The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062083• asi arsr III Cc A it i { a g .t - - - ic i C 1 I s - 7ei k£ tEfvi iE . 2- m i PIA 1:4 ' ill lb i itc� = : € _ r i S�1E 1 m �,,R w mo d' W S � m li} $ qE I ' I , i , hi � E111m � ` ` agar €€ g" giligi 16 € _ � �: 14 3 1 . I E : 10, E$F 1, -' jiesfE s` E"aIH a E t i o Wa na - nm = u" nan ` zi ° E ! y{ i_ ; d f . Q c 1mil 34 , 1 - ,.7412 2!II i i i :till C o :52;;;-:. Ey (NO i O -_-! N I IF a -- _ _ _= ��— �- -- - ,2222. .. • �,. .. i 9 , o , . II 2, , i 1- - I� ,. —J ___—.. - N P. • � � A I d c www+w.Iw. .a..e. - , _ - r n 1 F 7 d 7 • , 1 1 - L - 3 1 ,4 4 °' ( 1 a 1� 3 FYI ,. / 'Y.s#^tf.4 25 {{ ` '- - Y I� e 3 a .• M / y 3 3 A _ .. ' I e g n I 3 II r,, ` .yr ' .. a • x °e d 1 y .A Lie= >' • ' �ij. o_ Ili ( me I, "! • • F i• • a-, - ',• • F i 413 • gg • �� • • • ,.t v • N M • I• �• 1 . 1. • •• go •...,..„....41.40044,•••.,„,,_ 1• •• 1.. , lir =1 5 �, ••� r �s(�•• •I ius `1• • .• •• 1 ! I. •,•• Vs/li, - 1 e, L :. f11 • • • 1 %• -� 1 e "II • I §,� i�a * L. 1�'uN :: �j ,! • • G 1 a • • •• • • • 1 • .- • • L_ • _ • • r Y r •• — 1 04 ,1 1 m ii Y'�1)T+IIMl • 1 •.' friar/ - -- -s • • • ` I0' a • 6 • • 213.; i p ••• 14 •0I I r � i N �• 'M. • \ a i e1 • I 1 ' i �a • } •• .t F,ePu,wg w,ej PVIMW d• CS 1 • J }� 1 • 1; , ,. ,.•hw —, 1 \�\ • • 1 \ a • • 1I• _ 1 - II •-Iii NIAS v,: - '� a 14 a a y li OD NELL 10,1Nall • s{� o i i S i a a } YSg =1 96 IV W IL d a ! ' 5 5 r r 511 Si 'gli @ 8 I. V V U �LI tr. s F e $ S �` 1 g ass '6S1-- L 111 It m P gp ,A m x A 8 • ` 4 fi n ss l S a 5 b d u 5 a .t 9 a! — fi S 6 GW � " 'tf � 8 8bz $ z � ; @ = toes eke m lln S a 3 g R Belk s a WW G >s` R3c S S a te _ "" • , ` i ' ill! gg o i$p,iahI I V Q U a w i y o o a` F O. w 'd• m o° ya -. If ' II- �flgw[�a 3 i Y y 0iIII,III.i:31 ra m 1�"' :, r '-' gve4 a. "1$0,,,, e t I. ,. + , ,,,-:. >4],i,, - , t,,, ,.. ,,,-;-.,::: - ,;- _ t itT } _ N srt A F ,, I ". o: .:., t Willis' ' r W✓ ni a c 41 IN .r>•"�E a �' � 6 I__G F44 BI '€Aitti `„ " I v. ' -I, a-✓. ! . �p St +d F -,..e + r-p4• R`w „„,4w "1 ,� .a:3, 1 ,.�-a-^-�'- c S rr11 y'pk r. Ifr �" � r ✓ R" :«sr .1 , a�.#A 'f; •"'•ti it t>r✓� y .1i ` _ k m 4 a I t .4)..L .-- $ k x ,P' y. _ `‘:44`.1L. r� t f , p �` f illlt•.P/y� 1 - I •• - �• I T S -M- '}+F k- ,-. '' ,_ 'a`x ,tl '1'... .45 m+zy -* "- 't F .LL i �� A 6 • • S3 ,w:P e L t:o 1• � • ue a § -, + v .+ t' ' .i. LL I va n . sht n + " yq�y�,� y f 4 J �y+Iy� 4 a f f S t -' 'i .,qt j }, R' a 1! Y f € Y ' `a1 l,�`-S' a".f RrA .5, e a • 3 I . i CEk ' % .d2. ,# '`€ ..-4,. ♦ ��'`` rye 4 ,*V i, `4 Y`' /'/ '1' k ' d r lYa`Lti k :r • E , ' Cc.1/4.I it r' "l�iF•osts + t . Ti ,fa t " ..1:•:/+Akd a.Y. xMC'f. b'L _ 15.ih "s4 ,+., 'u. '� ' fir. •E—ir, �� tM .Lb l} +•....4 �i 'aft w! f IM 'i4 ✓ t R , t Mrc `� 1,‘,.'. `; a , +r,1+ - — e C Cr— A" Y •s 4s4,..4",..?u r # s„, °i w She. ,#W -sy ,Is m a: to k t -,'.-..t. om`°yt 'i.,i, ( K F , et i, kraut, .3 z. i, " t r, i, ?`. - t-•44, ' ' a i :- . I ' ".+. ,. e... `�.... ,."CS Y3F{ d: z ..uxfl1°. - +' r. 4.,;,. rz ®fPT�. .'?&a;._ ' e4 e �. I. 1 9121.4i, ,gi 4 ° £'uv.d.,':.Y A ,;4 n ,..4.1.1i, , .•,K n- r - p� - r c * .; t ,I r `I A` § ar. .-yy rhry -i1{ o CStt4 : �,•ifir h. z.iwk S I• 3 r . _ ,. . .,,,,,‘,. .---_,- , , , ... ., .. x N• p +tr , a yam, ,.. ... !! r f mo. `{p iE'�dy1. , -9:i y. k ji T . ry, + ffi^ " T"+M a x �',BiP.?. z �•�. �,� i .k a �F'• ep.A ,..' le ; e -I ' Y}. f.?w rk F. 4a • 18,04t.e� ♦ i ,, kr" , .4 ,. X°I. 'tlr's q ti fil 173 \ in ♦ m y yY"r°I • 'Cr Ir CO x. Art .7n : pg ' € 1 F �. r tai � "`. *` �� WV L area 'N sir x211 PILL N0,1 W ` • - 103 1\1;.\\I Ep r ee VN - 'a la e ` gi 3 m O re F I 175 Hi re W U a - E • 1 CO � co � a oae ga E £ 21 E crg 1; q p¢• 3 N - u w L f w' . E ! a e tA 3 '- i j '� g - y 1 a W 8 € o ! a _° i t 1 lilt I I� I. R � �a C WZ i a n i E t Y c E E € y �. N s s v= A W C e a u u u a a % ; 3 ,I t y' O o °E A I J (,� O J C ¢ w ti. • o u u a rc m �' w a° a. R:ke= .E" Cp CD • ffi i I 3 o �1f1 il �� z _ �♦�_-may___ esdIiI ::� Ol 3 a Tom_"F a4sa in ii U-1 w i♦ $ - f m Ti. - 1. v 14+ Fp n i 1 • fl.a. ••••••••••:••• "'''''''o...�.� erne o o 01r \\ wr• i.r�r�{�..w.+. ! `� +m o c l <. <. o 2 �� . s; +1 o E J .rte 4 rem O1O ,-re 4"1/4 lli ot -hLp ,,:._ , [ o i T II I 01#71,S I r�- " r i• � v�moo. y o , ,---+ f• '_ ---- to a i 1 — 4 � � ell •1 '1_-A <fn . i • 1 • .♦A�.r 11.4\ P . `e: 'E tl,,,r� r • 1 �• p. ♦♦. % A - _xicm.• . $ t • i 1 1 al a ( F�r� c I • :. • t♦ \of •• . C % • / 1 + ♦ - • • 1 • 1 • M a 1 • • .1 • • ♦ 1 Y 1 t••• 1 ^\ AicPunap awa�PrMposo Ooq,• • 4 i r \ I ) .it I� • oo b,--- , _ ., 7 ` ; 411`ki.'tI try too -. ei N `�• tk fgni \ y I . 0 •ihtik is.:. •Inn. 1 1 1.4; ,re I Ilk 1 tat N,........r"JD A • it.. •' . , Z • di • iir &s, , I. 11 ZI1 X111 X411 cu w • Im °' v WO _ os" dw _ V 8 I EE g �E,# 3 Iii E . " 'a Z' jI -r! I� VD � qg ' 4 • E8c i1 ! J2! !!! in \ t3 R iO_)y T. e $ w € no' y `u w a -�3�- •8 !e; WW � rcw a `aa nn � a � a n ww• 2t ,` € e € el 1} $ �- o gEng ,. V O C • •~ •a E- r ` n • _ R"E “.. Z m • ■ o • •■ i 'l 1 ' 11 1 t _�� C : a lia83 Ill lisil N _ Prv+ .ia 4#Re�. J P 2 K 4-say ll• I I I• ry 8 u 1 t. LL— co 03 ••. 3m • o a {°• 1 ; • „ I. o I 1 II \ .s , , ,i r r ¢ 1 ¢ al .1� I Creinji rho.* (7) 'q y I 1 • • 'iW�iiit6• t -. x r 16- • 1 • • li • • 1 1 •re.14 cicax 6 ( rt i 7 '� y ...• I ��.�..� • • •• 111 •. • • 3 •a •• • / • _ • , •• •• I $ • •• ^£ •• 1.•. r i/'ra1J—__y ALF `�.r mile ......,_lL • •• _-._ -. met • t I' _/ ••�'._'I • I ai— • 4•• • a• • i • • • • S • I • • • 4 • ••• •II . II• • I • • • yg • -.I . N •• F. • • • • ! .� • • • • • 1R*.p.1+T•I+ip....±4:HH44 •� • w� �I • • ••1• �:• 1 ••• f a` gwiy PmM Pe do wWI �j o o ...j..,74.... . ..\\ ¢ I _i .__ Nill N141 N 011 6 GO W , I E•- n 3 I 66 Wre CD 2o. z tip E S .. II d' N /1.W no � 3 = � o 4s ij E _}� {1. ft ZpgR i� m in • w0 � = JHI qpE 888= 8 • = 9 7m o sw • anniIn •S;;m § ,, , Zl e 1 .-I ( pl •:e . i I . ; .3 i -, i ----err• • • . • . •• i . o �y C ip8 Lei :41 3 J S I l e 4 i T Y S id33 "s 82 i a ro I 1 ITN m m ° ° ° I E oo r' ° , I - 0° M ° 3 00 0• c ° a 000 oo .0 1 0 ° 0 o oC. p I 1 - L.. _ _ _—_—. — . • 0 .5 �_ • o 7 0 I it I o :8'� ° • 01 - --. - - _. �. ___" _.__. _"_—-1 _.___—__ �.y - E 0 1L-o 1 I_._.. -_-._ __-__ •-L----. I. _ _.._ - __ . 0 i '0 ' 0 L.a I III II °0 �' o0 1_ 00 / I Ioo° II - -.. .�Il � °° 1 °o(o o • I , I •0 ��, . 0 I % • . I I , , 6i .. m ICI • •• mit • • • I I 1 • •• I •• I • • ••• {I �Ij �•• r II •• + •a'a' I •••• • • •Iaaaf• a•.a' ••• •••• I raN•V• III • • 1a ••••• •T• ••• a - I, •• • - s 1 • ± •• I• • • L •MI • a 1 •• {{ r • • 1• II{�`.. l•• 0 • •4 ___ /1••a .••`. • •�/ 1Y afy `a al- _ ..-y • ; --TAI'•• •a Ir • 2C • I •••• • 1 ••• • •�•• •� • • • I ••• I • • • • 1 1 I •! • • • I • • , ...a L"::�.•I •• •••• �.RM• ••• �� • +�.+� •• • • • • • •• •�♦ II•... _. -..— -_.« _ --_y.�..��—'-il fir ,a�.+,.+fi�.l—� ,.•r.-e«�� -. _.__ II -I • 1 •• R¢Puno6 w,ed PwM Peaotlmtl I 1 I •• I • • \ I • I 4 Y •ayb.••TyR 1 •LSN \, I • I \ I I 1 I ` •_aj _ ....aa4 - - - _ 1._ `. I \ M CD I M 1 m \\ I 1 I _�I a. m T _ s p I p I .1 I I NEL1 Nor1 N on F. m `" I 3 3 W ON - J g pNz (f O W iaL a u - o I ; 0. d g . w a >- D c n r wYSI �' I R R t$s (� y i P n E F E E n o 1 - 1 — m d re u., a' - a "e 1 I ,:• a i{{ N Q W 3 w u s m' € r 5 : x E ' u .I A �i N t 1¢[ z`S m Z O a 4 1 p S g u • ➢ Y i Y cI �\- t yd 8 ,n 8 • ! 3.+. L U w e W Ea 6 O a o L O Fog a o € 6 € - O Y S o Y v y 9 c' anu Ega a a s a = '1 `��3aE ea4 LL '`.� ,�� m v y hif 4 J a I l i , — i `® -I- 3 F^�'� 9i 1#da3 a� ' L w tp • h ..—� —.._ --- __—. _— — ..rro rrrr ..... .� m 1 ; .q �. m „+ �s,ai _3X'\ 2;42:j* t. }�4 y III . ESL .. r iM �R 2 !I 'd y 1'"` , �Y 7i'::r7:„..H,3'3,37—.c,-;t3g11:4::,.,i.�j.Y'f!� 4...•• A n `: ms,, +v :, co ,,,,34;44, 9 FS V 14.3**✓4x 'W- 1 % 1 Al t .p. 5 '•' � 1 1 �..... zs� RL Y . P ., a' I I Ig I / iI I • t, I ''' \ 1 , • ; 1 TSB'••. .,• ' 1 a 1 k • 1 • 0 r '• tyyn ow remorse' P., • • •• • • •• 4 't• •! ••• • • • 1 yy 1 • •1.I 1I •••0 lit 4 i ••�••• •�•• •• •••• •• • _ ?. • i a m, ..0*,.c, rX� ..a + ." ,5ge, _�-. 1 • 8 • • k w" T ,,. � 1 • • I •• 1 1 1r r„?Y,s.r \ter 'x f € g b, • • �:• ••••• ? ,• 1 5y d* T 34 t " S!,~+ l is J '. -,,,,,,•l ••• ! ••• .. •••• \ , .1 ,:t.'y� i w' ' 1 '�eP oe u,rej aus..a n ,d �� I IE '� l� • � d it yl� x4t es \I . I r \ �_ s I. .� is " r v, C eee-.e+'+� e� dam pp1 9 5 1( \ I 1 )...-11.1±•:''T-.11% r s i t i ;r x.. m "*3y fr F{� wj r. !(43.1:1;:g.3-- 4 " y: vii v '.w yr --:; y ,i i ` 4yi 1 x Y .n•�$'°'.ti.I ₹ — ^'4di Y-iY 5. 3 .3 ',4a° o vr_ 2 =At, Y I � _ .1 '_ fir._„t' i. X241 X441 X041 F -1 s ` - I m i E I C W - • a �� s - ep N (3 .0 D m i= m d: o ZLLI i E o 0 o e S v ; ` _,, 9 e a s L a W _ci) v & w e` aaaa3 a . a i 9 E i € a € E 'I- 5p 3s .7 0 C c a A eR ph .� Z C0o of 3 i N Q -,__xt-- `\-,- rt O 0 Errs 5, to 7 W LL ii. — —I- I I I rt- rl I -_,i , 0................i....... ..........4,.....-e.........t0 c. ..�...n11TlT� a co I I E 3 LL I i 1 I I.. a II re. M - �" I �i _I . t a , il 6 y 1 8 « \ il I I I - II / 1 10 „ - 1---4.----, r- . I III' i S- 1 1,---) It r.„...,......•, I. \ \ • . , i I it /_..'..1 y._ r • ••••io ••• .o. I 1 11�� • I • • 1•en• • • • •• r •••• •.•. §` � •• •i_.. •.14€t -..'. •• ••• E a • • • • • _•-... 4....... ..._f • 1 • ae • t i K • II • j• ••. • •• • • / 1 • • —1 _ • i • • 1 1 • . ••••• , • f II • 1 CC • • 1 • •• • •• • 1 . ••� •• L•♦ • I IL I I I _.__ -_-_.. - «_r-- —1•'0'• .‘ taros wmd a um pasonmd / ••4 • 1 I _ pI •. I i 0 ♦ I . I ♦ . p \ II 32 `\ jl I . , ,,. SOIL Cedar Creek Wind Energy Project Weld County 1041 Permit Application Wind Energy Facility Wind turbine types that could potentially be used at the facility are shown in Figure 6. As mentioned above, a turbine arrangement that represents design concepts (i.e., arrangement of turbine rows and ancillary site facilities) is shown in Figure 4. This arrangement distinguishes between turbine types and displays associated collection system and road infrastructure associated with a 300 MW build out. Areas in which additional turbines could be installed under the 330 MW scenario are also identified without associated infrastructure. The wind turbine generator towers will be spaced approximately 700 to 800 feet apart within rows and 2,300 feet from row to row. Wind Turbine Types 5issn.ns 2.3 MW GE 1.5 MW \� — / \\ ' \C255 MHI1.OMW / \ I �\ j/ \ \I // �\\/-202 Ai i iI i it Figure 6 Turbine Types Figure 7 illustrates typical turbine spacing configurations. A number of setback requirements has been developed and will be observed in final placement of wind turbine generator towers, as indicated below in section 21-3-330.B.5.l. 23 Cedar Creek Wind Energy Project Weld County 1041 Permit Application Wind Energy Facility Row Spacing Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 Mile Between Rows(7-10 Rotor Diameters) T sting Spacing G l Approximately 3 Rotar Diameters Between Turbines(700-800 Feet) �+ Figure 7 Turbine Spacing A 34.5kV electrical collection system will gather the electricity from each wind turbine generator and route it to one of up to three project substations. The majority of this collection system will be installed underground, typically along the rows of the wind turbine generators, but also in some cases connecting rows of turbines together. Remaining portions will be installed aboveground, tying the rows of turbines together and forming a"backbone"of the electrical collection system. Figure 8 is an illustration of typical installation structures that will compose the overhead collection system for the wind energy facility. The plot plan provided as Figure 4 shows a representation of the collection system layout. As described more fully below, if three, rather than one, project substations are built, the overhead double-circuit 34.5kV portion of the collector system shown in Figure 4 will be converted to and constructed as an overhead 230kV collector system line. 24 Cedar Creek Wind Energy Project Weld County 1041 Permit Application Wind Energy Facility Single Circuit H-Frame (230kV) ` Single Circuit Wood Pole E (34.5kV) ". s' a► 60'-100' 50'-75' 19'-24'i Figure 8 Collection System Structures The electrical collection system will terminate at substations. Each Project substation will include breakers, switching and metering equipment, and a 34.5/230kV step-up transformer, which will increase the voltage from the 34.5kV collection system to the 230kV interconnection transmission system. Up to three substations will be built within the wind energy facility (Figure 3). At a minimum, one main substation will be built (Option A). Under Option A, this substation would be an approximately 5-acre 300 to 330 MW substation with associated O&M building. A detailed site plan for this substation is shown in Figures 9a and 9b. Under Option B,three approximately 100 MW substations (the exact split of the 300 to 330 MW capacity to be determined during final design) would be built. Drawings representing the main 100 MW substation and the two potential remote 100 MW substations are included as Figures 10a and 10b and 11a through 11c. Each remote substation will be up to 2 acres and will have graveled parking areas for up to six vehicles. All substations built within the proposed site for the wind energy facility will be fenced with chain-link fencing to prevent access to �-. high-voltage equipment. Locked vehicle gates will be located at entrances to the 25 Cedar Creek Wind Energy Project Weld County 1041 Permit Application Wind Energy Facility main facility and substations. Key boxes will be provided for emergency personnel. The configuration and number of substations to be built will be determined once the wind resource assessment, facility layout, and design are finalized. Final layouts and configurations will be submitted in building permit applications, and if feasible, at the time of the public hearing process. A permanent O&M building will be constructed adjacent to the main substation, as shown in Figures 9a and 9b. It will consist of approximately up to 10,000 square feet of enclosed space, including offices, spare parts storage, kitchen, restrooms, and a maintenance shop area. Potable water will either be obtained from an onsite well or obtained offsite. Appropriate well permits will be obtained prior to construction, if needed. Wastewater from the building will be discharged to an onsite domestic septic tank and drain field. There will also be a graveled outdoor parking area for up to 12 vehicles, a turnaround area for larger vehicles, outdoor downward lighting, and gated access with either partial- or full-perimeter fencing. The overall area of the O&M building and associated parking will be approximately 2 to 3 acres. Layout of the wind energy facility will minimize the need for new, permanent roads through the use of existing access roads and County roads wherever possible. New roads will not be accessible to the general public. Following completion of the construction, use of the improved and new access roads on private lands will be limited to the landowner and to maintenance staff. The roads will be 16 feet wide and will have a compacted gravel surface. Roads will also have 10-foot compacted shoulders on each side (36-foot total width) to facilitate crane travel. Turning radii of up between 90 to 135 feet will be installed, as needed, along county roads and newly constructed onsite roads to facilitate deliveries of wind turbine components. In areas of steeper grades, a cut and fill design will be implemented to keep grades below 15 percent and to prevent erosion. Compacted and/or graveled crane pads and erection areas will also be constructed at each wind turbine generator location. Following completion of construction, compacted shoulders on roads, crane pads, and erection areas will be de-compacted and reseeded. Turning radii installed as described above will be removed, reduced to a normal 25-foot radius, de-compacted, and seeded. Of the total 31,670 acre site, it is anticipated that approximately 2 percent of the area will be disrupted during construction and operation of the proposed wind energy facility. The output of the wind energy facility will be transmitted via a 230kV transmission line to an interconnection site with PSCo's system near Keenesburg, Colorado. 26 PL 1846 Oversized Maps Not Scanned 9A - Drainage Plan 10A 11A 11B 9B - Substation Electrical Elevations 10B 11C _ S u ROW U ROW u R62W 5 RBIW u R60W u R59W U ROW / a S -'IILI _-- - ` vlvnm - -- • CR 10a '�1 j� Z— ____ ___r- 1 � I• -�� I \V• ll I.. 1 - I �--. POROSea Cetdar Creek i z —Wnd Farm r-. \ 4 I \ Y GROVER 1 v Plan..,n.b a I CR ux CR122 �� ` Scenic Spell•� �t"` C(] \ t ___1- ___ —1 T_ 1 _ __ __ 4 Pours Morn I a a o \ * " EE CR110 \ 'PAR N -I P.nd Plen..nal \. , - -'� Sank Bneef I CR 110 4 v-..�_ - 7 — �0 •,. n T Nan I I I \ oNAL Z k • F ir V ,6�� 1 _. \ 4 NATIONAL \ .,<,I _ t ' Ill I �L ! xEOTA CR BB :. (" ri `lf CR BB I v VNDS GRAS \I GRASS _. 1 2I I TSL2S • o. UCNIN I li I ) „I I . . o. CR 88 u *I - - \ - i- 'y 1 1 j z • -` Ei • • �II I :_ , CR JI 1 --I m • ', WELD COUNTY ,. ' GALETON i MORGAN COUNTY :i4' : . l• . _ �— I 1 —E-36 31 I cR ex li � 1 t k�f / ... f ; I ,��,� I CR6x 7.71:-ifNtU 43KA • •. �• •t - a ,ems 4,0::: ` r ..".r. -I = _JACASON LA?SKA -rte ' ' , - - - __. } __— T .— • • (N A ▪ S . 1 -. i 2 Ii ` KER9EY . . rr e ' '• •.-. JACKSON ufif sae • •','••••, 1 l — o--- __ JACKSON LAKE SRA ••S 1 1 l Cf .RA IrE NI L LLE r , r is 1' L CR 50 di' i ' h,•,ij n i..... ...2$': V` A i.-�e r - — I KELOONA l CR O •1° ILI NEH s • 1 , N 4 � I x. Y' u..,r..wn.+s — .iii• I _ - - • - _. / °:1 i1, ....... T! ��. _—rm 5 Rt11SRV _-_, Tf r S. - — wEsrEBx , xh — •°•�I••• i 1 I -L I I — J �� CR JB �.'.I 7 to 1 :Ai. ie•• • 16• r _ CR2B 3; . • /• 1 ••I p l E _ 1°,;',,I i _. __ - .__. x - ...4.4'cR z6 I ''1''— i.� ..paI _ cR x6 E..Bubbx•,:.•,•,=• J Me L_-• Y r •.I l. „ I e F eo e .._ ' / /��/ • 5 from NN. ]]O.V n Noon.now , „,..\,.1""'B I 18 77 wm P6 II i •' I —� QI o - z • {.� ��I — TO 1_...---19 4 v h a — c8i z - . I �... ♦, 2 r r— N O e KEENESBURG`it I I -1' I i' \\ F — « 3 f tt—� .mK1a $ bfbb f 2i I I !11' I ;0 __ \ j`J I--. L_. 1\\B:' ice Denver HUDSON •` ^regal re sefro -- 1 I — I " ��I Yom. CR 11 MPicap mpm I — , t 1"^—" n t / 0 'r ROOF'MM Sp ' \ '. �j• Lies citify B;VNER LAKES SNA f , ' JI ® I L — _ _\{ / (cooties Soon. T 'I'F CEDAR CREEK Bk tr,Utlte.P P,OPSN PryccFectur a anoo Board IC C 1 CertificationN.nnln,Cn L IB Y SPm m n e E.„4.„,,,,,,„ aae4P. Y WIND ENERGY PROJECT -- _ Aoe=eelra�essonLmePo., '"n ." "�.IanR..m �a ` s .. s.e�,P eee.,.T6mos„LosRoute Cna.ena•aG.Cnn. Coons /8 sostrres 230IN Transmits on toe Transmission Line Vicinity Map - f,d.,Y n� nn L,. Aem"'Is'>,nl.on\n.nnueeI‘n anon, Publ'a Lad Owners sson Cmamua wt.rvne cs.gcs....s m....eoe Cabn4 Penesrn1'ny5Vno040p15.♦onl T.., .n[. ,..ss. "mn,men MFU -...gym w.° 4„ LAGS FVNeeaimmsssun LI SCorneoI 0 1 3 4 ks "'Pith _n •••=-6'O' BLIS wn Federal Agency e. 04"__ F� pmNIN m n '' EI)A\V ryDeerete5me Lags 0.em unuuwn 1138730 Scale il, nwa me.r..z„ Row.,Vklmry Map J it_ ms,.p f&— ft—R_ # 156a 4- 4 15(.03 (so_ usa #k15c 3 ktu co--et: rFigure 3 Vicinity Map UftLjn-k - EX E) • r , KGY� 7/aWCit LowE,FELL&SKOGG,LLC L 370 Si-VI-NTEENTH STREET,SUITE 4900 DENv ER,COIORADO 80202 LOWE, FELL SKO(,V PHONr:720.359.8200 �� FAX 720.359.8201 KAREN L.BRODY kbrody@lfslaw.com DIRECT DIAL (720)932-2619 July 27, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE(970)352-0242 AND U.S. MAIL Weld County Board of County Commissioners Attention: Esther Gesick, Office Manager P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Weld County Section 1041 Application; Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC and The TH Ranch Property To the Board of County Commissioners: This firm represents The TH Ranch, LLC ("TH Ranch"). TH Ranch has been advised that at their August 2, 2006, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners will consider a 1041 Application submitted by Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LI,C, which includes the construction of a wind farm and 230 kilovolt transmission line to be constructed in Weld County. The plan for the transmission line originally submitted to Weld County included a request that the County permit an area that included a significant portion of the TH Ranch property. In the application, Cedar Creek specifically identified several potential routes for the transmission line, including a route identified as "Segment 15," that crossed the TH Ranch property. After evaluating in detail the proposed routes for the transmission line, Cedar Creek has advised TH Ranch that it no longer intends to pursue Segment 15 as an alternative and does not intend to cross any portion of the TH Ranch property with its project. By letter dated July 11, 2006, Nelson Teague of Greenlight Energy, Inc., of which Cedar Creek is a subsidiary, memorialized the decision not to cross the TH Ranch property with its transmission line. A copy of this letter, indicating that the Cedar Creek wind farm and transmission line project will not impact the TH Ranch property, is attached. At the July 18, 2006 Weld County Planning Commission meeting, Cedar Creek advised the Commissioners that it will not cross the TH Ranch property with its project and that it will prepare a revised map for submission with its 1041 Application that reflects this change. TH Ranch does not oppose Cedar Creek's 1041 Application as long as the submission to the Board of County Commissioners is consistent with its representations to the Planning Commission and the attached letter. However, if the Commissioners are asked in any way to consider Segment 15 or any other alternative that would in any way cross or otherwise impact {#00746531 1 20009-0001 7/26/2006 07:02 PM) z Esther Gesick July 27, 2006 Page 2 the TH Ranch property, TH Ranch objects and would request notice and an opportunity to be heard on such issue. Thank you. Ve tru r Karen L. Brody for LOWE, FELL& SKOGG, LLC KLB/cao Attachment cc: Brad Petersen Kenneth K. Skogg {#00746531.1 20009-0001 7/262006 06:50 PM) LowE,FEU &Sxocc,LIC 370 SEFT:N I FE NT T H STREET,SLIDE 4900•LF/ DENVER,COLORADO 80202 LOWE,FELLS/SICOGG Paoue 720 359 8200 FAX 720 359 8201 KAREN L.BRODY kbrody®Ifslaw.com DIRECT DIAL (720)932-2619 July 11,2006 VIA FACSIMILE(434)220-1420 AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Nelson S. Teague, Jr. Greenlight Energy, Inc. 310 4th Street,N.E.. Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 Re: Weld County Section 1041 Application; Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC and The TH Ranch Property Dear Nelson: I would like to confirm your discussions with Ken Skogg over the last several weeks regarding the Cedar Creek Wind Energy project and impacts to The TH Ranch property.. In May 2006, Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of Greenlight Energy, Inc.. (collectively"Greenlight") submitted a Section 1041 application to Weld County requesting approval to proceed with the construction, operation and maintenance of a 230 kilovolt transmission line within a project corridor that included a substantial portion of the land owned by The TH Ranch, LLC in Weld County (the "Property"). Greenlight's 1041 application specifically identified a proposed route for the transmission line labeled as "Segment 15" running through several sections of the Property. After evaluating the various options available for the transmission line route, Greenlight no longer intends to locate any portion of the proposed transmission line or any related facilities on the Property and will pursue other route options Mann S} Greenlight discussed its intent to remove any portion o the project corridor that crosses the Property fiom its 1041 application with the Weld Coun elSomcy'3 offree. Weld County has advised Greenlight that the proposed amendment does not constitute a substantial change to the pending 1041 application and does not require amendment of the application Consequently, at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting, Greenlight will formally withdraw from its 1041 application that portion of the project corridor that crosses the Property and will no longer pursue any route for its transmission line or related facilities that impacts the Property in any manner Please confum that I have properly summarized Greenlight's position and intentions by countersigning this letter below and returning an executed copy to me no later than t N 00 745878 1 20009-0001 7/10/2006 11:55 AM) • Nelson S. Teague, Jr., July 11, 2006 Page 2 Friday, July 14, 2006. In reliance upon Greenlight's agreement to remove the Property fiom its project corridor, and in exchange for receiving Greenlight's confirmation of this agreement by execution of this letter, The III Ranch, LLC will not oppose Greenlight's 1041 application by submitting materials to the Planning Commission in advance of the July 18 hearing or by offering testimony at the hearing Thank you for working with The TH Ranch, LLC and I look forward to receiving your signature- Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions. àBIOil y yours, for LowE,FELL & SKOGG,LLC KLB cc: Brad Petersen Kenneth K. Skogg Nelson Teague,J r.. for ed C ee Wind Energy, LLC a subsidy y of Greenlight Energy, Inc. (#00745067 1 12190-0006 6222006 03:19 PM) JUL-26-2006 06:37P FR0M:NRNCYRST0CKER C303)759-3634 TO:19703520242 P.3 2885 S Gilpin St. Denver, CO 80210 July 28, 2006 (303) 759-4056 Mike Gelle, Weld County Commissioner 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 Phone: 970-336-7204 Fax: 970-352-0242 Re: Proposed wind turbines near Pawnee Buttes I hope you and the other Weld County Commissioners will insist that the wind turbines and transmission lines proposed by Green Light LLC will be constructed and placed to minimize the risks to native wildlife and plants,including birds and bats. I do not have the knowledge to authoritatively detail the timing,style and placement that will accomplish this. I believe,however,that people with this expertise will be presenting their information to you in the next few days. My husband and I are amateur wildlife photographers who are just about to retire. We hope to spend more time than ever photographing in and enjoying the Pawnee Grasslands/Pawnee Buttes region. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Nancy Stocker" EOM!' Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle -Cent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:31 AM o: Esther Gesick Cc: Kim Ogle; Chris Gathman Subject: FW: CDOW Turbine Map Attachments: Turbine_Vicinity_Map_CDOW.jpg sal Rubin: Vicinity_Me p_CDOW.jp9 Original Message From: Jennifer Chester [mailto:Jennifer.Chester@edaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:03 AM To: Kim Ogle; Heidi Lestyan; Kevin Davis; Nelson@glnrg.com Subject: CDOW Turbine Map Attached is what I think is the correct turbine map. . .pleae let me know if I need to revise. Greenlight still needs to review. Thanks, Jenn 1 .N• .Y. 1 .M. t 1 I . 1 1I i LI 1 i j i 36 31 no° si I 1 36 31 o �Y.r.•r....s • i 1 • r._. - . f.:. _. 1 4 . 0 , , 1 1 I ---, • , . . , 4: __....L.......,,,,,..... . IP -...--• ,- ! 6 i . �.; If- a ffm t4 • •• • I • .• 'q.t....*y .... -. it. t I . ; • I • .. II..... • - •j 1 1 = . / • J 1 E 36 31 ' . ' T • iir •..•• �.'3 ! • 3} ..•• . ••.s,.•••.! I 36 rr11 1 r 1 ••1 .:I . i7 O111184 ••t i g • L 1 i • •••.• - • sir'.... .." I•.... • -'• :A?lam• . i • •• •: 0 • • •• !7 1 r _ �• • 1 E L.. . . . E .N. .N. 07/20/2006 16:50 9703363030 GREELEYWELD CTY ARPT PAGE 02 • • Weld County Referral ImMay 23, 2006 CO EADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following kern for review: Applicant Cedar Creek Wind Energy Case Number USR-1563 LLC; Green Light Energy Inc Please Reply By June 20, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle Project Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility;Up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators)in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. Legal Parts of Sections 19, 30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 58 West; Parts of Sections 6,7,Township 10.North, Range 59 West; Parts of Sections 16, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32,34, 36 Township 11 North. Range 59 West Parts of Sections 1,2, 3,4, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16,21, 22, 23, 28,29, Township 10 North, Range 80 West; Parts of Sections 1,2, 3,4, 9, 1.0, 12, 14,15, 16, 17,20, 21,22, 23,24, 25,26,27, 28, 29,33,34, 35,36 Township 11 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 25, 36,Township 12 North, Range 60 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR 123. Parcel Number Various The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to bee positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) July 18,2006 ❑ 3.da.'have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan We have reviewed the request end find no conflicts with our interests. O See attached letter, EXHIBIT 07/20/2006 16:50 9703363030 GREELEYWELD CTY ARPT PAGE 03 Comments: Signature train, FrGb¢rg_ Date g/zzleG Agency Gs ' & .WI'GY AY-,)1( +Wald County Planning Dept. +4209 CR 24.5,Longmont,CO.80504 •(720)652-4210 e)(18730 4(720)652-4211 fax Weld County Planning Department ERroF Se' 'W1ST BUILDING ProflD' F, JUL 2 6 2006 a� 9 United States Department of the Interiorvs e � 7 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECEIVED 4,,aRc s0 Office of Law Enforcement —ll 9297 S. Wadsworth Blvd. IN REPLY REFER TO Littleton, Colorado 80128 Phone: (720) 981-2777 Fax: (720) 981-2727 July 24, 2006 Greenlight Energy David A Stoner Director of Development Court Square Building 310 4th Street,NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Mr. Stoner: I was recently contacted by Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) District Wildlife Manager(DWM) Troy Florian and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologist Sandy Vana-Miller regarding the wind energy project in Weld County, Colorado. Both parties have concerns regarding the distance of ten of the turbines from the escarpment edge. At the meeting on May 26, 2006, I was made aware of the CDOW's initial recommendation of having all the turbines at least '/2 mile from the escarpment edge. Later I was advised that after further negotiations, the CDOW acquiesced to the distance of 1/4 of a mile from the escarpment. Finally, making the concession of 200 meters from the escarpment edge. However, they are very concerned with the ten turbines your project proposes to place within 50 meters of the escarpment edge. As per our discussion at the meeting on May 26, 2006, the USFWS is charged with enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. At the meeting, I emphasized Greenlight Energy's possible exposure to violating these acts and the maximum penalties. In addition, I provided you with a copy of the Moon Lake Electrical Association judgement, wherein, U.S. District Judge Babcock pronounced, "I do not regard the following language as vague or ambiguous: 'it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner,to ....kill.... any migratory bird."" By means of this letter, I am furthermore advising you of a recent ruling regarding prosecution of a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in U.S. v Ray Westall Operating, Inc., CR-05-1516KBM. Wherein, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molzen found the defendant, an oil company, guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Above and beyond the criminal and financial aspects of prosecution, Greenlight Energy's public image would undoubtedly suffer from the negative impact. The USFWS and the people of Colorado place a high value their wildlife. It is the USFWS's sincere request that Greenlight Energy give further consideration to the recommendations of the CDOW, especially regarding the ten turbines which are proposed to be within 50 meters of the escarpment edge and that ground breaking construction respect critical nesting periods. Sincerely, . 