femp-wallops final report (curry kerlinger

8/3/2019 Femp-wallops Final Report (Curry Kerlinger

1/52

Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the James Madison University-NASA

Wind Power Project, Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia

September 2004

DRAFT DRAFT -- DRAFT

Report Prepared for:

Report Prepared by:

Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.

Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D

Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 453Cape May Point, NJ 08212

(609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569

email: [email protected]


2/52

JMU-NASA Wind Power Avian Risk Assessment - Kerlinger

Copyright 2004 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC draft 9-04 2

Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for the James Madison University-NASA

Wind Power Project, Wallops Island, Accomack County, Virginia

Executive Summary

One or two, utility scale wind turbines are proposed for the Wallops Island NASA

facility in Accomack County, Virginia. The project is a joint effort between James Madison

University and NASA, hereafter referred to as the JMU-NASA Wind Power Project. Each windturbine would generate about 1.0 or slightly greater power, totaling at least 1.0+ to 2.0+

megawatts of generating capacity. Tower (tubular) heights would be about 60 meters (197 feet)

range, with rotor lengths of 26 m (85 feet). Minimum and maximum heights of the rotor tipwhen the rotor is in the 12 oclock position would be about 86 m (282 feet) AGL. The turbines

would be located at two potential sites (Figure 1), separated by about 3.7 miles (5.9 km), with

one on Wallops Island and the other on the mainland.

This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment for wind power development. It

includes a literature review, interviews with local and regional experts (agency staff,

environmental organizations, and local birders), and a site visit (August 10-11, 2004) duringwhich habitat and birds present were examined. Together, these sources of information provide

an indication of the type and number of birds that are known or suspected to use a project site

and the area surrounding that site. This information is then used to determine the degree of riskto birds, if any, from wind power development at a particular site. In addition, the concerns of

regulators and environmental organizations were determined (PENDING) and incorporated into

the risk assessment.

Two turbine sites, each with 1 turbine are proposed. Site #1 on Wallops Island is a

grassy field surrounded by small forest patches, small buildings, an observation tower, and a

radar station. It is immediately adjacent to extensive salt marshes and about 1/3 of a mile (0.5km) from the barrier beach. Although the immediate site is not sensitive habitat, the turbine

would be surrounded by prime avian habitat. Site #2 is on the mainland, at the Wallops Island

Flight Center. Although it is adjacent to extensive salt marshes, it is on a more developed siteand is also adjacent to farm land. The site itself is not sensitive habitat, although the marshes to

the east of the site and small forests nearby are excellent bird habitat.

A letter from U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service is pending, as is a letter from the VirginiaDepartment of Conservation and Recreation Natural Heritage program. The literature and

database review and interviews with experts (PENDING) indicated that during the nesting

season there are two federally listed species may be nest near one of the two turbine sites (BaldEagle and Piping Plover). Risk to these species is probably minimal because neither will likely

use either site to forage or roost. No state or federally listed endangered species is likely to nest

on or near the site. Peregrine Falcon, a Virginia threatened species, nests within a few hundred


3/52



meters of Site #1 at a tower in the marsh. Several state species of concern were found to nestnear or in the vicinity of Site #1 and to a lesser extent Site #2.

The habitat at the two turbine sites is disturbed and does not support a wide variety ofspecies. The birds that nest, migrate and make stopovers in the adjacent habitats, and wintering

birds are very diverse and numerous, indicating that the general area is a very important area forbirds. Extraordinarily large numbers of migrating raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, otherwaterbirds, and songbirds migrate through the general, as well as winter in the area. Nearby

there is a globally significant flightlines for fall migrating Peregrine Falcons, Merlins, and some

other species. The area is known for its waterfowl and shorebird migrations, which classify as

world class. The migrations of these species are the reason so many national and state wildlifemanagement areas, wildlife refuges, and even a national seashore are present nearby acting as

ecological magnets for these species. Together these facts strongly suggest that the two project

sites will have significant bird use. Site #2 is likely to have less bird use because it is locatedaway from the barrier island and marsh, as well as the ocean.

The following recommendations are made:

Electrical lines from the turbines to nearby transmission/distribution lines should beunderground to the degree possible and all new above ground wires leading from the site and

substations, should have specifications that follow APLIC (Avian Power Line InteractionCommittee) guidelines.

Permanent meteorology towers, if needed, should be free-standing and unguyed to preventthe potential for avian collisions.

Turbine pads and roads to those pads should be minimal in size to minimize habitat impact ,and after construction disturbed habitats should be restored to the extent possible.

Lighting should be minimal at the turbines and nearby infrastructure to minimize or eliminateattraction of night migrating songbirds and similar species. Sodium vapor lamps and

spotlights should not be used near turbines. FAA lighting for night use should only beflashing lights (L-864 red or white) with the longest possible off cycle permissible and no

steady burning (L-810) FAA lights should be used.

A post-construction study of collision fatalities would be helpful to potential site expansionand future wind power development in coastal areas of the Eastern Shore.

Because federal and Virginia listed species occur in the general area, especially the easternsite (Site #1), a detailed nesting bird survey and use study should be conducted to determine

whether such species might be at risk and estimate the potential risk to those species in terms

of biological significance.

Meet with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and perhaps Virginia Department ofConservation and Recreation) to determine what they will be requesting/requiring withrespect to studies and their new interim and voluntary guidelines for wind power


4/52



development. Such a meeting would involve potential Section 7 ESA consultation and adiscussion of the expected scope of work.

Based on what is known about risks to birds at wind power plants in North America andEurope, and what was learned from the literature search, site visits, and interviews, it is likely

that the JPU-NASA project will have a greater collision impact to birds on a per turbine per yearbasis than has been found at most other wind power projects. It is also relevant that a federallythreatened species, the Piping Plover, nests near Site #1 and there are various Virginia

endangered, threatened, and species of concerned that use the general area around the Project site

on a regular basis, suggesting possible impacts to these species. The eastern turbine site is likely

to have greater impacts on birds than the western turbine because it is located in an area wherethere is likely to be far more waterbird and other avian traffic. The issue of biological

significance should be addressed more closely, especially in light of the prevalence of various

waterbirds, night migrating songbirds, and raptors that use the site and nearby habitats.


5/52



Introduction

A one or two unit wind power project has been proposed for two sites in on the WallopsIsland Flight Center and NASA center on Accomack Island, Virginia (Figure 1). The project hasbeen named the JMU NASA Wind Power Project. Although wind power is considered the

most environmentally benign source of electrical power generation, birds and some other

wildlife have been impacted at wind power projects in the United States and Europe. These

impacts have raised concern regarding newly proposed wind power facilities. Reported impactsto birds include collision fatalities and habitat modification/fragmentation resulting from

construction activities and new infrastructure that causes birds to avoid or be displaced from a

site.

This report details a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment that determines the potential risks to

birds at a proposed wind power project. Thus, the Phase I Assessment is designed to guidedevelopers, regulators, environmentalists, and other stakeholders through the process of

determining the degree of risk at a particular site and how impacts or potential impacts, if any are

perceived, need to be studied in more detail. The initial assessment includes: (i) a site visit, (ii)

a literature search, and (iii) interviews with avian experts, environmentalists, and regulators. Inaddition, the risk assessment report includes an appendix that addresses compliance issues and

recommendations now being made by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service via their interim and

voluntary guidelines for wind power projects (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).

The site visit is made by a trained avian technician with experience in identification ofbirds and their habitats. The site and surrounding area are walked and toured by automobile.

During the visit, habitat and topography are examined and the avifauna present is observed. The

site visit is not meant to be an inventory of birds on the project site. Instead, the purpose of thesite visit is to evaluate habitat and topographic features so that a list of species that might be

present may be assembled and the potential for risk to those birds assessed.

The literature and database search includes examination of U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service records (Pending) and New Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

Heritage Program databases, Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, hawk migration

literature/newsletters (Hawk Migration Association of North America), USGS Breeding BirdSurveys, Important Bird Areas projects, and other information on birds that might nest, migrate,

forage, winter, or concentrate at the site.

Interviews vary depending on who is being interviewed. Most interviews consist of a

series of questions (Appendix I) asked of regulators (US Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia

Department of Conservation and Recreation nongame/game biologists), avian experts (universityprofessors, amateur and professional ornithologists who observe hawk migration, nesting

songbirds, waterfowl, etc.), and environmentalists (local Audubon chapters, etc.) and Important

Bird Areas programs). Information from these diverse sources are then integrated into a reportlike the one that follows, summarizing habitat and birds likely to be present at a site, potential


6/52



risk of wind turbine construction at the site, a comparison the project site with other sites whererisk has been determined, and recommendations for further studies and mitigation, if indicated.

