us fish and wildlife commentary on liberty gap jack mountain wind farm

8/9/2019 US Fish and Wildlife Commentary on Liberty Gap Jack Mountain Wind Farm

1/14

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

West Virginia Field O ffice694 Beverly PikeElkins, West Virginia 26241

March 1 ,200 6

Mr. Tom MatthewsUS WindForce, LLC10592 Perry Highwa y, #210We xford, Pennsylvania 15090Re: U.S . W ind Forc e, Proposed Construction and O peration of the Liberty Gap Wind PowerFacility, Jack Mo untain, Pendleton County, West Virginia (W VP SC Case No. 04-1886-E-C S CN)Dear Mr. M atthews:This responds a letter dated July 14, 2004, sent by Dr . Paul K erlinger, requesting infoiination o nthe presence o f species w hich are federally-listed or proposed for listing as endangered orthreatened w ithin the above referenced project a rea. Sinc e receiving the request, the projectproponent withdrew its application from consideration before the W est Virginia Public ServiceCommission. We therefore contacted Dr. Kerlinger to determ ine if a response was still desirableand whether the scope or location of the proposed project had changed. In an April 6,20 05 e-mail, Dr. Kerlinger replied that the inquiry remains largely unchanged.More recently, durin g our December 20, 2005 meeting, we reiterated our con cerns regarding thelocation of the w ind power facility, expressed our recomm endation for a H abitat ConservationPlan, and suggested phasing the project and including adaptive management options into theproject design.You informed us, during a telephone conversation on February 21, 2006, that U.S. Wind Forceis proposing to c onstruct up to 50 turbines, each between 120- to 128-meters tall (including 80-to 96-meter diam eter rotors), with 125 megawatts of capac ity, and along 6.5 miles of theridgeline on Jack Mo untain in Pendleton County, West Virginia. Along with the turbines will bethe necessary access roads, electric transmission lines, communication lines, and substationsnw ded to maintain the facility and connect the turbines to the Allegheny Power System.We have review ed the information you supplied and are providing comm ents on it in accordancewith the Endangered Sp ecies Act (87 Stat. 884, as amend ed; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), theMigratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U .S.C . 703-712), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16


2/14

Mr. Tom MatthewsMarch 2, 20062

U.S .C. 668-668d), and the Fish and W ildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.). Our responseencompasses more than just a list of species occurring in the area. W e are concerned about theproximity of these species occurrences to the propo sed project. Given the significance of theseoccurrences, we provide m ore extensive comm ents and identify information needs, which whensatisfied, will en able both the project proponent and the U.S . Fish and W ildlife Service (Service)to discuss the baseline co nditions, exam ine risk and, if necessary, detern iine a proper co urse ofaction to avoid and minim ize any impacts. W e also address possible im pacts to migratory birdsand bats . Please also be advised that we are presently comm enting only on the direct effects ofthe turbines on Jack Mountain in West V irginia. Additional comm ents regarding the effects ofthe proposed transmission generator line construction on wildlife and their habitats are beingprovided to M r. Philip Simpso n and we will forward you a copy of our reply. As plans progressyou should contact b: regarding any additional propo sals for power lines, roads, and otherancillary facilities as these have the potential to affect wildlife in the area. Finally, we reserve theright to revise our position if the scope of the project chang es, or if new inform ation aboutspecies presence or interactions with turbines becomes available.Threatened and endangered species known to occur near the project area which may be affectedby the constru ction and ope ration of the project inclu de the Indiana bat (My otis sodalis), Virginiabig-eared bat (Covynorhinus townsendii vivginianus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephnlus).Under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA ), a project proponent is responsible forensuring that its actions do not result in unauthorized take of a federally listed spec ies. TheService is availab le to assist you in this regard. W e are also concerned with the possible effectsof this project to migratory birds and non-endangered bat species.Indiana ba t (Myotis sodalis)The federally-listed en dange red Indiana bat hiberna tes in caves or mine sha fts in the winter androosts in trees in the summ er. Indiana bats migrate between hibernacula and summ er maternityhabitat, with records ranging from less than 30 miles to over 300 miles. There are two Indianabat hiberna cula located within five miles of the proposed wind power facility. The Indiana batmay use the project area for roosting and foraging between April 1 and Novem ber 15 (USFWS1999).Data collected during a two-year study tracking spring emerging females to their summer roostsites in the Lake Champlain valley of New York and in a separate Vermo nt study suggest thatfemales do not remain in the area surrounding the hibernacula after emerging from hibernation,but leave for summ er habitat soon after emergence from hibernation (Britzk e et al. 2004). Dataindicate that the area within an approximate 5-mile radius of a hibernaculum is importantforaging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat at the time of spring em ergenc e (staging) andprior to hibernation (swarming), although males have been found almost 10hibernacula in Indiana ( U.S.D .A 2000).


