BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent

WEST Survey Reports
Appendix F -2
February 2011
Project No. 0092352
Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 459-4700
ACOUSTIC BAT SURVEYS FOR THE
CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
Final Report
August – October, 2008
Prepared for:
BP Wind Energy North America
700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor
Houston, Texas
Prepared by:
David Tidhar, Jeff Gruver and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch,
26 North Main Street,
Waterbury, Vermont
December 23, 2010
NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

Cape Vincent Final Bat Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility in Jefferson
County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent. BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems
Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor wildlife resources within proposed project area
to determine potential impacts of the project construction and operations on wildlife. The following report
contains results for acoustic bat surveys conducted during fall 2008.
Acoustic bat surveys were conducted using four ground-based AnabatTM SD1 ultrasonic detectors from
August 4 to October 15, 2008 to determine spatial and seasonal use of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource
Area (CPWRA) by bats. A total of 678 bat passes were recorded on 182 detector-nights at the four
stations; for a mean of 3.43±0.42 bat passes per detector-night. Calls were divided into high (> 40 kHz)
and low frequency (<40 kHz), and the number of high-frequency calls recorded by far outnumbered the
number of low-frequency calls recorded (86.4% compared to 13.7%, respectively). The number of calls of
both high- and low-frequency bats was highest during the first week of the study, with a second peak
during the first week of September before decreasing for the remainder of the study.
Acoustic bat surveys were also conducted at the CVWRA during fall 2006 from August 13 to October 9.
During this season Anabat II ultrasonic detectors were raised on pulleys systems to three heights on the
project meteorological tower; ground level, 25 m, and 50 m above ground level. A total of 713 bat passes
were recorded on 147 detector-nights at the three stations; for a mean of 4.94 bat passes per detector-
night. Bat activity (bat passes per detector-night) was higher at the ground based unit (9.90) compared to
either raised units (25 m=4.27; 50 m=0.65). Activity at the ground based unit in fall 2006 was much
higher than at the four ground based units in 2008 (9.90 compared to 3.43 bat passes per detector-nights,
respectively). Decrease in bat activity may have been related to declines in bat populations affected by
white-nosed syndrome.
Bat activity at the CVWRA was compared to data collected at wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S.
where post-construction fatality monitoring has been conducted. Bat fatality estimates from eleven
facilities in five states range from 1.40 bats/MW/study period at Stetson Mountain, ME to 39.7
bats/MW/study period at Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006); mean: 15.5 bats/MW/study period. Activity has
been collected at only four of these facilities and ranged from 0.30 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-night.
Fatality estimates at these four facilities ranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. In comparison,
bat activity at ground based units at the CVWRA was 9.90 bat passes per detector-night in 2008 and 3.43
bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67). Based on this relationship, bat fatality rates at the
CVWRA are likely to be higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) but lower than at
Mountaineer, WV, Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and Mount Storm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2
bats/MW/study period).
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. i December 23, 2010

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

David Tidhar Project Manager, Research Biologist II
Kimberly Bay Data Analyst and Report Manager
Saif Nomani Biometrician
JR Boehrs GIS Technician
Jeff Gruver Bat Biologist
Lanie Garner-Warner Field Technician
REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Bat surveys for the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area,
Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy North America, Houston, Texas.
Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont.
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii December 23, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Study Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1
METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 1
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data ...................................................................................................... 5
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 5
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. Data
from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/). ....................... 2
Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Comparison of acoustic bat surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource
Area; August 13-October 9, 2006 and August 4-October 15, 2008................................................. 6
Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where post-
construction fatality monitoring has been conducted....................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Anabat™ detectors deployed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat™ detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. ............................................................ 3
Figure 3. Weekly bat activity of high-frequency (HF), low-frequency (LF), and all bats within the
Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. .................................................. 4
Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat™ station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource
Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors.............................. 5
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii December 23, 2010

INTRODUCTION
BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility within the
Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), located in Jefferson County, New York. BPWENA
contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement baseline wildlife
studies within the CVWRA in 2006 to estimate the potential impacts of the project construction and
operations on wildlife resources.
The principal objectives of the studies were to (1) provide site-specific bird and bat resource and use data
that would be useful in evaluating potential impacts of the proposed facility, (2) provide information that
could be used in project planning and design to minimize impacts to birds and bats, and (3) recommend
further studies or potential mitigation measures, if warranted. The protocols were developed with input
from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), as well as the expertise and experience of WEST in implementing and
conducting similar studies for wind-energy development projects throughout the U.S. Studies conducted
within the CVWRA include: spring and fall nocturnal radar surveys (2006 & 2007), spring raptor
migration surveys (2006, 2007, 2008), breeding bird surveys (2006), over-wintering raptor and waterfowl
surveys (2006-2007), grassland breeding bird transect surveys (2010), acoustic bat surveys (Anabat™;
2006, 2008), bat mist netting and Indiana bat telemetry studies (2006 & 2007). Wildlife studies from
2006-2007 at the CVWRA were previously reported (Young et al 2007).
The following report includes results from the 2008 acoustic bat surveys with a comparison with acoustic
data collected in 2006 (Young et al. 2007).
Study Area
The CVWRA is located south of the St. Lawrence River and north of Chaumont Bay, near the town of
Cape Vincent, New York (Figure 1). The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern
New York at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). The dominant vegetation type was
historically northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but
agricultural clearing has left the region approximately twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988).
Portions of the study area are characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and
sparsely vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al.
2002). The land within the CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within
scattered deciduous woodlots.
METHODS
Bat activity was determined using four Anabat™ SD1 bat detectors (Titley Scientific™, Brisbane,
Australia) which were deployed to monitor nightly activity continually during the study period; August 4-
October 15, 2008 (Figure 1). The CVA station was located at the project meteorological tower, which was
sampled during the spring-fall 2006 acoustic bat study (Young et al 2007). Acoustic bat detectors are a
recommended method to index and compare habitat use by bats, and the use of acoustic detectors is a
primary bat risk assessment tool for baseline wind development surveys (Arnett 2007; Kunz et al. 2007a).
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 December 23, 2010

Figure 1. Location of Anabat™ detectors deployed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

Anabat™ detectors use a broadband high-frequency microphone to detect echolocation calls of foraging
and commuting bats. Each series of echolocation calls recorded is saved to a file on a high-capacity
compact flash card, which is subsequently transferred onto a computer for analysis. Other ultrasonic
sounds, such as those made by insects, raindrops hitting vegetation, or other sources may be recorded;
therefore, in order to reduce this type of interference, a sensitivity level of six was used on the detectors.
The echolocation sounds are then translated into frequencies audible to humans by dividing the
frequencies by a predetermined ratio; a division ratio of 16 was used in this study. The detection range of
an Anabat™ detector depends on a number of factors, such as echolocation call characteristics,
microphone sensitivity, habitat type, orientation of the bat to the microphone, and atmospheric conditions
(Limpens and McCracken 2004). Generally, however, the range is less than 30 m (98 ft) due to
atmospheric absorption of echolocation pulses (Fenton 1991). To ensure similar detection ranges among
units, the microphone sensitivity of the detectors were calibrated using a BatChirp ultrasonic emitter
(Tony Messina, Las Vegas, NV) as described in Larson and Hayes (2000). Each Anabat™ unit was
placed inside a plastic weatherproof container with a piece of PVC tubing extending on one side to house
the microphone. The PVC tubing was curved skyward at 45° to ensure maximum coverage and contained
drain holes to minimize the potential for water damage due to rain. The container was positioned on top
of a plastic crate approximately 0.30 m high, and held in place using bungee cords, tent pegs, and large
rocks. Vegetation that could grow up and impede the microphone was cleared from the surrounding area
to reduce interference. All units were programmed to turn on each night approximately one half-hour
before sunset and turn off approximately one half-hour after sunrise.
Statistical Analysis
The unit of activity used for analysis was the number of bat passes per detector night (Hayes 1997). A bat
pass is defined as a continuous series of two or more call notes produced by an individual bat with no
pauses of more than one second between call notes (White and Gehrt 2001, Gannon et al. 2003). In this
report, the terms bat pass and bat call are used interchangeably. Data files were analyzed using Analook
W v3.5r (©2008, Chris Corben) and Analook DOS v4.9j (©2004, Chris Corben) software. The Analook
software displays bat calls (and extraneous noise) as a series of pixels on a time over frequency display.
Analook provides a framework to build filters that constrain the values that certain call parameters can
take. Pixels that fall outside of the specified range of the filter parameters are ignored (e.g. pixels not
following a smooth line, pixels below or above a specified frequency). In addition, a series of filters
developed by WEST were used to quickly and effectively separate out files that contained only noise, and
to sort remaining files containing bat calls into frequency groups. Filtered files were visually examined by
an analyst to ensure accuracy. The total number of bat calls was then corrected for effort by dividing by
the number of detector-nights.
Depending on the species of bats that are expected to occur in an area, Anabat™ units can have limited
use in identifying the bat species that produced the recorded call. Some bat species produce a call that has
a very distinctive sonogram (shape on a frequency-time graph); however there is much overlap between
some species. For this reason, a conservative approach to species identification was used during the
analysis of seasonal bat use within the proposed site. Calls were divided into two groups based on the
minimum frequency of the call: (1) high-frequency (HF): > 30 kHz and (2) low-frequency (LF): < 30
kHz. A list of bat species expected to occur within the CVWRA was compiled based on call frequency to

provide a reference to which species could have produced the calls in each category (Table 1). Since
individual bats cannot be differentiated by their calls, the bat pass data represents relative levels of bat
activity (or relative abundance) rather than the total number of individuals present. Thus, the mean of bat
passes per detector-night determined from the Anabat™ data provides an index of bat activity within the
CVWRA which can then be compared to similar data from existing wind-energy facilities.
Table 1. Bat species with the potential to occur within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.
Data from Harvey et al. (1999) and Bat Conservation International (www.batcon.org/).
Northern long-eared myotis2 Myotis septentrionalis
Eastern small footed myotis2 Myotis leibii
High-frequency Indiana bat2,3 Myotis sodalist
(> 30 kHz) Tri-colored bat2 Perimyotis subflavus
Eastern red bat1,2 Lasiurus borealis
Little brown bat2 Myotis lucifugus
Big brown bat2 Eptesicus fuscus
Low-frequency
Silver-haired bat1,2 Lasionycteris noctivagans
(< 30 kHz)
Hoary bat1,2 Lasiurus cinereus
1
=long-distance migrant; 2=known casualty at wind-energy facilities; 3=federally-endangered.
Bat use for this report is defined as the total number of bat passes per detector night, and was
used as an index representing bat activity within the project area. Bat pass data represents levels
of bat activity rather than the number of individuals present because individuals cannot be
differentiated by their calls. To assess potential for bat mortality, the mean number of bat passes
per detector night (averaged across monitoring stations) was compared to existing data from
wind-energy facilities in eastern North America where both bat activity and mortality levels have
been measured.
RESULTS
Of the 288 detector-nights available from the four units over the duration of the study period (August 4-
October 15), units were operating for a total of 182 detector-nights (63.2%; Figure 2). Two detectors were
not operating from August 5-26 (CVA and CVB), three units were not working between August 27-
September 14 (CVA, CVB, and CVD), and one unit was not operating from September 15-21 (CVD).

Figure 2. Percentage of Anabat™ detectors (n=4) operating during each study night within the
Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.
A total of 678 bat passes were recorded at the four detectors on 182 detector-nights (Table 2). The total
number of bat passes recorded at each station ranged from 72 at CVB to 340 at CVC (mean: 169.5); and
the number of detector nights ranged from 31 at CVA and CVB to 73 at CVC. High-frequency bat passes
accounted for 86.4% of calls recorded; and at least 79.6% of calls recorded at each station. When adjusted
for number of detector-nights operating, bat activity ranged from 2.32 to 4.66 across stations and mean
activity within the CVWRA was 3.43±0.42 bat passes per detector-night.
Table 2. Results of acoustic bat surveys conducted within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
August 4-October 15, 2008.
Anabat™ Number of HF Number of LF Total Bat Detector- Bat Passes/
Station Bat Passes Bat Passes Passes Nights Detector-Night
CVA 89 10 99 31 3.19±0.70
CVB 64 8 72 31 2.32±0.46
CVC 300 40 340 73 4.66±0.46
CVD 133 34 167 47 3.55±0.77
Total 586 92 678 182 3.43±0.42
HF=high-frequency (>30 kHz); LF=low-frequency (<30 kHz).

Weekly bat activity was highest in the first week of the study period (9.43 bat passes per detector-night;
Figure 3 and Appendix A); decreasing to a mean of 3.76 (range: 2.93-4.56) over the next three weeks. A
second peak of activity occurred in the first week of September (7.57 bat passes per detector-night);
decreasing to a mean of 4.76 (range: 3.29-5.46) over the next three weeks (September 8-28) before falling
to a mean of 0.88 (range: 0.50-1.29) over the final three weeks of the study period (September 29-October
15).
When considering frequency group, the temporal activity pattern of high-frequency bats mirrored that of
all bats (likely due to 86.4% of calls being from high-frequency bats; Figure 3 and Appendix A). Activity
by low frequency bats was also highest in the first week of the study (1.57 bat passes per detector-night).
Activity was then relatively constant to the end of September (range: 0.14-1.07; mean: 0.61) before
falling to an average of 0.13 bat passes per detector-night (range: 0-0.25) for the remainder of the study.
Figure 3. Weekly bat activity of high-frequency (HF), low-frequency (LF), and all bats within
the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.

The number of detector-nights operating differed between stations (Table 2). When this was taken into
account, activity ranged from 2.32 bat passes per detector-night at CVB to 4.66 at CVC (Figure 4). Again,
high-frequency activity mirrored that of all bats; but low-frequency activity was highest at CVD (0.72 bat
passes per detector-night).
Figure 4. Bat activity recorded at each Anabat™ station within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource
Area; August 4-October 15, 2008. Error bars are bootstrapped standard errors.
DISCUSSION
Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data
Acoustic bat data were collected at the CVWRA during fall 2006 from August 13–October 9, 2006 using
three Anabat II acoustic detectors (Young et al 2007). All detectors were located at the project
meteorological tower (CVA; Figure 1); one ground based and two raised to 25 m and 50 m above ground
level using pulley systems attached to the tower guy wires. A total of 713 bat passes were recorded on
147 detector-nights (Table 3). Two-thirds of calls were recorded at the ground based unit, with a further
28.8% recorded at the unit placed at 25 m. Less than 5% of calls (n=33) were recorded at 50 m. When

accounting for number of detector-nights, bat activity was 9.90 at the ground based unit, 4.27 at the 25 m
unit, and 0.65 bat passes per detector-night at the 50 m unit. Averaged across stations bat activity was
4.94 bat passes per detector-night.
Table 3. Summary of bat activity recorded at ground and elevated stations between August 13-
October 9, 2006 at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.
Station Total Bat Passes Detector- Nights Bat Passes/ Detector-Night
Ground 475 48 9.90
25 m 205 48 4.27
50 m 33 51 0.65
Total 713 147 4.94
Bat activity recorded at the ground based detector in 2006 was almost three times higher than was
recorded at the CVWRA in 2008 at station CVA and for all stations combined. This difference may be
due in part to the effect of white nose syndrome on cave-dwelling bats in the eastern U.S. White nose
syndrome was first discovered at Howe Cave, near Albany, New York in 2006 and has since spread
across the northeast and mid-Atlantic states and as far west as Oklahoma and Missouri. The disease has
caused a decrease of between 30-99% (mean 73%) in some hibernacula counts within two years; has
affected at least seven bat species, including the federally-endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); and
has the potential to cause the regional extinction of the little brown bat (M. lucifugus; Frick et al. 2010).
Assessing whether bat composition may have changed between 2006 and 2008 based on acoustic data is
confounded by the evolution in analysis methods between study years. In 2006 bat calls were classified
to species following methods developed by Britzke et al (2001, 2002 and 2003). In 2008, calls were
classified using a more conservative method into frequency groups. Bat calls classified to species in 2006
accounted for only 36 % of recorded bat calls during the fall (August 13 – October 9, 2006) sampling
period, whereas 100 % of bat calls were classified to frequency group in fall 2008.
Bat Activity and Fatality Patterns
Assessing the potential impacts of the CVWRA on bats is complicated because the proximate and
ultimate causes of bat mortality at turbines are poorly understood (Kunz et al. 2007b, Baerwald et al.
2008, Cryan and Barclay 2009) and because monitoring elusive, night-flying animals is inherently
difficult (O’Shea et al. 2003). Although installed capacity of wind development has increased rapidly in
recent years, the availability of well-designed studies from existing projects lags development of proposed
projects (Kunz et al. 2007b). However, to date, monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities suggest that:
1. bat mortality shows a rough correlation with bat activity (Kunz et al. 2007b);
2. the majority of fatalities appear to occur during the post-breeding or fall migration season
(roughly August and September);
3. long-distance migratory tree-roosting species (e.g. eastern red [Lasiurus borealis], hoary [L.
cinereus], and silver-haired bats [Lasionycteris noctivagans) comprise almost 75% of casualties;
and

4. the highest reported fatalities occur at wind-energy facilities located along forested ridge tops in
the eastern U.S. Although recent studies in agricultural regions of Iowa and Alberta, Canada, also
report relatively high fatalities.
Based on these patterns, current guidance for estimating potential impacts of proposed wind-energy
facilities involves evaluating bat acoustic data to determine seasonal variation in activity levels and
species composition with a comparison with regional patterns (Kunz et al. 2007b).
There are few instances where both bat activity and bat mortality have been recorded at wind-energy
facilities and where results are comparable. For this reason, a definitive relationship between pre-
construction bat activity and post-construction bat mortality has not been established empirically. From
the data available, there appears to be a positive correlation between the two variables and there is the
expectation amongst the scientific and resource management communities that when more data become
available this relationship will hold (Kunz et al. 2007a). Datasets such as that provided by the current
study will further contribute to our understanding of this relationship. Table 4 summarizes the results of
publically available activity and fatality data from wind-energy facilities in the eastern US. To our
knowledge, activity data were collected using ground-based Anabat™ detectors such as those used in the
current study.
Fatality estimates from post-construction monitoring studies at wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S.
range from 1.40 to 39.7 bats/MW/year. Bat activity at ground based units at the CVWRA was 9.90 bat
passes per detector-night in 2008 and 3.43 bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67); values that
are lower than at three of the four facilities where activity has been recorded. Activity at these three
facilities ranged from 23.7 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-night (activity at the fourth was 0.30). Fatality
estimates at these four facilities ranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. Based on the
relationship between activity and mortality at these sites, bat fatality rates at the CVWRA are likely to be
higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) but lower than at Mountaineer, WV,
Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and Mount Storm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2 bats/MW/study period).