1.. e am n s Special Agent, USFWS cc: oy Florian, Colorado Division of Wildlife im Ogle, Weld County Planning Department Chris Gatham, Weld County Planning Department EXHIBIT I X Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: PHMURPHY@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:32 PM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Subject: Wyoming wind farm. Greetings, I really do hope your wind farm is a great success. However, both you and I know, that some birds will be killed by the wind generators. Even if this can't be avoided entirely, considering that there are better and worse ways to site the generators, please make every effort to mitigate the damage that you will cause. I am a plant ecologist that has been doing field work for over 25 years and I have seen quite a few dead raptors including eagles along powerlines. Modifications of the powerlines to reduce electrocution have helped a lot in my opinion. Someday you will have a solution to the issue of birds killed by the turbines but today your only method of reducing the impact is to site the generators wisely. There is a lot of space in the plains, and I know you are limited to areas that will both allow turbines and are easy to link to the grid, but please make the effort to site wisely. I hope there is a day when generators are as common as the old windmills were and I hope bison are grazing beneath them. Be wise, not arrogant, and do the best you can and explain your decisions to others even though you may not be required to. Respect is precious and you can earn it or lose it easily. Patrick Murphy- Plant Ecologist Ecotone Corporation 1554 North Street Boulder, CO 80304 303-444-4358 8/2/2006 EXHIBIT Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Ruth Carol Cushman [R.Cushman@colorado.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 2:53 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Fwd: windmill farm Begin forwarded message: From: Ruth Carol Cushman <cushmanr@colorado.edu> Date: July 29, 2006 1:51:14 PM MST To: matt@glnrg.com Subject: windmill farm Although we strongly support alternative methods of producing energy, such as windmill farms, we are very much concerned about the proposed wind turbines near Pawnee Buttes. Numerous studies have shown high bird mortality near windmills because the birds often fly into the blades. These deaths can usually be avoided if the windmills are located away from where the birds concentrate and away from migration patterns. If the windmills are placed correctly, it can be a win/win situation. Please abide by the guidelines suggested by the Colorado Division of Wildlife when designing the new windmill farm. Sincerely, Ruth Carol Cushman, co-author of the Peterson Field Guide to The North American Prairie Glenn Cushman, photographer for The North American Prairie MOMENT � m 8/2/2006 Esther Gesick From: linda powers [cbpowers@lawmage.com] -cent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:35 PM a: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Subject: Wind Farms near Pawnee Grasslands Hi, It has come to my attention that you are proposing to build a wind farm on the border to the Pawnee Grasslands. I am most supportive of alternative energy and wish your project well. As an avid birder and someone who has visited the Grasslands 3 times in the last 2 years I have some concerns.Please follow the DOW guidelines for the protection of the very unique and fragile bird communities. Among those recommendations are care to stay at least 1/2 mile from the nests of the raptors and to not do construction during nesting season so as to protect the ground nesting birds. Having visited and spent significant time and money in Weld county I believe protection of these critical species is also critical to the economy of the region. I know that following these recommendations will benefit all. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely Linda Powers (Retired State Senator and former Mayor Town of Crested Butte) WONT � N Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Marilyn Binkley [marilynbinkley@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:44 AM To: matt@glnrg.com Cc: kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Subject: DOW recommendations - please follow Greenlight Energy: The Pawnee Grasslands is a critical ecological habitat for numerous birds and other wildlife. It is also part of a migratory route for many birds, some of which are becoming endangered. The Division of Wildlife has given critical information to your company re: how to accomplish your goal of creating a much-needed source of energy, yet preserves that surrounding habitat. Pleade follow the advice of the DOW. I visit the Pawnee Grasslands several times per year as do many other of my friends and collegues who are interested in creating a world with sound habitat protection in spite of our need for finding alternatives sources of energy. I would be saddened if the habitat were damaged and destroyed and would no longer visit Weld County and be able to help support its'economy. Marilyn Binkley 9656 West Vassar Avenue Lakewood, CO 80227-2828 EMMET 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: davis [davis@greenspeedisp.net] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:59 PM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: Wind turbines on the grasslands Greenlight Energy: As a native of Weld County, with at least 50 family living in and around Ft. Lupton, I feel strongly that you should be a good neighbor and at least follow the suggestions of the Colorado DOW during design/construction of your wind farm. If it would not change the efficiencies, locating the turbines a bit off the edge of the escarpment would probably save the lives of soaring raptors, who use the edges for wind lift. I strongly support wind and alternative energy strategies, but hate to see an unnecessary amount of birds chopped up. It's somewhat the responsibility of us larger-brained life forms, to look out for the bird brains! Thank you, Raymond E. Davis at 6,009 ft., 4 miles NW of Lyons, in open Ponderosa — Larimer County "When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Abraham Maslow 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Dick Filby [dickfilby@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 4:05 PM To: matt@glnrg.com Cc: kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Subject: Cedar Creek windfarm proposal concerns Dear Matt, I work for Wild Wings, a company that runs commercial birdtours in Weld County and we are concerned that the proposed Cedar Creek windfarm may possibly have a negative impact on the birds of prey that we bring folks to see. There are several documented cases of negative impacts of such projects, from within and without the USA, including Europe. These have resulted in large scale death, and even local extirpation of raptors and it goes without saying that the resultant negative publicity has not been good for any stakeholder or interested party. Please ensure that this proposal takes the very best advice possible to avoid negative impacts on the raptors. The Pawnee Buttes in particular are a very important and famous place for nesting raptors, not just in Colorado, but nationwide. I will also be advising my concerns to the Aspen Skiing company with whom I am associated -a major customer of Green Energy in Colorado Many thanks for your consideration, best regards Dick Filby on behalf of Wild Wings (www.wildwings.co.uk) EXHIBIT 8/2/2006 Esther Gesick From: Pauline P Reetz[reetzfam@juno.com] -cent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 4:18 PM o: Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Cedar Creek Wind farm July 30th, 2006 Dear Weld County Commissioners: On behalf of the Audubon Society of Greater Denver, I would like to express our concern about some aspects of the proposed Cedar Creek wind farm in northern Weld County in Colorado. Our Society is a conservation organization with approximately 3, 000 members in the Denver metro area, and we have a long history of interest in and activity on the Pawnee National Grasslands. which lies immediately adjacent to the Cedar Creek site and to the proposed transmission line. Each summer for 17 years we conducted a week-long seminar, the Grasslands Institute, which covered prairie ecology, geology, and human history, from a base on the Pawnee. We operate field trips every year in the area and many of our members are quite familiar with the shortgrass prairie ecosystem there. Our members have sometimes stayed overnight at the Plover Inn in Grover and, in any case, spend money in Weld County when they go up to the Grassland. Ten of the proposed sites for Cedar Creek's wind turbines sit very close to the "Chalk Bluffs, " an escarpment which provides nesting and roosting habitat for a large number of raptors, or birds of prey, of several species. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has documented 73 raptor nests along the bluffs of the escarpment in the project area, which makes this an unusually dense concentration of nesting birds of prey. The Division has recommended that the turbines be built at least 1/4 mile away from escarpment edges, with a 1/2 mile buffer from the nests of prairie falcons and golden eagles and a 1/4 mile ' uffer for the nest ites of other raptors. It would be a real disaster if the turbines disturbed this concentration of nesting birds or resulted in the death of numerous individuals, so we urge you to have Greenlight LLC follow the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in this matter. In fact, we would even recommend that construction be kept 1/2 mile from the nests of ferruginous hawks as well, as this species is extremely sensitive to disturbance while nesting. Scheduling construction outside of the nesting period is another strategy that could alleviate these concerns. Although we are aware that Greenlight has a contract with the Public Service Co. of Colorado to start supplying energy by next year, we suggest that the contract be re- negotiated to allow at least another year' s worth of data collection on site before construction starts. Three months' work is just not enough time to discover how wildlife species use the area. For example, Greenlight documents have stated that the area is not a "flyway" but the fact is that there is not enough data to verify that statement. This is not just a barren wind-swept prairie; it hosts a significant raptor population, plains sharp-tailed grouse, and black-tailed prairie dog colonies with their associated wildlife including the burrowing owl and mountain plover, both species with special state and federal status. We fully support the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife on the issues that they have raised, espcially the following: 1. Protection of the Chalk Bluffs Natural Area, a State Land Board section that is enrolled in the Strewardship Program of the State Land Board and is registered with the Colorado Natural Areas Program. 2. Constructing power lines in a way that eliminates the possibility of raptor lectrocution. 3 . Timing of construction activities to avoid critical nesting period EXHIBIT 1 4 . Protection of the viewshead around the Pawnee Buttes, a notable and highly- visited state landmark, as much as possible. 5. Avoiding placement of infrastructure on sites that are adjacent to or over areas that exhibit high levels of wildlife use. In particular, we are concerned about the maintenance of leks and adjacent nesting areas of plains sharp-tailed grouse, as well as existing prairie dog towns. 6. Providing adequate access and support for ongoing research to study and monitor wildlife, wildlife habitat and wind energy development impacts for the life of the project. 7. Routing power lines with existing line corridors and using existing Forest Service and county roads for access whenever possible. At present wind energy has the reputation of being a "clean" source of power. It would be truly unfortunate if the Cedar Creek wind energy project put a dent in that reputation, but we believe that with adequate data collection pre- and post-project, careful attention to protecting wildlife use areas and unique plant communities and viewsheds, and close cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the problems identified can be avoided. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Pauline P. Reetz, Conservation Chairman Audubon Society of Greater Denver 9308 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Littleton, CO 80128 Tel. 303-973-9530 2 Esther Gesick From: ROBERT ARNOLD [robsidarn52@msn.com] --gent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:41 PM o: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Subject: Do It Right , Guys THE SITUATION The proposed windfarm, known as Cedar Creek, will consist of up to 300 turbines that will be erected in the area north and west of the Pawnee Buttes, extending over a large area, with the southernmost row of turbines stretching along part of the rim of the escarpme nt that includes the chalk bluffs and stretches from east of Grover to the area of the Buttes. Because it is being constructed on private land, there are few regulations that can keep them from building the turbines wherever they want. However, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has been making recommendations to the developer to place the turbines and conduct their construction and operations in a way that will avoid serious disturbance and damage to nesting birds, etc. This week we've learned that the developer (Greenlight Energy, of Virginia) has been unwilling to commit to voluntarily following all of the DOW recommendations, which have actually been negotiated down from some more stringent requests (which Audubon and others believe were the more appropriate ones for protecting the values of the habitats) . Although there' s been some movement on their part this week, we still have not heard a public commitment or seen a commitment in writing from Greenligh t Energy that they will voluntarily follow the DOW recommendations to protect birds and wildlife habitats. The problem is that they are going before the Weld County Commissioners next Wednesday, Aug. 2, to ask for their construction permit, which they might very well receive that day without any commitment on their part to protect birds and bird habitats. They expect to have many of the turbines erected by next summer. we believe it would be very helpful for the developer and county commissioners to hear from Colorado citizens that the escarpment and the surrounding shortgrass prairie are important to birders, conservationists and others, and that these are an important part of `olorado' s heritage that need to be protected. If they realize that the public is .atching them, we hope that Greenlight Energy will do the right thing. I can't possibly cover all of the issues in this email, but some of the key recommendations from DOW are that the turbines be kept out of a buffer of 1/2-mile from eagle and prairie falcon nests and 1/4-mile from other raptor nests, while the siting of other turbines is being negotiated at distances closer to the rim of the escarpment (100 to 200 meters in some cases) . These buffers are to protect the nesting birds from human disturbances associated with operating and maintaining the turbines. (FYI, some biologists believe that none of the turbines should be within 1/2-mile of the rim -- where roughly 75 active and inactive raptor nests have been identified this year. ) Another recommendation calls for avoiding ground-nesting birds during the construction of each of the turbines. PLEASE HELP WITH AN EMAIL If you want to help put pressure on the developer to be a good corporate citizen, please send an email to Greenlight Energy expressing your concerns, along with anything you may want to say about the importance of the prairie in and near the Pawnee NG and the escarpment itself . Your email can be very short. If you want, you could request that they voluntarily follow the DOW recommendations, at a minimum. Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it' s FREE! http: //messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ EXHIBIT s 1 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Lori Fujimoto [Ifujim@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:17 AM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: Wind Turbine Project To: Matt Hantzmon, Managing Director and Kevin Davis, Director of Project Development, Greenlight Energy I am pleased to hear that your company is doing work to assure that Colorado has some renewable energy resources. Wind and solar power are two under-utilized energy sources and Colorado has plenty of both. It is my hope to help to persuade you to take the greatest care as you proceed with your development, so that you do not destroy another wonderful Colorado resource. The Pawnee National Grasslands is an irreplaceable part of Colorado history as well as an important conservation area, and it needs to be conscientiously guarded. If Greenlight Energy commits to following the CDOW recommendations of established buffer zones, you will be protecting eagles, falcons, and other raptors that call the Pawnee home. Care should also be taken to avoid disturbance of other wildlife, including ground-nesting birds, during your construction and operation of this facility. The natural beauty of the Pawnee National Grasslands and the Pawnee Buttes area should be protected along with their inhabitants. I have organized at least one educational workshop a year, for participants from across the United States, that includes a visit to the Pawnee (and I know of other bird tour companies who regularly run trips there). Although our participants mainly attend to find and view birds, the experience on this remnant of short-grass prairie is an irrreplaceable part of the trip. Ecotourism is definitely another consideration in maintaining buffer zones around sensitive bird areas and irreplaceable views. Please help preserve the birds, wildlife, and allure of the Pawnee National Grasslands and the Pawnee Buttes for future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lori L. Fujimoto Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. EXHIBIT y 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: JoAnn Hackos [joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:26 AM To: Matt Hantzmon; Kevin Davis Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: Wind turbines in the Pawnee NG Dear Sirs, My husband and I are frequent visitors to the Pawnee NG as dedicated birding hobbyists. We are concerned not only with the visual impact of the huge turbines being planned but the very negative affect they are certain to have on nesting raptors and migrating birds. We are not opposed to wind energy as a sound alternative to fossil fuels but we want to be certain that the value we find in the Pawnee NG is preserved. Please at a minimum conform to the recommendations of the Dept of Wildlife in Colorado and consider the other recommendations made by conservationists. Thank you JT Hackos JoAnn T. Hackos President Comtech Services, Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver CO 80215 303-232-7586 joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com EXHIBIT I Lk 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: JUDITH NIEMANN [judithniemann@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:03 AM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: wind farm at Pawnee grasslands While I applaud alternative energy sources, I hope that they will be constructed with a maximum care for the protection of the environment which is, after all, one of the benefits of alternative energy. I have birded at the grasslands for over thirty years and have watched as species numbers have fluctuated with the protection of the area. This area draws birders and naturalists from all over the country. I would like to urge you to follow the Colorado DOW recommendations at the very least, especially to protect the nesting raptors along the escarpment. It would also be important to protect the short grass nesters during construction and maintenance. As a birder and nature-lover I am very aware of how much human contact can disturb nesting species and try to keep my own contact at a distance, as do most other birders. I was hoping to be able to attend the Aug. 2 hearing, but will be unable to do so. Please take the environment into consideration as much as possible. Thank you. Judith Niemann Arvada, CO EXHIBIT V 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 2 Esther Gesick From: CHARLES BELL [clbell42@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:20 AM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: Comment on North Weld County Wind Farm Dear Mr. Hantzmon and Mr. Davis, I am delighted to hear that Greenlight Energy is planning to develop a major wind farm at Cedar Creek. I strongly believe that large-scale expansion of our ability to generate electricity with wind energy is essential to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce carbon and other harmful emissions into our atmosphere. We certainly have an abundance of wind in this part of the country, and I am pleased that there are efforts underway to harvest more of it for the public good. I am also a birder, and I would like to make certain that in such projects as Cedar Creek, which are to be located in a critical bird habitat area, the developers take every effort to mitigate harmful impact on birds. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, of which I am vice chairman of the Board, has been working closely with farmers and other landowners in Weld County and other northern Colorado counties to improve bird habitat and keep at-risk bird species from being listed as endangered by the federal government, which would cause no end of headaches for private landowners in the region. I am also aware, as a board member of the American Birding Association and the former owner of a birding tour company, that the northern part of Weld County is a major destination for birders from all over the world who want to see North American birds. Each spring and summer, and even in winter, thousands of birdwatchers visit northern Weld County, and they bring their wallets with them, making a significant impact on the region's economy. I have heard that Greenlight Energy has been unwilling to commit to accepting all of the recommendations made by the Colorado Division of Wildlife to protect birds and wildlife habitat at Cedar Creek. I sincerely hope this is not the case, as companies such as yours ought to be clever enough to know how to ensure such protection while still ensuring a comfortable bottom line for your investors. And in the long run, by showing yourselves as a forward-looking, responsible company, you will probably enhance your bottom line. I urge you to commit yourselves in writing at least to the scaled-down version of the DOW recommendations, and preferably to their original version (which won't cost you that much more, if you your best innovative talents are applied). And I urge you to do so immediately, prior to the hearing before the Weld County Commissioners on August 2. Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and thank you for helping all of us here in northern Colorado (I live just one mile west of the Weld County line) take advantage of wind power to reduce our national dependence on fossil fuels. Sincerely, EXHIBR Charles Bell ` 8/2/2006 Page 2 of 2 6225 Ridgeview Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-484-8791 8/2/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Hugh Kingery [ouzels@juno.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:42 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Cedar Creek Wind Farm proposal We would like to comment on the proposal from an out-of-state developer to erect 300 wind turbines on the Pawnee Buttes Escarpment. We visit the Pawnee frequently to observe the wildlife, and through research have learned of the uniqueness of the Pawnee for wildlife, especially raptors and ground- nesting prairie birds. On the one hand, we support alternate energy initiatives. Alternative energy, however, should not create hazards to wildlife. The Pawnee National Grassland hosts a unique combination of prairie-nesting birds, including our state bird, the Lark Bunting. On the Pawnee Buttes and the rest of the Pawnee escarpment, a dense assortment of nesting eagles, falcons, and hawks nest. So do White-throated Swifts and Cliff Swallows. A 400-feet turbine with a sweep as big as a football field will look like a skyscraper on the prairie. Three hundred of them will leave an indelible, permanent impression on the landscape. Last week's Denver Post reported a new kind of turbine that would minimize impacts on raptors. (The first big wind farm in Calfornia has a disastrous effect on migrating raptors.) Another problem with construction of these wind turbines: what happens when the company's lease expires? It's quite likely that the proponent, or the party to whom the proponent transfers its interest, will simply abandon the lease, the turbine, and the roads. This would leave a dump similar to the mines, dumps, and slag heaps that mar the mountainlandscapes around old mining towns such as Leadville, Silverton, and Central City. We urge that at a minimum, the company commit to, and the county require, the following: 1. Site the turbines at least a half-mile back from the escarpment. 2. Site none within a half-mile of any known raptor nest. 3. Don't allow construction during the nesting season for either raptors or ground-nesting prairie birds. 4. At a minimum follow the recommendations from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 5. Use the newly developed raptor-friendly turbines. 6.Post a cleanup bond that covers the cost of removing the equipment at the end of the lease. Yours truly Urling and Hugh Kingery PO Box 584 EXHIBIT Franktown CO 80116 X 8/2/2006 Esther Gesick From: Carol Nichols [pfalcon@ctelco.net] —Cent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:55 PM o: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com; Esther Gesick Cc: kstrong@audubon.org; Nickh; Joe Martin; scott; Ron Garcia; Diane Dunlap Subject: wind Turbines on Pawnee9!!I!!I Dear Matt, Kevin, and County Commissioners, For 30 years when we lived on our farm in Berthoud we would go to Pawnee for the best birding experiences ever! Now I am told that Pawnee Grasslands will be at risk from huge wind turbines constructed by the escarpment? I ask that you do consider the minimum requirements for placement of the turbines in respect to the escarpment. Also I do know that certain designs are more bird friendly, and I would hope that the models being built there will be the model that birds can see not the one that will pull them in and chop them up. i have seen hundreds of Swainsons Hawk feeding on insects behind tractors on the Pawnee, and these birds are a species of concern. I appeal to your since of fairness and good judgment, we are loosing the wild places that birds need to live and raise their young and Pawnee Grasslands is one of these last places. The huge wind turbines in California' s migrating path on high mountain ridges kill over 350 birds of prey and other song birds annually, and although this is a different kind of a location Pawnee Grasslands is an important breeding area for many birds that are species of concern. Carol Nichols EXHIBIT 1 Esther Gesick From: STROM, Ken [KSTROM@audubon.org] -Rent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 5:53 PM o: Esther Gesick Subject: 8/2 HEARING COMMENTS Attachments: CedarCreekLtr.doc CedarCreekLtr.doc (22 KB) ccCedarCreekLtr.doc» Dear Weld County Commissioners, Attached and pasted below are the comments of Audubon Colorado, the state program of the National Audubon Society, on the proposed Cedar Creek Wind Farm, Docket # 2006-46, and its associated transmission lines. This matter is scheduled for hearing on 8/2/06. Thanks you for considering our comments. Ken Strom Director of Bird Conservation & Public Policy Audubon Colorado 1966 13th Street, Suite 230 Boulder, CO 80302 _.303 .415.0130 (p) )3 .415.0125 (f) Kstrom@audubon.org ♦**********************«****************************♦**********************************•* ************** AUDUBON COLORADO EXHIBIT 1966 13th Street, Suite 230 Boulder, CO 80302 303 .415.0130 u� #[5to3 kstrom@audubon.org 7 August 1, 2006 RE: Cedar Creek Wind Farm and associated transmission lines Dear Weld County Commissioners, On behalf of Audubon Colorado, and more than 8, 000 Audubon members in our state, we request that you receive a commitment from Green Light Energy (GLE) to follow all the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for their proposed facility before granting them a permit to build the Cedar Creek Wind Farm. This is the one sure way for you to guarantee that the natural heritage, resources, and economic potential of Weld County are well managed and sustained for the residents of Weld County and Colorado long into the future. The shortgrass prairie of northern Weld County is a critically important natural resource both nationally and internationally. The Pawnee National Grassland is one of only two sites in Colorado that has been officially recognized as a Global Important Bird Area, caning that its habitat resources are critical to the survival of the global populations of bird species uniquely associated with the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Elsewhere, this ecosystem is disappearing, which draws many visitors to Weld County to see this 1 valuable region and its wildlife. Because of the importance of these habitats, it is essential that Weld County's stewardship of these resources ensures that any development of the Cedar Creek Wind Farm be conducted in a way that will sustain the wildlife values of the region for future enerations. Failure to do so will inevitably result in conflicts with state and federal -awe, including the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It should be the highest priority of you, the Commissioners, to prevent such conflicts. This can be done if GLE will follow the CDOW recommendations. Among the critical recommendations that you should expect GLE to follow are: 1. Keep turbines -mile back from the escarpment edge, observing the prescribed x-mile buffers from the critical raptor nests. 