Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota

Transcription

1 Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota November 2012 Prepared for: Gamesa Energy USA LLC Attn: Bill Smeaton 3001 Broadway Street NE, Suite 695 Minneapolis, MN Prepared by:

2 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Consultation History Regulatory Framework Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BBCS Term BBCS Project Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Selection Project Characteristics Turbines Access Roads Collection System and Substation Transmission Line Meteorological Towers Operations and Maintenance Building Project Operations, Maintenance, and Decommissioning AVIAN AND BAT RESOURCES Habitat Description Habitat Suitability Existing Bird Monitoring Data Pre-Construction Avian Surveys Screening-Level Point Count Survey Eagle Nest Surveys Eagle Flight Pattern Survey Pre-Construction Bat Surveys Stationary Survey Mobile Survey Bat Species and Frequency Groups Detected During Surveys Seasonal Distribution of Bat Activity Vertical Distribution of Bat Activity AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT SITING PROCESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BIRDS AND BATS Birds Overview of Potential Impacts Potential Impacts from the Project

3 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Potential Impacts to Eagles Bats Overview of Potential Impacts Potential Impacts from the Project BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Pre-Construction BMPs Construction BMPs Post-Construction BMPs MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Post-Construction Monitoring Monitoring Goals Species to be Monitored Permits and Wildlife Handling Procedures...41 Permits...41 Wildlife Handling Procedures Intensive Monitoring...42 Study Design...42 Field Methods Statistical Methods for Estimating Fatality Rates Data Analysis, Reporting, and Consultation...46 Data Analysis...46 Reporting Adaptive Management...46 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types and Extents within the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Area (Fillmore County, Minnesota) Table 2 Summary of Bat Passes (mean per night) by Detector Height, Season, and Frequency Group for 2009 Stationary Pre-Construction Surveys at the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project (Fillmore County, Minnesota) Table 3 Bat Passes (mean per transect per survey night) by Season for Mobile Pre- Construction Surveys at EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project (Fillmore County, Minnesota)

4 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Layout and Land Cover Figure 2: Project Layout and Environmental Features Figure 3: Harmony Wind Constraints Map Figure 3b: : Harmony Wind Constraints Map (continued) LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Eagle Conservation Plan (Placeholder) Appendix B: List of Setbacks and Other Constraints Appendix C: Existing Bird Data Table Appendix D: Bird Survey Summary Memo Appendix E: Preliminary Eagle Survey Results Memo Appendix F: Bat Survey Summary Memo Appendix G: Turbine Layout History 4

5 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November INTRODUCTION EcoHarmony West Wind, LLC (Harmony Wind), a wholly owned subsidiary of Gamesa Energy USA, LLC (Gamesa), is developing the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project (Project) in Fillmore County, Minnesota (Figure 1). The Project is designed to generate approximately 116 megawatts (MW) with MW wind turbine generators (WTG) and associated operations and maintenance building, access roads, collector line system, transmission line, and substations. 1.1 Purpose of the Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing sources of renewable energy in the United States. Construction and operation of wind energy projects provides a competitive source of inexhaustible, zero-emissions energy to meet the nation s rapidly growing energy demands but does have the potential to impact bird and bat populations through habitat fragmentation, displacement, and mortality due to collision with or proximity to WTG blades (NWCC 2010). Harmony Wind has developed this Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) in a good faith effort to avoid and reduce potential impacts to birds and bats at the Project. This BBCS is a living document that will evolve in response to Project conditions throughout the life of the Project. Specific goals of the Harmony Wind BBCS are to: 1) Develop measures that, when implemented for the Project, will avoid and reduce potential impacts to birds and bats during construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the Project; 2) Develop effective post-construction monitoring and adaptive management procedures to guide management actions for the life of the Project; 3) Develop a protocol for consistent, ongoing communication and reporting to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Minnesota Department of Commerce, Energy Facility Permitting Staff (DOC-EFP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or the Service) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR); and 4) Outline Harmony Wind s efforts to implement recommendations and best practices contained with the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (March 23, 2012). 1.2 Consultation History The following is a summary of correspondence and meetings held with various regulatory permitting entities responsible for the review of the proposed Project. October 22, 2008: January 26, 2009: Harmony Wind submitted an application for a Certificate of Need for a 200-MW Project to the PUC. Harmony Wind submitted a Site Permit Application for the Project to the PUC. Prior to submitting the application, Harmony Wind contacted state and federal agencies to request information 5

6 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 relevant to the Project. MDNR s initial assessment of natural resources for the Project was included in the permit application. July 13, 2009: August 16, 2009 February 3, 2010: February 19, 2010: June 9, 2010: January, 2011 July 29, 2011 August 25, 2011 October 1, 2011: February 2, 2012: March 13, 2012: Harmony Wind submitted a request to the PUC for expansion of the Certificate of Need to cover a 280-MW Project. Harmony Wind submitted an application to the PUC for a route permit for a 161 kv transmission line to interconnect the Project to the larger transmission grid. The PUC issued a site permit for an earlier 280MW version of the Project. The PUC granted a Certificate of Need to the Project for a name plate capacity of 280MW. The PUC issued a high voltage transmission line route permit, with appropriate conditions, for the Project. USFWS Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance released. Harmony Wind met with USFWS to discuss concerns raised regarding bald eagles. USFWS recommended conducting surveys to determine the level of eagle use within the Project area and the development of an Eagle Conservation Plan. Upon review of the new survey data USFWS would determine if a Nonpurposeful Take Permit would be warranted for this site. USFWS expressed willingness to work through this process while the Project was being constructed and operated. MDNR Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Minnesota released. MDNR Guidance for Commercial Wind Energy Projects released. Harmony Wind submitted to the PUC a Petition for Determination that Time Extension Is Warranted Without Further Hearing and Recertification for the Project s Certificate of Need to allow a change in the in-service date of the Project and requested an amendment to the site permit to provide the Permittee (Harmony Wind) with two additional years to obtain a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or other enforceable mechanism for sale of the electricity and to commence Project construction. The PUC determined that the change in timing of the Project s Certificate of Need from December 2010 to June 2014 was acceptable without recertification. 6

7 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 March 23, 2012: March 23, 2012: March 23, 2012: USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines released. Jamie Schrenzel of the MDNR provided a review of the Project s site permit amendment request to the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The MDNR recommended the PUC amend the permit to include natural resource permit conditions, requested to review the Project s acoustic bat survey data and report, and indicated a concern that Project turbines may impact karst features. The MDNR also recommended the development of an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) for the Project and micrositing of turbines. Tony Sullins of the Service provided a review of the Project s site permit amendment request to the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Service outlined issues pertaining to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and Fish and Wildlife Act of The Service noted that: no federally listed species are expected to occur in the Project area, although the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), known to occur in the Project vicinity, is currently under consideration for listing under the ESA, no Service-owned refuge lands or Waterfowl Production Areas are currently within one mile of the Project area, and the transmission infrastructure associated with the Project may present an electrocution risk to raptors and measures to reduce this risk should be considered. Additionally, the Service recommended that: no turbines should be located within ¼ mile of Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, or similar federally or state-funded restoration projects, the Service s Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012) should be considered in the Project s planning and design processes, daily movement patterns of bald eagles nesting within two miles of the Project area should be assessed, at least one additional year of assessments of all bird and bat use of the Project area should be conducted 7

8 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 before proceeding with Project design (i.e. turbine micrositing), including the analysis of eagle flight paths and use concentrations and the installation of two AnaBat SI detectors per meteorological tower, three years of post-construction bird and bat fatality monitoring should be conducted at the Project and used to adjust operations to reduce mortality if necessary and feasible, and an ABPP should be developed for the Project. April 20, 2012: June 20, 2012: June 21, 2012: June 26, 2012: July 19, 2012: July 25, 2012: Deborah Pile of Energy Facility Permitting at the Minnesota Department of Commerce provided a site permit amendment update to the PUC stating that more information was required from the Permittee regarding eagle nests, acoustic bat surveys, and various changes to the Project before a decision would be made regarding the request. Jamie Schrenzel of the MDNR provided a review of the Project s acoustic bat survey, eagle survey, and avian survey. The MDNR recommended the use of Project siting and turbine micrositing to address impacts to bird and bat species and encouraged consideration of karst features in the turbine layout as well. It was noted that a more detailed review and formal risk assessment could be provided once the turbine layout was available. Tony Sullins of the USFWS provided comments regarding the Project s May 2012 Eagle Survey Report. The Service recommended, based on the results of the eagle survey and the avian survey, the development of an Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP) for the Project. Gamesa submitted a CD containing GIS shapefiles of the Project layout to the MDNR for review against the context of various environmental study results. Jamie Schrenzel of the MDNR provided a letter in response to the turbine layout files submitted June 26, The letter noted that the MDNR estimated a high risk to bird and bat species for the Project, due to the Project s proximity to protected wildlife areas, known bat hibernaculum, and karst features, and documentation of state-listed birds in the Project area. It was recommended that post-construction avian and bat fatality studies at the Project follow MDNR draft wildlife protocols for high risk sites. Jamie MacAlister of DOC-EFP provided a site permit amendment update to the PUC stating that the Permittee would respond to all 8

9 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 data requests by mid-september, 2012 and outlining a new Project timeline. October 11, 2012: Harmony Wind again provided a much-revised turbine layout to USFWS, MDNR and EFP. While no agency provided any specific guidance on setback distances, the October 11 layout responded to prior feedback from these agencies regarding concerns over protecting bald eagles, loggerhead shrike and bats, by incorporating a number of conservative setbacks from wildlife habitat features. October 12, 2012 Harmony Wind provided a detailed description of the October 11 layout and solicited comments from the USFWS, MDNR and EFP in an agency coordination meeting. October 24, 2012 Jamie Schrenzel of the MDNR provided a letter in response to the October 12, 2012 turbine layout expressing concerns and requesting elimination of the cluster of nine turbines in the northwest corner of the Project, nearest to the Forestville State Park. 1.3 Regulatory Framework Endangered Species Act MDNR s letter also noted that, when weighing the priority of protecting bat habitat near the Forestville State Park with other considerations, Harmony Wind may want to reevaluate its rigid application of a voluntary 500 foot setback from potential loggerhead shrike habitat (while continuing to avoid direct impacts to such habitat) and the voluntary 500 foot setback from other wooded areas. In addition, MDNR proposed seven alternative turbine locations to the nine recommended for removal. The purpose of the ESA is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend may be conserved, and to provide a program for the conservation of such species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered under the ESA; under Federal regulation, take of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. Take, as defined by the ESA, means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA 3(19)]. The Service s implementing regulations further define the term harm to mean significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. They also define harass as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of 9

10 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The 1982 amendments to the ESA established a provision in Section 10 of the ESA that allows for incidental take of endangered and threatened species of wildlife by non-federal entities. Incidental take is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity [50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ]. Section 10 of the ESA establishes a program whereby persons seeking to pursue activities that otherwise could give rise to liability for unlawful take of federally-protected species as defined in Section 9 of the ESA, may receive an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which exempts them from such liability. Under Section 10 of the ESA, applicants may be authorized, through issuance of an ITP, to conduct activities that may result in take of a listed species, as long as the take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Species listed under the ESA are not currently known to occur within the Project area. However, the northern long-eared bat is currently under review for listing and the species is known to occur in the Project vicinity (see Section 3.4 below). If the northern long-eared bat becomes listed during the life of the Project, Harmony Wind will reinitiate Section 10 consultation with the USFWS Twin Cities Field Office Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA (16 U.S.C ) prohibits the taking, killing, injuring, or capture of listed migratory birds. Neither the MBTA nor its implementing regulations found in 50 CFR Part 21 provide for the permitting of incidental take of migratory birds that may be killed or injured by wind turbines. To avoid and reduce potential impacts to species protected under the MBTA at the Project, Harmony Wind will implement this BBCS throughout the life of the Project. This BBCS incorporates the results of pre-construction avian use surveys within the Project area, patterns of bird mortality reported at other wind energy facilities in the Midwest, and recommendations obtained through consultation with the Service and the MDNR for reducing impacts to birds. Avoidance and minimization measures for reducing impacts to MBTA-listed species at the Project were developed based on these data and are described in this BBCS. The USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (March 23, 2012) provide a decision framework using a tiered approach. This process provides an approach for collecting information in increasing detail to evaluate risk and make siting and operations decisions. The Tiers include: Tier 1 Preliminary site evaluation (landscape-scale screening of possible project sites), Tier 2 Site characterization (broad characterization of one or more potential project sites), Tier 3 Field studies to document site wildlife and habitat and predict project impacts, Tier 4 Post-construction studies to estimate impacts, and Tier 5 Post-construction studies and research. The first three Tiers correspond to the pre-construction evaluation phase of wind energy development. Each of the Tiers will be discussed in more detail throughout the remainder of this document. 10

11 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The BGEPA of 1940 (50 CFR 22.26), and its implementing regulations, provides additional protection to bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) such that it is unlawful to take an eagle. In this statute the definition of take is to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest, or disturb. The term disturb is defined in regulations found at 50 CFR 22.3 to include to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. The Service published a final rule (Eagle Permit Rule) on September 11, 2009 under BGEPA authorizing limited issuance of permits to take bald eagles and golden eagles for the protection of...other interests in any particular locality where the take is compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle and the golden eagle, is associated with and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity, and cannot practicably be avoided (FR ). On February 18, 2011, the Service announced the availability of Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (FR ) (USFWS 2011). The draft Guidance provides a means of compliance with BGEPA by providing recommendations for: 1) Conducting early pre-construction assessments to identify important eagle use areas; 2) Avoiding, minimizing, and/or compensating for potential adverse effects to eagles; and, 3) Monitoring for impacts to eagles during construction and operation. The Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance interprets and clarifies the permit requirements in the regulations at 50 CFR and 22.27, and does not impose any binding requirements beyond those specified in the regulations. This BBCS currently incorporates site-specific, regional, and agency information and measures developed to avoid and reduce impacts to other MBTA-listed species and bald eagles at the Project. As Harmony Wind collects more site-specific eagle data, an ECP will be developed for the Project (in consultation with the USFWS and MDNR) and will be incorporated into this document as Appendix A. 1.4 BBCS Term This BBCS will be in effect through construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the Project (Term). This Term will cover the construction of the Project, the 30-year term for the Project site permit and the Project leases (20-year initial lease period with two five-year extension options). Harmony Wind will update this BBCS, as needed, through adaptive management (Section 7) throughout the Term. 11

12 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November BBCS Project Area This BBCS applies to all those portions of the lands leased by Harmony Wind for construction and operation of the Project (Figure 1). These lands include the locations for all 58 WTGs and associated Project facilities. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Harmony Wind is a utility scale wind energy facility located in Fillmore County, Minnesota, located just west of the City of Harmony (Figure 1). The Project is designed to generate approximately 116 MW with MW WTGs and associated operations and maintenance building, access roads, collector line system, transmission line, and substations. Approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 kilometers [km]) of overhead, 161 Kilovolt (kv) transmission line will extend from a new switching substation adjacent to the ITC Midwest 161 kv transmission line in Harmony Township to a Project substation in Bristol Township. Project construction is expected to commence in spring 2013, with commercial operation set for year s end, Site Selection The region of Minnesota in which the Project has been located is conducive to wind development due to a good wind resource, low population density, and an agricultural-based land use. The Project area s topography is dominated by a series of wide ridges with an east/west orientation that traverse the length of the Project area; this promotes a good wind resource in the area. Additionally, an Interconnection Feasibility Study indicated that the ITC Midwest 161 kv powerline controlled by Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), located approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) from the Project area, can accommodate the addition of generation from the Project. Turbine siting and spacing has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and permit conditions. Turbine siting also reflects internal turbine spacing requirements to ensure optimum performance of the turbines to maximize electricity production and environmental characteristics of the area to minimize Project impacts on natural resources. The region s karst topography was a major consideration during turbine layout design; turbines have been sited to avoid all areas that may be susceptible to sinkhole formation. Turbine locations were selected to avoid riparian corridors and wooded areas and to generally have a minimum impact on drainage and surface waters. Turbines were not sited within Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) Areas of Biodiversity Significance (Figure 2). Turbine setbacks or avoidance areas were also established from bald eagle nests, bat hibernaculum and roost areas, and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) (Figure 2). The Project layout was developed using the following minimum habitat setback criteria: Approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) from current bald eagle nests, Approximately 500 feet (152 m) from forested habitat (i.e., larger than one acre) within 12

13 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 the Project area, Approximately 5 miles (8.0 km) from Mystery Cave (bat hibernaculum), Approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) from Goliath Cave (bat hibernaculum), Approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the Forestville State Park, which includes bat roosting and potential hibernaculum areas within Forestville State Park, and Outside of documented loggerhead shrike habitat. In addition to incorporating the habitat setbacks and avoidance measures discussed above, Harmony Wind also designed the current layout to meet the many other constraints and requirements of the site permit. Appendix B lists the other setbacks and constraints incorporated in the current layout. Figures 3a and 3b are a constraint maps demonstrating compliance with these various setbacks and other constraints. 2.2 Project Characteristics The Project area is located just west of the City of Harmony, Minnesota. The Project turbines will be dispersed across roughly 49,500 acres (20,000 hectares [ha]) of land leased from private landowners. Land use throughout the Project area is dominated by agriculture (i.e., row crops), with smaller areas of pasture and wooded parcels near buildings and drainages. Homesteads and rental housing properties are spread throughout the Project area. The Project is located on land leased from participating landowners, who will continue existing use of the land (mainly farming) to a significant extent. The Project will not cause impacts to any other industries within the Project area. Additional detail of various Project components is provided in the following sections Turbines The Project is designed to include 58 WTGs; all turbines will be the Gamesa G MW model. Each wind turbine consists of three major components: the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor. The height of the tower, or hub height (height from foundation to top of tower) of the Gamesa G97 model is approximately 295 feet (90 meters [m]). The Gamesa G97 towers are conical steel structures manufactured in multiple sections. A control panel inside the base of each turbine tower will house communication and electronic circuitry. The nacelle sits atop the tower, and the rotor hub is mounted to the front of the nacelle. Each rotor consists of three, carbon fiber and pre-impregnated epoxy glass fiber blades that are approximately 156 feet (47.5 m) in length. The total turbine height (i.e., height at the highest blade tip position) is approximately 454 feet (138.5 m). Each turbine will be equipped with a wind speed and direction sensor that will communicate to the turbine s control system when sufficient winds are present for operation. The turbines will feature variable-speed control and independent blade pitch to assure aerodynamic efficiency. The design wind cut-in speed is 3 m/s and the cut-out speed is 25 m/s. The Project turbines will be marked and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/ K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, white paint/synchronized red lights - Chapters 4, 12 & 13 (Turbines). 13