Table 4. Bat activity and fatality estimates from wind-energy facilities in the eastern U.S where
post-construction fatality monitoring has been conducted.
Bat Fatality Number of Total
Wind-Energy Facility
Activity1 Estimate2 Turbines MW
Cape Vincent 2008 3.43
Cape Vincent 2006 9.90
Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) 39.7 18 29.0
Mountaineer, WV 38.3 31.7 44 66.0
Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002) 23.7 31.5 3 2.00
Meyersdale, PA 18.0 20 30.0
Casselman, PA 15.7 23 34.5
Maple Ridge, NY (2006) 15.0 120 198
Noble Bliss, NY 14.7 67 100
Mount Storm, WV (2008) 35.2 12.1 82 164
Maple Ridge, NY (2007) 9.42 195 321.75
Noble Ellenburg, NY 5.45 54 80.0
Noble Clinton, NY 3.63 67 100.5
Mars Hill, ME (2007) 2.91 28 42.0
Stetson Mountain, ME 0.30 1.40 38 57.0
1
bat passes per detector-night; 2bats/MW/year.
Data from the following sources:

Activity Fatality Estimate
Buffalo Mountain, TN (2006) Fiedler et al. 2007
Mountaineer, WV Arnett et al. 2005 Kerns and Kerlinger 2004
Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2003) Fiedler 2004 Nicholson 2005
Meyersdale, PA Arnett et al. 2005
Casselman, PA Arnett et al. 2009
Maple Ridge, NY (2006) Jain et al. 2007
Noble Bliss, NY Jain et. al 2009c
Mount Storm, WV (2008) Young et al. 2009 Young et al. 2009
Maple Ridge, NY (2007) Jain et al. 2008
Noble Ellensburg, NY Jain et al. 2009a
Noble Clinton, NY Jain et al. 2009b
Mars Hill, ME (2007) Stantec 2008
Kewaunee County, WI Howe et al. 2002
Stetson Mountain, ME Stantec 2009 Stantec 2009
REFERENCES
Andrle, R.F. and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, New York.
Arnett, E. 2007. Report from BWEC on Collaborative Work & Plans. Presentation at the NWCC Wildlife
Workgroup Meeting, Boulder Colorado. November 14th, 2007. Conservation International.
Arnett, E.B., W.P. Erickson, J. Kerns, and J. Horn. 2005. Relationships Between Bats and Wind Turbines
in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of
Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy

Arnett, E.B., M.R. Schirmacher, M.M.P. Huso, and J.P. Hayes. 2009. Patterns of Bat Fatality at the
Casselman Wind Project in South-Central Pennsylvania. Annual Report Prepared for the Bats and
Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. June 2009.
Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D'Amours, B.J. Klug, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause
of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16): R695-R696.
Britzke, E.R. 2003. Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in the
eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, unpublished.
Britzke, E.R. and K.L. Murray. 2001. A quantitative method for the selection of identifiable search-
phase calls using the AnaBat system. Bat Research News 41:33-36.
Britzke, E.R., K.L. Murray, J.S. Heywood, and L.W. Robbins. 2002. Acoustic identification. Pp. 220-
224 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX.
Cryan, P.M. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Fatalities of bats at wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions.
Journal of Mammalogy 90:1330-1340.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological
Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol
Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural
Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Fenton, M.B. 1991. Seeing in the Dark. BATS (Bat Conservation International) 9(2): 9-13.
Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern
Tennessee. M.S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. August, 2004.
Fiedler, J.K., T.H. Henry, C.P. Nicholson, and R.D. Tankersley. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality
Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Frick, W.F, J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and
T.H. Kunz. 2010. An Emerging Disease Causes Regional Population Collapse of a Common
North American Bat Species. Science 329:679-682.
Gannon, W.L., R.E. Sherwin, and S. Haymond. 2003. On the Importance of Articulating Assumptions
When Conducting Acoustic Studies of Habitat Use by Bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 45-61.
Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish
Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas.
Hayes, J.P. 1997. Temporal Variation in Activity of Bats and the Design of Echolocation-Monitoring
Studies. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 514-524.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power
Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006. Final Report. Prepared for PPM
Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge
Project Study.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2008. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power
Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2007. Final report prepared for PPM
Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge
Project Study.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009a. Annual Report for the
Noble Ellensburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared
for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009b. Annual Report for the
Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for
Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009c. Annual Report for the
Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for
Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.
Kerns, J. and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collisions at the Mountaineer Wind Energy
Facility, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and
the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. February 14, 2004.
Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC., for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind
Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 39 pp.
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. 2007a. Assessing Impacts of Wind-energy Development on
Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document. Journal of Wildlife Management,
71:2449-2486.
Kunz, T. H., E.B Arnett, W P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W.
Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats:
Questions, Research Needs, and Hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:315-
324.
Larson D.J. and J.P. Hayes 2000. Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II detectors and a method of
calibration. Acta Chiropterologica 2:209-213.
Limpens, H.J.G.A. and G.F. McCracken. 2004. Choosing a Bat Detector: Theoretical and Practical
Aspects. In: Bat Echolocation Research: Tools, Techniques, and Analysis. Brigham, R.M.,
E.K.V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H.J.G.A. Limpens, eds. Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas. Pp. 28-37.
Nicholson, C.P., J. R.D. Tankersley, J.K. Fiedler, and N.S. Nicholas. 2005. Assessment and Prediction of
Bird and Bat Mortality at Wind Energy Facilities in the Southeastern United States. Final Report.
Tennesee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.
O'Shea, T.J., M.A. Bogan, and L.E. Ellison. 2003. Monitoring Trends in Bat Populations of the United
States and Territories: Status of the Science and Recommendations for the Future. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 31:16-29.
Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2008. 2007 Spring, Summer, and Fall Post-Construction Bird and Bat
Mortality Study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC,
Cumberland, Maine, by Stantec Consulting, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham,
Maine. January, 2008.
Stantec Consulting Inc. (Stantec). 2009. Post-Construction Monitoring at the Mars Hill Wind Farm,
Maine – Year 2 2008. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC., Portland, Maine, by Stantec
Consulting, Topsham, Maine. January, 2009.
White, E.P. and S.D. Gehrt. 2001. Effects of Recording Media on Echolocation Data from Broadband Bat
Detectors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:974-978.

Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009. Mount Storm Wind Energy
Facility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July - October 2008. Prepared for
NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, Texas, by Western EcoSystems Technology (WEST),
Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Young, D. P., J. J. Kerns, C. S. Nations, V. K. Poulton. 2007. Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed
Cape Vincent Wind Project Jefferson County, New York. Final Report prepared by WEST, Inc.
for BP Alternative Energy North America.

APPENDIX A:
Weekly bat activity and percent contribution to total activity for high-frequency, low-frequency,
and all bats within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; August 4-October 15, 2008.
High-Frequency Low-frequency All Bat Cumulative
Week
Activity % Activity % Activity % Composition
08/04/08 to 08/10/08 7.86 20.2 1.57 25.3 9.43 20.9 20.9
08/11/08 to 08/17/08 3.21 8.24 0.57 9.18 3.79 8.38 29.2
08/18/08 to 08/24/08 1.86 4.77 1.07 17.2 2.93 6.48 35.7
08/25/08 to 08/31/08 3.89 9.98 0.67 10.8 4.56 10.1 45.8
09/01/08 to 09/07/08 6.86 17.6 0.71 11.4 7.57 16.8 62.6
09/08/08 to 09/14/08 3.14 8.06 0.14 2.25 3.29 7.28 69.8
09/15/08 to 09/21/08 5.14 13.2 0.38 6.12 5.52 12.2 82.1
09/22/08 to 09/28/08 4.75 12.2 0.71 11.4 5.46 12.1 94.2
09/29/08 to 10/05/08 1.29 3.31 0 0 1.29 2.85 97.0
10/06/08 to 10/12/08 0.71 1.82 0.14 2.25 0.86 1.90 98.9
10/13/08 to 10/15/08 0.25 0.64 0.25 4.03 0.50 1.11 100

RAPTOR MIGRATION SURVEYS FOR THE
CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA,
Prepared for:
Houston, Texas
Prepared by:
David Tidhar, Wendy L. Tidhar PhD, and Kimberly Bay
Waterbury, Vermont
December 15, 2010

Cape Vincent Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility, the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent.
BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor
wildlife resources in the proposed project area to determine potential impacts of project construction and
operations on wildlife. The following report contains a comparative analysis of spring raptor migration
studies conducted at the site in 2006, 2007, and 2008; as well as comparisons with data collected at
established Hawk Watch sites and other proposed wind-energy facilities in the area.
The objective of raptor migration surveys is to determine seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA by
raptors and other birds. Diurnal point counts were conducted during the spring raptor migration period
(March through May) in 2006, 2007, and 2008. In 2008, surveys were conducted at three survey points
within the project area (the same points that were surveyed in 2006 and 2007). In addition, two reference
points were established outside of the project area for comparison. A total of 21 surveys were conducted
on seven days within the CVWRA, during which a 1,039 birds were recorded. Fourteen surveys were
conducted at the reference points during which 5,273 birds were recorded (86.6% of which were Canada
geese). A total of 137 raptors were recorded within the project area compared to 99 at reference points;
when adjusted for number of surveys mean use in the two areas was very similar (3.38 compared to 3.36
raptors/survey, respectively). Similar raptor species were recorded in the project and reference areas. The
only differences were that a golden eagle and a peregrine falcon were recorded in the project area and not
at the reference points, and a bald eagle was recorded at the reference points and not within the project
area.
No federally-listed species were observed within CVWRA during the three years of study. Four state-
listed species were recorded: one golden eagle (state-endangered; 2008), one peregrine falcon (state-
endangered; 2008), one common tern (state-threatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened;
all years). In addition, five state species of special concern were recorded: two Cooper’s hawks (2007),
four sharp-shinned hawks (2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (2007), two red-shouldered hawks
(2008), and five osprey (all years). One bald eagle (state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (state-
threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered hawks, and two
osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area in 2008.
Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed wind-
energy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration
relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. When data were adjusted for differences in
number of survey hours, slightly more raptors were observed at the Clayton Wind Resource Area (12.1
raptors/observer hr) and the St Lawrence Wind Resource Area (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared
to the CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Wendy L. Tidhar, PhD Research Biologist II
Kimberly Bay Data Analyst and Report Manager
Saif Nomani Statistician
Christina Roderick Statistician
Jared Studyvin Statistician
Zapata Courage Report Compiler
Andrea Palochak Technical Editor
REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Raptor Migration Surveys for the Cape Vincent
Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind Energy
North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury,
Vermont.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5
METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Spring Raptor Migration Surveys ............................................................................................................. 6
Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................ 7
Data Compilation and Storage .............................................................................................................. 7
Species Diversity and Richness ........................................................................................................ 9
Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ..................................................... 9
Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index............................................................................ 9
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence............................................................ 13
Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index.................................................................................. 18
Sensitive species ..................................................................................................................................... 19
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 20
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and
species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ........................................................................................................ 11
Table 2. Mean use (Use), percent composition (PC), and frequency of occurrence (F) of each bird
type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008. ....................................................... 14
Table 3. Flight height characteristics of bird types and raptor sub-types observed during surveys at
raptor migration points within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; March 22–May 28,
2008. .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor
migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008....... 19
Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and
at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008. ........................................... 22
Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within
Jefferson County, New York State. ............................................................................................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. .................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Location of raptor migration survey points: project area (1-3) and reference points (4-5) for
the CVWRA. .................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3a. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3b. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area. ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk
Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg, Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory................................ 21
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iv December 15, 2010

INTRODUCTION
The following report includes results from the 2008 spring raptor migration surveys, along with a
comparison of data from 2006 and 2007; results from 2006 and 2007 surveys are repeated from Young et
al 2007 herein to facilitate inter-year data analysis.
STUDY AREA
Cape Vincent, New York. The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York
at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). The dominant vegetation type was historically
northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing
has left the region approximately twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the
study area are characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely
vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).
The land within the CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered
deciduous woodlots.

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.
METHODS
Spring Raptor Migration Surveys
The objective of the raptor migration surveys was to estimate the seasonal and spatial use of the CVWRA
by birds, particularly raptors (defined here as kites, accipiters, buteos, harriers, eagles, falcons, vultures,
and owls). Fixed-point surveys (variable circular plots) were conducted using methods described by
Reynolds et al. (1980).
Three fixed survey points were established within the proposed project area in 2006 to provide good
visibility while providing widespread east-west coverage of the project area (Figure 2). Point locations
were designed to minimize the potential for double-counting individual birds. For the 2008 spring raptor
migration study two reference points (labeled 4 and 5) were established outside the project area for a
comparison of bird use. Survey stations were established to maximize visibility over long distances in an
effort to locate and identify migrating raptors and other large birds. To the extent possible while
maintaining the integrity of the east-west layout, the points were selected to provide good coverage of the

vegetation and topographic features of the area, good visibility in 360° around the point, and so that each
point was surveying a unique area. Each survey plot was a variable circular plot centered on the
observation point. All birds observed were recorded, although the survey effort was concentrated within
an approximate 800-m radius circle centered on the observation point. Observations of birds beyond the
800-m radius were recorded, but not included in the analysis of data within the plot.
Each fixed point was surveyed once each survey day during daylight hours (0900–1700) to cover the peak
period for observing migrant raptors. Survey periods at each point were 60 minutes long. All raptors and
other large birds/flocks observed during the survey were assigned a unique observation number and
plotted on a map of the survey plot. Data recorded for each survey included date; start and end time of
the observation period; and weather information such as temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed,
wind direction, and cloud cover. Species or best possible identification, number of individuals, sex and
age class (if possible), distance from plot center when first observed, closest distance, altitude above
ground, activity (behavior), and habitat(s) were recorded for each raptor observed. Approximate flight
direction or movement paths were mapped for all raptors and large birds seen. The behavior of each
raptor/large bird and habitat in which or over which the bird was first observed were recorded. Behavior
categories included perched, circling/soaring, flapping, hunting, gliding, and other (noted in comments).
Habitats included agriculture, old (fallow) field, deciduous woods/forest, developed (e.g., farms), and
other (noted in comments). Approximate flight height at first observation and the approximate lowest and
highest flight heights were recorded to the nearest meter or 5-meter interval. Any comments or unusual
observations were noted in the comments section.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures were implemented at all stages of the studies,
including in the field, during data entry and analysis, and report writing. Following field surveys, field
technicians were responsible for inspecting data forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. A
sample of records from an electronic database was compared to the data forms and any errors detected
were corrected. Irregular codes or data suspected as questionable were discussed with the field technician
and project manager. Errors, omissions, or problems identified in later stages of analysis were traced back
to the raw data forms, and appropriate changes in all steps were made.
Data Compilation and Storage

A Microsoft® ACCESS database was developed to store, organize, and retrieve survey data. Data were
keyed into the electronic database using a pre-defined format to facilitate subsequent QA/QC and data
analysis. All data forms, field notebooks, and electronic data files were retained for reference.

