by edge microclimate conditions and species assemblages.

The 100-turbine Project will affect 521 acres of forest, 71 acres of which will be converted to industrial development for the life of the Project. As with vegetation, the most evident effect to wildlife from habitat disturbance will be the creation of hard edge, potential introduction of invasive species, and the removal of mature forest habitat to construct the components of the facility. The mountain region of West Virginia is characterized by extensive blocks of second and third growth forest that is subject to fragmentation into smaller blocks as a result of past and ongoing commercial timber harvesting and energy exploration. The regional landscape is a vast shifting mosaic of patches and linear corridors due to these activities. The Project would create a significantly different kind of fragmentation, albeit over a relatively small area. Given the character of the landscape in which the Project resides, it would be difficult to isolate the Project’s contribution to edge and fragmentation effects from those associated with logging and mining. It is not known to what extent core mature forest habitat has been affected by logging and mining in the industrial landscape and how forest interior species have responded.

Noise Effects to Wildlife. Any existing noise standards for wind turbines focus primarily on effects to humans. The effect of wind turbine noise on wildlife is the subject of recent investigations. Research on

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 197 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the effects of other types of noise on wildlife is not new, but wildlife responses to noise are difficult to translate and the impacts cannot always be quantified or related exclusively to noise disturbance.

Turbine blades at normal operating speeds can generate levels of sound beyond ambient background levels. Maintenance activities also can contribute to sound levels affecting wildlife communication distance, an animal’s ability to detect calls or danger, or to forage. Loud noises can mask other biologically relevant sound. Some wildlife are able to shift their vocalizations to reduce the masking effects of noise. However, when shifts do not occur or are significant, masking may prove detrimental to the health and survival of wildlife (Barber et al. 2009). Data suggest noise increases of 3 dB to 10 dB correspond to 30% to 90% reductions in alerting distances for wildlife, respectively (Barber et al. 2010). The noise impact models used to gauge effects to human health for this project (as discussed in Section 5.2 and in Acentech 2006, 2011) are not directly relevant to gauging effects to wildlife because these models factor in large buffer distances from human residences. We would expect noise disturbances to wildlife to be most pronounced within close proximity of the turbines, and to quickly attenuate with distance.

To date, the Service is aware of only one published study that addresses specifically the potential effect of wind turbine noise on wildlife. Rabin et al. (2006) used anti-predator behavior in California ground squirrels to measure ecological disturbance cause by wind turbine noise. California ground squirrels use vocalizations to communicate predator danger. Squirrels exhibited a higher level of alertness and were more vigilant at the turbine sites than at the control sites.

Transportation and oil and gas infrastructure noise and wildlife responses have received more attention. In a natural gas field in New Mexico, Barber et al. (2009) reported bird nesting success was higher and predation levels lower in loud sites. In this case, the predator, the western scrub jay, was more likely to occupy quiet sites.

The extent that turbine noise affects wildlife choices and lifetime strategies has not been established. However, it cannot be discounted that wildlife may modify their behavior to cope with wind turbine noise. This shift, or ecological disturbance, could force animals to avoid the Project area and experience stress when doing so.

Further research is needed to determine: how wind facilities affect background noise levels; whether sound masking and disturbance of wildlife occur; and how turbine operation and maintenance sound levels can vary by topographic area.

Effects to Aquatic Habitats. Operation of the 100-turbine Project will have minor impacts to fish and other aquatic life in streams in association with stormwater runoff on unpaved roads causing some sedimentation. These effects will be localized should they occur. Project operations will not involve water withdrawals from streams or the discharge of water or waste into streams, ponds, or wetlands.

Minor oil spills from leaking transformers or gear boxes are possible. Should these spills enter surface waters, they may cause localized impacts on water quality and, in turn, potentially impact aquatic wildlife. These impacts will be unlikely due to the small volume of oil that would actually spill. Any potential oil spills are addressed in BRE’s SPCCP.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance area may be cleared again to remove Project components. Direct impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources will be similar in character to construction impacts.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 198 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BRE’s plan for decommissioning includes land reclamation, monitoring of revegetation, and reseeding if needed to ensure revegetation success. Ground cover (vegetation) must cover at least 70% of the given disturbed area based on specific state reclamation requirements. Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance may be cleared again to allow crane access for remove turbines. Forest clearing of the regenerating forest will restart the regeneration process of the forest. Suitable wildlife habitat for some species generally occurs in forests more than 50 years in age. This will mean that areas that were originally cleared and then recleared for decommissioning will not provide suitable mature forest habitat for more than 70 to 75 years (assuming a 25-year project life). There are very few areas in the region that exhibit this mature forest structure.

Decommissioning activities would require water withdrawals for dust suppression on gravel roads during dry conditions. BRE has estimated that dust suppression would require up to 225,000 gallons of water per year for 2 to 3 years (Table 5-5); fractions within this amount would be withdrawn on those days when maintenance crews are driving during unusually dusty conditions.

Mitigation for Phase II Construction, Operations, and Decommissioning BRE has put into place measures to minimize direct effects to wildlife from vehicle collision, hunting, fishing, poaching, and sedimentation. Implementation of these measures would keep the direct take of individual animals low as both access to and use of Project area roadways will significantly decrease upon completion of construction.

Effectively implemented BMPs will minimize erosion and sedimentation to avoid impacts to streams and aquatic habitats. To address potential effects to wildlife and fisheries, BRE prohibits hunting, fishing, dogs, or possession of firearms by its employees and its designated contractors in the Project area during construction. These prohibitions are carried forward to include Project operation and maintenance. BRE has advised Project personnel regarding speed limits on roads (25 mph) to minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions. Potential increases in will be minimized through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife laws. If violations are discovered, the offense will be reported to the WVDNR, and the offending employee or contractor will be disciplined and may be dismissed by BRE and/or prosecuted by the WVDNR. Travel is restricted to designated roads; no off-road travel will be allowed except in emergencies.

For constructing the 33 turbines, BRE will limit tree-clearing to the period between November 15 and March 31, except that up to 15 acres may be cleared between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. Tree clearing will occur in the expansion area shown on Figure 1-4. The additional 30 to 45 days are needed to provide BRE flexibility should weather, deep snow, or ice prevent clearing or create safety issues for construction workers.

Turbine layout minimizes further fragmentation of wildlife habitat through the use, where practical, of previously disturbed lands. BRE will avoid constructing new roads by using existing roadways and address the protection of aquatic resources through the use of an SWPPP.

The Proposed Action includes off-site conservation measures to mitigate the effects of unavoidable incidental take of listed bats. BRE is proposing to establish a habitat conservation fund used to support conservation efforts for listed bats. The goal of these efforts will be to contribute to the conservation of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats by protecting priority habitat, either winter hibernacula or summer maternity colonies or roosts. These conservation efforts are expected to have minor beneficial effects to general wildlife that may use these protected forested habitats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 199 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As previously discussed, to reduce impacts to fisheries and other aquatic resources, BRE has committed to taking water only from perennial water sources and ponds. In addition, BRE will use the WVDEP water withdrawal tool, guidance, and common sense so that perennial streams are not dewatered and groundwater recharge rates are not exceeded.

Alternative 2 Summary Under Alternative 2, the Phase II Project will add 33 turbines to the existing 67 turbines on the leased lands. This will change the character of the habitat within the leased lands from that of industrial forest to energy development for the life of the Project (25 years). After decommissioning, the Project footprint will begin forest regeneration but with a slower initiation rate as soils overlain by development will need to first recover.

Core mature forest is currently fragmented due to ongoing commercial timber harvest and coal mining related activities. Linear breaks and large patches in wildlife habitat are abundant in the overall forested matrix in the Project area and the region. Implementation of Alternative 2 will add to this regional fragmentation. Local populations of forest interior wildlife species will be affected. Given the current moderately fragmented landscape, it is not likely that the 100-turbine Project will have major effects to forest interior wildlife populations resulting from habitat fragmentation. Even so, it would be difficult to isolate the Project’s fragmentation effects from those of other industrial activities.

Because there are a number of designated trout streams in the area (Table 4-2), there is potential for moderate to major impacts to fisheries and aquatic habitats as a result of water withdrawals if fish are entrained or water withdrawals exceed flows or recharge rates. To minimize the likelihood that significant effects to the quantity or quality of aquatic habitat would occur, BRE has committed to using state tools and common sense for water withdrawals to ensure adequate stream flows.

5.6.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources would be as described for Alternative 2 construction, O&M, and decommissioning. Overall, implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to have minor to moderate effects on wildlife and fisheries. Impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources will be major if large quantities of water are withdrawn that dewater streams or exceed recharge rates of streams or groundwater. This could affect local populations of aquatic organisms and fish or substantially affect the quantity or quality of aquatic habitat. The likelihood of significant aquatic effects will be minimized by following state guidance and tools for water withdrawals and using common sense.

Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s, the initial rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15. Curtailment is not expected to affect general wildlife species and is implemented to reduce bat mortality.

Habitat conservation measures would be implemented for Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat as described for the Proposed Action. Additional habitat protection measures would be implemented for the three additional covered species using the information derived from the field surveys described in Section 3.2.3.1 of this FEIS. The HCP would be modified to include measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat for the additional covered species on or near the Project site (if feasible).

If on-site or near-site protection is not feasible due to unwilling landowners or it creates an undesirable hazard to the species, then the HCP would include measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat or known hibernacula for the additional covered species off-site. In addition, BRE would enhance habitat by creating potential roost trees proximal to the nearest bat hibernacula. This habitat enhancement may provide an alternate site for roosting away from the Project. These conservation efforts are expected to have minor beneficial effects to general wildlife that may use these protected forested habitats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 200 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.6.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources would be as described for Alternative 1 construction, O&M, and decommissioning. Overall, implementation of Alternative 4 is expected to have minor impacts on wildlife and fisheries, with implementation of state tools and common sense to ensure that water withdrawals do not dewater streams.

5.7 Avian Resources The Project’s potential effects to birds were indicated as issues in 67% of the comments received during the 60-day public scoping period. Commenters are concerned the Project may have impacts to Neotropical migrant and resident bird species that use the Project site for breeding or migration. They also are concerned that results from other wind projects show high mortality rates associated with turbine collisions and expressed a desire for the Applicant to operate the Project in a manner that includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for turbine associated bird mortality. Commenters are concerned that not enough is known about bird populations, distributions, and migratory habits, and bird/wind turbine interactions and expressed a desire that the Applicant should conduct research to supplement current understanding and knowledge of these bird-related issues.

5.7.1 Impact Criteria Federally listed birds are afforded protection under the ESA. The BGEPA protects bald and golden eagles. The MBTA implements protection of native migratory birds. As per NEPA and CEQ guidelines, the human environment includes avian resources. Under Executive Order 13186, federal agencies are expected to carry out, among other things, the following.

1. Ensure that environmental analyses of Federal actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern; and, 2. Identify where unintentional take reasonably attributable to agency actions is having, or is likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors.

Birds can be affected at the individual and population level. Impacts to avian resources would be considered significant should implementation of an alternative result in any of the following: • Naturally occurring population reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional level; • Substantial loss or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened or endangered bird species; and • Substantial change in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels.

5.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative Predicted effects to avian resources are discussed for each alternative considered in this FEIS. The discussion of the Project’s potential effects to birds relative to what is understood about wind projects in general is addressed largely under the Section discussing the Proposed Action (Section 5.7.2.2). Discussions for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 will often refer to the more comprehensive effects analysis provided for the Proposed Action.

5.7.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33-turbines would not be constructed and the Project HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 201 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

issued for the BRE Project, and the 67 turbines would operate as directed under the Settlement Agreement. There would be no new construction under the No-Action Alternative.

Phase I Operations Under the No-Action Alternative, Project operations would be limited to the already constructed 67 turbines. Effects to birds would be as described for the Proposed Action (Section 5.6.2.2), only less in magnitude. Some species of birds would be displaced by the Project in the Phase I area. Birds that use mature and young forest at the BRE Project may avoid the clearings and adjacent woods within the Project footprint. Edge-dependent species may begin to use the habitat interfaces as shrubs regenerate, and early-successional forest species will begin to occupy the reclaimed clearings. As shrubland habitat progresses, early-successional species would begin to occupy these sites. Many mature forest species would begin to use mid-successional habitats in less than 20 years. The temporary conversion of 311 acres (0.5%) of mixed-age forest in a forested landscape is not considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat.

Under the No-Action Alternative, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation or into areas beyond the ROW. Selected herbicides will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio-accumulation, and are unlikely to pose a chronic risk to animals. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low-volume techniques.

When applied as described in Section 2.1.4.4 of the Project HCP, risks to birds from these compounds are likely to be minimal but cannot be completely discounted. Birds are highly mobile and likely to flush and move away from spraying activities. However, BRE has indicated that herbicide application will most often occur in late-May and early-June, following leaf-out. Some of the herbicides identified for use could have acute effects should birds come in direct contact with some of the active and inactive compounds. This would pose some risk to those birds that nest in power-line corridors, such as prairie warblers, if nesting substrates are sprayed. Yet, we predict that impacts at the individual bird level will occur infrequently. We do not anticipate herbicide application to have population effects at the local or regional level.

Under the No-Action Alternative, Project operations would be restricted at night from April 1 to November 15, which includes most of the spring and fall migration periods. It is possible that the No-Action Alternative will kill fewer birds at night than other alternatives simply because the blades are not spinning at all during the night-time when many passerines migrate. However, post-construction studies have not been conducted for a wind project that operates under this restricted scenario, and researchers are only just beginning to investigate whether curtailment strategies designed for bats also reduce bird mortality. Because birds collide with tall objects, stationary and moving, during the day and night, the Project is expected to kill birds under this restricted night-time protocol, as well as while operating unrestricted during daylight hours. Therefore, this analysis assumes that operations under the No-Action Alternative would kill birds at the same rate as described for the Proposed Action, anywhere from 0 to 23.49 birds per turbine per year with an average around 5.61 birds per turbine per year (see similarly situated projects in the mid-Atlantic region summarized in Table 5-12 and Table 5-13.39 While the lower and higher ends of annual mortality rates are possible in any given year, over time we would expect bird mortality to be closer to the regional average. Because there would be fewer turbines than the Proposed Action, the magnitude of mortality would be less. Hence, turbine operation under the No-Action Alternative is

39 The series of tables that follow show estimates of mortality. Estimates within each Project scenario will not always match exactly. The relatively small discrepancies are an artifact of calculations done in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel®) where numbers were rounded.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 202 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

predicted to kill roughly 376 birds per year (with a possible range of 0 to 1,574) and roughly 9,400 birds in 25 years of operation (with a possible range of 0 to 39,350) (Table 5-14).

The Phase I Project has 2 MET towers (Figure 1-2) 262 ft in height, lighted (single flashing light), and supported by guy wires. Bird mortality studies conducted at tower structures suggest birds are colliding mostly with the tower guy wires (Kruse 1996 as cited in Gehring et al. 2011, Gehring et al. 2011). Gehring et al. (2011) found that shorter towers (<480 ft) without guy wire supports were involved in significantly fewer avian collisions than taller towers supported by guy wires. Steady burning lights on towers also pose a much greater risk than unlit towers or towers with strobe or flashing lights (Gehring et al. 2009). The specifications of BRE’s MET towers are consistent with the Service’s recommendations for communications towers (<479 ft tall, equipped with flashing lights). Nonetheless, the Service recognizes that collision risk to birds associated with the MET towers cannot be ignored. Any MET tower mortality would be in addition to the 376 birds per year killed by the turbines.

There is no standard method for calculating mortality rates for MET towers at wind projects. Few projects report such data on an annual basis and results have been highly variable, ranging from little to no mortality at unguyed MET towers (Erickson et al. 2003b, Stantec 2008) to 3 to 5 times greater mortality at guyed MET towers than wind turbines (Young et al. 2003a, Nicholson et al. 2005). For purposes of this analysis, we assumed that the 2 existing guyed BRE Project MET towers (262 feet tall) with flashing lights pose a 4 times greater risk to birds (21.3 birds per tower per year) than turbines (5.32 birds per tower per year); and that the 2 proposed unguyed MET towers for the expansion area would have little to no bird mortality. Applying the 21.3 birds per tower figure to the 2 Phase I guyed towers amounts to 43 birds annually or roughly 1,065 bird strikes for the 25-year Project operating life (Table 5-14). BRE has installed bird diverters on the 2 guyed MET towers to reduce the risk to birds. We could find no studies of percent reduction in bird mortality associated with the installation of diverters on guy lines of meteorological or cell towers. Studies of bird diverters on powerlines indicate a 10 to 89% reduction in bird fatality (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 2012, table 6.8). Hence, we cannot reliably predict the amount of mortality reduction from diverters on the BRE guyed meteorological towers, and our annual and life-of- project values likely overestimate bird mortality due to guyed wires.

Thus under the No-Action Alternative, we predict total mortality from birds colliding with turbines and MET towers is roughly 420 birds per year or 10,500 birds for the life of the Project (Table 5-14). (Note: numbers have been rounded up to the nearest 100 birds as our estimates are not as precise as the calculations might lead one to believe). Table 5-14 also shows a worst case scenario of 26,281 birds for the life of the project based upon the high end of the confidence interval. Although annual turbine mortality may occasionally be high in some years (exceeding the average of 5.61 birds per turbine), we do not believe it likely that such high levels would occur repeatedly given the adaptive management measures in the RMAMP and APP.

Table 5.8 provides coarse estimates of breeding population sizes and trends for 10 bird species of conservation concern at 4 geographic scales. Table 5-9 shows the potential effect of Alternative 1 bird mortality as a percentage of current estimated breeding population sizes in West Virginia and in the Appalachian Mountains (Bird Conservation Region 28) for these same 10 birds of conservation concern.40

40 See Alternative 2, Direct Effects to Avian Resources, for a more detailed description of the methods used to conduct this analysis.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 203 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-8. Coarse estimates of breeding population sizes and trends for 10 bird species of conservation concern at 4 geographic scales. 1995 Estimated Population Size 1 Survey-wide BCR 28: BCRs 28, West 3 Species (U.S and 2 Appalachian Abundance Index Trend 13, and 14 Virginia Canada) Mountains Relatively stable survey-wide and in Eastern BBS Blue-winged warbler 408,000 229,000 190,000 50,000 region, Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia 4 Relatively stable survey-wide and in Eastern BBS Bay breasted warbler 5,580,000 356,000 -- -- region Relatively stable survey-wide, possibly stable in Red crossbill 6,000,000 29,000 3,000 -- Eastern BBS region but data have a low credibility rating Declining survey-wide and in Eastern BBS region, Kentucky warbler 1,165,000 250,000 250,000 70,000 Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia Declining survey-wide, in Eastern BBS region, Prairie warbler 1,185,000 268,000 260,000 40,000 Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia Declining survey-wide, in Eastern BBS region, Wood thrush 10,990,000 6,250,000 4,500,000 1,000,000 Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia Declining survey-wide, in Eastern BBS region, Golden-winged warbler 210,000 30,300 20,000 8,000 Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia Declining survey-wide, in Eastern BBS region, Cerulean warbler 560,000 475,000 450,000 200,000 Appalachian Mountain region, and West Virginia Declining survey-wide and in Eastern BBS region; Canada warbler 1,205,000 217,000 28,000 3,000 stable in Appalachian Mountains; increasing in West Virginia Declining survey-wide and in Eastern BBS region; Black-billed cuckoo 865,000 177,000 79,000 13,000 stable in Appalachian Mountains and West Virginia 1 Population estimates from Partners in Flight Landbird Data Base, based on North American Breeding Bird Surveys from 1990-1999, using the Partners in Flight approach to estimating population sizes (Blancher et al. 2007). Estimates of breeding populations typically are portrayed as representing 1995, the mid-point of the survey timeframe (PIF and RMBO 2004). 2 BCR = Bird Conservation Region. 3 Abundance index trends from USGS Results and Analysis of North American Breeding Bird Survey, 1966-2010 (Sauer et al. 2011). 4 -- = not applicable; species not reported to breed in the region.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 204 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-9. Potential effect of Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 (67-turbines and 2 MET towers) on 10 birds of conservation concern compared to breeding bird survey trends and estimated population sizes in West Virginia and Bird Conservation Region 28, Appalachian Mountains region. Maximum % Appalachian Maximum West of Mountains % of West Virginia Project Maximum Appalachian region Virginia Species breeding annual # killed in Mountain (BCR 28) 2 3 population population mortality 25 years population population, 1 affected 1 1995 affected 1995 annually annually Blue- winged 190,000 50,000 2 – 9 221 0.0047 0.0177 warbler Cerulean 450,000 200,000 1 - 2 60 0.0005 0.0012 warbler Black-billed 79,000 13,000 3 -14 358 0.0181 0.1102 cuckoo Kentucky 250,000 70,000 4 - 18 442 0.0071 0.0253 warbler Canada 28,000 3,000 4 -18 442 0.0632 0.5895 warbler Prairie 260,000 40,000 1 - 2 60 0.0009 0.0060 warbler Bay- breasted NA NA 4 - 18 442 NA NA warbler Red 3,000 NA 1 - 2 60 0.0796 NA crossbill Wood 4,500,000 1,000,000 4 - 18 442 0.0004 0.0018 thrush Golden- winged 20,000 8,000 0 – 1 4 25 4 0.005 0.0125 warbler 1 Based on North American Breeding Bird Surveys from 1990-1999 using the Partners in Flight approach to estimating population sizes (Blancher et al. 2007). Estimates of breeding populations typically are portrayed as representing 1995, the mid-point of the survey timeframe. 2 Fatalities based on multiplying species proportions (from column 4 in Table 5-16) x total predicted bird mortality from 67 turbines and 2 MET towers for 1 year (from Table 5-14), bracketing the mean (376 birds annually) with the high end (1,574 birds). 3 Fatalities based on multiplying species maximum number of birds from column 4 times 25 years. 4 Because golden-winged warblers have not been detected during post-construction monitoring surveys at wind power projects, a small number were assumed to be taken (1 per year) to facilitate the analysis.

We applied the overall bird mortality rates from Table 5-14 for turbines and MET towers, but bracketed our predictions by using average fatality rate in the mid-Atlantic region of 5.61 birds per turbine per year, as well as the high end of the confidence interval (23.49 birds per turbine per year) as a worst case analysis, given that there are uncertainties associated with data on bird population sizes, survival, and reproduction.

Based on this worst-case analysis, the 67-turbine Project and 2 guyed MET towers potentially would kill 1 to 18 individuals of these species annually, roughly < 0.07% of the most current estimated Appalachian Mountain population of any of these 10 species in a year. While this is a small percentage, we recognize that many of these bird species of conservation concern show likely or suspected declines in the long-

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 205 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

term and/or short term (Table 5-9 and Table 5-16, and Appendix M), and some of these species have small breeding populations. These birds are suspected to be declining due to a wide variety of sources of mortality across their breeding, migration, and wintering ranges. Thus bird mortality from the Project would be expected to contribute slightly to ongoing declines originating from many sources of bird mortality.

Studies show that most bird mortality occurs at wind power projects during fall migration. While the exact origin of migrating birds is unknown, we would predict most mortality to occur to migrating birds in the fall originating from many source populations including BCR 28 (Appalachian Mountains Region surrounding the Project area) and BCRs 13 and 14 (2 regions immediately north of BCR 28). A small but unknown proportion of the fatalities would be expected to occur to local breeding populations in West Virginia. Table 5-8 provides estimates of the 67-turbine Project’s potential effect on 8 birds of conservation concern that breed in West Virginia. (Note: The bay-breasted warbler and red cross-bill are not included in this analysis because they are only known to migrate through the state). Based on this analysis, the 67- turbine Project and 2 guyed MET towers potentially would kill on the order of < 0.6% of the estimated West Virginia population of any of these 8 species in a year. This analysis likely overestimates the effect because it does not account for annual recruitment and assumes all mortality would occur to birds originating from local populations. The Project’s APP includes monitoring of bird mortality for the life of the project and an adaptive management framework. Should significant mortality of any migratory bird species occur, the APP includes measures to reduce and/or mitigate these losses through changes in turbine operations, off-site habitat protection, and possibly research.

Under the No-Action Alternative, BRE would implement the APP (Appendix B) and RMAMP (see Appendix C of Project HCP). Based on post-construction monitoring results, BRE would test whether its predictions about bird mortality are true. If significant bird mortality occurred, BRE would conduct additional studies and test way to reduce these effects and/or mitigate for them. BRE’s adaptive management plan, presented in detail in the RMAMP, includes evaluating baseline migratory bird mortality rates and effects of various turbine operational protocols on migratory bird fatality rates, as well as for bats. The RMAMP includes multiple years of testing various turbine operational protocols and effects on estimated fatality rates. Monitoring would be conducted daily to evaluate relationships between bird fatality rates and weather. Monitoring would include investigations into probable causes of fatality events that could trigger the need for adaptive management, including weather events, turbine conditions, and other considerations.

As described in Section 4.7.2.11, BRE conducted a raptor survey in the 2011-2012 winter to characterize the peak eagle migration season and measured passage rates and flight heights. During the winter raptor survey, observers detected golden eagles during 11 surveys from December 30, 2011 to February 28, 2012 (Young et al 2013). Observers made 25 golden eagle observations in the Project area. Golden eagles were observed flying in the expansion area where turbine strings are proposed, as well as within 0.25 mile of the existing 67 turbines. Of these 25 observations, 10 were of golden eagles flying within 800 meters of survey stations. Of these 10 close-up observations, 3 were of golden eagles flying within the approximate rotor swept height of turbines. Direct observations of wintering golden eagles at other wind projects in the Appalachians are not available for comparison.

Since the release of the DEIS, the Service published Version 2 of the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 2013a), which directs Service staff to use an eagle take prediction model described in Appendix D of the guidance. It should be noted that there is some uncertainty in the predictions because modelling results have not been validated, and the model was developed primarily using data on bald eagles in the east. Therefore the model will be improved over time by collecting additional site-specific information on bald and golden eagle activity in the east.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 206 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Per the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidelines (version 2), the Service uses 0.03 predicted average eagle fatalities per year as the threshold for recommending an eagle permit (i.e. less than 1 eagle in the typical 20 to 30 year lifespan of a wind power project). In other words, if the model results are less than 0.03 bald or golden eagles per year, then the risk of take is considered low and a permit is not recommended. Conversely, if the model results are greater than or equal to 0.03 bald or golden eagles per year, then the risk of take is considered moderate to high and a permit is recommended unless risk can be reduced below 0.03 bald or golden eagle fatalities per year.

Adding the winter 2011-2012 raptor survey data to the previous data, the Service modeled eagle fatalities for the No Action/No ITP Alternative (a 67-turbine Project). Prior to implementing minimization measures, the Service’s model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.18 golden eagles or fewer, suggesting that golden eagle collision fatality risk is moderate to high (i.e. 1 or fewer fatalities predicted to occur at the Project site every 5 to 6 years on average). The model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.03 bald eagles or fewer, suggesting that a bald eagle fatality risk is low (i.e. 1 or fewer fatalities predicted to occur at the Project site every 33 to 35 years on average, which is longer than the operational life of the project).

The Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (version 2) notes there are multiple paths to complying with BGEPA. Whereas the Service currently can issue permits for take of bald eagles in the eastern U.S., we are not currently issuing permits for take of golden eagles east of the 100th meridian until such time as a programmatic analysis of sustainable levels of golden eagle take is completed and the Service’s eagle permit regulations are revised. Thus a golden eagle permit option is not available to the Applicant at this time. Absent a permit option, the Service’s recommended approach is to work with a developer to develop a plan to avoid and minimize the likelihood of take of bald and golden eagles. If the likelihood of eagle take cannot be avoided, then the Service recommends that a developer either: (1) include eagles as covered species in an HCP; (2) develop an Eagle Conservation Plan; or (3) develop an alternative plan as part of larger bird conservation strategy as described in the Service’s Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines. No matter which of the three options is chosen, the eagle strategy should adequately meet the regulatory requirements of 50 CFR 22.26 to support an eagle permit decision (Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, version 2, 2013, at page iii).

The APP includes measures to reduce risk to eagles and to monitor and report eagle mortality should it occur (see Appendix B in FEIS). Minimization measures in the APP are designed to reduce the risk of eagle and other raptor fatalities: (1) The transmission line incorporates practices to minimize avian collision risk and electrocution (APLIC 2006); (2) Food sources that attract eagles, vultures, and other carrion eating raptors will be reduced by removing carrion and gut piles found on the project site by Operation and Maintenance staff; (3) Hunter education will be provided regarding the importance of removing carcasses and burying gut piles before leaving the project site; (4) The project site will be monitored for perches or trees used frequently by eagles, and perches or trees attractive to eagles will be removed; (5) Personnel and visitors will be instructed to drive at low speeds (< 25 mph) to reduce risk of avian vehicle collisions; and (6) The project site does not contain a high concentration of ponds, streams or wetlands that would attract foraging eagles. These measures likely reduce risk of take of bald eagles from 0.03 to less than 0.03 birds per year with minimization measures in place. It is less certain how much the risk of take of golden eagles would be reduced by these minimization measures.

Through adaptive management, the APP includes a commitment to weekly searches for eagle carcasses near the turbines year-round when weather conditions allow, to promptly report them, and to implement

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 207 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

additional avoidance or mitigation measures should mortality of an eagle occur, including additional eagle surveys, removing sources of eagle attraction, implementing turbine operation or technological solutions that reduce fatality, and negotiating with transmission line owners to retrofit power poles to adhere to APLIC guidelines and thus reduce risk of eagle and other raptor electrocution (APLIC 1994, 2006).

Phase I Decommissioning BRE’s plan for decommissioning includes land reclamation, monitoring of revegetation, and reseeding if needed to ensure revegetation success. Ground cover (vegetation) must cover at least 70% of the given disturbed area based on specific state reclamation requirements. Small amounts of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance areas may be cleared again to allow crane access for removing Project components. This will set back the forest regeneration process in these newly cleared areas, but these affected areas are expected to be very small.

Direct impacts to avian resources associated with decommissioning would be similar to that associated with Project construction impacts, but habitat conversion will be significantly less in magnitude. Disturbance associated with decommissioning will likely be shorter in duration as compared to construction. It is not likely to take as much time to dismantle the Project as for construction, especially as Phase I construction experienced interruptions in construction during the court case and Settlement Agreement activities.

Phase I Avoidance and Minimization Measures The Project’s APP (Appendix B) details how BRE has incorporated and responded to recommendations found in guidance developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for avian impacts. Measures focus primarily on avoidance and minimization of impacts to birds. These measures include, but are not limited to, controlling carrion on the Project site so as not to attract avian scavengers and monitoring bird mortality to determine its significance and the effectiveness of the bat curtailment strategy in also reducing bird mortality.

Should the Project result in significant bird mortality (e.g. take of an eagle or other significant bird mortality), BRE would implement additional avoidance and minimization measures, and possibly mitigation. Should bald or golden eagle mortality occur, the ITP would be subject to suspension or revocation, consistent with the Service’s 2013 Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (version 2, page7).

No-Action Alternative Summary The No-Action Alternative is not expected to cause naturally occurring populations of common birds to be reduced to numbers below levels for maintaining viability at regional or local levels, but is expected to contribute slightly to ongoing declines of species of concern already declining due to many sources of bird mortality. Because the effectiveness of measures to reduce bird mortality is uncertain, the APP and adaptive management strategy is designed to test the effectiveness of curtailment and to respond to significant bird mortality should it occur by reducing the mortality, and/or mitigating for it, if needed.

The No-Action Alternative would not result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species. The Proposed Action is not expected to result in substantial changes in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The conversion of 373 acres of managed forest habitat to forest openings and developed land is not considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 208 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.7.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction Under the Proposed Action, Phase II construction will convert 148 acres of predominately forested habitat to 127 acres of grass/shrubland habitat and 21 acres of grass and developed habitat. Together with Phase I, the 100-turbine Project will convert 521 acres of predominately forested habitat to 438 acres of grass/shrubland habitat, 12 acres of restored agricultural field, and 71 acres of grass and developed habitat. The converted habitat does not occur as large, expansive openings but as strings of roughly circular forest openings that are approximately 2 acres, similar to the openings that already occur in the landscape. The temporary conversion of 438 acres of mature forest is a minor effect considered in the context of its occurrence in an extensively forested landscape that is often exposed to habitat conversion associated with logging and mining disturbances.

Forest interior nesting birds will be displaced from areas converted to open habitat. Alteration of habitat would be expected to result in small decreases in abundance of some forest interior nesting birds such as Swainson’s thrush, ovenbird, black-throated blue warbler, and Canada warbler. Creating openings in forested areas that result in narrow roads and edge habitats is widely believed to increase rates of nest predation and parasitism. Species such as brown-headed cowbirds (which parasitize forest birds’ nests), blue jays, and American crows may increase in abundance as a result of increased edge habitat.

At the same time, the Proposed Action would produce a beneficial direct impact for bird species that nest or forage in the shrubby and early-successional habitat created by clearing forest for roads and pads. Species such as American woodcock, ruffed grouse, and several species of flycatchers, warblers, and sparrows would benefit from creation of early-successional habitat. These benefits would last for only a few years.

Habitat regeneration in contiguously forested landscapes goes through tree-growth stages accompanied by bird community changes. During the immediate years following clearing, the converted habitats will attract few bird species. Because mature forests are dominant in the regional landscape, impact to forest interior birds from habitat loss, displacement, or increased predators and nest parasites likely would be minor.

Increased noise and human activity associated with construction also will result in some short-term displacement of birds. However, due to the existing disturbance resulting from timber harvesting, most birds in the Phase II Project area likely are accustomed to a certain amount of disturbance. Pre- construction surveys showed many bird species that use edge habitats and forest near edges. Noise and disturbance impacts to birds related to Phase II construction will be temporary and minor.

100-Turbine Project Operations Under the Proposed Action, the 100-turbine Project will operate as described in the HCP to meet the objective of reducing Myotis bat fatality by 60% and all other bat fatality by 50%. Except as noted below, for the term of the ITP BRE will adjust the cut-in speed for all 100 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from July 15 through October 15 (i.e., the Curtailment Plan). All 100 turbines will be feathered up to the point in time that the cut-in speed is reached; thus, there will only be minimal rotation of turbine blades (<2 rpm) during periods when winds are below the cut-in speed. The principle objective of the Curtailment Plan is to avoid operating turbines during low wind speeds at the time of the day when bats are most active and during the time of the year when bats are most active, thus reducing potential take of Covered Species and all other bat species. Exceptions to the Curtailment Plan will be those turbines that are part of the Year 1 curtailment study in which 10 turbines will operate at 4.8 m/s from sunset to sunrise and 10 turbines will operate at 3.5 m/s 24 hours per day (control). These 20 turbines will be compared directly to 10 different turbines that will operate as described for the Curtailment Plan. The number of control and treatment turbines in Years 2 and 3 will be determined based the results of the study in the previous year(s).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 209 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

If research and monitoring results show that this proposed Curtailment Plan is not meeting the HCP’s goals and objectives, BRE will modify the Curtailment Plan to employ more restrictive operations (e.g., raising the cut-in speed, extending the hours or dates of curtailment). However, BRE’s Curtailment Plan will be modified only with the written agreement of the Service.

The purpose of this curtailment is to reduce mortality of bat species. Available reports from curtailment studies to date have not attempted to relate turbine operations to reductions in bird mortality. Hence, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that curtailment will result in reduced rates of bird mortality. Therefore, this analysis does not assume that BRE’s Curtailment Plan is a measure to avoid and minimize bird collisions with wind turbines. Rather, this analysis assumes that bird mortality will be related to the number of turbines and does not attempt to factor in changes in mortality due to curtailment.

Displacement and Project Avoidance. There are limited data that address impacts to birds associated with direct habitat loss due to wind farm developments in the U.S. The typical wind facility has a relatively small footprint, and the 100-turbine Project directly will occupy 1% of the leased lands. However, wind facilities in contiguously forested landscapes create conspicuous disruptions in habitat associated with turbine pad clearings, roads, and transmission lines as compared to facilities constructed in largely open landscapes, such as agriculture, rangeland, grassland, and barrens. The effects of these forest openings likely extend beyond the actual disruption in the form of displacement. Displacement results from avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat due to the presence of wind turbines and other facility appurtenances.

Unfortunately, there is limited research addressing the displacement effects of wind development on birds in the U.S., and to our knowledge, none of these studies were conducted in eastern forests. Studies conducted at wind facilities in open landscapes in the West and Midwest showed small-scale (<100 m [330 ft]) impacts on birds (Leddy et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2000a, 200b, Erickson et al. 2004). Osborn et al. (1998) found significantly fewer birds and lower species diversity in the vicinity of turbines as compared to control sites and noted that birds avoided flying in areas with turbines. Grassland birds appeared to exhibit the most pronounced levels of avoidance behavior. At the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Leddy et al. (1999) observed that male songbird densities within species were 4 times greater in reference Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands as compared to CRP grasslands located within 180 m (~600 ft) of turbines.

At the Buffalo Ridge project, Usgaard et al (1997 as cited in Strickland et al. 2011) documented 5.94 raptor nests per 39 mi2 (24,711 acres) on land surrounding the facility, yet no nests were documented within the 12-mi2 (7,907 acres) facility lands despite similar habitat conditions.

Other bird groups may not be as visibly affected by displacement/disturbances from wind turbines. At the Buffalo Ridge project, Johnson et al. (2000a) did not observe turbine avoidance in 65% of bird groups, including waterfowl, shorebirds, doves, flycatchers, corvids, blackbirds, chickadees/nuthatches, tanagers/orioles, and thrushes.

Studies have not quantified disturbance displacement of forest birds from wind turbines. At a wind facility in Vermont, fewer interior forest birds were heard singing in the immediate vicinity of the turbines, although noise from the turbines may have been a confounding factor (Kerlinger 2002).

Forest interior nesting birds at the BRE Project may avoid the clearings and adjacent woods within the Project footprint. Edge species may begin to use the habitat interfaces as shrubs regenerate, and early- successional forest species will begin to occupy the reclaimed clearings. Common edge and early- successional forest species in the Project area include gray catbird, chestnut-sided warbler, chipping sparrow, field sparrow, and indigo bunting (Canterbury 2006). As shrubland habitat progresses, early- successional species such as eastern towhee, song sparrow, brown thrasher, and yellow-breasted chat will begin to occupy these sites. Many mature forest species such as red-eyed vireo, black-and-white

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 210 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

warbler, and American redstart will begin to use mid-successional habitats in less than 20 years. Thus, the temporary conversion of 438 acres of mixed-age forest is not considered a major impact given the context of the surrounding forested landscape.

The majority of bird species recorded during surveys conducted in the Project area are associated with eastern hardwood forests in stands of various ages (Canterbury 2006, Young et al. 2012c). Studies by Shaffer and Johnson (2009) and Kerlinger (2002) concluded that, in general, bird species that are adapted to human disturbances or edge habitat are less likely to exhibit avoidance behavior near turbines. Within the Project area, species often associated with disturbances in forested landscapes include chestnut-sided warbler, indigo bunting, hooded warbler, and black-and-white warbler. However, O&M activities around avian nesting areas may decrease the reproductive success of some species within the Project area. The completed facility may result in a reduced number of certain forest interior birds that do not tolerate maintained forest openings that contain wind turbines. Common forest birds in the Project area that could be displaced include ovenbird, red-eyed vireo, and veery. In the absence of any reliable information on the effects of displacement on birds, one can only suggest that significant displacement could lead to population reductions for those species that are already compromised by limited habitat. However, forested habitat is not limited in the region of the Project. Overall, the surrounding landscape provides extensive medium quality forest, comprised of a mosaic of some intact large blocks of forest, and many smaller blocks of various ages exhibiting some recent disturbance activity or recovering from past disturbances. Clearing of 127 acres associated with the Phase II expansion area will further fragment this forest to a minor degree.

Collision Mortality. Collision with various man-made structures is a significant source of bird mortality (Trapp 1998, Kerlinger 2000, Shire et al. 2000, and many others). The raptor fatalities discovered at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (Altamont Pass) in the late 1980s prompted concerns about wind projects and impacts to birds.

In 2011, 2 wind projects in West Virginia reported large-scale bird mortality events. Young and Courage (2011) reported 59 bird casualties on the morning of September 25 at the Mount Storm Energy Facility. Of these casualties, 31 were discovered near a single turbine. This unusual concentration of dead birds was related to foggy conditions and nacelle lights inadvertently left on. On October 3, staff at the Laurel Mountain Wind Project discovered 484 bird carcasses at the nearby substation and battery yard. Peterson (2011) concluded the event was likely related to inclement weather and bright lamps that were lit from dusk-to-dawn at the substation and battery storage system.

Artificial lighting has been thought to influence rates of bird collision at guyed communication towers, buildings, and other tall structures (Avery et al. 1976, Trapp 1998, Kerlinger 2000, Shire et al. 2000). A recent large collision event documented at a school on Backbone Mountain, near the Mountaineer wind facility in West Virginia, further suggested the potential for bright lighting combined with foggy conditions to result in high collision mortality of nocturnal migrants. On the morning of September 29, 2008, 494 songbirds, many of them warblers, collided with windows of the school during a relatively short period of time before and after sunrise (Christy Johnson-Hughes, USFWS, personal communication). This unprecedented mortality event was thought to be related to recent installation of bright lighting surrounding the school, which presumably attracted large numbers of birds, many of which collided with the building. The documentation of isolated, large scale mortality events such as this suggest that nocturnal migrants are susceptible to collision on an episodic basis rather than a continuous, predictable level, with factors such as lighting, weather conditions, and seasonal timing playing important roles in determining when collision events occur.

The blinking FAA lights typically installed on wind turbines do not appear to influence rates of collision (NRC 2007, Kerlinger et al. 2010). Jain et al. (2009a) found no significant correlation between mortality rates of nocturnally migrating birds at lit versus unlit turbines at Maple Ridge, New York, and this lack of correlation has been documented at other operational wind facilities (NRC 2007). Kerns and Kerlinger

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 211 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(2004) documented no differences in rates of collision between lit and unlit turbines at the Mountaineer facility in West Virginia. The largest single mortality event documented in their study (33 passerines in one night) was thought to be due to a combination of foggy conditions and bright sodium vapor lighting at a substation within the facility, and not related to the FAA-required lighting on the turbines themselves (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). BRE has committed to minimizing as much as possible the use of bright, continuously burning lights at the Project to minimize the likelihood of large mortality events of birds caused by lighting (see Project APP, Appendix B).

Rates of avian collision mortality at existing wind facilities in the east and upper Midwest range from 0 to approximately 10 birds per turbine per year (Appendix J, Table J-1). Rates are highest for passerines (Table 5-10). Although avian collision mortality can occur during both the breeding and migration seasons, patterns in avian collision mortality at tall towers, buildings, wind turbines and other structures suggest that the majority of fatalities occur during the spring and fall migration periods (NRC 2007).

Passerines. In the Midwestern and Eastern U.S., passerines have accounted for the majority of fatalities at wind projects (Table 5-10). In general, the documented levels of fatalities are small relative to other potential sources of avian mortality (Erikson et al. 2001). The overall number of avian fatalities, the species involved, and the fatality rates are consistently low. When data are corrected for scavenging and observer efficiency biases, mortality studies indicate wind turbines typically account for 1 to 9 avian fatalities per turbine per year (Erickson et al. 2001, Jain et al. 2007). Fatalities occur in all months surveyed, and both resident and migrant birds are affected. Inclement weather could be a contributing factor at wind projects (Johnson et al. 2002), and some researchers believe this to be the case for other obstacles (Erickson et al. 2001).

Table 5-10. Documented avian fatalities by bird group at wind farms between 1994 and 2009 in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. based on results of systematic searches conducted during limited study periods and not year-round. (Note: Numbers do not include incidentally discovered fatalities. Vultures are included in the raptor category.) Bird group # individuals % of total fatalities Passerine 688 73.6% Unknown species 108 11.6% Raptor 52 5.6% Gamebird 42 4.5% Waterfowl 21 2.2% Shorebird 14 1.5% Seabird 6 0.6% Owl 4 0.4% Total 935 100.0% Sources: Osborn et al. (2000), Johnson et al. (2000a, 2002), Howe (2002), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Koford et al. (2004, 2005), Arnett (2005), Piorkowski (2006), Derby et al. (2007), Fiedler et al. (2007), Jain et al. (2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e), Miller (2008), Stantec (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a), Vlietstra (2008), Arnett et al. (2009), Gruver (2009), NJ Audubon Society (2009), Tidhar (2009), Young et al. (2009, 2010, 2011a), Drake et al. (2010).

It is generally accepted that nocturnally migrating passerines fly in broad fronts (Lowry and Newman 1966, Bellrose 1971). This means as passerines migrate, they fan out across the flyway, feeding at stopover sites that are widely dispersed in the landscape. Also, it is generally accepted that nocturnally migrating passerines fly mostly at altitudes well above the rotor-swept area of wind turbines (Kerlinger 1995, Mabee and Cooper 2002, Mabee et al. 2004). However, migrant passerines may fly at lower altitudes in inclement weather and increase their risk of collisions with wind turbines along ridge lines.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 212 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Even in favorable conditions, landing and taking off at night or dusk puts migrants at risk of collision, particularly when wind projects are proximal to stopover sites.

Although nocturnally migrating passerines are expected to pass above the Project area during spring and fall migration periods, most of these individuals are flying at consistently high altitudes above the height of the proposed turbines, as has been documented in the vast majority of recent radar surveys conducted at proposed wind facilities in the northeast (Appendix J, Table J-2). Literature review also suggested that, while impacts to nocturnally migrating passerines occur at most wind energy facilities, very small numbers of birds have collided with turbines relative to the large numbers of nocturnally migrating passerines (Erickson et al. 2002).

Raptors. Wind project fatalities include many species of birds, but raptor mortality has received the most attention. Wind projects may have an impact on raptor populations due to their long life-span and low reproductive potential.

The high rates of mortality specific to raptors found in California, particularly at Altamont Pass, have been attributed to a combination of characteristics (Orloff and Flannery 1992, Anderson et al. 2004, 2005, Smallwood and Thelander 2004, 2005). High mortality rates at this site have been linked to the relatively high density of raptors. The high density of raptors at Altamont Pass is probably related to the high density of prey resources. Thus the high density of raptors, along with the high density of turbines, increases the likelihood of bird-turbine collision at this site. In addition, the older turbines at Altamont Pass are supported on lattice towers that provide perches and operate with fast-spinning blades that may be difficult for raptors to avoid while foraging.

Significantly fewer raptors have been documented colliding with newer wind turbines than at the older California facilities. In general, projects constructed outside of California and within the last 5 to 15 years have much lower raptor density and probably lower prey densities (Erickson et al. 2002). Additionally, newer developments have widely spaced turbines placed on tall tubular towers and blades that spin slow enough to remain visible even at high wind speeds. Studies have documented raptors exhibiting turbine- avoidance behaviors at modern wind facilities (Whitfield and Madders 2006, Chamberlain et al. 2006). The mechanism for this turbine avoidance is unknown; however, most raptors are diurnal and have good eyesight, suggesting they may be able to detect turbines visually as well as acoustically.

Raptors tend to migrate or travel locally along prominent landscape features, and wind turbines are typically built on prominent landscape features. However, evidence suggests that the risk of raptor collision with turbines is relatively low (see Table 5-10 and Table 5-11). Of 935 avian fatalities, raptors represented 5.6% of all fatalities. It has been difficult to determine if raptors involved in collisions were actively migrating or were local birds due to the timing overlap in occurrences of both at study sites. Collisions may have involved both migrant and local birds. Table 5-11 lists raptor mortalities by species based on the results of 31 post-construction studies.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 213 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-11. Species composition of documented raptor fatalities at wind farms in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. Number of Species individuals (% of total) Turkey vulture 21 (40 %) Red-tailed hawk 16 (31 %) Sharp-shinned hawk 6 (11 %) American kestrel 4 (8 %) Broad-winged hawk 2 (4 %) Osprey 2 (4 %) Cooper’s hawk 1 (2 %) Total 52 Sources: Osborn et al. (2000), Johnson et al. (2000a, 2002), Howe (2002), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Koford et al. (2004, 2005), Arnett (2005), Piorkowski (2006), Derby et al. (2007), Fiedler et al. (2007), Jain et al. (2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e), Miller (2008), Stantec (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a), Vlietstra (2008), Arnett et al. (2009), Gruver (2009), NJ Audubon Society (2009), Tidhar (2009), Young et al. (2009, 2010, 2011a), and Drake et al. (2010).

For the BRE Project, raptors were surveyed during spring and fall migration. In Phase I, results from spring surveys of pre- and post-construction conditions cannot be compared as methods differed between the 2 studies (Canterbury 2006, Young et al. 2012a). Young et al. (2012a, 2012c) found overall raptor use within the Project area to be slightly lower than that observed at other Hawk Watch sites in the region; however, project raptor surveys missed the peak period of several species of raptors and thus may have underestimated abundance.

Relationships have not been established between pre-construction and post-construction survey results with regard to raptor mortality. Based on post-construction monitoring studies at other operating wind energy facilities, raptors most likely to be impacted are resident birds that forage in open country, such as red-tailed hawks, as opposed to migrating raptors that pass through the area.

A 1-year study at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia found 1 raptor mortality, a red- tailed hawk (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). Similarly, a 2006 post-construction mortality study at the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project in New York State found 1 raptor fatality, an American kestrel (Jain et al. 2007). Standardized searches at the same facility in 2007 found 3 raptor fatalities, all red-tailed hawks (Jain et al. 2009a). In 3 years of post-construction monitoring at Mount Storm, searchers documented 7 raptor mortalities: 6 turkey vultures and 1 sharp-shinned hawk (Young et al. 2009, 2010, 2011a). Incidentally discovered raptors included 7 turkey vultures and 1 sharp-shinned hawk in those 3 years (Young et al. 2009, 2010, 2011a).

The 100-turbine Project has the potential to kill raptors. Based on what has been observed at existing wind projects in the eastern US, the rate of raptor mortality (excluding eagles) is not expected exceed more than 1-3 raptors and 6 vultures a year. Based on raptor surveys from 2005, the existing Phase I turbines located on Cold Knob and Beech Knob may pose a slightly higher risk to raptors than other portions of the study area (Canterbury 2006).

During the winter raptor survey, observers detected golden eagles during 11 surveys from December 30, 2011 to February 28, 2012 (Young et al 2013). Observers made 25 golden eagle observations in the Project area. Golden eagles were observed flying in the expansion area where turbine strings are proposed, as well as within 0.25 mile of the existing 67 turbines. Of these 25 observations, 10 were of golden eagles flying within 800 meters of survey stations. Of these 10 close-up observations, 3 were of

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 214 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

golden eagles flying within the approximate rotor swept height of turbines. Direct observations of wintering golden eagles at other wind projects in the Appalachians are not available for comparison.

As previously described in Section 5.7.2.1 for the No Action Alternative, the Service modeled eagle fatalities for the 100-turbine project by adding the winter 2011-2012 raptor survey data to the previous data. Prior to implementing minimization measures, the Service’s model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.34 golden eagles or fewer, suggesting that the risk of golden eagle collision fatality is moderate to high (i.e. 1 or fewer fatalities predicted to occur at the Project site every 3 to 4 years on average). Prior to implementing minimization measures, the model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.052 bald eagles or fewer, suggesting that risk of bald eagle fatality also is moderate to high (i.e. 1 or fewer fatalities predicted to occur at the Project site every 19 to 20 years on average).

To date, there are 4 documented bald eagle fatalities (Brown and Hamilton 2006, Riddell in litt. 2010) and 1 documented injury (IDNR 2011) at modern industrial-scale wind energy facilities in North America. There also has been one bald eagle fatality at a small 60-foot-tall wind turbine in the Chesapeake Bay area of eastern Maryland (S. Nystrom, USFWS, personal communication 2012). Over 50 golden eagle fatalities have been documented at wind power projects in the western U.S. (Sarah Nystrom, USFWS, pers, communication 2013). There have been no documented bald eagle or golden eagle fatalities at industrial wind projects on ridgelines in the Appalachian Mountains to date. However rare, if the Project were to kill either a bald eagle or golden eagle, this would be considered a significant effect due to their protected status under BGEPA.

The Service has advised BRE of the risk to eagles throughout the HCP process, the availability of BGEPA permits for bald eagles, and advised them on the options described above regarding golden eagles BRE has chosen option 3 and included eagles in its Avian Protection Plan (APP). The APP includes measures to reduce risk to eagles and to monitor and report eagle mortality should it occur (see Appendix B in FEIS). Minimization measures in the APP are designed to reduce the risk of eagle and other raptor fatalities: (1) The transmission line incorporates practices to minimize avian collision risk and electrocution (APLIC 2006); (2) Food sources that attract eagles, vultures, and other carrion eating raptors will be reduced by removing carrion and gut piles found on the project site by Operation and Maintenance staff; (3) Hunter education will be provided regarding the importance of removing carcasses and burying gut piles before leaving the project site; (4) The project site will be monitored for perches or trees used frequently by eagles, and perches or trees attractive to eagles will be removed; (5) Personnel and visitors will be instructed to drive at low speeds (< 25 mph) to reduce risk of avian vehicle collisions; and (6) The project site does not contain a high concentration of ponds, streams or wetlands that would attract foraging eagles. Collectively, these measures likely reduce risk of take of bald eagles from 0.05 to less than the 0.03 birds per year, the threshold at which an eagle permit is recommended. It is less

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 215 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

certain how much the risk of take of golden eagles (0.34 birds per year) would be reduced by these minimization measures.

Through adaptive management, the APP includes a commitment to weekly searches for eagle carcasses near the turbines year-round when weather conditions allow, to promptly report them, and to implement additional avoidance or mitigation measures should mortality of an eagle occur, including additional eagle surveys, removing sources of eagle attraction, implementing turbine operation or technological solutions that reduce fatality, and negotiating with transmission line owners to retrofit power poles to adhere to APLIC guidelines and thus reduce risk of eagle and other raptor electrocution (APLIC 1994, 2006).

Waterbirds. Concerns for the effects of wind energy development on waterbirds have received attention mostly with regard for offshore wind development (Exo 2003, Desholm and Kahlert 2005, Huppop et al. 2006, Madsen et al. 2009, Watts 2010). Offshore wind projects have the same broad impact categories as onshore projects, habitat loss, displacement and avoidance, and direct mortality. Watts (2010) reports several waterbird species associated with the Atlantic Flyway to be vulnerable to cumulative sources of incidental mortality, including wind energy development.

Because there are small ponds and wetlands in the Project area and its vicinity, some waterbirds (waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, rails) may be present and could be at risk of colliding with turbines. However, research shows that waterfowl and other waterbirds rarely collide with wind turbines (see Table 5-10 and studies referenced). Waterbirds represent small percentages of the avian fatalities documented. Risk of collision to migrant waterfowl is likely to be minimal due to their tendency to migrate at high altitudes (Kerlinger and Moore 1989, Bellrose 1976). The potential for collision risk to resident and migrant waterbirds in the Project area is not likely to be significant.

Estimated Bird Mortality from Project Turbine Operations There currently is no predictive model available to quantify expected avian collision mortality as a result of wind power turbine operation. Therefore, risk assessments must be based on pre-construction indices and indicators of risk (e.g., breeding bird and raptor migration surveys), along with empirical data from operating facilities (e.g., avian mortality surveys). When related to post-construction data, information from pre-construction surveys perceived as indicators of elevated risk (e.g., unusually high numbers, unusually low flight altitude, habitat that will act as an attractant, abundance of rare species) has not been reliably linked to mortality. Mortality rates can vary from year to year at the same site and seem to be influenced by weather events such as fog during peak migration that force birds to fly lower than normal and seek a landing. This is particularly apparent for night-migrating songbirds that tend to migrate in broad fronts rather than narrowly defined migration corridors. Therefore, based on existing data, we assume that mortality in the Project area is likely to be consistent with post-construction fatality rates at other wind sites on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region (Table 5-12 and Table 5-13).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 216 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-12. Estimates of bird mortality at 9 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region.Operational cut-in speeds ranged from 3.0 m/s to 4.0 m/s, and searches were conducted on a daily basis. Mortality rates presented were derived using the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004). Annual Annual Estimated project CI for project No. Dates Site and state mortality mortality mortality mortality Reference turbines surveyed 1 1, 3 rate (mean) based on rate range based mean 2 on CI 3 Mountaineer, Apr 4 – Nov 44 4.04 178 2.41-8.33 106-367 Kerns and Kerlinger, (2004) West Virginia 11, 2003 Mount Storm, Mar 23 – Oct 4 4 132 8.74 1,154 5.12-12.77 676-1,686 Young et al. (2009b, 2010a) West Virginia 8, 2009 Mount Storm, Apr 16 - Oct 4 4 132 6.74 890 3.92-10.03 517-1,324 Young et al. (2010b, 2011a) West Virginia 15, 2010 Mount Storm, Apr 12 – Oct 4 4 132 8.49 1,121 6.59-12.36 870-16,35 Young et al. (2011b, 2012d) West Virginia 15, 2011 Casselman, Apr 19 - Nov Arnett et al. (2009a), Librandi- 23 2.27 52 0.88-3.92 20-90 Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Mumma and Capouillez 2011 Casselman, Apr 1 - Nov Arnett et al. (2010), Librandi- 23 4.32 99 2.67-6.44 61-148 Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Mumma and Capouillez (2011) Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov Arnett et al. (2011), Librandi- 51 1.62 83 0.83-2.93 43-149 Pennsylvania 15, 2009 Mumma and Capouillez (2011) Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 51 1.51 77 0.64-2.61 33-133 Arnett et al. (2011) Pennsylvania 15, 2010 Site 6-3, Apr 1 – Nov Librandi-Mumma and nr 1.80 -- nr -- Pennsylvania 15, 2007 Capouillez (2011) Site 6-3, Apr 1 – Nov Librandi-Mumma and nr 2.40 -- nr -- Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov Librandi-Mumma and nr 6.50 -- 3.80-10.10 -- Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov Librandi-Mumma and nr 5.00 -- 0.00-6.90 -- Pennsylvania 15, 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-10, Apr 1 – Nov Librandi-Mumma and nr 1.30 -- 0.00-3.20 -- Pennsylvania 15, 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-10, Apr 1 – Nov nr 2.00 -- 1.00-3.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 15, 2010 Site 2-4, nr Apr 1 – Nov 9.80 -- 2.70-12.40 -- Librandi-Mumma and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 217 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Annual Annual Estimated project CI for project No. Dates Site and state mortality mortality mortality mortality Reference turbines surveyed 1 1, 3 rate (mean) based on rate range based mean 2 on CI 3 Pennsylvania 15, 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-4, Apr 1 – Nov nr 3.00 -- 1.00-4.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 15, 2010 Criterion, Apr 5 – Nov 28 16.01 448 11.26-23.49 315-658 Young et al. (2012e) Maryland 15, 2011 Range Mean rate (n=17) 5.03 0.00-23.49 (n=17) 1 Mortality rate is expressed in birds per turbine per year. 2 Turbine number x estimated mortality rate. 3 Ranges based on 90% or 95% confidence intervals. 4 Results from 2 post-construction studies in each year were summed to derive the rate.

Table 5-13. Estimates of bird mortality at 2 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines in the mid-Atlantic region.Operational cut-in speeds ranged from 3.0 m/s to 4.0 m/s, and searches were conducted on a daily basis. Mortality rates presented were derived using the Huso (2010) estimator. Estimated Annual project Annual project CI for mortality Site and state No. turbines Dates surveyed mortality rate mortality based 1, 3 mortality range Reference 1 2 rate 3 (mean) on mean based on CI Casselman, Apr 19 – Nov 15, 23 4.69 108 1.25-14.31 29-329 Arnett et al. 2009 Pennsylvania 2008 Casselman, Apr 1- Nov 15, 23 8.68 200 4.76-15.69 109-361 Arnett et al. 2010 Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 4.05 207 1.73-13.62 88-695 Arnett et al. 2011 Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 2.20 112 0.82-4.52 42-231 Arnett et al. 2011 Pennsylvania 2010 Mean rate (n=4) 4.91 Range (n=4) 0.82-15.69 1 Mortality rate is expressed in birds per turbine per year. 2 Turbine number x estimated mortality rate. 3 Ranges based on 90% or 95% confidence intervals.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 218 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

To arrive at an average fatality rate, we used comparable studies from wind power projects located on forested ridgelines or escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region. To reduce bias, we selected studies with comparable study periods, search frequencies, and contemporary fatality formulas:

• Searches conducted from early-April to mid-October or mid-November (corresponding to peak bird activity seasons from spring, summer and fall); • Searches conducted daily (to minimize bias associated with predators removing carcasses before searchers have an opportunity to look for carcasses); • Mortality rates adjusted, based on results of searcher efficiency and scavenger removal trials, and search conditions; and • Mortality rates adjusted using contemporary equations rather than older equations that tend to be biased low; e.g. the contemporary modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) or Huso estimator (Huso 2010).

Our approach assumes that all sites are equal with their potential to kill birds. Realistically, different sites and different turbines vary in the amount that they would contribute to regional bird mortality. Despite these limitations, this effort represents a reasonable approach to using the best scientific information available from which to make inferences about potential Project bird mortality, including relative comparisons among Alternatives.

Our analysis showed that estimates of average bird mortality from wind turbines on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region are similar using either of 2 contemporary fatality estimators: 5.03 birds per turbine per year (using the modified Shoenfeld estimator) versus 4.91 birds per turbine per year (using the Huso estimator) (Table 5-12 and Table 5-13). Therefore, to calculate the overall average bird fatality rate for the mid-Atlantic region and the Project, we used the higher Huso estimator when studies used more than one estimator. Using the higher estimator errs on the side of the species by predicting a slightly worse impact than if one only used one estimator.

Thus, we are using an average mortality rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year, based on 17 post- construction studies at 9 wind projects located on forested ridgelines or escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region. Table 5-14 provides a summary of the bird mortality estimates for the 67- and 100-turbine Projects based on the rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year.

Table 5-14. Predicted bird mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on either a 67- or 100-turbine Project and 2 or 4 MET towers.Turbine mortality rates were derived using a combination of the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) and Huso (2010) estimator for 17 post- construction studies. MET tower mortality was derived as described in the text under the No-Action Alternative Section 5.7.2.1. Alternatives 1 and 4: Alternatives 2 and 3: 67-turbine Project + 2 MET 100-turbine Project + 4 MET Mortality rate 1 Towers Towers Annual Life of Project Annual Life of Project mortality mortality 2 mortality mortality 2 Turbines: Mean 5.61 376 9,397 561 14,025 Low end of range 0.00 0 0 0 0 High end of range 23.49 1,574 39,346 2,349 58,725 MET Towers: Guyed 21.3 43 1,065 43 1,065 Un-guyed 0 - - 0 0 TOTAL (mean) 419 10,462 604 15,090 1 Mortality is expressed in birds per turbine per year or birds per tower per year. 2 Based on 25-year operational life across all turbines and towers in the Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 219 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In the Project APP (Appendix B), BRE found 5.85 birds per turbine per year to be the regional average mortality rate for birds on forested ridgelines in the eastern U.S. This is slightly higher than our estimated rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year for forested ridgelines and escarpments in the Mid-Atlantic region. The 2 rates are not significantly different and are likely the result of only minor differences in geographic scope, studies used, and data analyses. The rate provided in the APP is within the range of mortality observed at wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic region (0-23.49 birds per turbine per year) and within the range we would expect for average mortality in the region (roughly 5-6 birds per turbine per year) in most years.

Using the rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year, we estimate that the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) will result in 561 bird deaths per year as a result of operating 100 turbines. Based on this annual mortality estimate, the Project turbines are expected to kill 14,025 birds over a 25-year period. Confidence intervals from the 17 studies provide a range of mortality estimates from a low of 0 birds per turbine per year to a high of 23.49 birds per turbine per year (Table 15.12). Applying these values, the 100-turbine project possibly could result in annual mortalities of up to 2,349 birds per year in some years (a worst case scenario), or as low as zero birds per year in some years (in a best case scenario). Realistically, however, in most years we would predict values closer to the average value than the extreme ends of variation.

Bird Mortality from Project Meteorological Towers. As previously discussed for the No-Action Alternative, the Phase I Project has 2 lattice MET towers (Figure 1-2) 262 ft in height, lighted (single flashing light), and supported by guy wires. Phase II includes the addition of up to 2 self-supporting (unguyed) lattice MET towers 262 ft in height and lighted (single flashing light). This analysis assumes that the 4 Project MET towers under Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) will pose collision risk to birds. BRE has installed bird diverters on the 2 existing guyed MET towers. We do not attempt to isolate the potential mortality differences between guyed towers with and without diverters because we could find no studies of their effectiveness, and effectiveness of bird diverters on powerlines is highly variable. Hence, our annual and life-of-project values likely overestimate bird mortality due to the Project MET towers.

As explained for the No-Action Alternative, we assumed that the 2 existing guyed MET towers in Phase I would kill 43 birds per year or 1,065 birds for the life of the Project (Table 5-14). We assumed the 2 future unguyed MET towers for Phase II would kill few to no birds for the life of the Project (Table 5-14). Thus, under the Proposed Action, we predict total mortality from birds colliding with turbines and MET towers is roughly 600 birds per year or 15,000 birds for the life of the Project (Table 5-14).

Bird Group Differences. Using the percentages shown in Table 5.10, we estimated the bird group composition of the Project mortality. Mortality by bird group from implementation of a 67- and 100-turbine project is presented in Table 5-15.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 220 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-15. Predicted composition of bird mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 31 post-construction studies conducted in the eastern and Midwestern U.S. The total predicted bird mortality from turbines and MET towers shown in Table 5-14 is spread across bird groups. This analysis does not assume that curtailment affects bird mortality. Alts. 1 and 4: 67-turbine Alts. 2 and 3 :100-turbine Project + 2 MET Towers Project + 4 MET Towers

Relative Life-of- Life-of- Bird group 1 Annual Annual mortality Project Project mortality mortality mortality mortality Passerine 0.736 308.4 7,710 444.5 11,114

Unidentified bird 0.116 48.6 1,215 70.1 1,752

Raptor 0.056 23.5 587 33.8 846 Gamebird 0.045 18.9 471 27.2 680 Waterfowl 0.022 9.2 230 13.3 332 Shorebird 0.015 6.3 157 9.1 227 Seabirds 0.006 2.5 63 3.6 91 Owl 0.004 1.7 42 2.4 60 Total 419 10,475 604 15,100 1 Based on Osborn et al. (2000), Johnson et al. (2000a, 2002), Howe (2002), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Koford et al. (2004, 2005), Arnett (2005), Piorkowski (2006), Derby et al. (2007), Fiedler et al. (2007), Jain et al. (2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e), Miller (2008), Stantec (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a), Vlietstra (2008), Arnett et al. (2009), Gruver (2009), NJ Audubon Society (2009), Tidhar (2009), Young et al. (2009, 2010, 2011a), Drake et al. (2010).

The Service has identified bird species of conservation concern, i.e., those “migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent [the Service’s] highest conservation priorities” (USFWS 2008a). Without additional action, these species are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. Birds of conservation concern were identified based on assessment of population trends, threats, distribution, abundance, and relative density. Within the Appalachian Mountains region (BCR 28), 25 bird species of concern have been identified. We analyzed a subset of 10 of these birds, 8 birds from BCR 28 and 2 birds from other BCRs. Our selected subset was based upon known presence in the Project area during breeding and/or migration; presence of the species’ habitat type on-site; and, with exception of the golden-winged warbler, documented mortality of these species at wind power projects in the eastern U.S.