In addition to the avian risk assessment, this report includes information on sensitive habitats,

wetlands, and some listed species other than birds.

Project Description. The JMU NASA wind power energy project would consist of one or twowind turbine generators that would produce a total of about 1+ to 2+ megawatts of generatingcapacity. The turbines would be located at 2 separate sites (Figure 1), although the site could

accommodate more turbines. The tubular tower for the turbines would be about 60 meters (197

feet) in height, with rotor lengths of about 26 m (85 feet). Maximum height of the rotor tip when

the rotor is in the 12 oclock position would be about 86 m (282 feet) AGL. Other turbines withsimilar or larger dimensions are being considered. The turbines would likely be lighted

according to the Federal Aviation Administration regulations. It is likely that the lighting would

be red strobes (L-864) on top of the nacelle at about 61-62 m (~200 foot) AGL. The electricalcollection system lines within the project area might be underground, although the interconnect

may be above ground to existing transmission lines.

Topographic/Physiographic and Habitat Description of Atlantic Coastal Accomack

County, Virginia, and the JMU-NASA Project Site

Information regarding topography, physiography, and habitat of the site was first

gathered using a 1:24,000 USGS topographic map, and later from ground truthing via a site visit

during summer 2004. In addition, several texts were examined to determine the type of habitatknown to be present in the general vicinity of the proposed wind turbines and, therefore, the bird

communities and species that are likely to be present.

Accomack County is in the coastal plain of Virginia, near the Atlantic Ocean and back

bays. The two turbine sites are situated in eastern Accomack County (Figure 1). The eastern siteis on a barrier island that is only a few miles wide and less than about mile (


7/52



The habitat at Site #1 is a lawn-like field with several buildings and an observation tower.Surrounding the lawn is a mixed pine-deciduous forest and associated thickets. The forest is

typical coastal forest of the mid-Atlantic, with a mixture of northern and more southern trees.

Trees present were loblolly, red maple, black cherry, sassafras, black tupelo, sweet gum, and afew stands of black willow, bigtooth aspen, southern red oak, and eastern red cedar. These

forests are not large, but they are dense. Greenbrier, wild grape, Virginia creeper, and somepoison ivy make for a dense understory and climb to more than 10-15 feet high (3-5 m). Thereare also dense thickets of southern bayberry, marsh elder, and some winged sumac. These latter

patches are behind the dunes to the east of the turbine site. Nearby there are some large, marshy

areas with Phragmites (indicating it is not salt marsh) and lesser amounts of cattail. A few ponds

exist with this non saltmarsh vegetation around the edges. West of the turbine site there are vastsalt marshes with tidal mudflats and creeks scattered throughout.

Site #2 is located west of the back bays and extensive salt marshes. The site consisted ofa lawn, buildings, a radar installation, and other infrastructure. The proposed turbine area is

bordered on the west and south by large farm fields (probably soybeans or some other legume).

The site is bordered to the east by extensive salt marshes. There were also some large ponds andshrubby thickets, bordering the salt marsh and buildings. The trees and shrubs were black

cherry, sassafras, marsh elder, southern bayberry, winged sumac, hackberry, black willow,

eastern red cedar and loblolly pine. There was a more substantial forest on the southwest side of

Site #2. The trees there were loblolly pine, red maple, black cherry, sassafras, tulip tree (yellowpoplar), sweet bay magnolia, black tupelo, sweet gum, ash, black willow and eastern red cedar.

There were also several islands of trees to the northeast of the site, out in the salt marsh. These

were dominated by loblolly pine and some deciduous trees. The habitat is severely fragmentedat and around the project site, with the exception of the salt marsh, for which the habitat quality

appeared to be excellent. In the Atlantic coastal zone, such forests, despite being fragmented areconsidered good quality habitat for migrating song and other birds. It is likely that these forests

are important to migrating songbirds because they are portions of a previously much larger and

unfragmented forest, thereby concentrating migrants into very small areas where they areobserved by birders. It is likely that all such habitat along the eastern shore of Virginia is used

by migrants and considered high quality habitat for such species.

Site Visit to the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Site, Accomack County, Virginia

The JMU NASA Wind Power Project site was visited August 10 and 11, 2004. Inaddition to driving, and walking, around the project site during the site visit, the area surrounding

the site was toured by automobile. The weather during the site visit was warm and relatively

clear. Observing habitat and birds was unimpeded by weather. The area is mostly wide,permitting observations of all of the project site. In addition, there were observation towers from

which the area around Sites #1 and #2 could be examined from above. The flat terrain permitted

excellent views of the surrounding habitat and the two turbine sites. During the visit, an effortwas made to observe the bird life and habitat on and adjacent to the site, and determine what

birds or ornithological phenomena might be present on site or nearby.


8/52



A total of 108 bird species were observed during the site visit on August 10-11, 2004.These include species that nest locally and migrants. The site visit coincides with the shorebird

migration season, but was slightly early in the post-breeding season for autumn migrations of

songbirds, hawks, and waterfowl. The following species were seen on the project site at Sites 1and 2. The first number is the number seen for species of greater interest and the second

number(s) denotes Site 1 and, or Site 2. US-T = federally threatened, T = Virginia threatened,SC = Virginia Species of Concern. Northern Gannet (1), Double-crested Cormorant (1), BrownPelican (SC - 50+ 1), Great Blue Heron (1 & 2), Great Egret (SC - 1&2), Snowy Egret (1&2),

Little Blue Heron (SC - 1&2), Tri-colored Heron (SC - 1), Cattle Egret (1), Green Heron (1),

Black-crowned Night-heron (1), Glossy Ibis (SC - 1), Black Vulture(1&2) , Turkey

Vulture(1&2) , Canada Goose (1&2), American Black Duck (1&2), Mallard (1), Osprey (1&2),Northern Harrier (SC - 3 birds, Site 1), Red-tailed Hawk (1&2), Peregrine Falcon (SC - 1 adult, 1

juvenal, Site 1), Clapper Rail (1&2), Black-bellied Plover (1), Semi-palmated Sandpiper (400

birds, Site 1), Piping Plover (US T, 4 birds, Site 1), Killdeer(1&2) , American Oystercatcher(1), Greater Yellowlegs (1&2), Lesser Yellowlegs (1), Willet (1), Spotted Sandpiper (1),

Whimbrel (10 birds, Sites 1&2), Ruddy Turnstone (1), Sanderling (1), Semipalmated Sandpiper

(1), Western Sandpiper (1), Stilt Sandpiper (130 birds, Sites 1&2), Short-billed Dowitcher (1),Laughing Gull (1&2), Ring-billed Gull (1), Herring Gull (1&2), Great Black-backed Gull (1),

Royal Tern (125 birds, Site 1), Sandwich Tern (SC - 1), Common Tern (1), Forsters Tern (SC -

1&2), Least Tern (SC - 1&2), Black Skimmer (1), Rock Dove (1&2), Mourning Dove (1&2),

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (1&2), Chimney Swift (2), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (1), BeltedKingfisher (1), Downy Woodpecker (1&2), Northern Flicker (1&2), Eastern Wood-Pewee (1),

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (SC - 1), Least Flycatcher (1), Great-crested Flycatcher (1&2),

Eastern Kingbird (20 birds, Sites 1&2), White-eyed Vireo (1&2), Red-eyed Vireo (1), Blue Jay(2), American Crow (1&2) , Fish Crow (1&2), Purple Martin (1&2), Tree Swallow (400 birds,

Sites 1&2), Northern Rough-winged Swallow (1), Bank Swallow (1), Barn Swallow (1&2),Carolina Chickadee (1&2), Carolina Wren (1&2 , House Wren (1&2), Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (8

birds, Site 1), Eastern Bluebird (2), American Robin (2), Gray Catbird (1&2), Northern

Mockingbird (1&2), European Starling (1&2), Cedar Waxwing (1), Blue-winged Warbler (1),Yellow Warbler (1&2), Pine Warbler (1&2), Prairie Warbler (1), Black-and-white Warbler (4

birds, Site 1), American Redstart (6 birds, Site 1), Prothonotary Warbler (1), Worm-eating

Warbler (1), Northern Waterthrush (1), Common Yellowthroat (1&2), Eastern Towhee (1&2),Chipping Sparrow (1&2), Seaside Sparrow (1), Song Sparrow (1), Northern Cardinal (1&2),

Blue Grosbeak (1&2), Indigo Bunting (1&2), Red-winged Blackbird (1&2), Eastern

Meadowlark (1&2), Common Grackle (1&2), Boat-tailed Grackle (1&2), Brown-headed

Cowbird (1), Orchard Oriole (5 birds, Site 1), House Finch (1&2), American Goldfinch (1&2).