Figure 2. Location of raptor migration survey points: project area (1-3) and reference points (4-5) for the CVWRA.

Species Diversity and Richness

Species diversity was presented as the total number of unique species observed. Species lists with the
number of observations and the number of groups were generated by season. This list included all
observations of birds detected, regardless of their distance from the field technician. Species richness was
calculated as the mean number of species recorded per plot per survey time (i.e., number of
species/plot/hour). Only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field technician were used to
calculate species richness.
Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence

To calculate standardized bird use estimates, only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the field
technician were used. Estimates of mean bird use (i.e., number of birds/plot/hour survey) were used for
comparisons between bird type, season, and use at other wind-energy facilities.
The frequency of occurrence was calculated as the percentage of surveys in which a particular bird type
or species was observed. Percent composition was calculated as the proportion of the overall mean use
(birds/plot/hour survey) for a particular bird type or species. Frequency of occurrence and percent
composition provide relative estimates of species exposure to a proposed wind-energy facility. For
example, a given species may have a high use estimate, however this may be based on just a few
observations of large flocks. In this case, the frequency of occurrence would indicate that its observations
occurred only during a few surveys; therefore potentially making the species less likely to be affected by
the wind-energy facility.
Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index

Observations of large birds detected within 800 m and small birds detected within 100 m of the field
technician were used to calculate flight height and behavior. To calculate the potential risk of collision to
a particular species, flight height at first observation was used to estimate the percentage of birds flying
within the zone of risk (ZOR) for a wind turbine with blades of 25-125 m above ground level (AGL).
A relative index of collision exposure (R) was calculated for bird species observed flying during the
fixed-point bird use surveys using the following formula:
R = A*Pf*Pt
Where A equals mean relative use for species i (large bird observations within 800 m, small birds within
100 m of the field technician) averaged across all surveys, Pf equals the proportion of all observations of
species i where activity was recorded as flying (an index to the approximate percentage of time species i
spends flying during the daylight period), and Pt equals the proportion of all initial flight height
observations of species i within the likely ZOR (25-125 m).
RESULTS
Diurnal point count surveys were conducted during the spring raptor migration period in 2006, 2007, and
2008. In 2006, a total of 12 surveys were conducted during which 777 individual birds recorded,
including 79 raptors representing eight species (Table 1). In 2007, a total of 21 surveys were conducted,

during which 1,851 birds were recorded including 205 raptors representing eight species. In 2008, a total
of 21 surveys were conducted at the three points within the project area, during which 1,039 birds were
recorded including 137 raptors representing 11 species. In addition, 14 surveys were conducted at the two
reference points established in 2008, during which 5,273 birds were recorded, of which 4.569 (86.6%)
were Canada geese (Branta canadensis). A total of 99 raptors were recorded during surveys at the
reference points, representing twelve species.
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was the raptor species with the highest number of observations within
the project area in all three years; representing 36.7% of raptors recorded in 2006, 54.1% in 2007, and
48.2% in 2008. This was also true for the reference points (52.5%). Buteos tended to be the second
highest sub-group observed, primarily red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicencis) which accounted for 13.9%
of raptors observed in 2006, 12.7% in 2007, and 13.9% in 2008. A slightly higher proportion of red-tailed
hawks were observed within the reference areas (17.2%). The number of northern harriers (Circus
cyaneus) recorded within the project area varied across years. In 2006, only seven northern harriers were
recorded, compared to 37 in 2007 and 20 in 2008.

Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration
surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2006 2007 2008 Overall
Type/Species Scientific Name Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)
Obs Grps Obs Grps Obs Grps
Obs Grps Obs Grps
Waterbirds 221 22 58 43 101 70 42 7 422 142
Bonaparte's gull Larus Philadelphia 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1
Caspian tern Sterna caspia 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 2
b
Common tern Sterna hirundo 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Great blue heron Ardea herodias 8 7 26 23 51 43 4 3 89 76
Herring gull Larus argentatus 6 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 14 3
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 57 6 21 15 40 24 38 4 156 49
Sandhill crane Grus canadensis 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Unidentified gull 150 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 154 8
Waterfowl 457 25 1,365 48 652 22 5,079 47 7,553 142
American black duck Anas rubripes 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 1
Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 1
Canada goose Branta canadensis 411 19 1,305 28 619 14 4,569 39 6,904 100
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1
Common merganser Mergus merganser 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 13 3
Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 5 2
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 41 5 36 15 7 3 154 3 238 26
Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris 0 0 12 1 6 1 0 0 18 2
Snow goose Chen caerulescens 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 3 347 3
Unidentified duck 5 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 9 2
Unidentified goldeneye 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 7 1
Raptors 79 58 205 128 137 96 99 72 517 354
Accipiters 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 11 10
c
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1
c
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
c
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipter striatus 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 7 7
Unidentified accipiter 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Buteos 22 19 36 29 30 22 24 20 109 90
Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 8 6 0 0 3 1 1 1 12 8
c
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 3 6 5
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 11 10 26 22 19 14 17 14 70 60
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus 2 2 5 4 5 4 2 2 14 12
Unidentified buteo 1 1 5 3 1 1 0 0 7 5

Table 1. Number of individuals (Obs) and groups (Grps) of each bird type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration
surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2006 2007 2008 Overall
Type/Species Scientific Name Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)
Obs Grps Obs Grps Obs Grps
Obs Grps Obs Grps
Eagles 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
b
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
a
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Falcons 13 5 17 14 15 13 8 6 53 38
American kestrel Falco sparverius 13 5 17 14 14 12 8 6 52 37
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Other Raptors 41 31 149 83 89 58 63 42 342 214
b
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus 7 7 37 31 20 19 9 9 73 66
c
Osprey Pandion haliaetus 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 7 7
Unidentified raptor 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura 29 19 111 51 66 36 52 31 258 137
Other Birds 20 8 218 56 149 58 53 35 445 158
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 20 8 68 35 72 38 48 30 208 111
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Common raven Corvus corax 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 3
European starling Sturnus vulgaris 0 0 110 3 0 0 0 0 110 3
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 0 0 5 1 14 7 2 2 21 10
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 0 0 11 10 6 4 0 0 17 14
Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 7 1
b
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 0 0 17 4 56 8 0 0 73 12
Wilson’s snipe Gallinago delicata 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Total 777 113 1,851 276 1,039 246 5,273 161 8,937 796
a
State-Endangered; bState-Threatened; cState Species of Special Concern.

Mean use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence are shown for 2008 surveys within the
project area and at reference points (Table 2; Figures 3a and 3b). Mean use by Waterfowl was much
higher at reference points compared to points within the project area (363 compared to 31.1 birds/hour
survey, respectively). This difference was primarily due to use by Canada geese that accounted for 86.7%
of overall use at the two reference points. All other bird type use was similar between the project area and
reference points, although Upland Gamebirds were only recorded within the project area (2.95
birds/hour/survey). Raptor use (not including vultures) was 3.38 birds/hour/survey in the project area
compared to 3.36 at the reference points. Raptors accounted for 6.83% of overall use within the project
area but only 0.89% at the reference points (this was due to the large percent of use attributable to Canada
geese). Raptors were observed in over 92% of surveys at all points in 2008. Use by raptor-subtypes were
similar between the project area and reference points; although northern harrier use and falcon use were
slightly higher in the project area (0.95 compared to 0.64 birds/hour survey and 0.71 compared to 0.57
birds/hour survey, respectively).
Mean use was also compared across years at the three survey points within the project area (Table 2).
Waterbird use was highest in 2006 (18.4 birds/hour survey), but similar in 2007 and 2008 (3.18 and 4.81,
respectively). This was primarily due to higher use by ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) in 2006. In
2007, use by Waterfowl was higher than in 2006 and 2008 (73.1 compared to 38.1 and 31.1,
respectively). Again, this was primarily due to use by one species – Canada goose. No Upland Gamebirds
were recorded in 2006, though there was some use in 2007 and 2008 by ring-necked pheasants
(Phasianus colchicus) and wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). American crows (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) made up the highest Passerine use in 2006 and 2008, while in 2007 there was higher use
by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris).
Raptor use was similar in all three years, though slightly lower in 2008 compared to 2006 and 2007.
Raptor use was 4.16 birds/hour survey in 2006, 4.67 in 2007, and 3.38 in 2008. Use by raptor sub-type
was similar across years although use accipiters, buteos, and eagles were slightly higher in 2006, use by
northern harrier was slightly higher in 2007, and use by osprey was slightly higher in 2008. Vulture use
was higher in 2007 compared to other years (5.50 birds/hour survey compared to 2.42 in 2006 and 3.14 in
2008.

type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent
Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2008
2006 2007
Type/Species Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)
Use Use Use PC FO Use PC FO
Waterbirds 18.4 3.18 4.81 9.72 76.2 3.00 0.80 28.6
Bonaparte's gull 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Caspian tern 0 0.11 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
b
Common tern 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Double-crested cormorant 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
great blue heron 0.67 1.39 2.43 4.91 57.1 0.29 0.08 14.3
herring gull 0.50 0 0.38 0.77 4.76 0 0 0
ring-billed gull 4.75 1.17 1.90 3.85 66.7 2.71 0.72 21.4
sandhill crane 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
Unidentified gull 12.5 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waterfowl 38.1 73.1 31.1 62.8 57.1 363 96.3 57.1
American black duck 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.08 7.14
Bufflehead 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
cackling goose 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.09 7.14
Canada goose 34.3 69.7 29.5 59.6 38.1 326 86.7 57.1
common merganser 0 0 0.62 1.25 14.3 0 0 0
Hooded merganser 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0
mallard 3.42 2 0.33 0.67 14.3 11.0 2.92 21.4
ring-necked duck 0 0.67 0.29 0.58 4.76 0 0 0
snow goose 0 0 0 0 0 24.8 6.58 14.3
Unidentified duck 0.42 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0
unidentified goldeneye 0 0 0.33 0.67 4.76 0 0 0
Shorebirds 0 0.28 0.67 1.35 33.3 0.29 0.08 21.4
killdeer 0 0.28 0.67 1.35 33.3 0.14 0.04 14.3
b
upland sandpiper 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14
Wilson's snipe 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14
Raptors 4.16 4.67 3.38 6.83 95.2 3.36 0.89 92.9
Accipiters 0.25 0.17 0.10 0.19 9.52 0.21 0.06 21.4
c
Cooper’s hawk 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0
c
Northern goshawk 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0
c
sharp-shinned hawk 0.25 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.21 0.06 21.4
unidentified accipiter 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
Buteos 1.84 1.56 1.43 2.89 52.4 1.71 0.46 71.4
broad-winged hawk 0.67 0 0.14 0.29 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14
c
red-shouldered hawk 0 0 0.10 0.19 9.52 0.29 0.08 14.3
red-tailed hawk 0.92 1.28 0.90 1.83 47.6 1.21 0.32 64.3
rough-legged hawk 0.17 0.28 0.24 0.48 19.1 0.14 0.04 14.3
unidentified buteo 0.08 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
Northern Harrier 0.58 1.94 0.95 1.92 66.7 0.64 0.17 50.00
b
northern harrier 0.58 1.94 0.95 1.92 66.7 0.64 0.17 50.00
Eagles 1.08 0.94 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14

type, raptor subtype, and species observed during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent
Wind Resource Area; Spring 2006, 2007, and 2008.
2008
2006 2007
Type/Species Project Area (n=3) Ref Points (n=2)
Use Use Use PC FO Use PC FO
b
bald eagle 1.08 0.94 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14
a
golden eagle 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
Falcons 0 0 0.71 1.44 47.6 0.57 0.15 35.71
American kestrel 0 0 0.67 1.35 42.9 0.57 0.15 35.71
peregrine falcon 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
Other Raptors 0.41 0.06 0.14 0.29 9.52 0.14 0.04 14.3
c
osprey 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.29 9.52 0.14 0.04 14.3
unidentified raptor 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vultures 2.42 5.50 3.14 6.35 81.0 3.71 0.99 92.9
turkey vulture 2.42 5.50 3.14 6.35 81.0 3.71 0.99 92.9
Upland Gamebirds 0 1.55 2.95 5.97 47.6 0 0 0
ring-necked pheasant 0 0.61 0.29 0.58 19.1 0 0 0
wild turkey 0 0.94 2.67 5.39 33.3 0 0 0
Passerines 1.67 10.6 3.43 6.93 95.2 3.43 0.91 100
American crow 1.67 3.78 3.43 6.93 95.2 3.43 0.91 100
Common raven 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0
European starling 0 6.11 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rose-breasted grosbeak 0 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Birds 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0.07 0.02 7.14
belted kingfisher 0 0 0.05 0.10 4.76 0 0 0
pileated woodpecker 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.02 7.14
Overall 64.8 97.0 49.5 100 377 100
a b c
State-Endangered; State-Threatened; State Species of Special Concern.

600 10
All birds Waterbirds
Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

491 7.86
500 8
400
6
262 4.86 4.57
300
4
200
1.71 1.43
70.4 56.9 2
100
21.1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Point Point
600 3
Waterfowl Shorebirds

477
500
400 2
300
249 1.14
0.86
200 1
0.57
52.7 36.3
100
4.14 0 0
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Point Point
Blue bars are points located within the project area; Red bars are reference points located outside the project area.
Figure 3a. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

6 6
Raptors 4.57 Vultures

4.71
5 5
4.29
3.71
4 4
3.00 3.29
2.71
2.86 2.71
3 3
1.86
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Point Point
10 6
7.86 Upland gamebirds Passerines

4.57
5
8
3.71
4
6 3.29 3.14
3
2.43
4
2
2
1
0.57 0.43
0 0
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Point Point
Blue bars are points located within the project area; Red bars are reference points located outside the project area.
Figure 3b. Spatial distribution of bird types recorded during raptor migration surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index
The majority of individuals recorded during surveys at points within the project area were observed flying
(96.5%; Table 3). Just over one third of raptors were observed flying below 25 m; including 70.0% of
northern harriers and 91.7% of falcons. Similarly, one third of raptors were observed flying between 26-
125 m; including all accipiters and 43.3% of buteos. Raptors that were mainly recorded flying above 125
m included eagles (100%) and buteos (50%).
Table 3. Flight height characteristics of bird types and raptor sub-types observed during surveys
at raptor migration points within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; March 22–May 28,
2008.
Mean % within Flight Height Categories
Bird Type/Sub- # Obs # Groups % Obs
Flight
type Flying Flying Flying 0-25 m 26-125 m > 125 m
Height
Waterbirds 101 70 79.5 100 18.8 60.4 20.8
Waterfowl 648 20 118 99.4 4.3 2.2 93.5
Shorebirds 14 7 7.57 100 100 0 0
Raptors 68 58 84.1 95.8 39.7 32.4 27.9
Accipiters 2 2 113 100 0 100 0
Buteos 30 22 143 100 6.7 43.3 50.0
Northern Harrier 20 19 37.9 100 70.0 20.0 10.0
Eagles 1 1 250 100 0 0 100
Falcons 12 11 16.3 80.0 91.7 8.3 0
Other Raptors 3 3 116.7 100 0 66.7 33.3
Vultures 66 36 104.6 100 0 75.8 24.2
Upland Gamebirds 38 3 0 61.3 100 0 0
Passerines 67 35 19.7 93.1 86.6 13.4 0
Other Birds 1 1 9.00 100 100 0 0
Overall 1,003 230 75.3 96.5 18.4 15.6 66.0
Exposure index was calculated by species and based on the number of individuals recorded and flight
height (Table 4). Turkey vulture was the species with the highest exposure index (2.38). Mean use by
turkey vultures was 3.14 birds/hour survey and 92.4% of individuals were recorded in the zone of risk at
some time during the observation. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) also had a relatively high exposure
index (1.86). Mean use by this species was 2.43 and 80.4% of individuals were recorded in the zone of
risk at some time during the observation. The raptor with the highest exposure index was red-tailed hawk
(0.57); 84.2% of red-tailed hawks recorded were observed within the zone of risk at some time during the
observation.