14 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 This will likely entail single, medium-intensity aviation warning lights attached to the top of nacelles located on the outside perimeter of the Project area and some additional locations within the Project area. These lights will be flashing red strobes and will operate only at night. The turbine lighting scheme will be subject to FAA approval. This is also consistent with the Best Management Practices (BMP) described in the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Steel-reinforced concrete foundations will be constructed to anchor each WTG. The electricity generated by each turbine will be stepped up by a pad-mounted transformer at the base of each turbine to a power collection line Access Roads The Project s access road network will provide access to turbine sites for construction, maintenance, and decommissioning. The turbine layout has been designed to help minimize the length and extent of the access roads required. The roads will be constructed with crushed limestone aggregate base over a woven geotextile fabric. During construction, it will be necessary to temporarily maintain access road widths of up to 40 feet (12 m) to allow heavy equipment to access the turbine site. After construction is complete, the roads will typically be maintained at 17 feet (5 m) wide Collection System and Substation The buried electric collection and feeder line system will consist of collection lines connecting turbines, or groups of turbines, to the electric feeder lines. The lease agreements with the landowners will provide for the location, construction, and maintenance of the electric collection and feeder lines as necessary for Project operation. The feeder lines will convey the power from the turbines to a collector substation that will be sited near the geographic center of the Project. The substation will transform power from 34.5 kv to a transmission voltage of 161 kv. The collector substation will require approximately five acres (2 ha). All necessary permits for the substation will be obtained, and the substation will be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable standards. A second switching substation will be constructed at the MISO interconnect point to deliver power to the transmission grid through the ITC Midwest 161 kv transmission line. The switching substation will be located immediately adjacent to the interconnect point Transmission Line An overhead 161 kv transmission line will be constructed to transmit power from the collector substation to the MISO interconnect point approximately one mile (1.6 km) east of the City of Harmony. The transmission line route will extend across Fillmore County from the Bristol Township (collector substation) to the Harmony Township (MISO interconnect point). The transmission line will be approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) long. A Route Permit for Construction of a High Voltage Transmission Line was issued on June 9, 2010 (PUC Docket No. IP-6688/TL ). The line will be designed, routed, and constructed in accordance with the conditions stated in the Route Permit and all applicable standards and codes. 14

15 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Transmission line poles will be self-supporting wooden or steel structures. Poles will be located just outside road rights-of-way or just inside road rights-of-way to minimize disturbance to vegetation. A very limited number of trees may be removed if necessary to accommodate location of the line. Due to the large size of transmission line structures, the spacing of energized (i.e., phases) and grounded parts on the transmission line will exceed the avian-safe standards established by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006) Meteorological Towers There are four temporary meteorological (MET) towers currently installed within the Project area to collect wind data and support performance testing of the Project. Three of the MET towers are 197-foot (60-m) tall galvanized steel tubular structures supported by guy wires. The fourth MET tower is a 263-foot (80-m) tall lattice steel structure supported by guy wires. All of the towers include wind monitoring instruments. The temporary MET towers will be replaced with permanent MET towers in the spring or summer of The permanent MET towers will be free-standing and will not have guy wires Operations and Maintenance Building An operations and maintenance (O&M) building is expected to be constructed in conjunction with the Project. The size and final location of this facility have not yet been determined. When constructed, the O&M building will be sized adequately for a staff of 8 to 12 full-time employees, with work space suitable for maintaining turbine components and storage of equipment and supplies. 2.3 Project Operations, Maintenance, and Decommissioning Throughout the life of the Project, operations will be managed through a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) to help monitor and control the facility. The SCADA system will run over fiber optic cable connecting the turbines to the Project s O&M facility. The system will monitor turbine performance, meteorological gauges, and related system equipment on a continuous basis and alert O&M staff of any turbine or system irregularities. The system will provide a log of system operation and performance. Because the SCADA system can be accessed remotely, it will allow monitoring of the facility outside of the normal working hours for O&M staff. The O&M staff will be responsible for creating, scheduling, and updating individual turbine maintenance records. The staff will perform daily inspections of the operations to monitor the condition of all the different components of the Project. The anticipated operational life of the Project is 30 years. The land easement documents and site permit obtained for the Project provide for this 30-yr life. Decommissioning and restoration would be performed within 12 months of the end of the 30-yr period. Decommissioning will entail the removal of all structures, Project improvements, and related infrastructure to a depth of 48 inches (122 centimeters [cm]). Soils will be de-compacted to a depth of 36 inches (91 cm) to pre-project conditions and stabilized, as necessary, to prevent excessive erosion. Chapter 7 of the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines provides examples of BMPs to be considered for site construction and operations, retrofitting, repowering and decommissioning depending on project-specific circumstances. The BMPs will be evaluated for 15

16 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 applicability to the various stages of the Project and implemented when and where appropriate. See Section 6 for more detail. 3 AVIAN AND BAT RESOURCES Tier 1 (Preliminary Site Evaluation) as described in the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, is a landscape scale screening process using existing information sources to identify blocks of native habitat, ecological communities and other areas of broad scale wildlife value. Tier 2 (Site Characterization) focuses on site-specific natural resource information and existing information specific to the Project area to evaluate potential risks to sensitive or protected natural resource features. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 provide a summary of information resulting from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation process. 3.1 Habitat Description The Project area is located on approximately 49,500 acres (20,000 ha) in southeast Minnesota. The geomorphic surface of the region s landscape was extensively altered by glacial processes (MDNR 2012a). Topography within the Project area is dominated by a series of wide ridges with an east/west orientation that traverse the length of the Project. These ridges reach an elevation of 1,350 feet (411 m) and often drop vertically by 150 to 200 feet (46 to 61 m) at their edges. The Project area is within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, which extends across parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas (MDNR 2012b). Within the boundaries of Minnesota, the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province covers approximately 12 million acres (4,900,000 ha) in the central and southeastern parts of the state. This broad region is a transition zone occurring between the somewhat semiarid western portions of the state originally covered by prairie grasslands, and the more humid mixed coniferous and deciduous forests found to the east, north, and northeast. Land use within the Project area is dominated by agriculture; cropland and pasture comprises approximately 74% of the land cover (Figure 1, Table 1). The remaining land cover consists of grasslands (13%), deciduous and evergreen forest (8%), developed lands (5%), and small areas of open water and wetlands (less than 1% each). Although not cultivated, grasslands in the Project area are used for livestock operations, pasture, and hay production. Many of the woodlands found within the Project area are small and fragmented and are associated with farmsteads and drainages. Tracts of more contiguous, mature forests are found within the Forestville State Park located immediately northwest of the Project area (Figure 1). Other areas outside of the Project area to the north and south contain stands of mixed forest habitat. Most streams within the Project area are small, intermittent streams or grassy swales that originate at the heads of valleys situated along either side of the ridgeline that runs generally east/west through the Project area; these relatively small tributary streams ultimately connect to larger river systems outside of the Project boundary. The Upper Iowa River, which flows through the southernmost part of the Project area, is the largest waterway in the Project area. Other named waterways within the Project area include: Bloody Run Creek, Willow Creek, Crystal Creek, Pine Creek, Elliott Creek, Partridge Creek, Deer Creek, Canfield Creek, and Camp Creek. 16

17 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Table 1 National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types and Extents within the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Area (Fillmore County, Minnesota) Land Cover Type 17 Approximate Acres (ha) Approximate Percent Composition Cultivated Crops 26,897 (10,885) 54% Pasture/Hay 9,641 (3,902) 20% Grassland 6,306 (2,552) 13% Deciduous Forest 4,053 (1,640) 8% Developed, Open Space 1,469 (594) 3% Developed, Low Intensity 975 (395) 2% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 30 (12) <1% Woody Wetlands 27 (11) <1% Developed, Medium Intensity 26 (10.5) <1% Evergreen Forest 23 (9.3) <1% Developed, High Intensity 12 (4.9) <1% Open Water 7 (2.8) <1% Total 49,468 (20,019) 100% Designated natural resource areas within the Project area are limited to only a few MCBS Areas of Biodiversity Significance (MDNR 2012c) (Figure 2). The MCBS Areas of Biodiversity Significance that are located in the north central portion of the Project area include nine very small pockets and one relatively large area, all of which are associated with Willow Creek, one of its tributaries, and the adjoining oak forests. These areas are all classified as having moderate biodiversity significance, meaning they contain significant occurrences of rare species in moderately disturbed native plant communities and/or landscapes that have a strong potential for recovery. In the south central portion of the Project area, a medium size area of high biodiversity significance occurs just within and south of the Project boundary along the Upper Iowa River. Areas with high biodiversity significance contain sites with very good quality occurrences of the rarest species and high-quality examples of rare native plant communities and/or important functional landscapes. The MCBS sites within the Project area contain karst features such as springs, sinkholes, underground streams, and caves. They also contain several state-listed species including landsnail, rattlesnake, and plant species. Several designated natural resource areas located adjacent to and in close proximity to the Project area may influence bird and bat use and movement within the Project area. The most notable is Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park, located northwest of the Project area. The park covers 3,120 acres (1,263 ha), with vegetation consisting primarily of oak, maple, and basswood forest, along with some conifer and lowland deciduous forest (MDNR 2012d). The entire park is considered an area of outstanding biodiversity significance by the MCBS, and as

18 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 such is considered to be a site that contains the best occurrences of the rarest species, the most outstanding examples of the rarest native plant communities, and/or the largest, most intact functional landscapes. Areas adjacent to the outstanding biodiversity significance area are categorized as high and moderate areas of biodiversity significance. The extensive upland forests and adjacent forested stream valleys provide important habitat for up to 175 bird species, including several important neotropical migrants, which have been recorded in the park. The park also serves as an important bat hibernaculum for the state and provides roost trees for tree bat species. In addition, the park lies within the R. J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest; the state forest boundary also overlaps partially with the northwest portion of the Project area. Other notable designated natural resource areas in close proximity to the Project area include the Cherry Grove MDNR Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the Cherry Grove Blind Valley MDNR Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), both of which are located west of the Project area (MDNR 2012e). The Cherry Grove WMA is comprised of 78 acres (32 ha) of native grasses and is managed for upland game birds. The Cherry Grove Blind Valley SNA is a large underground cave system with multiple entrances and connecting sinkholes. No Important Bird Areas are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Habitat Suitability In general, the landscape within the Project area is most suitable for breeding landbird species that use the small woodlots and open agricultural lands. Due to high levels of disturbance and lack of native vegetation, agricultural habitats are of limited quality for birds and bats. Cultivated agriculture is rarely used as nesting habitat by birds, although certain, disturbance-tolerant species may forage in crops. Agricultural fields may attract large flocks of birds, such as blackbirds and Canada geese (Branta canadensis), during the fall migration and winter seasons (Erickson et al. 2002). Given the landscape matrix of primarily row crop agriculture in which the MCBS Areas of Biodiversity Significance within the Project area are situated, it is likely these areas provide important nesting and migratory stopover habitat for landbirds within the Project area. The lack of extensive wetland habitats, major lakes, and impoundments within the Project area likely limits its use by significant numbers of waterfowl and waterbirds. Staging areas for waterfowl and shorebirds and colonial nest sites are not known to occur within the Project area. Forest fragments such as those found within the Project area are typically not considered highquality nesting habitat due to their limited size and abundance of edge habitat, which is associated with higher incidence of nest predation and parasitism (U.S. Geological Survey 2011). These small patches of forest habitat may receive higher levels of bird use during migration, as forest fragments often provide stopover habitat for migrating passerines and other birds (Packett and Dunning 2009). At a habitat screening level the lack of water features such as large wetlands, major lakes, impoundments or moderate sized river systems with forested riparian habitat within the existing agricultural setting of the Project area would appear to limit its suitability for bald eagles. The Upper Iowa River located along the Iowa/Minnesota border, and near the south Project area boundary, appears to have the best potential for eagle habitat in the general geographic area. However, during various consultation meetings and correspondence with the MDNR and USFWS prior to submittal of the PUC Site Permit Application, representatives from these agencies were not aware of any eagle nests or significant eagle use within the Project area at that point in time. Subsequent information from a local resident regarding a potential winter eagle roost area in a forest valley and a potential bald eagle nest along a stream within the Project area was submitted to the DOC-EFP after the closing date for filing public comments 18

19 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 related to the site permit application. Also, the MDNR recently revealed the location of a potential eagle roosting area within the Forestville State Park. This potential roosting area is associated with a trout stream located in a forest valley. Based in this information it is apparent that eagles are using these habitat features within and adjacent to Project area. The majority of the bat species found in Minnesota prefer to roost in woodlands and many species forage along wooded stream corridors or over water (Harvey et al. 1999). The Project area provides limited roosting and foraging habitat in the form of woodland and streams. Limited information is available on how bats use agricultural areas in the Midwest; agricultural habitat does not provide roosting habitat for bats, but certain bat species, such as the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), may forage over agricultural fields within the Project area. Other bat species in the region may occasionally forage over crops within the Project area but are more likely to use forested and open water habitats (BCI 2010). Species such as the big brown bat and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) will roost, and even overwinter, in attics or large buildings. The farmsteads located in the Project area, with their farmhouses and outbuildings, likely provide suitable roosting locations for species such as these. Likewise, buildings in towns such as Harmony also likely provide suitable roosting and possibly overwintering sites for species such as the big brown bat and little brown bat. In addition, Mystery Cave, located in the Forestville State Park, and Goliath Cave located in the Cherry Grove Blind Valley MDNR SNA are known winter hibernacula for cave dwelling species, such as the big brown bat, little brown bat, and northern long-eared bat. More recently, additional information was provided by the MDNR generally delineating other areas within the Forestville State Park known to be summer bat roost areas and/or potential hibernacula. 3.2 Existing Bird Monitoring Data Several existing data sources were reviewed to determine the likelihood of rare bird species presence within or adjacent to the Project area. This effort included correspondence with the MDNR and review of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas (IBBA), and Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data. Correspondence with the MDNR revealed that three statelisted species have been recorded within or near the Project area and three state special concern bird species are known to occur near the Project area in Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. No records of federally listed bird species exist for Fillmore County, Minnesota. The database review indicated that several state special concern and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) bird species are known to occur near the Project area and may use the habitat within the Project area during the breeding season. A total of 12 SGCN bird species have been documented along the nearest BBS route to the Project and may occur within the Project area. A total of four SGCN bird species have confirmed or probable breeding evidence within the Lime Springs East IBBA block, including the bald eagle, which is listed as a probable breeder within this block. Based on the BBS and IBBA data, several raptor species are known to nest near the Project area, including the American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Cooper s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), bald eagle, and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). The distribution of these special concern, SGCN, and raptor species is likely limited during the breeding season to the scattered areas of woodland, grassland, and wetland habitats within and adjacent to the Project area. Birds detected in the winter on the nearby Decorah, Iowa CBC survey include several rare bird species. Two diurnal raptors and one owl listed as special concern species or SGCN, plus six 19

20 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 additional diurnal raptor species and four additional species of owl have been recorded on the Decorah CBC, suggesting that the Project area may provide staging or wintering areas for both diurnal and nocturnal raptor species. Eight other, non-raptor special concern species or SGCN species were also detected during the CBC. The Table in Appendix C provides a comprehensive summary of existing bird data from the Minnesota Natural History Information database, the LeRoy Breeding Bird Survey Route, the Decorah Christmas Bird Count, and the Lime Springs East Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas block. This table includes information of the status of certain species indicates the species that may inhabit or pass through the Harmony Wind Project area. 3.3 Pre-Construction Avian Surveys Screening-level point count surveys were conducted over the course of one year between June 2008 and May 2009 to characterize general bird use of the Project area and would fall into the Tier 3 category of data collection and impact assessment. These surveys documented a number of bald eagle observations within the Project area; consequently, follow-up surveys were conducted specifically to characterize bald eagle use of the Project area. Ground-based and aerial nest surveys were conducted in spring 2012 to identify bald eagle nests within 10 miles of the Project area, and a bald eagle use/flight pattern survey was initiated in July 2012 to monitor movement patterns of bald eagles within the Project area and nearby eagle nests Screening-Level Point Count Survey One year of screening level pre-construction roadside point count surveys were conducted within the Project area and selected reference points outside of the Project area between June 2008 and May 2009 to characterize general bird use of the area in terms of bird species abundance, richness, frequency, and behavior. The methods and results of these surveys are summarized below; refer to the survey report (NRC 2010) for more information. Methods Standardized bird point count survey methods adapted from Ralph et al. (1995) were used to measure species composition and relative abundance of diurnal birds within the Project area. Survey events were conducted during each season: three in the breeding season, four during fall migration, four in the winter, and three during spring migration. Thirty-two point count stations, stratified by dominant land cover types, were established to sufficiently sample the Project area (Figure 1 in Appendix D). The 32 stations were surveyed on a single day during each survey event; a survey area with a 1,312-foot (400-m) radius was monitored at each station for five minutes during each event. Surveys began around sunrise and continued until all stations were covered; the order in which stations were surveyed was alternated between survey events so that all stations were surveyed during the most optimal time of day. Results A total of 17,259 birds of 110 different species were identified and documented during the surveys. The number of species detected during an individual survey event ranged from 20 species during the winter season to 62 species during the spring migration. The number of individuals detected during a single survey event ranged from 445 birds during the winter season to 1,622 birds during the spring migration. The summer breeding season had the 20

21 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 highest average number of species detected per survey event (52), followed by spring (48), fall (35), and winter (25). The highest average number of individuals detected per survey event occurred during the fall migration (1,414), followed by spring (1,341), summer (1,332), and winter (896). The number of surveys conducted in each season was too limited to determine whether birds commute through the Project area on a regular basis (e.g., between foraging and nesting areas). However, given the proximity of potential feeding areas in agricultural fields within the Project area to designated natural resource areas, the potential for this behavior could exist on the Project s landscape. Appendix D summarizes this survey data in the context of the current Project layout. The five most frequently observed species were: common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis). Two state threatened species were detected: one peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) observed during the fall migration on September 5, 2008, and two loggerhead shrikes observed during spring migration on April 3, Twenty species recognized as SGCN in Minnesota were identified during the surveys. In addition, a number of bald eagles, a state special concern species and a species federally protected under BGEPA, were observed throughout the survey period, but especially during the winter season (40 individuals). A total of 768 individuals (4.4% of all birds documented) were observed flying within the rotor swept zone proposed for the Project at the time of the surveys (i.e., 126 to 400 ft. [38 to 122 m]). Passerines comprised 85% (14,605 individuals) of all birds detected during the avian surveys. Diurnal raptors (including turkey vulture) comprised approximately 4% (652 individuals) of all birds detected. However, 28% (183 individuals) of the raptors observed were flying within the rotor swept zone, while only 4% (586 individuals) of the passerines observed were flying within the rotor swept zone. The species most frequently observed flying within the rotor swept zone were: common grackle, unidentified blackbird spp., turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and Canada goose. Special status species observed within the rotor swept zone included: 11 bald eagles (special concern and BGEPA), two northern harriers (SGCN), and one Swainson s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (SGCN) Eagle Nest Surveys Ground-based and aerial eagle nest surveys were conducted in accordance with the USFWS January 2011 Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance and the 2009 Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle. Ground-based surveys were conducted between February 20, 2012 and March 23, 2012 at 11 point count observation stations during 5 two-day survey events. Each observation point was centered within an 800 meter survey radius and surveys from each observation point lasted 20 minutes. Three active nests, assumed to be bald eagle nests based on their size and observed bald eagle use, were observed using this method. Two of the nests are located outside of the Project boundary and 1 previously identified nest was confirmed within the Project boundary. An aerial nest survey was completed on April 25, A total of 24 north/south transects, extending across and 10 miles beyond the Project area at 1.5 mile intervals, were flown using a helicopter. The helicopter maintained an altitude between 200 and 700 feet above ground level and a speed of no greater than miles per hour. A total of 14 large nests were documented, 11 of which were observed as active eagle nests. There were unsubstantiated 21