A Peregrine Falcon (Virginia threatened) hack site/nest platform was located in the marsh

to the northwest of the proposed turbine site at Site #1. There were also several Osprey nestswithin view. The birds listed in the above paragraph are a combination of species that nest

locally, as well as a fairly large number of migrants. For example, Northern Waterthrush,

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Least Flycatcher, Worm-eating Warbler, dowitcher, Sanderling, othershorebirds, and many other species do not nest nearby. At the time of the site visit, southbound

migration had commenced among most shorebirds, many songbirds, and some other species.

Thus, the list provided above includes species that nested near the two turbine sites, as well as


9/52



birds coming in from as far away as the tundra of northern Canada and the Canadian borealforest.

Avian Overview (Literature Review, Interviews, Habitat Assessment)

Nesting Birds

The state of Virginia has a list of endangered and threatened bird species, as well as a list

of species of special concern (Table 1). In addition, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a list

of federally endangered and threatened species that are known to occur in the state of Virginia(also see Table 1). The habitat where the two turbines would be located is not suitable for

federally endangered or threatened species, although Site #1 is within about mile (~1 km) of

suitable habitat for Piping Plover, a federally threatened species (also Virginia threatened) thatnests on barrier beaches and adjacent dunes. Four individuals of this species were observed on

the beaches adjacent to turbine Site #1 and likely nest nearby. The habits of Piping Plovers

generally keep them right on the beaches where they forage, roost, and nest. This species is notlikely to be within 100 m of turbine Site #1 and is unlikely to be within a mile of turbine Site #2.

However, plovers could on rare occasions, perhaps during migration or dispersal, fly over Site

#1. In addition, it is also possible that Bald Eagles could fly over either turbine site, with Site #2

being more likely to have overflights.

Several Virginia listed species (threatened and species of special concern) were observed

during the site visit (see list in previous section). No Virginia endangered species wereobservered. Peregrine Falcon (VA threatened) nests very close to turbine Site #1. A nest box

was visible in the salt marsh behind the barrier island. Eight Virginia species of concern werealso found. Seven of these species (Brown Pelican, Little Blue Heron, Tricolored Heron, and

Glossy Ibis, Sandwich Tern, Forsters Tern, Least Tern) are colonial nesters. According to the

Virginia Natural Heritage program, all of these species, except Sandwich Tern and ForstersTern nest in Accomack County. This would suggest they are present regularly. All of these

species are associated with wetlands and water, and could be present at either of the turbine sites.

Pelicans would not likely be seen flying over Site #2. It is likely that despite not nesting inAccomack County, Sandwich Tern and Forsters Tern are present in this county regularly. All of

the terns are likely to fly over Site #1 regularly, but less often (perhaps rarely) will they fly over

Site #2. Three Northern Harriers were observed and may be present at either of the turbine sites.

They also nest within Accomack County and could easily nest near the project sites. They wouldbe unlikely to forage frequently on the two project sites because of the infrastructure present,

although they probably fly over or around these two sites regularly. It should be noted that

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, a Virginia species of concern was observed during the site visit butthat bird was undoubtedly a migrant from much farther north. The species is known to nest at

either higher elevations or higher latitudes in northern temperate to boreal forests rather than

coastal lowlands. Therefore, the bird observed was probably a migrant.

Other data bases examined for this risk assessment were the USGS Breeding Bird

Surveys (BBS), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Virginia Department ofConservation and Recreation Natural Heritage. Letters from the latter two agencies are


10/52



pending. Because federal and, or permits to erect the turbines are likely to be required. Ameeting with these agencies is recommended. Their letters should be one of the topics covered

at that meeting.

Four Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes were used to evaluate risk to nesting birds at the

JMU NASA Wind Power Project (Table 2). These BBS routes were located in AccomackCounty in Virginia, and Worcester and Somerset Counties in adjacent Maryland. These were theclosest BBS routes to the Project site, with the Chincoteague BBS being the closest. Some

survey routes crossed county borders. Together these four routes, when combined with data

from the site visit and other databases provide robust information regarding the birds likely to

nest within the project boundaries and potentially impacted by the Project. Data from a ten-yearperiod was examined, commencing in 1993. The 4 BBS routes included 5 to 9 years of data each

from the 10 year period examined.

The Breeding Bird Survey is sponsored by the United States Geological Survey and is

conducted each year. A BBS is a 24.5 mile (39.4 km) road survey of nesting birds. Fifty, three

minute stops are made at 0.5 mile (0.8 km) intervals during which all birds seen or heard within0.25 miles (0.4 km) are recorded. The survey is repeated several times each spring during the

nesting season.

The years surveys were done, numbers of species found, as well as presence ofendangered and threatened species found on the four Breeding Bird Surveys used in this analysis

are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The BBSs revealed a broad diversity of species including

colonial nesting waterbirds, raptors, songbirds, and others. The surveys, unfortunately, werelimited to mostly terrestrial habitats and did not include the barrier islands or back bay areas to

any great degree. This biased those surveys toward terrestrial habitats away from back bays andopen water.

No federally or Virginia endangered species were found (Table 3) on any of the BBSroutes. Bald Eagle, a federally threatened species, was found nesting on two of the BBS routes,

but only in one year on each. No state threatened species were found on the BBS routes,

although several 7 species of special concern were found. Four of these were colonial waterbirds(Great Egret, Little Blue Heron, Glossy Ibis, and Forsters Tern). Two of the other species are

marsh (Northern Harrier, Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow) or grassland (Northern Harrier)

dwelling species. Any and all of these species could be found nesting and foraging near Site #1,

and to a lesser extent Site #2. The last species, Swainsons Warbler requires freshwater forestedwetlands/swamp forest, so it would not likely be found at or immediately adjacent to either of the

turbine sites.

It is important to note that there are numerous tern (species of concern and not listed

species), gull, skimmer, Piping Plover, colonies along the barrier islands of Maryland and

Virginia. There are also likely to be large numbers of rails (mostly clappers, although someBlack Rails Virginia species of concern) nesting in nearby marshes. Also present are likely to

be several colonies of egrets of various species and ibis (some are species of concern) nesting

nearby. This means that there are tens of thousands of these birds feeding, traversing, and


11/52



roosting in these areas. All of these birds wander in the general area of the JMU NASA projectsite and, at times, will cross the areas where the two turbines are proposed to be constructed.

Table 1. List of federal and Virginia endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. SC

= Species of Concern in Virgina; T & E = threatened or endangered in Virginia; US = federaldesignation. Species noted with an asterisk are Virginia Watch List Species that are also listedby the state as of special concern. The remaining Watch Listed species for Virginia can be found

on their Natural Heritage pages of the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation website.

Species in bold face are listed by the state of Virginia as nesting in Accomack County.

Endangered/Threatened Species

Brown Pelican SC

Great Egret SC

Little Blue Heron SCTricolored Heron - SCYellow-crowned Night-heron SC

Glossy Ibis - SC

Common Moorhen SC

Bald Eagle US-T, T

Northern Harrier SC

Peregrine Falcon - T

Piping Plover US-T, T

Wilsons Plover - E

Upland Sandpiper T

Least Tern SC

Caspian Tern SCForsters Tern* - SC

Roseate Tern US-E, E

Gull-billed Tern T

Sandwich Tern - SC

Barn Owl* - SC

Northern Saw-whet Owl SC

Red-cockaded Woodpecker US-E, EYellow-bellied Flycatcher SC

Alder Flycatcher - SC

Golden-crowned Kinglet SCBrown Creeper* - SC

Red-breasted Nuthatch - SC

Hermit Thrush SCLoggerhead Shrike T

Appalachian Bewicks Wren E

Sedge Wren - SCWinter Wren - SC


12/52



Swainsons Warbler SCGolden-winged Warbler* - SC

Kirtlands Warber US-E

Magnolia Warbler - SCMourning Warbler - SC

Bachmans Sparrow TSaltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow SCHenslows Sparrow T

Purple Finch SC

Dickcissel* - SC

Red Crossbill SC

Table 2. USGS Breeding Bird Surveys examined for the JMU NASA Wind Power Project,Accomack County, Virginia (1994-2003) to determine the likelihood of presence of Virginia and

federally listed species and species of concern.

