Spring 2004 Report Ripley Hawk Watch Len DeFrancisco, Coordinator Report submitted by Gil Randell (6/1/04) Winter conditions dominated March weather for the Ripley Hawk Watch, with significant relief from sub-freezing temperatures delayed until the third week of the month. Snow appeared several times in April, and winter conditions recurred throughout the month. Ice finally left the shore of Lake Erie adjacent to the hawk watch on April 23rd, but the weather continued to be cold as westerly and northerly winds blowing in from the still-cold waters of Lake Erie chilled the site. Winds off the lake brought heavy fog to the warmer lake shore, sometimes as far inland as six miles. Fog plagued the watch throughout the season, closing or seriously restricting observation on 15 different days: one day in March, nine in April, and five in May. Members of the Ripley Hawk Watch continue to be concerned about a wind- turbine project proposed for the area of the hawk watch. The project would site 34 turbines 400 feet tall on a line five-and-one-half miles long in the towns of Ripley and Westfield along the edge of the escarpment overlooking Lake Erie. Flights of migrating raptors, other protected birds, and unknown numbers of migrating bats flow directly through the areas proposed for the turbines, frequently at altitudes that would put them at severe risk for collision with the turbine blades, which move at speeds of over 200 miles per hour at their tips. Ripley Hawk Watch concerns about the project have been supported by both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The best siting criteria at present for turbine projects are those incorporated in the interim guidelines of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Among other stipulations, these guidelines clearly advise against the following: 1) siting turbine projects on ridge lines, 2) siting projects in the path of major raptor and passerine migration flyways, 3) siting projects in areas where there are known concentrations of birds (as in important bird areas as designated by the New York State Audubon Society), 4) siting projects in close proximity to nesting endangered or threatened species. In defiance of these guidelines, the proposed project would be located 1) on a ridge line overlooking Lake Erie, 2) smack in the middle of a major raptor and passerine migration flyway, 3) in the middle of a NYS Audubon-designated important bird area, 4) in close proximity to several successful Bald Eagle nests. The population of resident Bald Eagles in close proximity to the hawk watch has expanded dramatically, with at least two active nests and the adults and young associated with them. These are the first documented eagle nests in the area since the 1960's. Hawk watch volunteers exercised as much care as possible in separating out migrant birds from resident birds: what a nice problem to have! Volunteers documented 23 sightings of resident eagles on 15 different days. On May 5th, five resident eagles cavorted in the area where the turbines are proposed. Of the 23 sightings of local eagles, 13 involved a clear potential conflict with the proposed turbines. The first migrating Bald Eagle was observed on March 11th. The largest number of migrating eagles sighted in one day occurred on April 29th: eight Bald Eagles, one short of last year's record of nine in one day. Migrating Bald Eagles totaled 58. We observed three Golden Eagles and one unidentified eagle for a total of 62 migrating eagles. Although this number is down considerably from the 2003 sightings of migrant eagles, the 2003 watch extended well into June, whereas the 2004 watch terminated mid-May. Sightings of resident and migrant eagles totaled 85 for 2004. A record number of Turkey Vultures (10,157) offset low numbers of some of the other migrants. Osprey numbers were down compared to 2003 (from 191 down to 120); Cooper's Hawks, Northern Goshawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, Merlins and Peregrine Falcons, down somewhat; Sharp-shinned Hawks, down significantly (from 1,735 to 1,057); American Kestrels, also down sharply (from 359 to 289). Northern Harrier and Broad-winged Hawk numbers were up; Rough-legged Hawk numbers more than tripled 2003 numbers (from 13 up to 41). Among the non-raptor migrants of note, the Ripley Hawk Watch bettered last year's number of 33 Sandhill Cranes, which was a year's record for the watch. The new record set this year is 59 cranes in one season, which further consolidates the Ripley Hawk Watch's claim to be the best place in New York State to observe migrating Sandhill Cranes. Cranes were seen on 11 different days. The year's first sighting of cranes (March 28th) was the largest flock documented at the hawk watch and included 15 birds. The Ripley Hawk Watch is also a good location for observing migrant loons. With their fast, direct, driven flight due north, the loons offered a repeated contrast to the migrating raptors. Most of the loons took a line of flight and altitude that would have sent them directly through the line of proposed turbines. Other non-raptor migrants observed at the watch included Double-crested Cormorants, Canada Geese, several species of ducks, a number of gull species (including Bonaparte's Gull), Great Blue Herons (singly and in flocks of up to 6 birds), Green Herons, a Great Egret, Killdeer and a number of other shore-birds (including Spotted Sandpipers, Solitary Sandpipers, Lesser Yellow-legs and Snipe), Turkeys, Ruffed Grouse, Ruby-throated Hummingbirds, Belted Kingfishers, several species of woodpeckers (Pileated, Yellow-shafted Flicker, Red-bellied, Red-headed and Downy), Horned Larks, Purple Martins, Tree Swallows, Rough-winged Swallows, Barn Swallows and Cliff Swallows, Crows and Blue Jays in sometimes huge flocks, Chickadees, Tufted Titmouses, Carolina Wrens, House Wrens, Ruby-crowned Kinglets, Gray Catbirds, Wood Thrushes, Bluebirds, several warbler species (Black-throated Green, Black and White, and Yellow), Common Yellowthroats, Red-winged Blackbirds, Common Grackles, Starlings, Eastern Meadowlarks, Bobolinks, Baltimore and Orchard Orioles, Cardinals, Gold Finches, Purple Finches, Cardinals, Eastern Towhees, Song Sparrows, Savannah Sparrows and Field Sparrows. The core group of Ripley Hawk Watch volunteers, each with 10 or more hours on the site, included coordinator Len DeFrancisco, Gil and Jann Randell, Eileen and Bill Jowett, Bill Dietz, Terry Mahoney, Bob Sundell, Mike Ceci, Dave Feliciano, and Tom Simmons. We're grateful to the Roger Tory Peterson Institute for allowing us the use of their portable radios for supplemental weather information and communication. The table below outlines the 2004 season by month. 2004 SEASON MAR APR MAY TOTAL Days 18 25 12 55 Hours 77 154.75 68.25 300 Turkey Vulture 4,645 4,949 563 10,157 Osprey 3 85 32 120 Bald Eagle 5 31 22 58 Northern Harrier 85 123 31 239 Sharp-shinned Hawk 135 772 150 1,057 Cooper's Hawk 33 58 14 105 Northern Goshawk 0 3 0 3 Red-shouldered Hawk 146 16 0 162 Broad-winged Hawk 0 6,473 546 7,019 Red-tailed Hawk 474 626 224 1,324 Rough-legged Hawk 12 21 8 41 Golden Eagle 0 0 3 3 American Kestrel 106 148 35 289 Merlin 1 6 4 11 Peregrine Falcon 1 5 2 8 Unidentified Raptor 13 62 18 93 TOTAL 5,659 13,378 1,652 20,689 Further details of the season are available through the Hawk Migration Association of North America and are available for viewing at HMANA's www.hawkcount.org. Comments or questions about this report or the Ripley Hawk Watch should be directed to Len DeFrancisco (716/665-4999) or Gil Randell (716/753-2333 or email janngil@cecomet.net). ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Gil Randell" Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: Re: articles upon which the Chautauqua Windpower project's ARA rely > Thanks a million for the reports, Gil. It seems they want to drown the > opposition under a mass of worthless but impressive pseudo-scientific data. > And it works! - Who has the time, and the patience, to read this junk? You and > me, that's all! Decision-makers just read the abstract, see the favourable > conclusion, and vote in favour of the project. > > I am working on my review, and it's killing me. What's the deadline for > sending objections? > > BTW, I could not open the last 2 attachments. What program should I use to > open them? > > Cheers > > Mark > > > Mensaje citado por: Gil Randell : > > > Mark-- > > > > You're absolutely right about the need to look at the studies done on E3 > > near Tarifa and at Stateline to understand the flimsiness of the > > Chautauqua Windpower avian risk assessment (ARA). > > > > I assume you have been able to see the Janss article, which is > > referenced in the ARA's bibliography and available on the internet. I > > attach the DeLucas article, which you shouldn't distribute for copyright > > purposes, but since I paid for my copy of the article, I feel morally > > justified in sharing it with you. > > > > I also attach a draft, partially completed response to the developer's > > answers to the Ripley Hawk Watch questions about the ARA. This draft > > highlights the ARA's misplaced confidence in the Janss and DeLucas > > study. > > > > I also attach a copy of the 2004 final report from the Ripley Hawk Watch > > on the Spring 2004 season. You should be aware of the fact that the > > 100,000 raptors the ARA talks about is an estimate of raptor migrants > > that factors in hypothetical, presumed numbers of birds missed by > > observers and other considerations and is quite different from the > > number of birds we actually observed. The ARA's boasted conservatism > > (as in considering 100,000 migrants instead of the approximately 20,000 > > we observed) is all well and good, but pretty much beside the point when > > used in conjunction with such flawed data as that derived from Janss and > > DeLucas. > > > > I also attach a report on the Stateline project, but you will not find > > the numbers in it that the ARA uses. The ARA uses numbers from work by > > Erickson that is not yet published! It's incredible to us that the > > writers of the ARA build their whole predictive model for nocturnal > > migrant mortality on data that is not available to serious reviewers of > > the ARA. We have asked them to provide us with that original data, but > > to this date they have not. We may have to wait until this Fall, when > > we understand Erickson will publish the data. > > > > Thanks for your attention to our project and support of our efforts! > > > > --Gil Randell >