Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 85

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE



Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office
4701 North Torrey Pines Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
Ph: (702) 515-5230 ~ Fax: (702) 515-5231

November 16, 2012
File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119


Memorandum

To: Renewable Energy Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas
Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada

From: State Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno

Subject: Review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver
State South Solar Energy Project (First Solar LLC), Clark County, Nevada


Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Silver State South Solar Energy Project. We prepared this letter
under the authority of and in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852], as amended, the Endangered Species Act of
1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884], as amended (Act), and other authorities mandating
the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) concern for environmental values. Based on these
authorities, we offer the following comments for your consideration.

We understand the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would grant a right-of-way (ROW)
authorizing the applicant to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 350-megawatt
solar photovoltaic power plant on BLM-administered lands in the Ivanpah Valley along the
California/Nevada state line 2 miles east of Primm in Clark County, Nevada.

The draft SEIS analyzes three action alternatives with ROWs ranging from 2,515 to 3,855 acres
and designation of a 40,180-acre Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). As discussed
in the draft SEIS, the proposed project would negatively impact the federally listed as threatened,
Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and its habitat.

Demographic and genetic connectivity for the Mojave desert tortoise

We are concerned about habitat fragmentation and demographic and genetic isolation of desert
tortoise populations within the Ivanpah Valley and recommend that BLM select the No Action
alternative. Maintaining a robust population of desert tortoises within the Ivanpah Valley area is
of particular importance because the habitat is already highly fragmented. Currently, the desert
tortoise population within the Ivanpah Valley is only tenuously connected to the Ivanpah Critical
Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119



2
Habitat Unit. This valley is a critical link between desert tortoise conservation areas in
California and Nevada (Hagerty et al. 2011; Service 2012). Only four potential linkages remain
in Ivanpah Valley (Service 2011). The linkage between the Silver State North project and the
Lucy Gray Mountains is the widest of these linkages and likely the most reliable for continued
population connectivity (Service 2011).

Habitat linkages need to be wide enough to support a diverse age structure and sex ratio within
the linkage (Barrows et al. 2011). Desert tortoises can occupy narrow canyon passes, and such
linkages may provide connectivity for long-term gene flow. However, the effects on population
demographics by constricting a linkage to a narrow corridor with a lower number of desert
tortoises remain a concern. A single desert tortoise uses a lifetime utilization area of
approximately 1.4 miles wide (Service 1994). Multiple lifetime utilization areas are necessary
for desert tortoises to find mates, reproduce (demographics), and maintain populations during
years of low habitat quality, periodic fire, and disease outbreak (stochastic events) (Beier et al.
2008). For example, the diameter of two multiple lifetime utilization areas would be 2.8 miles
wide; three would be 4.2 miles wide; and so on.

In the biological opinion for the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generation Station issued to BLM on
June 10, 2011 (Service 2011), the maintenance of a suitable linkage between the Silver State
Project and the Lucy Gray Mountains was a key reason why we concluded that connectivity
would still be maintained after construction of that project. As proposed, the project could
disturb up to an additional 3,855 acres (6 square miles) in this linkage, thus reducing this linkage
to the following approximate widths (see attached maps):

Alternative New Disturbance (acres) Linkage width (miles)
a

A No action 0 2.0
B Proposed action 3,855 0.02 (100 feet)
C Alternative layout
b
2,515 1.0
D Modification to proposed action
layout
3,102
0.3
c

a
Measured from the Silver State North project east to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains.
b
Originally analyzed in the 2010 EIS (BLM 2010) and 2010 biological opinion (Service 2010).
c
Measured from the detention basin on the eastern edge of the proposed site to the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the
Lucy Gray Mountains.

We recommend BLM select the No Action alternative to avoid reducing the width of the
existing corridor. If this is not possible, we ask BLM to minimize impacts to the linkage by
creating and selecting a new alternative that would protect a corridor of undisturbed desert
tortoise habitat between the Silver State North project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. This
corridor should be wide enough to accommodate multiple desert tortoise ranges, spanning up to
several times the desert tortoise lifetime utilization area. Attached is a map showing the footprint
of the Silver State South combined alternatives, along with a 1.4-mile distance from the suitable
habitat.

Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119



3
If this new alternative is selected, we ask BLM and the applicant commit to specific mitigation
actions that would help offset a reduction in this linkage. These actions may include: (1)
funding genetic and disease testing and removing the fence at the long-term translocation site to
increase connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley; (2) funding culvert construction under roads in
Ivanpah Valley to connect populations on either side of Interstate 15; and (3) funding recovery
actions identified by the desert tortoise recovery 5-year action plan.

Additionally, we ask that BLM and the applicant commit to specific monitoring studies to help
us understand the impacts to population demographics (age and sex ratios) and genetic stability
of the desert tortoise population as a result of the project and for other projects in the Ivanpah
Valley, such as funding a genomic study that looks at fine-grained genetic relationships to reveal
patterns of movement and connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley.

Desert tortoise translocation

The Service does not support translocation as a proven minimization measure for development
projects. While loss of individuals would be reduced, translocation of desert tortoises could
result in considerable effects to both translocated individuals and individuals that are resident to
any identified translocation site.

Based on pre-project surveys in the project area and large acreage associated with the proposed
project, complete avoidance of the need to translocate desert tortoises is unlikely. Therefore, we
recommend the project be sited in the area with lowest desert tortoise density within the analysis
area to minimize the impacts to desert tortoises from translocation.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern nomination

We recommend BLM adopt the ACEC component of Alternative D and the management
prescriptions listed in Table 2-2 of the draft SEIS. Further, we ask that BLM include the acreage
between the Silver State North project, or the new boundary of the Silver State South project,
and the suitable desert tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains in the ACEC (roughly
the acreage described as the project site layout for Alternative D).

Although we cannot predict if future development in the Ivanpah Valley would result in loss of a
viable genetic link, reduction of the remaining desert tortoise habitat and development within
undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in the Ivanpah Valley may exacerbate existing fragmentation
of desert tortoise habitat. These smaller, fragmented populations may be more susceptible to
stochastic population declines, thereby reducing the viability of the greater population. Further,
the developed area would likely be uninhabitable to desert tortoises for several desert tortoise
generations because natural recovery of vegetation in the desert can take 50 to 300 years (Lovich
and Bainbridge 1999; Abella 2010).


Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119



4
Migratory birds and eagles

The Service encourages energy development that is wildlife and habitat-friendly. Although little
is known about how utility-scale solar energy facilities affect birds and bats, we anticipate that
bird and bat mortality could occur from collisions with transmission lines and solar panels.
Additionally, extensive terrestrial habitat loss would indirectly affect wildlife.

The Service recommends that utility-scale solar energy facilities develop a Bird and Bat
Conservation Strategy (BBCS). A BBCS is a project-specific document that delineates a
program designed to reduce the operational risks that result from bird and bat interactions with a
specific solar energy facility.

Further, we recommend development of an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP). As discussed in the
draft SEIS, ground surveys observed a pair of golden eagles soaring over the ROW.
Additionally, four possible golden eagle nests were detected within 10 miles of the ROW with
the nearest territory located approximately 5 miles away. An ECP is a project-specific document
that delineates a program designed to reduce the operational risks specifically to bald and golden
eagles.

Attached are several documents that provide guidelines for development of a BBCS and ECP.
The BBCS and ECP should contain a risk assessment to evaluate potential take and a
scientifically rigorous post-construction monitoring scheme. They also should contain adaptive
management strategies to implement appropriate corrective actions should birds, bats, and eagles
be impacted. Although each projects plan will be different, the overall goal of the BBCS and
ECP should be to reduce, and ultimately eliminate bird and bat mortality to the extent
practicable. For more information, contact our regional migratory bird biologist at
Chris_Nicolai@fws.gov.

Endangered species consultation

As a reminder, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act each Federal agency shall insure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of its habitat. Therefore, we ask that BLM initiate formal consultation under the
Act and provide a biological assessment (BA) with a determination of "may affect, likely to
adversely affect." The BA should provide details of the proposed action including, construction,
operation, and maintenance, and their effects to the desert tortoise. The action area must include
all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate area of
direct disturbance. Based on the proposed action and local topography, the action area should
include the Ivanpah and Roach Lake valleys between the Clark and Lucy Gray mountains.

Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Ivanpah Valley is critically important to deseli tortoise population
connectivity in the Ivanpah Valley Critical Habitat Unit. We recommend BLM select the 'No
Action' alternative to avoid impacting the nanow linkage that currently exists between the Silver
State NOlih project and the Lucy Gray Mountains. Ifthis is not possible, we ask BLM to create
and select a new alternative that will minimize impacts by preserving a protected corridor of
undisturbed desert tortoise habitat between the Silver State NOlih project and the suitable desert
tortoise habitat west of the Lucy Gray Mountains. This corridor should be wide enough to
accommodate multiple desert tOlioise ranges, spanning up to several times the deseli tOlioise
lifetime utilization area at the nan'owest point. Additionally, we ask BLM and the applicant
identify and commit to specific mitigation actions and monitoring studies that would help
address potential project impacts to the demographic and genetic stability ofthe deseli tOlioise
population within the Ivanpah Valley.
We appreciate the oppOliunity to review and comment on the project. If you have any questions
regarding this correspondence, please contact Brian A. Novosak in the Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office in Las Vegas at (702) 515-5230. Please reference the file number above in future
correspondence concerning this project.
Edward D. Koch
Attachments (7)
cc:
Adaptive Management Coordinator, Deseli Conservation Program, Las Vegas, Nevada
Chief, Saint George Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Saint George, Utah
District Biologist, California Desert District Office, Bureau of Land Management,
Needles, California
Environnlental Scientist, Communities and Ecosystem Division, Region 9 Environmental
Review Office, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ventura, California
Supervisory Biologist-Habitat, Nevada Depmiment of Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada
Assistant Field Manager, Division of Renewable Resources, Las Vegas Field Office,
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada
5
Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119



6
Literature Cited

Abella, S.R. 2010. Disturbance and plant succession in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts of the
American Southwest. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7:
1248-1284.

Barrows, C.W., K.D. Fleming, and M.F. Allen. 2011. Identifying habitat linkages to maintain
connectivity for corridor dwellers in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Wildlife
Management 75:682-691.

Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for
designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836-851. Available on the Internet
at: http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/Beier.Majka.Spencer.2008.ConsBiol.
LinkageDesigns.pdf

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Final environmental impact statement for the Silver
State Solar Energy Project (DOI No. FES 10-50). Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas
Field Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 2010. 1,019 pp. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/nextlight_renewable0.html

Hagerty, B.E., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, and C.R. Tracy. 2011. Making molehills out of
mountains: landscape genetics of the Mojave desert tortoise. Landscape Ecology 26:267-
280. Available on the Internet at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/qu18806111q644t3/
fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP

Latch E.K., W.I. Boarman, A. Walde, R.C. Fleischer. 2011. Fine-scale analysis reveals cryptic
landscape genetic structure in desert tortoises. PLOS ONE 6(11):e27794.doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0027794. November 2011. 10 pp. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0027794

Lovich, J.E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California
desert ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental
Management 249: 309-326. Available on the internet at: http://www.dmg.gov/documents/
STDY_Anthro_Degrdtn_of_S_CA_Dsrt_Ecsystm_and_Prspcts_for_Nat_Rec_and_Rest_
LovichJ_090399.pdf

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery
plan. Portland, Oregon. 73 pp, plus appendices. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dt_reports.html


Renewable Energy Project Manager File No. 84320-2011-CPA-0119



7
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Formal consultation for the Silver State Solar
Project (NextLight Renewable Power, LLC). Service File No. 84320-2010-F-0208. Nevada
Fish and Wildlife Office. Las Vegas, Nevada. September 16, 2010. 73 pp. Available on the
Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/
nextlight_renewable0.html

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Reinitiated biological opinion on BrightSource
Energy's Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project. Service File No. 8-8-10-F-24R.
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, California. June 2011. 108 pp. Available on the
Internet at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/fasttrack/ ivanpahsolar/fedstatus.html

[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise
populations. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office. Reno, Nevada. March 2012. 18 pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NEVADA
Ivanpah Valley
Silver State South - No Action
UTM ZONE 11
NAD 83
0 1 2 0.5
Miles
0 1 2 0.5
Kilometers
PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010
MAP DATE:
BASEMAP:
MERIDIAN: N/A
FILE:
Legend
Silver State North
Other Alternatives
1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat
E edge of DT habitat
4200 foot line
Highly Suitable:
Very gravelly sandy loam
Creosote-Bursage
Semi-suitable:
Extremely gravelly
Creosote-Bursage
Unsuitable:
Cobbles and Boulders
Blackbrush and Yucca
Primm, Nevada
0 2 1
Miles
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NEVADA
Ivanpah Valley
Silver State South - Alternative B
UTM ZONE 11
NAD 83
0 1 2 0.5
Miles
0 1 2 0.5
Kilometers
PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010
MAP DATE:
BASEMAP:
MERIDIAN: N/A
FILE:
Legend
Alternative B
Silver State North
Other Alternatives
1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat
E edge of DT habitat
4200 foot line
Highly Suitable:
Very gravelly sandy loam
Creosote-Bursage
Semi-suitable:
Extremely gravelly
Creosote-Bursage
Unsuitable:
Cobbles and Boulders
Blackbrush and Yucca
Primm, Nevada
0 1 0.5
Miles
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NEVADA
Ivanpah Valley
Silver State South - Alternative C
UTM ZONE 11
NAD 83
0 1 2 0.5
Miles
0 1 2 0.5
Kilometers
PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010
MAP DATE:
BASEMAP:
MERIDIAN: N/A
FILE:
Legend
Alternative C
Silver State North
Other Alternatives
1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat
E edge of DT habitat
4200 foot line
Highly Suitable:
Very gravelly sandy loam
Creosote-Bursage
Semi-suitable:
Extremely gravelly
Creosote-Bursage
Unsuitable:
Cobbles and Boulders
Blackbrush and Yucca
Primm, Nevada
0 1 0.5
Miles
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NEVADA
Ivanpah Valley
Silver State South - Alternative D
UTM ZONE 11
NAD 83
0 1 2 0.5
Miles
0 1 2 0.5
Kilometers
PRODUCED IN THE NEVADA FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
LAND STATUS CURRENT TO: 01/09/2010
MAP DATE:
BASEMAP:
MERIDIAN: N/A
FILE:
Legend
Alternative D
Silver State North
Other Alternatives
1.4 mile distance from suitable habitat
E edge of DT habitat
4200 foot line
Highly Suitable:
Very gravelly sandy loam
Creosote-Bursage
Semi-suitable:
Extremely gravelly
Creosote-Bursage
Unsuitable:
Cobbles and Boulders
Blackbrush and Yucca
Primm, Nevada
0 1 0.5
Miles
InterimGoldenEagleTechnicalGuidance:Inventoryand
MonitoringProtocols;andOtherRecommendationsin
SupportofGoldenEagleManagementandPermit
Issuance

JoelE.Pagel,Ph.D.
1
,
DianaM.Whittington
2
,
GeorgeT.Allen,Ph.D.
2
.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService
February,2010

1
EcologicalServices,U.S.FishandWildlifeService,Carlsbad,California
2
DivisionofMigratoryBirdManagement,U.S.FishandWildlifeService,Arlington,Virginia
1
InterimGoldenEagleInventoryandMonitoringProtocols;andOther
Recommendations

Table of Contents:
I Purpose 1
II Background 1
III Management Need 5
IV Basic Golden Eagle Ecology 6
V Golden Eagle Responses to Disturbance 9
VI Overall Objectives of the Golden Eagle Survey Protocol 10
VII Inventory Techniques 10
VIIa Procedures for Aerial and Ground Monitoring Surveys 11
VIIb Aerial Surveys 13
VIIc Ground Surveys 16
VIII Observer qualifications 18
IX Documentation and Accepted Notation of Territory/Nest Site 19
and Area Surveyed

