Ver _Other Agency Comments_20121022

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636 -3726
October 5, 2012
Todd Mattson, Director
Environmental Affairs
Element Power
222 South Ninth St Suite 2870
Minneapolis MN 55402
SUBJ Carteret Wind Project Narrative and Draft Wildlife Study Plans
Dear Mr Mattson
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the July 2012 Project
Nat auve August 14, 2012 Draft Tier 1 and Tier 2 Site Characterization Study, and August 13
2012 Draft Tier 3 Wildlife Study Plan for the Carteret Wind Project We have also reviewed
Element Power's Corporate Avian and Bat Protection Plan, dated August 2010 and West Inc s
Technical Memorandum "What has been Learned from Pre - Construction Radar Studies
Conducted at Proposed Wind Energy Projects," submitted by email on August 24, 2012 Per the
Service s Land -based Wind Energy Guidelines (Guidelines), this letter transmits the Service's
technical assistance, clarifies the Service's statutory and trust responsibilities, and outlines the
information the Service believes will be necessary to evaluate the potential wildlife impacts fiom
this proposal This letter is provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 as amended (Act) (87 Stat 884 16 U S C 1531 et seq ), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
of 1918 as amended (40 Stat 755, 16 U S C 703 et seq ) (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act of 1940 as amended (16 U S C § 668 -668d) (BGEPA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U S C § 4321 -4370) (NEPA) Please note that the
Guidelines state each developer or operator will be responsible for maintaining records
sufficient to demonstrate adherence to the Guidelines and response to communications from the
Service " The Guidelines go on to state "although the Guidelines leave decisions up to the
developer, the Service retains authority to evaluate whether developer efforts to mitigate impacts
are sufficient, to determine significance, and to refer for prosecution any unlawful take that it
believes to be reasonably related to lack of incorporation of Service recommendations or
insufficient adherence with the Guidelines " Service programs involved in e aration of this
letter include Ecological Services and Migratory Birds np Isl;ar=r n„_
OCT 2 2 2m

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Element Power proposes to construct up to 109 wind turbine generators, with a nameplate
capacity of 100 to 200 megawatts (MW) Four meteorological (met) towers are also planned
The project is planned on approximately 18,828 acres of land, located approximately four miles
north of the Town of Beaufort, Carteret County, North Carolina Element Power has indicated
that the project will likely require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U S
Army Corps of Engineers
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
The project site is located in coastal North Carolina, in the Outer Coastal Plain The
project site and surrounding lands are predominantly in commercial silviculture, with pine stands
averaging 20 years of age or less The eastern edge of the project site is approximately 12 miles
from Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, and the western edge is approximately three miles
from the border of Croatan National Forest As stated in the Tier 1 and 2 Site Characterization
Study, approximately 45% of the project area is commercial silviculture forest, while 27 5% is
woody wetland or emergent wetland Another 14 1 % is characterized as scrub /shrub, although
the Characterization Study report states that these areas dre typically cleamul or early
successional areas Most of the project site is underlain by hydnc soils; including such soil map
units as Tomotley, Arapahoe, or Deloss fine sandy loams
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Service is pleased with the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations
on the draft Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 draft study reports, along with the other documents
submitted In general, the draft Tier 1 and Tier 2 Site Characterization Study document provides
a thorough discussion of the potential species and habitats at the proposed site Although no
other potential project sites are mentioned in the draft Tier 1 and Tier 2 Site Characterization
Study report, the proposed site for the Carteret Wind project does not appear to have any
endangered species or critical habitat within its boundaries , The Service is aware of at least three
bald eagle nests within five miles of the project boundaries, along the Neuse, South, and
Newport Rivers
In addition, the Service is interested in investigating the potential impacts of a wind
energy facility within an evergreen forest, in the coastal plain The potential issues associated
with the presence of trees underneath the turbines should be discussed, for example, how would
post - construction fatality studies (specifically, carcass searches) be conducted, and what size
area around the turbines should remain cleared of trees to allow for adequate survey methods9
Does the presence of trees within the turbine field influence the behavior of birds and bats

foraging, roosting or traveling through the area? These issues may have been addressed for
facilities on forested ridgetops, however, we are unaware of other proposed or constructed
projects in a coastal plain forest This project presents a unique learning opportunity for both the
wind industry and the Service The ability to adaptively manage this site will be critical, should
unanticipated levels of take occur Flexibility with respect to micrositmg and operational
adjustments should be built into this project from the onset to avoid conflicts during potential
discussions of those types of measures
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Tier I and Tiei 2 Site Characterization study did not identify any federally - listed
species or critical habitat in the project area or surrounding evaluation area However, if a listed
species is identified during Tier 3 studies, the obligations under section 7 consultation must be
satisfied for your project If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed
species known to be present within Carteret County, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System
(GIS) database for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or
adjacent to the proposed project site The GIS database is a compilation of data received from
several sources Federally -listed species that are known to be present in the county include
American alligator (similarity of appearance), Atlantic sturgeon, piping plover, red - cockaded
woodpecker, roseate tem, shormose sturgeon, West Indian manatee, rough - leaved loosestrife,
seabeach amaranth and the green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea
turtles Habitat for red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) and rough - leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia) may be present on the project site or within the evaluation
area
RCWs live together in family groups The preferred habitat of RCWs is an open, park-
like pine stand with little undergrowth However, RCW cavity trees have been found in
suboptimal habitats, such as pocosms with larger amounts of undergrowth RCW clusters
(aggregations of cavity trees) may be found in longleaf pine stands, but loblolly, short-leaf, pond,
slash, Virginia, and pitch pine are also used Living pines (greater than 30 years old) are
preferred for foraging habitat, and mature live trees (greater than 60 years old) are used for
roosting and nesting cavities (NCNHP, 2001) Areas east and west of the project site provide
habitat for several red - cockaded woodpecker groups
Rough - leaved loosestrife is an erect, rhizomatous perennial, 1 -2 feet tall The plant has
whorled leaves and five- petaled flowers, which are clustered along the top of the main stalk The
plant typically flowers from May to June Seeds are encased in a rounded capsule, and present
from July to October Habitat for this species includes grass -shrub ecotones which are fire
maintained, adjacent to longleaf pine /scrub oak, pine savanna, flatwoods, and pocosms It

requires disturbed areas where the overstory is minimal, and prefers moist to seasonally saturated
sand and shallow organic soil on top of sand, but may also grow on the deep peat soils of
Carolina Bays It has been found in roadside depressions, firebreaks, seeps, and powerline
rights -of -way that are maintained
Concerns and Recommendations for the Tier 3 Pre - Construction Wildlife Studies Plan
• The Service recommends that surveys be conducted to determine the presence or absence
of RCWs within the project area
The Service recommends that surveys be conducted to determine the presence or absence
of rough - leaved loocestrife in the project area Field survevs may be limited to portions
of the project area that appear to meet the habitat requirements listed above
The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for
actual field surveys If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i e , likely to
adversely affect or not likely to adversely affect) a federally - protected species, you
should notify this office of your determination, the results of your surveys, survey
methodologies, and an analysts of the effects of the action on listed species including
consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities
that might affect the species If you determine that the proposed action will have no
effect (i e , no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally - listed species
then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an Environmental
Impact Statement is prepared) However, you should maintain a complete record of the
assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified
personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions site photographs and any other
related articles
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The Service is the principal Federal agency with oversight for all 1,026 avian species
identified and protected under the MBTA (50 CFR 10 13) Birds to be considered when
assessing potential effects of the wind facility include ail protected MBTA species found within
the area These include individuals that are resident, breeding, overwmtering, migrating staging,
roosting, feeding, resting, and that otherwise transit through potential project areas on a daily,
seasonal, annual or other periodic basis North Carolina lies within the Atlantic Fl} -Way, an
administrative unit that helps frame management and conservation activities that sustain the
millions of migratory birds that seasonally move along Atlantic coastal corridors Millions of
individuals of many dozens of migratory species are funneled to, move through, and rest and
refuel throughout North Carolina as they move to and from temperate breeding areas in the

