golden eagle information for the north sky river … eagle information for the north sky river wind...

Golden Eagle Information for the North Sky River Wind Resource Area

Kern County, California

Draft Report

Prepared for:

NextEra Energy PO Box 14000

Juno Beach, Florida 33408

Prepared by:

Andrea Chatfield and Wally Erickson

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

April 2011

Draft Pre-Decisional Document - Privileged and Confidential - Not For Distribution

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

NGS ©

North Sky River Draft Golden Eagle Information

WEST, Inc. i April 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NextEra Energy (NextEra) is proposing to develop the North Sky River Wind Resource Area (NSRWRA) in Kern County, California. The NSRWRA is located on the east flank of the Piute Mountains approximately 17 miles northeast of the Tehachapi Mountains. This document reviews all publicly available data concerning golden eagle populations, nests, and use estimates for the North Sky project and a 10-mile buffer area. Golden eagle use at the NSRWRA was low relative to other regions of the western United States where wind development has occurred. Six active golden eagle nests are known to occur within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundaries. One nest known to be active within the last 10 years is within a four-mile buffer of the project boundaries. Facilities that have documented golden eagle mortality (mortality reported in the cited reports) have golden eagle use estimates from pre-construction surveys that are generally higher than the use observed at the NSRWRA. Assuming use data for golden eagles are a good long-term measure of use, golden eagle mortality is anticipated to be low at the NSRWRA. Few golden eagle observations were made during the breeding, migration, or wintering periods. Risk in subsequent years will likely depend on nesting activity. Higher use could occur if new nests are established closer to project turbines than known nests are currently. It is anticipated that eagle mortality at the project is likely to be less than one golden eagle per year.


WEST, Inc. ii April 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 4

POPULATION STATUS FOR GOLDEN EAGLES ....................................................................... 8

RAPTOR NEST SURVEYS .......................................................................................................... 8

USE SURVEYS .......................................................................................................................... 12

Bird Use Point Counts ............................................................................................................. 12 Summary of Golden Eagle Use .............................................................................................. 13

TURBINE EXPOSURE METRICS .............................................................................................. 15

SITE CHARACTERIZATION USING DRAFT EAGLE CONSERVATION PLAN GUIDANCE .... 19

GOLDEN EAGLE COLLISION RISK .......................................................................................... 21

FATALITY STUDIES ................................................................................................................... 21

RAPTOR NEST DENSITIES AND INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NESTS ........................................ 22

RAPTOR NEST BUFFERS ......................................................................................................... 23

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 24

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The land cover types, coverage, and percent composition within the North Sky River Wind Resource Area. ............................................................................................... 8

Table 2. List of project areas that have either had direct measures of golden eagle use or mortality studies reported. The Relative Risk of the project was estimated based on what is known about the region, nearby studies, etc. and was developed by WEST. NA refers to not available. It could mean that studies were not conducted, studies were not available (not public, not completed) or for the case of golden eagle fatalities, it could also mean no wind project has been built. .......................................... 14

Table 3. Distance from active golden eagle nests to the nearest North Sky River turbines. ...... 17

Table 4. Calculation of percent of maximum areas of collision exposure for six nearest active golden eagle nests for different buffer areas from nests for the proposed turbine layout. .................................................................................................................. 18

Table 5. Calculation of percent of maximum areas of collision exposure for six nearest active golden eagle nests for different buffer areas from nests for the alternate turbine layout. .................................................................................................................. 18


WEST, Inc. iii April 2011

Table 6. Distances (mi) between active golden eagle nests associated with the North Sky River Wind Resource Area. ............................................................................................. 19

Table 7. Golden eagle nest buffers from the literature. ............................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. North Sky River Wind Resource Area. .......................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Proposed and alternate turbine layouts for North Sky River. ......................................... 6

Figure 3. Land cover types superimposed on an aerial map of North Sky River. ......................... 7

Figure 4. Golden eagle nests, observations, and flight paths documented in 2010 near North Sky River. .............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 5. Location of the Pine Tree, PDV, Alta Oak Creek, and Pacific Winds projects, which are all in the vicinity of the North Sky River Project area ...................................... 11

Figure 6. Example illustrating the metrics of the collision risk exposure indices calculated in Table 3. ........................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7. Nest buffers based on average nearest inter-nest distances (USFWS 2011). ........... 20


WEST, Inc. 4 April 2011

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to provide a review of site specific golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) data for the North Sky River Wind Resource Area (NSRWRA) in Kern County, California, as well as a 10-mile (mi) buffer around the NSRWRA. Baseline data collected for NSWRA, along with other regional wind project baseline data, was compiled with US Geological Survey (USGS) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Partners in Flight (PIF) data, and available scientific literature to give a thorough picture of golden eagle activity. Several aspects of golden eagle ecology were examined, including golden eagle nesting information, with a review of raptor nest impacts and raptor nest densities from other existing and proposed wind energy facilities; golden eagle mortality; and the impacts of construction and operations on golden eagles.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed NSRWRA is located near the town of Tehachapi, California, and consists of approximately 13,066 acres (20 square miles [mi2]) in the western Mojave Desert on the east flank of the Piute Mountains. The project is located in southern Kern County approximately 10 mi west of Cantil, California (Figure 1). Elevations in the project area range from 924 to 1,655 meters (m; 3,031 to 5,430 feet [ft]). Land ownership consists of private land; however, some project access roads, underground transmission collector lines, and an overhead generation-tie line are located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land (Figure 2). Based on landcover mapping (National Landcover Database [NLCD] 2001; Figure 3), the predominant landcover type at the NSRWRA is shrub/sage-steppe (77.4%), followed by grassland (19.6%) and evergreen forest (2.9%; Table 1). Minor landcover types, each composing less than 0.1% of the project area, include deciduous forest, crops, and wetlands. Based on 2010 California Atlas data, the eastern portion of the project area is dominated by desert shrub, with some areas of grassland, while the western portion of the project area is dominated by shrubland and hardwood woodland (Figure 4). The proposed wind energy project will consist of up to 102 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) with rotor-swept heights of up to 500 ft. The project will also require construction of approximately 11 mi of new overhead high-voltage transmission line that will extend south of the project area.