3/14

Mr. Tom MatthewsMarch 2,200 6 3

Females dispersing from a Ken tucky hibernaculum in the spring moved 4 to1 0 miles within 10days of emergence, eventually traveling more than 300 miles from the hibernaculum to thematernity area (Gardner et al. 19 96; Gardner and Cook 2002). How ever, maternity colonies havebeen also located within 10 to 25 miles of the hibernaculum (Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002;Britzke et al. 2004). Less is know n about the male migration pattern, but m any males sum mernear the hibernacula (W hitaker and Brack 2002). Some males disperse throughout the range androost individually or in small numbers in the same types of trees and in the same areas asfemales.It has been suggested that bats orient in response to landscape features during migration(Humphrey 1976). The mountain ridges of West Virginia may serve as corridors for batsmigrating between their sum mer and winter habitats. Several bat species, including Indiana batsare known to follov, linear features in the landscape when traveling between roosting andforaging sites (V erboo ni & Huite ma 1997; Verboom & Spoelstra 1999; Murray & Kurta 2004).However Indiana bats are also known to cross high Appalachian ridges as demonstrated in anelectronic tracking stu dy (Chenger 2003).Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying insects, and forage in riparian, bottomland, or uplandforests (including ridge-tops), preferring a mosaic of open and forested a reas (USFWS 1999).Such habitat conditions are likely to result from forest clearing associated with construction ofthe proposed Liberty Gap P roject on Jack Mountain. While it may appear to benefit bats, it mayalso attract bats after the tu rbines h ave been constructed, increasing the potential for batmortality.The Indiana bat co uld also b e impacted by construction activities that in volve rem oving potentialroost trees or maternity habit at. Roostingimaternity habitat for the Indiana bat consists primarilyof live or dead tree species five-inches in diameter at breast height, or greater, which haveexfoliating bark that provide s space for bats to roost between the bark and bole of the tree(USF WS 1999). Tree cavities, crevices, splits, or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs alsoprovide roost sites.Virginia big-eared ba t (Coryizorlzinus towizseizdii virginiaizus)The federally-listed endangered V irginia big-eared bat lives in caves year round, and movesbetween winter hibernation sites and summer maternity sites. The se mo vem ents may be withinthe same cave, but are more c omm only between caves. Migration distances are usually less than40 miles. There are six Virginia big-eared bat hibernacula located within five miles of the projectarea shown on your map . This includes Hoffinan School Cave, Minor Re xrode C ave, andSinnett/Thorn Cave. Th e Virginia big-eared bat uses all of these caves as hibernacu la in thewinter. Hoffm an Sch ool and Sinnett/Thorn Caves are both listed as Critical Habitat for theVirginia big-eared bat and both c ontain maternity colonies in the sum mer . Hoffm an S chool Cave


