Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment To estimate how many birds were likely killed at the existing towers, the numbers of carcasses found were multiplied by a factor of four. This factor includes a general searcher efficiency rate of 50 percent and a carcass removal rate of 50 percent. The factor is calculated by multiplying 0.5 by 0.5 for a combined rate of 0.25, the factor of four used to calculate fatality rate. Studies of bird carcasses at communication towers indicate that the factor of four is likely to reflect searcher efficiency and carcass removal at a wide variety of habitats beneath communication towers (Gehring et al., 2009). Findings The following is a summary of the data collected during the avian surveys described above; detailed results are presented in the Avian Study Final Report (Appendix A). Although the surveys officially started on October 1, 2008, some data collected prior to this date are included in the report, particularly diurnal point count observations that began on September 12, 2008, and one migration survey on September 22, 2008. Fatality searches began on October 3, 2008, and ended on October 2, 2009. Avian Field Observations Species observed during the 79 surveys include almost 100 species of birds typical of the avifauna community expected to occur at Wallops Island (Table 12). With the exception of snow goose, which was 72.4 percent of the total number of observations, almost 30 percent of the bird community observed was comprised of native species typically found in Virginia’s coastal habitats (e.g., Tree Swallow, Canada Goose, Red-winged Blackbird and Great Egret, in order of frequency of occurrence) as well as a common non-native species (European Starling) that frequently occur in disturbed/urbanized habitats. Table 12: Species Abundance Summary October 2008–October 2009 Percent of Total With Percent of Total Without Number 20,000 Snow Geese 20,000 Snow Geese Species Observed Recorded on Single Day Recorded on Single Day Snow Goose 23,321 72.4 27.2 Tree Swallow 1,569 4.8 12.8 European Starling 708 2.2 5.8 Canada Goose 501 1.6 4.1 Red-winged Blackbird 500 1.6 4.1 Great Egret 495 1.5 4.0 All other species 5,132 15.9 42 Total 32,226 100 100 A flock of 20,000 Snow Geese was observed on the far western side of the marsh adjacent to the observation point on one day in November 2008. Table 13 shows the percentage of the total number of birds observed excluding the 20,000-member flock of Snow Geese. Waterfowl were the dominant class of birds observed (76.8 percent of all observations) (Table 13). Passerines, blackbirds, waders, gulls and terns, raptors, shorebirds and others were much 58
Affected Environment less common, with each less than 9 percent of the total number of birds observed. Excluding the single observation of 20,000 Snow Geese from the total, waterfowl were still the most frequently observed group of birds at 38.9 percent of total individuals. Table 13 shows the percentage of the total number of birds observed excluding the 20,000-member flock of Snow Geese. Class of Species Waterfowl 1 Passerines 2 Blackbirds 3 Waders 4 Table 13: Avian Observations by Class of Species Number Observed Percent of Total With 20,000 Snow Geese Recorded on Single Day Percent of Total Without 20,000 Snow Geese Recorded on Single Day 24,759 76.8 38.9 2,864 8.9 23.4 1,554 4.8 12.7 986 3.1 8.1 Gulls and Terns 951 3.0 7.8 Shorebirds 588 1.8 4.8 Raptors 60
Page 1 and 2:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WALL
Page 3 and 4:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTE
Page 5 and 6:
INTRODUCTION Executive Summary This
Page 7 and 8:
Executive Summary increase the over
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary Resource Proposed
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 17 and 18:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.2.1 Post-Constr
Page 19 and 20:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4: Potenti
Page 21 and 22:
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic P
Page 23 and 24:
NPS National Park Service NRHP Nati
Page 25 and 26:
Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
Page 28 and 29:
Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
Page 30 and 31:
1.4.2 Need Proposed Action and Alte
Page 32 and 33: Proposed Action and Alternatives Fi
Page 34: Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.
Page 37 and 38: Residential-Scale Turbines Proposed
Page 40 and 41: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 42: Proposed Action and Alternatives mo
Page 45 and 46: 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE
Page 48: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 51 and 52: Decommissioning Proposed Action and
Page 53 and 54: turbines because these costs would
Page 55 and 56: SECTION THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Page 60: Affected Environment The Virginia S
Page 63 and 64: Affected Environment FIRM Community
Page 68 and 69: 3.1.4 Climate Change Table 8: Calen
Page 70 and 71: Wind Affected Environment For Wallo
Page 72 and 73: Affected Environment The Accomack C
Page 74 and 75: Affected Environment On the souther
Page 76 and 77: Affected Environment phoeniceus), B
Page 78: Affected Environment The Saxis Wil
Page 81: Affected Environment For the once-p
Page 85 and 86: Affected Environment were also obse
Page 90 and 91: Affected Environment Over the entir
Page 92: 3.2.4.1 Birds Henslow’s Sparrow A
Page 95 and 96: Affected Environment Monitoring was
Page 97 and 98: Loggerhead Shrike Affected Environm
Page 99 and 100: Affected Environment known or recor
Page 101 and 102: Table 17: Occupational Distribution
Page 103 and 104: Affected Environment Chincoteague I
Page 106: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 109 and 110: 3.3.6 Transportation Affected Envir
Page 111 and 112: Affected Environment Photograph 2:
Page 116 and 117: Proposed Action Environmental Conse
Page 118 and 119: Environmental Consequences The inst
Page 120 and 121: Alternative Two Environmental Conse
Page 122: Environmental Consequences The func
Page 125 and 126: Environmental Consequences Based on
Page 127 and 128: Environmental Consequences Table 22
Page 129 and 130: Environmental Consequences Based on
Page 131 and 132: Alternative One Environmental Conse
Page 133 and 134:
Environmental Consequences conceiva
Page 135 and 136:
Environmental Consequences wetland
Page 137 and 138:
Environmental Consequences of magni
Page 139 and 140:
Environmental Consequences is the a
Page 141 and 142:
Environmental Consequences (TREC).
Page 143 and 144:
Environmental Consequences why bats
Page 145 and 146:
Environmental Consequences determin
Page 147 and 148:
Environmental Consequences While a
Page 149 and 150:
Gull-Billed Tern Environmental Cons
Page 151 and 152:
Environmental Consequences In addit
Page 153 and 154:
Environmental Consequences staff. T
Page 155 and 156:
Proposed Action Aboveground Resourc
Page 157 and 158:
Alternative One Aboveground Resourc
Page 159 and 160:
4.4.4 Transportation No Action Alte
Page 162 and 163:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 164 and 165:
Environmental Consequences site tha
Page 166 and 167:
Environmental Consequences 2) Placi
Page 168 and 169:
Environmental Consequences projects
Page 170 and 171:
Environmental Consequences Although
Page 172 and 173:
4.6 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVAL
Page 174 and 175:
Mitigation and Monitoring 5.2.1 Pos
Page 176 and 177:
Mitigation and Monitoring would be
Page 178 and 179:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 180 and 181:
Agencies, Organizations, and Person
Page 182 and 183:
NASA WFF Technical Library Building
Page 184 and 185:
Name Organization Other Organizatio
Page 186 and 187:
References Cohen, J.B., S. Karpanty
Page 188 and 189:
References Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett,
Page 190 and 191:
References Richardson, D.L. 1992. H
Page 192 and 193:
References USFWS. 2009c. Northeaste
show all

Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?