Table 5-16 provides estimates of annual and life-of-Project turbine mortality for these 10 bird species of conservation concern compared to estimated population sizes in the Appalachian Mountains region (BCR 28) and West Virginia. We applied the overall bird mortality rates from Table 5-14 for turbines and MET towers, but bracketed our predictions by using average fatality rate in the mid-Atlantic region of 5.61 birds per turbine per year, as well as the high end of the confidence interval (23.49 birds per turbine per year) as a worst-case analysis, given that there are uncertainties associated with data on bird population sizes, survival, and reproduction.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 221 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-16. Potential effect of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (100 turbines and 4 MET towers) on 10 birds of conservation concern and relationships to breeding bird survey trends and estimated breeding population sizes in West Virginia and the Appalachian Mountains region. Maximum % Maximum % % of North % of Atlantic % change over of West BCR 28 West Virginia Maximum of BCR 28 American flyway 45 years Proportion of Annual Virginia Species population, population, 2 3 number killed population population population (average % 1 1 total fatalities mortality 4 population 1995 1995 in 25-years affected affected in 25 affected in 25 change affected 5 annually years years annually) annually Blue-winged 190,000 50,000 0.00562 3 - 14 330 0.0069 0.0264 0.0194 – 0.0809 0.033 – 0.140 -0.3 (0.007) s warbler Cerulean 450,000 200,000 0.00152 1 – 4 89 0.0008 0.0018 0.0057 – 0.0241 0.009 – 0.037 -3.0 (0.07) s warbler Black-billed 79,000 13,000 0.00910 5 - 22 535 0.0271 0.1645 0.0148 – 0.0681 0.043 – 0.178 -2.9 (0.06) s. cuckoo Kentucky 250,000 70,000 0.01124 6 - 27 660 0.0106 0.0377 0.0136 – 0.0567 0.123 – 0.516 -0.7 (0.02) s warbler Canada 28,000 3,000 0.01124 6 - 27 660 0.0943 0.8798 0.0131 – 0.0548 0.027 – 0.113 -2.2 (0.05) s warbler Prairie 260,000 40,000 0.00152 1 - 4 89 0.0014 0.0089 0.0018 – 0.0075 0.012 – 0.052 -2.3 (0.05) s warbler Bay-breasted NA NA 0.01124 6 - 27 660 NA NA 0.0028 – 0.0118 0.015 – 0.062 -0.3 (0.007) ns warbler Red crossbill 3,000 NA 0.00152 1 - 4 89 0.1188 NA 0.0004 – 0.0015 0.015 – 0.062 -0.8 (0.02) ns Wood thrush 4,500,000 1,000,000 0.01124 6 - 27 660 0.0006 0.0026 0.0014 - 0.0060 0.003 – 0.013 -1.8 (0.04) s Golden- Not 6 winged 20,000 8,000 1-2 50 0.01 0.0250 0.0137 – 0.2500 0.143 – 0.286 -2.6 (0.06) s documented warbler 1 Estimates of breeding populations based on Breeding Bird Survey data using the Partners in Flight approach to estimating population size (Blancher et al. 2007). Estimates of breeding populations typically are portrayed as representing 1995, the mid-point of the survey timeframe (PIF and RMBO 2004). Numbers will be revised should updated population estimates become available prior to the FEIS. 2 Proportion of birds killed by species based on totals from post-construction surveys at Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Grant County, West Virginia (Young et al. 2009, 2010, 2011a). If species not documented at Mount Storm, proportion was based on totals from publicly available data from mortality surveys conducted in the Eastern US (as compiled by Stantec Consulting Services Inc.). 3 Fatalities based on multiplying species proportions (from column 4 in this table) x total predicted bird mortality from 100 turbines and 2 MET towers for 1 year (from Table 5-14), bracketing the mean (561 birds annually) with the high end (2,349 birds). 4 Fatalities based on multiplying number of birds in column 5 (annual mortality) times 25 years. 5 Based on USGS Breeding Bird Survey trend analysis for North America, 1966-2010 (Sauer et al. 2011); s = significant, ns = not significant. 6 Because golden-winged warblers have not been detected during post-construction monitoring surveys, the value of 2 is provided to illustrate a potential life-of-Project effect on the Atlantic flyway population.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 222 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Coarse population trends and estimates were obtained from published and on-line sources of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data (Table 5-8). The population estimates were taken from publicly available Partners in Flight (PIF) databases, which are based upon an average of BBS data from the years 1990 to 1999 (PIF and RMBO 2004). These PIF estimates typically are considered to represent the population size in 1995, the mid-point of the range over which the BBS data were averaged to arrive at the estimates.

There is considerable uncertainty about the total population sizes associated with these species, and the potential kill that might be expected. The population estimates are from approximately 1995, however, updated estimates of population sizes are not yet available.41 Thogmartin et al. (2006) noted problems with trying to convert BBS indices of abundance to population estimates. The population estimates are derived from indices of relative abundance which are adjusted by several factors: presumed area of species breeding ranges; by pair (assuming each male bird recorded has a mate); by detection area; and by time of day. There is much variation associated with the data and variance estimates are not available. The roadside breeding bird surveys also under sample certain habitat types, such as mountaintops and interior forest. In addition, because surveyors count birds for only 3-minute intervals, they likely miss many birds. While the number and proportion of undetected birds present on BBS counts is unknown (Blancher et al, 2007), it could easily exceed 50% (R Dettmers, USFWS, personal communication, June 20, 2012). Thus population estimates derived from these surveys may underestimate species abundance. In addition, the mortality rate of these species is also likely to change as more information is collected from post-construction studies. Thus we consider the 1995 population numbers as our best estimate at this time. We consider these values to be “ball park” figures and do not regard them as precise. Future assessments are likely to use more updated information as we learn more. These data are best used to discern overall population trends (stable, increasing, or decreasing) and to make relative comparisons of effects across alternatives. While highly variable and imprecise, these population estimates are the best available scientific information upon which to provide context for environmental assessment and cumulative effects analysis of various sources of mortality.

We supplemented the PIF data analysis by also looking at BBS population trend analysis conducted by USGS and available on-line (Sauer et al. 2011). The USGS trend data allow for comparison at various scales and time frames, include confidence intervals, and assign a reliability measure to the trend (Appendix M). Numbers in Appendix M represent percent mean annual change in abundance across the time frames indicated.42 Variation around the mean (95% confidence intervals) is shown in parentheses. Numbers in red font could be interpreted as a declining trend, black font as a stable trend, and blue font as an increasing trend. Background shading in each block indicates a regional credibility measure assigned by USGS. Aqua background shading in the table indicates the greatest reliability and red shading the worst. (See Appendix M for more details.)

Looking at a regional and local scale, the blue-winged warbler appears relatively stable in the Appalachian Mountains region and West Virginia. The black-billed cuckoo appears to show a declining trend in the Appalachian Mountains and a relatively stable trend in West Virginia but there are some problems with the credibility of the data related to small sample sizes and precision. The Canada warbler appears to be stable in the Appalachians and increasing in West Virginia, but there are problems with small sample sizes and precision. The Kentucky warbler, prairie warbler, golden-winged warbler, Cerulean warbler, and wood thrush show declines in the long-term and short-term in the Appalachian Mountains and West Virginia. The golden-winged warbler shows the greatest decline of all species (approximately 8 to 9 % annually). The golden-winged warbler, Kentucky warbler, and prairie warbler

41 PIF is in the process of calculating updated population estimates based on BBS data from 2000 to 2009, but the numbers have not yet been released. Hence, we were unable to incorporate the updated numbers for the FEIS. 42 While one could attempt to update the PIF 1995 population estimates to 2010 by applying the USGS trend data (mean annual % change), we have not done so, as this simple calculation would likely be inaccurate and compound many sources of error and variation in the data. The PIF population estimates are derived using complex formulas that make several adjustments to the data: pair adjustment, detection-area adjustment, and time of day adjustment (Thogmartin et al. 2006).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 223 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

show greater declines in the Appalachian Mountains and West Virginia than survey-wide or in the Eastern BBS region.

Based on the rough population estimates, each species contribution to total fatalities, and the Project’s annual turbine bird mortality based on the worst-case high-end estimate, the 100-turbine Project (the Proposed Action) potentially would kill a small fraction between 0.0008% and 0.12% of the estimated BCR 28 (Appalachian Mountains) population of any of these 10 species in any given year. While these percentages are small, we recognize that many of these birds show long-term trends of likely or suspected declines over a 45-year period (Table 5-8 and Table 5-16). Thus bird mortality from the Project would be expected to contribute slightly to ongoing declines originating from many sources of bird mortality.

Results of 2012 Post-Construction Monitoring. Searches of the 67-turbines found carcasses of 31 bird species, including 4 black-billed cuckoos, 2 wood thrushes, and 1 prairie warbler (Tidhar 2013). Thus we are certain the Project will affect these 3 birds of conservation concern. Based on the estimated 2012 mortality rate of 1.79 birds per turbine per year, the 100-turbine Project will kill roughly 179 birds per year. Based on the relative proportions of carcasses of these 3 species found on the Project site during the 2012 monitoring, we assumed Black-billed cuckoos would comprise 4.9%, wood thrushes would comprise 2.5%, and prairie warblers would comprise 1.2% of the total annual bird mortality. These percentages are higher than the proportions of total bird mortality provided in Table 5-16, which were based on total number of carcasses found during post-construction monitoring at Mount Storm or eastern U.S wind projects cumulatively. We applied these higher percentages to the high-end annual mortality at the Project (1,612 birds per year). Assuming this high rate of mortality would occur annually for 25 years, the Project would affect <1% of the Atlantic flyway population of any of these 3 species. Applying the higher percentages to a more realistic annual average mortality of 604 birds per year, the Project would affect <0.3% of the Atlantic flyway population of any of these 3 species.

Should future post-construction monitoring reveal higher proportions of mortality for any birds of conservation concern detected at the Project, it may become necessary to reanalyze possible impacts to West Virginia or Atlantic flyway populations. This would be especially true if similar proportions of mortality are observed at other wind projects in the eastern U.S.

In the event that significant bird mortality does occur, the APP includes adaptive management provisions to test different strategies to reduce mortality and/or to mitigate for it. This includes testing turbine curtailment, and adjustments related to the highest risk turbines, times of year, and weather events. The approximately 300-acre off-site high-quality forest conservation area targeted in the HCP for Indiana bat would provide incidental benefits to birds in perpetuity. This high-quality older forest is surrounded by an extensive intact forest network. Protection of an intact block of forest would remove threats of logging and development in perpetuity, which would provide secure nesting sites for birds. BRE has initiated discussions with the landowner about purchasing the tract. In the event that the deal falls through, the HCP includes criteria for selecting alternate conservation sites or projects for bats. These alternate projects (e.g. cave gating) may not benefit birds. Thus the APP includes provisions for additional habitat protection for birds should it be needed to mitigate for significant bird mortality.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 224 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Of particular note is the Project’s potential impact to golden-winged warblers. This species has experienced roughly a 9-10% annual decline in West Virginia between 1966 and 2010. Based upon pre- construction surveys, we assume a small breeding population of golden-winged warblers is present on and near the project site. The Project will impact an unknown amount of habitat suitable for golden- winged warblers. Habitat clearing will create temporary openings that quickly change to early successional, young forest edge habitat with brushy (briery) components favored by this species. This habitat benefit will typically last for 10 to 15 years until the habitat becomes overgrown with trees. Because the project area has existing habitat and likely will create habitat, it may attract golden-winged warblers to the turbine risk zone and has the potential to kill both breeding and migrant warblers. While this species has not been observed in mortality studies at wind power projects built within its range, we are aware of no studies specifically designed to monitor habitat changes or to detect impacts to breeding or migrating golden-winged warblers.43 Post-construction studies typically monitor roughly 20 to 25% of all turbines and thus could easily miss a rare bird species killed at a turbine or MET tower that is not monitored. The species is known to collide with structures and has been identified as a “super collider” with communication towers (i.e., killed in higher numbers than would be expected by chance) (Arnold and Zink 2011). For purposes of this analysis, we estimated conservatively that the turbines were likely to kill no more than a small number of golden-winged warblers (1 to 2) annually. While it is not possible to estimate precisely the significance of these effects on a species that is near the southern limit of its range and regionally rare, the Service concludes that even small takes of this on-site small breeding population could be significant at the local scale, should it occur, given the local and regional population trend. Should significant mortality of any migratory bird species occur, the APP includes measures to reduce and/or mitigate for it through an adaptive management framework designed to test the effectiveness of mortality reduction measures.

In summary, average and median bird fatality rates generally fall between 5 and 6 birds per turbine for the period from April 1 to November 15. These estimates vary across and within sites and generally range from 1 to 10 birds per turbine on average. When one considers confidence intervals as a measure of variation in mortality estimates, it is possible that during some years mortality rates could be as low as zero birds per turbine for some projects and as high as 23 birds per turbine for other projects. However, one would expect few projects to consistently be at these extreme ends of variation.

We predict that the 100-turbine Project and MET towers will cause bird mortality somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 birds per year; most of those (~75%) will be passerines and a few may be raptors (~6%, this includes vultures). Predictions will be validated through post-construction monitoring for the life of the project (described in more detail below). Should the Service determine that significant bird mortality has occurred (defined as take of an eagle, take of all migratory birds substantially exceeding the regional average of 5.61 birds per turbine per year, or take of an individual bird species likely to adversely affect the long-term status of that population), then BRE will work with the Service to reduce this mortality or mitigate for it as described in its APP.

Summary of Collision Effects of Proposed Action to Avian Resources Available literature on avian collision at wind farms has been increasing due to the growing number of projects available for study. The majority of avian fatalities at existing wind farms appear to be of nocturnally migrating songbirds. The factors that influence increased risk of collision appear to be a combination of overall abundance, weather, and species-specific flight behaviors.

43 For example, the Mount Storm Wind Power project in West Virginia occurs within the breeding range of the species. Migrant golden-winged warblers were seen near the project site during spring and summer 2003 pre-construction surveys but no breeding terrritories were found (Young et al. 2003b). Surveyors concluded that vegetation in the project area at the time was atypical of golden-winged warbler habitat (i.e. it was too open and lacked dense shrubs). Post-construction studies have not been specifically designed to monitor this rare species and it is unknown whether or not more typical habitat has developed over time. Monitoring of approximately 20% of the 132 turbines annually for 3 years has not detected a dead golden-winged warbler to date (Young et al. 2009a, 2009b; 2010, 2011a, 2011b).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 225 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Certain predictions can be made about patterns of collision mortality of nocturnally migrating passerines at the BRE Wind Project. Mortality associated with collisions with modern wind turbine models in the U.S. has not been known to result in a significant population level impact to any one species, mainly because the species with relatively high rates of collision mortality are regionally abundant. Collision mortality at the Project is expected to be within the range of mortality observed at existing facilities in montane forest landscapes in the Eastern U.S.

The anticipated mortality of passerines, raptors, and other birds at the BRE Project is expected to be similar to that observed at 8 other modern facilities in the mid-Atlantic region. Excluding vultures and eagles, overall raptor fatalities are expected to be 1 to 3 per year. The 100-turbine Project is expected kill 1-6 vultures per year, and these are most likely to be turkey vultures.

Currently, the Service’s eagle risk model estimates the take of bald eagles at 0.052 birds per year , a low to moderate level of risk which would be reduced through BRE’s commitment in it’s APP to reduce carrion and eliminate eagle perches on the project site. There is a moderate to high risk of take of golden eagles (0.340 birds per year); it is unlikely that carrion and perch management would reduce this risk to a low level (less than 0.03 birds/year).

100-Turbine Decommissioning BRE’s plan for decommissioning includes land reclamation, monitoring of revegetation, and reseeding if needed to ensure revegetation success. Ground cover (vegetation) must cover at least 70% of the given disturbed area based on specific state reclamation requirements. Small amounts of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance areas may be cleared again to allow crane access for removing Project components. This will set back the forest regeneration process in these newly cleared areas, but these affected areas are expected to be very small.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Avian Resources Under the Proposed Action, BRE will implement the following measures to avoid and minimize impacts to birds.

Phase II Construction • Fragmentation of wildlife habitat has been and will continue to be minimized through the use, where practical, of lands already disturbed, including using existing roadways. • To minimize the potential for the destruction of nests, eggs, and young, clearing of trees would be conducted outside the nesting season, with the exception of 15 acres of trees that may be cleared during the nesting season. If clearing is required during the nesting season, habitats will be surveyed for nests by a trained biologist prior to clearing. If an active nest is found, an appropriate buffer will be established around the nest until the young have fledged. • During Project construction, riparian areas will be avoided, where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, activities within riparian areas will be conducted in conformance with SWPPP requirements.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 226 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Removal or disturbance of vegetation will be minimized through site management (e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, scalping) and reclaiming all disturbed areas not required for operations. • To avoid attracting eagles and other raptors, the availability of carrion will be reduced by removing carcasses discovered in the entire Project area during regular maintenance and monitoring activities. • Potential increases in poaching will be minimized through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife laws. If violations are discovered, the offense will be reported to the WVDNR, and the offending employee or contractor will be disciplined and may be dismissed by BRE and/or prosecuted by the WVDNR. • Travel will be restricted to designated roads; no off-road travel will be allowed except in emergencies. • Phase II construction will not occur during the avian breeding season with the exception of 15 acres of clearing that may occur between April 1 and May 15 or between October 15 and November 14. If this clearing occurs between April 1 and May 15, BRE will survey trees to be cut for nests by a trained biologist prior to construction. If an active nest is found, an appropriate buffer will be established around the nest until the young have fledged. • Storm water management practices will not result in creating water sources that may be attractive birds, such as storm water detention ponds. • Existing roads and previously disturbed lands were used where feasible to reduce vegetation impacts within the Project area. Surface disturbance was limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction. • Upon completion of construction, gates will be installed on private roads to restrict public access to turbine locations. The substation and O&M building will be fenced as required for public safety, but no other fencing is proposed at this time. The public will continue to have access to portions of the Project area via public roads and private roads that are regularly open to the public.

100-Turbine Project Operations • The Project was sited in a previously disturbed landscape and avoids habitats for sensitive species. The avian risk assessment and pre-construction surveys did not find unusual habitats or avian assemblages in the Project area. • Project facilities will not be located in habitats essential to listed birds and areas known to be used by high concentrations of birds. • Turbines and Project appurtenances will be located on uplands, which are not limited in the landscape, and avoided surface water features and designated floodplains, which are more unusual and may provide habitat that is more limited in the landscape. • Upon issuance of the ITP, BRE will operate the Project in accordance with approved turbine operational protocols that include feathering the blades so they hardly move at low wind speeds and raising the cut-in speed of all turbines at night. The purpose of this curtailment is primarily to reduce mortality of bat species. It is uncertain if such measures will reduce fatality risks to birds. • BRE and its contractors will adhere to a Project-wide speed limit of 25 mph or lower depending on the requirements of the specific equipment utilizing the roads. • Hunting, fishing, dogs, or possession of firearms by BRE’s employees and designated contractor(s) in the Project area are and will continue to be prohibited in the Project area. • Mechanical measures will be used to control noxious weeds in all surface-disturbed sites in the areas of Project turbines. • Unguyed, tubular towers and slow-rotating, upwind rotors will be used for all 100 turbines. • Practices suggested by the APLIC (2006) were used to ensure that the transmission line was designed and constructed in a manner to minimize bird collision and electrocution risk. • Collection and communication lines will be buried as they were for Phase I. • Bird flight diverters have been installed on existing meteorological towers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 227 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Turbine lighting will be minimized to that which is required by the FAA. Low-voltage, shielded lights on a motion sensor will be used at the entrance door of each turbine to eliminate attracting night-time migrating birds to the Project area. • To minimize attracting night-migrating birds, security lighting at the O&M facility is kept to the minimum required; the lights have motion sensors so they operate only when needed, and the lights are down-shielded to minimize light emission into the sky.

Post-Construction Monitoring and Adaptive Management. As part of the Project’s APP, BRE will implement a post-construction monitoring, adaptive management, and reporting program to estimate and evaluate avian mortality resulting from the Project. The program will follow the protocol presented in the Project’s RMAMP (see Appendix C of the Project HCP).

BRE will analyze bird mortality monitoring data to address the following information needs.

1. Determine bird fatality rates for the Project. 2. Determine fatality rates for bird species of concern. 3. Compare estimated bird fatality rates to predicted fatality rates. 4. Evaluate bird fatalities within the project site in relation to site characteristics. 5. Compare bird fatality rates to those from existing projects in similar landscapes with similar species composition and use. 6. Determine the composition of fatalities in relation to migrating and resident birds at the site. 7. Assess whether bird fatality data suggest the need for measures to reduce impacts.

In addition, BRE’s O&M personnel will conduct weekly searches, year-round, for the presence of eagle carcasses and large-scale mortality events. During the HCP mortality monitoring period (April through November), O&M personnel will drive to all non-search turbines to check for readily observable carcasses. Outside of the HCP monitoring period (i.e., December through March), O&M personnel will inspect areas around Project turbines for readily observable carcasses.

BRE’s adaptive management plan, presented in detail in the RMAMP (Appendix C of the Project HCP), includes evaluating baseline migratory bird mortality rates and effects of various turbine operational protocols on migratory bird fatality rates, as well as for bats. The RMAMP includes multiple years of testing various turbine operational protocols and effects on estimated fatality rates. Monitoring will be conducted daily to evaluate relationships between bird fatality rates and weather. Monitoring will include investigations into probable causes of large-scale fatality events that could trigger the need for adaptive management, including weather events, turbine conditions, lighting, and other considerations.

The APP includes the following adaptive management thresholds and responses to significant events.

1. If documented fatalities are lower or not different than predicted and are not significant, no mitigation will be conducted.44 2. If fatalities are greater than predicted and are likely to be significant, BRE will meet and confer with the Service and the applicable actions presented below will be carried out. If a particular cause can be identified, BRE will develop specific mitigation measures in consultation with the Service to address the occurrence.

If a bald or golden eagle fatality occurs at the project, the ITP would be subject to permit suspension and revocation. In addition, BRE has committed to the following actions in its APP: 1. BRE will, working with a trained and permitted wildlife biologist, promptly identify and secure the carcass at the place of its discovery. BRE will obtain a global positioning system location and take at

44 While the LWEG indicate that no further monitoring is needed under this scenario, BRE has committed to life-of-project monitoring in Appendix C in the HCP and will continue to monitor and report on bird mortalities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 228 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

least three pictures of the carcass, including identifying characteristics, and placement of the carcass in relation to any project infrastructure. BRE will notify the Service prior to the removal and storage of the carcass unless USFWS personnel cannot be reached and the carcass will be compromised. The carcass will be properly stored after its discovery until it can be transferred to state or federal authorities. 2. BRE will notify the Service within one business day after the discovery of the eagle fatality. 3. BRE will meet and confer with the Service to investigate, using available data, the circumstances under which the fatality occurred. 4. BRE will work with the Service to evaluate available data concerning the event and, as appropriate, identify and implement avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce the risk of future mortalities. 5. BRE will conduct follow-up post-construction monitoring in the season in which the fatality occurred during the subsequent year of operations to assess whether avoidance or mitigation measures are effective at reducing impacts on eagles.

In addition, should an eagle fatality or significant mortality of any bird species of concern occur, avoidance and minimization actions that may be taken under adaptive management include the following:

The APP is based on BRE’s assumption that impacts to migratory birds can be effectively avoided and reduced through cost-effective operational adjustments. However, research on reducing bird mortality at wind power projects is just beginning, and it is currently unknown whether these measures would be effective. If during monitoring, operational restrictions are not effective at avoiding and minimizing impacts and significant impacts to eagles or other migratory birds occur, then BRE will consult with the Service and implement measures to reduce and/or mitigate for the effects, including, if needed, additional off-site habitat preservation and/or restoration. The approximately 300-acre high quality forest off-site mitigation project currently targeted to mitigate impacts to Indiana bats (see Section 5.0 in the Project HCP) will also benefit migratory birds and thus may off-set a portion of any adverse effect from the project. Should the deal on the targeted off-site conservation area fall though, and mitigation for significant bird impacts is needed, BRE, in consultation with the Service, would pursue alternative off-site mitigation areas which mitigate for the affected birds. Alternatively, if off-site mitigation is infeasible or ineffective and specific research needs addressing migratory bird mortality are identified, BRE would facilitate such research.

Mitigation. Although not specifically intended to provide mitigation for birds, the off-site conservation area proposed for endangered bats may benefit mature forest birds. BRE is seeking acquisition of a 300-acre parcel of high quality forest to be protected. This large block of intact, older forest comprises a diverse mix of tree species and age classes. According to the landowner, the primary species are red oak, white oak, poplar (tulip tree), maple, and black cherry, and the average tree diameter at breast height is 16 inches.

Section 4.1.5 of the APP has been revised to provide further detail about mitigation for birds. The off-site mitigation parcel may provide habitat for a variety of forest birds, including cerulean warbler, Kentucky warbler, wood thrush, and Canada warbler as it is a mature, mesophytic mixed oak forest.

Because it contains only a limited amount of early successional habitat and will not be managed for this habitat type, the targeted off-site mitigation parcel is not expected to provide long-term benefits for golden-winged warblers or other species that require some forest openings to create the thick understory to which they are attracted (e.g., blue-winged warbler [Vermivora cyanoptera] and prairie warbler).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 229 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

However, current land use practices (logging) by the landowner on and near the Project site create forest openings and early-successional habitat required by these species. In addition, the Project site itself will be allowed to naturally regenerate and will provide early-to-mid successional bird habitat over the 25-year duration of the ITP.

Herbicide Application in the Transmission Line ROW Under the Proposed Action, BRE would need to periodically apply herbicides along the 14-mile-long transmission line corridor (an area of about 84 acres) to control unwanted vegetation that could pose a fire or safety risk to the facility and adjacent property. BRE has indicated herbicides would be applied by hand to avoid unwanted drift onto untargeted vegetation or into areas beyond the ROW. Selected herbicides will have characteristics that allow the active chemical compound to degrade rapidly, prevent bio-accumulation, and are unlikely to pose chronic risks to animals. Herbicides will be applied at or below the rate specified by the manufacturer utilizing low volume techniques.

Proposed Action Summary The Proposed Action is not expected to cause naturally occurring populations of common birds to be reduced to numbers below levels for maintaining viability at regional or local levels. While most mortality is expected to occur to migrating birds from many source populations, the Project would contribute slightly to ongoing declines of species of concern. Implementation of the RMAMP and APP will ensure that post- construction mortality results will be reviewed to assess collision impacts. Should significant impacts occur to avian resources at the regional or local population level, they will be addressed through additional avoidance and minimization measures and possibly mitigation measures. The research, monitoring, and adaptive management framework of the APP is intended to reduce uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of these measures.

The Proposed Action will not result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered bird species. The Project is sited in suitable habitat for golden-winged warblers, a bird species of conservation concern, which depend on openings with pronounced herbaceous layers. The Project will not cause substantial reductions in golden-winged warbler habitat. However, the Service concludes that small takes of this golden-winged warbler breeding population could potentially be significant at the local scale, should they occur.

Currently, the Service’s eagle-risk model estimates the take of bald eagles at 0.052 birds per year and take of golden eagles at 0.340 birds per year prior to implementation of minimization measures (i.e. moderate to high risk for both species). BRE’s APP includes weekly monitoring for eagle fatalities year- round, as well as removal of any food-source attractants and perches as they are discovered to minimize the possibility for drawing eagles to the Project area. This would likely lower the risk of take of bald eagles to low. It is less certain how much the risk of take of golden eagles would be reduced. Should a bald or golden eagle fatality occur, the ITP would be subject to suspension or revocation. The APP includes changes in turbine operations and mitigation should an eagle collision occur. The research, monitoring, and adaptive management framework of the APP is intended to reduce uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of any measures implemented.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 230 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Proposed Action is not expected to result in substantial changes in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The conversion of 521 acres of managed forest habitat to regenerating forest and developed land is not considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat.

5.7.2.3 Alternative 3: HCP and ITP for Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for development of the BRE Project. The Phase II 33 turbines would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action. Under this alternative BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut- in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s as the rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15.

Phase II Construction Phase II construction would convert 148 acres of predominately forested habitat to 127 acres of grass/shrubland habitat and 21 acres of grass and developed habitat. Together with Phase I, the 100- turbine Project would convert 521 acres of predominately forested habitat to 438 acres of grass/shrubland habitat, 12 acres of restored agricultural field, and 71 acres of grass and developed habitat. Under Alternative 3, effects to avian resources associated with construction would be as described for the Proposed Action. Tree-clearing would not occur during the avian nesting season, with the possible exception of 15 acres. Construction activities would cause short-term disturbances to birds in the Project area.

100-Turbine Project Operation and MET Towers Under Alternative 3, effects to avian resources associated with Project operations would be as described for the Proposed Action. Some species of birds would be displaced by the Project in the Phase I and II areas. Mature forest and early-successional forest birds at the BRE Project may avoid the new clearings and adjacent woods within the Project footprint. Edge species may begin to use the habitat interfaces as shrubs regenerate, and early-successional forest species will begin to occupy the reclaimed clearings. As shrubland habitat progresses, early-successional species would begin to occupy these sites. Many mature forest species would begin to use mid-successional habitats in less than 20 years. The temporary conversion of 438 acres of mature forest in a forested landscape is not a significant impact.

Under Alternative 3, upon the listing of 3 additional bat species, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s at night during the period April 1 through October 15. However, there is no evidence that curtailment reduces bird mortality. It is widely known that birds collide with tall stationary structures. This analysis assumes that the 100-turbine Project under Alternative 3 would have the same mortality rate as described for the Proposed Action, that is, approximately 5 to 6 birds per turbine per year, plus mortality from 4 MET towers. Under Alternative 3, the Project is estimated to kill roughly 600 birds per year and 14,400 birds during the 25-year permit term (Table 5-14).

Under Alternative 3, measures to avoid and minimize impacts to birds would be as described for the Proposed Action. The APP would be implemented to address avian mortality should the realized mortality be viewed as significant. Implementation of the APP ensures that should significant impacts to avian resources occur they will be addressed through additional avoidance and minimization measures whose effectiveness would be tested through an adaptive management framework, and through mitigation measures if needed.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 231 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

100-Turbine Project Decommissioning Under Alternative 3, effects to birds associated with Project decommissioning would be as described for the Proposed Action. The 100 turbines, transmission line, and substation would be removed when the Project had reached the end of its functional life.

Alternative 3 Summary Alternative 3 is not expected to cause naturally occurring populations of common birds to be reduced to numbers below levels for maintaining viability at regional or local levels. Alternative 3 is expected to contribute slightly to ongoing declines of species of concern already declining due to many sources of bird mortality.

Implementation of the RMAMP and APP would ensure that post-construction mortality results will be reviewed to assess collision impacts. Implementation of the APP would ensure that should significant impacts to avian resources occur at the regional or local level, they would be addressed through additional avoidance and minimization measures and possibly mitigation measures. The research, monitoring, and adaptive management framework of the APP is intended to reduce uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of these measures.

Alternative 3 will not result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered bird species. The Project is sited in suitable habitat for golden-winged warblers, a bird species of conservation concern, which depend on openings with pronounced herbaceous layers. The Project will not cause substantial reductions in golden-winged warbler habitat. However, the Service concludes that small takes of this golden-winged warbler breeding population could potentially be significant at the local scale.

Since the release of the DEIS, the Service published Version 2 of the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 2013a), which contains the description of the method for predicting eagle fatalities in Appendix D. Adding the winter survey raptor data to the previous data, the Service modeled eagle fatalities for the 100-turbine Project.

Prior to implementation of minimization measures, the Service’s model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.34 golden eagles or fewer, suggesting that 1 or fewer golden eagle collision fatalities are predicted to occur at the Project site every 3 to 4 years on average (moderate to high risk). Prior to implementation of minimization measures, the model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.052 bald eagles or fewer, suggesting that one or fewer bald eagle fatalities is predicted to occur at the Project site every 19 to 20 years on average. The Service anticipates that the predicted moderate to high risk of bald eagle take can be reduced to low, primarily by reducing sources of eagle attraction, such as perches and carrion on-site. Should an eagle fatality occur, the ITP would be subject to permit revocation or suspension. For all alternatives, the APP addresses post- construction monitoring and adaptive management, including mitigation, in the event of an eagle collision.

Alternative 3 is not expected to result in substantial changes in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The conversion of 521 acres of managed forest habitat to regenerating forest, restored agricultural field, and developed land is not considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat.

5.7.2.4 Alternative 4: HCP and ITP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for BRE’s existing 67-turbine Project. The Phase II 33 turbines would not be constructed as described for the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be implemented as the Applicant has described in the Project HCP, but would be applied only to the Phase I Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 232 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

67-Turbine Project Operation and MET Towers Under Alternative 4, effects to avian resources associated with Project operations would be as described for the No-Action Alternative. Some species of birds would be displaced by the Phase I Project. Mature forest birds and early-successional forest birds in the BRE Project area may avoid the new clearings and adjacent woods within the Project footprint. Edge species may begin to use the habitat interfaces 5 years after construction as shrubs regenerate, and early-successional forest species will begin to occupy the reclaimed clearings. Ten to 15 years after construction, as sapling stands progress, early-successional species continue to occupy these sites until stands become too dense. Many mature forest species would begin to use mid-successional habitats in less than 20 years. The temporary conversion of 311 acres of mature forest in a forested landscape would not be a significant impact.

Under Alternative 4, BRE’s Curtailment Plan would be implemented, but this analysis assumes that this avoidance and minimization measure would not reduce avian mortality. Because birds collide with tall stationary objects, this analysis assumes that operations under the No-Action Alternative would kill birds at the same rate as described for the Proposed Action, anywhere from 1 to 23 birds per turbine per year with an average around 5 to 6 birds per turbine year (see Table 5-14 and Table 5-15), plus MET tower mortality. Because there would be fewer turbines and MET towers than the Proposed Action, the magnitude of mortality would be less. Hence, Alternative 4 is estimated to kill approximately 400 birds per year and 10,000 birds during the 25-year permit term.

The APP would be implemented to address avian mortality should the realized mortality be viewed as significant. Implementation of the APP ensures that should significant impacts to avian resources occur they will be addressed through additional avoidance and minimization measures whose effectiveness would be tested through an adaptive management framework, and through mitigation measures if needed.

Under Alternative 4, measures to avoid and minimize impacts to birds would be as described for the No- Action Alternative.

67-Turbine Project Decommissioning Under Alternative 4, effects to birds associated with Project decommissioning would be as described for the No-Action. The 67 turbines, transmission line, and substation would be removed when the Project had reached the end of its functional life.

Alternative 4 Summary Alternative 4 is not expected to cause naturally occurring populations of common birds to be reduced to numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. It would contribute slightly to ongoing declines of species of concern already declining due to many sources of bird mortality. Alternative 4 would not result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species. Alternative 4 is not expected to result in substantial changes in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The conversion of 373 acres of managed forest habitat to forest openings, restored agricultural field, and developed land is not considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 233 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

For the 67-turbine Project, the Service’s model predicts that prior to implementation of minimization measures annual Project fatalities would be 0.18 golden eagles or fewer, 80% of the time, suggesting that 1 or fewer golden eagle fatalities is predicted to occur at the Project site every 5 to 6 years on average (moderate to high risk). It is uncertain how much the risk of take of golden eagles can be reduced through minimization measures such as carrion and perch reduction on site. Prior to implementation of minimization measures, the model predicts that 80% of the time annual Project fatalities would be 0.03 bald eagles or fewer, suggesting that 1 or fewer bald eagle fatalities is predicted to occur at the Project site every 33 to 35 years on average, which is longer than the functional operational life of the project and thus low risk. No matter how rare such an event, the ITP would be subject to suspension or revocation should an eagle fatality occur. The Project APP addresses post-construction monitoring and adaptive management, including mitigation, in the event of an eagle collision.

5.7.3 Alternatives Comparison Table 5-17 provides a comparison of bird mortality under implementation of each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operation of the Project. Because bird mortality is strongly related to the number of turbines, we expect that the 100-tubine Project under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 will result in more fatalities than that associated with the 67-turbine Project scenarios. It is possible that the No-Action Alternative will kill the fewest birds just because blades are not spinning at all during the night-time when many passerines are migrating. However birds also collide with tall immobile objects. Researchers are only beginning to investigate the possibility that curtailed turbines reduce bird mortality. We are unaware of current evidence to date that would suggest that curtailment designed for bats (turning turbines off at night, feathering blades so that they hardly move below cut-in-speed, raising cut-in-speeds) also benefits birds. Thus we assume that unrestricted operation of the project would result in the same level of bird mortality as other alternatives with the same number and configuration of turbines and MET towers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 234 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-17. Life-of-Project turbine and MET tower bird mortality predicted under each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operation of the Project. Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Unrestricted Proposed Action Additional Unrestricted Alternative 1: Phase I Only operation [3.5 m/s – ITP with Full Covered Species operation [3.5 m/s Relative No-Action [no with ITP and Bird group cut-in-speed year- Implementation with ITP and cut-in-speed year- mortality night-time HCP [4.8 m/s cut- round, 24 [4.8 m/s [6.5 m/s cut- round, 24 operation Apr-Nov] in speed Jul 15-Oct of HCP HCP hours/day] cut-in speed Jul in speed Apr 1-Oct hours/day] 15] 15-Oct 15] 15] Passerine 0.736 7,710 7,710 7,710 11,114 11,114 11,114 Unidentified bird 0.116 1,215 1,215 1,215 1,752 1,752 1,752 Raptor 0.056 587 587 587 846 846 846 Gamebird 0.045 471 471 471 680 680 680 Waterfowl 0.022 230 230 230 332 332 332 Shorebird 0.015 157 157 157 227 227 227 Seabird 0.006 63 63 63 91 91 91 Owl 0.004 42 42 42 60 60 60 All birds 1.00 10,475 10,475 10,475 15,100 15,100 15,100

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 235 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.8 Bats Primary issues identified during scoping for bats included occurrence in and use of the Project area, direct mortality from turbines, and loss of habitat.

5.8.1 Impact Criteria This section discusses potential effects to all bat species in the Project area.

We first discuss the assessment of effects on listed bats, Indiana bat, and Virginia big-eared bat, based on 3 criteria:

1. The magnitude of the impact on the animal’s habitat relative to the prevalence of that habitat ; 2. The magnitude of the impact on the animal relative to its abundance on a local, regional, and rangewide population scale; and 3. Duration of impact.

It is possible to apply these criteria to the 2 listed bats because there is a reasonable amount of information on their suitable habitat and populations. Effects to listed bats are measurable quantitatively and would be considered significant if Project elements result in substantial reductions in population size or distribution.

Conversely, these same criteria cannot be used readily to determine the biological significance of effects to other bats for which there is little information about habitat requirements and populations. Population estimates for most bat species in North America are largely absent. While some regional and localized estimates of species exist, these anecdotal population estimates are not appropriate for quantitative evaluation of population effects. In addition, there are few studies that document bat mortality from other anthropogenic sources that could be used to rate the significance of bat mortality associated with the Project.

As discussed further in the cumulative effects analysis (Section 5.16.4.8), many species of bats are subject to numerous human activity related effects, as well as natural sources of mortality such as disease. Many cave dwelling bat populations have been dramatically reduced as a result of WNS. Additional cumulative effects to bat populations from wind power projects, habitat modification, disturbance, and other anthropogenic impacts have not been quantified but would be considered additive to all sources of bat mortality.

Given this uncertainty for unlisted bats and the fact that bats are long-lived species with low, reproductive growth rates (i.e., they recover slowly from perturbations), any moderate to large-scale mortality or large landscape level habitat modification lasting for long periods of time would be expected to have a high likelihood of having a significant additive impact on unlisted bat population levels at the local or regional scale. A negligible or minor cumulative effect would cause a minor or discountable impact that would not be expected to contribute to population declines of unlisted bats at the local or regional level.

5.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.8.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Project and HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for Phase I operation or Phase II construction and operation. BRE would continue to operate Phase I under the restrictions indicated in the Settlement Agreement to avoid bat mortality. The 67-turbine Project will operate in such a manner that no take of listed species would occur, thus precluding the need for an ITP. From November 16 through March 31 (winter months), the 67 turbines would be operated 24 hours per day. From April 1 to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 236 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

November 15 (non-winter months), the turbines would be operated from one-quarter hour after sunrise to one-half hour before sunset (daylight hours). The existing forest management land uses would be maintained at the proposed Phase II turbine locations.

Phase I Operation Under the No-Action Alternative, no new turbines would be constructed. Direct and indirect impacts to bats would be limited to those associated with the on-going Phase I operation and maintenance. Bat mortality from collision and barotrauma would be avoided as turbine operation will not coincide with bat activity within the Project area. A small amount of tree-bat mortality could occur by occasional cutting of trees in the transmission-line ROW or hazard trees on the project site.

Phase I Decommissioning Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance area may be cleared again to allow crane access for removing turbines. Forest clearing of the regenerating forest will restart the regeneration process of the forest. Suitable maternity roosts generally occur in trees more than 50 years in age. This will mean that areas that were originally cleared and then recleared for decommissioning will not provide suitable maternity roosting habitat for bats for more than 70 to 75 years (assuming a 25-year Project operational life). Night-time roosting habitat may occur in much younger trees. However, reclearing of access roads, staging areas, and laydown areas for decommissioning will limit roosting opportunities until trees mature.

Bat displacement and effects of edge creation will be similar for that described for Project construction. There will be minor effects to forested patches that were not able to mature consistent with the surrounding areas due to clearing and re-clearing for decommissioning. These effects are expected to be minor and possibly less of an impact when compared to those associated with logging, mining, and natural gas operations in the region. Forestry practices in West Virginia often involve clear-cut, group- or single-tree selection cuts, or thinning on a 50-year cycle or less. Mining and gas development can often result in clear cuts for the duration of the operation, which can vary by project and is often based on how long it takes to exhaust the resource. This is typically less than 50 years.

No-Action Alternative Summary Under the No-Action Alternative, impacts to bats would not be significant. As it currently operates, the Phase I Project is not likely to kill bats or significantly modify suitable habitat. The Phase I Project would have much lower impacts as compared to other similar activities in the region. The impacts to both non- listed and listed bats would be the same since it is expected that there would be little to no mortality of bats.

5.8.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Effects on bats associated with Phase I construction of the Project are considered a past effect that occurred prior to the Service’s ITP nexus and are described in Section 5.15–Cumulative Effects.

Phase II Construction BRE estimates that 148 acres will be disturbed during construction of Phase II. Of this total land clearing, there will be 115 acres of deciduous forest and 2 acres of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest that have potential to serve as habitat for bats during the bat-active season (April 1 through November 15). Most habitat disturbance will consist of setting back forest succession and converting forest to herbaceous cover propagated by the reclamation seed mixes. Succession would be allowed to occur naturally on 127 acres that do not support Project facilities. Currently, 79% of the forest in the Phase II area is characterized as timber greater than 26 years old. As such, regenerating forest would not be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 237 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

replaced within the 25-year permit period and will serve as limited roosting habitat for bats during this term.

Habitat fragmentation increases the amount and proportion of edge habitat, increasing the ecological effects associated with edges. Creating forest gaps, edge habitat, and dense second-growth forest (during regeneration over the permit term) will have mixed effects on bats in the Project expansion area. The potential increase in foraging habitat through the creation of open areas is not likely to benefit bats substantially simply due to the current abundance of this type of habitat locally. Kunz et al. (2007a) suggests that it is possible that these cleared corridors may attract bats to forage near the turbines, increasing their risk for collision.

Unlisted bat mortality associated with Project construction will likely be minimal. Of the 148 acres to be cleared as part of Phase II, all but 15 acres will be cleared when bats are generally in hibernation (November 16 and March 31). The factors associated with changes in habitat quality and availability are more likely a greater influence on bats than is direct mortality associated with tree clearing activities. No studies to date have measured the rate at which bats disperse ahead of forest cutting operations. Trees that are cleared in the winter avoided mortality of bats. The lack of documentation is likely the result of the infrequency of the direct impact on bats, the cryptic nature of the site specific events, and the inability to replicate any rigorous scientific study (Lacki et al. 2007).

100-Turbine Operation Under the Proposed Action, the 100-turbine Project will operate as described in the HCP. Except as described below, for the term of the ITP, BRE will adjust the cut-in speed for all 100 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from July 15 through October 15 (i.e., the Curtailment Plan). Turbine blades will be fully feathered below the cut-in speed so that blade rotation is minimized (i.e., 1 to 2 rpm). The principle objective of the Curtailment Plan is to avoid operating turbines during low wind speeds at the time of the day when bats are most active and during the time of the year when bats are most active, thus reducing potential take of Covered Species and all other bat species. BRE will evaluate the effectiveness of this initial plan during the first 3 years of the ITP, and if fatality reduction objectives are not met (60% annual reduction of Myotis fatality and 50% annual reduction of all bat fatality), then BRE will test other options and revise the plan to meet the objectives (such as higher cut-in speeds, full night curtailment, and longer seasons of curtailment). BRE will confer with the Service and receive written Service approval prior to such changes.

Impacts to bats from wind facilities are well documented in the continental U.S. (Johnson et al. 2003a, 2003b, Kunz et al. 2007a, Arnett et al. 2008, and Horn et al. 2008). Bat fatalities at wind facilities were documented in relatively small numbers in conjunction with avian fatality monitoring beginning in the late 1990s. However, several high profile bat mortality events at wind facilities in forested ridges of the Appalachian Mountains in 2003 and 2004 raised concerns about the impacts to bats from wind facilities (Arnett et al. 2008). Post-construction monitoring at wind facilities in the latter part of the decade continued to report higher than expected levels of bat mortality at wind energy sites, though mortality rates varied by region (Arnett et al. 2008, Johnson 2005).

Geographic Variation. In a review of 21 studies from 19 different wind energy facilities in 5 regions in the U.S. (Eastern, Rocky Mountains, Pacific Northwest, Midwestern, and South-central) and 1 province in

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 238 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Canada, Arnett et al. (2008) found that estimates of bat fatalities were highest at wind energy facilities located on forested ridges in the eastern U.S. and lowest in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest regions. Nationwide, mean estimated bat fatalities range from 0.1 bats per turbine per year to 69.6 bats per turbine per year. Bat fatalities were higher and yet somewhat variable among sites in the eastern U.S., with estimates ranging from 20.8 bats per turbine per year to 69.6 bats per turbine per year. (The 19 facilities surveyed included 18 facilities in forested landscapes and 1 in an agricultural landscape with a deciduous forest component and are combined from 21 separate studies.)

Species Distribution. Of the 45 species of bats with some seasonal distribution in the U.S. and Canada, post-construction surveys at wind energy facilities have documented 11 species (Arnett et al. 2008). Several consistent patterns have emerged with regard to the species distribution of bat fatalities at wind facilities. In terms of both overall numbers and geographic distribution, 3 species of tree-roosting migratory bats have consistently been the most impacted: hoary bat (foliage-roosting), eastern red bat (foliage roosting), and silver-haired bat (tree- and cavity-roosting) (Kunz et al. 2007b, Arnett et al. 2008). Collectively, these 3 species comprise about 75% of documented fatalities to date, and hoary bats make up about half of all fatalities (Arnett et al. 2008).

Conversely, fatalities of summer cave-dwelling species, including little brown, northern long-eared, and big brown bats, have typically been low (0 to 13.5%), except at a site in Alberta (Castle River) and 1 in Iowa (Top of Iowa) where little brown bats made up nearly 25% of the fatalities (Arnett et al. 2008). The range of Myotis45 fatalities found at all sites reported by Arnett et al (2008) was between 0 and 24%. Over a 3-year survey at the Maple Ridge wind facility, the percentage of Myotis fatalities varied between 10.1 and 18.6 of total fatalities found (Jain et al. 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Myotis fatalities in the mid-Atlantic region range from 3.0 to 5.9 bats/turbine/year (Arnett et al. 2008; Jain et al. 2007, 2009a, 2009b).

Behavioral Risk Factors. Although not well understood, there are several hypotheses that address why migratory tree-roosting bats appear to be most at risk from wind turbines. It has been suggested that certain migratory and/or mating behaviors unique to these species make them more susceptible to collision with wind turbines, especially during the fall migration period (August to November; Cryan and Brown 2007). Hoary bats do not hibernate in caves but instead perform cross-continental migration movements to winter in warm climates (Cryan 2003, Cryan et al. 2004, Cryan and Brown 2007). Silver- haired bats have also shown movement at the continental scale, although migration patterns may differ between western and eastern groups (Cryan 2003). These long distance movements may result in greater exposure to wind facilities over a larger area. Additionally, Cryan and Brown (2007) postulated that migrating hoary bats, and perhaps other species of tree dwelling bats, orient toward and congregate around the tallest, most highly visible landscape structures during the fall to locate potential mates. This theory has been used to explain the disproportionately higher levels of mortality in the fall migration period, compared with the spring. It may also help to explain why disproportionately higher numbers of tree-roosting migratory bats than resident bats are being killed at wind facilities.

The observed pattern of high incidences of tree-roosting bat mortality at wind projects in autumn led Cryan (2008) and Cryan and Barclay (2009) to hypothesize tree-roosting bats may gather at visually conspicuous tall structures for mating during autumn migration. Bats use vision to navigate during migration and might react to the visual stimulus of turbines in a similar manner as they do to tall trees. Hence, male tree-roosting bats may die while gathering at the tallest ‘trees’ during migration movements. The hypothesis that mating is a cause of bat exposure to wind turbines is supported only by anecdotal evidence and more data are needed. Cryan et al. (2012) provide the first detailed, published information on late-summer reproductive status of tree-roosting bats found dead at commercial wind farms in North America.

45 Myotis are small brown bats with long, pointed projections in their ears. Myotis species include little brown bat, northern long- eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, Indiana bat, and gray bat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 239 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Another theory posits that bats may be attracted to wind turbine rotors while foraging. Horn et al. (2008) found a significant correlation between insect and bat activity and suggested that the open space created by wind turbines may create favorable foraging grounds for insectivorous bats. Horn et al. (2008) also found that bats are attracted to the wind turbine blades themselves, whether or not they are rotating. The bats may be investigating the turbines as roosting, foraging or, as posited above, mating sites (Horn et al. 2008). Color may also play a role in attracting additional prey for bats at wind turbines. Significantly more insects were found at pure white and light grey turbines than other turbine colors tested (Long et al. 2010). This increase in insect activity may lead to increased bat activity in the vicinity of turbine clearings and therefore mortality. Although there are many theories, the specific behavioral mechanisms explaining why bats are killed or injured by wind turbines remains largely unknown (Kunz et al. 2007a, 2007b, Kuvlesky et al. 2007).

Furthermore, bats are killed by barotrauma caused by rapid air-pressure reduction near moving turbine blades. Barotrauma damages to air-containing structures in the lungs are caused by rapid or excessive pressure change; pulmonary barotrauma is lung damage due to expansion of air in the lungs that is not accommodated by exhalation (Baerwald et al. 2008). The risk of collision or decompression sickness could disproportionately affect bats that may be flocking to turbines in association with mating behavior (Cryan and Brown 2007, Horn et al. 2008) or for foraging or roosting purposes (Horn et al. 2008). These studies suggest that migratory tree dwelling bats may be at an elevated risk from wind turbine blade collision or rotating blade vortices.

Seasonal Timing and Weather. Bats are known to suppress their activity during periods of rain, low temperatures, and strong winds (Erkert 1982, Adam et al. 1994, Erickson et al. 2002, Russo and Jones 2003). Accordingly, weather variables such as wind speed, temperature, and barometric pressure have been found to influence bat activity and mortality rates at some wind facilities. Of the 21 post-construction monitoring studies reviewed by Arnett et al. (2008), all studies that addressed relationships between bat fatalities and weather patterns found that most bats were killed on nights with low wind speed (<6 m/s) and that fatalities increased immediately before and after passage of storm fronts. For example, at studies conducted at the Mountaineer, West Virginia and Meyersdale, Pennsylvania wind facilities in 2004, the proportion of the night when wind speed was < 4 m/s was positively related to bat fatalities, whereas the reverse was true for proportion of the night when winds were > 6 m/s (Kerns et al. 2005). At Mountaineer and Meyersdale, during 81% of nights when no dead bats were found the next day, median nightly wind speed was on average > 6 m/s. Conversely, on nights before days when the highest numbers of dead bats were found, median nightly wind speed was 4.1 m/s at Mountaineer and 4.2 m/s at Meyersdale, and only 6.5 to 18.2% of these nights had wind speeds > 6 m/sec, respectively. The association of bat activity with wind speed is expected given that bat flight ability is limited by wind strength, as is the ability of their airborne, insect prey (Fiedler 2004).

This pattern has also been supported by pre- and post-construction acoustic monitoring of bat activity, which has documented a negative relationship with average nightly wind speed (Fiedler 2004, Reynolds 2006). Reynolds (2006) found activity of bats to be highest on nights with wind speeds of < 5.4 m/s wind speed during the spring migratory period at the Maple Ridge, New York wind facility. Bat activity levels at Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee also showed a negative association with average nightly wind speeds (Fiedler 2004).

Similar to low wind speeds, bat activity and temperature are common correlations conveyed in bat literature, both on a nightly basis (Lacki 1984, Negraeff and Brigham 1995, Hayes 1997, Vaughan et al. 1997, Gaisler et al. 1998) and annual basis (O’Farrell and Bradley 1970, Avery 1985). Pre- and post- construction acoustic surveys at wind facilities have documented bat activity to be negatively correlated with low nightly mean temperatures (Fiedler 2004, Reynolds 2006). Reynolds (2006) found that no detectable spring migratory activity occurred on nights when the daily mean temperature was below 10.5°C (50.9°F). Bat activity at Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee from 2000 to 2003 was most closely correlated with average nightly temperature (Fiedler 2004).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 240 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

This is consistent with the observations of J. Kiser (personal communication) over 19 years during summer mist-netting surveys in the eastern U.S. According to Kiser, bat activity declined dramatically once night-time temperatures dropped below approximately 12°C (54.5°F). Associations between temperature and bat fatalities in post-construction monitoring studies have been less consistent than for wind speed, but still have been documented. Although a correlation between temperature and bat fatality was not documented at Mountaineer, West Virginia, there was a positive association between temperature and fatality at Meyersdale, Pennsylvania (Kerns et al. 2005).

High barometric pressure at both Mountaineer and Meyersdale and low relative humidity at Meyersdale, conditions associated with the passage of storm fronts, were also associated with higher bat fatality rates (Kerns et al. 2005). However, because relative humidity is confounded by temperature (Thornthwaite 1940), it is not a reliable predictor of ecological variables, including mortality (A. Kurta, personal communication). Another index to the presence of storm fronts was associated with bat mortality at both Mountaineer and Meyersdale: few bat fatalities were discovered during storms at Mountaineer and Meyersdale, contrasted by the days with the highest number of fatalities which occurred in the few days after the storm, especially on low wind nights (Kerns et al. 2005).

These relationships are reinforced by operational curtailment experiments that have documented reductions in bat mortality by feathering blades so they hardly move at low wind speeds (when bats are active) and increasing the cut-in-speed (to higher wind speeds when bats are less active). The cut-in- speed is the wind speed at which turbines begin to produce electricity. Under normal unrestricted operations, many turbine designs permit blades to freewheel when they are below the cut-in speed, the condition when turbine blades are rotating at 9 to 18 rpm but not producing power. Even at 9 to 18 rpm, the blade tips are moving at over 100 miles per hour and pose risk to bats in the rotor-swept area. At Beech Ridge, turbine rotation will be limited by feathering the turbine blades so there is only minimal rotation (<2 rpm) at winds below cut-in speeds.

During an experimental study in 2008 during the peak fall fatality period at the Casselman wind facility in Pennsylvania, total bat fatalities at fully operational turbines were estimated to be 5.4 times greater on average than at turbines curtailed and feathered at wind speeds below of 5.0 and 6.5 m/s (there was no difference between the numbers of fatalities at the 2 different cut-in speeds). In other words, overall bat mortality at feathered and curtailed turbines was reduced by 73% compared to fully operational control turbines (95% confidence interval = 53% to 87%) (Arnett et al. 2009). A similar study was conducted at Casselman in 2009, and preliminary results indicate that similarly high reductions in fatality were achieved, again with no significant difference in the 5.0 m/s and 6.5 m/s cut-in speeds (Arnett et al. 2010).

At a similar study in southwestern Alberta, Canada, Baerwald et al. (2009) examined the difference in fatality rates under 2 experimental treatments: 1) turbines were curtailed below wind speeds of 5.5 m/s, and 2) a low-speed idle strategy was used where by operations of turbines were manipulated to change the pitch angle of the blades and lower the generator speed required to start energy production, which caused turbines to be motionless in low wind speeds. Fatalities were significantly reduced by 60.0% and 57.5%, respectively, under the 2 different treatments. Similar reductions in mortality were reported in a curtailment study by Behr in Germany (O. Behr, University of Erlangen, personal communication as cited by Arnett et al. 2009).

Good et al (2011) describes a curtailment study at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm in Indiana, a project that has documented Indiana bat collisions with turbines on 2 occasions. The Fowler Ridge study conducted in 2010 demonstrated that bat casualty rates were significantly different between control and treatment turbines, and bat casualty rates were significantly different between experimental cut-in speeds. Overall bat fatality was reduced by 50% at 5-m/s cut-in speed and by 79% at 6.5 m/s cut-in speed compared to the control 3.5 m/s cut-in speed. The Indiana bat fatality recorded in 2010 was discovered at a turbine with a cut-in speed raised to 5 m/s. A fall 2011 study at Fowler Ridge Wind Farm tested the effect of fully

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 241 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

feathering turbine blades all night and demonstrated reduced bat fatality for the fall season by 36%, 57%, and 73% at cut-in speeds of 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 m/s, respectively, compared to normally operating turbines (Good et al. 2012).

Young et al. (2011a) describes a feathering experiment conducted at Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility (Mount Storm) in northern West Virginia. Conducted in the summer and fall of 2010, the study looked at differences in mortality associated with feathering turbines such that they hardly rotate at wind speeds below the 4 m/s cut-in speed. Compared to the control (fully operational turbines), overall bat mortality during summer was reduced by 47% when turbines were feathered for the first half of the night and by 20% when feathered for the second half of the night. Inconclusive results for feathering below wind speeds of 4 m/s all night were obtained during the summer and fall of 2011 (Young et al. 2012d).

Unlike avian turbine collision, some studies indicate that conditions caused by inclement weather (e.g., low fog or cloud ceilings or stormy conditions) do not appear to be strongly correlated with bat mortalities at wind farms. At sites in Minnesota, Wyoming, and Tennessee, bat collisions with wind turbines were observed to occur during clear weather during approximately one-third to one-half of the time (Johnson et al. 2000a, Young et al. 2003a, Nicholson 2001 and 2003 as cited by Johnson and Strickland 2003, Fiedler et al. 2007). At sites in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, Kerns et al. (2005) found that bat fatalities were most common before and after the passage of frontal systems at the Mountaineer and Meyersdale wind power projects.

Other Factors Potentially Related to Bat Fatalities Turbine Height and Rotor Diameter. In their review of post-construction mortality studies conducted at 6 wind facilities in 7 states, Barclay et al. (2007) suggested that turbine height may influence the number of bat fatalities. While avian mortality remained constant with turbine height, the number of bat fatalities increased with increasing turbine height; turbines with > 65 m [213 ft] nacelle height had the highest fatality rates among bats. The authors suggest that the discrepancy between avian and bat mortality relative to turbine height could be related to their differing migratory flights height (Barclay et al. 2007). Barclay et al. (2007) did not find any relationship in rotor-swept area to bat mortality.

At Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee, mortality rates were almost 2 times as numerous at larger turbines (78 m [256 ft] nacelle height; 69.6 bats/turbine/year) than at smaller turbines (65 m [213 ft] nacelle height; 35.2 bats/turbine/year) (Fiedler et al. 2007). Similarly, at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, taller turbines with greater rotor-swept areas killed more bats per turbine and per MW compared with shorter turbines with smaller rotor diameters (Johnson et al. 2003a, 2004).

Good et al. (2011) observed higher bat mortality at turbines of same nacelle height but with longer blades, but did not test for significance. In the case where rotor rpm is the same, it is possible that longer blades create a greater risk simply because blade-tip speed is faster.

As stated previously, BRE has not selected the turbine model to be used for the Phase II area. In their application to the PSC for the expansion area, BRE has indicted they are likely to install a 1.6 MW turbine, but final turbine selection ultimately will depend on model availability from manufacturers. The dimensions of the turbine model installed in Phase I and a potential turbine model to be installed in Phase II are described below.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 242 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase I Model Phase II Model (67 turbines) (up to 33 turbines) Percent difference1 GE 1.5sle GE 1.6-100 Tower height 80 m (262 ft) 96 m (315 ft) 20% Rotor diameter 77 m (253 ft) 100 m (328 ft) 30% Rotor-swept area 4,657 m2 (50,128 ft2) 7,854 m2 (85,540 ft2) 69% Turbine height 118 m (387 ft) 145 m (479 ft) 23% 1 Percent differences are relative to the smaller turbine.

This Service’s NEPA analysis in this FEIS recognizes that taller turbines may kill more bats. However, this analysis does not attempt to make distinctions between the 2 Project Phases with regard to bat mortality. The Project HCP estimates potential Indiana bat mortality based on a per turbine mortality estimate derived from a range of regional studies with different types of turbines, including varying turbine heights and rotor sizes. The existing 67-turbines heights and rotor sizes fall within the range for which the Project HCP analyzed. BRE has stated that the 33-turbine expansion will likely include turbines with heights and rotors sizes that exceed the range included in the available existing studies from this region. As for the Project HCP, this FEIS analysis assumes that regional estimates of mortality are more representative of potential mortality and a better predictor of potential impacts at any given site than turbine height and rotor diameter, and further assumes that no one turbine or part of the 100-turbine Project will result in higher rates of bat mortality.

The fatality rates used in this FEIS are based on average fatality rates (with a reported low and high end range) from studies conducted at wind projects having a variety of turbine sizes. Most of these projects operate the GE 1.5sle MW model (a model with similar dimensions to the GE 1.6-100 model), or a larger model. The Mountaineer Project operates the only model smaller than the GE 1.5sle and had above average mortality rates, suggesting that smaller turbines do not necessarily have lower mortality rates than larger turbines. To estimate mortality impacts, the Service pooled the rates from these various projects to derive a mean fatality rate and range that could be applied to any proposed wind project in the region. A variety of factors can influence turbine fatality rates, such as turbine height, rotor swept area, cut-in speeds, degree of blade feathering, annual weather variation, topography, vegetation, and annual variation in bird and bat populations. Using an average fatality rate (with a lower and upper end range) across multiple studies accounts for this variation.

Turbine Lighting. Although bats are known to aggregate near lights (e.g., street lights) to forage on insect concentrations (Furlonger et al. 1987, Fenton 1997), data thus far do not indicate increased collision risk for turbines lit with FAA-regulation red strobe lights on nacelles. While some birds were found to be attracted to certain types of lit structures at Mountaineer (i.e., sodium vapor lighting) (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004), data from post-construction mortality studies at Mountaineer and Meyersdale did not indicate a significant difference in the number of bat fatalities found at lit and unlit turbines (Arnett et al. 2005). This is further supported by other post-construction mortality studies (Erickson et al. 2003a, 2003b, Johnson et al. 2003a, Fiedler et al. 2007, Kerlinger et al. 2010), as well as the thermal imaging camera investigation conducted by Horn et al. (2008) that documented no significant difference between the levels of bat activity at lighted versus non-lighted turbines at Mountaineer.

Turbines as Simply Tall Structures. Although bats collide with other tall anthropogenic structures, the frequency and magnitude of fatalities is much lower than those observed at wind turbines (Arnett 2005, Cryan and Veilleux 2007). Bat mortality from collision with other tall anthropogenic structures, including buildings, television and communication towers, lighthouse, fences, power lines, has been reported from around North America since 1930 (Saunders 1930, Ganier 1962, Gollop 1965, Terres 1956, Avery and Clement 1972, Zinn and Baker 1979, Dedon et al. 1989 as cited by Johnson and Strickland 2003, Crawford and Baker 1981, Timm 1989). Bat collisions with aircraft have been reported since 1967 (Peurach et al. 2009). Similar to mortality patterns at wind facilities and for bat-aircraft strikes (with the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 243 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

exception of Brazilian free-tailed and Seminole bats), the majority of recorded bat collisions with other structures involved red, hoary, and silver-haired bats.

The frequency and magnitude of fatalities as a result of collision with tall anthropogenic structures has been lower than those observed at wind turbines (Arnett 2005, Cryan and Veilleux 2007) and have been much lower than that reported for birds (Saunders 1930, Overing 1936, Terres 1956, Anonymous 1961, Ganier 1962, Elder and Hansen 1967, Avery and Clement 1972, Zinn and Baker 1979 as cited by Johnson and Strickland 2003, Crawford and Baker 1981, Timm 1989). This is supported by several lines of evidence suggesting that bats are more at risk from rotating turbines than stationary structures. For example, of the 64 turbines studied at the Mountaineer and Meyersdale facilities in 2004, the only turbine at which no fatalities were observed was nonoperational throughout the study period (Kerns et al. 2005). MET towers searched at wind turbine sites in Wyoming, Tennessee, Minnesota, and Oregon resulted in no bat collision mortalities (Anderson et al. 2003a as cited by Johnson and Strickland 2003, Johnson et al. 2003a, 2003b, Nicholson 2003 as cited by Johnson and Strickland 2003). Conversely, avian mortality at MET towers was found to be 3 to 5 times higher than at wind turbines at a site in Wyoming (Young et al. 2003a).

Proposed Action Bat Mortality There are currently few predictive models available to quantify expected bat collision mortality as a result of wind energy facility operation. The Service considered several methods for estimating take of bats at the BRE Project. Working with the Service in Region 3, the Applicant for an ITP developed a collision risk model for the Buckeye Wind Project HCP46 that uses information specific to Indiana bat occurrence. This model is not appropriate for estimating bat mortality at BRE because such site specific information is lacking. Conversely, risk assessments based on pre-construction indices and indicators of risk (e.g., acoustic surveys), along with empirical mortality data from operating facilities can be used quantify collision mortality.

Wind energy facilities located along forested ridgelines in the eastern U.S. have the highest documented bat mortality rates (Arnett et al. 2007). Collision risk to bats in the Project area is likely to be consistent with other wind energy projects along forested ridgelines in the mid-Atlantic highlands. Two mortality estimators were used to derive mortality estimates for the mid-Atlantic Highland projects, the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) and Huso estimator (Huso 2010).47 Since the release of the DEIS, we added the results of 3 additional post-construction studies to our analysis of regional bat mortality which met our criteria for comparable study periods, search frequencies, and contemporary fatality formulas (see Section 5.7.2.2). The mean mortality rate in this FEIS did not change significantly from that derived for the DEIS. Nonetheless, we provide the revised values in the following text and tables.

We first looked at mortality rates assuming no curtailment of Project operations. Using the modified Shoenfeld mortality estimator, the mean bat mortality at 17 available studies completed at 9 wind facilities is 24.87 bats per turbine per year, with rates ranging from 5 bats per turbine per year to 47.5 bats per turbine per year (Table 5-18). Based on the resulting confidence intervals from these studies, during some years mortality rates could be as low as 2.3 bats per turbine per year or as high as 91.6 bats per turbine per year (Table 5-18); however, we would expect mortality to be closer to the regional average over long periods of time.