4/14


is the largest know n maternity colony in the state. These two caves have a combined summ erpopulation of approximately 1,225 Virginia big-eared bats, representing 20% of individuals inmaternity colonies in W est Virginia (WVDNR 2005).The V irginia big-eared bat may use the area for foraging between April 1 and November 1 5.They feed exclusively on flying insects, with the majority of their diet consisting of mo ths.Foraging habitat includes woodlands, old fields and hay fields (USFW S 1995). In summer,Virginia big-eared bats m ay forage more than six miles from their cave, and will cross ridges toreach foraging areas. Preferred foraging areas for Virginia big-eared bats consist of a mosaic ofopen and forested hab itat. Such habitat conditions are likely to result from the construction ofthe proposed Liberty Gap Project on Jack M ountain.Summary of Bat ConcernsThe Liberty Ga p wind power facility is proposed along a mountain ridge in W est Virginia andcould pose a risk to Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats, as well as many non-endangered batspecies foraging or migrating through the area. Since bats are long-lived and have lowreproductive rates, high m ortality levels could have serious impacts on populations.Bat mortality at wind turbine sites in North Ame rica has been documented to occur duringsumm er foraging activities, as well as during migration (Kee ley et. aI 2001, E rickson et. aI 2002,Johnson et . aI 2003, Johnson 2003, Kerns and Kerlinger 2004). An estimated 2,092 bats,representing at least six species, were reported killed between August 18thand November gthof2003 at the Moun taineer W ind Energy Center, located on Backbone M ountain in Tucker County,West Virginia (Kems and Kerlinger 2004). An important field study conducted during 2004 bythe Bats and W ind E nergy Cooperative (B WE C) (Bat Conservation International, Inc. 2004) atthe Mountaineer and M eyersdale W ind Energy Centers found similar results (Am ett 2005). Bothprojects are located along ridges of the Appalachian plateau in West Virginia and Pennsylvania,respectively. This stu dy is relevant to the proposed Liber ty Gap Project due to geographicproximity, location on forested ridges with c omparab le forest composition, bat species, similarityof turbine and projec t design, and perhaps other factors. Therefore, we will go to som e lengthbelow to recount som e salient points reported by A mett (2005):e Mountaineer has 44 and Meyersdale has 20 NE G M icron 1.5 M W turbines.M ountaineer began operation in Decem ber 2002 ; Meyersdale exactly one year later.

Fatality searches were conducted at both sites between July 3 1 and September 13, 2004.Half of the turbines at each site were searched daily and the other half weekly.Hum an search efficiency was 42% at Mo untaineer and 14% at Meyersdale, while theTrained dogs consistently found higher proportions of carcasses in high, medium, and

e

e

e

e

search efficiency of trained dogs was 7 1% at M ountaineer and 8 1% at Meyersdale.low visibility habitats than humans.

e


5/14

M r. Tom M atthewsMarch 2, 20065

Therm al imaging cam eras were used to assess bat activity at turbines at Mountaineer,which provided video of bats coursing between m oving blades in foraging behavior,chasing blades, being struck by blades, and falling to the ground.Mo st bat activity wa s observed within 2-hours after sunset.Six species were found killed at Mountaineer and 7 at Meyersdale: hoary bats, eastern redbats, eastern pipistrelles, little brown bats, silver-haired bats, big brown bats, and northernlong-eared bats (on ly found at Meyersdale) (from highest to lowest num ber found).While no endangered species were found dead, no hibernacula were reported in theproject areas. There are a large number of hibernacula in the Liberty Gap area.Bat fatalities were highly variable and periodic throughout the study.Fatality was distributed across all turbines, although higher than average numbers of batsgenerally were found at turbines located n ear an end or center of the string on both sites.At both locations, the majority of bats were killed on low wind nights when powerproduction appeared insubstantial, but turbine blades were still spinning and often at orclose to full operational speed (1 7 rpni).Of the 64 turbines studied, one turbine was non-operational througho ut the study periodand this was the only turbine where no fatalities were found .Timing of bat fatalities at Moun taineer and M eyersdale w ere highly correlated, providingevidence that broader landscape patterns, perhaps regional in scope, dictated by weatherand prey a bundance/availability or other factors influenced m ortality events.FAA lighting had no detectable im pact on bat fatality.At M ountaineer, 1,364 to1,980 bats are estimated to have been killed by the 44 turbinesduring the 6-week study. Based on daily searchers, 38 bats per turbine were killedduring this study (90% confidence interval = 3 1-45).At M eyersdale, 400-660 bats are estimated to have been killed by the 20 turbines duringthe 6-w eek study. Based on daily searches, 25 bats per turbine were estimated killedduring this study (90% confidence interval = 20-33).The estima tes of mortality are among the highest ever reported in the world, and supportthe contention that forested ridg es are locations of especially high risk for bat fatality atwind energy facilities.The findings reflect an emerging pattern of bat fatality associated with wind turbineslocated o n forested ridges and suggest that similar fatality rates could be ex pected at siteswith com parable forest com position and topography, especially in the eastern U.S.

