Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0000 WIND MILL FARM AC.T,IVE � z v °F BAR CAPE COD COMMISSION U 3225 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 226 BARNSTABLE,.MA 02630 Y,pSA S�� (508)362-3828 CHU FAX(508)362 3136 E-mail:frontdesk@capecodcommission.org May 16, 2003 Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office EOEA No. 12992, 12993, 12994, 12996, [Arthur Pugsley] 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Ms Karen Kirk Adams Chief, Permits and Enforcement Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division New England Division 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 RE: WINERGY ENERGY PROJECTS Davis Banks Nantucket Shoals US ACOE File #: 200201108 US ACOE File#: 200201108 EOEA File#: 12992 EOEA File#: 12993 Falmouth Truro US ACOE File #: 200201108 US ACOE File#: 200201108 EOEA File#: 12994 EOEA File#: 12996 Dear Madam: The proposed Wind Turbine Generator Projects referenced above are being reviewed jointly by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)—MEPA Unit. The applicant has indicated in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF)that a coordinated review with the Cape Cod Commission is requested, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the EOEA and the Commission. However, at this time no application has been filed with the Commission. Therefore, a review involving the Cape"Cod Commission will commence if the Secretary of Environmental Affairs determines that an Environmental Winergy Wind Fauns—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 1 f Impact Report (EIR) is required. A project that is required to complete an EIR is a mandatory Development of Regional Impact (DRI) under the Cape Cod Commission Act. Due to a lack of a DRI application, the Commission has not established a subcommittee or held a public hearing and therefore the comments contained herein are offered from the Commission staff. The proposed projects are for the construction and operation of off-shore wind parks and associated infrastructure. The wind park facilities range in size from 10 to 231 Wind Turbine Generators (WTG). The facilities have been designed to have a maximum generating capacity ranging from 18MW to 832 MW. This electricity will be transmitted from the wind farm via submarine cable to preferred landfalls in Falmouth, Truro and Harwich. From this point, an overland cable will connect to the NSTAR electric transmission lines on Cape Cod. The applicant's ENFs apply a general,homogenized description of the several aspects of the proposals. These descriptions are vague enough to apply to each project and lack the project-specific information required for an accurate assessment of potential impacts, consistency issues and regulatory compliance. In addition, some of the proposals include alternative construction methodologies, siting scenarios and other variables that are not adequately explored and documented. At the current time, detailed comments are not possible and therefore the Commission staff offer the following general comments. This letter is divided into five sections; Section A provides comments applicable to all the projects; Sections B through E offer comments specific to individual sites. SECTION A: COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO EACH PROJECT GENERAL G1. Commission staff recommend that an EIR and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)be required for each project and that the scope, duration and level of study should be similar to that required in the scope for the Cape Wind project currently under review. Alternatively,the Commission staff urge the Corps to consider a programmatic EIS, in lieu of developing individual EIS's. Commission staff believe that this is a more appropriate way of addressing the issue of renewable energy in New England and specifically offshore wind development. Such an approach would prevent the need to address proposals for offshore wind facilities on a case-by-case basis, and provide a framework for facilitating this type of project in the future. As illustrated by Winergy's applications, and demonstrated by Cape Wind's application, there are a broad range of issues that need to be studied for an adequate environmental document. It seems that completing these studies more generally in a programmatic EIS would not only serve the public in framing the public policy issue of renewable energy, but would also reduce the burden on prospective applicants for such detailed study. Finally, this approach would allow for a cumulative impact analysis to be completed for offshore wind development as a whole, allow baseline studies to be established and create siting Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 2 standards for these complex developments that are the first of their kind in this country. G2. The ENF provides very little detail on the project and therefore the DEIR/EIS should include construction details and equipment specifications on all aspects of the project. This should include information on the types of cables to be used,the method of connecting turbines to the cable, details on the turbine specifications, anticipated trench construction and specifics on the method of connecting the submarine and land cables. G3. The DEIR/EIS should describe the potential for renewable energy in the region and project its market share potential. This discussion should also describe the potential for off-shore wind parks in the waters surrounding Massachusetts and New England. Furthermore, this discussion should stipulate the future goals of Winergy, especially concerning the company's intentions to maintain or operate any approved facility or to transfer that responsibility to a third party,pay fees for use of the resource and whether all of the sites currently under consideration will be pursued. The applicant has indicated these possibilities in public hearings but no substantive information has been provided. G4. The ENFs do not provide any discussion of alternative wind farm sites considered and why the current sites were selected. The DEIR/EIS should therefore include a discussion of what factors influenced