22 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 reports of 2 eagle nests within the Project area. One of the nests was confirmed as active during this survey effort but no other nests were located within the Project area. An additional 4 active eagle nests were recorded within 2 miles of the Project area (Figure 2). A total of 19 bald eagles were observed during this aerial nest survey effort Eagle Flight Pattern Survey Methods Twelve eagle survey point count stations were established within or adjacent to the Harmony Wind Project boundary. Five of the survey locations were strategically located to observe eagle activity near the 1 confirmed eagle nest within the Project boundary and 4 eagle nests within 2 miles of the Project boundary (Figure 2). Each of the nests was determined to be active during the aerial and/or ground-based nest surveys conducted in the spring of The remaining 6 survey locations were selected to provide the best vantage points from a landscape perspective to observe a representative sample of eagle use throughout the Project area (Figure 1 in Appendix E). The point count location arrangement was established prior to the development of the current wind Project layout. Each survey point was centered on an 800 meter diameter search radius and the survey duration at each point consisted of 30 minutes. Results (to date) A total of 14 survey events were conducted between 7/18/2012 and 9/27/2012. This equated to 84 hours (5,040 minutes) of survey effort for this time period. Eagles were observed during 8 of the survey events. Eight of the eagles observed were within the 800 meter survey radius and 8 were outside of the radius. Eagle flight patterns were recorded on field map and are presented in Appendix E. Of the 16 eagle observations recorded during the survey effort to date, 8 were observed flying at a height equal to the rotor swept zone and 8 were either above or below this zone. It is interesting to note the majority of the bald eagle sightings were associated with survey points #8 and #9. The exception is eagle observations on 2 dates associated with survey point #5. No eagles were observed at survey point locations near the proposed WTG locations during this survey time period. A majority of the eagle observations were near the Upper Iowa River, which is not surprising given the foraging and roosting habitat available in this area. Due to the frequency of eagle observations at # 8 and #9 it is likely some of these observations involve the same individuals. Also, all 3 of the locations where eagles were observed are associated with nest sites. The only eagle activity observed within the Project boundary was at survey point #8 which is located on the south Project boundary. This survey effort is scheduled to continue through July Pre-Construction Bat Surveys Acoustic bat surveys were conducted in the Project area from June 3 through September 29, 2009 and would fall into the Tier 3 category of data collection and impact assessment. This section presents a summary of the survey results; refer to the survey report (Stantec 2012) for more information. Acoustic surveys incorporated both stationary (i.e., passive) and mobile (i.e., active) echolocation detectors, which have been proven to be effective methodologies for bat/wind farm screening (e.g. Kunz et al. 2007a, Redell et al. 2006). 22

23 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Stationary Survey Methods Stationary detectors were used to determine species presence and relative activity levels at varying heights. Three Anabat echolocation detectors (Titley Electronics, Australia) were deployed on one 263-foot (80-m) tall MET tower located within the Project area. Figures in Appendix F depict the MET tower location. Three microphones were deployed on the tower at different heights in a vertical transect to capture information about bat species flying at variable altitudes. Based on accepted methodology, microphones were placed at 6.6 feet (2 m), 72.2 feet (22 m) and feet (80 m; within the rotor swept zone). Results The Anabat units were operational between June 3 and September 28, for a total of 274 detector nights (one detector for one night = one detector night; therefore, there are three detector nights for each night that all three detectors are operational). All three units experienced technical problems between July 17 and August 3. The feet (80 m) unit also experienced technical problems between August 22 and September 7. Bats were recorded on 100 of 100 (100%) survey nights at the tower. A total of 5,023 classifiable bat passes (mean = 18.3 passes/detector night) were recorded by the stationary detectors during the survey (Table 2). August had the most activity followed by September. The technical problems experienced by the three units in late July may have resulted in a lower total number of bat passes being recorded during that month. 23

24 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Table 2 Summary of Bat Passes (mean per night) by Detector Height, Season, and Frequency Group for 2009 Stationary Pre-Construction Surveys at the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project (Fillmore County, Minnesota) Summer 2 Meter 22 Meter 80 Meter Total Low Freq. Bat Passes (4.0) 244 (5.7) 136 (3.9) 552 (4.6) Mid Freq. Bat Passes (7.6) 119 (2.8) 19 (0.5) 466 (3.9) High Freq. Bat Passes (6.1) 55 (1.3) 8 (0.2) 325 (2.7) Total Passes (Summer) (17.8) 418 (9.7) 163 (4.7) 1345 (11.1) Fall Low Freq. Bat Passes (12.8) 1037 (18.2) 138 (3.5) 1906 (12.5) Mid Freq. Bat Passes (15.7) 261 (4.6) 21 (0.5) 1178 (7.7) High Freq. Bat Passes (7.7) 134 (2.4) 19 (0.5) 591 (3.9) Total Passes (Fall) (36.2) 1433 (25.1) 180 (4.6) 3678 (24.0) Total Low Frequency Passes (9.0) 1281 (12.8) 274 (3.7) 2458 (9.0) Total Mid Frequency Passes (12.2) 380 (3.8) 40 (0.5) 1644 (6.0) Total High Frequency Passes (7.0) 189 (1.9) 27 (0.4) 916 (3.3) Total Passes (28.3) 1851 (18.5) 343 (4.6) 5023 (18.3) 1 Low frequency = <30 khz Mid frequency = khz High frequency = >40 khz 2 Some recorded bat sound files were too poor quality to characterize the call by frequency group. Therefore, the sum of bat passes for these groups may not equal the Total Passes recorded Mobile Survey Methods Surveys with mobile hand-held Anabat detectors were used to supplement stationary surveys. Landcover analysis was used to select preliminary transect locations. Figures in Appendix F 24

25 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 depict the survey locations. Seven mobile transects were selected along roads within the Project area. Survey routes were selected in a variety of habitat types to adequately represent the Project area (e.g., agricultural fields, woodlots, wetlands or stream corridors). Transects were driven at a slow rate of speed (<5 mph) by surveyors while holding the mobile bat echolocation detector outside of the vehicle. A total of 12 mobile surveys (summer - 2, fall - 10) were conducted during the 2009 activity season, with emphasis placed on the critical fall migration period. Results A total of 327 bat passes (mean = 0.6 passes/transect/night) were recorded during the 84 mobile survey events (12 surveys of 7 transects) (Table 3). The highest number of bat passes recorded during a single survey was 25 on August 16. Among the transects, Transect 2, located in the MCBS Area of Biodiversity Significance in the north central part of the Project area, recorded the highest number of total bat passes at 110 (mean = 2.8/night), followed by Transects 1 and 4, located in the northwest and west central parts of the Project area, respectively, at 69 passes (mean = 5.8/night) each. Transect 7, in the south east part of the Project area, recorded the lowest number of total bat passes at 16 (mean = 1.3/night). Mid frequency species were recorded more frequently and at a higher average than low and high frequency species at each of the seven transect locations Table 3 Bat Passes (mean per transect per survey night) by Season for Mobile Pre- Construction Surveys at EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project (Fillmore County, Minnesota) Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4 Transect 5 Transect 6 Transect 7 Low Frequency Bat Passes 18 (1.5) 25 (2.1) 8 (0.7) 20 (1.7) 3 (0.3) 7 (0.6) 0 (0.0) Mid Frequency Bat Passes 33 (2.8) 57 (4.8) 23 (1.9) 40 (3.3) 17 (1.4) 21 (1.8) 21 (1.8) High Frequency Bat Passes 23 (1.9) 34 (2.8) 2 (0.2) 17 (1.4) 1 (0.1) 11 (0.9) 5 (0.4) Total Passes 69 (5.8) 110 (9.2) 23 (1.9) 69 (5.8) 11 (0.9) 29 (2.4) 16 (1.3) Total Passes for Activity Season* 327 (3.9) *Some recorded bat sound files were too poor quality to characterize the call by frequency group. Therefore, the sum of bat passes for these groups may not equal the Total Passes recorded Bat Species and Frequency Groups Detected During Surveys Using classifiable calls that contained high quality bat passes, a species list was developed for the Project area. All seven bat species known to occur in Minnesota were confirmed to be present within the Project area. All species were divided into the following frequency groups for purposes of data analyses: 25

26 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 High frequency ( 40 khz) bats eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus); Mid-frequency (30-40 khz) bats eastern red bat, or; Low frequency (<30 khz) bats big brown bat, silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) The tri-colored bat and the northern long-eared bat are state special concern species and SGCN. Tri-colored bats were recorded at the MET tower and along Transect 1 and Transect 6 (located in the south central part of the Project area). Myotis species, including both the little brown bat and the northern long-eared bat, were recorded at the MET tower and along Transects 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. None of the species confirmed in the Project area are listed as state or federally threatened or endangered. However, the northern long-eared bat is currently being considered for listing by the USFWS Seasonal Distribution of Bat Activity Bat activity was higher during the fall season (3,853 passes [mean = 24.0/night]) than during the summer (1,506 passes [mean = 11.1/night]). This trend was consistent with each frequency group at each detector height. As demonstrated in Table 2, low frequency species were recorded most often in both seasons Vertical Distribution of Bat Activity Eastern red bats, hoary bats, big brown bats, silver-haired bats, tri-colored bats, and Myotis species were all recorded at all three detector heights. Eastern red bats were the most frequently recorded species at the 6.6 feet (2-m) detector. Hoary bats were the most frequently recorded species at the 72.2 feet (22 m) detector and feet (80 m) detectors. Myotis species were recorded most often at the 6.6 ft. (2-m) detector and only one at the ft. (80 m) detector. Within the rotor swept zone (262.5 feet [80 m] detector), the migratory, foliageroosting eastern red bat and hoary bat were the most frequently recorded species, accounting for 83% of all identifiable calls. 4 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT SITING PROCESS During the Project siting process, Gamesa made several rounds of modifications to the Project to avoid and minimize impacts to bird and bat resources. Gamesa acquired the Harmony Wind Project from the previous developer in December 2011, originally intending to construct up to 140 Gamesa 2.0 MW G97-90T wind turbines under the terms of the original Site Permit. Following filing a request to amend the Site Permit, Harmony Wind began a detailed engineering study to design a turbine layout utilizing Gamesa turbines within the Project site. As part of the redesign efforts, Harmony Wind considered the results of a number of environmental studies previously completed for the Project, including: 26

27 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 baseline avian point count surveys conducted from June 2008 May 2009; acoustic bat activity monitoring conducted from June September 2009; general habitat/land cover analysis; initial protected species screening; and a wetland delineation for the proposed electric transmission line. In addition to analyzing the results of site-specific avian and bat studies for the Project, Harmony Wind also made a good faith effort to incorporate new agency guidance published since the issuance of the original Site Permit. Notably, USFWS released its Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (January 2011) and Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (March 2012) and the MDNR issued its Guidance for Commercial Wind Energy Projects (October 2011) and Draft Protocols for Post-Construction Monitoring (August 2011). Moreover, since requesting an amendment to its site permit on February 2, 2012, Harmony Wind has engaged in extensive coordination with the DOC-EFP, USFWS, and MDNR. A summary of Project-specific agency correspondence and meetings is provided in Section 1.2 of this BBCS. The goal of these efforts has been to redesign a turbine layout that responds to agency concerns and minimizes environmental impacts while also making efficient use of the area s strong wind and transmission resources. Harmony Wind also engaged in a number of additional surveys and activities to inform decisions regarding the revised turbine layout and avian and bat use at the site and assist in micrositing of turbines and associated facilities to avoid and minimize the identified potential impacts. These surveys, described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, included: aerial and ground-based eagle nest surveys conducted from February April 2012; ongoing eagle use point count surveys conducted from July 2012 July 2013; analysis of bird point count survey results; analysis of 2009 acoustic bat survey results; and loggerhead shrike habitat evaluation. In consideration of the findings of pre-construction habitat, bird, and bat surveys and in response to concerns expressed by the MDNR and USFWS regarding the Project design, Harmony Wind incorporated several avoidance and minimization measures into the final Project siting and design to avoid and minimize the impacts to avian and bat resources from the Project. Based on feedback received during a meeting with DOC-EFP and MDNR in May 2012 and on subsequent agency written comments, Harmony Wind provided a revised turbine layout to EFP, MDNR, and USFWS for comment on June 26, This layout included 95 turbine sites with a total nameplate capacity of 190 MWs for a 90 MW reduction from the original Site Permit. The June 26 layout responded to agency concerns regarding bald eagles and karst locations as potential bat habitat by including a 1.5-mile setback from known bald eagle nest locations and a 100-foot setback from mapped karst locations. The MDNR provided written comments regarding the June 26 layout on July 19, In its comments, MDNR characterized the Project as a high risk site based on the bat habitat features present in the nearby Forestville State Park and the location of certain turbines near certain 27

28 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 natural features. Specifically, MDNR pointed out that there were three turbines very close to Bloody Run Creek and four turbines in the vicinity of Bloody Run Creek. MDNR recommended Harmony Wind address avoidance measures for potential loggerhead shrike habitat. In addition, MDNR identified seven turbine locations in close proximity to an intermittent stream in the southwest corner of the Project area. Finally, MDNR identified 27 turbine locations in close proximity to identified sink holes. The USFWS did not respond to the June 26 layout. To the greatest extent practicable, Harmony Wind attempted to incorporate MDNR s suggestions as part of its design protocols in creating another updated version of the turbine layout. On October 11, 2012, Harmony Wind again provided a much-revised turbine layout to USFWS, MDNR, and DOC-EFP. While no agency provided specific guidance on setback distances, the October 11 layout attempted to respond to prior feedback from the agencies regarding concerns over protecting bald eagles, loggerhead shrike, and bats, by incorporating a number of conservative setbacks from wildlife habitat features such as: 2 miles from bald eagle nests; 500 feet from forested areas within the Project boundary presumed to be suitable summer and migratory bat habitat; 500 feet from presumed loggerhead shrike habitat; approximately 3 miles from Goliath Cave; approximately 5 miles from Mystery Cave; and 300 feet from mapped karst features. Prior to defining these setbacks, Harmony Wind conducted an extensive search of available scientific literature to determine industry best practices. Very little scientific literature was available to inform setbacks from these features, and additional correspondence with MDNR also revealed that few scientific resources were available regarding setbacks from habitat features. As a result, Harmony Wind adopted the above setbacks to address MDNR concerns and still efficiently use the available wind resource. The inclusion of the conservative setback parameters greatly reduced the overall size of the Project. The October 11 layout included 59 potential sites, with a total nameplate capacity of 118 MWs which is a 162 MW reduction from the original Site Permit. Each of the 41 turbine locations and areas of concern identified by MDNR in its July 19, 2012 comments were either avoided in the October 11 layout or field investigated by Harmony Wind and confirmed by MDNR to not be an issue. Appendix G provides a turbine-by-turbine summary of Harmony Wind s efforts to incorporate MDNR s comments. Following an agency coordination meeting on October 12, 2012 where Harmony Wind provided a detailed description of the October 11 layout, the MDNR conducted a site visit and provided additional written comments. In its October 24, 2012 letter, MDNR expressed concerns over the cluster of nine turbines in the northwest corner of the Project, nearest to the Forestville State Park. MDNR s letter noted that, when weighing the priority of protecting bat habitat near the Forestville State Park with other considerations, Harmony Wind may want to reevaluate its rigid voluntary application of a 500-foot setback from potential loggerhead shrike habitat (while 28

29 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 continuing to avoid direct impacts to such habitat) and the 500-foot setback from other wooded areas. MDNR proposed seven alternative turbine locations to the nine recommended for removal. While each of MDNR s proposed alternative locations were proposed in the May 2012 layout, Harmony Wind concluded that none of the alternatives were viable within the current layout due to internal turbine spacing or other setback constraints. In response to MDNR s letter, Harmony Wind developed a final Project layout on October 31, 2012, shown in Figures 3a and 3b. The final Project layout consists of 58 turbines (116 MW); the total Project build-out has been reduced by 82 turbines (164 MW) from the original planned 140 turbines (280 MW). The final layout includes the following setbacks: Approximately 1.5 miles from Forestville State Park; 2 miles from existing bald eagle nests; 500 feet from forested areas within the Project boundary presumed to be suitable summer and migratory bat habitat; avoidance of field verified loggerhead shrike habitat; approximately 3 miles from Goliath Cave; approximately 5 miles from Mystery Cave; and 300 feet from mapped karst features. As part of its continued efforts to expand its understanding of potential environmental concerns, complete micrositing and bring the Project to a construction-ready state, Harmony Wind plans to conduct the following additional studies: Continue eagle activity surveys through July 2013; wetland delineations; conduct geotechnical surveys; and refresh the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database review for endangered and threated species. The results of these ongoing study efforts will be reported to the agencies and placed into the Project record as part of the required compliance filings. The current turbine layout, discussed above, was designed with enough flexibility to account for any micrositing issues discovered as a part of this final study work. Additionally, the Project design and development stages will incorporate and implement industry best management practices based on the USFWS Land- Based Wind Energy Siting Guidelines (March 2012) and other measures based on the best available scientific data to reduce risk to birds and bats; these BMPs and other measures are described in Section 7. 29

30 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BIRDS AND BATS This section analyzes existing habitat information for the Project area and research results from other wind energy facilities in the Midwest in order to evaluate and compare potential impacts from the Harmony Wind Project to other similar operating wind energy facilities (i.e., Tier 2 of the USFWS 2012 Guidelines). In addition, site specific bird and bat survey data were analyzed in the context of the proposed Project layout (i.e., Tier 3 of the USFWS 2012 Guidelines). 5.1 Birds Overview of Potential Impacts Operational impacts of wind energy facilities on birds include varying degrees of displacement from the WTGs and surrounding habitat, as well as mortalities resulting from collisions with WTGs, transmission lines, and other facility structures (Winegrad 2004). WTGs may displace birds from an area due to the creation of edge habitat, the introduction of vertical structures and/or disturbances directly associated with turbine operation (e.g., sound or shadows). Disturbance impacts are often complex, involving shifts in abundance, species composition, and behavioral patterns. The magnitudes of these impacts vary across species, habitats, and regions. Although most research to-date has focused on collision mortality associated with wind energy facilities, a recent study by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012) suggests that wind farm construction can have greater impacts on birds than wind farm operation. Limited available data indicate that avoidance impacts to birds generally extend approximately 246-2,625 feet ( m) from a WTG, depending on the environment and the bird species affected (Strickland 2004). Studies in the western and Midwestern U.S. consistently show small-scale (<328 feet [100 m]) impacts on birds (Strickland 2004). Publicly-available estimates of bird mortality at wind energy facilities in the Midwest range from 0.00 to birds/turbine/year (Barclay et al and Poulton 2010). The number of avian fatalities at wind energy facilities is generally low when compared to the total number of birds detected at these sites (Erickson et al. 2002). No particular species has been identified as incurring significantly greater numbers of fatalities than other species which is likely due to differences in species abundance, use of habitat, and habitat availability at wind facilities. Passerines, a group of related bird species representing over one half of all bird species, both resident and migrant, represent the majority (approximately 75%) of mortalities at WTGs nationwide (Erickson et al and Johnson et al. 2002) and result in spring and fall peaks of bird mortality rates at most wind energy facilities (Johnson et al. 2002). Although waterbird (a group of bird species consisting of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds) mortality at wind energy facilities has been highly variable, national research has demonstrated that waterbirds rarely collide with inland WTGs (Everaert 2003 and Kingsley and Whittam 2007 as cited in NWCC [2010]). The only sites experiencing regular waterfowl fatalities have been those located on the shores of large, open expanses of water (Erickson et al. 2002). Raptor mortality rates at Midwest sites have been very low; generally limited to one or two carcasses found per study (Poulton 2010). Transmission lines also have the potential to displace or disturb birds due to the creation of edge habitat and/or the introduction of vertical structures. Depending on structure design and configuration, transmission lines and associated electrical infrastructure such as substations 30