Table 4. Relative exposure index and flight characteristics of species recorded during raptor
migration surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Resource Area; March 22–May 28, 2008.
% Within
# Groups Overall % Flying Exposure
Species/Type % Flying ZOR at
Flying Mean Use within ZORa Index
anytime
turkey vulture 36 3.14 100 75.8 2.38 92.4
great blue heron 43 2.43 100 76.5 1.86 80.4
ring-billed gull 24 1.90 100 35.0 0.67 45.0
red-tailed hawk 14 0.90 100 63.2 0.57 84.2
American crow 35 3.43 93.1 13.4 0.43 20.9
herring gull 1 0.38 100 100 0.38 100
common merganser 2 0.62 76.9 60.0 0.29 60.0
Canada goose 13 29.48 99.8 0.6 0.19 1.60
northern harrier 19 0.95 100 20.0 0.19 50.0
Mallard 3 0.33 100 57.1 0.19 57.1
Osprey 3 0.14 100 66.7 0.10 66.7
American kestrel 10 0.67 78.6 9.1 0.05 9.10
rough-legged hawk 4 0.24 100 20.0 0.05 40.0
sharp-shinned hawk 1 0.05 100 100 0.05 100
unidentified accipiter 1 0.05 100 100 0.05 100
wild turkey 2 2.67 66.1 0 0 0
Killdeer 7 0.67 100 0 0 0
unidentified goldeneye 1 0.33 100 0 0 0
ring-necked duck 1 0.29 100 0 0 0
ring-necked pheasant 1 0.29 16.7 0 0 0
broad-winged hawk 1 0.14 100 0 0 0
red-shouldered hawk 2 0.10 100 0 0 50.0
belted kingfisher 1 0.05 100 0 0 0
Caspian tern 1 0.05 100 0 0 0
golden eagle 1 0.05 100 0 0 0
peregrine falcon 1 0.05 100 0 0 0
sandhill crane 1 0.05 100 0 0 100
unidentified buteo 1 0.05 100 0 0 0
ZOR=zone of risk (25-125 m AGL); abased on initial observation
Sensitive species
No federally threatened or endangered species were observed within the project area during surveys. Four
state-listed species were recorded: one golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; state-endangered, 2008), one
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; state-endangered, 2008) one common tern (Sterna hirundo, state-
threatened; 2007), and 64 northern harriers (state-threatened; 2006, 2007, and 2008). In addition, five
state species of special concern were recorded: two Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii; 2007), four
sharp-shinned hawks (A. striatus; 2006 and 2008), one northern goshawk (A. gentilis; 2007), two red-
shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus; 2008), and five osprey (Pandion haliaetus; 2006, 2007, and 2008)
were observed during surveys (Table 1).

One bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; state-threatened), one upland sandpiper (Bartramia
longicauda, state-threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-shouldered
hawks, and two osprey were also recorded at reference points outside of the project area.
DISCUSSION
Data collected during raptor migration surveys within the CVWRA in 2008 were compared to data
collected at the same points in 2006 and 2007, and also compared to data collected at reference points
outside the project area in 2008. Mean use by raptors within the site varied little across years, ranging
from 3.38 in 2008 to 4.67 raptors/survey in 2007. Similarly, raptor use was very similar within the site
when compared to reference points outside of the project area (3.38 compared to 3.36, respectively).
Overall bird use differed more over the three years of study; however this was primarily due to
differences use by Waterfowl (Canada geese) and Waterbirds (gulls) across years. In 2007, 1,305 Canada
geese were recorded compared to 411 in 2006 and 619 in 2008. In 2006, 213 gulls were recorded
compared to 25 in 2007 and 49 in 2008. Overall bird use was also higher at the reference points outside of
the project area, again due to large differences in numbers of Waterfowl (Canada geese; 4,569 compared
to 619).
Data collected at CVWRA from all three years were standardized to number of raptors recorded per
observer hour and compared to data collected at established spring Hawk Watch sites in the area: Derby
Hill Bird Observatory, Braddock Bay, Hamburg, and Ripley (Figure 4; Table 5). The number of raptors
recorded per observer hour was lower at the proposed project area compared to the numbers recorded at
the established Hawk Watch sites on the same days. No data were collected at Braddock Bay in 2006. In
2006, the mean number of raptors recorded per observer hour at CVWRA was 6.5, compared to 22.5 at
Ripley, 26.9 at Hamburg, and 106 at Derby Hill. In 2007, mean raptor activity at CVWRA was 9.8
raptors per observer hour compared to an average of 58.3 at the four established Hawk Watch sites
(range: 37.0 to 78.3 raptors per observer hour). Finally, in 2008 raptor activity was 9.0 raptors per
observer hour at CVWRA compared to an average of 70.1 at the four Hawk Watch sites (range: 14.7 to
116.6 raptors per observer hour). The highest number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given
day at CVWRA was 18.0 in March 2007. In comparison, at Ripley it was 96.0 in April 2007, at Hamburg
it was 85.2 in April 2008, at Braddock Bay it was 208 in April 2008, and at Derby Hill the highest
number of raptors recorded per observer hour on a given day was 353 in April 2006.

Figure 4. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area in comparison to four established Hawk Watch sites: Ripley, Hamburg,
Braddock Bay, and Derby Hill Observatory.

Table 5. Number of raptors recorded per observer hour at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area
and at four established New York spring Hawk Watch sites; 2006-2008.
Year Date CVWRA Ripley Hamburg Braddock Bay Derby Hill
4/14/06 6.7 31.4 83.8 ns 21.5
4/21/06 10.3 35.9 17.9 ns 353
2006 5/02/06 3.3 17.3 0.8 ns 6.0
5/12/06 6.0 5.6 5.2 ns 44.8
Average 6.5 22.5 26.9 - 106
3/21/07 3.0 23.8 7.1 25.2 77.9
3/31/07 18.0 27.9 124 53.5 74.1
4/11/07 11.3 31.0 19.2 38.4 71.7
4/14/07 1.0 31.4 83.8 95.1 81.1
2007 4/17/07 6.0 2.0 1.09 ns ns
4/20/07 8.7 44.2 26.2 102 43.0
4/22/07 11.0 96.0 82.1 156 112
5/01/07 12.3 39.3 0 ns 66.4
Average 9.8 37.0 42.9 78.3 75.1
3/22/08 9.5 35.7 16.4 27.8 12.9
4/3/08 17.2 83.7 36.2 69.4 114
4/6/08 10.8 75.5 85.2 90.3 159
4/16/08 12.4 115 30.8 188 228
2008
4/22/08 7.2 54.5 4.0 208 90.7
5/14/08 7.2 46.7 9.6 ns 40.7
5/28/08 8.4 ns ns ns 8.6
Average 9.0 56.6 14.7 116.6 92.3
Hawk watch site data obtained from Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) website; ns=no
survey
Comparing spring raptor migration data from the proposed project with other nearby proposed wind-
energy facilities indicates that the CVWRA is not located in an area with high spring raptor migration
relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities. There are two other wind-energy facilities
that have been proposed in Jefferson County, New York (St. Lawrence Wind and Clayton Wind Resource
Areas) where raptor migration surveys have been conducted and the results of those surveys are
publically available (Table 6). Raptor migration surveys were conducted from March 30-May 7, 2005 at
the Clayton WRA and from April 14-May 12, 2006 and March 21-May1, 2007 at the St Lawrence WRA.
The number of survey hours completed during 2005 surveys at the Clayton WRA was greater than the
number completed per year at the St Lawrence WRA or CVWRA (58 compared to 16.5 and 18.0,
respectively). The number of raptors recorded at Clayton WRA was greater than at the other two sites in a
given year (700 compared to a mean of 162 and 140, respectively). When data were adjusted for
differences in number of survey hours, the number of raptors recorded per observer hour at each site was
more similar. Slightly more raptors were observed at Clayton WRA (12.1 raptors/observer hr) and St
Lawrence WRA (mean: 9.29; range: 7.58-11.0) compared to CVWRA (mean: 7.62; range (6.58-9.76).

Table 6. Spring raptor migration data collected at proposed wind resource areas (WRAs) within
Jefferson County, New York State.
Survey Survey Raptors Species
WRA Year Survey Period Raptors/hr
Days Hours Recorded Recorded
Clayton 2005 March 30-May 7 10 58 700 12.1 14
Mean 10 58 700 12.1 14
St. Lawrence 2006 April 14- May 12 4 12 91 7.58 8
St. Lawrence 2007 March 21-May 1 7 21 232 11.0 8
Mean 5.5 16.5 162 9.29 8
Cape Vincent 2006 April 14- May 12 4 12 79 6.58 8
Cape Vincent 2007 March 21- May 1 7 21 205 9.76 8
Cape Vincent 2008 March 22-May 28 7 21 137 6.52 11
Mean 6 18 140 7.62 9
Publically available data obtained from: [www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/raptorwinsum.pdf].
REFERENCES
Reynolds, R.T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for estimating
bird numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313.

GRASSLAND BREEDING BIRD TRANSECT SURVEYS,
CAPE VINCENT WIND RESOURCE AREA,
Final Report
May-July, 2010
Prepared for:
Houston, Texas
Prepared by:
David Tidhar, Saif Nomani and Wendy L. Tidhar PhD
Waterbury, Vermont
December 17, 2010

Cape Vincent Grassland Breeding Bird Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BP Wind Energy North America (BPWENA) is proposing to develop a wind-energy facility, the Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area (CVWRA), in Jefferson County, New York, near the town of Cape Vincent.
BPWENA contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to conduct surveys and monitor
wildlife resources in proposed project area to determine potential impacts of the project construction and
operations on wildlife. The following report contains results of the grassland breeding bird transect
surveys conducted in May-July 2010, along with incidental wildlife observations recorded within the
project area outside of standardized surveys. The study design facilitates multiple analyses of bird species
composition, density and the effects of wind energy development on bird displacement. The study
approach involves a combination of a gradient analysis study design and the Before After Control Impact
study design. The 2010 study represented the Before (pre-construction) component of the study design.
Grassland breeding bird transect surveys were conducted four times between May and July for a total of
189 transect surveys. Surveys were completed on 300-meter long transects arrayed at 37 proposed
turbine locations and 12 reference areas. A total of 94 species were recorded; 67 species in Round 1 and
2, 73 species in Round 3, and 62 species in Round 4. Overall, a total of 6,738 birds were recorded in
4,396 groups; of which 30.2% of observations were of red-winged blackbird and bobolink (2.1% of all
species).
Mean use ranged from 12.0 to 15.1 birds/transect across rounds; averaging 13.4 birds/transect overall.
Mean use was highest by passerines in all four rounds, ranging from 11.1 to 12.1 birds/transect.
Passerines accounted for 80.3-95.3% of overall use and were recorded in all surveys. Blackbirds/Orioles
had the highest mean use of any passerine sub-group; ranging from 4.93-6.83 birds/transect over rounds.
Seven species of raptors were recorded during surveys; although mean use by this bird type was relatively
low. Mean use by raptors ranged from 0.04 to 0.07 birds/transect and this bird type was only recorded in
11.6% of surveys.
When mean use of major bird types was compared between transects within the CVWRA (n=37) and
reference transects (n=12), there was no significant difference in mean use of any bird type (P>0.05).
Mean use by waterfowl and vultures was slightly higher at reference transects; however, neither
difference was statistically significant. Within CVWRA, mean use was highest at Transects 28, 17, and 2.
The majority of use at Transect 28 was by waterfowl; while at Transects 17 and 2 it was primarily due to
use by passerines.
No federal threatened or endangered species were observed during grassland breeding bird transect
surveys. Four state-threatened species were recorded at CVWRA transects: one Henslow's sparrow, four
northern harriers, 18 sedge wrens, and two upland sandpipers. In addition, five state species of concern
were recorded: six American bitterns, one Cooper’s hawk, 64 grasshopper sparrows, one osprey, and 12
vesper sparrows. Four northern harriers, two sedge wrens, four upland sandpipers, one grasshopper
sparrow, and one sharp-shinned hawk (state species of concern) were recorded within the CVWRA as
incidental observations outside of standardized surveys.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Kimberly Bay Data Analyst, Report Manager
Saif Nomani Biometrician I
Christopher P. Nations Research Biometrician
Wendy L. Tidhar Research Biologist II
Lanie Garner-Warner Field Technician II
Karen Hondrick Field Technician II
Jennifer Tait Field Technician II
Jeremy Histed Field Technician I
REPORT REFERENCE
Tidhar, D., W.L. Tidhar, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2010. Grassland Breeding Bird Transect Surveys, Cape
Vincent Wind Resource Area, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for BP Wind
Energy North America, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.,
Waterbury, Vermont.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 2
METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Study Design ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Survey Methods .................................................................................................................................... 4
Observation Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 7
Species Diversity and Richness ........................................................................................................ 7
Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ..................................................... 7
Spatial Use ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Gradient Analysis and Line-Distance Analysis ................................................................................ 8
Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................................................................................ 8
Data Compilation and Storage .............................................................................................................. 8
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Species Diversity and Richness ............................................................................................................ 8
Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence ....................................................... 14
Spatial Use .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Incidental Observations ...................................................................................................................... 21
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Observations ................................................................... 21
DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Indirect Effects of Wind Energy on Birds .......................................................................................... 24
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 26

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of mean bird use, species richness, and sample size recorded during the grassland
breeding bird transect surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-
July, 2010. ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded
during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
May–July, 2010. ............................................................................................................................ 10
Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and
species recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind
Resource Area; May–July, 2010. ................................................................................................... 15
Table 4. Comparison of mean use (± SEM) of bird types and passerine sub-groups at transects within
the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects. ................................................... 19
Table 5. Incidental wildlife observed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area outside of
standardized surveys; May–July, 2010. ......................................................................................... 21
Table 6. Sensitive species observed during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys and as
incidental wildlife observations at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20–July 9,
2010. .............................................................................................................................................. 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area. .................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Location of grassland breeding bird survey transects within the Cape Vincent Wind
Resource Area. ................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Summary of transects (n, %) within each dominant habitat type for grassland breeding bird
surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010...................... 7
Figure 4. Percent composition of bird types recorded within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area
and reference transects during grassland breeding bird transect surveys; May-July, 2010. .......... 20
Figure 5. Number of sensitive species recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird
transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010................................ 23
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iv December 17, 2010

INTRODUCTION
The following report only includes results from the 2010 grassland breeding bird transect surveys. The
study design was developed in partnership between WEST and USGS (Schaffer and Erickson 2007) and
has been implemented on several wind-energy studies in the Mid-west and Northwestern US (e.g.
Schaffer and Johnson 2008). The study design facilitates multiple analyses of bird species composition,
density and the effects of wind energy development on bird displacement. The study approach involves a
combination of a gradient analysis study design and the Before After Control Impact (BACI) study design
(Morrison et al. 2001). Songbird density data and vegetation data are collected along a continuum
(transect) from the turbines out to 300 m, as well as at reference transects that do not include turbines.
The before and after periods are incorporated by conducting an analysis of the changes in relative
abundance (densities) from the pre- to post-construction periods. For example, differences between
grassland bird densities during the post-construction period and the pre-construction period for each 50-m
segment can be calculated. The averages of these differences by distance category can be compared
against the null hypothesis value of zero using t-tests and confidence intervals to test whether a change in
density is statistically significant and to identify the distance from the turbines at which it occurred.
The 2010 study represented the Before (pre-construction) component of the BACI study design. Two
annual After surveys identical in scope to the 2010 study will be completed following construction and
implementation of turbine operations. Timing of After grassland bird transect surveys will coincide with
fatality monitoring studies completed at the CVWRA.

STUDY AREA
Cape Vincent, New York. The site is located within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New York
at an elevation of 100-500 ft (Andrle and Carroll 1988). The dominant vegetation type was historically
northern hardwood forest: oaks, beech, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry; but agricultural clearing
has left the region approximately twenty percent wooded (Andrle and Carroll 1988). Portions of the
study area are characterized by Alvar ecosystems: grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and sparsely
vegetated rock barrens that develop on flat limestone where soils are very shallow (Edinger et al. 2002).
The land within the CVWRA is privately owned and land use is primarily agricultural within scattered
deciduous woodlots.

