"We do not conclude that there will be no environmental impacts from this project. But it is our judgment that the benefits of increasing the local production of renewable energy will outweigh any environmental harm and the perceived threat to our region’s character. This conclusion is supported by a steady stream of new scientific evidence that indicates climate change is occurring even more rapidly than previously predicted. Cape Cod will be among those areas first affected by rising sea levels. The seabirds that winter in Nantucket Sound will be among the creatures most threatened by a rapidly warming Arctic."
Here's the full letter. (pdf)
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 314
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Barbara Durkin
said:
|
How unfortunate for the voiceless, ratepayers and taxpayers that APCC supports Cape Wind-instead How unfortunate it is that any environmental organization would support the killing of endangered species by Cape Wind. Due diligence is a prerequisite to endorsement. I question APCC Cape Wind project knowledge. "Climate change" and APCC perception that Cape Wind, (that is "not economically viable"), will effect it aside; U.S. EPA MMS Cape Wind FEIS 2/17/09 comments state: “Monitoring, Mitigation & Management”: “Enforceable monitoring and mitigation requirements for project construction and operation will be a critical component of any MMS authorization for the Cape Wind project.” How would we enforce-monitoring; (counting wildlife mortalities, or carcass parts caused by Cape Wind)?; or how would monitors reduce-mitigate harm to present endangered wildlife by Cape Wind? As US FWS as the lead federal regulator with purview over the endangered species, under the ESA Section 7 project review process, has confirmed that “effective techniques to perform post-construction monitoring simply do not exist” in their Cape Wind MMS DEIS comments. The roseate tern is present in Nantucket Sound and, "The roseate tern is listed as endangered, but we believe it is on the brink of extinction," said Jack Clarke, public policy director for the Massachusetts Audubon Society." Cape Cod Times 4/22/08. Cape Wind adverse impacts to the endangered roseate tern are provided in Section 5.0 by MMS in the Cape Wind FEIS as “moderate to major”: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0Environmentaland SocioeconomicConsequences.pdf From this MMS Cape Wind FEIS link: Section 5.0 Environmental and Socioeconomic Consequences (page 95 of 322) "Although the risk of collision during construction is anticipated to be low for tern species, any level of collision mortality for species of conservation concern, such as the endangered roseate tern, or for common or least terns (both species of special concern) would represent a major impact. A discussion of the risk collision specific to roseate terns is provided in the BA in Appendix G. Risk of collision for tern species during the construction phase is anticipated to result in moderate to major impacts." Immitigable harm to endangered wildlife, including the roseate tern, "on the brink of extinction", is the highest environmental price we could pay for Cape Wind. MA Audubon staff scientists have arrived at up to 6,600 avian mortalities by Cape Wind per year. By our failure to observe Best Science, the doctrine of avoidance prescribed by Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their interim wind turbine guidelines of 2003; we invite extinction to Nantucket Sound described by features US FWS and the DOI state to avoid: "--Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any species of wildlife, fish, or plant protected under the ESA. -- Avoid locating turbines in known local bird-migration pathways or in areas where birds are highly concentrated, unless mortality risk is low (e.g., birds rarely enter the rotor-swept area). Examples of high-concentration areas for birds are wetlands, state or federal refuges, private duck clubs, staging areas, rookeries, roosts, riparian areas along streams, and landfills. -- Avoid known daily-movement flyways (e.g., between roosting and feeding areas) and areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, low cloud ceilings, and low visibility." Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act requires the Secretary “to ensure a fair return to the United States for any lease…” while Cape Wind is, “not economically viable”, as per U.S. EPA response (CEQ #20090006) to the MMS Cape Wind MMS Final Environmental Impact Statement of February 17, 2009. Offshore wind energy high costs and market conditions have caused U.S. largest manufacturer of wind turbines, General Electric GE; and Shell Wind; and World's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, to scrap their offshore wind plans. GE "discontinued" its offshore "prototype" 3.6 MW wind turbine that is specified by Cape Wind. Shell Wind pulled out of the 1,000 MW London Array in 2008. Shell announced last month that they will no longer invest in offshore wind as it's, "not economic". The Association to Preserve Nantucket Sound should reconsider this offer of support for Cape Wind. That is unless the APCC has solved the vexing technical and cost issues identified by GE, Shell, and Vestas as their reasons for abandoning offshore wind energy. Sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839 "By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year." http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf |
|
Write comment