31 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 may present avian collision or electrocution hazards (APLIC 2006). There have been cases where passerine carcasses were found at a substations and the assessment of cause indicates night-migrating passerines may have become disoriented in foggy, low visibility conditions by steady burning lights at the substation, causing the birds to collide with the substation s structures or circle the substation long enough to die of exhaustion (Stantec 2011) Potential Impacts from the Project The Project area is located on a landscape dominated by agricultural use. Within the Project area, turbines have been micro-sited to avoid impacts to nesting birds and minimize the creation of edge habitat and the loss of native bird habitat from the Project (see specific turbine setbacks in Section 4). The loss of disturbed, agricultural habitat is likely to be of minor consequence for the local bird community due to the large amounts of similar habitat available adjacent to the Project area. Additionally, most bird species that occur in agricultural lands are common species adapted to human disturbance, and it is therefore unlikely that displacement or disturbance impacts from the Project would greatly alter the composition of the area s avian community. Mortality of adult birds is not expected to occur as a result of Project construction due to the alertness and mobility of avian species. Mortality of juvenile birds may occur if grounddisturbing construction activities occur in non-tilled areas, such as fallow land, unmaintained roadsides and grass waterways, during the summer breeding season. However, this potential has been minimized through the Project layout design by avoiding as much of this habitat as possible. The operating Project WTGs will pose some risk of potential mortality from collision to birds flying within the rotor swept zone, but the risk of bird mortality is not expected to be higher in one portion of the Project area than another. The results of the pre-construction avian surveys indicated that the lowest averages of individuals and species were documented in disturbed agricultural habitats. There also appears to be a relatively uniform distribution of both the average number of individuals and the average number of species across the Project area; survey locations with somewhat higher averages of individuals or species were either located outside of the Project area and/or were associated with large forest complexes and forested habitat in close proximity to Forestville State Park, which is approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest WTG (see Appendix D). As a result of the avoidance measures incorporated in the Project siting process (see Section 4) there are no WTGs or other Project facilities sited adjacent to these forested areas in the final Project layout. Moreover, all WTGs and most other Project facilities are located in disturbed agricultural areas. Results of the screening analysis and the pre-construction avian survey, in the context of the final Project layout, indicates the Project is expected to have fatality rates similar to those observed at other Midwestern facilities, within the range of 0.00 to birds/turbine/year (Barclay et al and Poulton 2010). Based on the results of the pre-construction avian surveys and national patterns observed across post-construction mortality studies at other wind energy facilities, collision risk is likely to be low for waterfowl and shorebirds in the Project area, and raptor mortalities from the Project are expected to be minimal and infrequent. Passerines, both resident and migrant, are likely to constitute the greatest number of fatalities in the Project area, as this avian group represents the majority (75%) of mortalities at wind turbines nationwide and constituted 85% of all birds observed during surveys within the Project area 31

32 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 (NRC 2010, Erickson et al. 2001, Johnson et al. 2002). Bird fatality rates at the Project are likely to peak during the spring and fall migration seasons, as has been observed at most wind energy facilities (Johnson et al. 2002). Fatality rates are expected to be within this range because no indicators of high avian risk in the Project area (e.g., presence of ESA-listed species, impacts to high quality avian habitat, high volume use as migration stopover habitat, etc.) were uncovered during either the screening analysis (i.e., studies correspondent with Tiers 1 and 2 of the USFWS 2012 Guidelines) or the pre-construction avian survey, which was conducted in accordance with Tier 3 of the USFWS 2012 Guidelines. Birds taking off at dusk or landing at dawn or birds traveling in low cloud or fog conditions (which lower the flight altitude of most migrants) are likely at the greatest risk of collision (Kerlinger et al. 2010). However, mortalities at wind energy facilities have not been known to result in a significant population level impact to any one bird species, mainly because the migratory species with relatively high collision mortality are regionally abundant. The results of the pre-construction avian survey provide good site-specific baseline information regarding bird use within and near the Project area. Post-construction monitoring conducted within an adaptive management framework for the Project will provide an accurate means of determining ongoing potential impacts to birds and a plan for implementation of mortality minimization measures if impacts are determined to be significant (see Section 7) Potential Impacts to Eagles An ECP is under development for the Project in response to recent USFWS recommendations, which were based, in part, on the results of the eagle survey and the avian survey and in consideration of USFWS January 2011 Draft ECP Guidance (ECP Guidance) that was issued nearly a year after the Project received its Site Permit. The ECP will be based on the ECP Guidance. An element of the ECP includes a risk assessment. Site-specific eagle survey data collected in a specific manner is required to run the risk assessment model. Although sitespecific eagle survey data had been collected for the Project prior to issuance of the USFWS recommendation to prepare an ECP and the issuance of the ECP Guidance, the data is not in a format that is usable for risk assessment modeling. Therefore, Harmony Wind has initiated new studies to collect eagle survey data that can be used in risk assessment modeling. Preliminary survey results (July-September 2012) indicated that the majority of eagle observations were made near the Upper Iowa River, which provides foraging and roosting habitat (see Appendix E). All eagle observations made between July and September 2012 were associated with nest sites; no eagles were observed at survey point locations near WTG sites as established in the final Project layout. However, potential impacts to eagles at the Project cannot be fully determined until the ongoing eagle flight pattern and use surveys are completed in July At that point, an ECP will be prepared following further consultation with the USFWS and MDNR and incorporated as Appendix A of this document. 5.2 Bats Overview of Potential Impacts Direct mortality at wind turbines is currently the greatest concern for bats in general at wind facilities (Cryan 2008a). Commercial wind facilities have been found to impact many bat species (Arnett et al. 2008). Whether bats are attracted to wind turbines and the exact factors which contribute to bat mortality are unclear; however, several hypotheses have recently been put 32

33 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 forth and tested, including the role of land cover and environmental conditions in attracting bats to wind turbine locations, behavioral factors that might make wind turbines attractive to bats, pressure changes from rotating blades causing barotrauma, or direct impact of unsuspecting migrant bats (Baerwald et al. 2008, Horn et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2004, Kerns et al. 2005; reviewed in Kunz et al. 2007b). The influence of landcover on bat mortality at wind turbine sites is unclear (Arnett et al. 2008). However, the highest levels of bat mortality have been recorded at sites on forested ridgetops in the eastern U.S., with documented mortalities of 69.6 bats/turbine/year (Kunz et al. 2007b). In the Midwest, bat fatalities range from 0.1 to 40.5 bats/turbine/year (Poulton 2010). Weather conditions, such as wind speed, rainfall, and temperature, have been found to have a significant impact on bat mortalities (Arnett et al. 2008). Bat mortality and insect activity are both high on nights with low wind speed when wind turbines are adjusted to rotate near their maximum revolutions per minute (Kerns et al. 2005). Bat fatalities decrease with increases in wind speed and precipitation intensity (Kerns et al. 2005; Good et al. 2011, Arnett et al. 2009, Baerwald et al. 2009). The primary bat species affected by wind facilities are believed to be migratory, foliage- and tree-roosting species that mostly emit low frequency calls (Johnson et al. 2004; reviewed by Kunz et al. 2007b). Mortality has been reported for 11 of the 45 bat species known to occur north of Mexico (Arnett et al. 2008); of the 11 species, nearly 75% were the migratory, foliageroosting hoary bat, eastern red bat, and silver-haired bat (Kunz et al. 2007a) Potential Impacts from the Project As mentioned previously, the Project area is located on a landscape dominated by agricultural use. Within the Project area, WTGs have been micro-sited to avoid impacts to bat maternity colonies and hibernacula and to minimize the Project s disturbance of roosting and foraging habitat for bats by imposing substantial setbacks from such habitats (see specific turbine setbacks in Section 4). Few, if any, trees are expected to be removed as a result of constructing the Project facilities. Consequently, no maternity habitat, roosting habitat, or native foraging habitat for common bat species will be lost and no bat mortality is expected to occur as a result of Project construction. Additionally, Project construction will not impact fall swarming habitat for bats or hibernacula for cave-dwelling species. The loss of disturbed, agricultural habitat is likely to be of minor consequence for the local bat community due to the demonstrated preference for forested and open water habitat by most bat species that may occur within the Project area. Also, large amounts of similar habitat are available adjacent to the Project area for any bat species, such as the big brown bat, which may occasionally forage over croplands. As with any North American wind energy facility within the range of bat species, the operating Project WTGs will present a risk of bat mortality due to collisions or barotrauma. Although the Project area is located in a primarily agricultural landscape, the presence of the WTGs, even in open, non-forested areas, poses a risk of bat mortality. Bat mortality has been documented at Midwestern wind energy facilities in agricultural areas during the migration season, demonstrating that some migrating bats will fly over open land (Good et al 2011, Kerlinger et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2003, Howe et al. 2002). However, bat migration patterns and behaviors, and subsequently, indicators of bat fatality risk at wind energy sites, are not well understood (Poulton 2010). The results of pre-construction acoustic surveys indicate relatively high bat use of portions of the Project area, especially during the fall migration season. 33

34 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 When considered in context of the final Project layout, however, the pre-construction surveys indicate that the greatest incidence of observed bat passes per monitoring night were associated with wooded riparian areas and northwestern areas of the Project area nearer to resource features for bats beyond the northwestern boundary of the Project and most bat calls were recorded below the rotor swept zone (see Appendix F). The final Project layout has been sited to avoid forested areas and no turbines are located within approximately 1.5 miles the Forestville State Park located northwest of the Project area (see specific setbacks in Section 4). It is also important to note that overall bat activity at the MET tower detectors below the rotor swept zone (93.2% of the recorded activity) was consistent with activity levels recorded with handheld detectors throughout the Project area and was considerably higher than the overall bat activity at the MET tower detector within the rotor swept zone (6.8% of the recorded activity). This information strongly suggests that the exposure rate of resident bats within the rotor swept zone may not be particularly high (see Section 3.4). The majority (80%) of calls recorded within the rotor swept zone were low frequency calls, likely made by species such as the big brown bat, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat. Analysis of the results of the pre-construction acoustic survey in the context of the final Project layout indicates that bat mortality at the Project is likely to be similar to bat mortality rates observed at other Midwestern wind energy facilities, between 0.1 and 40.5 bats/turbine/year (see Poulton 2010) and consist mainly of migratory tree bat fatalities in the fall swarming and migration seasons (see Kerlinger et al. 2007, Johnson et al. 2003, Howe et al. 2002, Erickson et al. 2002, Kunz et al. 2007b). Consistent with mortalities observed at other wind energy facilities, certain weather conditions, including low wind speeds and warm temperatures are likely to increase the risk of bat mortality at the Project area, as these conditions have been demonstrated to coincide with nights of high bat mortality (see Good et al. 2011, Gruver et al. 2009, Kunz et al. 2007b). Although the results of the pre-construction acoustic survey provide good site-specific baseline information regarding bat activity within the Project area, they cannot be used to accurately predict the level of bat mortality that may occur as a result of Project operation. Postconstruction and pre-construction data may not fully predict fatality risks (Cryan 2008b). The implementation of Project setbacks during Project siting activities will avoid direct impacts to bat habitats and should reduce bat mortality from that which would have occurred from the Project as designed in the original Site Permit. Post-construction monitoring conducted within an adaptive management framework for the Project will provide an accurate means of determining potential impacts to bats and assessing the effectiveness of the Project s impact minimization strategies, as well as a plan for implementation of additional measures if impacts are determined to be significant (see Section 7). The Project is not currently expected to impact any federally listed bat species as none are expected to occur within the Project area. However, the northern long-eared bat is under review by the Service for listing under the ESA. Because this species is known to occur within the Project area (see Section 3.4), it will be important to reevaluate potential impacts to the species should it become listed in the future; this possibility is addressed in the Project s adaptive management protocol (see Section 7.2). 34

35 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The Project design and development stages will incorporate and implement industry Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize risk to birds and bats from the Project. These BMPs are based on the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Siting Guidelines (March 2012) and other best available scientific data. 6.1 Pre-Construction BMPs The following BMPs have been incorporated into the Project siting and design processes to reduce the Project s inherent risk of impacts to birds and bats. Section 4 provides a full description of how BMPs 1-6 were incorporated in the Project siting process. 1. The area disturbed by pre-construction site monitoring and testing activities, and installations has been minimized, to the extent practicable. For example, bird and bat surveys were conducted from public roads or through the use of remote electronic monitoring devices. Eagle surveys were conducted from public roads and a helicopter. Wetland delineations were performed via foot traffic only. 2. The Project layout design considered the location of sensitive environmental features and habitat areas such as karst areas, eagle nests and bat habitat identified as having a potential and/or unmitigatable high risk to birds and bats, and avoided locating wind energy facilities within or adjacent to such areas. Voluntary setbacks have been implemented from eagle nests, bat hibernacula, woodlots, and grasslands. 3. Non-disturbance buffer zones were establish during the Project design phase to protect sensitive habitats or areas of high risk for species of concern identified in preconstruction studies. Construction disturbance activities will only occur within corridors that have been reviewed for sensitive species and associated habitats. 4. Available data of bat hibernacula and roost areas such as location from state and federal agencies and other sources, was used to minimize impacts to sensitive resources. Also, the results of studies conducted in accordance with Tier II and/or Tier III of the USFWS 2012 Guidelines were used to establish the layout of roads, power lines, fences, and other infrastructure in a manner to avoid impacts to important habitat. 5. OpenWind software was used to optimize the facility layout in order to minimize, to the extent practicable, roads, power lines, fences, and other infrastructure associated with the Project. If fencing becomes necessary, construction will use wildlife compatible design standards whenever practicable. However, optimization of the final facility layout is influenced by land leased for the Project, landowner concerns, necessary avoidance of sensitive habitats and other factors that are not within Harmony Wind s control. 6. Turbine siting incorporated setbacks to eagle nests, bat hibernacula and roost areas and loggerhead shrike habitat in order to minimize separating bird and bat species of concern from their daily roosting, feeding, or nesting sites. 35

36 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November The Project s temporary MET towers are currently supported by guy wires. Harmony Wind will replace the temporary towers with free-standing permanent MET tower(s) in the spring or summer of The new tower(s) be anchored with an in-ground concrete foundation and will not use guy wires. 8. Only the necessary number of permanent MET towers needed to adequately monitor the operation and performance of the wind energy facility will be installed. 9. Only red, or dual red and white strobe, strobe-like, or flashing lights, not steady burning lights, will be installed to meet FAA requirements for visibility lighting of wind turbines, permanent met towers, and communication towers. Only a portion of the turbines within the Project will be lighted, and all pilot warning lights will fire synchronously. 10. Lighting at both operation and maintenance facilities and substations located within half a mile of the turbines will be kept to the minimum required by using a number of light mitigation strategies, including: 11. Use of lights with motion or heat sensors and switches to keep lights off when not required; 12. Lights will be hooded downward and directed to minimize horizontal and skyward direction; 13. The use of high-intensity lighting, steady-burning, or bright lights such as sodium vapor, quartz, halogen, or other bright spotlights will be minimized as much as possible; 14. All internal turbine nacelle and tower lighting will be extinguished when unoccupied. 15. Tubular turbine towers will be used to reduce the ability of birds to perch and to reduce risk of collision. 16. The number and length of access roads will be minimized as described in #5 above. 17. To reduce avian collisions, low and medium voltage collector lines associated with the wind energy development will be underground to the extent possible. 18. Harmony Wind does not have control over existing overhead lines. The route of the Project s overhead transmission line was determined and reviewed through a Route Permit process in order to ensure impacts were minimized to the degree practicable. 19. Above-ground low and medium voltage lines, transformers, and conductors will follow the 2006 or most recent APLIC Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines. 6.2 Construction BMPs The BMPs listed below will be implemented during Project construction to minimize disturbance and reduce physical impacts to birds, bats, and habitat from construction activities. The will be implemented as appropriate to site-specific conditions. 36

37 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Native species, or appropriate site-specific seed mixes will be used when seeding or planting during restoration, when re-seeding is necessary. 2. Construction and management practices will be used to minimize activities that may attract prey and predators to the wind energy facility. For example, construction garbage will be contained and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. 3. Impacts to hydrology and stream morphology will be avoided by avoiding impacts to streams with flowing water. Surface hydrology will be maintained throughout construction. Appropriate erosion control measures will be used in construction and operation to eliminate or minimize runoff into water bodies. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be secured prior to the start of construction. 4. Information from wetland delineations will be used to minimize impacts to wetlands and water resources, and all applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC ) and the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 301 et seq.) will be followed; for instance by developing and implementing a stormwater management plan and taking measures to reduce erosion and avoid delivery of construction-generated sediment into streams and waters. Sensitive species and regulated environmental features training practices will be developed to teach all workers on the Project to be aware of sensitive wildlife and other regulated resources. This training will be integrated into the standard construction orientation at Harmony Wind. Training materials may include but not be limited to laminated pamphlets detailing the potential sensitive species within the Project area, to serve as a convenient reference to be maintained in Project vehicles. Such materials can be provided for display in construction trailers. Training includes an emphasis on reviewing the posters and instructions for reporting any suspected sensitive species observations or potential conflicts with other regulated resources to construction supervisors. Training topics will include: Environmental Monitor s Responsibilities o Document compliance o Inspect erosion control practices o Communication with agencies and Project manager(s) Permits o Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan o State/Federal Application for Water Regulatory Permits and Approvals Identification of regulatory agencies and their roles for the Project Permit Conditions o Brief overview o Employee responsibilities o Communication tools (additional job-specific trainings, tailgate meetings) Identification and discussion of regulated resources o Wetlands and waterways Permitted impacts 37

38 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Construction plan set Construction corridors Frac-out plans o Erosion control and storm water management Inspection schedule Implementation schedule and standards De-watering Mud on public roadways o Invasive species and disease control Purpose of regulation Equipment de-contamination Examples of invasive species and diseases o Threatened and endangered species and archeological sites Identification of species Reporting o Hazardous material spills Reporting and record keeping Re-fueling Spill kits and spill clean-up standards o Cultural Resource Discoveries Human remains Artifacts Reporting and recordkeeping Traffic Plan Identified Hard Routes Traffic Speed General Housekeeping o No littering o Fire Hazards and Safety o Landowner respect o Contacts for environmental questions or concerns Goals 6.3 Post-Construction BMPs BMPs will be implemented at the constructed Project to reduce impacts to birds, bats, and habitat from the Project during the operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Project. The following list of BMPs will be considered during the various post-construction activities or stages and implemented as appropriate: 1. Reduce vehicle collision risk to wildlife by instructing Project personnel to drive at appropriate speeds, be alert for wildlife, and use additional caution in low visibility conditions. 38

39 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Instruct employees, contractors, and site visitors to avoid harassing or disturbing wildlife, particularly during reproductive seasons. 3. Reduce fire hazard from vehicles and human activities through employee training. Site development and operation plans should specifically address the risk of wildfire and provide the appropriate cautions and measures to be taken in the event of a wildfire. 4. Follow federal and state measures for handling toxic substances to minimize danger to water and wildlife resources from spills. Facility operators should maintain Hazardous Materials Spill Kits on site and train personnel in the use of these. 5. Reduce the introduction and spread of invasive species by following applicable local policies for invasive species prevention, containment, and control. 6. Use invasive species prevention and control measures as specified by county or state requirements, or by applicable federal agency requirements when federal policies apply. 7. Properly manage garbage and waste disposal on Project sites to avoid attracting and creating wildlife nuisances by providing them with supplemental food. 8. Promptly remove large animal carcasses. 9. Wildlife habitat enhancements or improvements such as ponds, guzzlers, rock or brush piles for small mammals, bird nest boxes, nesting platforms, wildlife food plots, etc. will not be created or added to the Project to avoid attracting wildlife to the Project area. 10. Use retrofitting installation techniques that minimize new site disturbance, soil erosion, and removal of vegetation of habitat value. 11. Retrofits should employ shielded, separated, or insulated electrical conductors that minimize electrocution risk to avian wildlife per APLIC (2006). 12. Retrofit designs should prevent nests or bird perches from being established in or on the wind turbine or tower. 13. Remove wind turbines when they are no longer cost effective to retrofit. 14. To the greatest extent practicable, existing roads, disturbed areas, and turbine strings should be re-used in repower layouts. 15. Roads and facilities that are no longer needed should be demolished, removed, and their footprint stabilized and re-seeded with native plants appropriate for the soil conditions and adjacent habitat and of local seed sources where feasible, per landowner requirements and commitments. 16. Existing substations and ancillary facilities should be re-used in repowering projects to the extent practicable. 17. After Project construction, close roads not needed for site operations and restore these roadbeds to native vegetation, consistent with landowner agreements. 39