X Additional Considerations 20

XI Acknowledgements 21

XII Literature Cited 21

XIII Glossary 26


Recommended citation:
Pagel,J.E.,D.M.Whittington,andG.T.Allen.2010.InterimGoldenEagletechnicalguidance:
inventoryandmonitoringprotocols;andotherrecommendationsinsupportofeagle
managementandpermitissuance.DivisionofMigratoryBirdManagement,U.S.Fishand
WildlifeService.
1
I. Purpose
Thisdocumentidentifiestheinventoryandmonitoringeffortrecommendedfordetermining
andevaluatingpotential`GoldenEagle(Aquilachrysaetoscanadensis)useofhabitatincluding
nestsites,roosts,andterritories,aswellastherationaleforidentifyingandevaluatingforaging
locationsduringbreedingandnonbreedingperiods.Italsooutlinesrecommendedmonitoring
techniquestoascertainoccupancyandreproductivesuccessatterritories.Thesefieldefforts
canbeusedbyagenciesauthorizingactivitiesandtheirpermittees(i.e.actionagency;see
Glossary).Theyprovideguidanceforavoidingandminimizingdisturbanceandotherkindsof
take,includinglethaltake,andareanecessarycomponentofshortandlongtermsitespecific
monitoringandmanagementoflocalGoldenEaglesandregionalGoldenEaglepopulations.
Thedatagatheredwillprovideinformationonthebaselinecircumstancesforevaluationof
permitapplicationsandfoundationforpermitconditions,aswellasassistplannerssotheymay
conductinformedimpactanalysesandmitigationduringtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct
(NEPA)process.Datacollectedviathiseffortwillalsohelp:
1. Determinethefateandreproductivetrendsofregionalnestingpopulationsvia
collatinginformationfromobservedterritories;
2. Documentandlisthistoricalandunsurveyedhabitatforfutureanalysistoassist
indetermininglocalandregionalpopulationtrajectories;
3. ProvideinformationtodocumentwhetherlocalGoldenEagleconservation
effortsaremeetinggoalsforimprovementsinthestatusofthespecies;and
4. Provideafoundationforevaluationofwhetherandwhichactivitiesorconditions
maybeaffectingGoldenEagles.
AdditionalprotocolswillbedevelopedtosupportGoldenEaglemanagement.Wewillprioritize
developmentofastatisticallyrigorous,costeffectivesamplingstrategytofacilitatea
landscapescaleapproachtoGoldenEagleconservationandreducetheburdenonindividual
proponentsaswellaslandmanagementagencies.
Forpurposesofthisdocument,wedefine1)Inventoryas:thesystematicobservationsofthe
numbers,locations,anddistributionofGoldenEaglesandeagleresourcessuchassuitable
habitatandpreyinanarea;2).Monitoringas:inventoriesoverintervalsoftime(repeated
observations),usingcomparablemethodssothatchangescanbeidentified,andincluding
analysisofinventorydataormeasurementstoevaluatechangewithinortodefinedmetrics;
and3)Surveyisusedwhenreferringtoinventoryandmonitoringcombined.
II. Background
GoldenEaglesareprotectedbytheMigratoryBirdTreatyActandtheBaldandGoldenEagle
ProtectionAct(EagleAct),bothofwhichprohibittake.Takemeanspursue,shoot,shootat,
2
poison,wound,kill,capture,trap,collect,destroy,molest,ordisturb.Disturbmeanstoagitate
orbotheraBaldEagleoraGoldenEagletoadegreethatcauses,orislikelytocause,basedon
thebestscientificinformationavailable,1)injurytoaneagle,2)adecreaseinitsproductivity,
bysubstantiallyinterferingwithnormalbreeding,feeding,orshelteringbehavior,or3)nest
abandonment,bysubstantiallyinterferingwithnormalbreeding,feeding,orsheltering
behavior.
NeedsforGoldenEagleinformationandevaluation.
TheServicesoverallmanagementobjectiveforgoldeneagleandbaldeaglepopulationsisto
ensurenodeclinesinbreedingpopulationsofeitherspecies.Aspartofanadaptive
managementapproachtoeaglepermitsandeaglemanagement,theServicewillassess,atleast
everyfiveyears,overallpopulationtrends,alongwithannualreportdatafrompermitteesand
otherinformationtoassesshowlikelyfutureactivitiesaretoresultinthelossofoneormore
eagles,adecreaseinproductivityofGoldenEagles,and/orthepermanentlossofanestsite,
territory,orimportantforagingarea.Therefore,implementationofeaglepermitregulations
willentailrequirementsforcumulativeeffectsanalysesandidentifyingtheimpactsofan
activity.Weincludethemheretoprovidethecontextandframeworkfortheprotocolsand
recommendationsinthisdocument.
Cumulativeeffectconsiderations.
Whetherthetakeiscompatiblewitheaglepreservationincludesconsiderationofthe
cumulativeeffectsofotherpermittedtakeandadditionalfactorsaffectingeaglepopulations.
Cumulativeeffectsaredefinedas:theincrementalenvironmentalimpactoreffectofthe
proposedaction,togetherwithimpactsofpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefuture
actions(50CFR22.3).Numerousrelativelyminordisruptionstoeaglebehaviorsfrommultiple
activities,evenifspatiallyortemporallydistributed,mayleadtodisturbancethatwouldnot
haveresultedfromfewerormorecarefullysitedactivities.Theaccumulationofmultipleland
developmentprojectsorsitingofmultipleinfrastructuresthatmaybehazardoustoeaglescan
cumulativelyreducetheavailabilityofalternativesitessuitableforbreeding,feeding,or
sheltering,resultinginagreaterthanadditiveriskoftaketoeagles.
Toensurethatimpactsarenotconcentratedinparticularlocalitiestothedetrimentoflocally
importanteaglepopulations,cumulativeeffectsneedtobeconsideredatthepopulation
managementlevelroughly,ServiceRegionsforBaldEaglesandBirdConservationRegionsfor
GoldenEaglesand,especiallyforprojectspecificanalyses,atlocalareapopulationlevels(the
populationwithintheaveragenataldispersaldistanceofthenestornestsunder
consideration).Eagletakethatisconcentratedinparticularareascanleadtoeffectsonthe
largermanagementpopulationbecause1)disproportionatetakeinlocalpopulationswhere
3
breedingpairsare'high'producersmayreducetheoverallproductivityofthelarger
population;and2)whenportionsofthemanagementpopulationbecomeisolatedfromeach
othertheproductivityoftheoverallmanagementpopulationmaydecrease.
IdentifyingtheImpactsoftheActivity
TheapplicantforanEagleActpermit(whocanbeaprojectproponentortheagencypreparing
theNEPA),hasfoursubtaskstodeterminethelikelyeffectsofaprojectoractivityoneagles:
a.Collectionandsynthesisofbiologicaldata.IfapplyingforanEagleActpermit,anapplicant
mayneedtoprovideuptodatebiologicalinformationabouteaglesthatbreed,feed,
shelter,and/ormigrateinthevicinityoftheactivityandmaypotentiallybeaffectedbythe
proposedactivity.Biologicalinformationcanincludelocationsanddistributionofnests,
delineationofterritories,preybase,generalcompositionandrelativeabundance,and
productivitydata.
b.Identifyingactivitiesthatarelikelytoresultintake.Aspartofthepermitapplication,the
applicantwillbeaskedtoincludeacompletedescriptionoftheactionsthat:(1)arelikelyto
resultineagletake,and(2)forwhichtheapplicantorlandownerhassomeformofcontrol.
Formostapplications,theactivitywillbespecificandwelldefined(e.g.,homeconstruction;
waterusedevelopment)orlanduseactivity(e.g.,forestry).Forlargerscalepermits,each
applicantwillneedtodeterminetheextentofimpactstoincludeinthepermit
authorizationand,ifnecessary,whichonestoexclude.
c.Avoidanceandminimizationmeasures.Anapplicationfora22.26permitwillneedto
documentthemeasurestowhichtheapplicantwillcommittoavoidandminimizethe
impactstoeaglestothemaximumdegreepracticable.
d.Quantifyingtheanticipatedtake.Thetakeauthorizedunderapermitwilldependona
varietyoffactors,including:(1)thenumberofeaglesthatbreed,feed,shelter,andor
migratewithintheactivityarea,(2)thedegreetowhichtheeaglesdependonthatareafor
breeding,feeding,orsheltering,ormigration,andthusaremorelikelytobepresentand
affected,(3)thepotentialofthattypeofactivityingeneraltotakeeagles,(4)thescaleof
theactivity,and(5)themeasurestheapplicantwillundertaketoavoidandminimizethe
take.
FederalagencieshaveadditionalresponsibilitiestoGoldenEaglesunderExecutiveOrder13186
(66FR3853,January17,2001),whichreinstatedtheresponsibilitiesofFederalAgenciesto
complywiththeMigratoryBirdTreatyActof1918.TheExecutiveOrderestablishesaprocess
forFederalAgenciestoconservemigratorybirdsbyavoidingorminimizingunintentionaltake
andtakingactionsthatbenefitspeciestotheextentpracticable.Agenciesareexpectedtotake
4
reasonablestepsthatmayincluderestoringandenhancinghabitat.Environmentalanalysesof
FederalactionsrequiredbyNEPAorotherenvironmentalreviewprocessesmustevaluatethe
effectsofactionsandFederalagencyplansonmigratorybirds,includingGoldenEagles.
GoldenEaglepopulationsarebelievedtobedecliningthroughouttheirrangeinthecontiguous
UnitedStates(HarlowandBloom1989,KochertandSteenhof2002,Kochertetal.2002,Good
etal.2007,Farmeretal.2008,Smithetal.2008,74FR4683646879).TheServicehasmodeled
currentdata(USFWS2009,AppendixC),employingMoffatsequilibrium(Hunt1998)and
MillsapandAllens(2006)analysisofanthropogenicdemographicremoval,andestimatedthat
thefloating(nonbreedingandsurplus)componentoftheGoldenEaglepopulationinsome
areasmaybelimitedatthistime.DatafromtheWesternEcoSystemsTechnologyInc.surveys
from2006through2009suggestadeclinesince2006inthetotalGoldenEaglepopulation
withintheareacoveredbythesurveys(Neilsonetal.2010,USFWS2009,AppendixC).
SignificantGoldenEaglebreedingfailureshavebeenreportedinsomeareasofthe
southwesternUnitedStates(WRI2009),anddeclinesincountsofmigratingGoldenEagleshave
beenreportedinmostareasinthewesternUnitedStates(Farmeretal.2008,Smithetal.
2008),althoughitisunclearifthelatterislinkedtothegeneraldecreaseinthenumberof
eagles.
III. Management Need
Priortoinitiatinginventoryandmonitoringefforts,landmanagementagenciesand/or
proponentsoflanduseactivitiesshouldfirstassessallexistingrecentandhistoricaldata
availableoneagles.Thesedataincludeinformationonnests,reproductiveactivityand
chronologies,nataldispersal,pertinentdatafromVHFandsatellitetelemetry,winterroosts,
migrationcorridors,andforaginghabitatscontainedwithin410milesofareasslatedfor
developmentorauthorizationsforincreasedhumanactivity.Thisbackgroundsearchof
availableinformationmayyieldfewdata,butwillalertprojectproponentsandregulatorystaff
aboutdatagaps,andexistingknowledgeofGoldenEaglesforthatarea.Inventory,monitoring,
andresearchactivitiesmaythenbeidentifiedandfundedtofillinsitespecificinformationgaps
toavoidtakeofGoldenEagles.Specificrecommendationsforthenumberofyearsneededfor
baselinedataandmeasurestoavoidtakeshouldbedevelopedincoordinationwiththeService,
and,toreduceredundancybetweenmanagementandpermittingrequirements,consistent
withpermitrequirementsoutlinedintheDraftImplementationGuidelinesforthenewrules
(expectedfall2010).
ProjectsinGoldenEaglebreedinghomerangesonfederal,state,andprivatelandpossiblywill
havedirect,indirect,andcumulativeeffectsassociatedwithorexacerbatedby,factorssuchas:
recreationdisturbance,electrocution,urbanization,illegalshooting,invasivespeciesaltering
preydensities,leadpoisoning,othercontaminants,climatechange,andprolongeddrought
5
adverselyaffectingGoldenEaglepreyabundanceanddistribution.Inmanycases,existingdata
maynotbeadequateforNEPA,planning,orpermittingpurposes.Therefore,inventoryand
subsequentmonitoringofGoldenEaglesandcomponentsoftheirhabitatsareimportantto
1)developabaselinepriortoprojectplanningandpriortoprojectdevelopmentinGolden
Eaglehabitat,2)analyzeimpactstothespecies,3)continuetoevaluateandreportonthe
effectsoftheactionandmitigationonGoldenEagles,4)supportadaptivemanagement
approaches,and5)provideinformationthatmayberequiredforpermits.
Projectdesign,type,andsitingofprojectfootprintandinfrastructurearecriticaltoavoid
disturbanceandothertakeofGoldenEagles.TheServicerecommendsthatwhenplanning
locationsofinfrastructureandprojectboundaries,actionagenciesandprojectproponents
considerlifehistorycomponentssuchasproductivity,ageclasssurvival,dispersal,migration,
winterconcentrationbehavior,andforagingbehaviorduringbreedingandnonbreeding
seasonstoavoidlethaltake.TheServicerecommendsuseofthebestavailableorgathered
informationapplicabletothelocationoftheprojectorplan,butalsoencourageseffortsto
conductfurtherresearch.Forpermittingpurposeshowever,andtodeterminethelikelihood
andmagnitudeoftake,aswellaseffectivenessofmitigation,monitoringwillneedtoyield
productivityinformation.
Note:Thisdocumentdoesnotaddresssitespecificobservationsfortransitoryorwintering
eagles;theseprotocolswillbeforthcoming.Althoughthelifehistoryfortransitoryand
winteringeaglesisnotdiscussedatlengthhere,thatdoesnotimplyalackimportanceforsite
specificobservationsfromtheServicesperspective.Thedocumentprovidesgeneral
recommendationsforfactorstoconsideroutsidenesting,untilmorespecificprotocolsare
developed.
IV. Basic Golden Eagle Ecology
ThisaccountisnotintendedasacompendiumofGoldenEaglenaturalhistory,biology,
ethology,orecology;pleaserefertoWatson(1997),Palmer(1988)andKochertetal.(2002)for
moredetailedinformation.
Wheretheyexist,GoldenEaglesareanuppertrophicaerialpredator,andeatsmalltomid
sizedreptiles,birds,andmammalsuptothesizeofmuledeerfawnsandcoyotepups(Bloom
andHawks1982).Theyalsoareknowntoscavengeandutilizecarrion(Kochertetal.2002).
GoldenEaglesnestinhighdensitiesinopenandsemiopenhabitat,butalsomaynestatlower
densitiesinconiferoushabitatwhenopenspaceisavailable,(e.g.firebreaks,clearcuts,
burnedareas,pastureland,etc.).Theycanbefoundfromthetundra,throughgrasslands,
woodlandbrushlands,andforestedhabitat,southtoariddeserts,includingDeathValley,
California(Kochertetal.2002).Historically,GoldenEaglesbredinthePlainsandGreatLake
6
states.GoldenEaglescurrentlybreedinandnearmuchoftheavailableopenhabitatinNorth
Americawestofthe100
th
Meridian,aswellasineasternUnitedStatesinthenorthern
AppalachianMountains(Palmer1988,Kochertetal.2002).TheLeeandSpofford(1990)review
oftheliteraturefortheeasternportionoftheUnitedStatessuggestedhistoricalnestingGolden
EaglessouthofNewYorkintheAppalachianswasunlikely.NestingofintroducedGolden
EagleshasbeenreportedinTennesseeandnorthwesternGeorgia(Kochertetal.2002),butwe
donotknowifthoseterritoriesarestillextant.
Anestingterritoryforthepurposeofthismonitoringprotocolisanareathatcontains,or
historicallycontained,oneormorenestswithinthehomerangeofamatedpair.Itisa
confinedlocalitywherenestsarefound,usuallyinsuccessiveyears,andwherenomorethan
onepairisknowntohavebredatonetime(SteenhofandNewton2007).
GoldenEaglesavoidnestingnearurbanhabitatanddonotgenerallynestindenselyforested
habitat.Individualswilloccasionallynestnearsemiurbanareaswherehousingdensityislow
andinfarmlandhabitat;howeverGoldenEagleshavebeennotedtobesensitivetosomeforms
ofanthropogenicpresence(Palmer1988).Steidletal.(1993)foundwhenobserverswere
camped400metersfromnestsofGoldenEagles,adultsspentlesstimeneartheirnests,fed
theirjuvenileslessfrequently,andfedthemselvesandtheirjuvenilesupto67%lessfoodthan
whenobserverswerecamped800metersfromnests.InstudiesofGoldenEaglepopulationsin
thesouthwest(NewMexicoandTexas)andtheFrontRangeoftheRockyMountains(New
Mexico,ColoradoandWyoming),BoekerandRay(1971)reportedthathumandisturbance
accountedforatleast85%ofallknownnestlosses.Breedingadultsaresometimesflushed
fromthenestbyrecreationalclimbersandresearchers,sometimesresultinginthelossofthe
eggsorjuvenilesduetonestabandonment,exposureofjuvenilesoreggstotheelements,
collapseofthenest,eggsbeingknockedfromthenestbystartledadults,orjuvenilesfledging
prematurely.However,GoldenEaglesrarelyflushedfromthenestduringcloseapproachesby
fixedwingaircraftandhelicoptersduringvarioussurveysinMontana,Idaho,andAlaska
(Kochertetal.2002).
GoldenEaglesnestoncliffs,intheupperonethirdofdeciduousandconiferoustrees,oron
artificialstructures(windmills,electricitytransmissiontowers,artificialnestingplatforms,etc.;
PhillipsandBeske1990,Kochertetal.2002).GoldenEaglesbuildnestsoncliffsorinthe
largesttreesofforestedstandsthatoftenaffordanunobstructedviewofthesurrounding
habitat(Beecham1970,BeechamandKochert1975,MenkensandAnderson1987).Usually,
sticksandsoftmaterialareaddedtoexistingnests,ornewnestsareconstructedtocreatea
strong,flatorbowlshapedplatformfornesting(Palmer1988,Watson1997,Kochertetal.
2002).SometimesGoldenEaglewilldecoratemultiplenestsinasingleyear;continuingtodo
sountiltheylayeggsintheselectednest.Thecompletedneststructure(s)canvaryfromlarge
7
andmultilayered;orasmallaugmentationofsticksincaveswithlittlematerialotherthan
extantdetritus(Ellisetal.2009).MostGoldenEagleterritorieshaveupto6nests,butthey
havebeenfoundtocontainupto14nests(Palmer1988,Watson1997,Kochertetal.2002).
Onsetofcourtshipandnestingchronology
CourtshipforGoldenEaglesinvolvesstickcarrying,displayflights,andvocalization(Ellis1979,
Kochertetal.2002).GoldenEaglespartakeinundulatingflight;however,undulatingflighthas
beenobservedyearroundandisthoughttobeassociatedmorewithaggressionandterritory
defensethanwithcourtship(Newton1979,Harmata1982,CollopyandEdwards1989,Watson
1997).
Nestingchronologiesvaryhowevertherearesomegeneralities.InCaliforniaandinTexas,
courtshipatterritoriesstartinmidtolateDecember(Palmer1988,Huntetal.1997,D.Bittner
pers.com);inTexaseggshavebeendetectedasearlyasNovember(OlberholserandKincaid
1974,inlit.).InUtah,courtshipcancommenceinJanuary.Innortherntierstatesatupper
latitudesandhigherelevationsites,egglayingcanoccurasearlyasFebruaryandMarch,before
latewintersnowsandstormshaveabated(Palmer1988).
GoldenEagleslay1to4eggs,with4eggclutchesrare.Mostnestshave2eggs.Thelaying
intervalbetweeneggsrangesbetween3to5days.Incubationcommencesassoonasthefirst
eggislaid,andhatchingisasynchronousandcanbeginasearlyaslateJanuaryinsouthern
California(Dixon1937,Hickman1968),midApriltolateMayinsouthwestIdaho(Kochertetal.
2002)andlateMarchearlyMayincentralandnorthernAlaska(McIntyre1995,Youngetal.
1995;Fig.3).InTexas,eggshavebeennotedfromNovembertoJune(OberholserandKincaid
1974,inlit.).InthenortheastUnitedStates,eggshavebeenlaidinMarch/April(Palmer1988).
Formoredetail,pleaserefertoKochertetal.(2002,Appendix2).
MigrationandWintering
GoldenEagleswillmigratefromtheCanadianprovincesandnortherntierandnortheastern
statestoareasthataremilderinthewinterand/ormayhavelesssnowcover.Wintering
GoldenEagleshavebeennotedinallstatesinthecontinentalU.S.(Wheeler2003,2007).Some
segmentsofthepopulationcanbefoundneartheirnestsitesthroughouttheyear.See
Kochertetal.(2002)fordetailedlistingofwinterrange.
Roostsorgatheringbehavior
GoldenEaglesarenotknowntoroostcommunallyasiscommonwithwinteringBaldEaglesin
someareasoftheUnitedStates,butwillgathertogetheriflocalfoodsourcesareabundant.A
8
caveattothisisthatGoldenEagleshaveperchedwithbaldeagleswheretherehavebeenlarge
concentrationsofwaterfowlorcarrion(Palmer1988).
V. Golden Eagle Responses to Disturbance
GoldenEaglesvisiblydisplaybehaviorthatsignifiesdisturbancewhentheyarestressedby
anthropogenicactivities;whetheritisalonehikerwalking1000metersormorefromanest,or
extendedconstructionorrecreationactivities20005000metersfromaterritory.These
postures,movementsandbehaviorscanbeovert.However,withGoldenEagles,disturbance
behaviorsareoftensubtleandrequireanexperiencedobserver.Olendorff(1971),Fyfeand
Olendorff(1976),andOlsenandOlsen(1978)identifiedconsiderationswhenhuman
interactionsmaydisturbnestingactivities,andhowtoascertaincriticaldistancestoavoid
agitatingnesting,roosting,andforagingraptors.Factorsaffectingcriticaldistancesincluded:
1. Mannerismsofintruder,
2. Sizeofintruder,
3. Stageofbreedingcycle,and
4. Topographyandexposureofintruderinrelationtobird.
Goldeneaglebehaviorvariesamongindividualsandcanbeaffectedbypreviousexperiences.
However,somebehavioralgeneralitiesrelativetodirectandindirectdisturbanceincludethe
following:
1. Agitationbehavior(displacement,avoidance,anddefense),
2. Increasedvigilanceatnestsites,
3. Changeinforageandfeedingbehavior,and/or
4. Nestsiteabandonment.
Oftheprecedingbehaviors,nestsiteabandonmentconstitutestakeundertheEagleAct,asitis
specificallycitedinthedefinitionofdisturb.Theotherbehaviors,whenconsidered
cumulatively,maybeevidencethatactivitiesareinterferingwithnormalbreedingbehaviorand
arelikelytoleadtotake.HumanintrusionsnearGoldenEaglenestsiteshaveresultedinthe
abandonmentofthenest;highnestlingmortalityduetooverheating,chillingordesiccation
whenyoungareleftunattended;prematurefledging;andejectionofeggsoryoungfromthe
nest(BoekerandRay1971,SuterandJoness1981).
VI. Overall Objectives of the Golden Eagle Survey Protocol
ThissurveyprotocolisintendedtostandardizeprocedurestoinventoryandmonitorGolden
Eagleswithinthedirectandindirectimpactareasofplannedorongoingprojectswhere
disturbanceorlethaltakefromotherwisepermittedhumanactivitiesispossible.Thisprotocol
9
willidentifyeagleuseareasandidentifyandminimizepotentialobserverrelateddisturbance
toGoldenEaglesbysurveyswhenconductedbyqualifiedandexperiencedraptorbiologists.
Additionally,datacollectedusingthisprotocolmaybeusedfor,ataminimum,1),sampling
othergeographicareaswheresuitablehabitatmaybepresent;2)shortandlongtermanalysis
ofGoldenEagleoccupancyandproductivityatknownnestsites,andhistoricallocationswhere
observationtodetermineoccupancymaybenecessary;3)identificationandevaluationof
potentialdisturbancefactors.Thisprotocolcanstandardizedatacollectionforpotentiallocal
andregionalanalysisoflongtermoccupancy,productivityandeagleusetrends.Itwas
developedtoacquiredataonGoldenEaglelocations,occupancy,andproductivity,andassuch
mayrequireadditionalareaspecificdetailifusedforresearchpurposes.
Objectivesofinventoryandmonitoring
ThefirstobjectiveofthesesurveysistoprovidemethodstoidentifyareasoccupiedbyGolden
Eaglesandselectfactorstheirbehaviorecology.Additionalobjectivesofthesesurveysinclude
thefollowing:
1. RecordandreportoccupancyandproductivityoflocalGoldenEagleterritories.
2. Documentandlisthistoricalandunsurveyedhabitatforfutureanalysistoassist
indetermininglocalandregionalpopulationtrajectories.
3. Determinenestingchronologies.
4. ProvideinformationtodocumentwhetherlocalGoldenEagleconservation
effortsmeetpermitconditionsorgoalsforimprovementsinthestatusofGolden
Eagles.
5. Provideafoundationtoevaluatewhetherandwhichactivitiesorconditionsmay
beaffectingGoldenEagles.
6. Documentforagingbehavior,dietandhabitatusewithinbreedingandnon
breedinghomeranges.
VII. Inventory Techniques
CAUTION
GoldenEaglesareoneofseveralcliffandtreedwellingspeciessensitivetohuman
disturbance.Monitoringeaglesinamannerthatdisturbsthem,andcausesthemtobe
agitatedorbotheredcancausenestingfailure,andpermanentsiteabandonment,eitherof
whichconstitutestakeundertheEagleAct.
Thesemonitoringprotocolsshouldfacilitateobservercautionandidentifytechniquesthat
willminimizepotentialfortakeofGoldenEagles.Foradditionalinformationregarding
10
preventingobserverdisturbancewhilesurveyingraptors,pleaserefertoFyfeandOlendorff
(1976).
Inventory
InventoriesforGoldenEaglesshouldoccurifnesting,roosting,andforaginghabitatare
containedwithintheprojectboundaryandexistwithin10milesoftheprojectboundary.Local
andregionalGoldenEaglehabitatvariabilitywilldictatethedistancefromtheprojectboundary
wheresurveyswilloccur;distanceswillbegreaterinxericorotherhabitatswherelocalprey
maynotbeabundant.TheServicewillbebasingitssitespecificevaluationsandfinal
determinationsonlocalconditions,notnationalaverages.
Nestinghabitat
ThisaccountisnotintendedasacompendiumofGoldenEaglehabitatavailableandusedin
NorthAmerica;pleaserefertoPalmer(1988)andKochertetal.(2002)formoredetailed
information.
GoldenEaglesuseawidevarietyofhabitatthroughoutNorthAmerica.Smallxericmountain
rangesintheMohaveandGreatBasindeserts,forestedhabitatinthePacificcoastal,southern
desert,GreatBasin,Rocky,Sierra,andCascadeMountainrangesarealsokeynestingareas.
Localandregionalvariationofnestinghabitatshouldbeconsideredpriortosurveys;however
shouldincludecliff,desertscrub,juniperwoodland,andforestedhabitat.Forexample,inthe
northernGreatBasin,GoldenEaglesnestoncliffandinscrubforesthabitat;bothtypesof
substratesshouldbesurveyedpriortoprojectsthathaveapotentialtoaffecteagles.
Identificationcriteriafornestinghabitatatthelocalscaleshouldtakeplaceincoordination
withtheService,state,ortribalwildlifeagencies,andraptorexperts.
VII.a. Procedures for aerial and ground inventory and monitoring surveys
GoldenEaglesgenerallyshowstrongfidelitytothenestingareaannually.Occupancy
determinationisthemostimportantgoalofnestsearches.Considerablesuitablehabitatexists
inwesternNorthAmericathathasneverbeenadequatelysurveyed.Inventoriesshould
examinehabitatwhereGoldenEaglesarenotcurrentlyknowntoexistbutwheresuitable
habitatispresent,aswellaspreviouslyinventoriedareastodetectnewactivity.Monitoring
effortsexamineallhistoricalandextantterritorieswhereGoldenEagleshavebeendetected
eitherpreviouslyorinthecurrentsurvey.
AnestingterritoryorinventoriedhabitatshouldbedesignatedasunoccupiedbyGoldenEagles
ONLYafteratleast2completeaerialsurveysinasinglebreedingseason.Incircumstances
wheregroundobservationoccurs,atleast2groundobservationperiodslastingatleast4hours
ormorearenecessarytodesignateaninventoriedhabitatorterritoryasunoccupiedaslongas
11
allpotentialnestsitesandalternatenestsarevisibleandmonitored.Theseobservation
periodsshouldbeatleast30daysapartforinventoriestodetectoccupancy,andatleast30
daysapartformonitoringofknownterritories.Intervalsbetweenobservationsatoccupied
nestingterritoriesmayneedtobeflexibleandshouldbebasedonthebehavioroftheadults
observed,theageofanyyoungobserved,andthedatatobecollected(seebelow,SectionIX).
Datesofstartingandcontinuinginventoryandmonitoringsurveysshouldbesensitivetolocal
nesting(i.e.laying,incubating,andbrooding)chronologies,andwouldbeconductedduring
weatherconditionsfavorableforaerialsurveysfrommediumtolongrangedistances(300
700meters).
Thefirstinventoryandmonitoringsurveysshouldbeconductedduringcourtshipwhenthe
adultsaremobileandconspicuous.Whenasurveyofhistoricalterritoriesisconducted,
observersshouldfocustheirsearchonknownalternativenests,andalsocarefullyexaminethe
habitatforadditionalnestswhichmayhavebeenoverlookedorrecentlyconstructed.A
decoratednestwillbesufficientevidencetoindicatetheprobablelocationofanesting
attempt.Ifadecoratednestorpairofbirdsislocated,thesearchcanthenbeexpandedto
inventorylikelyhabitatadjacenttothediscoveredterritorytoseeifadditionalgoldeneagle
territoriescanbeobserved.
Note:IdentificationofalternatenestswillbeneededbytheServicefordeterminationof
relativevalueofindividualneststoaterritoryincasesofapplicationsforpermitstotake
inactivenests,andwhendeterminingwhetherabandonmentofaparticularnestislikelyto
resultinabandonmentofaterritory.TheServicehasdeterminedthatterritorylossor
permanentabandonmentofaterritoryisagreaterimpacttopopulationsthantemporary
abandonmentofanest.
Weather:Avoidsearchingpotentialandknownnestinglocationsduringperiodsof
heavyrain,snow,highwinds,orseverecoldweather.GoldenEaglesshouldnot
beinducedtoflushatanytimeduringthesurveyperiod.Flushingwhenthe
adultsareincubatingorhavesmallyoungcanbeparticularlyhazardousfor
successfulnesting,andcouldconstitutelethaldisturbancetake.High
temperaturesalsomaycauseproblemsforsuccessfulviewingoverlong
distancesduetoheatwaves.Further,observerrelatedincidencesofcausing
flightofadultsthatareshadingyoungtopreventoverheatingduringhigh
temperaturesmaycausemortalityoftheyoung.ObservationforGoldenEagles
duringinclementweatherisimpractical,uncomfortable,andunsafeforGolden
Eaglesandobservers.Weatherwillberecordedbytheobserver.
Timeofday:Aerialsurveysshouldbeconductedatthebeginningofthedayifwindspermit.
Likewise,groundsurveysshouldbeinitiated,wherepossible,inmorninghours
12
whentheairisstilltoavoidheatwaves.Primeobservationperiodsarearound
dawn,orshortlythereafter.Insomecasestheangleofthesuninrelationtothe
cliffcanbeamoreimportantissue,andsomecliffsarebetterobservedin
afternoonlight,howeverobservationsofadultbehaviorthatareusedto
determinenestingchronologiesmaybeconductedduringmostoftheday.
Observersshouldbeawareoftheangleofthesuninrelationtotheobservation
postandthenest.Somesitesareplaguedbyafternoonwinds,heatwaves,or
duststorms;localobservationconditionsshouldbetakenintoaccountpriorto
establishingviewingperiods.Timeofdaywillberecordedbytheobserver.
Timeofyear:BreedingsurveysforGoldenEaglesarelatitudeandelevationdependent;
however,theirnestingseasonrangesinthecontiguousUnitedStatesfrom01
Januaryto31August(Kochertetal.2002).Nestingfailuresandseasonal
variationsshouldbeconsideredaspotentialanomaliestonormalbehaviorand
nestingchronologies.Datestobeusedasacutoffperiodforobservationand
reportingofnestingfailuresornonnestingstatuswillvaryperregion.Thedates
listedbelowaretobeusedasgeneralguides,andshouldnotbeusedasfinal
nestsitefailuresurveydeterminationdates.Locationspecificdetermination
datesshouldbedevelopedincoordinationwiththeService,state,ortribal
wildlifeagencies,andraptorexperts.
Durationofstayatobservationpoints:Groundobserverswillsurveyfromobservationpoints
foraminimumof4hours,unlessobservationsyieldGoldenEaglepresence,or
GoldenEaglebehaviorindicateeggsoryoung,orobservationsuggeststhe
observerisdisturbingthebirds.Slowlywalkingandobservingallpotential
nestingsubstratecanbeusedtocompletelyinventorypotentialhabitat.
Observationperiodsmaylastlongeraslongerobservationperiodsmaybe
necessarytoaccuratelydeterminenestingchronologies.Durationofstayat
knownorsuspectedterritoriesduringhelicopterreconnaissance,orduring
groundobservationperiods,willberecordedbytheobserver.
VII.b Aerial surveys
Helicoptersareanacceptedandefficientmeanstosurveylargeareasofhabitattoidentify
potentialhabitatandmonitorknownterritoriesonlyifaccomplishedbycompetentand
experiencedobservers.Theycanbetheprimarysurveymethod,orcanbecombinedwith
followupgroundsurveys.DisturbancetoeaglesshouldbeminimalonlyWHENacceptedaerial
practicesandtechniquesarefollowed.NOTE:Groundsurveyscanbeusedwhentheiruseis
moreefficient,orwhenothercircumstances(e.g.bighornsheeplambingareas)requirethis
method.
13
Coordinationbetweenstateandfederalagenciesisanimportantaspectofaerialsurveysto
developacceptablesearchcriteriatobeusedforidentifyinglikelysuitablenestinghabitatand
locatingnests,aswellastobebecomeacquaintedwithpotentialhazardsandairspace
restrictions.Surveypilotsshouldbeawareofpotentialgroundhazardswithinthehabitattobe
examined,includingmarkedandunmarkedtransmissionandwires.Otherhazardstosurveyors
includerockfallortreefallfromabovethehelicopter,raptorsorotherbirdscollidingwiththe
helicopter,andcollisionwithotheraircraft.Althoughpilotsareoftenthefirsttonoteaflying
raptorduringsurveys,someaccidentsinvolvingwildliferesearchershavebeenattributedtothe
pilotsfocusingonthesurvey,ratherthangivingtheircompleteattentiontoflyingthe
helicopter.
HelicoptersusedforsurveyingGoldenEaglehabitatshouldbelightutility,smalltomedium
sized(suchastheMD500/520,Eurocopter145,BellJetRanger206,orUH72).Theaircraft
shouldbecapableofverticalmobilityinwarmtemperaturesandathigherelevations.
Inventoriesforraptorscanbeconductedwiththemainobserverdoor(s)removed(whichmay
providemorelateralandhorizontalvisibility),orwiththedoorsclosed.Thedecisionregarding
observerdoorsshouldremainapersonalchoice,withthesafetyofpilotsandobserversasthe
primarydeterminant.
Cliffsshouldbeapproachedfromthefront,ratherthanflyingoverfrombehind,orsuddenly
appearingquicklyaroundcornersorbuttresses.Inventoriesshouldbeflownatslowspeeds,ca.
3040knots.However,detectionofnestsmayrequireslowerspeeds,e.g.20knots,while
betweennestspeedscanbehigher(+60knots).Allpotentiallysuitablenestinghabitats(as
identifiedincoordinationwiththeService)shouldbesurveyed;multiplepassesatseveral
elevationbandsmaybenecessarytoprovidecompletecoveragewhensurveyingpotential
nestinghabitatonlargecliffcomplexes,escarpments,orheadwalls.Hoveringforupto30
secondsnocloserthanahorizontaldistanceof20metersfromthecliffwallorobservednests
maybenecessarytodiscernnesttype,documentthesitewithadigitalphotographofthenest,
andifpossible,allowfortheobservertoreadpatagialtags,countyoung,andageyounginthe
nest(Hoechlin1976).Confirmationofnestoccupancymaybeconfirmedduringlaterflightsat
agreaterhorizontaldistance.
Renestingisrare,butGoldenEaglesmayfailattheirfirstnestattempt,andmoveto,orcreate,
analternatenestsite.Multiplevisitstoknownorpotentialnestinghabitatmaybenecessaryto
providecompleteobservationandcoverageofhabitat.
Tosurveyforthepurposeofdocumentingpresence/absenceofGoldenEaglesinpotential
habitat,atleast2aerialobservationflightsofhabitatarenecessary.Theseflightswillbe
spacednocloserthan30daysapart.Additionalinventoryworkintheterritoryisnotnecessary
afternestshavebeenlocatedwhereGoldenEaglesarefoundincubating,orwhereeggsor
14
youngandnumberofeggsoryoungarenoted.Atthispoint,theobservationeffortshould
switchtomonitoringoftheknownterritory.Thenestlocationshouldbedocumented(see
territory/nestnamingconvention,pp.20.
Inventoryandmonitoringflightswillbebasedonlocalknowledgeofknownnesting
chronologiesforthatlatitudeandelevation,andshouldbetimedtobethemostefficientto
reducethenumberofvisitstothenestsite.Flightsmayoccurpreferentiallyduringa)late
courtship,b)egglayingthoughhatch,and/orc)whentheyoungarebetween20and51days
old.Productivitysurveysarebestscheduledwhentheyoungare51daysoldormore,butprior
tofledging.Aerialvisitsatknownnestsmaybeaugmentedorreplacedbygroundobservation
(seebelow).
Otherraptorsorspecialstatusspeciesmaybeobservedduringtheflight,andshouldbe
recorded/reported.Coordinationwithstateandfederalagencieswillbenecessarywhenstate
orfederallylistedThreatened,Endangeredorspecialstatus(speciesofconcern,sensitive,etc.)
speciesarepresentintheflightsurveyarea(i.e.bighornsheep,peregrinefalcons,etc.).
BighornsheepsharethesametypeofcliffcomplexesGoldenEaglesusefornesting,andare
hypersensitivetohelicopters(Wehausen1980,Bleichetal.1990).Specificallyforbighorn
sheeplambingareas,helicopterreconnaissanceandsurveysforGoldenEaglesarenotpossible
astheseflightswillinduceunpermittedtakeduringthelambingseason;allhelicoptersurvey
workforGoldenEaglesshouldbeavoidedinknownlambingareas.Groundobservationwillbe
necessaryforinventoryofcliffcomplexesandmonitoringofpotentialandknownGoldenEagle
territoriesinbighornsheeplambingareas.
MostGoldenEaglesrespondtofixedwingaircraftandhelicoptersbyremainingontheirnests,
andcontinuingtoincubateorroost(DuBois1984,McIntyre1995).Perchedbirdsmayflush.
Duringaerialsurveys,deferencetoflyingeaglesshouldbegivenatalltimes.Flightsatnest
sitesshouldbeterminatedandthehelicoptershouldbankawayandmovetothenextlocation
ifGoldenEaglesappeartobedisturbed;i.e.behaviorthatindicatesthebirdsareagitatedby
thepresenceofthehelicopter.Inshort,observersshouldobtaintheirdata,andleaveassoon
aspossible.
Anydisturbancebehaviorobservedshouldbenotedsothatconsecutiveaerialsurveyswould
besensitivetoGoldenEaglesatthatlocation.Aerialreconnaissancetoinventory/monitorfor
potentialhabitatandadditionalvisitsatknownnestsmaybeaugmentedorreplacedbyground
observationfromasafedistance(seebelow).Groundobservationmaybetherecommended
alternativetoadditionalsurveyflightsduetoconvenienceornecessitatedbyothersensitive
wildlifespecies.Followupgroundobservationfromasafedistancemayalsobethe
recommendedalternativeforadditionalnestsitemonitoring.
15
Observersinhelicoptershavespecificduties.Atleasttwoobserversmaybebestforaerial
surveys;onetheleadobserver,theother(s)supplementsurveyeffort.Oneobserveris
assignedtorecorddataonarecorder(unlesstheverbalinterchangecanberecordedonthe
helicoptersinternalcommunicationsystem),andtheotherbrieflyrecordsdataonhardcopy
andwithdigitalphotographs.Aerialobservationroutesshouldberecorded,downloaded,and
reportedusingGlobalPositioningSystemtrackroutesorapplicablesoftwareprograms.
Observationlocationsandtimeonsiteshouldberecordedonapplicablemapstoascertain
coverageofcliffsystemsandotherpotentiallysuitablehabitat.
Summary:
Qualifiedobserver(s)(asdefinedinsectionVIII).
Nocloserthan1020metersfromcliff;nofartherthan200metersfromcliff
(safetydependent).
Closeapproachandextendedhoveringisallowedwhentherearenobirdsonthe
nesttoallowobserverstocounteggs,deadyoung,orconfirmnestfailure.
Multiplepassesorbands(backandforthatdifferentelevationsaboveground
level)ofobservationacrosscliffhabitatmaybenecessarytoachievecomplete
coverageofalargecliffcomplex.
Occupiedterritoriesandcurrentandalternativenestsiteswillbedocumented;
nestscontainingfreshbranchesshouldalsobedelineated.
Afteranestwitheggs,young,oranincubatingadulthasbeenlocated,thereis
noneedtosearchforothernestswithintheterritory.
Minimalhoveringtimeataknownorpotentialnestshouldbelessthan30
seconds.
Atleast2surveysofpreviouslyunsurveyedhabitatwillbespacedatleast30
daysapart.
VII.c. Ground Surveys
Groundsurveysofpotentialhabitat
GroundsurveysforGoldenEaglesinpotentialhabitatmaybeachievedwithoutaerialsupport,
ormaybeusedtoaugmentextantaerialsurveys.GroundsurveystodetectGoldenEaglenests
andtheselectednestatknownterritoriesareeffectiveinhabitatwhereobservationpointsare
establishedtoobserveareasoncliffs,utilitytowers,orintreessuspectedtobenestinghabitat.
Aswithaerialsurveys,identificationcriteriafornestinghabitatshouldtakeplacein
coordinationwiththeService,stateortribalwildlifeagencies,andraptorspecialists.
Observationposts(OPs)areestablishedduringinitialreconnaissanceofpotentialorknown
nestcliffs,andareestablishedinlocationsthatarefarenoughfromthepotentialnestsiteto
16
effectivelyobservethebehavioroftheadults(ifpresent)withoutdisturbingnestingbehavior.
WellplacedOPsprovideunobstructedviewingofthepotentialnestlocationoroftheareato
besurveyed;includingabroadpanoramaofthesurroundinghabitat.MultipleOPsorwalking
surveysmaybenecessarytoobservepotentialnestsites.OPslocatedinfrontof,andbelow
thepotentialnestcliffortreearebest.PlacingOPsbelowthepotentialnestcliffreducesstress
ifanincubatingadultmaybepresent.ThedistancefromanOPtothepotentialnestsitemay
rangefrom3001600meters(latterrepresentsextremecircumstances)fromthecliffbaseto
theobserver,andgenerallynogreaterthan700meters.
GoldenEaglesmayusealternativenests.Detectionofpreviouslyunknownalternatenestsand
observationofallknownalternativenestswillbecomeimportantifGoldenEaglesfailintheir
initialnestingattempt,orarenotobservedattheprobablenestlocation.
Groundmonitoring;knownterritories
Monitoringtodocumentnestingsuccessatknownterritoriesmayoccursolelyviaground
observations.Observationofknownterritoriesshouldusethemethodologydescribedfor
groundmonitoringofpotentialhabitat(seesectionVIIc).Datesofallvisitstothenesting
territorywillberecorded;dateofconfirmationofnestingfailurewillbekeydataforsite
specificandregionalanalysis.
Nestingoutcomes
Fledgingsuccesswillbedeterminedviatheobservationofyoungthatareatleast51daysof
age,orareknowntohavefledgedfromtheobservednest.Ifthereiswhitewash(GoldenEagle
defecation)andawellwornnest,youngwerepreviouslyobservedinthenesttobe>4weeks
oldduringapreviousvisit,andtheyoungwouldhavebeen>51daysoldatthetimeofthevisit,
andnodeadyoungarefoundafterathoroughgroundsearch,thenestingattemptcanbe
deemedsuccessful.
Nestingfailureoccurswhenanestwhereeggswerelaidorwhereincubationbehaviorwas
observedfailstohaveanyyoungreach51daysofage.Ifnecessary,nestingfailurewillbe
confirmedbyusingaspottingscopetoviewthenesttodetermineifdeadyoungareobserved.
Nestingfailuresmayalsobedeterminedifobservationsofthenestpriortotheprojected
fledgedateyieldnoyoungorfledglingswhereeggsoryoungwerepreviouslyobserved.In
theseinstancesobservationperiodsshouldlast4hours(consecutively),orareconfirmedby
aerialsurvey.Ifdeadyoungareobservedinthenest(i.e.allyoungaredead),monitoring
effortsmaycease.Nestfailuresmayalsobeconfirmedbyanapproach(walkin)tothenestno
morethan4weeksafterfledgingwasscheduledtooccur.Observerswilllookfordeadchicksat
thebaseofthenestcliffortree,whereaccessisreasonableandsafe.
17
Observersmustdocumentthecriteriatheyusetoconcludethatsuccessorfailureoccurred.
Summary
Observationpostsformonitoringknownterritorieswillbenocloserthan300
metersforextendedobservations,andgenerallynofurtherthan700meters,
whereterrainallows.MaximumOPdistancewouldbe1600meters.
Toinventoryanddetermineoccupancyofcliffsystems,therewillbeatleast2
observationperiodsperseason.Todeterminefledgingsuccess,additional
observationsmay(ormaynot)benecessary.
o Observationperiodswilllastatleast4hoursforknownnestsites,oruntil
territoryoccupancycanbeconfirmed.
o Observationperiodswilllastforatleast4hoursper1.6kmofcliff
system,basedfromthecenterpointofthatcliffcomplex.
o Observationperiodswillbeatleast30daysapartformonitoringefforts.
Tocollectmonitoringdataataknownnestterritory,therewillbeatleast2
observationperiodsperseason.
o Observationperiodsfromgroundobservationpointswilllastatleast4
hoursforknownnestsitesoruntilnestingchronologycanbeconfirmed
pervisit.Observationperiodswillbeatleast30daysapart.
VIII. Observer qualifications
Surveyorexperienceaffectstheresultsofprotocoldrivenraptorsurveys.Allobserversshould
havetheequivalentof2seasonsofintensiveexperienceconductingsurveyandmonitoringof
GoldenEagleand/orcliffdwellingraptors.Thatexperiencemayincludebanding,intensive
behavioralmonitoring,orprotocoldrivensurveywork.Experienceshouldbedetailedand
confirmedwithreferences,andprovidedtoactionandregulatoryagencies.Allsurveyors
shouldbewellversedwithraptorresearchstudydesignandGoldenEaglebehaviorandsign,
includingnests,perches,mutes,feathers,preyremains,flightpatterns,disturbancebehavior,
vocalizations,agedetermination,etc.Aerialsurveysshouldbeconductedbyraptorspecialists
whohaveatleast3fieldseasonsexperienceinhelicopterborneraptorsurveysaroundcliff
ecosystems.
InlieuoflimitedornoGoldenEagleexperience,groundsurveyorsshouldattendatleasta
2dayGoldenEagletrainingsessionconvenedwithclassroomandfieldcomponents;trainers
willbedesignatedbytheUSFWS/USGS.Inexperiencedorlimitedexperiencesurveyorswillbe
mentoredbyGoldenEaglespecialistsforatleast12fieldseasons,dependingontheir
experiencelevel,andshouldassistwiththepreparationofatleast3surveysandreportsoverat
least3years.AGoldenEaglespecialistisdefinedasabiologistorecologistwith5ormore
yearsofGoldenEagleorcliffdwellingraptorresearch/surveyexperience,possessionof
18
state/federalpermitallowingcapture,handling,and/ortranslocationofGoldenEaglesand/or
cliffdwellingraptors;and/orrelevantresearchonraptorspublishedinthepeerreviewed
literature.
IX. Documentation and recommended notation of territory/nest site and area surveyed
Dataforeachterritory/nestsite(s)andareavisitedshouldbereportedannuallytothe
applicableRegionalOfficeoftheUSFWSortotheDivisionofMigratoryBirdManagementfor
collationintoanationaldatabase.Informationprovidedshouldinclude,asfeasible:
documentationofthemethodsandsurveydesignused;availableGISlayers,includingnests,
estimatedterritories,andflightpathsforaerialsurveysorOPsforgroundsurveys;andrawdata
inExcelformat.
RecommendedminimumdatacollectedatknownGoldenEagleterritories
Observationofpotentialsitesandknownnestterritorieswillproducedatahelpfultodetermine
territoryoccupancy,productivity,andfateofthenestingattempt.Eachobservationandallsite
specificdatacollectedshouldincludeatleast;

a)Dateofobservation(s),
b)Timeofobservation(s),
c)Weatherduringobservation(s),
d)Durationofobservation(s),
e)Nameofobserver(s),
f)Locationofobservation(s),and
g)Descriptionofobservation(s).

Datacollectedduringinventoryandmonitoringwillinclude(atleast)thefollowing:
Territorystatus[Unknown;Vacant;Occupied1eagle;Occupied2eagleslaying
ornonlaying;Breedingsuccessful(chickobservedtobeatleast+51days
fledging),Breedingunsuccessful(failednestingattemptfailedaftereggswere
laid)].
Nestlocation(decimaldegreelat/longorUTM).
Nestelevation.
AgeclassofGoldenEaglesobserved.
Documentnestingchronology;
o Dateclutchcomplete(estimated).Describeincubationbehaviorobserved
toderivethisdate,and/orusebackdatingfromknownnestlingage;
o Hatchdate(estimatedfromageofnestlings);
o Fledgedate(knownorestimated;seenestingoutcomes,p.18);
o Datenestingfailurefirstobservedand/orconfirmed;
o Numberofyoungateachvisitandat>51daysofage;
19
o Digitalphotographs;a)landscapeviewofareainventoried,b)landscape
viewofterritory,andc)nest(s);and
o Substrateuponwhichthenestisplaced(treespecies,cliff,orstructure).
Additionaldatathatcanbecollectedinclude(butarenotlimitedto):
Presenceorabsenceofbands(USGSandVID),patagialtags(numberandcolor),
ortelemetryunit;
Foragelocation(ifknown);
Preyitemsnoted(ifdiscerned);
Heightofnestonclifforintree,anddescriptionoftechniqueusedtoestimate
height;
Speciesoftree,typeofrock,ortypeofstructureusedtosupportthenest;
Overallcliffortreeheight,anddescriptionoftechniqueusedtoestimateheight;
Nestaspect;and
Othernestingraptorspresentnearby.
Eachareasurveyedusingtheguidanceinthisprotocol,includingsurveyedhabitat,occupied
nestingterritory,historicalterritory,andsuspected/alternativenests,shouldberecordedina
standardizedmannertoallowlocal,regional,andnationaldataanalysis.
RecommendedGoldenEagleTerritory/sitenamingconvention:
XX
1
XXX
2
XXXXX/XX
3
XXX
4
XX
5
Territoryname
XX
1
=State(twoletteralpha)
XXX
2=
County(threeletteralpha)

XX
3
=USGSQuad[fivenumeric/twoletteralpha](whentheterritorystraddlesadjacent
quadmaps,thequadinwhichthefirstnestwasfoundwillbeusedtodescribethe
territory;XX
5
isusedtodocumentthelocationsofalternatenestswithinaterritory)
XXX
4
=AssignedTerritorynumberwithinUSGSquad(threenumeric)
XX
5
=AssignedNestnumberwithinterritoryininstancesofalternatenests(twonumeric)
Sitename=traditionalsitename,orifnew,uselocalnamingconvention(e.g.Upperfork
AmundsenCreek,FortPeckflatland,FarmerJanesback40)
ExampleCAKER38512/DG0302AbbotCreek
X. Additional considerations
Thisinterimdocumentprimarilycontainsmethodsforinventoryingandmonitoringatnest
sites,buttheprohibitionsagainsttakeandthenewregulationsapplyatnestsitesandforaging
areas,aswellasduringmigrationandothernonbreedingtimes.TheServicewilldevelopor
adoptrecommendationsforsurveysapplicabletoareasotherthannestsitesinother
documents.
20
Suitableforaginghabitat
GoldenEaglesforageclosetoandfarfromtheirnests,i.e.<6kmfromthecenteroftheir
territories,buthavebeenobservedtomove9kmfromthecenteroftheirterritoriesin
favorablehabitat(McGradyetal.2002).Thesedistancesmaybegreaterinxerichabitats.
Suitablewinteringhabitat
Duringwinter,GoldenEaglesarefoundthroughoutthecontiguousUnitedStates.Surveysfor
winteringGoldenEagleswillencompassallhabitatwhereGoldenEagleshavebeenknownto
nest,roost,andforage.RefertoWheeler(2003,2007)formapsofsuitablewinteringrange.
Wintersurveys
Surveyinformationgatheredduringthenonbreedingperiodisneededtoidentifyforaging
areasanddeterminenumericalestimatesofusebyGoldenEagles.PresenceofGoldenEagles
duringwintersurveysdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatbreedingindividualsarepresent;
howeverfollowupsurveysduringthebreedingseasonarenecessarytodenoteoccupancyat
suspectedorknownterritories.
Migrationsurveys
ThelocationofmigrationroutesorareasinrelationtoaproposalthatarelikelytotakeGolden
Eaglesthroughinjuryormortalitymayhavecriticalimplications.Therefore,evaluationsshould
assesswhethermigratoryortransientGoldenEaglesarelikelytobepresentduringthe
constructionandthelifeoftheproject.OtherfactorstoconsiderincludenumbersofGolden
Eaglesmovingthroughtheprojectarea,movementpatterns(includingathreedimensional
spatialanalysis),timeofday,andseasonalpatterns.Inthecaseofwinddevelopment,surveys
willneedtoidentifythelocationsofmigrationroutesandmovementsduringmigrationin
relationtoproposedturbinesandrotorsweptarea.
XI. Acknowledgments.
Theauthorsareindebtedtotheexpertise,experience,effortandkindnessexpendedonall
phasesofthisprotocolbyDr.MarkFuller(USGS),MikeKochert(USGSEmeritis),andKaren
Steenhof(USGSRetired).Wegreatlyappreciatethetimetheytooktoreviewmultipledrafts,
andprovidesoundadviceandguidancewherenecessaryregardingallaspectsofGoldenEagle
inventoryandmonitoring.RobertMurphyscommentsonearlierdraftswerealsoappreciated.
WealsoappreciatedPeterBloomsinputandgoodhumorregardinghisobservationsofGolden
Eaglenaturalhistoryandmonitoring,andthecoverphotographofaGoldenEagletakenfrom
beneathacalfcarcasswhilehewasinasouthernCaliforniapittrap.
21
XII Literature Cited
BEECHAM,J.J.Jr.1970.NestingecologyoftheGoldenEagleinsouthwesternIdaho.Master's
thesis.Univ.ofIdaho,Moscow.
BEECHAM,J.J.ANDM.N.KOCHERT.1975.Breedingbiologyofthegoldeneaglein
southwesternIdaho.WilsonBull.87:506513.
BLEICH,V.C.,R.T.BOWYER,A.M.PAULI,R.L.VERNOY,ANDR.W.ANTHES.1990.Responses
ofmountainsheeptohelicoptersurveys.Calif.FishandGame76:197204.
BLOOM,P.H.ANDS.J.HAWKS.1982.FoodhabitsofnestingGoldenEaglesinNortheast
CaliforniaandNorthwestNevada.J.RaptorRes.16:110115.
BLOOM,P.H.ANDW.S.CLARK.2001.Moltandsequenceofplumagesofgoldeneagles,anda
techniqueforinhandageing.N.Am.BirdBander26:97116.
BOEKER,E.L.andT.D.RAY.1971.Goldeneaglepopulationstudiesinthesouthwest.Condor
73:463467.
BOEKER,E.L.1974.Statusofgoldeneaglesurveysinthewesternstates.Wildl.Soc.Bull.
2:4649.
COLLOPY,M.W.ANDT.C.EDWARDS.1989.Territorysize,activitybudget,andtheroleof
undulationflightinnestingGoldenEagles.J.FieldOrnithol.60:4351.
DEGROOT,D.S.1928.RecordsetsofeggsofCaliforniaraptores[sic].Condor30:360361.
DIXON,J.B.1937.TheGoldenEagleinSanDiegoCounty,California.Condor39:4958.
DUBOIS,K.1984.RockyMountainFrontraptorsurvey,December1982November1983,Fin.
Rep.MontanaDep.Fish,Wildl.,Parks,Helena.
ELLIS,D.H.1979.Developmentofbehaviorinthegoldeneagle.WildlifeMonogr.No.43.
ELLIS,D.H.,T.CRAIG,E.CRAIG,S.POSTUPALSKY,C.T.LARUE,R.W.NELSON,D.W.ANDERSON,
C.J.HENNY,J.WATSON,B.A.MILSAP,J.W.DAWSON,K.L.COLE,E.M.MARTIN,A.
MARGALIDA,ANDP.KUNG.2009.Unusualraptornestsaroundtheworld.J.Raptor
Res.43:175198.
FARMER,C.J.,L.J.GOODRICH,E.RUELASINZUNZA,ANDJ.P.SMITH.2008.Conservationstatus
ofNorthAmericasbirdsofprey.Pp.303420INK.L.BILDSTEIN,J.P.SMITH,E.RUELAS
INZUNZAANDR.R.VEIT(eds.).StateofNorthAmericasbirdsofprey.SeriesinOrnith.
#3,NuttallOrnith.ClubandtheAm.Ornith.Union.
22
FYFE,R.W.ANDR.R.OLENDORFF.1976.Minimizingthedangersofnestingstudiestoraptors
andothersensitivespecies.CanadianWildl.Serv.,Occas.Paper#23.GOOD,R.E.,R.M.
NIELSON,H.SAWYER,ANDL.L.MCDONALD.2007.Apopulationestimateforgolden
eaglesinthewesternUnitedStates.J.Wildl.Manage.71:395402.
GOOD,R.E.,R.M.NIELSON,H.SAWYERANDL.L.MCDONALD.2007.Apopulationestimatefor
GoldenEaglesinthewesternUnitedStates.J.Wildl.Manage.71:395402.
HARLOW,D.L.ANDP.H.BLOOM.1989.ButeosandtheGoldenEagle.Pp.102110inB.G.
Pendleton,ed.Proceedingsofthewesternraptormanagementsymposiumand
workshop.Natl.Wildl.Fed.Scien.Tech.Ser.No.12.
HARMATA,A.R.1982.WhatisthefunctionofundulatingflightdisplayinGoldenEagles?
RaptorRes.16:103109.
HICKMAN,G.L.1968.Theecologyandbreedingbiologyofthegoldeneagleinsouthwestern
IdahoandsoutheasternOregon.Draftnumber2,U.S.Dept.Int.Bur.SportFish.and
Wildl.Washington,D.C.
HOECHLIN,D.R.1976.DevelopmentofgoldeneaglesinsouthernCalifornia.WesternBirds
7:137152.
HUNT,G.W.,R.E.JACKMAN,T.L.BROWN,D.E.DRISCOLL,ANDL.CULP.1997.Apopulation
studyofgoldeneaglesintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea;secondyearprogress
report.PredatoryBirdResearchGroup,LongMarineLab.,UCSantaCruz.
HUNT,G.W.1998.RaptorfloatersatMoffatsequilibrium.Oikos82:191197.
KOCHERT,M.N.ANDK.STEENHOF.2002.GoldeneaglesoftheU.S.andCanada:status,trends
andconservationchallenges.J.RaptorRes.36(S1):3240.
KOCHERT,M.N.K.STEENHOF,C.L.MCINTYREANDE.H.CRAIG.2002.GoldenEagle(Aquila
chrysaetos).InA.PooleandF.Gill(eds).TheBirdsofNorthAmerica,#684.TheBirds
ofNorthAmerica,Inc.Philadelphia,PA.
LEE,D.S.ANDW.R.SPOFFORD.1990.Nestingofgoldeneaglesinthecentralandsouthern
Appalachians.WilsonBull.102:693698.
NEWTON,I.1979.Populationecologyofraptors.T&ADPoyser,London.
NIELSON,R.M.,T.RINTZ,M.B.STAHL,R.E.GOOD,L.L.MCDONALDANDT.L.MCDONALD.2010.
Resultsofthe2009surveyofgoldeneagle(Aquilachrysaetos)inthewesternUnited
States.WesternEcosystemsTech.Inc.Contract#201818C027fortheUSFWS.
23
MCINTYRE,C.L.1995.Nestingecologyofmigratorygoldeneagles(Aquilachrysaetos)inDenali
NationalPark,Alaska.M.S.thesis,Univ.Alaska,Fairbanks.
MCGRADY,M.J.,J.R.GRANT,I.P.BAINBRIDGE,ANDD.R.A.MCLEOD.2002.Amodelofgolden
eagle(Aquilachrysaetos)rangingbehavior.J.RaptorRes.36(1Supplement):6269.
MENKENS,G.E.,JR.ANDS.H.ANDERSON.1987.Nestsitecharacteristicsofapredominantly
treenestingpopulationofgoldeneagles.J.FieldOrnithol.58:2225.
MILLSAP,B.A.ANDG.T.ALLEN.2006.Effectsoffalconryharvestonwildraptorpopulationsin
theUnitedStates:theoreticalconsiderationsandmanagementrecommendations.
Wildl.Soc.Bull.34:13921400.
OBERHOLSER,H.C.ANDE.B.KINCAID,JR.1974.ThebirdlifeofTexas.2Volumes.Univ.Texas
Press,Austin.
OLENDORFF,R.R.1971.Falconiformreproduction;areview.Part1.Theprenestlingperiod.
RaptorRes.FoundationReport#1.Vermillion,SD.
OLSEN,P.ANDJ.OLSEN.1978.Alleviatingtheimpactofhumandisturbanceonthebreeding
peregrinefalcon:ornithologists.Corella2:17.
PALMER,R.S.1988.Goldeneagle.INR.S.PALMER(ed.).HandbookofNorthAmericanbirds.
YaleUniv.Press.
PHILLIPS,R.L.ANDA.E.BESKE.1990.Distributionandabundanceofgoldeneaglesandother
raptorsinCampbellandConverseCounties,Wyoming.U.S.Dept.Int.FishandWildlife
ServiceTech.Rept.27.WashingtonDC.
PHILLIPS,R.L.,A.H.WHEELER,J.M.LOCKHART,T.P.MCENEANEY,N.C.FORRESTER.1990.
NestingecologyofgoldeneaglesandotherraptorsinsoutheasternMontanaand
northernWyoming.U.S.Dept.Int.FishandWildlifeServiceTech.Rept.26.
Washington,DC.
SMITH,J.P.,C.J.FARMER,S.W.HOFFMAN,G.S.KALTENECKER,K.Z.WOODRUFF,ANDP.F.
SHERRINGTON.2008.TrendsinautumncountsofmigratoryraptorsinwesternNorth
America.Pages217254INK.L.BILDSTEIN,J.P.SMITH,E.RUELASINZUNZAANDR.R.
VEIT(eds.).StateofNorthAmericasbirdsofprey.SeriesinOrnith.#3,NuttallOrnith.
ClubandtheAm.Ornith.Union.
STEENHOF,K.ANDI.NEWTON.2007.Assessingnestingsuccessandproductivity.Pages181
191IND.M.BIRDANDK.L.BILDSTEIN(eds.).Raptorresearchandmanagement
techniques.HancockHouse,SurreyB.C.
24
STEIDL,R.J.,K.D.KOZIE,G.J.DODGE,T.PEHOVSKIandE.R.HOGAN.1993.Effectsofhuman
activityonbreedingbehaviorofgoldeneaglesinWrangellSt.EliasNationalParkand
Preserve;apreliminaryassessment.NationalParkService,WrangellSt.EliasNational
ParkandPreserve,CopperCenter,Alaska,WRSTResearchandResourceReport;no.
933.
SUTER,G.W.,H,andJ.L.JONESS.1981.Criteriaforgoldeneagle,ferruginoushawk,andprairie
falconnestsiteprotection.J.RaptorRes.15:1218.
USFWS[U.S.FISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE].2009.Finalenvironmentalassessment;Proposalto
permittakeasprovidedundertheBaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct.Divisionof
MigratoryBirdManagement,USFWS,Washington,DC.
WATSON,J.1997.Thegoldeneagle.T&ADPoyser,London.
WEHAUSEN,J.D.1980.SierraNevadabighornsheep:historyandpopulationecology.PhD
Dissertation.UniversityofMichigan.
WRI[WILDLIFERESEARCHINSTITUTE,INC.].2009.WesternMohave2008raptorsurvey;BLM
JohnsonValleyandStoddardValleyopenareasandenvirons.WRIforU.S.Bureauof
LandManagement,MorenoValley,CA.
WHEELER,B.K.2003.RaptorsofwesternNorthAmerica;theWheelerGuides.PrincetonUniv.
Press.
WHEELER,B.K.2007.RaptorsofeasternNorthAmerica;theWheelerGuides.PrincetonUniv.
Press.
YOUNG,D.D.,JR.,C.L.MCINTYRE,P.J.BENTE,T.R.MCCABEANDR.E.AMBROSE.1995.Nesting
bygoldeneaglesonthenorthslopeoftheBrooksRangeinnortheasternAlaska.Journal
ofFieldOrnithology66:373379.
25
XIII Glossary
Actionagencyanagencyorentityauthorizinganactionorplan,orprovidingfundingfor
actionsandplans.
Activenest(fromtheregulations)aGoldenEaglenestcharacterizedbythepresenceofany
adult,egg,ordependentyoungatthenestinthepast10consecutivedaysimmediatelyprior
to,andincluding,atpresent.Appliesonlytoapplicationsforpermitstotakeeaglenests.
Breedinghomerangesthespatialextentoroutsideboundaryofthemovementofindividuals
fromGoldenEaglepairsduringthecourseofeverydayactivitiesduringthebreedingseason.
DecoratednestAnestuponwhicheagleshaveplacedgreenery.Mayconstituteevidenceof
territoryoccupancy.
Inactivenest(fromtheregulations)aGoldenEaglenestthatisnotcurrentlybeingusedby
eaglesasdeterminedbythecontinuingabsenceofanyadult,egg,ordependentyoungatthe
nestforatleast10consecutivedaysimmediatelypriorto,andincluding,atpresent.An
inactivenestmaybecomeactiveagainandremainsprotectedundertheEagleAct.
Inventorysystematicobservationsofthenumbers,locations,anddistributionofGolden
Eaglesandeagleresourcessuchassuitablehabitatandpreyinanarea.
Localareapopulationthepopulationwithintheaveragenataldispersaldistanceofthenest
ornestsunderconsideration(43milesforbaldeagles,140milesforgoldeneagles).Effectsto
thelocalareapopulationareoneconsiderationintheevaluationofthedirect,indirect,and
cumulativeeffectsoftake,andthemitigationforsuchtake,undereagletakepermits.
Migrationcorridorstheroutesorareaswhereeaglesmayconcentrateduringmigration.
GoldenEaglesbeginmigratingacrossabroadfront,buttendtoconcentratealongleadinglines
(geographicalfeaturessuchmountainridges)astheymovebetweengeographiclocations.
GoldenEaglesareobservedinlargestnumbersalongnorthsouthorientedmountainranges
wheretheysoaronmountainupdrafts.Thespeciestypicallyavoidslengthywatercrossings.In
NorthAmerica,migratingGoldenEaglesconcentratealongtheAppalachianMountainsinthe
EastandRockyMountainsintheWest.
ManagementagencyseeActionAgency.
Monitoringinventoriesoverintervalsoftime(repeatedobservations),usingcomparable
methodssothatchangescanbeidentified.Monitoringassessmentincludesanalysisof
inventorydataormeasurementstoevaluatechangewithinortodefinedmetrics.Monitoring
alsoincludesrepeatedobservationsonaknownnestingterritory.
26
OccupiedNestanestusedforbreedinginthecurrentyearbyapair.Presenceofanadult,
eggs,oryoung,freshlymoltedfeathersorpluckeddown,orcurrentyearsmutes(whitewash)
suggestsiteoccupancy.Additionally,forthepurposesoftheseguidelines,allbreedingsites
withinabreedingterritoryaredeemedoccupiedwhileraptorsaredemonstratingpairbonding
activitiesanddevelopinganaffinitytoagivenarea.Ifthisculminatesinanindividualnest
beingselectedforusebyabreedingpair,theothernestsinthenestingterritorywillnolonger
beconsideredoccupiedforthecurrentbreedingseason.Anestsiteremainsoccupied
throughouttheperiodsofinitialcourtshipandpairbonding,egglaying,incubation,brooding,
fledging,andpostfledgingdependencyoftheyoung.
UnoccupiedNeststhosenestsnotselectedbyraptorsforuseinthecurrentnestingseason.
Nestswouldalsobeconsideredunoccupiedforthenonbreedingperiodoftheyear.Theexact
pointintimewhenanestbecomesunoccupiedshouldbedeterminedbyaqualifiedwildlife
biologistbaseduponobservationsandthatthebreedingseasonhasadvancedsuchthatnesting
isnotexpected.Inactivityatanestsiteorterritorydoesnotnecessarilyindicatepermanent
abandonment.
Productivitythemeannumberofindividualsfledgedperoccupiednestannually.
Surveyisusedwhenreferringtoinventoryandmonitoringcombined.