46 Final Buckeye Wind Power Project Habitat Conservation Plan. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/buckeyewind/index.html. 47 The series of tables that follow show estimates of mortality. Estimates within each Project scenario will not always match exactly. The relatively small discrepancies are an artifact of calculations done in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel®) where numbers were rounded.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 244 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

We next looked at mortality rates using the Huso estimator (Huso 2010). The mean bat mortality at 4 available studies completed at 2 wind facilities is 26.92 bats per turbine per year, with means ranging from 17.40 bats per turbine per year to 35.15 bats per turbine per year (Table 5-19). Based on the resulting confidence intervals from these studies, during some years mortality rates could be as low as 11.80 bats per turbine per year or as high as 58.20 bats per turbine per year (Table 5-19). The rates for studies using the Huso estimator are slightly higher than those using the Shoenfeld estimator, but not significantly different as the confidence intervals overlap. To err on the side of the species and assume a worst case scenario, we therefore calculated the overall average fatality rates for the mid-Atlantic region and the project by using the higher Huso rate for a study when it also reported a rate derived using the Shoenfeld estimator.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 245 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-18. Estimates of bat mortality at 9 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the mid-Atlantic region. Operational cut-in speeds ranged from 3.0 m/s to 4.0 m/s, and searches were conducted on a daily basis. Mortality rates presented were derived using the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004). Annual Annual Estimated project CI for project No. Dates Site and state mortality mortality mortality mortality Reference turbines surveyed 1 1, 3 rate (mean) based on rate range based mean 2 on CI 3 Mountaineer, Apr 4 – Nov 11, 44 47.50 2,090 31.80-91.60 1,399-4,030 Kerns and Kerlinger, (2004) West Virginia 2003 Mount Storm, Mar 23 – Oct 8, 4 4 132 28.60 3,775 18.70-40.50 2,468-5,346 Young et al. (2009b, 2010a) West Virginia 2009 Mount Storm, Apr 16 - Oct 15, 4 4 132 31.47 4,154 26-61-43.46 3,513-5,737 Young et al. (2010b, 2011a) West Virginia 2010 Mount Storm, Apr 12 – Oct 15, 4 11.93-18.31 132 14.87 1,963 4,5 1,575-2,417 Young et al. (2011b, 2012d) West Virginia 2011 Casselman, Apr 19 - Nov 15, 5 5 Arnett et al. (2009a), Librandi- 23 18.90 435 15.30-22.90 352-527 Pennsylvania 2008 Mumma and Capouillez 2011 Casselman, Apr 1 - Nov 15, 5 5 Arnett et al. (2010), Librandi- 23 12.90 297 9.60-16.10 221-370 Pennsylvania 2008 Mumma and Capouillez (2011) Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Arnett et al. (2011), Librandi- 51 28.22 1,439 25.18-31.54 1,284-1,609 Pennsylvania 2009 Mumma and Capouillez (2011) Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 28.75 1,466 25.02-32.31 1,276-1,648 Arnett et al. (2011) Pennsylvania 2010 Site 6-3, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 42.70 -- nr- -- Pennsylvania 2007 (2011) Site 6-3, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 34.30 -- nr -- Pennsylvania 2008 (2011) Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 7.10 2.30-13.10 -- Pennsylvania 2008 (2011) Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 6.80 -- 3.70-10.50 -- Pennsylvania 2009 (2011) Site 2-10, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 16.10 -- 6.60-29.00 -- Pennsylvania 2009 (2011) Site 2-10, Apr 1 – Nov 15, nr 5.00 -- 3.00-7.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 2010

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 246 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Annual Annual Estimated project CI for project No. Dates Site and state mortality mortality mortality mortality Reference turbines surveyed 1 1, 3 rate (mean) based on rate range based mean 2 on CI 3 Site 2-4, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and Capouillez nr 28.50 -- 19.50-37.50 -- Pennsylvania 2009 (2011) Site 2-4, Apr 1 – Nov 15, nr 32.00 17.00-47.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 2010 Criterion, Apr 5 – Nov 15, 28 39.03 1,093 34.38-46.51 963-1,302 Young et al. (2012e) Maryland 2011 Range Mean rate (n=17) 24.87 2.30-91.60 (n=17)

1 Mortality rate is expressed in bats per turbine per year. 2 Turbine number x estimated mortality rate. 3 Ranges based on 90% or 95% confidence intervals. 4 Results from 2 post-construction studies in each year were summed to derive the rate. 5 Arnett et al. (2009a, 2010) and Young et al. (2011a, 2012d) describe the effects of curtailed and normal operations; values in table are based on non-curtailed turbines in study.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 247 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-19. Estimates of bat mortality at 2 existing wind farms on forested ridgelines in the mid-Atlantic region. Operational cut-in speeds ranged from 3.0 m/s to 4.0 m/s, and searches were conducted on a daily basis. Mortality rates presented were derived using the Huso estimator (Huso 2010). Estimated Annual project Annual project CI for mortality Site and state No. turbines Dates surveyed mortality rate mortality based 1, 3 mortality range Reference 1 2 rate 3 (mean) on mean based on CI Casselman, Apr 19 – Nov 15, 4 4 23 24.20 557 12.40-58.20 285-1,339 Arnett et al. 2009 Pennsylvania 2008 Casselman, Apr 1- Nov 15, 4 4 23 17.40 400 11.80-27.80 271-639 Arnett et al. 2010 Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 30.91 1,576 27.42-34.81 1,398-1,775 Arnett et al. 2011 Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 35.15 1,793 27.69-37.04 1,412-1,889 Arnett et al. 2011 Pennsylvania 2010 Mean rate (n=4) 26.92 Range (n=4) 11.80-58.20 1 Mortality rate is expressed in bats per turbine per year. 2 Turbine number x estimated mortality rate. 3 Ranges based on 90% or 95% confidence intervals. 4 Arnett et a. (2009a, 2010) describe the effects of curtailed and normal operations; values in table are based on non- curtailed turbines in study.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 248 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Based on the results of 17 post-construction studies and the use of the modified Shoenfeld estimator (described in Erickson et al. 2004) and the Huso estimator (Huso 2010), the average bat mortality rate is 25.98 bats per turbine per year for 9 wind projects located on forested ridgelines in the mid-Atlantic Highlands. Table 5-20 provides a summary of the bat mortality estimates for the 100-turbine Project based on the rate of 25.98 bats per turbine per year. Based on this rate and with no curtailment, we estimate the 100-turbine facility will kill roughly 2,600 bats per year. Based on this annual mortality estimate, the 100-turbine Project would kill roughly 65,000 bats over a 25-year period. Confidence intervals from the studies provided a range of mortality estimates from a low of 2.30 bats per turbine per year to a high of 91.60 bats per turbine per year. Applying these values and with no curtailment, the 100- turbine project could result in annual bat mortalities ranging in some years from 230 to 9,160 bats; however, realistically, over the long term, we would expect mortality to be closer to the regional average of 2,600 bats per year.

Table 5-20. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 100-turbine Project with and without implementation of the Curtailment Plan. Mortality rates were derived using the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) or Huso estimator (Huso 2010) for 17 post- construction studies. 100-turbine Project w/o curtailment 100-turbine Project w/ curtailment (4.8 Alternative 2 (3.5 m/s cut-in speed) m/s cut-in speed) 1 Annual Life of Project Life of Project Mortality rate 2 Annual mortality 2 mortality mortality mortality Mean 25.98 2,598 64,950 1,299 32,475 Low end of 2.30 230 5,750 115 2,875 range High end of 91.60 9,160 229,000 4,580 114,500 range 1 Mortality rate is expressed in bats per turbine per year. 2 Based on 25-year operational life across all turbines in Project.

We then estimated bat mortality applying the operational curtailment proposed in the Project HCP. Based on meeting biological objectives, we assumed operational curtailment (feathering below a cut-in speed of 4.8 m/s from mid-July to mid-October) will result in a 60% annual reduction in Myotis mortality and 50% annual reduction in other bat mortality.

Multiple studies have considered different cut-in speeds to date, and evidence demonstrates that use of feathering and a variety of different raised cut-in speeds can significantly reduce bat mortality compared to wind turbines that are not operating with feathering and raised cut-in speeds. See volume III of this FEIS, Response to Comments, master responses 1 and 2. These studies also are summarized in Table 5.24 of this FEIS. The best available scientific information shows that cut-in speeds of 5.0 m/s all night have achieved an average 59% reduction of bat fatalities for the study period, ranging between 35 and 87% for the six studies (Arnett et al. 2011, Good et al. 2011, Young et al. 2013, Hein et al, 2013). Feathering blades to make less than 2 rpms below the cut-in speed can influence bat mortality. For example, in fall 2010 bat fatality was reduced by 50% at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm when cut-in speeds were raised to 5 m/s, applied all night without turbine feathering. Similarly, in fall 2011 bat fatality was reduced by 57% at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm by fully feathering blades all night below a 4.5 m/s cut-in speed. These fall season bat reduction estimates are higher than would be anticipated when considered across the entire year, but demonstrate that significant bat fatality reductions can result from the right combination of raised cut-in speeds and turbine feathering. BRE’s biological goal and objective, to produce a 60% annual reduction in Myotis fatalities and 50% annual reduction in other bat fatalities, is achievable and is within the range demonstrated by other similar projects.

The Service acknowledges that information we have on curtailment related bat fatality reductions are largely based on studies that are implementing curtailment strategies during the full night-time period. To

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 249 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

date one study of partial night curtailment has not been as effective in reducing bat fatality as full night curtailment: 7% vs. 35% respectively at the Pinnacle Wind Power Project (Hein et al. 2013). Another study found a 47% reduction in bat fatality for the first half of the night and a 22% reduction for the second half of the night, suggesting a 69% reduction for the full night (Young et al. 2011a). We note that this study at the Mount Storm Wind Power Project did not have a treatment for all night and therefore our interpretation is somewhat speculative. However, for these reasons we believe that full night curtailment is more likely to achieve BRE’s biological goals and objectives than half-night curtailment. Therefore, the Service is relying on the fact that if the RMAMP process demonstrates such objectives are not being met, BRE will implement additional changes to the curtailment plan (including the potential to implement the curtailment plan for the full night-time period) to achieve the stated objectives. At a minimum, BRE’s initial curtailment plan will inform future decisions related to the anticipated benefits related to nightly duration of curtailment.

Because of the large variation among studies, there is uncertainty as to the actual results that can be achieved at Beech Ridge through particular cut-in speed adjustments. Such results are likely to be influenced by site specific variables such as blade feathering, local bat population use, habitat conditions, wind speeds, and temperatures. Rather than relying on results from any particular studies, BRE’s plan relies on the RMAMP process to evaluate whether the initial curtailment plan will achieve the stated biological goals and objectives. If the RMAMP process demonstrates such objectives are not being met, BRE will implement additional changes to the curtailment plan (including the potential to raise cut-in speeds) to achieve the stated objectives.

Based on the average bat mortality rate of 25.98 bats per turbine per year (for 9 wind projects located on forested ridgelines in the mid-Atlantic Highlands), and assuming that biological objectives for curtailment are met, we estimate the Proposed Action will kill roughly 1,300 bats per year. Based on this annual mortality estimate, the Proposed Action is expected to kill roughly 32,500 bats over a 25-year period. Applying curtailment to the confidence interval values (2.30 to 91.60 bats per turbine per year), the Proposed Action possibly could result in annual bat mortalities that in some years range from 115 to 4,580 bats; however, over the long term, we would expect mortality closer to the regional average of 1,300 bats per year.

Bat Species Differences. The individual species that comprise the potential mortality of bats can be understood by analyzing the fatalities found at other wind facilities in the mid-Atlantic highlands. Studies completed at the Mountaineer, Meyersdale, Casselman, Mount Storm, and an undisclosed site in Pennsylvania document mortality of hoary bat, red bat, tri-colored bat, silver-haired bat, little brown bat, big brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and unidentified bats (Capouillez and Librandi-Mumma 2008; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Arnett et al. 2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, Young et al. 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). Table 5-21 provides bat mortality by species under 2 scenarios for the 100-turbine Project, with and without modified operations, using the calculated average from the 17 studies. We predict the Proposed Project Alternative will result in mortality of roughly 22,800 migratory tree bats and 9,300 cave bats over the 25-year operating life of the project. Total bat mortality for the life of the project with project curtailment at the 4.8 m/s cut-in speed is 32,500 bats, approximately 50% less than that predicted under normal unrestricted operations at the 3.5 m/s cut-in speed (65,300 bats).

Table 5-22 provides bat mortality by species under 4 scenarios for the 100-turbine Project based on the low-end (2.30 bats per turbine per year) and high-end (91.60 bats per turbine per year) rates from the studies’ confidence intervals. Under these scenarios, total bat mortality could possibly range from 2,900 to 114,400 bats for the life of the project. Realistically, we would not expect to see these extremes of variation. Rather we predict that bat mortality will fall somewhere between the low-end high-end rates and likely closer to the average of 25.98 bats per turbine per year and 32,500 bats over 25 years Table 5-21.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 250 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-21. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. The mean mortality rate (25.98 bats per turbine per year) is based on estimated rates from 17 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld or Huso estimators. Species composition of mortality is illustrated for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce Myotis mortality by 60% and other bat mortality by 50%. Myotis include little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ Alternative 2 curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (4.8 m/s cut-in in speed) speed) Relative Life-of- Life-of- Annual Annual Species mortality Project Project 1 mortality mortality (%) mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats: Hoary bat 31.9 829 20,719 414 10,360 Red bat 27.8 722 18,056 361 9,028 Silver-haired bat 10.3 268 6,690 134 3,345 Subtotal 1,819 45,465 909 22,733 Cave Bats:

Tri-colored bat 16.4 426 10,652 213 5,326 Little brown bat 8.7 226 5,651 113 2,825 Big brown bat 3.2 83 2,078 42 1,039 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 10 260 5 130 Subtotal 746 1,8641 373 9,320 Unidentified bats 1.2 31 779 16 390 Total 2 2,595 64,885 1,298 32,443 1 Developed from Capouillez and Librandi-Mumma (2008), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Arnett et al. (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), Young et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). 2 Totals may vary due to rounding in spreadsheet calculations.

The mortality proportions for migratory tree-roosting bats at other project shown in Table 5-22 are markedly different from that observed at the BRE Phase I Project during the 2012 monitoring. Prior to this study, we expected to see the highest proportions of bat mortality at Beech Ridge represented by the red bat, which consisted of nearly 60% of the total bat mortality at other projects (see Section 4.8.3). Taking into account the species composition of only migratory tree-roosting bats and applying the proportions realized from the 2012 on-site monitoring, we now predict that annual migratory tree-roosting bat mortality under Alternative 2 may be better represented by the values provided below.

Red bat 561 Hoary bat 213 Silver-haired bat 135

However, the relative mortalities shown in Table 5-22 are valid for cave-dwelling bats, Myotis species in particular. We expect Myotis species to be affected affected for any curtailed operations with cut-in speeds less than 6.9 m/s.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 251 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-22. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands. Mortality rates are based on the low-end and high-end confidence intervals from 17 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld and Huso estimators. Species composition of mortality is illustrated for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce Myotis mortality by 60% and other bat mortality by 50%. Myotis include little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. Alternative 2 Low Rate: 2.30 bats per turbine per year High Rate: 91.60 bats per turbine per year 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (4.8 m/s cut- curtailment (3.5 m/s cut-in curtailment (4.8 m/s cut-in in speed) in speed) speed) speed) Relative Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Annual Annual Annual Annual Species mortality Project Project Project Project mortality mortality mortality mortality % mortality mortality mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats: Hoary bat 31.9 73 1,834 37 917 2,922 73,051 1,461 36,526 Red bat 27.8 64 1,599 32 799 2,546 63,662 1,273 31,831 Silver-haired bat 10.3 24 592 12 296 943 23,587 472 11,794 Cave Bats: Tri-colored bat 16.4 38 943 19 472 1,502 37,556 751 18,778 Little brown bat 8.7 20 500 8 200 797 19,923 319 7,970 Big brown bat 3.2 7 184 4 92 293 7,328 147 3,664 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 1 23 0.4 10 37 916 15 370 Unidentified bats 1.2 3 69 1 35 110 2,748 55 1,374 Total 230 5,750 1134 2,821 9,160 229,000 4,493 112,307

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 252 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Proposed Action Listed Bat Mortality Mortality of Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats cannot be calculated in the same manner as non-listed bats because they are not as readily killed at wind projects. Little information is available regarding the circumstances under which Indiana bats may be at risk of collision or barotrauma with wind turbines. Five Indiana bat fatalities have been recorded at wind projects that conducted post-construction monitoring (Johnson et al. 2010, Good et al. 2011, USFWS 2011d, 2012e, f). The estimated number of Indiana bats affected at these sites likely is higher than 5 due to biases associated with searcher efficiency and scavenger removal, but the actual number is unknown.

In the DHCP, BRE estimated the proposed Project would take up to 70 bats. However, this quantification was based upon use of pre-WNS data on bat species composition available at the time the DHCP was written and the DEIS was made available. The model to estimate take is sensitive to total annual bat mortality rates and ratios of the Indiana bat to the surrogate species. Because bat species compositions are changing rapidly as a result of WNS and because the take estimate in the DHCP was based on pre- WNS data, the take estimate in the DHCP is not current and overestimates the anticipated take. We therefore re-ran the take models using the best available post-WNS data (USFWS 2013b). This analysis has been included in Appendix F (Report F-5). Based on this analysis BRE has revised its HCP to indicate the Project may take up to 4.5 Indiana bats annually and up to 112 Indiana bats cumulatively over the life of the project in the absence of the proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts.

This was calculated using a little brown bat surrogate model for Indiana bat mortality since few Indiana bats have been found under wind turbines. Little brown bat is used a surrogate for Indiana bat because it is known to occur in the project area, commonly found under wind turbines, and has similar morphology, behavior, and habitat use as Indiana bat. Using ratios of little brown to Indiana bats, the model estimates take of Indiana bat by simple proportions:

Bat fatalities per turbine per year x Proportion of little brown bat fatalities x Ratio of Indiana bats to little brown bats x Number of turbines = Number of Indiana bat fatalities per year for the project.

Chapter 4 of the HCP provides more details on the Applicant’s assumptions, biases, and data sets considered and used in the calculations. Throughout HCP development, the Service worked with BRE to develop this model and feels comfortable that the method represents a reasonable approach to estimate take using best available science.

During years 1-3 of the ITP while BRE is testing the Curtailment Plan, we estimate that the take of up to 4.5 Indiana bats per year could occur at a 100-turbine project, for a total estimated take of up to 13.5 individuals during the first 3 years of the ITP. During this period, BRE will develop baseline bat mortality estimates, i.e., mortality estimates from fully operational turbines that will be used to judge success in meeting the biological goal of significantly reducing covered species and overall bat mortality in a cost effective manner consistent with the best available science. During Years 4-25 of the ITP, after Project- wide implementation of operational protocols developed during the first 3 years of the ITP, we concludes that the estimated amount of Indiana bat take can be reduced to 1.8 bats per year (40% of the take estimate), for a total estimated take of up to 53.0 Indiana bats over the entire 25-year term of the ITP (4.5 x 3 years + 1.8 x 22 years = 53.0) (Table 5-23).

The Service considers the incidental take of Indiana bats from this alternative to have only minor population-level impacts. Take of up to 53 Indiana bats represents 0.01% of the current (2013) range wide population, 0.3% of the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit population, and 1.4% of the Indiana bat population in West Virginia (Table 5-23). The take will be distributed throughout the 25-year permit period and therefore will represent even less of an annual impact to these populations. In addition, we anticipate that all or most of the take will occur during migration, meaning that the mortalities will be individuals originating from multiple local populations (i.e., individual maternity or hibernating colonies).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 253 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Therefore, take will be spread across multiple local populations, which will further dilute the impacts of take to any given local population.

Table 5-23. Listed bat mortality for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat mortality by 60% and 50%, respectively. 100-turbine Project w/o curtailment 100-turbine Project w/ curtailment (4.8 Alternative 2 (3.5 m/s cut-in speed) m/s cut-in speed) Life-of-Project Life-of-Project Species Annual mortality Annual mortality mortality mortality 4.5 bats/yr for years 4.5 bats/yr for Indiana bat 112 1-3; 1.8 bats/yr for 25 years years 4-25 53 1 bats/yr for years 1.0 bat/yr for 25 Virginia big-eared bat 25 1-3; 0.5 bats/yr for years years 4-25 14

Indiana bat Life-of-Project Life-of- Project Population Unit current mortality as % mortality as %

population size of population of population Rangewide 534,239 0.02 0.01 Appalachian Mountain 17,584 0.6 Recovery Unit 0.3 West Virginia 3,845 2.9 1.4 Snedegar’s Cave 179 62 29.6

Virginia big- Population Unit eared bat current

population size Rangewide 13,000 1 0.2 0.1 West Virginia 11,092-11,792 2 0.2 0.1 1 The most current rangewide population estimate is from 2007/2008. A more recent rangewide population estimate is not yet available. 2 For West Virginia, we are using a range for 2012 and 2013 due to incomplete sureys in 2013.

The Service anticipates that the incidental take of Indiana bats will most likely occur during the fall migration season. There are no known maternity colonies or hibernacula in the project footprint, suggesting that migrating bats primarily will be exposed to the wind turbines. While there is some potential for take during spring migration, the Service currently believes that exposure risk is limited due to the fact that Indiana bats migrate so quickly from winter to summer habitat during the spring migration period. However, fall migration from summer habitat back to winter habitat is more spread out temporally and geographically and likely presents a greater exposure risk. The pattern of increased fatalities during the fall migration period is supported by existing studies (Arnett et al. 2008, Taucher et al. 2012) and most of the known Indiana bat fatalities at wind facilities have occurred at this time. The changed circumstance section of the HCP (Section 8.2.5) addresses the increased risk of incidental take during the summer due to future identification of a maternity colony near the project.

The Service will be further evaluating the population-level impacts of the incidental take from this project in our biological opinion. This evaluation will consider how take is distributed across the local populations and the impact of that distributed take to any given local population. However, below we provide some of our preliminary analysis results to help provide context in the FEIS for the population level impacts of this project.

The Service conducted a GIS analysis to estimate how many Indiana bats could be migrating through the project site between summer habitats and known hibernacula. There were 30 hibernacula within 100

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 254 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

miles (i.e., typical maximum migration distance for Indiana bats in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit) of the project that currently had at least 1 Indiana bat as of 2013 and that had potential migration habitat overlapping the Project site. Assuming migrating bats are evenly distributed within a 100-mile radius of each hibernaculum, there could be approximately 2,400 Indiana bats flying within 100 miles of the project (the potential affected population). However, it is important to note that of these 2,400 bats, 78 percent of these bats originate from a few caves: Hellhole (57%, the largest hibernacula), Snedgar’s Cave (7%, the closest hibernacula), Arbogast/Cave Hollow (4%), Fortlick/Newberry (4%), and Big Springs Cave (2%). The rest of the bats originate from multiple hibernacula, each comprising less than 1% of the potentially affected population. This analysis underscores the likelihood of bats coming from more than one hibernaculum, and that it is especially likely that some would come from Hellhole simply because there are more bats likely to be entering the project area from larger hibernacula, and some would come from Snedegar’s Cave, the closest hibernacula. Bats from Snedegar’s Cave may be at higher risk of turbine mortality than bats from other caves as 14 of the existing turbines are located at the outer edge of the 10-mile swarming radius (i.e., between 9 and 10 miles away). Bats spend considerable time in the swarming zone during fall and pass through this area during migration. Thus bats using using the swarming zone and migrating to and from Snedegar’s Cave will likely be exposed to the turbines due to proximity and behaviour.

To evaluate the impacts of take on local populations, the Service is currently modelling the effect of take of Indiana bats on individual caves such as Hellhole and Snedegar’s caves and theoretical maternity sites (since very few are actually known). The Service is using a demographic model developed by Thogmartin et al. (2013) to compare the Indiana bat population trajectories with and without various levels of incidental take from the project. The model is the best demographic model for Indiana bats currently available and the Service is using the most current population data and WNS trend data when running the model. While the Thogmartin model was designed to evaluate extinction risk in Indiana bat populations, it also can be manipulated to evaluate project effects to Indiana bat populations.

Preliminary model runs indicate project take associated with a 60% reduction in Indiana bat fatalities through project curtailment is not likely to have an additive effect on populations in Hellhole and Snedegar’s caves, assuming a majority of the take originates from these two caves. The model demonstrates that this level of incidental take will result in an Indiana bat population trajectory that is nearly indistinguishable from the trajectory that will occur without the project impacts. In other words, the Service is confident that an objective of a 60% reduction in Indiana bat fatality will result in a level of incidental take that does not have an additive negative impact on these cave populations. The Service would consider this effect to be minor as long as it occurs in small increments over 25 years originating from multiple source populations.

With respect to Virginia big-eared bats, during years 1-3 of the ITP, BRE estimates that the take of up to 1 bat per year could occur at a 100-turbine project, for a total estimated take of up to 3 individuals during the first 3 years of the ITP. During this period, BRE will develop baseline bat mortality estimates that will be used to measure and achieve a reduction in covered species and all bat mortality. During Years 4-25 of the ITP, after Project-wide implementation of operational protocols developed during the first 3 years of the ITP, BRE concludes that estimated amount of Virginia big-eared bat take can be reduced to 0.5 bats per year, for a total estimated take of up to 14 Virginia big-eared bats over the entire 25-year term of the ITP (1.0 x 3 years + 0.5 x 22 years = 14.0) (Table 5-23). While the Service believes that take of 14 Virginia big-eared bats over the life of the project is highly unlikely given that the Project is located between two genetically isolated populations and outside the normal commuting distance of this species, we have used this take estimate in our FEIS as a worst case scenario. Take of up to 14 Virginia big-eared bats represents roughly 0.1% of the current population rangewide and in West Virginia (Table 5-23). This effect would be considered minor.

While the Service is relying on the curtailment plan to minimize the impact of the taking (as demonstrated by the measurable 60% fatality reduction objective for Indiana bats and 50% for VBEBs and other bats),

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 255 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BRE’s mitigation commitment is also intended to be commensurate with the impact of the taking. The FHCP (Section 5.3) includes the parameters for mitigation projects intended to compensate for taking 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big-eared bats over the permit duration. Mitigation may occur as fee-title purchase or conservation easements on Indiana bat caves or maternity areas, and cave gating projects for Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. The intention is to target hibernacula for permanent conservation or gating that harbor at least 53 Indiana bats, but quite possibly more. Maternity colonies are expected to host an average of 60-80 Indiana bats. Thus, the mitigation was developed to replace the lost individuals and their future reproductive capacity. Moreover, the mitigation must be completed within two years of permit issuance, ensuring that the protections occur long before the cumulative take may accrue. BRE has also committed to compensate for 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big-eared bats even though it is possible that the actual take of these species over the permit term may be less.

BRE currently is negotiating with landowners to purchase an Indiana bat cave that supports at least 53 Indiana bats and install gates on mine portals occupied by at least 14 Virginia big-eared bats. These measures would remove existing threats that affect bat survivorship (threats of human disturbance, logging, and development). By removing real threats, the long-term survival of bat populations in the cave or mine portal is increased. Preservation and gating of such caves or portals in perpetuity would thus increase the likelihood that bats in the cave or portal survive over time.

The Service notes that hibernating populations of Indiana bats are declining due to WNS impacts and it is unknown how that will impact the future of BRE’s selected mitigation project. However, by protecting a known hibernaculum in perpetuity, the Service believes it will continue to serve as important refugia for surviving Indiana bats and when Indiana bat populations rebound in the future. Further, the role of smaller hibernacula (e.g., P3 and P4) may increase over time as WNS continues to influence populations.

Alternative 2 would also impact several bat species whose status is under review. Under Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, the Service is conducting a status review of the little brown bat and has determined that a 90-day petition for listing of northern long-eared bats and eastern small footed bats presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat throughout their entire ranges may be warranted (76 Federal Register 38095). Information in the petition and in Service files indicates that the continued existence of these two species may be threatened by destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat from logging (northern long- eared bat); oil, gas, and mineral development (eastern small- footed and northern long-eared bats); and wind energy development (eastern small-footed and northern long-eared bats).

Little brown bats have been severely impacted by WNS and are frequently killed at wind power projects during migration. Under Alternative 2, we predict over 2,800 little brown bats would be killed over the life of the project. Pre-construction surveys also found reproductively active little brown bats on the Beech Ridge project site, indicating maternity areas are nearby. Turbines nearest these maternity areas likely pose the highest risk to breeding individuals and young. Thus, the Project has the potential affect local breeding populations of the declining little brown bat.

Although mortality of northern long-eared bats has been reported from wind power projects, they generally constitute a small fraction of total mortality (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Johnson 2005). Low numbers of the northern long-eared bat are consistent with its relative representation in regional bat communities and should not be taken as an indication that this species is not susceptible to wind energy- related mortality (76 Federal Register 38095). There are no reports of eastern small-footed bat fatalities at wind energy facilities to date; however, mist-net surveys conducted in Pennsylvania revealed that this species was present within wind facility Project areas (Capouillez and Librandi-Mumma 2008). Pre- construction bat surveys also found reproductively active eastern small footed and northern long-eared bats on the Beech Ridge project site, indicating maternity areas are nearby. Turbines nearest these maternity areas may pose high risk to breeding individuals and young. Thus, the Project has the potential to affect local breeding populations of these 2 species

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 256 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Other Effects to Bats Associated with Construction and Operation of the 100-Turbine Project The magnitude of impact on local bat communities will vary based on the quality and quantity of habitat removed and the availability of alternate habitat of comparable quality and character. The 100-turbine Project is expected to result in the loss of approximately 521 acres of forest habitat. Succession will be allowed to occur naturally in some areas (acreage undetermined). However, at present, 79% of the existing forest is characterized as timber greater than 26 years old. The existing forest habitat provides suitable roosting habitat and will result in a loss of roosting habitat over the life of the permit.

In some cases, conversion from forested to non-forest habitat could result in short- or long-term benefits to local bat communities, depending upon the configuration of the surrounding forested landscape and the individual species present. For example, forest gaps and clearings create additional foraging opportunities, as documented by higher levels of bat activity in fields, edges, and clearings (Hayes and Loeb 2007). These types of gaps are created from the linear nature of the access roads and turbine pads created for the wind facility. This apparent enhancement of foraging habitat is possibly a function of reduction in clutter, rather than enhancement of insect (prey) habitat. However, some species of bats in the region are interior forest feeders, while others prefer feeding in gaps and along forested edges and riparian corridors. Clutter-adapted foraging and vegetation gleaning species such as northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat are likely more abundant where forest canopy cover increases and forest canopy gap size decreases, whereas the opposite is true for open-adapted foraging species such as big brown bat and hoary bat (Ford et al. 2005)

Creation of forest gaps and clearings has been recommended as a management technique for some species (Krusic et al. 1996), but not all bat species in the eastern U.S. would benefit from such practices (Owen et al. 2003). Prey density in patch cuts has found to be similar to that of uncut areas, suggesting that clutter is more likely to influence bat use of a habitat depending on a bat’s morphological characteristics (Lacki et al. 2007). Larger species such as big brown bats, hoary bat, red bat, silver-haired bats have been shown to be more active along skidder trails, forest roads, and hiking trails whereas smaller species (e.g., tricolored bats) tend to be more active in forest interiors. This is thought to primarily driven by the amount of clutter (Lacki et al. 2007)

The potential increase in foraging habitat through the creation of open areas is not likely to substantially benefit bats in the Project area due to the current abundance of this type of habitat. Kunz et al. (2007a) suggests the possibility that those species that migrate, commute, or forage along these linear corridors may be at increased risk for collision. Displacement of bats could occur as a result of animals avoiding spinning turbine blades or increased human presence associated with maintenance activities. It is unknown whether or not bats roosting or migrating in close proximity to operating wind turbines become habituated to their presence or whether they become displaced by them. Displacement of bats could occur as a result of animals avoiding spinning turbine blades.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance area may be cleared again to remove Project components. Should invasive species have established a foot-hold by this time, the additional clearing could prove to be beneficial to their regeneration. Disturbed areas and access roads will be graded to the original contour as near as practicable if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads will be left in place.

The forest regeneration process will restart following clearing activities. Suitable maternity roosts generally occur in trees more than 50 years in age. This will mean that areas that were originally cleared and then recleared for decommissioning will not provide suitable maternity roosting habitat for bats for more than 70 to 75 years (assuming a 25-year project life). Night-time roosting habitat may occur in much younger trees; however, reclearing the area for decommissioning will limit roosting opportunities until trees mature.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 257 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Bat displacement and effects of edge creation will be similar for that described for Project construction. However, there will be minor effects to forests that will not able to mature consistently with the surrounding areas due to clearing and re-clearing for decommissioning. These effects are expected to have less of an impact when compared to logging, mining, and natural gas operations in the region that remove entire stands on a 50-year cycle.

Proposed Action Summary We predict the Proposed Action will kill approximately 22,800 tree-roosting migratory bats (e.g. silver- haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat) over the 25-year permit term. The Proposed Action may also kill approximately 9,300 cave-dwelling bats during the term of the permit. The total number of bats that could potentially be killed over the 25-year permit term is roughly 32,000. There may also be up to 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big-eared bats killed during the 25-year permit term. Effects to habitat as part of the implementation of Phase II construction and Project decommissioning are expected to be minor when taken into context with the type of land modification (e.g., commercial forestry operations and natural gas exploration) likely to occur on the property absent Phase II construction and operation. The overall estimated bat mortality is roughly double that of Alternative 3 and 1.5 times that of Alternative 4. However, the estimated mortality is expected be half that of a 100-turbine project that would operate unrestricted.

Effects to regional Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat populations would be considered minor if all or most of the mortality originates from many source populations during migration. Because most mortality at wind power projects occurs during migration, we assume that this scenario is most likely. Preliminary model runs indicate when the biological objective of reducing annual Indiana bat mortality by 60% is achieved, the mortality caused by the project does not have an additive effect on the largest and closest small cave populations (i.e. the population curves are almost indistinguishable with and without the project). The mitigation commitment also will compensate for the impact of the taking of 53 Indiana bats and 14 Virginia big-eared bats over the permit duration by replacing the lost individuals and their future reproductive capacity long before the cumulative take may accrue.

With respect to impacts to unlisted bats, the biological significance of killing more than 22,000 tree- roosting migratory bats over the 25-year permit term is uncertain. Little information is available about the population estimates of non-listed bats to determine the significance of these impacts. These bats would be expected to have poor potential to recover from moderate to large-scale additive mortality from wind power, given their low reproductive potential. BRE has not currently proposed compensatory mitigation to benefit unlisted tree-roosting bats. If the impact to this group of bats could be mitigated to some degree, it would lessen the significance of this impact.

Likewise, the biological significance of killing more than 9,000 cave-roosting bats of unknown population sizes over 25 years is uncertain. The project likely will kill several cave bat species known to breed on or near the project site. Mitigation developed to compensate for take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats may incidentally benefit these species as well. Indiana bats, little brown bats, northern long-eared bats, and eastern small footed bats hibernate in the cave system that has been targeted for off-site mitigation under Alternative 2. Should the deal for purchasing the targeted mitigation site fall through, alternate mitigation projects (cave gating or protection of an Indiana bat maternity area) may or may not benefit these species.

Other species of cave-dwelling bats may benefit from mitigation efforts that compensate for take to Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. In addition to the aforementioned species, the cave system targeted for mitigation also supports tri-colored bat. With the exception of tri-colored bat, cave-dwelling bats comprise a much smaller proportion of the mortality that results from wind facilities. The tree-roosting migratory bats, particularly hoary bats and red bats, have high numbers of estimated mortality relative to that of other bats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 258 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.8.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under the Alternative 3, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for development of the BRE Project. The Project would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action. Under Alternative 3, the BRE HCP would include 3 other bat species (little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern small-footed bat) should they become listed under the ESA. These 3 species would be included as Covered Species in addition to the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Habitat protection would include areas to benefit the 3 additional Covered Species, as well as the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat. Additionally, the Curtailment Plan would be modified to implement expanded avoidance and minimization measures to protect roosting and brooding sites within and proximal to the Project area should they be identified.

Reproductive individuals of the 3 currently unlisted bat species were captured in mist-nets in summer. Therefore, it is assumed the Project area provides maternity areas for these bats. To reduce impacts to breeding individuals, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut- in speed (as opposed to 4.8 m/s in Alternative 2) as the initial rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15, which is the presumed period for which the 3 additional species, as well as Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats, are active.

If the Project’s research and monitoring results show that this modified Curtailment Plan reduces bat mortality by at least 76%, BRE could either implement their original Curtailment Plan (as described for the Proposed Action) or modify it as further described below (under analysis assumptions) to employ less restrictive operations that achieve the same or greater reduction in bat mortality. Less restrictive operations could include lowering the cut-in speed, contracting the seasonal curtailment period, contracting the night-time hourly period, applying curtailment to fewer turbines (those closest to bat maternity areas), or a combination of these 3 measures.

The measures described below would be implemented upon ITP issuance as if the species were currently listed under the ESA. Should these species be listed during the permit term, take authorization for them would become effective, and no additional conservation measures or permit modifications would be needed, provided that these measures have been fully implemented.

Habitat Assessment in the Project Area Implementation of Alternative 3 would include mist-netting to locate maternity areas for each of the 3 unlisted bats. Delineated habitats would be used to evaluate specific areas of the Project that may pose the greatest risks to covered species.

Modified Operations Protocol Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s as the rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15, which is the presumed period for which most bats are active. This change in Project operation would reduce further potential take of covered species and all bat species. Curtailment studies in North America showed that turbines with raised cut-in speeds between 5.0 m/s and 6.5 m/s killed fewer bats than normally operating turbines between 57.5% and 78.0% over the course of one fall migration season (Baerwald et al. 2009, Arnett et al. 2010, Good et al. 2011, 2012).

The Project’s research and monitoring goals would be adjusted to achieve reductions in overall bat mortality by at least 76%. One could question whether the 6.5 m/s cut-in speed would significantly affect bat mortality rates. An analysis of the potential effects of altering turbine cut-in speeds can be made by applying the average fatality reductions from bat mortality studies (Table 5-24). To date, three studies have tested tested feathering of blades all night below a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed for a study season. These studies reduced all bats fatality by 67% on average, ranging from 74 to 79% (Table 5.24). As shown by

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 259 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the diverse range of bat fatality reduction values in Table 5.24 for cut-in speeds ranging from 3.5 to 6.9 m/s, it appears that the implementation of increased turbine cut-in speeds may be more meaningful at some facilities than others. Additional work is necessary to better understand the relationships between low wind speed turbine operations and bat mortality. For purposes of analyzing effects of Alternative 3, we assumed a 76% mortality reduction can be achieved with a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed. This could be a significant avoidance measure, especially if reproductive females are among those avoided.

Table 5-24. Summary of curtailment trials and bat fatality reductions at wind turbine projects. Start-up speed Study Study period Fatality reduction for study period (m/s) 73% all night (compared to average Tidhar et al. April 1 to Oct. 28, 6.9 (feathered) fatality rate of non-curtailed turbines (2013) 2012 at other projects across many years) Shoener 6.9 (feathered) 74% to 92% all night (compared to 4.0 July 1 to Sep. 30, Environmental when > 33.5°C m/s controls for same study season in 2012 (2013) (38°F) 2010 and 2011, respectively) Variable speeds (feathered), Sept. 6 to Nov. 87% all night (compared to 3.5 m/s Stantec (2013b) dependent on 15, 2012 controls for Aug. 15 to Oct. 31, 2011) site-specific weather variables August 15 to Oct. 31, 2011 and 3.5 (control) -- Apr. 1 to Oct. 31, 2012 Aug. 15 to Oct. Stantec (2013a) 3.5 (feathered) 35% all night 31, 2011 Aug. 15, 2011 to Oct. 31, 2012 4.5 (feathered) 72% all night and Apr. 1 to Oct. 31, 2012 3.0 (control) -- Hein et al. July 15 to Sep. 5.0 (feathered) 7% first half of night (2013) 30, 2012 5.0 (feathered) 35% all night Young et al. 4.0 (control) July 16 to Oct. -- (2012) 4.0 (feathered) 15, 2011 9% all night April 1 to Nov. 4.0 (control) -- 15, 2012 Young et al. April 1 to Nov. 5.0 (feathered) 51% all night (2013) 15, 2012 July 15 to Oct. 5.0 (feathered) 62% all night 15, 2012 4.0 (control) -- Young et al. July 15 to Oct. 47% first half of night 2011 4.0 (feathered) 15, 2010 22% second half of night

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 260 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Start-up speed Study Study period Fatality reduction for study period (m/s) 3.5 (control) Aug. 1 to Oct. -- Good et al. 5.0 15, 2010 50% all night (2011) 6.5 79% all night 3.5 (control) -- July 15 to Oct. Good et al. 3.5 (feathered) 36% all night 31, 2011 (2012) 4.5 (feathered) 58% all night observed fatality 5.5 (feathered) 75% all night 3.5 (control) -- Arnett et al. July 27 to Oct. 9, 5.0 (feathered) 87% all night (2011) 2008 6.5 (feathered) 74% all night 3.5 (control) -- Arnett et al. July 26 to Oct. 8, 5.0 (feathered) 68% all night (2011) 2009 6.5 (feathered) 76% all night 4.0 (control) -- Baerwald et al. Aug. 1 to Sep. 7, 4.0 (feathered) 58% all night (2009) 2007 5.5 60% all night

3.5 m/s and 4.0 m/s, feathered Avg. = 34% (range: 9 to 58%) (n=6)

Mean fatality Avg. = 60% all night (range: 35 to 5.0 m/s, feathered reduction 87%) (n=5) Avg. = 76% all night, for a season 6.5 m/s, feathered (range: 74 to 79%) (n=3) Avg. = 82% all night for a season 6.9 m/s, feathered* (range: 73 to 92%) (n = 4) *Includes Stantec (2013b).

We first looked at mortality rates assuming no curtailment of Project operations using the estimates from the studies that used both the Shoenfeld and Huso estimators, just as for the Proposed Action. We then applied the 76% mortality reduction predicted for the modified curtailment strategy described for Alternative 3. Based on the average rate of 25.98 bats per turbine per year without curtailment, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 627 bat deaths per year (Table 5-25). Assuming that population levels of bats and mortality rates remain within this range over the term of the permit, and based on the mean mortality rate (25.98 bats per turbine per year) and 76% reduction due to curtailment, we predict the Project will kill roughly 15,600 bats during the 25-year permit term. Based upon the ranges of variation in mortality estimates in Table 5-25, we would not expect mortality levels to be as low or as high as the best and worst case scenarios, respectively.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 261 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-25. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 100-turbine Project with and without implementation of a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed. Mortality rates were derived using the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) or Huso estimator (Huso 2010) for 17 post- construction studies. 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ Alternative 3 curtailment (3.5 m/s cut-in speed) curtailment (6.5 m/s cut-in speed) 1 Annual Life of Project Annual Life of Project Mortality rate 2 2 mortality mortality mortality mortality Mean 25.98 2,598 64,950 624 15,588 Low end of 2.30 230 5,750 55 1,380 range High end of 91.60 9,160 229,000 2,198 54,960 range 1 Mortality rate is expressed in bats per turbine per year. 2 Based on 25-year operational life across all turbines in Project.

Bat Species Differences. As for the Proposed Action, Table 5-26 shows the species composition of bat mortality estimated for Alternative 3 based upon an average overall mortality rate of 25.98 bats per turbine. We predict Alternative 3 will result in mortality of roughly 11,000 migratory tree bats and 4,500 cave bats over the 25-year operating life of the project. This includes roughly 1,400 little brown bats, 60 northern long-eared bats, and an unknown number of small-footed bats over the life of the project. Total bat mortality for the life of the project with project curtailment at the 6.5 m/s cut-in speed (15,600 bats) is approximately 76% less than that predicted under normal unrestricted operations at the 3.5 m/s cut-in speed (65,300 bats).

Table 5-26. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 5 other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. The mean mortality rate (26.11 bats per turbine per year) is based on estimated rates from 14 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld or Huso estimators. Species composition is illustrated for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment as described for Alternative 3. Implementation of Alternative 3 is estimated to reduce bat mortality by 76%. 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ Alternative 3 curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (6.5 m/s cut-in in speed) speed) Relative Life-of- Life-of- Annual Annual Species mortality Project Project 1 mortality mortality (%) mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats:

Hoary bat 32.0 829 20,719 199 4,973 Red bat 27.8 722 18,056 173 4,333 Silver-haired bat 10.3 268 6,690 64 1,606 Subtotal 1,819 45,465 436 10,912 Cave Bats:

Tri-colored bat 16.4 426 10,652 102 2,556 Little brown bat 8.7 226 5,651 54 1,356 Big brown bat 3.2 83 2,078 20 499 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 10 260 2 62 Subtotal 746 18,641 179 4,474 Unidentified bats 1.2 31 779 7 187 Total 2 2,595 64,885 622 15,572 1 Developed from Capouillez and Librandi-Mumma (2008), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Arnett et al. (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), Young et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). 2 Totals vary due to rounding in spreadsheet calculations.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 262 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The mortality proportions for migratory tree-roosting bats at other project shown in Table 5-26 are markedly different from that observed at the BRE Phase I Project during the 2012 monitoring. Based upon the other studies, we would have expected to see the highest proportions of bat mortality at Beech Ridge represented by the red bat, which consisted of nearly 60% of the total bat mortality at other studies (see Section 4.8.3). Taking into account the species composition of only migratory tree-roosting bats and applying the proportions realized from the Beech Ridge 2012 monitoring, we now predict that annual migratory tree-roosting bat mortality under Alternative 2 may be better represented by the values provided below.

Red bat 270 Hoary bat 102 Silver-haired bat 65

However, the relative mortalities shown in Table 5-26 are valid for cave-dwelling bats, Myotis species in particular. We expect Myotis species to be adversely affected for any curtailed operations with cut-in speeds less than 6.9 m/s.

Table 5-27 provides bat mortality by species under 2 scenarios for the 100-turbine Project based on the low-end (2.30 bats per turbine per year) and high-end (91.60 bats per turbine per year) rates from the studies’ confidence intervals. Under these scenarios, total bat mortality could possibly range from 1,400 to 55,000 bats for the life of the project. Realistically, we would not expect to see these extremes of variation. Rather, we predict that bat mortality will fall somewhere between the low-end high-end rates and likely closer to the average of 25.98 bats per turbine per year and 15,600 bats over 25 years (Table 5-26).

Additionally, the Curtailment Plan would be modified to implement expanded avoidance and minimization measures to protect roosting and brooding sites within and proximal to the Project area should they be identified. Should sensitive habitats for any of these 3 additional species be discovered, the curtailment would be further modified to include a plan for modifying operations of specific turbines that pose the greatest risk to these sites.

Listed Bats For the Proposed Action, the HCP estimates 4.5 Indiana bat deaths per year during years 1-3, and 1.8 per year during years 4-25, for a total estimated take of up to 53 Indiana bats over the 25-year term of the ITP. Implementation of Alternative 3 could potentially reduce take of Indiana bats an additional 16% or more. During implementation of the ITP under Alternative 3, the take of up to 4.5 Indiana bats per year would be reduced by 76%48 to 1.1 Indiana bats annually for the 100-turbine Project (Table 5-28). The total estimated amount of Indiana bat take under implementation of Alternative 3 is estimated to be up to 27 Indiana bats over the entire 25-year term of the ITP (1.1 bats/year x 25 years = 27).

Take of up to 27 Indiana bats represents 0.005% of the current (2013) population rangewide, 0.15% of the current population in the Appalachian Recovery Unit, and 0.7% of the current population in West Virginia (Table 5-28). The Service would consider this effect to be minor as long as it occurs in small increments over 25 years originating from multiple source populations. As explained previously in Section 5.8.2.2 for Alternative 2, because most bat mortality at wind projects occurs during fall migration, we anticipate that all or most of this mortality will occur in small annual increments to individuals originating from many source populations during migration, including Hellhole (the largest cave) and Snedegar’s

48We assumed the 76% reduction in mortality would begin from year 1, given that several studies have tested a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed and achieved this average level of reduction (Table 5.23). Thus there is greater certainty of the effectiveness of this cut-in speed (versus the as yet untested 4.8 m/s cut-in speed proposed by BRE under Alternative 2). Under Alternative 2, a 60% reduction in mortality from a 4.8 m/s cut-in speed was not assumed effective until Year 4, allowing for testing and refinement to demonstrate effectiveness.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 263 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Cave (the closest cave). Indiana bats that hibernate in Snedegar’s Cave may be at higher risk of turbine mortality since 14 of the existing turbines are located at the outer edge of their 10-mi swarming radius. However, the amount of take under this alternative (up to 27 Indiana bats) is less than that of Alternative 2 (up to 53 Indiana bats); and we concluded that Alternative 2 is not likely to have an additive negative impact on these cave populations. We therefore conclude that Alternative 3 also would have minor impacts to Indiana bat populations.

For the Proposed Action, the HCP estimates 0.5 Virginia big-eared bat death per year, for a total estimated take of up to 14.0 individuals. Implementation of Alternative 3 could potentially reduce take of Virginia big-eared bats an additional 24% or more, i.e., 0.24 bats per year (Table 5-28). Project-wide implementation of a 6.5 m/s cut in speed would result in a total estimated take of up to 6 Virginia big- eared bats over the entire 25-year term of the ITP (0.24 bats/year x 25 years = 6). While the Service believes that take of 6 Virginia big-eared bats over the life of the project is unlikely given that the Project is located between two genetically isolated populations and outside the normal commuting distance of this species, we have used this take estimate in our FEIS as a worst case scenario. Take of up to 6 Virginia big-eared bats represents roughly 0.05% of the current population rangewide and in West Virginia (Table 5-28).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 264 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-27. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands. Mortality rates are based on the low-end and high-end confidence intervals from 14 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld and Huso estimators. Species composition of mortality is illustrated for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the modified Curtailment Plan under Alternative 3 is estimated to reduce bat mortality by 76%. Alternative 3 Low Rate: 2.30 bats per turbine per year High Rate: 91.60 bats per turbine per year 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ 100-turbine Project w/o 100-turbine Project w/ curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (6.5 m/s cut- curtailment (3.5 m/s cut-in curtailment (6.5 m/s cut-in in speed) in speed) speed) speed) Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Relative Annual Annual Annual Annual Species Project Project Project Project mortality mortality mortality mortality mortality mortality mortality mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats: Hoary bat 0.319 73 1,834 18 440 2,922 73,051 701 17,532 Red bat 0.278 64 1,599 15 384 2,546 63,662 611 15,279 Silver-haired bat 0.103 24 592 6 142 943 23,587 226 5,661 Cave Bats: Tri-colored bat 0.164 38 943 9 226 1,502 37,556 361 9,013 Little brown bat 0.087 20 500 5 120 797 19,923 191 4,782 Big brown bat 0.032 7 184 2 44 293 7,328 70 1,759 Northern long-eared bat 0.004 1 23 0 6 37 916 9 220 Unidentified bats 0.012 3 69 1 17 110 2,748 26 660 Total 230 5,750 55 1,380 9,160 229,000 2,198 54,960

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 265 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-28. Listed bat mortality for the 100-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce bat mortality by 76%. 100-turbine Project w/o curtailment (3.5 100-turbine Project w/ curtailment Alternative 3 m/s cut-in speed) (6.5 m/s cut-in speed) Life-of-Project Annual Life-of-Project Species Annual mortality mortality mortality mortality 4.5 bats/yr for 25 1.1 bats/yr for Indiana bat 112 years 25 years 27 0.24 bats/yr Virginia big-eared bat 1.0 bat/yr for 25 years 25 for 25 years 6 Life-of-Project Life-of- Project Indiana bat current Population Unit mortality as % of mortality as % of population size population population Rangewide 532,846 0.02 0.005 Appalachian Mountain 17,584 0.6 Recovery Unit 0.15 West Virginia 3,845 2.9 0.7 Snedegar’s Cave 179 62.5 15.1

Virginia big-eared Population Unit bat current population size Rangewide 13,000 1 0.2 0.05 West Virginia 11,092-11,792 2 0.2 0.05 1 The most current rangewide population estimate is from 2007/2008. A more recent rangewide population estimate is not yet available. 2 For West Virginia, we are using a range for 2012 and 2013 due to incomplete sureys in 2013.

Habitat Protection In addition to protective measures described for the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat, the HCP would include measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat for little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern small-footed bat on or near the Project site. Habitat protection measures implemented on or near the Project area may increase the incidence of bat use and, in turn, increase risks to bats. Conversely, measures to protect suitable roost/maternity habitat or known hibernacula for the additional covered species off-site may provide alternate sites for roosting away from the Project. Alternative 3 would benefit additional covered species and potentially increase species viability locally and regionally.

Other Effects to Bats Associated with Alternative 3 The magnitude of impact associated with habitat degradation and displacement on local bats would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 Summary Based on average fatality rates and implementation of a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed demonstrated to reduce bat mortality by 76%, implementation of Alternative 3 is estimated to kill approximately 11,000 migratory tree- dwelling bats (e.g. silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat) and 4,500 unlisted cave-dwelling bats (tri-colored, little brown, big brown, and northern long-eared bats) over the 25-year permit term, resulting in roughly 15,600 bat fatalities (Table 5-26). There would also be up to 27 Indiana bats and 6 Virginia big- eared bats killed during the 25-year permit term. We would expect most bat mortality to occur during migration in small increments over 25 years, originating from multiple source populations. Some mortality of Indiana bats from Hellhole (the largest hibernacula) and from Snedgar’s Cave (the closest) hibernacula is likely, but the effect would not be significantly additive to the existing primary source of mortality from WNS.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 266 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Effects to habitat as part of the implementation of Phase II construction and Project decommissioning are expected to be minor when taken into context with the type of land modification (e.g. commercial forestry operations and natural gas exploration) likely to occur on the property absent Phase II construction and operation.

Alternative 3 includes compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to all 5 covered species; compensation would be achieved through suitable mitigation that would satisfy the goals and objectives for on-site and off-site conservation (cave or maternity area protection and gating in perpetuity). With mitigation, effects to cave-dwelling bats would be greatly reduced. The predicted mortality of 11,000 migratory tree-roosting bats over the 25-year permit term is considered an additive impact on tree bat populations at the local scale, given these bats low reproductive potential. If the impact to this group of bats could be mitigated to some degree, it would lessen the significance of this impact.

Overall, Alternative 3 is likely to result in lower bat mortality as compared to the Proposed Action and Alternative 4. Because the No-Action is not expected to kill bats, Alternative 3 will have greater bat mortality as compared to the No-Action. Alternative 3 will include measures to protect 3 additional species and expand the number of sites that are afforded protection as bat habitat.

5.8.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for only the existing 67-turbine Project. The Phase I Only Alternative would include the full implementation of the HCP as described for the Proposed Action. These actions would occur for the Project as it is currently constructed. Under this alternative, the Phase II 33 turbines would not be constructed.

For the term of the ITP, BRE would adjust the cut-in speed for all 67 turbines from 3.5 m/s (7.7 mph) to 4.8 m/s (10.6 mph) from sunset for 5 hours during the 12-week period from mid-July to mid-October (BRE’s Curtailment Plan). Changing turbine cut-in speeds during this period of the year would help avoid key periods of bat activity around the Project, thus reducing potential take of covered species and all bat species. If research and monitoring results show that this proposed Curtailment Plan is not meeting the HCP’s goals and objectives, BRE would modify the Curtailment Plan to employ more restrictive operations. However, BRE’s Curtailment Plan would be modified only with the written agreement of Service.

This alternative would reduce the number of turbines BRE is proposing for the Project. Reducing the number of turbines would not necessarily eliminate the likelihood that Indiana bats or Virginia big-eared bats would be taken. A project of this size still poses a level of risk to bats. However, the estimated number of bat fatalities would be lower for 67 turbines than that for 100 turbines, as described for the Proposed Action.

67-Turbine Operation Under Alternative 4, effects to bats would be as described for the Proposed Action, but mortality would be less due to the fewer number of turbines. Estimates of bat mortality were developed using the same metrics used for the Proposed Action. We first looked at mortality rates assuming no curtailment of Project operations using the estimates from the studies that used the Shoenfeld or Huso estimators, just as for the Proposed Action. We then applied the 50% mortality reduction predicted for the Curtailment Plan. Using the 25.98 bats per turbine per year as the mortality rate, implementation of Alternative 4 for the existing 67-turbine BRE Project with operational curtailment of 4.8 m/s would result in roughly 870 bat deaths per year (Table 5-29), assuming a minimum 50% reduction in mortality is reached (25.98 bats/turbine/year x 67 turbines x 0.5 reduction). Assuming that population levels of bats and mortality rates remain consistent over the term of the permit, the Project would kill approximately 22,000 bats during the 25 year permit term (25.98 bats/turbine/year x 67 turbines x 0.5 reduction x 25 years).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 267 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-29. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project based on the 67-turbine Project with and without implementation of the Curtailment Plan. Mortality rates were derived using the modified Shoenfeld estimator (Erickson et al. 2004) or Huso estimator (Huso 2010) for 17 post- construction studies. 67-turbine Project w/o curtailment 67-turbine Project w/ curtailment (4.8 Alternative 4 (3.5 m/s cut-in speed) m/s cut-in speed) 1 Annual Life of Project Life of Project Mortality rate 2 Annual mortality 2 mortality mortality mortality Mean 25.98 1,741 43,516 870 21,758 Low end of 2.30 154 3,853 77 1,926 range High end of 91.60 6,137 153,430 3,069 76,715 range 1 Mortality rate is expressed in bats per turbine per year. 2 Based on 25-year operational life across all turbines in Project.

Species composition and mortality rates from studies completed at 5 wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands were used to predict bat mortality by species under implementation of Alternative 4 assuming an average overall bat mortality rate of 25.98 bats per turbine (Table 5-30). We predict Alternative 4 will result in mortality of roughly 15,200 migratory tree bats and 6,200 cave bats over the 25-year operating life of the project. This includes roughly 1,900 little brown bats, 90 northern long-eared bats, and an unknown number of small-footed bats over the life of the project. Total bat mortality for the life of the project with project curtailment at the 4.8 m/s cut-in speed (22,000 bats) is approximately 50% less than that predicted under normal unrestricted operations at the 3.5 m/s cut-in speed (43,500 bats).

The mortality proportions for migratory tree-roosting bats for other projects shown in Table 5-30 are markedly different from that observed at the BRE Phase I Project during the 2012 monitoring. Based on other studies, we would have expected to see the highest proportions of bat mortality at Beech Ridge represented by the red bat, which consisted of nearly 60% of the total bat mortality at other studies (see Section 4.8.3). Taking into account the species composition of only migratory tree-roosting bats and applying the proportions realized from the Beech Ridge 2012 monitoring, we now predict that annual migratory tree-roosting bat mortality under Alternative 2 may be better represented by the values provided below.

Red bat 376 Hoary bat 143 Silver-haired bat 91

However, the relative mortalities shown in Table 5-30 are valid for cave-dwelling bats, Myotis species in particular. We expect Myotis species to be adversely affected for any curtailed operations with cut-in speeds less than 6.9 m/s.

Table 5-31 provides bat mortality by species under 4 scenarios for the 100-turbine Project based on the low-end (2.30 bats per turbine per year) and high-end (91.60 bats per turbine per year) rates from the studies’ confidence intervals and the 2 cut-in speeds (3.5 m/s and 4.8 m/s). Under these scenarios, total bat mortality could possibly range from 1,900 to 76,700 bats for the life of the project. Realistically, we would not expect to see these extremes of variation. Rather we predict that bat mortality will fall somewhere between the low-end high-end rates and likely closer to the average of 26.11 bats per turbine per year and 22,000 bats over 25 years (Table 5-30).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 268 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-30. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from 5 other studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. The mean mortality rate (26.11 bats per turbine per year) is based on estimated rates from 13 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld or Huso estimators. Species composition is illustrated for the 67-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the modified curtailment is estimated to reduce Myotis bat mortality by 60% and other bat mortality by 50%. Myotis include little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. 67-turbine Project w/o 67-turbine Project w/ Alternative 4 curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (4.8 m/s cut-in in speed) speed) Relative Life-of- Life-of- Annual Annual Species mortality Project Project 1 mortality mortality (%) mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats:

Hoary bat 32.0 555 13,882 199 6,941 Red bat 27.8 484 12,098 173 6,049 Silver-haired bat 10.3 179 4,482 64 2,241 Subtotal 1,219 30,462 436 15,231 Cave Bats:

Tri-colored bat 16.4 286 7,137 102 3,568 Little brown bat 8.7 151 3,786 54 1,893 Big brown bat 3.2 56 1,393 20 696 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 7 174 2 87 Subtotal 500 12,489 179 6,245 Unidentified bats 1.2 21 522 7 261 Total 2 1,739 4,3473 622 21,736 1 Developed from Capouillez and Librandi-Mumma (2008), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Arnett et al. (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010), Young et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a). 2 Totals vary due to rounding in spreadsheet calculations.

The Service estimates the 67-turbine Project could potentially take up to 3.0 Indiana bats annually, in the absence of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce fatality impacts. This was calculated using a surrogate model for Indiana bat mortality. During operation of the existing 67 turbines and implementation of the ITP under Alternative 4, it is estimated that the take of up to 3.0 Indiana bats per year during years 1-3 would be reduced to 1.2 Indiana bats during years 4-25 at the 67-turbine Project assuming that implementation of a 4.8 m/s cut-in speed reduces mortality by 60%. The total estimated take under implementation of Alternative 4 is up to 32 Indiana bats over the entire 25-year term of the ITP (Table 5-32).

Take of up to 32 Indiana bats represents 0.006% of the current (2013) population rangewide, 0.2% of the current population in the Appalachian Recovery Unit, and 0.8% of the current population in West Virginia (Table 5-32). The Service would consider this effect to be minor as long as it occurs in small increments over 25 years originating from multiple source populations. As explained in Section 5.8.2.2 for Alternative 2, because most bat mortality at wind projects occurs during fall migration, we anticipate that all or most of this mortality will occur in small annual increments to individuals originating from many source populations during migration, including Hellhole (the largest cave) and Snedegar’s Cave (the closest cave). Indiana bats that hibernate in Snedegar’s Cave may be at higher risk of turbine mortality since 14 of the existing turbines are located at the outer edge of their 10-mile swarming radius. However, the amount of take under this alternative (32 Indiana bats) is less than that of Alternative 2 (53 Indiana bats); and we concluded that Alternative 2 is not likely to have a significant additive negative impact on these cave populations. We therefore conclude that Alternative 4 also is not likely to have a significant negative effect on Indiana bat populations.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 269 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-31. Predicted composition of bat mortalities based on extrapolation of mortality composition from other studies conducted in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands. Mortality rates are based on the low-end and high-end confidence intervals from 14 post-construction studies that used the Shoenfeld and Huso estimators. Species composition of mortality is illustrated for the 67-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of BRE’s Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce Myotis mortality by 60% and other bat mortality by 50%. Myotis include little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. Low Rate: 2.30 bats per turbine per year High Rate: 91.60 bats per turbine per year 67-turbine Project w/o 67-turbine Project w/ 67-turbine Project w/o 67-turbine Project w/ Alternative 4 curtailment (3.5 m/s cut- curtailment (4.8 m/s cut- curtailment (3.5 m/s cut-in curtailment (4.8 m/s cut-in in speed) in speed) speed) speed) Relative Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Life-of- Annual Annual Annual Annual Species mortality Project Project Project Project mortality mortality mortality mortality % mortality mortality mortality mortality Migratory Tree Bats: Hoary bat 31.9 49 1,232 25 616 1,963 48,944 981 24,472 Red bat 27.8 43 1,074 21 537 1,711 42.807 854 21,403 Silver-haired bat 10.3 16 397 8 197 631 15,803 316 7,902 Cave Bats: Tri-colored bat 16.4 25 631 13 315 1,006 25,163 503 12,581 Little brown bat 8.7 13 335 5 130 533 13,348 213 5,330 Big brown bat 3.2 5 123 2 62 195 4,910 98 2,455 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 0.6 15 0.25 6 24 614 10 240 Unidentified bats 1.2 2 46 1 23 74 1,841 37 921 Total 154 3,853 75.25 1,886 6,137 153,430 3,012 75,304

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 270 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-32. Listed bat mortality for the 67-turbine Project with and without operational curtailment. Implementation of the Curtailment Plan is estimated to reduce Indiana bat mortality by 60% and Virginia big-eared bat mortality by 50%. 67-turbine Project w/o curtailment 67-turbine Project w/ curtailment Alternative 4 (3.5 m/s cut-in speed) (4.8 m/s cut-in speed) Life-of-Project Life-of-Project Species Annual mortality Annual mortality mortality mortality 3.0 bats/yr for years 3.0 bats/yr for 25 Indiana bat 75 1-3; 1.2 bats/yr for 32 years years 4-24 0.67 bats/yr for 0.34 bats/yr for 25 Virginia big-eared bat 17 8 25years years Life-of-Project Life-of- Project Indiana bat current Population Unit mortality as % mortality as % population size: of population of population Rangewide 532,846 0.01 0.006

Appalachian Mountain 17,584 0.4 0.2 Recovery Unit West Virginia 3,845 1.9 0.8

Snedegar’s Cave 179 41.9 17.9

Virginia big-eared Population Unit bat current

population size

Rangewide 13,000 1 0.1 0.06 West Virginia 11,092 to 11,792 2 0.1 0.07 1 The most current rangewide population estimate is from 2007/2008. A more recent rangewide population estimate is not yet available. 2 For West Virginia, we are using a range for 2012 and 2013 due to incomplete sureys in 2013.

We estimate the 100-turbine Project will take up to 1 Virginia big-eared bat per year with no operational curtailment in place. Operation of the existing 67-turbine Project is expected to reduce mortality to 0.67 bats per year because of the fewer turbines. Implementation of a 4.8 m/s cut-in speed is expected to reduce mortality by an additional 50% to 0.34 bats per year. Thus, implementation of the HCP under Alternative 4 would result in a total estimated take of up to 8 Virginia big-eared bats over the entire 25- year term of the ITP (Table 5-32). Take of up to 8 Virginia big-eared bats represents roughly 0.06% and 0.07% of the current population rangewide and in West Virginia, respectively (Table 5-32), a minor population impact.

Alternative 4 includes compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to the Indiana and Virginia big- eared bat (off-site hibernacula protection, cave gating, or maternity area protection in perpetuity). This mitigation would remove real threats that affect survivorship or reproduction (such as human disturbance, logging, and development) and thus increase the chance of long-term survival over time. Other species of cave-dwelling bats may benefit incidentally from mitigation efforts that compensate for take to Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat.

Phase I Decommissioning Small areas of regenerated forest in the original construction disturbance may be cleared again to allow crane access to remove turbines. Forest clearing of the regenerating forest will restart the regeneration process of the forest. Suitable maternity roosts generally occur in trees more than 50 years in age. This will mean that areas that were originally cleared and then recleared for decommissioning will not provide suitable maternity roosting habitat for bats for more than 70 to 75 years (assuming a 25-year project life). Night time roosting habitat may occur in much younger trees. However, reclearing of access roads, staging areas, and laydown areas for decommissioning will limit roosting opportunities until trees mature.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 271 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Bat displacement and effects of edge creation will be similar for that described for Project construction. There will be minor effects to forests that were not able to mature consistently with the surrounding areas due to clearing and re-clearing for decommissioning. These effects are expected to be minor and possibly less of an impact when compared to logging, mining, and natural gas operations in the region that periodically disturb or remove entire forests on a 50 year or less cycle.

Alternative 4 Summary Based on average fatality rates, implementation of Alternative 4 is estimated to kill approximately 15,200 migratory tree dwelling bats (e.g. silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat) and 6,300 cave- dwelling bats (e.g. little brown bat, big brown bat, northern long-eared bat), resulting in roughly 21,000 bat fatalities over the 25-year permit term (Table 5.30). There would be up to 32 Indiana bats and 8 Virginia big-eared bats killed during the 25-year permit term (Table 5-32). Effects to habitat are expected to be minor given that there would be no new construction under this alternative.

Alternative 4 includes compensation for the unavoidable Project impacts to the Indiana and Virginia big- eared bat (off-site hibernacula protection, cave gating, or maternity area protection in perpetuity) which would remove real threats that affect survivorship or reproduction and thus increase the chance of long- term survival over time. Other species of cave-dwelling bats may benefit incidentally from mitigation efforts that compensate for take to Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat.

The biological significance of mortality of more than 15,000 tree-roosting migratory bats and over 5,000 cave-dwelling bats over the 25 year permit term is uncertain given the lack of population data. If the impact to tree-roosting bats could be mitigated to some degree, it would lessen the significance of this impact.

Because of fewer turbines, Alternative 4 will result in 32% fewer fatalities than Alternative 2; roughly 21,000 bats for Alternative 4 versus 31,000 bats for Alternative 2. However, Alternative 4 will result in 31% more fatalities than Alternative 3, even though Alternative 3 would include 33 more turbines (21,000 bats for Alternative 4 versus nearly 16,000 bats for Alternative 3). This difference is related to the greater effectiveness in reducing bat mortality associated with the higher cut-in-speed of Alternative 3. Because the No-Action Alternative is not expected to kill bats, Alternative 4 will have greater impacts to bats than the No-Action Alternative.

5.8.3 Alternatives Comparison Table 5-33 provides a comparison of bat mortality under implementation of each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operations of the 67- and 100-turbine Projects. Among all alternatives, the No-Action Alternative will result in the lowest bat mortality. Among the three action alternatives, we predict implementation of Alternative 3 will result in the fewest bat fatalities annually and for the life of the Project.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 272 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-33. Life-of-Project bat morality for each of the 4 alternatives and unrestricted operation of the 67- and 100-turbine Projects. Estimates are based on 25.98 bats per turbine per year for the mortality rate derived from estimates from 14 post-construction studies conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region. Life-of-Project mortality by bat group

Tree- Virginia Cave- Alternative roosting Indiana big- All bats dwelling migratory 2 bat eared 1 bats bats bat Alternative 1: No-Action – No ITP/HCP [67 turbines; no night-time operation Apr- 0 0 0 0 0 Nov] Alternative 2: Proposed Action – ITP with Full Implementation of HCP [100 31,462 22,733 8,729 53 14 turbines; 4.8 m/s cut-in speed; 50% mortality reduction] Alternative 3: Additional Covered Species with ITP and HCP with Additional 15,588 10,927 4,474 27 6 Measures [100 turbines; 6.5 m/s cut-in speed; 78% mortality reduction] Alternative 4: Phase I Only with ITP and HCP with Reduced Measures [67- 21,051 15,247 5,543 32 8 turbines, 4.8 m/s cut-in speed; 50% mortality reduction] Unrestricted Phase I Operation [67 43,517 30,505 12,489 78 17 turbines; 3.5 m/s cut-in speed] Unrestricted Phase I and II Operation 64,950 45,530 18,641 125 25 [100 turbines; 3.5 m/s cut-in speed] 1 Includes hoary bat, red bat, and silver-haired bat. 2 Includes tri-colored bat, little brown bat, big brown bat, and northern long-eared bat.

5.9 Socioeconomics The NEPA analysis must consider the effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on socioeconomic conditions. The WVPSC also requires that an Applicant consider the socioeconomic conditions relative to selecting the site of proposed development (CSR§150-30-3.1.a.2). In addition, per the requirements of Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), socioeconomic impacts must be assessed for minority and low-income communities. Concerns also were raised during the scoping process about potential impacts of the Project on local property values.