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

METHODS
The grassland breeding bird transect survey conducted in 2010 was the first component of a Before-
After/Control-Impact (BACI) study to determine potential indirect impacts of the wind-energy facility on
grassland bird species. Indirect impacts of wind-energy projects on grassland birds may include
displacement due to habitat loss or degredation. The objective of the survey was to provide baseline
information on the species composition and relative abundance of grassland birds at varying distances
from proposed turbine locations and reference areas. This information would be used for comparison
purposes in the future in order to understand potential displacement effects that may result from
construction and operation of the wind-energy facility. In particular, rare, threatened, or endangered
(RTE) species were targeted through the sampling design by selection of transects within potential
breeding habitats. RTE species targeted through the surveys included northern harrier (Circus cyaneus),
upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), grasshopper
sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and sedge wren
(Cistothorus platensis).
Study Design
A total of 49 transects were established in appropriate grassland habitats within the CVWRA either at
proposed turbine (n=37) or reference locations (n=12; Figure 2). Transects located at proposed turbine
locations were situated to the extent possible in undisturbed grassland areas while avoiding active
agricultural fields. All turbines located in native grassland were included in the study. The remaining
treatment group sample was systematically selected from turbines located in hay or pasture. Reference
transects were established in similar grassland habitats as close to the project area as possible in the
Ashland Flats and French Creek Wildlife Management Areas.
Each transect was 300 m long leading away from the proposed turbine location, when applicable, and
divided into six 50-m sub-segments. Transects were oriented approximately perpendicular to proposed
turbine strings and placed in representative habitats and topography of the project area while also
providing even spatial coverage of the CVWRA. The start and end points of each transect were recorded
on a handheld GPS unit (Garmin GPS 76 CSx) for subsequent mapping.
Survey Methods
Surveys were conducted by experienced field biologists with knowledge of New York bird species
identification by sight and sound. Surveyors walked slowly along each transect, using the GPS waypoints
as a guide, and recorded all visual or auditory bird detections within 50-m on either side of the transect.
All observations of RTE species were recorded to an unlimited viewshed. Each observation was assigned
a unique identification number and all observations within 50-m of the transect were plotted on the
transect map provided on the data sheet. The following data were collected for each observation: date,
time, species (or best possible identification), sex and age class (when possible), number of individuals,
distance of observation along the transect (m), perpendicular distance of observation from the transect
(m), behavior, flight height and direction when first observed, and any other comments. Behavior
categories were designed to measure whether observations indicated likely breeding or resident activity
and included: nesting activity, courtship activity, alarm call, singing, other call, perched, flight, or other.

In addition, dominant (> 50%) and secondary habitat were recorded for the length of each transect (Figure
3, Appendix A). Detailed habitat information was collected at each 50-m point of the transect for use in
the BACI analysis. Incidental wildlife observations were recorded on a separate data sheet and are
tabulated in the results section.

Figure 2. Location of grassland breeding bird survey transects within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Grassland Crop Scrub Pasture Fallow
3, 6% 1, 2%
5, 10%
9, 19%
31, 63%
Figure 3. Summary of transects (n, %) within each dominant habitat type for grassland breeding
bird surveys conducted within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010
Observation Schedule
All transects was surveyed four times during the breeding season, once in the following periods: May 20-
21, June 9-10, June 25-26 and July 7-8. Surveys were conducted between sunrise and no later than 10:30
am.

Species diversity is presented as the total number of species observed. A species list, including the
number of observations and groups, was generated, including all observations of birds detected regardless
of their distance from the transect. Species richness was calculated as the mean number of species
recorded per survey.

To calculate the standardized bird use estimates, only observations of birds detected within 50-m of the
transect were used. Estimates of mean bird use (i.e., number of birds/transect) were used to compare
differences between bird types. The frequency of occurrence was calculated as the percent of surveys in
which a particular bird type or species was observed. Percent composition was calculated as the
proportion of the overall mean use for a particular bird type or species. Frequency of occurrence and
percent composition provide relative estimates of species exposure to the proposed wind-energy facility.
For example, a given species may have a high use estimate based on just a few observations of large
groups. In this case, the frequency of occurrence would indicate that its observations occurred during only
a few of the surveys and therefore potentially making the species less likely to be affected by the wind-
energy facility.

Spatial Use
Bird use by transect was calculated. Comparison between treatment and reference area species
composition and bird use was made using two-sample T-tests.
Gradient Analysis and Line-Distance Analysis

A gradient analysis (Morrison et al. 2001) will be used to determine the relationship between density of
grassland avian species and distance from turbines. A “gradient analysis” assesses whether a significant
or a biologically substantial relationship exists between distance from project structures and abundance or
use of the area. The differences between grassland bird use during the post-construction period and pre-
construction period will be calculated for each 50-m segment away from the turbines. The averages of
these differences for each 50-m segment will be compared using t-tests and 95% confidence intervals.
Line-distance analysis (Buckland et al 2001 and Thomas et al 2003) will also be conducted to provide
additional comparative analysis of Before/After abundance estimates. Results of the gradient and line-
distance analyses will be provided in the BACI report prepared following completion of the post-
construction field surveys.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures were implemented at all stages of the studies,
including in the field, during data entry and analysis, and report writing. Following field surveys, field
technicians were responsible for inspecting data forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. A
sample of records from an electronic database was compared to the data forms and any errors detected
were corrected. Irregular codes or data suspected as questionable were discussed with the field technician
and project manager. Errors, omissions, or problems identified in later stages of analysis were traced back
to the raw data forms, and appropriate changes in all steps were made.
Data Compilation and Storage

A Microsoft® ACCESS database was developed to store, organize, and retrieve survey data. Data
were keyed into the electronic database using a pre-defined format to facilitate subsequent
QA/QC and data analysis. All data forms, field notebooks, and electronic data files were retained
for reference.
RESULTS

A total of 189 grassland transect surveys were conducted within the CVWRA in four rounds. Overall, a
total of 94 species were identified (Table 1). Mean use varied between 12.0 and 15.1 birds/transect during
rounds; though the number of species recorded per survey was similar between rounds (mean 11.4; range
10.5-11.9). Mean use and species richness were highest during Round 2 (June 9-10) and Round 3 (June
25-26), respectively.

Table 1. Summary of mean bird use, species richness, and sample size recorded during the
grassland breeding bird transect surveys conducted at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area;
May-July, 2010.
Mean Use Species Richness Number of Surveys
Round Number of Species
(birds/transect) (species/survey) Conducted
1 14.1 11.9 67 46
2 15.1 11.5 67 47
3 12.0 11.9 73 48
4 12.4 10.5 62 48
Overall 13.4 11.4 94 189
Overall, a total of 6,738 birds within 4,396 groups were recorded over the course of the four survey
rounds (Table 2). The number of individuals recorded during each round ranged from 1,535 in Round 3 to
1,886 individuals in Round 2. Passerines accounted for over 80 % of observations in all rounds (mean:
87.3 %; range: 80.3-95.3 %); and overall red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and bobolink
(Dolichonyx oryzivorus) accounted for 30.2 % of observations. Four additional species comprised a
further 20.7 % of observations; yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis
trichas), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia).
In Rounds 2-4, red-winged blackbird was the most commonly observed species with the number of
individuals recorded ranging from 283 to 391 (mean: 324). Bobolink was the most commonly recorded
species in Round 1 (n=406), and was the second most commonly recorded species in Rounds 2 and 3
(mean: 203). Large groups of geese were observed in Rounds 1 and 2; one group of 200 unidentified
geese was recorded in Round 1 and two groups comprising a total of 220 Canada geese (Branta
Canadensis) were recorded in Round 2. Song sparrow (range: 85-104), common yellowthroat (70-108),
yellow warbler (42-98), and savannah sparrow (73-92) had relatively consistent numbers recorded across
rounds.

Table 2. Number of groups and individuals of each bird type and species, by survey round, recorded during grassland breeding bird
transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Total
Type/Species Scientific Name
gps obs Gps obs gps obs gps obs gps obs
Waterbirds 33 36 77 108 34 51 21 23 165 218
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 2 2 10 10 3 3 1 1 16 16
great blue heron Ardea herodias 18 18 19 21 13 13 12 12 62 64
herring gull Larus argentatus 2 2 5 14 1 1 0 0 8 17
pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis 11 14 43 63 16 33 6 8 76 118
unidentified gull 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2
Waterfowl 16 229 5 224 5 7 2 3 28 463
Canada goose Branta canadensis 9 19 2 220 0 0 0 0 11 239
common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 4 7 1 1 3 5 1 2 9 15
unidentified duck 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3
unidentified goose 1 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 200
wood duck Aix sponsa 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3
Shorebirds 6 6 7 7 9 16 4 4 26 33
American woodcock Scolopax minor 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 3 3 5 5 6 13 2 2 16 23
upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2
Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 5
Raptors 7 7 5 6 8 9 4 5 24 27
American kestrel Falco sparverius 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 7 7
broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Merlin Falco columbarius 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
northern harrier Circus cyaneus 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7
Osprey Pandion haliaetus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 0 0 2 3 4 5 0 0 6 8
Vultures 3 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 6 6
turkey vulture Cathartes aura 3 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 6 6
Upland Game Birds 8 10 4 4 3 5 7 29 22 48
ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 3 4 4 0 0 1 1 8 8
ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo 5 7 0 0 2 4 6 28 13 39
Doves/Pigeons 6 7 11 19 9 14 6 7 32 47

mourning dove Zenaida macroura 4 4 9 14 5 7 5 6 23 31
rock pigeon Columba livia 2 3 2 5 4 7 1 1 9 16
Passerines 1,099 1,430 1,049 1,515 1,074 1,425 857 1,512 4,079 5,882
Passerines 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
unidentified passerine 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Blackbirds/Orioles 449 685 448 856 378 631 206 680 1,481 2,852
Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 10 10
brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 4 9 1 1 4 11 4 6 13 27
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 231 406 171 221 117 185 31 45 550 857
common grackle Quiscalus quiscula 18 22 10 32 8 20 7 15 43 89
eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna 33 35 44 45 33 33 38 39 148 152
European starling Sturnus vulgaris 5 5 14 70 11 77 12 60 42 212
red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 156 206 201 298 201 283 109 391 667 1,178
unidentified blackbird 0 0 3 185 2 20 3 122 8 327
Creepers/Nuthatches 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 4
white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 4
Finches 27 50 19 31 36 56 47 71 129 208
American goldfinch Carduelis tristis 27 50 19 31 36 56 47 71 129 208
Flycatchers 32 35 42 42 34 36 24 27 132 140
Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens 6 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 7
alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 12 13 8 8 21 23 16 19 57 63
eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe 13 15 12 12 7 7 4 4 36 38
eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 3 3
great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 5
willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 0 0 18 18 4 4 1 1 23 23
Grassland/Sparrows 222 225 235 251 232 243 257 270 946 989
chipping sparrow Spizella passerina 9 9 4 4 4 5 4 4 21 22
dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 5 5 18 18 11 11 10 10 44 44
field sparrow Spizella pusilla 3 3 0 0 4 4 7 7 14 14
grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 12 12 20 20 21 22 32 36 85 90
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
house sparrow Passer domesticus 1 1 1 6 1 3 3 9 6 19
indigo bunting Passerina cyanea 0 0 1 1 10 10 2 2 13 13

northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 5 6 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 11
savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 73 73 75 84 85 90 91 92 324 339
song sparrow Melospiza melodia 102 103 102 104 83 85 86 87 373 379
swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana 6 6 3 3 5 5 11 11 25 25
unidentified sparrow 2 3 0 0 0 0 9 10 11 13
vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 4 4 8 8 6 6 0 0 18 18
Mimids 28 29 21 21 34 35 17 17 100 102
brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 7
gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis 25 25 19 19 31 32 16 16 91 92
northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3
Swallows 23 41 31 45 33 45 38 125 125 256
barn swallow Hirundo rustica 19 37 28 42 28 40 30 105 105 224
purple martin Progne subis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor 4 4 3 3 5 5 7 19 19 31
Tanagers/Grosbeaks/Crossbills 3 3 2 2 5 6 0 0 10 11
rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 2 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 7 8
scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3
Thrushes 72 107 40 45 48 68 49 55 209 275
American robin Turdus migratorius 64 99 37 42 43 59 46 48 190 248
eastern bluebird Sialia sialis 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 5
unidentified bluebird 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 5
Veery Catharus fuscescens 5 5 2 2 3 3 1 1 11 11
wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6
Titmice/Chickadees 9 11 6 8 13 20 4 6 32 45
black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus 9 11 5 7 13 20 3 5 30 43
tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2
Vireos 6 6 2 2 6 6 2 2 16 16
red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 5 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 13 13
warbling vireo Vireo gilvus 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3
Warblers 204 210 165 167 194 194 149 150 712 721
American redstart Setophaga ruticilla 9 9 1 1 0 0 1 1 11 11
black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia 2 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 5 5
bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 6 6
blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 3 3
common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 89 89 70 70 108 108 105 106 372 373

chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 6
magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 2 2 3 3 3 3 0 0 8 8
yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
yellow warbler Dendroica petechia 92 98 88 90 76 76 42 42 298 306
Waxwings 1 2 14 20 23 44 21 45 59 111
cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 1 2 14 20 23 44 21 45 59 111
Wrens 14 14 12 12 26 26 34 34 86 86
house wren Troglodytes aedon 13 13 12 12 16 16 14 14 55 55
marsh wren Cistothorus palustris 1 1 0 0 2 2 5 5 8 8
sedge wren Cistothorus platensis 0 0 0 0 8 8 15 15 23 23
Corvids 8 11 11 11 12 15 8 28 39 65
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 2 2 7 7 9 12 6 24 24 45
blue jay Cyanocitta cristata 6 9 4 4 3 3 2 4 15 20
Cuckoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Swifts/Hummingbirds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
chimney swift Chaetura pelagica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Woodpeckers 2 2 1 1 5 5 3 3 11 11
downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2
northern flicker Colaptes auratus 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 4
pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
unidentified woodpecker 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 4 4
Kingfishers 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Overall 1,180 1,730 1,161 1,886 1,150 1,535 905 1,587 4,396 6,738


Mean use ranged from 12.0 to 15.1 birds/transect across rounds; averaging 13.4 birds/transect overall
(Table 3). Mean use was highest by Passerines in all four rounds, ranging from 11.1 to 12.1 birds/transect.
Passerines accounted for between 80.3% and 95.3% of overall use and this bird type was recorded in
100% of all surveys. Blackbirds/Orioles had the highest mean use of Passerine sub-groups, ranging from
4.93 to 6.83 birds/transect over rounds. This sub-group included red-winged blackbird and bobolink
which were the most commonly observed species and which were recorded in 87.3% and 61.2% of
surveys respectively, overall. Mean use by the Grassland/Sparrows sub-group was next highest, ranging
from 1.83 to 2.11 birds/transect across rounds. Grassland/Sparrows accounted for 14.7% of overall use
and this sub-group was recorded in 97.4% of all surveys. Grasshopper sparrow, a state species of concern,
had a mean use of between 0.10 and 0.28 birds/transect across rounds and was observed in 21.7% of
surveys overall. Warbler was the Passerine subgroup with the next highest mean use, ranging from 1.17 to
1.52 birds/transect. Warblers accounted for 10.7% of overall use and were recorded in 87.9% of surveys.
Six species of Waterbird were recorded during grassland transect surveys. Mean use by Waterbirds
ranged from 0.18 to 0.86 birds/transect across rounds. Waterbirds accounted for 3.2% of overall use and
were observed in 49.9% of all surveys. Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) were recorded in all four
rounds and had the highest mean use of any Waterbird species observed (mean: 0.23; range 0.06 to 0.50
birds/transect across rounds). Ring-billed gulls accounted for 1.8% of overall use and were recorded in
22.8% of surveys. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) were also recorded in all rounds (mean 0.13
birds/transect; range: 0.09-0.17). This species accounted for 1.0% of overall use and was observed in
27.6% of surveys. Mean use by Waterfowl was 0.93 birds/transect across rounds, although much of the
use was concentrated in Rounds 1 and 2; 1.87 and 1.79 birds/transect, respectively. Waterfowl accounted
for 13.2% and 11.9% of overall use in Rounds 1 and 2; however individuals tended to be in large groups
such that they were recorded in only 30.4% and 10.6% of surveys, respectively.
Seven species of Raptor were observed during grassland transect surveys, although mean use by this bird
type was relatively low. Mean use by Raptors ranged from 0.04 to 0.07 birds/transect and this group was
observed in only 11.6% of surveys overall. Northern harrier, a state-threatened species, had a mean use of
0.03 birds/transect in Round 1, and was observed in 8.7% of surveys in this round. Mean use was <0.01 in
all three other rounds. Similarly, mean use by red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis) was higher in Round 3
compared to other rounds (0.04 compared to a mean of 0.01 birds/transect). Red-tailed hawks were
observed in 8.3% of surveys in Round 3.