Breeding Bird Survey (Years) Number of Species (Min-Max)

#46149 Berlin (7 years) 76 83 SpeciesWorcester County, MD

35 miles (56 km) north-northeast of project

#46150 Indiantown (9 years) 64 87 Species

Worcester/Somerset Counties, MD23 miles (37 km) north of project

#88032 Quinby (5 years) 41 62 SpeciesAccomack County, VA

27 miles (43 km) south-southwest of project

#88916 Chincoteague (9 years) 59 72 SpeciesAccomack County, VA

3 miles (4.8 km) northeast of project


13/52



Table 3. Virginia and federally listed species found on USGS Breeding Bird Surveys nearest theJMU NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia. US-T = federally threatened,

VA-T = Virginia Threatened, VA-E = Virginia Endangered, and VA-SC = Virginia Species of

Special Concern. Also listed is the number of probable territories on a specific Breeding BirdSurvey.

Species Breeding Bird Survey Name / Maximum Number of Pairs

(Number of Years Found)

Great Egret VA-SC Berlin / 1 (2 years)Chincoteague / 18 (8 years)

Quinby / 4 (3 years)

Indiantown / 1 (1 year)

Little Blue Heron VA-SC Chincoteague / 2 (3 years0

Quinby / 2 (1 year)Indiantown / 2 (3 years)

Glossy Ibis VA-SC Berlin / 7 (3 years)

Chincoteague / 130 (9 years)Indiantown / 1 (3 years)

Bald Eagle US-T Chincoteague / 1 (1 year)Indiantown / 1 (1 year)

Northern Harrier VA-SC Chincoteague / 3 (2 years)

Forsters Tern - VA-SC Chincoteague / 2 (4 years)

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow VA-SC Chincoteague / 4 (8 years)

Swainsons Warbler VA-SC Indiantown / 1 (4 years)


14/52



Migrating Birds

The eastern shore of Virginia and parts of Accomack County are known to host enormous

migrations of a diversity of bird species. It is well known that waterfowl, other waterbirds,shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors stopover in or migrate through portions of this peninsula in

numbers that are globally significant. The reason for the concentrations of migrating birds isrelated to:

Geography midway along the Altantic Coast between nesting and wintering areas; Excellent habitat; Some habitats like forests are isolated making them the only habitat for many miles

around for some species of birds, and;

The fact that the peninsula acts as a funnel, especially for southbound migrants duringthe post-nesting season. The return migration does not seem to be as large, but there

are still significant migrations of birds through or past the peninsula in spring.

The following sections address the different migrations that are known to occur in the easternShore Peninsula.

Nocturnal Songbird Migration. Although there are few references in the literature that pertain

specifically to night migrating songbirds through the eastern shore of Virginia, birders know thatthe peninsula is an important stopover area for these birds. Studies in many coastal locations,

including the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts have shown that the habitats immediately adjacent to

these large bodies of water are critical stopover locations for night migrating songbirds (Wiedner

et al. 1992, Moore et al. 1990, and McCann et al. 1993). For habitats within the first few milesof the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern shore of Virginia and Maryland, this has been demonstrated

via large scale studies (McCann et al. 1993, Mabey et al. 1993). For birds to get to these

habitats, they must fly in from overland or from over the ocean. This means that very largenumbers of birds almost certainly make fly over the coastal habitats of the eastern shore of

Virginia and make stopovers in those habitats. The McCann et al. (1993) and Mabey et al.

(1993) studies are almost site specific and there is no doubt that they are applicable to bothturbine Site #1 and #2 at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project.

While searching the literature and researching the JMU NASA site, it became known toCurry & Kerlinger, LLC, that radar studies were now being done in the Wallops Island area to

examine stopover habitat of night migrating songbirds. That information came from Dr. Sidney

A. Gauthreaux of Clemson University, who mentioned that several people were apparently

collaborating on coastal migration studies using NEXRAD radar. Information from that study

would be very useful for examining

Hawk Migration in Accomack County and the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Site. Hawkmigration in the eastern shore of Virginia peninsula and adjacent coastal Maryland is rather well

known and has been studied to some extent for many years. Most of the formal studies, and

therefore, the best data, have been done have been at Cape Charles/Kiptopeke State Park at thesouthern terminus of the eastern shore peninsula and on Assateague Island/Chincoteague

National Wildlife Refuge.


15/52



An examination of the Hawks Aloft Worldwide (Zalles and Bildstein 2000),

Heintzelmans volumes (1975, 1986), and journals of the Hawk Migration Association revealed

significant hawk migration sites at the bottom of the peninsula at Kiptopeke and Cape Charles, aswell as along the barrier islands of Assateague and Chincoteague. At the former site a hawk

watch is conducted each year. This site is a good distance south of the project site, but it is likelythat large numbers of raptors of various species migrate through or near those sites on their wayto the Kiptopeke area. An average of about 20,000 hawks is counted per year at this hawk

watch. This includes a wide diversity of hawks, including falcons, accipiters, harriers, ospreys,

and to a lesser extent buteos.

The migration of falcons and other hawks along Assateague Island has been known for

more than 50 years, especially to falconers. Heintzelman (1975) chronicles the history of

hawkwatching and falcon trapping on Assateague, citing various experts who have reported onthis topic. Peregrine Falcons and Merlins especially fly along the outer beaches and dunes in

search of prey as they migrate along the east coast. It is likely that several hundred Peregrine

Falcons, flying from the arctic to the tropics use this corridor each year. Other species are alsoinvolved, although counts have been difficult to locate. Ironically, Zalles and Bildstein (2000)

do not list Assateague Island as a significant migration area for hawks. It is likely that several

thousand hawks per year migrate along this barrier island, hopping to other islands as they move

southward. The return migration in spring is less visible and in all likelihood mostly precedesfarther inland.

Because Assateague Island is only a very short distance to the east of Site #1, it is likelythat some or many of these migrating birds will fly over this portion of the project area. These

hawks and falcons may also hunt in the general area, making stopovers that could last from a fewminutes to several days. The plethora of other migrating birds is what attracts these birds to this

area as a stopover site.

The rationale for this is that raptors migrate all along the coast in some numbers with

some locations experiencing heavier migration than others. The fact that the two turbine sites are

immediately adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and back bay marshes suggests that a potentiallysignificant number of hawks could migrate over either or both turbine sites. Such topography

has been shown to concentrate migrants along lakeshores and large marshes/back bays

(Heintzelman 1975, 1986; Kerlinger 1989).

Waterfowl, Waterbirds, and Shorebirds. The barrier islands, marshes, and nearshore waters of

the Atlantic appear to be globally significant migration areas for waterfowl, waterbirds, and

shorebirds. Johnston (1997) lists the Chincoteague, Assateague, coastal reserve islands, and theSaxis area as excellent birding sites for waterbirds and shorebirds, making the entire area

surrounding the JMU NASA project site a very birdy area. Johnston notes that large

numbers of shorebirds arrive in mid-late summer and use the saltmarshes and barrier islands.These areas serve as feeding and resting areas for these birds. Bellrose (1976) also lists the

eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia as one of the most important waterfowl

migration/wintering areas in North America. Ducks, geese, and swans migrate through thecoastal marshes in very large numbers, probably many millions during an autumn migration


16/52



season. The migration of herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, and other colonial birds, includingterns, gulls, and other species undoubtedly proceed along the coastline of Assateague and

Wallops Island. It is likely many thousands of these birds pass each fall and again in spring.

There are also likely to be various state and federal studies showing where waterfowl and otherwaterbirds are likely to gather in the general area surrounding the JMU NASA project site.

However, these will not likely provide specific information on use (abundance and behavior) ofthe turbine sites and will not add to this risk assessment.

Wintering Birds

The winter climate along the coast of Virginia and in most of Accomack County is

moderate, although in some years it can be harsh for short periods of time. Also, the wind can be

strong, making the area functionally less suitable for habitation during that season. However, theocean and nearby Chesapeake Bay make the climate on the peninsula warmer and more suitable

for birds than inland Virginia. This means that moderate to large numbers of birds, more so than

in the northeastern United States, can winter successfully in coastal Virginia.

The primary sources of information on birds wintering in and adjacent to Accomack

County and the project site were National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs).