5.9.1 Impact Criteria Effects would be considered significant if any of the following results were to occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the Proposed Action or alternatives:

• Induce growth or concentrations of population that are in conflict with Greenbrier County’s Comprehensive or Land Use Plans; • Conflict with housing projections and policies set forth in the Greenbrier County Comprehensive Plan; • Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing;

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 273 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; • Cause a decrease in local or regional employment; or • Cause a decrease in local property values.

Adverse environmental justice effects would result if minority or low-income populations were disproportionately affected by the Project.

• Any minority or low-income community suffers a disproportionate share of adverse environmental impacts resulting from actions that are not offset by Project benefits.

5.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative As discussed in Chapter 4.9.2.3, the demographics of minority and low-income populations within the affected project area indicate that there will not be any disproportionate adverse environmental impacts to those populations requiring additional consideration under environmental justice requirements. While there are almost certainly residents, employees, and local businesses who belong to the minority and low-income groups of concern, those individuals will not be impacted at a rate that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison group. While the available census and demographic information does not reach the scale that identifies whether each individual impacted by the project may fall into the minority or low-income status, readily available demographic information indicates that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there is a disproportionate risk to those populations.

Therefore, further consideration of the environmental justice policy under NEPA is not required because even if environmental impacts occur to some minority or low-income individuals and rise to the level of “significance” under NEPA, it is highly improbable that there will be a disproportionate impact, i.e., impact at a rate that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population demographics at the state level. So the impacts, both positive and negative, that will occur in these counties will neither be disproportionately gained nor borne by minority or low-income populations under the proposed action or any of the alternatives.

5.9.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines and HCP would not occur. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for the existing BRE Project.

There would be no new construction, and no added temporary construction jobs or increases in local business revenues (i.e., food, lodging, supplies). Negative effects would include lost opportunities for construction–related economic benefits to the local and county residents and governments.

Phase I Operation and Maintenance Currently, the Project employs 7 full-time employees. With no new construction, there would be no changes to the existing socioeconomic resources as they relate to the current operation and maintenance activities at the 67-turbine facility. Some negative effects would result from loss of local opportunities for the approximately 200 temporary construction jobs and 3 long-term jobs associated with construction and O&M of a 100-turbine facility. Additionally, there may be lost opportunity for related increases in local business revenues associated with these businesses providing goods and services to the Project facility.

The 67-turbine Project would result in $400,000 yearly in tax revenue to Greenbrier County for 25 years and $200,000 yearly in tax revenue to the state.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 274 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase I Decommissioning With no new construction, only the 67-turbine Phase I Project would be decommissioned. With only 67 turbines as opposed to 100 turbines, there would some lost opportunities for temporary employment of local workers involved in the decommissioning process, resulting in lost local wages and revenues.

Avoidance and Minimization There would be no significant or measurable effects on socioeconomic resources associated with avoidance and minimization activities.

No-Action Alternative Summary The No-Action Alternative would have some effects on socioeconomic resources in the form of lost opportunities for temporary construction jobs, long-term operation and maintenance jobs, and temporary decommissioning jobs. Based on the socioeconomic effect criteria above, the No-Action Alternative would not be expected to have significant effects on population growth/decline, housing, property values, and local employment, and would not be in conflict with the local land use plans.

5.9.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative Under the Proposed Action, BRE will construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure and operate the 100-turbine Project according to the Project HCP. The Service will issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project, and avoidance, minimization, and conservation efforts will be implemented as described in the HCP and specified in the ITP.

Phase II Construction Because local/state/local construction trades will be used for portions of the Proposed Action construction, total wages and salaries paid to contractors and workers will increase temporarily, and will contribute to the total personal income of the region. Phase II construction will create up to 150 jobs for local workers for 6 to 8 months. During the construction period, local businesses (food, lodging, supply vendors) will also experience increased sales and revenues.

100-Turbine Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning Impacts on socioeconomic resources will vary by resource type. The Project would add 3 full-time wind technicians to the current staff of 7 workers. Project operation and maintenance will not cause additional impacts on leading industries within the Project area. Additional personal income will be generated for residents in the local area and the state by circulation and recirculation of dollars paid out by BRE as business expenditures and state and local taxes. Expenditures made for equipment, energy, fuel, operating supplies, and other products and services will benefit businesses in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties and the State of West Virginia. Long-term beneficial impacts on Greenbrier County’s tax base as a result of the construction and operation of the wind farm will contribute to improving the local economy in this rural part of West Virginia.

The towns nearest to the Project are Trout, Williamsburg, and Rupert. The Project would have very limited demand for public services other than those related to public safety. The Project will not be fenced, so police and fire access will be available in case of an emergency.

The 100-turbine Project will add another $200,000 or more to the current estimated $400,000 or more in yearly tax revenue provided to Greenbrier County for 25 years. The Project will pay $200,000 in yearly tax revenue to the state.

The Building and Trades Council concluded (through the use of IMPLAM described below) that the construction of the original 124-turbine Project would result in a substantial positive impact on the local economy and local employment (WVPSC 2006). There would be a positive change to the socioeconomic conditions related to the construction and operation of the Project. BRE anticipated that the 124-turbine Project would create 15-20 permanent jobs with a $35,000 average annual salary.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 275 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The IMPLAN software49 was used to analyze the potential impacts of this Project on the economy. Based on the low and high scenarios, the Project is likely to generate the following impacts to the economy of the State of West Virginia. These projections include construction activity related to the Project.

• 265 to 1,089 jobs, in low- and high-impact scenarios. • $25.3 to $104 million of additional private sector output. • $11.3 to $46.4 of value added, including $7.3 to $30 million of additional construction and employee compensation. • $528,000 to $2.2 million of additional indirect business taxes. • $1.9 to $7.9 million in federal tax revenue. • $817,000 to $3.4 million in state tax revenues, half of which would be state personal income tax.

BRE is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on factors such as race or gender.

The indirect effects of operations may influence property values; however, studies suggest property values are not impacted by wind facilities. Goldman and Associates, Inc. (2006) provided testimony (Beech Ridge Energy LLC, No. 05-1590-E-CS, 2006 W.Va. PUC LEXIS 2624) on the impact of windmills on property values in Greenbrier County, WV. Goldman and Associates, Inc. assessed property values and interviewed local reality specialists and community members to determine impacts of development and operation of the Backbone Mountain wind farm on property values in neighboring Tucker County. Study results suggest that no evidence of property value diminution could be attributed to the wind facility and in general there was a positive to neutral response to the wind facility. There was insufficient data to conduct statistical analyses on the wind facility impacts.

Other site-specific studies include a 2006 study conducted in New York. Hoen (2006) found no measureable effects on property values within 5 mi from a wind facility. Another New York study (Heintzelman and Tuttle 2011), based on a large dataset of over 9 years, determined wind facilities did reduce property values by up to approximately 15%. In Illinois, Hinman’s (2010) study improved methodologies regarding the analysis of wind facility impacts on property valuation. An initial “wind farm anticipation stigma” may have caused property values to diminish during the wind facility proposal and planning stage. However, after development of the wind facility, property values rebounded and even increased around the Illinois facility.

Two national-level studies provided statistical evidence to show that wind energy facilities did not influence property values. The National Renewable Energy Policy Project (Sterzinger et al. 2003) found no changes in average property values that were within a distance of 5 mi from wind facilities. Similarly, Hoen et al. (2009) collected data on approximately 7,500 homes situated within 10 mi of wind facilities. No conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind facilities. Specifically, neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices. It is important to note that several year-round and seasonal homes exist within the 5-mi buffer of the Project site.

The Proposed Action does not appear to be in conflict with the Greenbrier County Comprehensive Plan (www.greenbriercounty.net), which encourages sustainable approaches to economic development and the use of green, low-impact development methods, energy efficient construction, and on-site energy sources. The comprehensive plan supports development of energy and mineral-related assets in

49 IMPLAN software allows for predictive economical modeling and impacts analysis of proposed development projects.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 276 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

conjunction with strict environmental standards, as well as stable, long-term economic developments and value-added markets that benefit workers and entrepreneurs.

Proposed Action Summary Based on the type of development and use associated with the Project expansion, the rural demographics of the surrounding area, and the overall policies and planning recommendations contained in the Greenbrier County Comprehensive Plan, the effects of the Proposed Action on the socioeconomic resource will be largely positive in nature. Temporary and permanent employment opportunities will be provided to support the local residents, businesses, and economy. Additional tax revenues will be generated to benefit local and state government programs. Existing industry (logging, mining) will be allowed to continue largely unimpeded by the Project. The Project will not displace any existing housing, or conflict with Greenbrier County’s Comprehensive or Land Use Plans. No specific studies were conducted to assess the Project’s effects on property values, but based on some general studies in other regions and countries, it is assumed the Project could have either no significant effect, or there could be a decrease in values of local, nearby properties. There are also no studies addressing the Project’s expected effects on future construction of new housing (e.g., second homes) in the area. Overall, socioeconomic effects are predicted to be positive, and could be viewed as significant in regard to the creation of some relatively well-paying temporary and permanent jobs within this rural area of West Virginia (particularly Nicolas County) that currently experiences median incomes below the state-wide average.

5.9.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under the Additional Covered Species Alternative, BRE would construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure and operate the 100-turbine Project and implement the HCP’s avoidance and minimization measures to reduce bat mortality. The Service would issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project to take the 2 listed bats. However, the Project HCP would be modified to include avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures for 3 species in addition to those measures for the 2 listed bats specified in the Project HCP.

Alternative 3 Summary Under Alternative 3, Phase II would be constructed, operated, maintained, decommissioned, and mitigated in the same manner as Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Therefore, the effects on socioeconomic resources from Alternative 3 would be the same as those described above for Alternative 2.

5.9.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under the Phase I Only Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines would not be built. An ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued only for BRE’s Phase I Project, and the HCP would address measures for the operation of only 67 turbines. Conservation measures would be reduced to address the unavoidable take of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats. Take estimates for these 2 listed bats would be less than that estimated for the 100-turbine Project.

Alternative 4 Summary Under Alternative 4, the Phase II Project would not be constructed, and therefore the effects on socioeconomic resources would be the same as those described above for Alternative 1: No-Action. The Project would continue to provide full-time employment for 7 workers. There would some increase in tax revenue based on the increased energy produced from night-time operations in spring, summer, and fall.

5.10 Land Use and Recreation The NEPA analysis must consider the effects of a Proposed Action and alternatives on the human environment, which includes land use and recreation. The following section addresses the key issues related to land use and recreation associated with the Project including: compatibility with local land use,

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 277 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

zoning, and comprehensive planning; compatibility with planned development; loss of use to landowners; and effects to recreational resources.

5.10.1 Impact Criteria The WVPSC requires that an Applicant estimate impacts of the Project on land uses within 5 mi and describe concurrent and secondary land uses of the Project area (CSR 150 § 30-3.1.n.). Effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives would be considered significant if the outcome eliminated current land uses within and proximal to the Project area. The WVPSC requires that an Applicant estimate impacts of the Project on recreation areas within 5 mi. Project activities were analyzed to consider whether existing recreational areas would be positively or negatively affected.

Impacts to land use and recreational resources would be considered significant should implementation of an alternative would result in any of the following:

• Incompatibility with local land use, zoning, and future planned development; • Results in lost uses in surrounding lands; and • Results in substantial degradation in a designated recreational use on surrounding lands.

5.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.10.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines would not be constructed and the HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for the existing Phase I Project.

Phase I Operation Under the No-Action Alternative, the Phase I Project would remove 50 acres of industrial forest from productivity for the life of the Project. Approximately 311 acres of deciduous forest was cleared, reclaimed, and allow to regenerate. These cleared acres would continue to recover and eventually become merchantable timber (in 50-80 years depending on the landowner’s forest regeneration practices). Landowners whose property is directly impacted by the Project are compensated through lease agreements for the life of the Project. Aside from cleared areas that are maintained for Project facilities, lands would still be available for forestry and mining.

No-Action would result in no new effects, positive or negative, on tourism and recreation. Under the No- Action Alternative, no new turbines would be constructed, and there would be no added direct or indirect effects on these resources. Since no additional Project construction would take place under the No-Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects to tourism and recreation would be limited to those associated with Phase I operations, maintenance, and decommissioning.

Where visible, it is estimated that under the No-Action Alternative, the Phase I Project will continue to have both positive and negative effects on tourism and recreation depending on the user’s perspective with regard to wind projects. Studies suggest that both negative and positive impacts to tourism may actually balance out, or that the overall impact may be minimal unless the industry becomes saturated and demand for certain recreational activities decline (Priskin 2007, Tourism Research Center 2008). The viewshed and field-review visual resource analyses by Saratoga (2005) indicated that the Phase I Project generally would not be visible from the scenic and recreational resources within the 20-mile Visual Resource APE, with the exception of Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park where less than 7% of the turbines were expected to be visible from one of the overlook trails (Saratoga 2005; see Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 3, Sheets 9 and 10). As noted in the Visual Resources section, even though the electronic viewshed analyses by Saratoga (2005) did not identify specific trails and other publicly

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 278 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

accessible locations where the Phase I Project would be visible, it is likely that the Phase I Project is indeed visible from recreational trails and other remote locations in the VRA APE.

Phase I Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar in character to those associated with construction. However, the duration for decommissioning is likely to be significantly shorter as compared to that of the Phase I construction. Project decommissioning would have moderate effects to recreational activities on surrounding lands where these uses are designated. Impacts would include disturbances associated with equipment noise and fugitive dust. These disturbances would be short-term and largely affect those areas, mostly rural, relatively close to the Phase I Project area.

Avoidance and Minimization There are few avoidance and minimization measures that address effects to land use and tourism with regard to Phase I operations and decommissioning. Disturbed areas and access roads will be graded to the original contour as near as practicable if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads will be left in place.

No-Action Alternative Summary The No-Action Alternative does not include actions that are incompatible with local land use, zoning, or any future planned development. The No-Action Alternative will result in minor losses of land that historically have been used for industrial forestry and mineral extraction. No-Action would result in no new effects, positive or negative, on tourism and recreation because no new turbines would be constructed, and there would be no added direct or indirect effects on these resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects to tourism and recreation would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. It is estimated that the No-Action Alternative will continue to have moderate impacts on tourism and recreational activities in the form of negative and positive effects on user viewshed. Similarly, under the No-Action Alternative, impacts to recreational resources would be considered moderate. Impacts to land use would be considered insignificant because the changes would be minimal in the context of the overall landscape.

5.10.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, BRE will construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure and operate the 100-turbine Project according to the Project HCP. The Service will issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project, and avoidance, minimization, and conservation efforts will be implemented as described in the HCP and specified in the ITP.

Phase II Construction Under the Proposed Action, the 33 turbines will be constructed on land that is currently used for industrial forestry and mineral extraction. Project construction would not be incompatible with the current land uses. Project construction will have moderate effects on recreational activities on surrounding lands where these uses are currently designated. Impacts will include disturbances associated with construction noise and fugitive dust. These disturbances will be short-term and will largely affect those areas, mostly rural, that are relatively close to the Phase II Project area.

100-Turbine Project Operations Landowners whose property is directly impacted by the Project will be compensated through lease agreements over the life of the Project. Aside from cleared and maintained areas, land surrounding each turbine can still be forested and/or mined.

No local studies have been conducted to examine existing or future impacts from the BRE facility on local tourism. Although data on the impacts of wind energy facilities on tourism are currently limited, initial survey-based studies have indicated that facilities have little impact on tourism and may in some areas even attract visitors. The majority of tourists and residents surveyed in European studies held neutral or

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 279 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

positive views towards wind turbines (78% in France, 70-80% in Scotland). A survey in southwest England indicated that 92% of visitors would not change their travel patterns to an area if a wind energy facility were established there. In Holland and Quebec, certain wind energy facilities serve as tourist attractions, although preliminary studies have indicated that most facilities are unlikely to attract visitors on their own (Priskin 2007). A report prepared by the British Wind Energy Association concluded that wind energy facility effects on tourism were “negligible at worst.” Tourist boards involved in the study did not raise wind energy as an issue affecting the industry or maintain any strong opinion concerning wind energy facilities. The report further concluded that “the judgment of acceptability based landscape protection will provide ample protection for the protection of tourism” from impacts associated with wind energy facilities (BWEA 2006). Both visitor and resident respondents to a survey distributed on Prince Edward Island held overwhelmingly positive opinions of wind turbines on the island and supported further wind energy development in the area; 71% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the wind turbines were an attraction for visitors (Tourism Research Center 2008). However, in the CEIWEP (2007) literature review (including a WV study), they noted that wind energy facilities could be attractive to tourists (AusWEA 2004 as cited by CEIWEP 2007), but many see wind facilities as damaging to tourism in areas of high scenic beauty such as National Forests (Grady 2004, Schleede 2003). In general, it is thought that a proliferation of wind facilities in an area would likely not been seen as a tourist attraction. These studies imply that both negative and positive impacts to tourism may actually balance out, or that overall impact may be minimal unless the industry becomes saturated and demand for such recreational activities decline.

In their visual resource assessment of the Phase II Project, Saratoga (2011) noted that several views from within the Phase II APE will likely contain existing (Phase I) wind turbines, but it is possible that previously unaltered views may have visibility of Phase II turbines. For recreational users (e.g., hikers, sight-seers), the perceived level of impact will likely vary depending on the viewers’ sensitivity to landscape changes. Where the Project is visible from longer distances (e.g., 15-20 mi), Saratoga (2011) estimates that it is likely to diminish the quality of the view and may even go un-noticed. These types of effects would be expected for hikers in the various public trails in the 20-mi area surround the Project.

Saratoga (2011) identified and evaluated 68 visual resources within the 20-mi Phase II VRA APE considered to be of cultural or aesthetic importance, including historic districts and properties, state and national highways, and state and national forests, parks, and recreational trails. Their viewshed analyses suggested that only 32 of these resources could theoretically have views of the Phase II Project. Subsequent limited field verification by Saratoga led them to suggest that the number of visible resources would likely be significantly less than 32 due to likely vegetative screening, and they concluded that the overall visibility would be limited to small areas distributed throughout the Phase II VRA APE.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Decommissioning of the Project would not immediately affect the land use and recreational resources of the area. However, over time as the vegetation recovers, these resources are likely to return to pre- construction conditions.

Avoidance and Minimization The elimination of 24 turbines from the original Project layout was to avoid and minimize impacts to bat hibernacula and visual resources. Upon decommissioning of the Project, BRE will restore disturbed areas the original contour as near as practicable if the landowner requests that BRE decommission these areas. If requested by the landowner, access roads will be left in place. Once the Project is decommissioned, lands occupied by the Project will be available once again for industrial forestry and mineral extraction.

Proposed Action Summary The Propose Action does not include actions that are incompatible with local land use, zoning, or any future planned development. The Proposed Action will result in minor losses of land that have historically been used for industrial forestry and mineral extraction, and as such, impacts to land use will be

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 280 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

insignificant. Based on the potential that Phase II Project will be in the viewshed of scenic highways and recreation areas, the Proposed Action is likely to have moderate impacts on tourism and recreational activities, assuming there will be both negative and positive effects on receptors.

5.10.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, impacts to land use and recreational resources would be as described for the Proposed Action construction, operations, and decommissioning.

Alternative 3 Summary Alternative 3 does not include actions that are incompatible with local land use, zoning, or any future planned development. Alternative 3 would result in minor losses of land that have historically been used for industrial forestry and mineral extraction, and as such, impacts to land use will be insignificant. Based on the potential that Phase II will occur within the viewshed of scenic highways and recreation areas, it is estimated that Alternative 3 would have moderate impacts on tourism and recreational activities, assuming both negative and positive effects on receptors.

5.10.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, impacts to land use and recreational resources would be as described for the No- Action Alternative operations and decommissioning.

Alternative 4 Summary Alternative 4 does not include actions that are incompatible with local land use, zoning, or any future planned development. Alternative 4 would result in minor losses of land that have historically been used for industrial forestry and mineral extraction. Alternative 4 would result in no new effects, positive or negative, on tourism and recreation because no new turbines would be constructed, and there would be no added direct or indirect effects on these resources. Under Alternative 4, direct and indirect effects to tourism and recreation would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. It is estimated that Alternative 4 would continue to have moderate impacts on tourism and recreational activities in the form of negative and positive effects on user viewshed. Similarly, under Alternative 4, impacts to recreational resources would be considered moderate. Impacts to land use would be considered insignificant because the changes would be minimal in the context of the overall landscape.

5.11 Visual Resources Visual resources associated with the Phase I and Phase II Projects were evaluated in 2 separate efforts, and it is important to note the distinctions between the 2 regarding the different focuses, methodologies, and study results. Please refer to Chapter 4 for more details related to these two efforts.

The primary assessments of visual resources, conducted by Saratoga Associates (Saratoga 2005, Saratoga 2011), described the visual character of the overall Project area, identified potential visual and aesthetic effects, and provided photo-simulations to allow agency decision-makers the ability to render a supportable determination of the visual significance of the Phase I and Phase II Projects. Saratoga’s assessments were conducted within a 20-mile viewshed APE in the Phase I and Phase II areas, and included inventories of cultural, highway, and recreational resources generally considered by society to be of cultural and/or aesthetic importance. Included in the cultural resources, among others, were structures and properties on the NRHP, as well as public highways and recreational resources. Concurrent efforts to evaluate effects on visual resources were also conducted in association with Cultural Resource assessments (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007, Gray & Pape 2011, 2012). These efforts concentrated on the potential visual effects of the Phase I and Phase II Projects on historical architectural resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP, and were undertaken within 5-mile APEs surrounding the Phase I and Phase II Project areas.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 281 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Effects on visual resources within the more generalized 20-mile APEs are discussed in this section. Visual effects related more specifically to cultural/architectural resources within the 5-mile APEs are presented in Section 5.11 below, and those related to recreational resources are presented in Section 5.9.

It is important to note that the VRAs estimated the visual effects of the proposed wind turbine generators associated with the Phase I (Saratoga 2005) and Phase II (Saratoga 2011) projects. However, in the case of the Phase I Project, only 67 of the 124 turbines were actually built, so the estimated effects that were reported by Saratoga (2005) are likely overstated. Similarly, Saratoga (2011) estimated the effects of the Phase II Project based on a total of 44 turbines (33 proposed and 11 alternates), whereby the reported effects are likely overstated because only 33 would actually be constructed under the proposed action.

5.11.1 Impact Criteria The analyses of visual resource impacts were primarily quantitative in nature and generally focused on identifying locations and geographic areas where turbines would be visible or where there would be a high probability that some portion of the Projects would be visible. For the Phase I and Phase II Projects, Saratoga (2005 and 2011) evaluated viewsheds and prepared exhibits to illustrate their potential visual effects from distances of up to 20 mi (Figure 4-13). This approach was coupled with the preparation of theoretical viewshed maps, photo-simulations, viewshed coverage summary tables, and general strategies for mitigating impacts. Saratoga (2011) noted that it was not practical to evaluate every conceivable location where the BRE Projects might be visible, and that it is accepted practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impacts to locations generally considered by society to be of cultural and/or aesthetic importance. In the evaluation of effects on visual resources, Saratoga assumed that a view of one or more turbines would be considered an impact or effect, though Saratoga’s reports generally lacked the subjective ranking of impacts or in-depth discussions of the degrees of visual impacts.

The evaluation of visual effects can be subjective due to the wide variation in opinions regarding aesthetics and the perceived character of the landscape. For example, some people may find the visual presence of a wind turbine generator appealing, while others may find the same structure visually obtrusive. For the purpose of this FEIS, views of one or more wind turbines from the following resource types or sites would be considered significant effects, either negative or positive, depending on the viewer:

• National Parks and National Forests; • Designated scenic highways and byways; • State bikeways; • State and County recreation areas and trails; • State wildlife management areas; and • Other recognized areas of scenic value.

The exceptions are for visual impacts to historic resources on or eligible for the NRHP, in which case any visibility of one or more wind turbines from those sites would be considered a significant adverse effect. Visual effects to NRHP resources are presented in more detail in Section 5.11 – Cultural Resources.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 282 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.11.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Phase I Operation The viewshed maps from the Phase I VRA report (Saratoga 2005; see Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 2, Sheets 1, 2, 3, and 4), prepared prior to Phase I construction, illustrated the geographic areas within which there would be a high probability that one or more of the 124 proposed turbines would be visible.50 Subsequent field reconnaissance by Saratoga in 2005 evaluated the accuracy of the viewshed maps and revealed that there were few locations in the viewshed where a significant number of turbines would be clearly visible. These field evaluations included traveling highways and visiting readily accessible topographic highpoints to identify representative open views of the Phase I Project area. Further evaluations included photographs taken from 13 publically accessible locations to illustrate visibility with the naked eye, followed by photo simulations at 5 of these sites. The photo simulations superimposed renderings of the (then-proposed) 124 wind turbine generators, factoring in the effects of topography, vegetation, time-of-day, sunlight, and haze. Locations photographed during the field evaluation for visual impacts are listed below. Asterisks indicate locations selected for photo simulations.

• County Route 17 – East of Williamsburg* (4 mi from Project) • Trout Road – Williamsburg Medical Center • Intersection of County Routes 9 and 10* (3.3 mi from Project) • Cold Knob • County Route 4/5 – Lewisburg • Ann Avenue • US Route 60 – Sweet Grass Village • US Route 60 – North of I-64 • Intersection of US 60 and County Route 60/12* (12.0. mi from Project) • County Route 223 – South of Highway 39/55* (3.5 mi from Project) • Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park* (7.4 mi from Project)

With the effects of vegetative and topographic screening factored in, the report concluded that the overall visibility of the Phase I Project would be minor, and that there would be little visibility of the Project within the 5-mi viewshed, with a slight increase in visibility between 7 and 18 mi. Within the 5-mi viewshed, most visibility would occur in the Trout and Williamsburg areas. The report predicted there would be a few small pockets of potential visibility, primarily towards the south and southeast of the Project along portions of roadways (e.g., US 219) and adjacent open fields. The report stressed that the viewshed assessments did not distinguish between visibility of entire turbines verses the top 6 in of the blade, so the viewshed maps likely exaggerated the extent of true visibility.

Saratoga’s field reviews (2005) confirmed that views of the 124 turbines originally proposed would be limited and largely confined to the eastern half of the VRA APE. Potential views from the western half of the APE would likely be extremely limited and fleeting in nature due to screening, distance, and the effects of typical atmospheric conditions (i.e., haze, fog, rain). The 2005 viewshed and field review analyses indicated that the Project generally would not be visible from the scenic and recreational resources within the APE, with the exception of Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park where less than 7% of the turbines were expected to be visible from one of the overlook trails (Saratoga 2005; see Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 3, Sheets 9 and 10). One of the photo simulations shows the view from a point near County Route 223, approximately 3.5 mi from the Project (Saratoga 2005, see Appendix G,

50 Note that only 67 of those turbines have been constructed, so the actual visual effects of the Phase I Project are different than those estimated by Saratoga (2005). Though a VRA has not been completed for the 67 built turbines, it is reasonable to assume that the actual extent of visual impacts from the built project exist but would be less than Saratoga reported for the proposed 124- turbine Project they evaluated.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 283 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Report G-1, Figure 3, Sheets 7 and 8). From that location, approximately 70% of the Project would be visible, but the report noted that this location is not accessible by vehicle (it must be walked to from County Route 223) and is not identified as publicly accessible. From the photo simulations, Saratoga (2005) further concluded:

1. With few exceptions only a small portion (less than 15%) of the proposed Project would be seen from most views, even those that are most open; 2. The vertical form of the turbines are similar to existing landscape elements (e.g. silos, utility poles, fence posts, building edges); 3. From most locations, vegetation and topography screen a significant portion of the proposed Project; 4. Turbine form, color, and layout reduce the potential visual impact; 5. The optical effect of distance reduces the visibility and dominance of the proposed turbines; and 6. The effects of past, current, and future logging operations detract from the aesthetic value of existing views.

In the Phase II VRA, Saratoga (2011) included photo simulations from several viewpoints within the Phase I APE where the existing 67 turbines are visible. The existing conditions photos for these simulations illustrate the actual visual effects of the Phase I turbines, as constructed. The following figures from the Saratoga (2011) report offer representative photographic views of the Phase I turbines from various distances on clear days (Table 5-34).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 284 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-34. Photographic views of Phase I turbines from various distances. Approximate distance from Phase I Figure references in Saratoga turbines (mi) (2011) 1 0.5 - 1 A2-A, A5-A 6 A7-A 6 A4-A 9 A9-A 14 A8-A 1 See Appendix G, Report G-2.

Phase I Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar in character to those associated with construction. However, the duration for decommissioning is likely to be significantly shorter as compared to that of the Phase I construction. Project decommissioning would have significant effects on visual resources, both positive and negative, depending on the receptor, as the Phase I Project is dismantled and removed from view.

Phase I Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation The Phase I Built Project incorporated the following mitigation measures into its design and operation:

• BRE developed the wind farm layout so that turbines were located at least 1 mi from existing residences; • In part to limit the aesthetic effect of the wind farm, the turbines were not illuminated, except as required by FAA regulations and except for low voltage lights on a motion sensor at the entrance door to each turbine; • Turbines were coated/painted a non-reflective and non-obtrusive off-white color; • Turbines were similar in design and size, including tower height, and all turbines comprising Phase I were consistent in color and blade rotation direction (clockwise); • Existing roads were used for construction and maintenance where possible, minimizing viewshed effects created by new road construction; • Access roads created for the Project were located along ridge tops when possible to minimize visible cuts and fills; and • Temporarily disturbed areas in wooded areas will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally to the maximum extent possible while still allowing for access and maintenance of the Project.

No-Action Alternative Summary No-Action would result in no new effects, positive or negative, on visual resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, no new turbines would be constructed, and there would be no added direct or indirect effects on visual resources associated with wind turbines. Since no additional Project construction would take place under the No-Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects to visual resources would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. Mitigation would be limited to that previously implemented for Phase I. The visual assessments of the Phase I Project before (Saratoga 2005) and after (Saratoga 2011) Phase I construction indicate that wind turbines are visible from numerous locations in the 20-mi APE, including visually sensitive resources such as the Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park and others. Based on the results and conclusions of Saratoga’s viewshed, photo simulation, and field verification efforts, it is therefore assumed that there are existing visual effects from the operation of the Phase I Project, and that some of these effects are significant because the Project is visible from visually sensitive resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, these significant effects would continue to occur until Phase I decommissioning.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 285 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.11.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction Under the Proposed Action, Phase II construction would add new wind turbines at 33 of the 47 sites that have been evaluated for effects to visual resources. [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations. BRE is now considering only 44 turbine locations, 11 of which are alternates.] Construction will involve the use of large mobile cranes, which will work briefly at each turbine location but not result in prolonged adverse visual impacts. Turbine components will be transported through the APE via large trucks, but this would not be considered a significant visual impact due to the temporary nature of the work.

This effects analysis recognizes that Project construction will have impacts on visual resources. However, the larger concern rests with the impacts the Project will have once fully constructed. Hence, effects to visual resources are largely confined to that associated with Project operations. In summary, construction- related visual impacts will be temporary and relatively brief.

Phase II 33-Turbine Project Operations The VRA for the Phase II Project (Saratoga 2011) considered a total of 47 new turbine locations, including the 33 primary and 14 alternate locations. [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations. BRE is now considering only 44 turbine locations.] The Phase II VRA was designed to address the WVPSC legislative rules related to the construction and operation of electric generating facilities. It followed standard accepted methodologies of visual assessment and included both quantitative (i.e., visual impact - how much will be seen from what locations) and qualitative (i.e., aesthetic impact - how the Project will be perceived) aspects. The Phase II VRA also considered the effects of the 67-turbine Phase I Built Project added to those of the proposed Phase II Project. Results of the Phase II VRA related to the Proposed Action are summarized below.

• Viewshed analyses for the 47 proposed turbine sites indicated that screening by vegetation and topography will restrict views of any Phase II turbines from 96.9% of the Phase II 20-mi APE. Similarly, vegetative and topographic screening will restrict views of the cumulative (i.e., combined) Phase I/Phase II Project from 94.3% of the Phase II APE, meaning the cumulative visibility of both Projects is 5.7% of the APE. The Phase II Project would result in a 1.4% increase in overall visibility of wind turbines when compared with existing conditions.

• Turbine visibility is more common in the immediate vicinity and within 5 mi of the proposed Phase II turbines. Filtered or framed views are possible through foreground vegetation and buildings in some community centers such as Quinwood and Craigsville. Visibility from lowlands to the southeast of the Project is very limited.

• Photo simulations indicate the existing Phase I Project turbines are currently visible from many of the locations where the proposed Phase II turbines will be visible. There are a number of opportunities in foreground distance (0.0 to 0.5 mi) and middle ground distance (0.5 to 3.0 mi) at higher elevations where all or most of the proposed turbines will be viewable. At background distances (3.0 mi to horizon), turbines will appear small and occupy less of the overall view. Distances to the proposed turbine locations from the viewpoints range from less than 1 mi to over 13 mi (Saratoga 2011; see Appendix G, Report G-2, Figures A2 through A9) for illustrations of how distance can affect the visibility of the turbines.

• A total of 68 visually sensitive resources were identified within the Phase II APE as part of a detailed assessment of aesthetic impacts. Factoring in viewshed screening and field confirmation efforts, potential visibility of at least some portions of the Phase II Project was indicated for up to 32 of these, including 2 Cultural Resources, 10 Highways, 3 National Recreational Resources, and 17 State and County Recreational Resources. Field confirmation by Saratoga, however,

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 286 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

suggests visibility from several of these resources will be localized, short duration, or non- existent.

• Regarding the character of view, the existing Phase I turbines currently present a noticeable vertical element to the landscape from several areas within 10 mi of the Phase II Project, but become much less noticeable beyond 10 mi. The addition of the Phase II turbines would expand the areas from which a distinct perpendicular element is visible. Where existing turbines are not currently visible, the proposed turbines would be the tallest visible elements on the regional landscape as seen from some locations.

• The existing and proposed turbines will be viewed by local residents and visitors to the area. The area is rural with a small resident population, but can receive large numbers of tourists each year to enjoy the recreational and scenic resources. The sensitivity of individuals to visual quality is typically variable, and therefore the perception of visual impact is subjective. The presence of turbines may diminish the aesthetic experience of the viewer, or conversely the viewer may find the wind power project visually interesting.

• The red flashing aviation obstruction lights on existing Phase I turbines are visible night-time elements within the APE, though generally only a few of the FAA-mandated lights can be seen from a given location. The turbines are distributed over large geographic areas and every third turbine will need to be lit, but the VRA report assumes that the Phase II Project will not add significantly to the existing visual intrusion caused by the FAA lighting.

• The proposed access roads for the Phase II Project are relatively minor components of the Project, and it is anticipated that they will not be highly visible or seen as out-of-place by residents or passers-by.

Note that the Phase I VRA (Saratoga 2005) was completed before the Phase I Project was constructed, and included the potential visual effects of the then-proposed 124 turbines. However, only 67 turbines were actually constructed in Phase I, so Saratoga’s pre-construction Phase I VRA overstates the visual impacts because roughly half of the proposed turbines were not installed. The Phase II VRA (Saratoga 2011) addresses the effects of the 67 built turbines, and more accurately reflects the Phase I visual impacts.

100-Turbine Project Operation The level of visual impact will be dependent on the viewers’ sensitivity to visual change and to the location of the viewpoint in relation to the proposed turbines. Though existing Phase I turbines can currently be viewed from several locations, it is possible that previously unaltered views may have visibility of the Phase II Project. In conclusion, because up to 97% of the APE will be screened from view, it is anticipated that the operation of the Phase II Project will, overall, have a minor visual impact on the surrounding landscape when viewed as a whole. However, portions of the Phase II Project will be theoretically visible from up to 32 of 68 visually sensitive resources (47%), including 2 Cultural Resources, a Scenic Highway, 3 National Recreational Resources, and 17 State and County Recreational Resources.

It will be necessary to light 11 additional turbines with FAA lighting, increasing the number of lit turbines from 22 to 33. Turbine lighting will have a low to moderate impact on night-time visual effects.

Mitigation for Phase II Construction and Project Operation The effects of the Phase II Project construction on visual resources in the 20-mile APE will be mitigated by minimizing potential visual impacts (Saratoga 2011). Strategies will include the following.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 287 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• To minimize visual complexity, all turbines will be similar in color and overall appearance to the existing Phase I turbines, and will have the same number of blades that rotate in the same direction. However, BRE plans to use a turbine model that is roughly 20% taller and has a rotor-diameter that is nearly 30% bigger. The Phase II VRA did not account for this. • Turbines will not be used for commercial advertising or include conspicuous lettering or logos identifying the Project owner or equipment manufacturer. • Subsurface routing of electrical interconnects between turbines will be maximized to the extent possible. • The existing Phase I O&M building and 138-kV transmission line will be utilized. • Where possible, existing roadways will be utilized for access to proposed turbine locations. Clearing along existing and new roadways will be kept to a minimum (but not to the extent that it impedes transportation of materials). • Vegetation clearing around the base of the turbines will be kept to a minimum (but not to the extent that it impedes operations). • The color of the blades, nacelle, and tower will be a neutral off-white. Where specifications permit, non-specular paint will be used on all outside surfaces to minimize reflected glare.

Proposed Action Summary As indicated by the Phase II VRA, the Proposed Action will affect up to 32 visually sensitive resources. These impacts are considered major effects based on the impact criteria used in this analysis. Views of the Phase II Project from cultural resources listed in the NRHP would be considered significant adverse effects. Views of the Phase II Project from non-NRHP resources would also be considered significant effects, but they could be adverse or positive effects, depending on the viewer’s opinions. Though the Proposed Action would add to the number of FAA-mandated red flashing aviation obstruction lights in the APE, the VRA suggests this would not add significantly to the existing visual intrusion caused by the FAA lighting. However, because the Phase II Project will add 50% more FAA lighting, this will have a low to moderate effect on night-time visual resources. Although, overall effects on visual resources will be avoided and minimized to the fullest extent practicable, unavoidable visual impacts to cultural resources listed in the NRHP will likely need mitigation.

5.11.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Phase I Construction Under Alternative 3, effects to visual resource from the construction of the Phase II Project would be the same as those described for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

100-Turbine Project Operation Under Alternative 3, the effects to visual resource from the operation of the 100-turbine Project would be the same as those described for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

Mitigation for Phase II Construction and Project Operation Under Alternative 3, the visual resource mitigation measures for the Phase II construction and the 100- turbine Project operation would be the same as those described for Alternative 2, the Proposed Action.

Alternative 3 Summary Within the Phase II VRA, the Proposed Action will affect up to 32 visually sensitive resources. These impacts are considered major effects based on the impact criteria used in this analysis. Views of the Phase II Project from cultural resources listed in the NRHP would be considered significant adverse effects. Views of the Phase II Project from non-NRHP resources would also be considered significant effects, but they could be adverse or positive effects, depending on the viewer’s opinions. Though the Proposed Action would add to the number of FAA-mandated red flashing aviation obstruction lights in the APE, the VRA suggests this would not add significantly to the existing visual intrusion caused by the FAA lighting. However, because the Phase II Project will add 50% more FAA lighting, this will have a low to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 288 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

moderate effect on night-time visual resources. Although overall effects on visual resources will be avoided and minimized to the fullest extent practicable, unavoidable visual impacts to cultural resources will likely need mitigation.

5.11.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Phase I Project Operation Under Alternative 4, impacts to visual resources associated with Phase I Operations would be as described for the No-Action Alternative.

Phase I Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar to those described for the No-Action Alternative. Project decommissioning would have significant effects on visual resources, both positive and negative, depending on the receptor, as the Phase I Project is dismantled and removed from view.

Phase I Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Under Alternative 4, there would be no specific additional mitigation related to visual resources affected by the Phase I Project. However, by not constructing the 33 turbines of the Phase II Project, overall effects of the wind energy Project on visual resource would be mitigated through avoidance and minimization.

Alternative 4 Summary Alternative 4 would result in no new effects, positive or negative, on visual resources. No new turbines would be constructed, so there would be no added direct or indirect effect on visual resources. Direct and indirect effects on visual resources would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. Mitigation would include that previously implemented for Phase I, as well as the avoidance and minimization of impacts associated with not constructing additional wind turbines. The visual assessments of the Phase I Project before (Saratoga 2005) and after (Saratoga 2011) its construction indicates that wind turbines are visible from numerous locations in the 20-mi APE, including visually sensitive resources such as the Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park and others. Based on the results and conclusions of Saratoga’s viewshed, photo simulation, and field verification efforts, it is therefore assumed that there are existing visual effects from the operation of the Phase I Project, and that some of these effects are significant because the Project is visible from visually sensitive resources. Under the Alternative 4, these significant effects would continue to occur until Phase I is decommissioned.

5.12 Cultural Resources This section evaluates the potential effects that implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives would have on cultural resources during construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the Project. Historic structure cultural resources associated with the Phase I and Phase II Projects were evaluated primarily by O’Bannon and Sweeten (2007) and Gray & Pape (2008, 2011a, 2011b, 2012). Archaeological cultural resources were evaluated by Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRA 2009, 2010, 2011; see reports in Appendix K).

5.12.1 Impact Criteria The NHPA affords protection to all historic properties defined as: “…any Pre-European contact or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for listing on the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource (46 CFR 800, as amended 2006, Title III, Section 301, #5).” Once a cultural resource is identified, the historic significance of the property must be evaluated in terms of its ability to meet the NRHP criteria (36 CFR 800.4 (c)(1)). A cultural resource that meets the criteria is considered an historic property entitled to the consideration afforded by Section 106 of the NHPA, as outlined in the ACHP’s implementing regulations (36 CFR 800).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 289 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Impacts to cultural resources (i.e., historic structures, archaeological sites, and traditional cultural properties) that are eligible for listing on the NRHP would be considered significant if they result in adverse effects. As noted in Gray & Pape (2011b), under 36 CFR Part 800 an “adverse effect” is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a historic property that would qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Conversely, significant beneficial effects may result from the removal of an adverse effect (as in decommissioning).

As noted in Chapter 4, there are no known NRHP-eligible cultural resources within the Phase II Project area of direct impact (i.e., where ground is disturbed by construction), and as such none of the identified cultural resources would be directly affected by the Phase II Project. For the purpose of this FEIS, therefore, impacts to cultural resources located in the 5-mile Cultural Resource APE would be limited to visual effects, noise effects, and cultural effects (e.g., setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape). Any such effect to cultural resources identified as eligible for or listed in the NRHP, and located within the APE, would be considered a significant adverse effect.

5.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented By Alternative

5.12.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Phase I Operation Historic Structures Cultural Resources. Eligible historic properties within the Phase I APE are described Section 4.11.2. BHE (2008) documents the assessment of visual, noise, and cultural effects in the Phase I Project area, and for the purpose of the report, any visibility of a turbine from a NRHP-listed or eligible resource was considered an adverse effect. Note that BHE Environmental’s assessment of effects, as summarized below, was based on the original Phase I proposal that included 124 wind turbines, and that effects would be less than originally reported because the actual Phase I construction included only 67 turbines.

The assessment of effects resulted in the identification of 26 locations where the construction of the Phase I Project could result in adverse visual effects to NRHP-eligible historic properties. These included three historic districts, the Duo Historic District, the Williamsburg/Trout Historic District, and the Friars Hill Historic District, as well as churches, cemeteries, schools, and individual properties both within and beyond the boundaries of these historic districts.

BHE (2008) concluded that none of the NRHP-eligible historic properties were located in the direct Project area, and therefore none would be directly impacted by the Phase I Project. Only one eligible historic property, the Duo Historic District, was found to be located within 1 mi of the closest Phase I turbine. Acoustical analysis indicated that the noise levels associated with operation of this turbine would be masked by existing ambient noise levels, and therefore it was concluded that the turbine would have no adverse noise effect on this historic district. On April 10, 2008, the WVSHPO concurred with the BHE (2008) report’s findings.

The cultural resources effects assessment report (BHE 2008) concluded that development and operation of the 124-turbine wind energy facility would add visual elements to the landscape that may not be in keeping with the area’s historic patterns of settlement. Based on the locations of known architectural resources in the historic structures APE, BHE (2008) indicated that the Phase I Project could thereby constitute an adverse effect for 26 out of the 51 eligible resources identified in that APE. Development of the Phase I Project would result in a semi-permanent change to the rural landscape, including immediate visual changes. The visual changes would affect the setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape, resulting in adverse visual and cultural effects within some portions of the Phase I Cultural Resource APE.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 290 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Along with their assessment of effects report, BHE Environmental submitted a draft MOA to WVSHPO on February 15, 2008, to address the adverse effects on 20 NRHP-eligible historic buildings and structures within the historic structures APE. As compensation for these potential adverse effects, the MOA (1) provided 6 copies of the Architectural Investigations report for the Beech Ridge Energy facility (dated March 6, 2007) in hard-copy and electronic format, for deposit in local public libraries and historical societies; (2) provided for a 1-time monetary payment of $10,000 for future assistance in historic preservation-related activities conducted by the Greenbrier Historical Society or the Williamsburg Historical Foundation; and (3) contained detailed information regarding archaeological surveys that would be conducted once design had sufficiently advanced to the point where ground disturbing activity was known. The WVSHPO signed the MOA on July 31, 2008; Beech Ridge Energy, LLC signed on August 4, 2008. A copy of the MOA is contained in Appendix K of this FEIS.

Archaeological Cultural Resources. On behalf of BRE, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., (CRA) conducted a “Phase I” archaeological survey for the Phase I Project. The survey was completed during the summer and early fall of 2008 within the direct archaeological APE, which was defined as the footprint of the ground disturbing activities associated with the wind turbines, construction layout areas, access roads, substation, operations facility, and transmission line. A report (CRA 2009) and 3 subsequent addendums (i.e., to address changes and additions to the ground disturbance footprint of the Phase I Project) were submitted by CRA between January 2009 and April 2010 (CRA 2009, 2010). Based on the results of the Phase I archaeological surveys, CRA recommended that there were 3 new archaeological sites within the direct APE that were NRHP-eligible and warranted protection, to include avoidance by all Project activities by no less than 100 ft. The WVSHPO concurred with the report findings and indicated that if the resources were avoided by the construction activities, it was the opinion of WVDHC that the Phase I Project would have no effects on the resources.

Phase I Decommissioning Decommissioning activities would be similar in character to those associated with construction. However, the duration for decommissioning is likely to be significantly shorter as compared to that of the Phase I construction. In accordance with the impact criteria above, Project decommissioning would have significant beneficial effects on those NRHP-eligible historic structure cultural resources with views of the 67 turbines as the Phase I Project is dismantled and removed from view.

Phase I Mitigation The Phase I Built Project incorporated the following mitigation measures into its design and operation, some of which help mitigate the visual effects to cultural historic structures and direct disturbance-type effects to archaeological resources:

• BRE developed the wind farm layout so that turbines were located at least a mi from existing residences; • In part to limit the aesthetic effect of the wind farm, the turbines were not illuminated, except as required by FAA regulations, and except for a low voltage lights on a motion sensor at the entrance door to each turbine; • Turbines were coated/painted a non-reflective and non-obtrusive off-white color; • Turbines were similar in design and size, including tower height, and all turbines comprising Phase I were consistent in color and blade rotation direction (clockwise); • Existing roads were used for construction and maintenance where possible, minimizing new road construction; • Access roads created for the Project were located along ridge tops when possible to minimize visible cuts and fills; • Temporarily disturbed areas in wooded areas will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally to the maximum extent possible while still allowing for access and maintenance of the Project; and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 291 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• As the Phase I Project was constructed, NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were avoided by ground disturbance activities. As a result, adverse effects to archaeological resources by the Phase I Project were entirely mitigated through avoidance.

No-Action Alternative Summary Under Alternative 1, no new turbines would be constructed, so there would be no new impacts, direct or indirect, positive or negative, to cultural resources. Since no additional Project construction would take place, direct and indirect effects on cultural resources would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. Mitigation would therefore be limited to that previously implemented for Phase I. Ongoing impacts to up to 26 identified NRHP-eligible historic structure cultural resources would continue to occur from the operation of Phase I until decommissioning. Decommissioning of the existing 67 turbines would not directly impact any area previously undisturbed during construction, and therefore effects on archaeological resources would be avoided. By not constructing the 33 turbines of the Phase II Project, overall effects of the Project on cultural resources would be mitigated through avoidance and minimization under the No-Action Alternative.

5.12.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction Under the Proposed Action Alternative, Phase II construction will add new wind turbines at 33 of the 47 sites that have been surveyed and evaluated for architectural and archaeological resources. [During the permitting process for the WVPSC siting certificate for Phase II, BRE dropped 3 of these 47 turbine locations. BRE is now considering only 44 turbine locations.] Construction will include new and upgraded access roads, collector cables, temporary staging areas, and other supporting infrastructure. Temporary ground impacts for each turbine are approximately 1.8 acres. Construction vehicles, including those transporting the new turbines, will travel through portions of the Phase II historic structures APE on their way to and from the turbine locations. Construction activities will temporarily generate noise from trucks, cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, and batch plants, and some of these noises will be heard from nearby residences, communities, properties, and public roadways. Construction-related noises will vary, and will be lessened or eliminated by increasing distance from the construction sites.

Effects of construction on historic structures within the Phase II APE are expected to be temporary and primarily limited to construction noise and temporary views of construction cranes. A study to assess noise associated with the construction and operation of the Phase II Project (Acentech 2011) reported that the majority of construction activities will be conducted during daylight hours, and that some of the activities will be audible to nearby residences. The town of Duo, which is one of the NRHP-eligible historic districts in the Phase II APE, is located between the existing Phase I facility and the proposed Phase II expansion area. Most of Duo’s residences are approximately two mi from the nearest Phase II turbine locations. Based on the acoustical study, it is expected that the temporary noise generated by Phase II Project construction will be similar to noise generated by typical mid-sized building projects and the current timber and mining activities in the region.

Though no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were identified within the expected ground- disturbance footprint of the Phase II Project, CRA (2011) recommends further survey of specific landforms and soil types in the Project area prior to construction to confirm that these types of cultural resources do not exist and will therefore not be affected by Project construction. BRE will conduct additional archaeological surveys prior to beginning construction of the Phase II turbines. The Service and BRE are in discussions with WVSHPO and the Catawba Nation to develop another MOA (as described for Phase I) to avoid and mitigate for any effects of Phase II construction on archaeological resources.

100-Turbine Project Operation The 100-turbine Project has not been specifically evaluated as to the effects on cultural resources. In the absence of a comprehensive assessment on the 100-turbine Project, it is reasonable to assume that the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 292 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase I and Phase II cultural resource assessments can be used to estimate the combined effects. It is important to note that the actual effects of the 100-turbine Project will be less than those reported by both the Phase I and Phase II cultural resource assessments, as only 67 of the 124 Phase I turbines were built, and only 33 of the 44 turbine locations that were evaluated will be constructed under Phase II.

The cultural resources effects assessment report (BHE 2008) concluded that construction of the 124- turbine wind energy facility would add visual elements to the landscape that may not be in keeping with the area’s historic patterns of settlement. Based on the locations of known architectural resources in the historic structures APE, BHE (2008) indicated that the Phase I Project could thereby constitute an adverse effect for 26 out of the 51 eligible resources identified in that APE. These resources include 3 Historic Districts, 4 churches, 5 cemeteries, 1 school house, and 13 individual properties (BHE (2008). BHE (2008) concluded that turbine construction would result in a semi-permanent change to the rural landscape, including immediate visual changes. The visual changes would affect the setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape, resulting in adverse visual and cultural effects within some portions of the Phase I Cultural Resource APE. Though only 67 of those turbines were actually installed in the Phase I Project, and it cannot be determined from the BHE (2008) report whether the 67 turbines actually affect all of the 26 NRHP-eligible resources, it is assumed herein for the purpose of this FEIS that all of the 26 cultural resources have views of one or more of the Phase I turbines. Therefore, the operation of those turbines constitutes a significant adverse effect on those resources.

The assessments of the Phase II Project on cultural resources considered a total of 47 new turbine locations, including 33 primary and 14 alternate locations. The assessments included reconnaissance- level reviews within the 5-mi historic structure APE to identify structures that were potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, and that could have their viewsheds altered if the Phase II wind turbines were constructed (Gray & Pape 2011a and 2011b). Gray & Pape (2011b) used the electronic viewshed analysis from Saratoga (2011) to determine if any of the Phase II wind turbines would be visible from the historic-period resources they identified. They also used the acoustical assessments by Acentech Inc. (Acentech 2011) to evaluate the effect of noise on eligible historic resources. The assessment of effects report for the Phase II Project archaeological resources was completed in March 2012 (Gray and Pape 2012). On April 6, 2012, the West Virginia SHPO concurred with this effects analysis (WVDCH 2012).

The assessment of archaeological resources included a desktop analysis and an archaeological reconnaissance survey of the direct Phase II APE, defined as the estimated potential area of temporary and permanent ground disturbance associated with the Project construction (CRA 2011). Results and conclusions of both the historic structure and archaeological assessments for Phase II are summarized below. The Service concurs with the determinations below, except as otherwise noted.

Historic Properties

• Of the 206 historic-period resources identified by Gray & Pape (2011a and 2011b, 2012) within the non-overlap 5-mi Phase II APE,51 only 2 were determined to be NHRP-eligible by the SHPO. The Service concurs. These are: (1) the Mt. Urim Baptist Church and associated cemetery on County Route 17 in Nicholas County; and (2) the Duo Historic District on Duo Rd in Greenbrier County. • Gray & Pape (2012) conclude that the Phase II Project will not have an adverse visual or acoustical effect on the Mt. Urim Baptist Church because existing vegetation screens views of the church, and because noise levels during construction and operation will be masked by existing ambient noise. The Service questions whether absence of trees sometime in the future would make a significance difference in visual effect, especially at the Mt. Urim churchyard where trees blocking turbine views are in the foreground (USFWS 2012b). For this reason, the Service will

51 The “non-overlap” is the area within the Phase II cultural APE that does not overlap with the Phase I cultural APE.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 293 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

send the effects report to the Mt. Urim Church and invite their participation in the MOA, should they have concerns. • The Duo Historic District may have views of from 1-30 Phase II wind turbines, depending on the vantage point from within the district, with the majority of the district expected to have views of 1- 10 turbines. Gray & Pape (2011b) conclude that, due to the scale of the Phase II Project, the addition of permanent industrial-type visual elements to the rural landscape will constitute an adverse visual effect for the Duo Historic District. The Service concurs with the findings in the report that the Duo Historic District will have additional turbines within its viewshed, which add cumulatively to existing viewshed effects from Phase I. These new visual effects to the Duo District must be mitigated through the development of an MOA with interested parties • The Duo Historic District is expected to experience temporary noise effects during construction of the Phase II Project, but day-to-day operation of the wind energy facility is not expected to exceed existing ambient sound levels at this location. The Service concurs there will be no adverse noise effects to historic structure cultural resources as a result of the Phase II Project. • Though the landscape within the Phase II APE typically undergoes change on a regular basis as a result of farming, mining, and lumbering activities, the permanent change to the rural landscape that will result from the construction and operation of the 33 Phase II wind turbines constitutes a visual effect that alters the setting, feeling, and association or the rural landscape. The Phase II Project will introduce industrial elements to the landscape that, when combined with the Phase I Project, will erode the traditional landscape and in turn affect the cultural heritage of the local residents. Consequently, Gray & Pape (2011b) conclude that, in addition to the adverse visual effects, the Phase II Project will have adverse cultural effects within the APE. The Service concurs.

Archaeological Resources

• Based on desktop analyses and reconnaissance field surveys of the direct archaeological resources APE for Phase II, CRA (2011) found no evidence of NRHP-eligible resources, and concluded that the that the majority of APE has a low probability to contain archaeological sites, especially those that would qualify for inclusion on the NRHP. • CRA (2011) listed 4 previously recorded sites located within or near the APE, all located on ridgetops and landforms with slopes less than 15-20% and in areas mapped as Mandy channery silt loam. These 4 prehistoric sites were previously identified by CRA in the assessment of the Phase I Project, and each was determined by the WVSHPO to be not eligible for the NRHP. No further examination of the sites was recommended by CRA or WVSHPO. • CRA (2011) recommends further survey of ridgetops and other landforms with slopes less than 20%, with specific attention to the areas of Mandy channery silt loam soil type not examined during the prior surveys.

The SHPO concurred with these findings by letter dated October 26, 2011, and requested preparation of an MOA. The Service concurred by e-mail to the SHPO and BRE on November 4, 2011. Although no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were identified within the expected ground-disturbance footprint of the Phase II Project, their existence cannot be ruled out, and therefore the Service recommends that further pre-construction surveys be conducted to confirm that these types of cultural resources either do not exist and will therefore not be affected by Project construction, or if found, will be avoided if possible, and mitigated if they cannot be avoided. As with construction of the BRE Phase I Project, a “Phase II” archaeological survey to include on-the-ground testing in the ground-disturbance footprint will occur prior to construction of the 33 turbines and supporting facilities. An MOA will be developed among BRE, SHPO, the Service, interested tribes, and other interested parties to ensure that archaeological resources are properly studied and avoided or mitigated.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 294 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Mitigation for Phase II Construction and Project Operation The effects of construction-generated noises will be mitigated by typical construction practices (Acentech 2011), including:

• Conducting most activities in daylight hours; • Limiting night-time work to relatively quiet activities; • Restricting pile-driving activities to daytime during weekdays; • Using effective exhaust mufflers in proper working condition; • Requiring contractors to comply with federal limits on truck/equipment noise; • Conducting any blasting (if required) in accordance with standard industrial practices and project- specific requirements established by the WVPSC, with the overall goal of reducing potential impacts to nearby residences; and • Carefully selecting only 33 out of the 44 turbine locations, with consideration to minimizing impacts (primarily visual) to cultural resources.

Similar to the Phase I Project, the Phase II Project will incorporate the following mitigation measures into its design and operation, some of which help mitigate the visual effects to cultural historic structures and direct disturbance-type effects to archaeological resources:

• BRE developed the wind farm layout so that turbines were located at least a mi from existing residences; • In part to limit the aesthetic effect of the wind farm, the turbines will not be illuminated, except as required by FAA regulations, and except for a low voltage lights on a motion sensor at the entrance door to each turbine; • Turbines will be coated/painted a non-reflective and non-obtrusive off-white color; • Turbines will be similar in design and size, including tower height, and all turbines comprising Phase II will be consistent in color and blade rotation direction; • Existing roads will be used for construction and maintenance where possible, minimizing new road construction; • Access roads created for the Project will be located along ridge tops when possible to minimize visible cuts and fills; • Temporarily disturbed areas in wooded areas will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally to the maximum extent possible while still allowing for access and maintenance of the Project; and • The ground-disturbance areas of the Phase II Project will be surveyed prior to construction, and NRHP-eligible archaeological resources will be avoided by ground-disturbance activities. As a result, adverse effects to archaeological resources by the Phase II Project will be mitigated through avoidance.

The Service and BRE are in discussions with WVSHPO and the Catawba Nation to develop another MOA (as described for Phase I) to address and mitigate for any additional effects of the 33-turbine expansion area.

100-Turbine Project Decommissioning Decommissioning of the existing 100-turbine Project would be similar in character to the activities associated with construction. Decommissioning would not impact any area previously undisturbed during construction. The duration for decommissioning is likely to be significantly shorter than that for construction of the two Projects. In accordance with the impact criteria above, Project decommissioning would have significant beneficial effects on those NRHP-eligible historic structure cultural resources with views of the 100 turbines as they are dismantled and removed from view.

Proposed Action Summary In 2 separate studies, Gray & Pape analyzed the effects of the 124-turbine Phase I Project (O’Bannon and Sweeten 2007) and the 47-turbine Phase II Project (Gray & Pape 2011, 2012) on cultural resources.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 295 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Though a 100-turbine combined Project was not analyzed as a whole, the effects outlined in the Phase I and Phase II studies can be used to approximate the visual, noise, and cultural effects of the Proposed Action alternative, which would include 100 turbines in total. Operation of the 100-turbine Project would be expected to have adverse visual effects on approximately 26 NRHP-eligible resource within the combined Phase I/Phase II APE. Noise from Phase II construction may temporarily affect some nearby NRHP-eligible resources, but it is expected that noise from day-to-day operation of the 100-turbine Project will not cause adverse effects because it is not expected to exceed ambient levels at any of the NRHP-eligible resources. Gray & Pape (2011b) conclude that the visual effects of the 100-turbine Project would result in an erosion of the traditional landscape, and consequently, in adverse cultural effects related to setting, feeling, and association with the rural landscape.

Based on the Impact Criteria, it is predicted that implementation of the Proposed Action will have significant adverse (major) effects on cultural resources. These effects would result from some wind turbines being visible from NRHP-eligible historic property resources, and from the overall visual changes within the Cultural Resource APE affecting the setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape. Noise from Phase II construction may temporarily affect some nearby NRHP-eligible resources, but it is expected that noise from day-to-day operation of the 100-turbine Project will not affect any cultural resources. Though no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were identified within the expected ground-disturbance footprint of the Phase II Project, their existence cannot be ruled out and therefore further pre-construction surveys are recommended to confirm that these types of cultural resources either do not exist and will therefore not be affected by Project construction, or if found, will be avoided if possible, and mitigated if they cannot be avoided. It is expected that these follow-up archaeological studies and resulting consultation will be addressed in the MOA.

5.12.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, effects on cultural resources from the construction of the Phase II Project, the 100- turbine operation, mitigation measures, and decommissioning would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action. Based on the Impact Criteria, it is predicted that implementation of Alternative 3 will have significant adverse effects on cultural resources. These effects result from some wind turbines being visible from NRHP-eligible historic property resources, and from the overall visual changes within the Cultural Resource APE affecting the setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape. Noise from Phase II construction may temporarily affect some nearby NRHP-eligible resources, but it is expected that noise from day-to-day operation of the 100-turbine Project will not affect any cultural resources. Though no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were identified within the expected ground-disturbance footprint of the Phase II Project, further pre-construction surveys are recommended to confirm that these types of cultural resources do not exist and will therefore not be affected by Project construction or if found, will be avoided or mitigated.

5.12.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, effects from the 67-turbine operation, mitigation measures, and decommissioning on cultural resources would be the same as those described for the No-Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 4, no new turbines would be constructed, so there would be no new impacts, direct or indirect, positive or negative, to cultural resources. Since no additional Project construction would take place, direct and indirect effects on cultural resources would be limited to those associated with Phase I O&M and decommissioning. Mitigation would therefore be limited to that previously implemented for Phase I. Ongoing impacts to up to 26 identified NRHP-eligible historic structure cultural resources would continue to occur from the operation of Phase I until decommissioning. Decommissioning of the existing 67 turbines would not directly impact any area previously undisturbed during construction, and therefore effects on archaeological resources would be avoided. By not constructing the 33 turbines of the Phase II Project, overall effects of the wind energy Project on cultural resources would be mitigated through avoidance and minimization under the Alternative 4.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 296 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.13 Communications This section evaluates the potential Project effects on communications facilities and systems in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties. No significant issues specifically relating to telecommunications were identified during the public scoping process. However, the Project activities must comply with the Federal Communications Commission’s rules and policies. The Project’s potential effects to communications resources include:

• Interference to microwave, TV, radio, cellular and telephone communications service, and land mobile radio reception; and • Inconvenience to local businesses and residents.

5.13.1 Impact Criteria The WVPSC requires an Applicant to identify and describe a proposed facility’s potential effects to telephone line utilities. However, the WVPSC does not require that an Applicant evaluate and describe the potential for the facility to interfere with radio, TV, or telephone reception. Wind projects have the potential to create problems for certain communication systems on which the public is dependent. Effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives on communications resources would be significant if users are prevented from relying on systems that should be available to them.

5.13.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.13.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed 33 turbines and HCP would not occur. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for the existing BRE Project. There would be no new construction.

Phase I Operations Microwave Paths. Wind turbines can interfere with microwave paths by blocking or partially blocking the line-of-sight path between microwave transmitters and receivers. Beech Ridge hired Comsearch to identify microwave telecommunication systems that traverse the Phase I area. Using Wind Power GeoPlanner software, the firm made a geographical representation of registered fixed microwave beam paths in the 960 megahertz (MHz) to 23 gigahertz (GHz) frequency band range. Because microwave communication is a line-of-sight technology, potential interference of microwave telecommunication signals can be avoided by locating the wind turbines outside of the microwave communications profile. Comsearch calculated a Worst Case Fresnel Zone for each of the microwave beam paths in the area. The middle of the path is where the widest (the worst case) Fresnel Zone appears. The microwave beam paths were then overlaid on topographic base maps for the Project study area and turbines were sited to avoid these paths.

Turbines in the Phase I Project would not affect microwave paths as identified in the Project area at the time of the survey.

Television. Potentially, wind turbines can block television broadcast signals or affect television reception by introducing reflections or “ghosting” to the images broadcasted. If necessary and appropriate, BRE would resolve television interference problems by improving the person’s antenna, changing the antenna location, or installing relays to re-transmit and boost the affected signal. Installing satellite television would be another possible option. Television reception issues would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by working with any affected residents to identify the best solution.

Cellular and Two-way Radio. There is no evidence that wind turbines interfere with individual cell phones or two-way radio communications. In fact, turbine maintenance personnel often use cell and radio equipment to perform their work. The turbines are not likely to introduce problems with two-way radios if

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 297 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the towers are not adjacent to the microwave transmitting and/or receiving antennas. In some areas, cell phone antennae have been installed on the turbine towers. As such, problems with cellular and 2-way radio communication are not expected to result from Phase I operations.

Wireless Internet. Wireless system reliability and performance is strongly affected by the strength of an incoming signal. To maximize signal strength, links are usually designed with a clear line-of-sight between antennae. A wireless customer may have a reliability and/or performance issue if the path between antennae is blocked by a turbine tower, or if a turbine blade intersects the signal path. This may be solved in a similar manner as the television issue. If necessary and appropriate, BRE will work with any affected landowners within the Project area to remedy any degradation in their broadband wireless internet service regardless of alternative pursued.

No-Action Alternative Summary For siting the Phase I turbines, BRE avoided identified microwave paths. Additionally, BRE is committed to addressing any Project interferences with communications systems as they arise and on a case-by- case basis. Under the No-Action Alternative, effects to communications resources are expected to be minor and would be easily mitigated should they be identified. Users of existing communications resources are not expected to be prevented from relying on these systems that should be available to them.

5.13.2.1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, BRE will construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated infrastructure and operate the 100-turbine Project according to the Project HCP. The Service will issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project, and avoidance, minimization, and conservation efforts will be implemented as described in the HCP and specified in the ITP.

Phase II Construction Construction activities associated with the 33-turbine Project could begin to affect communications systems as soon as 1 or more turbines are up and able to interfere with broadcast signals. BRE has not yet conducted a study to locate microwave paths in the Phase II Project area. However, BRE intends to avoid blocking microwave paths, and turbines eventually will be sited to avoid microwave paths. Should other communications systems become impacted during construction, BRE is committed to addressing these issues as they arise and on a case-by-case basis as discussed for the No-Action Alternative operations.

100-Turbine Operations Potential effects to communications systems associated with Proposed Action operations will be as described for the No-Action Alterative but with the addition of 33 turbines in the Phase II Project area. However, site specific modeling of the microwave paths for Phase II of the Project has not been completed. Impacts to microwave transmissions would require minor modifications to siting if an impact is discovered. Should other communications systems become impacted during operations, BRE is committed to addressing these issues as they arise and on a case-by-case basis as discussed for the No- Action Alternative operations.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Decommissioning is not expected to result in impacts to communications resources. The dismantling of the Project would not create any new interference with broadcasted signals.

Proposed Action Summary For siting the Phase II turbines, BRE will avoid microwave paths when they have been identified. Additionally, BRE is committed to addressing any Project interferences with communications systems as they arise and on a case-by-case basis. Under the Propose Action, effects to communications resources

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 298 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

would be minor and easily mitigated should they be identified. Users of existing communications resources will not be prevented from relying on these systems that are typically available to them.

5.13.2.2 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would be issued for development of the BRE Project. The Phase II 33 turbines would be constructed as described for the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, BRE’s Curtailment Plan and RMAMP would be modified to implement a 6.5 m/s cut-in speed as opposed to 4.8 m/s as the initial rate for curtailment. Furthermore, all 100 turbines would operate at 6.5 m/s from 30 minutes before sunset through 15 minutes after sunrise during the period April 1 through October 15.

Phase II Construction Under Alternative 3, impacts to communications associated with Phase II construction would be as described for the Proposed Action. Construction activities could begin to affect communications systems as soon as 1 or more turbines are up and able to interfere with broadcast signals. BRE has not yet conducted a study to locate microwave paths in the Phase II Project area. However, BRE intends to avoid blocking microwave paths, and turbines eventually will be sited to avoid microwave paths. Should other communications systems become impacted during construction, BRE is committed to addressing these issues as they arise and on a case-by-case basis as discussed for the No-Action Alternative operations.