Table 3. Mean bird use, percent composition, and frequency of occurrence for each bird type and species recorded during grassland
breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May–July, 2010.
Mean Use (birds/transect) Percent Composition (%) Frequency of Occurrence (%)
Species/Type R1 R2 R3 R4 All R1 R2 R3 R4 All R1 R2 R3 R4 All
Waterbirds 0.29 0.86 0.40 0.18 0.43 2.1 5.7 3.3 1.4 3.2 52.2 70.2 37.5 39.6 49.9
b
American bittern 0.02 0.08 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 0.2 4.3 10.6 6.2 2.1 5.8
great blue heron 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.13 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 32.6 29.8 22.9 25.0 27.6
herring gull 0.02 0.11 <0.01 0 0.03 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0 0.3 4.3 8.5 2.1 0 3.7
a
pied-billed grebe 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
ring-billed gull 0.11 0.50 0.26 0.06 0.23 0.8 3.3 2.1 0.5 1.8 19.6 46.8 14.6 10.4 22.8
unidentified gull 0 0 0 0.02 <0.01 0 0 0 0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 4.2 1.0
Waterfowl 1.87 1.79 0.05 0.02 0.93 13.2 11.9 0.5 0.2 7.0 30.4 10.6 6.2 4.2 12.9
Canada goose 0.15 1.76 0 0 0.48 1.1 11.7 0 0 3.6 17.4 4.3 0 0 5.4
common goldeneye 0.02 0 0 0 <0.01 0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 2.2 0 0 0 0.5
hooded merganser 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
Mallard 0.06 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.4 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 6.5 2.1 4.2 2.1 3.7
unidentified duck <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.2 0 2.1 2.1 1.6
unidentified goose 1.63 0 0 0 0.41 11.6 0 0 0 3 2.2 0 0 0 0.5
wood duck 0 0.02 0 0 <0.01 0 0.2 0 0 <0.1 0 4.3 0 0 1.1
Shorebirds 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5 10.9 12.8 14.6 6.2 11.1
American woodcock 0 0 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
Killdeer 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.3 6.5 10.6 10.4 4.2 7.9
a
upland sandpiper 0 0.02 0 0 <0.01 0 0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
Wilson's snipe 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0.2 0 0.1 0 <0.1 4.3 0 2.1 0 1.6
Raptors 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 13.0 8.5 16.7 8.3 11.6
American kestrel 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.3 2.1 4.2 4.2 3.7
broad-winged hawk 0 0 0 0.02 <0.01 0 0 0 0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 2.1 0.5
b
Cooper's hawk <0.01 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 2.2 0 0 0 0.5
Merlin 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
a
northern harrier 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 8.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.7
b
osprey 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
red-tailed hawk 0 0.02 0.04 0 0.02 0 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0 4.3 8.3 0 3.1
Vultures 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0 <0.1 6.5 2.1 2.1 0 2.7
turkey vulture 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0 <0.1 6.5 2.1 2.1 0 2.7
Upland Game Birds 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.09 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.7 15.2 6.4 6.2 14.6 10.6
ring-necked pheasant 0.02 0.03 0 <0.01 0.02 0.2 0.2 0 <0.1 0.1 6.5 6.4 0 2.1 3.7
ruffed grouse 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
wild turkey 0.06 0 0.03 0.22 0.08 0.4 0 0.3 1.8 0.6 8.7 0 4.2 12.5 6.3
Doves/Pigeons 0.06 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 13 19.1 16.7 10.4 14.8

mourning dove 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 8.7 17.0 10.4 10.4 11.6
rock pigeon 0.02 0.04 0.05 <0.01 0.03 0.2 0.3 0.5 <0.1 0.2 4.3 4.3 6.2 2.1 4.2
Passerines 11.7 12.1 11.1 11.8 11.7 82.7 80.3 92.8 95.3 87.2 100 100 100 100 100
unidentified passerine <0.01 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 2.2 0 0 0 0.5
Blackbirds/Orioles 5.58 6.83 4.93 5.31 5.66 39.6 45.4 41.1 42.8 42.3 100 97.9 100 89.6 96.9
Baltimore oriole 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.2 8.5 4.2 4.2 4.8
brown-headed cowbird 0.07 <0.01 0.09 0.05 1.72 0.5 <0.1 0.7 0.4 12.8 8.7 2.1 8.3 6.2 61.2
Bobolink 3.31 1.76 1.45 0.35 0.05 23.5 11.7 12.1 2.8 0.4 89.1 74.5 58.3 22.9 6.4
common grackle 0.18 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.18 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.9 1.3 30.4 14.9 16.7 14.6 19.1
eastern meadowlark 0.29 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.30 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.3 47.8 53.2 45.8 47.9 48.7
European starling 0.04 0.56 0.60 0.47 0.42 0.3 3.7 5.0 3.8 3.1 10.9 23.4 20.8 20.8 19.0
red-winged blackbird 1.68 2.38 2.21 3.05 2.33 11.9 15.8 18.4 24.6 17.4 91.3 83.0 91.7 83.3 87.3
unidentified blackbird 0 1.48 0.16 0.95 0.65 0 9.8 1.3 7.7 4.8 0 4.3 4.2 6.2 3.7
Creepers/Nuthatches 0 0.02 0 0.02 <0.01 0 0.1 0 0.1 <0.1 0 2.1 0 2.1 1.1
white-breasted nuthatch 0 0.02 0 0.02 <0.01 0 0.1 0 0.1 <0.1 0 2.1 0 2.1 1.1
Finches 0.41 0.25 0.44 0.55 0.41 2.9 1.6 3.6 4.5 3.1 45.7 29.8 43.8 58.3 44.4
American goldfinch 0.41 0.25 0.44 0.55 0.41 2.9 1.6 3.6 4.5 3.1 45.7 29.8 43.8 58.3 44.4
Flycatchers 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.21 0.28 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.7 2.1 37.0 46.8 52.1 35.4 42.8
Acadian flycatcher 0.05 0 <0.01 0 0.01 0.3 0 <0.1 0 0.1 4.3 0 2.1 0 1.6
alder flycatcher 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
eastern kingbird 0.11 0.06 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.8 0.4 1.5 1.2 0.9 19.6 17.0 37.5 22.9 24.3
eastern phoebe 0.12 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.6 23.9 23.4 10.4 8.3 16.5
eastern wood-pewee 0 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 4.3 0 2.1 1.6
great crested flycatcher <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 4.2 2.6
willow flycatcher 0 0.14 0.03 0 0.05 0 1.0 0.3 0 0.3 0 17.0 8.3 0 6.9
Grassland/Sparrows 1.83 2.00 1.90 2.11 1.96 13.0 13.3 15.8 17.0 14.7 97.8 95.7 97.9 97.9 97.4
chipping sparrow 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 13 8.5 6.2 6.2 8.5
dark-eyed junco 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
eastern towhee 0.04 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 10.9 21.3 16.7 18.8 16.9
field sparrow 0.02 0 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.2 0 0.3 0.4 0.2 6.5 0 4.2 14.6 6.3
b
grasshopper sparrow 0.10 0.16 0.17 0.28 0.18 0.7 1.1 1.4 2.3 1.3 21.7 17.0 25.0 22.9 21.7
a
Henslow's sparrow 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
house sparrow <0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.04 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 6.2 3.2
indigo bunting 0 <0.01 0.08 0.02 0.03 0 <0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0 2.1 16.7 4.2 5.7
northern cardinal 0.05 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 8.7 2.1 4.2 4.2 4.8

savannah sparrow 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.67 4.2 4.5 5.9 5.8 5 60.9 70.2 72.9 64.6 67.1
song sparrow 0.84 0.83 0.66 0.68 0.75 6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.6 80.4 78.7 89.6 79.2 82.0
swamp sparrow 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 8.7 6.4 6.2 10.4 7.9
unidentified sparrow 0.02 0 0 0.08 0.03 0.2 0 0 0.6 0.2 4.3 0 0 12.5 4.2
b
vesper sparrow 0.03 0.06 0.05 0 0.04 0.2 0.4 0.4 0 0.3 6.5 14.9 6.2 0 6.9
Mimids 0.24 0.17 0.27 0.13 0.2 1.7 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.5 41.3 38.3 43.8 27.1 37.6
brown thrasher 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 4.3 4.3 2.1 2.1 3.2
gray catbird 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.12 0.18 1.4 1 2.1 1 1.4 39.1 36.2 41.7 27.1 36.0
northern mockingbird <0.01 0 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0.1 0 <0.1 2.2 0 4.2 0 1.6
Swallows 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.98 0.51 2.4 2.4 2.9 7.9 3.8 43.5 46.8 45.8 56.2 48.1
barn swallow 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.82 0.44 2.1 2.2 2.6 6.6 3.3 37.0 42.6 43.8 54.2 44.4
purple martin 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 2.1 0.5
tree swallow 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.5 8.7 6.4 2.1 10.4 6.9
Tanagers/Grosbeaks/
Crossbills 0.02 0.02 0.05 0 0.02 0.2 0.1 0.4 0 0.2 6.5 4.3 10.4 0 5.3
rose-breasted grosbeak 0.02 0.02 0.03 0 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 4.3 4.3 6.2 0 3.7
scarlet tanager <0.01 0 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0.1 0 <0.1 2.2 0 4.2 0 1.6
Thrushes 0.87 0.36 0.53 0.43 0.55 6.2 2.4 4.4 3.5 4.1 65.2 55.3 47.9 54.2 55.7
American robin 0.81 0.34 0.46 0.38 0.49 5.7 2.2 3.8 3 3.7 63.0 55.3 45.8 52.1 54.1
eastern bluebird 0 0 0.04 0 <0.01 0 0 0.3 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
unidentified bluebird 0 0 0 0.04 <0.01 0 0 0 0.3 <0.1 0 0 0 2.1 0.5
Veery 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.3 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.2 6.5 4.3 2.1 2.1 3.7
wood thrush 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.2
Titmice/Chickadees 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.09 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.4 0.7 19.6 10.6 22.9 8.3 15.4
black-capped chickadee 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.09 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.6 19.6 8.5 22.9 6.2 14.3
tufted titmouse 0 <0.01 0.04 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0.3 0 <0.1 0 2.1 8.3 0 1.1
Vireos 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 10.9 4.3 10.4 4.2 7.4
red-eyed vireo 0.04 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.2 8.7 4.3 8.3 2.1 5.8
warbling vireo <0.01 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.2 0 2.1 2.1 1.6
Warblers 1.71 1.33 1.52 1.17 1.43 12.1 8.9 12.6 9.5 10.7 89.1 89.4 89.6 83.3 87.9
American redstart 0.07 <0.01 0 <0.01 0.02 0.5 <0.1 0 <0.1 0.2 15.2 2.1 0 2.1 4.9
black-and-white warbler 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 0.1 0 0.2 0 <0.1 2.2 0 4.2 0 2.7
bay-breasted warbler 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 <0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 <0.1 4.3 4.3 2.1 0 1.6
blue-winged warbler 0 0 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 4.2 2.1 1.6
common yellowthroat 0.73 0.56 0.84 0.83 0.01 5.1 3.7 7 6.7 <0.1 65.2 76.6 81.2 81.2 2.7

chestnut-sided warbler 0.04 <0.01 0 0 0.74 0.3 <0.1 0 0 5.5 8.7 2.1 0 0 76.1
magnolia warbler 0.02 0 0 0 <0.01 0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 4.3 0 0 0 1.1
Ovenbird 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 2.2 4.3 4.2 0 2.6
yellow-rumped warbler <0.01 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0 0 <0.1 2.2 0 0 0 0.5
yellow warbler 0.80 0.72 0.59 0.33 0.61 5.7 4.8 5.0 2.6 4.6 82.6 74.5 75 52.1 71.0
Waxwings 0.02 0.16 0.34 0.35 0.22 0.1 1.1 2.9 2.8 1.6 2.2 21.3 41.7 39.6 26.2
cedar waxwing 0.02 0.16 0.34 0.35 0.22 0.1 1.1 2.9 2.8 1.6 2.2 21.3 41.7 39.6 26.2
Wrens 0.11 0.1 0.20 0.27 0.17 0.8 0.6 1.7 2.1 1.3 23.9 17.0 27.1 45.8 28.5
house wren 0.11 0.1 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 21.7 17.0 20.8 25.0 21.1
marsh wren <0.01 0 0.02 0.04 0.02 <0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 0 2.1 2.1 1.6
a
sedge wren 0 0 0.06 0.12 0.04 0 0 0.5 0.9 0.3 0 0 8.3 20.8 7.3
Corvids 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.22 0.13 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.0 13.0 17.0 22.9 16.7 17.4
American crow 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.7 4.3 10.6 16.7 12.5 11.0
blue jay 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 8.7 8.5 6.2 4.2 6.9
Cuckoos 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 2.1 0.5
black-billed cuckoo 0 0 0 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 2.1 0.5
Swifts/Hummingbirds 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
chimney swift 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.1 0 0 <0.1 0 2.1 0 0 0.5
Woodpeckers 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 4.3 2.1 10.4 4.2 5.3
downy woodpecker 0 0 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 2.1 2.1 1.0
northern flicker <0.01 0 0.02 0 <0.01 <0.1 0 0.2 0 <0.1 2.2 0 6.2 0 2.1
pileated woodpecker 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
unidentified woodpecker <0.01 <0.01 0 0.02 <0.01 <0.1 <0.1 0 0.1 <0.1 2.2 2.1 0 4.2 2.1
Kingfishers 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
belted kingfisher 0 0 <0.01 0 <0.01 0 0 <0.1 0 <0.1 0 0 2.1 0 0.5
Overall 14.1 15.1 12.0 12.4 13.4 100 100 100 100 100
a
=State-threatened; b=State species of concern.

Spatial Use
There was no significant difference between mean use of major bird types recorded at transects within the
CVWRA and at reference transects outside of the project area (two-sample t-tests; p>0.05; Table 4).
Waterfowl use was slightly highest at reference points, however this was not significant (p=0.515).
Table 4. Comparison of mean use (± SEM) of bird types and passerine sub-groups at transects
within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects.
Bird Type/Sub-Group CVWRA Transects Reference Transects P
Waterbirds 0.43 ± 0.79 0.41 ± 2.19 0.878
Waterfowl 0.62 ± 0.07 1.72 ± 0.12 0.515
Shorebirds 0.07 ± 0.51 0.05 ± 1.56 0.495
Raptors 0.05 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.03 0.647
Vultures 0.005 ± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.02 0.175
Upland Game Birds 0.10 ± 0.003 0.05 ± 0.02 0.236
Doves/Pigeons 0.10 ± 0.04 0.08 ± 0.02 0.679
Passerines 11.0 ± 0.03 13.8 ± 0.04 0.158
Overall 12.4 ± 0.01 16.2 ± 0.01
Within the CVWRA, mean use was highest at Transects 28, 17, and 2 (29.5, 26.9, and 20.5 birds/transect,
respectively; Appendix B and D). The majority of bird use at transect 28 was due to Waterfowl (18.8
birds/survey), while use at transects 17 and 2 was mainly due to Passerines (26.3 and 19.8 birds/survey,
respectively; Figure 4). Transect order along the x-axis of Figure 4 is approximately aligned west-east
within the project area. For example, Transect 28, with the highest Waterfowl use is located in the center
of the project. Use by Waterbirds was relatively evenly spread across the project area, as was use by
Passerines. Use by Raptors, however, was greater to the east and center of the site (Transects 64, 55, 52,
71, 40, 47, 50, 39, 26, 24, 22, and 17).

100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Composition
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2 1 68 70 17 4 5 21 14 12 15 32 27 67 22 24 28 26 36 38 37 44 45 46 39 50 47 40 51 71 52 66 54 55 58 60 64
Transect
Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area Transects

Passerines Waterbirds Waterfowl Shorebirds Raptors Vultures UGB Dove/P
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percent Composition
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
R8 R9 R10 R6 R7 R4 R11 R3 R1 R13 R12 R14
Transect
Reference Transects
Figure 4. Percent composition of bird types recorded within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area and reference transects during
grassland breeding bird transect surveys; May-July, 2010.

Incidental Observations
A total of 26 birds within 20 groups were recorded as incidental observations within the CVWRA during
grassland breeding bird transect surveys; representing twelve species (Table 5). Only one of these species,
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), was not observed during standardized surveys. One mammal
species, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), was also observed.
Table 5. Incidental wildlife observed within the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area outside of
standardized surveys; May–July, 2010.
Species Scientific Name # grps # obs
American kestrel Falco sparverius 1 1
barn swallow Hirundo rustica 1 2
grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 1 1
Merlin Falco columbarius 1 1
northern harrier Circus cyaneus 4 4
red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 1 1
ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus 1 1
savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 1 5
sedge wren Cistothorus platensis 2 2
sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus 1 1
upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 4 4
Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicate 2 3
Bird Subtotal 12 Species 20 26
white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 1 2
Mammal Subtotal 1 species 1 2
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Observations

No federal threatened or endangered species were observed during grassland breeding bird transect
surveys or observed incidentally at the CVWRA.
Four state-listed threatened species were recorded during transect surveys: one Henslow's sparrow
(Ammodramus henslowii), four northern harriers, 18 sedge wrens, and two upland sandpipers (Table 6). In
addition, five state species of concern were observed: six American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), one
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), 64 grasshopper sparrows, one osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and 12
vesper sparrows (Pooecetes gramineus).
Four northern harriers, two sedge wrens, four upland sandpipers, one grasshopper sparrow, and one sharp-
shinned hawk (state species of concern) were recorded within the CVWRA as incidental observations
outside of standardized transect surveys.
RTE species recorded along reference transects included three northern harriers, one pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), five sedge wrens, 10 American bitterns, 26 grasshopper sparrows, and six vesper
sparrows.