Suggested Priority of Migratory Bird Conservation Actions for Projects
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management
(For External Distribution)
March 9, 2010


1. Avoid any take of migratory birds and/or minimize the loss, destruction, or
degradation of migratory bird habitat while completing the proposed project or
action.

2. Determine if the proposed project or action will involve below- and/or above-
ground construction activities since recommended practices and timing of surveys
and clearances could differ accordingly.

3. If the proposed project or action includes a reasonable likelihood that take of
migratory birds will occur, then complete actions that could take migratory birds
outside of their nesting season. This includes clearing or cutting of vegetation,
grubbing, etc. The primary nesting season for migratory birds varies greatly
between species and geographic location, but generally extends from early April
to mid-July. However, the maximum time period for the migratory bird nesting
season can extend from early February through late August. Also, eagles may
initiate nesting as early as late December or January depending on the geographic
area. Due to this variability, project proponents should consult with the
appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Program (USFWS) for specific nesting
seasons. Strive to complete all disruptive activities outside the peak of migratory
bird nesting season to the greatest extent possible. Always avoid any habitat
alteration, removal, or destruction during the primary nesting season for migratory
birds. Additionally, clearing of vegetation in the year prior to construction (but
not within the nesting season) may discourage birds from attempting to nest in the
proposed construction area, thereby decreasing chance of take during construction
activities.

4. If a proposed project or action includes the potential for take of migratory birds
and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and work cannot occur
outside the migratory bird nesting season (either the primary or maximum nesting
season), project proponents will need to provide the USFWS with an explanation
for why work has to occur during the migratory bird nesting season. Further, in
these cases, project proponents also need to demonstrate that all efforts to
complete work outside the migratory bird nesting season were attempted, and that
the reasons work needs to be completed during the nesting season were beyond
the proponents control.

Also, where project work cannot occur outside the migratory bird nesting season,
project proponents must survey those portions of the project area during the
nesting season prior to construction occurring to determine if migratory birds are
present and nesting in those areas. In addition to conducting surveys during the

nesting season/construction phase, companies may also benefit from conducting
surveys during the prior nesting season Such surveys will assist the company in
any decisions about the likely presence of nesting migratory birds or sensitive
species in the proposed project or work area. While individual migratory birds
will not necessarily return to nest at the exact site as in previous years, a survey in
the nesting season in the year before construction allows the company to become
familiar with species and numbers present in the project area well before the
nesting season in the year of construction. Bird surveys should be completed
during the nesting season in the best biological timeframe for detecting the
presence of nesting migratory birds, using accepted bird survey protocols.
USFWS Offices can be contacted for recommendations on appropriate survey
guidance. Project proponents should also be aware that results of migratory bird
surveys are subject to spatial and temporal variability. Finally, project
proponents will need to conduct migratory bird surveys during the actual year of
construction, if they cannot avoid work during the primary nesting season (see
above) and if construction will impact habitats suitable for supporting nesting
birds.

5. If no migratory birds are found nesting in proposed project or action areas
immediately prior to the time when construction and associated activities are to
occur, then the project activity may proceed as planned.

6. If migratory birds are present and nesting in the proposed project or action area,
contact your nearest USFWS Ecological Services Field Office and USFWS
Region Migratory Birds Program for guidance as to appropriate next steps to take
to minimize impacts to migratory birds associated with the proposed project or
action.


* Note: these proposed conservation measures assume that there are no Endangered or
Threatened migratory bird species present in the project/action area, or any other
Endangered or Threatened animal or plant species present in this area. If Endangered or
Threatened species are present, or they could potentially be present, and the
project/action may affect these species, then consult with your nearest USFWS
Ecological Services Office before proceeding with any project/action.

** The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, possession, and
transportation, (among other actions) of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests,
except when specifically permitted by regulations. While the Act has no provision for
allowing unauthorized take, the USFWS realizes that some birds may be killed during
construction and operation of energy infrastructure, even if all known reasonable and
effective measures to protect birds are used. The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement
carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through investigations and enforcement,
as well as by fostering relationships with individuals, companies, and industries that have
taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds, and by encouraging others to
implement measures to avoid take of migratory birds. It is not possible to absolve

individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality
avoidance or other similar protective measures. However, the Office of Law
Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting individuals and
companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all reasonable,
prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to work
closely with Service biologists to identify available protective measures when developing
project plans and/or avian protection plans, and to implement those measures prior
to/during construction or similar activities.

*** Also note that Bald and Golden Eagles receive additional protection under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). BGEPA prohibits the take, possession, sale,
purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, or barter, transport, export or import, of any Bald
or Golden Eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit.
Further, activities that would disturb Bald or Golden Eagles are prohibited under
BGEPA. Disturb means to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden Eagle to a degree that
causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury
to an Eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially
interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. If a proposed project or
action would occur in areas where nesting, feeding, or roosting eagles occur, then project
proponents may need to take additional conservation measures to achieve compliance
with BGEPA. New regulations (50 CFR 22.26 and 22.27) allow the take of bald and
golden eagles and their nests, respectively, to protect interests in a particular locality.
However, consultation with the Migratory Bird, Ecological Services, and Law
Enforcement programs of the Service will be required before a permit may be issued.



Eagle Take Permitting under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 8: Interim Guidance for External Partners
May 2010


The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed regulations (Federal Register
72:31132-31140, 05 June 2007 and Federal Register 74:46835-46879; 11 September
2009) that provide a definition of disturbance, and allow permits to take eagles under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (50 CFR 22.26). Under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, take is defined as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison,
wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb. Disturb is defined in the
regulations as to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is
likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle,
(2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding,
feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with
normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.

The Eagle Act provides for individual and programmatic permits that are consistent with
the goal of stable or increasing eagle breeding populations. Individual permits can be
authorized in limited instances of disturbance, and in certain situations other take, but
individual permits do not authorize landscape-scale impacts, mortalities or injuries.
However, with adequate population data and projections for take and mitigation,
programmatic permits may authorize take over a longer period of time or across a larger
area.

Specifically, the regulation set forth in 50 CFR 22.26 provides for issuance of permits
to take bald eagles and golden eagles where the taking is associated with but not the
purpose of the activity and cannot practicably be avoided. Most take authorized under
this section will be in the form of disturbance; however, permits may authorize non-
purposeful take that may result in mortality. The regulation at 50 CFR 22.27 establishes
permits for removing eagle nests where: (1) necessary to alleviate a safety emergency to
people or eagles; (2) necessary to ensure public health and safety; (3) the nest prevents
the use of a human-engineered structure; or (4) the activity or mitigation for the activity
will provide a net benefit to eagles. Only inactive nests may be taken, except in the case
of safety emergencies. Inactive nests are defined by the continuous absence of any adult,
egg, or dependent young at the nest for at least 10 consecutive days leading up to the time
of take.

The Final Environmental Assessment ((FEA) (USFWS 2009)) for eagle take permitting
outlines an approach to the development of Advanced Conservation Practices (ACPs)
that will, in part, provide the basis for programmatic permit conditions. Working with
entities to craft effective conservation measures has been initiated but not yet completed
for many activities. Therefore, in most cases and in most areas, programmatic permits
have not yet been developed. However, use of interim measures consistent with the goal
of stable or increasing breeding populations can help in the development of ACPs as well
as programmatic permits.

The development of renewable energy is a top priority for this Administration and the
Department of the Interior. However, activities such as solar, wind and geothermal
development on and off public lands have the potential to impact eagles and their habitat.
The Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM) and the Branch of Conservation
Planning Assistance (CPA) have developed an approach, outlined below, to addressing
eagle conservation needs while continuing to work with our federal and industry partners
on current energy proposals.

Interim Approach
While the Services eagle permitting program is being refined, we will continue working
with other agencies, industries, individual project developers and NGOs on the siting and
operation of development projects, with particular regard to energy. The Services goal
continues to be to collaborate with our partners on avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The following
provides guidance to Service personnel and others while the eagle take permitting
program is further developed and implemented.

1. The Services Ecological Services Field Offices, in close cooperation with the
Regional Migratory Bird Program, will provide most of the early technical
assistance, where biologists will work with project proponents to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of projects on eagles and other
wildlife. Field staff, with assistance from Regional Offices, Service raptor
ecologists, and in coordination with Migratory Bird Offices, will assess the
potential for impacts to eagles, including take, using the best available current and
historic information and appropriate risk analysis tools. Field staff should use the
best available conservation techniques and their knowledge of the area to
recommend site specific conservation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to
breeding and non-breeding eagles until the National Raptor Conservation
Measures and Advanced Conservation Practices are available. Results of the
impact analysis and mitigation planning should be recorded in mitigation plans,
Avian and Bat Protection Plans (ABPPs), National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), or other functionally equivalent documents. Depending on the size and
potential impacts of the project, as well as the stage of planning and permitting,
any combination of these documents could be employed to formalize mitigation
plans with developers and further the goal of eagle conservation. With large
projects or multiple projects within an area, these documents may serve as an
interim step while a programmatic permit is considered. The Services Field
Offices, in consultation with Migratory Bird Offices, will recommend which
document(s) are most appropriate.

2. Data on eagle territory home range, productivity dispersal, breeding and non-
breeding season foraging, prey base, and non-breeding season movements and
migration for each site specific circumstance should be collected at the earliest
opportunity in collaboration with federal, state, Tribal and private partners. To
the extent feasible, new installations of potentially lethal facilities should be sited
outside of known and/or suspected eagle territory home ranges, as well as outside
of areas where flight behavior, topography and weather may affect eagle take.
Project proponents are encouraged to cooperate with the Service early in the
planning process to develop the level of avoidance and protection commensurate
with the potential of risk to the eagles. Assessment documents (e.g., NEPA)
should describe the risks to eagles to the broadest extent possible, however, if
site/region specific data are lacking, these documents should describe the limits of
the analysis, the need for additional data, and the mitigation approach to be used
in light of data uncertainties, potential errors and overall confidence of the
assessment, as well as compensatory mitigation to meet the no net loss threshold.
Measures to meet the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations should be
specified. Draft documents are being developed concerning non-breeding season
surveys and regional population sampling design recommendations. Contact the
Service for the most recent information on breeding, non-breeding, and
population level survey design.

3. Project mitigation should include conservation measures addressing the siting and
operation of the facility, post construction monitoring and reporting on impacts to
eagles, and adaptive management measures that outline potential approaches to
modify the project if eagle take (including disturbance) occurs. These measures
are frequently documented in ABPPs; however, other documents, including those
already mentioned above could also serve as Service-approved conservation plans
for a developer and/or lead agency. Conservation planning documents should be
consistent with the goal of stable or increasing eagle breeding populations in order
to facilitate eagle conservation.

4. ABPPs or other appropriate site and species specific mitigation plans may also
serve as part of the application process should a programmatic eagle permit be
sought. The programmatic permit may be able to build from the ABPP, reducing
coordination time. However, additional information may be needed for a proposed
project and/or geographic area to meet requirements for a programmatic permit.

5. Eagle take permits are not a legal requirement of development. However, any
activity is subject to the prohibition of take found in the Eagle Act. It is the
Services intent to collaborate with developers to avoid take, and if necessary to
develop permits as a conservation tool to be used when a project is reasonably
likely to take eagles.

6. The regulation and FEA also reiterated that the Service has an obligation to
consult with Native American Tribes before authorizing any take that would
affect their interests. Take thresholds, permit conditions, cumulative impact
analyses, and management recommendations have been or will be designed to
ensure the Services ability to meet the preservation standard of the Eagle Act and
be compatible with the Services Tribal Trust responsibilities.

7. If the construction and implementation of a proposed project results in take of an
eagle, and the project proponent chooses not to work with the Service, or to
ignore suggestions for mitigating the risks to eagles, the project proponent and/or
action agency could be vulnerable to prosecution under the Eagle Act.

8. For golden eagles, and in some areas for bald eagles, a landscape-scale, multi-
party approach to eagle conservation may offset impacts from take. The FEA
recommends that "in some instances it may be advisable to develop
geographically-based programmatic permits involving more than one industry or
agency." Parties involved in projects which may impact eagles are encouraged to
cooperate fully to minimize adverse cumulative impacts to eagles.

ABPPs can be an important tool while the ACPs are being developed. However, the
cumulative impacts of development on eagle populations need further evaluation.
Applicants and Field Offices should include cumulative impacts analysis into ABPPs
where the information is available. It may be necessary to maintain ABPPs as dynamic
documents after the ACPs and other elements of programmatic permits are finalized, so
that the ABPP includes the refinement of additional analysis and conservation measures.

Additional information on the Eagle Act can be found on the Services website at:
http://www.fws.gov/cno/conservation/migratorybirds.html

Reference
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment Proposal To
Permit Take As Provided Under The Bald And Golden Eagle Protection Act. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.
United States Department of the Interior
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/AFIICIIRC CPAl045617
Memorandum
FI SH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington. D.C. 20240
AUG 03 2010
To: Service Directorate
Acting Deputv
From: Director
Subject: Service Whi P er roviding Guidance for the Development of Project-
Specific AVian and Bat Protection Plans for Renewable Energy Facilities
Attached is a Service white paper on the development of specific Avian and Bat
Protection Plans (ABPPs) or Avian Protection Plans (APPs) for renewable energy
facilities. The white paper provides the components that would be incorporated into
ABPPs or APPs, and is consistent with previous Service recommendations. This paper is
a guide and field offices should apply it to projects as appropriate. Although the concept
of ABPPslAPPs is relatively new, the Service has received numerous requests for
guidance in ABPP/APP development. The white paper provides considerations for
ABPPs and APPs while the national ABPP guidance and template are under
development.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has provided an Instructional Memorandum
(1M) to their regional and field offices directing stafT, when needed, to collaborate with
the Service in developing ABPPs or APPs for current and future renewable energy
projects. The 1M directs BLM staff to acquire written concurrence from the Service that
the ponions of ABPPslAPPs applicable to federal trust species adequately addresses
potential impacts prior to signing a project's otice to Proceed. We will soon provide
suggested language for those concurrence letters.
The development ofan ABPP or an APP should begin at the earliest planning stages of a
proposed project. However, the white paper may be applied to projects that have
progressed into later stages. Suggestions on micrositing turbines, facility operations,
wildlife monitoring and adaptive management should be applied to the extent practicable
in the development of ABPPs or APPs that are already beyond the site planning stage.
As with all projects, Service Field Offices will work with applicants to apply these
suggestions to specific projects and acquire the needed infomlation.
TAKE PRIDEIlf::-1

While the development and implementation of ABPPs arc voluntary. a sound and properly
implemented ABPP may represent a "good faith" effort by a company or other project
proponents to conserve migratory birds and bats when developing a renewable energy project.
However, an ASPP should not be used as a substitute for complying with the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act when a renewable energy project is expected to cause take of
endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, the preparation oran ABPP does not limit or
preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor does
it release any individual, company, or agency of its obligat ions to comply with Federal , State, or
local laws, statutes, or regulations.
Attachment
2
Attachment

Considerations for Avian and Bat Protection Plans
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service White Paper
July, 2010


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is developing national Avian and Bat Protection
Plan (ABPP) guidance for wind energy and other renewable energy projects. Until this guidance
is approved, the Service has prepared this white paper that provides a template for content and
discussion that should be considered for inclusion in ABPPs (or Avian Protection Plans
depending on the location) for renewable energy projects. The bolded headings below are
intended to be the primary sections of an ABPP. All developers of renewable energy facilities
are encouraged to coordinate with Service field offices and State fish and wildlife agencies when
developing an ABPP, and if eagles occur on or near the project site, to consult the Services 2010
eagle permitting implementation guidance (USFWS 2010) if they intend to seek programmatic
permits under 50 CFR 22.26. Any national ABPP guidance prepared by the Service in the future
will supersede this white paper.

This white paper presents relatively broad approaches for dealing with the possible effects of
renewable energy projects on birds and bats. We have developed the approaches described
herein with particular emphasis on working with others to achieve the conservation of birds and
bats while recognizing the importance of expanding renewable energy production. Our statutory
authority for addressing effects to birds stems primarily from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as the Endangered Species Act (ESA); for bats
our statutory authority arises primarily from the ESA. We must be careful to recognize and
inform our partners in conservation that an ABPP cannot provide authorization to take
endangered or threatened wildlife. When renewable energy projects are expected to take any
listed wildlife, the project proponents should be advised to pursue an incidental take permit
authorization pursuant to section 7(o)(2) or 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA in addition to any
recommendations to prepare an ABPP.