CBCs provide an excellent overview of the birds that inhabit an area during winter. Each winterwithin about 10 days of Christmas, dozens of birders comb their local CBC area counting all

birds encountered. These birders search during the day and to a lesser extent at night, in the

entire area encompassed within a particular count area. In addition, they scout for birds duringthat season, especially during the "count week" period, to prepare for the actual count day.

Although most of these birders are unpaid amateurs, they are usually proficient or highly skilledobservers. The CBC count data are used for various types of conservation purposes including

population tracking and determining geographic range and abundance of species by various

environmental groups and government wildlife agencies. In the analyses that follow, all birdsseen on the counts and during count weeks were included. The most recent ten year period for

these counts was examined.

Two CBCs were close enough to the two turbine sites and contained habitat similar to the

sites (Table 4). The years examined included the winters of 1993-1994 through 2002-2003

(Table 4). The closest of these to the project site was the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge

CBC, which included turbine Site #1 and came within 1.5-2 miles (3.2 km) of Site #2. TheChincoteague CBC extended northward into Maryland. The other CBC was located about 12

miles to the south-southwest of the project site in Accomack County. Each of these Christmas

Counts included the area within a 15-mile (24 km) diameter circle, an area of about 177 squaremiles (453 square km). Thus, the two CBCs covered a total area of 354 square miles (906 square

km). In most years, at least 40 people participated on the CBCs in a given year, although the

numbers varied greatly during the ten year period examined.


17/52



Table 4. Summary of Audubon Christmas Bird Count data sets used to assess avian risk at theJMU-NASA Wind Power Project, Accomack County, Virginia. Data included ten years of CBC

data from 1993/4 to 2002/2003.

Christmas Bird Count (County) Number of Years Number of Observers/Species Counted (min-max)

Chincoteague National 10 17 31 / 139 158 species

Wildlife RefugeAccomack County, VA

and Worcester County, MD

Wachapreague 10 15 31 / 107 129 species

Accomack and Northampton

Counties

The diversity and number of birds varied between years and sites. The fact that both sites

regularly recorded more than 100 species and in some years reported 120 to more than 150species shows that these coastal areas support a much larger number of species than inland areas

during the winter. It is also important to note that large numbers of waterfowl, other waterbirds,

raptors, and songbirds, as well as some long-legged waders (herons and egrets), shorebirds, owls,and other species were present. The birds found on the two CBCs examined are very likely

representative of the number and types of birds found on the JMU NASA project sites.Overall, these CBCs suggest that the general area at and around the project site is an important

wintering area for many species of birds. It is also important to note that the reason for the large

number of species and individuals found on these CBCs is related to the diversity of habitats andthe presence of excellent winter forage and cover for these species.

During the ten year count period, no federally or Virginia state endangered species werefound on any of the 4 CBCs examined. Two federally threatened species, Bald Eagle and Piping

Plover were found in small numbers (Table 5). Bald Eagles are rather unlikely to be visitors at

Site #1, because it does not appear to be suitable habitat for these birds for either roosting or

hunting. Site #2 may have some visitation by this species, but because it is not suitable habitat,those visits are likely to be limited to overflights at relatively high altitudes. With respect to

Piping Plover, neither Site #1 nor Site #2 is suitable habitat for these birds. These birds could fly

over Site #1 at times, but this will be rare because it is nearly one-half mile (~1 km) back fromthe barrier beaches where these birds roost and forage. It is highly unlikely that these birds will

be near Site #2 because it is so far from suitable habitat and these birds rarely fly in the back

bays and it is even more rare for them to fly inland from the back bays.

Virginia threatened species found on the CBCs included very small numbers of Peregrine

Falcons and they were found in most years. Because these birds forage on the outer beaches andmarshes, they will probably traverse Site #1 and the habitats nearby on a regular basis. They will


18/52



be present less often inland from the back bays, so their presence at Site #2 is far less likely tooccur, although these birds may forage over farm fields inland from the back bays. They will

quite likely hunt over the grassy fields at Site #1 during the winter.

Several species of concern were found on the CBCs. Of these, the habitat on turbine

Sites #1 and #2 are not suitable for foraging or roosting by most of the species listed in Table 5,with the exception of a few species. It is possible that several of these species will pass throughthe areas where turbines would be located, but they are not likely to spend much time near either

of the turbine sites. By winter time, the landbirds on this list will likely have settled into habitats

and will not likely move through either of the two sites very often.

The presence of vast numbers of non-listed waterfowl, waterbirds of other kinds, long-

legged waders, raptors, owls, and songbirds on the 2 CBCs indicates that the general area

experiences a major bird use. Waterbirds will likely traverse Site #1 while moving betweenforaging areas along the coast. Some will move from the back bays to the ocean or vice versa.

Birds that will actually forage on or roost on Site #1 will include songbirds that use the grassy

fields, nearby dunes, and forest patches. A much smaller subset of species is likely to be foundat Site #2 because it is slightly inland from the back bays and because it is within an

infrastructural area for NASA.

In summary, it is unlikely that any federally endangered bird species are present duringwinter at or near the two turbine sites. However, small numbers of two federally threatened

species (Bald Eagle and Piping Plover) were found to be present during winter in the general

areas. No Virginia endangered species are likely to be present at or near the project site duringwinter, although state threatened species including Peregrine Falcon is likely present in small

numbers in some years. Several Virginia species of concern are also likely to be present duringwinter, some of which will forage or roost at the turbine sites or within several hundred meters of

those sites. Overall, very large numbers of wintering birds are found in the area including

raptors, waterfowl, other waterbirds, shorebirds, long-legged waders, owls, and songbirds. Manyof these birds are likely to use or pass through the two turbine sites during this season.

Table 5. United States and Virginia listed species and species of special concern found on the

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) and Wachapreague (W) Christmas Bird Counts

in the JMU NASA Wind Power Project and Accomack County (1994 - 2003 counts.

Suitability of habitat for feeding or roosting in winter at the turbine sites is provided (S =Suitable, MS = Marginally Suitable, NS = Not Suitable). US-T = U.S. Threatened, E & T =

Virginia Endangered and Threatened. A question mark (?) indicates that there were uncertainties

in the determination. For some of these species the forests near the turbine site are likely to besomewhat suitable for roosting or foraging by these species.

Species Count Number of Birds/Years Found Habitat Suitability

Brown Pelican - SC CNWR 1-5 birds in 2 years NSW 1 birds in 1 year


19/52



Great Egret SC CNWR 50 to 95 birds 10 years MS? Site #1W 1 to 5 birds in 7 years

Yellow-cr. Night-heron - SC CNWR 1 in 1 year S? Site #1

W 1 in 1 yearBald Eagle US-T, T CNWR 1 to 21 birds in 10 years NS

W 4 to 26 birds in 10 yearsNorthern Harrier SC CNWR 10 to 47 birds in 10 years SW 15 to 39 birds in 10 years

Peregrine Falcon T CNWR 1-3 birds in 10 years S

W 1 to 6 birds in 8 years

Piping Plover US-T, T CNWR 1 bird in 2 years NSForsters Tern SC CNWR 103 to 456 birds in 5 years NS


Barn Owl SC CNWR 1 birds in 2 years NSNo. Saw-whet Owl SC CNWR 2 birds in 1 year NS-MS?

Red-breasted Nuthatch SC CNWR 2 to 12 birds in 6 years MS?

W 1 to 44 birds in 6 yearsBrown Creeper SC CNWR 3 to 17 birds in 10 years NS-MS?


Winter Wren SC CNWR 13 to 41 birds in 10 years NS-MS?

W 1 to 8 birds in 10 yearsGolden-cr. Kinglet-SC CNWR 26 to 276 birds in 10 years MS?

6 to 58 birds in 9 years

Hermit Thrush SC CNWR 24 to 151 birds in 10 years MS?W 1 to 23 birds in 10 years

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailedSparrow - SC CNWR 1 to 10 birds in 7 years NS


Purple Finch SC CNWR 1 to 31 birds in 8 years MS?W 2 to 10 birds in 7 years

Red Crossbill SC CNWR 2 birds in 2 years MS?


20/52



Important Bird Areas, Parks, Nature Preserves, Sanctuaries, and Sensitive Habitats near

the JMU NASA Wind Power Project Sites, Accomack County, Virginia.

Important Bird Areas. The Saxis Wildlife Management Area is on the western side of theeastern shore of Virginia, about 8-10 miles west of the project site on Pocomoke Sound. It hosts

large numbers of waterfowl and other birds (shorebirds, hawks, etc.) each fall, winter, andspring. There are also significant numbers of nesting birds in these areas.