The BWE C is a partnership between representatives o f government agenc ies, private industry,academ ic institutions, and non-govern mental organizations (T uttle 2004) (Bat ConservationInternational, Inc. 2004). The B WE C is currently conducting studies designed to investigateinteractions between bats and wind turbines. A goal of these studie s is to establish a basis fordeveloping means of preventing or minimizing bat mortality at wind turbine sites. We encourageyou to review its report released in June (A mett 2005) and incorporate as many design andoperational recom mendations as possible into your project planning.


6/14


Results of a pilot study designed to investigate bat mortality associated with wind turbines inSwed en indicated that migratory and non-migratory aerially-hunting bats w ill forage on insectsthat concentrate near w ind turbines (Ahlen 2003). This behavior w as observed at facilities sitedwithin flight corridors o f migrating bats and/or foraging habitat of noli-migrating bats. Ahlen(2003) also reported finding dead m igratory and non-migratory species of bats near the turbinestructures. The L iberty Gap project site may be within the migration path or serve as a foragingarea for several bat specie s, including Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats.Based on the available information, it is our opinion that the fatality rates reported by Aniett(2005) for bats at wind turbines should be applied to the Liberty Gap project, including for thetwo endangered bat sp ecies known to be in that area. This, and other factors, lead us to concludethat the Liberty Gap project is proposed on a high risk site.While the fatalities at Mounta ineer and M eyersdale were not predicted during the site evaluationphase or prior to construction, w e are predicting them now for the Liberty Gap Project. Werecommend that wind projec ts be sited to effectively avoid harm to w ildlife. W e have reviewedthe December 1, 2005 report titled, A n Overview of the Current State of Know ledge of Batswith Sp ecific Reference to the Potential Impacts of Wind Pow er, Liberty Pow er Wind Project,Pendleton C ounty, West V irginia. The report provides basic information about bats, currentwind power projects, and recom mendations which conclude that pre-construction studies are oflimited value and that em phasis should be placed on the research and dev elopment of deterrenttechnologies and an adap tive managem ent plan that can test the influence o f operationalconditions on bat activity and mo rtality at the project site . W hile we agree that research anddevelopm ent of deterrent technologies and adaptive management w ould b e of imp ortance to thefuture of wind power, w e have not observed any evidence that such technologies or adaptivemanage ment plans are being developed. Therefore, w e continue to recomm end pre-constructionsurveys to determine the degre e of impact to wildlife populations and their habitats due to windpower projects.A study was conducted in the fall of 2004 using radar, Anabat, and visual observations at JackM ountain to determ ine bird and bat migratory use of the ridgeline. The stud y found that 4species of bats, an d representatives of the genus Myotis, and birds were using the proposedturbine site during their migration period (Roy et al. 2004). Four hundred twenty five bat callsand over 35,0 00 targets, using the horizontal radar set for bat and bird targets, were detectedduring the A ugust throug h O ctober study timeframe (Roy et a1 2004 ). Th is study does illustratethat bats and birds a re active in the proposed project location during migration. However, thestudy only included one season. Also, the equipment used was not able to distinguish Myotisspecies, therefore it w as no t capa ble of determining presence or use of the project location by thefederally-listed Indiana bat.With that in mind, w e strongly encourage you to continue to determ ine the tem poral and spatialuse of the project area by bats so that such use by bats can be repo rted to u s and others prior to