Figure 1. North Sky River Wind Resource Area.



Figure 2. Proposed and alternate turbine layouts for North Sky River.

Figure 2 depicts a previous site layout that has been refined, eliminating several project and alternate turbines. In the currently proposed site layout, only one turbine would occur within a 4-mile radius of an active golden eagle nest. That turbine’s approximate location is shown on this figure as 25-2. Elimination of these turbines does not change the conclusions of the risk analysis.



Figure 3. Land cover types superimposed on an aerial map of North Sky River.



Table 1. The land cover types, coverage, and percent composition within the North Sky River Wind Resource Area.

Habitat Acres % Composition Deciduous Forest 2.81 <0.1 Evergreen Forest 375.58 2.9 Shrub/sage-steppe 10,119.00 77.4 Grassland 2,563.37 19.6 Crops 2.64 <0.1 Woody Wetlands 2.87 <0.1 Total 13,066.26 100 Data from the National Landcover Database (USGS NLCD 2001).

POPULATION STATUS FOR GOLDEN EAGLES

The population estimate for golden eagles in California, according to Blancher et al. (2007), is approximately 2,000 birds using the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data and the Partners in Flight (PIF) population modeling. In the western US, not including California, the population estimate was 20,722 golden eagles (90% confidence interval: 16,317 – 25,948; excluding military lands, elevations above 10,000 ft [3,048m], large water bodies, and large urban areas; Nielson et al. 2010). Based on the ratio of golden eagles aged as juveniles to the total number of golden eagles observed, it was estimated that a total of 1,962 (90% confidence interval; 1,120 – 2,930) juvenile golden eagles were present in the western US (Nielson et al. 2010).

RAPTOR NEST SURVEYS

Aerial raptor nest surveys were conducted within the NSRWRA and a 10-mi buffer in Fall 2010 from November 16-19 and December 1, 2010, and again in Spring 2011, from February 21-22, February 28, March 1-2, and March 4, 2011. Fifteen golden eagle nests were found within the NSRWRA and a 10-mi buffer, six of which were considered occupied (Figure 4). One occupied nest was located approximately four miles north of the project boundary, and one was located approximately five miles south of the project. All the remaining active nests were more than 7.5 miles from the project boundary. Of the unoccupied nests, only four were in good or excellent condition. All golden eagle nests were located on cliffs or rock outcrops. Figure 5 shows other recently permitted wind projects in the Tehachapi area, where recent nest surveys have been conducted. One aerial survey for raptor nests was conducted at the nearby Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project on May 19, 2009, including a two-mile buffer. Additional ground-based raptor nest surveys were conducted throughout the spring and summer of 2009. No golden eagle nests, occupied or unoccupied, were observed during the 2009 raptor nest surveys at the Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project. One aerial raptor nest survey was conducted at the PDV site wind energy site on August 13, 2004, and ground-based surveys were conducted over the course of 10 days from July 2 to August 7, 2004 (Bloom 2004). No golden eagle nests were located within the project boundaries, although a nesting pair was observed just off the northwest corner of the study area (Bloom 2004).



Based on surveys conducted at the Pacific Wind site in the spring and fall of 2008, no golden eagle nests were observed in the project area. The nearest known nest was located in the Tehachapi Mountains, approximately five miles from the Pacific Wind project boundary (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009).



Figure 4. Golden eagle nests, observations, and flight paths documented in 2010 near North Sky River.



Figure 5. Location of the Pine Tree, PDV, Alta Oak Creek, and Pacific Winds projects, which are all in the vicinity of the North Sky River Project area



USE SURVEYS

Bird Use Point Counts

Eighteen survey points were established within NSRWRA, and 20-minute (min) bird use point counts were conducted from May 18, 2010, through February 28, 2011. Twenty-six golden eagles were observed in 23 groups. Year-round golden eagle use ranged from 0.02 (summer and winter) to 0.03 (fall) golden eagles/800-m [2,625-ft] plot/20-min survey. At the Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project, 19 survey points were monitored between February 4 and June 30, 2009: 10 points at the CPC proper subarea, eight at CPC east, and one at the Ward subarea (Erickson et al. 2008). Two single golden eagles were observed at the CPC East subarea and five single observations were recorded at CPC Proper; golden eagles were not observed at the Ward survey point. Of the seven golden eagles observed during point counts, four were adults, two were subadults, and one was a juvenile. All golden eagles were observed in flight; four were observed flying over riparian habitat and three were observed in creosote scrub habitat. Overall golden eagle use was 0.01 birds/800-m plot/30-min survey at the CPC East subarea and 0.03 at CPC Proper (Erickson et al. 2008). At the PDV wind energy site, bird use surveys were conducted by Peter H. Bloom on behalf of Sapphos Environmental, Inc. from October 3, 2004, to April 20, 2005 (Sapphos Environmental Inc. 2006). Survey methods used for these surveys were based on Hawk Watch International (HWI) migration survey protocol. Survey effort varied among seasons with nearly double the effort in fall (approximately 416 survey hours) than in winter and spring (187 and 197.5 survey hours, respectively). Twelve golden eagles were observed at the PDV site in the fall, with a use of approximately 0.03 birds/survey hour within an unlimited viewshed. In winter, seven golden eagles were recorded, with a use of 0.04 birds/unlimited viewshed/survey hour. Five golden eagles were observed in the spring; use by golden eagles in spring was 0.03 birds/unlimited viewshed/survey hour. Additional migration surveys were conducted in Fall 2005 from August 15 to November 12 for a total of 1,257 observer hours. Seventy-four golden eagle observations were recorded, although most were duplicate observation of four to five resident pairs and 10 to 15 migrants. Golden eagle use in the fall of 2005 was 0.06 birds/unlimited viewshed/survey hour (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2006). Overall golden eagle use from this data suggests 0.01 to 0.03 golden eagles/unlimited viewshed/30-minute period. A variety of survey methods were utilized in 2008 and 2009 at the nearby Pacific Wind project (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009). Eight golden eagle observations were recorded between March 25, 2008, and March 3, 2009. Six observations were of immature golden eagles, one was a subadult, and one individual was not aged. All golden eagles were observed hunting (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009). Due to the inconsistent nature of the methods used, a mean use estimate is not available for the Pacific Wind project. However, from the effort and detections reported it would appear that the golden eagle use at the Pacific Wind site would be in the 0.01 to 0.02 eagles per 20-min survey range.