100-Turbine Project Operation Potential effects to communications systems associated with Alternative 3 operations would be as described for the No-Action Alterative but with the addition of 33 turbines in the Phase II Project area. However, site specific modeling of the microwave paths for Phase II of the Project has not been completed. Impacts to microwave transmissions would require minor modifications to siting if an impact is discovered. Should other communications systems become impacted during operations, BRE is committed to addressing these issues as they arise and on a case-by-case basis as discussed for the No- Action Alternative.

Alternative 3 Summary For siting the Phase II turbines, BRE would avoid microwave paths when they have been identified. Additionally, BRE is committed to addressing any Project interferences with communications systems as they arise and on a case-by-case basis. Under Alternative 3, effects to communications resources would be minor and easily mitigated should they be identified. Users of existing communications resources will not be prevented from relying on these systems that are typically available to them.

5.13.2.3 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, BRE would not construct the proposed 33 turbines and associated Phase II infrastructure. BRE would operate the 67-turbine Project according to the Project HCP. The Service will issue an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the Project, and avoidance, minimization, and conservation efforts will be implemented as described in the HCP and specified in the ITP. There would be no new construction.

Phase I Operations Potential effects to communications systems associated with Alternative 4 would be as described for the No-Action Alterative. BRE conducted site specific modeling of the microwave paths in Phase I and used this information to site the 67 turbines to avoid blocking microwave paths. Microwave paths would not be affected. Should other communications systems become impacted during operations, BRE is committed

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 299 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

to addressing these issues as they arise and on a case-by-case basis as discussed for the No-Action Alternative.

Phase I Decommissioning Decommissioning is not expected to result in impacts to communications resources. The dismantling of the Project would not create any new interference with broadcasted signals.

Alternative 4 Summary For siting the Phase I turbines, BRE avoided identified microwave paths. Additionally, BRE is committed to addressing any Project interference with communications systems as they arise and on a case-by-case basis. Under Alternative 4, effects to communications resources would be minor and easily mitigated should they be identified. Users of existing communications resources are not expected to be prevented from relying on these systems that are typically available to them.

5.14 Transportation No issues specifically relating to transportation were identified during the public scoping process. Potential transportation issues would largely be associated with wind project construction and the increased amount of traffic that is likely to result during this time. These include the potential for accidents, increased road congestion, increased traffic noise, and increased vehicular emissions, all of which are fairly standard construction-related concerns.

5.14.1 Impact Criteria The WVPSC requires that an Applicant describe traffic levels attributable to Project construction and operations on roadways within 1 mi and 5 mi of the Project area and any plans to mitigate traffic effects (CSR §150-30-3.1.m.5.). This analysis looked at a 2005 traffic study conducted by Potesta and projected future traffic volumes on affected roads in the absence of the Project to estimate significant increases in traffic levels on roads within 5 mi of the Project. Increased traffic associated with construction of Phase II of the Project is temporary and therefore will not reach the threshold of significance. If 100 or more vehicles were added to the system as part of operations, this would exceed the systems design capacity. This would create a significant adverse impact to transportation resources. The number of vehicle trips represented by 100 vehicles would change the character and function of roads in this low traffic volume region. While construction of Phase II will require more vehicles than this, the roads will be upgraded, signaled, and repaired as appropriate during construction to handle this volume. These mitigation measures will not be in place during Project operations.

Predicted local population levels can be used in estimating future traffic volumes. Table 4-26 shows the historic population change for Greenbrier and Nicholas counties from 2000-2010. Greenbrier County showed only minimal growth (0.2%) and Nicholas County showed a decrease in population numbers (- 1.3%) since 2000.

5.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.14.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Phase I Operations No transport of materials would take place. It is anticipated that 20 vehicles would be used for performing O&M (i.e., a total of 20 vehicles would access Phase I daily) and average 1 trip to each turbine per day to perform maintenance duties. This would raise the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) value52 along County

52 ADT data represent the number of axles rather than the number of vehicles. The WVDOT considers 2 axles to represent 1 ADT; therefore, a truck with 4 axles will increase the ADT count by 2.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 300 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Route 1 from 400 to 440. The ADT value along County Route 10/1 would have increased from 30 to 70, assuming each vehicle would have visited each turbine daily.

Phase I Decommissioning Removal of Project components is likely to be similar to those during construction of the facility. Potesta prepared a traffic study in 2005 to comply with WVPSC rules associated with the originally proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project of 124 turbines in 2005. As such, “Project” in this section refers to all activities and components associated with 124 turbines. Impacts associated with decommissioning are expected to be less than those presented for the 124 turbine Project. Impacts are expected to include a similar number of vehicles; however, they will be present and working within the study area for less time. Potesta (2005b) presented ADT information for public roads located within a 5-mi radius of the site for the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases of development. The ADT information was further broken down for public roads within a 1-mile radius of the site for the pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases of the Project. ADT values for each phase were developed by utilizing information provided by the WVDOT and Beech Ridge Energy LLC. Access to the Project was from Exit 156 off Interstate 64, along U.S. Route 60 to Rupert, then along County Route 1 to the construction staging area near Clearco (Potesta 2005b).

A total of 36 public roads were found to be in the study area, 6 of which were within 1 mile of the Project. County Route 1 was the primary route used for delivering equipment, materials, and labor to the Project site. The pre-construction ADT value at the outside edge of the study area along County Route 1 leading to the staging area near Clearco was 400. County Route 10/1 had a preconstruction ADT of 30. This route was used to transport equipment and supplies within the Project area. Phase I was anticipated to have little to no influence on the remaining routes in the study area.

Traffic during construction was affected by the number of trucks needed to transport necessary equipment and supplies to the Project site. Trucks hauling equipment to the site ranged in size from small double axel commercial trucks to oversized trucks hauling wind turbine segments that required pilot vehicles. Project schedule and construction phase information provided by Beech Ridge Energy LLC indicated that approximately 3,400 trucks were required to deliver all the components of the Project. A similar amount of truck traffic is anticipated during decommissioning.

In order to approximate the impact of construction personnel vehicles on the ADT, it was assumed that an average of 100 vehicles carried construction personnel to and from the site on a daily basis.

County Route 1 was the most affected road in the study area due to supplies being delivered and construction personnel traveling to the staging area near Clearco. The ADT value for the proposed 12- week period thought to be needed for construction of 124 turbines would have increased by 522 per day to 922 along County Route 1 between Rupert and Clearco.

The 5.8-mi stretch between the proposed wind turbines B 10 and E 19 of County Route 10/1 would have been the only other significantly affected roadway in the study area due to traffic within the site. Nearly half of the planned wind turbines would have required access from this 5.8-mi stretch of County Route 10/1. Assuming the supplies would have been hauled from the staging area through the site to each turbine, the ADT value for the 12-week period would have been increased by 361 per day to 391 on County Route 10/1.

The increase in ADT for Phase I construction was mitigated by having a relatively short construction duration. This measure could be applied during decommissioning, shortening this duration of impact as well. Further mitigation was included following the WVDOT requirements for oversized loads, and meeting further WVDOT requirements that may be specific to the site area. It is also important to note that the above impacts were described for a 124 turbine facility; reducing the number of turbines to 67 may have reduced the overall impact by as much as 46%.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 301 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The main access road for equipment delivery would be County Road 1 North of Rupert. Beech Ridge will be using existing roads wherever possible. Approximately 60 miles of road will be required for the Project. Forty-five of these miles will be on existing road. Beech Ridge will construct access roads complying with special conditions that may be developed in individual landowner agreements. During decommissioning, roads will be utilized that were used during construction. Since restoration of roadways has occurred as part of minimization of environmental impacts; these roads will require improvements from operational road conditions to facilitate decommissioning. These roads will be located to minimize disturbance and maximize transportation efficiency by avoiding sensitive resources and steep topography.

On January 14, 2009, Beech Ridge entered into an agreement with the WVDOT under which they are required to submit a decommissioning plan. It is reasonable to expect that the nature of traffic during decommissioning would be similar to that of the Phase I construction. During the construction phase, several types of light, medium, and heavy-duty construction vehicles traveled to and from the site. Approximately 42 large truck trips per day and up to 120 small-vehicle (pickups and automobiles) trips per day occurred during peak construction periods. Concrete, aggregate, and miscellaneous delivery trucks occurred intermittently during the peak time of the foundation and tower assembly.

No-Action Alternative Summary Under the No-Action Alternative, direct and indirect effects on transportation are only associated with Project operation and decommissioning of the Project. There would be minor effects to transportation resources associated with Project O&M. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be short-term moderate impacts to transportation associated with decommissioning.

5.14.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action Phase II Construction Impacts to transportation during construction of Phase II under Alternative 2 will be similar to those associated construction of Phase I. The ADT will likely be similar as originally modeled by Potesta (2005b). However, there will be fewer trips since only 33 turbines will be constructed. Phase I construction did not interrupt transportation facilities within 5 mi of the Phase I and Phase II Project area.

100- Turbine Project Operations and Decommissioning No additional vehicles beyond the 20 noted above will be needed to maintain and operate the facility. Decommissioning as described for Phase I included 124 turbines; as such, decommissioning 100 turbines will have less impact than described by Potesta (2005b). Decommission will require fewer trips than originally modeled.

From 2000 to 2009, Greenbrier County showed a 0.2% rate of growth in population. In the same time frame, Nicholas County’s population decreased by -1.3%. As such, growth of both counties over the 25-year permit term is expected to be minimal and not be a significant factor in contributing to additional transportation stresses.

Proposed Action Summary Under Alternative 2, there would be direct and indirect transportation effects associated with construction of the 33 turbine expansion, Project operations, and decommissioning of the 100-turbine Project. Operational impacts are expected to not differ from existing conditions. Construction effects to transportation are likely to be similar as described for construction of the original 67-turbine Project; however, the duration of the impact is expected to be much shorter in duration. Decommissioning is expected to have a similar number of ADTs, however, they will occur for a shorter duration as compared to the modeled 124 turbine Project and longer than the No-Action Alternative. Transportation direct and indirect effects are expected to be minor.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 302 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.14.2.3 Alternative 3: ITP and HCP with Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, impacts to transportation resources would be as described for Alternative 2 construction, O&M, and decommissioning. Transportation direct and indirect effects are expected to be minor.

5.14.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 3, transportation impacts would be as described for the No-Action Alternative. There would be minor adverse effects associated with these activities.

5.15 Safety and Security This section evaluates the Project’s potential effects on health and safety in the Project area. Safety issues cited included concerns about potential increases in noise, light, and shadow flicker impacts on human health caused by the turbines; and ice throws associated with turbines (i.e., safe set-backs).

5.15.1 Impact Criteria The WVPSC rules (150 CSR 30) specify the Applicant must provide maps illustrating the Project’s proximity to various features within 1 mi and 5 mi. With regard to analyzing safety and security at a wind project, features of issue include major population centers, major transportation routes, utility corridors, major institutions, incorporated communities, buildings, residences, and public and private recreational areas.

The Proposed Action or any alternative will have the potential to affect the safety and security of the human environment. Effects will be significant should any of the features listed above be at a measurable risk to tower collapse, turbine blade shear, ice throw, or excessive shadow flicker or noise. Measurable risk for these hazards is based on identified setbacks. Effects will be significant should any of the features listed above be at a risk to fire. Risk of exposure to fire is based on precautionary measures, emergency access, and distance from hazard.

5.15.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.15.2.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Phase II Project and HCP would not be implemented. Additionally, an ITP pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued for Phase I operation or Phase II construction and operation. BRE would continue to operate Phase I under the current restrictions indicated in the Settlement Agreement to avoid bat mortality. The 67-turbine Project will operate in such a manner that no take of listed species would occur, thus precluding the need for an ITP. From November 16 through March 31 (winter months), the 67 turbines would be operated 24 hours per day. From April 1 to November 15 (non-winter months), the turbines would be operated from one-quarter hour after sunrise to one-half hour before sunset (daylight hours). The existing forest management land uses would be maintained at the proposed Phase II turbine locations.

Phase I Construction Phase I construction impacts are fully analyzed in association with cumulative impacts in Section 5.16 since these effects have already occurred and do not contribute to the direct or indirect effects associated with this analysis of environmental consequence analysis. No new construction would occur under this alternative; hence there would be no health and safety effects associated with construction.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 303 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Phase I Operations Operation-related effects include ice throw, tower collapse, blade shear; stray voltage and electrocution, fire, lightning, and shadow flicker. Operational effects also include noise, which is addressed in Section 5.2.

Ice Throw. Under certain weather conditions, ice can accumulate on rotor blades and subsequently break free and either is thrown or falls to the ground. Ice build-up on the blades of an operating turbine will lead to additional vibration caused by the weight of the ice and aerodynamic imbalance. Commercial turbines possess vibration monitors that will trigger a shutdown should the vibrations exceed a specific level (Garrad Hassan 2007). In this situation, most turbines will restart only when the ice has thawed and fallen straight to the ground near the base. Although less common, ice can be thrown when it begins to melt and turbine blades begin to rotate again.

Although limited, field observations of ice throw indicated most fragments fell within 100 m (330 ft) of the turbine base (Morgan et al. 1998). Near Kincardine, Ontario, a wind project operator conducted 1,000 turbine inspections between December 1995 and March 2001 and documented 13 occurrences of ice. Ice fragments on the ground were within 100 m (330 ft) from the turbine base and most fragments were found within 50 m (165 ft) (Garrad Hassan 2007). Garrad Hassan (2007) conducted a risk assessment and found a negligible risk of ice throw at distances beyond 220 m (726 ft) from the turbine.

The Phase I turbines are a minimum of 3,600 ft from permanent residences and at least 450 ft from a public ROW. County Route 10/1 is located within 425 ft of the nearest turbine. Although ice throw could attain this distance, most documented instances of ice throw are less than 425 ft. Generally speaking, Project setbacks will adequately protect the public from falling ice. In addition, unauthorized public access to the site is limited. Based upon observations and risk calculations of ice throw, modern turbine technological controls, the Project’s siting criteria, and control of public access to the turbine sites, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in any measurable risks to the health and safety of the general public due to ice shedding.

Tower Collapse and Blade Shear. Occurrences of tower collapse and blade failure are potentially dangerous yet extremely rare. Most instances of blade throw and turbine collapse were reported during the early years of the wind industry (CWEC 2006). Technological improvements and mandatory safety standards for turbine design, manufacturing, and installation have largely eliminated incidences of structural failure. Modern commercial-scale turbines are certified according to international engineering standards developed as a result of past structural failures. CWEC (2006) provides a literature review of turbine blade failure. When compared to blade failure rates of turbine models from the 1980s and 1990s, the overall blade failure rate of modern utility-scale turbines has declined by a factor of three.

Incidences of turbine collapse or blade throw have generally been the result of design defects during manufacturing, poor maintenance, control system malfunction, or lightning strikes. Most often it is a combination of factors. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the most common cause of blade failure is human error when adjusting control systems (Garrad Hassan 2007). Manufacturers have reduced this factor through limiting human adjustments that can be made in the field (Garrad Hassan 2007).

There are no standard setback distances in the wind industry today. Rademakers and Bram (2005) analyzed documented incidences of turbine failure in Europe and derived the following distances:

• 500 m (1,650 ft) was the maximum throw distance for small blade parts and tips • 150 m (495 ft) was the maximum confirmed throw distance of an entire blade. [Distances of 400 m and 600 m (1,320 ft and 1,980 ft) for entire blades were also reported but these values were not confirmed.] • The risk zone is approximately equal to one-half the rotor diameter for rotor or nacelle collapse

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 304 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• The risk zone is equal to the height of the tower plus one-half the rotor diameter for entire tower collapse fails.

The Phase I turbines are a minimum of 1,000 ft from permanent residences and at least 450 ft from a public ROW. This may not adequately protect the public from incidences of structural failure. However, unauthorized public access to the site is limited. Based upon observations and risk calculations of structural failure, modern turbine technological controls, the Project’s siting criteria, and control of public access to the turbine sites, it is unlikely that the Project will result in risks to the health and safety of the general public due to tower collapse or blade shear.

Stray Voltage, Electrocution, Electromagnetic Fields. Proper electrical installation and grounding practices prevent stray voltage from occurring. BRE has indicated the Project’s electrical collection system meets applicable design and safety regulations, is properly grounded, has adequate spacing from other electrical cables, and is not connected to local distribution lines. Based on this assumption, the Project will not have any adverse impacts on human health and safety due to stray voltage.

Electric fields are created by changes in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger the resultant electric field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) above certain levels can trigger biological effects. Experiments indicate that short-term exposure of EMF at the levels present in the environment or home does not cause any apparent detrimental effects in healthy individuals (WHO 1999). Exposures to higher levels that might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines.

Current research focuses on long-term low-level exposure and potential biological responses. Studies involving electromagnetic fields in humans have had weak positive results and are inconsistent among each other (WHO 1999). Studies alone typically cannot establish clear cause and effect relationships; they detect only statistical associations between exposure and disease, which may or may not have been caused by the exposure. Currently, most human health authorities agree that the biological effects of low- level electromagnetic fields, if they exist at all, are likely to be very small (WHO 1999).

National standards for exposure to EMF generally draw from the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP’s exposure limits for the public are 5 kilovolts per meter (kV/m) for electric field and 100 microteslas (µT) for magnetic field (WHO 1999). Electric field levels directly beneath transmission power lines can be as high as 10 kV/m. At a 50-m to 100-m (165-ft to 330-ft) distance, the fields are normally at levels that are found in areas away from high- voltage power lines (WHO 1999). In addition, house walls substantially reduce the electric field levels from those found at similar locations outside the house.

EMF at a wind project can originate from the collection system, turbine generators, transformers, and underground network cables. The primary source of EMF from the Project is the generation lead lines used to connect the Project substation to the existing Allegheny Power Grassy Falls substation. This generation lead line is approximately 14.2 mi and comes within 1,000 ft of residences. Given the distance of the 138-kV line from nearby homes, the generation lead line is not likely to emit electric fields that exceed the limit of 5 kV/m set by the ICNIRP at any residences.

Fire, General Safety, and Emergency Response. Turbines sit on solid steel-enclosed tubular towers. Electrical equipment is located in the towers and pad-mounted transformers. The only tower access is through a solid steel door that is locked when not in use.

Beech Ridge prepared emergency response plans that comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. All construction and operational personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations that could arise at the site.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 305 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Beech Ridge has had ongoing communications with the Greenbrier 911 center, the Greenbrier County Emergency Management Agency, and the Greenbrier County Fire and Emergency Responders Association. Fire protection in the Project area is primarily provided by volunteer fire departments, including those in Renick, Richwood, Rupert, and Williamsburg. Beech Ridge is working directly with these local fire departments to determine if additional training, equipment, and funding is needed to respond to emergency situations. Beech Ridge will enter into an agreement with the fire districts if necessary. Emergency training will be provided to the construction crews by experienced contractors to handle situations if they arise at the site. Local fire and ambulance services will be called to the site to provide emergency medical response. Turbine construction access roads will increase emergency access to the Project area. During operation, the Project will not present a risk of fire. The turbines, towers, and other equipment are for the most part metal and are not easily combustible. Additionally, the minimum amount of vegetation will be removed from the vicinity of electrical gear and connections to allow for the safe operation of all electrical equipment associated with the site, while at the same time minimizing the loss of vegetation. As discussed in detail below, all wind turbines will be properly protected from lightning and electrically grounded.

Lightning Protection and Grounding. An electrical grounding system is installed at each turbine to prevent damage caused by lightning strikes and provide grounding for electrical components. The buried grounding system was designed in context with local soil conditions and their electrical conductivity to ensure lightning dissipation. The grounding system complies with all applicable state and local electrical codes.

Shadow Flicker. Shadow flicker from wind turbines occurs when moving turbine blades pass in front of the sun creating alternating changes in light and shadows. These flickering shadows can be annoying to anyone who happens to perceive them due to their distracting nature. Shadow flicker impacts are related to the proximity of a wind turbine to an observer and light intensity (usually provided by sunshine). Shadow flicker becomes less noticeable at distances beyond 1,000 ft, except at sunrise and sunset when shadows are lengthened (NRC 2007). For a typical wind turbine, there may be up to 300 hours in a year that experience shadow flicker. At approximately 4,500 ft, shadow flicker cannot be observed as a distinct effect.

There is some public concern that flickering light can have negative health effects, such as triggering seizures in people with epilepsy. Flicker frequency is dependent on rotor frequency, which is around 0.5 Hz to 1.0 Hz (NRC 2007). According to epilepsy research, frequencies below 10 Hz are unlikely to cause epileptic seizures (British Epilepsy Foundation 2010).

No state or national standards exist for frequency or duration of shadow flicker from wind turbine projects. However, studies and guidelines from Europe and Australia have suggested a threshold of 30 hours of shadow flicker per year to indicate a significant effect, that is, a measure of when shadow flicker is likely to become an annoyance (Dobesch and Kury 2001, Danish Wind Industry Association 2003, Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria 2003).

Travelers along nearby roads could experience shadow flicker from turbines while driving, which could be problematic. However, overall exposure to the Project’s shadow flicker would be comparatively minimal and not substantially different from shadow flicker associated with the sun shining through trees, utility poles, and other obstructions. Residences are located more than 3,500 ft from the Project. Shadow flicker associated with the Project is not likely to affect residences and communities.

Phase I Decommissioning Potential effects of Project decommissioning on human safety and security will largely extend to site workers. Safety concerns associated with wind project decommissioning are similar to those associated with removing other vertical structures. Workers and others on the Project site have the potential to

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 306 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

sustain injuries from colliding with large moving equipment and vehicles, stumbling over materials and debris, and falling from heights or into open excavations.

During decommissioning, BRE will continue to implement regular safety training and use of appropriate safety equipment. As required by the WVPSC rules (150 CSR 30), BRE will continue to address issues such as personal protective equipment, site maintenance and waste disposal, fire prevention, and safe work practices.

The potential effects of decommissioning to safety and security will be temporary and localized. Activities associated with decommissioning the Phase I turbines are not expected to significantly adversely affect human safety and security.

Phase I Avoidance and Minimization For constructing and operating Phase I, BRE implemented the following measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to human safety and security.

• Proper grounding techniques within and around all electrical components to eliminate the occurrence of stray voltage, electrocution, and fire. • Emergency training provided to the construction and operations crews by experienced contractors. • BRE prepared emergency response plans that comply with OSHA regulations. Appropriate training provided to workers to conduct all activities and handle materials safely, and recognize risks associated with the Project construction and operations. • Coordinating with local emergency service personnel to ensure that they are aware of the location and nature of the Project. • Safety signing is posted around all towers (where necessary), transformers, and high voltage facilities, and along roads in conformance with applicable state and federal regulations. • Turbine towers were placed a minimum of 450 ft (1.1 times total turbine height) from all public ROW, with the exception of one tower that is 425 ft from County Route 10/1. • Turbine towers were placed a minimum of 3,500 ft from non-participating residences to avoid potential effects associated with noise and shadow flicker. • Security measures taken during construction and operation of the Project include temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities.

No-Action Alternative Summary The Phase I Project as implemented under the No-Action Alternative poses minor effects to human safety and security. The Project is in a remote location, and Project components are located with significant setbacks from residences. All turbines are further than 3,500 ft from residences, and most turbines are more than 1.0 mi from residences. There is 1 public road, County Route 10/1, located 425 ft from the nearest turbine. This road has limited use (ADT = 30 vehicles). All other public roads are more than 4,000 ft from wind turbines. Effects to safety and security associated with implementation of the No-Action Alternative are expected to be minor.

5.15.2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Effects on human health and safety associated with Phase I of the Project (aside from those operational impacts associated with operation of the 100-turbine Project) are described in Section 5.15 – Cumulative Effects.

Phase II Construction As part of Phase II construction BRE will continue to implement regular safety training and use of appropriate safety equipment. As required by the WVPSC rules (150 CSR 30), BRE will address issues

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 307 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

such as personal protective equipment, site maintenance and waste disposal, fire prevention, and safe work practices. These construction practices will be reviewed in and modified as necessary since the current operations may create additional exposure risks.

Beyond the general construction issues described in Section 5.15 for the Phase I Project, adverse impacts on human health and safety are not anticipated for constructing the Phase II Project. Like Phase I, Phase II is located in an area of low population density. Project construction is not likely to have substantial impacts on the security and safety of the local settlements and communities. Predicted noise levels for construction will not exceed the ambient noise levels that already occur in the area (Acentech 2011). All construction personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations if they occur. During construction, contractors will be required to develop their own Emergency Response Plan and training program for their employees. The Project will continue to adhere to applicable electrical codes and standards.

Assuming proper planning and monitoring of typical construction-related health and safety risks, construction of the Project will have no substantial adverse impacts on human health and security.

100-Turbine Operations Potential operation-related effects to human safety and security for Phase II would be as described for Alternative 1. Beyond the general operations issues described above for the Phase I Project, adverse impacts on human health and safety are not anticipated in association with the operation of the 33 additional turbines in Phase II. Like Phase I, Phase II is located in an area of low population density. Predicted noise levels for operation will not exceed the ambient noise levels that already occur in the area (Acentech 2011).

BRE will implement safety and security measures described for Phase I during the operation of the 100- turbine Project, including temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities. All maintenance personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations should they occur. The Project will continue to adhere to applicable electrical codes and standards.

100-Turbine Decommissioning Project decommissioning will have similar effects on human health and security as those described for Alternative 1. Potential effects of Project decommissioning on human safety and security will largely extend to site workers. Safety concerns associated with wind project decommissioning are similar to those associated with removing other vertical structures. Workers and others on the Project site have the potential to sustain injuries from colliding with large moving equipment and vehicles, stumbling over materials and debris, and falling from heights or into open excavations.

During Project decommissioning, BRE will continue to implement regular safety training and use of appropriate safety equipment. As required by the WVPSC rules (150 CSR 30), BRE will continue to address issues such as personal protective equipment, site maintenance and waste disposal, fire prevention, and safe work practices.

The potential effects of Project decommissioning to safety and security will be temporary and localized. Activities associated with decommissioning the Phase I turbines are not expected to significantly adversely affect human safety and security.

Avoidance and Minimization To avoid and minimize risks to human safety and security, measures described for Alternative 1 apply to Phase II construction and the 100-turbine operation and maintenance along with the measures itemized below.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 308 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Phase II turbine towers will be placed a minimum of 3,500 ft (1,067 m) from non-participating residences and 450 ft (137 m) (1.1 times the total height) from public ROW. These distances will exceed minimum setbacks considered safe to minimize the danger from ice throw from turbine blades, as well as to reduce potential impacts from noise and shadow flicker. • Phase II turbine towers will be placed a minimum of 545 ft from public ROW. These distances are considered safe to minimize the danger from ice throw from turbine blades on the lightly traveled public roads that cross the Project area. • Security measures will be taken during the construction and operation of the Project, including temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, gates, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities. • Once BRE completes construction, it will install gates to restrict public access to all of the turbine locations. The substation and O&M building will be fenced as required for public safety, but no other fencing is proposed at this time. The public will continue to have access to portions of the Project area via public roads and private roads that are regularly open to the public.

Proposed Action Summary The Project as implemented under Alternative 2 poses minor effects to human safety and security. The Project is in a remote location, and Project components are located with significant setbacks from residences. All turbines are further than 3,500 ft from residences, and most turbines are more than 1.0 mi from residences. There is 1 public road, County Route 10/1, located 425 ft from the nearest turbine. This road has limited use (Average Daily Traffic = 30 vehicles). All other public roads are more than 4,000 ft from wind turbines. Effects to safety and security associated with implementation Alternative 2 are expected to be minor. There would be major effects in the unlikely event of blade throw.

5.15.2.3 Alternative 3: HCP and ITP for Additional Covered Species Under Alternative 3, effects to safety and security associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning will be as described for Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, which includes Phases I and II. As for the Proposed Action, implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to cause minor risks to human safety and security. There would be major effects in the unlikely event of blade throw.

5.15.2.4 Alternative 4: ITP and HCP for Phase I Only Under Alternative 4, effects to safety and security associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning will be as described for the No-Action Alternative. There will be no new construction, so future safety issues will be confined to operations and decommissioning. Beyond the general operations issues described above for the No-Action Alternative, adverse impacts on human safety and security are anticipated to be minor, with exception of an unlikely event of blade throw. The Project is located in an area of low population density. Predicted noise levels for operation will not exceed the ambient noise levels that already occur in the area (Acentech 2011).

Assuming proper planning and monitoring of typical operations-related health and safety risks, Alternative 4 will have no substantial adverse impacts on human safety and security. Safety and security measures described for Phase I will be taken for Project operations, including temporary (safety) and permanent fencing, warning signs (including signs warning of high voltage), and locks on equipment and wind power facilities. All maintenance personnel will be trained to handle emergency situations should they occur. The Project will continue to adhere to applicable electrical codes and standards. There would be major effects in the unlikely event of blade throw. Overall Alternative 4 is not expected to pose a high likelihood of significant risks to human safety and security.

5.16 Cumulative Effects The CEQ and DOI regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative effect as the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 309 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7).” In other words, certain impacts, while insignificant by themselves, have the potential to accumulate over time and to combine with other insignificant and significant effects to affect the environment, either positively or negatively.

5.16.1 General Methodology

The cumulative effects analysis in this FEIS is based on the following elements.

• Defines the geographic area in which the environmental effects of the Proposed Project and alternatives will occur. Geographic areas differ depending on the environmental resource considered. • Lists and describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or are expected to have impacts in the existing and proposed Project area and the cumulative effects analysis area. • Summarizes the potential effects of the Project and alternatives in the analysis area. • Describes the combined direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action or alternative and the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. These effects are described as being either temporary or long term and as being minor, moderate, or major.

5.16.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The following sections identify past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects that may have cumulative environmental effects in combination with those of the Proposed Action or alternatives.

5.16.2.1 Past and Present Actions As described in Chapter 4 Affected Environment, the Project area is located in the southern portion of the Allegheny Mountains and surrounded by lands that are largely undeveloped and sparsely populated. The landscape is extensively forested, mountainous terrain that experiences industrial-scale resource extraction on private lands and recreational use, preservation, and moderate timber harvesting on public lands (predominately the Monongahela National Forest).

This analysis relies on the environmental conditions that were present at the time the Phase I construction was initiated (early 2009) to indicate the impacts of past actions. These were the existing conditions, as described in Chapter 4, and adequately reflect the collective impact of all prior human actions and natural events that may have contributions to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past actions for all affected resources. A record of all past actions and values of impact would be impractical and overly expensive to obtain and analyze. It would be nearly impossible to isolate individual past actions that continue to have residual impacts on the Project area and surrounding landscape. This analysis largely looks at past actions as a whole, which is more conducive to capturing all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events. Additionally, public scoping for this action did not request detailed information on individual past actions.

The cumulative effects analysis area varies by resource. For most resources, the Project area and surrounding region encompass the analysis area. The region extends to some reasonable limit based on the resource of concern, for example, a 1- or 5-mi buffer or the 63,000 acres of managed forest surrounding the Project. Analysis areas are defined for each resource in their appropriate sections.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 310 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Past and present activities occurring in the Project area and surrounding region that likely contribute to cumulative effects include:

• BRE’s 67-turbine Project construction and other existing wind energy projects in the eastern U.S.; • Timber harvesting on private commercial forests and public National Forest lands; • Surface coal mining; • Natural gas exploration, extraction, and transport; • Mountain-top mining and valley fill; and • Recreational activities on the National Forest and on private lands.

Because construction of the 67 turbines has already occurred, the effects associated with Phase I construction are not part of the action of any alternative considered. Therefore, the 67-turbine construction impacts are addressed as cumulative effects.

5.16.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions As for past actions, the cumulative effects analysis area for reasonably foreseeable future actions varies by resource. For most resources, the Project area and surrounding region encompass the analysis area. The region extends to some reasonable limit based on the resource of concern, for example, a 1- or 5-mi buffer or the 63,000 acres of managed forest surrounding the Project. For a few resources, such as avian and bat resources, the analysis area is significantly larger due to their distinct mobility. Analysis areas are defined for each resource in their appropriate sections.

Future activities likely to occur in the Project area and surrounding region that potentially could contribute to cumulative effects include:

• Timber harvesting on private lands and National Forest lands; • Strip-mining operations; • Natural gas exploration, extraction, and transport; • Commercial and residential developments; • Wind energy projects in the eastern U.S. and eastern Canada; • Linear utility and transmission line corridor projects; • Road construction; and • Habitat restoration and enhancement, and vegetation management projects on National Forest.

Because of the level of concern, this cumulative effects analysis attempts to quantify the effects of present and reasonably foreseeable future wind projects on bird and bat populations, with particular focus on mortality.

5.16.3 Cumulative Effects by Project Type

Generally, similar types of projects often result in similar effects. Land use and habitat conversions, construction activities, vegetation removal, habitat loss and alteration, pollutant emissions, hazardous materials release, erosion and sedimentation, and other effects, tend to be comparable in character within project types. The environmental effects often associated with a project type are discussed below.

5.16.3.1 Timber Harvesting Forest covers 12 million acres in West Virginia and 98% of forests are considered timberland; of which 88% is private ownership and 12% is in public ownership (Griffith and Widmann 2003). Timberland decreased by 112,500 acres from 1989 to 2000 (Griffith and Widmann 2003). In 2007, primary wood- processing mills in West Virginia processed 138.8 million cubic feet (ft3) of wood harvested from the state (Piva and Cook 2011). Another 50.5 million ft3 of the industrial roundwood harvested in West Virginia was sent to primary wood-processing mills in other states and countries (Piva and Cook 2011).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 311 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Effects associated with timber harvesting include:

• Vegetation removal and habitat alteration; • Altered plant and animal species composition; • Local effects to air quality due to dust and vehicle emissions; • Sedimentation and erosion from disturbed soils; and • Creation of roads.

Forest products are important part of West Virginia’s industry and economy with over 500 companies directly involved in state-based forest product operations. Employment in wood products and furniture industries rose from 6,500 in 1980 to 11,800 in 2004 (Piva and Cook 2011).

5.16.3.2 Strip-Mining Contour mining is the method of strip mining used to extract coal from the steep hillsides in the Project area and in other parts of the Appalachians. Contour mining makes cuts on the slope where the coal seam is located. Overburden is used to fill the cuts, but this becomes problematic as overburden tends to “swell” as compaction increases. Often the overburden is disposed at the heads of valleys, which causes its own sets of problems.

Effects of strip mining include:

• Soil erosion and reduced productivity; • Risks to water quality in proximal streams and rivers; • Alteration of groundwater hydrology; • Destruction of habitat for plants and animals; • Creation of roads; and • Local or regional impacts to air quality from dust and particles.

5.16.3.3 Natural Gas Exploration, Extraction, and Transport In West Virginia and Pennsylvania, companies are actively drilling or leasing Marcellus Shale properties. As of July 2010, there were 1,421 Marcellus wells and 1,008 permits in West Virginia. Higginbotham et al. (2010) estimates that in 2009 development of the Marcellus Shale formation accounted for the creation of 7,600 jobs and $2.35 billion in business volume in West Virginia. If development increases 20% each year, the industry has the potential to grow and create 20,000 new jobs by 2015 (Higginbotham et al. 2010). The gas industry has grown and is expected to continue to have major impacts to economic conditions in West Virginia.

Drilling gas wells in the Marcellus shale formation and other shale gas resources requires unconventional methods as compared to traditional gas extraction. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing use great amounts of water for the extraction process, and then this water must be treated. Hydraulic fracturing, as primarily used in this region, is the process of forcing large volumes of water with added sand and chemicals down the drilling pipe and out through holes created by explosions into the shale to crack it open and expedite the release of gas The drilling site is often a 4- to 5-acre area that is used for siting the drill, storing equipment, and storing and treating water. Once the well is installed, aboveground infrastructure includes the well and a small compression system on a site that is usually less than 1 acre.

Natural gas is transported by pipelines, linear underground conduits that require trenching to bury the pipe. The construction area is larger than the actual pipeline ROW to allow for equipment, pipe laydown, and staging areas. Much of this land is reclaimed after construction. Aboveground infrastructure includes compressor stations, valves, and metering, power lines, and other operations facilities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 312 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Effects associated with gas extraction from the Marcellus shale deposits include:

• Water withdrawal and risk of contamination to water supply; • Vegetation removal and habitat conversion; disturbance and displacement of wildlife; • Loss of cultural resources; • Altered aesthetics; • Potential for altered plant and animal species composition; • Changes in visual quality; and • Threats to public health and safety.

5.16.3.4 Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills Mountaintop mining largely occurs in eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and eastern Tennessee. This type of surface mining involves the removal of mountaintops to expose coal seams, and disposing the overburden in adjacent valleys (valley fills). The terrain is often steep and overburden disposal sites are limited.

In their Programmatic EIS, the USEPA (2005) identified the following environmental issues associated with mountaintop mining and valley fills based on the results of studies conducted on 1,200 stream segments:

• An increase of minerals in the water -- zinc, sodium, selenium, and sulfate levels may increase and negatively impact fish and macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) , leading to less diverse and more pollutant-tolerant species; • Streams in watersheds below valley fills tend to have greater base flow (e.g. the primary groundwater flow into the stream channel and does not include surface runoff); • Streams are sometimes covered up with fill; • Wetlands are, at times inadvertently and other times intentionally, created; these wetlands provide some aquatic functions, but are generally not of high quality; • Forest fragmentation; • Compacted soils on reclamation sites and slow recovery of woody vegetation; • Changes in wildlife species composition from forest species to that of dry grasslands; and • Potential social, economic and heritage issues.

5.16.3.5 Commercial and Residential Development The Greenbrier County future land use map indicates relatively little area designated for growth expansion. Growth areas are targeted largely in and around Lewisburg and along US Route 60 from Clintonville to Rainelle (Greenbrier County 2010). Information could not be located on future development in Nicholas County. This analysis assumes that development in Nicholas County will be similar in character to that of Greenbrier County, and will consist of relatively small-scale development in a few locations.

Commercial and residential development in the 2 counties would have similar effects and include:

• Construction results in localized and temporary increases in air emissions (nitrogen oxides and particulate matter), traffic, and noise; • Permanent changes in land use and altered hydrology; and • Increased area of impervious surfaces and use of pesticides and fertilizers for landscaping.

The potential cumulative effects of these types of developments depend upon their timing of occurrence. Currently, the timing of these residential or commercial developments is uncertain.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 313 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.16.3.6 Wind Energy Projects As of June 2012, West Virginia had 5 operating wind power projects: Mountaineer, Mt. Storm, Beech Ridge, Laurel Mountain, and Pinnacle. The New Creek project has been permitted by the WVPSC but has not begun turbine construction. A second Mount Storm project (west of the existing Mount Storm project) has been permitted but there are currently no plans for construction. All of these projects are located approximately 100 to 120 mi northeast of the BRE Project.

Pennsylvania has 16 commercial wind energy projects operating and 4 under construction. Maryland has 2 commercial land-based wind energy projects operating. Tennessee currently has 1 operating commercial wind energy project.

Effects of wind energy project construction include:

• Temporary increase in vehicle and dust emissions; • Temporary increase in noise; • Temporary and possibly permanent disruption in wildlife patterns from construction activities; • Potential losses in biological, cultural, and physical resources at places of ground disturbance, that is for access roads and turbine foundations; and • Temporary disruption of local traffic patterns and road use.

Most construction effects can be mitigated through site-specific BMPs and other mitigation measures.

Effects of wind energy project operations effects include:

• Mortality and injury to birds and bats from turbine strikes and barotrauma; • Mortality to birds from electrocution along power lines; and • Visual effects to cultural resources and recreational activities.

Post-construction impacts are often monitored to assess the extent of wildlife mortality caused by operation of the project.

BRE Phase I (67 Turbines) Prior to establishment of an ITP nexus, construction of the existing 67 turbines, transmission line, and other Project appurtenances disturbed 373 acres of predominately managed forest. Project facilities are maintained on 50 acres for the life of the Project; the remaining 311 acres have been allowed to revert back to forest (see Table 5-35).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 314 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-35. Estimates of total ground disturbance associated with Phase I construction and operation of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Temporarily affected acres are those areas disturbed for Project construction. Converted acres are those areas cleared, reclaimed, and then allowed to revert to forest. Permanently affected acres are those areas cleared and converted to Project facilities for the life of the Project. Phase I – 67 turbines Disturbance type Temporary Converted Permanent (acres) (acres) (acres) Turbine assembly areas/pads 1 109 100 9 Existing roads to be upgraded 2 39 39 -- New access roads to be constructed 3 59 43 16 Staging area and concrete batch plant 4 12 0 0 Electrical and communication line trenches 5 8 0 8 Overhead transmission line 6 140 129 11 Substation, O&M building, permanent MET towers 7 6 0 6 Total 373 311 50 1 Assumes a 150-ft radius during construction minus 40-ft x 120-ft crane pad plus a 20-ft radius permanently maintained area for operational purposes. 2 Assumes existing road width to be increased by an additional 40 ft during construction and reclaimed to 16 ft wide for Project operations. 3 Assumes new roads to be 60 ft wide during construction and reclaimed to 16 ft wide for Project operations. 4 Phase I staging area and batch plant were located in agricultural and then reclaimed following construction . Same area will be used for Phase II and reclaimed following construction. 5 Disturbance areas for those portions of electrical collection system solely used for that purpose are not located in road ROW. Trenches up to 4 ft wide during construction; all trenches to be completely reclaimed for Project operations. 6 Existing transmission line is 14 mi, of which 11.5 mi runs through native habitat. Permanent impact includes an 8-ft access road. Phase II will require 1.6 mi of supplementary line. Construction includes a 100-ft ROW; permanent ROW is a 50-ft ROW. 7 Assumes 1 acre for substation, 2 acres for O&M building, and 1.5 acres for 4 permanent MET towers (2 for each Phase).

Phase I Components. Phase I has several primary components, including wind turbines, access roads, transmission and communication equipment, storage areas, and control facilities. These components are discussed below.

Wind Turbines The GE 1.5-MW turbine has a nameplate rating of 1,500 kilowatts (kW). Each turbine is equipped with a wind speed and direction sensor that communicates to the turbine’s control system when sufficient winds are present for operation. The turbine features variable-speed control and independent blade variable pitch to assure aerodynamic efficiency and function as an aerodynamic control system. The GE 1.5-MW turbine begins operation in wind speeds of approximately 3.5 m/s (8 mph) and reaches its rated 1.5 MW capacity at a wind speed of approximately 12.5 m/s (28 mph). The turbine is designed to operate in wind speeds up to approximately 25 m/s (56 mph) and can withstand sustained wind speeds of more than 45 m/s (100 mph). The color of all turbines, blades, and towers is white; the rotation direction, as an observer faces the turbines, is clockwise.

Each turbine includes a SCADA communications system that permits automatic, independent operation and remote supervision, allowing continuous control of the wind Project to ensure optimal and efficient operation and early troubleshooting of problems. SCADA data provide detailed operating and performance information for each wind turbine, and BRE maintains a database tracking each wind turbine’s operational history.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 315 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Other specifications of the GE 1.5-MW turbine include:

• gearbox with 3-step, planetary spur gear system; • double-fed, 3-phase asynchronous generator; • a fail-safe braking system that includes electromechanical pitch control for each blade (3 self- contained systems) and a hydraulic parking brake that operates in a fail-safe mode, whereby the braking system is engaged in case of load loss on the generator; • a redundant braking system including both aerodynamic over-speed controls (including variable pitch, tip, and other similar systems) and mechanical brakes; and • electromechanically driven yaw system with wind direction sensor and automatic cable unwind.

Rotor, Hub, and Nacelle. The rotor consists of 3 blades attached to a hub. The rotor blades are constructed of fiberglass and epoxy or polyester resin. The cast iron hub connects the rotor blades to the main shaft and transmits torque. The hub is attached to the nacelle, which houses the gearbox, generator, brake, cooling system, and other electrical and mechanical systems.

The GE 1.5 MW SLE wind turbine uses a maximum 77-m (252-ft) rotor diameter with a rotor swept area of approximately 4,654 m2 (50,095 ft2). The rotor speed is from 11.0 to 22.2 rpm, and all rotors rotate in the same direction.

Towers. The 67 GE 1.5 MW SLE turbine nacelles are mounted on freestanding monopole tubular steel towers with a hub height of 80 m (262 ft). Maximum height of rotor is 118 m (387 ft) above ground. Each tower consists of 3 sections manufactured from steel plates. All welds are made in automatically controlled power welding machines and are ultrasonically inspected during manufacturing per American National Standards Institute specifications. All surfaces are sandblasted and multiple layers of coating are applied for protection against corrosion. Access to the turbine is through a lockable steel door at the base of the tower. The steel door at the base of each tower also includes a low voltage safety light on a motion sensor for entry.

Foundations. The turbine towers are connected by anchor bolts to an underground concrete and rebar foundation. Geotechnical surveys and turbine tower load specifications dictate final design parameters of the foundations. A typical spread footer has a similar footprint to the tower diameter at grade, but may spread out below grade to as much as 49 ft x 49 ft in size. This type of footer was used throughout the 67-turbine phase. A typical deep foundation is placed on an area approximately 25 ft x 25 ft. All foundations consist of anchor bolts, concrete, and reinforcing rebar. Certain specific site conditions required subgrade modification to support the foundation.

Access Roads Approximately 16 mi of existing roads have been upgraded, and approximately 12 mi of new access roads were partially constructed in anticipation of the full 100-turbine Project. Completed access roads are approximately 16 ft wide. During construction, primary component haul roads were typically 20 ft wide, and turbine/crane access roads were typically 60 ft wide to provide needed space for crane movement and operation and additional drainage features. Road width typically increased in steeper areas due to cuts and fills for road construction and stabilization on slopes. BRE worked with the landowners in utilizing existing roads and locating new access roads to minimize disturbance and avoid sensitive resources and steep topography to the extent possible while maximizing transportation efficiency.

Communications and Collection System Inside the base of each turbine tower, a control panel houses communication and electronic circuitry. At the base of each turbine, a step-up transformer is installed to raise the voltage from 575 V or 690 V to distribution line voltage (34.5-kV). Generated electricity moves through an underground collection system to the Project substation. Both power and communication cables were or will be buried in trenches a

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 316 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

minimum of 4 ft deep. An estimated 32 mi of underground collection system was installed for the 67- turbine Project.

Substation / Operations and Maintenance Facility The Project’s 34.5-kV/138-kV substation is owned by BRE; substation construction and operation meet industry standards. The substation is similar to substations used on transmission systems in the region. The substation main transformer is installed on an 11 ft x 17 ft concrete pad, and the main control building is installed on a 15 ft x 33 ft concrete pad within a 1-acre parcel of land centrally located within the Project (Figure 1-2). The substation houses those electrical facilities to step-up medium voltage power from the collection system to high voltage for delivery to the 138-kV transmission line. The majority of the yard is covered with crushed rock. The substation is enclosed with a 7-ft high chain-link fence topped with 3 strands of barbed wire; total fence height is 8 ft. Access gates are locked at all times, and warning signs are posted for public safety.

The Project O&M facility is located separately from the Project 34.5-kV/138-kV substation (Figure 1-2). The O&M building is approximately 60 ft x 102 ft, constructed of concrete, and located on a concrete slab. The O&M building contains all necessary plumbing and electrical collections needed for typical operation of offices and maintenance shop. Electric, water, telephone, and septic system utilities are provided on- site. Permits for the installation of the septic system and the water wells were acquired through the local health department.

Meteorological Towers and Transformers Two permanent, guyed MET towers were erected for the 67-turbine phase. Permanent MET towers are 80 m (262 ft) tall and installed on 1-m (3.3-ft) diameter pier foundations. Foundations were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig and then filled with concrete.

Transformer foundations were constructed using standard cut-and-fill procedures and pouring concrete in a shallow slab or using a precast structure set on appropriate depth of structural fill.

Transmission Line From the Project substation, the Project’s 138-kV overhead transmission line runs northwest into Nicholas County where it ties into the existing Allegheny Power Grassy Falls Substation located on State Route 20. The Grassy Falls Substation is referred to as the Point of Interconnect and is the location where energy generated by the Project connects to Allegheny Power’s existing transmission system.

The transmission line was constructed in 2009 and 2010 and is approximately 14 mi long. The construction ROW was 100 ft wide; the permanent ROW is 50 ft wide. The ROW was routed through previously impacted areas, such as reclaimed surface mines, existing power line ROWs, and managed forest land to minimize impacts to streams, wetlands, and other sensitive natural resources.

The transmission line includes 156 poles spaced approximately 500 ft apart. Transmission line poles consist of primarily single steel poles secured as necessary with guy wires. Pole Numbers154 and 156 are H-frame structures, and Pole Number 155 is a 3-pole structure. Pole heights range from 61 to 88 ft. Poles were set into a drilled hole in soil or rock and then backfilled with select stone and granular soil fill. Setting depth was 10% of the pole length plus 2 ft or deeper as specified by the design engineer. The poles support both the steel-reinforced aluminum electrical conductor line and a composite fibre optic ground wire.

5.16.4 Cumulative Effects by Resource

For each resource, the analysis below first identified the appropriate geographical area considered. The geographic context when considering cumulative impacts is different for each of the resource areas and is based on:

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 317 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(1) Identifying a geographic area that includes resources potentially affected by the proposed Project: and (2) Extending that area, when necessary, to include the same and other resources affected by the combined impacts of the Project and other actions.

The environmental effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities were analyzed for that resource accordingly. The Project’s effects to that resource were then evaluated in the context of the cumulative effects contributed by other projects. Cumulative impact analysis considers impacts that are due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. This analysis determines cumulative analysis using the following:

(1) Whether the environment has been degraded, and if so, to what extent; (2) Whether ongoing activities in the area are causing impacts; and (3) The trends for activities and impacts in the area.

Considering the past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions provides a needed context for assessing cumulative impacts. The inclusion of other actions occurring in proximity to the proposed action is a necessary part of evaluating cumulative effects.

For considering the significance of cumulative effects, the impact criteria for each resource are as described for direct and indirect effects (in Sections 5.1 through 5.14). For some resources the spatial extent changes for the cumulative effects analysis. For example, for birds, the impact criteria are the same, but the spatial scale for cumulative effects is expanded to include much of the eastern U.S. due to the large area covered by migrant birds. Similarly, for bats, the impact criteria are the same, but the spatial scale for cumulative effects is expanded to include all the Appalachian Recovery Unit for the Indiana bat.

5.16.4.1 Geology and Soils The cumulative effect analysis area for geologic and soil resources is the Project area. Recent past and on-going ground-disturbing activities in the Project area include construction of Phase I of the Project, timber operations, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, road construction and maintenance, and low- density residential development. Surface mining has had and continues to contribute long-term adverse impacts on the 63,000 acres of commercial forest lands adjacent to the Project and on the surrounding region.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Phase I construction affected 373 acres of soil; 50 of those acres are affected for the life of the Project (Table 3-2). All temporarily disturbed areas were graded to the approximate original contour. Reclaimed areas were stabilized using appropriate erosion control measures (grading, reseeding) and in compliance with the Project’s SWPPPs. The SWPPPs include standard sediment control practices to minimize erosion.

BRE implemented BMPs during construction of the Phase I Project to minimize soil erosion. Practices included containing excavated material, protecting exposed soil and stabilizing restored material, and re- vegetating areas to be reclaimed. To the fullest extent practicable, BRE used previously disturbed sites for new roads and turbine locations. Ground disturbance was limited to that which was necessary for safe and efficient construction. All temporarily disturbed areas were restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 318 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

storms, and are repaired or replaced as necessary. Construction activities in areas of moderate to steep slopes (>15-20%) were avoided when possible.

Timber Harvesting and Mining. Much of the land in the Project area was extensively harvested in the first half of the 20th Century, and logging resumed as forest stands became merchantable timber. The Project area has been actively mined for several decades. Some of the strip mines are currently active, and new activities are being permitted. Timber harvesting and mining are currently ongoing and expected to continue on lands surrounding the BRE Project. In turn, these 2 activities will continue to affect local soils and geology.

Future Effects Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect soils and geology in the Project area include surface mining, oil and gas exploration, timber operations, and road improvement and maintenance. Although it is uncertain, it is possible that some of these activities could be large and cause extensive disturbance to area soil and geologic resources. Importantly, if they do occur these activities would be conducted in compliance with state and federal rules and regulations to minimize impacts. Large projects on private lands would likely be subject to review by municipalities and possibly state and federal agencies. Any approvals by regulatory bodies would be conditioned to require compliance with BMPs to avoid and minimize potential impacts to soil and geologic resources, such as soil erosion.

Section 11 of the Implementing Agreement between BRE and the Service (Appendix F in the Project HCP) addresses BRE’s acquisition of additional land or its divestment of land in relation to the HCP. At this stage, BRE has not indicated whether or how it intends to exercise this provision, and its development or use of these or additional lands in the vicinity of the project are at this point not reasonably foreseeable. We note however, that any future use of land not covered or contemplated in the HCP or permit (or an amendment of both) would independently comply with the ESA and other federal laws.

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and Alternative 4, the decommissioning of the 67-turbine Project would contribute minor cumulative effects to soils and geology in the form of soil erosion and sedimentation as soils are disturbed to remove Project components. These impacts would be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and are anticipated to be minor.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3, which both include the addition of Phase II, have the potential to result in soil erosion, sedimentation, displacement, and loss of soil productivity. However, these impacts would be avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and are anticipated to be minor.

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Geology and Soils Combined with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts, any of the considered alternatives is not likely to result in major cumulative impacts to geology and soil. However, activities in the Project area, other than the considered alternatives, have and continue to have major impacts to soil and geologic resources. Based on the extent and nature of the ground disturbance, the effects of surface mining have and continue to have major cumulative effects on soil and geologic resources in the Project area.

5.16.4.2 Noise The cumulative impacts analysis area for noise is the Project area and a 1-mi buffer. This is based on the analysis area addressed in the noise studies conducted for the Project (Acentech 2006, 2011). The cumulative effects analysis considered potential noise-generating projects and activities that occurred in the recent past, that are in place, and that could occur in the foreseeable future in addition to the Project facility. Recent past and on-going noise-producing activities in and near the Project area include timber operations, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, road construction and maintenance, and residential building construction. Each of these individual activities occurring alone does not create adversely noisy

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 319 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

conditions. However, if happening concurrently these activities can develop into significantly noisy conditions.

Past and Ongoing Effects Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures Acentech (2006) documents the acoustical assessment of the construction and operation of the original 124-turbine Project (provided in Appendix 4.B). Methodologies for measuring and modeling noise are explained in detail in the study report.

Phase I construction included noise associated with rock blasting, excavating, hauling, grading, concrete mixing, tower erection, and vehicle traffic noise. Representative Leq values associated with the equipment used to perform these construction activities are provided in Acentech (2006, provided in Appendix C, Report C-1; see Table 4). Construction activities were audible at residences. For a typical construction workday, Acentech (2006) estimated sound levels to be 54 dBA at 1,550 ft. (the nearest permanent residence) and 41 dBA at 4,000 ft. (see Appendix C, Report C-1, Figure 19) illustrates estimated maximum Ldn sound levels during construction over the entire 124-turbine Project area.

Construction of the 67 turbines occurred in stages, so construction noise occurred over a longer period than originally predicted. However, construction noise was temporary in nature and produced sounds already familiar to communities within hearing distance. The overall noise impacts beyond 1,000 ft of any construction activity were not significant. A value of 54 dBA during the daytime is not considered to be excessive (USEPA 1978), and this value does not exceed the threshold 5 dBA above the estimated ambient noise.

The following mitigation measures were employed during the construction of the 67-turbines.

• Construction activities primarily took place during daylights hours, and were limited during church hours. • Contractors used standard noise buffers on all equipment and trucks. • Contractors used pile driving equipment with least noise impact and restricted pile driving during the weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. • When necessary, blasting was confined to daylight hours and followed all state and federal rules and regulations. The community was notified in advance of any blasting activity. • Effective exhaust mufflers in proper working condition were installed on all engine-powered construction equipment. Mufflers found to be defective were replaced promptly. • Contractors were required to comply with federal limits on truck noise and ensure their employee and delivery vehicles were driven responsibly.

The Project installed GE 1.5sle wind turbine generators. This model incorporates the following noise control treatments into its design:

• Noise insulation of the gearbox and generator; • Reduced-noise gearbox; • Reduced-noise nacelle; • Vibration isolation mounts; and • Quieted-design rotor blades.

In addition, the Project installed high-efficiency, reduced-noise transformers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 320 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

continue on lands surrounding the BRE Project. These 2 activities have generated and continue to generate noise associated with vehicular traffic, heavy equipment operation, chainsaws and other power equipment, and rock blasting.

Future Effects Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could have noise impacts in the Project area and its 1-mi buffer include surface mining, oil and gas exploration, timber operations, and road improvement and maintenance.

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Under the No-Action Alternative, Project operation would include noise produced by 67 turbines spinning in ample wind (3.5 m/s or greater) day and night from November 16 through March 31 and during the day from April 1 through November 15. Similarly, Alternative 4 Project operation would include noise produced by 67 turbines in ample wind (3.5 m/s) at night, as well as during the day, from April 1 through November 15 under the terms specified in BRE’s Curtailment Plan. Turbine operation noise in the Phase I Project is not expected to have major adverse effects on the surrounding environment (Acentech 2006, 2011). Under the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 4, turbines would not add cumulatively to noise associated with continuing and on-going sounds in the Project area. During most periods, the turbines would not be audible above the ambient noise and noise generated by silvicultural practices, mineral exploration and extraction, and small construction projects.

Implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 would contribute additional noise during construction of the 33-turbines, and operation and decommissioning of the 100-turbines. During construction and decommissioning, these sounds would add noise to the Project area and 1-mi buffer and result in increased short-term disturbance to sensitive receptors. The noise impacts for the 33-turbine operation are described in Section 5.2. The noise generated by wind turbines would be continuous for the life of the Project (approximately 25 years). Turbine noise is considered primarily a local effect, and the likelihood of widespread adverse reactions to Project noise is considered small (Acentech 2006, 2011). It is anticipated that Project turbine noise would result in minimal adverse cumulative impacts for all alternatives.

Summary of Noise Cumulative Effects The amount of noise generated by activities other than the wind Project area is expected to increase in the Project area or within its 1-mi buffer. The addition of turbine noise is not estimated to be greater than the measured ambient noise in either Phase I or Phase II. Cumulative effects associated with noise are expected to be minor.

5.16.4.3 Air Quality and Climate The cumulative impacts analysis area for air quality includes Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties. The cumulative effects analysis considered potential emissions-producing projects and activities that occurred in the recent past, that are in place, and that could occur in the foreseeable future in addition to the Project facility. Recent past and on-going emissions-producing activities in and near the Project area include timber operations, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, road construction and maintenance, and vehicular traffic. Each of these individual activities likely does not produce significant levels of pollutants or greenhouse gases. However, collectively these activities can emit significant levels of pollutants.

Past and Ongoing Effects Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures During the site preparation and construction phases, air quality may have been temporary affected due to the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Impacts occurred as a result of emissions from engine exhaust, fugitive dust generation during earth-moving and vegetation removal, and travel on unpaved roads. Dust causes annoyance and deposits on surfaces at certain locations or residences. These impacts were short-term and localized.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 321 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BRE operated under a permit from the WVDEP’s Division of Air Quality for operating a concrete batch plant and for constructing the 67 turbine foundations. Particulate matter and aggregate and sand dust emissions are the primary pollutants of concern during the manufacture of concrete. For the most part, emissions were fugitive in nature. The only point source emission would have occurred from the transfer of cement and pozzolan material (added to concrete to increase certain material properties and reduce material costs) to silos, and these would have been vented through a fabric filter. Fugitive dust was generated during the transport of sand and aggregate, truck and mixer loading, vehicle traffic at the plant and on unpaved roads, and wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles.

Construction of the 67-turbine Project did not emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide- equivalent of greenhouse gases. The concrete batch plant was a temporary source of air pollutants.

During construction of Phase I, BRE implemented standard BMPs to minimize the amount of dust generated by construction activities. All construction vehicles were maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions from construction-related activities. Roads were watered as needed throughout the duration of construction activities to suppress dust on unpaved roads (public roads as well as private access roads).

Timber Harvesting and Mining. Much of the land in the Project area was extensively harvested in the first half of the 20th Century, and logging resumed as forest stands became merchantable timber. The Project area has been actively mined for several decades. Some of the strip mines are currently active, and new activities are being permitted. Timber harvesting and mining are currently ongoing and expected to continue on lands surrounding the BRE Project. Dust and engine exhaust from the operation of logging and mining equipment has affected and continues to affect air quality in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties.

General Vehicle Emissions. Based on available information (WVDEP 2008, 2009), the air quality in Greenbrier in recent years has not been in attainment for ozone based on the revised NAAQS standards and the new WVDEP rule.

Future Effects Reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect air quality in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties include surface mining, oil and gas exploration, timber operations, and road improvement and maintenance. It is possible that Greenbrier County could experience ozone levels that exceed the revised NAAQS standards.

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, there would be a slight adverse cumulative impact in general air quality within the Project area. This impact would be due to vehicle and equipment emissions from constructing the 33 turbines. Under all alternatives, there would be a slight adverse impact to air quality within the Project area from deconstructing the project during decommissioning. These effects from construction and subsequent deconstruction would be temporary and relatively short-term.

Operating wind turbines themselves create no emissions. Each of the 4 alternatives considered in this FEIS will require light vehicle travel to operate the Project. Project operations will contribute minor cumulative effects to local air quality associated with vehicle emissions. Project operations would contribute cumulatively to offset electricity produced from those plants that use fossil fuels and create emissions.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 322 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Air Quality and Climate Implementation of any of the considered alternatives will not result in major cumulative effects to air quality. Activities other than those associated with the Project will not have major cumulative effects to air quality.

5.16.4.4 Water Resources Due to the limited geographical extent of the estimated impacts of the Project to water resources, the water resources cumulative effects analysis area comprises groundwater, surface water, floodplains, wetlands, and Waters of the U.S. within the 27,000-acre BRE leased area (see Figure 1-2, Figure 1-4, Figure 4-4, and Figure 4-5).

Past and Ongoing Effects Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Groundwater. A well was installed for the O&M facility, as the use of local water is necessary to accommodate Project employees. BRE installed a well within the Project site to provide water for the concrete batch plant. Concrete was used for constructing the O&M building, substation, and Phase I turbine foundations. According to BRE, 589,425 gallons of groundwater was used to prepare the concrete. No impacts to groundwater resources were identified in association with Phase I construction.

Surface Water. Surface water is drawn from streams and ponds and used for dust suppression on unpaved roads. According to BRE, 2,209,285 gallons of surface water were used to compact the soil for the substation and water roads during Phase I construction and the first 2 years of operation. During Phase I construction and initial operation, BRE has been implementing BMPs outlined in their SWPPPs to protect surface water quality. Conditions contained in the permits require 1) weekly inspections and inspections after 0.5 inch or greater rainfall, and 2) prompt reporting and repair of any problems with silt fences or other erosion control measures. Major effects to surface water resources have not been identified in the Project area, but they could have occurred if water withdrawals for dust suppression occurred in small, high-elevation streams and withdrawals exceeded recharge rates.

Activities Other Than the Project. Recent past and on-going activities include silvicultural practices, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, road construction and maintenance, and the development of single residences. These activities can have effects on streams, wetlands, and groundwater related to erosion and sedimentation if BMPs are not effectively implemented. Unlike most of these other activities, oil and gas exploration involves drilling and can impact groundwater. In the Project area, surface mining may have been the greatest source of water quality impacts, particularly if overburden was placed at the heads of valleys and allowed to enter high-elevation streams. The extent of valley fills in the Project area is unknown.

Future Effects Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Implementation of any considered alternative has the potential to affect surface water resources. For the Proposed Action or Alternative 3, BRE estimates they will use approximately 32,625 gallons of surface water annually for dust suppression during operations. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 4 will use same amount or less due to the Project being smaller. Water withdrawals from small, intermittent streams for road-dust suppression may result in significant alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions if withdrawals exceed stream flow volumes. Should water withdrawals modify hydrologic conditions in headwater steams, impacts on water resources would be considered significant. If water withdrawal activities occur at larger perennial streams that can support the volumes withdrawn, implementation of any considered alternative will have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to water resources in the Project area.

Activities Other Than the Project. Foreseeable future actions in the Project area for the next 25 years would include timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, road construction, and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 323 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

maintenance. Timber harvesting and road construction will employ BMPs to avoid violating state federal rules for water resource protection. No major land developments are currently proposed in the Project area. Large projects on private lands would be subject to town and state review and possibly federal review. Any approvals would require compliance with WVDEP rules for minimizing environmental impacts to water resources.

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Water Resources Surface mining in the Project area will continue to pose the greatest threats to water resources. It is uncertain to what extent water resources will be affected by surface mining and other activities in the Project area. Based on the best available information, the multiple activities in the Project area could have moderate cumulative effects to water resources.

5.16.4.5 Vegetation The 63,000-acre tract owned by a timber company is the cumulative effects analysis area for addressing lost or altered vegetation and habitat resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project and alternatives. This is because we have an understanding of the nature of the impacts that occur on the tract and can assess cumulative effects to vegetation qualitatively to a reliable extent. The character of tract, including the BRE Project area, is reasonably similar throughout.

Past and Ongoing Effects Past and ongoing actions affecting vegetation communities include timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas extraction, small-scale agriculture, and single residences. Impacts to mature forests from timber harvesting would recover in a relatively short period of time (<80 years). Approximately 647 acres were disturbed recently within and around the Project area due to the landowner’s timber harvesting. Forested areas affected by surface mining, even if they are reclaimed, would take longer to recover (>100 years). Houses and agriculture convert forests for as long as those developments are maintained.

Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Phase I construction activities affected approximately 373 acres of vegetation and disturbed habitats. More than 95% of this was forest primarily managed for timber production. Activities associated with creating work areas, laydown areas, turn-around areas, and road expansions disturbed the greatest amount of habitat. Phase I facilities are sited on 50 acres for the life of the Project, and 311 acres were reclaimed and allowed to revegetate.

BRE implemented the following BMPs during construction of Phase I to protect soil and vegetation resources.

• Excavated material was contained, stabilized, and protected. • Surface disturbance was limited to that which was necessary for safe and efficient construction. • All surface-disturbed areas were restored to the approximate original contour and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements. • Removal or disturbance of vegetation was minimized through site management (e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, scalping) and reclaiming all disturbed areas not required for operations.

No construction or routine maintenance activities were conducted where soil was too wet to adequately support construction equipment (i.e., if such equipment created ruts in excess of 4 inches deep). Certified weed-free straw mulches, certified weed-free hay bale barriers, silt fences, and water bars were used to control soil erosion. Soil erosion control measures were monitored, especially after storms, and were repaired or replaced when needed. Surface disturbance was limited to that which was necessary for safe and efficient construction. All surface-disturbed areas will be restored to the approximate original contour

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 324 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

and reclaimed in accordance with easement agreements. Construction activities in areas of moderate to steep slopes (15-20%) were avoided, where possible.

Roads, portions of roads, crane paths, and staging areas not required for operation and maintenance were restored to their original contours and made impassable to vehicular traffic. Reclaimed areas were contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation, to provide for proper drainage, and to prevent erosion. The seed mixtures to be used for Phase II were used for Phase I reclamation (see Table 5-6). BRE maintains those areas needed for O&M and clears potential tree growth. Tree planting was and is not included in the reclamation plan.

To install the transmission line, contractors worked up to riparian areas and then went around to work from the other side. Riparian areas were not affected during construction.

Future Effects Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vegetation analysis area for the next 25 years include timber harvesting, oil and gas exploration, and surface mining. Conversely, it is also reasonable to expect some active agricultural lands may become inactive and revert to native habitats within the 25-year time frame. Some new road development may occur to provide future access to timberlands and minerals.

Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. The Project footprint’s impacts to vegetation will consist of the conversion of forested lands to built structures and associated infrastructure for the life of the Project. Under the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 4, the 67-turbines affected 373 acres of forested habitat, of which 50 acres are affected for the life of the Project. Phase I operation contributes no additional impacts to vegetation. Decommissioning may necessitate the removal of small amounts of reclaimed vegetation to allow crane access for dismantling turbines and MET towers.

Cumulatively, the 100-turbine Project would affect approximately 438 acres of mostly deciduous forest habitat (~93%). This represents 0.7% of the 63,000-acre commercial timber tract in which the Project resides, and represents 0.30% and 0.05% of the deciduous forest within 5 mi and 20 mi of the Project, respectively (see HCP, Section 4.1.1).

The combined amount of vegetation that would be impacted by the 100-turbine Project and the existing developments along with any anticipated future developments is considered a minor effect. Naturally occurring plant populations will not be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional level. There will not be substantial loss or degradation of soil stabilization services. There will not be a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species. BRE will implement BMPs to avoid and minimize the advancement of invasive species that results in substantial replacement of native species.