40 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Decommissioning methods should minimize new site disturbance and removal of native vegetation, to the greatest extent practicable. 19. Foundations will be removed to a minimum of 48 inches below surrounding grade, and covered with soil to allow adequate root penetration for native plants, and so that subsurface structures do not substantially disrupt ground water movements. 20. If topsoils are removed during decommissioning, they should be stockpiled and used as topsoil when restoring plant communities. Once decommissioning activity is complete, topsoils should be restored to assist in establishing and maintaining pre-construction native plant communities to the extent possible, consistent with the landowner objectives. 21. Soil should be stabilized and re-vegetated with native plants appropriate for the soil conditions and adjacent habitat, and of local seed sources where feasible, consistent with landowner objectives. 22. Surface water flows should be restored to pre-disturbance conditions, including removal of stream crossings, roads, and pads, consistent with storm water management objectives and requirements. 23. Surveys should be conducted by qualified experts to detect populations of invasive species, and comprehensive approaches to preventing and controlling invasive species should be implemented and maintained as long as necessary. 24. Overhead pole lines that are no longer needed should be removed. 25. After decommissioning, erosion control measures should be installed in all disturbance areas where potential for erosion exists, consistent with storm water management objectives and requirements. 26. Fencing should be removed unless the landowner will be utilizing the fence. 27. Petroleum product leaks and chemical releases should be remediated prior to completion of decommissioning. The above-listed BMPs that have been or will be incorporated in the Project siting and design, construction, and operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases were developed based on the USFWS 2012 Guidelines and other best available scientific data to reduce potential impacts to avian and bat resources and habitat at the Project. Post-construction monitoring (Section 7.1) will be conducted during the first year of Project operation to assess the effectiveness of these measures. The results of this monitoring effort will be provided to the USFWS and MDNR for review and a determination will be made as to the necessity of further monitoring or monitoring modifications. The Project s adaptive management framework (Section 7.2) outlines a plan for implementation of additional BMPs, monitoring and mortality minimization measures if avian and/or bat impacts are determined to be significant. 40

41 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 7.1 Post-Construction Monitoring To ensure monitoring at the Project will be sufficient to determine impacts to birds and bats this post-construction monitoring plan was developed, in part, using MDNR s August 2011 Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols for fatality monitoring at high risk sites as a guidance resource. It is expected that the MDNR s draft guidelines will be revised and finalized in the near future. Thus, Harmony Wind will continue coordination with the MDNR to determine if any revisions to the MDNR monitoring guidelines should be applied to this Project Monitoring Goals The goals of the post-construction monitoring are to determine the overall bird and bat fatality rates from the Project and to evaluate the circumstances under which fatalities occur. Postconstruction monitoring results will also provide triggers for adaptive management, as described in Section Species to be Monitored The post-construction monitoring will address all bird and bat fatalities observed within the Project area. The monitoring plan is designed to enable comparison with other operating wind energy projects. Within the overall bat and bird fatality estimates, estimates by species will be made, if possible, based on the number of carcasses detected Permits and Wildlife Handling Procedures Permits All necessary wildlife salvage/collection permits will be obtained from the MDNR (Special Permit [Scientific Research]) and the Service (Miscellaneous Special Purpose Permit for Migratory Bird Monitoring) to facilitate legal transport of injured animals and/or carcasses prior to initiating monitoring activities. Wildlife Handling Procedures All carcasses found will be labeled with a unique number, individually bagged, and retained in a freezer at the Project O & M building. A copy of the original data sheet for each carcass will be placed in the bag with each frozen carcass. Non-listed carcasses may be used in searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials. In the event that an eagle carcass or a carcass of an ESA- or state-listed species is found, Harmony Wind will notify the agencies within 24 hours and arrange to submit the carcass to the appropriate authorities. If an injured bird or bat is found, the animal will be handled by a biologist and transferred to a local certified and licensed wildlife rehabilitator, whenever possible and necessary. 41

42 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Intensive Monitoring Study Design The MDNR Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols (August 2011) are the basis for the following protocols. It is understood that certain aspects of these protocols may change prior to initiating the monitoring studies. Harmony Wind will consult with the MDNR prior to beginning such studies and make modifications to the study protocols as appropriate. Therefore, at this time and in accordance with the MDNR Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols (August 2011) for monitoring high risk sites, standardized carcass searches will be conducted between March 15 and November 15 during the first two years of Project operation unless results from the first year of monitoring, or other credible fatality information is available, and a reduction in monitoring effort can be justified for the second year. The USFWS will be consulted regarding the potential need, due to bald eagle use of the Project area, to adjust the survey period to include additional monitoring from November 15 to March 15. Both monitoring years will include seasonal searcher efficiency trials and carcass removal trials in addition to the standardized carcass searches. The USFWS (2012) Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines strongly recommend that all mortality studies should conduct searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials that follow accepted methods. Standardized carcass searches will allow statistical analysis of the search results, calculation of overall fatality estimates, and assessment of correlations between fatality rates and potentially-influential variables (e.g., weather, location). Searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates are two sources of field bias in mortality studies that have been proven to be highly variable and siteand researcher-specific; mortality estimators are highly sensitive to these parameters (Huso 2010). The results of post-construction monitoring efforts, intended to provide an estimate of overall fatality at a facility, can be influenced by several sources of bias during field-sampling. To provide corrected estimates of overall fatality rates, the methodology of mortality monitoring efforts must account for important sources of field-sampling bias including: 1) fatalities that occur on a highly periodic basis; 2) carcass removal by scavengers; 3) searcher efficiency; 4) failure to account for the influence of site conditions (e.g., vegetation) in relation to carcass removal and searcher efficiency rates; and 5) fatalities or injured birds or bats that may land or move to areas not included in the search plots (Kunz et al. 2007a). Harmony Wind s proposed post-construction mortality monitoring plan methodology is designed to account for these sources of bias and adapt to preliminary results such that effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy of the study is maximized. Sample Size In accordance with the MDNR Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols (August 2011), carcass searches will be conducted at 20 percent of the 58 turbines, for a total of 12 turbines. The 12 turbines to be sampled will be determined in coordination with MDNR and USFWS, with an emphasis on selecting study turbines in the highest risk locations within the Project area. The final choice of study turbines will be subject to landowner agreement and cooperation. A new set of 12 study turbines will be selected in coordination with the agencies for the second year of monitoring if results from the first year of monitoring warrant continuation of this level of monitoring effort. This approach will meet the study goal of detecting and analyzing overall bird 42

43 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 and bat fatalities at the facility by providing sufficient sample size to support reliable data analysis and related interpretations and conclusions. Search Interval The search interval will be two days per week during spring (March 15-May 14) and summer (May 15-July 14) and four days per week during fall (July 15-November 15) at all 12 study turbines, under suitable weather conditions. The turbine search schedule and order will be randomized so that each turbine s search plot will be sampled at differing periods during the day through the study. The USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines recommend that the carcass search intervals should be adequate to answer applicable Tier 4 questions at an appropriate level of precision to make general conclusions about the project (USFWS 2012). If more or less intensive monitoring is deemed necessary following initial data collection (carcass searches and carcass removal trials) at the Project area, Harmony Wind will coordinate with MDNR and the Service to modify the search intervals accordingly. Similarly, Harmony Wind will coordinate with the agencies to determine the search interval for the second year of monitoring based on the results of the first year of monitoring. Field Methods Plot Size and Visibility Classes At all 12 search turbines, 525 feet x 525 feet (160 m x 160 m) square plots will searched using a full-coverage transect methodology. This search plot size is recommended in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (USFWS 2012). Several other studies that have indicated that the majority of bird and bat carcasses typically fall within 100 feet (30 m) of the turbine or within 50% of the maximum height of the turbine (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Arnett et al. 2005; Young et al. 2009; Jain et al. 2007; Piorkowski and O Connell 2010; USFWS 2010). The plot size will exceed one-half the maximum turbine rotor height of the Project turbines (227 feet [69.25 m]). This should minimize the number of fatalities or injured birds or bats that land or move outside of the search plots and thereby reduce the number of bird or bat carcasses that would be undetected, causing underestimation of overall fatality. Each 525 feet x 525 feet (160 m x 160 m) search plot will be centered on a turbine location. Twenty 20-feet-wide (6-m) transects will be established in each plot for complete survey coverage. Plots and/or transects may be modified as necessary if on-site conditions present a safety risk or render an areas inaccessible. Each turbine will have the vegetation in the searchable area defined into one of the following four classes and mapped for submission. Class 1 (easy): Bare ground 90% or greater; all ground cover sparse and 6 inches or less in height (i.e. gravel pad or dirt road). Class 2 (moderate): Bare ground 25% or greater; all ground cover 6 inches or less in height and mostly sparse. Class 3 (difficult): Bare ground 25% or less; 25% or less of ground cover over 12 inches in height. 43

44 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Class 4 (very difficult): Little or no bare ground; more than 25% of ground cover over 12 inches in height. Maps will be constructed illustrating all turbine locations, a designated numbering system for turbines, 525 feet x 525 feet (160 m x 160 m) study plot, boundaries of survey areas, and searchable areas (broken down into visibility classes and transect numbering for standard transect surveys). Standardized Carcass Searches Carcass searches will be conducted by searchers experienced in conducting fatality search methods, including proper handling and reporting of carcasses. Searchers will be familiar with and able to accurately identify bird and bat species likely to be found in the Project area. Any unknown birds and bats or suspected ESA-listed species discovered during fatality searches will be sent to a qualified USFWS-approved bird or bat expert for positive identification. Searches will start on transects running past the base of the turbine and work outwards. During searches, searchers will walk at a rate of approximately 2 mph (45 to 60 m per minute) while searching 10 feet (3 m) on either side of each transect. Time spent surveying each turbine will be recorded daily and be kept as consistent as possible. For all carcasses found, data recorded will include: Date and time, Initial species identification, Sex, age, and reproductive condition (when possible), GPS location, Distance and bearing from turbine, Visibility class, Condition (intact, scavenged), Any notes on presumed cause and time of death, and Wind speeds and direction and general weather conditions for nights preceding search. A digital picture of each detected carcass will be taken before the carcass is handled and removed. As previously mentioned, all carcasses will be labeled with a unique number, bagged, and stored frozen (with a copy of the original data sheet) at the Project O & M building. Bird and bat carcasses found in non-search areas will be coded as incidental finds and documented as much as possible in a similar fashion to those found during standard searches. Maintenance personnel will be informed of the timing of standardized searches and these personnel will be trained on the collision event reporting protocol, in the event that maintenance personnel find a carcass or injured animal. Any carcasses found by maintenance personnel will also be considered incidental finds. Incidental finds will be included in survey summary totals but will not be included in the mortality estimates. Searcher Efficiency and Carcass Removal Trials Searcher efficiency trials will be used to estimate the percentage of all bird and bat fatalities that are detected during the carcass searches. Similarly, carcass removal trials will be used to 44

45 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 estimate the percentage of bird and bat fatalities that are removed by scavengers prior to being located by searchers. When considered together, the results of these trials will represent the likelihood that a bird or bat fatality that falls within the searched area will be recorded and considered in the final fatality estimates. Trials will be conducted during each monitoring year by placing trial carcasses in the searched areas. One round of trials will be conducted during each season (i.e., spring, summer, fall) to account for changes in personnel, searcher experience, weather, and scavenger densities. A total of 50 carcass removal trial carcasses and 100 searcher efficiency trial carcasses will be placed in each monitoring year; if an insufficient number of carcasses have been collected during standardized searches, Harmony Wind will coordinate with MDNR on how to proceed. Each trial carcass will be discretely marked and labeled with a unique number so that it can be identified as a trial carcass. Prior to placement, the date of placement, species, turbine number, and distance and direction from turbine will be recorded. An equal number of trial carcasses will be placed at each of the 12 study turbines. Carcasses will be distributed among visibility classes according to the percentage of search area covered by each visibility class. Searcher efficiency trials will be conducted blindly; the searchers will not know when trials are occurring, at which search turbines trial carcasses are placed, or where trial carcasses are located within the subplots. The number and location of trial carcasses found by the searchers will be recorded and compared to the total number placed in the subplots. Searchers will be instructed prior to the initial search effort to leave carcasses, once discovered to be trial carcasses, in place. The number of trial carcasses available for detection (non-scavenged) will be determined immediately after the conclusion of the trial. Carcass removal trials will be conducted immediately following the baseline searcher efficiency trials using the same trial carcasses. Trial carcasses will be left in place by searchers and monitored for a period of up to 14 days to determine scavenger rates. Carcasses will be checked on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 14. The status of each trial carcass will be recorded throughout the trial Statistical Methods for Estimating Fatality Rates The methodology for estimating overall bird and bat fatality rates will make use of contemporary, peer-reviewed equations, such as the estimator proposed by Erickson et al. (2003) as modified by Young et al. (2009), the empirical estimator presented in Good et al. (2011), or the estimator proposed by Huso (2010). The use of a contemporary fatality estimator will be necessary for developing fatality estimates that can be compared to other sites and used to accurately determine if any of the adaptive management triggers have been met. Regardless of the specific equation used, the estimate of the total number of wind turbinerelated casualties will be generally based on four components: (1) observed number of casualties, (2) searcher efficiency, (3) scavenger removal rates, and (4) estimated percent of casualties that likely fall in non-searched areas, based on percent of area searched around each turbine. Variance and 90% confidence intervals will be calculated using bootstrapping methods (Erickson et al and Manly 1997 as presented in Young et al. 2009). Calculations and analyses will be conducted separately for birds and bats to provide results specific to each group. 45

46 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November Data Analysis, Reporting, and Consultation Data Analysis Analysis of data collected during the post-construction mortality monitoring will include spring, summer, and fall season fatality estimates as well as an annual fatality estimate for all birds and bats to the taxonomic level where fatality estimates can be calculated (i.e., it is difficult to calculate representative fatality rates from small numbers of carcasses, so species- and genuslevel fatality calculations may not be possible for some species/genera). Data analysis will be performed to assess patterns in fatalities across turbine locations. Data will also be analyzed to determine the influence of factors such as date and location on bird and bat fatality rates. Reporting Harmony Wind will provide an annual mortality monitoring report to the DOC-EFP, USFWS, and MDNR by January 1 following the completion of each year of post-construction monitoring. The report will follow the template and provide the content outlined in the MDNR Draft Avian and Bat Survey Protocols (August 2011). In addition to the mortality monitoring reports, Harmony Wind will report the discovery of any state-listed species to the MDNR and the discovery of any ESAlisted species or eagles to the Service within 24 hours of discovery. Harmony Wind will also fulfill the reporting requirements of all salvage/collection permits held throughout the postconstruction monitoring effort. 7.2 Adaptive Management This BBCS represents a process through which Harmony Wind plans to reduce impacts to birds and bats at the Project while maintaining optimal Project operation and generating electricity from renewable, emissions-free wind. Harmony Wind has sited the Project and incorporated measures to avoid and minimize impacts to birds and bats, including sensitive and listed species. The effectiveness of these measures will be informed by post-construction monitoring of fatality rates. Adaptive management is a process that will allow Harmony Wind to adjust the minimization measures outlined in this BBCS to reflect new information or changing conditions in order to reach a goal in this case, minimization of impacts to all bird and bat species, while minimizing effects on the operation of the Project. Changes to the Project s avoidance and minimization plan may include changes to the turbine operational protocols, may be triggered by certain events. Harmony Wind will coordinate with DOC-EFP, USFWS and MDNR prior to implementing such changes. The adaptive management plan will apply throughout the life of the Project; on-going evaluation and adaptation of the Project will provide effective measures for avoiding and reducing impacts to birds and bats. Adaptive management will allow Harmony Wind to minimize the uncertainty associated with gaps in scientific information or biological requirements. Information used in the adaptive management process will come from the post-construction mortality monitoring activities described in Section 7.1 and from other new research as it becomes available. Monitoring data will be analyzed to determine if the objectives of this BBCS are being met. If the minimization measures are not producing the desired results, adjustments will be made as necessary to achieve the biological objectives of this BBCS. 46

47 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Adaptive management considerations for Harmony Wind will be triggered by the following events, which are further defined below: High estimated bird mortality High estimated bat mortality Discovery of a mass avian or bat mortality event Take of an eagle ESA listing of a new bird or bat species Take of an ESA-listed species Take of a state-listed species High estimated bird mortality High estimated bird mortality will be defined as an annual bird mortality rate estimated from post-construction monitoring at the Project that is significantly (i.e., non-overlapping 90% confidence intervals) above the 90 th percentile for annual bird mortality rates at wind energy facilities in the Midwest as calculated from publically available post-construction monitoring studies available at that time. Based on the post-construction monitoring studies that are currently available to the public, the 90 th percentile for annual bird mortality rates in the Midwest is approximately 8.6 birds/turbine/year. If this trigger is met following the completion of either of the two monitoring years, Harmony Wind will work with the USFWS and MDNR to determine the cause and circumstances of the high mortality rate, if possible, and develop specific mitigation measures. Such measures may include adjusting the operational protocol at the offending turbine(s) during specific weather conditions or seasonal periods, followed by a year of mortality monitoring to assess whether the mitigation measures are sufficient. High estimated bat mortality High estimated bat mortality will be defined as an annual bat mortality rate estimated from postconstruction monitoring at the Project that is significantly (i.e., non-overlapping 90% confidence intervals) above the 90 th percentile for annual bat mortality rates at wind energy facilities in the Midwest as calculated from publically available post-construction monitoring studies available at that time. Based on the post-construction monitoring studies that are currently available to the public, the 90 th percentile for annual bat mortality rates in the Midwest is approximately 38.7 bats/turbine/year. If this trigger is met following the completion of either of the two monitoring years, Harmony Wind will work with the USFWS and MDNR to determine the cause and circumstances of the high mortality rate, if possible, and develop specific mitigation measures. Such measures may include adjusting the operational protocol at the offending turbine(s) during specific weather conditions or seasonal periods, followed by a year of mortality monitoring to assess whether the mitigation measures are sufficient. Discovery of a mass avian or bat mortality event Mass avian or bat mortality events (>50 individuals found in one day) are not expected to occur at the Project, based on the assessment of potential impacts presented in Section 5. However, should post-construction monitoring or incidental observation detect a mass mortality event, Harmony Wind will take remedial actions. Harmony Wind will notify the Service of the discovery within 24 hours and investigate, based on the available data, the circumstances under which the 47