Table 6. Sensitive species observed during the grassland breeding bird transect surveys and as
incidental wildlife observations at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20–July 9, 2010.
Project Total in
Species Scientific Name Status Incidental Reference
Area CVWRA
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii ST 1 0 1 0
northern harrier Circus cyaneus ST 4 4 8 3
pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps ST 0 0 0 1
sedge wren Cistothorus platensis ST 18 2 20 5
upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda ST 2 4 6 0
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus SSC 6 0 6 10
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii SSC 1 0 1 0
grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC 64 1 65 26
Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC 1 0 1 0
vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus SSC 12 0 12 6
sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus SSC 0 1 1 0
Total 109 12 121 51
Project Area=recorded during grassland breeding bird transect surveys within CVWRA; incidental=Incidental wildlife observations within
CVWRA; Reference=recorded on reference transects; ST = State-threatened; SSC = State Special Concern
Grasshopper sparrows were observed along 45.9% of transects within the CVWRA and 66.7% of
reference transects (Figure 5; Appendix E). Transect 37 in the center of the project area had the greatest
number of RTE observations recorded (n=15) and the greatest diversity of sensitive species (n=4). One
American bittern, nine grasshopper sparrows, two sedge wrens, and three vesper sparrow observations
were recorded along this transect. Transects 60 and 64 to the east of the project area also had higher
numbers of RTE observations recorded (12 and nine, respectively), primarily due to grasshopper sparrow
observations. The highest number of RTE observations recorded at a reference transect was 12, at R8; all
grasshopper sparrows. The reference transect with the greatest species diversity was R4 where four
species (four American bitterns, one pied-billed grebe, two grasshopper sparrows, and two sedge wrens).

16
14
Number of Individuals
12
10
0
2 1 68 70 17 4 5 21 14 12 15 32 27 67 22 24 28 26 36 38 37 44 45 46 39 50 47 40 51 71 52 66 54 55 58 60 64
Transect
Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area Transects

American bitten Pied-billed grebe Upland sandpiper Cooper's hawk Northern harrier
Osprey Grasshopper sparrow Henslow's sparrow Sedge wren Vesper sparrow
14
12
Number of Individuals
10
8
6
4
2
0
R8 R9 R10 R6 R7 R4 R11 R3 R1 R13 R12 R14
Transect
Reference Transects
Figure 5. Number of sensitive species recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird transect surveys at the Cape Vincent
Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010.

DISCUSSION
The primary objectives of 2010 grassland breeding bird transect surveys was to provide baseline data for
a BACI study designed to assess indirect impacts of the CVWRA on grassland birds and collect
additional pre-construction data on bird species composition and use of the project area. Two annual
studies will be completed using identical methods and metrics during operation of the CVWRA to
provide comparable data to assess if operation of the CVWRA is resulting in indirect impacts to the
grassland bird community. BACI data will be analyzed using a gradient analysis and line-distance
analysis methods. In addition, detailed habitat data collected along survey transects during the 2010 study
will be compared with post-construction habitat data to assess whether any changes in species
composition or relative abundance were related to changes in habitat.
Results of the 2010 study indicate that reference transects are similar to treatment transects included in the
study in terms of bird type and passerine subtype. As expected, there was a dominance of open grassland
species such as the savannah sparrow, song sparrow, eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and
bobolink. Generalist species which occupy mixed habitat types in the region (Andrle and Carroll 1988
and McGowan and Corwin 2008) were also abundant, including American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and yellow-
rumped warbler (Dendroica coronate). Woodland and forest bird species were also detected, though in
smaller numbers, such as the American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta
varia) and American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) which prefer early successional forest as well as those
that prefer more mature forest like the eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus) and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla; McGowan and Corwin 2008).
No federal-listed threatened or endangered species were observed during surveys or incidentally. No

New York state endangered species were observed. New York state-threatened bird species associated
with grasslands were observed within the CVWRA and included one Henslow’s sparrow, 20 sedge wrens,
eight northern harriers and six upland sandpipers. The most abundant RTE species observed was the
grasshopper sparrow, with 64 individual observations. No nests of RTE species were observed, however,
behavior (singing, territorial displays) and seasonal timing of observations corresponded with the
breeding season.
Indirect Effects of Wind Energy on Birds

Wind energy development has the potential to cause direct loss of habitat where infrastructure is located
and indirect loss of habitat through behavioral avoidance and habitat fragmentation. Direct loss of habitat
associated with wind energy development is relatively minor for most species compared to most other
forms of energy development. Behavioral avoidance, however, may render much larger areas unsuitable
or less suitable for some species of wildlife, depending on how far the species are displaced from wind
energy facilities. Based on some studies in Europe, displacement effects associated with wind energy
were thought to have a greater impact on birds than collision mortality (Gill et al. 1996). The greatest
concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in North America has been where these
facilities have been constructed in native habitats such as grasslands or shrublands (Leddy et al. 1999,
Mabey and Paul 2007). Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for wind turbines

to cause displacement to migrating and wintering birds that may utilize cropland as feeding or stopover
habitat.
The greatest concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in the U.S. has been where
these facilities have been constructed in grassland or other native habitats where tall structures such as
turbines do not normally occur (Leddy et al. 1999, Mabey and Paul 2007). Results from studies at the
Stateline wind energy facility in Washington and Oregon (Erickson et al. 2004a) and the Buffalo Ridge
wind energy facility in Minnesota (Johnson et al. 2000a) suggest that breeding birds may be affected by
wind facility operations. Studies concerning displacement of non-raptor species have largely
concentrated on grassland passerines and waterfowl/waterbirds (Larsen and Madsen 2000, Mabey and
Paul 2007, Winkelman 1990). Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small scale local
displacement of grassland passerines and is likely due to the birds avoiding habitat disturbed by
construction, turbine noise, and/or maintenance activities.
Most studies of displacement of non-raptor species have concentrated on grassland passerines and
waterfowl. Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small-scale local displacement of some
grassland passerines; however, displacement at larger scales has not been reported. Leddy et al. (1999)
surveyed bird densities in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands at the Buffalo Ridge wind
energy facility in Minnesota, and found that mean densities of 10 grassland bird species were four times
higher in areas located 180 m (591 ft) from turbines than they were in grasslands nearer turbines;
however, the study did not account for differences in habitat type at varying distances from turbines. The
CVWRA BACI study will account for habitat differences. Johnson et al. (2000) found reduced use of
habitat within 100 m of turbines by seven of 22 grassland-breeding birds following construction of the
Buffalo Ridge facility. At the Stateline wind-energy facility in Oregon and Washington, use of areas <50
m from turbines by grasshopper sparrow was reduced by approximately 60%, with no reduction in use
>50 m from turbines (Erickson et al. 2004). At the Combine Hills facility in Oregon, use of areas within
150 m of turbines by western meadowlark was reduced by 86%, compared to a 12.6% reduction in use of
reference areas over the same time period (Young et al. 2005). Horned larks, however, showed
significant increases in use of areas near turbines at both of these facilities, likely because this species
prefers areas of bare ground such as those created by turbine pads and access roads (Beason 1995).
At the Buffalo Ridge facility in Minnesota, the abundance of several bird types, including shorebirds and
waterfowl, was found to be significantly lower at survey plots with turbines than at reference plots
without turbines (Johnson et al. 2000a). The report concluded that the area of reduced use was limited
primarily to those areas within 100 m of the turbines. These results are similar to those described by
Osborn et al. (1998), who reported that birds at Buffalo Ridge avoided flying in areas with turbines.
Devreaux et al. (2008) found no effects of turbines on the distribution or relative abundance of farmland
birds, including granivores, at distances of >250 m. Pearce-Higgins (2009) found golden plover (Pluvialis
apricaria) and wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) avoided turbines out to 200 m, whereas avoidance by snipe
(Gallinago gallinago) extended to 400 m in a study conducted in British uplands. Populations of
mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus) at the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in Wyoming
initially declined during construction but have partially recovered to pre-construction levels based on
operational monitoring data (Young et al 2005). It is not known whether population changes were
responses to the wind energy facility or regional changes in mountain plover populations. Nonetheless,

during post-construction nest surveys 11 of 28 nests found (39%) were located within 75 m (246 ft) of
turbines, suggesting displacement effects to breeding mountain plovers may be minimal and the birds
habituated to the turbines post-construction.
Most studies on raptor displacement at wind energy facilities indicate effects appear to be restricted to
small spatial scales. A BACI study of avian use at the Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota
found evidence of northern harriers avoiding turbines on both a small scale (less than 100 m from
turbines) and a larger scale (range of 105 - 5,364 m) in the year following construction (Johnson et al.
2000a). Two years following construction, however, no large-scale displacement of northern harriers was
detected. In North America, the only published report of avoidance of wind turbines by nesting raptors
occurred at the Buffalo Ridge facility, where raptor nest density on 261.6 km2 of land surrounding the
facility was 5.94 nests/101.0 km2; yet no nests were present in the 31.1 km2 facility itself, even though
habitat was similar (Usgaard et al. 1997). A recent study from the United Kingdom suggests a reduction
of 52.5% in apparent density of hen harriers within 800 m of wind turbines; however, the study did not
measure breeding success proximate to turbines (Pearce-Higgins 2009). This study also demonstrated
avoidance of turbines by harriers up to distances of 250 m; however, flight behavior of harriers and other
raptors measured in the vicinity of turbines did not differ with control groups.
Data on the effects of wind energy on raptor nesting productivity is sparse, though encouraging. At a
wind energy facility in eastern Washington, based on extensive monitoring using helicopter flights and
ground observations, raptors still nested in the study area at approximately the same levels after
construction, and several nests were located within 0.8 km of turbines (Erickson et al. 2004). Howell and
Noone (1992) found similar numbers of raptor nests before and after construction of Phase 1 at the
Montezuma Hills wind energy facility in California, and anecdotal evidence indicates that raptor use of
the Altamont Pass wind energy facility in California may have increased since installation of wind
turbines (Orloff and Flannery 1992, AWEA 1995). At the Foote Creek Rim wind energy facility in
southern Wyoming, one pair of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) nested within 0.3 miles (0.5 km) of
the turbine strings, and seven red-tailed hawk nests, one great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest, and
one golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nest located within one mile (1.6 km) of the facility successfully
fledged young (Johnson et al. 2000b, WEST unpublished data). The golden eagle pair successfully nested
0.8 km from the facility for three years after the project became operational.
REFERENCES
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 1995. Avian Interactions with Wind Energy Facilities: a
Summary. Prepared by Colson & Associates for AWEA, Washington, D.C.
Beason, R.C. 1995. Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris). In: The Birds of North America, No. 195. Poole,
A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.
Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001.
Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford
University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Burger, Michael, Mitschka Hartley, Jan Beyea, Graham Cox, 2001. Logging impacts on birds in New
York: for private forest stewardship in bird conservation. New York State Biodiversit Institute
Park Foundation, United States Forest Service. Available online
http://ny.audubon.org/PDFs/AMNHForestryBirdsPoster-27Apr2006.pdf. Accessed October 19,
2010.
Devereux, C.L., M.J.H. Denny, and M.J. Whittingham. 2008. Minimal Effects of Wind Turbines on the
Distribution of Wintering Farmland Birds. Journal of Applied Ecology Windfarms and Farmland
Birds: 1365-2664.
Erickson, W.P., J. Jeffrey, K. Kronner, and K. Bay. 2004a. Stateline Wind Project Wildlife Monitoring
Final Report: July 2001 - December 2003. Technical report for and peer-reviewed by FPL
Energy, Stateline Technical Advisory Committee, and the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council,
by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Walla Walla,
Washington, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants (NWC), Pendleton, Oregon. December 2004.
http://www.west-inc.com
Gill, J.P., M. Townsley, and G.P. Mudge. 1996. Review of the Impacts of Wind Farms and Other Aerial
Structures Upon Birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 21. Scottish Natural Heritage.
Battleby, United Kingdom.
Herkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeier, T.L. Esker, and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response of Northern
Harriers and Short-Eared Owls to Grassland Management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife
Management 63: 517-523.
Howell, J.A. and J. Noone. 1992. Examination of Avian Use and Mortality at a U.S. Windpower Wind
Energy Development Site, Montezuma Hills, Solano County, California. Final Report to Solano
County Department of Environmental Management, Fairfield, California. 41pp.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. Shepherd. 2000a. Avian
Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-Year
Study. Final report prepared for Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, by
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming. September 22, 2000. 212
pp. http://www.west-inc.com
Johnson, G.D., D.P. Young, W.P. Erickson, C.E. Derby, M.D. Strickland, and R.E. Good. 2000b.
Wildlife Monitoring Studies, SeaWest Windpower Plant, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999.
Final report prepared for SeaWest Energy Corporation, San Diego, California, and the Bureau of
Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming, by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST),
Cheyenne, Wyoming. August 9, 2000. http://www.west-inc.com and http://www.west-
inc.com/reports/fcr_final_baseline.pdf
Larsen, J.K. and J. Madsen. 2000. Effects of Wind Turbines and Other Physical Elements on Field
Utilization by Pink-Footed Geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A Landscape Perspective. Landscape
Ecology 15: 755-764.
Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Nesting Birds in
Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111(1): 100-104.

Mabey, S. and E. Paul. 2007. Impact of Wind Energy and Related Human Activities on Grassland and
Shrub-Steppe Birds. A Critical Literature Review Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating
Committee (NWCC) and The Ornithological Council. 183 pp.
McGowan, K.J. and K. Corwin, eds. 2008. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State: 2000-2005.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 688 pp.
Morgan, M. and M. Burger. 2008. Monitoring the Effectiveness of Grassland Bird Conservation: Efforts
and Perspectives from New York on Developing a Grassland Bird Monitoring Program. Audubon
New York.
Morrison, M.L., W.M. Block, M.D. Strickland, and W.L. Kendall. 2001. Wildlife Study Design.
Springer-Verlag NewYork, Inc., New York.
National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National
Academies Press. Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
Orloff, S. and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, Habitat Use, and Mortality in
Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989-1991. Final Report P700-92-001
to Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties, and the California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, California, by Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Tiburon, California. March 1992.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., L. Stephen, R.H.W. Langston, I.P. Bainbridge, and R. Bullman. 2009. The
Distribution of Breeding Birds around Upland Wind Farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(6):
1323 - 1331.
Thomas, L., J. L. Laake, S. Strindberg, F. F. C. Marques, S. T. Buckland, D. L. Borchers, D. R.
Anderson, K. P. Burnham, S. L. Hedley, J. H. Pollard, and J. R. B. Bishop. 2003. DISTANCE.
Research Unit for Wildlife Population Estimation. University of St. Andrews, U.K.
Usgaard, R.E., D.E. Naugle, R.G. Osborn, and K.F. Higgins. 1997. Effects of Wind Turbines on Nesting
Raptors at Buffalo Ridge in Southwestern Minnesota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy
of Science 76: 113-117.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2006. Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Chautauqua County, New York. USDA-NRCS, Fort
Worth, Texas.
US Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Database. 2001. National Land Cover Database
Land Cover Layer. USGS, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Winkelman, E. 1990. Impact of the Wind Park near Urk, Netherlands, on Birds: Bird Collision Victims
and Disturbance of Wintering Fowl. International Ornithological Congress 20: 402-403.
Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, and M. Bourassa. 2005. Eurus Combine Hills Turbine
Ranch. Phase 1 Post Construction Wildlife Monitoring Final Report February 2004 February
2005. Technical report for Eurus Energy America Corporation and the Combine Hills Technical
Advisory Committee, Umatilla County, Oregon. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology,
Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. (NWC), Pendleton,
Oregon.