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Vegetation Resources Timber harvesting and surface mining will continue to affect vegetation resources in the 63,000-acre parcel for the life of the Project. The amounts of these kinds of disturbances are unknown. Based on the best available information, the multiple activities on the tract could have moderate cumulative effects to vegetation resources. Naturally occurring plant populations may experience localized reduction in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local.

There may be localized substantial losses in soil stabilization services. There may be a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species. There may also be extensive

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 325 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

areas that become infested with noxious weeds. Based on the best available information, the ongoing commercial timber activities in the landowner’s 63,000-acre tract could have moderate cumulative effects to vegetation resources.

5.16.4.6 Wildlife and Fisheries The 63,000-acre commercial timber land surround the Project area is the cumulative effects analysis area for addressing impacts to general wildlife and fisheries resulting from implementation of the considered alternatives and other occurring activities. This is because we have an understanding of the nature of the impacts that occur on this tract and can assess cumulative effects to wildlife and fisheries qualitatively to a reliable extent. The habitat composition is relatively consistent throughout the tract. Deciduous forest >26 years old is the dominant vegetation type (>93%); other habitats occur in small patches that are relatively evenly dispersed (Figure 5-1).

Past and Ongoing Effects Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures Phase I construction activities affected approximately 373 acres of primarily deciduous forest habitat and a small amount of other habitat types (mostly previously disturbed sites). The forests on the landowner’s 63,000-acre tract are managed primarily for timber production. Activities associated with creating work areas, laydown areas, turn-around areas, and road expansions disturbed the greatest amount of habitat. Phase I facilities are sited on 50 acres for the life of the Project, and 311 acres were reclaimed and allowed to revegetate.

Habitat removal had unavoidable impacts such as mortality and habitat loss. The newly created roads may also lead to increased accessibility of the tract by hunters, fisherman, and poachers.

Effectively implemented BMPs avoided erosion and sedimentation to avoid impacts to streams and aquatic habitats. However, surface water is drawn from streams and ponds and used for dust suppression on unpaved roads. According to BRE, 2,209,285 gallons of surface water were used to compact the soil for the substation and water roads during Phase I construction and the 2 years of operation. An unknown proportion was drawn from a few high-elevation streams. Water withdrawals from small, intermittent streams for road-dust suppression may have resulted in significant alteration of the quantity or quality of water and habitat conditions if withdrawals exceeded stream flow volumes. Water withdrawals that modify hydrologic conditions in headwater steams can impact habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. This would be a major adverse effect. Several of the streams that drain the Phase I Project area have been designated trout streams by the WVDEP.

To address potential effects to wildlife and fisheries, BRE prohibited hunting, fishing, dogs, or possession of firearms by its employees and its designated contractor(s) in the Project area during construction. These prohibitions were carried forward to include Project operation and maintenance. BRE has advised project personnel regarding speed limits on roads (25 mph) to minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions. Potential increases in poaching were minimized through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife laws. If violations are discovered, the offense will be reported to the WVDNR, and the offending employee or contractor will be disciplined and may be dismissed by BRE and/or prosecuted by the WVDNR. Travel is restricted to designated roads; no off-road travel will be allowed except in emergencies.

For Phase I design, BRE incorporated recommendations found in the document Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines (USFWS 2003a) and the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee recommendations (USFWS 2010). Turbine layout avoided further fragmenting wildlife habitat through the use, where practical, of previously disturbed lands. BRE avoided constructing new roads by using existing roadways and addressed aquatic resources through the use of an SWPPP.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 326 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 5-1. Aerial view of the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 327 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Activities Other Than the Project. Recent past and on-going actions that affect wildlife and fisheries primarily include timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas development, small agricultural development, road construction and maintenance, and single residences. Impacts to general wildlife from timber harvesting and surface mining have resulted in losses in mature forest for varying lengths of time. Surface mining affected forests of multiple ages and would result in protracted periods of habitat for recovery especially in the absence of any reclamation and vegetation restoration. Residential and agricultural development converted habitat that will be maintained as such until these developments are abandoned.

The above list of activities can impact streams, wetlands, and groundwater that can, in turn, affect fisheries. These activities can result in erosion and sedimentation. Unlike other activities, oil and gas exploration involves drilling and can impact groundwater. In the Project area, surface mining may have had the greatest effects on water quality, particularly if overburden was placed at the heads of valleys. The extent of valley fills in the Project area is unknown.

Future Effects Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project. Under the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 4, the 67 turbines affected 373 acres of forested habitat, of which 50 acres are affected for the life of the Project. Phase I operation would displace those animals that may avoid the Project due to incidences of human intrusion, presence of turbines, or habitat made unsuitable by the development. Project operation may include some erosion and sedimentation in streams from the road system. Decommissioning may necessitate the removal of small amounts of reclaimed vegetation to allow crane access for dismantling turbines and meteorological towers. Decommissioning would also involve ground disturbance to remove Project elements. Effectively implemented BMPs would avoid and minimize impacts to streams from erosion and sedimentation.

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, construction of the proposed 33 turbines would affect 148 acres of forested habitat, of which 21 acres would be affected for the life of the Project. Phase II operation would not contribute additional impacts to vegetation. The 100-turbine project will remove 71 acres of forested habitat for the life of the Project. The 100-turbine Project operation would displace those animals that may avoid the Project due to incidences of human intrusion, presence of turbines, or habitat made unsuitable by the development. Project operation may include some erosion and sedimentation in streams from the road system. Decommissioning may necessitate the removal of small amounts of reclaimed vegetation to allow crane access for dismantling turbines and meteorological towers. Decommissioning would also involve ground disturbance to remove Project elements. Effectively implemented BMPs would avoid and minimize impacts to streams from erosion and sedimentation.

Cumulatively, the 100-turbine Project would affect approximately 438 acres of mostly deciduous forest habitat (~93%). This represents 0.7% of the 63,000-acre commercial forest tract in which the Project resides, and represents 0.30% and 0.05% of the deciduous forest within 5 mi and 20 mi of the Project, respectively (see HCP, Section 4.1.1).

The combined amount of vegetation that would be impacted by the 100-turbine Project and the existing developments along with any anticipated future developments is considered a minor effect. Native animal populations will not be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The amount of effected forested habitat is relatively small compared to the prevalence of forest in the 63,000 acre tract. The Project will temporarily affected 438 acres for the period of time it will take for the forest to regenerate. The Project will occupy 71 acres for 25 years. Therefore, the Project would have minor cumulative effects to general wildlife that depend on mixed-age forest in the 63,000-acre tract.

Any of the considered alternatives has the potential to adversely affect fisheries and aquatic habitats if streams are used as water sources for dust-suppression.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 328 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Activities Other Than the Project. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project area for the next 25 years that may affect general wildlife and fisheries resources include timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, further development of single residences, and some small agriculture. It is reasonable to expect some active agricultural lands may become inactive and revert to native habitats within the 25-year time frame. Some new roads are likely to be constructed to access timberlands and minerals.

Road maintenance projects would employ BMPs to protect water resources. Any large projects on private lands would be subject to town and state review and possibly federal review. Any approvals would require compliance with WVDEP rules for minimizing environmental impacts to water resources and fisheries habitat. Surface mining is likely to continue to pose the greatest risks to fisheries resources, particularly if overburden is deposited at the heads of valleys.

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Wildlife and Fisheries Timber harvesting and surface mining will continue to affect wildlife and terrestrial habitats in the 63,000- acre parcel for the life of the Project. The amounts of these kinds of disturbances are unknown. Based on the best available information, the multiple activities in the tract could have moderate cumulative effects to wildlife dependent on mature forest. Conversely, the replacement of mixed-age forest (predominately >26 years old) with early-successional forest provides habitat for those animals that rely on scrub-shrub and herbaceous cover.

Surface mining in the Project area will continue to pose the greatest threats to aquatic habitats. It is uncertain to what extent streams in the tract are affected by surface mining and other activities. Based on the best available information, the multiple activities in the Project area could have moderate cumulative effects to water resources. The effects of water withdrawal for the Project, if conducted to avoid artificially dry conditions, will add a minor cumulative effect to the moderately adverse effects in the 63,000 acres tract associated with the other industrial activities.

5.16.4.7 Avian Resources Geographic Scale and Type of Impact Due to their extraordinary range of mobility, the geographic scope for evaluating cumulative effects to birds could be at the continental scale. For the purposes of this FEIS, the analysis area for avian resources considers cumulative effects at the Project level and at a regional level.

Wind Projects and Mortality. The existing project has killed birds and the proposed project expansion has the potential to kill additional birds. This cumulative effects analysis primarily focuses on mortality impacts attributable to the Project in the context of other existing and planned wind facilities and potential future wind development in the northeastern U.S.

We used 3 Bird Conservation Regions to define the spatial scale for the cumulative effects to all birds (Figure 5-2). Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are described in USFWS (2008a) and are endorsed by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative as the basic units within which all-bird conservation efforts will be planned and evaluated (as cited in USFWS 2008a). The goal of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is for BCRs to ultimately function as the primary units within which biological issues are resolved at a landscape scale that allows for configuration of sustainable habitat for bird populations. BCRs 28, 13, and 14 were selected to represent the geographic scope for the cumulative effects analysis area for avian resources. These 3 BCRs encompass 380,737 mi2 and are sufficiently large for a landscape level cumulative effects analysis. BCR 28 includes the Project and the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. BCRs 13 and 14 are the 2 BCRS to the north of the Project, and it is not unreasonable to assume that birds that may occur in BCRs 13 and 14 could interact with turbines in the Project area. Additionally, Partners in Flight have summarized breeding bird population data by BCRs (PIF and RMBO 2004). Hence, bird mortality estimates can be taken into context with the most current estimates of bird numbers.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 329 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Therefore, we found the use of these 3 BCRs to be appropriate for assessing cumulative effects to avian resources.

Figure 5-2. Map of the Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) of the United States. [Source: USFWS (2008a); map does not show BCR 67 (Hawaii) or 2 other BCRs on islands in the Pacific and Caribbean that are either U.S. Territories or other affiliates.]

Other Sources of Mortality. Because there is so much interest in the Project’s potential to kill birds, this analysis also considers other sources of bird mortality. Anthropogenic elements that are known to cause avian mortality are discussed briefly, and this discussion is in a more general sense and not confined to a region. This is largely due to how the current data have been treated to provide estimates, which are most often provided on a national scale.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 330 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

There are other substantial anthropogenic sources of bird mortality that are not discussed here because they involve different types of power generation. Among these sources of mortality are activities associated with coal power generation and oil and gas extraction and nuclear power generation. Hunting is also not included in this analysis because, even though it is a substantial source of mortality for some bird groups, it is a regulated activity.

Habitat Loss and Displacement. The proposed Project has the potential to displace birds due to Project presence and habitat alteration. These effects are analyzed for the Appalachian region in West Virginia to remain in the context of a similar habitat type.

Temporal Scope The temporal dimensions of this analysis included past and present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future sources of mortality and habitat impacts that may occur during the 25-year operation of the Project.

Wind Energy Development and Avian Mortality Estimates of bird mortality from man-made causes vary widely and are not known with a high degree of certainty, based in part on differences in methodology and limitations of sampling designs. Many human- caused bird mortality factors are not systematically monitored or assessed. These numbers do, however, provide ballpark estimates of the relative magnitude of various sources of mortality. Table 5-36 provides estimates of annual avian mortality from anthropogenic causes, including wind turbines.

Table 5-36. Estimated annual avian mortality from anthropogenic causes in the U.S. Estimated annual % of overall Mortality source mortality mortality Depredation by domestic cats 1.4–3.7 billion 71-75 Collisions with buildings (including windows) 97-1,200 million 5-23 Collisions with power lines 130-174 million 3-7 Legal harvest 120 million 6 Automobiles 50-100 million 2-3 Pesticides 67 million 4 Communication towers 4-50 million <1 Oil pits 1.5-2 million <1 Wind turbines 20,000-440,000 <1 Total mortality 1.9-5.2 billion Sources: Erickson et al. (2005), Thogmartin et al. (2006), Manville (2009), Loss et al. (2013).

On a national scale, Erickson et al. (2005) estimated that wind turbines are responsible annually for 0.01- 0.02% of all avian fatalities due to human structures. Likewise, the National Research Council (2007) estimated that bird deaths caused by turbines accounted for less than 1% of the total anthropogenic bird deaths in 2003.

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative Wildlife Workgroup estimated that turbines killed roughly 58,000 birds per year in the U.S. in 2009 (NWCC 2009 statistic as cited in Manville 2009). Manville (2009) provided a higher estimate (440,000 birds per year) based on an attempt to correct data for seasonality, duration and intensity of searches, search area, and other biases. These 2 estimates should be considered “ballpark” approximations based on many assumptions and uncertainties. The total number of MW and turbines at currently operating projects, projects under construction, and proposed projects as of April 2012 were used to quantify bird mortality induced by existing and near future wind power projects in all states within the cumulative effects analysis area. For those proposed projects where either the number of MW or number of turbines has yet to be determined, it was assumed

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 331 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

that the turbines are 1.5-MW turbines. This analysis included commercial wind projects with 2 or more turbines. We recognize that residential and small-scale industrial turbines kill birds (Anderson 2009, Dunes Nature Center and Preserve, unpublished data). However, this analysis did not consider residential or small-scale industrial turbines. Post-construction monitoring results at small-scale sites are not as extensive or readily available as those from large-scale projects. Additionally, this analysis did not consider proposed Atlantic offshore wind projects in the U.S.

Publicly available mortality studies from existing wind projects in the Eastern U.S. were reviewed to generate an average and range of avian fatality. It should be noted that annual estimates of mortality are actually estimates of mortality for the study duration and not a full calendar year. Few studies have sampled project mortality for the full calendar year. Studies typically sample during peak periods of activity for birds and bats. Fiedler et al. (2007) sampled from April through December at a wind power site in Tennessee and reported zero bird mortality from mid-October to late December 2005; however, turbines were searched infrequently during this time period (1-3 x per month) and were not searched during January through March. Since many birds migrate to warmer climates during the winter, we would expect a lower overall bird mortality rate during winter than during the rest of the year. During winter, we would expect some level of mortality of raptors and other overwintering birds; however, due to lack of studies during this time frame, we have no basis for estimating these rates. Therefore, we have not attempted to estimate mortality for the timeframes when mortality studies have not been conducted. Accordingly, when this analysis refers to annual mortality estimates the reader should remember this technically means mortality for the duration of the study timeframes, which is usually April through mid- November for the eastern U.S. This time frame captures overall peak bird activity for most species (during breeding and migration seasons) and provides a basis for comparing relatives rates of mortality across alternatives. We recognize that this time frame misses late migrating and overwintering raptors, as well as winter-breeding raptors.

Post-construction mortality surveys have not been conducted for the Project since all 67-turbines came on line in 2010. Because birds collide with stationary towers, it is assumed that the Project has caused some mortality, but no mortality rate is available. In Section 5.7.2.1, we used estimated mortality rates from 174 post-construction studies to derive a mean and range of mortality that could potentially result from implementation of the 4 alternatives. The average mortality rate is 5.61 birds per turbine per year based on results from 17 studies conducted at 9 wind projects located on forested ridgelines in the mid- Atlantic region.

Table 5-14 provides a summary of the bird mortality estimates for the 67- and 100-turbine Projects. Based on this rate, we estimate the 100-turbine BRE facility will result in 561 bird deaths per year. Based on this annual mortality estimate, the Project is expected to kill 14,000 birds over a 25-year period. Confidence intervals from the studies provide a full range of possible mortality estimates from a low of 0 birds per turbine per year to a high of 23.49 birds per turbine per year. Applying these values, the 100- turbine project would potentially result in annual mortalities ranging from 0 to 2,349 birds per year; however, we would expect overall Project mortality to be closer to the mean than the extreme ends of variation.

Because bird mortality rates from wind power vary considerably across habitat types, we did not assume that all northeastern wind power projects would kill birds at the same rate calculated for the BRE Project in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Hence, in evaluating cumulative effects to birds in the 3 BCRs, we used a greater number of studies to capture the full variability of habitat types, bird composition, and mortality rates in the northeastern U.S.

Table 5-37 presents the level of survey effort, results, and estimates of annual mortality based on publicly available data from 25 studies at 14 different wind farms in the eastern U.S. To make results as comparable as possible, we selected these studies based on the following criteria: (1) searches conducted from spring through fall (covering at least April to mid-October) when most bird mortality is

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 332 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT expected to occur;53 (2) turbines searches daily; and (3) mortality rates based on contemporaneous equations adjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger removal trials. These criteria reduce bias associated with short study periods, infrequent searches, and older fatality formulas, all of which can underestimate mortality (Huso 2011).

53 We made one exception to include the Maple Ridge, New York, 2006 study, which missed the spring migration period (Jain et al, 2007). This site had a relatively high bird mortality rate, 9.59 birds per turbine, despite a shorter field season than other studies. We felt that eliminating this site would bias the overall average for the flyway. Realistically, had this site included spring migration, the fatality rate would likely have been even higher. Thus our overall average for the flyway is somewhat low, but not as low as if we had excluded the site altogether.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 333 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-37. Results and estimates of annual avian mortality based on publicly available data from 25 studies at 14 different wind farms in the eastern U.S. No. Dates Mortality Annual mortality Site and state Habitat CI rate 3 Reference turbines surveyed rate range based on CI Studies that searched daily and used modified Shoenfeld estimator Mountaineer, Apr 4 – Nov 11, Kerns and Kerlinger, 44 forested ridgeline 4.04 2.41-8.33 106-367 West Virginia 2003 (2004) Mount Storm, Mar 23 – Oct 8, 4 Young et al. (2009b, 132 forested ridgeline 8.74 5.12-12.77 676-1,686 West Virginia 2009 2010a) Mount Storm, Apr 16 - Oct 15, 4 Young et al. (2010b, 132 forested ridgeline 6.74 3.92-10.03 517-1,324 West Virginia 2010 2011a) Mount Storm, Apr 12 – Oct 4 Young et al. (2011b, 132 forested ridgeline 8.49 6.59-12.36 870-1,635 West Virginia 15, 2011 2012d) Arnett et al. (2009a), Casselman, Apr 19 - Nov 23 forested ridgeline 2.27 0.88-3.92 20-90 Librandi-Mumma and Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Capouillez 2011 Arnett et al. (2010), Casselman, Apr 1 - Nov 15, 23 forested ridgeline 4.32 2.67-6.44 61-148 Librandi-Mumma and Pennsylvania 2008 Capouillez (2011) Arnett et al. (2011), Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 forested ridgeline 1.62 0.83-2.93 42-149 Librandi-Mumma and Pennsylvania 2009 Capouillez (2011) Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 forested ridgeline 1.51 0.64-2.61 33-133 Arnett et al. (2011) Pennsylvania 2010 Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 6.50 3.80-10.10 -- Pennsylvania 2008 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-14, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 5.00 0.00-6.90 -- Pennsylvania 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-10, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 1.30 0.00-3.20 -- Pennsylvania 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-10, Forested ridgeline Apr 1 – Nov 15, nr 2.00 1.00-3.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 2010 Site 2-4, Apr 1 – Nov 15, Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 9.80 2.70-12.40 -- Pennsylvania 2009 Capouillez (2011) Site 2-4, forested ridgeline Apr 1 – Nov 15, nr 3.00 1.00-4.00 -- Taucher et al. (2012) Pennsylvania 2010 Site 6-3, April 1 – Nov. Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 1.80 nr -- Pennsylvania 15, 2007 Capouillez 2011

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 334 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

No. Dates Mortality Annual mortality Site and state Habitat CI rate 3 Reference turbines surveyed rate range based on CI Site 6-3, April 1 –Nov. Librandi-Mumma and nr forested ridgeline 2.40 nr -- Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Capouillez 2011 forested ridgeline Apr 5 – Nov 15, Criterion, Maryland 28 16.01 11.26-23.49 315-658 Young et al. (2012e) 2011 Average rate (n=17) 5.03 0-23.49 Studies that searched daily and used Jain estimator Maple Ridge, woodland, grassland, Jun 17 - Nov 120 9.59 9.12-10.06 1,094-1,207 New York agricultural 15, 2006 Jain et al. 2007 Clinton, agricultural, Apr 26 - Oct 13, 67 1.43 1.40-1.46 94-98 Jain et al. 2009c New York woodland 2008 Clinton, agricultural, Apr 15 - Nov 67 1.50 1.24-1.75 83-117 Jain et al. 2009f New York woodland 15, 2009 Ellenburg, agricultural, Apr 28 - Oct 13, 54 2.09 2.03-2.15 110-116 Jain et al. 2009d New York woodland 2008 Ellenburg, agricultural, Apr 15 - Nov 54 5.69 4.87-6.50 263-351 Jain et al. 2010a New York woodland 15, 2009 Bliss, agricultural, Apr 21 - Nov 67 4.29 4.15-4.45 278-298 Jain et al. 2009 New York woodland 14, 2008 Bliss, agricultural, Apr 15 - Nov 67 4.45 3.10-5.79 208-388 Jain et al. 2010b New York woodland 15, 2009 Cohocton / Dutch agricultural, Apr 15 - Nov Hill, 50 4.70 1.91-7.49 95-375 Stantec 2010b woodland 15, 2009 New York Average rate (n=8) 4.22 1.40-10.06 Studies that searched daily and used Huso estimator Casselman, Apr 19 - Nov 23 forested ridgeline 4.69 1.25-14.31 29-329 Arnett et al. (2009a) Pennsylvania 15, 2008 Casselman, Apr 1 - Nov 15, 23 forested ridgeline 8.68 4.76-15.69 109-361 Arnett et al.2010 Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 forested ridgeline 4.05 1.73-13.62 88-695 Arnett et al. (2011) Pennsylvania 2009 Locust Ridge II, Apr 1 – Nov 15, 51 forested ridgeline 2.20 0.82-4.52 42-232 Arnett et al. (2011) Pennsylvania 2010 Average rate (n=4) 4.90 0.82-15.69

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 335 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

No. Dates Mortality Annual mortality Site and state Habitat CI rate 3 Reference turbines surveyed rate range based on CI Overall bird fatalities/turbine/year using the higher estimator for the Average rate (n=25) 5.17 0.82-15.69 study when more than one estimator was used (n = 22)_

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 336 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

We note that estimated mortality rates from these studies do not represent actual fatality rates in the analysis area. Our approach assumes that all sites are equal with their potential to kill birds. Realistically, different sites and different turbines vary in the amount that they would contribute to regional bird mortality. Study periods, sources of sampling bias, and method of calculating estimates also vary across studies. We know of no valid way to correct for or standardize these differences. Despite these limitations, this methodology represents a reasonable approach to using the best scientific information available from which to make inferences about cumulative bird mortality in the analysis area.

We used the results of these 25 post-construction studies to derive an average mortality rate for the eastern U.S. When more than one mortality rate was provided in the same study, we used the higher estimate (worst-case scenario) when it met the selection criteria above. For example, at the Casselman and Locust Ridge II sites, we used the higher Huso estimator, as opposed to the lower Schoenfeld estimator (Table 5-37).

Based on the results of 25 post-construction studies, using the higher estimator from a study when more than one estimator was used, the average mortality rate is 5.17 birds per turbine per year for 14 wind projects located in the eastern U.S. across multiple habitat types.

Table 5-38 provides the total number turbines that are currently operational and under construction in the 13 states as of April 2012. It should be noted that 3 states do not have wind projects with 2 or more turbines operating or under construction. Information is based on databases that were updated in the first half of 2011 (AWEA 20110.

Table 5-38. Total number of turbines and estimated bird mortality at operational and under construction wind facilities in 13 states in the eastern U.S. States are those included in the Bird Conservation Regions 13, 14, and 28 as defined in USFWS (2008a) plus Indiana. Turbine numbers were provided by AWEA (2012). Operational Turbines under State 1 Total # turbines turbines construction New York 862 76 938 Indiana 798 125 923 Pennsylvania 443 264 707 West Virginia 319 8 327 Maine 207 0 207 Ohio 64 154 218 Maryland 51 0 51 New Hampshire 48 24 72 Vermont 27 21 48 Massachusetts 22 25 47 Tennessee 18 0 18 New Jersey 5 0 5 Virginia 0 19 19 Total Turbines 2,864 716 3,580 Estimated annual bird fatality for northeastern U.S. based on 5.17 14,087 3,702 17,789 birds per turbine per year Source: AWEA (2012)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 337 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

It is important to note that Indiana was included in our turbine estimates even though it is not within our analysis area. Energy statistics in the U.S. are analyzed by sector, and all of Indiana is grouped with eastern states (Figure 5-3), and we do not have the resources to separate Indiana’s influence on turbine growth trends in our analysis area. It is important to note that the inclusion of turbines from Indiana adds more than 900 turbines to our analysis area which results in an overestimate of the effect of turbines on bird populations in BCRs 28, 13, and 14.

Figure 5-3. Energy sectors in the eastern United States as described by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

Currently, 2,864 turbines are estimated to be operating in the analysis area. Approximately, 716 turbines are under construction bringing the total to 3,580 turbines. West Virginia represents approximately 9% of the total projects (operating and under construction) for the cumulative effects analysis area.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 338 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

We used 5.17 birds per turbine per year as the mortality rate, based on the results of the 25 monitoring studies shown in Table 5-37, to quantify current and near future avian mortality in the analysis area

Applied to the current operational and near-future operational wind facilities within the analysis area, annual bird fatalities would be 17,789 birds per year.54 The proposed Project is estimated to kill 561 birds annually (based on the regional average rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year). This value represents approximately 3% of the total annual mortality from wind turbines for the analysis area in the near future. For the near future mortality, Table 5-39 provides the number of affected individuals within birds groups; percentages were based on available data from wind projects in the eastern and Midwestern U.S.

Table 5-39. Estimated annual near-future fatalities by bird group for the total operational and under construction projects in the cumulative effects analysis area based on a rate of 4.92 birds per turbine per year and the estimated 3,580 turbines operating and under construction. % of total No birds per Bird group 1 fatalities turbine per year Passerine 73.6% 13,093 Unknown species 11.6% 2,064 Raptor 5.6% 996 Waterfowl 4.5% 801 Gamebird 2.2% 391 Shorebird 1.5% 267 Seabird 0.6% 107 Owl 0.4% 71 Total 100.0% 17,789 Sources: Osborn et al. (2000), Johnson et al. (2000a, 2002), Howe (2002), Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Koford et al. (2004, 2005), Arnett (2005), Piorkowski (2006), Derby et al. (2007), Fiedler et al. (2007), Jain et al. (2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e), Miller (2008), Stantec (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a), Vlietstra (2008), Arnett et al. (2009), Gruver (2009), NJ Audubon Society (2009), Tidhar (2009), Young et al. (2009, 2010, 2011a), Drake et al. (2010).

If wind energy development stopped with the near future capacity provided in Table 5-38, projects in the cumulative effects analysis area would kill approximately 450,000 birds during the 25-year operation of the BRE Project (~18,000 birds per year x 25 years). Realistically, wind energy development is predicted to expand over the next 25 years throughout the US. The number of additional wind-generated MW into year 2035 was estimated in an effort to project reasonably foreseeable future conditions and associated increases in bird mortality.

Choosing the year 2035 was based on information provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (USEIA 2011a), which presents long-term projections of energy supply through 2035. Based on results from the U.S. EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (USEIA 2011b), we were able to derive estimates for wind project development in the U.S. and Canada.

The wind-electric module projects the availability of wind resources and cost and performance of wind turbine generators. The wind turbine data are expressed in the form of energy supply curves that provide the maximum amount, capital cost, and capacity factor of turbine generating capacity that could be installed in a region in a year based on available land area and wind speed. The model also evaluates the

54 All calculations were performed using a computer spreadsheet application. Discrepancy among spreadsheet values and hand- calculated values is due to rounding of numbers within the application. Differences are not considered to be significant as these values are purely to illustrate estimates from a single possible scenario among many potential outcomes.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 339 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

contribution of wind capacity to meet the power system reliability requirements. The data are divided among 8 regional reliability entities55 that encompass all of the interconnected power systems of the contiguous United States, Canada, and a portion of Baja California in Mexico.

Relative to BCRs 28, 13, and 14, there are 2 regional reliability entities that comprise all or most of the 13 states in the analysis area (Figure 5.3). Regional reliability entities are often subdivided into market module regions. This analysis looked at data from 4 market module regions. Generating capacity by electric power sector provided the values in gigawatts (gW) for each region from years 2009 to 2035. These values were then used to determine the number of MW projected for future development. The analysis assumed that all turbines would be 1.9 MW in size, the average size of turbines counted in Table 5-38, which were based on the data provided by AWEA (2012). The 1.9 MW turbine sized was used to determine the number of turbines in the future landscape.56

Based on this approach, there would be 5,079 and 5,163 turbines in the eastern U.S. in years 2012 and 2035, respectively. The number of turbines built and under construction in the analysis area (3,580 turbines, Table 5-38) is significantly lower than this number. It is important to note, the number of turbines estimated using the USEIA (2012) information is the result of an attempt to illustrate a trend generated from statistics based on energy markets rather than what is happening in reality. The gW values provided by the USEIA (2012) models reflect the generating capacity of wind projects in each market module region to be used by power grids in the U.S. Hence, the MW values are artificially high. However, we recognize that the growth trends illustrated by the data are realistic.57 Therefore, we used this same development trends in the 4 market module regions to estimate wind power development in the analysis area, but we used the actual number of operating and under construction turbines to inform the model.

In the eastern U.S., the USEIA predicts that wind project development will grow very little in the next 15 years (through 2025) and then will experience some growth due to regional increases in the northeast and mid-Atlantic through 2030 (Figure 5-4) (USEIA 2012).

55 The North American Electric Reliability Corporation oversees the 8 regional reliability entities. This is the organization certified to establish and enforce standards for the bulk-power system to ensure reliability. 56 The current market trend is for building larger turbines with greater nameplate capacity than the current 1.5 to 2.0 MW turbines typically used today. If this market trend continues, our estimate of turbine buildout in 2037 may overestimate the number of turbines as the same generating capacity could be met with fewer but larger turbines. Larger (taller) turbines may kill more birds, We have not attempted to correct for this in our analysis as there are no studies available to determine bird mortality for the as yet unmanufactured possibly taller turbines. 57 Turbine growth trends are extremely difficult to predict. We recognize there are other possible growth scenarios. One scenario predicts an approximate 51% increase in wind turbine generated MW capacity in the next 10 years in West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and part of North Carolina, but does not predict trend any farther into the future (NERC 2011). This scenario also recognizes the high degree of uncertainty in predicting growth trends and states that predictions are optimistic and could be off by plus or minus 50%. For these reasons, we did not use this scenario.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 340 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 5-4. Estimated number wind turbines in the northeastern U.S. through year 2038 based upon electricity generating capacity for wind projects. Source data: USEIA (2012), AWEA (2012).

The rate of growth illustrated in Figure 5-4 appears realistic, and it is possible that the number of wind turbines to be realized in 2035 will not be significantly different than the number estimated. Suitable locations to construct wind projects in the energy sectors we examined are limited by the amount of available windy land. Also, as new projects come on line, older projects will be decommissioned. Although, the projected growth rate for wind project development is provided through the 2035 and the BRE Project is expected to run until 2038, we assumed that the number of turbines in 2037 would not be significantly different than that estimated for 2035. So, the annual mortality rate number of birds killed per year would not change drastically after year 2035.

We estimated the amount of bird mortality caused by wind projects in the cumulative effects analysis area from the year 2013 (the soonest the 100-turbine Project would come on line) to year 2038 (Figure 5-5). Turbine numbers are predicted to increase from 3,580 to 3,639 during this 25-year period. Using the estimated mortality rate of 5.17 birds per turbine per year, wind projects in the analysis area will kill on average roughly 18,700 birds annually and roughly 485,000 birds cumulatively over a 25-year period.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 341 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 5-5. Estimated projections of bird mortality by wind turbines in the Bird Conservation Regions 28, 13, and 14 through year 2037.

18850

18800

18750

18700

18650

18600

18550

18500

18450 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

Source data: USEIA (2012), AWEA (2011).

It is important to place these numbers into context of the total bird population. Partners in Flight estimated a total breeding population for all landbirds (which includes songbirds and raptors) of 5 billion birds in the U.S. and Canada based on data collected during the 1990s (Blancher et al. 2007).58 This estimate should be considered a very rough “ballpark” figure. The authors note that this is likely a conservative total, as densities from Breeding Bird Censuses suggest the total could be 2 to 3 times higher in some regions (Rosenberg and Blancher 2005). Using these numbers as conservative ballpark approximations, cumulative wind power mortality of roughly 485,000 birds in the northeastern U.S. (BCRs 28,13, and 14) over 25 years represents a small fraction (roughly 0.01%) of the most current estimate of roughly 5 billion breeding landbirds in the U.S. and Canada. The average annual cumulative wind power mortality rate of 18,700 birds for the eastern U.S. represents an even smaller fraction of the roughly 5 billion breeding landbirds currently estimated in the U.S. and Canada (0.0004 %). While the number of breeding landbirds likely has decreased since 1995, even if the total number was reduced by 50%, the average annual wind power mortality would still be a very small fraction (0.0007%) of the total breeding landbirds in the U.S. and Canada.

Admittedly these are very small percentages. The sheer number of birds projected to be killed by wind power in the analysis area is sizeable, but represents a small impact compared to total bird populations in the U.S. and the analysis area and compared to other sources of cumulative mortality (1.9 to 5.2 billion bird deaths per year annually from free-ranging domestic cats and collisions with buildings, power lines, communication towers, etc., Table 5-36). However, the relatively small percentage contribution to bird mortality by wind power does not diminish the need to reduce sizeable sources of bird mortality from all

58 Attempts to estimate the total bird population in the U.S. have been made in the past. McAtee (1931 as cited in Thogmartin et al. 2006) estimated 2.6 billion breeding birds in the U.S. Wing (1956 as cited in Thogmartin et al. 2006) estimated 5.6 billion birds in summer and 3.75 billion in winter. The American Ornithologists’ Union (1975 as cited in Thogmartin et al. 2006) estimated 10 billion breeding birds in the U.S. and a fall population of 20 billion.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 342 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

sources when practicable. If all wind power projects monitored bird mortality and implemented measures to reduce it, their contribution to cumulative mortality would be reduced.

Cumulative Effects of Turbine Operations of the Proposed Project and Alternatives59 Based on the average rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year from 17 post-construction monitoring studies in the mid-Atlantic region, both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are estimated to kill roughly 14,000 birds for the term of the 25-year permit. Of the total mortality estimated for the analysis area, the contribution from BRE’s 100-turbine Project is relatively small, 3% (Table 5-40). Because there are fewer turbines, Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 are estimated to kill roughly 9,400 birds; approximately 2 % of the total cumulative impact to birds from wind projects in the analysis area.

Table 5-40. Projected cumulative avian mortality for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in relationship to estimated wind power production projected for years 2012 through 2037 in BCRs 28, 13, 14. Cumulative mortality Average Cumulative relative to Installation No. Turbines annual mortality for wind projects mortality 25 years in the analysis area Alternative 1: No-Action 67 376 1 9,397 1 2% Alternative 2: Proposed Action 100 561 1 14,025 1 3% Alternative 3: Additional 1 1 100 561 14,025 3% Covered Species Alternative 4: Phase I Only 67 376 1 9,397 1 2% Wind projects in analysis area 3,580-3,639 3 18,700 2 485,194 2 100% 1 Based on calculated average of 5.61 birds per turbine per year derived from results of 17 mortality studies conducted at wind energy facilities in the mid-Atlantic region. 2 Based on the average mortality of 5.17 birds per turbine per year, derived from results of 25 post-construction mortality studies conducted at wind energy facilities in the eastern U.S. 3 Number of turbines estimated from the USEIA (2012) model and turbines operating and under construction in 2012 (AWEA 2012) (see Figure 5-4).

During the 2012 modified operations, the results of the post-construction monitoring derived a mortality rate of 1.79 birds per turbine per year (1.46 – 2.24 90% CI) (Tidhar et al. 2013). Based on this rate the 67- turbine Project killed roughly 120 birds in 2012 (a range of 98 birds to 150 birds).

Table 5-41 provides estimates of annual Project mortality in year 2038 (the end of the Permit term) for 9 birds of conservation concern known to have been killed at wind power projects in the eastern U.S. Table 5-41 also includes golden-winged warblers, for which there have been no documented mortalities to date. We used the average mortality rate for the Eastern U.S. of 5.17 birds per turbine per year, as well as the projected number of turbines (3,639) operating in the analysis area by 2038. In the year 2038, we estimate wind projects in our cumulative effects analysis area will kill 18,815 birds. Based on this estimate, we predict wind projects will affect less than 0.1% of the most current estimated bird population sizes in the analysis area of any of these species in 2038. It is important to note that the most current bird population estimates in the table reflect 1995 data, and some species have declined in the intervening years; however, data for the 2000 to 2010 timeframe are not yet available, and we would compound many biases in the data if we tried to predict population sizes in 2038.

59 We have not attempted to estimate cumulative bird mortality associated with MET towers at wind power projects as there are too many unknown variables: number of permanent versus temporary MET towers, tower heights, and number of guyed versus unguyed towers. These variables can greatly influence bird mortality rates, ranging from little to no mortality at short unguyed towers, to 5 times greater mortality at tall guyed towers than turbines. Given the large number of turbines involved in the cumulative effects analysis, addition of MET towers would be unlikely to significantly change overall predictions of cumulative mortality.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 343 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-41. Estimates of annual cumulative turbine mortality compared to rough population estimates for birds of conservation concern at wind energy projects in the northeastern U.S. (Bird Conservation Areas 28, 13, and 14) at the end of the permit term for the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project, based on a mortality rate of 5.17 birds per turbine per year vs. 23.49 birds per turbine per year and 3,639 turbines projected in 2038. Maximum Annual annual mortality in Percent of Percent of mortality in BCRs 28, 13, Proportion of 2038 based BCR 28, 13, BCR 28, 13, 2037 based Breeding Bird Survey Species and 14 total fatalities on rate of 5.17 and 14 and 14 5 1 2 on rate of trend 1966-2010 population birds per population population 23.49 birds turbine per affected affected 3 per turbine year 4 per year Blue-winged warbler 229,000 0.00562 106 0.046 480 0.210 Stable Cerulean warbler 475,000 0.00152 29 0.006 130 0.027 Declining Black-billed cuckoo 177,000 0.00910 171 0.097 778 0.440 Declining Kentucky warbler 250,000 0.01124 211 0.085 960 0.384 Declining Stable in Appalachian Canada warbler 217,000 0.01124 0.097 Mountains, declining 211 960 0.443 elsewhere Prairie warbler 268,000 0.00152 29 0.011 130 0.048 Declining Bay-breasted warbler 352,000 0.01124 211 0.060 960 0.273 Stable Red crossbill 29,000 0.00152 29 0.098 130 0.447 Stable Wood thrush 6,250,000 0.01124 211 0.003 960 0.015 Declining Golden-winged warbler 30,300 0 Unknown 6 Unknown Unknown Unknown Declining 1 Estimates of breeding populations by BCRs taken from Partners in Flight Landbird data base (PIF and RMBO 2004). These data are based on an average of Breeding Bird survey data from 1990-1999 and are considered to represent the population size in 1995 (PIF and RMBO 2004), the mid-point of the range over which BBS data were averaged to arrive at the estimates. As explained in the text, updated population estimates for 2000-2009 are not yet available and it is not feasible to predict populations in 2037 with confidence due to biases in the data and lack of variance measurements. 2 Proportion of birds killed by species based on totals from post-construction surveys at Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Grant County, West Virginia (Young et al. 2009, 2010, 2011a). If species not documented at Mount Storm facility, proportion was based on totals from all wind mortality surveys in the East (as compiled by Stantec.). 3 Derived by multiplying projected turbines in 2037 (3,639) x 5.17 average annual bird fatality (from Table 5.37) x the species composition proportions in column 4. 4 Derived by multiplying projected turbines in 2037 (3,639) x 23.49 birds per turbine per year (high end of variation from Table 5.37) x the species composition proportions in column 4. 5 See Appendix M. Species relative abundance index trends based on USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2010 analysis (Sauer 2011). 6 A small number of golden-winged warblers were assumed to be killed by the Project in the direct/indirect effects section of this FEIS because breeding golden-winged warblers occur on the Project site. For the cumulative effects analysis we did not assume golden-winged warblers would be killed at other wind power projects because we do not know how many current or future projects may be built within their breeding range. Post-construction monitoring results to date have not reported golden-winged warbler fatalities. Because golden- winged warbler interactions with turbines would happen infrequently due to their rarity, the probability of finding a fatality is low.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 344 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Our end-of-permit annual mortality estimate was applied to a single population value in time (1995 population estimate), and the calculation does not include other variables often used in population dynamics such as recruitment and other sources of mortality. Despite these limitations, the results do indicate a relatively low risk for significant population declines caused by wind power. Even if our predicted mortality rate was as high as 23.49 birds per turbine per year (the high end of confidence intervals of observed rates at wind power projects in the Eastern U.S.), wind projects in 2037 would affect roughly 0.5% or less of the most current estimated population sizes of bird species of concern in the analysis area.

As noted earlier, due to energy sector groupings we were unable to extract from our turbine numbers more than 900 turbines from Indiana outside of our analysis area which results in an overestimate of the effect of turbines on bird populations in BCRs 28, 13, and 14. This is especially true for the Canada warbler, golden-winged warbler, bay breasted warbler, and red crossbill, all which do not breed in Indiana. We therefore made an adjustment to the bird population sizes for species of concern by adding their estimated populations in Indiana to those in BCRs 28, 13, and 14. This resulted in addition of 5,000 blue-winged warblers, 20,000 Cerulean warblers, 3,000 black-billed cuckoos, 50,000 Kentucky warblers, 14,000 Prairie warblers, and 250,000 wood thrushes to the population sizes for the analysis area. Even with this adjustment for Indiana, the annual Project mortality in year 2037 using the high mortality rate of 23.49 birds per turbine per year would still be roughly 0.5% or less of the most current estimated population sizes of any of the species.

Strict interpretation of these mortality estimates is cautioned for several reasons. The predicted fatality rates assume that there would be no advancements in deterrent techniques or other methods to reduce mortality. It is highly unlikely that as wind turbine technology advances no advancements would be made in deterrent techniques and other approaches to reduce bird mortality. Secondly, our predicted increases in future wind development were not based on expectations and assumptions related to technological, economic, and policy factors. Policies such as the production-tax and investment-tax credits (PTC and ITC), renewable portfolio standards,60 carbon taxes, emissions cap-and-trade programs, emissions regulations, incentives to reduce energy consumption, and others can have large impacts on wind development rates and are highly uncertain on a year to year basis.

These cumulative fatality estimates for the northeastern U.S. are based on only 1 attempt to understand potential cumulative impacts to birds. We recognize there are likely to be multiple interacting and changing future conditions that cannot be known or understood at the present time. However, this approach uses the best available information to illustrate an effect of the growing wind industry and its added source of avian mortality.

Anthropogenic Sources of Avian Mortality Other than Wind Power Facilities Discussed below are estimates of anthropogenic sources of bird mortality for the U.S. in general. Table 5-36 provides annual mortality levels of birds due to anthropogenic sources in the U.S. We recognize that the national level is not the cumulative effects analysis area selected for birds in this FEIS. However, similar data down-scaled to the eastern U.S. are not available.

Communication Towers. Avian collisions with communication towers in the U.S. present a significant source of annual mortality, particularly for nocturnally migrating songbirds; namely warblers, vireos, and thrushes (Erickson et al. 2005). As of June 2003, 93,000 towers were listed with the Federal Communication Commission Antenna Structure Registry Database. However, the actual number of towers is probably much higher and is constantly increasing (Manville 2005). Erickson et al. (2005) suggest the number of communication towers in the U.S. may be as high as 200,000 towers; and that

60 A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a state policy that requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Currently there are 24 states plus the District of Columbia that have RPS policies in place.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 345 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5,000 to 10,000 new towers are being built each year. Cellular, radio, and television towers range in height from less than 100 ft to over 2,000 ft (Kerlinger 2000). Mortality estimates range from 4-5 million to 40-50 million birds per year in the U.S. and involve over 230 species (Shire et al. 2000, Kerlinger 2000, Manville 2005, Erickson et al. 2005, Thogmartin et al. 2006). Collisions occur throughout the year though are most frequently documented during migration periods. Studies indicate fatality rates are highest at taller, guyed towers (Gehring et al. 2009, 2011); and that pulsating beacons and steady burning FAA obstruction lighting influence higher collision rates than towers lit with flashing or white strobe beacons only (Erickson et al. 2005, Gehring et al. 2009, 2011). During nights with fog or low cloud-ceiling heights, nocturnal migrants are believed to become disoriented by strobe and/or steady burning lights on towers (Erickson et al. 2005). Estimates of mean annual collisions per tower have ranged from 82 birds per year at a 250-m (825-ft) tower in Alabama, to 3,199 birds per year at a 305-m (1000-ft) tower in Wisconsin (Erickson et al. 2005).

Buildings. In 1995 there were an estimated 4,579,000 commercial buildings and 93.5 million residential houses in the U.S. as of 1986 (Erickson et al. 2005). Estimates of collisions with buildings and windows suggest a range of 3.5 million to 1,200 million bird deaths per year (Erickson et al. 2005, Thogmartin et al. 2006); the American Bird Conservancy suggests these numbers may be higher (ABC 2011). The literature indicates that the vast majority of avian building and window collisions involve passerines (Erickson et al. 2005). A study conducted in 1996 in Toronto, Ontario estimated 733 avian fatalities per building per year (Erickson et al. 2005). A study of avian collisions with residential windows indicated that avian fatalities range from 0.65 to 7.7 birds per house per year (Erickson et al. 2005). Collisions with other tall structures such as smoke stacks are estimated to result in tens to hundreds of thousands of collisions.

Power Lines. Manville (2005) estimated that there is collectively 500,000 mi of transmissions lines in the U.S. There is an estimate of 116,531,289 distribution poles in the U.S; however, an accurate estimate of the collective distance of distribution lines is not feasible. Limited estimates indicate the length to be in the millions of mi (Manville 2005). In general, avian collision and electrocution mortality at power transmission and distribution lines are not systematically monitored and are subject to observational biases. Collision estimates range from hundreds of thousands to 175 million birds annually, and estimates of electrocutions range from tens to hundreds of thousands of birds annually. Raptors, particularly eagles, are most commonly reported for collision or electrocution with transmission or distribution lines in the U.S. (Manville 2005). The species composition of birds involved in power line collisions is largely dependent on location. For example, power lines located in wetlands have resulted in collisions of mainly waterfowl and shorebirds; while power lines located in uplands and away from wetlands have resulted in collisions of mainly raptors and passerines (Erickson et al. 2005, Manville 2005).

Legal Harvest. Banks (1979 as cited in Thogmartin et al. 2006) estimated that 120 million game birds are legally harvested by hunters each year in the U.S. Generally wildlife managers try to regulate harvest levels by setting bag limits such that hunting does not contribute to population declines.

Vehicles and Airplanes. Vehicle strikes are estimated to result in 50 million to 100 million avian fatalities per year (Thogmartin et al. 2006). Numbers and species involved in vehicle collisions are dependent on habitat and geographical location (Erickson et al. 2005). Including both United States Air Force and civil aircraft strikes, it is estimated that over 28,500 avian collisions occur each year (Erickson et al. 2005). The majority of bird species involved in airplane strikes includes gulls, waterfowl, and raptors (Erickson et al. 2005).

Pesticides. Based on data collected in the 1980s and 1990s, approximately 160 million acres of cropland in the U.S. are treated with pesticides each year. Consequently, 67 million birds (10% of the 672 million birds estimated to be exposed) die in the U.S. annually due to pesticide exposure (Pimental et al. 1991 as cited by Erickson et al. 2005, USFWS 2000). Other estimates indicate 72 million pesticide-related avian fatalities per year (USFWS 2002). One study indicated that there are 0.1 to 3.6 avian fatalities per acres of pesticide-treated cropland (Mineau 1988 as cited by Erickson et al. 2005).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 346 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Domestic Cats. Dauphiné and Cooper (2009) estimate that 117 to 157 million feral and free-ranging domestic cats within the U.S. kill at least 1 billion birds annually. Loss et al. (2013) estimate that free- ranging domestic cats kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds annually in the U.S. Based on these estimates and others (Manville 2005, Erickson et al. 2005), cat predation is considered the most significant anthropogenic source of bird mortality in the U.S. (Dauphiné and Cooper 2011). Butchart et al. (2006) cited domestic cats as significant threats to rare, threatened, and endangered birds and sources of species extinction worldwide.

Habitat Loss and Displacement In the Appalachian Region of West Virginia, including the Project area, avian resources have experienced impacts associated with timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas development, urbanization, agriculture, and residential development. All of these activities are likely to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. Timber harvesting and surface mining result in losses or changes in forested habitat for varying lengths of time. These activities often include extensive road networks, which are likely to be expanded in the future to access mature timberlands and minerals. Timber harvesting results in mature forest bird communities being replaced with young forest bird communities. Surface mining results in the longest period for recovery especially in the absence of any reclamation and vegetation restoration. It should be noted, surface mining sites that have been reclaimed often convert to habitat used by grassland birds, species uncommon to extensively forested landscapes.

Agriculture activities, urbanization, and residential development convert habitat for the length of time that the development is maintained. Development that results in pavement (asphalt, concrete) results in an extreme conversion of habitat with a very slow recovery rate unless pavement is removed. Conversely, some active agricultural lands may become inactive and revert to native habitats within the 25-year time frame. No known major road projects are currently proposed in the Project area that would involve significant conversion of native habitats.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project area for the next 25 years that would affect avian resources include timber harvesting, surface mining, oil and gas exploration, further development of single residences, and some small agriculture.

Past and Ongoing Effects Associated with the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Phase I Project Operations. The existing 67-turbines began operation in March 2010. For the first 2 years of operation, pursuant to a court order and stipulation, the turbines were turned off at night during the bat active season. There is a possibility that the limited operations in 2010 and 2011 decreased risk to birds because the turbines were not spinning at night. However, birds are known to collide with both stationary and moving objects, and results of studies currently do not suggest that take minimization strategies for bats also reduce bird mortality.

In years 2012 and 2013 beginning on April 1, and extending through November 15, at the latest, the turbines have been allowed under a modified stipulation to generate electricity at wind-speeds above 6.9 m/s. Many species of birds fly at these wind speeds. There is a possibility that the limited operations protocol in 2012 and 2013, which increases the amount of time that turbine blades are spinning in the birds’ potential airspace, will increase the risks to night-time migrating birds as compared to the risks associated with no night-time operations during the April 1 through November 15 periods in 2010 and 2011. Results from monitoring of turbines during the April to November 2012 period (Tidhar et al. 2013) suggest that the 6.9 m/s cut-in speed designed to reduce bat mortality has little to no effect on bird mortality. For the purposes of this FEISFEIS, the Service does not assume that turning turbines off at night or implementing the 6.9 m/s strategy reduces collision risk for birds. Hence, we do not assume that the limited operations protocol implemented in 2012 and 2013 increases bird mortality as compared to those years (2010 and 2011) when turbines did not operate at night from April 1 to November 15.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 347 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Using the average mortality rate of 5.61 birds per turbine per year for the Mid-Atlantic region, we estimate the 67 turbines will have killed 376 birds per year, or a total of 1,503 birds over 4 years (by the time of a permit decision in 2013.) Similar to studies of other similarly situated wind power projects, we assume most of the birds killed are or will be migrating passerines (Table 5-10).

Phase I Project: Construction and Implemented Avoidance and Minimization Measures Phase I construction converted 373 acres of predominately forested habitat to 311 acres of grass-forb and scrub-shrub habitat and 50 acres of grass-forb habitat and developed facility. The converted habitat does not occur as large, expansive openings but as strings of roughly circular forest openings that are approximately 2 acres, smaller but similar to the openings that already occur in the landscape. The temporary conversion of 311 acres of mature forest in a forested landscape is not a significant impact.

If conducted during the breeding season, certain Phase I construction activities most likely destroyed nests and killed or harmed young birds that are not yet fully mobile. These would be local effects, and mortality did not likely result in adverse effects to populations of those species affected. The Service understands that most tree removal operations occurred from November 16 to March 31, which would have avoided the peak bird breeding period.

Increased noise and human activity associated with construction likely resulted in some short-term displacement for most birds that avoid areas affected by such disruptions. However, due to the existing disturbance resulting from timber harvesting, most birds in the Phase I Project area likely are accustomed to a certain amount of disturbance. Noise and disturbance impacts related to Phase I construction were minor.

BRE incorporated a number of measures into Project design, construction, and operation to avoid and minimize potential impacts to avian resources as itemized below.

• The Project was sited in a previously disturbed landscape and avoids critical habitats for sensitive species. • The avian risk assessment and pre-construction surveys determined the Project site does not contain unique habitats or avian communities to avoid creating excessive risks to birds. • Project facilities were located to avoid (1) documented locations of listed birds, (2) known local bird migration pathways and daily movement flyways, and (3) areas where birds are highly concentrated. • Storm water management practices implemented did not result in creating water bodies that may attract birds to the Project area. • Turbines and Project appurtenances were built on uplands and avoided surface water features and designated floodplains. • Roads, portions of roads, crane paths, and staging areas not required for operation were contoured, graded, and seeded as needed to promote successful revegetation. • The transmission line was designed to span riparian areas and minimize impacts to riparian vegetation. • Existing roads and previously disturbed lands were used where feasible to reduce vegetation impacts within the Project area. Surface disturbance was limited to that which is necessary for safe and efficient construction.

Future Effects Associated with the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project 67-Turbine Project Under the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 4, the 67-turbines affected 373 acres of forested habitat, of which 50 acres is affected for the life of the Project. Phase I operation would displace those birds that may avoid the Project due to incidences of human intrusion, presence of turbines, or habitat made unsuitable by the development. Project operation is likely to result in bird mortality. The extent of mortality would be less than that associated with Proposed Action and Alternative 3 because there are fewer

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 348 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

turbines (Table 5-40). Assuming that the permittee does not renew its permit and repower the facility, after the 25 years life, decommissioning may necessitate the removal of small amounts of reclaimed vegetation to allow crane access for dismantling turbines and meteorological towers. Decommissioning would also result in short-term disturbance which could displace or harm birds.

The combined amount of vegetation that would be impacted by the 67-turbine Project and the existing developments along with any anticipated future developments is considered a minor effect. The amount of affected forested habitat is relatively small compared to the prevalence of forest in the Appalachian region of West Virginian. The Project temporarily affects 311 acres for the period of time it will take the forest to regenerate (>25 years). The Project will occupy 50 acres for 25 years. The Project would have minor cumulative effects to birds that depend on mature forest in the region.

Other activities would remove similar habitats in the West Virginia mountains. However, the amount of forest habitat in mountains has not declined significantly in recent decades (Griffith and Widmann 2003). The 67-turbine Project and other activities would have minor adverse effects to ridgeline forested habitat in West Virginia.

Phase I of the Project (67 turbines plus 2 guyed MET towers) is estimated to kill 419 birds annually. Populations of common species would not be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. This number contributes cumulatively to mortality associated with other wind Projects and other deadly activities. Significant mortality of rare local breeding populations, such as golden-winged warblers, would be of concern should it occur; however, the APP and its adaptive management framework is designed to monitor bird mortality annually, and to respond to it by changing Project operations and/or mitigating for it should significant mortality of any migratory bird species occur.

100-Turbine Project. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, construction of the proposed 33 turbines would affect 148 acres of forested habitat, of which 21 acres would be affected for the life of the Project. Phase II operation would not contribute additional impacts to vegetation and habitat. The 100- turbine Project will remove 71 acres of forested habitat for the life of the Project. The 100-turbine Project operation would displace those birds that may avoid the Project due to incidences of human intrusion, presence of turbines, or habitat made unsuitable by the development. Decommissioning may necessitate the removal of small amounts of reclaimed vegetation to allow crane access for dismantling turbines and MET towers. Decommissioning would also involve ground disturbance to remove Project elements. Decommissioning would also result in short-term disturbance, which could displace or harm birds.

The combined amount of vegetation that would be impacted by the 100-turbine Project and the existing developments along with any anticipated future developments is considered a minor effect. Native animal populations will not be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The amount of effected forested habitat is relatively small compared to the prevalence of forest in the 63,000 acre tract. The Project would temporarily affect 438 acres for the period of time it will take the forest to regenerate (>25 years). The Project will occupy 71 acres for 25 years. The Project would have minor cumulative effects to the habitat of birds that depend on mature forest in the Appalachian region of West Virginia.

Under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, the 100-turbine Project (with 2 unguyed Met towers, and 2 guyed MET towers equipped with bird diverters) is estimated to kill 604 birds annually. Populations of common species would not be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. This number contributes cumulatively to mortality associated with other wind Projects and other deadly activities. Significant mortality of rare local declining breeding populations, such as golden-winged warblers, would be of concern, should it occur; however, the APP and its adaptive management framework is designed to monitor bird mortality annually, and to reduce it and/or mitigate for it, should significant mortality of any migratory bird species occur.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 349 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Birds None of the alternatives considered is expected to cause naturally occurring populations of common birds to be reduced to numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The alternatives would not result in substantial losses or degradation of habitat for a rare, threatened, or endangered animal species. None of the alternatives is expected to result in substantial changes in habitat conditions producing indirect effects that cause naturally occurring populations to be reduced in numbers below levels for maintaining viability at local or regional levels. The conversion of 438 acres of managed forest habitat to forest openings and developed land cannot be considered a major loss of this habitat type given the Project is located on more than 63,000 acres of managed forest habitat in an extensively forested landscape.

Project mortality will contribute cumulatively to other sources of mortality, such as other wind projects. Species with high collision rates that are already compromised by other factors and exhibiting decreasing trends would be affected more than common species with secure populations, yet the effect is currently predicted to amount to a fraction of a percent of any population of a bird species of conservation concern. These small percentages of wind power mortality are a cumulative effect which contributes slightly to many other sizeable sources of human-caused bird mortality. The small percentage contribution from wind power does not diminish the need to reduce sizeable sources of bird mortality when practicable.

The APP for all alternatives includes a monitoring plan and adaptive management framework designed to monitor bird mortality for the life of the Project to test the effectiveness of curtailment in reducing bird mortality, and to respond to significant bird mortality should they occur through additional monitoring, changes in operations, and/or off-site mitigation or research.

5.16.4.8 Bats For the purposes of this FEIS, the cumulative effects analysis area for bats is the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, which includes the states of West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. For the most part, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands includes the spatial extent of the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit for the Indiana bat and eastern range of the Virginia big-eared bat. In addition, it also includes a substantially wide area relative to the Project area to consider the population-level effects to all other cave-roosting bats and tree-roosting migratory bats. The cumulative effects analysis used a 25-year timeframe based on the requested duration for the ITP. The selected spatial and temporal scales provide a reasonable assessment of potential future conditions and cumulative impacts that can be expected.

The bat species evaluated for cumulative effects include species covered under the Project HCP: Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat; as well as the non-covered bat species that have the potential to occur in the Project area: northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, little brown bat, tri-colored bat, big brown bat, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, and eastern red bat.

The cumulative effects analysis for bats considers the effects of wind projects associated with land clearing for roads, turbine pads, and transmission lines (habitat-related impacts), and Project operation (injury and mortality). Other actions beyond wind projects that may have similar types of effects to bats are also addressed.

As described in Section 5.8.2.1, the impacts to bats from wind facilities in North America and elsewhere are well documented. The cumulative impacts of mortality on both a spatial and temporal scale could have long-term population effects on certain species of bats (Kunz et al. 2007a), especially those considered to be rare and/or likely to be declining. The cumulative impacts on all bat species from all anthropogenic events and wide spread disease (such as WNS effects on cave bats) warrant consideration. In particular, the Service is concerned about several bat species believed to be susceptible to WNS: the northern long-eared bat (76 Federal Register 38095), eastern small-footed bat (76 Federal Register 38095), little brown bat, big brown bat, and tri-colored bat.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 350 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The biological significance of population level impacts is strongly dependent on the life-history strategies of a species. Life-history characteristics of a given population determine the degree to which its viability is affected by increased mortality. Organisms whose populations are characterized by low birth rate, long life span, naturally low mortality rates (Pianka 1970), high trophic level, and small geographic ranges are likely to be most susceptible to cumulative, long-term impacts on population size, genetic diversity, and ultimately, population viability (McKinney 1997, Purvis et al. 2000 as cited in NRC 2007).

With some variation, bats as a group have relatively long life spans and produce relatively few offspring compared with other small mammals. This is probably related to a combination of low extrinsic mortality (e.g., low predation), reproductive constraints, and other characteristics (Barclay and Harder 2003). Bats are atypical among mammals because they have small body sizes but are long-lived (Barclay and Harder 2003).

Given these stressors and life history traits, we consider the mortality of bats caused by turbine collision or barotrauma to be an additive effect to other stressors adversely affecting population levels (such as disease, predation, and habitat loss and degradation which decreases reproduction and survival). For example, if a population of cave bats in a region was thought to have declined by 85% due to WNS, and mortality from the proposed project was expected to kill another 1% of those bats, and other existing and foreseeable wind power projects in the region were expected to kill an additional 4%, then the multiple sources of mortality together would result in the loss of 90% of the population bats. Assuming that these bat populations, with low reproductive potential, would not rebound to original levels during the 25-year life time of the project, then impacts of the project would be considered major. Such losses likely would indicate that further losses from wind power mortality would significantly affect the capacity of bats to recover.

A moderate to major source of mortality from wind power would be expected to cause a substantial additive impact that would be expected to contribute to population declines of WNS-affected bats at the local or regional scale. Since many cave-dwelling bats are already experiencing moderate to significant population declines from WNS, it can be assumed that any moderate to major cave bat mortality or habitat modifications would have significant impacts on these bats. A negligible or minor cumulative effect would cause a minor or discountable additive impact that would not be expected to contribute to population declines at the local or regional level.

Such losses also may significantly affect the capacity of insectivorous bats to perform an important ecosystem function, given that bats in the eastern U.S. are highly insectivorous and each individual bat eats thousands of insects per night (Boyles et al. 2011). Therefore, any impact with the potential for a moderate to major population level impact on bats at a local or regional scale could be significant to ecosystem function. The population level impacts of the cumulative effects from wind farms, disease, and other sources of human induced habitat modification or mortality are poorly understood, by themselves, but collectively are having significant impacts on bat populations. The effect of bat population level changes on overall ecosystem services (e.g. insect control, prey for other species, etc.) provided by bats, collectively or by each species, is difficult to quantify. Ecosystem services are uniquely tied to human environments in crop production, human health, and a host of other poorly understood connections.

Summary of Cumulative Effects to Bats from Forest Loss, Fragmentation, and Displacement The action alternatives and No-Action Alternative either have created or will create forest openings in association with roads and turbines. This activity would possibly remove roost trees of those bat species that roost in trees; alternatively, these forest openings may improve foraging conditions for some species. While it is likely that the creation of the forest gaps is a cumulative effect on bat populations, there is no information available for which this form of habitat modification can be accurately predicted to determine an impact on bat populations. The habitats of the various bat species are generally comprised of those biotic and abiotic factors that allow an individual to occupy a site. Bats occupy and respond to their environments at many different spatial and temporal scales to fulfill the various stages of their life

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 351 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

histories. Evaluating bat-habitat relationships at 1 scale can be misleading through ignoring particular spatial or temporal scales. For instance, creation of roads through dense forest may serve to provide more habitat for bat foraging, while at the same time exclude roosting habitat as some bat species have been known to avoid areas with dense trees at certain times of the year (Zimmerman and Glanz 2000).

Effects of Past Project Construction We first consider the cumulative effects of past Project construction on bat habitat. Construction of Phase I of the Project, including the transmission line, substation, O&M building, and most access roads and collection and communications lines, was completed in August 2010. Approximately 8 mi of new roads were constructed for Phase I. The magnitude of impact on local bats communities likely varied based on the quality and quantity of habitat removed and the availability of alternate habitat of comparable quality and character. Approximately 311 acres of forest was converted to grassland/scrub shrub habitat that likely served as foraging and roosting habitat for a variety of bat species at various phases of their lifecycle. The site contains a mix of oaks, maples, black locust, and black cherry, approximately 79% of which are greater than 26 years old and 19% of which are less than 26 years old.

In some cases, conversion from forested to non-forest habitat could result in short- or long-term benefits to local bat communities, depending upon the configuration of the surrounding forested landscape and the individual species present. For example, forest gaps and clearings create additional foraging opportunities, as documented by higher levels of bat activity in fields, edges, and clearings (Hayes and Loeb 2007). These types of gaps are created from the linear nature of the access roads and turbine pads created for the wind facility. This apparent enhancement of foraging habitat is possibly a function of reduction in clutter, rather than enhancement of insect (prey) habitat. Clutter in forest stands such as boles, branches, and foliage may affect bat foraging by impeding detection and pursuit of prey (Owen 2004) for some species. However, some species of bats in the region are interior forest feeders, while others prefer feeding in gaps and along forested edges and riparian corridors. Clutter-adapted foraging and vegetation gleaning species such as northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat are likely more abundant where forest canopy cover increases and forest canopy gap size decreased, whereas the opposite is true for open-adapted foraging species such as big brown bat and hoary bat (Ford et al. 2005)

Creation of forest gaps and clearings has been recommended as a management technique for some species (Krusic et al. 1996), but not all bat species in the eastern U.S. would benefit from such practices (Owen et al. 2003). Prey density in patch cuts has found to be similar to that of uncut areas, suggesting that clutter is more likely to influence bat use of a habitat depending on a bat’s morphological characteristics (Lacki et al. 2007). Larger species such as big brown bats, hoary bat, red bat, silver-haired bats have been shown to be more active along skidder trails, forest roads, and hiking trails whereas smaller species (e.g., tricolored bats) tend to be more active in forest interiors and this is thought to primarily driven by the amount of clutter (Lacki et al. 2007)

The potential increase in foraging habitat through the creation of open areas is not likely to substantially benefit bats in the Project area due to the current abundance of this type of habitat. Displacement of bats could occur as a result of animals avoiding spinning turbine blades or increased anthropogenic effect associated with daytime maintenance activities that could reduce the suitability of roosting areas. It is unknown whether or not bats roosting or migrating in close proximity to operating wind turbines become habituated to their presence or whether they become displaced by them.

Bat mortality associated with Project Phase I construction was likely minimal. Most of the trees were cleared during winter when bats are hibernating, thus avoiding direct mortality of tree-roosting bats. The factors associated with changes in habitat quality and availability are more likely a greater influence on bats than is direct mortality associated with tree clearing activities. No studies to date have measured the rate at which bat disperse ahead of forest cutting operations. Trees that are cleared in the winter avoided mortality of bats. The lack of documentation is likely the result of the infrequency of the direct impact on

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 352 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

bats, the cryptic natures of the site specific events, and the inability to replicate any rigorous scientific study (Lacki et al. 2007).

Effect of Past and Ongoing Timber Harvesting and Mining Much of the land in the Project area was extensively harvested in the first half of the 20th Century, and logging resumed as forest stands became merchantable timber. In addition, a portion of the Project area has been actively mined for several decades. Some of the strip mines are currently active, and new activities are being permitted. There are substantial timber and mining activities ongoing throughout the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Mining and timbering will affect bats in the same manner as described for the cumulative construction impacts described above. These 2 activities will continue to affect local and regional bat resources.

Their life history characteristics make bats susceptible to the cumulative effects of a wide variety of human activities within the landscape. Effects to habitat are likely additive because bats are long-lived and have low fecundity. A single habitat type can provide different services to bats at different times. Landscape context is an important consideration. Habitat loss may not be an issue associated with the construction of wind power project in a heavily forested landscape. Bats that use contiguous forests would not find wooded habitat limiting. Conversely, the creation of linear openings in a contiguous forest may increase foraging or migration habitat for some species (Grindal and Brigham 1998, Menzel et al. 2005); this modification may have ramifications related to increased mortality risk (Kunz et al. 2007a). If bats that forage along forest edges become attracted to these open areas proximal to turbines, they may be at increased risk for collision.

Therefore, when considering the vast mosaic of habitat modifications that occur from wind power development, agricultural rotations, mineral exploration and extraction, residential and commercial development, and utility corridors, it is difficult to quantify the additive effect of wind project development on bats. The additional impacts from habitat modifications associated with the proposed action when taken in context over the spatial extent of the extensively forested Mid-Atlantic Highlands and over 25 years is expected to be minor.

Cumulative Effects to Bats from Project Operations Effect of Past and Ongoing Project Operations. The existing 67-turbines began operation in March 2010. For the first 2 years of operation, pursuant to a court order and stipulation, the turbines were turned off at night during the bat active season. During this time, the risk of mortality for all bats was fundamentally zero because turbine blades were not spinning when bats were active.