7/14

Mr. Toni MatthewsMarch 2, 20067

filing another application. The spatial areas of greatest concern include the ridgelines, sideslopes, and valley sections. We are interested in the seasonal and annual variability of bat use ofthese areas, which occurs for a variety of reasons, including weather. So that variability can beaccounted for with som e reliability, we recomm end conducting multi-year studies (usually forthree years). Radar, thermal im aging, acoustical studies, mist-netting and other appropriatesampling techniques should be employed. With respect to Federally-listed species, werecomm end conducting springtime emergence studies to detect when and where species froinnearby hibernacula travel. We also suggest that you review the scientific literature and data andcoiisult with spec ies experts with this experience to develop a study plan. The Serv ice isavailable to review and comm ent on the draft study plan, and the results of the studies. W e areinterested to leai-n how you propose to avoid and minimize fatality of endangered and non-endangered bats should the project be co nstructed and operated.Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)Bald and golden eagles are protected under the B ald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BG EPA),the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (M BTA ) and the Endangered Species Act. The distribution of thefederally-listed threatened bald eagle is well docum ented in the Eastern United States, Withinthe Atlantic Flyw ay, bald eagles have been observed migrating along the coastal plain and alongriverine systems of the Appalachians. Generally, raptor species and other migratory birds follownorth-south mou ntain ridges. Weather and/or wind conditions likely influence the specific ridgesfollowed by diurnal raptors during migration.Bald eagles breed in, winter in, and migrate through W est Virginia. State biologists conductannual surveys to identify nesting territories as well as nest productivity. All docum ented baldeagle nests in West Virginia are located in the P otomac River watershed o f the easternpanhandle. In Pendleton County, three active nests are located within 10 miles of the proposedLiberty Gap project site. The Franklin nest, located on the South Branch of the Potoma c River, iswest o f the project site. The Brushy Fork and Little Fork nests, both in the South Fork of theSou th Branch of the Potom ac River w atershed, are located respectively east and northeast of theproject site (OMalley 2004).We st Virginia Division of Natural Resources personnel have observed several bald eaglesresiding in the project area year round. Ln addition to activity along the South B ranch and SouthFork R ivers, juvenile and adult eagles have been observed foraging along Thorn Creek andactually feeding in the faim fields on Jack M ounta in (OM alley 2004).

For example, A1 Hicks with the New York D epartment of Environmental Conservation, Office ofEndangered Species, in Albany has been directing the spring emergence project in New York. He may bethe first to successfu lly locate maternity colonies of bats, in this case Indiana bats, by tracking the m fromtheir hibernacula to their sum mer range. He can be reached at 5 18-402-8854 office; or 5 18-461-4632 cell;or at [email protected].


8/14

M r. Tom MatthewsMarch 2 ,200 6 8

Jack Mountain separates the So uth Branch of the Potomac River and the South Fork of the SouthBranch R iver watersh eds. It is also in the foraging area of at least the Franklin and Brushy ForkDam nests. Turbines on the Jack M ountain ridge top could pose a hazard to bald eagles flyingbetween nesting and foraging areas.Again, we highly recom mend pre-construction m onitoring studies of appropriate scope andduration to determine the spatial and temporal use of the project area by bald eagles throughoutthe year. The Service is available to review and comment on your draft plan, as well as to reviewthe results of such studies.Migratory BirdsM ost birds migrate - from hundreds to thousands of miles each year - in their quest for food.Many bats also migrate. Th e season and weather conditions affect when and where the migratorypath will go. Birds and bats m ay converge along distinct landform s that a re either bai-riers or aidsto migration. Som e birds congregate along the shores of large water bod ies as they migrate.Som e songbirds and soaring birds, like eagles and hawks, migrate along Appalachian Mountainridge lines. Therma l updrafts along the ridges provide lift, allowing the birds to conserve energy.Inclement weather can forc e birds to fly lower than usual, where they ca n collide with human-mad e structures. Copin g with sto nns or obstacles causes an increase in energy expenditure, andcan reduce the birds' life span an d ability to reproduce. Th e majority of bird s that migrate overNorth America do so east of the Mississippi River, including the Northeast and the ridges of theAppalachian plateau.

Ther e is a need to conduct full season bird studies at wind projects in the Northeast. The resultso f studies conducted in the mid-w est and western United States do not apply. For example, onestudy performed at Mt. S torm in the fall of 2003, estimated that nearly 16 % or 300,000 birds andbats flew low enough (below 125 meters above ground level and the height of proposed windturbines) to collide with the turbine's tower or blades during fall migration. Radar technologywas used to track birds in flight. The relevant paragraph follows:"...it is estimated that approxim ately 1,830,800 birds may have passed over thestudy area during the fall migration below 1.5 kilometers agl [199 targets perkilometer per hour x 10 kilometers o f migratory front x 10 hours per night x92 nights] and approximately 292,928 (1 6%) would pass though the area below125 meters agl."