Nature Conservancy Properties. The Nature Conservancys Virginia Coastal Reserve includes

14 of 18 islands along the entire Virginia coast. Some of those islands are only a few miles from

the JMU NASA site. They provide excellent habitat for many nesting and migrating birds,not to mention foraging birds in all seasons.

National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Forests. Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service) is about 2-3 miles (4.2-4.8 km) east of turbine Site #1 of the project

site and about 5 miles (8 km) east of turbine Site #2. Assateague National Seashore (National

Park Service) is located less than 2 miles (3.2 km) east of turbine Site #1 and about 3-4 miles(4.8-6.4 km) east of Site #2. This refuge and national is internationally renowned as a migration

focal point for hundreds of species of birds. In addition, various threatened species and species

of concern nest within these two areas or forage or winter within them. They are considered

some of the best quality habitat for migrating birds along the east coast of North America andhost some of the largest concentrations of migrations.

Virginia State Parks and State Game/Wildlife Management Areas. See above for Saxis WildlifeManagement Area. Also adjacent to this site is the Saxis Waterfowl Management Area and

Refuge. The Pocomoke State forest in nearby Maryland is about 11 miles (17.6 km) northwestof the project site.

Audubon Society Sanctuaries. There do not appear to be any Audubon Sanctuaries near theproject site.

.


21/52



Interviewswith Local Avian and Environmental Experts (PENDING)

The following people with specialized knowledge of avian or related environmental issues were

consulted. They were asked about the birds of the JMU NASA Wind Power Project andAccomack County, Virginia (Appendix I for interview procedure and questions). They were

also informed that a wind power facility was being planned and that this author was conducting aPhase I Avian Risk Assessment for a project. Specifically, they were asked if they hadknowledge (1) regarding rare, threatened, or endangered birds (or other species) at the project

site or the Accomack County area, (2) sensitive or important bird habitat, (3) bird concentration

(migration, foraging, wintering, and nesting) sites, and (4) other people who would have

knowledge about the area. In addition, they were asked to express their concerns regarding theconstruction of a small wind power facility in the project area with respect to bird impacts.

Summaries of interviews are in Appendix III.


22/52



Risk Assessment: A Comparison of Avian Risk at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project,

Accomack County, Virginia, With Existing Wind Power Facilities

The most powerful and, perhaps, only means of assessing risk to birds at proposed windpower project sites is to compare the avifauna, geographic and topographic settings, and habitat,

as well as the potential risk factors associated with each of these variables, at the proposed site,with sites where risk is known and has been documented empirically. By comparing the specieslikely to be present, numbers of individuals of those species, seasonal presence, and behavior of

birds that are likely to nest, forage, migrate through, or winter at or adjacent to the two JMU -

NASA sites with wind power facilities that have documented risk or lack of risk, a probabilistic

assessment of potential risk can be made.

Two classes of impacts have been documented at wind power projects: (i) habitat

alteration/disturbance from construction and presence of new infrastructure resulting inavoidance or displacement and (i) fatalities of birds that collide with infrastructure including

turbine rotors and towers. The relative importance of the two has been debated. With respect to

legal implications, the federal laws regarding disturbance and displacement apply strictly tofederally endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Permitting of

wind power facilities on federal lands such as the NASA facility must work through the NEPA

process, potentially necessitating Section 7 Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Collision fatalities apply to both federally listed and non-listed species, under theMigratory Bird Treaty Act. That Review focuses primarily on biologically significant impacts to

both state listed (endangered and threatened species) and non-listed species, although

determination of biologically significant impacts to a particular species can be problematic. Forthe purpose of this report, biologically significant impacts refer to impacts that would likely

result in the decline of the local, regional, or global level.

These two types of impacts are detailed below.

Habitat Disturbance and Avoidance. Habitat alteration and disturbance resulting from

construction and the addition of wind turbines to the landscape can render an area unsuitable for

foraging, resting, or use in the same way as prior to construction. The impacts of these activitiesand infrastructural presence on birds are not well known or documented, although recent studies

are providing more information.

The actual footprint of a wind power project is usually small. Following construction,land use at most sites continues as before construction. The actual amount of wildlife habitat

altered by a wind power project, however, can be larger than the project footprint by virtue of the

presence of tall structures and increased human activity. The presence of new infrastructure primarily turbines has been studied to determine whether birds are displaced from a developed

area.

Most studies have focused on disturbance to birds in treeless or open habitats, such as

grasslands and farm fields. In southwestern Minnesota at a large wind power plant, reduced

nesting activity was detected in grassland birds in fields close to wind turbines as opposed tofarther from those turbines (Leddy et al. 1999). Leddy et al. found that the activities of birds


23/52



such as meadowlarks and other ground nesting birds in Conservation Reserve Programgrasslands were inhibited within about 80-100 m of turbines. Few nested or foraged close

beneath or close to the turbines. The area affected was greater than the actual project footprint.

At the Foot Creek Rim Wind Plant, use of an area by nesting Mountain Plovers (a grasslandnesting species) declined after construction of turbines and plover productivity was reduced

(Johnson et al. 2000). Successful nesting of Mountain Plovers was noted within 200 m ofoperating turbines in a very few instances, showing that the footprint of each turbine extendedoutward to 100-200 m or more.

In Europe similar results have been found among some waterfowl, shorebirds, and

songbirds. Some species simply avoid the area immediately under wind turbines. For example,some shorebird species avoided the area within 250-500 m of wind turbines (Winkelman 1990).

In Denmark, some shorebirds were displaced up to 800 m by the presence of turbines (Pederson

and Poulsen 1991). Other studies have shown that birds, including other species of shorebirds,habituate to the turbines or are not disturbed or displaced by them (Ihde and Vauk-Henzelt 1999,

Winkelman 1990).

The studies listed above have not examined habituation or long-term behavioral changes.

It is not known if these species habituate to wind turbines or if they are permanently displaced.

From the activities of birds at some United States wind farms, it would seem that some species

do habituate. Unfortunately, studies have not been done 5 or 10 years after wind turbines havebeen erected, so habituation has not been examined.

The APWRA has extraordinary raptor and grassland nesting songbird use, seeminglywithout disturbance or displacement after nearly 20 years of turbine presence. In a study in the

APWRA of California, Red-tailed Hawks that were trained for falconry were brought to theturbines to study raptor flight and avoidance, as well as how they flew in close proximity to the

turbines. Nave Red-tailed Hawks exposed to wind turbines for the first time at only about 100+

feet (32 m) would not fly. These birds did habituate and their behavior appeared comparable toresident Red-tailed Hawks (R. Curry, personal communication) within a few days of exposure to

turbines. Today raptors and grassland nesting songbirds perch on the lattice towers of turbines

and feed amongst the turbines in the APWRA.

A study of migrating hawks in Vermont during autumn showed that the numbers of

hawks that flew close to a hill with newly constructed turbines was much smaller than in the year

prior to turbine construction and operation (Kerlinger 2000a). These migrants may have beenavoiding these new structures. Prior to that study, there were virtually no wind turbines in the

range of these birds, so they had not been previously exposed to these structures.

At the same Searsburg, Vermont, wind power project (11 turbines), a post-construction

study of birds was conducted at what was then the only situation where turbines had been erected

in a mountaintop forest (Kerlinger 2000a, 2002a). Some species of forest nesting birds includingBlackpoll Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, White-throated Sparrow, and Dark-eyed Junco

appeared to habituate to the turbines within a year of construction, while Swainsons Thrush and

some other species moved farther into the forest (away from the turbines). Surveys were donebefore and after the turbines were erected. Although it was not known if the species that seemed


24/52



to habituate nested near the turbines, they certainly were observed foraging and heard singingwithin forest edges 60-100 feet (20-30 m) of the turbine bases. The study was not the ideal

design to study displacement/avoidance, but the results are suggestive.

There appears to be a fundamental difference in the responses of woodland birds and

grassland/open country birds to wind turbines. Birds that nest in forests are used to having treesover their heads, whereas grassland birds are not. This difference may explain why the studiessummarized above are so consistent. However, to date there have not been enough studies,

especially of habituation, to make generalized conclusions. Long-term studies are needed to

determine the degree of impact, whether or not there is habituation, and whether impacts are

likely to be significant.