the size and configuration of the array,the number of units selected and location chosen. The DEIR/EIS should assess all reasonable alternatives including smaller installations, different locations onshore and offshore and other generating technologies. Reasonable alternatives should include those that are practical and feasible from the technological and practical standpoint, rather than simply desirable from the applicant's standpoint. This range of alternatives is necessary to inform the public process and future-decision makers and supports the need for a programmatic EIS approach to these kinds of developments. G5. The ENFs note that the installation of two of the projects will be phased, however, no further details were provided. A phased installation would be consistent with a precautionary approach to development of new technologies in untested environments, where there may be a lack of available data and uncertainties about the potential project impacts. The DEIR/EIS should provide a construction timeline for each project (including the number of turbines per phase where applicable) that gives an overview of the anticipated schedule as well as details on the expected staging areas to be used during construction. This outline should also describe contingencies for delays,the equipment and its function and the vessels to be used during construction. The DEIR/EIS should provide details of all hazardous materials used in construction and should present a thorough spill control plan. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 3 f G6. The ENF's do not provide any information on structural fatigue and the anticipated service life of the main structural and operational components. This issue would be of particular concern in the more exposed open-ocean environments. The DEIR/EIS should provide data and analysis on anticipated structural fatigue and replacement schedules based on experience with the structures and components to be utilized. G7. The DEIR/EIS should describe the anticipated maintenance schedule for the facility. This should include the number of scheduled maintenance visits, the contingency for emergency repairs,the number of trips necessary, their duration, means of transport and the personnel involved. Furthermore,the description should outline what contingency has been made for emergency maintenance in bad weather and what potential exists for a catastrophic failure of the turbines. The location and arrangements for all on-shore infrastructure for maintenance vessels/equipment should also be discussed. G8. The DEIR/EIS should provide further details relating to the decommissioning of the facility and reinstatement of the ocean floor. The DEIR/EIS should also describe whether the applicant plans to remove the installations at the end of the design life or whether older model WTGs will be replaced by newer machines over time. The decommissioning plan should describe how the foundations,that are buried in the seabed, would be removed and outline what financial contingency exists for removal of the WTGs in the event the proponent's business becomes financially insolvent, specifically whether bonds will exist to pay for removal. G9. The DEIR/EIS should include a discussion of the issues relating to use of public trust areas in either State or Federal waters,particularly in light of pending legislative proposals working their way through committee at the national level. G10. The proponent should outline the project's standing as it relates to Chapter 91 licensing which regulates uses within State tidelands with particular attention to public trust issues and water dependency provisions. The DEIR/EIS should also outline the projects compatibility with the regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act. The DEIR/EIS should detail how the projects might comply or conflict with each of these statutes. G11. The DEIR/EIS should discuss the potential impacts of turbines on aircraft and marine navigation,particularly during abnormal weather conditions and at night. Specifically,the proponent should outline what potential exists for collisions and assess the potential for the facility to interfere with radar navigation and telecommunications of both aircraft and boats in the vicinity. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 4 f NATURAL RESOURCES Water Resources NRL Installation of the cable transmission lines are proposed for roadways and right- of-way corridors, some of which are located within freshwater wetland and riverfront buffer areas, and also within areas intended for drinking-water protection(Zone I and Zone II wellhead protection areas). These resources should be carefully mapped with respect to the location of all transmission lines. NR2. The DEIR/EIS should describe the proximity of the proposed transmission line to potential high groundwater along the route. This will require drilling of observation wells or borings at appropriate intervals along the transmission line routes and the concurrent measurement of groundwater levels. The project proponent should use the Technical Bulletin 92-001 to calculate high groundwater. NR3. Massachusetts state regulations pertaining to Zone I wellhead protection areas state that"Current and future land uses within the Zone I shall be limited to those land uses directly related to the provision of the public water supply or to other land uses which the public water supply has demonstrated have no significant impact on water quality." Therefore, authorization will be required from the permitting authority, in accordance with state drinking water regulations 310 CMR 22.00, certifying that the project will not result in water-quality impacts within existing Zone I areas. NR4. Although impacts stemming from the actual presence of transmission lines are expected to be minimal, impacts resulting from the construction and installation are expected to be significant. The use of heavy earth-moving equipment, generators, etc. can utilize large quantities of fuel and require frequent refueling. Fuel spills typically occur during refueling. Therefore,the Commission recommends that all refueling and equipment-maintenance activities be conducted outside wellhead protection areas (Zone I and Zone II areas). Site-specific spill management protocol should be developed for refueling and construction-site areas. NR5. The ENFs indicate that work associated with the preferred alternative will be conducted within recharge areas to wetlands and riverfront. Excavation and trenching activities associated with preparing the ground for the transmission line will create the potential for stormwater impacts to these sensitive wetland resources. Stormwater transport of sediment to these areas will need to be mitigated.. Therefore,the proponent should map all wetland areas vulnerable to project impacts, complete with illustrated plans for minimizing runoff impacts. The nature and configuration of the project makes use of centralized runoff- collection systems impractical, if not impossible. Use of hay bails will likely be the predominant method for protecting wetlands. In'some cases, temporary j detention basins may need to be constructed to contain and infiltrate heavy runoff. Other potential impacts that should be evaluated and mitigated include Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 5 compaction of wetland and buffer soils that could result in increased runoff; and the effect of vegetation clearing on wetland hydrology, e.g. diminution of canopy can result in increased surface-water temperatures. Coastal Resources/Marine Environment NR6. The DEIR/EIS should also describe in detail all equipment and techniques to be employed in laying the underground and submarine cables. In particular, this discussion should explain what contingency has been made for encountering obstructions in the process of jet-plowing the submarine cable. This portion of the DEIR/EIS should describe the extent of impacts in different strata and also detail the length of time needed for restoration of the seabed following installation of the cables. Finally, the DEIR/EIS should discuss how the cable installation complies with the provisions of the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. NR7. Impacts associated with the wind turbines in their off-shore locations are also a concern of the Cape Cod Commission. We recommend that the proponents evaluate impacts to indigenous and migratory species including those protected and managed by State or Federal Statutes and Treaties. Referencing the scope of work required for the Cape Wind proposal may inform the level of detail and length.of study required to address concerns related to shorebirds. The DEIR/EIS should also present detailed information regarding the extent to which managed migratory species and protected species will be displaced if they exhibit avoidance behavior, and impacts that may result when visual cues are not present such as at night or when foggy conditions prevail. Such an assessment would be consistent across seasons, different meteorological conditions and sea states. NR8. The ENFs provide little information regarding the biotic and abiotic resources likely to be disturbed in the nearshore and intertidal area at the point of landfall. Additional information needs to be gathered and presented regarding species and abundance of shellfish and other living resources in the area that may be affected by installation of the cable connection. Coastal resources at the landfall site need to be delineated, and plans for mitigation of alterations associated with the installation of the cable and underground station needs to be presented in greater detail. NR9. The applicant has proposed to utilize monopile foundations to deploy the WTGs which would range from 15 to 20 feet in diameter. A more complete description of the construction method of installing these piles should be provided. The { DEIR/EIS should address the extent and severity of underwater noise and vibration impacts to adjacent areas resulting from the construction. The applicant should provide an analysis of these temporary construction impacts at sea level and to the submerged habitat characteristics within the affected area as well as information regarding the structural loading analysis performed to determine pile diameter and depth. Sufficient information should be gathered to provide an estimation of total biomass likely to be displaced by the project and indicate how construction might be timed to avoid impacts on spawning, nursery and migratory periods for fish. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 6 NR10. Structures placed in the marine environment often serve as "fish aggregating devices", which may cause effects on fisheries which should be evaluated in collaboration with fishers and fishery managers. For instance, aggregations of small species of fish that are likely to show an affinity for shallow shoaling waters may in turn affect the behavior of organisms at higher trophic levels. Cumulative and secondary effects of this alteration may have implications for migratory fish stocks such as striped bass, game species such as diving waterfowl and marine mammals. These impacts should be studied further and fully assessed and also include an analysis of the potential for collisions of birds attracted to the site to forage on the artificial reef. NR11. The applicant should provide information about the expected use of marine growth inhibitors or the protocol for the management of biological organisms on structural elements of the project, and any mechanisms that may be employed to manage corrosion such as cathodic devices. Information about the performance of these elements on structures fixed in the marine environment,their service life and maintenance requirements should be disclosed for evaluation of possible habitat impacts. In addition,the effects of heat and electromagnetic fields generated by corrosion inhibition devices or power transmission lines need to be analyzed and their effects on organisms that may be sensitive to any such emissions should be evaluated. NR12. The DEIR/EIS should assess the area substantially impacted by the project and whether the interstitial area between the WTGs will remain open to navigation and fishing. A grid of WTGs, such as proposed on Nantucket Shoals and Davis Banks, may serve to concentrate fishing effort by some methods into discreet lanes. This could focus certain methods of fishing into smaller areas, which would be subject to more frequent disturbance that may inhibit natural recovery of certain fished species. The analysis should also address the potential for icing of the rotor blades,which may present a drop hazard to vessels beneath at certain times of the year as well as surface ice due to extreme weather conditions. Furthermore, this analysis should include what contingencies have been made for accidental collision of vessels into the structures as a result of poor navigation, poor visibility or mechanical failure that could lead to injury or accidental release of pollutants. This should include details on owner liability as well as the ability of the structures to withstand these forces. Finally, the proponent should also develop an emergency response plan that should be incorporated into the DEIR/EIS. NR13. A description of efforts to minimize alteration from underwater cable installation should be included in the DEIR/EIS. NR14. In addition; information regarding shading, alterations to current, scouring, sediment transport, structural habitat alteration and influences on wave climate should be provided in order for a proper assessment to ensue. This should be Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 7 i inclusive of construction activities, deposition of excavated materials and operation. NR15. The cable landfall alternatives in Barnstable County will be required to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan which may prohibit new development in velocity zones and requires `undisturbed' buffer areas to critical coastal resources. The RPP also prohibits adverse impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (subject to certain limitation and conditions) and direct and secondary impacts to biological constituents of the coastal ecosystem. The RPP also prohibits non- water-dependant development within 100 feet of the top of a coastal bank, dune crest or beach. Unless sited outside of the 100 year flood plain, structures installed at the landfall site would need to be designed to withstand the migration of the shoreline and other coastal resources without relying on hardening or engineering which impedes the shore's adaptation and retreat in the face of rising sea level. NR16. All of the proposed sites lie in areas that have either been designated as Critical Habitat for species such as right whales, or where protected species such as marine mammals or turtles may visit on an opportunistic basis. The applicant will need to demonstrate, that construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the proposed facilities may ensue without affecting protected species. Any anticipated avoidance behavior or other displacement that may occur due to the physical presence of structures on the sea floor or in the water column or air space, lighting, reflection, auditory warnings, vibrations and EMF emissions should all be studied and assessed for their potential impact in each proposed site, and each alternative to the proposed sites. NR17. The selected sites are also important to several managed species that are the subject of capital enterprise through direct commercial harvest, recreational harvest and chartering, and viewing. The impacts on these should be fully assessed in the DEIR/EIS. Wildlife NR18. The upland cable routing will likely have minimal impacts on resources protected by the Cape Cod Commission Act, as the proponents intend to install cable within existing road layouts. However, additional information should be provided to adequately make this determination. NR19. The cable routes between landfall and the substations pass through mapped areas of estimated rare species habitat as shown in the Natural Heritage Atlas. The Regional Policy Plan (RPP) does not permit adverse impacts to rare species or their habitat. The proponents should consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program for its comments on potential impacts to rare species within the cable routes. Where Natural Heritage expresses concern about rare species impacts, those impacts should be avoided or addressed in the DEIR/EIS. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 8 NR20. The ENF's indicate that a jetplow will be used to install the cable under the ocean floor. An installation method that involves tunneling and not disturbing the beach surface should be evaluated in the DEIR/EIS for installation within beach and dune areas. Air Quality NR21. The DEIR/EIS should provide a comprehensive assessment of all air quality impacts. Noise NR22. The EIR should provide a complete acoustical analysis (tailored to the ocean environment) of all noise generated in the course of the construction and operation of the project, inclusive of the marine and the land-based facilities. A thorough analysis of the expected above- and below-water noise, and its impacts on marine life, avian populations and people should be provided. The noise analysis should address all impacts from construction, operation, maintenance and marine navigation aids (foghorns) associated with the project. The analysis should supply details of the frequency, sound pressure,power level and duration of noise and provide a comparison of common noise-generating equipment to illustrate different noise levels. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EDL The Economic Development section of the RPP addresses three Goals: 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, and these policies are reviewed in the context of the Regional Policy Plan and in consideration of all other potential impacts in all other issue areas of the RPP. Environmental protection and quality of life are extremely important on Cape Cod and the Commission views economic development in this broad context. Information and data regarding the following economic development issues should be included in the DEIR/EIS, since this is required by the Cape Cod Commission. Market Area ED2. The proponent should describe all aspects of the energy market related to developments of this kind. This should include anticipated number of customers, market share, sales price, anticipated growth, fluctuations in the market from season to season and what affect the project would have on Cape Cod electricity consumers. This analysis should also include an assessment of the economics associated with development of this kind in the ocean environment. Employment ED3. The DEIR/EIS should provide numbers of workers and types of positions for construction jobs as well as full-time and part-time employees, including approximate salary ranges and benefits provided. The DEIR/EIS should show the anticipated source of employees, and the project proponent should indicate how Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 9 many construction jobs and subcontracts would go to Cape Cod residents and indicate the method for hiring Cape residents. The DEIR/EIS should provide a discussion of employment training opportunities. Fiscal Impact ED4. The DEIR/EIS should provide a fiscal analysis showing benefits to the town and the region and provide a summary of costs to the town for services. Health Impacts ED5. The DEIR/EIS should provide a detailed discussion of the anticipated health impacts and associated costs/benefits of the project. This should include, but not be limited to, documentation of the potential air quality benefits of the project in Southeastern Massachusetts and a discussion of the anticipated electro-magnetic fields (EMF) and electrical fields resulting from the turbines and the underground cabling. The analysis should include background information on EMF impacts studied to date and associated with facilities of a similar type and generating output. General Economic Development ED6. The ENFs do not address potential impacts to tourism in the area resulting from the project. The DEIR/EIS should provide detailed background information and studies that illustrate both negative and positive impacts to the tourist industry. ED7. The DEIR/EIS should also provide information on the experience and credentials of the proponents in the field of wind energy development. ED8. In addition to the required information noted above addressing the economic development goals and Minimum Performance Standards, the project proponent should address Development Review Policies and Other Development Review Policies. Addressing these policies, as appropriate, is an opportunity for the applicant to list benefits to the project, which would be weighed in the benefits/detriments analysis by the Commission. COMMUNITY FACILITIES - Transportation CF1. The ENFs provide very little detail on the construction operations associated with the wind park. Therefore,the DEIR/EIS should provide a thorough outline of all aspects of construction, including staging areas, transportation routes and ports to be used. The staff would-particularly recommend that off-Cape ports be used as staging areas. The staff also requests that the transportation infrastructure for servicing and maintenance of the facility be detailed. CF2. The DEIR/EIS should aim to address mitigation for the overland laying of the cable by limiting when utility work is allowed on Cape Cod roads (such as Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 10 i limiting the work to the period October 15 through May 1 and avoiding the Christmas shopping season). C173. The DEIR/EIS should in more detail outline how the roads, sidewalks, vegetation and shoulders are restored to their original condition or improved: Solid and Hazardous Waste Management CF4. The Commission staff recommend that the EIR describe in detail the activities (both construction and operational)that will involve the generation of construction demolition waste materials for both the marine and land-based facilities. This should include anticipated types and quantities of construction demolition waste materials, strategies to minimize the disposal amounts of this material, and plans for materials that can be recycled. Also,the staff recommend that the EIR detail the destination of materials to either be recycled or disposed of as construction demolition waste. CF5. The Commission staff recommend the EIR describe in detail what construction and post-construction activities will involve hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes, for both the marine and land-based facilities. This should include the anticipated types and quantities of hazardous materials/wastes, strategies to minimize hazardous materials use and waste generation, spill control plans and employee training. This information should detail all precipitants resulting from operation, lubricants, surfacants, coatings and paints to be used or stored. Capital Facilities and Infrastructure CF6. The applicant should address the provision of infrastructure as it relates to the Regional Policy Plan and should also refer to and address the applicable Local Comprehensive Plans and Capital Improvements Plans in the discussion and analysis of the provision of capital facilities and infrastructure. Energy CF7. Commission staff recommend that the proponent give a very detailed overview of the electricity supply market, and of "green power". This discussion should outline any additional customer fees/surcharges for renewable energy and information on how the market value will be determined by the supplier. CF8. The DEIR/EIS should also provide an overview of current technology in the field of renewable energy, particularly a discussion of what alternative generation devices could be utilized. For instance, the potential for wave turbines to be incorporated into the design. Such an analysis might provide information on potential alternatives to the number of turbines proposed. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter ' 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION/COMMUNITY CHARACTER Historic Preservation HR1 The applicant indicates that they have not yet consulted with Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC). As required in similar proposals, consultation with MHC will be necessary to determine possible impacts of the proposed projects on historic and archaeological resources. Specifically, the archaeological sensitivity of those areas where land trenching is proposed must be determined, and the visual impact of the proposed turbines on historic properties listed in the State Register of Historic Places must be evaluated. In addition, the applicant will need to consult with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources to determine the archeological sensitivity of underwater areas which would be disturbed by construction of the wind turbine generators and cable trenches. If any areas proposed for disturbance are found to be archaeologically sensitive or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, re- routing or avoidance of the sites should be required consistent with Minimum Performance Standard 6.1.3 of the Regional Policy Plan. Community Character CCI. The Commission staff recommend that a complete and comprehensive visual impact analysis should be completed for the project. Such an analysis should include, but not be limited to, the following: • A study, including background calculations, of the perceived height of the structures from shore that makes allowance for the curvature of the earth and illustrate this with photosimulations. The vantage points selected should consist of not only the closest land, but also the view from selected high points around the Cape and Islands. • The analysis should also provide a comparison of similarly sized structures in the region that permit a visual reference for those reviewing the proposal. For example, a comparison of the tower size relative to the Provincetown Monument, Canal Bridges, telecommunications towers or emission stacks of the Canal Station Power Plant in Sandwich. The applicant should consider utilizing photographs of the recently constructed turbine in Hull, MA to provide some context for comparison. • The study should provide information on possible alternatives in the arrangement, height and number of WTGs in the facility that might further reduce the visual impacts of the project. This could include exploring the consolidation of profiles of the WTGs to minimize the extent of their visibility on the horizon. Furthermore, the applicant should establish the methodologies for proposing WTGs of the size proposed and provide details of the generation potential from shorter WTGs. • The analysis should also evaluate th+e visual impact of the facilities. This shall include the projects impact from all adjacent beaches/shorelines, as well as from the water and establish what impact it has on peoples experience of the natural environment. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 12 • The proponent should conduct a visual test(similar to a crane or balloon test) that places an object at the.wind park site that is equivalent to the height of the wind towers. The test should be independently verified to ensure the visual test accurately represents the dimensions of the proposed turbines. • The applicant should consider utilizing three-dimensional computer modeling techniques that could be used to generate a simulated"fly through" of the project and/or an animated visual impression of the project. • The visual assessment should also discuss the impacts of the flickering effect caused by sunlight shining through the turning blades. This would be particularly important in the evening hours in Falmouth and early morning hours in Truro, when the sun is low in the sky and will be momentarily eclipsed by the blades. CC2. The Commission staff recommend that the DEIR/EIS should complete a full lighting analysis that fully illustrates the potential impacts of the proposed lighting. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, an illustration of where these lights may be seen from, whether they are visible from shore and what intensity of light might be expected. The analysis should also reference the US Fish and Wildlife guidelines for minimizing the impacts of lighted towers on bird migration. SECTION B: DAVIS BANKS B 1. The cable must cross Coy's Brook and several wetland systems.No detail is provided as to how these crossings will be made, and this should be addressed in the DEIR/EIS. Installation within the existing roadibridge framework will likely avoid wetlands impacts. Where wetland impacts are contemplated, alternatives should be evaluated and mitigation proposed. B2. The cable landfall at Earle and Osterville Beaches requires crossing these beaches and possibly dunes. Where construction would impact a presently undeveloped area, a natural resources inventory of the area should be conducted. The DEIR/EIS should address methods and/or construction timing to avoid any permanent impact to the beach and dune system. B3. The cable landfall at Hardings.Beach in Chatham requires crossing estimated rare species habitat area. A natural resources inventory should be conducted, alternatives for avoiding or minimizing impacts to rare species habitat should be addressed, and the NHESP should be consulted and its comments addressed. B4. While this project is less likely to have visual impacts on the Cape due to the distance from Cape towns, potential archaeological impacts from the land trenching alternatives proposed in Harwich, Chatham and Barnstable should be considered. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 13 SECTION C: NANTUCKET SHOALS C l. The cable must cross Coy's Brook and several wetland systems. No detail is provided as to how these crossings will be made, and this should be addressed in the DEIR/EIS. Installation within the existing road/bridge framework will likely avoid wetlands impacts. Where wetland impacts are contemplated, alternatives should be evaluated and mitigation proposed. C2. The cable landfall at Earle and Osterville Beaches requires crossing these beaches and possibly dune. Where construction would impact a presently undeveloped area; a natural resources inventory of the area should be conducted. The DEIR/EIS should address methods and/or construction timing to avoid any permanent impact to the beach and dune system. C3. The cable landfall at Hardings Beach in Chatham requires crossing another estimated rare species habitat area. A natural resources inventory should be conducted, alternatives for avoiding or minimizing impacts to rare species habitat should be addressed, and the NHESP should be consulted and its comments addressed. C4. While this project is less likely to have visual impacts on the Cape due to the distance from Cape towns,potential archaeological impacts from the land trenching alternatives proposed in Harwich, Chatham and Barnstable should be considered. SECTION D: FALMOUTH D 1. The cable route shown passes by two certified vernal pools in proximity to the road. If installation impacts are limited to the existing paved area, impacts to vernal pool species is not likely to be of concern. However, construction related impacts outside of the paved area and in proximity to the vernal pools should be evaluated in the DEIR/EIS and appropriate mitigation proposed. D2. The cable landfall at Racing Beach does not involve rare species habitat, however we recommend that the DEIR/EIS address methods and/or construction timing to avoid any permanent impact to shorebird habitat within the beach, or associated dune/bank area. D3. The land trenching is proposed through the Falmouth Village Green Historic District, which is both a National Register Historic District and a Local Historic District. Any impacts of the project on this historic area should be considered. In addition, the visual impact of the proposed wind turbines on the historic district in nearby Quisset should be evaluated. Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 14 SECTION E: TRURO El. The cable must cross the Pamet and Herring Rivers, the Herring River being within the Wellfleet Harbor ACEC.No detail is provided as to how these crossings will be made, and should be addressed in the Draft EIR. Installation within the existing road/bridge framework will likely avoid wetlands impacts. Where wetland impacts are contemplated, alternatives should be evaluated and mitigation proposed. E2. The cable landfall at Head of the Meadow Beach requires crossing another estimated rare species habitat for state and federal listed shorebirds. Where . impacts to presently undeveloped areas are contemplated, a natural resources inventory should be conducted. The DEIR/EIS should address methods and/or construction timing to avoid any permanent impact to shorebird habitat. E3. The visual impact of the proposed wind turbines on the Highland Light Station and the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars,both listed on the National Register of Historic Places, should be evaluated in the DEIR/EIS. E4. The applicant should confer with the Cape Cod National Seashore in order to assess the proposal's consistency with the approved management plan for that site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Sincerely, M b argo enn Ex uti vee irector cc: Cape Cod Commission Members Barnstable County Commissioners Brian Currie, Town Planner, 59 Town Hall Sq., Falmouth MA 02540 Sue Leven, Town Planner, 732 Main Street, Harwich, MA 02645 Mr. Thomas Perry,.Building Commissioner, 200 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Ms. Joyce Mason, Town Administrator, 16 Great Neck Rd North, Mashpee MA 02649 Mr. Roland W. Breault,Town Administrator, P.O. Box 2030, Truro, MA 02666-2030 Mr. Warren Alexander, Building Commissioner, 260 Commercial Street Provincetown MA 02657 Mr. Robert Link, Winergy LLC, 640 Montauk Highway, Suite A, Shirley,NY 11967 Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 15 Mr. Richard Podolsky, Perot Systems, Mill Wharf Plaza, Suite 208, Scituate, MA 02066 Ms. Jane Mead, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114 Mr. Vernon Lang, US Fish and Wildlife, 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300, Concord,NH 03301 Mr. Tim Timmermann, EPA-New England, Region 1,'l Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023 Mr. John Pagini, Director, Nantucket Planning & Econ. Dev. Comm, 1 East Chestnut Street, Nantucket, MA 02554-3543 Mr. Mark London, Executive Director, Martha's Vineyard Commission, PO Box 1447 Oak Bluffs, MA 02557. L Winergy Wind Farms—Cape Cod Commission Comment Letter 16 . Fen � - �� Is ,.v-, . R e(J/I/Yn'v- C i PENTAMATION - PERMITS MANAGER Important NOTICE : PU61ic commentperiod ENDS Dec. 24, 2001 SPEAK UP, WRITE or CALL NOW! PUBLIC HEARING - windmill Farm with Cape Cod Commission &Mass. Environmental Policy Act Office Wed., Dec. 19, 2001 @ 6:30 PM Mattacheese Middle School;Yarmouth MEPA reference # 12643 Cape Cod Commission Mass. Environmental Policy Act Office 3225 Main Street Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs PO Box 226 251 Causeway St., Suite 900 Barnstable MA 02630-0226 Boston, MA 02114 508-362-3828 617-626-1000 www.capecodcommission.org www.state.ma.us/envir/mepa HYAN N IS MARINA cgpE CO 1 Willow Street• Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 Tel: (508) 790-4000 Fax: (508) 775-0851 Email: info@hyannismarina.com December 7, 2001 Dear Friends, We wish to update you on some information regarding the windmill electrical generator plant proposed on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket Sound. Private developers propose to build 170 wind turbines spread over 28 square miles. Each structure Would stand approximately 426 feet tall (40 stories) and would be visible for over 20 miles. Many of us have asked the developers to choose a location that doesn't turn our natural treasure into an industrial setting forever. Although many of us have told them that this project would scar our gorgeous natural scenery, impinge on boaters' recreational freedom, and eliminate our commercial (dragger) fishermen's yields in these productive fishing grounds, the developers keep pushing forward. The developers speak of a cleaner environment and patriotism, but it really seems to come down'to money. It is a business venture, and the developers want to maximize their profits by minimizing-their costs. They claim the venture will cost their investors over $500 million. All we ask,is-that=they�spend,a little more money (if necessary) to place it in a location that will not alfer the natural beauty of this area or threaten our fishermen or local economy. The developers have said that other locations exist but that they make less sense; in other words, their profits would be smaller. Are we somehow less important than the developers' profit margin? If you feei as we do, I implore you to ACT NOW! Simply visit www.windmiliscapecod.org where one click sends your message to all your representatives. We have also enclosed a partial list-of representatives' addresses and phone numbers in the event you choose to call or mail your _ response individually. Thank you, , Jot � I a< Wayne"Kurker President ,.5 ...,_... 3� .i 9 Seacnaft FORMULA P NANTUCKt Oi N kwos- -4t SO a sk IM UCKETSOUND.. 1 wgi? Q thiswh w n Nant,U " .��1111 s at ou a t. cket Sound tu look,lik'67*. a There are many other locations to build windmill projects, but Nantucket Sound is CHEAPER. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our natural resource so the developers can maximize their profits. For more information visit www,windmi//scapecod,org * Based upon the information available to us at this time,this is an artist's conception of what this area of Nantucket Sound may look like. Government Representatives Federal: t w Sen a o r Edward KennedySenator John Kerry rY 2400 JFK Building One Bowdoin Square,Tenth Floor Boston,Ma 02203 Boston,MA 02114 (617) 565—3170 (617) 565-8519 (617) 565-3183 Fax (617) 248-3870 Fax E-Mail: senator@kennedy.senate.gov E-Mail: iohn kerrv@kerrv.senate.aov Congressman William Delahunt 146 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 (508) 771-0666 (508) 790-1959 E-Mail: William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov. Agencies: *Mass Environmental Policy Act *Cape Cod Commission Bob Durand 3225 Main St 251 Causeway Street,9th Floor P.O. Box 226 Boston,Ma 02114 Barnstable Ma 02630 (617) 727-9800 (508) 362-38.28 E-mail: bobdurand@state.ma.us E-Mail: frontdesk@capecodcomission.org �. *Army Corps Of Engineers Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Colonel Osterndorf Greg Watson, Program Director 696 Virginia Rd 75 North Drive Concord,Ma 01742 Westborough,MA 01581-3340 (978) 318-8220 (508) 870-0312 E-Mail: Brian.E.Osterndorf.col@USACE.ormy.mil E-Mail: watson@mtpc.orq Mass Coastal Zone Management Agency Mineral Management Service Thomas Skinner, Director Tom Kitsos, Director 251 Causeway Street,Suite 900 1849 C Street, N.W. Boston,Ma 02114 Washington D.C.20240 (617) 727-9530 (202) 20.8-3500 E-Mail: thomas.skinner@massmail.state.ma.us E-Mail: der)uty.director@mms.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Mass Division of Marine Fisheries 1849 C.Street NW Room 400 Paul Diodati,Director Room 400 Arlington Square 251 Causeway Street Suite 400 Washington D.C.20240 Boston,Ma 02114 (703) 358-2201 (617) 626-1520 E-Mail: contact@fws.gov E-Mail: marine.fish@state.ma.us State: State Senator Robert O'Leary Senator Therese Murray Room 413—E Room 511-C State House State House Boston,MA 02133 Boston,MA 02133 (617) 722-1570 (617) 722-1570 (617) 722-1271'Fax (617) 722-1271 Fax E-Mail: ROlearv@senote.state.ma.us E-Mail: Tmurray@senate.state.ma.us State Rep. Demetrius Atsalis. State Rep. Eric Turkington Room 167 Room 473-F State House State House Boston,MA 02133 Boston,MA 02133 (617) 722-2021 (617) 722-2210 (617) 722-2846 Fax (617) 722-2239 Fax E-Mail: _R_eg.DemetriusAtsalis@hou.state.ma.us E-Mail: Rer).EricTurkingtbn@hou.sfate.ma.us Or E-mail to response@windmillscapecod.org Government.Representatives Federal: Senator Edward Kennedy Senator John Kerry 2400 JFK Building One Bowdoin Square,Tenth Floor Boston,Ma 02203 Boston,MA 02114 (617) 565-3170 (617) 565-8519 (617) 565-3183 Fax (617) 248-3870 Fax E-Mail: senator@kennedy.senate.aov E-Mail: John kerry@kerrv.senate.gov Congressman William Delahunt 146 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 (508)771-0666 (508) 790-1959 E-Mail: William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov Agencies: *Mass Environmental Policy Act *Cape Cod Commission Bob Durand 3225 Main St 251 Causeway Street,9th Floor P.O. Box 226 " Boston,Ma 02114 Barnstable Ma 02630 (617) 727-9800 (508) 362-3828 E-mail: bobdurand@state.ma.us E-Mail: frontdesk@car)ecodcomission.org *Army Corps Of Engineers Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Colonel Osterndorf, Greg Watson, Program Director 696 Virginia Rd 75 North Drive Concord,Ma 01742 j Westborough,MA 01581-3340 (978) 318-8220 (508) 870-0312 E-Mail: Brian.E.Osterndorf.col@USACE.army.mil E-Mail: watson@mtoc.ora Mass Coastal Zone Management Agency Mineral Management Service Thomas Skinner, Director Tom Kitsos, Director 251 Causeway Street,Suite 900 1849 C Street, N.W. Boston,Ma 02114 Washington D.C.20240 (617) 727-9530 (202) 208-3500 E-Mail: thomas.skinner@massmail.state.ma.us E-Mail: deputv.director@mms.aov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Mass Division of Marine Fisheries 1849 C.Street NW Room 400 Paul Diodati, Director Room 400 Arlington Square 251 Causeway Street Suite 400 Washington D.C.20240 Boston,Ma 02114 (703) 358-2201 (617) 626-1520 E-Mail: contact@fws.aov E-Mail: marine.fish@state.ma.us State: State Senator Robert O'Leary Senator Therese Murray Room 413-E Room 511-C State House State House Boston,MA 02133 Boston,MA 02133 (617) 722-1570 (617) 722-1570 (617) 722-1271 Fax (617) 722-1271 Fax E-Mail: ROleary@senate.state.ma.us E-Mail: Tmurrav@senate.state.ma.us Stale Rep.'Demetrius Atsalis State Rep. Eric Turkington Room 167 Room 473-F , State House State House Boston,MA 02133 Boston,MA 02133 617 722-2692 7 61 722 2210 (617) 722-2846 Fax (617) 722-2239 Fax E-Mail: _R-ep.Demet6usAtsolis@houstate.ma.us E-Mail: Rep.EricTurkington@hou.state.ma.us Or E-mail to response@windmillscapecod.org i _ � l � \ r i �\\ � v . r Town of Barnstable 200 Main Street Building Division Hyannis,MA 02601 TO: Building Inspectors and staff Date: December 26, 2001 FROM: Erni RE: WINDMILL FARM, COTUIT Because, at this time,there is no street address associated with the Windmill Farm Project,I have created a street folder under WINDMILL FARM and filed it in Cotuit. Any documents received at this time can be found in there. Once a land address is assigned,a permanent street folder can be created and documents moved.