Th e study conducted iii the fall of 2004 at Liberty G ap concluded that the average flight altitudeabove the vertical radar was 583 m (mean varying from 284 m to 781 m), with 8 % of the targetsflying below an altitude o f 1 25 m , or the height of the proposed turb ines (Roy et a1 2004) .How ever, the range of targets flying below the 125 m altitude mark w as 2 % to 26% (Roy et a12004) , or 88 to 1,144 of the targets (n=4,402) identified in the vertical rad ar. The vertical radar


9/14

Mr. Tom MatthewsMarch 2,20069

wa s set to identify bird and bat targets. A sim ilar study conducted in the spring of 2005 foundthat the total migratory activity appeared to be approxim ately twice as high du ring the sp ringsampling period co mp ared to the previous fall (Wo odlot Alternatives 2005).We are concerned ab out potential impacts of wind pow er facilities on m igratory birds, a Federaltrust resource the S ervice is mand ated to protect. Bird s have been k illed by rotating turbineblades and /or by striking turbines structures at the Mou ntaineer Wind Energy Center (Am ett2005) and other projects. W ind energy generation facilities may also affect bird movem ents,breeding, and habitat use (U SFW S 200 3). Take (i.e., killing) of migratory birds by any personwithout authorization constitutes a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (M BTA ), which isa strict liability statute.W e recommend that multiple years of pre-construction monitoring of birds be conducted at theproposed project s ite in order to determine the spatial and temporal uses o f the project area bymigratory birds. Rad ar and other appropriate samp ling techniques should be employ ed. Wesuggest that you review the scientific literature and other data as well as con sulting with sp eciesexperts to deve lop a stud y plan. As w ith bats and bald eagles, the Se rvice is available to reviewthe draft plan, as w ell as study results.W e recomm end that studies be conduc ted over a three-year period to help ensure that year-to-year variability would b e included in the data. For examp le, data only from one year or even oneseason o n nocturnal m igrant passage will not likely accurately represent the passage during otheryears and thus m ay fail to account for a nnual variation in num bers, species, weather, altitude, etc.Th e three-year duration was chosen for the proposed s ite as a comprom ise between five-or seven-year sampling periods and single-year studies.W hile the MB TA has n o provisions for allowing unauthorized take, we recognize that some birdsmay be killed at structures such as wind turbines ev en if all reasonable measures to avoid take areimplem ented. Th e Serv ices Office of Law E nforcemen t carries out its mission to protectmigratory birds not o nly through investigations and enforcemen t, but also through fosteringrelationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts onmigratory birds. Although it is not possible under the MB TA to absolve individuals, comp anies,or agencies from liability (even if they implem ent avian mortality avoidance or similarconservation mea sures) , the Office of Law Enforceme nt focuses on those individuals, comp anies,or agencies that take migratory birds w ith disregard for their actions and the law, especially whenconservation me asure s have been developed but are not properly implemented.Wildlife Im pacts including H abitat FragmentationHabitat fragm entation is an issue for many s pecies of wildlife, particularly for deep forest birds.Habitat fragm entation can result as a consequ ence of clearing forests for roads or co rridors toaccoinmo date vehicular access and transmission lines and site clearing to accomm odate windturbines. The se could include d irect loss of deep forest habitat; an increase in edge habitat;


10/14

M r. Tom Matthews 10March 2, 2006increased nest parasitism and predation; a decrease in abundance and diversity of area-sensitivespecies with a concurrent increase in habitat suitability for edge and generalist species; andinterniption of travel co rridors, displacement, and other behavioral effects.SummaryLn summary, the Service is su pportive of electricity generation from renew able so urces andencourages efficient wind energy projects that are sited and operated to b e bird-and-bat friendly.With that in mind, w e are concerned about the potential risk that construction and operation o fthe Liberty Gap wind po wer facility may pose to bat and bird spec ies residing and migratingthrough the area, and the resultant cum ulative impacts of wind power facilities on ridge topsthroughout the eastern United States. The re have been few studies in the U.S. that documentnocturnal avoidance of wind turbines by son gbirds and bats. We, therefore, find a compellingneed for these data at the site-specific scale. It would be an unusual situation where d ata wouldnot be needed to assess the suitability of a site for a proposed com mercial-scale wind project inconsideration of birds and bats. We strongly encourage you to perform the recom mend ed pre-construction studies at the proposed project site in order to identify use by threatened andendangered species, and migratory birds and bats. This information will be critical in assessingpossible risks to these species as well as designing means to avoid and minimize any impacts. Itwill also be helpful in design ing the scope of post-construction m onitoring efforts, which theSeiv ice believes shou ld be phased over the life of the project because eight hibernacula for twoFederally-listed endangered species of bats a re within five miles of the proposed turbine line.Tw o Virginia big-eared bat h ibernacula are designated as critical habitat. And , we are notfamiliar with how the bats w ill use the project area in the future.