Beginning on April 1, 2012 and extending through November 15, 2012, the turbines were allowed under a modified stipulation to generate electricity at wind-speeds above 6.9 m/s; i.e., turbines were fully feathered to make less than 2 rpms at wind speeds at or below 6.9 m/s. During this time, turbine monitoring detected 49 bat carcasses belonging to red bats, hoary bats, silver haired bats, and tri-colored bats (Tidhar et al. 2013). The estimated mortality rate for all bats was 3.04 bats per turbine per year (1.89 – 7.44, 90% CI) (Tidhar et al. 2013). Based on this rate, the 67-turbine Project killed roughly 203 unlisted bats in 2012 (a range of 127 bats to 498 bats). This is an 88% reduction in estimated mortality compared to our regional average bat fatality rate of 25.98 bats/turbine/year at unrestricted turbines.

BRE is implementing this same interim modified operations protocol in 2013 from April 1 through November 15 or until an ITP is issued. We predict that these restricted operations for up to 7.5 months in 2013 will have similar results as in 2012 and will not result in listed bat mortality. Hence, we estimate the modified operations in 2012 and 2013 combined would roughly kill 400 unlisted bats and no Myotis cumulatively over 2 years.

As demonstrated during the interim modified operations, there is still a risk to unlisted bats, which are more numerous than listed bats and thus have greater potential exposure to the turbines. Although fewer

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 353 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

bats fly at these high wind speeds, unlisted bat fatalities have occurred at wind power projects on nights when wind speeds exceeded 6.9 m/s(Stantec 2010b, 2011) and bat activity has been documented at proposed wind power sites on nights when wind speeds exceeded 6.9 m/s (Redell et al. 2006, Arnett et al. 2007).

Operational Effects of Other Ongoing and Near Future Projects. To estimate bat mortality from other existing and near future projects, we used the data set from the 17 comparable post-construction studies conducted from 2003 to 2011 at 9 existing wind facilities on forested ridgelines and escarpments in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (Table 5-178 and Table 5-189). Applying the mean rate of 25.98 bat fatalities per turbine to the total number of wind turbines operational and under construction within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (1,104 turbines), yielded nearly 29,000 bat fatalities per year (Table 5-42). These estimates do not include avoidance and minimization measures that are being implemented to reduce mortality, including operational curtailment and feathering at some projects, because the degree to which these measures are being implemented is unknown.

Table 5-42. Estimates of near-future annual bat mortality in Mid-Atlantic Highlands. # Turbines Estimated annual State operational and 2 1 bat mortality under construction West Virginia 327 8,538 Pennsylvania 707 18,460 Virginia 19 496 Maryland 51 1,332 North Carolina 0 0 Total 1,104 28,682 1 Source: AWEA (2011) 2 Uses rate of 25.98 bats per turbine per year, which is the average rate from 17 post- construction studies described in Table 5.17 and Table 5.18.

At commercial wind facilities where post-construction monitoring studies were conducted, the highest fatality rates are among the tree-roosting migratory bats and tri-colored bat. Wind projects operating in the near future in the analysis area are estimated to kill annually more than 20,000 tree-roosting migratory bats and more than 4,700 tri-colored bats (Table 5-43).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 354 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-43. Near-future bat mortality by species based on proportions of species documented at commercial wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 2003-2009. Species Percentage Total Migratory tree bats: 70.0 20,077 Hoary bat 31.9 9,150 Red bat 27.8 7,974 Silver-haired bat 10.3 2,954 Cave bats: 28.7 8,232 Tri-colored bat 16.4 4,704 Little brown bat 8.7 2,495 Big brown 3.2 918 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 115 Unidentified bats: 1.3 373 100.0 28,682 Sources: Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Kerns et al. (2005), Young et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011b, 2012d).

Cumulative Impacts of Future Turbine Operations. If wind power development in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands during the next 25 years were to remain at the capacity described in Table 5-42 (1,104 turbines), cumulative bat fatalities (averaging 25.98 bats per turbine) would be roughly 717,048. This would not be a realistic assumption.

Data provided by the USEIA (2011b, 2012) on predicted increases in future energy demands and production of renewable energy were used to estimate future potential wind power generation in the Mid- Atlantic Highlands and associated bat mortality. According to the USEIA, wind energy accounted for 4% of energy consumption in 2008 and 9% of the total renewable energy consumption (which includes hydroelectric, geothermal, solar/photovoltaic, and biomass energy production), or 16% of non- hydroelectric renewables (USEIA 2011b). More than any other previous year, the U.S. wind industry installed over 9,900 MW of new generating capacity in 2009 (up from 8,800 in 2008) with 38 manufacturing facilities brought online, announced, or expanded (largely due to incentives related to the Recovery Act of 2009). At the end of 2009, the installed capacity of wind power in the U.S. was just over 35,000 MW (35 GW) (AWEA 2010). While the rate of generation production increased steadily over the past several years, the rate of growth slowed in 2010 due to availability of capital.

We used the projected rate of growth of wind generating capacity in the next 25 years in the 2 market sectors that contain the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit (USEIA 2012) and the known number of turbines operating and under construction to estimate the number of turbines from years 2013 to 2038. Based on the data provided in USEIA (2012), wind power development in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands is not predicted to increase significantly in the next 25 years (Figure 5-6). There will be roughly 1,120 turbines operating in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands by 2037.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 355 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 5-6. Estimated number wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands through year 2038 based upon electricity generating capacity for wind projects. Source data: USEIA (2012), AWEA (2012).

1120

1118

1116

1114

1112

1110

1108

1106

1104

1102

1100 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037

The estimated installed capacity for each year was multiplied by the average mortality to predict cumulative regional bat mortality over the next 25 years. Assuming that there are no operational constraints placed on this estimated installed capacity per year and that the average mortality is 25.98 bats per turbine per year, it is estimated that roughly 29,000 bats would be killed on average each year and 725,000 bats would be killed cumulatively in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands during the term of the permit (Table 5-44). Based on proportions of mortality by species taken from post-construction data, annual mortality is expected to be composed of roughly 20,100 tree-roosting bats and 8,200 cave-dwelling bats (Table 5-43).

This mortality estimate assumes that no increase of minimum cut-in speed occurs or any other avoidance and minimization measures are employed to reduce bat mortality. Preliminary studies have shown that bat mortality can be reduced significantly by raising the minimum turbine operational cut in speed (Arnett 2008); however, it is highly uncertain how many turbines would be curtailed in the future and curtailment effectiveness varies highly among projects. This estimate therefore represents one possible scenario of the cumulative effects of wind project development on bats in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. This analysis does not take into account the strong possibility that WNS will result in a significant decrease in the number of cave-dwelling bats that interact with wind turbines.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 356 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-44. Projected bat mortality for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in relationship to estimated wind power production projected for years 2013 through 2038 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Cumulative mortality Average Cumulative relative to that of Installation No. Turbines annual mortality for 25 Mid-Atlantic mortality years Highland projects Alternative 1: No-Action 67 0 0 0% Alternative 2: Proposed 1 100 1,299 32,475 4.5% Action Alternative 3: Additional 2 100 624 15,588 2.2% Covered Species Alternative 4: Phase I 1 67 870 21,758 3.0% Only Mid-Atlantic Highland 3 1 1 1,104-1,119 28,966 724,150 - projects 1 Based on calculated average of 25.98 bats per turbine per year derived from results of 17 mortality studies conducted at wind energy facilities in the mid-Atlantic region and the assumption that modified operations will reduce mortality by 50%. 2 Based on calculated average of 25.98 bats per turbine per year derived from results of 17 mortality studies conducted at wind energy facilities in the mid-Atlantic region and the assumption that modified operations will reduce mortality by 76%. 3 Number of turbines estimated from the USEIA (2011b) model over the 25-year period.

Under the No-Action Alternative 1, there is expected to be no effect on bats. Under the No-Action Alternative, the 67-turbine Project would operate as described in the Court Order and Settlement Agreement. Turbine operations would stop 30 minutes after sunset to 15 minutes after sunrise from April 1 through November 15. Because the seasonal and nightly shutdowns correspond to times when bats are active, there would be no bat mortality associated with Project operation. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on bats as result of implementation of the No-Action Alternative.

The Proposed Action, operating with feathered blades below the raised cut-in speed of 4.8 m/s, is estimated to kill 1,299 bats per year and 32,475 bats over the 25-year term. This is roughly 4% of the total bat mortality for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands by the year 2038 (Table 5-44), assuming that the other projects are not operating under reduced cut in speeds for bat protection and that mortality rates are 25.98 bats per turbine per year across the region.

Implementation of the adaptive management plan established as part of the HCP will ensure that at least a 50% reduction in all bat mortality is achieved through changes in the operations of the Project under the Proposed Action. Reduction of mortality under the adaptive management plan could be higher than 50% as well.

Cumulative bat mortality by species in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands is shown in Table 5-45. Over 500,000 migratory tree dwelling bats and 200,000 cave dwelling bats are predicted to be killed cumulatively from years 2012 to 2037, assuming no curtailment measures are in place.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 357 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-45. Cumulative bat mortality by species estimated for wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands from years 2012 to 2037. Species’ proportions are based on those derived from post- construction studies conducted at commercial wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands in years 2003 to 2009. Cumulative fatalities in Species Percentage years 2013-2038 Migratory Tree Bats: 70.0 506,905 Hoary bat 31.9 231,004 Red bat 27.8 201,314 Silver-haired bat 10.3 74,587 Cave Bats: 28.7 207,831 Tri-colored bat 16.4 118,761 Little brown bat 8.7 63,001 Big brown 3.2 23,173 Northern long-eared bat 0.4 2,897 Unidentified bats 1.3 9,414 100.0 724,150 Sources: Kerns and Kerlinger (2004), Kerns et al. (2005), Young et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011b, 2012d).

This analysis is based on the best available scientific information in an attempt to understand potential cumulative impacts to bats. The actual numbers will be influenced by multiple interacting and changing future conditions that cannot be known or understood at the present time. This analysis is an attempt to understand the large-scale and long-term impacts of wind project development on local and regional bat populations. However, to understand the biological implications of future bat mortality requires knowledge of baseline populations. Unfortunately, there is limited information on current population estimates for most bat species in North America at local, regional, and continental scales (O’ Shea et al. 2003, Kunz et al. 2007a). Conventional means of monitoring wildlife populations are inadequate for studying most species of North American bat species (Weller and Lee 2007). Population trend data that exist are biased toward listed bats because they are based primarily on winter hibernacula counts of caves known to be occupied by Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats. These winter cave counts also do not account for species that do not hibernate in caves, such as tree foliage- and cavity-roosting, long-distance migrants.

Cumulative Effects to Endangered Bats Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-Eared Bat. As described in Section 5.8.2.1., the impacts to bats from wind facilities in North America and elsewhere are well documented. The cumulative impacts of such mortality on both a spatial and temporal scale could have long-term population effects on certain species of bats (Kunz et al. 2007b). Potential Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines raise concerns about cumulative impacts that could affect local or regional populations as wind energy development continues in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.

The Indiana bat fatality modeling results are sensitive to the ratio of Indiana bat to little brown bat used. The model assumes that fatalities of Indiana bat and little brown bat, the most common Myotis fatality at wind turbines, occur with equal probability in the Project area and equally over time. Site mist netting surveys did not detect Indiana bats during the study periods. Nonetheless, based on the 2005 acoustic data and other available information (listed in FEIS in Section 4.8.2.1, and as per the Court Opinion), this FEIS assumes the Project area is or will be utilized by Indiana bats at times and that take of Indiana bats will occur at some point during the 25-year operating life of the turbines. The model implemented in the Project HCP used the ratio of Indiana bats to little brown bats from mist-netting surveys conducted at sites in West Virginia where the species composition at the site was unknown prior to the survey.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 358 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

For the purposes of this FEIS, it is assumed that raising the cut-in speed to 4.8 m/s would lead to a 60% reduction in Myotis bat mortality at the site. However, we cannot assume the same operational modifications will be implemented at all existing and future in wind projects in the analysis area. As per the Project HCP’s estimates, we assumed the Project’s 100 turbines will affect the maximum number of Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bat for the 25-year permit term, i.e., 53 and 14 individuals, respectively. To estimate the number of Indiana bat fatalities for the proposed Project, the FHCP (Table 4.5) described the ratio of Indiana bats to little brown bats in the landscape as being 0.0238 in 2012 (the most recent data) and averaging 0.0238 from 2009 to 2012, based on mist-netting data collected post- WNS for both species in West Virginia where the species composition at net sites was unknown prior to netting. We used this same average ratio of 0.0238 Indiana bats to 1.0 little brown bats for our cumulative effects analysis area to reflect species composition in the landscape. To illustrate a worse-case scenario, we used the high-end estimate for the percentage of little brown bat fatalities (4.4%) found at wind power projects in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit during 2010 to 2012 (Table 4.4 in FHCP). Based on these factors, annual fatality for little brown bats would be approximately 1,275 individuals (4.4% of 28,966, the average annual mortality for all wind projects in the analysis area in any year from 2012 to 2037). Using the ratio of 0.0238 Indiana bats to 1.00 little brown bats, we predict the annual wind project mortality for Indiana bats in the analysis area to be approximately 30 Indiana bats, and cumulatively, we predict wind power projects will take 753 Indiana bats for the term of the permit. The annual take of 30 Inidiana bats is 0.17% of the current (2013) population of the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit (17,584 Indiana bats; USFWS 2013c). While 0.17% sounds like a small number, in the context of an unstable and severely declining population of Indiana bats in the recovery unit, it should not be dismissed lightly. An annual cumulative fatality rate of 0.17% compounded over 25 years is roughly a 4% population change in 25 years attributable to wind power.

This analysis assumed all things are equal for all existing and future projects in the analysis area. This includes the premise that Indiana bats are likely to be taken, the ratio of Indiana bats and little brown bats is the same, and projects will not implement avoidance and minimization measures. One might assume that as Indiana bat populations decrease, the number of individuals killed from turbine collision will also decrease; this might also be assumed to be the case for little browns bats. However, the risk of mortality to an individual WNS survivor remains the same when a bat enters the rotor-swept area. Therefore, wind projects in the analysis area may continue to pose risk to the same percentage of the Indiana bat population for the life of the Project. The effects of wind project mortality will be additive to that of WNS, but not nearly as significant as WNS.

The BRE HCP states that available information on the distribution of Virginia big-eared bat indicates the Project could take between 0 and 1.0 Virginia big-eared bat per year; curtailment will reduce this take by 50% and take will be closer to 0.5 individuals per year. The likelihood of take is very low based on known distribution and the limited dispersal range of the species. Furthermore, no Virginia big-eared bats have been detected on or near the Project site during mist-netting and cave surveys. There has been no mortality of Virginia Big-eared bats at other wind projects by which to develop take estimates. Only 2 wind projects have been built within the range of Virginia big-eared bat, Mountaineer in Thomas County, West Virginia and Mount Storm in Grant County, West Virginia. However, both of these projects are outside the normal commuting distance of Virginia big-eared bats occupying the closest active hibernacula.

We are not able to predict where future wind projects will be located. Depending on where they are built, they could pose a low to high risk of take of Virginia big-eared bats. Known caves make ideal centers of activity. These bats roost, brood, and winter in these caves and tend to range within short distances (<6 mi). Therefore, any future Projects built within a 6-mi radius of occupied hibernacula would pose the greatest risk. Considering the small areal extant of these 6-mi radii, compared to the large area encompassed by the mid-Atlantic Highlands, we conclude the likelihood of significant mortality of Virginia big-eared bats from future wind power projects is relatively low.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 359 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Biological Significance of Wind-Related Indiana Bat and Virginia Big-Eared Bat Mortality. Despite substantial limitations of the data on which assumptions were based, it is important to attempt to understand the large-scale and long-term impacts of this mortality to local and regional populations. To understand the implications of future bat mortality requires knowledge of baseline populations. Unfortunately, there is little information on current population estimates for most bat species in North America on local, regional, and continental scales (O’Shea et al. 2003, Kunz et al. 2007a). Conventional means of monitoring wildlife populations are inadequate for studying most species of North American bat species (Weller and Lee 2007); population trend data that exist are based primarily on winter hibernacula counts, which do not account for species that do not hibernate in caves, such as foliage- and cavity- roosting long-distance migrants. Because of their long-standing endangered status and the ability to monitor their populations via hibernacula counts, there is a greater understanding of current population levels for Indiana bats than for any other species, as well as how populations have changed over the past 45 years.

In terms of adult survival rates, there is some evidence that a differential survival rate between the sexes may occur (Humphrey and Cope 1977, LaVal and LaVal 1980). Based on 23 years of banding data, Humphrey and Cope (1977) hypothesized there are 2 distinct survival phases of adult Indiana bats: 1) annual survival rates from 1 to 6 years after banding were constant at approximately 75.9% and 69.9% for females and males, respectively; and 2) from 6 to 10 years after banding there was a lower, constant annual survival rate of 66.0% and 36.3% for females and males, respectively. Following 10 years, the survival rate for females dropped to only 4%; the authors suggested the lower rate may have been attributable to increased costs of migration and reproduction during old age, or due to sampling error, as a very small number of females remained alive after 10 years. Indiana bats have been known to live much longer, with the oldest known Indiana bat captured 20 years after it was first banded (LaVal and LaVal 1980). Limited observations from banded individuals of other species suggest that they may live for more than 30 years; 1 little brown bat was found 34 years after banding (Davis and Hitchcock 1995).

As previously noted, to understand the biological significance of population level impacts to bats from wind facilities, it is important to consider their unique life-history strategies (Barclay and Harder 2003). Organisms whose populations are characterized by low birth rate, long life span, naturally low mortality rates (i.e., K-selected species, Pianka 1970), high trophic level, and small geographic ranges are likely to be most susceptible to cumulative, long-term impacts on population size, genetic diversity, and ultimately, population viability (McKinney 1997, Purvis et al. 2000, as cited in NRC 2007).

Although bat species demonstrate considerable variation in traits such as fecundity, age of maturity, and longevity, as a group they have relatively long life spans and produce relatively few offspring compared with other small mammals; which may be due to low extrinsic mortality (e.g., low predation), reproductive constraints, or other characteristics (Barclay and Harder 2003). Bats are atypical among mammals with respect to their life histories because of their small body size but are long life (Barclay and Harder 2003). The probability of extinction in bats has been linked to several of these characteristics (Jones et al. 2003).

Cumulative Effect of WNS This cumulative effects analysis includes the effects of WNS, a malady of unknown origin that is killing cave-dwelling bats in unprecedented numbers in the northeastern U.S. This affliction was first documented at 4 sites in eastern New York in the winter of 2006-07, but photographic evidence emerged subsequently of apparently affected bats at an additional site, Howe’s Cave, collected the previous winter in February 2006. Data suggest that a newly identified fungus (Geomyces destructans now reclassified as Pseudogymnoascus destructans) (Gargas et al. 2009) is responsible, at least in part, for the impacts and mortality associated with WNS (Blehert et al. 2009). WNS is a disease that produces skin lesions on the wing and other membranes of bats (Turner et al. 2011). Infection has been documented in big brown bat, small-footed bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, and tri-colored bat (Turner et al. 2011).

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 360 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Overall mortality rates (primarily of little brown bats) have ranged from 81% to over 97% at several of the sites where data have been collected for at least 2 years (Hicks et al. 2008). While little brown bats appear to be the most affected of the cave-wintering bat species in the Northeast, Indiana bats have also been greatly impacted by WNS. It is important to note, however, that most of these species do not form large clusters in the winter, as little brown bats and Indiana bats do, and so they are not easily counted. Therefore, we have poor baseline estimates for other species at most sites by which to compare post- WNS abundance estimates.

As of May 2012, WNS has been confirmed in 20 states and 4 Canadian provinces (USFWS 2012d) with mortality rates reaching up to 100% at many sites. Through the winter of 2008/09, the distribution of WNS was mainly along the Appalachian Mountain range, which coincides with numerous bat hibernacula. However, in 2010 and 2011, WNS made a significant jump westward and was confirmed or suspected to occur far west of the Appalachian Mountains. Between 2011 and 2013, Indiana bat populations declined 46% in the Appalachian Mountain Recovery Unit (Service 2013c).

Based on observations of continued mass-mortality at many caves, the Service anticipates the loss of Indiana bats to continue in the Appalachian Recovery Unit. The degree to which climate or other environmental factors may influence the spread of WNS, or the severity of its impact on affected bats, is unknown. At this time, there is no concrete evidence of resistance to WNS among survivors, although some affected hibernacula continue to support low numbers of bats 5 years into WNS exposure, and a few hibernacula have substantially lower mortality levels than most. If current trends for spread and mortality at affected sites continue—and there is currently no indication that they will not—WNS threatens to drastically reduce the abundance of many species of hibernating bats in much of North America in what may only be a matter of years. Population modeling indicates a 99% chance of regional extinction of the little brown bat within the next 16 years due to WNS (Frick et al. 2010a). The closely related Indiana bat is just as vulnerable to regional extinction (if not more so) due to its smaller range-wide population and social behavior traits that increase the risk of bat-to-bat transmission (Thogmartin et al. 2012). The declining mortality rates at some New York hibernacula and the apparent resistance of European Myotis species to Geomyces destructans suggest that some level of resistance may exist or develop within North American Myotis species. Population estimates made pre- and post-WNS for New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia for the 6 affected species show dramatic declines in population numbers (Table 5-46). The little brown bat and northern long-eared bat have experienced the most drastic reductions of their populations (91% and 98% population reductions respectively). Small-footed bats have experienced the lowest WNS induced population change (-12%). For all affected bats collectively, hibernating bats in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia have experienced WNS induced population declines of 88%.

Table 5-46. WNS induced population changes of 6 species of hibernating bats in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Change in survey counts Species 1 pre-WNS to post-WNS Little brown bat -91% Indiana bat -72% Northern long-eared bat -98% Small-footed bat -12% Tricolored bat -75% Big brown bat -41% GRAND TOTAL(all bats affected) -88% 1 Source: Turner et al. (2011)

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 361 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Much of the data used to estimate potential mortality of bats at wind farms were collected pre-WNS. As populations of WNS-affected species decrease, it is possible that rates of turbine mortality may decrease as well. Reduction in population numbers reduces exposure for mortality since there are less bats interacting with turbines. A linear relationship between average mortality rates and population estimates may be a logical and best guess scenario; however, it discounts smaller regional population fluctuations or reduction of population levels to a point that risk is minimal. The total number of bats killed goes down as populations decrease, but risk remains unless the population is zero. Worst case models using vital rates derived from mean declines in the first 3 years of infection and persisting at the observed third-year mean decline of 45% per year thereafter lead to a 99% chance of regional extinction of little brown bat within the next 16 years (Frick et al. 2010). Therefore over the term of the permit, it is possible that there would be little to no mortality occurring from the BRE project since some species such as the little brown bat may be so regionally rare or absent. On the other hand, WNS survivors that pass through the rotor- swept area would still be at risk of mortality.

Risk Assessment of Cumulative Effects to Bats Due to the lack of long-term mortality studies at wind facilities, it is unknown whether or not bat mortalities will decline to negligible levels as bat populations decline, related to WNS or other causes, or if mortality rates will be substantial (Kuvlesky et al. 2007). Migration patterns of bat species, which are largely unknown, will influence regional-scale mortality or how the deaths of migrating individuals will affect populations at maternity colonies to which they belong. Unfortunately this type of information is nearly impossible to obtain. Thus, the population level responses for bats remain uncertain.

There is concurrence among the various sources of information on bat mortality that there would likely be a cumulative effect on bats at the population level. However, there is also a great amount of uncertainty regarding the magnitude of this risk to bats. A brief weight of evidence analysis was conducted for the various measurement and assessment endpoints used in determining significance and magnitude of risk to bat populations. A description of this analysis is presented in Appendix F (Report F-3). The level of concurrence among measurement endpoints was used to determine whether or not various measurement endpoints generally predicted similar levels and magnitudes of risk. Each measurement endpoint was plotted on a matrix where the columns present the weights assigned in a weighting analysis, and the rows present the likelihood of risk for each measurement endpoint, as shown in Table 5-47. Agreements or divergences among measurement endpoints are readily observed using this matrix, enabling interpretation of the results of various survey methods with respect to particular assessment endpoints. When viewed together, the measurement endpoints used in determining significance criteria are low, yet the overall magnitude of risk to populations is undetermined. Exceptions to this are potential major population level impacts to tree-roosting migratory bats and potential moderate population level impacts to cave-dwelling bats from wind farms in general as presented in the literature. However, these findings should be given low/medium weight in making an overall decision about cumulative significance criteria. Overall the assurance in assigning significance criteria for impacts resulting from the various alternatives is made with a consistently high degree of uncertainty with regard to the magnitude of risk. However, there is a great deal of agreement that there is risk to populations to both tree roosting and cave dwelling bats at some level.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 362 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5-47. Concurrence and weight of various lines of evidence to determine significance criteria of population-level effects to bats at the Beech Ridge Energy Wind Project.

Due to the combined cumulative effects of WNS on cave bat species, habitat modifications from other activities, the presence of multiple wind farms in the region, it is expected that the Proposed Action will have a cumulative effect resulting in additive mortality of non-listed bat populations. The biological significance of this impact is highly uncertain due to the lack of population data for non-listed bats, uncertainty regarding whether or not bat mortalities will decline to negligible levels as bat populations decline, and unpredictable future policy decisions that affect the growth of the wind power industry (such as production-tax and investment-tax credits, renewable portfolio standards, carbon taxes, emissions cap-and-trade programs, emissions regulations, and incentives to reduce energy consumption.

Cumulative Effects Summary Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), cumulative impacts to bats would not be significant. As it currently operates, the 67-turbine Project is not likely to kill bats or significantly modify suitable habitat in any manner. There would be some impact associated with either avoidance or displacement should bats react to the presence of turbines.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3, which both include the addition of Phase II, add to effects associated with tree-removal. All 3 action alternatives will contribute cumulatively to effects associated with bat mortality. By 2037, the cumulative impact of wind power projects is predicted to result in mortality of roughly 730,000 bats within the mid-Atlantic Highlands.

The effect of cumulative mortality on tree-roosting migratory bat populations is highly uncertain because estimates of current population sizes are unknown. However, their mortality at wind power projects is

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 363 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

significantly higher than that experienced by cave-dwelling bats and is considered an additive effect to other stressors adversely affecting population levels (such as disease, predation, and habitat loss and degradation which decreases reproduction and survival. The cumulative effect of wind power mortality on slowly reproducing cave-dwelling bats is also additive to already high mortality caused by WNS.

Bat mortality could be reduced by 50% or more if all wind power projects implemented effective curtailment strategies. The Proposed Action, and Alternatives 2 and 3 include curtailment measures to significantly reduce the individual project’s contribution to cumulative bat mortality, and to mitigate for it through off-site habitat protection in perpetuity that removes threats of human disturbance, logging, and development.

5.16.4.9 Land Use and Recreation The cumulative effects analysis area for land use and recreation encompasses the 27,000-acre leased area and its 5-mi buffer.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Some of the past actions to affect land use that have occurred over the last 5 to 10 years include commercial land development, mining, industrial forestry, oil and gas development, agriculture, and transportation network development. The land use context in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties has not changed significantly in recent years. However, commercial and residential development around Lewisburg and along US Route 60 from Clintonville to Rainelle (Greenbrier County 2010) contributes incremental changes to existing land uses.

Phase I Built Project: The primary land use in the Project area prior to construction of Phase I was timber management. Approximately 373 acres of deciduous forest was removed by construction of Phase I. Those areas will not be replaced by harvestable timber by the end of the permit term.

Future Effects Foreseeable future actions for the next 25 years would include all current activities associated with commercial land development, mining, industrial forestry, oil and gas development, agriculture, and transportation network development. Shale gas development has the potential to make the greatest changes in land use in the 2 counties.

Section 11 of the Implementing Agreement between BRE and the Service (Appendix F to the HCP) addresses BRE’s acquisition of additional land or its divestment of land in relation to the HCP. At this stage, BRE has not indicated whether or how it intends to exercise this provision, and its development or use of these additional lands in the vicinity of the project are at this point not reasonably foreseeable. We note, however, that any future use of land not covered or contemplated in the HCP or permit (or an amendment of both) would independently comply with the ESA and other federal laws

Development of the Project would permanently alter 71 acres of industrial forest for the life of the Project. Alternatives 1 and 4 will have only slightly less impact to land use than Alternatives 2 and 3. The differences in land use associated with implementation of the various alternatives are minimal. When combined with the alterations produced by other resource extraction activities, such as mining and gas development this would produce a minor cumulative impact on land use in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties.

The proposed Project’s operations could have moderate effects to recreation and tourism associated with turbine noise, Project visibility, and shadow flicker. Recreational uses include those primarily associated with outdoor activities in undeveloped landscapes, such as hiking and hunting. Timber harvesting and mineral extraction are past and on-going activities that will continue to also affect recreational activities, but the Project area is an industrial forest and mining dominated landscape which has been in active

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 364 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

operation for decades. The Project is a new industrial activity that may affect recreational users positively or negatively.

The proposed Project (considering any of the implemented alternatives) would have a minor incremental component to overall cumulative effects to recreation in the analysis area. Cumulative impacts to land use will primarily be associated with the increase of natural gas development in the region. When combined with past activities and those anticipated in the foreseeable future, minor cumulative effects to land uses are expected.

5.16.4.10 Socioeconomics For socioeconomics issues, the cumulative effects analysis area encompasses Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties. Principal past activities that would incrementally add to the cumulative impact include the existing timber industry, oil and gas development, and coal mining industry. These activities are foreseeable future actions that will continue to influence socioeconomic conditions in the 2 counties. The number of full time jobs is 7 under Alternatives 1 and 4, and 10 under Alternatives 2 and 3. The short term effects of temporary construction jobs and economic impacts are expected to be negligible when considering the large scale of other employers in the region.

There would be relatively moderate differences in the amount of tax differentials among the alternatives. BRE’s federal tax contribution for the 67 turbines will be $400,000. With the addition of the proposed 33 turbines, the contribution is likely to be well above $400,000 based on the applicable tax rate. If at any point the estimate is below $400,000 then Beech Ridge will make up that difference in a supplemental payment.

BRE estimates the state tax payment will be slightly less than the $200,000 originally estimated because this estimate was based on the construction of 124 turbines. However, BRE expects it to be similar for the100 turbine project, especially if the larger turbines are used for the expansion.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Phase I Project: BRE is an equal opportunity employer and employed local contractors as much as possible (based on skill set needed and local availability) during construction of Phase I. The Phase I Project provided jobs, money to local commercial businesses (through direct purchases of goods and services), and additional federal and state tax revenues.

Concerns were also raised through the scoping process about potential impacts of Phase I on local property values. Sixty-seven operational turbines will impact both noise levels and aesthetics in the immediate area. Noise and visual impacts are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.10, respectively. The indirect effect of these operational aspects may or may not have influenced property values. No local or regional studies have been completed to determine if impacts have occurred.

Hoen et al. (2009) collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single-family homes situated within 10 mi of 24 existing wind facilities in 9 different U.S. states. This serves as one of the most complete studies on changes in home values conducted by an unbiased party. The conclusions of the study are drawn from 8 different pricing models, as well as both repeat sales and sales volume models. The various analyses are strongly consistent in that none of the models uncovers conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities. Specifically, neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities is found to have any consistent, measurable, and statistically significant effect on home sales prices (Hoen et al. 2009).

Tourism is a major component of Greenbrier County’s economy; the county ranks fifth in the state for overall travel spending, behind 4 counties offering gaming (e.g., casinos). The Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau Annual Report for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year reported that visitors to the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 365 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

county spent $214 million in 2008. The industry provides 2,460 jobs in the county which impart nearly $87 million in earnings. Tourism generates over $1.8 million in local government revenue and $14.2 million in state revenue (Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau 2009). Tourists seeking outdoor recreational activities (e.g., hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing) in a relatively undisturbed forested landscape may not choose to visit the Project area due to the turbines. However, some tourists may also travel to the area due to access to both activities; outdoor recreation and to visit the facility to be exposed to and learn about the country’s renewable energy program in person.

The Project (all alternatives considered) will have cumulative effects on the region in the form of economic benefits that have positive social implications for the area. These impacts are attributed to the financial return in the form of employment and payroll, lease payments, and local tax revenue. The Project will also provide economic benefits in the form of competitively priced electric energy and clean, renewable power in West Virginia. Wind-generated power offers unique advantages over fossil fuel- generated energy that are long-term.

Short-term job creation and economic benefit of ancillary services (e.g., lodging, meals) likely occurred primarily during construction of the Phase I Project. This short-term economic benefit would also occur during construction of Phase II of the project. Longer term job creation and service procurement likely increased as a result of the Phase I construction, however Phase II will likely lead to very limited full time job growth above that experienced from Phase I operation since no additional long term jobs are expected. The Project, along with other potential wind power projects being considered in the region do work to create skilled job base crucial to further growth of local labor in the wind power industry. Also, the proposed Project and other wind energy projects could have the incremental impacts through stabilization of or reduced energy prices, which could result in long-term savings for the ratepayers.

As of February 2012, there were 2,845 Marcellus wells drilled or permitted in West Virginia (West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey 2012). The employment impact of Marcellus Shale development for 2010 was estimated to be between 7,600 and 8,500 additional jobs depending upon the growth rate used (Higginbotham et al. 2010).

Future Impacts Employment in the West Virginia natural gas industry has risen over time. From 2001 to 2009, total oil and natural gas employment, which is the summation of the employment in all natural gas sectors, increased by 34% (Higginbotham et al. 2010). The main contributor in the increase in total employment in the natural gas industry is increased employment in the support activities for the oil and gas operations sector (Higginbotham et al 2010). The number of additional jobs created in 2015 was estimated to be between 6,600 and 19,600. The employee compensation impacts range from less than $300 million each year with no growth to approximately $890 million in 2015 with 20% growth each year (Higginbotham et al 2010). Growth of the local economy in the future is expected to be driven by natural gas exploration both directly and indirectly through various support services.

Combined with other potential wind power projects in the region, further development of the Marcellus Shale exploration, and other possible future energy projects, implementation of all of the alternatives would have a minor beneficial cumulative effect associated with implementation of the No-Action Alternative or any of the action alternatives.

5.16.4.11 Visual Resources The cumulative effects analysis area for visual resources is the combined area of the Phase I and Phase II 20-mi VRA study areas as defined by Saratoga (2005, 2011). This includes all areas located within 20 mi of the outermost Phase I wind turbines and the proposed Phase II turbines (i.e., including the 33 proposed and 14 alternate locations). The 20-mi buffer represents the effective geographic area within which there is a possibility that some portion of the wind energy Project would be visible from a given

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 366 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

location and directly contribute to cumulative effects. The analysis also includes those other cumulative visual effects within the 20-mi APE.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Phase I Project: Visual impacts during Phase I construction were temporary and generally limited to the 300-ft cranes used to erect the wind turbines and the forest clearing and construction activities associated with roads, transmission lines, turbine pads, and laydown areas. Four to 6 cranes moved across the Phase I footprint area during construction, and might have been periodically visible from some nearby areas within the viewshed. The Phase I Project incorporated the following mitigation measures into its design and operation:

• BRE developed the wind farm layout so that turbines were located at least 1 mi from existing residences; • In part to limit the aesthetic effect of the wind farm, the turbines were not illuminated, except as required by FAA regulations, and except for a low voltage lights on a motion sensor at the entrance door to each turbine; • Turbines were coated/painted a non-reflective and non-obtrusive off-white color; • Turbines were similar in design and size, including tower height, and all turbines comprising Phase I were consistent in color and blade rotation direction (clockwise); • Existing roads were used for construction and maintenance where possible, minimizing visual impacts caused by new road construction; • Access roads created for the Project were located along ridge tops when possible to minimize visible cuts and fills; and • Temporarily disturbed areas in wooded areas were allowed to re-vegetate naturally to the maximum extent possible while still allowing for access and maintenance of the Project.

The viewshed maps from the Phase I VRA report (Saratoga 2005; see Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 2, Sheets 1 through 4), prepared prior to Phase I construction, illustrated the geographic areas within which there would be a high probability that one or more of the 124 proposed turbines would be visible. 61 Subsequent field reconnaissance by Saratoga in 2005 evaluated the accuracy of the viewshed maps and revealed that there were few locations in the viewshed where a significant number of turbines would be clearly visible. These field evaluations included traveling highways and visiting readily accessible topographic highpoints to identify representative open views of the Phase I Project area. Further evaluations included photographs taken from 13 publically accessible locations to illustrate visibility with the naked eye, followed by photo simulations at 5 of these sites. The photo simulations superimposed renderings of the (then-proposed) 124 wind turbine generators, factoring in the effects of topography, vegetation, time-of-day, sunlight, and haze. Locations photographed during the field evaluation for visual impacts are listed below. Asterisks indicate locations selected for photo simulations.

61 Note that only 67 of those turbines have been constructed, so the actual visual effects of the Phase I Project are different than those estimated by Saratoga (2005). Though a visual resource assessment has not been completed for the 67 built turbines, it is reasonable to assume that the actual extent of visual impacts from the built Project would be less than Saratoga reported for the proposed 124-turbine Project they evaluated.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 367 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Intersection of US 60 and County Route 60/12* (12.0. mi from Project) • County Route 223 – South of Highway 39/55* (3.5 mi from Project) • Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park* (7.4 mi from Project)

With the effects of vegetative and topographic screening factored in, the report concluded that the overall visibility of the proposed Project would be minor, and that there would be little visibility of the Phase I Project within the 5-mi viewshed, with a slight increase in visibility between 7 and 18 mi. Within the 5-mi viewshed, most visibility would occur in the Trout and Williamsburg areas. The report predicted there would be a few small pockets of potential visibility, primarily towards the south and southeast of the Project along portions of roadways (e.g., US 219) and adjacent open fields. The report stressed that the viewshed assessments did not distinguish between visibility of entire turbines verses the top 6 inches of the blade, so the viewshed maps likely exaggerated the extent of true visibility.

Saratoga (2005) confirmed that views of the 124 proposed Phase I turbines would be limited and largely confined to the eastern half of the VRA APE. Potential views from the western half of the APE would likely be extremely limited and fleeting in nature due to screening, distance, and the effects of typical atmospheric conditions (i.e., haze, fog, rain). The 2005 viewshed and field review analyses indicated that the Project generally would not be visible from the scenic and recreational resources within the APE, with the exception of Droop Mountain Battlefield State Park where less than 7% of the turbines were expected to be visible (Saratoga 2005; refer to Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 3, Sheets 9 and 10). One of the photo simulations shows the view from a point near County Route 223, approximately 3.5 mi from the Project (Saratoga 2005; refer to Appendix G, Report G-1, Figure 3, Sheets 7 and 8). From that location, approximately 70% of the Project would be visible, but the report noted that this location is not accessible by vehicle and is not identified as publicly accessible. From the photo simulations, Saratoga (2005) further concluded:

1. With few exceptions, only a small portion (less than 15%) of the proposed Project would be seen from most views, even those that are most open; 2. The vertical form of the turbines are similar to existing landscape elements (e.g. silos, utility poles, fence posts, building edges); 3. From most locations, vegetation and topography screen a significant portion of the proposed Project; 4. Turbine form, color, and layout reduce the potential visual impact; 5. The optical effect of distance reduce the visibility and dominance of the proposed turbines; and 6. The effects of past, current, and future logging operations detract from the aesthetic value of existing views.

In the Phase II VRA, Saratoga (2011) included photo simulations from several viewpoints within the Phase I APE where the existing 67 turbines are visible. The existing conditions photos for these simulations illustrate the actual visual effects of the Phase I turbines, as constructed. Table 4.48 lists the figures from the Saratoga (2011) report that offer representative photographic views of the Phase I turbines from various distances on clear days. This report is included in Appendix G of this EIS.

Table 5-488. Photographic views of Phase I turbines from various distances. Approximate distance from Figure references in Phase I turbines (mi) Saratoga (2011) 1 0.5 - 1 A2-A, A5-A 6 A7-A 6 A4-A 9 A9-A 14 A8-A 1 See Appendix G, Report G-2.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 368 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Saratoga (2011) concluded that the Phase I turbines add a noticeable vertical element to the landscape when visible from highpoints and vistas within 10 mi of the Project, but turbines become much less noticeable beyond 10 mi. The red flashing FAA aviation obstruction lights on some of the Phase I turbines are visible night-time elements in the study area, but the relatively low intensity does not result in perceptible illumination of the sky.

Other Actions. In their VRAs of the Phase I and Phase II Projects, Saratoga (2005, 2011) concluded that the effects of past, current, and on-going logging operations detract from the aesthetic value of existing views; and the predominantly forested lands of the region are continually in a dynamic state varying from mature vegetation to cleared lots. Gray & Pape (2011b) report that the visual character of wind turbines is similar to the coal mining activity that has been taking place near the town of Duo, and that the existing Phase I Project is not necessarily out of character with the area’s historic patterns of settlement, farming, mining, and logging. These traditional land use activities affect the visual character of the area and region, but their associated visual changes are more cyclical in nature, as forests, fields, and reclaimed mines experience dynamic states of disturbance.

Future Impacts It is expected that the traditional uses of farming, logging, mining, and rural residential development will continue to occur in the foreseeable future, and these activities will affect the visual character of the area in much the same way as the recent past. However, it is reasonable to assume that the pace and extent of mining, logging, or development could increase or decrease in the future in response to local, regional, and national trends, and that activities such as oil and gas exploration and extraction activities could increase. These changes would be expected to adversely affect the area’s visual character, possibly in a significant way depending on the extent of change.

The Phase II Project has the potential to affect the visual character of the landscape either positively or negatively depending on an individual’s perception. The Phase II Project would incrementally add to overall impacts when combined with past actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This section addresses the potential cumulative visual impacts that may primarily arise from interactions among the Proposed Action and alternatives and the visual effects of other projects or activities that convert forest either permanently or temporarily to other land uses.

The cumulative impact to visual resources associated with implementation of Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 are equal. The Phase II VRA (Saratoga 2011) addresses the effects of the 67 built turbines, and more accurately reflects the Phase I impacts. No past wind projects have been identified as having visual effects on the regional character of the landscape within the visual APE. Other existing and on-going projects in the area that could contribute to cumulative visual effects include tree removal, residential subdivisions, mining, and natural gas exploration, and small commercial development (primarily manufacturing). All of these development activities could contribute incrementally to cumulative visual impacts in the form of interruptions in forest cover. These actions will not have such extensive vertical effects as wind turbines.

The same cumulative impacts to visual resources are expected for implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3. The visual APE is affected by activities that create forest openings, both permanent and temporary. The Proposed Action will not dramatically alter the overall visual matrix of the region. Cumulative visual impacts associated with other wind projects are not anticipated in the APE. No other known projects with similar visual effects (structures that extend vertically for 300 feet or more) are planned in the analysis area in the next 25 years. The largest contribution of impacts in the region will likely be from additional natural gas well exploration in the region. As of February 2012, there were 1,572 Marcellus wells completed and 1,273 Marcellus well permits in West Virginia (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey 2012). In the immediate area of the Project, many of the wells are west of the

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 369 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Greenbrier-Nicholas County line (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey 2012). There will also be continued large scale timber harvesting that will continue in the region (Piva and Cook 2011).

A total of 68 visually sensitive sites were identified by Saratoga (2011) within the Phase II APE. Potential visibility of at least some portions of the Phase II Project was indicated for 32 of these sites. Saratoga (2011) suggested visibility from several of these resources will be localized, short duration, or non- existent, and concluded that overall visibility of the Phase II Project would be limited to small areas distributed throughout the visual resource APE, with up to 97% of the APE screened from view of the turbines.

The primary change to the visual character as result of construction will be the change in forested matrix of the landscape. Project construction is anticipated to result in a total disturbance of approximately 521 acres of land, of which 148 acres will be disturbed during Phase II construction. Of this 521 acres used to construct Phase I and Phase II of the Project, 647 acres were previously disturbed in the Project area as part of ongoing commercial timber operations. The majority of the area (79%; 557 acres) disturbed as part of Project-related activities was deciduous forest and therefore provided the dominant visual matrix in the region. The forested area was predominantly greater than 26 years of age and will not revert to the same visual matrix during the 25-year term of the permit.

Approximately 71 acres (10%) will be required to maintain roads, turbine pads, and substation facilities. Much of this area will not be visible within the APE due to screening from adjacent forest and the rolling topography. The turbines themselves are unique structures in the visual environment. However, they do share some characteristics with other vertical structures such as silos, utility poles, fence posts, and building edges. Considering Project impacts in relation to other visual impacts in the region, it is determined that implementation of any of the 4 alternatives would have a minor cumulative effect on overall visual resources in the APE. Note that cumulative visual effects on NRHP-eligible cultural resources are evaluated under a different set of criteria, and are specifically addressed in Section 5.16.4.12 below.

5.16.4.12 Cultural Resources The analysis area for cumulative effects to cultural resources is the 27,000-acre leased area and the combined area of the Phase I and Phase I cultural resources assessment study areas as defined by O’Bannon and Sweeten (2007) and Gray & Pape (2008, 2011a, 2011b, 2012), which equates to a 5-mi buffer around the outermost existing and proposed turbines. Since it was determined that the Project had the potential to contribute to cumulative visual effects in a 20-mi buffer of the Project area, cumulative effects to cultural resources are likely impacted in a similar manner. This rationale is based on the visual effect that the Project could have on cultural resources.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Phase I Project. Historical Structures: An assessment of potential effects from the Phase I Project on historical structure cultural resources (BHE 2008) documented visual, noise, and cultural effects as the types of effects from the Phase I Project. The assessment of effects resulted in the identification of 20 locations where the construction of the Phase I Project could result in adverse visual effects to NRHP- eligible historic properties. These included 3 historic districts, the Duo Historic District, the Williamsburg/Trout Historic District, and the Friars Hill Historic District, as well as individual properties both within and beyond the boundaries of these historic districts. For the purpose of this analysis, any visibility of a turbine was considered an adverse effect. Note that BHE Environmental’s assessment of effects was based on the original proposal that included 124 wind turbines.

BHE (2008) concluded that none of the NRHP-eligible historic properties were located in the direct Project area, and therefore none would be directly impacted by the construction of the Phase I Project. Only one eligible historic property, the Duo Historic District, was found to be located within 1 mi of the closest turbine of the Phase I Project. Acoustical analysis indicated that the noise levels associated with

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 370 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the construction and operation of this turbine would be masked by existing ambient noise levels. It was concluded, therefore, that the turbine would have no adverse noise effect on this historic district. It was also concluded that construction of the 124-turbine wind energy facility would add visual elements to the landscape that may not be in keeping with the area’s historic patterns of settlement, and based on the locations of known architectural resources in the historic structures APE, the Phase I Project could thereby constitute an adverse effect to the 20 eligible resources that would have views of the turbines. Turbine construction would result in a semi-permanent change to the rural landscape, including immediate visual changes. The visual changes would affect the setting, feeling, and association of the rural landscape, resulting in adverse visual and cultural effects within some portions of the Phase I APE.

Along with their assessment of effects report, BHE Environmental submitted a draft MOA to WVSHPO on February 15, 2008, to address the adverse effects on 20 NRHP-eligible historic buildings and structures within the APE. As compensation for these potential adverse effects, the MOA: (1) provided 6 copies of the Architectural Investigations report for the Beech Ridge Energy facility (dated March 6, 2007) in hard- copy and electronic format, for deposit in local public libraries and historical societies; (2) provided for a one-time monetary payment of $10,000 for future assistance in historic preservation-related activities conducted by the Greenbrier Historical Society or the Williamsburg Historical Foundation; and (3) contained detailed information regarding archaeological surveys that would be conducted once design had sufficiently advanced to the point where ground disturbing activity was known. The WVSHPO signed the MOA on July 31, 2008; Beech Ridge Energy, LLC signed on August 4, 2008. Appendix K of this FEIS contains a copy of the MOA.

Archaeological Resources: On behalf of BRE, CRA conducted a phase I archaeological survey for the Phase I Project. The survey was completed during the summer and early fall of 2008 within the direct APE, which was defined as the footprint of the ground disturbing activities associated with the wind turbines, construction layout areas, access roads, substation, operations facility, and transmission line. A report (CRA 2009) and 3 subsequent addendums (i.e., to address changes and additions to the ground disturbance footprint of the Phase I Project) were submitted by CRA between January 2009 and April 2010 (CRA 2009, 2010; reports provided in Appendix K). Based on the results of the phase I archaeological surveys, CRA recommended that there were 3 new archaeological sites within the direct APE that were NRHP-eligible. The recommendation suggested warranted protection by keeping all Project facilities 100 ft or more from eligible sites. The WVSHPO concurred with the report findings and indicated that if the resources were avoided by the construction activities, it was the opinion of WVDHC62 that the Phase I Project would have no effects on the resources. As the Phase I Project was constructed, NRHP-eligible archaeological resources were avoided by ground disturbance activities. As a result, adverse effects to archaeological resources by the Phase I Project were entirely avoided. It is assumed that archaeological resources would be completely avoided through similar avoidance measures in the construction of Phase II. It is expected that these follow-up archaeological studies and resulting consultation will be addressed in the MOA.

Other Actions. In their visual resource assessments of the Phase I and Phase II Projects, Saratoga (2005, 2011) concluded that the effects of past, current, and on-going logging operations detract from the aesthetic value of existing views, and the predominantly forested lands of the region are constantly in a dynamic state varying from mature vegetation to cleared lots. Impacts to cultural resources are likely impacted by these activities that have similar impacts to visual resources. Gray & Pape (2011b) report that the visual character of wind turbines is similar to the coal mining activity that has been taking place near the town of Duo, and that the existing Phase I Project is not necessarily out of character with the area’s historic patterns of settlement, farming, mining, and logging. It is therefore conceivable that if the wind energy project can have a significant adverse effect on cultural resources, traditional land use activities such as logging, mining, and oil and gas extraction could produce similar visual, noise and

62 The WVSHPO responded to BRE by letter regarding the initial report and addendums. WVSHPO response letters were dated: March 9, 2009; April 17, 2009; October 29, 2009; April 21, 2010.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 371 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

cultural effects to an extent that they would be considered individual or cumulative impacts to NRHP- eligible historic structure resources. These traditional land use activities not only have cumulative effects as a visual impact, but also through direct impacts associated with land disturbance.

Other potential ground disturbing and visually intrusive projects would include timber harvesting, oil and gas exploration and extraction, existing and future housing developments, and on-going agricultural activities. The 20-mi VRA APE is largely dominated by forest clearing activities and oil and gas extraction operations.

No other known projects with similar visual effects (structures that extend vertically for 300 feet or more) are planned in the analysis area in the next 25 years. The largest contribution of impacts to cultural resources in the region will likely be from additional natural gas well exploration, forestry, and mining. There are currently 1,421 Marcellus natural gas wells drilled in West Virginia with 1,008 permits under evaluation (Marcellus Shale Coalition 2010). Large-scale timber harvesting operations will also continue in the region (Piva and Cook 2011). Strip mining and residential development is not expected to increase dramatically during the 25-year permit term. Other projects in the cumulative effects area could include additional overhead transmission lines, telecommunications towers, or single residential or industrial wind turbines.

Future Impacts It is expected that the traditional uses of farming, logging, mining, gas exploration and extraction, and rural residential development will continue to occur in the foreseeable future, and these activities will affect cultural resources primarily though changes in the visual character of the area. This will occur in much the same way as the recent past. However, it is reasonable to assume that the pace and extent of mining, logging, or development could increase or decrease in the future in response to local, regional, and national trends, and that activities such as oil and gas exploration and extraction activities could increase. Assuming these types of changes have the ability to adversely impact cultural resources, they could contribute to cumulative adverse effects if they were to occur close to or within sight of the identified NRHP-eligible resources.

The Phase II Project has the potential to affect cultural resources through noise, land clearing, construction, and changing the visual character of the area. The Phase II Project would incrementally add to overall cultural resource impacts when combined with past actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Potential cumulative cultural impacts may arise from interactions among the Proposed Action and alternatives and the cultural effects of other projects or activities causing noise, land clearing, construction, or changes to the visual character of the area on NRHP-eligible resources in the cumulative effects analysis area (i.e., 5-mi buffer from outermost turbines and the 27,000-acre leased area).

Under both Alternative 1 (No-Action) and Alternative 4, cumulative cultural effects would be primarily limited to those caused by existing, on-going land use activities in the area (i.e., primarily logging, mining, oil and gas explorations) and the construction and operation of the Phase I Project. Architectural cultural resources with views of the Phase I Project, including approximately 20 NRHP-eligible sites (BHE 2008), would experience cumulative visual effects from Alternatives 1 and 4. Visual effects on cultural resources are limited to sites where wind turbines are visible from the resource. BHE (2008) concluded that the Phase I Project would have adverse visual and cultural effects to the 20 sensitive cultural resources with views of the Project. These NRHP-eligible sites would also be exposed to visual impacts associated with logging, mining, and other traditional activities. Cumulatively, the visual impacts of the 67-turbine Project and the visual impacts from logging, mining; and other land changing activities affect the feeling, setting, and association of the rural landscape. These cumulative effects on cultural resources would constitute a moderate cumulative effect on cultural resources under Alternatives 1 and 4, and as noted in Section 5.11.1, visual impacts to NRHP-eligible resources are considered significant adverse effects.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 372 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Under both Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3, the effects to historic structure and archaeological cultural resources would be very similar to those expected under Alternative 1 or Alternative 4 due largely to avoidance and minimization. BRE and its consultants analyzed potential effects to properties located within 5 mi of the 33 turbines for Phase II (Gray & Pape 2012). The effects report for the Phase II Project architectural resources was completed in March 2012 (Gray and Pape 2012), and on April 6, 2012, the West Virginia SHPO concurred with the effects analysis (WVDCH 2012). The Service is in agreement that there are two NRHP-eligible properties within the APE of the expansion area: the Mt. Urim Baptist Church and Cemetery, and the Duo Historic District. The report concluded that the Mt. Urim Church will not be adversely affected by the Project because existing vegetation screen views of the church and noise levels during construction and operation will be masked by existing ambient noise. The Service questioned whether absence of trees sometime in the future would make a significance difference in effect, especially at the Mt. Urim churchyard where trees blocking turbine views are in the foreground (USFWS 2012b). For this reason, the Service will send the effects report to the Mt. Urim Church and invite their participation in the MOA should they have concerns.

The Service concurs with the findings in the report that the Duo Historic District will have additional turbines within its viewshed, which add cumulatively to existing viewshed effects from Phase I. These new visual effects to the Duo District must be mitigated through the development of an MOA with interested parties.

In addition to architectural effects, both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 have the potential to affect archaeological cultural resources in areas where ground disturbance will occur. Phase I construction did not affect any known archaeological resources due to avoidance measures following pre-construction surveys in the disturbance areas. Surveys for archaeological resources will be conducted in ground- disturbance areas prior to Phase II construction. Impacts will be avoided to the maximum extent possible and mitigated if unavoidable. This process will be described in the MOA developed among the interested parties.

In the context of the dynamic local landscape that makes up the Phase I and Phase II Project areas (i.e., an area of approximately 300 mi2), historical and on-going land uses such as mining, oil and gas extraction, and logging affect the visual character and the feeling, setting, and association of the rural landscape. It is reasonable to assume that, together, these land uses produce moderate cumulative effects to NRHP-eligible historic structure resources in the viewsheds of these structures. The visual and cultural effects of wind turbines on historic structure resources are similarly limited to sites where the turbines are visible from the resource. BHE (2008) concluded that in the Phase I Project would have adverse visual and cultural effects to 20 sensitive cultural resources, and Gray & Pape (2011b) concluded that no additional historic structure cultural resources would be affected by Phase II. Given a relatively small number of NRHP-eligible cultural resources with views of the wind turbines over this large area, and the fact that these cultural resources and others would continue to experience the effects of historical and foreseeable on-going visual changes in the landscape from logging and mining, it is reasonable to conclude that the cumulative visual and cultural effects would continue to be moderate under Alternatives 2 and 3.

5.16.4.13 Communications The cumulative impacts analysis area for telecommunications encompasses the Project area and nearby air space. Little or no impacts to communications facilities are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Project. As described in Section 5.12, Project construction and operations will have negligible effects on microwave paths, television reception, cellular and 2-way radio reception, or wireless internet reception. No other similar facilities with similar potential to disrupt telecommunications are anticipated to be constructed in the Project area or nearby for the next 25 years. Hence, there would be negligible cumulative effects to communications facilities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 373 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.16.4.14 Transportation The cumulative impacts analysis area for transportation resources encompasses the ground facilities (roads, bridges, and railways) and airport facilities. Phase I construction did not interrupt transportation facilities within 5 miles of the Phase I and Phase II Project area.

Past and Ongoing Effects Phase I Project: Built Project Impacts and Implemented Mitigation The increase in ADT for Phase I was mitigated by having relatively short construction duration. Further mitigation was included following the WVDOT requirements for oversized loads, and meeting further WVDOT requirements that may be specific to the site area.

Phase I Project Operations and Maintenance. Once construction of Phase I was complete, the traffic associated with its operation was limited to operational maintenance vehicles. It was anticipated that 20 vehicles would enter the site each day for operational activities. This would have raised the ADT value along County Route 1 from 400 to 440. The ADT value along County Route 10/1 would have increased from 30 to 70, assuming each vehicle would have visited each turbine daily.

Future Effects Similarly, BRE does not anticipate road closures during Phase II construction. However, construction will add to the amount of heavy truck traffic associated with turbine component delivery. Project maintenance during operations will necessitate light truck traffic that will largely be conducted on the Project area and not on state or county maintained roads. The increase in traffic and heavier loads during Project decommissioning would produce a minimal cumulative impact as facility components are delivered to areas for proper disposal. This will be primarily in the form of road wear and tear and inconvenience to other road users.

Project layout will not affect airport facilities. There would be no cumulative effects to regional airport operations. The expansion of shale gas development has the potential to impact transportation systems in the area. No other large industrial expansion is predicted, nor is there to be an unusual increase in housing developments and population expansion that would result in increased wear and tear on existing roads beyond what would normally be expected.

Traffic and transportation resources common in the area include logging, mining, and drilling trucks. The added traffic loads are expected to have negligible cumulative effects on transportation within 5 mi of the Project area from past and ongoing activities.

5.16.4.15 Environmental Justice None of the Project alternatives considered would be expected to adversely impact low-income or minority populations in Greenbrier and Nicholas counties.

Based on the type of development and use associated with the Project expansion, the rural demographics of the surrounding area, and the overall policies and planning recommendations contained in the Greenbrier County Comprehensive Plan, the effects of the Proposed Action on socioeconomic resource will be largely positive in nature. Temporary and permanent employment opportunities will be provided to support the local residents, businesses, and economy. Additional tax revenues will be generated to benefit local and state government programs. Existing industry (logging, mining) will be allowed to continue largely unimpeded by the Project. The Project will not displace any existing housing, or conflict with Greenbrier County’s Comprehensive or Land Use Plans. No site-specific study was conducted to assess the Project’s effects on property values. Based on some general studies in other regions and countries, evidence does not suggest that the Project will have a significant impact on the values of nearby properties. There are also no studies addressing the Project’s expected effects on future construction of new housing (e.g., second homes) in the area. Overall, socioeconomic effects are

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 374 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

predicted to be positive, and could be viewed as significant in regard to the creation of some relatively well-paying temporary and permanent jobs within this rural area of West Virginia (particularly Nicolas County) that currently experiences median incomes below the state-wide average.

Future development of natural gas reserves in the region will likely have a positive economic effect in the Greenbrier and Nicholas counties, as well as the entire region. These activities are not expected to have a disproportionate effect on low income or minority populations. Cumulatively, there is expected to be a negligible cumulative impact on minority or low income populations resulting from implementation of the No-Action or action alternatives.

5.16.4.16 Safety and Security The cumulative effects analysis area for health and safety issues encompasses the 27,000-acre Project area. The Project poses little risk to the public’s health and safety. Construction and operations workers at the Project will be exposed to risk, but this is expected to be minimal and does not significantly contribute to the cumulative safety and security concerns in the region. The Project’s health and safety plan addresses all measures to be implemented to avoid risk to worker safety.

Past and Ongoing Effects Impacts Phase I Construction: Safety concerns associated with wind project construction are similar to those associated with constructing other tall structures. Workers and others on the Project site have the potential to sustain injuries from colliding with large moving equipment and vehicles, stumbling over materials and debris, falling from heights or into open excavations, and electrocution.

BRE implemented regular safety training and use of appropriate safety equipment. As required by the WVPSC rules (150 CSR 30), BRE addressed issues such as personal protective equipment, site maintenance and waste disposal, fire prevention, and safe work practices.

Beyond the general construction issues described above, the Phase I Project construction had no adverse impacts on health and safety. The Phase I Project is located in an area of low population density. Project construction had no substantial impact on security and safety of the local settlements and communities. Construction noise was determined to be similar in character and level of that which already occurs in area. All construction personnel were trained to handle emergency situations if they occurred. During construction, contractors were required to develop their own Emergency Response Plan and training program for their employees. The Project adhered to applicable electrical codes and standards.

Phase I Operations: Operation-related effects include ice throw, tower collapse, blade shear; stray voltage and electrocution, fire, lightning, and shadow flicker. Operational effects also include noise, which is addressed in Section 5.2.

The Phase I turbines are a minimum of 1,000 ft from permanent residences and at least 450 ft from public ROW. This may not adequately protect the public from some of these safety concerns. However, unauthorized public access to the site is limited. Based upon observations and risk calculations of structural failure, modern turbine technological controls, the Project’s siting criteria, and control of public access to the turbine sites, it is unlikely that the Project will result in risks to the health and safety of the general public.

EMF at a wind project can originate from the collection system, turbine generators, transformers, and underground network cables. The primary source of EMF from the Project is the generation lead lines used to connect the Project substation to the existing Allegheny Power Grassy Falls substation. This generation lead line is approximately 14.2 mi and comes within 1,000 ft of residences. Given its size of 138 kV, the generation lead line is not likely to emit electric fields that exceed the limit of 5 kV/m set by the ICNIRP.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 375 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

No state or national standards exist for frequency or duration of shadow flicker from wind turbine projects. However, studies and guidelines from Europe and Australia have suggested a threshold of 30 hours of shadow flicker per year to indicate a significant effect; that is, a measure of when shadow flicker is likely to become an annoyance (Dobesch and Kury 2001, Danish Wind Industry Association 2003, Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria 2003).

Travelers along nearby roads could experience shadow flicker from turbines while driving, which could be problematic. However, overall exposure to the Project’s shadow flicker would be comparatively minimal and not substantially different from shadow flicker associated the sun shining through trees, utility poles, and other obstructions. Residences are located more than 3,500 ft from the Project. Shadow flicker associated with the Project is not likely to affect residences and communities.

Considering recent past impacts that occurred in the Project area, timber harvesting and mineral development have the potential to pose threats to safety and security. Injuries and fatalities are more likely to occur in association with logging and mining activities as indicated in hours-based rates of fatal injury risk per standardized length of exposure (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 209) than in association with constructing and operating a wind project. In 2010, fires accounted for 35% of on-the-job fatalities in West Virginia (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). This includes the 29 fatalities from the Upper Big Branch mining disaster

The potential impacts resulting from future conditions is likely similar to the current safety and security risks. The No-Action, Proposed Action, and other action alternatives are expected to have negligible cumulative effects to safety and security in the affected area.

5.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16), this FEIS identifies significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed Project is implemented. Issuance of the ITP with Full Implementation of the HCP and APP is likely to result in bat and avian mortality, which is unavoidable. The mortality rates estimated for the Project mortalities would be considered adverse effects to individual bats and birds. The estimated levels of loss caused by the Project have the potential to result in significant adverse effects to tree-roosting migratory bats at the population level, but this is uncertain due to the lack of knowledge surrounding populations of tree-roosting migratory bats. The Project has the potential to kill regionally rare birds, and could have effects to small, local, breeding populations of declining species, such as the golden-winged warbler. Losses in the local populations of rare birds would be an unavoidable adverse effect. The Project has a moderate to high likelihood of taking eagles, which can be reduced and mitigated. Any eagle mortality would be a significant adverse effect. In the APP, BRE has addressed measures to implement in the event of eagle mortality.

Phase I of the Project has had an adverse effect on the integrity and character of certain architectural resources that are NRHP-eligible and will continue to affect these resources for the life of the Project under all alternatives. The WVDCH considered visual impacts to NRHP-eligible architectural resources within view of Phase I to be significant and required BRE to contribute funding to a local historic district as part of an MOA. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would add additional turbines to the viewshed from construction of the Phase II turbines, and would cumulatively add to existing Phase I adverse visual effects to certain architectural resources that are NRHP eligible. These adverse visual effects from Phase II would continue to affect those resources for the life of the project until decommissioning. Phase II effects will be addressed through development of a new MOA with interested parties.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 376 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.18 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16), this FEIS considers the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The short-term uses of the environment associated with the action alternatives would include those typically found with construction activities. There would be short-term effects to air quality, noise, and biological resources. Short-term effects can be compared to the long-term benefits of the action alternatives, i.e., the production of clean, renewable energy for the State of West Virginia for at least 25 years.

Implementation of the Proposed Action or any of the 3 action alternatives would include applying the mitigation and conservation measures described in the Project HCP, APP, and in this FEIS. These measures (on-site or off-site habitat protection and management in perpetuity) would bring long-term benefits to local populations of the Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat.

Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 3, of the 521 acres of mixed-age forest cleared for both phases, 438 acres would undergo natural forest succession for 25 years or more after construction, before reaching the original condition at harvest. The Project would convert 71 acres of forested habitat to built facilities for the life of the Project. This will have long-term effects to forest productivity on the 71 acres. Assuming that the permittee doesn’t renew its permit and repower the facility, after the 25-year operating life of the Project, these 71 acres would be reclaimed during decommissioning and permitted to recover. It would take another 25 years or more after decommissioning before these areas reached the original condition, if not harvested sooner by the landowner. The presence of the Project is not likely to prevent silvicultural activities or hinder forest productivity in the surrounding industrial forest.

Under the No-Action Alternative and Alterative 4, of the 373 acres of mixed-age forest cleared for Phase I, 311 acres would undergo natural forest succession for 25 years or more after construction before reaching the original condition at harvest. The Phase I Project has converted 50 ac of forested habitat to built facilities for the life of the Project. This will have long-term effects to forest productivity on the 50 acres. Assuming that the permittee doesn’t renew its permit and repower the facility, after the 25-year operating life of the Project, the 50 acres would be reclaimed during decommissioning and permitted to recover. It would take another 25 years or more after decommissioning before these areas reached the original condition, if not harvested sooner by the landowner. The presence of the Phase I Project is not likely to prevent silvicultural activities or hinder forest productivity in the surrounding industrial forest.

In addition, long-term unavoidable impacts associated with operation and maintenance of each of the 4 alternatives would include changes in community character due to the visibility of the project and a potential minor increase in noise levels at some receptor locations (residences) near the project area.

5.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained such as the extinction of a species or the removal of minerals. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line ROW or road. These commitments represent losses to future options. This terminology often applies to the use of non-renewable resources such as minerals, fuels, or cultural resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long periods of time, such as soil productivity.

Because the Project has potential to kill birds and bats, there are potential long term impacts to the restoration of potentially declining populations. With respect to losses in endangered bats, compensation may serve to fully mitigate this impact, but there is an opportunity cost and added risk associated with the death of endangered bats. The loss of birds and bats in association with the Project would be an irretrievable commitment of resources for the life of the Project and perhaps for considerably longer, especially for species, such as bats, that have low reproductive capacities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 377 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Under the Proposed Action or Alternative 3, the Project would change the use of approximately 71 acres of managed forest for the life of the Project. Production and use of timber products that would ordinarily occur will be replaced with built faculties. Thus the loss of forest products during this time would be irretrievable. However, turbines would be removed during decommissioning, and the land would be restored to grasses, which over time would be expected to undergo natural succession, changing to a shrub-dominated community in approximately 10 years and eventually to a forest in 25 years; such land use would be reversible.

The Project affects the integrity and atmosphere of architectural resources that are NHRP-eligible. For all alternatives, turbines would continue to affect the atmosphere of these historic sites for the life of the Project. This would be an irretrievable commitment of these resources in that 25-year period.

One other irreversible commitment worth noting for all alternatives is the loss of soil productivity resulting from conversion of forest land to access roads, turbine pads, and buildings for 25 years. Even when this area is reclaimed during decommissioning, the loss of soil productivity could only be renewed over a long period of time.