2. Schedule construction activity outside of critical nesting periods, April 1 through August 15. 3 . Prevent damage and disturbance to habitats of the Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse, a Colorado endangered species, including observing a 1.2-mile buffer from any courtship leks. 4 . Commit to seasonal shutdowns of turbines that cause significant impacts on birds and bats. 5. Implement a noxious weed and revegetation management plan for the life of the facility. 6. Conduct ongoing monitoring studies of impacts to birds and other wildlife following construction and during the operation of the facility. The above recommendations, along with all other recommendations made by CDOW should be the minimum expectations that you set as a standard for the construction and operation of the Cedar Creek Wind Farm and its associated transmission lines. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development and the associated issues, which are of vital importance to the residents of Weld County, Colorado, and our nation. Respectfully submitted, en Strom Director of Bird Conservation 2 Audubon COLORADO 1y6t, I 3th Street, Suite 23„ Boulder, C() 80302 Tel: 303-.}15-0130 Fax: 303-4'5-ut 25 wWvA.auduboncolurado.org August 1, 2006 RE: Cedar Creek Wind Farm and associated transmission lines Dear Weld County Commissioners, On behalf of Audubon Colorado, and more than 8,000 Audubon members in our state, we request that you receive a commitment from Green Light Energy(GLE)to follow all the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for their proposed facility before granting them a permit to build the Cedar Creek Wind Farm. This is the one sure way for you to guarantee that the natural heritage, resources, and economic potential of Weld County are well managed and sustained for the residents of Weld County and Colorado long into the future. The shortgrass prairie of northern Weld County is a critically important natural resource both nationally and internationally. The Pawnee National Grassland is one of only two sites in Colorado that has been officially recognized as a Global Important Bird Area, meaning that its habitat resources are critical to the survival of the global populations of bird species uniquely associated with the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Elsewhere, this ecosystem is disappearing, which draws many visitors to Weld County to see this valuable region and its wildlife. Because of the importance of these habitats, it is essential that Weld County's stewardship of these resources ensures that any development of the Cedar Creek Wind Farm be conducted in a way that will sustain the wildlife values of the region for future generations. Failure to do so will inevitably result in conflicts with state and federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It should be the highest priority of you, the Commissioners, to prevent such conflicts. This can be done if GLE will follow the CDOW recommendations. Among the critical recommendations that you should expect GLE to follow are: 1. Keep turbines 1-mile back from the escarpment edge, observing the prescribed '/-mile buffers from the critical raptor nests. 2. Schedule construction activity outside of critical nesting periods, April 1 through August 15. 3. Prevent damage and disturbance to habitats of the Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse, a Colorado endangered species, including observing a 1.2-mile buffer from any courtship leks. 4. Commit to seasonal shutdowns of turbines that cause significant impacts on birds and bats. 5. Implement a noxious weed and revegetation management plan for the life of the facility. 6. Conduct ongoing monitoring studies of impacts to birds and other wildlife following construction and during the operation of the facility. Commissioners Letter, 8/1/06 - p. 2 The above recommendations, along with all other recommendations made by CDOW should be the minimum expectations that you set as a standard for the construction and operation of the Cedar Creek Wind Farm and its associated transmission lines. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development and the associated issues, which are of vital importance to the residents of Weld County, Colorado, and our nation. Respectfully submitted, Ken Strom Director of Bird Conservation Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Gordon [falconheadl@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:49 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Cedar Creek Attachments: Greenlight Energy.doc Original Message From: Gordon To: Matt Hantzmon Cc: Kevin Davis ; Weld County Commissioners Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:32 AM Subject: Cedar Creek Please see attached letter. Regards, Gordon L. Grenfell President Colorado Hawking Club EXHIBIT PA 8/2/2006 August 2, 2006 Greenlight Energy Managing Director Matt Hantzmon Dear Mr. Hantzmon, By way of brief introduction, we are falconers, not only do we train and hunt with hawks and falcons but also our heritage is the conservation of all raptors. We would like to share our concerns for the nesting raptors at Cedar Ridge where your company will be constructing 300 turbine generators. We ask that you please consider the Colorado Division of Wildlife's recommendations concerning the placement of these turbines in the vicinity of nesting raptors. We also ask that you consider delays in construction in a nesting raptor area; when the birds are actively nesting. This unique habitat is one of the last strongholds for nesting Golden Eagles, Prairie Falcons and Ferruginous Hawks in Colorado. The only place on the planet that these species occur is the Western United States. Another concern is the Sharp-tailed Grouse, which is slowly emigrating from Wyoming into Colorado. We ask respectfully that this species emigration paths be honored wherever it is feasible. Being conservationists, of course we support wind energy versus fossil fuel. We are optimistic; having heard positive reports about your company and your concern and respect for wildlife and the environment. We are hopeful that this project will be successful for all of Colorado. Regards, Gordon L. Grenfell President Colorado Hawking Club 901 South Spruce Street Trinidad, CO 81082 719-846-8440 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Jerry Raskin [raskinjerry@gwest.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:25 AM To: matt@glnrg.com; kevin@glnrg.com Cc: Esther Gesick Subject: Pawnee National Grasslands Ladies and Gentlemen: As a Colorado resident who often visits the Grasslands to bird and see the now historic prairie shortgrass, I am concerned about the impact of the proposed windfarm on birds and habitats. At a minimum, the developers should adhere to the recommendations of the DOW as to placement to avoid serious disturbance of breeding areas and habitat. How long are we going to go on with letting developers do what they do-develop for a profit-without regard to the environment and the natural world? I urge all of you to impose even stricter requirements on this development, but please at least adhere to the DOW plan. Sincerely, Jerry Raskin 830 Good Hope Drive Castle Rock CO 80108 303.660.0033 EXHIBIT 1 °BB as .4663 8/2/2006 EXHIBIT 06 Pe. CEDAR CREEK W41),^.ER0V. LC ��• 8/2/2006 Troy Florian District Wildlife Manager CDOW 317 West Prospect Fort Collins,CO 80524 Dear Mr. Florian As you know, Cedar Creek Wind Energy (CCWE) has worked closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) officials in order to design a feasible wind energy generating facility (the "Project") that also minimizes potential risks to wildlife. CCWE has conducted multiple meetings, discussions and site visits with CDOW and USFW personnel, performed preconstruction wildlife surveys on the proposed wind Project site, and obtained recommendations from WEST, a leading wind energy avian consulting firm. Based on this collective body of work CCWE has modified the Project lay-out by eliminating over 30 high production turbine locations and relocating over 45 turbine locations. Both of these actions were taken for the exclusive purpose of minimizing potential impacts to wildlife resources on the project site. These site plan changes specifically relocated turbines away from high quality raptor nesting habitat along the escarpment edge and away from sharp tailed grouse habitat. As discussed with and substantially agreed to by CDOW, CCWE commits to the following setbacks for turbine locations from sensitive wildlife resources in final design of the facility: • Minimum of a 50 m setback from the rim edge, regardless of nest locations • Minimum of a 400 m setback from all identified active and inactive ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, and Swainson's hawk nest sites • Minimum of an 800 m setback from all identified active and inactive golden eagle nests • Minimum of an 800 m setback from all identified active prairie falcon nests • Minimum of a 75 m setback from all identified burrowing owl nests • Minimum '/2 mile setback from sharp-tailed grouse lek locations, with the exception of three identified lek sites. Turbines near three lek sites will be closer than '/3 mile. While CCWE recognizes that three of the turbine locations are somewhat closer to the lek sites than CDOW's optimal set-back, The Project will commit to conducting studies in collaboration with CDOW to understand how wind projects may impact the sharp-tailed grouse. In addition to the above setbacks, and after substantial revisions to CCWE's proposed layout incorporating CDOW's concerns, the CDOW identified 14 (turbine numbers 2, 6,7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 39, 45, 54, 264, ' 260 and 32) turbines where they had additional concerns. CCWE and CDOW reviewed the locations jointly on site and have come to an agreement on the location of these remaining turbines as CDOW requested and agreed to at the conclusion of that meeting. CCWE is committed to continue to work toward design and construction of a wind energy facility that is sensitive to and works to minimize any potential impacts to wildlife resources. CEDAR CREEK WIND ENERGY,LLC•3104 'STREET,N.E•CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA•22902 PHONE'.(434)220 1406•FAX:(434)220 1420 Additionally, CCWE intends to perform additional preconstruction wildlife surveys (swift fox, mountain plover), conduct post construction avian and bat fatality monitoring as part of our typical operations, and conduct studies related to the sharp tailed grouse in the vicinity of the Project. We appreciate the efforts of CDOW in working cooperatively in the lay-out of our proposed Project and look forward to bringing efficient,economic,environmentally sensitive wind energy to eastern Colorado. Kind regards, Kevin Davis Director Project Development CEDAR CREEK WIND ENERGY,LLC•310 4'"STREET,N.E.•CHARWTTESVILLE,VA•22902 PHONE:(434)220 1406•PAX:(434)220 1420 IMMIINMS R'21 4, „ a vsam m axy� 4 4 K + W x � i x Y,.-ya . '' *' <_a' te A am r - e �0.44- ;.-Q-�� Arc' w +i �' .44 ,•,a sv y.` t3 ; y y t yam. .3..;...„.v. t Dr F ^q F '„� - A J �F v� d - *�' S � f . a 'L` fiv a � 9 �.rt 8aF''14 V t f$. ltR y ',tv}'.Ltr.-; th ( a „a fs Lk yur>�- 6 F R . .g R > • ,- u i tt 47py b , L` .�.. Ti -- ,K' t„'�j+,yfj .:, to 3 v gip( v' 14,4 * . :. y. , y II iT�y„ Atl*f$- riF I I • What is fast is slow ' What is slow is fast IProp tip can reach the speed of 200 mph N. / O §t • °1 S } +wx n - yr - - 1;. y.: Sr .4 06/ 10/2006 • From base to tip the height of this turbine is 33 times the height of this water tank by the tree. Wind turbines and property rights TRACKSIDE by John D'Aloia Jr. December 30, 2003 What is the possibility that wind turbines can be a reliable source of electrical power for the country? The wind turbine in Gray County, Kansas has a name plate capacity of 112.2 megawatts. Obtained using 170 turbines spread over 12,000 acres. The national electrical generating capacity, based on Department of Energy data, is on the order of 770 gigawatts. Wind turbine farms have an effective generating rate on the order of 25 % of name plate capacity. (Not all turbines are operational at any one time and the wind does not conveniently blow at optimum speed all the time). The total area of the lower 48 states is 3.02 million square miles. Mash these numbers and you come up with the need for 4.8 million turbines spread over 18 % pf the country to generate that amount of electricity we use. Double the capacity of each turbine? You still need 2.4 million turbines and 270,000 square miles of country-side for the wind farms, an area equivalent to the total area of Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, plus a little in some other state... • 07/ 14/2006 i CENTER ' ` FOR .k�' %�L IQLOGICAL 61 �, s IVERSITY *Rant S Protecting endangered.pecies and wild places through science,pc@ education, and environmental law. FACT SHEET ON ALTAMONT PASS BIRD KILLS As an environmental organization, the Center for Biological Diversity supports the development of alternative energy sources as a way to reduce our impact on the environment, including reducing greenhouse emissions and protecting wildlife habitat. However, some wind power facilities, such as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, are causing severe environmental impacts to raptor populations due to bird kills from collisions with turbines and electrocution on power lines. We have a strong interest in making wind power cleaner and believe there are numerous changes that could be easily implemented at Altamont Pass by the wind power industry to significantly reduce these massive raptor kills. UNACCEPTABLE NUMBERS OF BIRDS OF PREY ARE KILLED AT WIND TURBINES The APWRA was established in 1982 and contains 5,400 wind turbines. The APWRA has the highest numbers and rates of raptor kills of any wind facility in the world. The bird kill fiasco at Altamont Pass is a result of poor planning that allowed wind turbines to be built along a major raptor migration corridor in an area with high wintering concentrations of raptors and in the heart of the highest concentration of golden eagles in North America. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass kill an estimated 880 to 1,300 birds of prey each year, including up to 116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 380 burrowing owls, and additional hundreds of other raptors including kestrels, falcons, vultures, and other owl species. The APWRA is an ecological sink for golden eagles and other raptor species and may be having significant impacts on populations of birds that are rare and reproduce infrequently. These astronomical levels of raptor mortality continue unabated, due in part to the failure of federal and state wildlife protection agencies to take any regulatory action. Bird kills at Altamont Pass occur in violation of federal and state wildlife protection laws, including the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and numerous California Fish and Game Codes. The wind power industry has been aware of the magnitude of the impacts to birds of prey at Altamont Pass since at least 1988, when the first of numerous studies of raptor mortality was published. To date, the industry has not implemented a single meaningful mitigation measure to reduce raptor kills or to compensate for removing significant numbers of birds from populations of imperiled species. In fact some efforts, such as the rodent control program at Altamont, have actually increased the risk to raptors while threatening endangered species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. Recent research by the California Energy Commission has shown the mortality risk to raptors at Altamont Pass has significantly increased over the past 15 years. Center for Biological Diversity San Francisco Bay Area Office 1095 Market Street,Suite 511 • San Francisco,CA 94103 PHONE:(415)436-9682 • FAX:(415)436-9683 www.biologicaldiversity.org 40 • • q a+ 07/ 14/2006 • METHODS TO REDUCE BIRD KILLS ARE KNOWN The issue at Altamont Pass is not wind power versus birds, but rather whether the wind power industry is willing to take simple steps to reduce bird kills and mitigate for their impacts to bird populations. The California Energy Commission and raptor experts with extensive research experience at Altamont Pass have reconunended re-powering projects (replace thousands of outdated turbines with fewer, larger turbines)that have the potential to greatly reduce the bird mortality. The CEC has also proposed measures to reduce avian mortality at existing turbines at Altamont Pass, including: relocating or retiring particularly lethal turbines; siting and configuring turbines to avoid bird flight paths; retrofitting power poles to prevent bird electrocutions; increasing the visibility of turbines to birds; discontinuing the rodent poisoning program; and managing grazing to encourage rodent prey away from turbines. Regulatory agencies, raptor experts, and conservationists have also proposed protecting off-site raptor nesting habitat by purchasing land or conservation easements to compensate for ongoing losses of rare birds of prey. FAILURE TO ADDRESS BIRD KILLS HAS HAMPERED WIND DEVELOPMENT The failure of wind power companies-to address the high levels of bird kills at Altamont Pass has "delayed and even significantly contributed to blocking the development of some wind plants in the U.S," according to a 2001 report commissioned by the National Wind Coordinating Committee, an advocacy group funded by the wind power industry. According to a 2002 report by the California Energy Commission:' "Public perception, state and federal protection laws, and potential fines and lawsuits have resulted in delays, modifications, and stoppages of new wind energy projects in California and other states. For example, Alameda County will not approve additional permit applications to increase current electrical production(-580 MW)at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area until significant progress toward solving the bird fatality issue is demonstrated." According to a 2002 report prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration:2 "Primarily due to concerns generated from observed raptor mortality at the Altamont Pass (CA) wind plant, one of the first commercial electricity generating wind plants in the U.S., new proposed wind projects both within and outside of California have received a great deal of scrutiny and environmental review...In the mid 1990's, development of wind projects were delayed, sometimes to a point that the project was not developed,due in part to avian collision concerns." According to a 2004 report by the California Energy Commission:' "Two factors heighten the urgency and importance of resolving this issue.First, one goal of California's renewable portfolio standard is meeting 20%of the State's electricity needs through renewable energy sources by 2010. Second,Alameda County placed a moratorium on issuing permits to increase electrical production capacity in the APWRA beyond the existing 580 MW permitted capacity until there is demonstrable progress toward significantly reducing bird mortality...By identifying and implementing new methods and technologies to reduce or resolve bird mortality in the APWRA,power producers may be able to increase wind turbine electricity production at the site and apply the mortality-reduction methods at other sites around the state and country." 'California Energy Commission.2002.A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California.CEC Energy Related Environmental Research,December 2002. 2 West Inc.2002.Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use,Raptor Nesting and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments.Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration. Smallwood,K.S.and C.G.Thelander.2004.Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.Final Report by BioResource Consultants to the California Energy Commission,Public Interest Energy Research-Environmental Area,Contract No.50001-019. 2 ` . ki ♦ • .-.�" ,, [ 41*:-...' �..' may♦ a rya S _ F I tS 1 r J .Y ...i• wi�` f . iris'"' tiJ�r('.�" e lic ot.., a a ' 1 :,. s x i e s. �' yn .. r7s F rd`J'i1 i-- _ ` f,. ' "ft '',.-e'h --iii" , -If' . 7 ‘ " .'4....:-ht.11.-5-4-4,,,..%.4,i;-,-,-,31 .:�,'.. j,e t fury e Y.' t 1�.fEr .: '� - 'e(lt* 1 4 '• • ,, z. F ,.e t .fe .4.�tw f � i�4� e. ` Y � . -.L. K p :r( yjy�� yy t' _ -� � V wp , i• (/',?..7 T 1 F 1^ ; .-± ., .... ...:„., ,_ tr F JY4� r } ,i1,4� r ..Z 4 ,4` a bit. t�yyj �.1 I ♦t � � +�, yak b !y♦� Y t.✓e •ANY R ' , j' '' ''''....1:',17:'.:.'“:"."'+';;; ;).. Y _ t---: j -mt.. . t,4^ ▪ 1}4...,.... t e, !✓1'c ie K .k 1' ''4' .4. ' �t t 1�J''y 7f • .} . i •,..44,4• ` �y�,' *- , �� ;:-i�414, �'t •i 1? ,,„ma as:al:4;4 144 y 1 t / f •t, fi..*Kk t. e t i _er. y ,t, ( �.V • e e . , y 1t{ _ �l .y_3"� 414 lI e 2 - 44 R +113 �.`�1 a �e `i. . w �'/`e'� ' e' ,' • • , x " 'ery ,("44e- ev} .:f,, Y ' 3:'"s'j'"-Fit/i• 1 "°d t , _'t k..'�t' e. 7f r �•F /7,2.4-41,ji_ �$Jfr.b \ % , " , j t. t- t Y 4• .i{�+ a ,�• _ + l . ? l -. sS2�E• , :, . i9 t v rt'� e r. 4 i ). \ l•z-c r y'4f eSs ' i tf ,t 7, 4 't . a y, *, e 3�3�'t2�.zt>� "" sS 'i, 7 ry +,r - C_, f &' ~�, wA�y 1'rs� V !?: 'L ;:a �_ :ii ,� 7- F+'. ' ,,e ,+�., el,f . 1 1 S - q ?H e \ , Center for Biological Diversity Golden Gate Audubon Society CAlifornians for Renewable Energy ALAMEDA COUNTY TO APPROVE FLAWED PERMITS FOR ALTAMONT PASS WIND FARMS THIS WEEK SUPERVISORS WILL VOTE SEPTEMBER 22ND ON MEASURES TO REDUCE BIRD KILLS Contact: Jeff Miller,Center for Biological Diversity (510)499-9185 Richard Wiebe,Attorney for CBD (415)433-3200 Elizabeth Murdock, Golden Gate Audubon (510) 843-9912 Michael Boyd, CARE (408)891-9677 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 21,2005 Oakland, CA —The Alameda County Board of Supervisors will vote Thursday on the contested renewal of 29 permits covering more than 3,600 wind turbines at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA), focusing on additional permit conditions and mitigations to reduce ongoing bird kills. Wind turbines at APWRA are estimated to kill up to 1,000 or more protected birds of prey each year, including golden eagles and other raptors, in violation of state and federal wildlife protection laws. The new conditions are an improvement over the original permits, which required no reduction in bird kill, but do not include important measures conservationists, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, state and federal regulatory agencies, bird experts, and consultants for the California Energy Commission have called for. The resulting permits are the product of a flawed process, beginning with the County's failure to conduct an environmental review, which is legally required prior to approving the permits. Additionally, the County has failed to require the wind turbine operators to submit financial data to justify their claims of financial hardship, the only justification offered for the wind industry's refusal to make greater and quicker reductions in the massive annual avian mortality at APWRA. "The County permits are a gift to lawbreaking companies at Altamont that will allow them to phase in bird kill reduction measures that should have already been implemented and to continue to kill over 500 raptors annually for the next 5 years while deferring off-site mitigation," said Jeff Miller, wildlife advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "The Altamont wind companies can well afford immediate effective mitigation and offsite habitat protection as compensation for bird kills." In response to public outcry over bird kills and appeals of the permit renewals by CBD, Golden Gate Audubon Society, and CAlifornians for Renewable Energy in November 2003 and January 2004, the County recently added mitigation measures to the permits aimed at reducing bird kills. The Supervisors are expected to approve the new permit conditions, but they fall far short of the recommended mitigations published by the CEC and advocated by the Attorney General and the appellants. The appellants are asking for immediate reduction of existing avian mortality by half and funding for offsite mitigation as compensation for ongoing bird kills. The appellants proposed immediate permanent shutdown of the top three groups of high-risk turbines and an immediate 3 month winter shutdown of all turbines, measures expected to cut bird kills by 50%. • i 06/ 10/2006 i The County buckled under industry claims of financial hardship,proposing permanent shutdown of only the top two tiers of high-risk turbines, and phasing in both permanent and winter season shutdowns over five years, despite a fmancial analysis that demonstrated immediate shutdowns are affordable and despite the refusal of the wind power companies to produce any evidence of financial hardship. The County is also allowing the companies to defer any discussion of monetary payments for off-site mitigation for three years, despite the companies having escaped compliance with any bird mortality permit conditions during the 22 months in which the appeals have been pending, and by their own account having saved from $6.7 to $9.1 million. The appellants proposed that the companies be required to immediate pay$6.5 million in mitigation to be used for off-site habitat protection. "The Supervisors have an opportunity to correct two decades of illegal bird kills and make wind energy at Altamont truly green," said Elizabeth Murdock, Executive Director of Golden Gate Audubon. "Unfortunately, they are poised to buckle to industry pressure. Their proposal is bad for birds and bad for wind energy. Most birds killed are protected by state and federal laws, which can carry as much as $50 million in fines per year. State law prohibits the killing of even one golden eagle. The County's action is arbitrary, ignores the Attorney General's recommendations for addressing illegal bird kill, leaves the County itself open to lawsuits, and puts the future of wind energy at Altamont at risk." According to wind industry reports and publications, the Altamont Pass fiasco and decades of foot- dragging on solutions has tainted public perception of wind energy and hampered wind power development, as concerns about bird impacts have delayed or discontinued other wind facilities. "The enactment of the 2005 Energy Policy Act by Congress provides an opportunity to include the costs of proposed mitigations in the energy pricing formula for Altamont Pass wind power," stated CARE President Michael Boyd. Industry should be working with the appellants, Alameda County and PG&E in current energy pricing proceedings before the CPUC, instead of fighting proposed mitigations and presuming PG&E will continue higher prices for environmentally unfriendly wind energy operations." In a related development, the Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit against all of the wind power companies at APWRA alleging the ongoing bird kills are unlawful business practices will likely proceed to trial. The lawsuit has survived four wind industry motions to dismiss the case in the past 6 months, with an Alameda County Superior Court rejecting the wind companies' latest attempts to derail the case last month. The lawsuit was filed in state court in November of 2004, seeking remedies for the killing of tens of thousands of raptors in criminal violation of state and federal wildlife protection laws, unlawful and unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law(section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code). More information about the impacts of wind turbines on raptors at Altamont Pass can be found at www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/tides/altamont/altamont.html and www.goldengateaudubon.org. An August 2004 report by the California Energy Commission on the avian mortality problem at APWRA is available at www.energy.ca.gov/pier/reports/500-04-052.html • • -' r' r-£ r` y4,4 • 4. f ' Z 06/ 10/2006 • mow. _ • Objective The objective has been to access the evidence on the positive and negative effects of wind turbines on bird disturbance. To achieve this four questions were identified: 1. To wind turbines effect bird abundance? 2. Are some bird taxon more vulnerable that others? 3. Does the number or power of turbines in a wind farm installation have an impact on the effect of wind farms on bird abundance? 