Appendix A: Habitat summary by line transect for the 2010 grassland breeding bird transect
surveys within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20-July 9, 2010.
Transect Dominant Habitat Secondary Habitat
1 Crop Deciduous
2 Fallow Scrub
4 Crop Deciduous
5 Pasture Deciduous
12 Grassland Deciduous
21 Grassland -
22 Grassland Brush/Deciduous
24 Crop Grassland
27 Crop Deciduous
32 Pasture -
36 Crop Brush/Deciduous
37 Grassland Brush
39 Crop Deciduous
44 Pasture -
45 Scrub Deciduous
46 Scrub Deciduous
47 Grassland Crop-Clover
52 Crop Deciduous
54 Crop Scrub
58 Grassland Scrub
60 Grassland Scrub
64 Grassland -
68 Pasture -
70 Scrub -
71 Crop Deciduous
R1 Grassland Scrub
R3 Pasture -
R4 Grassland Scrub
R6 Grassland -
R7 Grassland Scrub
R8 Grassland Scrub
R9 Grassland -
R10 Grassland Scrub
R11 Grassland Scrub
R12 Grassland Mixed forest
R13 Grassland Deciduous
R14 Grassland Deciduous

Appendix B: Mean use of major bird types recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind
Resource Area; May-July, 2010.
35
All Birds
29.5 29.2 30.2
30
26.9
Mean use (birds/survey)
25
21.7
20.5 20.8
20
14.6 17.1 16.2 16.3
13.7 14.3 13.4 12.3 13.8 12.7 12.9
15
13.1 12.9 13.1 12.3 9.19 12.0 12.5 11.8
11.5 10.0 11.0 9.56 12.2
8.91 10.9 11.1 10.3 10.3
8.34 9.56 8.44 8.25 8.91 8.25 9.84 10.1
9.66 8.62 8.25
10
7.88 7.41
0
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Transect
3
Waterbirds
2.34
1.50
1.41
1.22
0.75 0.75
1
0.66 0.75
0.66 0.66 0.56
0.56 0.47 0.56
0.47 0.47 0.47
0.38 0.47 0.38 0.47 0.28 0.38
0.25 0.38 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.19
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
0 0 0 0.09 0 0
0
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Transect

3
Raptors
0.38
0.28 0.19 0.28
0.19 0.19
0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
0
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Transect
30 28.4
26.3 Passerines
25
21.0
19.8 19.5
20
15.8
14.1 13.2 13.1 14.8
15 13.1 12.8 12.3
12.1 11.9 11.3
10.7 9.94 10.6
10.5
10.9 11.5 11.2 11.6 11.5 10.2 11.2 11.1 11.2
10.4 10.1
9.66 8.53 8.91 8.91 9.66 8.53 9.47 9.56
10 8.72 8.25
7.69 8.25 7.59 8.53 7.22
6.38 7.03
6.28
0
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Transect

21
18.8 Waterfowl 18.8
18
15
12
2.06
3 0.94
0.09 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.28 0.38 0.09 0.09
0
1 2 4 5 12 14 15 17 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 36 37 38 39 40 44 45 46 47 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 64 66 67 68 70 71 R1 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14
Transect

Appendix C: Mean use of bird types recorded at each transect during grassland breeding bird
transects at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010
WB WF SB RA VU GB DP PA Total
1 0.56 - - - - - 0.28 10.7 11.5
2 0.25 - 0.12 - - - 0.38 19.8 20.5
4 0.19 0.09 0.19 - - - 0.09 14.1 14.6
5 0.66 - - - 0.09 0.84 - 12.1 13.7
12 - 0.28 - - - - - 9.66 10.0
14 0.47 - - - 0.09 - 0.09 7.69 8.34
15 0.09 0.28 - - - - - 8.53 8.91
17 0.38 - - 0.09 - - 0.09 26.3 26.9
21 0.47 0.09 0.56 - - - 0.09 13.1 14.3
22 0.47 - - 0.09 - 0.28 0.19 9.94 11.0
24 0.66 - - 0.28 - - - 8.72 9.66
26 0.38 - - 0.09 - - 0.19 8.91 9.56
27 0.38 - - - - - - 8.25 8.62
28 0.19 18.8 - - - 0.09 - 10.4 29.5
32 0.19 2.06 - - - - 0.09 10.6 13.1
36 0.09 - - - - 0.38 - 12.8 13.4
37 2.34 - 0.09 - - - - 10.5 12.9
38 0.28 - - - - - 0.09 11.9 12.3
39 1.50 - 0.56 0.09 - 0.94 0.66 13.2 17.1
40 0.19 - - 0.19 - - 0.28 8.91 9.56
44 - - - - - - - 10.9 10.9
45 0.28 - - - - 0.09 0.19 13.1 13.8
46 0.75 0.38 - - - 0.12 0.25 11.5 13.1
47 0.66 0.19 - 0.09 - - 0.47 9.66 11.1
50 0.47 0.19 - 0.09 - 0.09 - 11.2 12.3
51 0.47 - 0.28 - - - - 7.59 8.44
52 1.22 - 0.09 0.19 - - - 6.38 7.88
54 - - - - - - - 8.25 8.25
55 0.47 - 0.09 0.09 - - - 8.53 9.19
58 0.28 0.09 - - - - - 8.53 8.91
60 0.09 - 0.19 - - 0.09 - 15.8 16.2
64 0.28 - - 0.09 - 0.66 - 7.22 8.25
66 0.28 - - - - - - 11.6 12.0
67 0.09 0.19 0.09 - - - - 9.47 9.84
68 0.28 - - - - - 0.09 12.3 12.7
70 0.09 0.19 0.28 - - - 0.09 11.5 12.2
71 0.38 0.09 - 0.38 - 0.28 - 6.28 7.41
R1 0.09 - 0.09 - - - - 10.1 10.3
R3 - - - 0.09 - - - 10.2 10.3
R4 0.56 0.94 - - - - - 14.8 16.3
R6 0.56 - - 0.19 0.09 - 0.38 7.03 8.25
R7 0.28 0.28 - 0.09 0.09 0.09 - 28.4 29.2
R8 0.75 0.38 - - - 0.09 - 19.5 20.8
R9 0.75 - 0.19 - - 0.19 - 11.3 12.5
R10 1.41 - - - - 0.09 0.28 11.2 12.9
R11 0.19 0.09 - 0.09 - 0.09 0.19 21.0 21.7
R12 0.19 0.09 0.19 - 0.19 - - 11.1 11.8
R13 - - - 0.28 - 0.09 0.09 9.56 10.1
R14 0.09 18.8 0.09 - - - - 11.2 30.2
Total 20.7 43.5 3.10 2.50 0.55 4.50 4.55 571 652
WB=Waterbirds; WF=Waterfowl; SB=Shorebirds; RA=Raptors; VU=Vultures; GB=Gamebirds; DP=Dove/Pigeons; PA=Passerines

Appendix D: Mean use by passerine sub-groups recorded at each transect during grassland
breeding bird transects at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-June, 2010
B/O FI FL G/S MI SW TGC TH T/C VI WA WX WR CV
1 3.94 1.12 0.28 1.31 0.28 0.47 - 0.56 - - 1.78 0.47 0.47 -
2 13.4 0.25 0.75 2 0.12 1.00 - 0.38 - 0.12 1.25 0.25 0.25 -
4 11.1 - - 1.59 0.09 0.75 - 0.09 - - 0.28 0.19 - -
5 5.62 0.75 - 3.38 0.09 0.56 - 0.84 - - 0.28 0.19 0.19 -
12 4.69 0.84 0.19 0.84 0.38 - 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.28 1.69 0.09 0.19 0.09
14 3.09 0.56 0.19 1.12 0.19 - - 0.19 0.38 - 1.12 0.66 - 0.19
15 4.12 0.66 0.47 0.84 0.09 0.66 0.09 0.56 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.38 - -
17 20.4 0.19 0.09 3.47 0.09 0.19 - 0.75 - - 0.66 0.19 0.09 0.19
21 5.34 0.19 0.47 1.88 0.56 0.75 - 1.31 - 0.09 1.88 0.38 0.09 0.19
22 4.59 0.38 0.47 1.22 0.28 0.38 - 0 0.09 - 1.59 0.28 0.56 0.09
24 4.12 0.28 0.09 1.78 0.09 0.38 - 0.38 - - 1.31 - 0.28 -
26 3.28 0.56 0.56 1.88 0.19 - - 0.09 0.09 - 1.41 0.28 0.09 0.47
27 4.31 0.19 0.56 0.94 - - - 0.38 - - 1.50 0.28 0.09 -
28 5.62 0.09 - 2.25 0.09 0.47 - 0.38 - - 1.31 0.19 - -
32 2.44 0.66 0.47 2.34 0.28 0.19 0.09 0.47 0.09 0.19 2.62 0.09 0.19 0.28
36 5.44 0.56 0.28 3.09 0.47 0.47 - 0.66 - - 1.03 0.38 0.28 0.19
37 4.41 0.09 0.19 2.62 0.09 0.47 0.19 0.09 - - 1.88 0.28 0.19 -
38 7.22 - 0.19 1.31 0.19 1.12 - 0.56 - - 0.66 0.38 0.28 -
39 2.53 0.38 0.28 2.34 0.19 0.75 - 3.94 0.47 - 1.59 0.47 0.09 0.19
40 1.69 0.66 0.28 2.81 0.28 0.47 - 0.47 - - 1.97 0.09 - 0.19
44 1.12 0.75 - 3.75 - 0.38 - 0.38 - - 3.00 0.75 0.75 -
45 0.75 0.38 1.12 2.72 0.94 0.09 0.09 0.66 - 0.09 3.00 0.66 1.31 1.31
46 3.00 0.62 0.88 2.38 0.50 0.12 - 0.75 - - 2.12 0.62 0.5 -
47 7.03 0.19 0.09 1.22 - 0.84 - - - - 0.28 - - -
50 2.81 0.94 0.19 1.69 0.56 0.47 0.09 0.66 0.47 - 2.72 0.66 - -
51 1.78 - 0.19 1.50 0.28 0.66 0.09 0.56 0.47 - 1.59 - 0.19 0.28
52 1.97 0.19 0.09 1.69 - 0.19 0.09 0.56 0.09 - 0.94 0.38 - 0.19
54 3.56 0.19 0.56 1.69 0.19 0.19 - - - - 1.50 0.38 - -
55 5.81 0.19 - 1.03 - 0.28 - 0.38 - - 0.75 - - 0.09
58 5.34 0.09 0.19 1.03 0.28 0.19 - 0.28 - - 0.84 0.09 0.09 0.09
60 12.9 0.09 0.09 2.16 - - - 0.28 - 0.09 0.09 - - 0.09
64 2.16 0.38 0.09 1.59 0.09 0.38 - 0.66 0.19 - 0.94 0.09 0.38 0.28
66 4.69 1.03 0.56 2.34 0.28 0.75 - 0.19 0.09 - 1.50 - 0.09 0.09
67 4.78 0.75 0.09 2.16 0.09 0.19 - 0.28 0.19 - 0.84 - - 0.09
68 6.47 1.22 - 1.03 0.09 0.19 - 1.03 0.09 - 1.22 0.19 0.28 0.47
70 6.94 0.09 - 2.16 0.19 0.38 - 0.84 - 0.19 0.75 - - -
71 2.72 0.19 0.19 2.16 - 0.28 - - - 0.09 0.66 - - -
R1 2.91 0.09 0.09 3.29 0.19 0.38 - 0.66 0.09 - 2.44 - - -
R3 3.56 0.56 - 2.25 - 0.66 - 0.38 - - 2.81 - - -
R4 9.09 0.28 0.09 1.50 0.09 1.41 - - 0.09 - 1.31 - 0.84 0.09
R6 5.06 - - 0.26 - 0.28 0.09 0.09 - - 0.75 - 0.19 0.28
R7 24.0 0.09 0.47 1.5 0.09 0.19 - 0.19 - - 1.12 0.28 0.19 0.28
R8 8.53 0.47 0.84 4.22 0.38 0 - 1.50 0.56 - 1.78 0.84 0.28 0.09
R9 6.00 0.66 0.47 1.59 0.19 0.09 - 0.75 - - 1.41 - - 0.19
R10 4.69 0.75 - 1.59 0.38 - - 0.75 - - 2.62 0.19 0.19 -
R11 8.25 0.56 0.47 2.72 0.47 5.81 - 0.66 0.09 - 1.88 - 0.09 -
R12 5.16 - 0.56 2.72 0.09 0.94 - 0.19 - - 1.03 0.19 0.09 -
R13 1.88 - 0.28 2.44 - 0.09 0.09 1.50 0.28 - 2.53 0.38 - 0.09
R14 3.75 1.22 0.38 2.06 0.38 0.19 - - 0.09 0.28 2.72 0.19 - -
Total 274 20.4 13.8 97.5 9.79 24.7 1.00 26.4 4.19 1.51 71.4 11.4 8.79 6.07
B/O=Blackbirds/Orioles; FI=Finches; FL=Flycatchers; G/S=Grassland/Sparrows; MI=Mimids; SW=Swallows;
TGC=Tanagers/Grosbeaks/Crossbills; TH=Thrushes; T/C=Titmice/Chickadees; VI=Vireos; WA=Warblers; WX=Waxwings;
WR=Wrens; CV=Corvids

APPENDIX E: Sensitive species recorded on each transect during grassland breeding bird transect
surveys at the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May-July, 2010;
Transect AMBI COHA GRSP HESP NOHA OSPR PBGR SEWR UPSA VESP Total
1 - - - - - - - 3 - - 3
2 - - 5 - - - - 1 - - 6
4 - - - - - - - - - - 0
5 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1
12 - - - - - - - - - - 0
14 - - 3 - - - - - - - 3
15 - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
17 - - 5 - - 1 - - - - 6
21 - - - - - - - - 2 - 2
22 - - 1 - - - - 6 - - 7
24 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2
26 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 2
27 - - - - - - - - - - 0
28 - - 2 - - - - - - - 2
32 - - - - - - - - - - 0
36 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1
37 1 - 9 - - - - 2 - 3 15
38 - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 2
39 1 - 4 - 1 - - - - - 6
40 - - 1 - - - - - - 2 3
44 - - - - - - - - - - 0
45 - - - - - - - - - 1 1
46 - - - - - - - - - - 0
47 1 - - - - - - - - - 1
50 - 1 - - - - - - - - 1
51 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1
52 - - 2 - 1 - - - - 2 5
54 - - - - - - - - - - 0
55 - - - - - - - - - - 0
58 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1
60 1 - 11 - - - - - - - 12
64 1 - 8 - - - - - - - 9
66 - - 2 - - - - - - 2 4
67 - - 3 - - - - - - - 3
68 1 - - - - - - - - - 1
70 - - - - - - - - - - 0
71 - - 5 1 1 - - - - 1 8
R1 - - 1 - - - - - - 2 3
R3 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 3
R4 4 - 2 - - - 1 2 - - 9
R6 4 - - - 1 - - 1 - - 6
R7 1 - 3 - - - - - - 2 6
R8 - - 12 - - - - - - - 12
R9 - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
R10 - - 1 - - - - 2 - - 3
R11 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 2
R12 1 - 5 - - - - - - - 6
R13 - - - - - - - - - - 0
R14 - - - - - - - - - - 0
TOTAL 16 1 90 1 7 1 1 23 2 18 160
AMBI=American bittern; COHA=Cooper’s hawk; GRSP=Grasshopper sparrow; HESP=Henslow’s sparrow; NOHA=Northern harrier;
OSPR=Osprey; PBGR=Pied-billed grebe; SEWR=Sedge wren; UPSA=Upland sandpiper; VESP=Vesper sparrow.


BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BP SDEIS App F-2 WEST Survey Reports Cape Vincent

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WEST Survey Reports

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

December 23, 2010

NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. i December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii December 23, 2010

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

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 2 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 3 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 4 December 23, 2010

Comparison with 2006 Acoustic Data

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 5 December 23, 2010

Bat Activity and Fatality Patterns

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 6 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 7 December 23, 2010

Data from the following sources:

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 8 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 9 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 10 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 11 December 23, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 12 December 23, 2010

NATURAL RESOURCES  SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS

December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. i December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii December 15, 2010

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

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iv December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 5 December 15, 2010

Figure 1. Location of the Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area.

Spring Raptor Migration Surveys

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 6 December 15, 2010

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Data Compilation and Storage

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 7 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 8 December 15, 2010

Species Diversity and Richness

Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence

Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 9 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 10 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 11 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 12 December 15, 2010

Mean Use, Percent Composition, and Frequency of Occurrence

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 13 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 14 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 15 December 15, 2010

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 16 December 15, 2010

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Mean Use (birds/20-min survey)

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 17 December 15, 2010

Flight Height Characteristics and Exposure Index

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 18 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 19 December 15, 2010

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 20 December 15, 2010