An ABPP is a project-specific document that delineates a program designed to reduce risks to
bats and birds associated with construction and operation of renewable energy facilities.
Although each projects ABPP will be different, the overall goal of any ABPP should be to
reduce or eliminate avian and bat mortality. If a project has a National Environmental Policy
Act document associated with it, that document should provide much of the analysis needed for
the ABPP.

The development and implementation of an ABPP are voluntary actions. They do not limit or
preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor do
they release any individual, company or agency of its obligation to comply with Federal, State,
or local laws, statutes, or regulations. A soundly developed and properly implemented ABPP
may ultimately represent a "good faith" effort by companies and other project proponents to
conserve migratory birds and bats and to use the most environmentally friendly ways possible to
develop energy projects and produce renewable energy.

2
Our Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through
investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals,
companies, and industries that have taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds and by
encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take. It is not possible to absolve
individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality
avoidance or other similar protective measures.

However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting
individuals and companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all
reasonable, prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to
work closely with the Service to identify available protective measures when developing project
plans and/or avian protection plans or avian and bat protection plans, and to implement those
measures prior to/during construction or other similar activities.

Adaptive Management
The ABPP should map out how the wildlife monitoring, site planning, construction and
operation of a proposed facility will change if unexpected impacts to birds or bats appear likely.
Early wildlife surveys may point out a potential problem or a problem may only arise after
operation begins. Due to the difficulty of predicting these impacts, project developers need to be
flexible and willing to modify their approach if issues arise. Adaptive management is one tool
available to reduce risks to bats and birds. Adaptive management is an iterative learning process
producing improved understanding and improved management over time (Williams et al. 2007).
The Department of the Interior determined that its resource agencies, and the natural resources
they oversee, could benefit from the implementation of adaptive management (Secretarial Order
3270, dated March 9, 2007). Therefore, DOI adopted the National Research Councils (2004)
definition of adaptive management, which states:

Adaptive management [is a decision process that] promotes flexible decision making that
can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and
other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both
advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an
iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of
natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a
trial and error process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive
management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective
decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet
environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces
tensions among stakeholders.

The use of adaptive management should be discussed among the project proponent, Service field
office, and the State fish and game agency. Measures to consider as elements of a projects
adaptive management approach should include siting or structural changes if a particular turbine
proves lethal to birds or bats, operational adjustments such as turbine feathering or cut-in speed
and habitat manipulation if monitoring shows problems with given species or seasonal
migrations. The DOI Adaptive Management Technical Guide is located on the web at
www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/index.html.

3
Surveys
Siting of a renewable energy project is the most important factor when considering potential
impacts to wildlife and their habitats. There are many different methodologies that can be used
to assess the risk posed to wildlife at a particular site. The tiered approach discussed in the Wind
Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) Recommendations is the most recent
document to discuss methods to select sites with lower risk to wildlife and is a good source of
information. The FAC Recommendations are located on the web at http://www.fws.gov/
habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html. For further suggestions
on project siting, see Project Design Measures. During the site selection process, wildlife
surveys should be conducted to assess species presence and use of a site. Here are three topics to
consider regarding wildlife surveys:

1. Selection of appropriate survey methodology Based on the project and questions being
asked, there are many suitable methods to survey birds and bats and establish baseline
data. Generally, we recommend multiple survey techniques to ensure adequate data
collection. A good summary of survey methods can be found in Kunz et al. (2007) for
night-migrating birds and bats, and in Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) for
bats. Efforts are under way to update the Anderson et al. 1999 methods for monitoring
diurnally active birds. In addition, the Interim National Golden Eagle Inventory and
Monitoring Guidelines; Pagel et al. 2010, are available for use. Examples of survey
methods that might be appropriate for wind projects include acoustic, radar, infrared,
radio telemetry, mist netting, harp trapping, and a variety of observational surveys.
Survey methods could include:

a. Diurnal bird use counts;
b. Nocturnal bird use counts;
c. Raptor nest searches (see Pagel et al. 2010 for golden eagle protocol
recommendations);
d. Small bird counts (CEC 2007, Environment Canada 2006a and 2006b);
e. Migration counts;
f. Acoustic bat monitoring; and
g. Bat roost exit counts if applicable.

2. Duration and timing of surveys To collect data under variable climatic conditions and
accumulate sufficient samples for data analysis, pre-construction surveys should be
conducted to assess the potential risk of the proposed project to wildlife. Multi-year
surveys, up to three years pre-construction, may be warranted. This can vary depending
on the project specifics, known or perceived level of risk, variability in use of habitat by
avian species, environmental stochasticity, and species present. Surveys should be
designed to ensure adequate data are collected on breeding, staging, migration, and
winter bird/bat use of the project site, taking into account peak use of the site temporally
and spatially. Coordination with the wildlife agencies is recommended when selecting
locations for bird and bat data collection.

3. Special status species When evaluating a project site, special status species should be
identified. Special status species include all Federal and State species listed as
4
endangered or threatened, State species of concern and fully protected species, and those
listed on the Fish and Wildlife Services Birds of Conservation Concern 2008.
(http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf).

The ABPP should address whether bald eagles or golden eagles use the project site for
foraging, roosting, nesting, wintering, migration, or as a migration stop-over site. The
project assessment should address whether there are nesting bald or golden eagles within
16 km (10 miles) of the project site and include whether the project development impacts
eagle foraging habitat, roost sites, wintering habitat, migratory stop-over sites, migratory
corridors, defended eagle territories, or displaces eagles during either the breeding and/or
the winter seasons.

Risk Assessments
It is useful to conduct a risk assessment to identify potential threats to the species and to then
develop specific measures to avoid and reduce those threats. A risk assessment should identify
potential short and long-term impacts of the project development on bird and bat populations,
including the risk of mortality.

1. Site specific threats Based on the results of site specific wildlife surveys, a site specific
risk assessment should address what the potential for take is based on:

a. Turbine collision and other turbine interactions (such as barotrauma, crippling loss or
injury from wind wake turbulence and blade-tip vortices);
b. Transmission line, power tower, met tower, or guy line collision;
c. Electrocution potential;
d. Displacement issues;
e. Nest and roost site disturbances;
f. Habitat loss;
g. Habitat fragmentation; and
h. Additional human presence disturbances.

2. Cumulative Impacts Effects that are likely to result from the project in combination
with other projects or activities that have or will be carried out should be analyzed. The
cumulative effects assessment, where practicable and reasonable, should include the
impacts from all threats. The geographic area and time frame of the analysis will depend
upon the species affected and the type of impact, such as behavioral modification or
direct mortality. Discussions with Federal and State resource agencies will assist the
applicant in identifying focal species and issues that will ultimately define the limits of
the cumulative impacts analysis.

Project Design Measures
Based on the information gathered in the pre-siting data collection and risk assessment phase, the
project design should be tailored so that wildlife mortality risks are avoided and minimized. The
primary consideration is how to design the project to reduce the impacts to species and their
habitats. Below are measures to consider when siting and designing a wind project, but
additional methods to reduce impacts can be found in the FAC recommendations.
5

1. Project siting After all pre-siting survey data have been collected and analyzed, it is
important to select the site that will have the least impacts to bird and bat populations.
The ultimate goal is to avoid any take of migratory birds and bats and/or minimize the
loss, destruction, or degradation of migratory bird or bat habitat by placing projects in
disturbed and degraded areas to the maximum extent practicable. Siting conservation
measures should include both the macro- and micro-site scales.

a. Macro-siting Consideration should be made to avoid:
1. Locations with Federally or State listed, or otherwise designated sensitive species,
and areas managed for the conservation of listed species, such as designated
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;
2. Areas frequently used for daily bird and bat movements, such as areas between
roosting and feeding sites;
3. Breeding and wintering eagle use areas;
4. Known migration flyways for birds and bats;
5. Areas near known bat hibernacula, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies;
6. Areas with high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility, or
where other risk factors may come into play; and
7. Fragmentation of large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (see Environment
Canada 2006a and 2006b).

b. Micro-siting Once a footprint has been selected, there may be opportunities for finer
scale micro-siting of the project components. Component siting considerations
include:
1. Avoid placing turbines near landscape features that attract raptors;
2. Avoid placing turbines near landscape features that attract migrant birds, such as
water sources and riparian vegetation);
3. Set turbines back at least 200 meters (~650 feet) from cliff tops where raptors nest
(Richardson and Miller 1997); and
4. Minimize the potential for creating habitats suitable for rodents such as rock piles
and eroded turbine pads with openings underneath that will additionally attract
raptors, especially golden eagles.

2. Buffer zones It might be appropriate and necessary to establish biologically meaningful
buffer zones to protect raptor and other bird nests, areas of high bird and bat use, and
known bat roosts. These buffers should be established up-front and be part of the siting
process. The Service recommends that the following avoidance buffers be considered:

a. Passerines Avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within
established buffers for active nests of any protected bird species or any high quality
nesting habitat, such as riparian areas. Buffer distances should consider species,
terrain, habitat type, and activity level as these features relate to the bird alert distance
and bird flight initiation distance (Whitfield et al. 2008). Buffer size should be
coordinated with the Service biologists prior to activities.

6
b. Raptors (including eagles) Avoid siting wind turbines, minimize human access, and
avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within 1.6 km (1 mile)
of an active raptor/eagle nest, unless specific features (e.g., terrain, barriers) dictate
reduced buffers (Richardson and Miller 1997). Buffer size should be coordinated
with the Service and State agencies.

c. Prairie and Sage Grouse Avoid construction of wind facilities within close
proximity of lekking sites in consultation with State and Federal fish and wildlife
agencies.

3. Appropriate facility design There are many conservation measures that can be
incorporated into the facility design that might reduce the potential effects of a project on
bird populations; including the following:

a. Using tubular supports with pointed nacelle tops rather than lattice supports to
minimize bird perching and nesting opportunities.
b. Avoiding the use of external ladders and platforms on tubular towers to minimize
perching and nesting.
c. Considering the use of fewer larger turbines compared to a larger number of smaller
turbines.
d. Avoiding the use of guy wires for all meteorological towers and do not light them
unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires them to be lit, which is
generally >60 meters (>199 ft) AGL in height. Any necessary guy wires should be
marked with recommended bird deterrent devices (APLIC 1994, USFWS 2000).
e. If taller turbines (top of rotor swept area is >60 meters [>199 ft] AGL) require lights
for aviation safety, the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance
lighting specified by the FAA should be used (FAA 2007), approximately 1 in every
5 turbines should be lit, and all lights within the facility should illuminate
synchronously. Lighting of the boundary of the facility is most important as an
aviation safety warning. Unless otherwise requested by the FAA, use only the
minimum number of strobed, strobe-like or blinking red incandescent lights, with
minimum intensity, duel strobe lights preferred per lit nacelle. No steady burning
lights should be used on turbines or facility infrastructures.
f. Focusing facility lights downward to reduce skyward illumination. Lights should be
equipped with motion detectors to reduce continuous illumination.
g. Where feasible, placement of electric power lines underground or on the surface as
insulated, shielded wire to avoid electrocution of birds. Use recommendations of
APLIC (1994, 2006) for any required above-ground lines, transformers, or
conductors. When transmission lines must be above-ground, avoid placing lines
within wetlands and over canyons.
h. The creation of roads leads to further loss and fragmentation of migratory bird
habitat. The Service recommends that the number of roads be minimized for all
phases of a project.
i. A well thought out turbine layout can substantially reduce the potential for bird
strikes. Some examples of better turbine layouts include grouping turbines versus
spreading them widely across the project area and orienting rows of turbines parallel
7
to known bird movements. In addition, placing large, turbine sized pylons at the end
of turbine rows and in ridge dips can re-direct birds and bats away from the danger
areas.

Construction Phase Measures
During the construction of energy facilities, standard construction conservation measures should
be established. Measures that specifically relate to bird conservation include (but are not limited
to):

1. Minimizing the area disturbed to extent practicable, including access road construction
To minimize the amount of habitat disturbance and fragmentation, construction plans
should emphasize the minimization and placement of habitat disturbance. Construction
roads not required for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility should be
closed and restored to the pre-construction habitat type.

2. Minimizing vegetation clearing Vegetation within the project footprint that will be
disturbed should be cleared when it poses the least impact to species, depending on the
species impacted. If the proposed project includes potential for take of migratory birds
and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and vegetation removal cannot
occur outside the bird breeding season, project proponents should provide the Service an
explanation for why work must occur during the bird breeding season. Further, in these
cases, project proponents should demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable efforts to
complete work outside the bird breeding season were attempted, and that reason for work
to be completed during the breeding season were beyond the proponents control.

3. When vegetation removal cannot take place outside of the breeding season and a
reasonable explanation was provided to the Service, the Service recommends having a
qualified, on-site biologist during construction activities to locate active nests, establish
avoidance buffers around active nests, watch for new nesting activity, and if necessary
stop construction when noise and general activity threaten to disturb an active nest. All
active nests of protected birds (e.g., MBTA, ESA, State regulations) should not be
disturbed until after nest outcome is complete.

4. Minimizing wildfire potential Wildfire is a potential threat that could impact bird and
bat habitat. The Service recommends that construction activities are conducted in a
manner that avoids and/or minimizes the ignition of a wildfire.

5. Minimizing activities that attract prey and predators During construction, garbage
should be removed promptly and properly to avoid creating attractive nuisances for birds
and bats.

6. Controlling non-native plants The introduction of non-native, invasive plant species can
impact bird habitat quality. The Service recommends that all appropriate control
measures be implemented to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species
with and surrounding the project area. Use only plants native to the area for seeding or
planting during habitat revegetation or restoration efforts.
8

Operational Phase Measures
Once a facility is built, appropriate measures should be in place to reduce the attractiveness of
the facility to breeding, migrating, and wintering birds and bats to ensure mortality is minimized.
The following are examples of measures that should be considered, depending on the species and
circumstances of the project:

1. Avoid creating or maintaining attraction features for birds/bats Through appropriate
habitat maintenance, facilities should seek to reduce features that attract birds and bats to
the facility. Simple measures could include removal of carrion that attracts raptors and
other scavengers to the site, maintain vegetation heights around turbines to reduce raptor
foraging (habitat maintenance to reduce prey availability), and minimizing water sources
(especially in desert habitats) that birds and other wildlife seek, and avoid creating
situations where rodent prey bases will increase (i.e., through creating new habitats for
them, disturbance, and cattle grazing) thus drawing in raptors. These measures should be
implemented only after completely evaluating each specific project site and
implementation of these measures will not have deleterious effects on other special status
wildlife species.

2. Turbine feathering and cut-in speed - Data suggest that most bird fatalities at wind
projects occurred at times of low wind speed (typically <6m/sec), conditions under which
rotor blades are moving, but the amount of electricity generated is minimal (Kunz et al.
2007). Turbine feathering, electronically pitching the blades parallel to the wind, could
significantly reduce bird impacts by making the blades stationary at low wind speeds
(Kunz et al. 2007, Manville 2009). In addition, changing the blade cut-in speed and
reducing operation hours in periods of low wind (e.g., from cut-in at 3.0 mps to 5.0 mps)
has been shown to reduce bat mortality by up to 92% with minimal power loss (Arnett et
al. 2009). The Service recommends setting a maximum turbine rpm rate that allows for
sufficient energy production but minimizes the potential for avian and bat collisions. In
addition, the Service recommends reducing operation hours during periods of low wind.

3. Locking rotors during daytime and at night during peak migration periods and peak
presence In areas with high concentrations of migrating raptors, passerines, and bats,
and high concentrations of overwintering raptors, it may be appropriate to turn the
turbines off during peak migration periods or peak use of an area (Manville 2009).

4. Following APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities If overhead transmission lines are
necessary, facilities should follow all APLIC (1994 and 2006) guidelines.

5. Minimizing lighting Research indicates that lights can both attract and confuse
migrating birds (Gehring et al. 2009, Manville 2005, 2009) and bats are known to feed on
concentrations of insects at lights (Fenton 1997). The goal of every facility should be to
minimize operational lighting to the maximum extent practicable.

a. To avoid disorienting or attracting birds and bats, FAA visibility lighting of wind
turbines should employ only strobed, strobe-like or blinking incandescent lights,
9
preferably with all lights illuminating simultaneously. Minimum intensity, maximum
off-phased duel strobes are preferred by the Service. No steady burning lights,
such as L-810 Steady-Burning Obstruction Lights, should be used. See also Project
Design recommendations for additional lighting guidance.

b. Keep lighting at both operation and maintenance facilities and substations located
within mile of the turbines to the minimum level for safety and security needs by
using motion or infrared light sensors and switches to keep lights off when not
required, shielding operational lights downward to minimize skyward illumination,
and do not use high intensity, steady burning, bright lights such as sodium vapor or
spotlights.

Post-construction Monitoring
An essential element to understanding the actual impacts of each wind energy facility is post-
construction monitoring. The goal of the post-construction monitoring program is to validate the
pre-construction risk assessment and allow the facility to implement adjustments based on
identified problems and triggers. Monitoring objectives usually include: estimates of bird/bat
fatality rate due to all aspects of facility operation; assessments of changes in bird/bat behavior
due to all aspects of facility operation; assessments of changes in population status within and
adjacent to the project footprint; assessments of displacement and avoidance of birds/bats from
within the project footprint; and, determining whether avoidance and minimization measures
implemented for the project were adequate to reduce mortality. A monitoring plan will depend
upon the species impacted and the facility. Consult the Service and State fish and wildlife
agencies for assistance in monitoring design and protocol.

Decommissioning
Decommissioning is the cessation of wind energy operations and removal of all associated
equipment, roads, and other infrastructure. The land is then used for another activity. During
decommissioning, contractors and facility operators should apply measures for road grading and
native plant re-establishment to ensure that erosion and overland flows are managed to restore
pre-construction landscape conditions. The facility operator, in conjunction with the landowner
and State and Federal wildlife agencies, should restore the natural hydrology and plant
community to the greatest extent practical. For specific decommissioning measures, see the
FAC Recommendations (Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee 2010).

Reporting
All post-construction monitoring results and risk assessment validation should be reviewed by
the appropriate agencies annually. Additional reporting may be a condition of permits issued.
Confidentiality should be maintained between the proponent and the agency(ies) reviewing the
project reports. For Service reviews, to the extent allowable under FOIA, project-specific
information will remain confidential between the Service and the proponent and be protected
from release to the public.

Literature Cited
10
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian
collisions on power lines: of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC,
Washington, DC.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on
power lines, the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee, and California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and
Sacramento, California.

Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of changing
wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. An annual report
submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin,
Texas, USA.

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California
Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development
Commission Final Report. California energy Commission, Renewable Committee, and
Energy Facilities Siting Division, and California Department of Fish and Game, Resources
Management and Policy Division. CEC 700-2007-008-CMF.

Environment Canada. 2006a. Wind turbines and birds, a guidance document for environmental
assessment. March version 6. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Gatineau,
Quebec. 50 pp.

Environment Canada. 2006b. Recommended protocols for monitoring impacts of wind turbines
and birds. July 28 final document. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Gatineau, Quebec. 33 pp.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory Circular
AC-70/7460.

Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1-14.

Gehring, J.L., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, II. 2009. Communication towers, lights and
birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological
Applications 19:505-514.

Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, B.M. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L. Morrison,
M.D. Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development
on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal Wildlife Management
71:2249-2486.

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers,
and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science next steps toward mitigation,
pp.1051-1064. In C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, [eds.], Bird Conservation Implementation in the
Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. USDA
11
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Albany, California.

Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings steps being taken by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these
structures. Pp 262-272. In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmondi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson [eds.],
Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Habitats and People. Proceedings 4
th
International Partners in
Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008, McAllen, TX. Partners in Flight.

National Research Council. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Planning, The
National Academies Press. Washington, DC.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background
Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife Branch.
Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section. Peterborough,
Ontario. 61 p.

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and
monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA.

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human
disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638.

USFWS. 2000. Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting,
Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA.

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, VA.

USFWS. 2010. Implementation guidance for eagle take permits under 50 CFR 22.26 and 50
CFR 22.27. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.
Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2010. Recommendations on developing
effective measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based
wind energy facilities. Kearns & West, Washington DC.
9/2/10
1

US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region

REGION 8 INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT-SPECIFIC
AVIAN AND BAT PROTECTION PLAN FOR
SOLAR ENERGY PLANTS AND RELATED TRANSMISSION FACILITIES



I. Introduction and Purpose
Increased energy demands and the national goal to increase energy production from renewable
sources have intensified the development of energy facilities, including solar energy. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) supports renewable energy development. However, the
Service strongly encourages energy development that is wildlife and habitat-friendly. Of
concern are the cumulative effects of renewable energy projects in initiating or contributing to
the decline of some bird and bat populations, as well as other affected species. In order to ensure
that renewable energy projects avoid and minimize impacts to bird and bat populations, the
Services Pacific Southwest Region developed these Interim Guidelines for the Development of a
Project-Specific Bird and Bat Protection Plan for Solar Energy Plant and Related Transmission
Facilities as a means to provide energy project developers a tool for assessing the risk of
potential impacts, and designing and operating a bird- and bat-friendly solar facility. Similar to
the Services wind energy guidelines, the recommendations set forth in this document were
based upon the Avian Powerline Interaction Committees (APLIC) Avian Protection Plan
template (2005; see Appendix) developed for electric utilities and have been modified
accordingly to address the unique concerns with solar energy facilities.
An Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) is a project-specific document that delineates a
program designed to reduce the operational risks that result from bird and bat interactions with a
specific solar energy facility. Although each projects ABPP will be different, the overall goal of
any ABPP should be to reduce, and ultimately eliminate bird and bat mortality to the extent
practicable. The statutory authority for addressing effects to birds stems primarily from the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as the
Endangered Species Act (ESA); for bats the Services statutory authority arises primarily from
the ESA.
The development and implementation of an ABPP are voluntary actions. They do not limit or
preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, nor do
they release any individual, company or agency of its obligation to comply with Federal, State,
or local laws, statutes, or regulations. A soundly developed and properly implemented ABPP
may ultimately represent a "good faith" effort by companies and other project proponents to
conserve migratory birds and bats and to use the most environmentally friendly ways possible to
develop energy projects and produce renewable energy.
Our Office of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds through
investigations and enforcement, as well as by fostering relationships with individuals,
companies, and industries that have taken effective steps to avoid take of migratory birds and by
encouraging others to implement measures to avoid take. It is not possible to absolve
9/2/10
2

individuals, companies, or agencies from liability even if they implement bird mortality
avoidance or other similar protective measures.
However, the Office of Law Enforcement focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting
individuals and companies that take migratory birds without identifying and implementing all
reasonable, prudent and effective measures to avoid that take. Companies are encouraged to
work closely with the Service to identify available protective measures when developing project
plans and/or avian protection plans or avian and bat protection plans, and to implement those
measures prior to/during construction or other similar activities.
Due to the rapid advances and proliferation of solar energy technology beyond small scale
photovoltaic panels, little is known about how large-scale, solar energy facilities impact birds
and bats (Leitner 2009). The Service does anticipate that, due to the nature of these commercial-
sized facilities, extensive terrestrial habitat loss could occur. In addition, bird and bat mortality
from collisions with transmission lines, power towers, meteorological towers, or even solar
reflectors could occur at these sites. In one of the few studies of avian mortality at solar energy
plants, McCrary (1986) documented bird mortality from a variety of causes, including burning.
Therefore, the Service recommends that commercial-scale solar energy facilities create an ABPP
with an emphasis on post-construction monitoring. A well-designed monitoring scheme, with an
adaptive management framework, will allow a facility to evaluate potential take and implement
appropriate corrective actions .

II. Guidance on Specific Elements of a ABPP for solar energy projects

The following summary is meant to provide project planners useful information for designing
each development phase of the facility. For each phase outlined below, conservation measures
and guidance are recommended for inclusion in the development of any solar energy power
plant.

Coordination

An essential element to developing a successful project is the coordination between the project
proponent and the appropriate agencies (e.g., federal, state, county agencies). The Service highly
recommends early coordination on essential elements, such as wildlife surveys, project siting
criteria, operational limitations, etc. to ensure that all parties and agencies understand the scope
of the project and can identify potential issues early in the planning process.

Adaptive Management and Habitat Compensation
The Service recommends that proponents take an Adaptive Management (AM) approach to
project development and operation. The AM process should establish clear, biologically
appropriate goals and triggers tied to mitigation measures. For a complete discussion of AM, see
Williams et al. (2009).
In order to compensate for the loss of high quality wildlife habitat, the Service strongly
encourages project proponents to conduct a Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) to quantify
interim and permanent habitat injuries (i.e, temporary disturbance vs. permanent loss) at the start
9/2/10
3

of the project and to guide upfront habitat compensation. This approach is described further
below.
Template for Developing ABPP

Pre-siting Data Collection

Due to local differences in wildlife concentrations and movement patterns, habitats, topography,
facility design, and weather; each proposed development site is unique and requires detailed and
individual evaluation. In addition, renewable energy projects are rapidly expanding into habitats
and regions that have not been well studied and where animal population data are scarce. Thus,
in an effort to place projects in locations that will yield the least risk of population impacts, a
rigorous siting evaluation process should be completed. Data collection methods will vary
among projects due to differences in topography, habitat, and animal abundance, however the
Service recommends the following considerations when conducting pre-siting assessments.

A. Coarse Site Assessment Each pre-siting assessment should start with a coarse site
assessment of the potential environmental issues that might preclude the site from
development based on its perceived or validated level of risk. At a minimum, every solar
project should conduct a Potential Impact Index (PII) (USFWS 2003 Appendix). A PII
represents a first cut analysis of the suitability of a site proposed for development by
estimating use of the site by selected wildlife species as an indicator of potential impact.

Factors that should be considered during any coarse assessment include:
1. Is the site designated as Critical Habitat for any federally listed species?
2. Is the site designated as an Important Bird Area (see
http://www.audubon.org/bird/IBA/), or a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network or Ramsar site?
3. Does the site provide suitable habitat for any federal or state listed species, or
sensitive species?
4. What is the type and quality of bird/bat habitat within and surrounding the
footprint?

B. Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) The Service encourages the solar industry to look
for opportunities to promote bird, bat, and other wildlife conservation when planning
renewable energy facilities. These opportunities may come in the form of voluntary
habitat acquisition or conservation easements. In order to quantify the appropriate
compensation acreage, the use of an HEA can be used to identify high quality habitat and
calculate compensation for the development of high quality habitats for both permanent
and temporary losses. The objective of an HEA is to replace lost habitat services with like
services, providing a replacement ratio for interim and permanent injury. Habitat services
are generally defined by a metric (e.g., species density, that represents the functionality of
that habitat (e.g., the ability of that habitat to provide nest sites, prey populations, cover
from predators, etc.). See HEA resources in the Appendix of this document.

9/2/10
4

C. Site Specific Wildlife Surveys
1. Development of appropriate survey question It is important to develop the
appropriate survey questions as they dictate the sampling design and protocols to be
used. An inappropriate study design and/or insufficient duration of data collection
may result in unreliable data inferences with resultant biases and skewed results
(Kunz et al. 2007). Pre-siting survey data will become the baseline for project
impacts to bird and bat populations. Thus, most survey designs should be
established as before-after control impacts studies, when possible. Examples of
possible survey questions include (but are not limited to):
a. Which species of birds and bats use the project area and how do their
numbers vary temporally (i.e., daily, monthly, annually)?
b. How much time do birds/bats spend in the risk zone (within the solar array)
and does this behavior vary by season?
c. What is the estimated range of bird/bat mortalities from the project?
d. Are there nesting raptors on site or within 3 miles of project footprint. For
eagles, are there eagles nesting within 10 miles of project footprint?

2. Selection of appropriate survey methodology Based on the project and questions
being asked, there are many suitable methods to survey birds and bats and establish
baseline data. Generally, it is recommended to employ multiple survey techniques
to ensure adequate data collection. Though written for the wind energy industry, a
good summary of survey methods can be found in Kunz et al (2007) for night-
migrating birds and bats and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2006) for bats.
Specific survey methods should include:
a. Diurnal bird use counts
b. Nocturnal bird use counts
c. Raptor nest searches (see Pagel et al. 2010 for golden eagle protocols)
d. Small bird counts (Canadian Wildlife Service 2006a and 2006b)
e. Migration counts
f. Acoustic bat monitoring
g. Bat roost exit counts if applicable
3. Duration and timing of surveys To collect data under variable climatic conditions
and accumulate sufficient samples for data analysis, pre-construction surveys
should be conducted to assess the potential risk of the proposed project to wildlife.
Multi-year surveys, up to three years pre-construction, may be warranted. This can
vary depending on the project specifics, known or perceived level of risk, the
variability in use of habitat by avian species, environmental stochasticity, and
species present. Surveys should be designed to ensure adequate data are collected
on breeding, staging, migration, and winter bird/bat use of the project site, taking
into account peak use of the site temporally and spatially. Bird surveys should
include diurnal and nocturnal use studies for the project footprint. Bat surveys
should also include year-round acoustic monitoring to detect presence and activity
(e.g., mean number of passes/detector/night), as little information is typically
known about the ecology of resident, wintering, and migrating bats. Coordinate
with wildlife agencies when selecting locations for bird and bat data collection.
9/2/10
5

4. Use of additional data Other sources of abundance or habitat data may be
available for specific project sites. When available and appropriate, these data
should also be included in the site evaluation. Other good sources of bird data
include (but are not limited to) Audubon Christmas Bird Count data, USGS
Breeding Bird Survey data, Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird data, California
Natural Diversity Database, and Audubon Important Bird Area data.

D. Risk Assessment - A risk assessment should identify potential short and long-term
impacts of the project development on bird and bat populations, including lethal take
(as defined by all applicable regulations).
1. Site specific threats Based on the results of the wildlife surveys, the site specific
risk assessment should address the potential for take based on:
a. Burning from concentrated light at solar arrays
b. Transmission line, power tower, meterological tower, or guy line collision
c. Electrocution potential
d. Territory abandonment
e. Nest and roost site disturbances
f. Habitat loss and fragmentation
g. Disturbance due to ongoing human presence at the facility
2. Cumulative Impacts Effects that are likely to result from the projects, which
have been or will be carried out throughout the anticipated life of the project,
should be analyzed. We recommend that the cumulative effects assessment, where
practicable and reasonable, should include the impacts from all threats for which
the proponent or landowner has some form of control. The geographic area and
time frame of the analysis will depend upon the species affected and the type of
impact, such as behavioral modification or direct mortality. Discussions with
Federal and State resource agencies will assist the applicant in identifying focal
species and issues that will ultimately define the limits of the cumulative impacts
analysis.

E. Reporting After all appropriate pre-siting survey work is completed; the resulting
information and risk assessment should be provided to all appropriate agencies for review
and discussion.
Project Design Conservation Measures
Based on available data, the project design should be tailored, so that avian mortality risks are
avoided and minimized. The primary questions to be asked are what design features and/or
considerations can potentially reduce the hazard of solar facilities to wildlife populations?
Consideration for the following aspects is strongly recommended:

A. Project siting After all pre-siting survey data have been collected and analyzed, it is
important to select the site that will have the least impacts to bird and bat populations.
The ultimate goal is to avoid, where possible, any take of migratory birds and bats and/or
minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of migratory bird or bat habitat by placing
projects in disturbed and degraded areas to the maximum extent practicable. Siting
conservation measures should include both the macro- and micro-site scales.
9/2/10
6

1. Macro-siting Consideration should be made to avoid:
a. Locations with federally or state listed, or otherwise designated sensitive
species, and areas managed for the conservation of listed species (such as
designated critical habitat)
b. Areas frequently used for daily bird and bat movements (i.e., areas between
roosting and feeding sites)
c. Breeding and wintering eagle use areas
d. Known migration flyways for birds and bats
e. Areas near known bat hibernacula, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies
f. Fragmentation of large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat (see Canadian
Wildlife Service 2006a and 2006b)
2. Micro-siting Once a footprint has been selected, there may be opportunities for
finer scale micro-siting of the project components. Component siting
considerations include:
a. Avoid features that attract raptors (areas supporting tall perching structures
including trees, utility poles, etc.)
b. Avoid features that attract migrant birds (e.g., water sources, riparian
vegetation)
Minimize the potential for enhancing habitats suitable for raptor prey
species such as rodents that would likely attract raptors to the project site.
B. Buffer zones It might be appropriate and necessary to establish biologically meaningful
buffer zones to protect raptor and other bird nests, areas of high bird and bat use, and
known bat roosts from disturbance related to operation of solar energy plants. Pre-project
surveys to determine sensitive wildlife areas are highly recommended. Consideration of
these buffers should be part of the project siting process. The Service recommends that
the following avoidance buffers be considered:
1. Passerines Avoid disturbance activities (e.g., construction actions, noise) within
established buffers for active nests of any protected bird species or any high quality
nesting habitat (e.g., riparian areas). Buffer distances should consider species,
terrain, habitat type, and activity level as these features relate to the bird alert
distance and bird flight initiation distance (Whitfield et al. 2008). Buffer size
should be coordinated with the Service biologists prior to activities.
2. Raptors (including eagles) Minimize human access, and avoid disturbance
activities (e.g., construction actions, noise from operations) within 8 km (5 miles) of
an active raptor/eagle nest, unless specific landscape features (e.g., terrain, barriers)
dictate reduced buffers (Richardson and Miller 1997). Reduced buffers should be
coordinated with the Service.
3. Grouse Avoid construction of solar facilities within 8 km (5 miles) of all grouse
lekking sites (Manville 2004).
4. Bats Avoid placement of facilities in close proximity to know bat roost sites,
maternity colonies, or hibernacula. Appropriate buffer distances should be
established in consideration of the disturbance type (type of energy plant to be
operated), distance to roost or hibernacula, time of year of disturbance (if the
facility operation has seasonal activities), and the duration of the disturbance that
may occur from the facilitys operation.

9/2/10
7

C. Appropriate facility design There are many conservation measures that can be
incorporated into the facility design that might reduce the potential effects of a project on
bird populations. Some include:
1. Avoid using lattice-type structures, placing external ladders and platforms on
towers to minimize perching and nesting.
2. Implement measures to reduce or buffer adverse noise effects associated with
operation of the facility on surrounding wildlife habitat. Noise impacts to birds
(Rheindt 2003, Brumm 2004, Parris and Schneider 2009) and bats (Schaub et al.
2008) have generally been found to be negative; therefore facility design should
take this fact into consideration when selecting the type of solar technology (such as
photovoltaic panels vs. parabolic dish engines) to be used and the placement of the
solar power plant within bird and bat habitats.
3. Avoid the use of guy wires for all meteorological towers and do not light them
unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires them to be lit, which is
generally >60 meters (>199 ft) AGL in height. Any necessary guy wires should be
marked with recommended bird deterrent devices (APLIC 1994, USFWS 2000).
4. If structures (>60 meters [>199 ft] AGL) require lights for aviation safety, the
minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting specified by
the FAA should be used (FAA 2007). All lights within the facility should
illuminate synchronously. Lighting of the boundary of the facility is most
important as an aviation safety warning. Unless otherwise requested by the FAA,
use only the minimum number of strobed, strobe-like or blinking red incandescent
lights of minimum intensity. No steady burning lights should be used on facility
infrastructures (Gehring et al. 2009).
5. Facility lights should be focused downward to reduce skyward illumination. Lights
should be equipped with motion detectors to reduce continuous illumination.
6. Where feasible, place electric power lines underground or on the surface as
insulated, shielded wire to avoid electrocution of birds. Use recommendations of
the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 1994, 2006) for any required
above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors. When transmission lines must be
above-ground, avoid placing lines within wetlands and over canyons.
7. The creation of roads leads to further loss and fragmentation of migratory bird
habitat. The Service recommends that the number of roads be minimized for all
phases of a project.
8. If evaporation ponds are required for the operation of the facility, placement of
netting over the surface of the ponds is encouraged to prevent birds and bats from
contacting the waters surface.
9. Reducing the attractiveness of solar reflectors to polarotactic water insects (those
attracted to polarized light) (Horvath et al. 2010) will help reduce the attractiveness
of these facilities to birds and bats.
Construction Phase Conservation Measures
During the construction of energy power plants and transmission facilities, standard construction
conservation measures should be established. Conservation measures (CMs) that specifically
relate to bird conservation include (but are not limited to):
9/2/10
8

A. Minimize area disturbed to extent practicable, including access road construction. To
minimize the amount of habitat disturbance and fragmentation, construction plans should
emphasize the minimization and placement of habitat disturbance. Construction roads not
required for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility should be closed and
restored to the pre-construction habitat type.

B. Vegetation clearing Over 1,000 bird species and their eggs and nests are protected from
take by MBTA. Thus, the Service recommends that all vegetation within the project
footprint that will be disturbed be cleared outside of the bird breeding season to the
maximum extent practicable (Note: the bird breeding season will vary from location to
location, by habitat type, and by species, please consult the Service for breeding seasons
in the specific project area). If the proposed project includes potential for take of
migratory birds and/or the loss or degradation of migratory bird habitat and vegetation
removal cannot occur outside the bird breeding season, project proponents should provide
the Service an explanation for why work must occur during the bird breeding season.
Further, in these cases, project proponents should demonstrate that all reasonable and
practicable efforts to complete work outside the bird breeding season were attempted, and
that reason for work to be completed during the breeding season were beyond the
proponents control. When vegetation removal cannot take place outside of the breeding
season and a reasonable explanation was provided to the Service, the Service
recommends having a qualified, on-site biologist during construction activities to locate
active nests, establish avoidance buffers around active nests, watch for new nesting
activity, and if necessary stop construction when noise and general activity threaten to
disturb an active nest. All active nests of protected birds (e.g., MBTA, Endanger Species
Act, state regulations) should not be disturbed until after nest outcome is complete (i.e.,
the young have fledged or the nesting attempt failed).

C. Minimize wildfire potential.

D. Minimize activities that attract prey and predators During construction, garbage should
be removed promptly and properly to avoid creating attractive nuisances for birds and
bats.

E. Control of non-native plants The introduction of non-native, invasive plant species can
impact bird habitat quality. The Service recommends that all appropriate control
measures be implemented to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species
within and surrounding the project area including roads associated with operation of the
power plant and associated transmission lines. Use only plants that are native to the area
for seeding or planting during habitat revegetation or restoration efforts.
Operational Phase Conservation Measures
Once a facility is built, appropriate CMs should be in place to reduce the attractiveness of the
facility to breeding, migrating, and wintering birds and bats to ensure mortality is minimized.
The following Operational CMs should be considered:
9/2/10
9

A. Do not create or maintain attraction features for birds and bats. Avoid introducing water
and food resources in the area surrounding the power plant. Through appropriate habitat
maintenance, facilities should seek to reduce features that attract birds and bats to the
facility.

B. Follow APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities (APLIC 1994).

C. Minimize anthropogenic noise

D. Follow APLIC guidelines for overhead utilities (APLIC 1994).

E. Minimize Anthrogenic Noise Noise has generally been found to be negative for birds
(e.g., Rheindt 2003, Brumm 2004, Parris and Schneider 2009) and bats (Schaub et al.
2008), though not all species are affected to the same degree (Brumm 2004). Therefore
facility design should take this into consideration when selecting the type of solar
technology (such as photovoltaic panels vs. parabolic dish engines) to be used and the
placement of the solar power plant within bird and bat habitats. During the operation of
these energy facilities, means to buffer, muffle, or otherwise dampen any anthropogenic
noise pollution that exceeds ambient noise should be fully explored.

F. Minimize use of outdoor lighting at the power plant Research indicates that lights can
both attract and confuse migrating birds (Gehring et al. 2009, Manville 2005, 2009) and
bats are known to feed on concentrations of insects at lights (Fenton 1997). The goal of
every facility should be to minimize the use of lights needed to operate the facility to the
maximum extent practicable.
Post-construction Monitoring
Because solar energy technology is developing rapidly, the potential impacts of solar energy
facilities are not well understood. To accurately evaluate the potential impacts of a solar facility,
post-construction monitoring is a critical element to any ABPP. The goal of the post-
construction monitoring program is to validate the pre-construction risk assessment and allow the
facility to implement adjustments based on identified problems and triggers (see Adaptive
management section above).
A. Monitoring Objectives should include but are not limited to:
1. Estimate bird and bat fatality due to all aspects of facility operation.
2. Assess bird use of evaporation ponds, if applicable.
3. Assess changes in bird and bat behavior due to all aspects of facility operation
(noise, lighting, etc.).
4. Assess territorial abandonment, nest avoidance, and changes in population status
within and adjacent to the project footprint.
5. When operations have been adapted to reduce bird and/or bat mortality, assess
whether mortality avoidance and minimization measures implemented for the
project were adequate.

9/2/10
10

B. Monitoring Design - The degree and intensity of a monitoring program is determined by
a combination of factors including size of the facility, presence of special status species
as determined by pre-construction data, and perceived/known risks at the site. Important
aspects of a post-construction monitoring plan include:
1. Duration and Timing - Post-construction monitoring programs should be done for a
minimum of three years after operation of the facility begins (see Pagel et al. 2010
for duration of eagle monitoring). For projects that will be built in phases over the
course of several years, each complete phase should include a minimum of three
years of monitoring. Where risk is determined to be high or where regular mortality
is observed, at least five years of assessment and monitoring is recommended
(Stewart et al. 2007). This time period ensures data capture differences in
parameters due to seasonal and annual variability. Monitoring programs should be
extended, as appropriate, if mortality level triggers are reached or the project results
in the mortality of a listed species or eagle. It is important to ensure that monitoring
includes data collection during breeding, wintering, and migration periods as bird
and bat use of areas will vary seasonally.
2. Study Components All injury and fatality studies should be based on the
objectives of the monitoring program and should follow accepted scavenger and
search efficiency studies (e.g., Erickson et al. 2004 for wind energy projects).
a. Mortality Studies should cover solar panel/dish/tower collisions and
mortalities associated with other aspects of the facility (e.g., electrocutions,
transmission line collisions, displacement). The Service recommends that
mortality surveys be completed on a weekly basis for at least one year post-
construction. The survey frequency could be adjusted, if appropriate,
depending on the results of the detectability and scavenger studies
b. Assessment of search efficiency (observer bias studies)
c. Assessment of carcass scavenger rates
d. Ensure monitoring plan is representative of the entire footprint
3. Eagle Monitoring In addition to project-specific mortality monitoring studies, the
Service recommends monitoring eagles separately to ensure that Bald and Golden
eagle mortality is adequately assessed (see 2007 National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines for Bald Eagle protocols). If eagles do occur on or near the project site,
project proponents should consult the Services 2010 eagle permitting
implementation guidance (USFWS 2010) if they intend to seek permits under 50
CFR 22.26 or 22.27.

C. Nest Management Each facility should have protocols in place on how to manage nests
established on any part of the facility (see APLIC 2006). Eagle nests should be addressed
per the Services 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

D. Risk Assessment Validation Using pre-and post-construction data, the proponent
should validate the identified risks of the project. The validation process should consider:
1. Whether the documented mortality rate is higher, lower, or as expected, compared
to the pre-construction risk assessment
2. Are CMs adequate to minimize bird and/or bat mortality to the maximum extent
practicable?
9/2/10
11

3. Would additional CMs reduce mortality rates?
4. Do documented mortality rates trigger additional management or mitigation
actions?

E. Reporting All post-construction monitoring results and risk assessment validation
should be reviewed annually. An annual meeting should be held between the Service,
Facility Manager, and other applicable state or federal agencies to review the annual
monitoring report and discuss monitoring results and CMs.

III. Literature Cited


Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian
collisions on power lines: state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC,
Washington, DC.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on
power lines, the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee, and California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and
Sacramento, California.

Brumm, H. 2004. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird.
Journal of Animal Ecology 73: 434-440.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 2006a. Wind turbines and birds, a guidance document for
environmental assessment. March version 6. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 50 pp.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 2006b. Recommended protocols for monitoring impacts of wind
turbines and birds. July 28 final document. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Gatineau, Quebec. 33 pp.

Erickson, W., J. Jeffery, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004. Stateline Wind Project wildlife
monitoring annual report, results from the period July 2001-December 2003. Technical
Report Submitted to FPL Energy, the Oregon Office of Energy, and the Stateline
Technical Advisory Committee.

Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Obstruction marking and lighting. Advisory Circular
AC-70/7460.

Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 78:1-14.

Gehring, J.L., P. Kerlinger, and A.M. Manville, II. 2009. Communication towers, lights and
birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological
Applications 19: 505-514.

9/2/10
12

Horvath, G., M. Blaho, A. Egri., G. Kriska, I. Seres., and B. Robertson. 2010. Reducing the
maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conservation Biology
(In Press).

Leitner, P. 2009. The promise and peril of solar power. The Wildlife Professional 3(1):48-53.

Manville, A.M., II. 2004. Prairie grouse leks and wind turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
justification for a 5-mile buffer for leks; additional grassland songbird recommendations.
Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Arlington, VA. (Peer-reviewed white
paper.)

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers,
and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science next steps toward mitigation,
pp.1051-1064. In C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, [eds.], Bird Conservation Implementation in
the Americas: Proceedings 3
rd
International Partners in Flight Conference 2002. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Albany, California.

Manville, A.M., II. 2009. Towers, turbines, power lines, and buildings steps being taken by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these
structures. Pp 262-272. In T.D. Rich, C. Arizmondi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson
[eds.], Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Habitats and People. Proceedings 4
th
International
Partners in Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008, McAllen, TX.

McCrary, M.D., R.L. McKernan, R.W. Schreiber, W.D. Wagner, and T.C. Sciarrotta. 1986.
Avian mortality at a solar energy plant. Journal of Field Ornithology 57:135-141.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology Background
Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and Wildlife
Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section.
Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.

Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and
monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds,
Arlington, VA

Parris, K.M., and A. Schneider. 2009. Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of
roadside habitats. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 29 [online]
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol14/iss1/art29/

Rheindt, F.E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in
determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal of Ornithology 144: 295-306.

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human
disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):634-638.

9/2/10
13

Schaub, A., J. Ostwald, and B.M. Siemers. 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. The Journal of
Experimental Biology 211: 3174-3180.

Stewart, G.B., A.S. Pullin, and C.F. Coles. 2007. Poor evidence-base for assessment of
windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 34:1-11.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.
Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Whitfield, D.P., M Ruddock, and R. Bullman. 2008. Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying
bird tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation 141:2708-2717.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on
Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning.
Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington, VA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Implementation guidance for eagle take permits under 50
CFR 22.26 and 50 CFR 22.27. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA.



9/2/10
14

Appendix. Key Resources for Bird and Bat Protection Plan Development
Adaptive Management
Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S.
Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf

Bird and Bat Protection Plan Guidelines
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005.
Avian protection plan (APP) guidelines.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/APP/AVIAN%20PROTEC
TION%20PLAN%20FINAL%204%2019%2005.pdf
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection
on power lines, the state of the art in 2006.
http://www.aplic.org/
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Suggested practices for avoiding avian
collisions on power lines: state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC,
Washington, DC.
Birds of Conservation Concern
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds. 2008. Birds of Conservation
Concern. Arlington, VA.
http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf

Eagle Rule and Guidance
For a general overview of the new eagle permits final rule, review the Service's Migratory
Bird Management Information: Eagle Rule Questions and Answers; located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/QAs%20fo
r%20Eagle%20Rule.final.10.6.09.pdf
Review the Service's 2009 Final Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Permit Take as
Provided Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/FEA_EagleTakePermit_
Final.pdf
Review the Service's 2009 Eagle Permits; Take Necessary to Protect Interests in
Particular Localities; Final Rules; located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/Final%20Disturbance%2
0Rule%209%20Sept%202009.pdf
Minimize impacts to bald eagles by implementing recommendations provided in the
Service's 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines; located at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBa
ldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
Pagel, J.E., D.M. Whittington, and G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and
monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds, Arlington,
VA
9/2/10
15


Habitat Equivalency Analysis
King, D.M. 1997. Comparing ecosystem services and values, with illustrations for
performing habitat equivalency analysis. Prepared by King and Associates, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., for U.S. Department of Commerce, Silvery Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Habitat equivalency analysis: an
overview.
http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2009. Restoration economics, habitat
equivalency analysis.
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/economics/habitatequ.htm

Bird and Bat Monitoring Methods
California Bat Working Group. 2006. Guidelines for assessing and minimizing impacts to
bats at wind energy development sites in California.
http://www.wbwg.org/conservation/papers/CBWGwindenergyguidelines.pdf
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, B.M. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L.
Morrison, M.D. Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind-energy
development on nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal Wildlife
Management 71:2249-2486.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Wind Power and Bats: Bat Ecology
Background Information and Literature Review of Impacts. December 2006. Fish and
Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section.
Peterborough, Ontario. 61 p.
Solar Project Development Guidance

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2009. Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona.
http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/documents/FinalSolarGuidelines03122010.pdf
Energy Development Guidance
USFWS. 2003. Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind
Turbines.
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/service interim guidance pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region
Monitoring Migratory Bird Take at Solar Power Facilities: An
Experimental Approach

May 2, 2011
Chris Nicolai
a
, Steve Abele
b
, Heather Beeler
c
, Rob Doster
d
, Eric Kershner
e
and Tom McCabe
f
a
USFWS, Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502
b
USFWS Ecological Services, Reno Field Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502
c
USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825
d
USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 752 County Road 99W, Willows, CA 95988
e
USFWS Region 8 Migratory Birds Program, 6010 Hidden Valley Rd., Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92011
f
USFWS Region 8 Conservation Partnership Program, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825

SUMMARY
Studies examining effects of energy development on mortality of migratory birds has primarily
focused on wind energy (California Energy Commission 2006, Huso 2010). Currently, few large scale
solar facilities are operational in the United States, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has
little data on the effects of solar facilities on migratory bird mortality. While monitoring programs to
study these effects are in place for wind development, there remains a need to provide consistent
guidance and study design to quantify mortality of migratory birds at solar power facilities currently and
in the future. This document provides methods similar to monitoring for wind developments, but is
adapted for solar power facilities. The USFWS Pacific Southwest Region has designed the following
monitoring scheme for migratory bird mortality for solar energy development. In this paper, we provide
a consistent monitoring design, across different types of solar developments, to estimate the number of
bird mortalities and which takes into consideration spatial variation, mortality type, scavenging, and
observer detection rates. This method relies heavily on a capture recapture design conducted during 7-
day sampling periods at the beginning of each month for a 12 month period. The Services Pacific
Southwest Region is proposing this monitoring regimen for solar energy developments, with the
expectation that it will produce adequate data for assessing impacts to migratory birds. As our
understanding and techniques for monitoring improve, the Service will adapt the monitoring program in
the future.

UNKNOWNS AND METHODS TO RESOLVE
1) Intensity of mortalities Provide data from initial studies controlling for detection rate,
method of mortality, scavenging rate, and locations of mortality. Potential in the future to
adapt monitoring protocols for a project based on these initial studies to set monitoring
effort.
2) Detection rate Data from initial studies will inform detection rate as a function of distance
from established transect lines. This will allow the initial solar developments to help
develop future protocols and set distances from transect line to monitor mortalities.
3) Method of mortalities Provide data from initial studies. Descriptions of found mortalities
and location within development will aide in this assessment. These initial studies will
identify where in the solar development mortalities occur and direct future efforts to reduce
take due to specific causes.
CONSIDERATIONS
1) Use capture recapture to estimate abundance of dead migratory birds (Lukacs 2011,
California Energy Commission 2006).
2) Consider variation in frequency of carcasses that may vary over time and location across and
within transects.
3) Consider scavenging rates that may vary over time and location across and within transects.
4) Four general types of solar developments are proposed for development: power tower,
solar troughs, Stirling engine, and photovoltaic cells.


SAMPLING DESIGN
1) Strata We propose 3 strata in this design; 1) within the mirror array and central tower (for
power tower developments), 2) ponds, and 3) along transmission lines.
2) Transects Transects are used as replicates within strata. We propose that transects should
cover 10-30% of strata area. Coordinates for transect lines will be established.
3) Extrapolate sampled areas to overall area within each strata.

TRANSECT LAYOUT
Within mirror array and central tower (for power tower developments)
Mirror or photovoltaic cells typically are created in a circular or tetragon shape. Given the
difference in these developments, we propose two different approaches to laying out transects.
Transect design should result in 10-30% total area coverage within strata. We suggest a
minimum of 8 transects within this strata to obtain good replication and enough data to test for
effects of distance on mortality events.
CIRCULAR DESGINS WITH A CENTRAL TOWER (power towers)
We propose that transect layout in a power tower array (typically circular) encompasses the
360 area surrounding the central tower (Figure 1). We want to consider detection of
carcasses randomly throughout the mirror array. Therefore, we propose to sample 8
transects which originate at the central tower and extend to the edge of the mirror array.
These transects shall be at every 45 which should result in 10-30% coverage.
TETRAGON DESIGN
Because this design is simpler than an array with a central potential source of bird mortality,
the transect design can also be simpler. All transects should begin and end at an edge of the
tetragon (Figure 2).
Ponds
Transects lines should be placed randomly along the immediate edges of ponds (Figure 1) to
monitor floating or pulled out carcasses. One transect should occur for each cardinal direction
(i.e., north side, south side, east side, and west side) within this strata due to effects of wind or
current. If multiple ponds occur, efforts should be made to sample each pond with at least one
transect. Minimum of 4 transect in this strata.
Transmission lines
Overall length of the sampled transmission line should be determined and transects should be
randomly assigned to result in 10-30% coverage. Transect should run down the middle of the
transmissions lines. Minimum of 4 transects in this strata.
SAMPING ALONG TRANSECTS
We encourage the use of a single qualified observer. The observer will walk along pre-
determined transects searching for bird carcasses. The observer will walk along the predetermined path
and scan away from the transect to detect carcasses. When a carcass is observed, they are asked to
walk the shortest distance to the carcass. At each discovery of a carcass, a GPS location (UTM) will be
recorded, the species identified and information regarding carcass condition will be collected. Each
carcass (not the location) will be uniquely and inconspicuously marked with tape and permanent
marker. By recording UTMs, distances from the transect can be calculated for analysis in Program
DISTANCE. All carcasses will be left exactly as found. By marking carcasses, future encounters will be
used as recaptures. Once data is collected at a carcass, the observer will return to the pre-determined
transect and continue with the survey. As all sampling periods will be seven consecutive days, observers
will continue to record presence, location (UTM), and condition of all observed carcasses. Table 1
provides a sample data sheet. Carcasses shall be assigned to one of the following 4 classes at each
encounter: 1) fresh (eyes are still wet and not totally sunk into sockets), 2) medium (eyes are totally
sunk into sockets and breast muscle and viscera still present), 3) non-scavenged carcass (a stiff carcass
consisting of a dried complete carcass), 4) remnant (a dried carcass consisting of non-edible parts).
Additionally, the presence or absence of evidence of superheating (singed feathers) should be recorded.

DATA TO BE PROVIDED
As this is an experimental approach, the USFWS has a definitive interest in the analysis of the
data and the results. Shapefiles showing the solar development including each mirror, tower, building,
road, transmission line, transmission tower, and cooling pond are to be provided to USFWS, as are
separate shapefiles showing all transects. Completed data sheets, or their copies also should be
provided to the Service.


ANALYSIS
Two primary analyses will be conducted. The first will use Program DISTANCE to determine the
most effective transect width to search for carcasses. The second will use Program MARK to estimate
total number of mortalities controlling for detection rate, scavenging rate, and proximity to the power
tower.

Program DISTANCE
The preliminary analyses will benefit from the use of Program DISTANCE to determine the
distance from established transects, which detection probabilities remain > 0.95. ARCGIS can
use shapefiles containing the transect routes and a separate shapefile identifying the locations
of carcasses to develop distances from the transect in which carcasses were detected. This
initial analysis will develop protocols in which to sample along transects and whether a set
transect width should be implemented in future surveys.

Program MARK
A suggested analysis will use the closed captures design within Program MARK (Lukacs 2011) to
estimate the number of dead birds in the sampled area (10-30% of total area). This approach
will allow the estimation of number of dead birds (N), apparent survival () to be the inverse of
scavenging rate, and capture probability (p) to be observer detection rate. Therefore, the
estimate of the number of carcasses will include variation in scavenger and detection rate. The
estimate of number of carcasses will be extrapolated to the full area within each stratum and
will be summed to provide an estimate of total number of carcasses for the facility.
Consideration of multiple models will allow determination of source of mortality (e.g., central
tower (models including distance from tower is selected)).


ADAPTIVE STRUCTURE
Initially, all transects will be sampled for seven consecutive days at the beginning of each month
for a year. We suggest that this year round monitoring program is initiated at the beginning of the most
active migratory period for the area. Analyses should be updated seasonally (every 3 months). At the
end of the first year, the extrapolated full-year estimate of number of bird mortalities will be considered
for future refinement of monitoring protocol.



































Figure 1. General diagram showing a typical footprint for a circular solar facility with a central power
tower. Included is an approximation of the layout for transects to estimate migratory bird
mortality.






























Figure 2. General diagram showing a typical footprint for a tetragon shaped solar facility. Included is an
approximation of the layout for transects to estimate migratory bird mortality.



LITERATURE CITED
California Energy Commission. 2006. California guidelines for reducing impacts to birds and bats from
wind energy development. Sacramento, CA.
Huso, M. M. P. 2010. An estimator of wildlife fatality from observed carcasses. Environmetrics DOI:
10.1002/env.1052
Lukacs, P. 2011. Closed population capture-recapture models In Program MARK: A gentle introduction.
Online: http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/pdf/chap14.pdf
Program DISTANCE. 2011. http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/
Program MARK. 2011. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mark/mark.htm
SAMPLE DATA SHEET (Excel file is available)
XXX Solar Facility Migratory Bird Monitoring Project
Date:
(us e a different s heet for ea ch da y)
Observer:


Transect #
Unique
Carcass
ID Species

Carcass
Condition UTM

Cause of
Death Transect #
Unique
Carcass
ID Species

Carcass
Condition UTM

Cause of
Death














































Transect

Total Number of carcasses (include zeros
for transects with no carcasses; put X if
not sampled)
Daily Summary


Transect

Total Number of carcasses (include zeros
for transects with no carcasses; put X if
not sampled)
Mirror 1 Pond 1
Mirror 2 Pond 2
Mirror 3 Pond 3
Mirror 4 Pond 4
Mirror 5 Line 1
Mirror 6 Line 2
Mirror 7 Line 3
Mirror 8 Line 4

Region 8 - Solar ABPP Document Review Checklist
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The plan considers ALL bird species
The plan addresses bats
Plan is written within adaptive management framework

SPECIFIC SECTION CONSIDERATIONS
SITE ASSESSMENT
Coarse site assessment completed (e.g., RAM, PII)
Appropriate site specific wildlife surveys completed
Protocol eagle/raptor surveys (breeding, wintering, migration)
Bird use counts (breeding, wintering, migration)
Acoustic bat monitoring
Additional data sources consulted
Identifies special status species
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Species specific threats identified by species
Collision with solar technology (e.g., panels, power towers)
Burning and blinding from concentrated light
Evaporation ponds (i.e., attractive nuisance, hyper-saline toxicity)
Transmission line, met tower, guy wire collision
Utility electrocution
Nest and roost site disturbance
Habitat loss
Habitat fragmentation
Additional human presence disturbance
Cumulative threats analyzed
Eagles
Other birds and bats
Quantitative risk assessment for all species
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Macro-siting considerations (e.g., placement in least sensitive landscape)
Micro-siting considerations
Avoidance of sensitive habitat fragmentation (e.g., desert washes)
Minimize footprint/disturbance area
Implementation of disturbance buffers
Nesting Birds (construction and operation phases)
Raptors and Eagles
Grouse

Bats
Construction Best Management Practices
Avoid inclusion of structures for nesting/perching (e.g., lattice towers)
Noise reduction/buffers
Avoid use of guy wires were possible
Bury all electrical lines where possible
Tower lighting
Minimize access roads
Minimize fire potential
Vegetation clearance outside of bird breeding season
Within breeding season with avoidance surveys
Control of non-native plant establishment
Control garbage and attractive nuisance sources
Operational Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Minimize features that attract wildlife (e.g., water, nest sites, perches, prey)
Implement APLIC standards for utility components
Minimize operational noise on adjacent habitat
Minimize operational lighting (e.g., motion sensors, shielding, etc)
Evaporation pond exclusions
POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Assess bird/bat mortality related to solar technology (e.g., collision, burning,
blinding)
Assess bird mortality associated with utilities (e.g., collisions, electrocutions)
Evaluate bird use of evaporation ponds and effectiveness of exclusion devices
Assess impacts of fragmentation and displacement
Eagle monitoring (i.e., nesting, foraging behavior)
Project site nest management protocols
RISK VALIDATION
Quantify actual impacts post-operation
Assess whether conservation measures are adequate to minimize impacts
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Are additional conservation measures identified
Phased-in approach based on triggers
Mitigation approaches identified
Habitat Equivalency Analysis (i.e., pre-construction habitat compensation)
Eagle mitigation measures
REPORTING

Identifies reporting mechanism for project specific data/information

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi