From: Stephen Ells Date: Fri May 16, 2003 3:45:05 PM US/Eastern To: wind.energy@usace.army.mil, mepa@state.ma.us Cc: Betsy Higgins , Vern Lang , Wayne Petersen Subject: Winergy comment- USACOE File 200201108 & EOEA #12992-12996 Subj: Comment on Winergy LLC. To: Karen K. Adams, Corps of Engineers NE District, USACOE Public Notice file # 200201108 696 Virginia Rd, Concord MA 01742-2751 To: Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder Attn: Mr. Arthur Pugsley, RE: EOEA #12992-12996 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the five proposals of Winergy LLC to construct wind turbines and towers in state or federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts from Ipswich to Nantucket Shoals. Summary: (1.) MEPA. From comments made by MEPA at the public hearings, I understand that Mass. has now decided to require a full EIR for those Winergy projects or portions of projects within the jurisdiction of the state. I congratulate the state for that decision for reasons given below. I urge that the EIR also be coordinated with the ongoing Cape Wind EIS/EIR environmental review to provide both sufficient, multi-year and coordinated data gathering and also a generic, comprehensive, and cumulative look at offshore wind power potential and impacts. (2.) Corps of Engineers & the National Environmental Policy Act. I found the Corps Section 10 public notice (March 27, 2003) to be very confusing to the point of being defective, in that it made no reference to the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or to the NEPA-relevant issues on which comment was presumably being sought. For those that attended the public hearings, the Corps freely acknowledged that the proposed issuance of this permit is subject to NEPA. The notice does not explain that the Corp must first make a decision whether or not to require a full NEPA EIS or explain the factors on which the Corps will base such a decision. This omission is the cause of much public confusion regarding coordination with the MEPA process. I urge, for this and the following reasons, that the Corps cure that defect by deciding now to require a full EIS, to be coordinated with MEPA and the Cape Wind EIS, and to have 3-year data collection and a comprehensive, regional and cumulative outlook. The reasons are as follows: A. Precedent. The sweeping nature of the Winergy proposal gives tangible notice that an industrial transformation is about to occur offshore, as this and other energy developers rush to exploit this commons. Because of this administration's visceral disdain for conservation, greater and greater pressure will be placed on resources to satisfy our appetites. Decisions made on the Winergy proposals will inevitably have a precedent-setting effect on the development of this industry and the cumulative effects on the environment. None of the precedent-setting issues raised by the Cape Winds proposal, being analyzed in an EIS, have been either reviewed or decided. The Winergy proposal is part of a precedent-setting cluster with Cape Wind, and indeed, the Winergy proposal extends those issues to the full state coastline. Where are the areas of best wind, greatest safety, least environmental risk? What is the effect of larger blade diameter? Is there a layout of towers that is preferable? Navigation impacts? What are the public interest factors governing this use of the coastal waters? These are issues that need to be addressed with care. B. Impacts. My particular concern is for the birds that breed, feed, and pass through the Massachusetts coastal zone. We know they are there but we know so little of their habits and major movements. The coastal edge and nearshore waters teem with life. For years, I have read of painstaking efforts to protect the nearby breeding grounds of the endangered Roseate Tern near Buzzard's Bay, the Arctic Tern at Plymouth Beach (now gone). I have watched, amazed, as remnant flocks of Whimbrels depart southward on their transoceanic flights from Monomoy. And have watched migrating hawks flying north past Pilgrim Heights and Plum Island. In research in Records of New England Birds, I have read of the great flights of wintering sea ducks flying back and forth almost daily from offshore Nantucket into the waters of the Sound. Regular dense fallouts of migrating passerines (perching birds such as warblers) occur on weather changes, crowding such seaside tangles as the Beech Forest in Truro, Marblehead Neck, Hellcat Swamp at Plum Island, etc. Hundreds of gannets, loons, shearwaters, alcids and other sea birds and dive after food offshore. Some of this activity is is clearly visible (from Cape Ann, for example), some only with a powerful scope, and some is visible offshore only at shoals and upwellings. Ian Nisbet's comment on Cape Wind discusses some of these issues, and also the findings of the few radar studies done of land bird migration, during which he saw invisible waves passing by at night in the vagaries of weather [Nisbet to Adams, 26 Mar 2003 and MAS comments on Cape Wind]. Some of these birds are numerous, some rare, but all are stressed by rigors of migration or breeding and by cumulative interaction with humans (e.g., collisions with tall structures, hunting, pollution, various habitat losses). We know the birds are there, but the truth is that we know so little about them or the tipping point at which a species or a population starts to be in trouble. Into this richness off Massachusetts, the wind turbine industry now proposes to drop up to a thousand wind turbines (with more to come?), each with total height up to 390 feet above MSL, each with a blade diameter of up to 320 feet and with blade tip speeds of up to 180 mph. Each rotor would sweeps through a vertical area of over 1.9 acres (7850 m2), with a blade (and rotors wash) passing any stationary point within that area every 1.3 to 2.3 seconds [Morgan Tingley, 2003. Effects of Offshore Wind Farms on Birds. Harvard honors thesis]. NEPA requires the good data, careful analysis, consideration of alternatives, full opportunity for comment, and avoidance of unacceptable harm provided by a full EIS. C. Unique character. This goes without saying. This industrial construction would be in the crowded coastal zone of New England, within or bordered by marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national seashores. Others will be eloquent. I can only call your attention (above) to its avian uniqueness. D. Controversial. Currently this is very controversial as people attempt to come to grips with the scale of possible transformation that is exemplified by this sudden proposal. A real service could be provided by a thoughtful and comprehensive data process and policy analysis with a public review process-- an EIS. I have little confidence that the bird-death methodologies, such as used at Tuno Knob in Denmark, are useful with blades of this size in these weather conditions. E. The benefits to a fully-coordinated NEPA and MEPA review. There are positive benefits to an environmental review process that combines the strengths of NEPA and MEPA, in view of the responsibilities of various cooperating agencies, the full coverage of secondary impacts, and the ability to conduct generic studies and give full consideration of a range of alternatives. Such care at the outset often saves time in the long run and prevents unanticipated harm. Finally, stepping back a bit, it is inconceivable that the Corps would EA/FONSI this proposal. Of course, this magnitude of wind turbines in such waters requires an EIS. The Corps made an excellent call to require an EIS for Cape Wind, for otherwise that whole process would have been defective from the outset. So what has changed that would call for only an EA/FONSI here? The precedent issues are the same and the area potentially impacted is much larger. The only differentiating factor that I can think of is the disarming, apparently-inept approach of the developer. It makes no apologies that it is simply staking claims (like the Oklahoma land rush), that it doesn't really care if only some permits are issued, that it is not revealing information on economic feasibility, and that it has full intentions of selling any permits it receives. It apparently has not done extensive site selection analysis and is dumping those issues in the laps of the regulators, who find themselves being pushed across the threshold of a new industry without policy or planning guidance. They should not get away with this aw-shucks approach. It is startling that on the basis of such blithe documentation the Corps issued a Section 10 public notice, when probably the appropriate response would have been to return the application (or issuing a preemptive public interest denial) as not containing sufficient information to be taken seriously. If, however, the Corps dignifies the project by continuing to process the application, then presumptively the project is to be taken seriously and reviewed at face value, as a precedent-setting request for many large turbines at five offshore project sites. Thus, a full EIS should be required. Stephen F. Ells 39 Todd Pond Rd. Lincoln MA 01773 781-259-8982