Summary of Golden Eagle Use

During the bird use point counts conducted between May 2010 and February 2011 at the NSRWRA, a total of 26 golden eagles were observed. The un-weighted average golden eagle use estimate across all seasons was 0.02 golden eagles/800-m plot/20-min survey. Despite high quality foraging habitat (i.e., mostly shrub/scrub and grassland) and distance to known nests at North Sky River, golden eagle use estimates were low. Golden eagle use at the nearby Alta Oak Creek Mojave project was similar, ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 birds/800-m plot/ 30-min survey; Erickson et al 2008), and golden eagle use in an unlimited viewshed at the PDV site ranged from 0.03 to 0.06 birds/observer hour or 0.01 to 0.02 birds/20-min survey (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2006). These golden eagle use estimates suggest low use of NSRWRA and the surrounding areas during the study years (2004-2005, 2008-2009, 2010-2011), especially when compared to other wind energy projects (Table 2). Golden eagle use estimates at North Sky River are also considerably lower than other California wind energy facilities, such as the High Winds facility (0.20 golden eagles/800-m plot/20-min survey during pre-construction surveys and 0.07 golden eagles/800-m plot/20-min survey during the post-construction period; Kerlinger et al. 2005, 2006), and the Diablo Winds facility (0.20 golden eagles/800-m plot/20-min survey during the post-construction period; WEST 2008).



Table 2. List of project areas that have either had direct measures of golden eagle use or mortality studies reported. The Relative Risk of the project was estimated based on what is known about the region, nearby studies, etc. and was developed by WEST. NA refers to not available. It could mean that studies were not conducted, studies were not available (not public, not completed) or for the case of golden eagle fatalities, it could also mean no wind project has been built.

Project Relative Risk based on

Expected Use Approximate Golden Eagle Use Estimate

Golden Eagle Fatalities

CA 1 High 0.30 2 OR 1 High 0.27 2 WA 1 High 0.26 3 CA 2 High NA 0 WA 2 High 0.54 NA WY 1 High 0.49 NA WY 2 High 0.36 1 WY 3 High 0.28 NA OR 3 High 0.27 NA WY 4 High 0.26 NA MT 1 Moderate NA 0 OR 4 Moderate 0.11 NA WY 5 Moderate 0.11 NA WY 6 Moderate 0.10 NA WA 3 Moderate 0.08 NA ID 1 Moderate 0.07 NA WY 7 Moderate 0.05 NA WA 4 Moderate 0.05 0 WA 5 Moderate 0.03 NA WA 6 Moderate 0.03 NA WA 7 Moderate 0.03 NA WA 8 Moderate 0.03 NA WA 9 Moderate 0.03 0 OR 5 Low 0.02 0 CA 3 Low 0.02 NA WA 10 Low 0.01 0 OR/WA 1 Low 0.01 0 OR 6 Low 0.01 0 CA 4 Low 0.01 NA AZ 1 Low 0.01 NA WA 11 Low 0.01 NA CA 5 Low 0.01 NA CA 6 Low 0.01 NA WA 12 Low 0.01 NA WA 13 Low 0.01 NA OR 7 Low 0.01 NA AZ 2 Low 0.01 NA WA 14 Low 0.01 NA WA 15 Low 0.01 NA OR 8 Low < 0.01 0 WA 16 Low < 0.01 0 WA 17 Low < 0.01 NA WA 18 Low < 0.01 NA WA 19 Low < 0.01 NA OR 9 Low 0 NA WA 20 Low 0 NA



Table 2. List of project areas that have either had direct measures of golden eagle use or mortality studies reported. The Relative Risk of the project was estimated based on what is known about the region, nearby studies, etc. and was developed by WEST. NA refers to not available. It could mean that studies were not conducted, studies were not available (not public, not completed) or for the case of golden eagle fatalities, it could also mean no wind project has been built.

Project Relative Risk based on

Expected Use Approximate Golden Eagle Use Estimate

Golden Eagle Fatalities

OR 10 Low 0 NA CA 7 Low NA 0 WA 21 Low NA 0 WA 22 Low NA 0 WA 23 Low NA 0 WA 24 Low NA 0 WA 25 Low NA 0 WA 26 Low NA 0 Canada 1 Low NA 0 Canada 2 Low NA 0 Canada 3 Low NA 0 IL 1 Very Low 0 0 TX 1 Very Low NA 0 TN 1 Very Low NA 0 MN 1 Very Low NA 0 PA 1 Very Low NA 0 WI 1 Very Low NA 0 IL 2 Very Low NA 0 NY 1 Very Low NA 0 ME 1 Very Low NA 0 WV 1 Very Low NA 0 WV 2 Very Low NA 0 NY 2 Very Low NA 0 NY 3 Very Low NA 0 NY 4 Very Low NA 0 NY 5 Very Low NA 0 NE 1 Very Low NA 0 IA 1 Very Low NA 0 ME 2 Very Low NA 0

TURBINE EXPOSURE METRICS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) calculated several metrics for turbine exposure to facilitate a better understanding of the potential level of collision risk exposure to golden eagles at the NSRWRA. These are simple exposure indices that provide some information on the amount of area within varying distances away from the nest that a golden eagle may be exposed to collision (Figure 6). These indices can vary and can be loosely interpreted as probabilities of flight paths intersecting the potential air space that could be occupied by a turbine blade, assuming random flight paths. However, these simple calculations do not account for avoidance behaviors, flight heights, flight path distribution, or many other factors, most of which would greatly reduce the actual probability of risk.



Figure 6. Example illustrating the metrics of the collision risk exposure indices calculated in Table 3.