5.19.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Presented by Alternative

5.19.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, irretrievable commitments would be the alteration of 373 acres of deciduous forests, loss of interior forest for wildlife, loss of animals during construction and operation. Forest habitat would be allowed to regenerate in some temporarily disturbed areas and for the entire Project area following decommission (25 operational years). Forest animals lost during construction would recover to some extent. The Project would change the use of approximately 50 ac of managed forest for the life of the Project. Production and use of timber products that would ordinarily occur will be replaced with built faculties. The loss of forest products during this time would be irretrievable. However, turbines would be removed during decommissioning, and the land would be restored to grasses, which overtime would be expected to undergo natural succession, changing to a shrub-dominated community in approximately 10 years and eventually to mature forest in 25 years; such land use would be reversible.

The Phase I Project affects the integrity and atmosphere of architectural resources that are NHRP- eligible. Turbines would continue to affect the atmosphere of these historic sites for the life of the Project. This would be an irretrievable commitment of these resources in that 25-year period.

5.19.1.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action – ITP with Full Implementation of HCP Irreversible and irretrievable commitments as a result of implementing the Proposed Action would be the alteration of 521 acres of deciduous forests, loss of interior forest for wildlife, loss of animals during construction and operation. Forest habitat would be allowed to regenerate in some temporarily disturbed areas and for the entire Project area following decommissioning (25 operational years). Forest animals lost during construction would recover to some extent. However, operational impacts to wildlife would be on-going for the life of the Project; they include killing birds and bats. Conservation measures implemented through protection of habitat would attempt to mitigate losses of endangered bats.

The Project would change the use of approximately 71 acres of managed forest for the life of the Project. Production and use of timber products that would ordinarily occur will be replaced with built faculties. The loss of forest products during this time would be irretrievable. However, turbines would be removed during decommissioning, and the land would be restored to grasses, which overtime would be expected to undergo natural succession, changing to a shrub-dominated community in approximately 10 years and eventually to mature forest in 25 years; such land use would be reversible.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 378 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.19.1.3 Alternative 3: Additional Covered Species Addressed in ITP and Habitat Conservation Plan Irretrievable and irreversible commitments under Alternative 3 would be for the same resources as described under the Proposed Action. Operational impacts include the potential to take endangered bats. However, increased conservation measures may further offset the estimated loss through protection of habitat and funding for research and monitoring activities. Operational restrictions would be modified to increase cut-in speeds which may reduce overall mortality. Further restricted operations over a longer season and for entire nights may further reduce the likelihood of mortality of endangered bats and all bats.

5.19.1.4 Alternative 4: ITP with Full Implementation of Habitat Conservation Plan for Phase I Only Irretrievable and irreversible commitments under Alternative 4 would be for the same resources as described under the No-Action Alternative. In addition, operational impacts include the potential to kill endangered bats, unlisted bats, and birds. Conservation measures through protection of habitat for listed bats would attempt to offset losses of endangered bats.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 379 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Section 1.7 of this FEIS provides a summary of the public notice, involvement, and scoping process used in the development of this EIS, as well as a summary of issues identified during scoping.

Table 6-1 summarizes the Service’s consultation and coordination activities with governmental agencies and tribes that have potential interests in the proposed Project.

6.1.1 MBTA and BGEPA BRE initiated consultation with the Service regarding migratory birds and eagles in 2007 and received a letter from Thomas Chapman, Field Supervisor, on March 7, 2006, identifying specific issues regarding birds at the Project site. BRE further discussed bird issues with the Service during meetings on October 6 and 7, 2010; January 25, 2011; March 17, 2011; and April 7, 2011. BRE, Blanton and Associates, Inc., and the Service discussed the outline, scope, and content of an APP. BRE provided a draft APP to the Service on June 27, 2011. The Service provided comments on September 26 and November 9, 2011, and discussed these comments with BRE on November 17, 2011. A revised APP was submitted to the USFWS in January 2012. Informal discussions occurred during February and March 2012, followed by submittal of written comments on the APP from the Service on April 25, 2012. The current version of the APP in Appendix B is the result of this consultation and coordination (see Appendix B).

6.1.2 Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act

6.1.2.1 West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office Consultation The Service initiated consultation with the WVDCH SHPO on December 2, 2010. BRE’s historic resource consultants, Gray & Pape, conducted an assessment of effects to architectural resources for the Phase II Project APE and filed a draft report to the SHPO on August 26, 2011. The report concluded that visual impacts from the Project would adversely affect the Duo Historic District viewshed. Project noise was found not to adversely impact historical properties within the auditory area of potential affect. The SHPO reviewed the report and on October 26, 2011 concurred with the assessments of Gray & Pape. The Service submitted comments on the Phase II architectural survey on Nov. 9, 2011. In response to Service comments, BRE revised and resubmitted the report. The Service concurred with the final effects assessment on April 13, 2012; and the SHPO concurred on April 16, 2012.

BRE’s archaeological consultants, CRA, conducted a desktop review of archaeological resources in the Phase II Project area and filed a report on August 26, 2011 (CRA 2011). On November 4, 2011, the Service completed their review of the archaeological resources report and concurred with those comments the SHPO made on September 27, 2011. Archaeological resources will be assessed onsite as Phase II turbine locations are finalized. Because turbine locations are not yet precise, at this time it may not be possible to predict all potential impacts to archaeological resources. BRE plans to avoid impacts to archaeological resources.

Together with WVDCH SHPO, BRE, and the Catawba nation, the Service has prepared an MOA to address mitigation for the Project’s potentially adverse effects to cultural resources. The ACHP declined to participate in the consultation process. The 4 parties signed the MOA and it was fully executed on July 2, 2013. The MOA addresses the stipulations for mitigating the Project effects on historic properties and protecting archaeological resources and possible human remains. The MOA for the Phase II expansion is provided in Appendix K.

6.1.2.2 Tribal Consultation On June 2, 2010 the Service distributed a letter to 15 tribal nations with ancestral ties to West Virginia, in accordance with NHPA’s Section 106, Executive Order 13175, Department of Interior Secretarial Order

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 380 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3206, and the Service’s Native American Policy. Four tribes responded to the request. The Seneca Nation made a finding of “No effect” on historical and cultural resources. The Delaware Nation declined to comment on the Project. The Oneida Nation did not identify any areas of concern. These 3 Nations requested to be notified of any changes in the scope of work or if any historical or cultural resources are discovered during the Project construction and operation. The Catawba Nation requested information about Phase I Section 106 compliance and if archaeological surveys were completed in areas of Phase II proposed ground disturbance. The Service responded to the Catawba Nation’s questions on August 10, 2011 and invited participation in the MOA. On September 1, 2011, the Service provided the Catawba Nation a copy of the desktop review archaeological report for Phase II and is awaiting any comments they may have.

Archaeological resources will be assessed onsite as Phase II turbine locations are finalized. Because turbine locations are not yet precise, at this time it may not be possible to predict all potential impacts to archaeological resources.

The Service has consulted with the Catawba Nation throughout the preparation of the MOA for the Phase II expansion area, and the Catawba Nation remains a participating party in the MOA. By July 2, 2013, all parties had signed the MOA, which is now in effect.

6.1.2.3 USACE Consultation BRE’s wetland consultant, Potesta, conducted wetland delineation in the Phase II Project area and filed a report to the USACE in December 2010. On January 11, 2011, and again on June 22, 2011, the USACE verbally confirmed by a phone call that they would not be a Cooperating Agency but wished to be notified of the public comment periods. The USACE met with BRE and Potesta during summer 2011 at the Phase II identified wetland resources in the Project area to review wetland determinations. The USACE has not yet written a concurrence letter for the wetland determinations. BRE intends to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as much as possible and seeks to use an NWP for possibly one stream crossing. A decision on use of an NWP would be made at the time BRE submits construction plans to the USACE. The USACE provided comments on the public FEIS, and the Service has incorporated these into the FEIS.

6.1.2.4 Consultation with USEPA As per the Service’s request, the USEPA commented on the preliminary DEIS in September 2011. The USEPA provided written comments on the draft and provided further guidance during a conference call on September 19, 2011. The USEPA provided guidance on the Service’s purpose and need for the Project and analyzing reasonable alternatives that meet the purpose and need. The USEPA suggested that the document should have complete explanations of each alternative to the Proposed Action. Alternatives should be fully developed and described in detail how they would be implemented.

The USEPA advised that the document should include all details on mitigation measures and adaptive management procedures. The USEPA asked that the Service consider a shorter permit term than 25 years, but the Service explained that the HCP included adaptive management that would address modified measures for the permit term should they be deemed necessary. Issuing a permit for a shorter term would not ensure additional protection.

The USEPA indicated the DEIS should include more detailed information on impacts to waterways associated with trenches, transmission lines, and roads, along with descriptions of protective and restorative measures. The Service discussed these matters with BRE, and BRE indicated they have and will continue to avoid impacts to waterways during all Project activities.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 381 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In addition, the USEPA suggested that potential impacts to aquatic resources be analyzed. The DEIS should also include a section on invasive plants. The Service has since added these pieces to the document.

As required by NEPA, the Service provided the DEIS to the USEPA for review during the public comment period. The USEPA provided comments on the public DEIS, and the Service has incorporated responses these into the FEIS.

6.1.2.5 Coordination with USFS Parts of the BRE Project are within the proclamation boundary63 of the Monongahela National Forest. The Service coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and inquired as to whether they wanted to be a cooperating agency. The USFS declined the opportunity to be a cooperating agency for the NEPA process.

Table 6-1. Record of the Service’s coordination and consultation with tribes and agencies for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center FEIS. Consultation / Coordination Correspondence Date From To Description Type Native American Tribes Tribes and tribal Final letter from Service to Tribes 5/5/2011 Service Letter Leaders regarding the DEIS and ITP / HCP. Seneca Nation Seneca Nation finds no effect on 6/22/2011 Service Letter of Indians historical properties from Project. Seneca Nation Letter of correspondence for the 6/22/2011 Service E-mail of Indians Beech Ridge Project Delaware The Delaware Nation will not be 6/22/2011 Service E-mail Nation commenting on Project. Oneida Nation does not wish to be a consulting party for Project, but Oneida Indian 6/23/2011 Service wishes to be notified in the discovery E-mail Nation of any artefacts during Project planning and construction. Questions regarding NHPA Section Catawba Indian 6/24/2011 Service 106 on Phase I and surveys in areas E-mail Nation of ground disturbance. Summary of tribal comments and consultation. Seneca Nation, 7/7/2011 Service BRE Delaware Nation, Oneida Nation, E-mail and Catawba Nation responded to consultation. Catawba Indian Response to questions from the 8/10/2011 Service RHPO E-mail Nation Catawba Tribe Provided copy of desktop Catawba Indian 9/1/2011 Service archaeological report for Phase II to E-mail Nation the Tribe for review. 8/22/2012 Service 15 Tribes Inviting comments on FEIS Letter Invitation to participate on 8/31/2012 Service 15 Tribes Letter consultation for MOA 9/17/2012 Catawba Nation Service Wishes to participate on MOA E-mail 2/27/2013 Service Catawba Nation Submitting draft MOA for comment Letter

63 Lands within a National Forest proclamation boundary include those that are targeted for acquisition as well as those under USFS ownership.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 382 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Consultation / Coordination Correspondence Date From To Description Type 6/4/2013 Service Catawba Nation Submitting final MOA for signature Letter 7/2/2013 Catawba Nation Service Submitting signature page for MOA E-mail U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) EPA provided comments on early 9/15/2011 USEPA USFWS E-mail draft of DEIS Conference call discussing USEPA's comments. USEPA provides 9/19/2011 Service, Stantec USEPA direction for developing Purpose and Conference Call Need and Alternatives, and scope of Environmental Consequences.

10/23/2012 USEPA Service Comments on FEIS Letter

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Beech Ridge 404 permit compliance. USACE received the 1/11/2011 Service USACE E-mail wetland report but has not yet commented on it. Verifying that USACE, Potesta, and BRE conducted a site visit during 5/04/2012 Service BRE E-mail summer 2011 to verify the wetland delineation for Phase II. 10/23/2012 USACE Service Comments on FEIS E-mail West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVDCH) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) WVDCH was a consulting agency 8/4/2008 WVPSC Invenergy MOA on BRE Phase I Project. USFWS, BRE, WVDCH is to be a consulting 12/2/2010 Service Meeting minutes WVDCH agency on BRE Phase II Project. Compliance with federal NHPA, 12/8/2010 Service BRE E-mail consultation with WVDCH. Gray and Pape, Response to comments from 1/18/2011 1 WVDCH Letter Inc. WVDCH. Comments on Draft Report Reconnaissance-Level Architectural Gray and Pape, 6/23/2011 WVDCH Survey for the Proposed Letter Inc. Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility Comments on Draft Desktop Analysis and Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the 9/1/2011 Service WVDCH, BRE E-mail Proposed Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Comments on Final Reconnaissance-Level Architectural Gray and Pape, 9/14/2011 WVDCH Survey for the Proposed Letter Inc. Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Concurrence with Desktop Analysis and Archaeological Reconnaissance Cultural Resource 9/27/2011 WVDCH 2 Survey for the Proposed Letter Analysts, Inc. Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 383 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Consultation / Coordination Correspondence Date From To Description Type Concurrence with Draft Report Assessment of Effects to Gray and Pape, Architectural Resources for the 10/26/2011 WVDCH Letter Inc. Proposed Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Concurrence with Desktop Analysis and Archaeological Reconnaissance 11/4/2011 Service WVDCH, BRE Survey for the Proposed E-mail Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Acceptance of edits on Final Reconnaissance-Level Architectural Gray and Pape, 11/7/2011 WVDCH Survey for the Proposed Letter Inc. Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Comments on Final Reconnaissance-Level Architectural 11/9/2011 Service WVDCH, BRE Survey for the Proposed E-mail Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Comments on Final Assessment of Effects to Architectural Resources 3/6/2012 Service BRE, WVDCH for the Proposed E-mail Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility. Concurrence with Final Report on 4/13/2012 Assessment of Effects to and Service BRE Architectural Resources for the E-mails 6/4/2012 Proposed Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Energy Facility Concurrence with Final Report on Assessment of Effects to Gray and Pape, 4/16/2012 WVDCH Architectural Resources for the Letter Inc. Proposed Expansion/Modification of the Beech Ridge Energy Facility 2/27/2013 Service WVDCH Submitting draft MOA for comment Letter 4/25/2013 WVDCH Service Comments on draft MOA E-mail 6/4/2013 Service WVDCH Submitting final MOA for signature Letter 6/25/2013 WVDCH Service Submitting MOA signature page Letter Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Invitation to participate on 8/31/2012 Service ACHP Letter consultation for MOA

No response to Service’s 8/31/12 ACHP Service letter inviting participation in N/A consultation on MOA

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 384 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Service informally consulted during the scoping period with the USFS 1/9/2011 Service USFS about consultation on the Beech E-mail Ridge Project. USFS declined to be a consulting agency. 1 Gray and Pape, Inc. is BRE’s architectural resource consultant. 2 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. is BRE’s archaeological resource consultant.

6.2 List of Preparers

Name Title Degree Sections Prepared or Reviewed

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Laura Hill Assistant Field MS – Wildlife Ecology Preparation of Purpose Supervisor, Fish and BS- Fisheries and and Need; review, Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biology comment, and revision of all EIS sections; preparation of Responses to Comments

Glenn Smith Assistant Chief of JD – Law Review and comment of Endangered Species, BS – Resource all sections of DEIS Fish and Wildlife Development-Water Biologist Resources Management

Lowell Whitney Regional HCP MS – Wildlife Science Responses to Coordinator BS –- Biology Comments, Preferred Alternative

John Wilson Regional Historic MA - Anthropology (with Review and comment Preservation Officer Archaeology as Sub- on Cultural Resources field)

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Elizabeth Annand Project Manager MS – Wildlife Biology Alternatives Analysis BS – Botany and Geology and Soils Wildlife Management Noise Air Quality and Climate Water Resources Vegetation Resources Avian Resources Safety and Security Responses to Comments

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 385 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Name Title Degree Sections Prepared or Reviewed

Gino Giumarro Senior Associate MS – Natural Bat Resources Resources Planning Socioeconomics BS – Wildlife Biology

Fred DiBello Project Manager BS – Wildlife Biology Land Use Visual Resources, Cultural Resources Transportation Communications

Quintana Baker Environmental B.A. - Biology Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist Resources Avian Resources

Janice Huebner Wildlife Biologist MS – Ecology and Administrative Record; Environmental Science Consultation and BS – Wildlife Coordination Management

6.3 Distribution When the EIS was issued, the Service filed copies with the USEPA, who published a Notice of Availability of the EIS in the Federal Register. The Service also distributed paper and electronic (on CD-ROM) copies, or links to websites where electronic files are available, to federal agencies and other requesting parties. The Service will provide copies to other interested organizations or individuals on request.

An electronic version this FEIS has been distributed by providing a web link to individuals and organizations who commented on the DEIS or otherwise specifically requested a paper disk copy of the document. In addition, copies or web links have been sent to the following elected officials, federal agencies, and state, county, and local offices:

EPA Region 3 Regional Office Governor Earl Ray Tomblin 1650 Arch Street 1900 Kanawha Boulevard E. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Charleston, WV 25305 Valincia Darby Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance WV Senator William Laird IV Philadelphia Region Room 229W, Building 1 Custom House, Room 244 State Capitol Complex 200 Chestnut Street Charleston, WV 25305 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Ginger Mullins WV Senator Randy White U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Room 204W, Building 1 Regulatory Branch State Capitol Complex 502 Eighth St Charleston, WV 25305 Huntington, WV 25701

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 386 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

WV Congressman Thomas Campbell U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller Room 472M, Building 1 405 Capital St., Suite 508 State Capitol Complex Charleston, WV 25301 Charleston, WV 25305 WV Congressman Ray Canterbury U.S. Senator Joe Manchin Room 231E, Building 1 360 Virginia St. East, Suite 2630 State Capitol Complex Charleston, WV 25301 Charleston, WV 25305 WV Congressman Sam Argento U.S. Congressman Nick Rahall Room 216E, Building 1 301 Prince St. State Capitol Complex Beckley, WV 25801 Charleston, WV 25305 Earl Melton Spurgeon “Jinks” Hingle West Virginia Public Service Commission Nicholas County Commission 201 Brooks St., P.O. Box 812 700 Main St., Suite 1 Charleston, WV 25323 Summersville, WV 26551 Susan Pierce Karen Lobban WV Division of Culture and History Greenbrier County Commission State Historic Preservation Office 200 Court St. North 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Lewisburg, WV 24901 Charleston, WV 25305 Roger Anderson Mayor West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Town of Rupert P.O. Box 67 P.O. Drawer B Elkins, WV 26241 Rupert, WV 25984 Lyle Bennett Mayor West Virginia Department of Environmental Town of Rainelle Protection th 201 Kanawha Ave. 601 57 St. SE Rainelle, WV 25962 Charleston, WV 25304 Clyde Thompson U.S. Forest Service Monongahela National Forest 200 Sycamore St. Elkins, WV 26241

Mayor Town of Richwood 6 White Avenue Richwood, WV 26241

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 387 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7 LITERATURE CITED Adam, M. D., M. J. Lacki, and T. G. Barnes. 1994. Foraging areas and habitat use of the Virginia big- eared bat in Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:462-469. Acentech (Acentech Incorporated). 2006. Acoustical study of proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm Greenbrier County, WV. Prepared for Invenergy Wind LLC. Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. May. Acentech. 2011. Acoustical Study of Proposed Expansion/Modification of Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, WV. Prepared for: Beech Ridge Energy II LLC. Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. July. Anderson, R., N. Neumann, J. Tom, W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. Bourassa, K. J. Bay, and K. J. Sernka. 2004. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at the Tehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area: period of performance: October 2, 1996–May 27, 1998. NREL/SR-500-36416, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado, USA. Anderson, R., J. Tom, N. Neumann, W. Erickson, D. Strickland, M. Bourassa, K. J. Bay, and K. J. Sernka. 2005. Avian monitoring and risk assessment at the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Area. NREL/SR-500-38054, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado, USA. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 7:1 355-366. Anonymous. 1961. Large bird kills at TV towers. Bluebird 28:9. APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2006. Suggested practices for raptor protection on powerlines: the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California, USA. Arnett, E. B., editor. 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. Prepared for Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA. Arnett, E. B., M. M. P. Huso, D. S. Reynolds, and M. Schirmacher. 2007. Patterns of pre-construction bat activity at a proposed wind facility in northwest Massachusetts. Prepared for Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. September. Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. O’Connell, M. D. Piorkowski, and R. D. Takersley Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:61-78. Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009a. Patterns of bat fatality at the Casselman Wind Project in south-central Pennsylvania, 2008 annual report. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009b. Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. Prepared for Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative and Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA. Arnett, E. B., M. M. P. Huso, J. P. Hayes, and M. R. Schirmacher. 2010. Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities: final report. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. Accessed 8 December 2011.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 388 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Arnett, E. B., M. M. P. Huso, M. R. Schirmacher, and J. P. Hayes. 2011. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9:209-214. Arnold, T. W. and R. M. Zink. 2011. Collision mortality has no discernible effect on population trends of North American birds. PLos One 6:e24708. doi:10.1371/journal.pone,0024708. Avery, M. I. 1985. Winter activity of pipistrelle bats. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:721-738. Avery, M., and T. Clement. 1972. Bird mortality at four towers in eastern North Dakota: fall 1972. Prairie Naturalist 4:87-95. Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing avian collisions with powerlines, the state of the art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2011. U.S. Wind industry first quarter 2011 market report, April 2011. American Wind Energy Association. . Accessed 12 April 2010. Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D’Amours, B. J. Klug, and R. M. R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18:R695–R696. Baerwald, E. F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R. M. R. Barclay. 2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1077-1081. Bailey, R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management 7:365-373. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. . Accessed 1 November 2011. Bagley, F. M. 1984. A recovery plan for the Ozark big-eared bat and the Virginia big-eared bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA. Barber, J. R., K. R. Crooks, and K. M. Fristrup. 2009. The cost of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 25:180-189. Barclay, R. M. R., and L. D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in the slow lane. Pages 209–253 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, editors. Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Barclay, R. M. R, and A. Kurta. 2007. Ecology and behavior of bats roosting in tree cavities and under bark. Pages 17-59 in J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in forests: conservation and management. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Barclay, R. M. R., E. F. Baerwald, and J.C. Gruver, J. C. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:381–387. Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute Publication. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. BHE (BHE Environmental, Inc.). 2005. Mist net surveys at the proposed Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Prepared for Beech Ridge Energy LLC. BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. .August. BHE. 2006. Chiropteran risk assessment proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy generation facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Beech Ridge Energy LLC. BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 19 June.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 389 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Blancher, P. J., K. V. Rosenberg, A. O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, G. S. Butcher, D. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E. H. Dunn, W. Easton, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, and T. C. Will. 2007. Guide to the Partners in Flight population estimates database. Version: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004. Partners in Flight Technical Series No 5. . Accessed 12 April 2011. Boyles, J. G., P. M. Cryan, G. F. McCracken, and T. H. Kunz. 2011. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332:41-42. Britzke, E. R., M. J. Harvey, and S. C. Loeb. 2003. Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, maternity roosts in the southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 2:235-242. Butchart, S. H., M, A. J Stattershield, and N. J. Collar. 2006. How many bird extinctions have we prevented? Oryx 40:266-278. Butchkoski, C. M., and J. D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity colony roosting in a building. Pages 130-142 in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. Butchkoski, C. M., and G. Turner. 2006. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) summer roost investigations. Annual job report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. BWEA (British Wind Energy Association). 2000. Noise from wind turbines. British Wind Energy Association, London, UK. 15 June. . Accessed 16 August 2011. BWEA. 2006. The impact of wind farms on the tourist industry in the UK. British Wind Energy Association, London, UK. May. . Accessed 16 August 2011. California Wind Energy Collaborative (CWEC). 2006. Permitting setback requirements for wind turbines in California. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. California Wind Energy Collaborative, Davis, California, USA. Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78:818-825. Canterbury, R. A. 2005. Spring avian study and preliminary avian phase I assessment of bird population on the MeadWestvaco wind power project in Greenbrier County, West Virginia: spring 2005. Prepared for Potesta & Associates, Inc. and Invenergy Wind, LLC. Southern West Virginia Bird Research Center, Princeton, West Virginia, USA. 30 September. Canterbury, R. A. 2006. Avian phase I assessment of bird populations on the MeadWestvaco Wind Power Project in Greenbrier County, West Virginia: spring and fall 2005, final project report. Prepared for Potesta & Associates and Beech Ridge Energy, LLC. Southern West Virginia Bird Research Center, Princeton, West Virginia, USA. 25 February. Capouillez, W. A., and T. Librandi-Mumma. 2008. Pennsylvania Game Commission wind energy voluntary cooperative agreement first annual report. April 18, 2007 – September 30, 2008. Pennsylvania Game Commission. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. . Accessed 12 September 2011. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1993. Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. January. CEQ. 1997. Environmental justice: guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 10 December.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 390 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Chamberlain, D. E., M. R. Rehfisch, A. D. Fox, M. Desholm, and S. J. Anthony. 2006. The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 148:198-202. Charnov, E. L. 1993. Life history invariants: some explorations of symmetry in evolutionary ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Considine, T. J. 2010. The economic impacts of the Marcellus Shale: implications for New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Natural Resources Economics, Inc. Laramie, Wyoming, USA. Cope, J. B., and S. R. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and autumn swarming behavior in the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:93-95. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services. Washington DC, USA. Crawford, R. L., and W. W. Baker. 1981. Bats killed at north Florida television tower: a 25-year record. Journal of Mammalogy 62:651-652. Cryan, P. M. 2003. Migration and thermoregulation strategies of hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) in North America. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA. Cryan, P. M. 2008. Mating behavior as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:845–849. Cryan, P. M., and R. M. R. Barclay. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 1330-1340. Cryan, P. M., and A. C. Brown. 2007. Migration of bats past a remote island offers clues toward the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation 139:1-11. Cryan, P. M., and J. P. Veilleux. 2007. Migration and the use of Autumn, Winter, and Spring roosts by tree bats. Pages 153-175 in M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in forests: conservation and management. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, USA. Cryan, P. M., M. A. Bogan, R. O. Rye, G. P. Landis, and C. L. Kester. 2004. Stable hydrogen isotope analysis of bat hair as evidence for seasonal molt and long-distance migration. Journal of Mammalogy 85:995-1001. Cryan, P. M., J. W. Jameson, E. F. Baerwald, C. K. R. Willis, R. M. R. Barclay, E. A. Snider, and E. G. Crichton. 2012. Evidence of late-summer mating readiness and early sexual maturation in migratory tree-roosting bats found dead at wind turbines. PLoS ONE 7: e47586. CRA (Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.). 2009. Phase I archaeological survey of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project & associated transmission support line, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia and addenda I and II. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Hurricane, West Virginia, USA. 28 January, 13 April, and 12 October. CRA. 2010. Phase I archaeological survey of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project & associated transmission support line, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, addendum III. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Hurricane, West Virginia, USA. 31 March. CRA. 2011. Desktop analysis and archaeological reconnaissance survey for the proposed expansion / modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Cultural Resource Analysts, Hurricane, West Virginia, USA. 25 August. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. 2004. Avian fatal flaw analysis for Mead Westvaco wind farm area, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Prepared for Invenergy Wind, LLC. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C., McLean, Virginia, USA. September.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 391 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Danish Wind Industry Association. 2003. Shadow casting from wind turbines [Internet]. Danish Wind Industry Association, Fredricksburg, Denmark. 8 June. . Accessed 28 April 28 2010. Dauphiné, N., and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008, McAllen, Texas, USA. Dauphiné, N., and R. J. Cooper. 2011. Pick one: outdoor cats or conservation. The Wildlife Professional 5:50-56. Davis W. H., and H. B. Hitchcock. 1995. A new longevity record for the bat Myotis lucifugus. Bat Research News 36:4. Dedon, M., S. Byrne, J. Aycrigg, and P. Hartman. 1989. Bird mortality in relation to the Mare Island 115- kV transmission line: progress report 1988/1989. Department of the Navy, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Office of Environmental Management, San Bruno, California, USA. Derby, C., A. Dahl, W. Erickson, K. Bay, and J. Hoban. 2007. Post-construction monitoring report for avian and bat mortality at the NPPD Ainsworth Wind Farm. Prepared for the Nebraska Public Power District. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Desholm, M. and J. Kahlert. 2005. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biological Letters. The Royal Society, London, UK. Drake, D., J. Garvin, S. Grodsky, and M. Watt. 2010. Post-construction bird and bat monitoring at the Forward Energy Center, second interim report. Prepared for Forward Energy, LLC. University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. 19 March. Eckert, H. G. 1982. Ecological aspects of bat activity rhythms. Pages 201-242 in T. H. Kunz, editor. Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, New York, USA. Elder, W. H., and J. Hansen. 1967. Bird mortality at KOMU-TV tower, Columbia, Missouri, fall 1965 and 1966. The Bluebird 34:3–6. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. Erickson J. L., and S. D. West. 2002. The influence of regional climate and nightly weather conditions on activity patterns of insectivorous bats. Acta Chiropterologica 4:17-24. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, D. P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States. . Accessed 12 September 2011. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. USA. Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kroner, and K. Bay. 2003a. Stateline Wind Project wildlife monitoring annual report, results for the period July 2001 – December 2002. Prepared for FPL Energy, the Oregon Office of Energy, and the Stateline Technical Advisory Committee. , Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming and Walla Walla, Washington, USA. December. Erickson, W., K. Kroner, and B. Gritski. 2003b. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project avian and bat monitoring report, September 2002 – August 2003. Prepared for Nine Canyon Technical Advisory

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 392 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Committee to Energy Northwest. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. USA. Erickson, W. P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004. Stateline Wind Project wildlife monitoring final report, July 2001 – December 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, and the Stateline Technical Advisory Committee. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. USA. December. Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, and D. P. Young. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. Pages 1029-1042 in C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, editors. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California; Volumes 1 and 2. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California, USA. Erickson, W. G., D. Strickland, D. Young, and G. Johnson. 2009. A summary of avian and bat fatality at wind facilities in the U.S. Pages 14-18 in S. S. Schwartz, editor. Proceedings of the NWCC Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VII. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, DC. June. Evans, W. R., and K. V. Rosenberg. 1999. Acoustic monitoring of night-migrating birds: a progress report. . Accessed 12 August 2011. Exo, K., O. Huppop, and S. Garthe. 2003. Birds and offshore wind farms: a hot topic in marine ecology. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100: 50-53. Fenton, M. B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1–14. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006a. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, User’s Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Acoustics Facility, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. January. FHWA. 2006b. Highway traffic noise, construction noise handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Acoustics Facility, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. August. Accessed 3 November 2011. Fiedler, J. K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, eastern Tennessee. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA. Fiedler, J. K., T. H. Henry, R. D. Tankersley, and C. P. Nicholson. 2007. Results of bat and bird monitoring at the expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority. 28 June. . Accessed 12 April 2010. Flegel, D. G. 2007. Soil survey of Greenbrier County, West Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Ford, W. M., M. A. Menzel, J. L. Rodrigue, J. M. Menzel, and J. B. Johnson. 2005. Relating bat species presence to simple habitat measures in a central Appalachian forest. Biological Conservation 126:528–39. Fox, T.R. 2011. The 2010 Greenbrier County sortie bird list. The Redstart 78: 89-92 Frick, W. F., J. F. Pollock, A. C. Hicks, K. E. Langwig, D. S. Reynolds, G. C. Turner, C. M. Butchkoski, T. H. Kunz. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329:679-682. Furlonger, C. L., H. J. Dewar, and M. B. Fenton. 1987. Habitat use by foraging insectivorous bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:284–288.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 393 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Gaisler, J., J. Zukal, Z. Rehak, and M. Homolka. 1998. Habitat preference and flight activity of bats in a city. Journal of Zoology 244:439-445. Ganier, A. F. 1962. Bird casualties at a Nashville TV tower. Migrant 33:58-60. Gardner, J. E., and E. A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution and quantification of potential summer habitat. Pages 9-20 in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA. Garrad Hassan. 2007. Recommendations for risk assessment of ice throw and blade failure in Ontario. Prepared for Canadian Wind Energy Association. Garrad Hassan Canada Inc., Ottawa, Canada. Garroway, C. J., and H. G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Écoscience 15:89-93. Gehring, J. E., P. Kerlinger, and A. M. Manville II. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 19:505- 514. Gehring, J. E., P. Kerlinger, and A. M. Manville II. 2011. The role of tower height and guy wires on avian collisions with communication towers. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:848–855. Goldman Associates, Inc. 2006. A study on the impacts of windmills on property values in Tucker County, West Virginia for the proposed Beech Ridge Energy LLC. Project in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Prepared for Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC. Charleston. Gollop, M. A. 1965. Bird migration collision casualties at Saskatoon. Blue Jay 23:15-17. Good, R. E., W. Erickson, A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, K. Bay, and C. Fritchman. 2011. Bat monitoring studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Benton County, Indiana. Prepared for Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Good, R. E., A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, and K. Bay. 2012. Bat monitoring studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, Benton County, Indiana, April 1 – October 31, 2011. Prepared for Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, USA. 31 January. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Wind power impacts on wildlife and government responsibilities for regulating development and protecting wildlife. U.S. Government Accountability Office. GAO- 05-906 Gray & Pape. 2011 Final report reconnaissance-level architectural survey for the proposed expansion/modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Gray & Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia, USA. 22 August. Gray & Pape. 2012. Final report assessment of effects for the proposed expansion/modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Gray & Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia, USA. 21 March. Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2009. Annual report for fiscal year 2008-2009. Greenbrier County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Lewisburg, West Virginia, USA. . Accessed 1 December 2011. Griffith, D. M., and R. H. Widmann. 2003. Forest statistics for West Virginia: 1989 and 2000. Resource Bulletin NE-157. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA. Grindal, S. D., and R. M. Brigham. 1998. Effects of small scale habitat fragmentation on activity by insectivorous bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:996-1003.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 394 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Gruver, J. C., M. Sonnenberg, K. Bay, and W. P. Erickson. 2009. Results of a post-construction bat and bird fatality study at Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, July 21, 2008 – October 31, 2008 and March 15, 2009 – June 4, 2009. Prepared for We Energies. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Gumbert, M. W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Thesis. Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, USA. Hanging Rock Observatory. 2013. 8th annual winter eagle survey. Monroe County, West Virginia, USA. . Accessed 4 February 2013. Hartley, M. J., and M. L. Hunter. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12: 465-469. Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA). 2011. Hawk watch site profiles and hawk count summaries. Hawk Migration Association of North America, Plymouth, New Hampshire, USA. . Hayes, J. P. 1997. Temporal variation in activity of bats and the design of echolocation monitoring studies. Journal of Mammalogy 78:514-524. Hayes, J. P., and S. C. Loeb. 2007. The influences of forest management on bats in North America. Pages. 207-234 in M. J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in forests. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc.). 2009. Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, Environmental Report. Prepared for Invenergy. HDR Engineering, Inc., Minneapolis, USA. November. Hein, C. D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, and M. R. Schirmacher. 2013. Effectiveness of an Operational Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2012. Prepared for Edison Mission Energy and Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. April. Heintzelman, M. D., and C. Tuttle. 2011. Values in the wind: a hedonic analysis of wind power facilities. Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Inaugural Summer Conference, 9 - 10 June 2011, Seattle. Henry, M., D. L. Thomas, R. Vaudry, and M. Carrier. 2002. Foraging distances and home range of pregnant and lactating little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Journal of Mammalogy 83:767-774. Higginbotham, A., A. Pellillo, T. Gurley-Calvez, and T. S. Witt. 2010. The economic impact of the natural gas industry and the Marcellus Shale development in West Virginia in 2009. West Virginia University, College of Business and Economics, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Morgantown, USA. December. Hinman, J. L. 2010. Wind farm proximity and property values: a pooled hedonic regression analysis of property values in central Illinois. Masters thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi. 2009. The impact of wind power projects on residential property values in the United States: a multi-site hedonic analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkley, California, USA. December. . Accessed 12 April 2011. Horn, J. W., E. B. Arnett, and T. H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:123-132. Howe, R. W., W. Evans, and A. T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of wind turbines on birds and bats in northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Green Bay, USA.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 395 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Humphrey, S. R., and J. B. Cope. 1977. Survival rates of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:32-36. Humphrey, S. R., and T. H. Kunz. 1976. Ecology of the Pleistocene relict, the western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii), in the southern Great Plains. Journal of Mammalogy 57:470-494. Huppop, O., J. Dierschke, K. Exo, E. Fredrich, and R. Hill. 2006. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Ibis 148: 90-109. Huso, M. P. 2010. An estimator of wildlife fatality from observed carcasses. Environmetrics 22: 318-319. IDNR (Iowa Department of Natural Resources). 2011. Bald eagle vs. wind turbine. IDNR Wildlife Diversity Program, Des Moines, USA. 12 August. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: post-construction bird and bat fatality study – 2006. Prepared for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Curry & Kerlinger, Cape May Point, New Jersey. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2008. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: post-construction bird and bat fatality study – 2007. Prepared for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Curry & Kerlinger, Cape May Point, New Jersey. 2 May. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnick. 2009a. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: post-construction bird and bat fatality study - 2007. Prepared for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Curry & Kerlinger, Cape May Point, New Jersey. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnick, M. Lehman. 2009b. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: post-construction bird and bat fatality study - 2008. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Curry & Kerlinger, Cape May Point, New Jersey. Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46:45-49. Johnson, G. D., and M. D. Strickland. 2003. Biological assessment for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), NedPower Mount Storm Wind Project, Grant County, West Virginia. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Johnson, G. D., and M. D. Strickland. 2004. An assessment of potential collision mortality of migrating Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) traveling between caves. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm LLC. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, R. E. Good, M. F. Shepherd, and D. A. Shepherd. 2000a. Final report, avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: results of a 4-year study. Prepared for Northern States Power Company. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 22 September. Johnson, G. D., D. P. Young, Jr., W. P. Erickson, C. E. Derby, M. D. Strickland, and R. E. Good. 2000b. Wildlife monitoring studies: SeaWest Wind Power Project, Carbon County, Wyoming: 1995-1999. Prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 9 August. Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, D. A. Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo. 2003a. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 150:332-342.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 396 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Johnson, G., Erickson, W., White, J., and R. McKinney. 2003b. Avian and bat mortality during the first year of operation at the Klondike Phase I Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for Northwestern Wind Power. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Johnson, G. D., M. Ritzert, S. Nomani, and K. Bay. 2010. Final report, bird and bat fatality studies, Fowler Ridge I Wind-Energy Facility, Benton County, Indiana, April 6 – October 30, 2009. Prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Inc. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 12 April. Johnson, J. B., J. W. Edwards, and P. B. Wood. 2005 Virginia big-eared bats roosting in abandoned coal mines in West Virginia. Northeast Naturalist 12:233-240. Jones, K. E., A. Purvis, and J. L. Gittleman. 2003. Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats. The American Naturalist 161:601–614. Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight strategies of migrating hawks. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, USA and London, UK. Kerlinger, P. 1995. How birds migrate. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication towers: a review of recent literature, research, and methodology. Prepared for US Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C., Cape May Point, New Jersey, USA. March. Kerlinger, P. 2002. An assessment of the impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation’s wind power facility on breeding and migrating birds in Searsburg, Vermont: July 1996-July 1998. Prepared for the Vermont Department of Public Service. Montpelier, Vermont. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C., Cape May Point, New Jersey, USA. Kerlinger, P., and F. R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric structure and avian migration. Current Ornithology 6:109-142. Kerlinger, P., J. Gehring, W. Erickson, R. Curry, A. Jain, and J. Guarnaccia. 2010. Night migrant fatalities and obstruction lighting at wind turbines in North America: a review. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122:744-754. Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: annual report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and the MWEC Technical Review Committee. Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C., Cape May Point, New Jersey, USA. 14 February. Kerns, J., W. P. Erickson, and E. B. Arnett. 2005. Bat and bird fatality at wind energy facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24–95 in E. B. Arnett, editor. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. Koford, R., A. Jain, and G. Zenner. 2004. Avian mortality associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm, progress report, calendar year 2003. Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Clear Lake, USA. Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner, and A. Hancock. 2005. Avian mortality associated with the Top of Iowa Wind Farm, progress report, calendar year 2004. Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Clear Lake, Iowa. 2 February. Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:625-631.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 397 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Kurta, A. 2005. Roosting ecology and behavior of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in summer. Pages 29-42 in K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, editors. Proceedings of the Indiana bat and coal mining: a technical interactive forum. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alton, Illinois, USA. . Accessed 29 November 2011. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007a. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:315- 324. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007b. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2449- 2486. Kuvlesky, W., Jr., L. A. Brennan, M. L. Morrison, K. K. Boydston, B. M. Ballard, and F. C. Bryant. . 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2487–98. Lacki, M. J. 1984. Temperature and humidity induced shifts in the flight activity of little brown bats. Ohio Journal of Science 84:264-266. Lacki, M. J., S. K. Amelon, and M. D. Baker. 2007. Foraging ecology of bats in forests. Pages 83-127 in M. J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, editors. Bats in forests: conservation and management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. LaVal, R. K, and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Department of Conservation,Terrestrial Series. 8:1-53. LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, W. Caire, L. R. Wingate, and M. L. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of the status of Myotine bats in the proposed Meramec Park Lake and Union Lake project areas, Missouri. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, USA. Leddy, K. L., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. Leventhall, G. 2006. Infrasound from wind turbines – fact, fiction or deception. Canadian Acoustics 34:29- 36. Lincoln, F. C., S. R. Peterson, and J. L. Zimmerman. 1998. Migration of birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Jamestown, North Dakota, USA. . Accessed 30 November 2011. Lipton, J., and S. L. White. 1995. Fall 1994 raptor migration study in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Prepared for Kenetech Windpower. HawkWatch International, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. February. Long, C. V., J. A. Flint, and P. A. Lepper. 2010. Insect attraction to wind turbines: does colour play a role? European Journal of Wildlife Research 57: 323-331. Loss S. R., T. Will, and .P P. Marra. 2012. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4: 1396 . Accessed 19 February 2013. Lowery, G. H., and R. J. Newman. 1966. A continent-wide view of bird migration on four nights in October. Auk 83:547-586. Mabee, T. J., and B. A. Cooper. 2004. Nocturnal bird migration in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 85:39–47.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 398 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Masden, E. A., D. T. Haydon, A. D. Fox, R. W. Furness, R. Bullman, and M. Desholm. 2009. Barriers to movement: impacts of wind farms on migrating birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 746- 753. Manville, A. M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002, C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, editors. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, GTR-PSW-191, Albany, California, USA. Manville, A. M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings—steps being taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these structures. Pages 262- 272 in Tundra to Tropics: Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference 2008. T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D. W. Demarest, and C.Thompson, editors. Partners in Flight. Martin K. W., R. F. Lance, and C. H. Bucciantini. 2005. Collisions with aircraft and use of culverts under runways by bats at U.S. Naval Air Station Meridian, Meridian, Mississippi. Bat Research News 46:51-54. McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:495-516. McNab, W. H., and E. A. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA. MDLEG (Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth). 2007. Michigan siting guidelines for wind energy systems. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth, Lansing, USA. 5 March. . Accessed 30 November 2011. Menzel, J. A., W. M. Ford, M. A. Menzel, T. C. Carter, J. E Gardner, J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 2005. Summer habitat use and home-range analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:430-436. Michael, E. D. 1994. Preliminary report, environmental assessment - wildlife impacts Proposed wind turbine project in Greenbrier County, WV, submitted to Kenetech Windpower, Inc. Washington, DC. West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA. 31 December. Miller, A. 2008. Patterns of avian and bat mortality at a utility-scaled wind farm on the southern high plains. Master’s Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Miller, T. 2011. Golden eagle movements and Beech Ridge wind facility. West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA. 28 November. Moorehouse, A., M. Hayes, S. von Hunerbein, B. Piper, and M. Adams. 2007. Research into aerodynamic modulation of wind turbine noise: final report. University of Salford. Contract No. NANR233. Manchester, United Kingdom. Morgan, C. E. Bossanyi, and H. Seifert. 1998. Assessment of safety risks arising from wind turbine icing. Proceeding of BOREAS IV Conference on Wind Energy Production in Cold Climates, Hetta, Finland, 31 March - 2 April 1998. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland. Accessed 6 March 2013. Murray, S. W., and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Zoology 262:197-206. Negraeff, O. E., and R. M. Brigham. 1995. The influence of moonlight on the activity of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde – International Journal of Mammalian Biology. 60:330-336.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 399 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation). 2011. Long-term reliability assessment. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia and Washington, D.C., USA. November. NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). 2010. Projecting the economic impact of Marcellus Shale gas development in West Virginia: a preliminary analysis using publicly available data. Office of Systems Analyses and Planning, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. 31 March. New Jersey Audubon Society. 2009. Post-construction wildlife monitoring at the Atlantic City Utilities Authority - Jersey Atlantic Wind Power Facility. Report submitted to New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Newark, USA. Nicholson, C. P., R. D. Tankersley, J. K. Fiedler, and S. Nichols. 2005. Assessment and prediction of bird and bat activity at wind energy facilities in the southeastern U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accessed 23 May 2012. NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2008. National invasive species management plan. Accessed: http://www.doi.gov/NISC/home_documents/2008- 2012%20National%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan.pdf. NOAA-NWS (NOAA-National Weather Service. 2011. NOAA online weather data. National Weather Service Forecast Office Charleston, West Virginia. . Accessed 1 December 2011. NPS (National Park Service). 1997. How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation. National Register Bulletin. USDI-National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Washington, D.C. NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Environmental impacts of wind energy projects. Prepublication Copy. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division of Earth and Life Sciences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. NRCC (Northeast Regional Climate Center ). 2011. Northeast overview- December 2010. . Accessed 1 December 2011. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2001. Program policy: assessing and mitigating noise impacts. 2 February. . Accessed 21 March 2011. O’Bannon, P., and L. L. Sweeten. 2007. Architectural investigations for the Proposed Beech Ridge Wind Energy Facility, Greenbrier, Nicholas, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Invenergy LLC. BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA and Gray & Pape, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, USA O’Farrell, M. J., and W. G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring. Journal of Mammalogy 51:18-26. Opdam, P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of Holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5:93-106. Orloff, S.; and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas 1989-1991. Prepared for Planning Departments of Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, and California Energy Commission. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Tiburon, California, USA. March. Ornithological Council, The. 2007. Critical literature review: impact of wind energy and related human activities on grassland and shrub-steppe birds. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative. Ornithological Council, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA. October

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 400 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Osborn, R. G., C. D. Dieter, K. F. Higgins, and R. E. Usgaard. 1998. Bird flight characteristics near wind turbines in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 139: 29-38. Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, R. E. Usgaard, C. D. Dieter, and R. D. Neiger. 2000. Bird mortality associated with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Manitoba. American Midland Naturalist 143: 41-52. O’Shea, T. J., M. A. Bogan, and L. E. Ellison. 2003. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories; status of the science and recommendations for the future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 16-29. Overing, R. 1936. The 1935 fall migration at the Washington Monument. Wilson Bulletin 48:222–224. Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, and P. B. Wood. 2003. Home-range size and habitat used by the northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150:352–59. PA Bureau of Oil and Gas (Pennsylvania Bureau of Oil and Gas). 2011. Permits issued and wells drilled maps. Pennsylvania, Bureau of Oil and Gas, Harrisburg, USA. . Accessed 2 December 2011. Peterson, T. 2011. Letter to Laura Hill, USFWS, dated October 25, 2011 regarding a bird mortality event at the Laurel Mountain Substation. 5 pages Peurach, S. C., C. J. Dove, and L. Stepko. 2009. A decade of U.S. Air Force bat strikes. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3:199–207. PGC (Pennsylvania Game Commission). 2008. Wind energy voluntary cooperation agreement first annual report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, USA. Piaggio, A. J., K. W. Navo, and C. W. Stihler. 2009. Intraspecific comparison of population structure, genetic diversity, and dispersal among three subspecies of Townsend’s big-eared bats, Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii, C. t. pallescens, and the endangered C. t. viginianus. Conservation Genetics 10: 143-159. Pianka, E. R. 1970. On r and K selection. American Naturalist 104:592-597. PIF and RMBO (Partners in Flight and Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory). 2004. PIF landbird population estimates database. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. . Accessed 21 May 2012 and 22 June 2012. Pimentel, D., A. Greiner, and T. Bashore. 1991. Economic and environmental costs of pesticide use. Archives of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology 21:84-90. Piorkowski, M. D. 2006. Breeding bird habitat use and turbine collisions of birds and bats located at a wind farm in Oklahoma mixed-grass prairie. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA. Piva, R. J., and G. W. Cook. 2011. West Virginia timber industry: an assessment of timber product output and use, 2007. Resource Bulletin NRS-46. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, USA. Potesta (Potesta & Associates, Inc.). 2005a. Wetland and stream investigation and delineation for a transmission line associated with the Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Beech Ridge Energy LLC. Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia, USA. December. Potesta. 2005b. Wetland and stream investigation and delineation Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier Countiy, West Virginia. Prepared Invenergy LLC. Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia, USA. October.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 401 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Potesta. 2010. Wetland and stream investigation and delineation Beech Ridge energy Phase II expansion project, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Prepared for Beech Ridge Energy II, Invenergy LLC. Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia, USA. 8 December. Purvis, A., J. L. Gittleman, G. Cowlishaw, and G. M. Mace. 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Bio. 267:1947-1952. Rabin, L. A., R. G. Coss, and D. H. Owings. 2006. The effect of wind turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground squirrels. Biological Conservation 131: 410–420. Rademakers , L. W. M. M., and H. Braam. 2005. Analysis of risk-involved incidents of wind turbines, Version 1.1. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten, Netherlands. January. Redell, D., E. B. Arnett, J. P. Hayes, and M. M. P. Huso. 2006. Patterns of pre-construction bat activity determined using acoustic monitoring at a proposed wind facility in south-central Wisconsin. Prepared for Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. August. Riddell, H. 2010. Bald eagle – wind turbine. Electronic mail message to C. Maisonneuve, Ministère de Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Québec. Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada. 30 December. Riddington, G., D. McArthur, T. Harrison, and H. Gibson. 2010. Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes. International Journal of Tourism Research 12:237–252. Robinson, S. K., Thompson III, F. R., T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science: 267: 1987-1990. Rosenberg, K. V., and P. J. Blancher. 2005. Setting numerical population objectives for priority landbird species. Pages 57-67 in C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, editors. Bird conservation and implementation in the Americas: proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. Vol. 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. Albany, California, USA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/Asilomar/pdfs/57-67.pdf Roy, S. B., and S. W. Pacala. 2004. Can large wind farms affect local meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research 109, D19101, doi:10.1029/2004JD004763. Roy, S. B., and J. J. Traiteur. 2010. Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:17899–17904. . Accessed 5 December 2011. Russo, D., and G. Jones. 2003. Use of foraging habitats by bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in a Mediterranean area determined by acoustic surveys: conservation implications. Ecography 26:197-209. Saratoga (Saratoga Associates). 2005. Beech Ridge Wind Farm – Greenbrier County, West Virginia, visual resource assessment, final draft report. Prepared for Invenergy. Saratoga Associates, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. 27 October. Saratoga. 2011. Beech Ridge Energy – Phase II expansion/modification visual resource assessment. Prepared for Invenergy Wind Development, LLC. Saratoga Associates, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. June. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. . Accessed 21 May 2012. Saunders, W. B. 1930. Bats in migration. Journal of Mammalogy 11:225.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 402 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Schust, M. 2004. Effects of low frequency noise up to 100 Hz. Noise & Health 6:73-85. . Accessed 16 August 2011. Shaffer, J. A., and D. H. Johnson. 2009. Displacement effects of wind developments on grassland birds in the Northern Great Plains. Pages 57-61 in S. S. Schwartz, editor. Proceedings of the NWCC Wind Wildlife Research Meeting VII. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, DC June. Shiel, C. B., and J. S. Fairley. 1998. Activity of Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri (Kuhl) in the field in southeast county Wexford, as revealed by a bat detector. Biology and environment: proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 98B:105-112. Shire, G. G., K. Brown, and G. Winegrad. 2000. Communication towers: a deadly hazard to birds. American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC. June. Shoener Environmental. 2013. Post-construction bird/bat mortality monitoring report (2012), North Allegheny Wind Farm, Blair and Cambria Counties, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Duke Energy Renewables and North Allegheny Wind, LLC. Shoener Environmental, Dickson, Pennsylvania, USA. 1 March. Smallwood, K. S., and C. Thelander. 2007. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Sparks, D.W., J.O. Whitaker, Jr., and C.M. Ritzi. 2004. Foraging ecology of the endangered Indiana Bat. Pages 15-27 in K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, editors. Proceedings of the Indiana bat and coal mining: a technical interactive forum. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alton, Illinois, USA. . Accessed 29 November 2011. Sparks, D. W., C. M. Ritzi, J. E. Duchamp, and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 2005. Foraging habitat of the Indiana bat, (Myotis sodalis) at an urban-rural interface. Journal of Mammalogy 86:713-718. Stantec (Stantec Consulting). 2008. 2007 spring, summer, and fall post-construction bird and bat mortality study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC. Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine, USA. January. Stantec. 2009a. Post-construction monitoring at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine – Year 2, 2008. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC. Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine, USA. January. Stantec. 2009b. Post-construction monitoring at the Munnsville Wind Farm, New York, 2008. Prepared for E.ON Climate and Renewables. Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine, USA. January. Stantec. 2010a. Stetson I Mountain Wind Project, year 1 post-construction monitoring report, 2009 for the Stetson Mountain Wind Project in Penobscot and Washington Counties, Maine. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC. Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine, USA. February. Stantec. 2010b. Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms year 1 post-construction monitoring report, 2009 for the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms in Cohocton, New York. Prepared for Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Topsham, Maine, USA. March. Stantec. 2011. Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms year 1 post-construction monitoring report, 2010 for the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms in Cohocton, New York. Prepared for Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Topsham, Maine, USA. January. Stantec. 2013. Fall 2011 and spring/summer 2012 post-construction monitoring, mortality estimate, acoustic analysis and curtailment study for the Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project in Randolph

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 403 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Topsham, Maine, USA. April. Stihler, C. 2013. Results of the winter bat survey conducted on 23 February 2013 at Hellhole, Pendleton County, West Virginia. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Elkins, West Virginia, USA. Strickland, D. 2004. Overview of non-collision related impacts from wind projects. Pages 34-38 in S. S. Schwartz, editor. Proceedings of the wind energy and birds/bats workshop: understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. Washington, DC. Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, DC. September. Stubbs, C. S., F. Drummond, and H. Ginsberg. 2007. Effects of invasive plant species on pollinator service and reproduction in native plants at Acadia National Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR--2007/096. National Park Service. Boston, USA. Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria. 2003. Policy planning and guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria. Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria, Melbourne Victoria, Australia. Taucher, J., T. Librandi Mumma, and W. Capouillez. 2012. Wind energy voluntary cooperation agreement third summary report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 27 December.Terres, J. K. 1956. Migration records of the red bat, Lasiurus borealis. Journal of Mammalogy 37:442. Thogmartin, W. E., F. P. Howe, F. C. James, D. H. Johnson, E. T. Reed, J. R. Sauer, and F. R. Thompson, III. 2006. A review of the population estimation approach of the North American landbird conservation plan. The Auk 123: 892-904. Thogmartin, W.E., R.A. King, P.C. McKann, J.A. Szymanski, and L. Pruitt. 2012. Population-level impact of white-nose syndrome on the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Mammalogy 93:1086-1098. Thogmartin, W.E., C.A. Sanders-Reed, J.A. Szymanski, P.C. McKann, L. Pruitt, R.A. King, M.C. Runge, and R. E. Russell. 2013. White-nose syndrome is likely to extirpate the endangered Indiana bat over large parts of its range. Biological Conservation 160: 162-172. Tidhar, D. 2009. Post-construction wildlife monitoring study; study plan and spring 2009 interim report. Lempster Wind Project, Sullivan County, New Hampshire. Prepared for Lempster Wind LLC, Lempster Wind Technical Advisory Committee, and Iberdrola Renewables. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Waterbury, Vermont, USA. Tidhar, D., W. Tidhar, and M. Sonnenberg. 2010. Post-construction fatality surveys for Lempster Wind Project, Iberdrola Renewables. Prepared for Lempster Wind, LLC, Lempster Wind Technical Advisory Committee, and Iberdrola Renewables. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont. 30 September. Tidhar, D., M. Sonnenberg, and D. Young. 2013. Post-construction carcass monitoring study for the Beech Ridge Wind Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, final report, April 1 – October 28, 2012. Prepared for Beech Ridge Wind Farm and Beech Ridge Energy, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont, USA. 18 January. Timm, R. M. 1989. Migration and molt patterns of red bats, Lasiurus borealis (Chiroptera: Vespertillionidae) in Illinois. Bulletin of the Chicago Academy of Sciences 14:1–7. Tourism Research Centre. 2008. Wind energy report: view of residents of PEI and visitors to PEI. University of Prince Edward Island, School of Business. . Accessed 2 November 2011. Trapp, J. L. 1998. Bird kills at towers and other human-made structures: an annotated partial bibliography (1960-1998). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 404 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Turner, G. G., D. M. Reeder, and J. T. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Research News 52:13–27 Tuttle, M. D., and J. Kennedy. 2002. Thermal requirements during hibernation. Pages 68–77 in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Fatal occupational injuries and nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses, 2008. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC. . Accessed 22 November 2011. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Workplace fatalities in West Virginia – 2010. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mid-Atlantic Information Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 18 October. . Accessed 22 November 2011. U.S. Census. 2010. State and county quick facts: West Virginia. . Accessed 31 October 2011. USDA-NRCS (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2008. Web Soil Survey. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. . Accessed 2 December 2011. USDA-NRCS. 2011. West Virginia state-listed noxious weeds. Plants database. . Accessed 2 December 2011. USEIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2011. Annual energy outlook 2011 with projections to 2035. DOE/EIA-0383. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. April. . Accessed 6 December 2011. USEIA. 2012a. Annual energy outlook 2012 with projections to 2035. DOE/EIA-0383. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. April. . Accessed 1 June 2012. USEIA. 2012b. Annual energy outlook 2012 data tables. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. . Accessed 1 June 2012. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1978. Protective noise levels. USEPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington DC EPA 550/9-97-100. USEPA. 1994. Evaluation of ecological impacts from highway development. USEPA, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. April. USEPA. 2005. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on mountaintop mining/valley fills in Appalachia. EPA 9-03-R-05002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, USA. . Accessed 6 December 2011. USEPA. 2011. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. . Accessed 6 December 2011. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1983. Recovery plan for the Indiana Bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. 14 October. USFWS. 1984. Recovery plan for the Ozark big-eared bat and the Virginia big-eared bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region II, Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA. 8 May. USFWS.1990. Appalachian northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus and Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis Field Office, Annapolis, Maryland, USA. 24 September.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 405 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

USFWS. 1991. Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Region, Newton Corner, Massachusetts, USA. 25 July. USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Habitat conservation planning and incidental take permit processing handbook. 4 November. USFWS. 2000. Pesticides and birds. Office of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. March. . Accessed 6 December 2011. USFWS. 2002. Migratory bird mortality: many human-caused threats afflict our bird population. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. January. . Accessed 25 August 2011. USFWS. 2003a. Interim guidance on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts form wind turbines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 3 May. USFWS. 2003b. Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA reference handbook. . Accessed 31 October 2011. USFWS. 2006. West Virginia northern flying squirrel. 5-year review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office. Elkins, USA. April. USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) draft recovery plan: first revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. USFWS. 2008a. Birds of conservation concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. . Accessed 28 November 2011. USFWS 2008b. Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, USA. USFWS 2009a. Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon netting), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, USA. September. USFWS. 2009b. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office, Bloomington, Indiana. September. USFWS. 2010. Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee recommendations. Accessed 7 December 2011. USFWS. 2011a. Indiana bat Section 7 and Section 10 guidance for wind energy projects (questions and answers pertaining to effects analyses). Midwest Region, Ecological Services, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. 26 October. USFWS. 2011b. 2009 (revised) rangewide population estimate for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) by USFWS Region and Recovery Unit. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Indiana. 14 July. . Accessed 6 December 2011. USFWS. 2011c. Protecting golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Eastern United States. Northeast Region Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, Maryland, USA. . Accessed 16 December 2011. USFWS. 2011d. Letter to Tim Hayes, Director – Environmental, Duke Energy Renewables from Pennsylvania Field Office regarding Indiana bat fatality at the North Allegheny Wind Facility. 7 October 2011. USFWS. 2012a. 2011 rangewide population estimate for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) by USFWS Region and Recovery Unit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.. 4 January

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 406 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Accessed 23 March 2012. USFWS. 2012b. E-mail from John Wilson to Erik Duncan dated March 6, 2012 regarding final report assessing effects to architectural resources for the proposed expansion/modification of the Beech Ridge Wind Energy facility. USFWS. 2012c. Land-based wind energy guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 23 March. USFWS. 2012d. White-nose syndrome: a devastating disease of North American bats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August. < http://whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/resource/white- nose_fact_sheet_9-2012.pdf>. Accessed 20 September 2012. USFWS. 2012e. Indiana bat fatality at West Virginia wind facility. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office, Northeast Region. 23 August. . Accessed 8 February 2013. USFWS. 2012f. Endangered Indiana bat found dead at Ohio wind facility; Steps underway to reduce future mortalities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newsroom, Midwest Region. 29 November. . Accessed 8 February 2013. USFWS. 2013a. Eagle conservation plan guidance, Module 1 – land-based wind energy, version 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds Division. Accessed 1 May 2013. USFWS. 2013b. Revision of take estimate for Beech Ridge Energy permit. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, West Virginia, USA. 22 May. USFWS. 2013c. 2013 rangewide population estimate for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) by USFWS Region and Recovery Unit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Habitat conservation planning and incidental take permit processing handbook. 4 November. . Accessed 14 June 2013. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. West Virginia seismic hazard map. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, Reston, Virginia, USA. . Accessed 13 January 2011. USGS. 2011. Magnitude 5.8 – Virginia, 2011 August 23, 17:51:04 UTC; Earthquake summary. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, Reston, Virginia, USA. . Accessed 21 September 2011. Valdez, E. W., and P. M. Cryan. 2009. Food habits of the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) during spring migration through New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 54:195-200. Van Gelder, R. G. 1956. Echo-location failure in migratory bats. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 59:220-222. Vaughan, N., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 1997. Habitat use by bats (Chiroptera) assessed by means of a broad-band acoustic method. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:716-730. Vlietstra, L. 2008. Common and roseate tern exposure to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy wind turbine: 2006 and 2007. Marine Safety and Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Buzzards Bay, USA.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 407 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Vonhof, M. J., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1996. Roost-site selection and roosting ecology of forest-dwelling bats in southern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 74:1797–1805. Watrous, K. S., T. M. Donovan, R. M. Mickey, S. R. Darling, A. C. Hicks, and S. L. Von Oettingen. 2006. Predicting minimum habitat landscape: patterns at the landscape and microhabitat scale. Ecological Applications 13:939–950. Watts, B. D. 2010. Wind and waterbirds: establishing sustainable mortality limits within the Atlantic Flyway. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-05-10. College of William and Mary, Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. Weller, T. J., and D. C. Lee. 2007. Mist net effort required to inventory a forest bat species assemblage. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:251–257. West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas. 2011. 2009-2014 results. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. . Accessed 7 December 2011. Whitaker, J., and W. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. Whitfield, D. P., and M. Madders. 2006. A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (Revised). Natural Research, LTD. Banchory, Aberdeenshire, UK. August. WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Electromagnetic fields. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe 32. Williams, T. C., and J. M. Williams. 1967. Bat collisions with high performance aircraft, a preliminary field investigation conducted at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 19–25 October, 1967, Office of Scientific Research Report 67-2510, U.S. Air Force, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Williams, W. 2003. Alarming evidence of bat kills in eastern U.S. Windpower Monthly 19:21-23. Workforce West Virginia. 2010. Labor market information, West Virginia by county. West Virginia Department of Commerce, Research, Information and Analysis, Charleston, USA. . Accessed 8 December 2011. WVDEP (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection). 2008. 2007 air quality annual report. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality. Charleston, USA. WVDEP. 2009. 2008 air quality annual report. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality. Charleston, USA. WVDEP. 2012. Water withdrawal guidance too. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Water and Waste Management, Water Use Section, Charleston, USA. . Accessed 30 April 2012. WVDEP. 2010. 2009 air quality annual report. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality. Charleston, USA. WVDNR (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources). 2004. Wildlife diversity notebook: the northern water shrew. West Virginia Wildife Magazine. . 23 October 2011. WVDNR. 2007. Rare, threatened and endangered animals. West Virginia Natural Heritage Program, Charleston, USA. February. WVDNR. 2010. Rare, threatened, and endangered species: small-footed myotis. Wildlife Diversity Program and Natural Heritage Program. . Accessed 7 December 2011.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 408 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

WVDNR. 2012. Federal assistance performance report, endangered species (animals), 1 October 2011 – 30 September 2012. Wildlife Resources Section, Charleston, West Virginia, USA. WVGES (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey). 1969. Geologic map of West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Charleston, USA. . Accessed 13 January 2011. WVGES. 2012. West Virginia completed and permitted Marcellus Wells. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, USA. 29 February. . Accessed 18 July 2012. WVPSC (West Virginia Public Service Commission). 2006. Commission Order. Case No. 05-1590-E-CS. West Virginia Public Service Commission, Charleston, USA. 28 August.Wu, J., and J. L. Vankat. 1995. Island biogeography: theory and applications. Pages 371-379 In W. A. Nierenberg, editor. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology 2. Academic Press, San Diego, USA. Young, D. and Z. Courage. 2011. Memorandum dated September 30, 2011 to NedPower regarding a bird kill on September 25, 2011at the Mount Storm Wind Power facility. 2 pages. Young, D., and J. Gruver. 2011. Draft bat mist netting and acoustic surveys, Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (revised). Prepared for Beech Ridge Energy LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 27 June. Young, D. P., Jr., W. P. Erickson, R. E. Good, D. M. Strickland, and G. D. Johnson. 2003a. Avian and bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming: November 1998-June 2002. Pacificorp, Inc., SeaWest Windpower, Inc., and BLM Rawlins District Office c/o WEST, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Young, D. P., D. Strickland, W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, and R. Canterbury. 2003b. Baseline avian studies, Mount Storm Wind Power project, Grant County, West Virginia. 2003. Report prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenee, Wyoming. 23 April. Young, D. P., Jr., W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Normani, and W. Tidhar. 2009a. Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase I: post-construction avian and bat monitoring. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technologies, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 17 February. Young, D. P., Jr., K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. L. Tidhar. 2009b. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, March - June 2009. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 17 August. Young, D. P., Jr., K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. L. Tidhar. 2010. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, July - October 2009. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 12 February. Young, D. P., Jr., S. Nomani, W. L. Tidhar, and K. Bay. 2011a. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, July - October 2010. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 10 February. Young, D.P. Jr., S. Nomani, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2011b. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring: April - July 2011. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, Texas. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 29, 2011. Young, D., Z. Courage, and L. McManus. 2012a. Spring and fall eagle and osprey surveys for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Center, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, March-May and

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 409 BEECH RIDGE ENERGY WIND PROJECT Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

September-October 2011. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Waterbury, Vermont, USA. 23 January. Young, D., Z. Courage, and T. Poulton. 2012b. Avian and bat risk assessment: Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Expansion Area, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Waterbury, Vermont, USA. February. Young, D., M. Lout, and K. Bay. 2012c. Avian migration studies for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project Expansion Area, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, March-May and September- November 2011. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Waterbury, Vermont, USA. July. Young, D. P., Jr., S. Nomani, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2012d. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, July - October 2011. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 27 February. Young, D., M. Lout, Z. Courage, S. Nomani, and K. Bay. 2012e. 2011 post-construction monitoring study Criterion Wind Project, Garrett County, Maryland, April 2011 – November 2011. Prepared for: Criterion Power Partners, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Waterbury, Vermont, USA. 20 April. Young, D., M. Lout, K. Bay, and E. Baumgartner. 2013a. Winter raptor surveys for the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project, Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia, December 2011 – March 2012. Prepared for Invenergy, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Waterbury, Vermont, USA. 15 January. Young, D., C. Nations, M. Lout, and K. Bay. 2013b. 2012 Post-Construction Monitoring Study Criterion Wind Project, Garrett County, Maryland, April – November 2012. Prepared for Criterion Power Partners, LLC. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming & Waterbury, Vermont, USA. 15 January. Zhou, L., T. Yuhong, S. Baidya Roy, C. Thorncroft, L.F. Bosart, and Y. Hu. 2012. Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature. Nature Climate Change, advanced online publication: 29 April 2012, DOI 10.1038/NCLIMATE1505. www.nature.com/natureclimatechange Zimmerman, G. S., and W. E. Glanz. 2000. Habitat use by bats in eastern Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:1032-1040. Zinn, T. L., and W. W. Baker. 1979. Seasonal migration of the hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus, through Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 60:634-635.

September 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 410