Wind Farm; Photograph Attribution: By Leaflet - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5704247
January 12th, 2021
Scott Pruitt
Field Supervisor
Bloomington Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
620 South Walker Street
Bloomington, IN 47403
RE: Notice of Availability of Documents; Request for Comment and Information on the Incidental Take Permit Application and Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Rosewater Wind Farm, White County, Indiana; Categorical Exclusion. co. Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2020- 0128 at http://www.regulations.gov. Public Comments Due Jan 12, 2021
Dear Mr. Pruitt:
Environmental Review Inc., has reviewed the Screening Form and the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) documentation made available for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for an Endangered Species, the Indiana Bat, and a Threatened Species, the Northern Long-eared Bat, for the Rosewater Wind Farm, White County, Indiana, and has the following comments:
1. Considering that the operational life of wind turbines is 30+ years, and that the HCP “[p]roject end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year)” is 2061, according to the REA Model Parameters for mitigation (Appendix D of the HCP), why is the ITP application duration only 6 years and what is to be expected over the remainder of the project’s lifespan once the 6-year permit is over?
2. On page 5 of the Screening Form it is stated that “[t]here may also be impacts to bald eagles; however, if there is notable risk of take, [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)] assume[s] the project will apply for an Eagle Take Permit […]”. Why does the USFWS make an assumption that relies on the discretionary transparency of the project applicant, and why has the potential “notable risk of take” of bald eagles not been conclusively determined, leaving room for a future application for an Eagle Take Permit? Could the “notable risk of take” of bald eagles, if it were to occur, not exclude the ITP from qualifying for the current categorical exemption, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NEPA) and in the USFWS Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook?
3. It is also stated in the Screening Form that the "[r]isk to bald eagles is expected to be very low based on the low rate of use recorded during pre-construction surveys, the absence of bald eagle nests within 10 miles of the project, and the lack of suitable foraging and nesting habitat in the area [...]". However, it is not clear how this risk was assessed, or based on what evidence, as no additional documentation has made available to the public in the current Request for Comment docket. We request that the “Raptor Nest Surveys for the Rosewater Wind Farm, White County, Indiana”, listed in the “other supporting documents” section on page 10 of the Screening Form, be made available for additional review, and therefore request that a 2-week extension be added to the Public Comment due date to allow for possible further comments to be submitted.
4. Similarly, we notice the absence of the “Avian Use Surveys for the Rosewater I and II Wind Farm in White and Jasper Counties, Indiana”, also listed on page 10 of the Screening Form, from the documents made available for review. We would like to know when these surveys were undertaken, what additional avian species were surveyed in the project area, and if there might be a potential impact of the project on other federally listed species. All supporting documentation that is used to sustain a determination to qualify the proposed ITP for a categorical exemption should be made available to the public for review. Therefore, we request that the avian use surveys also be made available for review, and request that a 2-week extension be added to the Public Comment due date to allow for possible further comments to be submitted.
5. It is stated on page 6 of the Screening Form that "[t]his project would operate at 5.0 m/s during spring and fall migration; therefore, this project could kill about 632 individual migratory tree bats per year (3,794 over the permit term)". This number is based on the estimated fatality rate of about 6.2 tree bats/MW, referred on page 5 of the Screening Form, and considers the proposed project’s 102 MW approximate total generating capacity. We find that there is an inconsistency in the calculations and that this number is not accurate. According to the Screening Form as well as the HCP (see the Operational Minimization Plan - Table 6.1), the project proposes "feather[ing] all turbines below a cut-in speed of 5.0 m/s, when the temperature is above 10 °C, from sunset to sunrise from August 1 to October 15 each year, during the higher risk fall migration period for the Covered Species". Contrary to what is indicated on page 5, in the spring the project will only feather “all turbines below the manufacturer’s cut-in speed, down to a minimum cut-in speed of 3.0 m/s […]”. Therefore, the number of migratory tree bats killed in the spring will be considerably higher than in the fall, and thus the total number of individuals killed per year will also be higher than the 632 estimated.
Indiana Bat (Endangered Species) Being Handled by a Researcher; Photograph Attribution: Andrew King, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
6. The previous point also raises the question as to why the mitigation measures that ensure the feathering the turbines below a 5.0 m/s cut-in rate are not also implemented during the spring migration. Despite the fact that the fall migration is considered to be a higher risk period for bat fatality, the risk of fatality during the spring migration should not be dismissed.
7. The post-construction fatality monitoring protocol in the proposed HCP (Table 6.4. Year 1 Compliance Monitoring Protocol Designed to Provide a Probability of Detection of 0.2 at the Rosewater Wind Farm, on page 34) distinguishes between search area type (road and pad and cleared plot), suggesting a smaller search interval (3.5 days) for the latter during the fall period due to the higher risk of fatality. Considering that searcher efficiency in bat carcass detection depends on visibility, which is directly correlated to vegetation cover, the HCP does not mention what measures will be implemented on the site to ensure that vegetation growth is managed and that the plot is regularly cleared. We recommend that the proposed HCP be reviewed to include these measures.
8. Finally, it has been well researched that the effectiveness of using dogs in locating bird and bat carcasses is far greater compared with only human observers (Smallwood et al. 2020). Searcher efficiency would be greatly improved if dogs were used. Given such low levels of requested take per covered species (1-3 individuals per year), the accuracy of the Evidence of Absence model and software used to correct bias acquires greater importance, which is why we recommend that dogs be required in the proposed HCP.
Please direct your response to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Sincerely yours,
Christy Rowe (Associate in Buffalo, New York)
Reviewer
Miguel Andrade-Hall (Associate in California)
Sr. Reviewer
Environmental Reviewer Inc. (a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation)
1792 Rogers Ave
San Jose, California 95112
References: Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. Standish. 2020. Dogs Detect Larger Wind Energy Effect on Bats and Birds. The Journal of Wildlife Management 84(5):852-864. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.21863