48 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 mortality event occurred. Harmony Wind will coordinate with the USFWS and MDNR to identify potential mitigation measures. Take of an eagle If take of an eagle occurs at the Project, the event will be reported to the Service within 24 hours of being discovered. Harmony Wind will work with the Service to determine the cause and circumstances of the take, if possible, and develop specific minimization and/or mitigation measures. Such measures may include adjusting the operational protocol at the offending turbine or a group of turbines during specific weather conditions or seasonal periods, an intensified carcass or prey source removal program, and/or retro-fitting of existing transmission lines to APLIC 2006 standards, followed by a year of mortality monitoring to assess whether the minimization and/or mitigation measures are sufficient. ESA-listing of a new bird or bat species If a bird or bat species known to occur or which has the potential to occur within the Project area becomes listed under the ESA during the life of the Project, Harmony Wind will re-initiate consultation with the Service. Of specific concern is the northern long-eared bat, which was documented within the Project area during pre-construction acoustic surveys and is currently under review by the Service for listing under the ESA. If this trigger is met, Harmony Wind will work with the Service to assess the potential for the Project to impact the species and subsequently to determine the appropriate action(s) for the Project; these may include modification of the turbine operational protocol, additional post-construction monitoring, and/or development of a Habitat Conservation Plan and application for an Incidental Take Permit for the species. In the event the northern long-eared bat, or another bat species, becomes listed under the ESA, Harmony Wind will implement operational adjustments at the Project as agreed upon in coordination with USFWS, develop an HCP for the species, and obtain an ESA Section 10 ITP from the USFWS Region 3 office. The specific cut-in wind speed at which turbines would be curtailed under operational adjustments and the specific dates of the operational adjustment period would be determined based on agency recommendations. However, in general, operational adjustments would be made to all Project turbines identified as posing a risk to the newly-listed bat species, at a sufficiently high cut-in speed that take would be avoided until an ITP can be obtained, for the seasonal period(s) during which the species is expected to be at risk within the Project area. Take of an ESA-listed species If take of an ESA-listed species occurs at the Project, the event will be reported to the Service within 24 hours of being discovered. Harmony Wind will work with the Service to determine the cause and circumstances of the mortality, if possible, and develop specific mitigation measures. Such measures may include adjusting the operational protocol at the offending turbine or a group of turbines during specific weather conditions or seasonal periods, followed by a year of mortality monitoring to assess whether the mitigation measures are sufficient. Harmony Wind will work with the Service to determine the need to pursue a permit under the ESA. 48

49 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Take of a state-listed species If take of a state-listed species occurs at the Project, the event will be reported to the MDNR within 24 hours. Harmony Wind will work with the MDNR to determine the cause and circumstances of the mortality, if possible, and develop specific mitigation measures. Such measures may include adjusting the operational protocol at the offending turbine or a group of turbines during specific weather conditions or seasonal periods, followed by a year of mortality monitoring to assess whether the mitigation measures are sufficient. Harmony Wind will work with the MDNR to determine the need to pursue an endangered species permit. 49

50 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 LITERATURE CITED Arnett, E.B., W.P. Erickson, J. Kerns, and J. Horn 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. Final Report prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. June Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, and R.D. Tankersley Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): Arnett, E.B., M. Schirmacher, M.M.P. Huso, and J.P. Hayes Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, DC and Sacramento, CA. Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D Amours, B.J. Klug and R.M.R. Barclay Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16):R695-R696. Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M. Barclay A Larger-Scale Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): Barclay, R.M.R., E.F. Baerwald, and J.C. Gruver Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85, Bat Conservation International, Inc. (BCI) Species Profiles. February Cryan, P. 2008a. Overview of Issues Related to Bats and Wind Energy. Web Version of Presentation to the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee Technical Workshop & Federal Advisory Committee Meeting, Washington, D.C., 26 February, 2008: U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product. 71pp. Cryan, P. 2008b. Mating behavior as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: Cryan, P. M., and A. C. Brown Migration of bats past a remote island offers clues toward the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biological Conservation 139:1 11. Erickson, W.P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, D. P. Young Jr., K. Sernka, and R. Good Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and 50

51 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. Washington, DC: Resolve, Inc. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Erickson, W.P., Gritski, B., and K. Kronner Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report, August Technical report submitted to energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee. Everaert, J Wind turbines and birds in Flanders: preliminary study results and recommendations. Natuur. Oriolus. 69: Good, R.E., W. Erickson, A. Merrill, S. Simon, K. Murray, K. Bay, and C. Fritchman Bat Monitoring Studies at the Fowler Ridge Wind Energy Facility Benton County, Indiana, April 13 October 15, Prepared for: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. January 28, Gruver, J., M. Sonnenburg, K. Bay, and W. Erickson Post-Construction Bat and Bird Fatality Study at the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. July 21, 2008-October 31, 2008, and March 15, 2009-June 4, Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 104 pp. Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best Bats of the United States. Published by the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, In Cooperation with the Asheville Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Horn, J.W., E.B. Arnett and T. H. Kunz Behaviorial responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): Howe, R.W., W. Evans, and A.T. Wolf Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin. Huso, M.M.P An estimator of wildlife fatality from observed carcasses. Environmetrics, n/a. doi: /env Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study Final report. Prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, D. A. Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at a large-scale wind-power development on Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30:

52 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Johnson, G., M. Perlik, W. Erickson, M. Strickland, D. Shepherd, and P. Sutherland, Jr Bat Interactions with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: An Assessment of Bat Activity, Species Composition, and Collision Mortality. Prepared for EPRI, Palo Alto, California, and Xcel Energy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Johnson, G.D., M.K. Perlik, W.P. Erickson, and M.D. Strickland Bat Activity, Composition and Collision Mortality at a Large Wind Plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): Kerlinger, P., R. Curry, A. Hasch, and J. Guarnaccia Migratory Bird and Bat Monitoring Study at the Crescent Ridge Wind Power Project, Bureau County, Illinois: September 2005-August Final Draft. May Prepared for Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Washington, D.C. 41 pp. Kerlinger, P., J. Gehring, W.P. Erickson, R. Curray, A. Jain, and J. Guarnaccia Night Migrant Fatalities and Obstruction Lighting at Wind Turbines in North America. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(4): Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the MWEC Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for Technical report prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. for FPL Energy and MWEC Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee. Kerns, J, W. P. Erickson, and E. B. Arnett Bat and bird fatality at wind energy facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages in E. B. Arnett, editor. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA. Kingsley, A., and B. Whittam Wind Turbines and Birds: A Background Review for Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Bird Studies Canada Prepared for Environment Canada / Canadian Wildlife Service. 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: 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; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2012a. Natural History-Minnesota s geology. 52

53 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 MDNR. 2012b. Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. MDNR. 2012c. Minnesota County Biological Survey, Division of Ecological Resources. Areas of Biodiversity Significance. MDNR. 2012d. Minnesota State Parks. Forestville/Mystery Cave. MDNR. 2012e. Minnesota Wildlife Management Areas. Manly, B.F.J Randomization, Bootstrap, and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Second edition. Chapman and Hall, New York. 399 pp. Natural Resources Consulting, Inc. (NRC) Bird Screening Analysis and Pre-Construction Bird Survey. EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project. EcoEnergy Wind, LLC, Fillmore County, Minnesota. Prepared for EcoEnergy Wind, LLC, Harmony, MN. Prepared by Natural Resources Consulting, Inc., Cottage Grove, WI. January pp. NWCC Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions. Spring Packett, D.L., and J.B. Dunning, Jr Stopover Habitat Selection by Migrant Landbirds in a Fragmented Forest-Agricultural Landscape. Auk 126(3): Pearce-Higgins, J.W., L. Stephen, A. Douse, and R.H.W. Langston Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49, Piorkowski, M.D., and T. J. O Connell Spatial Pattern of Summer Bat Mortality from Collisions with Wind Turbines in Mixed-grass Prairie. Am. Midl. Nat. 164: Poulton, V Summary of Post-Construction Monitoring at Wind Projects Relevant to Minnesota, Identification of Data Gaps, and Recommendations for Further Research Regarding Wind-Energy Development in Minnesota. Prepared for the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Ralph, C.J., S. Droege, and J.R. Sauer Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: standards and applications in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege, editors. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. PSW-GTR-149. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Redell, D., E.B. Arnett, J.P. Hayes, and M.M.P. Huso Patterns of pre-construction bat activity determined using acoustic monitoring at a proposed wind facility in south-central Wisconsin. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, TX, USA. 53

54 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, MN Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy November 2012 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) Memo to Laura Hill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office, Re: Bird Mortality Event at Laurel Mountain Substation. October 25, Stantec Draft Acoustic Bat Data Analysis, EcoHarmony Wind Farm, Fillmore County, Minnesota, April Prepared for Gamesa Energy USA, LLC, Minneapolis, MN. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Independence, Iowa. Strickland, D Overview of Non-Collision Related Impacts from Wind Projects. In Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts. Washington, DC. May 18-19, Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C., Susan Savitt Schwartz, ed.september U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. January USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines: March 23, pp. U.S. Geological Survey Habitat Establishment, Enhancement and Management for Forest and Grassland Birds in Illinois: Nest Parasitism. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Winegrad, G Wind Turbines and Birds. In Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and Resolving Bird and Bat Impacts. Washington, DC. May 18-19, Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C., Susan Savitt Schwartz, ed.september Young, D.P., Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July October Prepared for: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, Texas. Prepared by: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 54

55 FIGURES

56 HOWARD WINNESHIEK South Forestville Branch Root River Cre ek South Branch Root River A20 Willow Creek Land Cover Classification Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, Large Intensity Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Figure 1. Project Layout and Land Cover EcoHarmony West Wind LLC DODGE MOWER FILLMORE HOUSTON MITCHELL OLMSTED HOWARD WINONA WINNESHIEK ALLAMAKEE Canfield Creek B4 A01 A05 A02 A06 A13 A31 A45 A08 A58 A16 A57 A04 A09 B1 A54 A23 A15 A56 Camp Cre ek Partridge Cr eek South Fork r Root Rive FLOYD Legend Miles CHICKASAW Map Area Shown in Red Location Fillmore Co., MN I Project Information Project Number: Last Modified: November 01, 2012 Project Area Canf Creek iel d A25 A07 A17 A22 A21 A32 A28 A18 B2 A19 A29 A42 A26 A36 A40 A39 A53 A51 A55 A24 A46 B3 A34 A35 A44 A30 A33 A49 A38 A52 A37 A41 A43 A50 A48 A47 A59 Deer Cr e ek P i ne Creek Pine Creek Turbine Layout (58) Buried Collector Line Access Road EcoHarmony Transmission Line Native Plant Communities National Hydrography Data Perennial Stream Preliminary Turbine Layout (59) Intermittent Stream A27 Elliott Cr e ek Pin e Creek Minnesota Iowa FILLMORE HOWARD Upper Iowa River UpperIowa River FILLMORE WINNESHIEK Data Sources Include: Stantec, USGS, USFWS, USGS, MNDNR, Gamesa, USFWS, and ESRI. Gamesa, and ESRI. Orthophotography: NAIP NAIP. & V:\1937\active\ \200\07_gis\mxds\EcoHarmony_overview_Landcover_ mxd One Team. Infinite Solutions. Prepared by Peer Review by Final Review by Initials Date AB 10/31/2012 CP 10/31/2012 BP 10/31/2012 The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. stantec.com Page 01 of 01

57 HOWARD WINNESHIEK South Forestville R J D Memorial Hardwood Forest Branch Root River Cre ek #* Nest B South Branch Root River Forestville Mystery Cave Willow Creek Harmony-Preston Valley Figure 2. Project Layout and Environmental Features EcoHarmony West Wind LLC DODGE OLMSTED WINONA MOWER FILLMORE HOUSTON A20 MITCHELL HOWARD WINNESHIEK ALLAMAKEE!2 Cherry Grove WMA Goliath Cave Cherry Grove Blind SNA Canfield Creek B4 A01 A05 A02 A06 A13 A31 A45 A08 A58 A16 A57 A04 A09 B1 A54 A23 A15 A56 #* Nest A Camp Cre ek Partridge Cr eek Reinvest in Minnesota South Fork r Root Rive FLOYD Miles CHICKASAW Map Area Shown in Red Location Fillmore Co., MN Project Information I Project Number: Last Modified: November 01, 2012 Legend Project Area Turbine Layout (58) A25 A07 A18 B2 A26 A39 A51 A46 B3 A34 A35 A44 A50 A47 P i ne Creek Pine Creek Buried Collector Line Access Road EcoHarmony Transmission Line Environmental Features #* Canf Creek iel d A17 A22 A21 A32 A28 A19 A29 A42 A36 A40 A53 A55 A24 A30 A33 A49 A38 A52 A37 A41 A43 A48 A59 Deer Cr e ek State Lands Preliminary Turbine Layout (59) DNR State Trails!2 Cave MCBS Eagle Nest National Wetlands Inventory Outstanding Minnesota Iowa A27 #* Nest C FILLMORE HOWARD Upper Iowa River #* UpperIowa River Nest D!2 Niagara Cave Elliott Cr e ek FILLMORE WINNESHIEK #* Nest E PineCreek High Moderate Below National Hydrography Data Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Data Sources Include: Stantec, USGS, Data Sources Include: USGS, USFWS, Gamesa, MNDNR, and USFWS, ESRI. Gamesa, and ESRI. Orthophotography: 2009 NAIP. Orthophotography: NAIP 2010 & V:\1937\active\ \200\07_gis\mxds\EcoHarmony_overviewNAIP_EnviroFeats_ mxd One Team. Infinite Solutions. Prepared by Peer Review by Final Review by Initials Date AB 10/31/2012 CP 10/31/2012 BP 10/31/2012 The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. stantec.com Page 01 of 01

58 201 AVE CR AVE 241 AVE Maple RD Mulberry RD CR. 17 CR AVE 211 AVE 331 AVE CR AVE StHwy AVE Kind RD Jumper RD 275 AVE CR 115 Killdeer RD 285 AVE 271 AVE Lonesome RD 225 AVE 241 AVE COUNTY AVE 295 AVE 3rd Ave SW COUNTY 35 2nd Ave SE 4th Ave SE Game RD 341 AVE 351 AVE [ A A Minnesota A A05 B1 A02 Iowa A54 A09 [ #* A04 A15 A58 A31 A56 #* A16 #* A06 A01 B4 A08 A57 A23 A50 A26 A51 B3 A25 A39 A34 A07 A18 A35 B2 A44 A46 A47 A38 A41 A59 A36 A53 A30 A52 A22 A28 A29 A43 A17 #* A55 A49 A48 A21 A32 A40 A24 A19 #* A37 A33 A42 A27 [ 146 ST Mill LN St.Line RD Meadow RD St.Line RD CR. 14 CR. 20 CR. 30 CR ST 160 ST 231 AVE 231 AVE 180 ST 140 ST Klondike RD [ 120 ST Kingbird RD 251 AVE 166 ST CR 110 Jay RD 150 ST 142 ST Journey RD CR ST [ Miles CR ST 146 ST 295 AVE CR. 44 CR ST 313 AVE 160 ST 4th St NW 120 ST 178 ST 4th St NE Sixth St 136 ST Garden RD US ST St. Line RD 156 ST 146 ST 130 ST 160 ST ³ Geographic Information Systems Stantec Consulting 2335 West Hwy 36 St. Paul, MN Harmony Site Location Figure 3: Harmony Wind Constraints Map R:\client\private\Gamesa\GISDATA\Projects\Figures\Figure_3_Harmony_Wind_Constraints.mxd November, 2012 Turbine Locations Buried Collector Lines Projected Road Placement Proposed Trasmision Line Route Project Boundary #* Met Towers 161kV Dairyland Transmission 161kV ITC Transmission Substation [ Eagles Nests One Team. Infinite Solutions. Streams Intermittent Streams Perennial Eagle Nests 2 mile Buffer Waterbodies DNR Bat Summer Roosting DNR Bat Winter Roosting Shrike Habitat Bat Habitat Karst Sinkholes Wetlands Native Plats 5 mi. Radius Houses Houses 1000 ft Buffer Roads Municipal Boundaries Parks MicroWave Beams Path The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,timeliness, or rights to the use of such information.

59 201 AVE CR AVE Maple RD Mulberry RD CR. 17 CR AVE 211 AVE 225 AVE 331 AVE 351 AVE Kind RD 275 AVE 341 AVE StHwy139 CR. 16 CR 115 Killdeer RD Jumper RD 285 AVE 271 AVE Lonesome RD 225 AVE 241 AVE Kodiac RD COUNTY AVE 295 AVE 3rd Ave SW COUNTY 35 2nd Ave SE 4th Ave SE 341 AVE 351 AVE Mill LN Forestville State Park 180 ST A20 CR 110 CR ST CR ST Game RD ³ CR CR. 14 A02 A ST A13 A45 A09 B1 A ST Jay RD CR AVE ST Minnesota Iowa ST ST CR AVE #* 156 ST 146 ST Meadow RD B4 A25 A17 A22 A07 A21 #* A01 CR. 20 A AVE A32 A28 A19 A18 A29 A31 A08 A42 A16 A58 A57 A26 B2 #* A23 A04 A ST Kingbird RD A15 A ST A56 A39 A AVE A51 A55 A30 B3 A34 A35 A44 A46 A24 A ST 142 ST Journey RD A52 A49 A37 A38 A ST A41 #* A50 #* 146 ST A48 A47 CR. 44 A ST 313 AVE 4th St NW 120 ST 4th St NE Sixth St 136 ST Garden RD US ST 130 ST A27 CR ST St.Line RD St.Line RD Klondike RD St. Line RD Miles Geographic Information Systems Stantec Consulting 2335 West Hwy 36 St. Paul, MN Harmony Site Location Figure 3b: Constraints Map R:\client\private\Gamesa\GISDATA\Projects\Figures\Figure_3b_Constraints.mxd November, 2012 Turbine Locations Buried Collector Lines Projected Road Placement Projected Trasmision Line Route One Team. Infinite Solutions. 161kV Dairyland Transmission 161kV ITC Transmission #* Met Towers Project Boundary Substation MCBS Sites (Rank of Moderate) Wetlands Wind Resource Setback Roads Roads_250ft_buffer Houses Houses 1000 ft Buffer Municipal Boundaries Parks MicroWave Beams Path The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness,timeliness, or rights to the use of such information.