The Service strongly recomm ends further coordination with regard to the Endan gered SpeciesAct (ESA). If it is determined that a federal agency is involved in the fun ding, permitting, orauthorization of a proposed p roject, further consultation between that ag ency and the Service willbe necessary, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA . Absent a federal nexus, if a federally-listedthreatened or endangered species may be taken as a result of the construction or op eration of theproject, a project prospect may opt to apply to the Service to obtain an incidental take permitpursuant to section (1 Oj(aj( 1)(B) of the ESA . The Service may issue su ch a perm it uponcomp letion of a satisfactory habitat conservation plan (H CP j for the listed species that w ould betaken by the project. It should be noted that the West Virginia Public Serv ice Comm ission oftenincludes coordination w ith the Service as part of their Order granting certification.W e also recommend that you coordinate with the S ervices Virginia Field O ffice regardingimpacts to federally-listed species and no n-listed migratory birds and bats sh ould the projectcontinue into Highland Cou nty, Virginia. Th e Virginia Field Office is located at 66 69 ShortLane, G loucester, VA 23061, telephone (804) 693-6694.Th e Service offers Lnterim Gu idelines to avoid and minimize wildlife im pacts from windturbines. The Serv ices Interim G uidelines are applicable to terrestrial projects in the Northeast


11/14

Mr, Tom MatthewsMarch 2, 200611

with few ex ception s. Director Williams April 26, 2004 M emo rand um reinforces the conceptthat the guidelines are voluntary and flexible in nature. Th e 2-year comm ent period on theInterim G uidelin es closed on July 10, 200 5. The com me nts received are being reviewed at thistime. Following that, we expect that the Interim G uidelines to be revised. However, we have noway of knowin g at this time the nature of the revisions. Th e Interim Guidelines includerecommendations for 1) proper evaluation of wind resource areas; 2) proper siting and design ofturbines within de velop me nt areas; and 3) pie- and post-construction research and mo nitoring toidentify and /or asses s impacts to wildlife.We encourage you to reference these guidelines at http://www.ws.gov/habitatconservatioidwind.pdf and incorporate as many of the design recommendations as possible. Wealso recommend that you refer to the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Services Bird s of ConservationConcern 2002 ist in order to identify birds of conservation concern that may breed o r migratethrough the project area. This list may be accessed on-l ine at ht t p:/ /~ ii ia rat o~ ~b ird s.f w s.~ ov /reports /BCC02/BCC2002.~df .W e ap preciate the o ppo rtunity to provide inform ation relative to wildlife issues, and thank youfor your interest in these resources. If you have any questions, please contact Christy Johnson-Hughes o f my office at (304) 636-6586.

Field Supervisor \v


12/14


ReferencesAhlen, I. 200 3. Wind turbines and bats - a pilot study. Final report subm itted to Sw edishNational Energy Administration, 11 December 2 003. Translated from Sw edish 5 March2004.Am ett, E.B., technical editor. 200 5. Relationships between bats and wind turbines inPennsy lvania and W est Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patternsof fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report subm itted to theBats and Wind Energy Coop erative. Bat Con servation International. Austin, Texas,US A. 187 pp. (www .batcon.org)Bat C onservation International, Lnc. 200 4. Bats and W ind Energy Coop erative.

(www.batcon.org)Britzke, E.R ., A.C .Hick s, S.L. von Oettingen, and S.R . Darling. 200 4. Description of springroosting ecology of fem ale Indiana bats in the Lake Cham plain Valley of Vermont andNew York. In review.Butchkoski, C. M . and J.D. Hassing er. 200 2. Ecology of a maternity colony roosting in abuilding. In Kurta A., and J . Kennedy, eds. Th e Indiana bat: biology and m anagement ofan endangered species. Bat Con servation International, Aus tin, Texas.

Chenger, J. 2003. One sodalis from the Hartm an mine: sum mary results of an electronictracking study of a single Indiana bat, Unpublished report prepared by B at ConservationManagem ent, M echanicsburg, Pennsylvania.Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D . Young, D. Strickland, R. G ood, M. Bourassa, K . Bay, and K.Se mk a. 2002. Syn thesis and com parison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting andmortality infonnatio n from proposed and existing wind develop men ts. West, Inc.,

Cheyenne, WY. 124 pp.Gardner, J.E., and E.A . Co ok. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution and quantification ofpotential summer habitat. In Kurta A., and J . Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and

mana gemen t of an endange red species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.253p.Gardner, J.E., J.E . Hofmann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Sum mer distribution of the federallyendangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Tran sactio ns of the Illinois StateAcademy of Science. 89: 187-196.


13/14


Hum phrey, S .R and J.B. Cope. 197 6. Popu lation ecology of the little brow n bat, Myotisluczjiugus, in Indiana and N orth-Central Kentucky. Special Publication No. 4. TheAm erican Society of M aninialogists. 81pp .

Johnson, G .D., W.P. Erickson, M .D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd and D.A . Shepherd. 2003.Mortality o f bats at a large-scale wind pow er development at Buffalo Ride, M innesotaAmerican Midland Naturalist. 150:332-342.Johnson, G. D . 2003. What is know n and not known about bat collision mortality at windplants?In R.L. Carlton, editor. Avian interactions with wind power s tructures. Proceedings of aworkshop held in Jackson Hole, Wy oming , USA , October 16-17, 20 02 . Electric PowerResearch Institute, Palo Alto, California. In Press.Keeley, B. , S. Ugo retz, and D. Strik land. 2001. Bat ecology and wind turbine considerations.Proceedings of the National A vian-Wind Power Planning M eeting, 4: 135-146 . NationalWind C oordinating Comm ittee, Washington, D.C.Kerns, J . and P. K erlinger. 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the MountaineerWind En ergy Center, Tucker C ounty, West Virginia: annual report for 20 03, Curry andKerlinger, LLC 2-14-04, 3 9 pp.Mu rray, S.W . and A . Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis), Journal of Zoology. 262 : 197-206 .OMalley, K . 2004. Personal Co mm unication. W est Virginia Division of Natural Resources.Ro y, R.D ., S.K. Pelletier, S .K., and T. Peterson. 200 4. A Radar and acoustic survey of bird andbat migration at the proposed Liberty Gap wind project in Franklin, West V irginia - Fall2004. Wood lot Alternatives, Inc. 42 pp.Tuttle, M.D . 2004. W ind energy and the threat to bats. Bats. 22(2):4-5.U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Agen cy draft. Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhznus

townsendii ir~ginianus)evised recovery p1an.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, HadleyMassachusetts. 33 pp.

U.S. Fish and W ildlife S ervice. 19 99. Agen cy d raft. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recoveryp1an.U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service. 2003. Service interim guidance on avoiding and m inimizingwildlife impacts from wind turbines. Washington, D.C . 5 5 pp.


14/14


U.S .D.A . Forest Service. Hoosier National Forest (HN F). 2000. Program matic BiologicalAssessm ent: Land and Resource Management Plan. Unpublished R eport prepared forHoosier National Forest, Bedford, Indiana. 109 pp.

Verboom, B. and H . Huitema . 1997. The importance of linear landscape elements for thepipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. LandscapeEcology. 12(2):117-125.Verboom, B. and K. Spoelstra. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of treelines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus p ipistyellus. Canadian Journal of Zoology.7: 1393- 1401.West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Federal Assistance Performan ce Report.Endangered species (animals) project E-1, segment 22 (1 October 2004 - 30 September2005. 76 pp.Whitalter, J .O., Jr., and V . Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summ er ecology in Indiana. InKurta A., and J . Ken nedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and m anagem ent of anendangered species. Bat Conseivation International, Austin, Texa s.Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., 2005. A spring 2005 radar and acoustic survey of bird and batmigration at the proposed Liberty Gap Wind project in Franklin, West V irginia. Reportsubmitted to US WindForce, LLC

us fish and wildlife commentary on liberty gap jack mountain wind farm

Documents