United States and Canada, and neotropical wintering areas in Caribbean and Latin America Of
these migratory species, many are also designated as conservation priorities due to declining,
threatened, or otherwise vulnerable populations These priorities are articulated in several lists
that are generated by conservation entities including state wildlife agencies, Federal natural
resource agencies, and international bird conservation initiatives such as Partners in Flight
The evaluation area may be a stopover site or year-round habitat for many raptors,
vultures, owls, waterfowl, and passerines The project site and evaluation area have all of the
aspects of an attractive stopover area for - migrating birds a large land mass with forest and
agricultural lands, adjacent to large rivers and sounds The Neuse River, to the north of the
project site, is an area of moderate use by overwintering waterfowl (NCWRC) As stated in the
draft Tier i and Tier 2 Site Characterization Study document, the USGS Merrimon Breeding
Bird Survey (BBS) Route runs along and within the project site (along Hwy 70 and Merrimon
Road), and 135 bird species were observed along the route between 1968 and 2008 For the
BBS, bird population data is collected once a year (typically in June), by skilled participants
along roadside survey routes This data is a snapshot of the species present in the evaluation area
during the breeding season However, the BBS does not provide data on the species or numbers
of migrating birds in the evaluation area It is likely that the evaluation area is an area of high
use by migrating passerines but the passage numbers and density dre currently unknown Areas
south of the project in North Carolina are known "hotspots" for migrant passerine stopovers
The Tier 3 Pre - Construction Wildlife Studies Plan proposes to conduct large bird /avian
use surveys, breeding and migrating songbird surveys, and raptor nest surveys Radar studies are
not currently proposed In a conference call on September 4, 2012, the Service discussed the
limitations of local radar with Element Power's consultant, West, Inc We also have reviewed
the Technical Memorandum "What has been Learned from Pre - Construction Radar Studies
Conducted at Proposed Wind Energy Projects ?" West, Inc 's staff indicated that they would
provide more references for their assertions that pre - construction radar studies do not accurately
predict post - construction fatality rates However, the studies provided were conducted in the
Northeast, - Midwest, and Texas There do not appear to be any radar studies for migrant bird
passage conducted along the South Atlantic Coast, and the Service is concerned that studies
conducted in other parts of the nation may not be representative of the project area and
evaluation area Further, daytime surveys may not adequately charactenze the use by migrating
species Nocturnal studies using radar to determine passage rates and density of migrating
passerines, waterfowl, raptors, and other species would provide valuable information for
decision - making

Concerns and Recommendations for the Tier 3 Pre - Construction Wildlife Studies Plan
• The Service requests fall and spring nocturnal bird surveys, particularly radar studies
using modified marine radars or tracking radars, to determine the magnitude and density
of birds passing through or stopping over in the project area Depending on the outcome
of the radar studies, please be aware that the Service may request avoidance or
minimization measures, operational mitigation measures, or additional studies
• For the large bird / avian use surveys, the Service recommends that a survey point
location be added at the edge of the project along the South River (at the northeast end of
the project)
BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT
The draft Appendices for the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (EPCG), Version 2 were
presented during the Wind Energy Guidelines Training Class, held at the National Conservation
Training Center during the week of September 17, 2012 Although this is a draft document the
Appendices represent the latest rationale directing protection of eagles The Service
recommends consideration of this guidance by Element Power as you develop monitoring plans
and evaluate data
Concerns and Recommendations
Draft Tier 1 and Tier 2 Site Characterization Study
• Please follow Appendix B Stage 1 Site Assessment recommendations from the ECPG
Version 2 Appendices
On page 20, the draft study report states that "the presence of houses and sources of
human disturbance decrease the potential for raptor nesting in these areas " However, the
Service recognizes that as bald eagle populations expand, they are increasingly being
found in suburban areas (Millsap et al 2004) Therefore, residential or suburban areas
(particularly along waterways) should not be omitted from the survey area
• The protect area is surrounded on almost all sides by rather large nvenne systems (Meuse
River, Newport River, Clubfoot Creek, Adams Creek, South River, and North River)
Based on a preliminary evaluation of Element Power's 2011 eagle nest survey data, we
believe that a three -mile buffer is appropriate for a majority of the project site
(specifically, the portions of the site bordering other lands) However, because there are
no recent data on the spacing of occupied bald eagle territories, we do not believe that a

three -mile survey boundary is adequate to characterize the use of the project area by bald
eagles that may nest along the rivers The Service encourages an expansion of the survey
areas along all river shorelines to the north and south of the project area, out to the ten -
mile buffer Surveys should be conducted for no less than two complete breeding
seasons If available, the nest history for any bald eagle nest located within the survey
area should be provided, which can be obtained by contacting the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission Restricted areas within Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Cherry Point and other military installations may be omitted from the survey
area, as well as the beach and ocean areas to the south
Draft Tier 3 Pre - Construction Wildlife Studies Plan
• On page 3, the plan states "the potential exists for bald eagle and osprey (Pandion
hahaerus) nests to occur within and adjacent to the project area, based on the Tier 2 site
visit Raptor nest surveys specifically focused on these species, but also capable of
locating other large stick nests, will be implemented " The Service recommends that
Element Power follow the recommendations in the ECPG Version 2, specifically
Appendix C Stage 2 (Page 29, Item 42) Please also provide us with survey plans when
they are finalized The survey effort should be designed to adequately run models (per
the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan), to allow the Service to consider eagle risk at this site
• As stated above, no less than two complete breeding seasons are recommended for all
active nests within the project area (project footprint and within a 3- or 10 -mile radius),
unless there is recent data (within the past five years) on the spacing of occupied
territories in this area One year of data collection does not provide enough data to
account for annual variation, and is also not supported by the draft ECPG
• Please ensure that observer presence will not compromise the collection of data The
Service prefers that the observer use wildlife blinds in the more isolated forest openings
Little is known about the use of coastal areas by golden eagles Observers should also be
experienced in discriminating golden eagles from juvenile bald eagles
On page 15, the plan proposes a three -mile buffer for aerial nest surveys As stated
above, we believe that a three -mile buffer is appropriate for a majority of the project site
(specifically, the portions of the site bordering other lands) However, the Service
encourages an expansion of the survey areas along all river shorelines to the north and
south of the project area, out to the ten -mile buffer Surveys should be conducted for no
less than two complete breeding seasons, and the nest history for any bald eagle nest
located within the survey area should be provided (if available) Restricted areas within