60 APPENDIX A

61 Eagle Conservation Plan (in development)

62 Appendix B

63 Appendix B: Harmony Wind Project Setbacks Residences Sound & Wind Internal Turbine Spacing Applied Minimum Setback / Constraint 50dBA / 1000 ft minimum 80% 3 RD x 5 RD Source Site Permit Site Permit Property Lines of Nonparticipating Site 3 RD x 5 RD Parcels Permit Roads (from centerline) All Roads 250 ft Site Permit Federal (360 ft ROW) 1.15*FD + 0.5*ROW. Harmony Wind State (100 ft ROW) 1.15*FD + 0.5*ROW. Harmony Wind County (66 ft ROW) 1.1*FD + 0.5*ROW Harmony Wind Township (66 ft ROW) 1.1*FD + 0.5*ROW Harmony Wind Permanent Met Towers 250 ft Site Permit Other Civil Infrastructure Project Power Line (100 ft ROW) 1.1*FD + 0.5*ROW Harmony Wind Transmission Lines (100 ft ROW) 1.1*FD + 0.5*ROW Harmony Wind Airports n/a Harmony Wind Requirement / Comment Maximum noise limit of 50dBA night feet from residences. 5 RD prevailing wind direction & 3 RD secondary. Maximum of 20% of WT may be < the 3x5 setback. 5 RD prevailing wind direction & 3 RD secondary. Measured from edge of public ROW. No federal roads in project area. Measured from edge of ROW of public roads and unsigned lands. Dairyland & ITC 161kV transmission lines. 4 nautical miles (21,120 ft) away from the end of airstrips (FAA). Requirements and restrictions determined via

64 Pipelines (100 ft ROW) Microwave Beam Path Rail Road (66 ft ROW) Naturally Occurring Areas Lakes Rivers & Streams Wetlands Bat Woodlot Habitat Loggerhead Shrike Habitat Surveyed Eagle Nests Native Prairie n/a n/a n/a 1.15*FD + 0.5*ROW. 1.15*FD + 0.5*ROW. 600 ft 500 ft 500 ft 2 miles 500 ft Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind MDNR/ Harmony Wind MDNR/ Harmony Wind USFWS/ Harmony Wind Harmony Wind FAA 7460 airspace study determinations. No gas pipelines in project footprint. No beam path occurrences near planned turbines or related facilities. No rail lines in project footprint. No documented requirement. None in footprint. No development may occur within designated wetlands, but no required setback is documented. No development may occur within designated habitat, but no required setback is documented. Setback and habitat locations defined by Harmony Wind in consultation with MN DNR. No development may occur within designated habitat, but no required setback is documented. Setback and habitat locations defined by Harmony Wind in consultation with MN DNR. Nest locations surveyed by Harmony Wind. No defined setback requirement 2 mile limit is selfimposed. No development may occur within designated native prairie, but no required setback is documented. Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Broadway Street NE #695 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax:

65 Karst & Sinkhole Point Locations Special Designations NWI (National Wetland Inventory) State Preserve/Park Public Conservation Lands Managed as Grasslands 300 ft 600 ft 1 mile 600 ft Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind Harmony Wind No defined setback 300 foot limit is selfimposed. Will require specific geotech testing during field work as a definitive avoidance mechanism ft - If federal easement or lands. Otherwise 600 foot setback. 3x5 RD from public lands. No documented requirement. WRP (Wetlands Reserve Program) 600 ft Harmony Wind 1320 ft - If federal easement or lands. Otherwise 600 foot setback. No occurrences within project footprint. WMA, WPA, designated scientific and natural areas 600 ft Harmony Wind No occurrences within project footprint. CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) 600 ft Harmony Wind No occurrences within project footprint. RIM (Reinvest in Minnesota) 600 ft Harmony Wind No occurrences within project footprint. Notes: RD = rotor diameter. ROW = right of way. FD = fall distance, the height from base elevation to highest blade tip height _3 Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Broadway Street NE #695 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax:

66 Appendix C

67 Existing bird data from the Minnesota Natural History Information database, the LeRoy Breeding Bird Survey Route, the Decorah Christmas Bird Count, and the Lime Springs East Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas block for the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Area in Fillmore County, Minnesota. ORDER Minnnesota Minnesota FAMILY Code 2 NHIS Records 4 Status 3 Common Name (Scientific name ) 1 ORDER: Anseriformes FAMILY: Anatidae - Ducks/Geese/Swans Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii ) CACG 2 Canada Goose (Branta canadensis ) CAGO 8 10 confirmed Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus ) WHSW 1 Wood Duck (Aix sponsa ) WODU confirmed American Black Duck ( Anas rubripes ) ABDU SGCN 3 Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos ) MALL 8 probable Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca ) AGWT 1 Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus ) HOME 1 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser ) COME 1 ORDER: Galliformes FAMILY: Phasianidae - Partridges/Grouse/Turkeys/Quail Gray Partridge (Perdix perdix ) GRPA 1 Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus ) RPHE confirmed Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus ) RUGR 7 Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo ) WITU 2 10 probable ORDER: Ciconiiformes FAMILY: Ardeidae - Herons/Bitterns/Allies Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias ) GBHE 8 4 Green Heron (Butorides virescens ) GRHE 1 ORDER: Falconiformes FAMILY: Cathartidae - New World Vultures Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura ) TUVU 1 FAMILY: Accipitridae - Hawks/Kites/Eagles/Allies Osprey (Pandion haliaetus ) OSPR Bald Eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus ) BAEA SPC, SGCN 10 probable Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus ) NOHA SGCN 3 8 Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus ) SSHA 8 Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii ) COHA 1 8 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis ) RTHA probable Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus ) RLHA 10 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos ) GOEA 4 FAMILY: Falconidae - Caracaras/Falcons American Kestrel (Falco sparverius ) AMKE 8 10 ORDER: Charadriiformes FAMILY: Charadriidae - Lapwings/Plovers Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus ) KILL 10 8 probable FAMILY: Scolopacidae - Sandpipers/Phalaropes/Allies Wilson's Snipe (Gallinago delicata ) COSN 8 ORDER: Columbiformes FAMILY: Columbidae - Pigeons/Doves Rock Pigeon (Columba livia ) RODO confirmed Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura ) MODO 10 9 confirmed ORDER: Cuculiformes FAMILY: Cuculidae - Cuckoos/Roadrunners/Anis Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americana ) YBCU 1 Black-billed Cuckoo ( Coccyzus erythropthalmus ) BBCU SGCN 2 LeRoy BBS Route 5 Decorah CBC 6 Lime Springs East IBBA Records 7 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota Existing Bird Surveys Table 2 1 of 4

68 ORDER Minnnesota Minnesota FAMILY Code 2 NHIS Records 4 Status 3 Common Name (Scientific name ) 1 ORDER: Strigiformes FAMILY: Strigidae - Typical Owls LeRoy BBS Route 5 Eastern Screech-Owl (Megascops asio ) EASO 10 Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus ) GHOW 8 Barred Owl (Strix varia ) BDOW 5 Long-eared Owl (Asio otus ) LEOW 1 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus ) SEOW SPC, SGCN 1 ORDER: Apodiformes FAMILY: Apodidae - Swifts Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica ) CHSW 5 FAMILY: Trochilidae - Hummingbirds Decorah CBC 6 Lime Springs East IBBA Records 7 Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris ) RTHU probable ORDER: Coraciiformes FAMILY: Alcedinidae - Kingfishers Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon ) BEKI 6 10 probable ORDER: Piciformes FAMILY: Picidae - Woodpeckers/Allies Red-headed Woodpecker ( Melanerpes erythrocephalus ) RHWO SGCN 5 4 probable Red-bellied Woodpecker ( Melanerpes carolinus ) RBWO 3 10 probable Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius ) YBSA SGCN 1 Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens ) DOWO 5 10 confirmed Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus ) HAWO 2 10 probable Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus ) YSFL 10 9 probable Pileated Woodpecker ( Dryocopus pileatus ) PIWO 10 ORDER: Passeriformes FAMILY: Tyrannidae - Tyrant Flycatchers Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens ) EAWP SGCN 7 Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens ) ACFL SPC, SGCN 1996 Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe ) EAPH 3 Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus ) GCFL 6 FAMILY: Laniidae - Shrikes Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor ) NSHR 10 FAMILY: Vireonidae - Vireos Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons ) YTVI 3 Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus ) REVI 4 FAMILY: Corvidae - Jays/Crows Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata ) BLJA confirmed American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos ) AMCR confirmed FAMILY: Alaudidae - Larks Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris ) HOLA 10 4 FAMILY: Hirundinidae - Swallows Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor ) TRES 8 Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis ) NRWS SGCN 4 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia ) BANS 7 Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota ) CLSW 9 Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica ) BARS 10 confirmed FAMILY: Paridae - Chickadees/Titmice Black-capped Chickadee ( Poecile atricapillus ) BCCH 4 10 probable Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor ) ETTI 10 FAMILY: Sittidae - Nuthatches Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis ) RBNU 9 White-breasted Nuthatch ( Sitta carolinensis ) WBNU 2 10 probable FAMILY: Certhiidae - Creepers Brown Creeper (Certhia americana ) BRCR 9 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota Existing Bird Surveys Table 2 2 of 4

69 ORDER Minnnesota Minnesota FAMILY Code 2 NHIS Records 4 Status 3 Common Name (Scientific name ) 1 LeRoy BBS Route 5 Decorah CBC 6 Lime Springs East IBBA Records 7 FAMILY: Troglodytidae - Wrens Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus ) CARW 1 House Wren (Troglodytes aedon ) HOWR 10 confirmed Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes ) WIWR SGCN 5 FAMILY: Regulidae - Kinglets Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa ) GCKI 3 FAMILY: Turdidae - Thrushes Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis ) EABL 1 4 confirmed Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus ) HETH 1 American Robin (Turdus migratorius ) AMRO 10 8 confirmed FAMILY: Mimidae - Mockingbirds/Thrashers Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis ) GRCA 6 probable Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum ) BRTH SGCN 10 probable FAMILY: Sturnidae - Starlings European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris ) EUST confirmed FAMILY: Bombycillidae - Waxwings Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum ) CEDW 5 10 FAMILY: Parulidae - Wood-Warblers Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia ) YWAR 1 Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata ) MYWA 6 Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica caerulea ) CERW SPC, SGCN Louisiana Waterthrush ( Seirus motacilla ) LOWA SPC, SGCN Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas ) COYE 10 FAMILY: Thraupidae - Tanagers Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea ) SCTA 2 FAMILY: Emberizidae - Emberizids Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus ) EATO 3 American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea ) ATSP 10 Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina ) CHSP 10 Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla ) FISP SGCN 1 1 Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus ) VESP 10 Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis ) SAVS 8 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum ) GRSP SGCN 7 Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca ) FOSP 3 Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia ) SOSP 10 9 Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana ) SWSP SGCN 1 White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis ) WTSP SGCN 5 Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis ) SCJU 8 Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus ) LALO 1 Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis ) SNBU 1 FAMILY: Cardinalidae - Cardinals/Saltators/Allies Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis ) NOCA 8 10 confirmed Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus ) RBGR SGCN 4 probable Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea ) INBU 5 probable Dickcissel (Spiza americana ) DICK SGCN 2 EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota Existing Bird Surveys Table 2 3 of 4

70 ORDER Minnnesota Minnesota FAMILY Code 2 NHIS Records 4 Status 3 Common Name (Scientific name ) 1 FAMILY: Icteridae - Blackbirds Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus ) BOBO SGCN 10 LeRoy BBS Route 5 Decorah CBC 6 Lime Springs East IBBA Records 7 Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus ) RWBL 10 4 confirmed Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna ) EAME SGCN 6 Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus ) RUBL SGCN 2 Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus ) BRBL 1 1 Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula ) COGR 10 1 probable Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater ) BHCO 10 1 confirmed Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula ) BAOR 6 FAMILY: Fringillidae - Fringilline/Cardueline Finches Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus ) PUFI 10 House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus ) HOFI 8 10 Common Redpoll (Carduelis flammea ) CORE 4 Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus ) PISI 7 American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis ) AMGO confirmed FAMILY: Passeridae - Old World Sparrows House Sparrow (Passer domesticus ) HOSP confirmed 1 Bird species names conform to the bird species checklist available on the American Ornithologists' Union website (AOU Check-List of North American Birds 2008). 2 Standard 4-letter codes correspond to the codes used on bird banding data forms (USGS Bird Banding Laboratory, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 2007). 3 Status is based on protection categories designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: END = endangered, THR = threatened, SPC = special concern, and SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need (MN DNR 2007). No federally-endangered, threatened, or candidate species were represented in any of the existing bird survey data reviewed for the the EcoHarmony West Project Area. 4 Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) records from the project area. 5 Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) results from available data over the period along the LeRoy BBS Route (USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 2008). Number shown is the number of years out of the ten year period during which the species was detected on the route. (No data was available for the years after 2005). 6 Bird species detected within the Decorah, Iowa Christmas Bird Count (CBC) 15 mile diameter survey area between 1997 and 2006, the nearest CBC to which the EcoHarmony West Project Area lies. The number given is the number of years out of ten years that the species was found on this CBC (National Audubon Society 2008). Waterfowl species seen on the Decorah CBC are not typical in most winters within the EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Area, due to lack of open water in most winters. 7 Iowa Breeding Bird Atlas data from Records from the Lime Springs East atlas block which lies just south of the project area. IBBA data was obtained through the BBA Atlas Explorer website [Online] Accessed January 6, Breeding status codes ranked from most to least significant are confirmed and probable. EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project Fillmore County, Minnesota Existing Bird Surveys Table 2 4 of 4

71 Appendix D

72 To: Bill Smeaton From: Bill Poole Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Stantec File: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Date: October 24, 2012 Reference: Summary of pre-construction bird survey points and routes with respect to revised turbine layout The purpose of this memo is to summarize general bird use information based on data collected during the point count surveys and presented in the report Bird Screening Analysis and Pre-Construction Bird Survey dated January Furthermore, these data are compared with the proposed turbine layout for the EcoHarmony Wind Farm dated 11 October The stated objective of the survey was to characterize general bird use by collecting site-specific baseline data on bird species activity, richness, frequency, and behavior. The survey consisted of a combination of 32 5-minute point count locations (stations) and ten driving transects (Figure 1), which were used to gather avian presence and abundance information. The survey stations and driving routes provide comprehensive coverage of the proposed turbine layout. The survey occurred between June 2008 and May 2009 in order to capture a full year of observations. Monitoring occurred during 14 individual survey days, with three surveys during the summer breeding season, four surveys during the fall migration season, four surveys during the winter season, and three surveys during the spring migration season (Table 1). A full description of the methodology of the survey is provided in the bird survey report referenced above. Over the course of the survey, 17,259 individuals of 110 bird species were recorded within or near the EcoHarmony Wind Farm project boundary. Figure 2 depicts the average number of individuals recorded per day by point count station. Only two stations had an outlying average number of individuals. Station 9 had the highest average, at 60.1, but this statistic was skewed due to a single observation of approximately 700 ground doves (Columbina passerina) on September 17, With this event removed, the average number of individuals observed at station 9 dropped to 10.1, which was similar to the median of 11 individuals per monitoring event observed across stations. The second highest recorded average of 41.6 individuals was recorded at station 25. Again, this finding was largely caused by an observation of 150 swallows (unidentified species) on October 14, 2008 and 175 European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) on January 19, With these two events removed, the average number of individuals observed at station 25 dropped to 18.4, which is more consistent with observations across stations. When corrected for the isolated bird influx events at stations 9 and 25, only three stations had

73 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 2 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout averages greater than 20 individuals (stations 1, 3, 15) all of which were outside or on the border of the project boundary. In general, the average number of individual birds recorded across all survey stations was relatively similar and there is no strong correlation between the average of individual birds observed between each survey station to indicate there are bird concentration areas within the project area or associated with the turbine layout. The average number of species observed at each survey station varied between 1.9 and 5.7 with an average of 3.8 (Figure 3). Of the 6 point count stations that had averages greater than 5 species (stations 3, 4, 7, 17, 26, 29) 3 were located outside of the project boundary within or adjacent to forested habitat (stations 3, 4, 17). Stations 7, 26 and 29 were located within the project boundary but also associated with forested habitat. The proximity of these 6 point count locations to larger forest complexes may explain the slightly higher diversity in species composition. In general, there is not a significant difference in the number of species observed between survey stations and where there was a slight increase many of these stations were outside of the project boundary and/or associated with forested habitat. Also, a larger average number of species at a given survey station did not necessarily correlate to a larger average number of individual birds at the same location. For example, survey station 7 had one of the higher average species at 5.5 but the number of individuals was only slightly above average at Conversely, station 23 had the lowest average number of species at 1.9 in contrast to an above average number of individuals at The average number of individual birds recorded per day along each of the 10 survey driving routes ranged from 12.2 to 56.7 (average 25) and is depicted on Figure 4. The two routes that exhibited the largest average daily numbers were routes C and F with an average of 56.7 and 43.1 respectively. Both of these routes extended partially outside of the project area and traversed through portions of forested habitat located near the north-central and northwest part of the project area. Survey route A is the only other survey route that exceeded the average number of individuals with 32.1 and was located entirely outside of the project area. All of the other survey routes were below the daily average of 25. It is important to understand, due to the configuration of the local road system and the survey point count stations, that there was variation in the length of each route which may also account for variations in the data collected. The average number of bird species recorded per day along each of the 10 survey driving routes ranged from 3.6 to 8.4 (average 5.2) and is depicted on Figure 5. The two routes that exhibited the largest average of species were routes C and F with an average of 8.4 and 7.8 respectively. Survey route A is the only other one that exceeded the average number of species with 6.7. All of the other survey routes were below the daily species average of 5.2. These numbers correlate very well with the average number of individual birds recorded along each survey route and likely for the same habitat related reasons as described above. In conclusion, these data suggest:

74 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 3 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout 1) There appears to be a relatively uniform distribution of both the average number of individuals and average number of species at fixed survey points across the project area. 2) There is not a consistent correlation between the average number of individuals and the average number of species recorded at each fixed survey station. 3) There is relative uniformity of both average number of individuals and average number of species associated at the driving route survey locations within the project boundary. 4) There is a strong correlation between the average number of individuals and the average number of species associated with each driving survey route. 5) Fixed point count survey locations with somewhat higher averages of individuals or species are either located outside of the project area and/or are located within or directly adjacent to large forest complexes. There are no turbines or other project facilities sited with these forested areas. 6) The 2 survey routes with the highest average of individuals and species are associated with forested habitat in the north-central portion of the project area (Route C) and forested habitat in close proximity to the Forestville State Park (Route F). There are no turbines or other project facilities sited with these forested areas. 7) Figure 1 portrays the proposed facility layout and illustrates the avoidance of turbine placement within or in close proximity to the larger forested complexes. 8) The lowest average number of individuals and species were documented at fixed survey locations and driving routes that were located in disturbed agricultural habitats. 9) The low species diversity and species richness are indicative of an overall disturbed agricultural environment. 10) What about listed species? STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. William Poole Senior Scientist/Project manager Bill.Poole@Stantec.comm

75 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 4 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout References Natural Resources Consulting, Inc Bird Screening Analysis and Pre- Construction Bird Survey: EcoHarmony West Wind Energy Project

76 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 5 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout Figure 2. Average Number of Individuals per Point Count Station Average Number of Individuals Point Count Station

77 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 6 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout Figure 3. Average Number of Species per Point Count Station Average Number of Species Point Count Station

78 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 7 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout 60.0 Figure 4. Average Number of Individuals per Driving Route 50.0 Average Number of Individuals A B C D E F G H I J Driving Route

79 24 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 8 of 8 Reference: Pre-construction bird survey and turbine layout Figure 5. Average Number of Species per Driving Route Average Number of Species A B C D E F G H I J Driving Route

80 Appendix E

81 Memo To: Bill Smeaton From: Bill Poole Gamesa Energy Stantec File: Date: October 19, 2012 Reference: Preliminary Eagle Survey Results Twelve eagle survey point count stations were established within or adjacent to the Harmony West Wind Project boundary. Five of the survey locations were strategically located to observe eagle activity near the 1 confirmed eagle nest within the project boundary and 4 eagle nests within 2 miles of the project boundary. Each of the nests was determined to be active during the aerial and/or ground-based nest surveys conducted in the spring of The remaining 6 survey locations were selected to provide the best vantage points from a landscape perspective to observe a representative sample of eagle use throughout the project area (Figure 1). The point count location arrangement was established prior to the development of the current wind turbine layout. Each survey point was centered on an 800 meter diameter search radius and the survey duration at each point consisted of 30 minutes. A total of 14 survey events were conducted between 7/18/2012 and 9/27/2012. This equated to 84 hours (5,040 minutes) of survey effort for this time period. Eagles were observed during 8 of the survey events. Eight of the eagles observed were within the 800 meter survey radius and 8 were outside of the radius as illustrated on the attached field survey flight maps. The following table summarizes the eagle survey results to date. Date Survey Point Location # of Eagles # of Eagles w/in or Outside of the 800 m Survey Radius Vertical Orientation to the Rotor Swept Height Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult 8/9/ Out Below 8/9/ In Within 8/13/ Out 1 Out 1 Above 1 Below Below 8/24/ In Within 8/24/ In, 1 Out 1 Within 1 Above pb v:\1937\active\ \300\02_correspondence\client\preliminary_eagle_survey_results.docx