Based on the proposed turbine layout, no turbines would be constructed within 3.8 mi of any known recently active nests (i.e., within the last 10 years; Table 3), Nest 10 would have turbines built within a five-mi buffer, and nests 31, 34, 46, 47 and 50 would have turbines built within a 10-mi buffer. Nest 10 is on a cliff 3.84 mi (6.18 km) from the closest proposed turbine (Table 3) and has an exposure area of 0.39% within a five-mi buffer of the proposed layout (Table 4). Nest 31 is 5.38 mi (8.67 km) from proposed turbines and has an exposure area of 0.30% within a 10-mi buffer for the proposed layout. Nest 34 is 8.14 mi (13.10 km) from proposed turbines and has an exposure area of 0.11% within a 10-mi buffer for the proposed layout. Nest 46 is 9.24 mi (14.87 km) from proposed turbines and has an exposure area of 0.03% within a 10-mi buffer for the proposed layout. Nest 47 is 8.68 mi (13.97 km) from proposed turbines and has an exposure area of 0.06% within a 10-mi buffer for the proposed layout. Nest 50 is 9.52 mi (15.32 km) from proposed turbines and has an exposure area of 0.01% within a 10-mi buffer for the proposed layout (Tables 3, 4). Based on the alternative layout, no turbines would be constructed within five miles of any known recently active nest (i.e., within the last 10 years; Table 5), however turbines would be constructed within 10 miles of five active nests (nests 10, 31, 34, 46, and 47; Table 5) with exposure area ranging from 0 to 0.13%.

Nest location

Turbine/bladeexposure area

5 mile 10 mile

50 m



Table 3. Distance from active golden eagle nests to the nearest North Sky River turbines.

Nest ID Distance to Nearest

Turbine (km [mi]) Turbine ID Proposed/ Alternate Turbine

10 6.18 (3.84) 7 Proposed 31 8.67 (5.38) 95 Proposed 34 13.10 (8.14) 122 Proposed 46 14.87 (9.24) 133 Proposed 47 13.97 (8.68) 133 Proposed 50 15.32 (9.52) 133 Proposed



Table 4. Calculation of percent of maximum areas of collision exposure for six nearest active golden eagle nests for different buffer

areas from nests for the proposed turbine layout. half-mile nest buffer 1-mile nest buffer 2-mile nest buffer 5-mile nest buffer 10-mile nest buffer

Nest ID # turbines % exposure

area # turbines% exposure

area #

turbines% exposure

area #

turbines% exposure

area #

turbines % exposure

area 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0.39 105 0.41 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0.30 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0.11 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.03 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.06 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.01

Table 5. Calculation of percent of maximum areas of collision exposure for six nearest active golden eagle nests for different buffer

areas from nests for the alternate turbine layout. half-mile nest buffer 1-mile nest buffer 2-mile nest buffer 5-mile nest buffer 10-mile nest buffer

Nest ID # turbines % exposure

area # turbines% exposure

area #

turbines% exposure

area #

turbines% exposure

area #

turbines % exposure

area 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0.13 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0.12 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0.04 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.02 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.03 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



SITE CHARACTERIZATION USING DRAFT EAGLE CONSERVATION PLAN GUIDANCE

The Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance has developed a risk characterization approach that allows the use of the average-nearest neighbor (inter-nest) distance approach among nests (USFWS 2011). These average inter-nest distances are used to buffer the nests and examine overlap with your project. Generally a project with little overlap of these nest buffers is considered to be in a lower risk category based on the draft guidance. We applied this approach to the NSRWRA. Table 6 shows the distances between the six active nests located within 10 mi of the NSRWRA. The average inter-nest distance is 4.67 mi, so half the distance is used to buffer the active nests to determine the extent of overlap of the project sites. The draft eagle guidance identifies four project-level categories for the level of risk to eagles:

1) Category 1 is a high risk site with little opportunity to minimize effects; project should be moved, significantly redesigned, or abandoned because the project would likely not meet the regulatory requirements for permit issuance.

2) Category 2 is a high to moderate risk site, but with an opportunity to minimize effects; candidate for eagle conservation plan.

3) Category 3 is a minimal risk site; candidate for eagle conservation plan. 4) Category 4 is a site with an uncertain level of risk.

The nest buffers do not overlap the North Sky River project boundary (Figure 7), suggesting the project site is at least Category 2 according the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 2011). The buffers do overlap a portion of the Pine Tree Project, suggesting that if proximity to eagle nests is related to risk, Pine Tree would be considered higher risk that North Sky River. Table 6. Distances (mi) between active golden eagle nests associated with the North Sky River

Wind Resource Area. GOEA Nest

ID GOEA Nest ID

Closest Nest 10 31 34 46 47 50 10 - 15.08 17.94 15.7 15.00 19.82 15.08 31 15.08 - 3.09 13.80 13.43 7.57 3.09 34 17.94 3.09 - 14.14 13.91 5.44 3.09 46 15.70 13.80 14.14 - 0.69 11.00 0.69 47 15.00 13.43 13.91 0.69 - 11.02 0.69 50 19.82 7.57 5.44 11.00 11.02 - 5.44

Average Inter-nest Distance 4.67 Half the Average Inter-nest Distance 2.33



Figure 7. Nest buffers based on average nearest inter-nest distances (USFWS 2011).



GOLDEN EAGLE COLLISION RISK

Vance Tucker, Professor of Biology at Duke University, has performed probabilistic analyses of the effect of wind turbine rotor size and rotational speeds on risk to birds (Tucker 1996). These are estimates of the collision risk if a bird passes through the rotor swept area of a turbine. The formula for average collision probability is as follows:

Ω| | Ω⁄

(Tucker 1996)

where a golden eagle is flying at 14 meters per second (m/s; 46 ft/s), where the wind speed is 8.0 m/s (26 ft/s), where the turbine is a 1.6 megawatt (MW) wind turbine, and where golden eagles are 0.9-m (3.0-ft) long and have a wingspan of 2.1 m (6.9 ft):

B = # of blades (i.e., 3) b = wing span (2.1 m)

= rotor angular speed A = bird aspect ratio (wing span / body length = 2.1/0.9 = 2.33) = bird air velocity (14 m/s)

a = axial induction factor (0.25 assumed) U = wind velocity (8.0 m/s) R = rotor radius (i.e., for a 1.6 MW turbine, the radius is 50 m)

= tangential threshold speed (28 m/s [92 ft/s]; enables “safety zone”) WEST calculated the relative probability of golden eagle collision by taking the probability of collision within the rotor swept area, and dividing it by the number of MW per turbine. The estimated probability of a golden eagle passing downwind through the rotor swept area of a GE 1.6-MW turbine and colliding with a blade, assuming 16 revolutions per minute (rpm), is 0.055, and, at 18 rpm, it is 0.060. The lower collision probability at lower revolutions per minute is due to the increased time between the sweeps of the blades, allowing for safer passage through the rotor swept area. These calculations are based on individual turbines and not assessed for an entire wind farm. The risk associated with a large wind farm depends, for example, on turbine design, wind farm layout, wind conditions, flight direction, flight speed, avoidance behavior, and many other factors. This analysis illustrates that, on average, if a golden eagle passes through the rotor swept area it has less than a one in 16 chance of being hit by a blade.

FATALITY STUDIES

WEST has assembled a database that includes fatality estimates from publicly available studies. Table 2 contains a list of these facilities where WEST has empirical fatality information, as well as the total raptor and golden eagle fatality counts.



Raw counts of raptor fatalities are often available for wind energy facilities where estimated mortality rates are not provided. Four golden eagle fatalities have been found in Washington (Klickitat County [AP 2009]) and Oregon (Union County [Rautenstrauch 2010]). The High Winds and Diablo Wind facilities in California have each had two golden eagle casualties (Kerlinger et al. 2006, WEST 2008). Oak Creek Energy Systems (OCES) wind energy facility, also in California, had a single golden eagle fatality (MHWA 2009). Finally, one golden eagle casualty was found at the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in Carbon County, Wyoming (Young et al. 2003b). Comparatively higher numbers of raptor fatalities have been recorded at other facilities in California (e.g., Altamont Pass [see Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team 2008, Smallwood and Karas 2009]). However, fatalities from Altamont are not directly comparable to the fatalities recorded at the wind-energy facilities reviewed for this report as Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) consists of varying turbine sizes and layouts, as well as utilizing different survey methods. Data from several on-going golden eagle studies, when they become publicly available, may add to our understanding. We are also aware that 2 golden eagle fatalities have been reported at the nearby Pine Tree facility, however no other information regarding these fatalities have been made available.

RAPTOR NEST DENSITIES AND INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NESTS

Aerial raptor nest surveys of the NSRWRA and a 10-mi buffer were conducted in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. Although no golden eagle nests were found within the project boundary, six occupied golden eagle nests were found within the 10-mi buffer. No golden eagle nests were recorded during 2009 nest surveys at the nearby Alta Oak Creek Mojave Project (Erickson et al. 2008). In 2004, a nesting pair of golden eagles was observed just off the northwest corner of the nearby PDV wind energy site (Bloom 2004). Based on 2008 nest surveys conducted at the Pacific Wind, the nearest known nest was located approximately five miles from the project boundary in the Tehachapi Mountains (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009). Relatively few studies have been conducted concerning the impact of wind energy facilities on raptor nesting. A before and after impact study, with controls (i.e., before-after/control-impact [BACI]), of avian use at the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota found evidence that northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) avoided turbines the year following construction on a small scale (less than 100 m from turbines) as well as larger scales (range of 105 - 5,364 m [345 – 17,598 ft]). Two years following construction, however, no large-scale displacement was detected (Johnson et al. 2000a). Howell and Noone (1992) found similar numbers of raptor nests before and after construction of the Montezuma Hills Phase 1 facility in California, and anecdotal evidence indicates that raptor use of the APWRA in California may have increased since installation of wind turbines (Orloff and Flannery 1992, Colson and Associates 1995). At the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in southern Wyoming, one pair of red-tailed hawks nested within 0.3 mi (0.5 km) of the nearest turbine, and seven red-tailed hawk nests, one great horned owl nest, and one golden eagle nest located within one mi of the facility successfully fledged young (Johnson et al. 2000b, WEST



unpublished data). The golden eagle pair successfully nested a half-mile from the facility for three different years after the facility became operational. A study in Wyoming looked at nest densities for ferruginous hawks, golden eagles, and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD; Young et al. 2010). During this study, four wind energy facilities in the state were surveyed to examine the 10-year changes in key breeding raptor population parameters, as well as the raptor prey base, in context with the expansion of wind energy facilities in the area. Fatality monitoring only occurred at one of the facilities (the Foote Creek Rim facility), with studies underway at one other facility (the Seven Mile Hill facility). This study looked at raptor population trends using four methods: 1) identifying raptor nest occupancy and nesting success, 2) conducting productivity accounts, 3) calculating nest density and distance to the nearest wind energy facility, and 4) comparing raptor population demographics with nest distributions in relation to the expansion of wind energy facilities in the area (Young et al. 2010). Prey resource availability was also examined. Results of the study showed that distance to facilities and nest densities near wind energy facilities were similar to pre-construction conditions, suggesting no major changes due to wind energy production occurred for the key species. The study also found that no apparent large-scale effects on raptor nesting within three-mi (4.8-km) buffers could be identified, and the apparent drop in density of golden eagle nests early in the study had no demonstrable relationship to wind energy production (Young et al. 2010). Based on the literature and the distances of the active eagle nests to the wind turbines, none of the nests within 10-mi of the wind project should be impacted through reduced reproduction by the construction or operation activities of the NSRWRA.

RAPTOR NEST BUFFERS

The establishment of buffer zones around raptor nests, within which development and construction activities are limited, has long been regarded as a viable means of reducing the potential for disturbance at nest sites and, possibly, also reducing mortality risk (Suter and Joness 1981). Main concerns identified while reviewing typical raptor nest buffers for various energy-related activities were distance of activity from affected areas and the breeding cycles of the raptor species involved (Suter and Joness 1981). WEST reviewed existing guidelines from numerous state and federal agencies to gain a consensus of acceptable mitigation measures. In general, specific and consistent raptor nest buffers at wind energy facilities have not been established. Most guidelines for buffers are tied to construction activities and do not consider fatality potential during operations. Various guidelines and suggestions exist for disturbance (Table 7). These sources suggest differing nest search radii and mitigation measures for different raptor species. The Washington State Recovery Plan for golden eagles (Watson and Whalen 2004) suggests that shrub stands should be preserved within 3.0 km (1.9 miles) of nests, suggesting that no facilities (e.g., roads, buildings, turbine pads) should be sited within this perimeter if destruction of habitat will occur. Further, flushing should be avoided during the breeding season (February 15 to July 15) and again in the winter. Watson and Whalen (2004)



further suggest that a 300-m (984-ft) buffer would avoid about 90% of flushing. Line of sight, nest structure security, history of disturbance, observed responses, and nest elevation should also be taken into account when working in nesting areas.

Table 7. Golden eagle nest buffers from the literature. Source Golden Eagle Washington State recovery plan for specific species

(Watson and Whalen 2004) 300-meter buffer for human activity; three km of undamaged shrub habitat around nest site

Oregon Columbia Plateau Ecoregion Wind Energy Siting and Permitting Guidelines, September 29, 2008 (ODFW 2008).

No buffer recommended. Indicates golden eagle nest habitat as irreplaceable, limited, and essential. Goal of no loss of habitat quantity or quality. Mitigation goal is achieved by avoidance.

Idaho’s Birds of Prey (IDFG 2008) No buffer recommended; three km of undamaged shrub habitat around nest site

From Appendix 2- Best Managements Practices for Raptors and their associated habitats (following BLM 1999, revised 2002)

Half-mile buffer from January 1 to August 31

Appendix B of WGFD Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in Crucial and Important Habitat (WGFD 2009)

Half-mile disturbance-free zone from February 1 to July 31

Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors (Craig 2002, revised 2008)

Quarter-mile surface-occupancy buffer. No encroachment within a half-mile between December 15 and July 15.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recently released wind energy guidelines which recommend a half-mile buffer for golden eagle nests for surface occupancy for turbines (WGFD 2009).

SUMMARY

Facilities that have documented golden eagle mortality (mortality reported in the cited reports) have golden eagle use estimates from pre-construction surveys that are generally higher than the use observed at the NSRWRA. Assuming use data for golden eagles are a good long-term measure of use, golden eagle mortality is anticipated to be low at the NSRWRA. Few golden eagle observations were made during the breeding, migration, or wintering periods. Risk in subsequent years will likely depend on nesting activity. Higher use could occur if new nests are established closer to project turbines than known nests are currently. It is anticipated that eagle mortality at the project is likely to be less than one golden eagle per year.



REFERENCES

Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team. 2008. Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study. ICF Jones & Stokes, Portland, Oregon, Prepared for Alameda County Community Development Agency, Hayward, California. July 2008.

Associated Press. 2009. Golden Eagle Killed by Washington Wind Turbines. The Seattle Times. Originally published May 19, 2009, corrected May 21, 2009. Available online at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009237912_apwawindturbineeagle1stldwritethru.html

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. http://www.partnersinflight.org/

Bloom P.H. 2004. 2004 Raptor and Common Raven Nest Survey of the Proposed PdV Wind Energy Project, Kern County, California. Prepared for Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, California September 1, 2004. In: PdV Wind Energy Project Biological Resources Technical Report Technical Appendices. Prepared for EnXco, Inc., Mojave, California. Prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc., Pasadena, California. August 11, 2006.

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). US Geological Survey (USGS) Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Homepage: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/

Brown, W.K. and B.L. Hamilton. 2006. Monitoring of Bird and Bat Collisions with Wind Turbines at the Summerview Wind Power Project, Alberta: 2005-2006. Prepared for Vision Quest Windelectric, Calgary, Alberta by TAEM Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, and BLH Environmental Services, Pincher Creek, Alberta. September 2006. http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Brown2006.pdf

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999 (revised 2002). Best Management Practices for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats.

California Atlas (CAL-ATLAS). 2010. Cal-Atlas Geospatial Clearinghouse. Accessed September 2010. Homepage: http://www.atlas.ca.gov/

Colson and Associates. 1995. Avian Interactions with Wind Energy Facilities: a Summary. Prepared for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Washington, D.C.

Craig. 2002 (revised 2008). Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). January 18, 2002, revised January 2008.

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. Unpublished report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the Nebraska Public Power District.

Enz T., G.D. Johnson, K. Bay. 2010. Raptor Nest Surveys for the Windy Point Wind Resource Area. April 16-17, 2009. Prepared for Windy Point Partners, Goldendale, Washington. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST), Inc, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey, D.P. Young, Jr., K. Bay, R. Good, K. Sernka, and K. Kronner. 2003a. Wildlife Baseline Study for the Kittitas Valley Wind Project: Summary of Results from 2002 Wildlife Surveys. Final Report February 2002– November 2002. Prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, Oregon, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. January 2003.

Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004a. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring Annual Report. July 2001 - December 2003. Technical report peer-reviewed by and submitted to FPL Energy, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, and the Stateline Technical Advisory CommitteeWestern EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. December 2004.



Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004b. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring Final Report: July 2001 - December 2003. Technical report for and peer-reviewed by FPL Energy, Stateline Technical Advisory Committee, and the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Walla Walla, Washington, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. December 2004. http://www.west-inc.com

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 Study Year. Technical report prepared by WEST, Inc. for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and Development, Pendleton, Oregon. 21pp. http://www.west-inc.com/reports/vansyclereportnet.pdf

Erickson, W.P., K. Kronner, and B. Gritski. 2003b. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report. September 2002 – August 2003. Prepared for the Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee and Energy Northwest by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. October 2003. http://www.west-inc.com/reports/nine_canyon_monitoring_final.pdf

Erickson, W.P., D.P. Young, G. Johnson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. Good, and H. Sawyer. 2003c. Wildlife Baseline Study for the Wild Horse Wind Project. Summary of Results from 2002-2003 Wildlife Surveys May 10, 2002- May 22, 2003. Draft report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. November 2003.

Gritski, B., S. Downes, and K. Kronner. 2009. Klondike III (Phase 1) Wind Power Project Wildlife Monitoring Year One Summary, October 2007-October 2008. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. April 3, 2009.

Gritski, B., K. Kronner, and S. Downes. 2008. Leaning Juniper Wind Power Project, 2006 − 2008. Wildlife Monitoring Final Report. Prepared for PacifiCorp Energy, Portland, Oregon. Prepared by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. December 30, 2008.

Howell, J.A. and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of Avian Use and Mortality at a U.S. Windpower Wind Energy Development Site, Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California. Final Report to Solano County Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, California. 41pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2008. Idaho's Birds of Prey. A publication of the Conservation Sciences Program. Available online at: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/sites/Wildlife/IDMasterNaturalist/Marsing/Wildlife%20Articles/birdsPrey.pdf

Jain, A. 2005. Bird and Bat Behavior and Mortality at a Northern Iowa Windfarm. M.S. Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

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. Final report prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009a. Annual Report for the Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009b. Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009c. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.



Janes, S.W. 2003. Breeding Populations of Swainson’s Hawks, Red-Tailed Hawks, and Golden Eagles in North Central Oregon: 1975-1982 and 1999. Western North American Naturalist 63(3): 363-365.

Jeffrey, J. and K. Bay. 2008. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Bodewig Wind Resource Area, Umatilla County, Oregon. March 1, 2007 - February 29, 2008. Draft final report prepared for Bodewig’s Renewable Energy, LLC, Pilot Rock, Oregon. Prepared by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Jeffrey, J.D., W.P. Erickson, K.J. Bay, V.K. Poulton, W.L. Tidhar, and J.E. Baker. 2008. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Golden Hills Wind Resource Area, Sherman County, Oregon. Final Report May 2006 – October 2007. Prepared for BP Alternative Energy North America Inc., Houston, Texas, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and K. Kronner. 2002. Baseline Ecological Studies for the Klondike Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. Final report prepared for Northwestern Wind Power, Goldendale, Washington, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. May 29, 2002.

Johnson, G.D., K. Bay, J. Eddy, and T. Rintz. 2008a. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Glenrock Wind Resource Area, Converse County, Wyoming. Prepared for CH2MHILL. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G.D., K. Bay, and J. Eddy. 2009a. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Dunlap Ranch Wind Resource Area, Carbon and Albany Counties, Wyoming. June 4, 2008 - May 27, 2009. Prepared for CH2MHILL, Englewood, Colorado. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G.D., K. Bay, and J. Eddy. 2009b. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the High Plains Wind Resource Area, Carbon and Albany Counties, Wyoming. Prepared for CH2MHILL. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G.D., J. Eddy, K. Bay, and A. Chatfield. 2008b. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Seven Mile Hill Wind Resource Area, Carbon County, Wyoming: April 30 - November 15, 2007. Prepared for CH2MHILL, Englewood, Colorado. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, R. Good, E. Lack, K. Kronner, and B. Gritski. 2003a. Ecological Baseline Studies for the White Creek Wind Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Final Report prepared for Northwestern Wind Power, Goldendale, Washington. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. July 2003.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, and J.D. Jeffrey. 2006. Analysis of Potential Wildlife Impacts from the Windy Point Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. February 3, 2006.

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. Shepherd. 2000a. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-Year Study. Final report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 22, 2000. 212 pp. http://www.west-inc.com

Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, and J. White. 2003b. Avian and Bat Mortality During the First Year of Operation at the Klondike Phase I Wind Project, Sherman County, Oregon. March 2003. Technical report prepared for Northwestern Wind Power, Goldendale, Washington, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. http://www.west-inc.com

Johnson, G.D., J. Jeffrey, J. Baker, and K. Bay. 2007. Baseline Avian Studies for the Windy Flats Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Prepared for Windy Point Partners, LLC., by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. May 29, 2007.



Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, W.P. Erickson, C.E. Derby, M.D. Strickland, and R.E. Good. 2000b. Wildlife Monitoring Studies, SeaWest Windpower Plant, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999. Final report prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation, San Diego, California, and the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 9, 2000. http://www.west-inc.com and http://www.west-inc.com/reports/fcr_final_baseline.pdf

Kerlinger, P., L. Culp, and R. Curry. 2005. Post-Construction Avian Monitoring Study for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California. Year One Report. Prepared for High Winds, LLC and FPL Energy.

Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, L. Culp, A. Jain, C. Wilkerson, B. Fischer, and A. Hasch. 2006. Post-Construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California: Two Year Report. Prepared for High Winds LLC, FPL Energy by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 2006.

Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, A. Hasch, and J. Guarnaccia. 2007. Migratory Bird and Bat Monitoring Study at the Crescent Ridge Wind Power Project, Bureau County, Illinois: September 2005 - August 2006. Final draft prepared for Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP. May 2007.

Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collisions at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. February 14, 2004. 39 pp. http://www.wvhighlands.org/Birds/MountaineerFinalAvianRpt-%203-15-04PKJK.pdf

Kronner, K., B. Gritski, and S. Downes. 2008. Big Horn Wind Power Project Wildlife Fatality Monitoring Study: 2006−2007. Final report prepared for PPM Energy and the Big Horn Wind Project Technical Advisory Committee by Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Mid-Columbia Field Office, Goldendale, Washington. June 1, 2008.

M.H. Wolfe and Associates Environmental Consulting (MHWA). 2009. Biota Report for the CPC East Subarea of the Alta-Oak Creek Mojave Wind Project, Kern County, California. Volume I.

Nielson, R.M., T. Rintz, M.B. Stahl, R.E. Good, L.L. McDonald, and T.L. McDonald. 2010. Results of the 2009 Survey of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Western United States. Contract #201818C027. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), A., Virginia. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, ed. January 7, 2010. Available online at: http://www.west-inc.com/reports/2009GoldenEagleSurvey.pdf

Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC) and Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005. Wildlife Baseline Study for the Leaning Juniper Wind Power Project, Gilliam County, Oregon. Prepared for PPM Energy, Portland, Oregon and CH2MHILL, Portland, Oregon by NWC, Pendleton, Oregon, and WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. November 3, 2005.

Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC) and Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2007. Avian and Bat Monitoring Report for the Klondike II Wind Power Project. Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for PPM Energy, Portland, Oregon. Managed and conducted by NWC, Pendleton, Oregon. Analysis conducted by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. July 17, 2007.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (OBIC). Homepage: http://orbic.pdx.edu/

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (OBIC). 2010. Point Observation Database (PODS). Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Oregon Columbia Plateau Ecoregion Wind Energy Siting and Permitting Guidelines. September 29, 2008.

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. Final Report P700-92-001 to Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, and the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, by Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Tiburon, California. March 1992.



Partners in Flight (PIF). Homepage: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/description.cfm

Poulton, V., K. Bay, and D. Solick. 2009. Wildlife Baseline Studies for the Burlington Wind Resource Area, Kit Carson County, Colorado. Final Report: March 19, 2008 - November 10, 2008. Prepared for Airstream Energy, LLC, Scottsdale, Arizona. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. January 14, 2009

Rautenstrauch, B. 2010. Wind farm forum draws 150. Article in the June 24, 2010 issue of The Observer, newspaper for Union and Wallowa Counties, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Wind-farm-forum-draws-150

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009. Pacific Wind Eneryg Project Biological resources Technical Report: Volume 1. Prepared for enXco Develoment Corporation, San Ramon, California. Prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Pasadena, California. December 7, 2009. In: Pacific Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report: Appendix E.1 Biological Resources Report. Available online at: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/PacWind/Volume%20III/01-App_E-1_BiotaReportVol1.pdf

Smallwood, K.S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1062-1071.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 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, Cumberland, Maine, by Stantec Consulting, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham, Maine. January, 2008.

Suter, G.W. and J.L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and Prairie Falcon Nest Site Protection. Journal of Raptor Research 15: 12-18.

Tierney, R. 2007. Buffalo Gap I Wind Farm Avian Mortality Study: February 2006-January 2007. Final Survey Report. Prepared for AES SeaWest, Inc. TRC, Albuquerque, New Mexico.TRC Report No. 110766-C-01. May 2007.

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2008. Post-Construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring and Grassland Bird Displacement Surveys at the Judith Gap Wind Energy Project, Wheatland County, Montana. Prepared for Judith Gap Energy, LLC, Chicago, Illinois. TRC Environmental Corporation, Laramie, Wyoming. TRC Project 51883-01 (112416). January 2008. http://www.newwest.net/pdfs/AvianBatFatalityMonitoring.pdf

Tucker, V.A. 1996. Using a Collision Model to Design Safer Wind Turbine Rotors for Birds. Transcripts of the ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 118: 263-269.

URS, W.P. Erickson, and L. Sharp. 2005. Phase 1 and Phase 1A Avian Mortality Monitoring Report for 2004-2005 for the SMUD Solano Wind Project. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Sacramento, California. Co-Authors: Wally Erickson, Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) and Lynn Sharp, Environmental Consultant. August 2005.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). 2006. NAIP Imagery and Status Maps.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines: Recommendations on Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Effects to Fish, Wildlife, and Their Habitats. February 15, 2011. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/Wind_Energy_Guidelines_2_15_2011FINAL.pdf

US Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Database (NLCD). 2001. Land Use/Land Cover NLCD Data. USGS Headquarters, USGS National Center. Reston, Virginia.

Usgaard, R.E., D.E. Naugle, R.G. Osborn, and K.F. Higgins. 1997. Effects of Wind Turbines on Nesting Raptors at Buffalo Ridge in Southwestern Minnesota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 76: 113-117.



Watson, J. and M. Whalen. 2004. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In: Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. Last updated 2003. Available online at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/goldeagl.pdf

Watson, J.W. and R.W. Davies. 2009. Range Use and Contaminants of Golden Eagles in Washington. Wildlife Science Division, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia, Washington. January 2009.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005a. Exhibit A: Ecological Baseline Study at the Elkhorn Wind Power Project. Draft final report prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, LLC, Portland, Oregon, by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. June 2005.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005b. Wildlife and Habitat Baseline Study for the Proposed Biglow Canyon Wind Power Project, Sherman County, Oregon. March 2004 - August 2005. Prepared for Orion Energy LLC., Oakland, California. October, 2005. WEST. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2006. Diablo Winds Wildlife Monitoring Progress Report, March 2005 - February 2006. Technical report submitted to FPL Energy and Alameda County California. WEST. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2008. Diablo Winds Wildlife Monitoring Progress Report: March 2005 – February 2007. Prepared by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 2008.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) and Colorado Plateau Research Station (CPRS). 2006. Avian Studies for the Proposed Sunshine Wind Park, Coconino County, Arizona. Prepared for Sunshine Arizona Wind Energy, LLC., Flagstaff, Arizona, by WEST, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and the CPRS, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. May 2006.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2009. Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitat. Draft report prepared by the WGFD, Cheyenne, Wyoming. October 2009.

Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and R. Good. 2002. Baseline Avian Studies for the Proposed Maiden Wind Farm, Yakima and Benton Counties, Washington. Final Report, April 2001-April 2002. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. November 20, 2002.

Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, J. Jeffrey, E.G. Lack, R.E. Good, and H.H. Sawyer. 2003a. Baseline Avian Studies for the Proposed Hopkins Ridge Wind Project, Columbia County, Washington. Final Report, March 2002 - March 2003. Prepared for RES North America, LLC., Portland, Oregon, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.(WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 30, 2003.

Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, R.E. Good, M.D. Strickland, and G.D. Johnson. 2003b. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated with the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming, Final Report, November 1998 - June 2002. Prepared for Pacificorp, Inc. Portland, Oregon, SeaWest Windpower Inc. San Diego, California, and Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins District Office, Rawlins, Wyoming.

Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, and V.K. Poulton. 2007. Puget Sound Energy Hopkins Ridge Wind Project Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring First Annual Report, January - December 2006. Technical report for Puget Sound Energy, Dayton, Washington and Hopkins Ridge Wind Project Technical Advisory Committee, Columbia County, Washington. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Walla Walla, Washington. 25 pp.



Young, D.P. Jr., J. Jeffrey, W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, and V.K. Poulton. 2006. Eurus Combine Hills Turbine Ranch. Phase 1 Post Construction Wildlife Monitoring First Annual Report. Technical report prepared for Eurus Energy America Corporation, San Diego, California, and the Combine Hills Technical Advisory Committee, Umatilla County, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon.

Young, D.P., Jr., C. LeBeau, W. Erickson, S. Nomani, J.R. Boehrs, and B. Oakleaf. 2010. Status of Breeding Populations of Ferruginous Hawks, Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles in Albany and Carbon County, Wyoming. Prepared for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).

golden eagle information for the north sky river … eagle information for the north sky river wind...

Documents