MCAS Cherry Point and other military installations may be omitted from the survey area,
as well as the beach and ocean areas to the south
OTHER TRUST RESOURCES
There are several species of bats in North Carolina Bats provide insect control to many
types of agriculture (Boyles et al 2011) Bat mortality related to wind turbine impacts or the
effects of travel through the Rotor Swept Area (RSA) is well known and documented All of
North Carolina's native bat species are msectivorans, therefore, their contribution to insect
control in the surrounding area could be significant Many of these species are known to forage
for insects over waterways, forests, and forest edges, habitats that are plentiful within the
evaluation area Menzel et al (2005) documented that many bats are more active above the
canopy of upland forests than below, including early and late succession pine stands In
addition, the majority of the bat species in coastal North Carolina are tree - roosting bats that may
use the highest trees in a landscape as a rendezvous point during the mating season This
behavior may put them at risk of collision with the blades of wind turbines, which may tower
above trees in the landscape (Cryan 2008) Cryan (2008) further postulates that members of the
Lasiurus genus (eastern red bat, Seminole bat, and hoary bat) may be more likely to display this
mating behavior than other bat species According to Arnett et al (2008), bat fatalities in North
America are heavily skewed to migratory foliage- roosting species, including the hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and migratory tree and cavity - roosting
silver- haired bat (Lasionycteris nociivagons) At facilities in the eastern U S , Eastern pipistrelles
(Perimyoris subflavus) constituted as much as one -fourth of fatalities
The potential effects of the proposed wind facility on this suite of species are of interest
to the Service The Service is pleased that the Tier 3 Pre - construction Wildlife Studies Plan
proposes bat acoustic surveys The plan proposes to conduct one year of surveys from April 15
to October 31, 2013, using Anabat ultrasonic detectors on four Met towers (locations to be
determined) On each met tower, two acoustic detectors will be used, one located at a height of
approximately 50 meters, and one near ground level We agree with the list of bat speues with
potential to occur within the prQlect (Table 1, page 6) We do not have any significant concerns
for the study plan, however, the Service recommends that acoustic data for bats be collected
year -round In the relatively warm climate of the coastal plain, bats may be active for the entire
year (particularly eastern red bats) (Susan Cameron, personal communication) Because of the
potential for annual weather fluctuations, the Service also recommends that at least two years of
data be collected
Concerns and Recommendations for the Tier 3 Pre - Construction Wildlife Studies Plan
• The Service recommends that at least two full years of bat acoustic data be collected

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NEPA requires that Federal action agencies examine the environmental impacts of their
actions, incorporate environmental information, and utilize public participation in the planning
and implementation of all actions At this time, we are unaware of any proposed major federal
actions However, if Carteret Wind applies for federal permits for the project, the Service will
conduct a NEPA review at that time
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on our concerns and recommendations
The Service (the Raleigh Field Office and the Migratory Birds Office) would also appreciate the
opportunity for a field visit at the project site We recommend that any field visits include j
representatives from other State and Federal agencies, such as the U S Army Corps of '
Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and North-Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission To assist in organizing a field visit, or if you have any questions or comments,
please contact Kathy Matthews at 919- 856 -4520, x27
Pete Beib&min
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services Office
cc
Christy Wicker, USACE, Wilmington
David Cox, NCWRC, Creedmoor
Lori Montgomery, NCDWQ, Raleigh
LITERATURE CITED
Arnett E B, W K Brown, W P Erickson, J K Fiedler, B L Hamilton, T H Henry, A Jain, G D
Johnson, J Kerns, R R Koford, C P Nicholson, T J O'Connell, M D Piorkowski and
R D Tankersley, Jr 2008 Patterns of bat fatalities at wind - energy facilities in North
America Journal of Wildlife Management 72 61 -78
E

Boyles, J G , P M Cryan, G F McCracken and T H Kunz 2011 Economic importance of bats
in agriculture Science Magazine, April 2011 Available at www sciencemae ore
Cryan, P M 2008 Mating behavior as a possible cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines Journal
of Wildlife Management 72 845 -849
Menzel, J M, M A Menzel, Jr, J C Kilgo, W M Ford, J W Edwards, and G F McCracken
2005 Effect of habitat and foraging height on bat activity in the coastal plain of South
Carolina Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1) 235 -245
Millsap, B, T Breen, E McConnell , T Steffer, L Phillips, N Douglass, and S Taylor 2004
Comparative fecundity and survival of bald eaglt.s fledges' from suburban and rural natal
(t areas in Florida Journal of Wildlife Management 68 1018 -1031
ii...
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 2001 Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and
Threatened Species of North Carolina
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NC Mid - Winter Waterfowl Survey Annual
low -level aerial survey
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2012 U S Fish and Wildlife Service Land -Based Wind Energy
Guidelines U S Fish and Wildlife Service Available at
http //www fws gov /windenergy /guidance html
U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2012 U S Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Eagle Conservation
Plan Guidance, Version 2 U S Fish and Wildlife Service
10