82 October 19, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 2 of 2 Reference: Preliminary Eagle Survey Results 9/6/ Out Above 9/11/ In Within 9/20/ In, 1 Out 1 Within 1 Above 9/20/ In 1 In Within Within 9/27/ In Within 9/27/ Out Above Of the 16 eagle observations recorded during the survey effort to date, 8 were observed flying at a height equal to the rotor swept zone and 8 were either above or below this zone. It is interesting to note the majority of the bald eagle sightings were associated with survey points #8 and #9. The exception is eagle observations on 2 dates associated with survey point #5. No eagles were observed at survey point locations near the proposed wind turbines during this survey time period. A majority of the eagle observations were near the Upper Iowa River, which is not surprising given the foraging and roosting habitat available in this area. Due to the frequency of eagle observations at # 8 and #9 it is likely some of these observations involve the same individuals. Also, all 3 of the locations where eagles were observed are associated with nest sites. The only eagle activity observed within the project boundary was at survey point #8 which is located on the south project boundary. Sincerely Bill Poole Senior Environmental Scientist bill.poole@stantec.com Attachment: Survey Location Map pb v:\1937\active\ \300\02_correspondence\client\preliminary_eagle_survey_results.docx

83 HOWARD WINNESHIEK R J D Memorial Hardwood Forest Forestville Mystery Cave #* Nest B Figure 1. Eagle Survey Points and Eagle Nests / Known Caves EcoHarmony West Wind LLC 5 A10 A12 A20 DODGE OLMSTED WINONA MOWER FILLMORE HOUSTON!2 Cherry Grove WMA Goliath Cave Cherry Grove Blind SNA A25 A17 6 A07 A22 A21 A14 A02 A01 7 A05 A06 A03 A32 A13 A28 A11 A08 A18 A19 A45 A29 A31 A42 A16 A58 A57 A26 A09 A04 A15 A23 A36 A53 A30 A40 A54 A39 A56 A55 A A34 A35 #* Nest A A44 A46 A47 A38 A41 2 A52 A43 A49 A48 A24 A37 10 A33 1 A50 A59 11 Reinvest in Minnesota MITCHELL FLOYD Legend HOWARD WINNESHIEK CHICKASAW Map Area Shown in Red Location Fillmore Co., MN Project Information Project Number: Last Modified: October 22, 2012 Project Area Miles EcoHarmony Transmission Line Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer Preliminary Turbine Layout (59) Buried Collector Lines Circuit 1 Collector Circuit 2 Collector ALLAMAKEE I A27!2 Niagara Cave 12 #* Nest E Circuit 3 Collector Circuit 4 Collector Environmental Features Minnesota Iowa #* 8 Nest C FILLMORE HOWARD 9 #* Nest D FILLMORE WINNESHIEK #* Eagle Nest!2 Cave State Lands Data Sources Include: USGS, MNDNR, Gamesa, and ESRI. V:\1937\active\ \200\07_gis\mxds\eagle_surveys_ \Figure1_layout_eaglesurveypoints.mxd One Team. Infinite Solutions. Prepared by Peer Review by Final Review by Initials Date CP DRAFT The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. stantec.com Page 01 of 01

84 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 5 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/06/2012 Start Time: 14:02 End Time: 14:32 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 5 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

85 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 5 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/27/2012 Start Time: 10:45 End Time: 11:15 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 5 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

86 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 8 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 08/09/2012 Start Time: 10:20 End Time: 10:50 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 8 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

87 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 8 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 08/24/2012 Start Time: 12:08 End Time: 12:38 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 8 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

88 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 8 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/11/2012 Start Time: 12:46 End Time: 13:16 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 8 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

89 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 8 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/20/2012 Start Time: 10:47 End Time: 11:17 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 8 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

90 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 9 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 08/09/2012 Start Time: 9:39 End Time: 10:09 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 9 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

91 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 9 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 08/13/2012 Start Time: 11:54 End Time: 12:24 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 9 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

92 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 9 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 08/24/2012 Start Time: 11:28 End Time: 11:58 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 9 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

93 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 9 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/20/2012 Start Time: 10:07 End Time: 10:37 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 9 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

94 Stantec Eagle Point Count Field Maps Project Site: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Point Count Station: 9 Observer: Ric Zarwell Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 09/27/2012 Start Time: 13:30 End Time: 14:00 stantec.com Orthophotography: BING Legend Eagle Point Locations 800m Buffer 2012 Flight Paths Adult Bald Eagle Juvenile Bald Eagle 9 One Team. Infinite Solutions.

95 Appendix F

96 Memo To: Bill Smeaton From: Curt Bjurlin Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Stantec File: EcoHarmony Wind Farm Date: October 23, 2012 Reference: Summary of bat use activity with respect to revised turbine layout The purpose of this memo is to summarize general bat activity based on data collected during the 2009 activity season and presented in the Draft report, Acoustic Bat Data Analysis dated April Furthermore, these data are herein compared with the proposed turbine layout for the EcoHarmony Wind Farm dated 11 October The stated objective of the 2009 survey in the report was to characterize general bat use by collecting site-specific baseline data on bat species activity, richness, frequency, and behavior. The 2009 survey utilized of a combination of meteorological (MET) tower mounted and handheld Anabat echolocation detectors, which were used to gather sonograms of bat calls or bat passes. The survey occurred between 3 June and 29 September 2009 to capture summer and primary fall migratory seasons. Anabat microphones were mounted at 2 meters, 22 meters and 80 meters on a MET tower located in the northwest portion of the project (Figure 1) and served as the fixed point of reference for the project. Twelve surveys at each of 7 mobile transect locations were conducted to supplement the information gathered at the MET tower location. A full description of the methodology of the survey is provided in the study report herein referenced. All of the bat species known to be present in this region of Minnesota were detected during the study period. These bat species may be broken into three general call frequency groupings: high frequency, mid-frequency, and low frequency, as follows High frequency ( 40 khz) bats eastern red bat, little brown bat, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat; Mid-frequency (30-40 khz) bats eastern red bat; or Low frequency (<30 khz) bats big brown bat, silver-haired bat and hoary bat. Figure 2 depicts the relationship between call frequency grouping and method of monitoring. The proportion of calls detected in each of the frequency groupings was essentially identical when comparing the mean of all seven handheld transect locations and the mean of transects 1, 2 and 4, which were located in the northwest portion of the project area. Furthermore, the pattern of frequency grouping recorded during the handheld surveys was very similar to the

97 23 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 2 of 6 Reference: Bat use and turbine layout pattern of frequency groupings detected at the 2 meter height on the MET tower. The MET tower was located nearly equidistant to Transects 1, 2 and 4. The similarity in data collected at the 2 meter height on the MET tower and the handheld transects supports the conclusion that the handheld monitoring devices were representative of bat activity lower to the ground, where bat activity was found to be highest as depicted in Figure 3 and described below. Also depicted in Figure 2 is the change in frequency grouping pattern with height above ground at the MET tower monitoring location. At the 22 meter height the low frequency call grouping (representing big brown bat, silver-haired bat and hoary bat) became prevalent and this trend further developed at the 80 meter monitoring height. It is reasonable to interpolate that a similar trend of shift in call frequency grouping would have been detected at the mobile transect locations had microphones located at 22 and 80 meters been available at those locations. In general bat passes per monitoring night were somewhat higher in the Northwestern portion of the project area. Transects 1, 2 and 4 had an average of 5.8, 9.2 and 5.8 passes per monitoring night, respectively. By contrast, Transects 3, 5, 6 and 7 had 1.9, 0.9, 2.4 and 1.3 passes per monitoring night, respectively. Again, the higher numbers of average passes per night were documented at the handheld transects that were in closer proximity to the MET tower monitoring location, which indicates that the greatest data collection effort was aligned with the higher bat activity areas within the proposed wind farm. This trend also would appear to be consistent with the presence of more resource features for bat species beyond the northwestern boundary of the EcoHarmony Wind Farm. These resource features include Forestville State Park and Mystery Cave, RJD Memorial Hardwood Forest, and Cherry Grove Blind SNA and Goliath Cave. In addition, the region outside of the northwest boundary of the project is characterized by greater topographical relief, forested riparian areas and other suitable bat habitat. Of significance for the proposed turbine layout, the handheld transect with the greatest incidence of observed bat passes per monitoring night was Transect 2 where an average of 9.2 passes per monitoring night were recorded. Under the current amended wind turbine layout, the nearest turbine to Transect 2 is greater than two miles away. Transect 2 was located within a wooded riparian area, which may explain the higher incidence of bat passes (Figure 3). Bat Transect 1, where an average of 5.8 passes were recorded per monitoring night, was located approximately 1/4 mile East of the wooded area associated with Forestville State Park, which also may have helped contribute to bat use at this transect. In contrast, Transect 4, also with an average of 5.8 bat passes per monitoring night, was located approximately one mile from the nearest woodlot of one acre or greater in size. The area surrounding transect 4 was generally characterized by agricultural land uses. Other transects with lower relative activity (e.g., Transects 3 and 6) were located within 500 feet of woodlots greater in size than 1 acre. Therefore, there is not a clear and consistent correlation between woodlot proximity and bat activity observed during the sampling period reported in this study, with the exception of Transect 2.

98 23 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 3 of 6 Reference: Bat use and turbine layout Figure 4 depicts the mean number of passes per night by receptor height and bat call frequency grouping at the MET tower monitoring location. As expected, the number of bat calls detected per monitoring night decreased markedly with height above ground. At the 2 meter height a mean of 28.2 calls were recorded per night, while at the 22 meter and 80 meter heights calls decreased to 18.5 and 4.6, respectively. This trend indicates that bat use is generally greatest lower to the ground and is decreased at the 80 meter monitoring location, which was located in the rotor swept area of the proposed turbines (roughly 40 meters to 120 meters). While the proportion of calls in the low frequency call grouping was observed to be highest at the 80 meter monitoring height, the mean number of calls per monitoring night in the low frequency group was lowest at the 80 meter height when compared to data collected at the other monitoring heights. In conclusion, these data suggest: 1) The greatest amount of data was collected in the areas most frequented by bats obviating the need for supplemental pre-construction bat data collection; 2) The MET tower monitoring location recorded comparable results to the handheld transects at the 2 meter recording height; 3) The relative activity of bats observed at the 80 meter monitoring location (within the rotor swept area) was considerably lower than at monitoring locations closer to the ground; and 4) The preponderance of bat calls recorded at the 80 meter height were within the low frequency grouping, which included the big brown bat, silver-haired bat and hoary bat. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Curt Bjurlin Senior Project Manager Curt.Bjurlin@ stantec.com c. Bill Poole

99 23 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 4 of 6 Reference: Bat use and turbine layout References Stantec Consulting Services, Inc DRAFT Acoustic Bat Data Analysis: EcoHarmony Wind Farm, Filmore County, Minnesota

100 HOWARD WINNESHIEK Figure 1. Preliminary Layout and Bat Survey Results EcoHarmony West Wind LLC!2 Forestville Mystery Cave Mystery Cave R J D Memorial Hardwood Forest Forestville Mystery Cave Transect 1 DODGE OLMSTED WINONA MOWER FILLMORE HOUSTON Cherry Grove WMA Cherry Grove Blind SNA Goliath Cave!2 A A02 A14 A01 A03 A05 A11 A13 A06 A08 A45 A12 A31 A16 A57 A58 A09 A04 A23 A20 A54 A15 A56 Transect Transect 3 Reinvest in Minnesota MITCHELL FLOYD Legend HOWARD WINNESHIEK CHICKASAW Map Area Shown in Red Miles Location Fillmore Co., MN ALLAMAKEE I Project Information Project Number: Last Modified: October 24, 2012 A17 A25 A22 A07 A21 A28 A32 A19 A18 A29 A42 A26 Transect A36 A53 A40 A39 A51 A30 A55 A34 A44 A46 A A38 A41 Transect 5 A52 A43 A48 A49 A24 A37 Transect 6 A A50 A47 A59 Transect 7 Project Area Premliminary Turbine Layout!2 Cave Mobile Bat Transects EcoHarmony Transmission Line Buried Collector Line Proposed Access Roads State Lands A27!2 Niagara Cave 1.3 Bat Transect Details FILLMORE HOWARD 2.4 FILLMORE WINNESHIEK Mean Bat Passes Per Monitoring Night Transect ID Data Sources Include: USGS, MNDNR, Gamesa, ESRI V:\1937\active\ \200\07_gis\mxds\Layout_ \EcoHarmony_Bat_Transect_Turbines_ mxd One Team. Infinite Solutions. Prepared by Peer Review by Final Review by Initials Date AS MP BP The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. stantec.com Page 01 of 01

101 23 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 5 of 6 Reference: Bat use and turbine layout 90% Figure 2: Distribution of Bat Call Frequency Groups Relative to Monitoring Method 80% 70% Percent of Frequency Group 60% 50% 40% 30% Low Frequency Mid Frequency High Frequency 20% 10% 0% Seven Transect Mean Transects 1, 2 and 4 Mean 2m MET 22m MET 80m MET Monitoring Method

102 HOWARD Forestville Mystery Cave Figure 3. Preliminary Layout, Woodlands, and Bat Survey Results EcoHarmony West Wind LLC 5.8 Transect 1 DODGE OLMSTED WINONA A10 A12 A20 MOWER FILLMORE HOUSTON A14 A03 A11 MITCHELL HOWARD WINNESHIEK ALLAMAKEE A01 A02 A06 A05 A13 A45 A31 A08 A16 A58 A57 #* A09 A04 A23 A54 A15 A Transect 2 Transect 3 Reinvest in Minnesota FLOYD CHICKASAW Map Area Shown in Red Legend Miles Location Fillmore Co., MN I Project Information Project Number: Last Modified: October 24, 2012 Project Area Premliminary Turbine Layout 500ft Turbine Buffer A25 A07 A18 A26 Transect A39 A51 A34 A A50 A44 A46 A47 Mobile Bat Transects 500ft Bat Transect Buffer #* Met Tower with Mounted Anabat Unit EcoHarmony Transmission Line Proposed Access Roads A17 A22 A21 A32 A28 A19 A29 A42 A36 A40 A53 A55 A30 Transect 6 A24 A33 A49 A52 A37 A38 A41 A43 Transect A48 A59 Transect Buried Collector Line Aerially Delineated Woodlands ( > 1 acre) State Lands Bat Transect Details Mean Bat Passes Per Monitoring Night Transect ID A Data Sources Include: USGS, MNDNR, Gamesa, ESRI V:\1937\active\ \200\07_gis\mxds\Layout_ \EcoHarmony_Bat_Transects_Turbines_woodlands_ mxd FILLMORE HOWARD One Team. Infinite Solutions. WINNESHIEK FILLMORE WINNESHIEK Prepared by Peer Review by Final Review by Initials Date AS MP BP The information on this map has been compiled by Stantec staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Stantec makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. stantec.com Page 01 of 01

103 23 October, 2012 Bill Smeaton Page 6 of 6 Reference: Bat use and turbine layout 30 Figure 4: Mean Bat Passes Per Night by Receptor Monitoring Height and Bat Call Frequency Group Recorded at a Fixed 80 Meter MET Tower 28.2 Mean Bat Passes Per Monitoring Night Low Frequency Mid Frequency High Frequency Total Passes m 22m 80m Receptor Monitoring Height

104 Appendix G

105 Appendix G: Summary of Turbine Changes Made in Response to July 19 MDNR Letter In its letter dated July 19, 2012, MDNR staff identified several groups of turbine locations which were categorized by the type of concern. The following provides a summary of steps taken by Harmony Wind to review and respond to these concerns. Turbine numbers listed correspond to turbines shown on Figure 4: June MW Agency Review Layout. The following WT were flagged by MDNR as very close to Bloody Run Creek. A65 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A98 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A78 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. The following WT were flagged by MDNR as 'in the vicinity of' Bloody Run Creek After review aerial photos, MDNR agreed with Harmony Wind A39 was not a A39 problem. A39 moved slightly NE to become the current A20. A56 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A18 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A48 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. The following WT were flagged by MDNR as 'in close proximity' to an intermittent stream, which was implied to be potential shrike habitat. Subsequent dialog with MDNR could not quantify a specific concern. A26 became the current A22 (no move). The location for A22 observes a 500 A26 foot setback from any potential shrike habitat as determined in consultation with MDNR. In its subsequent guidance on Oct 24, 2012, DNR suggests a setback is not required as long as placement inside potential habitat is avoided. A84 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Subsequent dialog with MDNR could not quantify a specific concern. A28 moved NE to become the current A21. The location for A21 observes a 500 foot setback from any potential shrike habitat as determined in A28 consultation with MDNR. In its subsequent guidance on Oct 24, 2012, DNR suggests a setback is not required as long as placement inside potential habitat is avoided. A72 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A97 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A83 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A87 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. The following WT were flagged by MDNR as being 'in close proximity' to sinkholes. below are based on shapefiles downloaded from Minnesota state resources. A14 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A27 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Distances

106 A57 A94 A18 A35 A58 A98 A19 A37 A65 A21 A43 A75 A25 A50 A85 A9 A23 A40 A77 A90 A80 A46 A70 A74 A76 A81 Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A19 became the current A13, which is over 700 feet from the nearest mapped sinkhole and over 8,800 feet from the nearest park boundary. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A43 became the current A45, which is over 780 feet to the nearest mapped sinkhole and over 10,000 feet to the nearest park boundary. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A9 became the current A7, which is over 3,300 feet to nearest mapped sinkhole. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A40 became the current A46, which is over 600 feet to nearest mapped sinkhole. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A46 became the current A59, which is over 460 feet to nearest mapped sinkhole. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A74 became the current A47, which is over 450 feet to nearest mapped sinkhole. Turbine location was eliminated in subsequent layout. A81 was moved west to become the current A50, which is over 500 feet to nearest mapped sinkhole. Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Broadway Street NE #695 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax:

107 Response to Turbine Concerns Expressed in Oct 24, 2012 MDNR Letter In its letter dated Oct 24, 2012, MDNR staff identified multiple turbines as being a continuing concern, presumably in relation to natural resources within the Forestville State Park. The following are noted with respect to the above request: These turbines represent the highest performing turbines in the current project layout. Alternate locations suggested by the MDNR were all deemed not suitable. Prior mention of specific turbine locations was in connection with their close proximity to sinkholes. A more general concern was expressed concerning proximity to Forestville State Park. It was communicated by MDNR staff that the risk assessment assigned to the project by MDNR would not change even if all nine turbines were to be removed. Despite the lack of a corresponding risk reduction benefit to the Project, five of the nine turbines which were the closest to the park were removed from the Project, as detailed below. The following provides a summary of steps taken by Harmony Wind to review and respond to these concerns. A3 A10 A11 A12 A14 A2 A5 A13 A45 Harmony Wind agreed to eliminate this turbine location. Harmony Wind agreed to eliminate this turbine location. Harmony Wind agreed to eliminate this turbine location. Harmony Wind agreed to eliminate this turbine location. Harmony Wind agreed to eliminate this turbine location. This turbine is over 7,500 feet from the nearest park boundary and was not moved. This turbine is over 8,000 feet from the nearest park boundary and was not moved. This turbine is over 8,800 feet from the nearest park boundary and was not moved. This turbine is over 9,500 feet from the nearest park boundary and was not moved _3 Gamesa Energy USA, LLC Broadway Street NE #695 Minneapolis, MN Tel: Fax: