Myotis sodalis, Indiana bat. By This image originates from the National Digital Library of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3014103)

Introduction

Located in Indiana, Jay and Randolph counties are home to wind farms operated by NextERA Bluff Point Wind Energy that cover over 23,600 acres. The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the long- eared northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) are endangered and threatened species found in the area that migrate and have documented hibernacula within the boundaries of the Bluff Point Wind Energy (BPW) wind turbine project. Due to the relationship between operational wind turbines and declining populations of avian species, the NextERA Bluff Point LLC has applied for a 30 year period incidental take permit, which under the Environmental Policy Act, would allow them to operate under the pretense that expected take of the Indiana bat and long-eared northern bat will be minimized as much as possible during the duration of the permit. BPW has prepared both an habitat conservation plan that outlines the mitigation plans to decrease take, as well an an environmental assessment.

Janurary 14, 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 Application for an Incidental Take Permit, Bluff Point Wind Energy Center, Jay and Randolph Counties, Indiana Categorical Exclusion. co. Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2020- 0045 at http://www.regulations.gov. Public Comments Due Jan 15, 2021

Dear Mr. Pruitt:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from NextEra Energy Bluff Point LLC (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for its Bluff Point Wind Energy Center (project).

Environmental Review Inc., has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment and Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); Receipt of an Application for an Incidental Take Permit, Bluff Point Wind Energy Center, Jay and Randolph Counties, Indiana and has the following comments:

1. Comment: Based on the draft HCP, a 70% reduction in bat mortality within the minimization buffer is discussed; however, no bats are expected for take outside of the minimization buffer. Based on table 6.2 of the Draft HCP during the summer months which are the most critical the data is contradicting in comparison of the cut in speeds and the quantity of takes. Wind turbines require a minimum cut in speed of 6-9 m/s. 1) Is there potential for speeds to remain at 6.7m/s which based on data predicts zero fatalities. 2) At 6.7 would the turbines generate enough energy as predicted/expected over the 30-year period, is this why there is a 13.4 is required within the minimization buffer?

2. Comment: According to the Bluff Point EA (p.13) The USFWS’s revised TAL requires a cut-in speed of 6.9 m/s during spring migration (March 15 – May 15), fall migrations (August 1 − October 15), and for all turbines inside the 305-m buffer during the summer season (May 16 − July 31). Provide data to provide a comparison of the data provided in Table 6.2 of the Draft HCP and the USFWS guidance per the revised TAL, specifically to compare and/or identify the potential reduction with the utilization of the guidance provided in the revised TAL of a cut-in speed of 6.9 m/s year-round under the ITP?

3. Comment: Draft HCP and Table 1 of Draft EA: The data presented estimates take during the summer using 3 m/s cut-in speed at 44% of turbines is zero. Uncurtail, operations during summer season account for 30% of bat fatalities, due to migration occurring during summer-fall seasons. Please provide data that clearly identifies, models and clarifies a yield of zero take during one of the most active seasons regarding bat migration as provided in the proposed HCP. 

4. Comment: Draft HCP Section 6.3.4 (pg.69): Mitigation monitoring includes possible plans of removing invasive species of shrubs that may harm Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat populations. Identification of the invasive shrub species and removal strategies were not included within the Draft HCP nor within the Draft EA. The submission of data as to what are the invasive shrub species and how do they negatively impact Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat populations is recommended.

5. Comment: Draft HCP: Prior to the implementation mitigation monitoring confirmation of the process of the removal of invasive shrub species should be provided. In addition, to a complete list of proposed herbicidal and/or pesticides as a removal strategy. 1) Provide clarity as to the utilization of pesticides and/or herbicides that would affect prey of the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat, which will mainly consist of insects? 

6. Comment: Based on the Draft habitat conservation plan (P.61): To the greatest extent practicable, turbines were sited outside of this minimization buffer to reduce bat mortality during the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Bluff Point Wind Energy Center 58 summer roosting season as well as spring and fall migratory periods. Other factors were considered (including avoidance of surface water features, distance to existing structures, land acquisition challenges) that limited the number of turbines that could accommodate the 1,000-foot (304.8 m) minimization buffer to 25 turbines. Consequently, the Project layout includes 32 of 57 turbines (56%) within the 1,000-foot (304.8 m) buffer. 1)The data provided within the Draft HCP did not explain the rational as to the change in the number of turbines in a 1,000-ft area. The initial factor called for 25 turbines, but the project will consist of ~50% more on the same size area.

7. Comment: Alternative A in the EA and Section 6.3.3 in HCP: The hub will not be locked, but blades will be feathered to the wind such that revolutions per minute are minimal during periods when wind speed is less than 3.0 m/s, 5.0 m/s, or 6.0 m/s, respectively. (Section 3.2.2.1) 1) Provide explanation on what is considered “minimal” rotations due to the hub not being locked. 2) If these rotations are less than or equal to start up speed, would the turning blades pose a risk of increased take among bats, as well as not contributing to the BPW’s goal of usable energy? 3) Will the hub of all operational turbines be unlocked, or just those located within buffer zones? This is not specified in operational minimization measures.

When responses to these comments are available, please email those to me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thank you,

Savannah Johnson (Associate in Georgia)

Environmental Reviewer 

Environmental Review, Inc. (a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation)

1792 Rogers Avenue

San Jose, California  95112