Disturbance Risk at JMU NASA Wind Power Facility. With respect to most species, neither of

the two turbine sites is likely to have a major or biologically significant displacement ordisturbance impacts. Both sites are in grassy fields adjacent to dunes, small forests, and near

wetlands and beaches. Each turbine site is far enough from critical habitats of listed species so

that impacts are likely to be only minor, impacting only a very few individuals of a few species.It is important that there are already tall and short structures present at the two sites, including an

observation tower, radar facilities, buildings, fences, and other It is likely that low flying

migrants will simply fly around these turbines, diverting short distances that will not increase

significantly the distance they need to fly during migration.

Collision Fatalities. Avian fatalities are the second type of impact noted at wind powerfacilities. They result from collisions with rotors and, to a lesser extent, with guy wires of

meteorology towers. Electrocutions were common in the APWRA because electrical lines therewere above ground and constructed pre-APLIC (Avian Powerline Interaction Committee)

standards. Retrofitting those lines with wildlife guards and insulation has virtually eliminated

electrocutions in the APWRA. At modern facilities collection lines and some transmission isbelow ground.

Collision impacts have been studied systematically at about 20 different wind projectsites across the United States (Erickson et al. 2001; also see reference list and Appendix IV) and

at a similar number in Europe. The number of fatalities involved at project sites has, generally,

been small and population impacts have not been documented. Such fatalities are orders of

magnitude smaller in number than collision fatalities at transmission lines, with windows, onhighways, and at communication towers (Erickson et al. 2001), as well as non-collision fatalities

related to cat predation, hay mowing, oil pits, fishery long lines, acid rain, etc

(www.currykerlinger.com, Hames et al. 2002). To give perspective, turbine collision fatalitiesare orders of magnitude smaller than hunting harvests permitted by professional wildlife

managers (data from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and are much lower than depredation

permits allowed in the U. S. A summary of fatalities documented at wind plants in the UnitedStates is presented in Appendix IV.

Erickson et al. (2001) projected that in 2001, approximately 33,000 birds were killed atabout 15,000 wind turbines in the United States averaging about 2.1 birds per turbine per year.


25/52



These fatalities were spread among dozens of bird species. This fact reduces the probability ofpopulation impacts by distributing fatalities over a number of species at a site and within a

region. Furthermore, the geographic origin of the birds killed extended across North America,

with many migrants originating 100s to 1,000+ miles from project sites.

In Europe, avian mortality has been shown to be minimal at most wind power plants. Ata few localities small to moderate numbers of fatalities have been reported. In coastalNetherlands at a wind power site where there are about 18 turbines, dozens of songbirds and

shorebirds of a variety of species were reported to be involved in collisions with wind turbines

(Winkelman 1995). At another wind plant in the Netherlands, where turbines were in the water,

several dozen waterfowl fatalities were noted (Winkelman 1995). These sites are adjacent to theNorth Sea, where migration and wintering birds are densely concentrated into a relatively small

area. Those fatalities were spread among species, reducing the potential for population impacts.

Reports from Tarifa, in southernmost Spain, suggest greater risk to large vultures,

including local Griffon Vultures. A study from Tarifa suggested that several dozen of these birds

were killed in the early years of plant operation there (Montes Marti and Barrios Jaque 1995),although a later report included reference to only a few of these birds and very few raptors (Janss

2000). Tarifa also hosts more than 100,000 migrating raptors per year as well as tens of

thousands of other soaring birds and millions of other migrants. However, large numbers of

fatalities of migrants have not been found by researchers or plant operations personnel. Recentreports from the Navarre region of central northern Spain suggest that relatively large numbers of

fatalities have been occurring at newer wind power facilities. Those reports are not yet available,

but should be considered as the information is available.

The only wind power site in the United States where risk to birds has been suspected tobe significant is the APWRA of California, where raptor fatalities have occurred for two

decades. Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and some other species collide

with turbines in varying numbers. Raptors are believed to be the most collision-susceptiblegroup of birds (Anderson et al. 2000), although nowhere, including the APWRA have such

fatalities had negative impacts on populations of raptors species. A long-term study of the

Altamont Golden Eagle population by Hunt (2002) concluded that although fatalities of thisspecies continue to occur at a high rate, the regional and local population remains stable. It is

interesting that large numbers of gulls, ravens, vultures, grassland songbirds, and other species

fly amongst the APWRA turbines and rarely collide with the turbines. The situation with respect

to raptor impact in the APWRA seems to be an anomaly, because it has not been documented atother wind plants. Studies at all other U.S. wind power facilities report few raptor fatalities.

This suggests indicates that the APWRA is an anomaly and that raptor fatalities are rare events at

wind plants.

Several factors (Table 6) are now believed to contribute to raptor risk in the APWRA.

These factors have been hypothesized to act alone or in concert (Howell and DiDonato 1991,Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996), to produce mortality in the APWRA. They are:

The worlds largest concentration of operating turbines (N=5,400, reduced fromabout 7,000 several years ago);


26/52



Closely spaced turbines (


27/52



few raptors, and some night migrants (Erickson et al. 2000). These projects include slightlymore than a dozen turbines to about 3 dozen turbines, some of which extend to more than 350

feet in height. There has been no suggestion of population impacts at any of these facilities, nor

have fatalities involved federally endangered or threatened species.

At one of the worlds largest wind power facilities, the State Line project in Washingtonand Oregon, the fatality rate per turbine per year has recently been found to be slightly less than2 birds per turbine per year (Erickson et al. 2002, 2003). That project has 399 turbines. Among

the fatalities were a variety of species, with Horned Larks (locally nesting birds) accounting for

more than one-half of all birds found. Six raptors of 3 species were killed and about 24% of

fatalities were night migrating songbirds.

A recent report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the High Winds project in

Solano County, California, reported the fatalities of relatively small numbers of birds althoughone Golden Eagle, 10 Red-tailed Hawks, and 23 American Kestrels were found dead at that site

in a period of about 1 year. The turbines there are modern turbines that extended to more than

350 feet AGL (unpublished report to the High Winds Technical Advisory Committee).

Farther east, studies of avian fatality have been conducted at the wind plants in grasslands

in Colorado, Wyoming, and at a small site in Kansas. After five years of systematic searches at

29 new turbines (expanded to 45 in the third year) in a short-mixed grass prairie-type habitat innorthern Colorado, fewer than 50 fatalities have been documented. The fatalities include Horned

Lark, McCown's Longspur, White-throated Swifts, 1 teal, Lark Bunting, 1 American Kestrel, and

some other songbirds (Dr. Ronald Ryder, Colorado State University, unpublished data). Curry &Kerlinger LLC believe that the prevalence of Horned Larks in avian fatality lists is a result of

their aerial courtship flight during which they circle at the elevation of the rotors. At the FooteCreek Rim project, also in a short-mixed grass prairie habitat, 90 fatalities were identified, 75 of

which were at wind turbines and 15 of which were at meteorology towers with guy wires. Thus

about 17% of the fatalities resulted from collisions with guy wires at the meteorology towers andlikely would have been avoided by using unguyed towers. A total of four raptors were found

dead at the Foote Creek Rim project (3 American Kestrels and 1 Northern Harrier) and 48% of

the fatalities were night migrating birds. Of the migrants, no species accounted for more than 5-7 (Chipping and Vesper sparrows) individuals. Finally, no fatalities were noted by Young

(2000) at the two turbine, Jeffrey Energy Center in Pottawatomie County, Kansas.

In the Midwest, studies have been done in Minnesota and Wisconsin. At the BuffaloRidge wind power facility near Lake Benton, Minnesota, 53 carcasses were found (Johnson et al.

2002) in an area encompassing more than 200 wind turbines that was searched over several

years. The fatality rates per turbine ranged between about 1 bird per turbine per year to nearly4.5 birds per turbine per year at turbines of different dimensions. The most modern and tallest

turbines accounted for the larger number of fatalities. The species composition included a

variety of birds, including one raptor (Red-tailed Hawk), a very few waterbirds, and somemigrating songbirds (about 70% of the 53 documented fatalities). A two-year study in the

Kewaunee County peninsula of Wisconsin revealed about two-dozen songbird (mostly migrants)

fatalities under 31 turbines situated in farm fields (Howe et al. 2002). A study of two modernwind turbines at Shirley, WI, revealed 1 night migrating songbird fatality during a year-long


28/52



study (Howe and Atwater 1999). A study at a small wind plant in Iowa reported no fatalities(Demastes and Trainor 2000).

In the eastern United States, fatalities have been examined at more than a half dozen windpower facilities, some of which are older turbines. In southeastern Vermont, searches done in

June through October 1997 (nesting through migration) revealed no fatalities at 11 new turbines(192 feet [58 m] tall without FAA lights) situated on a forested hilltop (Kerlinger 2000a and2002). In upstate New York, several months of daily searches during spring and autumn

migration beneath two wind turbines (168 feet [~51 m] tall, no FAA lights) located in open fields

revealed no carcasses (Cooper et al. 1995). At an older wind power facility with 8 small turbines

(~100 feet [32 m] tall; no FAA lights) in a forested setting in Massachusetts, no fatalities werefound (Jacobs 1993). Surprisingly, the wind power facility in Massachusetts is on Mount

Wachusett, the site of one of the largest inland hawk watches in New England.

At a facility with 8 modern turbines (~280 feet [85 m] tall; FAA red blinking lights)

located in farmland in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, 17 rounds of fatality searches conducted

in June 2000 through May 2001 revealed no avian fatalities (Kerlinger 2001). During a year ofstudy at a wind plant consisting of 7 modern turbines (390 feet [120 m], FAA red blinking lights)

in central New York, 4 wind turbine and 1 guyed-meteorology tower fatalities were identified

(Kerlinger2002). A two-year study of 3 turbines in a forested setting on a mountain in western

Tennessee revealed several dozen fatalities, mostly night migrating songbirds (Nicholson 2001,2002). An average of about ~8 birds per turbine per year was estimated to have been killed,

although fewer birds were found. These turbines were about 250 feet in height and had white

flashing FAA lights.

A study by biologists working at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginiawas conducted in 2003 (Kearns and Kerlinger 2004) at 44 turbines that were about 340 feet tall

and had red blinking FAA lights on about every third turbine. The overall numbers of bird

fatalities at the Mountaineer site was slightly greater than 4 birds per turbine per year, includingcarcasses that were removed by scavengers and those missed by searchers. The fatalities of night

migrating birds was about 3 birds per turbine per year, and there was no difference found

between turbines lit with FAA red blinking lights and those that were not lit. It is important tonote that the Mountaineer project site is situated on a long, linear ridge where there is hawk

migration and where environmentalists suspected that there was a large migration of songbirds.

One raptor was killed, a Red-tailed Hawk. Despite these suspicions, the numbers of birds found

dead at the Mountaineer site does not appear to be biologically significant.

Collision Risk at the JMU NASA Project site. The turbine specifications, height, and FAA

lighting likely to be used at the JMU NASA Wind Power Project have not been implicated inbiologically significant fatality events or numbers of avian fatalities at wind plants in the United

States. However, it should be noted that the two turbine locations proposed for the JMU

NASA sites are different from the sites listed in Appendix IV and discussed in the above section.The other sites are inland sites; well away from the Atlantic Ocean and most certainly do not

have large scale bird use like Site #1 and to a lesser extent for Site #2. It should be stated,

however, that many of the same species are found migrating over turbines inland, although thenumbers of birds are likely to be lower inland and the dynamics of migration and other flight are


29/52



likely to be different between inland and coastal sites. Finally, risk to birds is generallypresented as a per turbine per year (or per megawatt, or per rotor swept area) metric so with only

a single turbine at each of the two sites, absolute numbers of fatalities at the turbines are likely to

involve relatively few birds. If the per turbine fatality rate were 10 times that of all otherturbines in the United States, this would amount to maxima of 20 to 70 birds per turbine per year,

spread over a number of species. At this rate if the numbers of species involved amounted to 5or 10 species, the number killed per species per turbine per year would amount to 4 to 14. Thefollowing risk assessments pertain to specific groups of birds including raptors, waterbirds,

shorebirds, and night migrating songbirds.

Risk to Raptors. Risk to raptors at the JMU NASA project could occur in greater than averagenumbers (per turbine per year), especially at Site #1 than has been reported for most wind power

studies in the United States. The information presented above shows that raptors are present at

the project site (mostly Site #1) in moderate to large numbers. Peregrine Falcons and NorthernHarriers, along with Ospreys nest on the marshes and a few other species nest in the forests and

farmlands adjacent to Site #2. These nesting birds likely would forage near or at the turbine

sites, thereby incurring some risk. The fact that Assateague/Chincoteague Island supports one ofthe largest migrations of Peregrine Falcons in the world suggests greater than normal risk to

these birds. In addition, the barrier islands of Maryland and Virginia are the scene of large-scale

migrations of other raptors including Merlins, Ospreys, Northern Harriers and a few other raptor

species, which may put some of these birds at risk as well. The fact that these migrants are likelyto forage while migrating through the vicinity of Site #1 suggests that they may not be attentive

to objects in their way. It is hypothesized that the raptors killed most often in the APWRA are

actively hunting (as opposed to migrating) as opposed to migrating (the APWRA is not known asa migration corridor for raptors).

The issue of risk to migrating raptors may not be entirely relevant however, because

migrating raptors generally do not seem to be at risk of colliding with structures. Collisions of

migrating raptors with turbines, communication towers, and other vertical, tall structures arealmost unheard of. For example, in Tarifa, Spain, more than 100,000 raptors pass through a

large array of turbines each spring and fall, yet very few raptors are killed. Their behavior is

almost invariably to fly around the strings of turbines (Kerlinger, personal observations) andlarge numbers of migrant fatalities have not been demonstrated (Marti Montes and Jaque 1995,

Janss 2000).

Risk to raptors at turbine Site #2 appears to be lower than at Site #1 because that site iswell away from the barrier islands where the above listed raptors migrate in large numbers.

However, Site #2 will also probably experience some migration, albeit of a different set of

species (Sharp-shinned Hawks, Coopers Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, etc.). The risk to thesebirds is not likely to be great or biologically significant at this turbine.

Risk to Shorebirds, Waterfowl, and Other Waterbirds. The abundance of very large numbers ofwintering and migrating waterbirds (waterfowl, long-legged waders, shorebirds, rails, etc.), as

well as many nesting waterbirds, at the project site, suggests that risk to these species is likely to

be greater than at other locations that have been studied. The degree of risk probably varies byspecies group such that species like waterfowl and shorebirds are less likely to collide with


30/52



turbines than will species such as terns, gulls, coots, rails, and some others. For other speciessuch as egrets, herons, and ibis, risk is not well known or documented.

There is strong evidence that waterfowl and shorebirds rarely collide with tall structures,including wind turbines (Erickson et al. 2001) either during migration or at other times of the

year. Most notably, the Buffalo Ridge project in southwestern Minnesota is in a heavy migrationarea for ducks and geese, yet the numbers of fatalities found at that site are minimal. InCalifornia in the Montezuma Hills, waterfowl fatalities are very low, despite the wind farms

location immediately adjacent to the Suisun Marsh (an important waterfowl area according to

Bellrose 1976) and the Sacramento River. The literature on communication towers also shows

that shorebirds and waterfowl rarely collide with communication towers, although rails areknown to be impacted by tall communication towers (Shire et al. 2000). It is likely that most

shorebirds and waterfowl either fly higher than turbines and, or they see them and avoid them.

Small numbers of these birds could collide with the turbines at JMU NASA site, especially atSite #1. The numbers of fatalities are not likely to be biologically significant, especially in light

of the fact that about 150,000 to 225,000 ducks and geese are shot legally in Virginia annually

without significant impact.

Other waterbirds, including coot, grebes, and rails seem to be somewhat more susceptible

to colliding with tall structures (Shire et al. 2000; Erickson et al. 2001). The literature on tall

communication towers shows that these species collide with turbines at disproportionatelygreater numbers than do waterfowl, although in much smaller numbers than songbirds. It is

possible that some of these birds could collide with the turbines at the JMU NASA site. The

numbers killed are not likely to be biologically significant.

Colonial nesting waterbirds including herons, egrets, and ibis have not been killed inlarge numbers at turbine locations. However, there have been few turbines placed where there

are thousands of these birds nesting within a few miles. This risk remains an unknown.

With respect to terns and gulls, these species have been shown to be susceptible to

colliding with turbines. A study in Belgium revealed that a turbine array near a tern colony

killed Gulls were killed in numbers that are not likely to be construed as biologicallysignificant. Risk to these birds at Site #1 is likely to be greater than at Site #2 because the former

site is closer to colonies and feeding areas. If the numbers of fatalities are similar on a per

turbine basis to those found for similar sized terns at turbines in Belgium, the numbers will be

relatively small and not likely to be biologically significant. At a site with 25 turbines inFlanders, Belgium, by the port city of Zeebrugge, 28 terns were killed by 23 turbines during

slightl

femp-wallops final report (curry kerlinger

Documents