4. Can any other ecological factors or wind farm characteristics be identified which have an impact on the effect of wind farms on bird abundance? Study Inclusion Criteria Studies were included if they fulfilled the relevance criteria below. • Subjects studied-any bird species (information was extracted on Falconiformes & Accipitriformes, Anseriformes, Passeriformes and Charadriiformes except Laridae). • Intervention used-commercial wind installations in any country: wind farms and turbines. • Outcome (s)-population size or distribution, breeding success, population mortality rate, recruitment rate, turnover rate, immigration rate, emigration rate, demography, dispersal behavior, collision mortality, displacement disturbance, movement impeded, and habitat loss or damage. (Only information on bird abundance was extracted). • Comparator-appropriate controls (e.g. reference areas) or pre- development comparators. • Type of study-any primary studies Centre for Evidence Based Conservation Systematic Review No 4 Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance Review Report School of Biosciences The University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham B152TT UK • sx arie • , . _, 07/ 14/2006 • This is consistent with the current consensus that wind farm location is of critical importance in avoiding deleterious impacts (Langston and Pullan 2003, Percival 2001). Many studies (Gill 2000a, b, DH consultancy 2000, Thomas 1999) suggest that wind farms do not have and impact on bird disturbance. Conversely mortality from bird strike is extremely high at Altamont (Hunt 1999, 2001, 2002) and Tarifa (Jans 2000). This has let to the recommendation, borne out by the current study, that wind farms should not be sited in statutorily designated sites, qualified international sites, national sites for nature conservation or other areas with large concentrations of birds such as migration crossing points or areas containing populations of species of conservation concern (Langston and Pullan 2003). Centre for Evidence Based Conservation Systematic Review No 4 Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance Review Report School of Biosciences The University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham B152TT UK ui 'r.Y t • , • ` . * , p •{ f ' M4. 1 r + ,ter t ; , , a qq A w hk r, r` i t t sr. ' Ir r� 4 1 ! # r' r ° 1 ! '• .• . .• tC . ,-, L ,Kn . s+ �P f e r ,_1 ,..rrw ' .1' • . .. • a 2 1 Y'L ; ;t2.7 l':- > .;"1-.4...-1,. c A., 6. .i'Qr 4'''..p fr :-'k f,. , , ,...ear dr. onica- _ . . . . ,. „ _, / ,_ I. p}J...._,10....., i., • .i. i ...„.\,,,,,,k . ,_... ...._ .,,,,.. .._... .. _.,.4.,....._ 4- ..ir,. - , - -. kt\•, -1 • • . ,y a' - .? -• 4'15 . .fi• ! • ,/r•yI ♦ ., i -ce • sf 1i -4 '? of of i Ir✓ . }-t' . .• � ' w - R ��"` 'y:2• 7 4 "�`#, �" ��Ll 1 4j r I 1 , y r � } .C);-..<4.j�• ,. �e-�•,� �}r .,— !�s �]f` y,.,.` � _ • �' V1r.SA � - ;: i i j( 1 {"i Jk" ` t\ J- t v 9F if{':e ..4' ‘=c- --;/.r.••-•?,., } • 1` '✓'..1'� . 4. `i', t r r 1 �� jN' Conclusions Available evidence suggests that wind farms reduce the abundance of many bird species at the wind farms site. There is some evidence that Anseriformes (ducks) experience greater declines in abundance that other bird groups, suggesting that a precautionary approach should be adopted to wind farm developments near aggregations of Anserfiormes and to a lesser extent Charadriformes particularly in offshore and coastal locations There is also some evidence that impact of wind farms on bird abundance becomes more pronounced with time, suggesting that short term bird abundance studies do not provide robust indicators of the potentially deleterious impacts of wind farms on bird abundance. These results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample sizes and variable quality data. More high quality research and monitoring is required, in particular, long term studies with independent controls and variance data. Pending further research, if impacts on bird abundance are to be avoided, the available evidence suggests that wind farms should no be sited near populations of birds of conservation importance, particularly Anseriformes. Centre for Evidence Based Conservation Systematic Review No 4 Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance Review Report School of Biosciences The University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham B152TT UK i 0 0 N r-- ti O l • TAXON any unite used in the science of biological classification, arranged in a hierarchy form kingdom to subspecies. FALCONIFORM any of the group of swift, graceful birds known for their predatory skills as raptors ANSERIFORMES water foul that typically inhabit wet woodlands, any duck, divers, dabbling PASSERIFORMES bird suborder that include all songbirds CHRADRIIFORMES any member that is commonly found on sea beaches or inland mudflats- in Britian they are called waders LARIDAE family that comprises the gulls-are most abundant as breeders in the Northern Hemisphere, which has about 30 species 6 ". . .when the last individual of a race of living things breathes no more, another Heaven and another Earth must pass before such a one can be again." William Beebe Creed of the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy (ALBC) 9 .Gout Reeo ptag Mao day got t eoe with mg Vote wit& Stead not pack ,lot. the 53ixdof they itait cave teadi my land Se . may oay Stow (Rio [iihd ofthey ✓Kay otay Charles James Sturrock Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Co, LLC Pawnee Bluffs Grover, Colorado I stand before you today as practitioner of HOLISTIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. I strongly believe in diversity whether it's plant community, mammal interaction, and landscape usage always considering human impact and their interrelationships. Green Light Energy/Cedar Creek LLC has made the statement that they need the number of turbines along the Bluffs, because they need the wind. Does that mean that the balance of the turbines not placed along the bluffs will not perform? I would like this Systematic Review # 4 (Bird Study) "The Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance Review Report" be entered in as evidence of the need for further evaluation by 3 disinterested experts. One shall be selected by Green Light Energy/ Cedar Creek LLC, one shall be selected by the Audubon Society and the 3rd selected by the two already chosen. I am asking for a postponement of a decision on this application by Green Light Energy/Cedar Creek LLC until these studies can be evaluated. Until the permit is issued and the exact location of the turbines is agreed upon, I am requesting that no further core drilling and or land disturbance take place on the deeded property of Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Co, LLC. osin t 1 1 err �w' rage 1 et z Rccli Classics Reel Classics>Stars>Actors>Peter O'Toole> Peter O'Toole Filmography I Awards I Article I Lyrics I News I Links I Downloads I Image Credits I LAWRENCE OF ARABIA Lyrics: "The Impossible Dream" from MAN OF LA MANCHA (1972) music by Mitch Leigh and lyrics by Joe Darion GP V"The Impossible Dream"(a .MP3 file courtesy MGM). To dream the impossible dream To fight the unbeatable foe To bear with unbearable sorrow To run where the brave dare not go To right the unrightable wrong To love pure and chaste from afar To try when your arms are too weary To reach the unreachable star This is my quest To follow that star No matter how hopeless No matter how far To fight for the right Without question or pause To be willing to march into Hell For a heavenly cause And I know if I'll only be true To this glorious quest That my heart will lie peaceful and calm When I'm laid to my rest And the world will be better for this That one man, scorned and covered with scars Still strove with his last ounce of courage To reach the unreachable star http://www.reelclassics.com/Actors/O'Toole/impossibledream-lyrics.htm 7/30/2006 CE -BC Page1of66 • This is the html version of the file http://www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/CEBC%20SR4%o20Windfarm% 20.pdf. G o o g I e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following urt: http://www.google.com/search? g=cache:rCy2Nank3Bg7:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/CeBC82520SR482520Nindfarm8 2520.pdf+mountain+plover+altamont+pass+mortalityahl=enagl=asset=clnk&cd=21 Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: mountain plover altamont pass mortality Page 1 CENTRE FOR EVIDENCE -B ASED CONSERVATION SYSTEMATIC REVIEW No.4 Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance Review Report Reviewers: Stewart, G.B.,Pullin,A.S. & Coles, C.F. Postal Address: Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Biosciences, EXHIBIT The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, 1 Birmingham, earn http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 2 of 66 1.01.0 Ass UK Email Address: g.b.stewart(abham.ac.uk Telephone: +44(0)121 414 4090 Facsimile: +44 (0)121 414 5925 Page 2 Summary Background Wind energy is the fastest growing energy technology in the world, with a yearly growth rate estimated at 30%, reflecting policy commitments in many countries to renewable energy in order to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. Wind energy is seen as a key element of the shift to sustainable energy supplies; however, despite tl clean image of wind energy,there is some evidence that wind farm developments m have potentially deleterious environmental impacts. Attention has been brought to tl possible impacts on bird populations caused by displacement and direct 'bird strikes Here we systematically review the impact of wind turbines on bird population http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page3of66 abundance. Objective The objective has been to assess the evidence on the positive and negative effects of wind turbines on bird abundance. To achieve this four questions were identified: I. Do wind turbines effect bird abundance? 2. Are some bird taxon more vulnerable than others? 3. Does the number or power of turbines in a windfarm installation have an impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance? 4. Can any other ecological factors or windfarm characteristics be identified which have an impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance? Study Inclusion Criteria Studies were included if they fulfilled the relevance criteria below. ❑Subjects(s) studied—any bird species(information was extracted on Falconiformes&Accipitriformes, Anseriformes, Passeriformes and Charadriiformes except Laridae). ❑Intervention used—commercial wind installations in any country: wind farms and turbines. ❑ Outcome(s) —population size or distribution,breeding success,population mortality rate, recruitment rate,turnover rate, immigration rate,emigration rate, demography, dispersal behaviour, collision mortality, displacement disturbance,movement impeded, and habitat loss or damage. (Only information on bird abundance was extracted). ❑ Comparator—appropriate controls (e.g. reference areas)or pit-development comparators Paste 3 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 4 of 66 ❑ Type of study—any primary studies Scope of the Search The following computerised databases were searched: English Nature's"Wildlink, JSTOR, Index to Theses Online (1970 to present), Internet search—Dogpile meta- search engine, SCIRUS, COPAC and ISI Web of Knowledge. In addition,the RSPE library was hand-searched, as were bibliographies. Recognised experts and current practitioners in the fields of applied avian ecology and renewable energy technolog) were contacted. Foreign language searches were undertaken to ensure that the scope of the review was truly global. Main results A total of 124 articles were accepted for full text viewing based upon an initial screening of title and abstract, including foreign language articles. Of these, 15 were of sufficient quality and relevance to meet the inclusion criteria reporting on the results of 19 datasets.Nine of these datasets were complete although three only reported on a limited number species. The remaining 10 datasets were incomplete. Nine did not present variance measures, one did not include turbine characteristics and three of the sites were not independent as they shared the same control. Random effects weighted mean difference meta-analysis of six complete independei datasets with more than three species produced negative effect sizes,two of which were statistically significant, suggesting that windfarms can have a negative impact bird abundance. Combination of the complete datasets using Random effects standardised mean difference meta-analysis resulted in a pooled effect size of-0.32f (P< 0.0001). The inclusion of incomplete datasets(with down-weighted dummy variances)reduced the size of the effect and its significance (-0.033, P= 0.002), whilst including these data with average weighting further reduced the effect size ar probability fell beyond the 0.05 significance threshold(-0.022, P= 0.054). Combination of the complete datasets with effect sizes derived from overall means within-windfarm samples resulted in a negative and significant pooled effect size (-0.712, P=0.0001)which remained with the addition of down-weighted data with dummy variances and non-independent data. (-0.257,P= 0.023). Effect sizes were also derived using species as replicates and again the pooled effect size was negative and significant(-0.489, P= 0.035) although the significance fell beyond the 0.05 �^ threshold when down-weighted data with dummy variances and non-independent de was added(-0.240, P= 0.089). http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 5 of 66 Meta-regression was used to investigate reasons for heterogeneity in results. Bird taxon had a significant impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance (r-- 0.290, SE= 0.070,P=0.0001)with Anseriformes(ducks) experiencing greater declines in abundance than other bird groups, followed by Charadriformes(waders) Falconiformes and Accipitriformes(raptors)and Passeriformes (songbirds). Turbine number did not have a significant impact on bird abundance whilst turbine power had a very weak but statistically significant effect(r=0.002, SE= 0.0007,P 0.004)with low power turbines resulting in greater declines in abundance than high Page 4 power turbines. Bird taxon,turbine number and turbine power were combined with habitat type,the migratory nature of the species, latitude, location, size of area,time since operation windfarm and data quality using multivariate meta-regression. Time since windfarm commenced operationhad a significant impact on bird abundance (r=0 .519, SE= 0.155, P= 0.001)with longer operating times resulting in greater declines in abundance than short operating times. Latitude had a very weak but statistically significant effect(r= -0.099, SE=0.032, P= 0.002)with high latitudes resulting in greater declines in abundance than low latitudes. Conclusions Available evidence suggests that windfarms reduce the abundance of many bird species at the windfarm site. There is some evidence that Anseriformes(ducks) experience greater declines in abundance than other bird groups suggesting that" precautionary approach should be adopted to windfarm developments near aggregations of Anseriformes and to a lesser extent Charadriformes particularly iit offshore and coastal locations. There is also some evidence that impact of windfarms on bird abundance becomes more pronounced with time,suggesting that short term bird abundance studies do not provide robust indicators of the potentia t13 deleterious impacts of windfarms on bird abundance. These recut. .chnuld he internretel with rnutinn elven the cattail confide.ci7ec anti http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 6 of 66 variable quality data.More high quality research and monitoring is required, in particular, long term studies with independent controls and variance data. Pending further research, if impacts on bird abundance are to be avoided,the available evidence suggests that windfarms should not be sited near populations of birds of conservation importance,particularly Anseriformes. Page 5 Background The broad weight of current scientific opinion supports the view that anthropogenically caused climate change is a reality(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2005). To minimise gaseous emissions linked with climate rhanae the enemy nrndnctinn inAnctry is mnvina inrreacinaly tnwani http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 7 of 66 renewable sources. Wind energy is the fastest growing energy technology in the world,with a yearly growth rate estimated at 30%,reflecting policy commitments b many countries to renewable energy in order to meet greenhouse gas emission targe (BWEA 2004). Wind energy is seen as a key element of the shift to sustainable energy supplies in many western countries and is set to make a significant contribution to their generation capacity (BWEA 2004). The UK Government has sc a target to generate 10%of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy b 2010. There are currently 1060 turbines in 83 wind energy installations, and many more with planning consent(BWEA 2004). A typical wind farm of 20 turbines might extend over an area of 1 Km 2 i . It agreed that the ideal position for a wind turbine generator is a smooth hill top, with flat clear fetch, at least in the prevailing wind direction(BWEA 2004). Wind farms are sited in exposed areas to ensure high average wind speeds to maximise energy capture, a requirement commonly but not exclusively met in coastal,upland and offshore areas. Such locations are often important and sensitive wildlife habitats, therefore wind energy developments have potentially deleterious environmental impacts on wildlife, including bird species. Attention has been brought to the possib impacts on bird populations caused by displacement and direct 'bird strikes' (Langston and Pullan 2003, Percival 2001, Gill, Townsley and Mudge 1996). The main potential hazards to birds from wind farms are disturbance leading to displacement or exclusion from areas of suitable habitat, collision mortality and los of, or damage to,habitat resulting from wind turbines and associated infrastructure Langston and Pullan (2003). The ultimate measure of these effects is change in the abundance of a species. Thus this review aims to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of wind farms on bird abundance. The potential impact of windfarms on bird species depend on a number of factors. Variation in response from one species to another is an obvious source of potential heterogeneity. Raptors,breeding waders particularly in upland areas, swans, geese, coastal waders,common scoters Melanitta nigra at sea, and sea ducks in general we identified as of particular concern Langston and Pullan(2003). The review therefore considers taxon as a potential reason for heterogeneity in results. Likewise the numt and power of turbines mayaffect the impact of windfarms on bird species along witt other ecological and windfarm characteristics. The explicit methods used in this systematic review limit bias through the use of comprehensive searching, specific inclusion criteria and formal assessment of the quality and reliability of the studies retrieved. The use of meta-analysis increases statistical power and thus the precision of estimates of treatment effects providing robust empirical evidence on the impact of windfarms on bird species. Meta- regression allows exploration of reasons for any heterogeneity in results providing http://72.14.203.104/search7q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 8 of 66 Page 6 testable hypotheses about ecological or windfarm characteristics that may have an impact on the effect of windfanns on bird abundance. Finally,the review highlights gaps in research evidence identifying needs-led research as a priority for future funding. Objective The objective is to assess the evidence on the positive and negative effects of wind turbines on bird abundance. To achieve this four questions were identified: 1. Do wind turbines effect bird abundance? 2. Are some bird taxon more vulnerable than others? 3. Does the number or power of turbines in a windfarm installation have an impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance? 4. Can any other ecological or windfann characteristics be identified which hay an impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance? Methods Question formulation Question formulation was an iterative process involving CEBC and RSPB personne Initially, the primary question was do wind turbines effect bird species?with secondary questions considering the modifying effects of ecological and windfarm characteristics. It was subsequently recognised that the substantial differences in the characteristics of the populations, interventions and types of outcome would have a large influence on the estimates of effect thus explaining apparent differences in the findings of primary studies. It is vital that these factors are specified a priori, and supported by a scientific rationale(Khan et al. 2000). Consequently,the objectives outlined above were developed prior to data extraction, with tighter definitions of http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 9 of 66 outcome and ecological and windfarm characteristics. The outcome was restricted tc bird abundance. Primary reasons for heterogeneityin results were: taxon,turbine number and turbine power(as a rough surrogate for size). Location(offshore, coast inland), latitude,habitat type, size of area(km 2),time since start of windfarm operation(years),migratory status of the species and quality of evidence were defin as potential reasons for heterogeneity for exploratory analysis. Search strategy Electronic database and internet searches The databases searched were: English Nature's"Wildlink" database,JSTOR, Index Theses Online(1970 to present),Internet search—Dogpile meta-search engine, SCIRUS, COPAC and ISI Web of Knowledge. Page 7 Search terms were as follows: ❑ bird* AND wind turbine* ❑ bird* AND windfarm* ❑ bird* AND wind park* ❑bird* AND wind AND turbine* ❑bird* AND wind AND farm* ❑birds AND wind AND park* ❑ bird* AND wind AND installation* ❑ raptor* AND wind* ❑ wader* AND wind* ❑ duck* AND wind* ❑ swan* AND wind* ❑ geese AND wind* http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 10 of 66 ❑ goose AND wind* Although the term"wind*"encompasses the terms"wind turbine*", "windfarm*"a "wind park*", initial trials proved that the number of hits become unmanageable wh using this strategy in conjunction with the term"bird*", for example the JSTOR database limit of 2500 articles was exceeded. The increased specificity of these tern made data retrieval feasible. The Dogpile meta-search engine was searched using the advanced search facility, at the terms"bird AND wind AND turbine". It was also searched using the following foreign languages and terms: German"Vogel AND Windturbinen", French"oiseam AND turbines AND 6oliennes", Spanish"pajaros AND turbines AND viento", Dutc "vogels AND windturbines",Norwegian"fugle AND vindkraft",Danish"fugle AN vindkraft",Finnish"lintu AND vindkraft", Swedish"faglar AND vindkraft", Italian "uccelli AND vento AND turbina"and Portuguese"passaros AND vento AND turbina". These languages cover the following countries with wind energy developments, according to AWEA(2003): Germany, Spain, Denmark, Italy,Netherlands,UK, Sweden, France, Portugal,Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Finland,Norway, Switzerland Australia, Morocco and others with one of these languages in official use. Internet searches are unavailable in languages of other significant wind power nations including India, Japan, Greece, China and the Ukraine. However,the English language search may retrieve English language translations from these countries. Fc internet searches of relevant sites,we undertook"hand" (following links)or, where available, electronic site searches of the first 100 "hits" for each search engine withi the meta-search. Articles identified by this process were assessed in the same manna as other articles. Other searches The RSPB library was hand searched. In addition, bibliographies of articles accepte. for full text viewing and those in otherwise relevant secondary articles were searche We also contacted recognised experts and current practitioners in the fields of applit Page 8 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 11 of 66 avian ecology and renewable energy technology to identify possible sources of primary data and to verify the thoroughness of our literature coverage. Inclusion criteria Specific inclusion criteria were based on the subject, intervention, outcome and comparator. The criteria were defined before the studies were assessed. They were refined and narrowed in scope prior to data extraction as described in question formulation. The review specific criteria were: ❑Subjects(s) studied—any bird species(information was extracted on Falconiformes, Accipitriformes,Anseriformes, Passeriformes and Charadriiformes except Laridae). ❑Intervention used—commercial wind installations: wind farms and turbines. ❑ Outcome(s)—population size or distribution,breeding success,population mortality rate, recruitment rate,turnover rate, immigration rate, emigration rate, demography, dispersal behaviour, collision mortality, displacement disturbance, movement impeded, and habitat loss or damage. (Only information on bird abundance was extracted). ❑ Comparator—appropriate controls (e.g. reference areas)or pre-development comparators Relevance assessment Initial screening of references for relevance using the inclusion criteria was perform by one reviewer(CFC), with reference to a second(ASP) in cases of uncertainty. Where there was insufficient information it was assumed that references were relevant. Two reviewers(CFC &ASP) independently assessed relevance at full text Study quality Study quality assessment was carried out at full text by critical evaluation of methodology using a hierarchy of evidence adapted from models of the systematic review process used in medicine and public health(Stevens& Milne 1997, Pullin& Knight 2003). Assessment of selection bias, performance bias, assessment bias and attrition bias was also incorporated in study quality assessment(Khan et al. 2001) using a review specific study quality instrument(appendix 1). This examined factor likely to confound the observed relationships if they vary unequally in treatment am control groups. In the case of bird abundance and windfarms these are likely to include- initial abundance of snecies functional tvnes nresent habitat tvne size of http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cacheaCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 12 of 66 -,r_ area, site management techniques,turbine number and power. Study quality assessment was performed by one reviewer(GS),with reference to a second(ASP) cases of uncertainty. The assessments of study quality are described in the table of included studies(appendix 2). Page 9 Data extraction Relevant data were extracted by one reviewer(GS),with reference to a second(ASI in cases of uncertainty into an MS Excel spreadsheet(Microsoft Corporation)and a --- table of included studies(appendix 2). For the purposes of data extraction a windfar was considered as an experimental unit and information on the abundance of relevai taxonon windfarm and comparator sites was extracted, with variance derived from replicate observations. Data synthesis Data synthesis was achieved through non-quantitative synthesis,complemented by meta-analysis and meta-regression. Non-quantitative synthesis consisted of tabulatic of study characteristics and outcomes to highlight similarities and differences in key ecological, windfarm, methodological and outcome measures. Handling of missing data Where variance data was unavailable, range was used to estimate the standard deviation. The standard deviation conversion factor was dependent upon sample size (Table 1) with standard deviation approximated by division of the range with the conversion factor. Where range data was unavailable, sensitivity analyses were performed. The largest standard deviation from other studies was doubled to provide conservative down-weighted variance measure. Further sensitivity analyses were performed using the mean standard deviation from other studies to provide average weighting. Where sample sizes were unknown, average sample size was substituted Likewise,where windfarm characteristics were missing they were substituted by average values. On occasion, samples had standard deviations of zero. These were http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 13 of 66 replaced with standard deviations of 0.001 in order to run meta-analytical software. Table 1. Relationship between sample size and standard deviation conversion factor Sample size Conversion Factor 2 1.5 3-6 2.5 7-12 3 13-30 4 31-150 5 151-500 6 >501 6.5 Synthesis of data by individual windfarm. Species information within individual windfarms was combined using Random effe meta-analyses based on weighted mean difference (WMD)where all data on means. sample sizes and variance was available. Combination of data across windfarms Species information was synthesised across windfarms in three ways: 1)Individual data points within windfarms were used as pseudoreplicates and all da was pooled and combined using random effects meta-analysis based on standardise( Page 10 mean difference (SMD). Sensitivity Analyses were performed where variance and sample size data was missing(Khan et a1.2001,Morton et at 2001). It is better to impute values for missing standard deviations for continuous outcomes from primar studies so study effect sizes may be estimated and pooled in reviews rather than exclude results because of missing values,making certain to explicitly describe the imputation methods used(Wolf& Guevara 2001). Missing data was substituted for by: a)two times the largest standard deviation of other data points and average sami size resulting in conservative down-weighting and b)the average standard deviation and sample size of other points resulting in average weighting. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page14of66 2) Data was aggregated within windfarms and combined to produce aggregate effec sizes that were then combined using random effects SMD meta-analysis. The treatment and control means, standard deviations and sample size of species within, study were used to generate study treatment and control means, standard deviations and sample sizes to calculate aggregate study effect sizes. Meta-analysis was performed on complete data with an additional sensitivity analysis including non- independent and dummy variance data with conservative down-weighting. 3)Aggregate effect sizes were also produced based on species number rather than spatial or temporal replication. The treatment and control mean of species within a study were used to generate study treatment and control means. Standard deviations were derived from within study means and the number of species represented the sample size. The aggregate effect sizes were combined in SMD meta-analyses performed on complete data with an additional sensitivity analysis including non- independent and dummy variance data with conservative down-weighting. Assessment of heterogeneity and bias Heterogeneity was assessed by inspection of Forrest plots of the estimated treatmeni effects from the studies along with their 95% confidence intervals and by formal tes of homogeneity undertaken prior to each meta-analysis(Thompson and Sharp 1999: Likewise, each meta-analysis was accompanied by a Funnel plot(plots of effect estimates versus the inverse of their standard errors). Asymmetry of the funnel plot may indicate publication bias and other biases related to sample size, though it may also represent a true relationship between trial size and effect size. A formal investigation of the degree of asymmetry was performed using the method proposed by Egger et al(1997). Exploration of Reasons for heterogeneity Three potential sources of heterogeneity were defined a priori as primary reasons fc variation in effect size. We hypothesised that the effect of windfarms on bird abundance differs according to the species of bird,the number of turbines in the installation and the power of turbines in the installation. The association of these factors with estimated effects were examined by performing univariate random effet SMD meta-regression on data with no missing values in Stata version 8.2 (Stata Corporation, USA)using the program Metareg(Sharp 1998). Multivariate exploration of reasons for heterogeneity Taxon,turbine number and power, location, latitude, habitat type, size of area,time since operation, migratory status of the species and quality of evidence were define( as potential reasons for heterogeneity for exploratory analysis. These were http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 15 of 66 Page 11 investigated in multivariate random effects SMD meta-regression on data with no missing values in Stata version 8.2 (Stata Corporation,USA)using the program Metareg(Sharp 1998). Results Review statistics Searching retrieved over 2845 bibliographic references including duplicates,of whii 124 were accepted for full text viewing after initial screening of title and abstract. This was inclusive of articles where there was insufficient information to make a decision without reference to the full texts. After full text viewing, 104 were exclud' as they did not fulfil the inclusioncriteria(54 of these articles presented data pertaining to outcomes other than bird abundance (including mortality)and provide potential material for subsequent related systematic reviews). Of the remaining 20 articles, five were duplicate publications based on data from thi same sites,whilst 15 presented independent data on changes in bird abundance and were accepted for this review. Two articles presented data on more than one windfarm,whilst one was not suitable for quantitative analysis,thus data from 19 windfarms were available for synthesis(Table 2,appendix 2). Study quality Six datasets were based on'before and after'time series, whilst 13 were site- comparisons. Eight datasets had potentially important confounding factors resulting fromvariation between treatment and control at baseline or from changes concurrent with windfarm operation(Table 2, appendix 2). Study sample sizes varied from two 228 replicates.The rigour of observations was variable as measured in terms of replicationand objectivity (appendix 2). Study characteristics Thirteen of the windfarms were located in Europe with the remainder from North America. Ten were sited inland, seven were coastal and two were offshore. The bird taxon recorded and the habitat surrounding the windfarms are listed in Table 2. Turbine number ranged from 1 to 6500, whilst turbine power ranged from 85kW to http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page 16 of 66 750kW. Time from first operation to monitoring varied from one to 12 years(Table appendix 2). Page 12 Table 2. The ecological, windfarm and methodological cha Ecological characteristics W undfarm characteristics Location Taxon Taxon numbediabitat (kViDurbinaugifirmbins(yeagsffir Data set De Lucas,Janss,et aL Southern Accipitriformes, Scrub (2004) Spain, Falconifomes 5 116 86 inland &Passeriformes brushwood 2 Denmark Guillemette et aL(1998) ) Aaseriformes 2 Marine 500 10 offshore Hunt, el(1995) California, et inland Accipitriformes 1 Grassland 85 6500 12 i--. Johnson,Erickson et al.. (2000)1. 342 73 3 Johnson,Erickson et aL Accipitriformes, noon%I Minnesota, Anaerifnrmea W. Arable 143 2 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 17 of 66 v---/ inland .., ._-.,.- Charadriifotmes 750 Johnson,Erickson et at ,Falconlformes 138 . . (2000)3. &Passeriformes Johnson,Young eta(. Wyoming, 71 Scrub/ 647 105 (2000) inland brushwood 1 Accipitriformes, Vermont, Kerlinger(2002) inland Falconiformes 54 Forest 550 11 &Passeriformes Page 13 Ketzenberg et at(2002)1. 17 Ketzenberg etal.(2002)2. 4 34 Kehenberg et at(2002)3. Saxony, Charadriformes 3 Arable 550 4 Ketzenberg et at(2002)4. coastal 4 17 Sweden, Larsson(1994) offshore Anseriformes 6 Marine 220 1 1 Anseriformes, Meek et at(1993) Orkney, Charadriiformes 3 Moorland 275 2 6 inla &Passeriformes Wales, Phillips(1994) inland Accipitriformes, 53 Moorland 450 22 1 Anseriforrnes, Schmidt et al.(2003) Colorado, Falconiformes inland &Passeriformes 38 Grassland Unknown England, Still et at.(1996) ' 2 Urban 9 2 coastal Anseriformes, ..--.- Charadriiformes Holland Winkelman(1989) ' 6 Amble 25 3 coastal 100 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 18 of 66 Holland, Ansenformes, Winkelman(1992) Charadriformes, 9 Arable 18 1 coastal Passeriformes Page 14 Outcome of the review Individual windfarms. Nine windfarms had complete data available for extraction, although three of these windfarms presented data onfewer than three bird species and were excluded from this analysis. Synthesis of within windfarm data across species using random effects WMD meta-analysis resulted in negative pooled effect sizes, of which two are significant. There was significant heterogeneity within three studies and significant bias within one. One taxon had a significant positive effect size, whilst 12 taxon hac significant negative effect sizes(Table 3). Table 3. DerSimonian-Laird pooled effect sizes from weighted mean difference me analysis across species within windfarms. Heterogeneity is indicated by Q (Thomps and Sharp 1999), whilst bias is indicated by the Egger test(Egger et al. 1997). Heterogeneity, bias and individual taxon were considered significant at P<0.05. Main Pooled Effect Individual taxon effects Significant study Pooled P Q bias positive effect Signific Effect size size De Lucas et al.(2004) -0.699 0.383 111.269 -2.316 - Passerii Larsson(1994) -1673 0.001 8.109 1.492 - Clangul insufficient Charadriformes Passe Meek et al.(1993) -3.762 0.762 70.245 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 19 of 66 suata Phillips(1994) -5.6x10 0.999 50.918 0.046 - - Anaspd Fulica c Winkelman(1992) -275.771 <0.0001 263.339 -5.212 - Pluviali arquata Sturnus Winkelman(1989) -0.660 0.057 2.738 0.470 - - Combining windfarms with pseudoreplication The complete datasets (including datasets with<3 species)were pooled and combin using Random effects SMD meta-analysis resulting in a significant negative pooled effect size. (d=-0.328, 95%CI = -0.490 to -0.166, P<0.0001). There was significa heterogeneity(Q= 349.958,P <0.0001)but no significant bias(Egger test=-0.297 P=0.371). Sensitivity analyses were performed and the results remained similar with the additi of down-weighted data(two times the largest known standard deviation imputed where it was missing) and non-independent data. The effect size was negative albeit smaller,heterogeneitywas not significant but bias was(d=-0.033, 95%CI = -0.055 to -0.011,P=0.0028, Q=464.531, P= 0.9972, Egger test=-0.303, P= 0.015). When the data with missing variance and non-independent data was given average weighting(average known standard deviation imputed where it was missing),the effect size was comparable but the result was not significant.Neither heterogeneity bias was significant(d=-0.022, 95%CI= -0.046 to 0.0004,P= 0.0549, Q= 601.645, P=0.070,Egger test=-0.121, P=0.396). Synthesis of data across windfarms with aggregation bias Data was aggregated within windfarms and combined to produce aggregate effect sizes which were then combined using Random effects SMD meta-analysis. When Page 15 aggregate averages were derived using individual within study means, samples size and standard deviations,the pooled effect size was negative and significant(d= - 0.712, 95% CI=-1.076 to -0.348,P=0.0001). Heterogeneity was not significant(C 14.713, P=0.065)and bias was not significant(Egger test= -0.114, P=0.874). Sensitivity analysis was performed and the results remained similar with the additio http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 20 of 66 of down-weighted data(two times the largest known standard deviation imputed where it was missing)and non-independent data. The effect size was negative and significant. Heterogeneity was significant but bias was not. (d= -0.257, P = 0.0235, =47.586, P=0.0002, Egger test=0.569, P=0.447). Aggregate effect sizes were also calculated with species as replicates. Aggregate averages and standard deviations were derived using within study means whilst the number of species represented sample size. The pooled effect size was negative and significant(d= -0.489, 95%CI=-0.944 to -0.033, P= 0.035). Heterogeneity and bi were not significant (Q = 10.972, P=0.203, Egger test= -1.110, P= 0.105). Sensitivity analysis was performed with the addition of down-weighted data(two times the largest known standard deviation imputed where it was missing)and non- independent data. The pooled effect size was negative but not significant whilst heterogeneity was significant but bias was not(d= -0.240, P= 0.089, Q =45.358, P 0.0004,Egger test=-0.680, P=0.4069). Exploration of Reasons for heterogeneity Univariate meta-regression was used to investigate a priori reasons for heterogeneit in results. Bird taxon had a significant impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance with Anseriformes experiencing greater declines in abundance than othei bird groups, followed by Charadriformes, Falconiformes and Accipitriformes and Passeriformes(Table 4). Turbine number(size of windfarm)did not have a signifia impact on bird abundance whilst turbine power had a very weak but statistically significant effect with low power turbines resulting in greater declines in abundance than high power turbines(Table 4). Table 4. Univariate meta-regression coefficients and significance for taxon,turbine number and turbine power. Explanatory Coefficient Standard Z P Lower CI variable error Taxon 0.290 0.070 4.11 0.0001 0.151 Turbine number 0.0001 0.0001 -0.92 0.358 -0.0004 Turbine power 0.002 0.0007 2.91 0.004 0.0007 Bird taxon, turbine number and turbine power were combined with habitat type, the migratory nature of the species, latitude, location, size of area,time since operation windfarm and data quality using multivariate meta-regression. Time since start of windfarm operation had a significant impact on bird abundance with longer operatir times resulting in greater declines in abundance than short operating times(Table 5) Latitude had a very weak but statistically significant effect with high latitudes resulting in greater declines in abundance than low latitudes (Table 5). http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 21 of 66 Page 16 Table 5. Multivariate meta-regression coefficients and significance for taxon, location, latitude,turbine number,turbine power,habitat type, size of area,time sin( operation,migratory status and data quality. Explanatory Coeffici Standard 2 P Lower CI variable ent error Taxon 0.015 0.135 0.11 0.912 -0.250 Location -0.494 0.474 -1.04 0.297 -1.424 Latitude -0.099 0.032 -3.11 0.002 -0.162 Turbine number -0.009 0.005 -1.55 0.121 -0.020 Turbine power 0.002 0.002 1.15 0.248 -0.001 Habitat type 0.158 0.166 0.96 0.340 -0.166 Size of area 0.286 0.201 142 0.156 -0.109 Time since 0.519 0.155 3.34 0.001 0.214 operation Migrant -0.061 0.071 -0.86 0.389 -0.202 Data quality 0.030 0.093 0.33 0.745 -0.153 Many of the variables investigated in the multivariate meta-regression are correlates with each other. There are 16 statistically significant(P<0.01)correlations between the ten variables with taxon and location significantly correlated with effect size (Table 6). http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page22of66 r Page 17 Table 6. Correlation coefficients of the explanatory variables and effect size weighted b indicated in italics. Significant results(P<0.01) are in bold. Taxon 1 Location 0.777 1 0.00001 Latitude -0.152 -0.397 1 0.159 0.0001 Turbine number 0.002 0.066 -0.177 1 0.981 0.542 0.099 Turbine power 0.295 0.023 0.809 -0.179 1 0.005 0.832 0.00001 0.096 Habitat type -0.248 0.027 -0.726 0.034 -0.842 n n, 0 700 I SI M I 0 742 001)001 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 23 of 66 V Size of area 0.119 0.15 -0.097 0.984 -0.034 0.271 0.163 0.367 0.00001 0.754 Time since operation -0.255 0.034 -0.221 0.68 -0.421 0.016 0.752 0.0391 0.00001 0.00001 Migrant 0.171 0.164 -0.294 0.091 -0.16 0.113 0.128 0.005 0.4 0.138 Data quality 0308 0.009 0.721 -0.104 0.854 0.003 0.931 0.00001 0.338 0.00001 Effect size 0371 0.465 -0.138 -0.082 0.156 0.0004 0.00001 0.199 0.449 0.1475 Turbine Turbine Taxon Location Latitude number power Page 18 Discussion Our analyses suggest that windfanns can have a negative impact on bird abundance especially amongst Anseriformes and Charadriformes. However,there is statistical!• significant heterogeneity in results, and on occasion windfarms do not have a negati impact for individual taxon. For example, Charadriformes (Calidris alpine and Pluvialis apricaria)have higher abundance at a windfarm site on Orkney than at a control although variation in habitat and management practices between the windfat and control sites could explain this(Meek et at 1993). Pooling the data from the six windfarms and another three with a limited number of species using random effects SMD meta-analysis did not substantially alter the ,.--' results. However,the addition of data from the ten windfarms with missing data did reduce the effect size with statistical significance dependent upon weighting. Althnnah there are nn hard and fact meta-analvtiral nrlec the inrhrcinn of all availal http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 24 of 66 data has been advocated by Wolf& Guevara(2001). The use of large standard deviations means that all data is utilised whilst allowing data based on known variance higher weighting. The use of all 19 datasets with down weighted missing value data is therefore probably of most value in providing an overall summary of tl impact of windfarms on bird abundance suggesting that windfarms have a small negative impact on abundance. Given the heterogeneity underlying the pooled resub this indicates that windfarms can,but do not necessarily,have negative impacts on bird abundance,depending on location. This is consistent with the current concensus that windfarm location is of critical importance in avoiding deleterious impacts (Langston and Pullan 2003,Percival 2001). Many studies(Gill 2000a, b,DH consultancy 2000, Thomas 1999) suggest ti windfarms do not have an impact on bird disturbance. Conversely mortality from b strike is extremely high at Altamont(Hunt 1999,2001, 2002) and Tarifa(Jans 200( This has led to the recommendation,borne out by the current study,that wind farms should not be sited in statutorily designated sites, qualified international sites,natioi sites for nature conservation or other areas with large concentrations of birds such a migration crossing points or areas containing populations of species of conservation concern(Langston and Pullan 2003). The SMD meta-analyses described are pseudoreplicated, because effect sizes have been generated for individual taxon and pooled across windfarms. Sensitivity analy: was undertaken to account for this and the pooled results are robust in so far as synthesis involving pseudoreplication produces similar results to synthesis involving different kinds of aggregation bias, both for the nine complete data sets and the 19 datasets with missing values imputed by two times the largest known standard deviation. Exploration of Reasons for heterogeneity The consideration of heterogeneity is a critical aspect of systematic review (Thompson 1994, Bailey 1987)allowing the formation of testable hypotheses about ecological or windfarm characteristics that may have an impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance. Bird taxon monitored had a significant impact on the effect of windfarms on bird abundance with Anseriformes experiencing greater Page 19 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 25 of 66 declines in abundance than other bird groups, followed by Charadriformes, Falconiformes and Accipitriformes and Passeriformes. This is consistent with the findings of the random effects WMD meta-analyses of individual windfarms. It is al consistent with the conclusions of Langston and Pullan(2003). The duck species which had negative effect sizes included the sea ducks Clangula hyemalis(Long-tailed Duck),Somateria mollissima(Eider)and Melanitta nigra (Common scoter)which are thought to be particularly vulnerable to disturbance displacement,bather to movement, collision and habitat damage impacts(Langston and Pullan 2003). Conversely Percival(2001) argues that the evidence concerning S mollissima points to no impact on sea ducks although there is considerable uncertain surrounding this conclusion. Charadriformes were considered vulnerable to disturbance displacement and bather to movement,Accipitiformes to disturbance displacement and collision, Passeriformes (especially noctural migrants) were considered vulnerable to collision(Langston and Pullan 2003). The meta-regression provides evidence that Anseriformes, especially sea ducks, are amongst the most vulnerable bird species to windfarm impacts. Given the small sample size (87 data points, nine windfarms included in meta- regression)and magnitude of the correlation, low power turbines resulting in greater declines in abundance than high power turbines is not considered meaningful. This i consistent with the findings of Thomas(1999)who found no relationship between bird density and turbine size. The lack of strong relationships between effect size, turbine number and turbine power means it is not possible to resolve the debate aboi the relative impacts of few high powered turbines versus larger numbers of smaller low powered turbines. This is an important area for further work as future offshore wind installations are likely to consist of smaller numbers of high powered turbines (Gill et al. 1996,Langston and Pullan 2003). Time since operation had a significant impact on the effect of windfamis on bird abundance with longer operating times resulting in greater declines in abundance th short operating times. This has important implications for further work(see below). is also inconsistent with the theory that birds may become habituated to the presence of windfarms(Gill et al. 1996, Langston and Pullan 2003). The meta-regression provides evidence that deleterious impacts are likely to persist or worsen with time suggesting that bird habituation to windfarms should be considered with some scepticism. There was also a very weak but statistically significant effect of latitude. Given the small sample size and magnitude of the correlation this is not considered meaningful. Many of the variables investigated in the multivariate meta-regression are correlatec with each other. There are 16 statistically significant correlations between the ten variables thus it is very difficult to attribute declines in bird abundance with any one variable. Both taxon and location are significantly correlated with effect size and eat http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 26 of 66 other. This reflects the nature of the data. Windfarms with large numbers of Anseriformes are located offshore,whilst Charadriformes are associated with coast windfarms. It is therefore not possible to disentangle these variables. This is reflecte in the management recommendations. Multivariate meta-regression sensitivity analyses were run. Anseriformes were excluded from the dataset and the same patterns remained. Meta-regression was also attempted on all 19 datasets but the algorithm failed to reach an asymptote. Page 20 Review limitations This review is concerned solely with the impact of windfarms on bird abundance. It does not directly consider any outcome measures other than population abundance. There is a large body of literature on bird mortality associated with turbine strike. A further review of mortality would be required to ascertain which ecological and wind farm characteristics are associated with high mortality. The review was based on comparison of treatment and control or before and after impact data. Ideally, synthesis would be undertaken using rates of change derived from randomized replicated studies. This data was largely unavailable and it was considered inappropriate to synthesise rates of change with different abundances where it was potentially available. The review does not consider scale effects other than windfarm size. There is potential for long turbine strings to disrupt ecological links by displacing birds moving between feeding, breeding and roosting areas(Langston and Pullan 2003, Percival 2001). This could not be investigated in multivariate meta-regression as the was insufficient reporting of turbine layout for efficient and standardised data extraction and analysis. Furthermore, it is recognised that multiple installations may have a cumulative impact(Langston and Pullan 2003). Larger sample sizes would b required to ascertain cumulative impacts. Recommendations regarding turbine layot and appropriate distance between individual windfarms cannot be derived from the data that is currently available. This represents an important knowledge-gap. The scope of this review was global but the retrieved data may not accurately reflec http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cacheaCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 27 of 66 the totality of all windfarms. A total of 217 species(appendix 3)contributed to the datasets. There was not enough information for meaningful synthesis of taxonother than Accipitriformes, Anseriformes, Charadriiformes(excluding Laridae), Falconiformes and Passeriformes. It was considered inappropriate to combine data c Laridae with other Charadriiformes given the ecological variation between these groups and there was insufficient information on Laridae to include them as a functionally meaningful taxonomic group in the analysis. Thirteen of the wind farms were located in Europe with the remainder from North America thus the applicability of the results to many areas remains unknown. However, Europe and North America are the areas where windfarms have been pioneered thus limited additional information may be available from other areas. In spite of the systematic and extensive search strategy, not all information on windfarms was included in the review. Much of existing data come from grey literature, an unspecified proportion of which is not in the public domain. Client confidentiality is a major problem often preventing dissemination of Environmental Impact Assessments on Windfarm installations. Legislation should be modified to enable the quality of this work to be assessed and results incorporated with availabec data. It has been suggested that the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Organisation (now incorporated into Future Energy Solutions) should maintain a common library windfarm data to improve dissemination(Percival 2001). Should sufficient quantitic of information be released in future, and other work come to light,the review can undergo substantive amendment in order to update it. Page 21 Ten windfarms were sited inland, seven were coastal and two were offshore. The robustness of conclusions regarding offshore windfarms is therefore constrained by data availability. This is a recognised problem(Gill 1996, Langston and Pullan 200_ as there are currently only eight operational offshore windfarms(Percival 2001). Th development of offshore windfarms is in its infancy and there is therefore a dearth o information in an area where it is most required. Other factors restrict the applicabil of results from offshore windfarms. The flock sizes of birds in both offshore studies were small and it is believed that small flocks are less sensitive to disturbance impac http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 28 of 66 than large flocks(Langston and Pullan 2003). Additionally, the distribution of sea ducks is very variable and related to food availability (Guillemette, Larsen and Clausager 1999, Percival 2001, Langston and Pullan 2003). These factors have important implications suggesting that both the impact of windfarms on sea ducks a variability may be larger than the current work predicts. There is a limited extent of shallow water suitable for the construction of offshore windfarms and it is in this shallow water that large aggregations of sea ducks are found prompting the suggesti that moving turbines further offshore needs to be considered(Langston and Pullan 2003). This recommendation seems sensible in the light of the above, although the impact of such deep offshore developments would require rigorous monitoring. Eight datasets had potentially important confounding factors resulting from variatioi between treatment and control at baseline or from changes concurrent with wind far operation. The most critical of these is the effect of food availability discussed abov Study sample sizes varied from two to 228 replicates. The rigour of observations we variable as measured in terms of replication and objectivity. The problems of few studies, lack of comparators, inadequate duration of follow up and poor study qualit were recognised by Langston and Pullan(2003) and remain problematic. Langston and Pullan(2003)recommend that BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) studies include one year of monitoring before impact as a minimum but preferably two to three years to ensure that the annual cycle of a species is adequately represented. Th also recognise that long term monitoring is necessary and recommend follow up of five to ten years. The current work indicates that these recommendations represent minimal acceptable practice rather than best practice highlighting both the necessity for long term studies and a high degree of replication. Thus although this systematic review has allowed a more objective appraisal of the evidence than traditional narrative reviews,there is still uncertainty about the impac of windfarms on bird abundance and a clear requirement for further work. Reviewers' conclusion Implications for conservation Available evidence suggests that windfarms reduce the abundance of many bird species at the windfarm site. There is some evidence that Anseriformes (ducks) experience greater declines in abundance than other bird groups suggesting that• precautionary approach should be adopted to windfarm developments near aggregations ofAnseriformes and to a lesser extent Charadriformes particularly i offshore and coastal locations. There is also some evidence that the impact of windfarms on bird abundance becomes more pronounced with time,suggesting hi http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page 29 of 66 Page 22 short term bird abundance studies do not provide robust indicators of the potentia deleterious impacts of windfarms on bird abundance. These results should be interpreted with caution given the small sample sizes and variable quality data. More high quality research and monitoring is required, in particular,long term studies with independent controls and variance data Pendin further research, f impacts on bird abundance are to be avoided, the available evidence suggests that windfarms should not be sited near populations of birds of conservation importance,particularly Anseriformes. Implications for further research. Environmental impact assessments of wind farms require long term monitoring. The use ofBACI designs has been advocated.Ideally these should incorporate replicated and balanced experimental designs,preferably with a truly random sampling procedure or some thought given to minimising the potential for confounding effects.Although such monitoring is costly, the value of unreplicate, non-randomised short term monitoring is negligible. The impact of offshore windfarms in particular represents a knowledge gap requiring further needs led research as do the cumulative impact of windfarms and the impact of turbine layout Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the authors and organisations who responded to our enquiries; Karina Tveen Jensen, Harma Brondijk, Marijke Albus, Eugenio Sanchez Moran and Ulrike Lange for translation; Rod Taylor and Khalid Khan for statistical advice; English Nature and RSPB personnel especially Rowena Langston for comments, support and access to literature; Colleagues at the Centre for Evidence Based Conservation and the School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham especially Zoe Davies, Graham Martin, Steve Portugal, Jim Reynolds and Claire Tyler. References -- AWEA(2003). Global Wind Energy Market Report.Internet publication http://www.awea.org/pubs/docum ents/glo bal m a rket2003.pdf http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 30 of 66 Bailey,K. (1987) Inter-study differences: how should they influence the interpretati and analysis of results?Statistical medicine 6, 351-8. BWEA (2004). http://www.bwea.com/map/index.html Campbell, B.,Lack. E. (1985).A Dictionary of Birds. Vermillion: Buteo Books. Crockford,N.J. (1992). A review of the possible impacts of wind farms on birds am other wildlife.JNCC Report 27. Joint Nature Conservation Committee,Peterboroug DH consultancy (2000) Windy Standard Wind farm, Dumfries and Galloway Breeding Bird survey 2000. Cited by Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan J.D. 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. RSPB/BirdLife report. Page 23 Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Schneider M,Minder C. (1997)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. British Medical Journal 315, 629-34. Gill, J.P. (2000a). Baseline breeding bird survey of the Dunlaw wind farm. Report tt Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. Environmentally Sustainable Systems,Edinburgh. Cited by Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan J.D. 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. RSPB/BirdLife report. Gill(2000b)Changes in breeding birds at Dunlaw wind farm. Report to Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. Environmentally Sustainable Systems,Edinburgh. Cited by Langston,R.H.W. and Pullan J.D. 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. RSPB/BirdLife report. Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. and Mudge, G.P. (1996). Review of the impacts of wind —^ farms and other aerial structures on birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 21. Guillemette_ M.. Larsen. J.K. & ClausaQer. i. (19991. Assessing the imnact of Tuno http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 31 of 66 Knob wind park on sea ducks: the influence of food resources.Neri Technical repor no 263. Jans, G. (2000) Bird Behaviour in and near a windfarm at Tarifa, Spain: Manageme: Considerations. Proceedings of the National Avian Wind Power planning meeting 111, 110.114. www.nrel.gov. Khan,K.S.,ter Riet, G., Glanville, J., Sowden,A.J. and Kleijnen, J. (eds.) 2001. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness.NHS Centre for Revie and Dissemination, report number 4, 2 lid edition,University of York. Knox, A.G. (1992) Checklist of Birds of Britain and Ireland. British Ornithologists Union Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan J.D. 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. RSPB/BirdLife report. Morton, S.,P. Shekelle, et al. (2001). Meta-analysis of messy data: problems and solutions from a meta-regression analysis of spinal manipulation for low back pain. Cochrane 1: op024. Percival, S.M. (2001)Assessment of the effects of offshore wind farms on birds. ETSU W/13/00565/REP DTI/Pub URN01/1434, Ecology Consulting. Pullin,A.S. & Knight,T.M. 2003. Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach.Journal for Nature Conservation 11, 83-90. SGS Environment(1996). A review of the impacts of wind farms on birds in the Uk ETSU W/13/00426/REP/1,2,3. Page 24 r Sharp, S. (1998)Meta-analysis regression: statistics,biostatistics, and epidemiology http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 32 of 66 mats I echnical Ifulletm.42, 10-22. Stevens, A. and Milne, R. (1997). The effectiveness revolution and public health. In G. Scally (Ed.)Progress in Public Health, p197-225. Royal Society of Medicine Press, London. Thomas, R. (1999) An Assessment of the Impact of Wind Turbines on Birds at Ten Windfarm Sites in the UK.Sustainable Development International: 215-220. Thompson, S.G. (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal 309, 1351-5. Thompson, S,G, and Sharp, S.J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18(20), 2693-708. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2005)www. unfccc.int Wolf,F. and J. Guevara(2001). Imputation of missing data in systematic reviews: s what is the standard deviation? Cochrane 1: pa007. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 33 of 66 Page 25 Appendices Appendix One: Windfarm Quality Assessment Instrument Bias and generic data quality Specific data Quality element features quality features Selection and Performance bias: NA Randomized controlled Trial Study Design Quasi-RCT(a trial applying a pseudo random allocation mechanism) Controlled Trial Historical CT(data for the control arm comes archives not from current experimental obsery Site comparison Time Series Interrupted time series Expert Opinion/Questionnaire/data without comparator Selection and Performance bias: Factors: Treatment and control arms homogenous Baseline comparison(heterogeneity Abundance of Treatment and control arms not comparable w between treatment and control arms species mm.sycet to confounding factors OR insufficient with respect to defined information confounding factors before Functional types Treatment and control arms homogenous treatment) present(raptors, Treatment and control arms not comparable w waders,wildfowl) respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information Location(coastal Treatment and control arms homogenous or inland) Treatment and control arms not comparable w molut to confounding factors OR insufficient information Habitat type Treatment and control arms homogenous Treatment and control arms not comparable w mwywt to confounding factors OR insufficient information Size of area Treatment and control arms homogenous Treatment and control arms not comparable w respect to confounding factors OR insufficient information Selection and Performance bias: Factors:Functional No heterogeneity within treatment and control http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 34 of 66 Intra treatment variation types present Replicates within treatment and control arms r (heterogeneity within both (raptors,waders, comparable �.,. treatment and control arms with wildfowl) respect to defined confounding Location(coastal No heterogeneity within treatment and control factors during treatment) or inland) Replicates within treatment and control arms r comparable Turbine type No heterogeneity within treatment and control Replicates within treatment and control arms r comparable Habitat type No heterogeneity within treatment and control Replicates within treatment and control arms r comparable Size of area No heterogeneity within treatment and control Replicates within treatment and control arms r comparable Selection and Performance bias: site management Factor equal in treatment and control Measurement of Co-interventions techniques Factor not equal or unreported Assessment bias:Measurement of Replication, Well replicated objective parameter of abunda outcome parameter of used(>4 replications) abundance Replicated objective parameter of abundance t (accuracy) —4 replications) Unreplicated observations or subjective param abundance used Attrition bias:Assessment of NA No losses to follow up treatment effect on sample number Minor(<20%)losses to follow up Major(>20%)losses to follow up Page 26 Appendix Two: Table of included studies. Study De Lucas,M.,Janss,G.F.E&Ferrer,M.(2004).The effects of a wind farm on birds in migration point:the Strait of Gibraltar.Biodiversity and Conservation 13(2):395-407. Methods Bird counts along one transect repeated in time in treatment and control site. Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes,Falconiformes and Passeriformes. co-intervention Location:Tarifa,Southern spain,inland. Windfarm design:86 turbines with an average output of 116kW per turbine. Habitat type:brushwood and Quercus spp. Size of area:Wind farm study area transect is 2780m long.Area is defined as 2.7Km Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:monitoring from July 1994 to September 1995.operation began in 1992 acc to renewable energy yearbook 1993.Timescale=2 years. Outcome Mean number birds/km along one transect replicated through time.n=228,sd derived I http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cacheaCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bhantac.uk/Doclunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 35 of 66 tADunaance) range. Species Treatment(windfarm) Passerifonnes 8.5 Cryps fulvus 8.88 Circaetus gallicus 0.92 Falco tinnunculus 0.6 Milvus migrans 25.94 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline No information on baseline.0 Comparison Infra treatment No spatial replicates.No information on temporal variation.0 variation Measurement of No information on management but vegetation cover was variable with the treatment si Co-interventions being open and the control having higher vegetation cover presumably as a result of dif management or management history.0 Replication& Linear transects were walked with temporal replication.Bird species and number were parameter of recorded along with other unreported variables.4 abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 46 quality Notes There are two potential control areas.The Np area was selected as the better of the two had a ridge of the same orientation as the wind fans site.Data on the abundance of pass bird nests was presented in addition to the extracted data.This was included in qualitati outcomes but not meta-analysis to retain independence.The transect data was preferred contained a measure of range.This was converted to sd(Nb maximum Black Kite morel km is stated as 1111.12.It is assumed that the decimal point is in the wrong place and tl reads 111.1)The author was contacted to verify this,but did not respond to ow enquirit Data was extracted from table 1 p400,table 2 p401 with table 3 added to qualitative outcomes.Also information on White stork(more abundant in control). Study Guillemette,M.,Larsen,J.K.&Clausager,1.(1998)Impact assessment of an off-shore park on sea ducks.Neri Technical report no 227. Methods Before and after site comparison based on bird counts. Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes. co-intervention Location:Tun"knob,Denmark,offshore. Windfarm design: 10 turbines with an average output of 500kW per turbine. Habitat type:marine. Size of area:Wind farm observation area is 804ha(control 693ha)Area is defined as 0. Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:monitoring from 1994 to 1997.operation began in 1995.Timescale=2 year data was extracted from 1997(longest time period). Outcome Abundance of birds at Tun"knob and Ringebjerg sand control counted from observatio (Abundance) towers during 3 years(n=19 treatment,n=15 control.the sd is presented in the figures). http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 36 of 66 Page 27 Species Treatment(windfarm) Somateria mallissima 458 Melanitta nigra 7 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline Abundance of eiders more equitable at baseline but still different(treatment, 1821 sd 11 Comparison control 2134 sd 729),other factors equal.4 Intro treatment No spatial replicates.Species numbers vary with time.0 variation Measurement of No information on management but food availability(mussel abundance)varies with tir Co-interventions Replication& Bird count observations repeated in time.4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 50 quality Notes This is a complex nested experimental design involving before,after,treatment,control data at three spatial scales incorporating aerial and ground surveys and simultaneous/n simultaneous observations.Ground observations were selected as the least error prone c with mean,variance and sample size reported.The work is replicated by Guillemette,tv Larsen,J.K.&Clausager,I.(1997)Effekt of Tune Knob vindmellepark pi fuglelivet F; rapport fra DMU nr 209.It is extended by Guillemette,M.,Larsen,J.K.&Clausager,I. (1999)Assessing the impact of Tune Knob wind park on sea ducks:the influence of fa resources.Neri Technical report no 263.This body of literature together indicates that t windfarm may not be responsible for the sea duck decline as there is large natural temp variation in sea duck abundance and the decline in sea ducks is accompanied by a declh their food availability.Data was extracted from figure 7 p26,figure 19 p42. Study Hunt,W.G.,et al(1995).A pilot golden eagle population study in the Altamont Pau resource area,California Santa Cruz,Predatory Bird Research Group,University of California. Methods Site comparison based on bird counts. Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes. co-intervention Location:Altamont,California,inland. Windfann design:6500 turbines with an average output of 85kW per turbine(based on Altamont output of 548.32MW Wind project database). Habitat type:grassland. Size of area: 189Km 2. Site management techniques:cattle grazing. Timescale:weekly monitoring from May to November 1994.operation began in 1982. Timescale=12 years. Outcome Mean number of eagles observed per Km 'per road survey.(n=16 treatment,r (Abundance) Species Treatment(windfann) Aquila chrysaetos 0.08 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline No information on baseline.0 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctnnents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 37 of 66 Comparison Infra treatment Spatial replicates vary with t .spc.t to turbine number and design,habitat types and size variation Measurement of Ground squirrels are culled in windfarm area reducing prey abundance.0 Co-interventions Replication& 16 roads were driven along weekly in the treatment area and two in the control area.Bit parameter of numbers were recorded along with other variables.4 abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 48 quality Notes 16 segments were identified in the wind resource area for ground survey.They were sw Page 28 .—� weekly from May to November.Site 300 was used as a control(two survey segments). number of eagles per km 2 were read off a graph for each segment and an overall' calculated.The text provided means for the two control replicates.Data was extracted f figure 9.3 and text on p95.Also information on Red-tailed hawks but no control data w. presented.Radio tagging and nest density data are also available.The work is replicate( Hunt et al.(1999)A population study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Re Area:Population trend analysis 1994-1997.NREL/SR 500-26092. Study Johnson,G.D.,Erickson,W.P,Strickland,M.D.,Shepherd,M.F.&Shepherd,D.A.(21 Avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area,Minnesota:Result 4-year study.Technical Report prepared for Northern States Power Co.,Minneapolis. Methods BACI design monitoring of bird abundance(3 sites and one non independent control). Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes,Anseriformes,Charadriiformes,Falconiforrm co-intervention Passeriformes. Location:Buffalo ridge,Minnesota,inland. Windfarm design:PI 73 turbines 342kW(25MW plant),P2 143 turbines 750kW(107.: plant),P3 138 turbines 750kW(I03.5MW plant). Habitat type:arable. Size of area:PI 12.75Km 2,P2 47Km 2,P3 47Km 2 (PI,8.5miles,P2/P3 25- Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:monitoring from 1996 to 1999.operation began in 1994 P1, 1998 P2, 1999 Timescale=3yrs P1,2yrs P2, lyr Pl. Outcome Mean abundance of birds observed during point counts 15March-15November 1996-19 (Abundance) (PI n=32,P2n=71,P3n=25,controln=29(based on number of count sites averaged b) observations pa over 4 years). Species Treatment(windfarm) PI P9 P1 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page 38of66 Merges merganser sp 0 0.01 0 Anas platyrhynchos sp 0.1 0.28 0.19 Anas discors sp 0.01 0.01 0.03 Anas crecca sp 0 0.01 0 Aix sponsa sp 0.01 0.02 0.01 Branta canadensis sp 0.11 0.06 0.18 Anser caerulescens sp 0 0.09 0 Anser albifrons sp 0 0 0 Fuiica americana a 0 0 0 Bartramia longicauda s 0.01 0.02 0.05 Pluvialis dominica sp 0.02 0.03 0.14 Charadrius vocijerus s 0.09 0.23 0.12 Calidris melanotos s 0 0 0.1 Tringa melanoleuca sp 0 0.02 0.01 Gallinago gallinago sp 0.01 0.01 0.03 Circus cyaneus sp 0.01 0.03 0.02 Accipiter striatus a 0 0.01 0.01 Accipiter cooperii s 0 0 0 Buteoplatypterus sp 0.01 0.01 0 Buteojamaicensis a 0.02 0.04 0.04 Buteo swainsoni a 0.01 0.01 0.01 Buteo lagopus a 0 0.01 0 Haliaeetus a 0 0 0 leucocephalus Falco columbarius sp 0 0 0 Falco sparverius s 0.01 0.01 0.02 Tyrannus tyrannus s 0.01 0.06 0.07 Tyrannus verticalis s 0.01 0.02 0 Sayornis phoebe a 0 0 0 Empidonax minimus sp 0.01 0.01 0 Eremophila alpestris a 0.19 1.34 0.46 Page 29 Anthus rubescens a 0.02 0.02 0.05 Cyanocitta cristata a 0.04 0.05 0.21 Corvus brachyrhynchos a 0.1 0.16 0.23 ^ Sina carolinensis sp 0 0 0 Sturnus vulgaris a 1.55 0.67 1.15 Piranga olivacea sp 0 0 0 - n ,.... ..fl, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 39 of 66 UOUCnonyx uryztvorus S V.I/ V.LY 0.L, Molothrus ater sp 0.31 0.32 0.33 Xanthocephalus sp 0.03 0.06 0.01 '1 xanthocephalus Agelaius phoeniceus sp 0.72 1.31 0.80 Euphagus carolinus a 0 0.01 0 Euphagus a 0.01 0.01 0.01 cyanocephalus Sturnella neglecta sp 0.13 0.29 0.29 Icterus spurius s 0 0 0.01 Icterus galbula sp 0.01 0.01 0 Quiscalus quiscula s 0.29 0.22 0.53 Carpodacus mexicanus sp 0.01 0 0.01 Carduehs tristis s 0.1 0.16 0.21 Carduelis pines a 0 0.01 0 Carduelisflammea sp 0 0.05 0 Calcarius lapponicus sp 0.15 0.77 0.73 Pooecetesgramineus a 0.06 0.11 0.07 Passerculus s 0.08 0.29 0.3 sandwichensis Ammodramus s 0.03 0.19 0.14 savannarum Zonotrichia querula a 0.01 0.02 0.01 Zonotrichia albicollis a 0.01 0.01 0.01 Spizella arborea a 0.03 0.07 0.02 Spizella passerina s 0.01 0.01 0.02 Spizella pallida s 0.03 0.1 0.01 Melospizageorgiana a 0 0.01 0.01 Chondestes grammacus s 0 0 0 Junco hyemalis a 0.02 0.03 0.04 Melospiza melodia s 0.08 0.11 0.15 Melospiza linco/nii a 0.01 0.01 0.03 Zonotrichia leucophrys sp 0 0 0.01 Spiza americana s 0.14 0.1 0.18 Pheucticus ludovicianus sp 0 0.01 0 Guiraca caeru/ea s 0 0.01 0 Petrochelidon s 0.01 0.14 0.26 pyrrhonota Stelgidopteryx s 0 0.01 0.01 serripennis Hirundo rustica s 0.59 0.78 0.87 Tachycineta bicolor sp 0.04 0.06 0.04 Riparia rparia a 0 0.02 0 Vireo gilvus sp 0.01 0.01 0 Vireo olivaceus sp 0 0.01 0 Setophaga ruticilla sp 0.01 0.01 0 Dendroica virens sp 0 0 0 Wilsonia canadensis sp 0 0 0 Oporornis agilis sp 0 0 0 Geothlypis trichas s 0.13 0.09 0.13 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 40 of 66 vermtvora peregrina sp 11.111 13.111 u Page 30 Dendroica palmaren sp o 0 0.01 Dendroicapetechia sp 0.01 0.01 0 Dendroica coronata sp 0 0.01 0.01 Passer domesticus a 0.04 0.1 0.11 Dumetella carolinensis s 0.01 0.01 0.01 Toxostoma rufen s 0.01 0.01 0.02 Troglodytes aedon s 0.01 0.03 0.06 Cistothorus platensis s 0.17 0.12 0.1 Regulus calendula sp 0 0.01 0.01 Poecile atricapilla a 0.01 0.01 0.01 Catharus guttatus sp 0.01 0 0 „0.--. Catharus minimus sp 0 0 0 Turdus migratorius a 0.15 0.18 0.15 Sialia stalls a 0.01 0.02 0 Lanius excubitor a 0.01 0 0 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline Abundance variable but other factors equal at baseline:4 Comparison Infra treatment No information on spatial or temporal variation(species vary with time).0 variation Measurement of No information on management.0 Co-interventions Replication& Bird counts replicated in space and time:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 50 quality Notes Data was extracted from three windfarm sites and one non independent reference area. Maximum mean abundance of each species(based on the control)was extracted thus st abundance was extracted for summer residents,spring or fall was extracted for winter residents scarce in summer(summer,sp=spring,a=autumn).Additional data was avt on non relevant species and relevant species that had no control data.Before-after data• not utilised although effect sizes are presented in tables 15 and 16 and the raw data in fi The author was contacted in an attempt to obtain variance and verify sample size infom '--. but did not have the resources to help with our enquiries.Data was extracted from App B p160-180.Other work on the site has been excluded from meta-analysis to retain independence but included in qualitative outcomes(Leddy,K.L.,Higgins,K.F.&Nat http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doclunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 41 of 66 D.E.(1999)Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands.Wilson Bulletin 111(1): 100-104.).It should be noted that the site comparison is based on a mean from all years of monitoring thus treatment sites do not windfarms present throughout Thus this data down weights the impact of windfamis. Study Johnson,G.D.,Young Jr.,J.P.,Derby,C.E.,Erickson,W.P,Strickland,M.D.&Kern,. (2000).Wildlife Monitoring Studies,SeaWest Windpower Plant,Carbon County,Wym 1995-1999.Cheyenne,Wyoming,WEST. Methods Bird counts replicated 3 times between 15May and 31 July on 8 transects with 5 points r transect(n=40). Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes,Anseriformes,Charadrifonnes,Falconiforme co-intervention Passerifonnes. Location:Foot creek rim,Carbon County,Wyoming,inland. Windfarm design: 105 turbines with an average output of 647kW per turbine. Habitat type:cottonwood,aspen and rock outcrops mentioned in text.Scrub/woodland? Size of area:Simpsons Ridge and Foot creek rim are 24550ha/2=FCR?.Area is deftly 122.75Km 2. Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:monitoring from 1995 to 1999.operation began in 1999.Timescale=I yea' Outcome Mean number of birds observed per 8 minute count(no variance measure)(n=40) Page 31 (Abundance) Species Treatment(windfann) Branta canadensis 0.054 Anas platyrhynchos 0.01 Cathartes aura 0.005 Accipiter striatus 0.005 Buteojamaicensis 0.023 Buteo swainsoni 0.005 Buteo regalis 0.005 Circus cyaneus 0.013 Aquila chrysaetas 0.013 Falco mesicanus 0.006 Falco sparverius 0.017 Charadrius vacijerus 0.013 Gallinago gallinago 0.006 Charadrius montanus 0.058 Nvmersius americanus 0 Phalaropus tricolor 0.005 7yrannustyrannus 0.005 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 42 of 66 Tyrannus verticalis 0.005 Sayornis soya 0 Contopus cooperi 0.005 Empidonax occidentalis 0.005 Contopus sordidulus 0.027 Empidonax oberholseri 0.005 Eremophila alpestris 2.077 Tachycineta bicolor 0.042 Hirundo rustica 0.015 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 0.410 Stelgidopteryx serripennis 0 Riparia riparia 0.005 Tachycineta thalassina 0.035 Corvus corax 0.008 Pica hudsonia 0.031 Cyanocitta cristata 0.005 Troglodytes aedon 0.1 Salpinctes obsoletus 0.015 Oreoscoptes montanus 0.035 Catharus ustulatus 0.006 Dumetella carolinensis 0.005 Turdus migratorius 0.148 Sialia currucoides 0.096 Catharus guttatus 0.005 Sturnus vulgarly 0.019 Vireo gilvus 0.017 Regulus calendula 0.005 Vermivora celata 0.006 Dendroica petechia 0.044 Dendroica coronata 0.029 Oporornis tolmiei 0.017 Sturnella neglecta 0.075 Agelaius phoeniceus 0.008 Euphagus cyanocephalus 0.385 Quiscalus quiscula 0.013 Molothrus ater 0.052 Carduelis tristis 0.115 Carduelis pinus 0.165 Coccothraustes vespertinus 0.005 Page 32 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 43 of 66 Pipilo chlorurus 0.248 Calcarius mccownii 0 Passerculus sandwichensis 0.013 Melospiza melodia 0.015 Melospiza lincolnii 0.005 Zonotrichia leucophrys 0.017 Chondestes grammacus 0 Ammodramus bairdii 0.005 Pocecetes gramineus 0.927 Spizella breweri 0.448 Spizella passerine 0.106 Junco hyemalis 0.005 Calamospiza melanocorys 0.01 Bombycilla cedrorum 0.008 Poecile atricapilla 0.005 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline Abundance variable,size of areas and habitat type insufficiently reported:2 Comparison Ultra treatment No information on spatial or temporal variation(species vary with time).0 variation Measurement of No information on management.0 Co-interventions Replication& Bird counts replicated in space and time:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 48 quality Notes The author was contacted in an attempt to obtain variance and verify sample size infom but did not have the resources to help with our enquiries.It should be noted that the site comparison is based on a mean from all years of monitoring thus treatment sites do not windfarms present throughout Thus this data down weights the impact of windfanns.I was extracted from Appendix F p158-160. Study Kerlinger,P.(2002).An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corpon Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg,Vermont.Golden, Colorado,National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Methods Replicated bird counts before and after windfarm construction. Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitrifonnes,Falconifonnes and Passeriformes. co-intervention Location:Searsburg,Vermont,inland. Windfarm design: 11 turbines with an output of 550kW per turbine. Habitat type:North American hardwood Forest Size of area:Wind farm area is 5ha.Area is defined as 0.05Km 2 Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:monitoring in1994 prior to windfann construction and 1997 after operation. Operation began in 1996.Timescale=1 yew. Outcome Breeding bird survey:mean number of birds observed or heard at point counts(tr21).I (Abundance) data is based on counts but the methods are not described(n=21?) Species Treatment(1994) http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 44 of 66 .............y..y..,,..,,., Carduelis tristis 0 Setophaga ruticilla 3 Turdus migratorivs 2 lcterus galbula 1 Mniotilta varia 5 Poecile atricapilla 2 Dendroica fusca 3 Dendroica striata 12 Page 33 Dendroica caerulescens 17 Dendroica virens 9 Cyanocitta cristata 1 Certhia americana 0 Molothrus ater 1 Wilsonia canadensis 15 Bombycilla cedrorum 1 Chaetura pelagica 1 Spizella passerina 0 Geothlypis trichas 1 Dendroica pensylvanica 3 Picoides pubescens 0 Catharus minimus 1 Regulus satrapa 1 Picoides villosus 0 Catharus guttatus 7 Dendroica magnolia 11 Seiurus aurocapillus 21 Dryocopus pileatus 0 Carpodacus purpureus 4 Vireo olivaceus 17 Sitta canadensis 2 Agelaius phoeniceus 0 Pheucticus ludovicianus 1 Piranga olivacea 1 Junco hyemalis 25 Vireo solitaries 3 Catharus ustulalus 24 Troglodytes troglodytes 6 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 45 of 66 Lonotrichia albicollis 22 Splwrapicus varius 0 Dendroica coronata 15 Cathartes aura 8 Pandion haliaetus 13 Circus cyaneus 10 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 3 Accipiter striatus 121 Accipiter cooperii 9 Accipiter gentilis 1 Buteo lineatus 2 Buteo platypterus 96 Buteojamaicensis 173 Falco sparverius 33 Falco columbarius 3 Falcoperegrinus 1 Study design Time series.30 Baseline All factors equal at baseline.6 Comparison Intro treatment No information on spatial variation.0 variation Measurement of No information on management.0 Co-interventions Replication& Spatial replication(n=21)before and after construction.Bird species and number were parameter of recorded.4 abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Page 34 Sum of Data 42 quality Notes The author was contacted in an attempt to obtain variance and verify sample size infom but did not respond to our enquiries.Species seen or heard but not on the two official cr days were given an abundance of 0.5.Data was extracted from table 4.3 p32-34 and tab p57.Also information on Ruffed grouse(more abundant prior to windfarm constructior Study Ketzenberg,C.,Exo,K.M.,Reichenbach,M.,&Castor,M.(2002).Einfluss von Windlcraftanlagen auf brutende Wiesenvogel.Natur and Landschajt 77: 144-153.(tram by Ulrike Lange) http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bhatn.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 46 of 66 .YIGYIWJ .Iliac]c..GD UNGU V..OGIV.c GUY mica uata in Y...UGtIG..UCda uala Population and Functional type of birds:Charadriformes. co-intervention Location:all in lower Saxony(Germany),coastal. Windfarm design:Ahndeich,Georgshof,Leer: 14-19 turbines of 500-600kW.Bassens: turbines 500-600kW. Habitat type:maize,winter crops and grassland. Size of area:Ahndeich 7.47km 2,Bassens 7.35 km 2,Georgshof 1.38 km Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale:4 years Outcome Mean breeding pair density per 10ha up to 1000m from windfarm before and after instil (Abundance) A1mdeich Bassens Georgshof Species Treatm control Treatm control Treatm cot ent ent ent Haematopus 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.08 0.22 ostralegus Vanellus vanellus 1.17 1.46 0.34 0.19 1.23 1 Tringa totanus 0.20 0.09 0.07 0.05 0 0 Limosa limosa 0.35 0.51 0.12 0 - Study design Time series:30 Baseline All factors equal at baseline:6 Comparison Intra treatment No information on spatial variation.0 variation Measurement of Changes in land use and variation in methodology:0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated observations using objective parameter of abundance:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 42 quality Notes Some density data exists for Alauda arvensis after windfarm construction but there is ni prior to windfarm construction therefore it was not extracted.Data was extracted from t p145.The author was contacted in an attempt to obtain variance and sample size inforir but did not respond to our enquiries. Study Larsson,A.K.(1994).The Environmental Impact from an Offshore Plant.Wind Engin, 18:213-218. Methods BACI data with before(March to June 1990)and after(March to June 1991)counts of I number replicated on 16 and 12 occasions respectively at 3 control and 3 treatment sites turbine). Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes. co-intervention Location:Sweden,Offshore. Windfarm design: 1 220k W turbine. Habitat type:maritime. Size of area: lkm 2. Site management techniques:unknown. Timescale: 1 year after first operation. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 47 of 66 Page 35 Outcome Mean count of bird number(n=3,sd based on the three replicates in treatment and co (Abundance) Treatment Cygnus olor 0.8 Tadorna tadorna 1.6 Anac platyrhynchos 1.7 Somateria mollissima 0.3 Clangula hyemalls 10.2 Mergus serrator 0.8 Study design Site comparison:40 Baseline Control and treatment sites similar at baseline with rmpcct to abundance,functional typ Comparison location habitat and size of area:6 tetra treatment Replicates comparable and equal with raapcct to all specified factors:5 variation Measurement of Site management unreported:0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated objective parameters of abundance:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 57 quality Notes Data extracted from Figure 2,p216.The author was contacted in an attempt to obtain in detailed variance information(the 3 replicates were monitored repeatedly,which could theoretically increase sample size)but did not respond to our enquiries. Study Meek,E.It,Ribbands,J.B.,Christer,W.G.,Davey,P.R.&Higginson,I.(1993).The e of aero-generators on moorland bird populations in the Orkney Islands,Scotland.Bird 40: 140-143. Methods Site comparison Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes,Charadriformes and Passeriformes. co-intervention Location:Orkney,Scotland,inland. Windfarm design:2 turbines 275kW.(a third turbine was constructed in 1987). Habitat type:bog heath grass(experimental)wet and dry heath(control) Size of area:50ha(control,56 for treatment)i.e.0.5km 2 Site management techniques:burning,rabbit and vole grazing(treatment)peat extractc burning and sheep grazing(control). Timescale: 1981-1989 for monitoring,operation began 1983.Timescale 6 years Outcome Mean no pairs per year(n=9,se presented) Trea (Abundance) (burg Anseriformes(mainly Anas Penelope, Anal,crecca,Antis 9.2(, platyrhynchos) Charadriformes(Calidrts alpina,Pluvialis apricaria) 25 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 48 of 66 Passeriformes(Alauda arvensis,Oenanthe oenanthe,Saxicola 25.4 torquata,Carduelis flavirostris) Study design Site comparison:40 Baseline Heterogeneity with respect to species abundance,type and habitat.Location and size sh Comparison 2 Intra treatment No information on spatial variation within replicates:0 variation Measurement of Site management not equal:0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated objective parameter of abundance used within treatment and control:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 48 quality Notes Cites uncaptured reference as containing abundance data:Winkelman,J.E.(1990)Vers Page 36 r— van vogels door de Sepproefwindcentrale to Oosterbierum(Fr.)tijdens bouwfase en hal operationele situaties(1984-1989).Rin-rapport 90/9.Rijksinstituut voor Natuur-beheer. Arnhem.Also contains abundance data for gulls,red grouse,and red-throated diver.It be noted that the site comparison is based on a mean from all years of monitoring thus t treatment site does not have wind turbines present throughout. Study Phillips,J.F.(1994).The effects of a windfarm on the upland breeding bird communiti Bryn Titli, mid-Wales: 1993-1994.Newtown,RSPB. Methods Numbers of breeding birds surveyed using standard BTO transect methodology in area windfarm and adjacent areas as a control.Baseline data was collected prior to the consn of the windfarm. Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes,Anseriformes,Falconiformes&Passeriforme co-intervention Location:Wales,inland Windfarm design:22 turbines of 450kW. Habitat type:Moorland fringe ranging from low lying farmland along the river Wye to woodland(W10/11),U20,improved pastures(MG5/6?)grass moor(U5?)and Cailuna dominated moorland(H10/12?). Size of area:Windfarm area 6 km 2 (control area is adjacent 8 km 2). Site management techniques:The turbines are located on sheep walk(U5?). Timescale: 1 year since operation. Outcome Mean no of pairs per Km 2 Treatment(wf 94) (Abundance) (ntreatment=6,ncontrol=8). http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Docufnents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 49 of 66 ...wu y....y.yw..w . .. Buteo buteo 0.5 0 Falco tinnunculus 0 0 Falco peregrines 0.16666667 0 Turdus merula 2 1 Sylvia atricapilla 0.33333333 0 Pants caeruleus 1.33333333 1 Pyrrhulapyrrhula 0 0 Cowes corone 0.33333333 0 Fringilla coelebs 7.66666667 6 Pants ater 0.16666667 0 Prunella modularis 0.33333333 0 Sylvia borin 1 0 Regulus regulus 0.66666667 1 Carduelis carduelis 0.33333333 0 Pants major 1.16666667 0 Carduelis chloris 0 0 Motacilla cinerea 0.16666667 0 Passer domesticus 0.33333333 0 Corvus monedula 0.16666667 0 Garrulus glandarius 0.16666667 0 Carduelis cannabina 1.5 3 Aegithalos caudatus 0.16666667 0 Pica pica 0.66666667 0 Parts palustris 0 0 Anthus pratensis 35.6666667 4 Turdus viscivorus 0.33333333 0 Oenanthe oenanthe 1.16666667 1 Sitta europaea 0 0 Ficedula hypoleuca 0.5 1 Motacilla a/ba 1 1 Corvus corax 0.5 0 Carduelis flammea 1 1 Phoenicurusphoenicurus 3.33333333 2 Emberiza schoeniclus 0.16666667 0 Page 37 Erithacus rubecula 5.33333333 2 Corvus frugilegus 0 0 r.._a.._i:...-:�.. A n http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 50 of 66 I-W U W{1a apil.NJ V V Alauda arvensis 15.1666667 1 Turdus philomelos 1.5 0 Muscicapa striata 1 0 Sturnus vulgaris 0 0 Saxicola torquata 0.33333333 0 Hirundo rustica 0.16666667 0 Certhia familiaris 0.16666667 0 Anthus trivialis 1.66666667 1 Saxicola rubetra 3.66666667 5 Sylvia communis 0 0 Parts montanus 0.16666667 0 Phylloscopus trochilus 6.83333333 6 Phylloscopus sibilatrix 0.16666667 0 Troglodytes troglodytes 5.16666667 4 Emberiza citrinella 0.83333333 0 Study design Site comparison:40 Baseline Some heterogeneity as regards functional type and habitat(control contains more moor) Comparison fringe than treannent).Other than that baseline is similar for treatment and control panic abundance of species(tested with Mann-Whitney test by authors of report):4 Infra treatment Transects were replicated but we are using km 2 as a unit of replication as re variation manuscript.Some unbalanced heterogeneity with respect to species:4 Measurement of Habitat not equal in treatment and control thus land management not equal:0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated parameter of abundance using accepted technique:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 54 quality Notes Replication based on Km 2 as reported in the manuscript.Additional data in Greer Effects of windfarm construction on the winter bird community of the Bryn Tiff uplanc 1993/94.Newtown,RSPB and Green,M.(1995).Effects of windfarm operation on the bird community of the Bryn Titli Uplands: 1994/95.Newtown,RSPB but Green states I this is not comparable.Data is also presented on Tawny owls. Study Schmidt,E.P.,Bock,C. E.;Armstrong,D.M.(2003).National Wind Technology Cent Environmental Assessment:Bird and Bat Use and Fatalities—Final Report;Period of Performance:April 23,2001 —December 31,2002.. Methods Bird counts replicated in space and time in treatment and control sites. Population and Functional type of birds:Accipitriformes,Anserifonnes,Falconiformes and Passerifom co-intervention Location:Jefferson County,Colorado,inland Windfarm design:Turbine power and number unknown Habitat type:grassland with some Pinus ponderosa. Size of area:unknown. Site management techniques:ungrazed. Timescale:monitoring from 2001 to 2002.Not known when operation began. Outcome Mean abundance per count(treatmentn=i,controltr=l2,se presented). (Abundance) Species Treatment(windfarm) Branta canadensis 0 Anas platyrhynchos 0.013 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page51of66 Cathartes aura 0.013 Circus cyaneus 0.027 .—. Aquila chrysaetos 0.004 Haliaeetus leucocephalus 0 Buteojamaicensis 0.062 Page 38 Buteo lagopus 0.004 Buteo regalis 0.004 Falco sparverius 0.160 Falco mexicam/s 0.004 Falco peregrinus 0.004 Sayornis saya 0.031 Tyrannus verticalis 0 Pica hudsonia 0.053 Corvus corax 0.013 Eremophila alpestris 0.022 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 0.018 Hirundo rustica 0.009 Sialia cunucoides 0 Turdus migratorius 0 Sturnus vulgaris 0.067 Pipilo chlorurus 0.004 Pipilo maculatus 0 Spizella passerina 0 Chondestes grammacus 0 Ammodramus savannarum 0.04 Calamospiza melanocorys 0 Passerculus sandwichensis 0 Pooecetes gramineus 0.751 Guiraca caerulea 0 Sturnella neglecta 0.853 Agelaius phoeniceus 0.004 Quiscalus quiscula 0.022 Euphagus cyanocephalus 0.000 Molothrus ater 0 lctenus bullockii 0 n Carduelis tristis 0.022 Study design Site comparison.40 Baseline No information on baseline.0 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 52 of 66 Comparison Intra treatment Replicates comparable with r,.syoct to habitat,size and location 3 s-. variation Measurement of Limited information on management 0 Co-interventions Replication& Replicated point counts were undertaken.4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up.2 Sum of Data 49 quality Notes Information on the windfarm characteristics were not presented in the article.Informati from other sources such as the NREL website was fragmentary.NREL was contacted b not respond to our enquiries.Data was extracted from tables 1.4 and 1.5 p7-S.Informati also presented on Double-crested cormorant,Great blue heron,Ring-billed gull,Mourn dove,Budgerigar,Common nighthawk,Broad-tailed hummingbird and Northern Bickel Study Still,D.,B.Little,et al.(1996). The effect of wind turbines on the bird population at Bt harbour.[Harwell],ETSU. Methods Time series with before(Dec1991-July1992)data and after commissioning(Jan1993- May1995)data for abundance. Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes,Charadriiformes co-intervention Location:NE England,Coastal. Turbine type:9 300kW wind turbines on a sea wall. r Page 39 Habitat type:maritime. Size of area: lkm 2. Site management techniques:harbour,large urban population Timescale:2 years monitoring from operation(control 1 year) Outcome (mean monthly bird count) Treatment(Jan93-May95) (Abundance) Somateria mollissima 39 Calidris maritima 137 Study design Time series:30 Baseline Baseline comparable:6 Comparison Intra treatment Infra-treatment variation low but some variation in functional types present:4 variation Measurement of Details of site management unknown but climate changed(mild winters post windfarm http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 53 of 66 Co-interventions operation)which could affect results(thought to be correlated with decline in Eiders):C Replication& Well replicated objective abundance measure(monthly counts):4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 46 quality Notes Data on other species of bird including comorants and gulls.The monitoring was contir a follow up study(Painter,S.,Little,B.&Lawrence,S.(1999).Continuation of bird su at Blyth Harbour Wind Farm and the implications for offshore wind farms.ETSU; W/13/00495/REP. [London],DTI: lv.,various pagings.)No eider mortality was recon from Feb1995-1999 and the authors suggest that all resident species have acclimatised t presence of wind turbines.Replicated in Still,D.,S.Painter,et al.(1997).Birds,wind f and Blyth Harbour. Wind Energy Conversion 1996: 175-183.and Still,D.(1994). The I of Blyth Harbour.Proceedings of 16th BWEA conference,Stirling, UK. 16th BWEA conference,Stirling,UK,Stirling.And Still,D.,Painter,S.,Lawrence,E.S.,Little,B.8 Thomas,M.O997).Birds,wind farms,and Blyth Harbour.Wind Energy Conversion l5 175-183.Little,B.(undated). The effect of wind turbines on bird populations in Blyth Harbour.Northumberland Birds? Study Winkelman,J.E.(1992).De invloed van de Sep-windproefcentrale to Oosterbierum(Fr vogels.4.Verstoring[The impact of the Sep wind park near Oosterbienun(Fr.),the Netherlands on birds.4.Disturbance],Netherlands.Instituut voor Bos-en Natuuronder (translated by Harma Brondijk) Methods Site comparison of breeding bird numbers with baseline data before windfarm construct Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes,Charadriformes,Passeriformes. co-intervention Location:3-4km inland of the Wadden sea,Holland,coastal. Windfarm design: 18 turbines,300kW Habitat type:arable fields Size of area:55ha,0.55ICm 2. Site management techniques:farming details unknown. Timescale:monitoring from 1984-1991,windfarm operational from autumn 1990(1 ye. Outcome Species(mean number of treatment (Abundance) birds autumn 1990-spring 1991 based on 30 counts) Anas platyrhynchos 24.536633 Fulica atra 0.0665 Vanellus vanellus 15.392233 Pluvialis apricaria 10.533533 Numenius arquata 0.5584333 Sturnus vulgaris 84.715867 Anas penelope 0.37125 Aythya fuligula 0 Haematopus ostralegus 10.309875 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Docllments/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 54 of 66 Page 40 Study design Site comparison:40 Baseline Abundance of species and habitat type variable,other factors comparable:3 Comparison Intra treatment No information on variation within replicates:0 variation Measurement of Habitat changes occurred which confound the pre farm data(increase in crops):0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated objective parameter of abundance:4 parameter of abundance Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 49 quality Notes Extracted data is based on appendices 10& II.Mean number of birds for each counting (n=30 with each count as a replicate).The numbers in brackets are percentage in windfi Additional data on gulls is presented but not extracted.Also data on nest density but thi not presented in terms of a site comparison or time-series. Study Winkelman,J.E.(1989).Birds and the wind park near Urk:collision victims and distur of ducks,geese and swans.Arnhem,The Netherlands,Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer Methods Site comparison with replicates derived from zones,plus time-series data on geese bell after farm construction. Population and Functional type of birds:Anseriformes,Charadriformes. co-intervention Location:Uric Holland,coastal. Windfarm design:25 300kW turbines Habitat type:arable fields Size of area:0.5km Site management techniques:not known. Timescale:windfarn operation began 1986,data from 1988/89,3 years Outcome species treatment (Abundance) Anas platyrhynchos 2.52 Aythya ferina 0.233333 Aythya fuligula 0.733333 Aythya manila 52.7 Bucephala clangula 0.875 Fulica atra 1.18 Study design Site comparison:40 Baseline No baseline reported for abundance,functional type or habitat:2 Comparison Infra treatment Replicates comparable and balanced except with respect to distance from turbines:3 variation Measurement of Unreported:0 Co-interventions Replication& Well replicated objective parameter of abundance:4 parameter of abundance http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page55of66 Attrition bias No losses to follow up:2 Sum of Data 51 ""-^ quality Notes Data on gulls and Gavifomtes also available.The replicates are derived from zones whi have mean values.Data based on appendix 16.Table 18.shows that there are more Ans fabilis and Anser albifrons after windfarm construction than before but that Branta Inc decline.This could not be included in meta-analysis as the data is non independent of tt comparison but cannot be sensibly synthesised with it Page 41 Qualitative outcomes Reference Species Outcome 11 species are more abundant in the Wind De Lucas et al. 12 species of Farm area than the control area. (abundance (2004) Passeriformes. expressed as nests/km 2 ).Emberiza cia (Rock bunting)more abundant in control than Windfarm. Passeriformes are more abundant in the Leddy et al. control area than in the Wind farm area but Passeriformes (1999) the difference diminishes with distance from the windfarm. Data was collected from Ten British windfarms including data on bird Charadriiformes abundance in windfarms and adjacent Thomas (1999) and unspecified controls. There was no significant species difference in species abundance and it was concluded that windfarms have a minimal http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page 56 of 66 impact on bird abundance. Winkelman Anser fabilis and Anser albtfrons are more (1989) Anseriformes abundant after windfarm construction than before but Branta leucopsis declines. Page 42 Appendix 3. The 217 species contributing data to the abundance analysis (Latin- English, English-Latin). Species nomenclature follows Knox(1992); Taxonomy is according to the Voous classification(Campbell & Lack, 1985). Latin English C Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Accipit Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk Accipit Accipiter striates Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipit Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed Tit Agelaiusphoeniceus Passer Red-winged blackbird Passer Aix sponsa Wood duck Alauda arvensis Anser Skylark Passer Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Passer Grasshopper Sparrow Passer Antis crecca Common teal Antis discors Anser Blue-winged teal Anser Antis penelope Wigeon Antis la g (Eurasian) Anser P tyrhynchos Mallard Anser Anser albii cons White-fronted goose Anser caerulescens Anser Snow goose Anser Anthus pratensis Meadow Pipit Anthus rubescens Passer American pipit Passer �--. Anthus trivialis Tree pipit Passer Aquila chtysaetos Golden eagle Accipit Aythya ferina Pochard(Common) Anser http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 57 of 66 Aythya fuligula lotted Duck Anser Aythya marila Greater Scaup Anser �,. Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Charad Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Passer Branta canadensis Canada goose Anser Bucephala clangula Goldeneye(Common) Anser Buteo buteo Buzzard Accipit Buteojamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Accipit Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Buzzard Accipit Buteo linealus Red-shouldered hawk Accipit Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Accipit Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk Accipit Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk Accipit Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting Passer Calcarius lapponicus Lapland longspur Passer Calcarius mccawnii McCown's Longspur Passer Calidris alpina Dunlin Charadi Calidris maritima Purple Sandpiper Charadi Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Charadi Carduelis cannabina Linnet Passer Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch Passer Carduelis chloris Greenfinch Passer Carduelis jlammea Redpoll Passer Carduelis jlavirostris Twite Passer Carduelispinus Pine siskin Passer .----- Carduelis spines Siskin Passer Carduelis trims American goldfmchs Passer Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Passer Carpodacuspurpureus Purple finch Passer Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Accipit Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush Passer Page 43 Catharus minim= Gray checked Thrush Passer Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Passer Certhia americana Brown creeper Passer Certhia familiaris Ticcuwper Passer Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift Passer Charadrius montanus Mountain plover Charadt Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Charadi http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 65 of 66 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Charade Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum Passer Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Charadi Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Falcon Pied(White)Wagtail Motacilla alba Passer Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca Passer Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Passer Pine siskin Carduelis pima Passer Pochard(Common) Aythya ferina Anser Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Falcon Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus Passer Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritime Charadi Raven Corvus corax Passer Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Passer Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Anser Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Passer Redpoll Carduelis jlammea Passer Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Accipit Redstart(Common) Phoenicurus phoenicurus Passer Red-tailed Hawk Buteojamaicensis Accipit Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Passer Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Passer Robin Erithacus rubecula Passer Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Passer Rook Corvus frugilegus Passer --. Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Passer Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Accipit Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Passer Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Passer Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Passer Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Passer Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Passer Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Passer Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis Passer Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striates Accipit Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Anser Short-toed eagle Circaetus gallicus Accipit Siskin Carduelis spines Passer Skylark Alauda arvensis Passer Snow goose Anser caerulescens Anser Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius Passer Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Passer Song Thnish Turdus philomelos Passer Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Passer Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculates Passer Starling Sturnus vulgaris Passer Stonechat Saxicola torquata Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 58 of 66 Uhondestes grammacus Lark sparrow Passer Circaetus gallicus Short-toed eagle Accipit "--", Circus cyaneus Hen Harrier Accipit Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren Passer Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed Duck Anser Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Passer Contopus cooperi Olive-sided flycatcher Passer Consopus sordidulus Western wood pewee Passer Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Passer Corvus corax Raven Passer Corvus corone Carrion crow Passer Corvus frugilegus Rook Passer Corvus monedula Jackdaw Passer Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Passer Cygnus olor Mute Swan Anser Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated blue warbler Passer Dendroica coronata Yellow rumped warbler Passer Dendroicafusca Blackbumian warbler Passer Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler Passer Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler Passer Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler Passer Dendroicapetechia Yellow warbler Passer Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler Passer Dendroica virens Black throated green warbler Passer Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Passer '0--- Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker Passer Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Passer Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer Passer Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting Passer Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher Passer Empidonax oberholseri Dusky flycatcher Passer Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran flycatcher Passer Eremophila alpestris Homed lark Passer Erithacus rubecula Robin Passer Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird Passer Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird Passer Falco columbarius Merlin Falcon Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon Falcon Falco peregrimix Peregrine Falcon Falcon Falco sparverius American Kestrel Falcon Falco tinnunculus Kestrel Falcon Ficedula hypoleuca Pied Flycatcher Passer Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch Passer Fulica americana American Coot Charade Fulica atra Common Coot Chamdi Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Charade Garrulus glandarius Jay Passer Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat Passer Guiraca caerulea Blue grosbeak Passer Gypsfulvus Griffon Vulture Accipit Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher Charade http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 64 of 66 House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Passer House Sparrow Passer domesticity Passer House wren Troglodytes aedon Passer Jackdaw Corms monedula Passer Jay Garrulus glandarius Passer Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Falcon Killdeer Charadrius voc jerus Charadi Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus Passer Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Charadi Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Passer Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Passer Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Passer Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Passer Linnet Carduelis cannabina Passer Long billed curlew Numenius americanus Chanute Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Anser Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus Passer Macgillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Passer Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia Passer Magpie Pica pica Passer Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Anser Marsh Tit Parus palustris Passer McCown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii Passer Meadow Pipit Anthuspratensis Passer Merlin Falco columbarius Falcon --� Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus Passer Mountain Bluebird Sicilia currucoides Passer Page 48 Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Charade Mute Swan Cygnus olor Anser Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Accipit Northern rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Passer Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Passer Nuthatch Simi europaea Passer Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Passer Orange crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Passer Orchard oriole Icterus spurius Passer Osprey Pandion haliaetus Accipit Ovenbird Seiunts aurocapillus Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page 59of66 Page 44 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Accipit Hirundo rustica Swallow Passer Jcterus bullocldi Bullock's oriole Passer /cterus galbula Baltimore oriole Passer /cterus spurius Orchard oriole Passer Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Passer Lanus excubitor Northern shrike Passer Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Charadi Melanitta nigra Common scoter Anser Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow Passer Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow Passer Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Passer Mergus merganser Common Merganser(Goosander) Anser Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Anser Milvus migrans Black kite Accipit Mniotilta varia Black and white warbler Passer Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Passer Motacilla a/ba Pied(White)Wagtail Passer Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail Passer Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher Passer Numenius americanus Long billed curlew Charadi Numenius arquata Curlew(Eurasian) Charade Oenanthe oenanthe Wheatear(Northern) Passer Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler Passer Oporornis tolmiei Macgillivray's Warbler Passer Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher Passer Pandion haliaetus Osprey Accipit Pares ater Coal Tit Passer Pants caeruleus Blue Tit Passer Pares major Great Tit Passer Pares montanus Willow Tit Passer Pares palusirts Marsh Tit Passer Passer domesticus House Sparrow Passer Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Passer Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow Passer r Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's phalarope Charade Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Passer Phoenicurus phoenicurus Redstart(Common) Passer 'I,.....1 lV...lJa D......e. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nan c3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 63 of 66 Common yellowthroat Geothlypis'riches Passer Connecticut warbler Oporornts agilis Passer Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Accipit Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonaz occidentalis Passer Curlew(Eurasian) Numenius arquata Cherub Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Passer Dickcissel Spiza americana Passer Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Passer Page 47 Dunlin Calidris alpina Chiliad] Dunnock(Hedge Accentor) Prunella modidaris Passer Dusky flycatcher Empidonaz oberholseri Passer Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Passer Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Passer Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Passer Eider Somateria mollissima Miser Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Passer Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Accipit Garden Warbler Sylvia borin Passer Goldcrest Regulus regulus Passer Golden crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Passer Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Accipit Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria charadr Goldeneye(Common) Bucephala clangula Anser Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Passer Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Passer Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Passer Gray checked Thrush Catharus minimus Passer Great Tit Parus major Passer Greater Scaup Aythya marila Anser Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Charadi Green tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Passer Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Passer Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Passer Griffon Vulture Gypsfulvus Accipit Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Passer Harris's sparrow Zonotrichia querula Passer Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Accipit Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Passer Horned lark Erpmnnhila alne.ctri.c Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Dociunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 60 of 66 /nyuwcv(Au J/oumi u In WY TV mma I dJGI Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler Passer Pica hudsonia Black billed magpie Passer Pica pica Magpie Passer Picoides pubescent Downy woodpecker Passer Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker Passer Pipilo chlorins Green tailed Towhee Passer Pipilo maculates Spotted Towhee Passer Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager Passer Pluviales apricaria Golden plover charadr Pluvialis dominica American Golden-plover charadr Poecile atricapilla Black capped chickadee Passer Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow Passer Prunella modularis Dunnock(Hedge Accentor) Passer Pyrrhulapyrrhula Bullfinch Passer Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Passer Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Passer Regulus regulus Goldcrest Passer Regulus satrapa Golden crowned kinglet Passer Riparia rtparia Bank swallow Passer Page 45 Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren Passer Sazicola rubetra Whinchat Passer Sazicola torquata Stonechat Passer Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Passer Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe Passer Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Passer Setophaga ruticiila American redstart Passer Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird Passer Sialia sialis Eastern bluebird Passer Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch Passer Sitta carolinensis White-breasted nuthatch Passer Sitta europaea Nuthatch Passer Somateria mollissima Eider Anser Sphyrapicus varies Yellow-bellied sapsucker Passer Spiza americana Dickcissel Passer Spizella arborea American tree sparrow Passer Spizella breweri Brewers sparrow Passer Spizella pallida Clay colored Sparrow Passer Spizellapasserina Chipping sparrow Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doeuments/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 62 of 66 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla Passer American robin Turdus migratorius Passer American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Passer Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Passer Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Accipit Baltimore oriole kterus galbula Passer Bank swallow Riparia riparia Passer Black and white warbler Mniotilta varia Passer Black billed magpie Pica hudsonia Passer Black capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla Passer Black kite Milvus migranr Accipit Black throated green warbler Dendroica Wrens Passer Blackbird Turdus merula Passer Blackbumian warbler Dendroica furca Passer Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Passer Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata Passer Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Charade Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Passer Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Passer Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Passer Blue Tit Pants caeruleus Passer Blue-winged teal Arias discors Anser Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Passer Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Passer Brewers sparrow Spizella breweri Passer Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Accipit Brown creeper Cenhia americana Passer Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Passer Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Passer Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhu/a Passer Bullock's oriole kterus bullockii Passer Buzzard Buteo buteo Accipit Canada goose Branta canadensis Anser Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Passer Carrion crow Corvus corone Passer Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Passer Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Passer Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Passer Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Passer Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Passer Clay colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Passer Cliff swallow Petrochelidonpyrrhonota Passer Coal Tit Pants ater Passer Common Coot Fulica atra Charade Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula Passer Common Merganser(Goosander) Mergus merganser Anser Common Redshank Tringa lotanus Charade Common sent•r Melanitta nigra Anser --, Common Snipe Ga/lingo gallinago Charade Common teal Anas crecca Anser http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page61of66 Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged Swallow Passer Sturnella neglects Western meadowlark Passer Sturnus vulgaris Starling Passer Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap Passer Sylvia borin Garden Warbler Passer Sylvia communis Whitethroat Passer Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Passer Tachycineta thalassina Violet green Swallow Passer Tadorna tadorna Shelduck Anser Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher Passer Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Charadi Tringa totanus Common Redshank Charade Troglodytes aedon House wren Passer Troglodytes troglodytes Wren(Winter) Passer Turdus merula Blackbird Passer Turdus migratorius American robin Passer Turdus philomelos Song Thrush Passer Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush Passer Tyrannus yramms Eastern Kingbird Passer Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird Passer Vanellus vanellus Lapwing Charade Vermivora celata Orange crowned Warbler Passer Vermivora peregrine Tennessee warbler Passer Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo Passer ^ Vireo oltvaceus Red-eyed vireo Passer Vireo solitarius Solitary Vireo Passer Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler Passer Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird Passer Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow Passer Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Passer Zonotrichia querula Harris's sparrow Passer English Latin C American Coot Fulica americana Charade American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Passer American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica charadr American goldfinchs Carduelis tristis Passer American Kestrel Falco sparverius Falcon American pipit Anthus rubescens Passer Page 46 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page66of66 Page 49 Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Accipit Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Passer Swallow Hirundo rustica Passer Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana Passer Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Passer Tree pipit Anthus trivialis Passer Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Passer Treecreeper Certhiafamiliaris Passer Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Anser Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Accipit Twite Carduelisfavirostris Passer Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Charade Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Passer Violet green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Passer Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Passer Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Passer Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Passer Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus Passer Wheatear(Northern) Oenanthe oenanthe Passer Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Passer White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Passer White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Passer White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Miser Whitethroat Sylvia commons Passer White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Passer Wigeon(Eurasian) Anas penelope Miser Willow Tit Parus montanus Passer Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Passer Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Charade Wood duck Aix sponsa Miser Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix Passer Wren(Winter) Troglodytes troglodytes Passer Yellow moped warbler Dendroica coronata Passer Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Passer Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Passer Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Passer Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalur Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE-BC Page 62 of 66 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla Passer ..-. American robin Turdus migratorius Passer American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Passer Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Passer Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Accipit Baltimore oriole Icterus galbula Passer Bank swallow Riparia rparia Passer Black and white warbler Mniotilta varia Passer Black billed magpie Pica hudronia Passer Black capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla Passer Black kite Milvus migrans Accipit Black throated green warbler Dendroica virens Passer Blackbird Turdus merula Passer Blackbumian warbler Dendroicafusca Passer Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Passer Blackpoll warbler Dendroica strtata Passer Black-tailed Godwit Limosa lmosa Charadi Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens Passer Blue grosbeak Guiraca caeru/ea Passer Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Passer Blue Tit Parus caeruleus Passer Blue-winged teal Anas discors Anser Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Passer Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Passer Brewers sparrow Spizella breweri Passer Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Accipit Brown cimpci Certhia americana Passer Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Passer Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Passer Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Passer Bullock's oriole Icterus bulloc/di Passer Buzzard Buteo buteo Accipit Canada goose Branta canadensis Anser Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Passer Carrion crow Corvus corone Passer Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Passer Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Passer Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Passer Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Passer Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Passer Clay colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Passer Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Passer Coal Tit Parus ater Passer Common Coot Fulica aira Charadi Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula Passer Common Merganser(Goosander) Mergus merganser Anser Common Redshank Tringa loran us Charadi i^ Common scoter Melanitta nigra Anser Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Charade Common teal Anas crecca Anser http://72.14.203.104/cearch?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 61 of 66 Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged Swallow Passer Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark Passer Sturnus vulgaris Starling Passer ^-.. Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap Passer Sylvia borin Garden Warbler Passer Sylvia communes Whitethroat Passer Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Passer Tachycineta thalassina Violet green Swallow Passer Tadorna tadorna Shelduck Anser Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher Passer Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Charadi Tringa totanus Common Redshank Charade Troglodytes aedon House wren Passer Troglodytes troglodytes Wren(Winter) Passer Turdus merula Blackbird Passer Turdus migratorius American robin Passer Turdus philomelos Song Thrush Passer Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush Passer Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Passer Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird Passer Vanellus vanellus Lapwing Charade Vermivora celata Orange crowned Warbler Passer Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler Passer Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo Passer Vireo divaceus Red-eyed vireo Passer Vireo solitarius Solitary Vireo Passer Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler Passer Xanthocephalusxanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird Passer Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow Passer Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow Passer Zonotrichia querula Harris's sparrow Passer English Latin O American Coot Fulica americana Charade American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Passer American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica charadr American goldfmchs Carduelis iristis Passer American Kestrel Falco sparverius Falcon American pipit Anther rubescens Passer Page 46 1 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page63of66 Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Passer Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis Passer Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Accipit Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Passer Curlew(Eurasian) Numenius arquata Charadi Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Passer Dickcissel Spiza americana Passer Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Passer Page 47 Dunlin Calidris alpina Charadi Dunnock(Hedge Accentor) Prunella modularis Passer Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Passer Eastern bluebird Sicilia stalls Passer Eastern Kingbird Tyrants tyrannus Passer Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Passer Eider Somateria mollissima Anser Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vesperdnus Passer Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Accipit Garden Warbler Sylvia borin Passer Goldcrest Regulus regulus Passer Golden crowned kinglet Regulus sairapa Passer Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Accipit Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria charadr Goldeneye(Common) Bucephala clangula Anser Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Passer Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Passer Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Passer Gray checked Thrush Catharsis minimus Passer Great Tit Pants major Passer Greater Scaup Aythya manila Anser Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Charadi Green tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Passer Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Passer Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Passer Griffon Vulture Gypsfdvus Accipit Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Passer Harris's sparrow Zonotrichia querula Passer r-,. Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Accipit Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Passer Homed lark Frpmonhila nlnextnix Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 C E-B C Page 60 of 66 I✓y✓wc✓pua J{✓Omni V%YOU TV MOM' r 0.J.W.1 Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler Passer Pica hudsonia Black billed magpie Passer Pica pica Magpie Passer Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Passer Picoides vinosity Hairy woodpecker Passer Pipilo chlorurus Green tailed Towhee Passer Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee Passer Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager Passer Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover charadr Pluvialis dominica American Golden-plover charadr Poecile atricapilla Black capped chickadee Passer Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow Passer Prunella modularis Dunnock(Hedge Accentor) Passer Pyrrhula pyrrhula Bullfinch Passer Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Passer Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Passer Regulus rgulus Goldcrest Passer Regulus satrapa Golden crowned kinglet Passer Riparia rparia Bank swallow Passer Page 45 Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren Passer Saxicola rubetra Whinchat Passer Saxicola torquata Stonechat Passer Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Passer C E -B C Page 64 of 66 House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Passer House Sparrow Passer domesticus Passer .- House wren Troglodytes aedon Passer Jackdaw Corvas monedula Passer Jay Garrulus glandarius Passer Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Falcon Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Charade Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus Passer Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Charadi Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Passer Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Passer Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Passer Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza linco/nii Passer Linnet Carduelis cannabina Passer Long billed curlew Numenius americans Charadi Long-tailed Duck Clangula lryemalis Anser Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus Passer Macgillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Passer Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia Passer Magpie Pica pica Passer Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Anser Marsh Tit Paruspalustris Passer McCown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii Passer Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis Passer .-- Merlin Falco columbarius Falcon Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus Passer Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Passer • Page 48 Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Charadi Mute Swan Cygnus olor Anser Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Accipit Northern rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Passer Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Passer Nuthatch Sitta europaea Passer Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Passer Orange crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Passer .� Orchard oriole Icterus spurius Passer Osprey Pandion haliaetus Accipit Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Docmnents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 66 of 66 Page 49 Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Accipit Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Passer Swallow Hirundo rustica Passer Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana Passer Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Passer Tree pipit Anthus trivialis Passer Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Passer Ti�w.Leper Certhia familiaris Passer Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Anser Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Accipit Twite Carduelis flavirostris Passer Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Charadi Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Passer Violet green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Passer Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Passer Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Passer Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Passer ---, Wes a n wood pewee Contopus sordidulus Passer Wheatear(Northern) Oenanthe oenanthe Passer Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Passer White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Passer White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Passer White-fronted goose Anser albfons Anser Whitethroat Sylvia communis Passer White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia a/bicollis Passer Wigeon(Eurasian) Anas penelope Anser Willow Tit Pants montanus Passer Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Passer Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Charadi Wood duck Air sponsa Anser Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix Passer Wren(Winter) Troglodytes troglodytes Passer Yellow rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Passer Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Passer Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varies Passer Yellowhammer Emberiza citrtnella Passer Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalusxanthocephalus Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Documents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page65of66 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Charade Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum Passer Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Charade Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Falcon Pied(White)Wagtail Motacilla alba Passer Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca Passer Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Passer Pine siskin Carduelis pines Passer Pochard(Common) Aythya ferina Anser Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Falcon Purple finch Carpodacuspurpureus Passer Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima Charadr Raven Corvus corax Passer Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Passer Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Anser Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Passer Redpoll Carduelis jlammea Passer Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Accipit Redstart(Common) Phoenicurus phoenicures Passer Red-tailed Hawk Buteojamaicensis Accipit Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Passer Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Passer Robin Erithacus rubecula Passer Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Passer ^ Rook Corvus frugilegus Passer Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Passer Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Accipit Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Passer Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Passer Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes momanus Passer Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Passer Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Passer Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Passer Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis Passer Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Accipit Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Anser Short-toed eagle Circaetus gallicus Accipit Siskin Carduelis spinus Passer Skylark Alauda arvensis Passer Snow goose Anser caerulescens Anser Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius Passer Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Passer Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Passer Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Passer Spotted Towhee Pipit()maculates Passer Starling Sturrms vulgaris Passer Stonechat Saxicola torquata Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 65 of 66 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Charade Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum Passer Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Charade Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Falcon Pied(White)Wagtail Motacilla alba Passer Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca Passer Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Passer Pine siskin Carduelis pious Passer Pochard(Common) Aythya ferina Anser Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Falcon Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus Passer Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima Charadi Raven Corvus corax Passer Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Passer Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Anser Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Passer Redpoll Carduelisflammea Passer Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Accipit Redstart(Common) Phoenicurus phoenicurus Passer Red-tailed Hawk Buteojamaicensis Accipit Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Passer Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Passer Robin Erithacus rubecula Passer Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Passer Rook Corvus frugilegus Passer Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Passer �` Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Accipit Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Passer Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Passer Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Passer Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Passer Say's Phoebe Sayornis soya Passer Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea Passer Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis Passer Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Accipit Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Anser Short-toed eagle Circaetus gallicus Accipit Siskin Carduelis spinus Passer Skylark Alauda arvensis Passer Snow goose Anser caerulescens Anser Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius Passer Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Passer Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Passer Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Passer Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Passer Starling Sturnus vulgaris Passer Stonechat Saxicola torquata Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 CE -BC Page66of66 Page 49 Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Accipit Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Passer Swallow Hirundo rustica Passer Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana Passer Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Passer Tree pipit Anthns trivialis Passer Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Passer Treecreeper Certhiafamiliaris Passer Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Miser Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Accipit Twite Carduelis flavirostris Passer Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Charade Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Passer Violet green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Passer Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Passer Western kingbird Tyrannus vertical's Passer Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Passer Western wood pewee Contopus sordidulus Passer Wheatear(Northern) Oenanthe oenanthe Passer Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Passer White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Passer White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Passer White-fronted goose Anser albifrons Anser Whitethroat Sylvia communis Passer White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Passer Wigeon(Eurasian) Anas penelope Anser Willow Tit Parus montama Passer Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Passer Wilson's phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Charadi Wood duck Aix sponsa Anser Wood Warbler Phyllascopus sibilatrix Passer Wren(Winter) Troglodytes troglodytes Passer Yellow rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Passer Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Passer Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Passer Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Passer Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Passer http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rCy2Nank3BgJ:www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/Doctunents/C... 7/29/2006 C E -B C Page 64 of 66 House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Passer House Sparrow Passer domesticus Passer House wren Troglodytes aedon Passer •-•-•'"N Jackdaw Corms monedula Passer Jay Garrulus glandarius Passer Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Falcon Killdeer Charadrius vociiferus Charadi Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus Passer Lapwing Fanellus vanellus Charadi Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Passer Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Passer Least Flycatcher Enpidonax minimus Passer Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Passer Linnet Carduelis cannabina Passer Long billed curlew Numenius americans Charade Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Anser Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus Passer Macgillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Passer Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia Passer L ..J ..JJ .iJJii :t ± J JJJ � JJ kjj IS-- _1 ) .J JJ ---JJJ .LJ J ± J � . • ® Several meetings and site visit ' . • A number of turbine shifts based on .; . ,z recommendations • Survey protocols followed CDOW suggestions JJJ �J !J � J 1J _) .JJ -1- ' JJ lJ �JJr !JJ �� JtCJ !J : a . J '.. ▪ til ri ti ±_ r 11 V Si Ik -' V'IJlr rIJA . J ' r'_1JJrjfJJbJ �! 1J ! 1Jcj 7 i jrJJ ▪ Jr cIJjig :Ec21Jrjbii i . D J 1jjjJJ J �V s. r.H Cedar Creek Setbacks • Minimum of a 400 m setback from all active ferruginous _ y : , hawk, red -tailed hawk, and , 7 ' P, ' Swainson' s hawk nest sites • _..._ • x _ • Minimum of 400 m setback seII6 "' from all inactive nests _ ( • Minimum of an 800 m setback i from all active and inactive J �` golden eagle nests • Minimum of an 800 m setback G ..3,4),„ 1- 1.-..,,, - from all prairie falcon nests ' `� .,+, # ,rr :• �.- • Minimum of a 75 m setback .. e:':_ , from burrowing owl nests Additional Setbacks ■ Minimum of a 50 m \ 0 setback from the rim edge , regardless of I nest locations ® Several other, site specific modifications Eagles Buteos 1.2 1. 1.0 0. A 0.7 A o. m o.s 0 o. 0.2 0. 0.0 0. off rim tin odgo on rim off rim rim odgo on rim location location Falcons All Raptors o. 2.25- 0. 1.5► 30. m el 0 O. 0.7 . 0. I TmI I 0. 0.08 i off rim an *doe on fin off rim rim odgo or. rim location location All Turbines Within 400 m of Edge 25 — n=11 n=11 20 — n=8 n=7 c 15 — G) - U L a 10 — n = 2 5 — n=1 0 — I I I I I I I f 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Distance from Rim Edge (m) Cedar Creek Commitments • 12 Additional turbines moved away from rim edge at CDOW request • % mile from grouse leks , and extensive study to determine potential impacts • Post-construction monitoring utilizing current methods • Exploring conservation easements , habitat improvements , and population supplementation % Corposition of Fatalities bySource Wndhxbines Cl per 10000 fatalities corm'ixr cab ontowers 250 per 10000 fatalities pesticides 700 per 10000 fatalities vehicles 700 per 10000 fatalities high tensiai lines 800 per 10000 fatalities ether 1000 per 10000 fatalities cats 1000 per 10000 fatalities 5500 per 10 00 fatalities bulcingsAnindows 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Composition based on mid-point of ranges reported for each source (Erickson et al. 2002) 1.5 MW turbine O 100 kW turbine i _ , , . \ i � , Hello